MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAMON – COUNCIL MEETING

A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was held on May 23, 2006 at 6:02 p.m. in the San Ramon Community Center, 12501 Alcosta Boulevard, Mayor Wilson presiding.

PRESENT: Councilmembers Hudson, Livingstone, Perkins, and Mayor Wilson. Vice Mayor Rowley arrived
at 7:40 p.m.

STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Herb Moniz, City Attorney By Athan, Parks and Community Services Director Jeff Eorio, Central Services Division Manager Pat Perry, Community Services Division Manager John Skeel, District Engineer Maria Robinson, Associate Planner Sara Buizer, Planning Director Phil Wong, Planning Services Manager Debbie Chamberlain, Finance Director Greg Rogers, and City Clerk Patricia Edwards.

* * * *

At 7:18 p.m., Mayor Wilson reconvened the meeting. All Councilmembers, except Vice Mayor Rowley, were in attendance. The Council met in closed session at 6:02 p.m. pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 to meet with its labor negotiators Jeff Eorio, Greg Rogers and Cheryl Mitchell Wade concerning negotiations with SEIU Local 790. The Council took no action.

The Council met in closed session pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 to meet with the City Attorney regarding Unfair Practice Charge (SF-CE-349M) filed by SEIU 790 with the Public Employment Relations Board. No action was taken by the Council.

The Council also met in closed session pursuant to Government Code §54957 to evaluate the position of City Manager. No action was taken by the Council.

* * * *

Joyce Gunn led the Council, staff, and the audience in the pledge of allegiance.

                                                                                     * * * *

The City Clerk noted there were no changes or additions to the agenda.

The City Clerk noted there were no changes or additions to the Boards, Committee and Commission meetings schedule listed under Announcements on the agenda.

* * * *

Parks and Community Services Director Jeff Eorio introduced Mrs. Gunn and reviewed her San Ramon career. He reported that the San Ramon libraries have the highest circulation in Contra Costa County. He presented Mrs. Gunn with a plaque thanking her for her service to the City for 1991-2006.

Pauline Nolte, member of the Library Advisory Committee, summarized the highlights of Mrs. Gunn’s career and praised her for her dedication and innovative ideas and programs.

Mayor Wilson thanked Mrs. Gunn for her many contributions to San Ramon. He presented Mrs. Gunn with a proclamation, City Gold Star, travel bag, and flowers.

Mrs. Gunn thanked the City for these honors and said that San Ramon was the epitome of her career. City funding for extra hours, Sunday hours, the jazz collection, and jazz concerts were all firsts in Contra Costa County. She thanked the City staff, citizens, the county, and her library staff for their support which enabled her to achieve these goals.

Recognition of Receipt of Certificate of Loss Control Accreditation – Level 1 Award by the City’s Safety Committee.

Patricia Perry, Central Services Division Manager, and Loss Control Safety Advisor, along with City Safety Committee members Sara Buizer and Patricia Edwards, presented Mayor Wilson with a check for $2,000. The application, consisting of eight components, took one year to complete. The City was recognized by the Municipal Pooling Authority for successfully completing Level 1 of the Loss Control Accreditation Program.

On behalf of the City, Mayor Wilson thanked the Safety Committee for their work.

* * * *

Community Services Division Manager John Skeel gave the report. He requested that the Council appoint the candidate recommended by the Parks Commission.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to appoint Jeff Smyly to the Open Space & Conservation Advisory Committee with a term expiring in July 2008 was seconded by Cm. Perkins and passed 5-0. Cm. Hudson asked the City Clerk to continue to advertise for this Committee for the three remaining vacancies. Mayor Wilson congratulated and thanked Mr. Smyly on his appointment. The Mayor encouraged citizens to become involved in City activities.

* * * *

The City Clerk noted that there was one request for public comment.

Hassan Sharifi complimented Herb Moniz for his work as City Manager. Mr. Sharifi reported that the 2005-06 Street Smarts program was very successful. He thanked Transportation department staff, Lisa Bobadilla and Darlene Amaral, for their work on the program. He looks forward to participating in next year's program.

Mayor Wilson thanked Mr. Sharifi for his participation in the program and the use of the Golden Skate facilities.

* * * *

The City Clerk requested that the Council defer approval of the May 9, 2006 minutes to the June 13, 2006 meeting. The Council agreed with the request.

* * * *

Resolution No. 2006-72 – Authorizing the Mayor to Cast the Vote for City Owned Properties in the Matter of Increased Assessments Proposed for Specific Zones (Zone 1 and Zone 2) within Landscaping and Lighting District 1984-1.

Resolution No. 2006-73 – Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Race-Neutral Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies with the California Department of Transportation.

Resolution No. 2006-74 – Adopting a 9% Race-Neutral Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goal for the City of San Ramon for Federally Funded Projects Administered by the California Department of Transportation during Federal Fiscal Year 2006/07.

Resolution No. 2006-75 – Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 2 to an Existing Agreement with FloraTech Landscape Management, Inc. for Landscape Maintenance Services in an Annual Amount not to Exceed $984,976.

Resolution No. 2006-76 – Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 2 to an Existing Agreement with FloraTech Landscape Management, Inc. for Park Turf Mowing Services in Area 1 in an Annual Amount not to Exceed $247,077.

Resolution No. 2006-77 – Authorizing the Mayor to Amend the Contract with the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff by Agreeing to not Request the Transfer of a Motorcycle Officer, from San Ramon Back to the County, Who is on Disability Leave or Light Duty as a Result of an Accident or Injury Related to, or Resulting from, the Officer’s Motorcycle Assignment for a Period of up to Two Calendar Years from the Date of Injury.

Cm. Livingstone’s motion to approve consent calendar items 8.1 through 8.4 was seconded by Vice Mayor Rowley
and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Public Hearing: Consideration of Resolution No. 2006-78 Confirming and Levying the Assessment for FY 2006/07 for Geologic Hazard Abatement District No. 1990-01.

The Staff report was presented by Maria Robinson, District Engineer. The Geologic Hazard Abatement District’s (GHAD) purpose is to provide a funding mechanism to prevent, mitigate, abate, or control a geologic hazard; and to mitigate or abate structural hazards that are partly or wholly caused by geologic hazards. The current Study proposes $107.15 per resident unit and $0.0343 per square foot of non-residential area for FY 2006/07. Since the proposed FY 2006/07 assessment falls within the assessment limits of $250 per residential unit and $0.10 per square foot of nonresidential property, a mailed ballot election process is not required. A mailing is required for annually noticing property owners within the GHAD. On May 5, 2006, staff complied with this requirement and sent each assessable owner of property within the GHAD a public hearing notice and the proposed FY 2006/07 budget. A total of 4,319 notices were mailed. Staff received one call regarding information on the Old Ranch Summit development and the proposed annexation of open space into the GHAD and one email opposing any tax increase for Dougherty Valley.

There were no questions from the Council.

Mayor Wilson opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Mayor Wilson closed the public hearing.

Cm. Hudson's motion to adopt Resolution No. 2006-78 was seconded by Cm. Perkins and passed 5-0.

Phil Wong, Planning Director, gave an overview of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance processes. He noted that the General Plan is the City's ‘constitution’ and a long term, comprehensive vision of the City's future growth for the next 20 years. The Plan includes all components for future growth. The General Plan is required by the state and contains seven mandated elements. It may be amended four times per year. The state allows each amendment to contain a number of changes. Measure G requires that Plan amendments be heard at three meetings of both the Planning Commission (PC) and the City Council and requires a 4/5 vote from each agency in order to be adopted. He noted that this is a more stringent requirement than the state imposes.

Zoning regulates what landowners can do with their property. State law requires that the City's Zoning Ordinance be consistent with a City's General Plan. Measure G mandated a comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance. San Ramon's Zoning Ordinance update is linked to the General Plan update and requires three PC and three City Council meetings and 4/5 vote of both agencies to pass.

Sara Buizer, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the responses to the questions which were asked at the May 9, 2006 public hearing. This information is provided in the May 23, 2006 staff report which also provides information on restaurant zoning.

The Council had no questions for staff. Mayor Wilson thanked the residents for their participation. He reviewed the hearing procedures and opened the public hearing.

Robert duPont acknowledged that day care is needed. He requested that a provision be added to require documentation of contact and agreements with neighbors of all adjoining properties to discuss and resolve concerns regarding day care operations.

Loretta Bliss requested that the entry and exit traffic for any building be directed to Alcosta Boulevard and that adequate parking be made available. Food industry applications would not be compatible with the surrounding area. She commented that the addition of senior housing is a wonderful use for this property.

Roger Gaither, president of Sunny Glen HOA, is concerned about traffic and access to the property. He supports the residential housing overlay and requested that any new traffic impacts on Fircrest be brought to Sunny Glen for discussion prior to enacting.

Melody Lundgren disputed the helicopter safety data previously presented. There are no emission controls for helicopters. She is concerned about noise and safety. She asked that the Zoning Ordinance be changed to create a 1000' line of protection for homes, schools and parks from the construction of private or corporate helipad or heliport.

Rena Waterson noted that the PC recommended adding a 500' boundary to parks. Residences and schools have a 1000' boundary. The 1000' park boundary will protect children from noise, pollution, and accidents.

Roz Rogoff questioned why the 500' limit was removed. Measure E was designed to ban all heliports. The largest restrictions should be place on where heliports can be located. She asked the Council to ban heliports next to parks. She noted that her website (www.sanramonobserver.com) has been updated to include a commentary on the 1995 General Plan amendment, public hearings, and zoning.

The City Clerk noted that 16 emails were received supporting the 1000’ ban for heliports for homes, schools and parks.

Jan Desmarais said that the Golf Course (GC) overlay does not provide the strictest protection for golf courses. The Commercial Recreation (CR) has a .35 FAR. A rezoning change would require only one PC and one City Council meeting for approval. The General Plan states that it will maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. The CR zoning with a GC overlay is not consistent with this intent. She requested that the golf courses be zoned as Parks (P) for future generations. She stated that the CR designation was not proposed by the General Plan Review Commission. She was concerned about the public notification for the 1995 General Plan amendments. She questioned why Villa San Ramon was built at a higher density than their zoning permits. She asked if all the zoning changes were increases in densities. She asked how the Crow Canyon Shopping Plaza was sold as Mixed Use (MU) before the MU designation was approved.

Viktor Hampel commented that all zoning designations could be overruled by the City Council by the use of eminent domain for monetary gain. He requested that the Council, prior to voting, state for the record that they will not use eminent domain to change the General Plan and its zoning.

Paul Desmarais stated that the answers provided by the City do not address the concerns of the citizens. He is concerned about the increase in FARs, density, etc. He recommended that the document be returned to the PC to show the changes and make changes that reflect what the residents want. The Council should represent the integrity of the community. He stated that staff has made inaccurate statements. The General Plan will incorporate the new parts of Dougherty Valley and there are inconsistencies with the General Plan and the zoning ordinance.

Cm. Hudson asked Mr. Desmarais if he had found discrepancies between the zoning of the 1995 General Plan and the General Plan 2020.

Mr. Desmarais responded that he found some inconsistencies between the existing zoning and the draft zoning and between the old draft and the new draft General Plan.

Ken Lepere said that he has not heard anyone support the zoning changes. He asked the Council to reconsider the zoning issue so that the voters of San Ramon are not alienated.

Ms. Desmarais read Diane Smith’s letter. In an effort to protect the open space and quality of life in San Ramon, and in the event that the City Council passes the proposed zoning ordinance, the citizens will file an initiative to keep the golf course P zoning.

Ms. Rogoff stated that the CR does not allow housing. The P zoning is also incompatible. She suggested that a golf course zoning be created for golf courses.

David Kushner asked the Council to state for the record, prior to voting, that it is their understanding that this zoning change does not allow the golf course to be used for anything other than a golf course and, that during their term of office, the Council will not allow or approve any zoning change to allow the golf course to be used for anything other than a golf course.

Robert Bithell opposes the RV zoning change.

Stephanie Thorne lives in an area without CC&Rs and an HOA in order to avoid restrictions and have her RV. She values her freedom. She opposes the changes to the RV ordinance and asked the Council to listen to the concerns of residents.

Vice Mayor Rowley asked Ms. Thorne where the RV parking was located when she purchased her home. Ms. Thorne replied that the RV parking was in front.

Michelle Shaffer said that their RV is part of their quality of life. She opposes the proposed RV zoning change which punishes residents. She requested that the Council consider grandfathering in current owners. RVs parked in a driveway do not lower the quality of life but add to the flavor of San Ramon.

Cm. Perkins clarified that the current proposal allows RV parking in the front set-back.

Curtis Wengeler asked where all the changes originated. He recommended that residents enforce their own CC&Rs. He asked the Council to eliminate the grandfather clause. There is no need for any changes to the RV ordinance. Blighted RVs should be dealt with as blight. He does not want to store his RV. The process is unfair since RV repre-sentatives were not included for their input. He asked the Council to reconsider the issue.

Noem Shaffer said that the ordinance will affect all residents who have RVs parked in front of their property regardless of the fact that they have tried to comply with the City’s rules. Current rules should be enforced instead of making new ones so that people who follow the law are not punished. She urged the Council to reject the proposed ordinance.

Kathy Lamb stated that the Council represent its constituents and should vote against the new ordinance since the majority do not support it.

Robert duPont noted that information is available on the City’s website. RVs that are grandfathered in should be allowed for those who meet the requirements of their CC&Rs. The authority of CC&Rs should not be undermined. He does not support the grandfather option. He does not want San Ramon to become the RV parking lot for the county.

Sean Bithell expressed concern about the notification process. He opposes the proposed ordinance and is concerned about enforcing the grandfather clause.

Nathan Hall is concerned about the specifics of the grandfather clause, the cost of RV storage and enforcing the grandfather clause.

Christa Freihofner asked the Council to follow the PC’s recommendation and include the grandfather clause as it is a fair compromise for everyone.

Juanita Whitney-Harding stated that staff replies have attempted to weaken or modify the original ordinance. San Ramon should have a meaningful RV ordinance like neighboring cities. She does not oppose the grandfather clause as long as vehicles are out of public view. The Council needs to study the RV issue and make a meaningful change.

Roger Gaither asked why the City needs an RV ordinance. Property owners should enforce their own CC&Rs. He requested a definition of RVs. He noted that the CC&Rs in older parts of San Ramon only allow a 6 foot fence. He asked if the ordinance would affect set aside RV storage. He is concerned that the six month window is an arbitrary cut off of a property owner’s rights.

Ted Harvey suggested that the RVs could be parked on the CR golf course.

Roger Gaither asked if a ‘church’ in San Ramon is a permitted use or a conditional use.

Mayor Wilson closed the public hearing.

* * * *

Mayor Wilson called a recess at 10:06 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:24 p.m. with all Councilmembers in attendance.

* * * *

Cm. Perkins recommended adoption of the language proposed by staff regarding Large Family Day Care (LFDC) Homes.

Vice Mayor Rowley asked the City Attorney if the City was allowed to add restrictions.

City Attorney By Athan noted that the City can only control LFDC on issues of spacing, traffic, and noise. He suggested that the City utilize the Conditions of Approval rather than include these conditions in the ordinance which could be subject to legal scrutiny.

Mayor Wilson asked about requiring mandatory written confirmation of notification.

Mr. Athan said that the state law requires 100’ notification for day care centers. The City’s Zoning Ordinance provides for 300’.

Cm. Livingstone suggested providing documentation showing proof of contact with neighbors of all adjoining properties to discuss concerns about day care operations.

Mr. Athan noted that this is a reasonable requirement providing the City does not require consent of the adjoining neighbors.

Cm. Perkins asked if the City could require contact of all neighbors within 300'.

Mr. Athan said that it would be allowable.

Cm. Hudson suggested that this be done as a statement of policy instead of adding it to the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Athan remarked that if the City demonstrates that this condition was the result of a hearing it may be permissible.

Cm. Perkins asked if the recommendation should be included in the zoning ordinance or in policy.

Mr. Athan recommended that it be included in policy rather than in the ordinance.

Cm. Livingstone asked for clarification regarding Cm. Perkins’ original recommendation.

Cm. Perkins withdrew his recommendation to include the provision in the ordinance.

Cm. Hudson stated that the wording was acceptable.

Cm. Perkins requested that the senior housing overlay be included on the Alcosta Medical Arts parcel on the corner of Fircrest and Alcosta. This was supported by Cm. Hudson and Vice Mayor Rowley. They noted that traffic and circulation concerns will be included in staff notes for any future development.

Cm. Hudson clarified that the rezoning of Villa San Ramon is not applicable.

Cm. Perkins noted that 39 of San Ramon’s 40 parks are covered by the 1000’ exclusion area for residences and schools for heliports. The only park that could have a heliport is Central Park but it is excluded because it is within 1000’ zone of homes.

He discussed the safety aspects of helicopters and included statistics from the Helicopter Association International. He does not believe that helicopter safety is an issue. He does not support a change to the heliport zoning to include parks.

Cm. Hudson noted that there was a difference between a heliport and a helipad. The condition placed on the service by the PC was a maximum of 10 flights per week. This restriction is in the General Plan. Noise is not an issue. He supports the restriction for schools and residences but not for parks.

Cm. Livingstone noted that the Fire District would like to have a regulation landing point in central San Ramon. He supports Cm. Perkins’ comments.

Cm. Perkins said that it was critical for the helicopter pilot to have visibility and accessibility and a proper landing pad. He supports a well designed heliport in BR. A regulation FAA qualified helipad would be an asset to the City.

Vice Mayor Rowley stated that she is not against a heliport. She does support the 1000’ exclusion for residences, schools and parks.

Mayor Wilson said that it was important to make sure that there was a safe place for helicopters to land. Safety and health are paramount. He supports the 1000’ ban for school and residences.

Cm. Hudson supports staff recommendations for modifications to the allowable uses for the City Center Mixed Use zone including Conference/Convention Facility, Auto and Vehicular Sales and Rental, and Doctor’s Office with a Use Permit. He supports staff’s findings that the General Plan has an established floor area ratio of 0.70 for Mixed Use.

Mayor Wilson requested that staff research the answer regarding church zoning.

David Kushner reiterated his request to Council regarding the golf course.

Cm. Hudson stated that, in March 2002, the citizens voted for the golf course to be zoned.

CR. The Council’s job is to make the zoning ordinance conform to the General Plan. In order to build housing on the golf course with a CR designation, a General Plan amendment with 4/5 vote by both the PC and the Council are required. The same requirement would apply for a golf course with a P designation. The designation of P as protected parklands, which can not be developed, does not exist.

Cm. Livingstone suggested that residents who want to keep the golf course support it financially. He requested consensus to direct staff to change the plan designation to "golf course" and solve the problem. He supports the existing recommendation on zoning for the GC overlay.

Vice Mayor Rowley concurred with Cm. Livingstone.

Cm. Perkins supports the Zoning Ordinance and asked staff to prepare a General Plan amendment to create a land use designation for "golf course" and prepare a zoning ordinance update for all golf courses to be designated as golf courses. This will provide the protection that the residents are requesting. He supports Cm. Livingstone’s recommendation for golf courses with a CR designation with GC overlay.

Cm. Hudson noted that the new designation will need to be presented at three PC meetings and three Council meetings.

Mayor Wilson thanked the residents for their participation.

As it was after 11:00 p.m., Cm. Hudson’s motion to continue the meeting was seconded by Cm. Perkins and
passed 5-0.

Cm. Hudson commented that the RV issue is a no win situation. It is difficult to reconcile property rights versus the rights of residents. He accepts the PC’s recommendation and asked for guidance from other councilmembers.

Cm. Perkins said that the RV issue is the most difficult issue in the zoning ordinance because there is no middle ground. The RV grandfather clause accommodates the current owners but does not allow future owners to park RVs in front set-backs. The Council will do what is best for the majority of residents. He has listened to all of the comments and concurs with the ordinance as proposed.

Cm. Livingstone agreed that this is a tough issue. He remarked that the only phone calls which he received regarding any zoning issues were five calls against the RV proposal supporting the RV proposal with stronger restrictions. The City can not restrict or take away the rights of current RV owners. He supports the RV ordinance with the amendments that the vehicle must be purchased prior to the effective date of the ordinance and that the registration fee be kept as low as possible.

Mr. Athan noted that this is a permitted use under the current zoning. As a permitted use, passing an ordinance that makes it a nonconforming use, creates an inconsistency.

Nonconforming uses can not be extended indefinitely.

Vice Mayor Rowley expressed concern about deteriorating vehicles and RVs in side yards that are taller than seven feet. Her requirements are that: all vehicles must be operable; registered to the owner of the house; and the grandfather right is not transferred when the house is sold. She asked if current CC&Rs allow RV parking.

Mayor Wilson requested that staff review the active CC&Rs in the City so that the Council does not supersede their authority and create a conflicting situation.

Cm. Hudson noted that RVs are not the same as storage vehicles. The HOAs need to enforce their rules. He is concerned about the definition of an RV. He anticipates that additional work will be needed on this ordinance.

Cm. Perkins requested the current definition of an RV. He asked if the City can preclude giving an RV permit in face of conflicting CC&Rs.

Planning Services Manager Debbie Chamberlain provided the definition of RVs from the Code. The City must issue a permit. The City can not enforce CC&Rs as they are a private party agreement between the homeowner and the association. If the CC&Rs prohibit RVs, this is a civil matter between the homeowners and the association.

Mr. Athan said that CC&Rs can be enforced by any member. The City can not deny a permit due to existing CC&Rs as this would not allow due process. The City must have equal protection of all its ordinances.

Mr. Wong said that the Council could take action on all issues except for the RV issue.

Cm. Hudson suggested that the Council continue discussion to the June 13, 2006 Council meeting. Council requested more clarification on the golf course and RV issues.

Mr. Wong said that another option is to defer action on the entire zoning ordinance.

Cm. Perkins requested that the Council clarify the RV issues at the next meeting and include it with the current zoning ordinance update. He suggested that the Council deal with the golf course separately. He recommended that the Council defer complete action on the existing update until the RV issue is settled.

Cm. Perkins made a motion to continue the item to the next Council meeting, finish the RV issue, make the decision, complete the entire amendment package, and address the golf course amendment later. Mr. Hudson seconded the motion and it passed 5-0.

* * * *

As it was after 11:30 p.m., Cm. Perkins made a motion to continue the meeting was seconded by Cm. Hudson and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Resolution 2006-79 – Adopting the 2006-2007 Operating and Capital Budget, Establishing an Appropriation Limit, and Authorizing Carryover Appropriations. 

The staff report was presented by Greg Rogers, Finance Director. The proposed resolution will establish expenditure authority for all City activities of $68,932,495 for 2006-2007. The Council reviewed the draft budget in a Work Session on March 28, 2006 and the proposed budget in a Study Session held on May 18, 2006. The Budget reflects continued expansion of services in Dougherty Valley and a nearly balanced General Fund Budget that will be fully balanced with the approval of the Lighting and Landscaping election. The Budget resolution will approve the appropriations for 2006-2007, approve the State required appropriation limit, and authorize the carry-over of unspent 2005-2006 capital improvement appropriations in 2006-2007.

Mayor Wilson opened the public hearing. There were no speaker cards. Mayor Wilson closed the public hearing.

Cm. Perkins’ motion to approve Resolution 2006-79 Adopting the 2006-2007 Operating and Capital Budget, Establishing an Appropriation Limit, and Authorizing Carryover Appropriations was seconded by Cm. Hudson and passed 5-0.

Vice Mayor Rowley thanked staff for the excellent May 18, 2006 budget presentation.

City Manager Herb Moniz reviewed the process of evaluating the comparison between the contract police versus an in-house Police Department. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate police service. The analysis focused on the cost of the contract. The quality of the service was never in question. San Ramon has received quality service from the Sheriff’s Department since 1984. The current budget is $9.1 million for 50 contract officers. Previous evaluations of the contract by a 1989 Public Safety Committee and a 1995 Public Safety Task Force found the contract to be cost effective.

Over the past few years, the Police contract costs have increased significantly. The average annual increase, adjusting for added officers, was in excess of 15% since 1999-2000. The majority of those costs are a result of an increase in the cost of retirement for the contract employees. In FY 1999-2000, the City’s cost for retirement was 19.6% of salary. The projection for the City’s cost for FY 2006-2007 is estimated at 58.53%.

Bringing Police Services in-house will cost the City more than the current Sheriff’s Contract. Although there are savings in the onset due to the cost of Retirement, the overall cost will increase an estimated $499,543. In addition to the annual increase in costs, the City will also have a one time start-up cost if bringing Police Services in-house. These costs include the hiring of personnel, setting up and purchasing equipment for evidence storage, a Records Management System, and costs associated with the Transition Team. It is estimated that these cost will be $450,000 to $570,000.

Mr. Moniz reviewed the proposed organization chart, cost of administrative overhead, salary and wage package, cost of facilities, equipment costs, dispatch costs, and the estimated time table for the process. An in-house Police Department gives the City absolute control on service levels, policies, recruitment, and eliminates multi-level management.

Cm. Hudson indicated his support. He questioned the amount of the City’s contribution to the retirement benefits.

Mr. Moniz stated that the cost is 9% for public safety employees and 7% for regular employees.

Cm. Livingstone had no comments.

Vice Mayor Rowley noted that it was a good report.

Cm. Perkins noted that the City has a problem with chronic vacancies. He expressed concern about maintaining the future quality of service when officers have to pay 21% of their retirement costs. He stated that the ability to control costs is also an important factor when considering this change.

Cm. Hudson said he would like the City to eliminate or decrease the consultant’s fee.

Mayor Wilson expressed concern about securing, from the county, the quality of officers expected by the residents. Safety is a major issue for residents.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Roz Rogoff stated that the frequent officer rotation does not enable officers to develop their careers in San Ramon. She is pleased with the quality of officers from the Sheriff’s Office. She said that the costs seem high but will even out over time. She supports a City Police Department.

Roger Gaither said that he does not see any disadvantages to initiating a City Police Department and supports the concept.

Mayor Wilson closed the public comment. Cm. Perkins’ motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution to create a new City Police Department and prepare a budget amendment to pay for start-up costs was seconded by Cm. Hudson. Mayor Wilson requested a roll vote. The motion passed 5-0.

Mr. Moniz said that there may be an opportunity to talk with other contract cities about partnering with San Ramon with the understanding that San Ramon would be in control. The Council unanimously supported this direction to the City Manager.

* * * *

City Manager Herb Moniz had no comment or report.

* * * *

There were no reports from any Councilmembers.

There being no further business, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 12:32 a.m.

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

Approved at the June 27, 2006 City Council meeting, 4-0; Perkins absent.

Mr. Kushner: (miscellaneous text) "At the meeting on May 23^rd, there was considerable discussion regarding the proposed ordinance changes and specifically I am referring to the golf course overlay designation. I believe that your minutes from May 23^rd accurately reflect my request to the Council to individually state your understanding of the zoning definition as well as your commitment to maintaining our golf courses. While the minutes do reflect the request to staff to create a golf course designation, and staff has already responded to this request, as identified in Agenda Item 9.1 this evening, there is no mention of any member stating affirmatively for the record that this definition means ‘golf course’ and during your term in office you will not vote for any changes allowing the golf course to be used for anything but a golf course. If memory serves me correctly, the members of the Council did make such a statement and I believe it would be appropriate to amend the minutes to reflect your statements on the official record. If my recollection, if my recollection is incorrect, I would like to again request under Agenda Item 9.1 this evening that each member of this Council state affirmatively your understanding and intentions regarding our golf courses. Thank you very much for your consideration."

Mayor Wilson: "Thank you Mr. Kushner. What is the pleasure of the Council? At this time would you like to state it now or, Mr. Hudson?"

Cm. Hudson: "I, I would like to approve the minutes and, ah, honor the gentlemen’s request. It’s just, get the verbatim. I mean, you can’t change minutes and we’re doing the minutes right now and just get the verbatim words of what we said that night, ah, to his question when we answered it. But that’s separate from the minutes. The minutes as are stated right now are correct. I’m OK with it."

Mayor Wilson: "The minutes are correct but I would like the, um, added, um, the added, ah, verbiage to the minutes. Um, I know that I am not speaking for anyone but myself with this. I stated that I understood this and I agreed with it. But this also can be, ah, brought up when we go through the process."

City Clerk: "Would you prefer that I bring revised minutes at the next meeting?"

Mayor Wilson: "Yes."

Vice Mayor Rowley: "And I don’t have a problem with, um, stating for the record, if you need to do that."

Mayor Wilson: "Cm. Livingstone."

Cm. Livingstone: "I have a change to, to the minutes. Ah, it’s on page 10 of 14, line 40. Um, it says ah ‘He remarked that the only phone calls which he received regarding any zoning issues were five calls against the RV proposal.’ That is incorrect. They were supporting the proposal. However, they thought that it wasn’t strong enough as it was."

Mayor Wilson: "So, at our, ah, next City Council meeting we will have the revised minutes to evaluate at that particular time. All right. Thank you. So noted."

David Kushner: "The overlay zoning designation, as I understand it, does not allow for any additional type of use other than that of a golf course. I would like to commend the staff for trying to clarify the information that we’ve received. After discussing this with my neighbors, I came to the conclusion that the GCO did not allow further development. However, I received a flyer a few weeks back and unfortunately, my schedule did not allow me to appear before either this board or the Planning Commission to express my concerns.

I’d like to ask each member of this Council, prior to taking a vote on this issue, if you would please state affirmatively for the record that your understanding of this zoning change does not allow the golf courses to be used for anything other than a golf course. And I’d like to also ask that you state affirmatively for the record that during your term of office, you will not allow or approve any zoning change that would allow our golf courses to be used for anything other than that of a golf course. Thank you very much for your consideration."

Mayor Wilson: "Thank you very much. Any comments or clarification at this time. I believe that. Any other golf course? Next item please."

Mayor Wilson: "Next. Golf course. There is. So that we can just set the stage for this. I think, um, Mr., um, Kushner, made a statement at the very beginning and it was made last, at two weeks ago, by a resident from the, um, Canyon Lakes Golf Course. He says ‘I’m a plumber, I don’t understand this. All I care, one thing. Are you going to build homes on that or not? That’s what I need to know.’ I think that every single person and everyone will speak for themselves. Um, Mr. Kushner is still here. There are two questions that you wanted us to respond to. Would you mind restating that, those two? Would you come to the microphone please."

Cm. Perkins: "We’re recording it."

David Kushner: "The first was to ask each of you to state affirmatively for the record that it is your understanding the zoning changes before you do not allow development or other uses of our golf courses and you have no intention, during your term in office, to allow development or other use of our golf courses under this plan."

Cm. Hudson: "I’m going to assume he means developing houses?"

Mr. Kushner: "Other uses period. I mean if you put, if you put, Commercial Recreation on there, some one could put a log flume out there on one of those golf courses. OK? I mean there’s all kinds of other recreational use that could be used there. We want them kept as open space. Nothing built on them. Keep them natural. It’s nice to see coyotes running across there in the evening as much as they may take some of our cats and dogs. OK. They are a natural wildlife refuge as well."

Mayor Wilson: "Alright, thank you. I want to make sure that everyone understood that, um, and we’ll address that at the end. Mr. Hudson would you like to comment?"

Cm. Hudson: "Boy, I hate to answer him right off the bat but it is better to do. Probably the dumbest thing in the world that you can do is to make a statement that ‘No I would never vote for any development’ because it takes you out of the vote according to our ethics class but I have already voted against housing on a golf course. I’m going to also assume that you did not mean that they can’t make improvements. You’re just talking about a change in development, a water slide instead of a golf course or something like that. I have no desire to support any of that kind of stuff. I am going to make the same statement probably five times in my speech. It’s a golf course. It’s a golf course. It’s a golf course. It’s been a golf course, it is going to be a golf course. It’s a golf course. Um. (Additional text on the General Plan process.) I have no intention of changing either golf course."

Cm. Livingstone: (Additional comments relating to the golf course.) "I am prepared tonight to vote for this the way it is. But I would like to get consensus to direct staff to, um, later on this year, I know we are looking at another plan amendment maybe in the Dougherty Valley, and, ah, that we change the plan designation on this to golf course and come up with the specifics for it and solve everybody’s problem. Because, I’m a golfer. Dave’s a golfer. And there has never been any intention of anybody here, that I’m aware of, to ever have it anything but a golf course. This particular issue got blown way out of proportion. So, I am prepared to support the existing recommendation on zoning for the golf course overlay and hopefully get three more Council people to back me in changing the…"

Mayor Wilson: "Yes, Ms. Rowley."

Vice Mayor Rowley: "I back Mr. Livingstone. Thank you."

Mayor Wilson: "You know it’s then, well um, because of the Brown Act violation, I could not and would not, um, Mr., um, Perkins and I had a conversation, ah, during the meeting in the room back there, just the two of us, so it wasn’t a violation, and did not know what Mr. Livingston was going to propose, Livingstone was going to propose. So, Mr. Perkins."

Cm. Perkins: "Mr. Livingstone, thank you very much for stealing my thunder. I

actually, I recognize that once one gets attached to a position, it is very very hard to back down. But I’ve come to the realization that, um, I think Roz is right. There’s much ado about nothing. It’s a tempest in a teapot. So, while I am going to support the Zoning Ordinance, so that we can make progress and, and, get it moved on, I’m also going to ask staff to prepare a General Plan amendment to create a land use designation, call it what you want, call it ‘golf course’, create, create a land use designation for the General Plan that will create a, an entity that looks like, feels like, sounds like a golf course, and, at the same time, prepare a zoning ordinance update that will designate Royal Vista or San Ramon. What are we calling it? Canyon Lakes and San Ramon Golf Course would be designated as ‘golf course’. Um, this will provide the, um, protection that the residents have been begging for. While the other plan, I, I honestly believe that the previous plan would have provided sufficient protection for the long term, there is no plan to build, I, and I believe that the, while Mr. Hudson is exactly right, it’s not appropriate for us to prejudge an item that may come before the Council, in fact I believe that’s a violation of, um, our ethics that we can not prejudge any vote. I believe that all of us will support, um, golf course as that, that use. So, I support Mr. Livingstone’s proposal to adopt the current proposed, ah, land use designation of CR with golf course overlay and then within just a matter of weeks or months, um, that the staff bring to the Council a General Plan Amendment with a land use designation for golf course and a zoning ordinance amendment with a, with a golf course, ah, land, ah, zone.

Cm. Hudson: "I second it with one amendment."

Mayor Wilson: "No, wait, I have to give a few seconds and then you can second it."

Cm. Hudson: "Can I throw one in before I forget about it? In, what I believe was a motion, if you change it too, it has to go to the Planning Commission for three meetings. OK"

Cm. Perkins: " Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. It has to go through the normal process of three meetings, three meetings, 4/5 vote, 4/5 vote. But I’d like the staff to prepare the appropriate, ah, ordinance and amendment revisions and bring it to the Council and the Planning Commission as soon as possible."

Mayor Wilson: "Alright. We’ll take a second to. Again. This is um. This process has been going on and from the first moment that this Council sat down, we have always been in favor, not deviating at all, to make these properties remain a golf course. It is unfortunate that residents in this community did not understand. But again, it’s on us, to make sure residents understand and we can only go through that by having this process to hearing from residents and your concerns. That I thank you for. What I am still concerned about and, after we take the vote, is we have to find a way to make sure, regardless of what it is, that everyone is properly notified. So that you can respond to this. That’s imperative. And I assure you the Landscape and Lighting is, um, what, the way that we will follow so that everyone can come and respond. We’re here to serve you." "We work for you and no one else." "Everyone on this Council votes the way that they feel that will benefit the City of San Ramon."