Home City Council Departments Services Calendar Contact Us Search
cherry blossoms in Central Park
San Ramon LogoCity Council Minutes title line

July 10, 2012

A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was held July 10, 2012 at 7:38 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2222 Camino Ramon, Mayor Clarkson presiding. 
PRESENT:  Councilmembers Hudson, Livingstone, O’Loane, Perkins, and Mayor Clarkson.
STAFF PRESENT:  City Manager Greg Rogers, Interim City Attorney Bob Saxe, Police Chief Scott Holder, Interim Parks and Community Services Director Karen McNamara, Senior Planner Lauren Barr, Planning/Community Development Director Phil Wong, Planning Services Division Manager Debbie Chamberlain, and City Clerk Patricia Edwards.

* * * *


Ms. Gayle Larson, Field Representative for Assemblyperson Joan Buchanan, led those present in the pledge of allegiance.   

* * * *


The City Clerk stated that there were no changes or additions to the agenda and that there were no changes or corrections to the meetings listed on the agenda. 

* * * *


(#4.1) Recognition of Jen Dye, Administrative Analyst, as Employee of the Month for July 2012.  Presented by Karen McNamara, Public Services Director. 

Karen McNamara, Interim Parks and Community Services Director, recognized Jen Dye for her work shepherding the three million dollar LED project to an on time completion.  Ms. McNamara presented Ms. Dye with a certificate and gold star.  Ms. Dye stated that she was proud of the work accomplished in Phase I of the LED Project and looks forward to completing Phase II.  She acknowledged the support of Interim City Attorney Bob Saxe and the Public Services Department staff. 

(#4.2) Oral Report on “Celebrate America, Celebrate San Ramon” by Karen McNamara, Interim Parks and Community Services Director. 

Karen McNamara, Interim Parks and Community Services Director, provided a summary of the City’s July 4th events.  More than 900 runners participated in the Run San Ramon Race.  The San Ramon Symphonic Band provided an afternoon concert of patriotic music in Central Park.  Ms. McNamara observed that there was a good connection between the audience and the Band.  Members of Boy Scout Troop 834 did the flag ceremony and the pledge of allegiance.  She stated that the recognition of the veterans in the audience was especially moving.  Information tables were staffed by the Blue Star Moms and the Sentinels of Freedom.  People were able to write messages to servicemen and women.  These notes were placed on a fabric ‘flag’ which will be sent to an overseas post.  The concert by Pride and Joy was very successful.  Although a few people were disappointed because there were no fireworks, staff received comments that the event provided a real community spirit for the Fourth of July.  The event was an overall success.  Police Chief Holder stated that there was almost no police activity in Central Park compared with previous years.  The Police Department received 215 calls for service with only 22 calls for fireworks issues.  He stated that there were no major events. 

Ms. McNamara invited residents who are interested in providing input to help the City plan for future Fourth of July events to attend the Fourth of July Forums scheduled for July 14, 2012 and September 13, 2012.  Mayor Clarkson asked Ms. McNamara to identify City staff for their leadership roles in the Fourth of July events.  Ms. McNamara recognized the Police Department, Jose Gonzalez (traffic control), Brad Morris (race), and Kim Giuliano, Kathi Heimann, and Esther Lucas (for the afternoon events).

* * * *


Donna Kerger, resident, stated that the City’s Fourth of July event was a very moving and great event.  As Planning Commission Chair, she acknowledged retiring Housing Programs Manager Brooke Harris for the outstanding job which she did advocating for affordable housing and the City’s Housing Element.  Ms. Kerger recognized Ms. Harris for her efforts in obtaining $1 million in housing grants during her tenure.  Ms. Kerger stated that Ms. Harris will be truly missed. 

* * * *


* * * *


(#7.1) Minutes of the June 12, 2012 regular meeting.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt the June 12, 2012 regular City Council minutes was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 4-0-0-1.  Cm. Perkins abstained. 

(#7.2) Minutes of the June 26, 2012 regular meeting.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt the June 26, 2012 regular City Council minutes was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.

* * * *


(#8.1) Resolution No. 2012-074 – Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with MCK Services Inc. for the Construction of the Alcosta Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CIP 5549) in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,238,502.

Cm. Hudson recognized efforts of City staff to obtain the funding for this project.  He noted that pavement management projects take years to develop.  Staff initiated the process by filing an application for Federal Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funding in May 2010.  San Ramon competed with nine counties and was successful in securing additional funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 

Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt item 8.1 was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.  Mayor Clarkson thanked Cm. Hudson for recognizing the staff’s efforts.

* * * *

Mayor Clarkson requested that the Council consider item 10.1 prior to item 9.1.  There were no objections from the Councilmembers.

* * * *


(#10.1) Public Hearing: Introduction of Ordinance No. (next in line) Approving the Church on the Hill Development Agreement (DA 09-850-001).

Planning Services Division Manager Debbie Chamberlain provided the report.  The project applicant, First Baptist Church of Dublin-San Ramon, is requesting approval of a Development Agreement (DA) for the property related to the development known as Church on the Hill. The project consist of construction of two duplexes to provide four residential units, a new 400 sq. ft. storage building, a new 1,000 seat church auditorium; and expansion of the existing sanctuary building and the Sterling Building.  The DA would allow the development of this project to proceed in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations subject to the conditions of approval tied to the vesting tentative map, and the development plan and architectural review amended in 2007.  The DA would provide for the future development of the Church on the Hill and assist the City in meeting its affordable housing obligations. The DA includes a term of ten (10) years, with one (1) five (5) year extension at the Council’s discretion.  The Planning Commission considered the DA at their June 19, 2012 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to introduce the Ordinance, waive reading and read by title only was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0. 

Cm. Perkins asked if approval of the DA by the Council includes the two proposed conditions regarding: the payment of eighty-five-thousand dollars ($85,000) to the City as an affordable housing contribution; and that priority be given to Church employees whenever a unit is offered for rent.  Ms. Chamberlain responded that the project was approved in 2007 and has run through all of its extensions.  If the DA is not approved, the entitlements will expire in November 2012.  She stated that the DA does not lock in any of the development impact fees.  Cm. Perkins asked if the terms of the proposed DA are essentially the same as the current DA.  Ms. Chamberlain responded that the project does not currently have a DA but does have a Development Plan Amendment (DPA).  The proposed DA includes all of the conditions of the DPA and adds the in lieu fee of $85,000 for affordable housing.  The DA does not authorize any new construction. 

Vice Mayor Livingstone asked if the City can include the provision to give priority for rental units to Church employees.  Ms. Chamberlain responded that the DA is a contractual obligation between the City and developer.  The developer has agreed to give priority status to their employees.  Interim City Attorney Saxe provided the background for this issue.  He stated that the City does not require employers to provide housing for its employees.  This is a legal concept agreed to and proposed by the applicant and is legal.  Vice Mayor Livingstone expressed concern about the affordability and the process employed when affordable units become available.  Mr. Saxe stated that these are not affordable housing units because the applicant is paying the $85,000 fee in lieu of these being restricted units. 

Mayor Clarkson opened the public hearing.  There were no requests to address this item.  Mayor Clarkson closed the public hearing. 

Cm. Hudson’s motion to set July 24, 2012 for adoption of the Ordinance was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 5-0.


(#9.1) Public Hearing No. 3:  North Camino Ramon Specific Plan (SP 09-800-001) and Related Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010092014).

The staff report was provided by Lauren Barr, Senior Planner.  The report included: an overview of the project; the Conceptual Land Use Plan; the Development Potential Summary; and a review of the issues raised at the June 12, 2012 Public Hearing.  He discussed the changes in the Affordable Housing Flexibility Policy.  He stated that the Affordable Housing is consistent with the General Plan and provides more flexibility.  He reviewed the Housing Alternative (1,124 units), its related impact on traffic and compliance with the General Plan.  He noted that a reduction in office or commercial use would also reduce vehicle trips with a corresponding economic impact.  An increase in the housing units and corresponding population would result in an increase in the cost of City services.  This is not unique to the North Camino Ramon Specific Plan (NCRSP) and occurs for any new development.  The Fiscal Analysis included the commercial and property taxes which were adjusted for the County Tax Sharing Agreement for properties located in Bishop Ranch.  He stated that the break-even point for revenue generated versus cost for City services would be approximately 55% possible retail.  Cm. Hudson noted that transportation funds generated by Measure J are not included.

Mr. Barr noted the addition of the Fiscal Policy (Policy VIS-2.5).  This policy requires an economic analysis for new development projects to demonstrate that the proposed development is consistent with the economic goals of the Specific Plan and the City.   Additional language was added to reevaluate the fiscal analysis of the 1,500 unit maximum and the commercial/retail assumptions for the NCRSP when 1,000 units have been entitled.  The NCRSP Errata includes references to the Tax Share Agreements.  The Errata also includes reference to the Infrastructure Funding Legislation (SB 214). 

Mayor Clarkson opened the public hearing.

Kevin L’Hommedieu, resident and business owner, stated that he has four points.  No information is provided on the Alcosta Extension so it should not be considered in the traffic mitigation analysis.  The NCRSP does not mention a height restriction and this may be a factor when considering 1,100 versus 1,500 homes.  He asked what the City is investing in order to realize a net gain of $1.2 million.  He is concerned that the City will be financially exposed.  He noted that Measure W was defeated and the Council should follow the voter mandate of this Measure.

Jim Blickenstaff, resident, requested a peer review by experts of an independent source before the Council approves the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  The School District does not plan to add any schools and the EIR does not address this issue.  There is a shortfall in the area delineated for parks.  He requested that the Council ask voters what they want in the NCRSP and recommended the establishment of an open, transparent Task Force comprised of stakeholders and residents.  He believes that the NCRSP presents a real economic risk for the City.

Pat Baran, resident, stated that the NCRSP will increase housing and existing commercial and office space.  She opposes the NCRSP as proposed because it will bring more people, building, and traffic to the City.  She stated that restriping I-680 access lanes will not successfully mitigate traffic in this area.  The increase in traffic on Crow Canyon and Alcosta Boulevard will make it more difficult for pedestrians.  Both the NCRSP and the General Plan permit too much density.  She requested that the Council reject the NCRSP and provide a revised Plan to fulfill the City’s goals of meeting commercial, retail and housing needs in a transit oriented and pedestrian/bicycle friendly area without increasing existing density.

Donna Kerger, resident and Planning Commission Chair, stated that she is proud of the NCRSP.  There have been 32 meetings which provided many opportunities for public input and scrutiny.  The provision to review the housing at 1,000 units gives the City flexibility.  She stated that the City has been remiss at looking at opportunities for jobs/housing balance.  She suggested that contractors hire local employees so that people aren’t traveling large distances to work.  She noted that the School District has repeatedly refused land for future school sites and is interested in funds to improve current school sites.  She complimented staff on the inclusion of the SB 214 information.

Eric Wallis, resident and Planning Commissioner, stated that the NCRSP started in 2008.  There have been multiple Planning Commission, Council, and City committee meetings to discuss the plan.  The City is not rushing the process.  General Plan 2020 included 1,000 homes in the NCRSP.  In 2008, the Housing Element planned for 1,124 units.  The NCRSP provides retail so residents can shop locally and keep the sales tax dollars in San Ramon.  Professional engineers provided the information in the EIR.  With the planned improvements, the levels of service are acceptable.  The NCRSP is a good plan and he asked the Council to approve it.  Cm. Hudson stated that Donna Kerger and Eric Wallis both served on the General Plan 2020 committee.  The Council did not direct the General Plan committee.  Mr. Wallis added that the housing planned in the NCRSP is a unified approach and is better than what was proposed in General Plan 2020.

Roz Rogoff, resident, stated that she is ambivalent about the NCRSP because she does not completely understand it.  She noted that property owners will decide what to build.  She asked what will happen when developers don’t build what is planned and the resulting ‘pieces don’t fit together’.  If the sections are broken up by different owners, how can the City coordinate and maintain continuity.  She described the NCRSP as being a “plan set in jello” and not as a unified plan.

Mayor Clarkson closed the public hearing. 

Cm. Perkins asked staff to respond to Ms. Rogoff’s questions.  Mr. Barr stated that the NCRSP is a framework and a long range plan.  It is a planning document, not a project.  It is a policy document which is a refinement of the General Plan to guide future area development.  Proposed projects will be reviewed against the NCRSP policies.  Mr. Barr stated that the building height limit in the development standards is 85 feet (5 stories).  This is based on the City Center Settlement Agreement which establishes a height restriction on development outside of the City Center Project.  Cm. Perkins asked if developers will incur the costs associated with their project’s public improvements.  Mr. Barr stated that developers will pay impact fees and for dedication of facilities.  Development projects are conditioned to improve their frontages and right of way such as street improvements.  Another tool which the City can use is the establishment of a Benefit District.  Mr. Barr stated that the bottom line is that the development has to pay for the improvements from which it benefits. 

Cm. Perkins asked how the Plan will ensure mixed use and, for example, distribute the housing units throughout the Plan area.  Mr. Barr stated that the NCRSP does not place all of the housing in one location.  Developers have to comply with a Mixed Use component.  Cm. Perkins asked if the City is required to include schools as part of the NCRSP and EIR.  Mr. Barr responded that the School District is the authority for planning local schools.  The City provides planning information to the School District through the General Plan.  With 1,124 units anticipated for the NCRSP, one would expect that the School District would look at the school generation which will be needed as part of their planning process.  State law requires a City to collect impact fees and pass them to the School District for planning its infrastructure.  The General Plan and NCRSP policies require coordination with the School District on a project by project basis as part of the Development Review process to discuss fees and how school needs will be met.  The City relies on the School District to work through that process.   

Cm. Perkins asked about retail leakage and its impact on the City’s ability to provide services.  Mr. Barr stated that ‘retail leakage’ is the drain of tax revenues from local residents into other communities.  By providing services locally, the retail demand is recaptured and road trips both regionally and locally are reduced.  The retail demand analysis estimated that $.5 to $1 million in current retail leakage could be captured locally and an additional $1.2 million per year in the next 10-15 years.  There are retailers who want to locate in San Ramon and that the City needs to provide them with an opportunity to do that.  Cm. Perkins asked if the NCRSP provides for service commercial and light industrial.  Mr. Barr stated that the ‘service commercial’ heading adopts all existing service commercial standards and allows them to continue forward.  Cm. Perkins noted that the Alcosta extension is exclusively located within Danville town limits.  Mr. Barr stated that the Alcosta extension is in General Plan 2020 as part of a long range capital improvement.  It is not a specific improvement project for the NCRSP.  Cm. Perkins asked if there is a compelling reason to increase the housing units from 1,124 to 1,500.  Mr. Barr stated that staff looked at a range of housing units.  The objective was to have enough residents to create a sense of community while providing services for these residents.  The NCRSP ultimately meets the minimum General Plan requirements, creates a community, and has the ability to meet future Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers.  He noted that there are housing opportunities throughout the City and that some are more viable than others.  The housing type makes a difference in estimating population.  Cm. Perkins stated that the current nonresidential building is only 3% greater than the existing General Plan.  He hopes that the City will be able to work with the County on a property tax sharing agreement.

Cm. Hudson stated that an analysis of the Alcosta extension could be considered as part of the next General Plan update if the assumptions adopted as part of the General Plan are no longer valid or if the Council decides to reanalyze the impacts of the Alcosta Extension on the roadway system.  He stated that neither UPS nor Toyota, two of the largest landowners in the NCRSP, voiced objections to the NCRSP.  He noted that General Plan 2020 and 2030 have the same number of homes.  The NCRSP is a land use plan in response to the mandate from the state and the region to plan for growth through 2035 to be in a Priority Development Area (PDA) transit oriented development.  The School District has known about the City’s housing plans since 2002.  He stated that Measure J requires an action plan to put as much priority on pedestrian and bicycle options as it does on single occupant vehicles.  The City needs to deal with increased density in order to qualify for this funding.  In order to reduce vehicle miles traveled, the goal is to create a 1:1 jobs to housing balance.  The NCRSP will take 20-25 years to develop and the Conceptual Land Use Plan allows the City to go forward with planning.

Cm. O’Loane stated that ‘errata’ means a ‘mistake’ and he is puzzled by whether it is being used to correct a Planning Commission error.  Interim City Attorney Saxe stated that “errata” is a Latin term which means a ‘minor modification’ not a change to the extent that the process needs to be redone.  Mr. Barr stated that these are minor revisions to the NCRSP which don’t require recirculation.  They do not fundamentally change the nature or the division of the NCRSP and are primarily procedural.

Cm. O’Loane requested that the Tax Sharing Agreement be strengthened.  He asked if most of the affordable housing is expected to be located in a PDA.  Ms. Chamberlain stated that the RHNA are City wide numbers.  Cm. O’Loane clarified that a PDA does not require more affordable housing than the City in general.  If the Alcosta extension does not occur, he asked what other traffic mitigation measures could be required.  Mr. Barr stated that other options would depend on the type of project proposed and could include intersections improvements or signal timing.  Development projects are required to provide traffic analyses.  The impact of each project on the road network is analyzed.  When improvements are triggered, the City needs to determine how to bridge the operational deficiency gap.  He noted that this could limit development in the long term. 

Cm. O’Loane questioned the inclusion of ‘hoped for’ state legislation as part of the NCRSP.  Mr. Barr responded that the implementation section is a tool box of strategies to pursue funding.  The legislation is pending and, if approved, will be a tool to help fund infrastructure.  It is an acknowledgement of the legislation not a guarantee that it will be pursued.  Cm. O’Loane asked for clarification on the discussion of General Plans.  Mr. Barr explained that General Plan 2030 changed the land use designation to mixed use throughout the entire NCRSP area.  It is a process of comparing what was previously approved versus what is currently required.  The references address the gap between the two General Plans and clarify past versus current development potential.

Cm. O’Loane stated that 1,124 housing units are more reasonable than 1,500 units.  He noted that One Bay Area Plan describes funding for transit tier options.  He requested a description of ‘transit’ in the NCRSP area.  Mr. Barr stated that the area has the ability to connect to BART and light rail.  The idea is to facilitate connections between employment and residential hubs so that people will get out of their cars.  He added that options could include a Transit Center or bus hub, parking, or a layover and shuttle facility.  The service provider will have a key role in designing this area and the design will depend on how the area develops.  Cm. O’Loane asked who will pay for it.  Mr. Barr stated that it could be funded through development agreements or grants.  The City needs to look for funding sources because the City needs the transit service to respond to the development potential. 

Vice Mayor Livingstone stated that the NCRSP is a land use planning document not a project.  The jobs to housing balance is good.  He noted that nothing will happen until a developer comes forward with funding.  He noted that the ‘center spine’ design may be a deterrent to development.  He asked for affordable housing flexibility and is more interested in a quality project than an affordable one.  He is not optimistic that the School District will build sufficient schools.  The NCRSP has been adequately studied and he is prepared to vote and support the NCRSP.

Cm. Hudson discussed the requirements of the Climate Action Plan.  The NCRSP melds transportation and land use and moves the City into a preferential position for funding.  The NCRSP area has received a potential PDA designation pending completion of the Plan effort.  He supports the NCRSP.

Mayor Clarkson thanked the Planning Department staff and Planning Commissioners for their hard work.  He complimented staff for the quality of the NCRSP Policy updates.  He thanked residents for their participation.  He stated that the NCRSP is smart planning.  He asked for clarification on the voting process to approve the EIR and the NCRSP.  Planning/Community Development Director Phil Wong explained the process.  He stated that there will be two resolutions, one to approve the EIR and the second to approve the NCRSP.  Interim City Attorney Bob Saxe stated that the Council has conducted two concurrent public hearings addressing the EIR and the NCRSP.  Any changes requested by the Council should be provided to staff for incorporation into the final resolutions.

Mayor Clarkson requested that the policy language be revised to protect the City’s financial interests related to funding City services.   The infrastructure should be paid for by developers and not create a burden on the City.  He supports property tax equity between the County and the City.  He also supports 1,124 housing units per the General Plan.  Mayor Clarkson asked what it would cost the City to service the NCRSP area if there were no residents.  Mr. Barr stated there would be some fixed costs for Police and infrastructure which have not been calculated. 

Cm. Hudson stated that the plan to reevaluate the housing units at 1,000 is a prudent plan.  He noted that Bishop Ranch pays for its transit service.  The infrastructure finance district (tax increment) dwarfs what can be received in the property tax evaluation.  The NCRSP is a great plan.  He recommended that the Council not micromanage the NCRSP.

Interim City Attorney Bob Saxe asked if the staff’s proposed wording in the Tax Sharing Agreement which states that "The City shall consider, and where appropriate, negotiate amendments or secondary tax sharing agreement with the County…” is acceptable.  He stated that this is a negotiating process which the City Council will have to be involved in on a project by project basis.  If the project is contingent on getting a tax sharing agreement, it raises a practical question regarding leverage.  Mayor Clarkson stated that there are costs associated with servicing that area.  Sales tax dollars alone may not be sufficient.  The City should fight for every dollar which it needs to service that area.  This would provide flexibility and keep the City whole and not create a financial burden. 

Cm. Perkins suggested that the wording “All projects will fully fund services and all services provided in the area will be consistent with adjacent areas in the City.”  be added in conjunction with Mayor Clarkson’s recommendations.  Mayor Clarkson suggested that this statement be included in the Errata.  The Council supports tax equity. 

Mayor Clarkson asked if problems are created with other agencies by keeping the NCRSP at the General Plan number of 1,124 housing units.  Mr. Barr responded that there were no fundamental problems.  Cm. Perkins stated that the grand total of housing units does not change but that they can be relocated within the City.  Cm. Hudson asked if the 2014-2022 Housing Element has been approved.  Mr. Barr stated that it has not.  Cm. Perkins stated that the current Housing Element and General Plan provide for 1,124 housing units.  Cm. Hudson stated that the NCRSP must be submitted to the regional bodies in order to get its PDA approval.  He added that the City has positioned itself with two good projects, the City center and the NCRSP.  When grant projects are available through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, ABAG, and MTC, the City has proven that it is doing things the way the state wants them done.  He stated that the Plan will look like 1,500 homes but the housing will be assessed at 1,000 units.  He asked the Council not to change the NCRSP.  Mayor Clarkson noted that it is up to the Council to approve the project and the Council reserves the right to make changes because they are ultimately responsible to make the best call for the housing and other elements in the Plan.       

Cm. Hudson’s motion to direct staff to prepare the resolutions for the Specific Plan and the EIR as presented in the Errata (retaining the housing bridge at 1,000 units and keeping the 1,500 housing cap) was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone.  Cm. O’Loane stated that the arguments for retaining the 1,500 housing units revolves around the various agencies who are willing to invest tax dollars in this area.  If the assessing point is 1,000, he does not support 1,500 units.  He prefers to follow the General Plan and voter approved housing number of 1,124.  He supports the ability to have some flexibility in terms of where things are placed as a good approach to planning as long as the height restrictions are met.  He added that the Alcosta extension is not realistic and will need to be removed from the Plan.  Cm. Perkins stated that there is not a compelling case for housing greater than 1,124 units.  Cm. Hudson amended his motion to 1,124 housing units.  Vice Mayor Livingstone does not approve the 1,124 housing units but seconded the amended motion.  Mr. Barr clarified that 1,000 is the check-in point.  Cm. O’Loane stated that he would rather proceed with the 1,124 housing units.  Mayor Clarkson requested a roll call vote.  The roll call vote indicated that the motion passed 5-0.

* * * *


* * * *


Roz Rogoff, resident, complimented the City on providing an excellent Fourth of July event.  Ms. Rogoff complimented Ms. Brooke Harris for being a valuable employee and doing a wonderful job for the City. 

* * * *


Cm. O’Loane and Cm. Perkins wished Mayor Clarkson a happy birthday.  Cm. Hudson stated that Jim Gibbon sent a letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority regarding BART on the I-680 corridor.  The Walnut Creek portion of TRANSPAC was not favorable and they will not reconsider this.

Mayor Clarkson invited residents to participate in the Fourth of July Forum scheduled for July 14, 2012 at the San Ramon Community Center.  A second Forum will be held on September 13, 2012 at the Dougherty Station Community Center.  He reminded residents that Contra Costa TV is now providing the Mayor’s Report and the Video on Demand for Council meetings. 

* * * *


(#14.1) Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(c) to meet with City Attorney regarding In the Matter of the Armand Borel Trust (Superior Court No. P09-01129).

At 10:32 p.m., the Council convened to Closed Session.  At 11:10 p.m., Mayor Clarkson reconvened the meeting.  All Councilmembers were present.  Mayor Clarkson reported that the City Council gave direction to the City Attorney, 5-0.

* * * *


At 11:11 p.m., there being no further business, Mayor Clarkson adjourned the meeting.

Bill Clarkson, Mayor
Patricia Edwards, City Clerk

Approved as presented at the August 28, 2012 City Council meeting 4-0-1-0; Perkins absent.

We provide efficient delivery of quality public services that are essential to those who live and work in San Ramon.
7000 Bollinger Canyon Rd, San Ramon, CA 94583 | Map | Phone (925) 973-2530 | Fax (925) 866-0547