MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAMON – COUNCIL MEETING
May 27, 2003

A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was called to order on May 27, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 2222 Camino Ramon, Mayor Wilson presiding.

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

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Gail E. Waiters, City Attorney Tom Curry, Police Chief Brian Lindblom, Parks and Community Services Director Jeff Eorio, Public Works Director Joye Fukuda, Transportation Department Manager Lisa Bobadilla, and City Clerk Judy Macfarlane.

* * * *

Mayor Wilson stated that the City Council had met in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1)(A) and no action had been taken.

Girl Scout Troop 205 from Walt Disney School led Council, staff and those present in the audience in the pledge of allegiance.

* * * *

Gail Waiters, City Manager, requested that Item 8.8 - Appointment to the Tri-Valley Cemetery Committee and Item 8.9 – Appointment to the Tri-Valley Theatre Committee be continued to June 24, 2003.

Mayor Wilson requested Item 10.3 – Informational Report on City’s Efforts on Megan’s Law be included in the consent calendar.

Cm. Dickey’s motion to move Item 10.3 Informational Report on City’s Efforts on Megan’s Law to the consent calendar was seconded by Cm. Tatarka and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Brian Lindblom, Chief of Police, introduced Police Office Marty Echelmeier and Dar, Police Dog, Canine Unit.

Mayor Wilson presented a proclamation to Brian Lindblom, Police Chief for outstanding service.

* * * *

Linda Wilgus, Crow Canyon Institute, spoke of the success of the Spring Festival and thanked the community for their support. She distributed copies of a newspaper article featuring the garden manager, Barbara Stott.

Sam Lemon cautioned the City Council that independent discussion with union representatives during the collective bargaining process was unacceptable. He suggested that the past City Manager and Councilmembers be questioned regarding the Royal Vista fence project instead of spending thousands of dollars on an audit. Mr. Lemon stated that the City Council should concentrate more on the current budget deficit rather than haggle over a 10-year-old contract. He inquired how the City could have such a drastic budget shortfall in only 18-months.

Bill Meine stated that the type of fencing used in the Royal Vista fence project was purchased in 8-foot sections and not measured in linear feet. He addressed the Pine Valley Middle School parking lot project and stated that if extra funding is made available for safety reasons for residents, the same rationale should be used to protect the students.

Melody Lundgren, Friends of San Ramon (FOSR) said she felt having resident groups was a good thing and expressed respect and support for the groups that were currently in existence. She stated the Friends of San Ramon had never asked for or received preferential treatment from the City of San Ramon. She said while the Royal Vista fence project started over 10 years ago it had just recently been completed. She stated that project was an inappropriate spending of tax dollars. Mrs. Lundgren expressed hope to have a divergence of opinion but a unity in the goal to make San Ramon the best possible place.

Jim Blickenstaff stated the Friends of San Ramon was comprised of concerned citizens and we were lucky to have them. He said we should appreciate the hard work and efforts made by the members. He said although the Royal Vista fence project needed to be investigated because it was a misuse of public funds, it should be resolved without a huge audit.

Victor Petersen said the shared cost of the Royal Vista fence project was a good idea, however it appeared that the City had overpaid its share by approximately $75,000. He stated there were three separate questions that needed to be answered; 1) what was the project cost, 2) what did the City pay and, 3) what did Royal Vista pay.

Carol Rowley, Chair of the Parks and Community Services Commission, thanked staff and volunteers for a successful Art and Wind Festival. She said as a resident of the City, she was very concerned on how fast the City’s reserve fund was shrinking. Mrs. Rowley questioned the need for spending $1,675,000 for conceptual design drawings of the City Civic Center and asked that this item be agendized to direct the consultants to stop working on the project and prevent the City from spending money it does not have.

Donna Kerger complimented the City staff and volunteers for another first-class Art and Wind Festival. She suggested that public transportation or shuttle buses be utilized next year to mitigate the growing traffic and parking problems. She complimented Police Chief Brian Lindblom for being professional, caring, approachable, genuine, and supportive and wished him well in his retirement.

* * * *

Mayor Wilson removed Item 8.7 – Informational Report on the Utility Undergrounding Program for discussion.

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

Register of Demands dated May 9, 16 and 18, 2003 in the amount of $950,470.40

Resolution No. 2003-51 Authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with C. F. Archibald Paving, Inc. for the FY 2002/03 Pavement Management Phase II Project in an amount not to exceed $860,876.40

Resolution No. 2003-57 Concerning Norris Canyon Estates Project

Resolution No. 2003-58 Authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Michael Brandman Associates for Professional Services for the City Civic Center Project Environmental Impact Report in an amount not to exceed $3,000

Resolution No. 2003-48 Growth Management Compliance Checklist Approval

* * * *

Joye Fukuda, Public Works Director, said this was an information report to provide a status update on the Utility Underground Program and its funding impact on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). She stated the total cost to complete the undergrounding of all overhead utilities is estimated at $40M and based on the current rate of allocation from the General Fund and Rule 20A allocation credits, the goal to complete a city wide undergrounding program would not be attainable in the foreseeable future. Mrs. Fukuda said staff did not see the City being able to encumber the needed funds to perform this project and stated it was recommended that the City Council continue to include the Utility Underground Program as an "unfunded" project within the CIP and not allocate any funding for FY 2003/04.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Mayor Wilson read a letter from Marsha Bloomgardner expressing concern for the delay in the undergrounding of utility wires in the southern portion of San Ramon.

Mayor Wilson read a letter from Dianne and Don Schinnerer opposing the reprogramming of the fund for the undergrounding of utility wires.

Roz Rogoff said she opposed the reprogramming of the $1.5M for the undergrounding of utility wires. She said the utility district referred to in the staff report should be a citywide district and said all utility towers in the City should be undergrounded as well.

Jerry Carpenter said the older neighborhoods in south San Ramon should not be ignored any longer and the undergrounding of the utility wires should be done. He said this item should continue to be on the agenda and urged the Council to keep the quality of life throughout San Ramon uniform.

Ted Albrecht said that the cost estimates quoted in the staff report were inaccurate. He said that undergrounding utility wires would not enhance his utility services and did not support funding this project. He suggested other improvements in the south San Ramon area that would enhance the quality of life that were much more affordable than $40M.

Mayor Wilson closed public comment.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to accept the report and take note of the suggestions made was seconded by Cm. Cambra and passed 5-0.

Mayor Wilson suggested that a neighborhood meeting be scheduled to inform the residents in south San Ramon of the financial ramifications of this project.

* * * *

Tom Curry, City Attorney, reviewed three proposals regarding a change in the date of municipal general elections from odd-numbered to even-numbered years. He stated the fiscal impact of the proposals varied from no impact to a reduction in the cost of municipal elections, however, none of the proposals would cause an increase in election costs.

VM Cambra stated that the options on the staff report were not the only options available to change election years.

Mayor Wilson read the following letters received from:

Carolyn Vindum requested the City Council place an initiative on the November ballot to change San Ramon elections to even years with no term extensions or term shortening as previously proposed by the Friends of San Ramon.

Susan Garaventa supported limits on campaign spending, term limits and even-numbered year elections. The letter stated Mr. Garaventa was opposed to a corporate heliport in San Ramon.

Jeanne E. Potter supported even year elections, terms limits and campaign spending limits. She also stated she did not want a heliport in San Ramon.

Victor Peterson said a ballot measure this fall would shorten terms and said he could not support a one-year mayor.

Melody Lundgren said it was Friends of San Ramon that requested this item be placed on the agenda. She stated the FOSR respected and supported all those disparate positions and believed that the political encumbrance of altering a term of a currently seated Councilmember was not an appropriate method to change to even year elections. She reiterated the previous initiative proposed by the FOSR and said not one of the three proposals made by the City Attorney were acceptable.

Roz Rogoff said she was in favor of changing to even-year elections and supported Option 2 as stated in the staff report.

Mayor Wilson closed the public comment.

VM Cambra asked the City Attorney what the legal implications were in relationship to the City Charter pertaining to the election of a Mayor.

Mr. Curry said the Charter specifically stated the election of a Mayor was to be held at the next City election at what three seats would be on the ballot. He said unless the Council changed the election date now, that election would be in November of 2003. He continued, saying the Charter sets the Mayor’s term of office at two-years which can only be changed by a Charter amendment. Mr. Curry further stated that a Charter amendment could be placed on the ballot in November which could include the change of election year and when the first election for Mayor would be held.

Cm. Hudson said it appeared there were two discussions; 1) how to set up the Mayor and Council election and 2) the Charter amendment. He suggested making a Charter amendment that stated any change to the municipal general election would not result in an extension to the terms of the incumbents. He suggested after the Charter amendment was passed, that would be the time to do the ballot measure adjusting the terms of the Mayor and Councilmembers accordingly.

VM Cambra said the all matters should be addressed in one initiative. He said he was in favor of the electorate making the decision, and not the City Council.

Cm. Hudson referred to the city of Dublin and how it handled a similar issue.

Cm Dickey said the electorate voted and turned down changing the elections years and she would not be making a decision contrary to what the voters had already decided.

Mayor Wilson inquired of the City Clerk what the cost would be to put this initiative on the ballot.

Judy Macfarlane, City Clerk, stated the projected cost from the County Elections Department was $4.50 per registered voter, with the City having approximately 25,000 registered voters. She said the cost would increase by $.25 per registered voter per initiative. Mrs. Macfarlane answered VM Cambra’s question saying if the election were held in an even numbered year the cost would be approximately $3.00 per registered voter.

Cm. Tatarka said she was in favor of even-numbered year elections to maximize voter turnout. She spoke of the high cost of campaigning for Council while the position paid only $400 per month. She said the voters had defeated the initiative to change to even number year elections and stated she did not want to spend more taxpayer dollars on the same item. Cm. Tatarka stated due to the high cost of running a campaign, it did not make sense for someone to run for a one-year term of Mayor. She encouraged anyone interested in running for office to do research to fully understand the demands and expectations of elected officials.

Cm. Hudson said regardless of which option was selected, the main question still remained on how to handle a Charter amendment in the future. He said part of the defeat of Measure H was that the electorate did not want term extensions. Cm. Hudson said it should be decided whether or not to put on the ballot – "any change in the election year will not result in the extension of terms."

Mayor Wilson asked if that diminished the Measure H vote or not.

Cm. Hudson said for monetary reasons, the City should change to even year elections. Previously, he said, the change of election year was facilitated by the reduction of terms.

Mayor Wilson reiterated that the residents had spoken and Measure H had been defeated. He said it would be a disservice to the City for someone to run for a one-year term as Mayor. He said this was a very complex issue, but part of the decision had been already made by the voters.

VM Cambra said the cost for putting this initiative on the ballot would be approximately $6,250 and an odd year election costs the City about $100,000. He said an even year election would cost approximately $32,500 which would save the City $67,500. He asked the City Attorney if a ballot initiative could be written to amend the Charter to reflect even year elections, to extend or reduce the Mayor’s term, and if the voters wished to change election years in the future, terms could only be diminished and not extended.

Mr. Curry confirmed that he could write the initiative as described.

VM Cambra’s motion to direct the City Attorney to prepare a ballot initiative to reflect even year elections, to extend or reduce the Mayor’s term, and if the voters wished to change election years in the future, terms could only be diminished and not extended, died for a lack of second.

Mayor Wilson stated it appeared that the City Council would not be taking any action at this time.

* * * *

Mayor Wilson declared a ten-minute recess.

All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened.

* * * *

Mr. Curry said that the City of San Ramon as a charter city can limit the terms of Councilmembers similar to the term limit that had been established for Mayor. He said if the Council desired to do so, specific direction needed to be provided.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Scott Perkins stated that term limits unfairly remove Councilmembers that the electorate wants to retain and saw no reason to establish term limits.

Mayor Wilson closed public comment.

Cm. Hudson said he agreed with the comments made by Mr. Perkins. He said that none of the neighboring cities had terms limits and said he did not support term limits.

Cm. Dickey said since there were term limits for Mayor, there should be term limits for Councilmembers as well.

VM Cambra said he had suggested agendizing this item because the elected Mayor had an eight-year maximum term and it would be reasonable to have term limits for Councilmembers.

Cm. Tatarka said when the electorate voted for a directly elected Mayor, they expressed a desire for term limits. She said she believed in the voters but stated she was not in favor of term limits.

Cm. Hudson indicated that the Mayor had term limits, but after eight-years they can run for Council. He said the Mayor has no more or less weight to their vote than any other Councilmember. He expressed caution that term limits would put San Ramon at a disadvantage by having less experienced representation on regional committees.

Cm. Dickey said that provisions could be written so that once terms were maximized, there could be a waiting period and interested parties would run for office again. She said she wanted to establish consistency with both the Mayor and Councilmembers having term limits.

Cm. Hudson stated term limits would eliminate representation from San Ramon on important and vital committees such as LAFCO or MTC. He said the choices of the citizens would be limited and expressed his feelings that the voters should have their choice for more than eight-years.

VM Cambra said the people make their decision at the ballot. He said this Council was not imposing terms limits but were asking the residents if they wanted them.

Mayor Wilson said he was opposed to terms limits. He felt it was an affront to the residents telling them who they could or could not elect. He said the problems that were occurring in Sacramento were the results of term limits.

Cm. Dickey clarified that the Council was not mandating term limits. She said Council was only voting on whether or not to place the question for the electorate to decide on the November ballot.

Cm. Dickey’s motion to direct the City Attorney to draft a Charter amendment to reflect term limits for Councilmembers was seconded by VM Cambra.

Cm. Tatarka asked for specific details of term limits.

Mr. Curry said the draft amendment would be similar to the term limits for Mayor, which would be eight-years. He stated that the term limits would have to be specifically outlined on the ballot.

Cm. Tatarka stated she was not in favor of term limits but would support placing the initiative on the ballot to allow the residents to exercise their opinion. She said the ballot language needed to be very clear.

Mr. Curry said his impartial analysis of the ballot measure would pertain to the legal effects of the proposal. He said the ballot arguments would deal with the policy issues.

By roll call vote, the motion passed 3-2 (Hudson and Wilson dissenting).

VM Cambra verified that this motion was for the City Attorney to draft a ballot initiative for review by Council.

* * * *

Mrs. Fukuda said at the April 22, 2003 City Council meeting, the Council received public comment regarding a fire at the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Larwin pump station. She introduced Bill Brennan, Capital Projects Division Manager, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, to provide a report on the investigation of the incident.

Mr. Brennan stated the investigation determined that the fire was caused by the contractor’s unapproved field change that had been improperly installed. He said the contractor had since made the necessary corrections which had been inspected and approved by the design engineer. He said a non-combustible roof had also been installed at that location.

Cm. Hudson asked when this project would be completed.

Mr. Brennan said the contractor’s estimated completion date was December 31, 2003, however it was hopeful it would occur prior to that date.

Cm. Dickey inquired about the metal fence that was supposed to be provided.

Mr. Brennan replied that the sub-contractor for the fence would be on the site the following week.

Cm. Hudson asked Mr. Brennan what precautionary steps Central San had implemented to prevent any more problems at the Larwin pump station project.

Mr. Brennan stated there was an engineering inspector in addition to himself that was monitoring the site. He stated if the contractor had followed the appropriate steps, the fire would not have occurred. He said he felt the proper amount of staff, time and attention was being paid to the project.

Cm. Hudson said this was a highly visible and political issue with 16 million gallons being pumped through that station. He expressed hope that someone had been monitoring the construction to ensure that corners were not being cut and said he did not want any more problems with the pump station.

Mayor Wilson stated he was concerned that the contractor had cut corners before, and the fire was just one incident that had been caught. He told Mr. Brennan to convey his lack of confidence in the contractor to his supervisors at Central San.

Cm. Tatarka confirmed with Mr. Brennan that the resident’s concerns had been addressed and inquired as to what other testing was needed.

Mr. Brennan detailed the testing that still needed to be done to complete the process. He said by working with City staff, the residents would be notified as to the processes that would be occurring.

The City Council accepted the report as presented.

* * * *

Mr. Curry stated the City may wish to enact an ordinance to regulate the amount of campaign contributions each candidate may receive from individual donors. He stated the City may also enact a limit that donors may give to a committee accepting donations on behalf of a candidate. He cautioned that the City may run afoul of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution if it attempted to limit campaign expenditures either directly by the candidate or by a committee making expenditures on behalf of a candidate. Mr. Curry said a city may not enact independent committees expenditures limitations nor may a city limit donor contributions for ballot measures. He stated the staff report included numerous relevant court and legislative actions and requested the Council to indicate the type of limitation they would like to implement.

Mr. Curry replied to Cm. Dickey’s questions stating other cities that were clients of his firm had enacted campaign limitations on contributions. He stated limitations on donations to candidates had been validated in the courts, however, not those limiting candidates spending. He emphasized that limiting the amount a candidate can spend was a potential First Amendment violation.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Roz Rogoff inquired if limiting contributions pertained to individuals only or if it included corporations as well. She expressed concerns regarding campaign limitations pertaining to committees. She questioned the sensibility of establishing campaign limitations.

Victor Petersen expressed his desire to structure an ordinance that would enable the average resident to run for public office. He said a campaign maximum budget would establish a level playing field for all candidates.

Jim Hanafee said the City should establish campaign spending limits which would help prevent support from outside the City limit that could affect election results.

Jim Blickenstaff suggested an optional voluntary limit on spending be established to avoid any legal or constitutional violations.

Mayor Wilson asked Mr. Blickenstaff if there had been a "gentleman’s or lady’s agreement" that limited campaign spending when he ran for Council, and if it had ever been broken.

Mr. Blickenstaff that he was unaware if the agreement had ever been broken, but felt the verbal agreement was a good thing.

Mayor Wilson stated it was his recollection that the candidate’s verbal agreement to limit campaign spending had never been broken.

Mayor Wilson closed public comment.

Cm. Hudson said two separate discussions had been taken place on the subject of campaign spending limits, 1) measures and 2) candidates. He said there had been many unfair campaign tactics implemented during the past elections in addition to many ways the verbal campaign-spending limit had been circumvented.

Cm. Dickey said the cost of running for office had increased considerably during the past two-years. She described the wide range of campaign spending that had occurred in surrounding cities. She stated the District Attorney had a $25,000 campaign spending limit for the past election and if the limit was not adhered to, the money was supposed to be returned. She said one candidate had to return quite a bit more money than the other candidate. Cm Dickey endorsed lowering the limit of campaign spending to a reasonable amount in an effort to level the playing field. She encouraged the City to explore a possible amendment to the Charter that would establish campaign spending limits in an amount that could be adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). She felt this method could protect the City against special interest groups. Cm. Dickey expressed her dismay that it seemed large campaign funds were needed to run for public office.

Cm. Hudson expressed his concern for special interest groups sending our flyers without FPPC numbers on them.

Cm. Dickey stated that all candidates had been recipients of assistance from special interest groups. She said there had to be some limit to make running for public office reasonable.

VM Cambra said it was apparent that the special interest group participation was not going to be eliminated anytime soon. He verified with Mr. Curry that limits had to be reasonable and could not infringe on the First Amendment. He endorsed Cm. Dickey’s suggestion of a Charter amendment for campaign fund limits being tied to the CPI. He asked Mr. Curry if a per voter limit were established and tied to the CPI would it be viewed as being reasonable and not an infringement.

Mr. Curry replied when dealing with expenditure limitations for either the candidate or a controlled committee of the candidate, the courts had imposed a standard of strict scrutiny requiring an overwhelming governmental interest. More importantly, he advised, what the courts had said was that leveling the playing field was not sufficient justification on its own for imposing expenditure limitations. He said he could attempt crafting the legislation in a reasonable amount with sufficient justification that would pass constitutional muster. He advised that the safer way to proceed would be to establish contribution limitations to either a candidate or a controlled committee of a candidate. He said there was very limited room to consider expenditure limitations directly by the candidate or by a controlled committee of the candidate.

VM Cambra inquired if there was flexibility or latitude in terms of disclosure. He asked if there could be required disclosure of individuals names for any given dollar amount.

Mr. Curry said that was an area that the report covered; it was not a limitation matter, but a disclosure matter. He said that state law required the amount to be reported and required a more detailed disclosure of where contributions come from. He stated that we could to beyond state requirements. Mr. Curry stated the Supreme Court considered corporations "persons" and therefore were entitled to First Amendment protection. He said the question regarding the distinction between a corporate and an individual contribution would require research He continued saying committees that worked directly for the candidate or as an independent body, i.e. the Sierra Club, unions, etc., function not only to promote candidates but happen to contribute money, have First Amendment rights which are protected as well.

Cm. Tatarka verified with the City Attorney that there was not anything that could be done regarding measures. She asked if spending limits could pertain only to candidates.

Mr. Curry advised that limiting contributions would be the safer way to do regulations.

Cm. Tatarka referenced a statement in the staff report stating that expenditures were a much more direct form of speech because at least with expenditures, "money talks". She observed that many of the court decision were more pertinent to state and/or national elections, rather than local elections. She asked the City Attorney what other cities had campaign limits.

Mr. Curry said the City of Livermore had a campaign limitation of donations and contributions in the amount of $100 as well as additional reporting requirements above what the FPPC required by way of State law. He stated the city of Sonoma also had campaign limitations.

Cm Tatarka asked if there was a time line for this issue.

Mr. Curry said while there were no legal constraints affecting a time-line, the November election filing requirements would have to be observed. He said he would prepare examples of contribution limitations for the Council’s review.

Mayor Wilson’s motion to continue the meeting past 10:30 P. M. was seconded by Cm. Tatarka and passed unanimously.

Cm. Hudson encouraged the City Attorney to prepare a recap of other cities in the state of California that have campaign spending limits but to avoid those involving potential First Amendment violations.

* * * *

Mr. Curry said this report had been prepared in response to citizen request to put a measure on the November ballot that would prohibit heliports within the City. He stated the process was similar to when the City had the General Plan Amendment before the voters and needed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He suggested an interim ordinance be written to prohibit heliports on a temporary basis until the CEQA studies were completed.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Mayor Wilson read a letter received from Rena Waterson encouraging the prohibition of heliports in San Ramon.

Sam Lemon said he felt that corporations and residents have an equal right to have their concerns heard on an equitable basis by the City Council. He objected to the broad prohibition of the use of a perfectly legitimate instrument of trade in the conduct of business in a city like ours. He thought the Council would be foolish to not take advantage of having a heliport in the city.

Jim Blickenstaff supported the banning of heliports in San Ramon and encouraged the  Council to put the matter on the ballot for the residents to decide.

Jim Hanafee said this issue comes around like a boomerang every four years and urged Council to put the question on the ballot for the residents to decide once and for all.

Melody Lundgren said the Friends of San Ramon were not asking the City Council to make the decision pertaining to the private use of corporate heliports, but were asking that the decision be placed in the hands of the residents. She stated the FOSR supported Option 3 in the staff report.

Donna Kerger said she supported the heliport. She requested that during public comment, speakers refrain from making personal attacks and derogatory comments about committees and commissions.

Mayor Wilson closed public comment.

Cm. Tatarka requested the City Attorney expand on the CEQA requirements for Option Three – Council Placement of Initiative on Ballot without Citizen Petition.

Mr. Curry said that portion was put in the guideline shortly after the Supreme Court decided the Stein Decision in the 1980s which concluded that a true initiative process, one that is petitioned by the citizens, could in no way be meshed with the process of CEQA. He stated the Court concluded that it was more important to uphold the initiative process that is constitutionally guaranteed rather than the CEQA process. He stated 1-½ yrs ago the State’s Supreme Court decided that guidelines were not effective if you are dealing with a Council initiated action. He said while that guideline exists, he did not recommend that the Council follow it as it was contrary to what the State Supreme Court had said.

Cm. Dickey said the heliport issue was not a new issue to come before the Council. She said emergency landings of helicopters are site specific and they land anywhere they want when there was an emergency. She endorsed Option Three with the adoption of an interim ordinance prohibiting heliports in San Ramon.

Cm. Tatarka inquired if there was a time-frame with the CEQA process.

Mr. Curry stated if the Council agreed that this required CEQA compliance, then the initial study would be conducted by the Planning Department. Dependent upon the conclusions, there could be a negative declaration or the EIR process which could be followed. He said while it could not be prejudged which process would occur, but if an EIR were required, that would preclude it from being on the November 2003 ballot. He said the Council could put it on a subsequent ballot and after the proper procedure, maintain the interim ordinance until such time as it was ready to go. Mr. Curry advised Council that that was the safest way to proceed.

CM. Tatarka said the timing on the interim ordinance would be in effect until the voters passed the initiative, if that were the case.

Mr. Curry stated the State law allowed a maximum two-years for an interim ordinance and described the phasing process.

VM Cambra said to let the voters decide on this issue. He believed that this would be exempt from CEQA and felt that the process could be moved forward.

Mayor Wilson expressed his hope that the ramification of a CEQA were considered to avoid putting the City in any jeopardy by the process.

Cm. Dickey’s motion to adopt Option 3 – Council placement of initiative on ballot without citizen petition and to direct the City Attorney to draft an interim ordinance under Government Code section 65858 which would prohibit the use temporarily, was seconded by Cm. Tatarka.

Cm. Tatarka stated this had been a very difficult decision that had been made months ago. She said she was anxious to have the residents voice their opinion regarding helicopters landing in San Ramon.

Mayor Wilson stated his hope that if the City puts this initiative on the ballot that it was protected against any litigation from CEQA

By roll call vote the motion passed 3-2 (Hudson, Wilson dissenting).

Cm. Hudson stated there were four proposed ballot measures for the November 2003 election discussed on this agenda. He said the funding for the City Civic Center and the Utility Undergrounding Project were more substantive issues that needed to go on the ballot and asked why those two items had not been agendized.

* * * *

Lisa Bobadilla, Transportation Department, described the efforts by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) regarding the reauthorization of Measure C funds. She presented three proposals for Council review and direction.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to direct Cm. Tatarka to present the recommendations to the SWAT meeting was seconded by VM Cambra.

Cm. Tatarka stated the June 19^th SWAT meeting conflicted with the League of California Cities meeting that was being hosted by the City of San Ramon.

It was decided the SWAT meeting would be rescheduled to allow attendance by all San Ramon City Councilmembers.

Cm. Tatarka emphasized the importance of the Transportation Advisory Committee members and the City Council of attending the workshop.

Cm. Hudson said he had concerns regarding the language used for Regional Project Programs I-680 Transit Way.

Ms. Bobadilla said this program was put together last summer to explore options for the I-680 corridor. She stated the HOV Express Bus Package option had been included for the San Ramon Valley in the reauthorization effort. She said that would be discussed in detail at the workshop.

Cm. Tatarka announced that the Options Analysis Study was complete and would be forwarded to all Councilmembers.

* * * *

Ms. Waiters said staff was preparing a measure for Council review for an increase in the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the November ballot. She added there were two other budget related items, 1) Landscaping and Lighting District and, 2) Park Maintenance Assessment, which pursuant to Prop 218, would be a mail-in ballot. She said a list would be made reflecting the proposed measures and the estimated cost for the November 2003 election.

The City Clerk stated the second meeting of July (July 22, 2003) would be the last opportunity for Council to decide on what measures would be on the November 2003 ballot.

* * * *

Cm. Hudson said he attended the Agricultural Task Force in Brentwood where it had been announced that the state had reached near epidemic proportion with second stage diabetes with our youth. He said there was a program being designed to increase awareness.

VM Cambra requested that any information received regarding Shaping our Future be forwarded to all Councilmembers. He commented on the popularity of the sheep shearing at Forest Home Farms, the success of Crow Canyon Gardens Spring Festival and the large turn-out for the Symphonic Band performance. He said as a reminder, Council was still waiting for the RFP for the interior restoration of the Glass House in addition to the final measurement of the Royal Vista fencing.

Cm. Tatarka said through her efforts in the Human Race, she had raised over $6,000 the past three years for the library and Valley Children’s Museum. She said she had attended Legislative Action Days in Sacramento and had forwarded information pertaining to the State budget to the City Manager. Cm. Tatarka said she also attended the 580 Options Advisory Committee as an ex-officio member and noted the high frequency San Ramon and Contra Costa County had been mentioned.

Mayor Wilson extended kudos to the staff for an outstanding Art and Wind Festival. He complimented the Symphonic Band for a superb performance.

* * * *

There being no further business to come before the City, the meeting was adjourned at 11:28 P.M.

Signed:

H. Abram Wilson, Mayor
Judy Macfarlane, City Clerk
APPROVED:  JUNE 24, 2003