MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAMON – COUNCIL MEETING

A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was held November 22, 2005 at 7:07 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2222 Camino Ramon, Mayor Wilson presiding.

PRESENT: Councilmembers Hudson, Perkins, Rowley, Vice Mayor Livingstone and Mayor Wilson.

STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Herb Moniz, Acting City Attorney Bob Saxe, Police Chief Scott Holder, Finance Director Greg Rogers, Associate Planner Beatriz Duffy, and City Clerk Patricia Edwards.

Mayor Wilson reported that the City Council met in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 to evaluate the position of City Manager. The Council voted 3-2 to conduct a 360 goals and objectives review of the City Manager.

* * * *

Sue Brooks led the Council, staff, and those in the audience in the pledge of allegiance.

Mayor Wilson asked if there were any changes or additions to the agenda. The City Clerk noted there were none.

Mayor Wilson asked if there were any changes or additions to the Boards, Committee and Commission meetings schedule. The City Clerk noted that a Special Finance Committee Meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 29, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the Public Services Center Conference Room, 5000 Crow Canyon Road.

* * * *

City Manager Herb Moniz reviewed Sue Brooks’ career with the City. In 1985, she was the secretary to Mr. Moniz when he was the Parks and Community Services Director. In 1989, she became the City Manager’s secretary. She also worked on the City Employee Events Committee, Front Line Customer Service, Leadership San Ramon, and provided support to nine different City Councils. She is leaving the City to work for the San Ramon Valley Fire District . Mr. Moniz presented her with an engraved crystal vase. Mayor Wilson thanked her for her service to the City and presented her with a proclamation, plaque, gift certificate and bouquet of flowers. Mrs. Brooks thanked the Council adding that it was a pleasure to work with the City and its wonderful staff.

Recognition of Rose Co as City of San Ramon Employee of the Month for November 2005.

Finance Director Greg Rogers reviewed Rose Co’s career with the City. She started in the Finance Department, earned her degree, transferred to the Economic Development Department and developed the City’s web site in 1999. She is currently the City’s webmaster and is responsible for electronic government activities including coordinating the City web site. He cited her exceptional internal customer service and that he is proud of her work. Mayor Wilson presented Ms. Co with a certificate and thanked her for her contributions to the City. Ms. Co thanked her supervisor, Information Technology Division Manager Steve Keagy, Mr. Rogers, and the Council for this recognition.

Mayor Wilson acknowledged six representatives from Boy Scout Troop 1776 who were attending the Council meeting as part of a scouting merit badge requirement.

Mayor Wilson presented City Attorney Bob Saxe, who was the City’s attorney from 1995 to 2001, with a City pin and apologized for the omission.

* * * *

The City Clerk noted that no Council appointments were scheduled.

* * * *

The City Clerk noted that there were two requests for public comment.

Toby Brink, President/CEO of the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce, thanked the City Council and San Ramon citizens for their support of recent Chamber events. He invited people to attend the Chamber’s 2005 Community Awards and Chamber Board Installation Dinner on Wednesday, November 30, at 5:30 p.m. in the Community Center. The Chamber will recognize: Walt Trembley, Bank of Walnut Creek, as Business Person of the Year; Carol Lopez, Dublin/San Ramon Women’s Club, as Citizen of the Year; and Mark Corti, Principal of California High School, as Educator of the Year. He invited residents to attend the Chamber’s State of the City meeting scheduled for January 10, 2006 at 11:30 a.m. at the Community Center. Mayor Wilson will be the featured speaker.

Pauline Nolte, representing the San Ramon Library Foundation, invited San Ramon citizens to become a part of the Dougherty Station Library by joining with the Foundation to raise funds for additional library equipment. She reported that $55,000 has been raised towards the Foundation’s campaign goal of $200,000. She described the donation options and related recognition. She encouraged citizens to visit the library and make a contribution. The Capital Campaign’s Public Phase will close on December 31, 2005.

Mayor Wilson announced that County Supervisor Piepho’s office is sponsoring an Open House on Tuesday, December 13, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at 309 Diablo Road, Danville. Her office is participating in "The Counties Care Community Campaign" and will accept nonperishable food or money donations from November 14 to December 16, 2005.

* * * *

Vice Mayor Livingstone’s motion to approve the November 8, 2005 minutes was seconded by Cm. Perkins and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Resolution No. 2005-151 – Authorizing a Public Information Program Regarding Funding for the City Lighting and Landscape Assessment Districts.

Resolution No. 2005-152 – Amending Resolution No. 2005-38 to Approve Increasing the Rental Fee for the Ridgeview Room in the Dougherty Station Community Center.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to approve consent calendar items 8.1 and 8.2 was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

* * * *

The City Clerk noted there were no items of Unfinished Business.

* * * *

Police Chief Scott Holder requested that this item be continued to December 13, 2005 as the Fire District representative was unable to be present. Cm. Perkins’ motion to continue the item to December 13, 2005 was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0. Cm. Hudson asked if the Citizen Corps Council will include representatives from the City Manager’s office, volunteers, police, fire, the community and the City Council. Vice Mayor Livingstone has volunteered to serve on this committee. Roz Rogoff’s request to address this item was continued to December 13, 2005.

Mayor Wilson outlined the appeal procedure.

Associate Planner Beatriz Duffy reviewed the background of the application. The request for a Land Use Permit was made on May 9, 2005. The project was discussed at the August 2, 2005 and September 20, 2005 Planning Commission meetings. Small family day care for up to 8 children is a permitted use of a residential property. Community objections included concerns regarding noise impact, traffic increase, limited parking, children’s safety and property values. Community support stated that there is a need for quality home child care and that the center is well run. The Planning Commission (PC) adopted a resolution approving the Doshi Large Family Day Care project on October 4, 2005 for a maximum of 11 children and included restrictions for on-site parking and operational standards. The State has issued its large family day care license permitting up to 14 children. On October 13, 2005, an appeal was filed by residents of the Cambrio Community. Ms. Duffy summarized the appeal issues which are that the Planning Commission: (1) did not act in the best interests of the community; (2) ignored photographic evidence of the traffic and parking problems; (3) disregarded the over concentration issue; (4) disregarded State citations; (5) ignored the fact that Cambrio’s private streets are narrower than a standard street; and (6) failed to require mitigations in place to reduce the noise generated. Ms. Duffy stated that State law does not allow the Cambrio CC&R’s to prohibit Family Day Care. The State recognizes local authority on matters related to land use. San Ramon does require a Land Use Permit and conformance with applicable Zoning Codes.

Vice Mayor Livingstone requested clarification from the City Attorney regarding: the ‘DeNovo’ hearing; clarification on whether the Council can uphold the PC’s decision or if the Council adopts the PC’s findings in its new decision; and clarification regarding State law on what issues can be considered by the City Council in this appeal.

Cm. Perkins asked for details on the four elements of the law that can be considered and if the City has an Ordinance in place regarding those items.

Acting City Attorney Bob Saxe stated that ‘DeNovo’ means that this is a new hearing and that the Council is not limited to a review of the PC’s proceedings. He added that the PC’s action is set aside by this appeal. The Council can elect to uphold, modify or reverse the PC’s decision. He clarified that the Council should make its decision based on the testimony and findings presented at this meeting and adopt its own findings in a Council resolution. The State legislature has preempted local ability to approve or regulate child care because State child care needs are currently unmet. There are two approaches when the State pre-empts local rights. These include: total preemption which does not allow any City deviation from State requirements as is the case in eminent domain; or partial preemption. For example, there are 6-7 elements which are mandated to be included in the General Plan for a charter city but other elements can be added. In the case of child care, the State used a combination of both approaches. Family day care facilities can be one of two types. Small day care facility with no more than 8 children is an example of total preemption. Large family day care with no more than 14 children is an example of partial preemption. Mr. Saxe stated that only four issues can be reviewed for conformity with existing ordinances. These include the spacing issue, traffic control, parking, and noise. San Ramon has ordinances that apply to only two of these issues: spacing and parking. The spacing ordinance states that a family day care home can not be located within 300’ of any such licensed facility. The City’s parking ordinance requires that a large family day care facility must provide the minimum parking required for residential use of the property (2 spaces). Additionally, one off-street parking space must be provided for each employee. There must be adequate off-street space to safely drop-off and pick-up children. There are no City ordinances which deal with traffic control and noise issues with specific reference to day care. He advised the Council to focus only on these four issues and to base their findings on these four issues.

Cm. Perkins said that, without a City ordinance in place, an application for a large family day care is considered to be in compliance in those areas in which no ordinance exists. Mr. Saxe replied that the City can apply a policy or General Plan provisions as well as an ordinance. Cm. Perkins confirmed that, in the absence of a City traffic control ordinance or noise ordinance, the Council must refer to the General Plan.

Cm. Rowley requested clarification on the parking issues. Mr. Saxe summarized the information. Mayor Wilson reviewed the appeal procedure.

Parul Doshi reviewed her qualifications and the schedule for the facility which she operates. She is requesting a Land Use Permit to operate a large family day care facility for up to 14 children. She stated that her facility is open from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. By staggering the arrival and departure time, she said that not more than two parents deliver or pick-up children at any one time. She provided the Council with a copy of the delivery/pick-up log which she has maintained. She reported that outside noise is controlled by the hours of operation and the use of Astroturf in the back yard. She added that the children are rarely outside all day long. She noted that she has complied with California’s requirements for large family day care, City ordinances, and the Building Department and Fire Department requirements. She remarked that she provides quality day care to enhance the children’s lives. She added that affordable day care is needed in San Ramon.

Mayor Wilson read Donna Daly’s letter of November 10, 2005 requesting that the Council uphold the PC’s decision.

Robert Peterson, representing the Cambrio Community residents, reviewed the presentation which he made to the PC on September 20, 2005 with slight modifications for the Council meeting. He focused on the four issues which the State gives the City guidance on regarding granting a land use permit for a large family day care center. These issues are traffic, concentration, noise and parking. Community involvement discussions focused on safety, parking, noise, traffic, insurance liability on private streets and home value. He said that the PC ignored the City’s Zoning Ordinance when it allowed parking in a neighbor’s driveway as a mitigation compromise. He stated that the city attorney offered an inaccurate definition regarding facility placement with reference to the Zoning Ordinance. He provided photos taken from January through August 2005 to document Zoning Ordinance parking violations. He stated that parents do not always park within the two prescribed spaces. There is no off-site parking in the Cambrio community. He added that the driveways are very short and some SUVs extend over the driveway and into the street. He expressed concern about the safety of the children in the backyard. At a community meeting, the Doshis said that they are unable to control the timing of their customer’s arrival or pickup and claimed that parking by parents takes less than 2 minutes. He noted that parents sometimes park in the street and that Cambrio neighbors have stated that the children were left unattended for significant periods of time. He stated that the outdoor noise is not mitigated by using Astroturf.

Mr. Peterson reviewed proposed Cambrio resident compromises. He requested that: (1) the Doshi Day Care be limited to the current 8 children as there are already parking problems without adding more vehicles per day; (2) the Doshis seek retail space for their desired commercial day care center; (3) they purchase liability insurance; (4) they limit new customers to Cambrio residents; (5) there be random, unannounced inspections; and (6) there be a one year moratorium on their request. He added that over 50 of Cambrio’s 89 households signed a petition against the proposal. He asked the Council to overturn the PC’s decision because the issues of traffic, noise, parking, and the proximity of other facilities were not adequately addressed by the PC.

Mayor Wilson asked if there was any data to document the availability of openings at nearby day care centers. Colleen Evans reported that she conducted a poll of 12 large family day care facilities within a 3 mile radius and noted that 10 of them had openings.

Cm. Hudson asked if off-street parking was not allowed by the homeowners association. Mr. Peterson responded that there is no off-street parking on the property. Cm. Hudson asked if Mr. Peterson and Ms. Evans to clarify what they want the Council to do. Mr. Peterson said that they can not ask the Council to deny the small family day care license. They are asking the Council to vacate the PC’s decision to issue a Land Use Permit to the Doshis to operate a large family day care facility.

Vice Mayor Livingstone asked Mr. Peterson about his comment for the PC to "put personal bias aside". Mr. Peterson responded that both Ms. Kerger and Mr. Patrino expressed support for day care facilities. He said that Mr. Patrino apologized to the Doshis for their need to be at the PC meeting. He also felt that Ms. Kerger made inappropriate comments.

Vice Mayor Livingstone noted that the Council’s decisions must be made in the best interest of the entire community. Mr. Peterson said that he understood the comments by Mr. Saxe and the legal requirements.

Cm. Perkins asked if the existence of other large day care facilities with vacancies constitutes a reason for denial. Mr. Saxe responded no. Cm. Perkins asked if a day care provider must provide adequate off-street parking space for delivery and pick-up of the children. Mr. Saxe replied yes. Cm. Perkins asked if the permit could be denied because some of the customers do not actually use this provided space. Mr. Saxe said that the Council must satisfy itself on the threshold of whether adequate space is available. He added that the parking provision in the City ordinance applies to large, not small, family day care homes. There have been no parking violations for the small family day care.

Mayor Wilson asked the Council to limit their questions to Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Peterson said that the 300’ proximity requirement presented by Mr. Saxe is inaccurate. Mr. Saxe clarified that the question he was responding to did not involve the 300’ proximity issue but related to denial based upon the existence of child care vacancies in the community.

Ms. Evans reviewed the off-site parking issue. She noted that the only off-street parking which the Doshis can offer is the 2 parking spaces on their driveway for their 11 customers and 2 employees. Guest parking is not considered off-street parking. She added that the use of a neighbor’s parking is an unrealistic and temporary solution and should not have been permitted by the PC. She added that the Cambrio streets are privately owned and San Ramon has not approved a large family day care home in a community with privately owned streets. She remarked that Cambrio is unique and is not designed to handle the traffic or parking requirements for a large family day care home. She asked the Council to overturn the PC’s decision.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Kamlesh Doshi addressed the statements against the project. He said that 14 is the maximum number of children allowed by law for a large family day care home. He added that a decrease in property values has not been documented. He feels that large family day care homes are an asset to the community. The Doshis have added the HOA to their liability insurance policy. There is no anticipated increase in the 2006 HOA dues or liability insurance as a result of the family day care in the community. They have implemented many PC recommendations. They have cooperated with unannounced inspections and limited the children’s play time. He acknowledged the shortage of child care in San Ramon and provided letters from neighbors supporting their expansion.

Mayor Wilson stated that the quality of the care is not in question and requested that speakers address only the four issues.

Alva Spence stated her support for the Doshi large family day care home. She noted that the parents sign an agreement with the Doshis to adhere to the conditions set forth by the PC. She said that she will continue to allow the Doshi employee to use her driveway. She noted that the neighbors who live close to the Doshis were not present at the meeting to protest the expansion. She observed that the traffic and speeding issues are caused by other homeowners not by the parents. She felt that there were many underlying issues in the community which contribute to the overall problem.

Daniel Missbrenner supports the Doshi large family day care home. His two children attend the Doshi facility. He added that both sides tried to make concessions for the community and for the Doshi operation. For his children, he prefers a family oriented value learning environment to a commercial facility. He thanked the PC for listening to both sides of the argument and urged the Council to support the PC’s decision.

Ron Evans acknowledged the need for large family day care. He stated that the Cambrio streets are not designed for this volume of traffic. He said that Cambrio must provide its own liability insurance. He observed that staggered drop-off times are not realistic. He said that these problems will be compounded if there is an increase in the number of children. He added that three parking spots would be required to accommodate 2 employees and a drop-off spot and only two parking spaces are available.

Parul Doshi noted that she would be one of the two adults required to care for 14 children. She added that she will verify the facility’s insurance coverage.

Vice Mayor Livingstone said that a letter from the resident at 155 Shadowhill, who works at home, did not have a problem with the noise from the day care operation.

Mayor Wilson requested a five minute break. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.

Mayor Wilson reconvened the meeting at 9:26 p.m.

Mayor Wilson asked the Council if they had any questions of staff or the City Attorney.

Cm. Perkins asked if there is anything in State law or City ordinances regarding the street size as it applies to any child care facility. Mr. Saxe responded not to his knowledge.

Cm. Perkins asked if the State allows day care in apartments or multi-family complexes. Mr. Saxe responded that he is not absolutely certain but stated that San Ramon is discussing provisions of State law in relation to single family residences.

Cm. Perkins asked for clarification on the proximity issue and if a commercial child care facility or large family day care is referenced in the City ordinance. Mr. Saxe replied that this provision is in the San Ramon Municipal Code. He stated that the City Council is the ultimate authority in interpreting the Code. The language in the Zoning Ordinance is "such licensed facility" and the reference is to a large family day care home which is discussed in that paragraph. He added that it is part of the Ordinance regulating large family day care homes and does not seem applicable to commercial day care facilities. Commercial facilities are different because they can be approved or rejected by the City the same as any other commercial activity and can be conditioned to mitigate any imports. The City does not have the same discretion with large family day care homes. This is one rationale for having a proximity or spacing ordinance.

Mayor Wilson said that the Council has to decide if there is a definite difference in the definition of commercial versus large family child care. Mr. Saxe said that the Council decides what that provision in the ordinance means.

Cm. Perkins noted that the traffic impact associated with the commercial facility on the Cambrio residents is fairly minimal since they only share Porter Drive. He asked if the 300’ is measured from property line to property line or from structure to structure. Mr. Saxe said that the ordinance is not clear. Cm. Perkins asked staff for clarification.

Ms. Duffy noted that the distance from structure to structure is more than 300’ and that the property line to property line distance is at 300’. This item is included in the Code because it is similar to State policy which measures the 300’ from building to building.

Cm. Perkins requested clarification. Ms. Duffy stated that the City assumed through the State approval of the original day care that the 300’ limit is not an issue. She added that the 300’ limit is in State policy not in State law.

Vice Mayor Livingstone commented that earlier PC meeting testimony indicated that staff suggested that 300’ is a potential issue for denial. Ms. Duffy responded that early in the process, staff told the PC that the 300’ issue left room for interpretation. However, staff did not provide the interpretation.

Cm. Rowley asked how day care centers are licensed. Ms. Duffy stated that there are specific criteria regarding the ratio of adults to children, fire code, building code, space requirements, inspections, safety requirements, renewal process, etc.

Cm. Rowley asked if the City is notified if there is a problem. Ms. Duffy responded no. It is a standard in the Conditions of Approval, that the City can request to periodically view the current State license.

Mayor Wilson asked if the City gets any reports on small day care operations. Ms. Duffy replied no. The information is between the care provider and the State.

Mayor Wilson asked if there are any City reporting requirements. Ms. Duffy indicated that the City periodically compares the list of State licensed facilities versus the City’s list of issued Land Use Permits to check on their status.

Cm. Rowley asked if the HOA could be sued for traffic problems on private streets. Mr. Saxe responded that the HOA can be sued by residents, etc. He felt that the issue of liability for private roads is more one of maintenance problems. He added that delivering or visiting should not be a source of liability since the HOA did not design the street.

Cm. Hudson said the appeal will not have any winners or losers. The Council will try to explain what has to be done. He summarized the key points of relevant State law. The Doshis currently operate a small day care center. The four factors which pertain to a large family day care do not apply to this operation. He pointed out that under the California Child Day Care Act, the California Legislature clearly states that child care can only be regulated by the State. If a local government has a law restricting your family child care, and if that local law conflicts with the Act, the local law is null and void. He added that State laws prohibit licensed small family child care homes from being regulated under local zoning ordinances. Family child care homes constitute accessory uses of residentially zoned and occupied properties and do not fundamentally alter the nature of the underlying residential uses. Thus it is permitted in all zones which allow residences. Licensed large family child care is a conditional use in single family residential zones. Large family child care cannot be prohibited in any zone where single family residences are permitted. Additionally, State law separates large, small and commercial child care. He said that the Council has to deny the appeal in order to give the best results to the appellant. He added that if the City Council upholds the PC’s decision, the State will make a determination of their own and allow 14 children.

Vice Mayor Livingstone agreed with Cm. Hudson. He added that the State is extremely pro-day care. He has reviewed the applicable State Health and Safety Codes. He added that the Council tries to make decisions which are in the best interest of the community. However, in this case, the State has removed this option. He added that there is no reason to deny the large family day care. He said that it appears as though the HOA is judging the day care before it is a large family day care. The State has taken away the City’s right to make comments regarding small day care. He said that this is a new hearing and has nothing to do with the PC’s decision. He will recommend the large family day care for 14 children because State law does not allow the Council to find otherwise. He recommends that other conditions be required, which will be agreed upon by the day care provider, in order to keep the neighborhood happy.

Cm. Perkins stated that the Council was asked to evaluate the request on four issues. If no City Ordinance, General Plan, or policy applies, then the Council must assume that the providers are in compliance. As there is no Ordinance relating to traffic control, the Doshi operation is in compliance. Regarding the noise issue, the General Plan applies. This issue associated with children at play is a permitted activity in a residential area and so the Doshi operation is in compliance. The City Ordinance applies to the issue of proximity. However, it does not apply to large family day care versus a commercial operation so the Doshi operation meets the proximity requirement. There is no specific requirement for parking for small family day care. The City ordinance requires adequate off-street parking to drop-off and pick-up children which is accomplished through the 2 parking spaces on the driveway. Additionally, the customers spend the minimum time at the residence and are requested to stagger drop-off and pick-up times. The employee parking requirement is met with the use of the neighbor’s driveway. This solution is not satisfactory he is interested in other alternatives. Cm. Perkins stated he finds that the four requirements have been met and so does not support denial of the Land Use Permit.

Cm. Rowley stated that she reviewed all of the information and had to set aside personal opinions to comply with State standards. She empathized with the people in the community. She added that the State has the final word and that the Council has to comply with the State. She asked everyone to keep the lines of communication open.

Mayor Wilson stated that the difference between the small family day care and the large family day care is that the City has no control over the small family day care operation and the large family day care is left to the common sense of the governing body.

Mr. Saxe said he disagrees with the comment that the State allows the City to use common sense. The States requires the Council to review the four issues. If the proposal complies with existing City regulations for these four issues, then the City shall issue the permits.

Mayor Wilson added that the State requires child care regardless of street size. Mr. Saxe commented that the streets are designed for residential use and the child care is an accessory to the residential use. Mayor Wilson remarked that the City should have taken day care needs into consideration when it authorized the street width. If the City did not and the child care issue comes up, he asked if the City can deny or approve the application. Mr. Saxe suggested that the State would say it is too late. If the City has an approved residential development, the family day care facility is an accessory use to the residence. With a large family day care, the City has more ability to regulate the off-street parking to drop-off and pick-up children.

Mayor Wilson commented that he has a problem approving the project because of the size, parking and traffic not because of the quality of the care. He added that the Cambrio design does not support a large family day care center. This is a situation in which the State dictates what the City can do. He expressed grave reservations about project approval because of future potential problems.

Cm. Hudson stated that there is the appearance that the applicant has accepted PC Resolution 20-05. In an effort to keep harmony in the neighborhood, his motion to deny the appeal of PC Reso 20-05 approving the Doshi Large Family Day Care Land Use Permit and Conditions of Approval, including limiting the number of children to 11, was seconded by Cm. Perkins. Vice Mayor Livingstone stated that the Council did not have the grounds to limit the number of children to 11. Cm. Rowley supports the Planning Commission decision. Cm. Perkins asked the Acting City Attorney if it was appropriate to ask the applicant if the PC’s original Conditions of Approval are acceptable. Mr. Saxe replied that it is. Mrs. Doshi stated that the only Conditions of Approval which she would like to amend is to change the number of children from 11 to 14 in order to include her daughter.

Cm. Hudson asked the Council to deny the appeal and to approve the PC’s Land Use Permit if the applicant will accept the PC’s Conditions of Approval. He added that if the Doshis want to have 14 children, they can appeal to the State. The State will probably allow them to have 14 children in the large family day care home.

Mayor Wilson noted that the State may not automatically approve them for 14 children. Mr. Saxe stated that the State has already given them a license for 14 which is all that the State can do. He added that the PC approved a Land Use Permit for 11 children because of the parking issues which kept the PC from making a finding for 14 children.

Cm. Hudson asked the Acting City Attorney if the Council needs to deny or uphold the appeal. Mr. Saxe stated that it is a DeNovo hearing and the Council is not limited. The Council can uphold, reverse or modify the PC’s decision. He suggested that the motion include the return of a resolution of findings and the rational for the Council’s decision.

Vice Mayor Livingstone said that this is a new hearing and should have nothing to do with the PC’s findings. Mr. Saxe added that the PC proceedings are not irrelevant but clarified that this is a new decision for the Council. Vice Mayor Livingstone added that the Council can make its own findings and resolution and reference the PC’s Conditions.

Cm. Perkins requested that the Council’s resolution be amended to state that the "Conditions of Approval are based upon a finding of inadequate parking availability in the immediate vicinity of the Doshi residence". Mr. Saxe said that this amendment will be incorporated into the Council resolution developed by staff and returned to the Council. Cm. Perkins requested that this amendment be added to item #13 in the LUP-05-500-018. Cm. Hudson accepted this amendment to his motion.

Mayor Wilson requested a roll call vote. The City Clerk asked to clarify the motion. Mr. Saxe clarified that the Council will deny the appeal and approve a limit of 11 children rather than 14 children due to inadequate parking. This action will void PC Resolution 20-05. Cm. Hudson, Cm. Perkins and Cm. Rowley voted yes. Vice Mayor Livingstone and Mayor Wilson voted no. The motion to deny the appeal of PC Resolution 20-05 was approved 3-2.

City Manager Herb Moniz provided an update on the emergency preparedness planning meetings held between San Ramon and the Tri-Valley community. He reported there will be a Tri-Valley Council meeting in Pleasanton on February 23, 2006 to present a unified plan to the Tri-Valley City Councils’ elected officials. He indicated that each individual council can determine their next step after this meeting. He hoped that the Tri-Valley cities and both counties will continue to act in unison on any emergency.

Mayor Wilson asked if community and school representatives will be present.

Mr. Moniz stated that representatives from the Fire District, Emergency Operations, the EOC staff, and personnel who make decisions in the counties will attend the February meeting. They are defining the SEMS system and the efforts that have been made to improve communications between the two counties and the five cities and to evaluate the efforts made in individual communities to improve resident communications. He indicated that the next meeting would include a presentation to the business community and the School District.

Mayor Wilson said that it is imperative for the schools and businesses to be involved in the initial planning efforts. He asked why they were not included.

Mr. Moniz stated that they are trying to structure a presentation to disseminate important information. With a larger number of agencies attending, it will be easier to lose focus.

Vice Mayor Livingstone remarked that it is important to unite all of the elected officials before including other groups. He said that most councilmembers are not familiar with the planning involved in emergency preparedness.

Mr. Moniz said that the pre-planning meeting has changed his personal focus. He stated that the most important thing for the initial meeting is to focus on the actual system and the improvements that have been made to the system prior to targeting tri-valley businesses and schools. He stated that the cities and counties and the elected officials must have a coordinated plan before involving others.

Mayor Wilson reiterated his concern for the San Ramon/Tri-Valley area. He does not believe that the City can rely upon the County in the event of a large emergency.

In the event of an emergency, Mr. Moniz stated that the County and Fire District will be in control of the initial response and that the cities will have to coordinate with them through their EOCs.

Mayor Wilson said that there is a need for additional dialogue before the February event.

* * * *

Cm. Perkins thanked Cm. Hudson, Vice Mayor Livingstone, and Mayor Wilson for running, congratulated them on their re-election and stated that he looks forward to serving with them for two more productive years on the Council.

Vice Mayor Livingstone thanked the Council and voters for their support.

On behalf of the City Council and staff, Mayor Wilson wished all the residents a happy thanksgiving and joyous holiday season. He encouraged residents to participate in the various holiday activities presented by the City.

There being no further business, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.

Signed:
H. Abram Wilson, Mayor
Patricia Edwards, City Clerk

Approved at the December 13, 2005 City Council meeting, 5-0.