MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAMON – COUNCIL MEETING

The City Council of the City of San Ramon convened to a Joint Public Hearing with the San Ramon Redevelopment Agency on March 28, 2006 at 7:21 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2222 Camino Ramon, Mayor Wilson presiding.

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

STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Herb Moniz, City Attorney By Athan, Police Chief Scott Holder, Public Services Director Karen McNamara, Recreation Services Division Manager Esther Lucas, Community Services Division Manager John Skeel, Economic Development Director Marc Fontes, Central Services Division Manager Pat Perry, and City Clerk Patricia Edwards.

* * * *

Police Chief Holder led the Council, staff, and 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 there were none.

* * * *

Public Services Director Karen McNamara introduced the new maintenance technicians in Public Services: David Lamanuzzi, Jon Bell, Ruben Valenzuela, Jeff Cook and Evan Keysor. Mayor Wilson presented each of them with a City pin and welcomed them to the San Ramon family. He said that San Ramon is noted for its beautiful parks which results from the dedication of Public Services staff to their job and keeping the City beautiful.

* * * *

Recreation Services Division Manager Esther Lucas summarized the Poet Laureate process. She reported that the City received five applications. Two Arts Advisory Committee members and two Parks and Community Services Commission members interviewed four applicants. One applicant decline the interview. The Commission recommended that Patricia S. Perry be appointed with a term expiring in January 2008.

Cm. Perkins’ motion to accept the Commission’s nomination of Patricia S. Perry was seconded by Cm. Livingstone and passed 5-0.

Mayor Wilson introduced Ms. Perry and said that he is proud and pleased to make this appointment. He remarked that Ms. Perry has a deep love and affection for the City. Ms. Perry said that she was thrilled to be selected to represent the City. She thanked the Council for this opportunity to serve the City and added that she is anxious to put her ideas and plans into action.

* * * *

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

Paul Mitchell said that, as a result of attending the Landscape and Lighting (L&L) meetings, he supports the L&L Assessment District increase because it will generate $400,000 for L&L thereby releasing $400,000 from the General Fund for other City projects. He urged citizens to vote for the $20 per year increase when they receive their ballot. He noted that ballots are weighted based on the size of the property.

Dave Wetmore, Northern California District Administrator for Little League Baseball, invited the community to attend a special event on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. at Athan Downs. The San Ramon Little League will play a visiting Lithuanian team. For more information, visit the California District 57 website at www.eteamz.com/ca57.

* * * *

Cm. Livingstone’s motion to approve the March 14, 2006 minutes was seconded by Cm. Perkins and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Resolution No. 2006-43 – Adopting Findings to Commit Funds in the City’s Child Care, City Beautification, Creek Mitigation, and Traffic Improvement Funds for the Period Ending June 30, 2005.

Resolution No. 2006-44 – Accepting Certain Landscape Improvements in RA 1082 (Portion of Lilac Ridge Road) and RA 1083 (Portion of North Gale Ridge Road) for Maintenance (Shapell Industries/The Bridges at Gale Ranch).

Resolution No. 2006-46 – Pertaining to Proposition 81, the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006.

Resolution No. 2006-47 – Appropriation of Funds to Purchase Seven Vehicles for Building and Engineering Inspection Staff Utilizing the State of California Purchasing Contract.

Minute Order No. 2006-04 – Approving Annual Software Maintenance Contract with Sungard HTE.

Resolution No. 2006-48 – Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 3 to Renew the Existing Agreement with Valley Sweeping and Landscape for Street Sweeping Services in an Annual Amount not to Exceed $37,400 and a Total Amount not to Exceed $85,220 for the Duration of the Agreement.

Resolution No. 2006-49 – Authorizing Amendment No. 3 to the Existing Agreement with Central Maintenance Company to Provide Routine Janitorial Maintenance Services to the Human Resources Suite Located at 2208 Camino Ramon for
FY 05-06 in an Amount not to Exceed $1,170.

Resolution No. 2006-50 – Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Contract with Koff and Associates, Inc. to Conduct a Comprehensive Employee Classification Study and Compensation Survey in an Amount not to Exceed $65,000.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to approve consent calendar items 8.1 through 8.10 was seconded by Cm. Livingstone and
passed 5-0.

* * * *

Community Services Division Manager John Skeel presented the report. The park design was originally approved by the Parks Commission at their December 14, 2005 meeting. At its January 10, 2006 meeting, the Council directed staff to return the design to the Parks Commission to review the Council’s proposed changes. At the March 8, 2006 public workshop, Cinda Gilliland of SWA Group, presented two amphitheatre designs. The Parks Commission concurred with residents and passed a motion to retain the original design without any changes. Staff suggested that the Council consider improving the existing amphitheatre site at Central Park.

Cinda Gilliland reviewed two options for relocating the amphitheatre. One option placed the amphitheatre near the soccer fields. This resulted in shortening two soccer fields in order to accommodate three tier seating for 1,200 people. The advantage was that this option fits into the current park design. The disadvantages included the distance to parking, the proximity to housing, and the proximity to Dougherty Road. The second option placed the amphitheatre in the bocce ball court area. This plan decreases the number of bocce courts from eight to five and accommodates 1,200 seats on three terraces. The advantages are proximity to planned parking and being located 650’ from housing. The disadvantages are that eight bocce courts are required for tournament play and that parking is insufficient. Neither option was supported by the Parks Commission.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Glen Hamilton expressed his opposition to relocating the amphitheatre. He asked the Council to support the Commission’s decision. He is concerned about the noise and proximity to housing. He prefers the original park design.

James Eaneman urged the Council to accept the unanimous Parks Commission recommendation. The proposed change has a significant related cost increase. He is concerned about the noise impact on the Bent Creek and Old Ranch Estate communities. Relocating the amphitheatre will have a negative impact on the quality of life.

Frank Haneham stated that the park is in a beautiful location and asked the Council to support the originally proposed park plan.

Carol Lopez, representing the Parks Commission, urged the Council to support the original design. If the amphitheatre is relocated, the Commission is concerned about the noise level, the cost to change the design, and parking issues. This design would also eliminate potential revenue from bocce ball tournaments.

Donna Kerger, representing the San Ramon Soccer Club, urged the Council to consider the original design because of the cost and parking issues. She noted that San Ramon does not have enough soccer fields to accommodate adults.

Mayor Wilson closed the public comment.

Vice Mayor Rowley reported that she attended the March 8, 2006 Parks Commission meeting. She was impressed with the unanimous support for the original plan. She stated her support for the original plan.

Cm. Perkins thanked the staff and consultant for their time and efforts to evaluate the proposed change. He said it is important to consider all options prior to making a final decision. He thanked the citizens for coming to the meeting and voicing their concerns.

Cm. Hudson thanked the speakers for their comments. He expressed his support for the original park design. He also supports enlarging the amphitheatre at Central Park.

Cm. Livingstone stated his appreciation for the work of the staff and consultant.

Mayor Wilson said that the City takes its parks very seriously. He thanked the Commission for indulging the Council with their request.

Cm. Perkins’ motion that the Council adopt the Parks Commission recommendations to retain the original design and direct staff to evaluate an upgrade for the existing amphitheatre was seconded by Cm. Hudson and passed 5-0.

Mayor Wilson called for a five minute recess at 8:03 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:16 p.m. with all members in attendance.

Mayor Wilson stated that the actions concerning the proposed Fourth Amendment are the final actions concerning this matter except that the second reading and adoption of the ordinance is scheduled for the Council’s April 11, 2006 meeting. These final actions are regular agenda items and do not require a public hearing. The public hearing on this matter was conducted and closed on March 14, 2006. Public comment will be permitted as with any ordinary agenda item.

Marc Fontes, Economic Development Director, provided the report. There were no questions from councilmembers.

The City Clerk noted that written correspondence was received from Jenny, Jenny & Jenny, LLP. Their clients object to the adoption of Resolution No. 2006-51.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Bill Tharp requested an explanation of Resolution Nos. 2006-51 and 2006-52 so that residents can understand the content and what the Council is voting on.

Mayor Wilson closed the public comment.

Mr. Fontes explained the purpose and procedure for these resolutions. Resolution No. 2006-51 addresses written objections to the responses to the Proposed Fourth Amendment. Resolution No. 2006-52 addresses the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the Proposed Fourth Amendment. The Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance approving and adopting the Proposed Fourth Amendment will be addressed later in the meeting. The Proposed Fourth Amendment provides for an increase in the tax increment revenue which the Agency can receive, an increased limit on bonded indebtedness, and reestablishment of eminent domain with certain limitations.

Mayor Wilson asked for additional clarification.

Mr. Fontes noted that the tax increment revenue limit would be increased from $94 million to $623 million over 23 years. The increased limit on bonded indebtedness would increase from $35 million to $100 million. This enables the Agency to pursue additional projects such as the expansion of the Senior Center, identified public improvements in the Crow Canyon Specific Plan, and the Twin Creeks Road extension. The power of eminent domain would be reestablished with limitations and applies only to the Redevelopment area. It does not apply to residential property unless they are located in the Focus Area or the Crow Canyon Specific Plan area. In order to approve acquisition of property under eminent domain, a 2/3’s majority vote of the Council (4 votes) is required. The Fourth Amendment is simply a financing tool for the Agency.

Mayor Wilson asked how eminent domain relates to San Ramon.

City Attorney By Athan provided an explanation of eminent domain. He noted that it is not a new concept and that the U.S. Constitution states that private property will not be taken for public use without compensation. He added that eminent domain is not taken lightly. He observed that some people are confusing eminent domain with the Crow Canyon Specific Plan. He noted that San Ramon is unique because of its General Plan which is the constitution of the City. The City must be consistent with the General Plan which can only be changed by a 4/5’s vote of both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He stated that the City would be remiss if it did not employ eminent domain at this time. He explained the tax increment process as a tool and added that the City should not forego an available tool which it may need in the next 20 years. These funds are available for certain City projects and twenty percent of the funds are reserved for affordable housing.

Mayor Wilson stated that San Ramon does not take these decisions lightly and that housing will not replace businesses. The Council supports City businesses. He asked residents to contact City staff if they have questions or would like information. He recounted several examples of situations which caused the City to lose tax revenues. He thanked the citizens for the opportunity to provide an explanation to them.

Hassan Sharifi requested a copy of the findings relative to Resolution No. 2006-51. He asked the Council to support the Crow Canyon Specific Plan. As the second largest property owner in the Redevelopment area, he stated that he is not afraid of eminent domain because he believes it will work to his benefit.

Mayor Wilson closed the public hearing. Cm. Hudson explained Resolution No. 2006-51. He reviewed the history of redevelopment in San Ramon, the components of the Proposed Fourth Amendment, and a scenario in which eminent domain might be used.

Cm. Perkins’ motion to adopt Resolution No. 2006-51 was seconded by Cm. Hudson and passed 5-0. Cm. Perkins’ motion to adopt Resolution No. 2006-52 was seconded by Cm. Hudson and passed 5-0.

Mayor Wilson called a recess at 9:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. with all Councilmembers in attendance.

Karen McNamara, Public Services Director, asked the Council to review the final franchise agreement with WM. She introduced Ric Hutchinson with R3 Consultants who provided the report.

Mr. Hutchinson compared the current and proposed services. The new contract will include additional green waste collection, e-waste collection as part of the bulky waste collection, a ½ time recycling coordinator, multi-family recycling, $10,000 towards the upgrade or relocation of the recycling center and free compost at the recycling center. WM is not recommending residential food waste collections, separate household hazardous and e-waste collection events, multi-family used oil and filter collections, and multi-family bulky waste collections. He discussed the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles. WM’s current experience with CNG vehicles is that they are cleaner and quieter but fuel consumption, maintenance and operating costs are more expensive for CNG vehicles than for diesel vehicles.

Mr. Hutchinson reviewed the residential rate structure and the difference in costs associated with implementing the increase immediately, increasing it over two years and increasing it over five years. He noted that San Ramon costs, after the rate increase, will remain below the median and average rates compared with surrounding communities. He discussed commercial rates. The multi-family rates will include multi-family recycling. R3 recommends that the Council award the franchise agreement to WM, adopt the commercial and multi-family rates, phase in the single family rate increase over two years, and include a provision to allow the City, at their option, to direct WM to phase in CNG vehicles when current vehicles are scheduled for replacement.

Cm. Hudson asked if the WM Option One rates were the same as the original bid. Mr. Hutchinson said that the rates have been reduced significantly from the original bid and that some of the programs have been changed.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Paul Mitchell discussed the rate increase options. He supports Option One, the one time rate increase, because it provides the lowest total cost for residents. It also will provide the lowest rate when the contract is due for an extension. Phasing in the cost increase will create a gradual financial impact but will cost more in the long run.

Roz Rogoff expressed confusion with WM’s billing. She requested that the contract with WM require WM to provide the bill’s balance on each statement. She supports phasing in the cost increase over two years.

Scott Armanini asked the Council to request that WM confirm their policy with respect to background checks on all personnel working for WM in San Ramon.

Mayor Wilson closed the public comment.

James Devlin, WM Area Vice President, stated that WM does a criminal background check, drug testing and reference check for all employees.

Vice Mayor Rowley asked if WM will pick up oversized furniture.

Mr. Devlin said that there will be three scheduled bulky pick-ups included in the rates but this will not include white ware (appliances). Residents should have the old units taken away when the new units are delivered.

Cm. Perkins thanked WM for continuing with the negotiations and thanked them for providing the same quality service. He is pleased that their proposal provides enhanced services including e-waste collection and multi-family recycling. He noted that recycling is a not a money maker but is done to reduce the amount of product taken to the land fill. He mentioned that Saf Keep Storage on Purdue will recycle e-waste for City residents.

Mayor Wilson requested a vote. Cm. Livingstone requested that the Council discuss the rate increase options.

Cm. Perkins reported that the Finance Committee labored over the rate increase issue.

Cm. Livingstone supports Option One because the total cost to the consumer will be less. Cm. Hudson disagrees with the Finance Committee and the consultant. He feels that WM is not providing an acceptable rate. He recommended that the commercial rate be increased in order to provide a lower residential rate. He suggested that a new RFP be released. He does not support entering into an agreement with WM.

Cm. Perkins remarked that the problem with the AVI bid is that AVI required an annual evaluation of their rate structure which places too much risk on the consumer.

Cm. Hudson reiterated that the issue is the commercial rate and that dealing with one vendor is not acceptable.

Vice Mayor Rowley asked for clarification on the commercial rate structure distribution.

Ms. McNamara said that the distribution of the rate structure was addressed in early discussions but that WM did not go into the subsidy model in the current proposal.

Vice Mayor Rowley asked if the commercial rate increased at the same rate as the residential rate. Ms. McNamara responded that the percent increase was about the same.

Mayor Wilson said that the Finance Committee thoroughly discussed the fixed versus variable rate issue and realized that it is a problem for fixed income residents. He prefers Option One but acknowledged that it may not be the best option for residents.

Vice Mayor Rowley asked if WM will advertise the cost savings available to residents who change from a 32 to 20 gallon container and use a larger recycling container.

Ms. McNamara noted a transition plan is part of the agreement. Information on new services and options will be provided to WM customers for six months.

Mayor Wilson suggested that the information be distributed many times.

Cm. Perkins’ motion to adopt Option Two phasing in the single family dwelling increase over 2 years was seconded by Vice Mayor Rowley. She remarked that an immediate rate increase would create ‘sticker shock’ for residents. Mayor Wilson requested a roll call vote. The motion passed 3-2 with Cm. Hudson and Cm. Livingstone dissenting.

Cm. Perkins motion to adopt Resolution No. 2006-53 was seconded by Cm. Livingstone. Mayor Wilson requested a roll call vote. The motion passed 4-1, Cm. Hudson dissenting.

* * * *

Introduction of Resolution No. 2006-XX (next in line) – Approval of Fees and Charges for Fiscal Year 2006-07

Pat Perry, Central Services Division Manager, provided the report. The Fees and Charges were reviewed by the Finance Committee at its March 15, 2006 meeting. The report was forwarded to the Council for consideration and adoption. Prior to levying a new fee or service charge or approving an increase in an existing fee or service charge, a public hearing must be held at which oral or written presentation can be made. Staff requested that the Council review the fees and schedule the required public hearing for April 25, 2006.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to set the Public Hearing for April 25, 2006 to consider adopting Resolution No. 2006-XX (next in line) was seconded by Cm. Livingstone and passed 5-0.

Marc Fontes, Economic Development Director, requested that the Council introduce and conduct the first reading of the Ordinance approving and adopting the proposed Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan and schedule the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance at its April 11, 2006 meeting.

Mayor Wilson stated that the actions concerning the proposed Fourth Amendment are the final actions concerning this matter except that the second reading and adoption of the ordinance is scheduled for the Council’s April 11, 2006 meeting. These final actions are regular agenda items and do not require a public hearing. The public hearing on this matter was conducted and closed on March 14, 2006. Public comment will be permitted as with any ordinary agenda item.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Roz Rogoff said that the connection between the Crow Canyon Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan is in the Fourth Amendment. She added that the definition of blight in the redevelopment area specifically refers to Beta Court. She commented that the definition of blight was contrived in order to get the Fourth Amendment accepted. The City’s current power of eminent domain is for public, not private, purposes. She remarked that the City is stretching the definition of blight causing people to be justifiably worried about the possibility of abuse if eminent domain is used.

Don Ludwig is the owner of a business on Beta Court. He is concerned about the future and the possibility that people may lose their livelihoods. He noted that the information is not consistent. He is concerned that eminent domain will be used for private purposes. He encouraged the Council to carefully evaluate the issue. He supports San Ramon’s growth and expressed concern about reestablishing eminent domain.

Ted Mendelson thanked the Council’s for their efforts. He stated that the fourth part of the Fourth Amendment is the land use provision. He said that the Planning Commission and the Council should tweak the General Plan to fit the best use for the majority of people in the City. The village mixed use is currently planned for San Ramon Square and Morgan’s Masonry. He suggested that the Crow Canyon Shopping Center might be a better location for the mixed use center because there is no draw to the west side of San Ramon. He added that the City could encourage developers to consider this option and eliminate the issue of eminent domain on San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

Cm. Hudson asked if Mr. Mendelson was satisfied with the Planning Commission’s decision on the Crow Canyon Specific Plan.

Mr. Mendelson replied that he was pleased with the compromise to remove the housing overlay from Beta Court and instead place housing on Omega.

Cm. Hudson said that Morgan’s Masonry and San Ramon Square are scheduled to be Mixed Use but are currently zoned Planned Development which allows mixed use. He said that the zoning designation is not as important as the owners desire to develop.

Mayor Wilson terminated discussion on the Crow Canyon Specific Plan.

Mayor Wilson closed the public comment.

Cm. Livingstone asked Ms. Murphy to describe her position and explain blight in redevelopment terms.

Ms. Murphy said she is the special redevelopment legal counsel to the City and to the Redevelopment Agency in San Ramon. She has been working with the City to develop the Redevelopment Fourth Amendment. The eminent domain amendment by itself does not require the Council to make findings regarding blight in the project area because blight was established in 1987. The portion of the Fourth Amendment that requires the Council to make findings regarding blight are the portions related to increasing the tax increment and increasing the bonded debt limit. The legislature has a specific definition of blight as it relates to redevelopment and related public purposes. The two components are physical (physical deterioration) and economic. Economic blight relates to factors that cause property values to decrease or not to increase at the same rate as other areas in the City, contamination, crime, etc. The significant remaining blight in San Ramon pertains primarily to physical factors including small or irregular parcels that don’t allow businesses to expand, low lease rates, and depreciated property values.

Mayor Wilson stated that he does not agree with the definition of blight.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to introduce the Ordinance, waive the First Reading, and schedule the Second Reading for
April 11, 2006 was seconded by Cm. Perkins and passed 5-0.

* * * *

City Manager Herb Moniz thanked the Council for the Budget Workshop. He anticipates the final City Budget will be presented to the Council in May. He reported that the March 23, 2006 Ethics Training was interesting and that additional training sessions could be presented.

Mayor Wilson encouraged City Commission and Council members to attend the training.

* * * *

Mayor Wilson reported that the City executed an agreement with AT&T to provide Internet Protocol TV service to San Ramon residents. Federal and State courts are arguing the issue of whether or not this is cable service and the City will abide by the legal decision. The City did not grant AT&T a franchise but required substantially the same terms as if it were a franchise. These terms included: providing the same service standards as cable providers; making the service available to all current and future residents; complying with the City’s encroachment process; providing Public, Educational and Governmental services similar to those provided by cable providers; and providing the same income as a cable provider to the City.

Mayor Wilson encouraged residents to apply for the Parks and Community Services Commission or Planning Commission. Applications are due to the City Clerk’s office by 5:00 p.m. on April 11, 2006. He encouraged residents to attend the Town Hall meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on March 29, 2006 at the San Ramon Community Center. The meeting will focus on preventing under aged drinking and is sponsored by the San Ramon Valley Community Against Substance Abuse (CASA), the School District, the PTA, Danville, Troy and Alana Pack Foundation and the City of San Ramon.

Cm. Hudson commented that residents are requesting that the Council speak in clearer language. He added that the Council is honoring the voter approved General Plan and that General Plan amendments require a 4/5’s vote of both the Planning Commission and the Council. He stated that the Council can not ‘tweak’ the General Plan.

There being no further business, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m. to two closed sessions.

The City Council convened in closed session pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 for the City Council to meet with its labor negotiators Greg Rogers and Cheryl Mitchell Wade, concerning negotiations with SEIU Local 790. The Council met in closed session pursuant to Government Code §54957 to evaluate the position of City Attorney.

At 11:32 p.m., Mayor Wilson reported that no action was taken by the Council on either of the two closed session items.

There being no further business, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 11:34 p.m.

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

Approved  at the April 25, 2006 City Council meeting, 5-0.