A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was held December 11, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the San Ramon Community Center, 12501 Alcosta Boulevard, with Mayor Wilson presiding.

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

STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Herb Moniz, City Attorney Byron Athan, Police Chief Scott Holder, Engineering Services Director Joye Fukuda, Transportation Division Manager Lisa Bobadilla, Associate Engineer-Transportation Mike Talley, Officer David Heinbaugh, Senior Planner Lauren Barr, Planning Services Division Manager Debbie Chamberlain, and City Clerk Patricia Edwards.

* * * *

At 6:33 p.m., the Council met in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code: (1) §54956.9 (a) for City Council to meet with City Attorney regarding existing litigation:

Sierra Club v. City of San Ramon, et al; and (3) §54956.9 (a) for City Council to meet with City Attorney regarding existing litigation: East Bay Regional Park District v. City of San Ramon et al; and (3) §54956.9 (a) for City Council to meet with City Attorney regarding existing litigation: City of San Ramon v. Doug Burr.

At 7:09 p.m., Mayor Wilson reconvened the meeting. All Councilmembers were in attendance. Mayor Wilson reported that no action was taken by the City Council on Closed Session items 1, 2 and 3.

* * * *

Members of the Dougherty Valley High School Golf Team led the 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 that 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 an Architectural Review Board meeting is scheduled for December 13, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. A Zoning Administrator meeting is scheduled for December 13, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.

* * * *

Mayor Wilson recognized the members of the Dougherty Valley High School Golf Team: Camille Armas, Monica Chenglo, Tiffany Gee, Amanda Ignacio, Jamie Kwon, Nicole Marcell, Rashi Ojha, Natashia Soen, and Coach Jacque Bowman. Mayor Wilson presented each team member with a certificate. He introduced Principal Denise Hibbard. Coach Bowman announced that the Golf Team is the first team at Dougherty Valley High School (DVHS) to win a varsity victory. Mayor Wilson announced that the members of the Golf Team have the highest GPA of all of the sports players at DVHS.

Engineering Services Director Joye Fukuda introduced Moustefa Kendroud, an 18 year City employee. Mr. Kendroud was responsible for the recently completed Crow Canyon Corridor Project. He is being recognized for his work on the Forest Home Farms Guest House Renovation project. He completed the plans and specifications, engineer calculations, permits so that the project was bid within the authorized budget.

Mayor Wilson presented Mr. Kendroud with a certificate and a gold star and thanked him for his outstanding efforts. Mr. Kendroud thanked Jeff Eorio, Parks and Community Services Director, for the nomination and staff for allowing him to shift work assignments so that he was able to complete this project on time and under bid.

* * * *

* * * *

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

Jim Gibbon, resident, requested that any solution to the City’s litigation with the Sierra Club and the East Bay Regional Parks District which involves the Las Trampas ridge and which substantially changes the ridge development be presented for public comment and approval, Planning Commission review, and City Council approval.

James Jardine, resident, reported on a bombing incident which occurred at his home. He expressed frustration with the actions of the San Ramon Police Department. He provided a letter to the Council for their review which summarized the events.

Roz Rogoff, resident, reported that the Tri Valley Animal Rescue is looking for volunteers. She encouraged residents to adopt an available animal, volunteer at the shelter, or volunteer as a foster care giver.

* * * *

Cm. Rowley’s motion to approve the November 27, 2007 minutes was seconded by Cm. Perkins and passed 5-0.

* * * *

(#8.1) Resolution No. 2007-199 – Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Contra Costa Community College District and Acorn Learning Center for the Maintenance of the Easement Areas at Dougherty Valley Village Center.

(#8.2) Resolution No. 2007-200 – Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement with Bashir Anastas for Project Management Services in an Amount not to Exceed $30,000 and for a Time Extension from December 31, 2007 to September 30, 2008.

(#8.3) Resolution No. 2007-201 – Ordering the District Engineer to Prepare and File an Engineer's Report for the Annexation of the Silva Property (Windemere BLC Land Company) into the Geologic Hazard Abatement District 1990-01.

(#8.4) Resolution No. 2007-203 – Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with Bruce Carone Grading & Paving, Inc. for the Construction of Annual Pavement Repair Stop Gap Project (CIP 5473) in an Amount not to Exceed $164,500.

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

* * * *

Lisa Bobadilla, Transportation Division Manager, presented the report and reviewed the responses to the issues identified at the November 27, 2007 Council meeting. She stated that if the posted speed limit is not supported by an Engineering and Traffic Survey, it is deemed to be a speed trap and the Police Department would not be allowed to use radar.

Ms. Bobadilla noted that all school zones begin 500’ from the school’s property line and extend around the entire perimeter of the school. School zones are exempt from the requirement to conduct an Engineering and Traffic Survey. The speed limit for posted school zones is always 25 mph and is in effect only when children are present. Cm. Perkins asked if 500’ is the maximum distance. Ms. Bobadilla responded that, effective January 1, 2008, California law allows a 1,000’ perimeter. Mayor Wilson asked if parks near schools are included in the 25 mph limit. Ms. Bobadilla stated that the City can adopt an ordinance to include parks located near schools in the 25 mph speed limit.

Ms. Bobadilla reviewed the school crossing guard program, a comprehensive and collaborative effort between the City and the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, and the responsibilities of each agency.

Cm. Perkins noted that 19 intersections currently have or will have traffic signals by the end of 2008 and that an additional two intersections may also have traffic lights at the completion of the Dougherty Valley build out.

In response to the report of overgrown vegetation, the Public Services Department did an inspection for all sign clearances on Albion, East Branch, Harcourt and Windemere Parkway. Staff pruned and removed trees to ensure a 150’ visibility for all signs.

Ms. Bobadilla reviewed the Phase I mitigation plan which includes the installation of: school zones signs, speed limit signs, school crossing signs, pedestrian crossing signs, repainting of pavements markings, new pavement markings, pedestrian countdown signal heads, traffic signals and vegetation trimming. The City will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the Phase I mitigation plan. Based on the evaluation of the effectiveness of Phase I, the City may launch a Phase II mitigation plan which would entail the installation of additional mitigation measures at those locations that meet warrant criteria, such as school crossing flashing beacons and/or Radar Speed Display Signs.

Cm. Perkins requested that staff research the requirements to implement a 25 mph speed school within 1,000’ of a school property.

Mayor Wilson opened the public comment.

Doug Burr, resident, requested that the Council deny approval of Ordinance 399. He stated that two key points need to be addressed. First, the 25 mph school zone speed limit only applies when children are present or expected to be present so it is enforced for very limited times during the day. Secondly, he disagreed with the City’s method of using the Traffic Study and enforcing the 85^th percentile for establishing speed limits. City councils in other cities, such as San Francisco and Menlo Park, employ traffic calming measures to lower speed limits and he suggested that they be used in San Ramon. He requested that the Council deny or delay this ordinance and direct the Transportation Department to review other alternatives to the 85^th percentile, work with the residents, reevaluate the data, and propose a better solution to the speed limit issues.

Mayor Wilson closed the public comment.

Cm. Perkins requested an explanation of the operation of timed versus on demand traffic signals in a suburban area. Associate Engineer-Transportation Mike Talley explained that synchronization allows for the coordination of traffic and allows traffic to proceed without stopping. On demand signals operate outside of coordinated hours and operate on actuation by vehicles. Cm. Perkins asked if traffic signals could be timed for a specific speed limit. Mr. Talley responded that all coordination plans have an associated design speed. Lights can be programmed to stay green if there is no cross traffic. Cm. Perkins asked it traffic lights could be timed so that cars could not exceed a timed speed limit. Mr. Talley responded that the speed can be controlled but to a limited extent.

Vice Mayor Livingstone asked if the traffic light sequence can be changed to accommodate morning and evening traffic. Mr. Talley replied that it depends on spacing and the traffic flow in both directions. Lights are timed to favor the direction of heavier traffic flow and changes are made based on traffic patterns and the time of day.

Cm. Perkins asked if the City could use radar to enforce speed limits if the Ordinance is not adopted. Officer David Heinbaugh responded that radar could only be used in the 25 mph school zones. Cm. Rowley asked how cities enforce speed limits set below the 85^th percentile. Ms. Bobadilla replied that cities with established ‘political speed limits’ which are below the 85^th percentile have difficulty enforcing these speed limits.

Mayor Wilson noted that San Ramon has many playgrounds near schools and asked how the 25 mph speed limit could be enforced during non-school hours. Ms. Bobadilla responded that, if the City adopts the applicable ordinance, the California Vehicle Code allows cities to establish 25 mph speed zones near play areas or parks where children are present. She stated that staff will research this issue, present their findings to the Policy Committee, and then to the City Council for their review. Mayor Wilson stated the safety of children is a number one priority for San Ramon.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt Ordinance No. 399 was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Mayor Wilson requested a break at 8:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with all Councilmembers in attendance.

* * * *

Mayor Wilson reviewed the appeal procedures.

Lauren Barr, Senior Planner, provided a brief overview of the Project, its components, outreach efforts, and approval history. The grounds cited by the John Nunes appeal, which was filed by MR Wolfe and Associates, are that the Planning Commission’s (PC) determination that the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) fulfilled the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was not in compliance with CEQA and that the PC’s decision to certify the SEIR and approve the related Project entitlements is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Mr. Barr stated that the record of decision and Final SEIR contain extensive analysis and provided the basis for the PC’s certification of the Final SEIR and related Project approvals. Mr. Barr added that the grounds for the appeal are general and do not provide sufficient detail to sustain an appeal.

John Farral, representing MR Wolfe and Associates, noted that a subsequent letter documented specific failings in the EIR. These included: traffic analysis; failure to mitigate traffic to the freeway; air quality analysis; water supply analysis; and the failure to do an adequate urban decay analysis. The urban decay analysis did not consider the possibility that the Project could be used for a ‘super’ store and, if so, would have required mitigation. He proposed that the Project’s conditions of approval include a ban on super stores. Cm. Hudson asked if Mr. Farral’s request was specific to the City Center Project. Mr. Farral responded that it was.

Mayor Wilson opened the public hearing.

Michael DiGeronimo, resident, stated his full support for the Project and requested that staff prepare a response to the letter from MR Wolfe and Associates.

Stuart Flashman, representing San Ramon for Open Government, stated that big box retail was not included in the EIR. This omission is of concern because of the urban decay and traffic impacts. If big box retail is included, a supplemental EIR would need to be provided to include traffic mitigation measures. He stated that the water supply analysis was inadequate and that the water supply for this Project is not secure.

Larry Blair, resident, stated that the City’s landscaping is well planned. His family supports and utilizes City facilities. He supports the City Center because it will provide a convenient central location for shopping, entertainment, recreation and to meet friends.

Bill Clarkson, president of the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce, supports the Project. He recognized the work of City staff on the Project.

Carolyn Degnan, President of the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce, stated that there has been overwhelming positive support for the Project. She urged the Council to go forward because the City Center Project will benefit the economy and the community.

Karie Geiger, Director of Sales for the Tri-Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, supports the City Center Project. It will contribute to the revitalization of San Ramon and the Tri-Valley region by providing dining, shopping, entertainment, and accommodation opportunities. She wished the City and Sunset Development success with the Project.

Ron Johnson, resident and small business owner, stated the City Center plan presents good diversity. He urged the Council to support the Project.

Laura O’Brien, small business owner in Bishop Ranch 2, supports the Project even though she will have to relocate. She anticipates that it will bring tax revenue and new business opportunities to the City.

Dana Tsubota, chair of the San Ramon Housing Advisory Committee, expressed the Committee’s support for the Project and its affordable housing element. The Committee supports the Project’s design and the proximity of work and housing.

Linda Best, representing the Contra Costa Council and the East Bay Workforce Housing Coalition, urged the Council to deny both appeals. The Project as an example of smart growth as it includes affordable housing, will provide jobs, and includes a Transit Center.

John Dickenson, resident and member of the Economic Development Advisory Committee, stated that smart growth is the most important thing that cities can do for the environment in light of global warming. The Project is an example of true mixed use in providing public and civic aspects, retail, entertainment, and housing. He urged the Council to deny the appeal and support the Project.

Mary Lou Oliver, resident, read a letter from Diane and Don Schinnerer stating that "our self-appointed NIMBY representatives have once again appealed a well thought out project that has gone through many public hearings… It appears that, because lawsuits are so expensive, suing every development and having the city settle for undisclosed sums has become a fund raiser for many numerous on-paper organizations…. Lawsuits are settled out of court because the process costs so much to see it through a court decision…. Those of us aware of this ploy are resentful and have no way to stop this charade. We urge you to deny this appeal."

Ms. Oliver remarked that there are some individuals who file an appeal or sue if the governing bodies don’t rule in their favor. Those who sue expect to delay things until they get a substantial settlement. She viewed this practice as a form of extortion. The end result is costly delays, legal expenses, and increased costs for the city. The City Center project is the culmination of countless hours of hearings, staff work, and citizen committees. She urged the Council to deny the appeal and uphold the PC’s approval of the Final SEIR and related Project entitlements. She noted that an earlier attempt by Wal-Mart and another big box store to locate in San Ramon were unsuccessful and does not anticipate that this will be a consideration for the current City Center Project.

Paul Desmarais, resident, expressed concern about the way the City is engaged with the developer on the City Center Project. He stated that the General Plan 2020 describes the city center as a civic center, smaller restaurants, café, retail establishments and an outdoor public plaza on the 11 acre parcel. The current proposal devotes less than 10% of the Project devoted to civic uses and so does not comply with the city center guidelines identified in the General Plan. Without information on the financials, it is not possible to determine if this Project is financially feasible. He added that the PC did not consider building heights, community access, and the loss of civic property for use as housing and retail. He asked if there were requirements for the affordable housing residents to work in San Ramon. He believes that this Project will contribute to the deterioration of the quality of life in the City. He does not believe that the City Council is listening to residents’ comments regarding traffic, bike riding, public safety, etc. he added that there is no easy access from the Community Center to the City Center. He does not support the proposed freeway off ramp at Norris Canyon. He wants the Council to make sure that the public has the right to speak and to get accurate information.

Neal Watts, resident, supports the City Center Project as the benefits to the future of San Ramon are numerous and far reaching.

Pat Boom, resident, supports the Project and urged the Council to deny both appeals.

Ivan Dimchiff, resident, stated that the comments made by the Project’s opponents are too vague and did not declare in detail their objections to the Project. He added that the EIR is complete and this Project must move forward.

Jim Hansen, resident, stated that he served on the City Center Task Force and that it was never intended to be a ‘civic’ center. He added that the City Center will enhance pedestrian traffic and use of the Iron Horse Trail. He expressed his strong support for the City Center and asked the Council to deny the appeals.

Roz Rogoff, resident, questioned the procedure for adding a restriction regarding a big box store into the Conditions of Approval.

City Manager Herb Moniz addressed both appeals and stated that, as a co-applicant, the City Center design captures the essence of what residents want in a downtown. The Final SEIR and the response to comments address all of the Project concerns raised by the appellants. Staff and Sunset Development held many public and community meetings and received an overwhelming positive response to the Project. Staff, Sunset Development, and the City are listening to the majority of the residents. He believes that the Project will deliver the facilities promised to the residents, pay for itself, sustain itself, and add to the quality of life in San Ramon. This Project meets all of the economic development goals of the Economic Development Strategic Plan, creates a gathering place, keeps our sales tax dollars in the City, and delivers City facilities. The City Center concept was developed by staff and Sunset Development and is not being thrust upon the City by outside developers who do not have a stake in the City.

Alex Mehran, President of Sunset Development, thanked the people who attended the meeting to voice their opinions. In the 2 ½ years they have been working to develop the plan, community input was sought and considered. Mr. Mehran stated that the Project will benefit the daytime residents of Bishop Ranch, the citizens, and the Tri-Valley community. He noted that the appeals are vague and ambiguous. He stated that Sunset Development will stand shoulder to shoulder with the City to make this Project a reality.

There were no additional comments from the appellant.

Mayor Wilson closed the public hearing.

Cm. Hudson stated that the basic question is the adequacy of the EIR. He remarked that the question is not if you like the answers but whether or not the EIR addressed the issues. He noted that no new comments were raised and that there are no unresolved issues with traffic, air quality, water supply, noise, land use, and urban decay. This Project demonstrates smart growth and he was surprised by the lack of support from the environmentalist community.

Cm. Perkins thanked John Dickenson for his comments and for his proposal on "How to Develop a City Center". Cm. Perkins responded to several statements made during the public hearing. He disputed the comment that 10% of the Project for civic uses was not adequate and believes that the 110,000 square feet City Hall will allow for 10-15 years of future growth. He stated that financials can not be provided until the appeals are handled and the design is finalized. The current plan does not require a bond issue, parcel tax, or the use of General Fund reserves or sources and the Project will be self-supporting. The City can not require that affordable housing residents work in the City. He supports a Condition of Approval that addresses a big box store. EBMUD has stated that they can provide water for the Project. He added that listening to residents does not mean that he will always agree with their points of view. In talking with 1,000 residents, he reported that approximately 10 did not support the Project. He noted that the traffic issue has been analyzed and that this Project is expected to improve traffic at three intersections. The Project will be managed by Sunset Development except for City Hall.

Cm. Rowley stated that she has been very active in the community and that this City Center Project is exactly what the City wants and needs at this time.

Vice Mayor Livingstone expressed concern that the environmentalists were not available to support the City’s smart growth plans. He added that some people are against the project regardless of what it is.

Mayor Wilson requested clarification of the procedure to change the Conditions of Approval. Debbie Chamberlain, Division Manager Planning Services, stated that, with the Council’s approval, the Condition of Approval concerning super stores recommended by Mr. Farral can be included and does not need to be reviewed by the PC. She stated that consultants were available to respond to the issues raised in the MR Wolfe letter.

Cm. Hudson noted that ramp metering study is a regional transportation issue and that an individual city can not address this option for traffic mitigation. He does not support parking fees as a traffic mitigation measure.

Dennis Struecker, DMJM Harris, responded to four traffic issues raised in the letter from MR Wolfe. He noted that the 328,000 square feet was previously approved in the Chevron project and so was not included in the City Center Project. The plan line for Bollinger Canyon was set years ago and established the left lane storage to accommodate the left hand turn lanes. A queuing change was recommended to reflect current traffic trends. The Project will impact the freeway but it can not widen the freeway. If the freeway was wider in both directions, the freeway ramp impacts would not exist. Although auxiliary lanes could mitigate the impact, there is no mechanism to put those lanes in place so this was not proposed as a mitigation measure. He stated that congestion pricing or parking fees are not appropriate for a single project but believes that congestion parking will happen on a subregional basis.

Grant Gruber, Michael Brandman Associates, addressed the air quality comments. The MR Wolfe letter takes issue with the constructional, operational and green house gas emission analyses. After consulting with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the BAAQMD comments were included in the mitigation measures for construction, operational and green house gas emissions. BAAQMD did not believe that a health risk assessment was necessary so none was prepared. Mr. Gruber added that naturally occurring asbestos is not a problem in San Ramon, therefore it was not mitigated. Operational emission mitigation was addressed per BAAQMD guidance. CEQA requires that Project impacts, not existing conditions, be addressed. Carbon monoxide hot spots already exist on the freeway and this Project would not make them worse. Comments regarding General Plan consistency were provided in the Land Use Section not the Air Quality Section. He noted that there are no current regulations on how to analyze green house gas emissions in an EIR. In the absence of guidance, they provided mitigation measures and acknowledged that there would be a net increase in green house gas emissions and a significant unavoidable impact.

Jim Brezack, Planning Manager for Water Resources for RBF Consulting, addressed the water issues. He coordinated with EBMUD on the water supply assessment. EBMUD requires the use of recycled water and a variety of water conservation measures. EBMUD provided the City with a water supply assessment and a water demand analysis

for the Project. The Project’s water demand projections are consistent with EBMUD’s demand projections including densification and land use changes. The data reflect the latest actual and forecasted water demand. The City Center Project will not change EBMUD’s 2030 Demand Projection.

Cm. Hudson made a motion that the Nunes appeal be denied and by that denial the City Council on the basis of Substantial Evidence intends to certify the San Ramon City Center Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. This motion also incorporates the two additional Conditions. Condition #1 states that "No superstore, defines as a retail establishment greater than 75,000 square feet devoting more than 10 percent of its sales floor area to the sale on non-taxable merchandise, shall be permitted to occupy the commercial retail component of the Project. In the event a superstore seeks to occupy the commercial retail component of the Project in the future, subsequent or supplemental environmental review under Public resources Code Section 21166 shall be undertaken, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council shall occur, prior to any consideration or approval of such use". Condition #2 states that " At this time, because final architectural and engineering design has not yet been completed, the feasibility of and/or extent of using the following energy conservation measures is uncertain: photovoltaic solar panels; solar hot water systems; lights that switch off when ambient lighting is sufficient. Prior to issuing building permits, the City shall determine whether it is feasible to incorporate these energy conservation measures into the Project, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors, and require that the project incorporate such measures o the extent feasible". The motion with amendments was seconded by Cm. Perkins. Mayor Wilson requested that the Project co-applicants concur with the motion and amendments. Mr. Moniz and Mr. Mehran concurred. Mayor Wilson requested a roll call vote. The vote was 5-0 in support of the motion.

The staff report was given by Lauren Barr, Senior Planner. He reviewed the grounds for appeal cited by Jim Gibbon representing San Ramon for Open Government (SROG). The grounds for the appeal include concerns regarding: traffic; General Plan compliance; public safety; growth inducement; constraints on the City use component; effect on nearby wetlands and habitat; lack of park land/open space dedication; hidden costs to City residents and view degradation. Staff stated that the Final SEIR provides detailed information about project impacts and proposed mitigation on the concerns raised by Mr. Gibbon. The appeal references two PC Resolutions recommending City Council approval of Project related development agreements. Mr. Barr noted that the PC resolutions are only recommendations to the Council and are not pertinent to an appeal.

Jim Gibbon, appellant, noted that the traffic analysis does not consider future impacts such as the developments in Tassajara and Dublin. He stated that the City changed the Project’s zoning to mixed-use which does not comply with the General Plan’s original designation for the 11 acres. The changes in density increased the value of the land from $12 million to $60-80 million. He expressed concern about public safety. He requested that the library be located closer to the San Ramon Community Center. He questioned what will become of the current Transit Center. He added that the impact of the Project on the wetlands along the Iron Horse Trail were not addressed. He noted that the General Plan requires 6.5 acres of open space and noted that no dedicated open space is provided in this Project. Although affordable housing is proposed, it will only account for 15% of the housing. He noted that there is no vested map for this part of the Project. The height of the eight story buildings will contribute to view degradation to the west. He noted that the PC held three hearings and extended their comment period to accommodate public input. He believes that this Project has been a ‘done deal’ since February 2007. He requested information on the Project’s financials.

Cm. Perkins asked if the SROG meetings are opened to the public and when the next meeting is scheduled. Mr. Gibbon replied that membership is open and that he invites the attendees. Cm. Perkins asked if membership was open to the public. Mr. Gibbon said that people can join by going to the website. He described the group is a loose ad hoc committee consisting of people who think that San Ramon’s government is closed.

* * * *

At 10:48 p.m., Mayor Wilson requested a recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:55 p.m. with all Councilmembers in attendance.

* * * *

Stuart Flashman, an attorney representing SROG, discussed the nature of the Project. There are other Bay Area projects which do a better job of mixed use and being ‘green’. He complimented the Council for adding the Condition regarding solar panels. He asked that the Council consider adding Conditions regarding traffic options and requested that the Project be conditioned to participate in congestion pricing and pay for parking should they become available in the future.

Jim Blickenstaff, resident, stated that the basis for the appeal is the array of comments on the draft SEIR. The EIR is weak and probably inadequate because it is a subsequent EIR rather than a new EIR. A SEIR is not acceptable because this Project is very different from the project on which original EIR was developed. He stated that growth inducing aspect were not realized in the SEIR. He wants an understanding of the mitigation measures in terms of what it will mean to the City. The EIR should address the long term impacts and the ripple effects. Substituting in-lieu fees for park land is a fundamental change in the City’s direction. The Project is not consistent with San Ramon’s family oriented attitude. The City needs a plan that gives residents a sense of participation and ownership. He believes that the resident stake holders were not involved in the process to develop the plan. He believes that the citizens need to have a financial stake in the project. He wants an alternative plan that is pedestrian friendly and generates less traffic. General Plan with regards to more civic uses, limits building heights to five stories, connects more park land to Central Park, and tackles traffic.

Mayor Wilson opened the public hearing.

Pat Boom, resident, stated that she does not agree with the comments made by Mr. Gibbon, Mr. Flashman or Mr. Blickenstaff. She agrees with the pedestrian over-crossing on Bollinger and asked the Council to consider this feature. She has been astounded by people’s positive comments to the Project and requested that the Council deny the appeal.

Mary Lou Oliver, resident, reiterated her support for denial of the appeal.

Linda Best, representing the Contra Costa Council and the East Bay Workforce Housing Coalition, urged the Council to deny the appeal and approve the Project.

John Dickenson, resident, stated that he does not support the appeal.

Roz Rogoff, resident, said she is puzzled by comments that the Project does not have open space. She agreed that a method needs to be developed to safely cross Bollinger Canyon. She preferred that the Library be located closer to the Community Center or to Central Park but noted no other problems with the proposed Project.

Jim Hansen, resident, does not support the appeal.

Toby Brink, president of the Tri-Valley Business Council (TVBC), stated that the City Center Project is consistent with the values presented in the TVBC’s Vision 2010 Report. It provides economic vitality, vibrant centers and connected neighborhoods, housing, and regional mobility. He asked the Council to reject the appeal.

* * * *

At 11:30 p.m., Cm. Hudson’s motion to extend the meeting until midnight was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Paul Desmarais, resident, stated his concerns regarding: safety when crossing Bollinger Canyon; the Project’s compliance with the civic uses identified in the General Plan 2020; the partnership between the City and a private entity; traffic; and whether the Council is listening to both sides of the discussion. He asked whether the City or the private entity would have the final say in settling disputes.

Donna Kerger, resident, stated that the City Center presents the opportunity for San Ramon to give purpose and meaning to the community. She asked the Council to deny the appeal.

Dennis Viers, chair of the Planning Commission, stated that the General Plan Commission involved over 100 meetings and 18 months of work. He clarified the difference between a General Plan and a Specific Plan. He stated that the Project does fall within the scope of the General Plan. He reviewed the meetings held by the Planning Commission. He stated that the Project’s payoff is worth the additional traffic. He noted that the Project’s in-lieu park fees are designated specifically to create new parks or to renovate existing parks. Housing in-lieu fees are not absorbed in the General Fund. Affordable housing is an important component of smart growth for this Project.

He noted that the Planning Commission discussed the Project at five meetings and the building height issue was discussed during those meetings. He stated that the Planning Commission is a land use decision making body and makes planning, not financial, decisions. The Project contains every element of smart growth. He noted that the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transit Commission support the Project. The Project was designated as a priority development area in November 2007 because of its smart growth elements. He stated that it has been a long, arduous process and added that the Planning Commission did its job properly. He requested that the Council deny the appeal and approve the Project.

Douglas Graver, resident, stated that the Project looks more like a ‘commercial’ than a ‘civic’ operation. Comments by the opposition have not been addressed. He requested that the Project include "green buildings" and LEED certification as was proposed in previous plans. He requested the addition of bike lanes on Bollinger Canyon. He supports the Bollinger overcrossing and asked the Council to consider the appeal.

Cm. Perkins asked Jim Blickensatff if he was familiar with the Sierra "Club’s Good Development Criteria". Mr. Blickenstaff said that he was.

City Clerk Patricia Edwards read two letters into the public record. A letter dated December 10, 2007 from Stuart Flashman, written on behalf of SROG, stated that the PC’s certification of the EIR and approvals for the Project violated the CEQA and the General Plan by not complying with the requirements for park and open space. The City violated CEQA by failing to consult with Central Contra Costa Transit Authority prior to release of the Draft EIR. The EIR failed to adequately address the Project’s significant impacts, failed to adopt feasible mitigation measures and consider a reasonable range of alternatives that could avoid or reduce the severity of impacts, and failed to adequately respond to comments received.

A (December 11, 2007) letter from Rick Ramacier, General Manager of the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA), stated that his agency was consulted on a number of occasions. CCCTA considers that it has been adequately consulted about the transit center during the environmental review process and the initial design planning and they take exception to Mr. Flashman’s comments that they were not consulted.

Mayor Wilson closed the public hearing.

* * * *

At 11:50 p.m. Cm. Hudson’s motion to extend the meeting until 12:30 a.m. was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Debbie Chamberlain, Division Manager Planning Services, stated that staff asked that the responses mentioned in item 10.1 be added to the record for item 10.2 for the issues raised that were similar to item 10.1. Staff proposed another Condition of Approval concerning congestion pricing for Council consideration. The proposed Condition would state that "If at some point in the future, congestion pricing and or pay for parking are implemented on a regional basis throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties, including Walnut Creek, Dublin and Pleasanton, on comparable private retail and office projects of a similar size, than the City shall require comparable congestion pricing and or pay for parking for the City Center Project".

Cm. Hudson opposed this Condition and said that congestion pricing should be dealt with by the nineteen cities in the county. Mayor Wilson said that the Council would take a separate vote on this condition if they wished to include it.

Jim Gibbon requested that all of the Project’s buildings be limited to five stories and compatible with Bishop Ranch. He requested a larger civic center and library to accommodate the City’s growth for the next 20 years. The city center should be near the current Community Center and the city center plaza should face the Community Center to establish a true ‘civic’ center. The Project should be half the size that is proposed. He noted that there were five non-mitigated items in the EIR and requested that the Project not be passed until these items were mitigated to less than significant levels. He noted that the final Project proposal did not incorporate citizen input as is substantially the same as what was proposed in February. SROP is appealing to the Council’s sense that they represent the people of San Ramon. He suggested that the residents be given the opportunity to express their views on this Project and requested that it be placed on the ballot. He believes that the Project would look different with citizen input.

Mayor Wilson closed the public hearing.

Ms. Chamberlain reviewed Condition regarding congestion parking. Mr. Moniz stated that it is acceptable to the City if it is acceptable to Sunset Development. Mr. Mehran stated that Sunset Development is open to all serious suggestions. Sunset Development has been a very active proponent of transportation management from the private sector. He supports this amendment if the City Council supports it .

Cm. Rowley’s motion to amend the Conditions of Approval to include a provision regarding congestion parking was seconded by Cm. Perkins and
passed 5-0. Mayor Wilson requested a roll call vote. The vote was 5-0 in support of the motion.

Cm. Perkins responded to the issues raised. He stated that the Project’s traffic counts considered all identified future projects. He stated that the land use is in compliance with the General Plan and that 140 elements are in compliance. The wetlands near Iron Horse Trail will not be affected by the Project. The Project will generate park in lieu fees which the City must use within five years or rebate to the developer. He is disillusioned with the Sierra Club’s policy of lawsuits to delay projects and extort money. The Project incorporates the Sierra Club’s "Good Development Criteria". He supports the pedestrian crossing and requested that staff research the viability, look, cost, and location. He complimented the Planning Commission for their excellent and thorough work and thanked staff and Sunset Development for their work on the Project.

Cm. Rowley stated that San Ramon does work with its neighbors. This is a wonderful Project and a great partnership. She thanked staff, Sunset Development and the Planning Commission.

Cm. Hudson noted that the 1997 city center proposal had three 7 story buildings and that this Project was pulled by the developer. The City Council did not change the FAR. The General Plan Commission changed the height criteria and the residents voted for the Plan. The auxiliary lane between Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon would require getting on the Tri-Valley Transportation’s priority list and would require a unanimous vote from this group which he doubts will happen. The Project does include transportation mitigation. He suggested that the East Bay Regional Park District is the responsible party to deal with the Iron Horse Trail. He noted that project does not exceed the growth inducement projections in the General Plan. He stated that the Final EIR answers all of the questions raised by the appellant.

Vice Mayor Livingstone thanked Mr. Viers for his comments. He noted that three possible locations are being considered for the pedestrian overpass and suggested that an additional location at Sunset be considered. He stated that he has not found anyone who has a significant problem with the Project but that people did express concerns about traffic.

Mayor Wilson thanked staff, the Council and Sunset Development for working to provide this Project. He stated that he expects that the Project will win a Sierra Club award for good planning.

Cm. Perkins’ motion that the City Council has considered the appeal of the City Center Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and related Project approvals by the San Ramon for Open Government and finds that the appeal is without merit and accordingly adopts Resolution 2007-205 denying said appeal with the congestion management amendment. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

Debbie Chamberlain, Division Manager Planning Services, stated that there are two more resolutions requiring adoption by the Council, one to recertify the EIR and the other to re-approve the City Center Project.

Cm. Perkins’ motion that the City Council has considered the appeal of the City Center Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and related Project approvals by John Nunes and finds that the appeal is without merit and accordingly adopts Resolution 2007-204 denying said appeal with all three amendments as previously read was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

Cm. Perkins’ motion that the City Council having considered the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Response to Comments document, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and determined said documents to accurately and adequately describe and address the proposed project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and accordingly adopts Resolution 2007-206 certifying the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report based on the required findings set forth by CEQA to be contained therein and upholding the Planning Commission Resolution 12-07 was seconded by Cm. Rowley and passed 5-0.

Cm Perkins’ motion that the City Council having certified the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) through the adoption of Resolution 2007-206 and considered the proposed entitlements for the City Center Mixed Use Project and project findings accordingly, adopt Resolution 2007-207 approving the City Center Mixed Use Project and upholding Planning Commission Resolution 13-07, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program with all three amendments was seconded by Cm. Rowley and passed 5-0.

* * * *

At 12:20 p.m. Cm. Hudson’s motion to extend the meeting for another 30 minutes was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Debbie Chamberlain, Division Manager Planning Services, provided the staff reports for the Third Amendment to the Chevron Park Development Agreement (item 10.3) and the Fifth Amendment to the Bishop Ranch Development Agreement (item 10.4). The amendments to these agreements will allow the City Center Project to proceed in accordance with rules and regulations such as the General Plan, Zoning requirements subject to the Conditions of Approval in place at the time of Project approval and locks in these rules throughout the construction of the Project. Amendments to these agreements do not alter the terms of the underlying agreements or previous amendments.

To ensure that the Project moves forward expeditiously, both agreements require the transfer of ownership of all parcels by January 1, 2010 or the amendments will be terminated. On November 6, 2007, the PC considered both development agreements and found the proposed amendments to the agreements consistent with the General Plan 2020 and recommended the City Council adopt such amendments as presented.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to introduce Ordinance No. XXX (next in line) approving the Development Agreement Amendment (DA 07-850-001) and waive the reading was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

Mayor Wilson opened the public hearing.

Roz Rogoff, resident, asked how Chevron was benefitting from this Development Agreement. Mr. Mehran responded that Chevron is not getting anything.

Jim Gibbon, resident, stated that Chevron is ready to request compensation for losing their parking lot. He expressed concern that the Council would approve a Development Agreement (DA) without providing financials. He is concerned because residents do not know who owns what. He stated that the City is sitting on $60-80 million worth of land and is exchanging it for a building worth only $12 million. State law states that a DA has to be between a public entity and a legal and equitable interest property owner. Sunset Development owns an equitable interest in the 11 and 7 acre parcels. The equitable interest is a repurchase agreement. The residents need the financials so that they will know if they are making or losing money on this deal. He asked if the City will own the City Hall. He asked if a percentage of the sales tax is going back to help the developer. He questioned if the City Manager had the financials. He noted that the Development Agreement is actually three agreements and a tentative map for the 7 acres. He believes that the City is making a bogus statement when it claims that financials are not known.

Jim Blickenstaff remarked that would be premature to move forward with the Project’s Development Agreement while the CEQA document remains inadequate.

Mayor Wilson closed the public hearing.

Cm. Perkins stated that City Hall will be located on a lot currently owned by Sunset Development.

Cm. Perkins’ motion to continue the item to January 8, 2008 was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to introduce Ordinance No. XXX (next in line) approving Development Agreement Amendment DA 07-850-002 and waive the reading was seconded by Cm. Perkins and passed 5-0.

Mayor Wilson opened the public hearing.

The previous comments expressed by Mr. Gibbon and Mr. Blickenstaff for item 10.3 were noted as public comment for item 10.4.

Mayor Wilson closed the public hearing.

Cm. Perkins’ motion to continue the item to January 8, 2008 for adoption was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

Patricia Edwards, City Clerk, noted that the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting falls on Christmas Day. Cm. Perkins’ motion to cancel the December 25, 2007 City Council meeting was seconded by Cm. Rowley and passed 5-0.

* * * *

City Manager Herb Moniz had no comments.

* * * *

Discussion of Support for Metropolitan Transportation Commission to Provide Continued and Expanded Funding to Local Institutions for the Maintenance and Improvement of Streets and Roads

Cm. Hudson requested the Council’s support for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to provide continued and expanded funding to local jurisdictions for the maintenance and improvement of streets and roads. It is important to urge the MTC to cap the amount of regional Surface Transportation Planning funds that are channeled to regional programs at the expense of local streets and roads.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to continue support for the MTC to Provide Continued and Expanded Funding to Local Institutions for the Maintenance and Improvement of Streets and Roads was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Mayor Wilson wished San Ramon residents a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

At 12:39 am, there being no further business, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting.

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

Approved as corrected at the January 8, 2008 City Council meeting, 5-0.