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

MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAMON COUNCIL MEETING
September 11, 2012

A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was held September 11, 2012 at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2222 Camino Ramon, Mayor Clarkson presiding. 
PRESENT:  Councilmembers Hudson, Livingstone, O’Loane, and Mayor Clarkson.
ABSENT:  Councilmember Perkins
STAFF PRESENT:  City Manager Greg Rogers, Interim City Attorney Bob Saxe, Police Chief Scott Holder, Planning Division Manager Debbie Chamberlain, Employee Services Division Manager Toni Renault, Economic Development Director Marc Fontes, Associate Planner Cindy Yee, Planning/Community Development Director Phil Wong, and City Clerk Patricia Edwards.

* * * *

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Andres Arteaga, Matthew Farruggia, Ryan Gee, and Chase Watson, members of Den 5B of Cub Scout Pack 814 led those present in the pledge of allegiance.  

* * * *

ANNOUNCEMENTS

The City Clerk stated that there was one change to the meetings listed on the agenda.  The Transportation Demand Management Advisory Committee will meet on September 17, 2012.  The City Clerk requested that the Council defer action on the August 28, 2012 minutes to the next Council meeting.  The Council voiced no objections. 

* * * *

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

(#4.1) Proclamation Designating September 22-28, 2012 as Falls Prevention Awareness Week.  Presented by Sally Lunn, Senior Advisory Committee, to Jennifer Williams, Bright Star Home Care/Fall Prevention Coalition Member.

Sally Lunn, Senior Advisory Committee member, presented the proclamation on behalf of Mayor Clarkson to Jennifer Williams.  Ms. Williams thanked the Council for their support.  She provided information on the purpose and programs provided by Contra Costa County Falls Prevention Coalition.  The Falls Prevention Program provides educational research, home safety assessments, occupational therapy, and home safety modifications at no cost to seniors.  She invited residents to participate in the “Walk for Fall Prevention” on September 22, 2012 in Pleasant Hill. 

(#4.2) Proclamation Supporting AT&T’s No Texting While Driving Campaign.  Presented to Ken Mintz, AT&T External Affairs Area Manager, by Mayor Clarkson.

Mayor Clarkson presented the proclamation to Ken Mintz.  Mr. Mintz thanked the Council for their support of the campaign.  Reading or sending text messages is one of the worst driving distractions.  He stressed the importance of alerting everyone to the dangers of texting while driving.  He encouraged residents to take the no texting pledge at www.itcanwait.com.  He invited residents to attend the Emergency Preparedness Fair on September 15, 2012 and experience the AT&T texting virtual reality simulator. 

(#4.3) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Summer Intern Report by Alex Prange.

Alex Prange reported on his experience working as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) high school intern in San Ramon.  He worked with the Transportation Services, Building and Safety Services, Engineering Services, and Planning Services.  His projects included: the Safe Routes to School Report; TRAFFIX buses and the program’s expansion to California High School; and Transportation Demand Management.  He thanked staff for providing a valuable work experience. 

* * * *

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dominique Yancey stated that she was vice chair of this year’s annual San Ramon Historic Foundation’s Victorian Tea.  She thanked the City for its support and recognized the volunteers, students, Command Staff of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District members, and Committee members for their efforts to make this event a success.

Paul Baldacci, speaking on behalf of the Sanorris Investment LLC/Castle Companies, stated that the City requires workforce housing at the St. James Project.  He noted that affordable housing is good vision on the part of the City.  He stated that the Castle Company agreed to the affordable housing conditions.  He reported that he has had difficulty with the affordable housing agreement.  He asked the Council for assistance regarding the affordable housing agreement in order to continue the project.

Elisa Dowd, resident, requested that the Council retain that honey bees be defined as ‘pet animals’ and not classified as ‘livestock animals’ in the interest of promoting home food production and healthy life styles.  Changing the honey bee classification to livestock would change the required set-backs.  Planning Division Manager Debbie Chamberlain stated that the question of how honey bees are interpreted will be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. 

Peter Schumacher, resident, asked the Council to allow a limited amount of beekeeping for personal use in residentially zoned areas.  He enumerated the benefits of honey bees and some common misconceptions.  He outlined his proposal and suggested that residential bee keeping be limited to 2 to 3 hives per yard with a seven foot high barrier between the bee hive entrance and neighbors.  

* * * *

CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

* * * *

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

(#7.1) Minutes of the August 28, 2012 regular meeting.

The August 28, 2012 minutes were deferred to the September 25, 2012 Council meeting.

* * * *

CONSENT CALENDAR

(#8.1) Minute Order 2012-031 – Authorizing the Purchase of Five Police Motorcycles in the Amount of $139,626.

(#8.2) Minute Order No. 2012-032 – Adopting the City of San Ramon Social Media Policy.

(#8.3) Resolution No. 2012-086 – Repealing Resolution No. 2010-079; Adopting by Reference Section 18730 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations and any Amendments to it Adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission; and Designating Positions and Disclosure Category for Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700 Filers.

(#8.4) Resolution No. 2012-087 – Intention to Approve an Amendment to the Contract Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees Retirement System and the City Council of the City of San Ramon.

(#8.5) Resolution No. 2012-088 – Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment
No. 1 to the Agreement with Republic ITS for Traffic Signal and Streetlight Maintenance Services in an Annual Amount Not to Exceed $254,787 and a Cumulative Five-Year Agreement Total Not to Exceed $1,260,000.

(#8.6) Resolution No. 2012-089 – Approving the Appropriation of Contra Costa Transportation Authority Transportation for Livable Communities Grant Funds in the Amount of $620,000 for the Iron Horse Trail Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project-Community Engagement and Design Component. 

Vice Mayor Livingstone’s motion to adopt items 8.1 through 8.6 was seconded by Cm. Hudson and passed 4-0-1-0.  Cm. Perkins was absent.

* * * *

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

* * * *

NEW BUSINESS

(#10.1) Public Hearing:  Introduction of Ordinance No. (next in line) – Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees Retirement System and the City Council of the City of San Ramon.

The staff report was provided by Toni Renault, Employee Services Division Manager.  This amendment to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) contract would authorize a second tier retirement formula for safety, miscellaneous (non-safety), and represented SEIU Local 1021 employees.  Ms. Renault reviewed the current contract retirement provisions for the various employee categories.  She provided information on the proposed retirement provisions for new hires for safety employees, miscellaneous (non-safety), and represented SEIU Local 1021 employees. 

Cm. Hudson’s motion to introduce the Ordinance, waive the reading, and read by title only was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 4-0-1-0.  Cm. Perkins was absent.

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 the Ordinance for adoption at the September 25, 2012 Council meeting was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 4-0-1-0.  Cm. Perkins was absent.

(#10.2) Presentation of the City Center Project Update Draft Report from the City Center Ad Hoc Committee.

Marc Fontes, Economic Development Director, introduced the item.  The report was given by Lou Dagen, Chairperson of the City Center Ad Hoc Committee.  Mr. Dagen provided an overview of the City Center Project.  The Project was approved in December 2007.  Mayor Clarkson established the City Center Ad Hoc Committee to meet with stakeholders and City staff to gather and synthesize information and report the findings to the Council and the community.  The Committee was comprised of four members of the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC).  The Report addressed three key issues: why isn’t the City Center being built; when will it be built; and how the City (and residents) can make it happen.  Mr. Dagen illustrated the scope of the Project by noting that the City’s budget is $38 million and the City Center will cost $850 million.  The Ad Hoc Committee provided nine items for the Council to consider:  changing the signs on Bollinger Canyon Road; freeway access improvements (completed); improvements to the Bishop Ranch traffic flow (in progress); streamline the Project approval process (completed); support improvements to the Iron Horse Trail (in progress); pursue the Bollinger Canyon Road Overcrossing Project.  He requested that the Council authorize the Committee or EDAC to promote a public awareness campaign.   He urged residents to Shop San Ramon.  He concluded by saying that the City Center will start and that it is a matter of when, not if. 

Cm. O’Loane stated that there are a continuum of successes and failures between the Sunnyvale project and nothing and cited the project in Santa Monica as an example.    Economic Development Director Marc Fontes stated that Santa Monica is an example of an existing project that is being redeveloped or repositioned.  The Salt Lake City project is the only project which he is aware of that is a brand new project starting from the ground up.  Cm. O’Loane asked if it was more expensive to tear down an existing project versus starting on raw land.  Mr. Fontes stated that places which have commercial retail activity can capitalize on that momentum by adding or improving on what exists.  Cm. O’Loane stated that he was puzzled that all conditions have to be perfect in order to proceed with the Project.  Mr. Dagen stated that no project is perfect and that businesses take risks when they are justified.  The Project will proceed when certain triggers are in place.  Cm. O’Loane questioned the amount of anticipated sales tax revenue which the Project will generate.  Mr. Fontes stated that they anticipate $3 million annually in sales tax revenue.  Cm. O’Loane remarked that, if it is three years before a big tenant is secured and the Project takes 18 months to build, it will be 2020 before the City is in a position to build.  Mr. Fontes stated that there are several factors to consider such as the sale of the 11 acre parcel to Sunset Development and the balance due for the 7 acre parcel.  Cm. O’Loane stated that it is not his role to ‘cheer lead’ this deal.  He wants the public to understand the City’s commitment to this Project and to have reasonable expectations regarding timelines.  He stated that it could easily be five years before the City breaks ground and it would need to buy a parcel to build on.  At that point, the plans would be ten years old and may not be usable.  He wants residents to understand that the Project is extremely complex.  He asked what a reasonable timeline would look like in terms of what the Project is versus what is hoped it will be.  Mr. Dagen stated that there are many factors over which the City has no control.  He recommended that the Committee provide status updates. 

Cm. Hudson focused on the City Center portion of the Project.  The Project is in a holding pattern because it got caught in poor timing.  The key is to keep the Council updated.  The Council is looking for a timeline for when the City portion will begin.

Vice Mayor Livingstone stated that the Ad Hoc Committee did an outstanding job.  The Sunset entitlements are good through January 2015 and the Council controls these entitlements.  He clarified that Sunset, not the City, needs to do something by that date.  The City is not obligated to do anything and does not have to build the Civic portion.  Mr. Mehran will take the risk and decide to build when he thinks it is prudent. 

Mayor Clarkson acknowledged the work done by the Ad Hoc Committee and staff.  He reported that funding for the Bollinger Canyon overcrossing is one of the three priorities cited at the Tri-Valley Mayors meeting.  He questioned the business model which would have provided free rent for five years for large anchor retail tenants.  Mr. Fontes stated that he was not aware of that offer and added that Sunset Development has a great track record for attracting tenants.  He noted that major retailers are hoarding cash and waiting for better economic indicators.  Mayor Clarkson asked what the first sign of a leading indicator would be.  Mr. Fontes stated that one sign would be an announcement of a lease or negotiations with a large tenant.  Mayor Clarkson concurred with Cm. O’Loane’s request for a timeline so that citizens have a sense of how the Project will develop.  Mr. Fontes stated that the City is in control of the entitlements and has options.  Mayor Clarkson asked the City Attorney for the financial commitments of both parties and what could be done with the land if the Project does not proceed.  Interim City Attorney Bob Saxe stated that the City is not obligated to go forward on the seven acre parcel.  If nothing happens on the 11 acre parcel by January 1, 2015, Sunset Development will have to request an extension of the Agreement.  The last Agreement amendment indicates that Sunset Development’s entitlements are vested through the end of the Agreement.  When 2015 comes, if the Agreement is not extended and the City does not do anything, Sunset can exercise the option to reacquire the property for $5 million plus the escalated cost of living index over the years.  If Sunset does not buy the land, the City has ownership and the Bishop Ranch CC&Rs would apply to the property.  Mayor Clarkson requested a written communication outlining the timelines and the City’s commitments.  Cm. Hudson noted that the citizens need clarification regarding the City’s financial obligations. 

Mayor Clarkson opened public comment. 

Dominique Yancey, resident, stated that she was impressed with the report.  She noted that specificity is not the issue because the time lines are fluid.  She is optimistic about the Project recognizing the success of Sunset Development.   

Cm. O’Loane stated that he is not asking for a specific timeframe but the sequence of events.  He clarified that the $620,000 approved in item 8.6 for the Iron Horse Trail Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project is for the Community Engagement and Design Component.  Cm. Hudson added that there are Transit Livable Community funds in Measure J for projects that combine Mixed Use with pedestrian and bicycle options.

* * * *

At 9:26 p.m., Mayor Clarkson requested a five minute break.  The Council reconvened at 9:35 p.m.  All Council members were present except Cm. Perkins.

* * * *

Cm. Hudson’s motion to accept the report was seconded by Cm. O’Loane and passed 4-0-1-0.  Cm. Perkins was absent.

(#10.3) Informational Report:  San Ramon 2014-2022 Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation Numbers.

Cindy Yee, Associate Planner, presented the report.  The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a state mandated process for determining how many housing units, including affordable units, each community must plan to accommodate in an eight year cycle.  The California Department of Housing and Community Development determines the total housing need for the San Francisco Bay Area region.  As the regional planning agency, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for distributing this allocation to local governments. ABAG worked with local jurisdictions to develop an allocation methodology for assigning units, by income category, to each city and county in the Bay Area.  In July, ABAG adopted the final RHNA methodology and released draft RHNA allocation numbers for public comment.  The ABAG Executive Board is expected to adopt final RHNA numbers in May 2013.  The draft numbers for San Ramon show 1,411 housing units for the 2014-2022 housing cycle.  This housing allocation has been reduced by approximately 60% from the current (2007-2014) allocation cycle of 3,463 housing units.  The assigned affordable housing unit need (very low, low, and moderate income units) remains high at 76% of the City’s total allocation. 

Cm. O’Loane asked if the proportion of the affordability categories stayed the same.  Ms. Yee stated that ABAG used the same methodology and the same affordability formula.  Mayor Clarkson questioned how the new housing allocation affects the City’s planning and how the City will reallocate the units.  Ms. Yee stated that when the City updates the Housing Element (HE), the City will evaluate which sites should accommodate the RHNA numbers and will review each site to determine if the residential allocation is still applicable.  Mayor Clarkson asked if the City has the ability to move 2,000 units from the current HE.  Ms. Yee responded that the difficulty is how to address the affordable housing assignment in terms of the low, very low, and moderate income.  The current RHNA numbers include approximately 900 low to moderate housing units which may not have to be constructed if the proposed RHNA numbers are finalized.  Ms. Yee stated that staff will determine how many low and very low affordable units have been approved.  Cm. Hudson stated that the total number of housing units in the City does not change from General Plan 2020 to General Plan 2030.  The Dougherty Valley RHNA numbers are counted by San Ramon and provide the City with needed low and very low units.   

Mayor Clarkson opened the public comment.

Jim Gibbon, resident, stated that all of the development discussed several years ago was driven by the need to provide the 3,400 RHNA units.  Providing only 1,400 RHNA units takes the pressure off the developments which were proposed in the hills.  He suggested that the next HE concentrate on the urban portion.  He requested that the General Plan be amended to eliminate the required development in the hills.

Mayor Clarkson asked the City Attorney if the City needs to amend General Plan 2030 to reflect the lower RHNA numbers.  Planning/Community Development Director Phil Wong stated that the General Plan will be amended after the new housing numbers are incorporated into the new HE.  Cm. Hudson noted that it is important to remember the state’s direction to obtain a 1:1 jobs/housing balance to decrease traffic.   The City anticipates a 1.05:1 ratio with the build out of North Camino Ramon, the City Center, the Faria Project, and Crow Canyon.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to accept the report was seconded by Cm. O’Loane and passed 4-0-1-0.  Cm. Perkins was absent.

(#10.4) Public Hearings on Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance:
(1) Adoption of Resolution No. 2012-090 in Consideration of Initial       Study/Negative Declaration (IS 12-250-001); and

(2) Introduction of Ordinance No. (next in line) – Adopting Revised Title D, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment TA 10-410-001, Zoning of the Municipal Code of the City of San Ramon.

The staff report was presented by Cindy Yee, Associate Planner.  The text amendment incorporates the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) revisions since the last comprehensive update in July 2006.  The primary goal of the proposed ZO text amendment is to: implement the housing programs identified in the 2009-2014 Housing Element (HE); incorporate necessary text changes to strengthen protection for hillside, creek, and ridgelines as required by General Plan 2030; and clarify ambiguities in the ZO text.  She reviewed the five HE programs and the six Open Space and Conservation Element policies from the General Plan which require ZO amendments.   

The 1986 General Plan directed the city to adopt resource conservation regulations.  The Resource Conservation (-RC) Overlay District (RCOD) was created and incorporated into the 1989 ZO and applies to two areas in the City.  In 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance 197, which applied citywide to hillsides, creeks, and ridgeline areas.  On December 31, 2010, Ordinance 197 expired and areas outside of the –RC Overlay were without resource conservation regulations.  The City Council adopted General Plan 2030 in April 2011.  The Open Space and Conservation Element policies directed the City to amend the ZO to strengthen hillside, creek, and ridgeline protection in place of the expired Ordinance 197.  The RCOD is being removed at the direction of the General Plan.  The Resource Conservation will be applied citywide and includes the two previous subareas. 

Ms. Yee discussed the changes relating to pocket areas.  Ordinance 197 provided an exception for pocket areas but did not set a procedure for how findings could be made to allow development in pocket areas.  The proposed ZO establishes what the findings need to be and what the process is.  Ms. Yee discussed the variances for creek setbacks.  Under certain circumstances, legally created residential parcels may be detrimentally impacted by setback restrictions resulting in a “taking” of the parcel.  Ordinance 197 established that, in taking situations, development may be allowed if findings could be made but the Ordinance did not establish what the procedure should be.  The proposed ZO establishes that a variance application would be required to reduce creek setbacks in a takings situation.  The proposed ZO reflects the height limits of Ordinance 197 within Resource Management areas to 32 feet plus an additional height increase of 15% for multi-family development projects which incorporate sustainable design and efficient building practices. 

Ms. Yee presented the HE updates which are focused on state mandates including: reasonable accommodation for the disabled; homeless shelters; transitional housing; supportive housing; and single room occupancy.  She reviewed how the ZO procedures will accommodate these updates.  She noted that the Ryan Industrial Court area will be re-designated to Mixed Use to be consistent with the General Plan.  She summarized the changes to the ZO which include: Allowable Land Uses and Zoning Standards;  Site Planning and Project Design Standards; Standards for Specific Land Uses; Resource Management; Planning Permit Procedures; Zoning Ordinance Administration; Glossary; and Zoning Map Amendments.

Ms. Yee stated that bees are not included in a ZO category. Bees do not meet the domestic animal definition and are not currently identified as a farm animal.  The interpretation for keeping of bees is that they are more closely associated with farm animals and bee keeping is not considered a permitted use on single family residential zones and lots of less than one acre.  Vice Mayor Livingstone asked if San Ramon’s regulations regarding bees differ from those in surrounding areas.  Ms. Yee stated that Danville allows bees in agricultural zones but not in residential zones.  Cm. Hudson suggested that the bee issue be presented to the Policy Committee.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to introduce the Ordinance and waive the reading and read by title only was seconded by Vice Mayor Livingstone and passed 4-0-1-0.  Cm. Perkins was absent.  Interim City Attorney Bob Saxe clarified that the Council is conducting a combined Public Hearing to address the CEQA action and the proposed Ordinance.

Mayor Clarkson opened the combined Public Hearings.

Jim Blickenstaff, resident, stated his concern with the RCOD.  The proposed ZO will significantly change the protection of the creeks and hillsides.  He requested  a review of the ZO by the Open Space Task Force (OSTF) so that they can evaluate the changes and prepare recommendations for the Council’s consideration.  He questioned if the General Plan requires the elimination of the RCOD.  He stated that rewording the text leaves   decision making to staff and may not provide sufficient transparency.  He does not want the City to pick the parts of Ordinance 197 which is likes and discard the rest.  The section which addresses pocket areas has been weakened.  The “takings” section infringes on setbacks to the creek, weakens it, and opens the area to development.

Jim Gibbon, resident, stated that the OSTF did not have the background needed to evaluate the ZO when it was presented to them.  The provisions of Ordinance 197 cannot be eliminated because it was incorporated into the General Plan with two exceptions.  He noted that the 1,500 foot ridge to ridge definition is not in the General Plan and is being included to allow development.  The creek setback will also allow property in the City to be developed.  Eliminating the RCOD allows development in the City by allowing variances in areas which were previously protected.  Mr. Gibbon stated that eliminating the RCOD allows staff to work with developers and review plans outside the Urban Growth Boundary and City limits.  He stated that the Parks Commission has not reviewed the ZO and the OSTF has not had the opportunity to evaluate the potential development of open space.  He requested that the OSTF review the ZO and prepare a report for review by the Commission and the Council.

Douglas Graver, resident, stated that it makes sense to provide protection for open space and creeks as allowed by Ordinance 197. 

Mayor Clarkson closed the combined Public Hearings.

Cm. O’Loane stated that some sections, such as the Housing Element, are perfunctory state requirements.  The items related to other changes are complicated and he would like to consider them separately in order to provide a better discussion and to ensure that open space is truly protected.  He questioned what locations are impacted by the pocket area.  Ms. Yee stated that Ordinance 197 introduced the pocket area definition and allowed the exception for pocket areas.  Pocket areas are included in the ZO to honor the text of Ordinance 197.  Cm. O’Loane stated that the original wording was vague which made it more difficult to allow exceptions.  He believes that having a more defined definition makes the land more developable.  Cm. O’Loane asked how one would access the pocket area by vehicle.  Ms. Yee stated that Ordinance 197 dealt with structures not roadways.  It prohibited structures from being built on the ridgelines.  Roadways were not specifically prohibited.  One parcel in a pocket area was approved and graded as a residential lot for one home in the Circle E development.  The property owner submitted a single family residential proposal under Ordinance 197 but the plans were withdrawn.  Cm. O’Loane asked why the Ordinance has to be precooked for one particular lot and one potential house.  Ms. Yee stated that the “taking” issue refers specifically to the creek areas.  Staff is proposing including pocket areas and creek set back exceptions in the ZO because Ordinance 197 included that text.  Cm. O’Loane asked if there was only one pocket area in the City.  Ms. Yee stated that there is only one pocket area within the City limits which is zoned residential for which the ZO would apply.  Cm. O’Loane asked if proposals were received for the creek setback example.  Ms. Yee responded that proposals have been received since the lot was created in the 1980’s.  Several approved plans were received and subject to the Resource Regional Board and agencies such as the California  Department of Fish and Game.  These agencies can override the City’s creek setback.  The example which was provided was a legally subdivided lot to create a single family home and was approved under Ordinance 197.  Ms. Yee stated that the potential exists for similar situations but noted that there are very few creeks in the City which are not already culverted or exist for residential development.  Cm. O’Loane stated that he did not understand the philosophy of calling out specific areas versus a process which allows applicants to apply for a Zoning variance.  Ms. Yee stated that the ZO does not currently include a variance process for these situations.  Ordinance 197 did not establish the process or the application to be filed to allow for a taking in these situations.  Staff is proposing a variance application procedure.  If the procedure is adopted, the application process would apply to other similar properties. 

Cm. O’Loane questioned the purpose of the Bollinger Canyon Road Prezone.  Ms. Yee stated that a portion of the Bollinger Canyon Subarea is within and a portion of the Subarea is not within the UGB but all of the parcels are within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).  Parcels within the SOI are required to have an associated prezone.  Cm. O’Loane asked if the parcels are prezoned with the intention of annexation.  Ms. Yee stated that prezone identifies the zoning designation and allows the City to anticipate what the zoning would be if the parcels are annexed but is not meant to presume that the parcels would be annexed. 

Cm. Hudson stated that none of Cm. O’Loane’s points conflict with the approval of Resolution No. 2012-090.  He suggested that the Council adopt the Resolution and agendize the Ordinance for the next meeting.  Cm. O’Loane asked why the ability for building does not trigger CEQA.  Interim City Attorney Bob Saxe stated that nothing is automatic.  The changes to the ZO are required in order to bring the ZO in conformity with the General Plan.  The Council can decide what level of CEQA to apply.  Ms. Yee stated that the ZO only applies to parcels within City limits and there is only one pocket area which exists that meets the definition.  Mayor Clarkson asked the City Attorney to clarify the Ordinance adoption process.  Mr. Saxe reviewed the process and noted that the City cannot adopt an ordinance at the same meeting in which it is amended.  A new Ordinance with the agreed upon items would need to be prepared.  He recommended that the Council delay their vote on Resolution No. 2012-090 if the Council plans to revise the Ordinance.  Cm. O’Loane requested the opportunity to talk with staff and delay action on the item.  Cm. Hudson stated that the OSTF did look at the ZO.  He stated that the proposed ZO does not weaken Ordinance 197.  The City is not going to do subdivisions outside the City limits and not within the UGB because that would result in the loss of return to source Measure J funds.  Mr. Saxe recommended that the Council reopen the Public Hearing and continue the Ordinance to the next meeting.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to reopen the Public Hearing and continue the Resolution and Ordinance to the September 25, 2012 meeting was seconded by Cm. O’Loane.  Vice Mayor Livingstone stated that he took exception to the statement that “Everyone knows what the Planning staff is proposing.”  He said that the Planning staff is not manipulating the ZO for a specific developer.  He noted that Planning staff spent hours deciphering Ordinance 197.  Staff has incorporated the proper parts of Ordinance 197 into the ZO.  He stated that he is disappointed in citizens who do not respect City professionals. 

Mr. Saxe informed the Council that they are not required to continue the Public Hearing if they are not opening a new area.  The Council can choose to continue the two action items.  Cm. Hudson noted that some of the Councilmembers have questions.  His motion to continue the adoption of Resolution No. 2012-090 and the Ordinance to September 25, 2012 was seconded by Cm. O’Loane.  Mayor Clarkson requested that the motion include additional public comment.  Cm. Hudson withdrew his motion.  Cm. Hudson’s motion to reopen the public hearings and continue the Ordinance to the September 25, 2012 meeting was seconded by Cm. O’Loane.  The motion passed 3-1-1-0 with Vice Mayor Livingstone dissenting and Cm. Perkins absent.

* * * *

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

* * * *

PUBLIC COMMENT

* * * *

CITY COUNCILMEMBERS’ AND MAYOR’S COMMENTS

Cm. Hudson noted that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is discussing the Chevron Refinery fire.  He noted that there was a lot of discussion at the League of California Annual Conference about police reform.  He added that the number one priority of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation is the problem of texting and driving.  He reported that the state’s audit of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s and BAAQMD’s purchase of the office building at 390 Main Street in San Francisco is “likely legal”.

Mayor Clarkson encouraged citizens to provide their input regarding the East Bay Regional Parks District’s Master Plan at a meeting on October 3, 2012 in Dublin.  He invited residents to attend the second Fourth of July Forum on September 13, 2012 at Dougherty Station Community Center.  He encouraged everyone to attend the San Ramon Valley Emergency Preparedness Fair on September 15, 2012.  Residents are invited to attend the Town Hall meeting on October 1, 2012 at Dougherty Station Community Center.  He announced the beginning of the season at the Dougherty Valley Performing Arts Center which opens with Mary Chapin Carpenter and includes Smokey Robinson.

* * * *

CLOSED SESSION

(#14.1) Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8 Conference with Real Property Negotiators Maria Fierner, Greg Rogers, and Phil Wong Concerning Negotiations with the Canyon Lakes Golf Course Representatives Regarding Acquisition of the Right-of-Way.

At 11:23 p.m., the Council convened to Closed Session.  At 11:54 p.m., Mayor Clarkson reconvened the meeting.  All Councilmembers except Cm. Perkins were present.  Mayor Clarkson reported that the City Council took no action.


Signed:
Bill Clarkson, Mayor
Patricia Edwards, City Clerk

Approved as presented at the October 9, 2012 City Council meeting 3-0-1-1; Livingstone absent; Perkins abstain.

We provide efficient delivery of quality public services that are essential to those who live and work in San Ramon.
2226 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, CA 94583 | Map | Phone (925) 973-2530 | Fax (925) 866-0547