Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2002-11-18SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Pagel IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM: Vice -Mayor Cohen announced Closed Session items. CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM: Present: Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor Barbara Heller Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Absent: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember a) Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: MHC Financing, et al. v. City of San Rafael, et al. U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. of CA, Case No. C003785 b) Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Negotiators' Names: Ken Nordhoff, Daryl Chandler, Lydia Romero Employee Organizations: San Rafael Fire Fighters' Association Marin Association of Public Employees, Supervisory Unit, SEIU Local 949 Marin Association of Public Employees, Miscellaneous Unit, SEIU Local 949 City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:11 PM a) Re: Tenant Parking: - File 13-16 x 13-7-1 Reporting that she is a member of the tenants' union, Margarita Reyes stated they wished to bring to Council's attention a disturbing practice occurring at some apartment buildings. She instanced the landlord at 21 Marian Court, subsequent to signing the voluntary agreement, not only increased the rent but also is now charging $100 - $150 for every parking space. Ms. Reyes stated that other landlords are also charging tenants for parking spaces and this practice is forcing people to park in the street where there is an existing parking shortage. She encouraged the City Council to investigate this matter and generate an ordinance to prohibit such a practice. Vice -Mayor Cohen stated he would like to receive a report on this as should the information be accurate, it made a mockery of the rent stabilization agreement. He also expressed interest in ascertaining how widespread the practice is and what, if any, action the City could take. City Manager Gould stated staff would investigate and include the results in the annual report to Council on the Fair Rental Practices Program. With regard to how widespread the problem is, he suggested contacting Jessuina Perez-Teran, Tenant Organizer, to ascertain whether this is a common practice. b) Re: Potential Sale of College of Marin: - File 103 x 9-1 Fielding Greaves, San Rafael resident, on his own behalf and that of Marin United Taxpayers Association, invited Council's best efforts in support of blocking any attempt to sell the properties of College of Marin. While recognizing the importance of real estate, he stated it is much more important that the College retains these properties. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: ITEM 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meetings of Monday, October 21, 2002 and Monday, November 4, 2002 (CC) RECOMMENDED ACTION Minutes of 11/04/02 approved as submitted. Approval of Minutes of 10/21/02 continued to meetina of 12/02/02, due to lack of quorum — Councilmember Miller absent from meeting of 10/21/02 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 2 3. Call for Applications to Fill One Unexpired Term Approved staff recommendation: on the Cultural Affairs Commission Due to the Resignation of Susan W. Davis, with Term to a) Called for applications for Expire End of April, 2005 (CC) — File 9-2-24 appointment to fill one unexpired term on the Cultural Affairs Commission to the end of April, 2005; b) Set deadline for receipt of applications for Tuesday, December 10, 2002 at 12 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, City Hall; and c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, December 16, 2002, commencing at 6:30 p.m. 4. Introduce Ordinance and Set Date of Public Introduced and passed to print Hearing for December 2, 2002 - Consideration of Ordinance No. 1791, and set Public an Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Municipal Hearing for December 2, 2002. Code of the City of San Rafael by Amending and "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF Adopting Chapter 12.12 "2001 California Building SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 12 Code", Volume 1 and Volume 2, (Based on the OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE Uniform Building Code, 1997 Ed.), Chapter 12.14 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BY "2001 California Mechanical Code" (Based on the AMENDING AND ADOPTING Uniform Mechanical Code, 1997 Ed.), Chapter CHAPTER 12.12 "2001 CALIFORNIA 12.16 "2001 California Plumbing Code" (Based BUILDING CODE," VOLUME 1 AND on the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1997 Ed.), VOLUME 2, (BASED ON THE Chapter 12.20 "2001 California Electrical Code" UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1997 (Based on the National Electrical Code, 1999 Ed.), CHAPTER 12.14 "2001 Ed.) and Uniform Administrative Code Provisions CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE," for the National Electrical Code (1996 Ed.) (CD)- (BASED ON THE UNIFORM File 1-6-1 x 1-6-2 x 1-6-3 x 1-6-5 x 1-6-6 x 1-6-7 MECHANICAL CODE, 1997 Ed.), CHAPTER 12.16 "2001 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE," (BASED ON THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1997 Ed.), CHAPTER 12.20 "2001 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE," (BASED ON THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1999 Ed.) AND UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISIONS FOR THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, (1996 Ed.), WITH AMENDMENTS" 5. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending Accepted Monthly Investment Report September, 2002 (MS) — File 8-18 x 8-9 for month ending September, 2002, as presented. 6. Resolution Authorizing the Deposit and RESOLUTION NO. 11198 — Withdrawal of Monies and Authorizing Officers or RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE their Successors to Order Deposits or DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWAL OF Withdrawals of Monies in The Local Agency MONIES AND AUTHORIZING Investment Fund (MS) — File 8-18 OFFICERS OR THEIR SUCCESSORS TO ORDER DEPOSITS OR WITHDRAWALS OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUN 7. Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10448 RESOLUTION NO. 11199— Pertaining to the Compensation and Working RESOLUTION AMENDING Conditions for Police Department Personnel (4 RESOLUTION NO. 10448 year agreement from July 1, 2002 through June PERTAINING TO THE 30, 2006) (MS) — File 7-8-3 x 9-3-30 COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL (4 year agreement from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2006) SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 3 8. Report on Bid Opening for the San Rafael RESOLUTION NO. 11200 — Community Center Lobby and Reception RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS Remodel, Project No. 10718 (Bid Opening Held FOR THE SAN RAFAEL COMMUNITY Tuesday, November 5, 2002) and Resolution CENTER LOBBY AND RECEPTION Rejecting all Bids and Rebid the Project (PW) — REMODEL File 4-1-554 9. Resolution Approving Map of Subdivision Entitled RESOLUTION NO. 11201 — "Map of 119 Laurel Place Condominium" (PW) — RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAP File 5-1-345 ENTITLED "MAP OF 119 LAUREL PLACE CONDOMINIUM" (APN 011- 184-13) 10. Resolution Authorizing the Director of Public RESOLUTION NO. 11202 — Works to Accept and Expend $30,240 in RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Matching Funds from the California Energy DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO Commission (CEC) for the Installation of Battery ACCEPT AND EXPEND $30,240 IN Backup System (BBS) at 12 Key Signalized MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE Intersections (PW) — File 11-10 x 11-1 CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION (CEC) FOR THE INSTALLATION OF BATTERY BACKUP SYSTEM (BBS) AT 12 KEY SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 11. Resolution Accepting Grant of $35,000 from the RESOLUTION NO. 11203 — Marin Community Foundation to Support RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Falkirk's Art Education Outreach Program MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN "Learning to Look" and the Visual Arts Exhibition AGREEMENT WITH THE MARIN Program (Lib/Cult.Affs) — File 194 x 9-3-84 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACCEPTING A $35,000 GRANT TO SUPPORT THE ARTS EDUCATION OUTREACH PROGRAM "LEARNING TO LOOK" AND THE VISUAL ARTS EDUCATION PROGRAM AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PUBLIC HEARINGS: Heller, Miller and Vice -Mayor Cohen None Phillips and Mayor Boro 12. Public Hearing — RE PARKING MATTERS: (MS) — File 9-3-87 x 12-14 x 9-10-2 a) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 9705 ESTABLISHING NEW PARKING METER RATES b) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REVISING CERTAIN PARKING PENALTIES AND LATE PAYMENT PENALTIES FOR NOTICES OF PARKING VIOLATIONS Parking Services Manager Chad Lynn stated the staff report addresses the past two and one half years and the CUB Management Company parking study, which updates the proposed parking rates and the need for capacity, i.e., a 400 space, 5'/2 story, parking garage at Third and C Streets. Currently completing design, Mr. Lynn stated the plan is to be out to bid in January, 2003, with completion, hopefully, by the summer of 2004. Mr. Lynn explained the rate increase is a means of funding the construction with revenue bonds on the Parking Services Fund. He stated the report speaks to this as a self-sufficient fund, funding operations of a parking nature in San Rafael. Mr. Lynn stated the other part of the study, also part of the rate increase, pertains to the modernization of parking equipment, and he identified an example of the new parking meter on display this evening. He explained the housing would have a slightly different aesthetic appearance and would be painted black with a somewhat different lower part. He indicated that Councilmembers had seen the multi -space equipment and the garage equipment at study sessions. With regard to the rate increase, Mr. Lynn reported that staff had spent a substantial amount of time in public outreach to not only ascertain the areas of concern to the public, but also to discuss the actual rates with the community. He stated that inter -departmentally, staff discussed the equipment and rates and their effect on departments and the community. He indicated there were discussions with the Business Improvement District and Chamber of SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 4 Commerce, who issued a joint letter of their official support. Mr. Lynn reported it was also presented to the Park and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, North San Rafael Rotary Club, Coalition of North San Rafael Residents and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods. Mr. Lynn reported the concerns that materialized largely pertained to the downtown area with increased turnover on street, and in high -turnover, short-term parking areas off-street. He explained it was endeavored to create a rate that promotes off-street long-term parking by making the rate lower, such as in the Third and A Street garage. He confirmed that in the proposed rate schedule, the current off-street higher rates would be lower than on -street parking, to encourage long-term parking in off-street areas. With respect to short-term parking convenience, Mr. Lynn stated that at the request of the City Council at study sessions, staff had investigated and recommend a 30 -minute no charge period in the Third and A Street garage, and the Third and C Street garage would carry this rate upon completion. Regarding monthly parking and San Rafael workers' long-term parking areas, Mr. Lynn reported that currently, one half to two-thirds of available monthly parking is sold and the City is obligated to keep the remainder open. He stated the new equipment would permit more creative rates, such as the multi -card, explaining this card would allow an organization with, say, ten people, to purchase five cards at full rate and five at a reduced rate, which would allow them to park any five of the ten vehicles in the garage at any one given time. A further convenience would be pre -paid cards and Mr. Lynn explained that those unable to procure monthly parking would be able to purchase a pre -paid card to eliminate the necessity for cash and the attendant; however, this would be based on a transient parking rate. Mr. Lynn reported that staff conducted substantial testing of the equipment and the community was notified by mail of the rate increase. Indicating that some calls were received, he noted most were inquiry based rather than an opinion. The other concerns voiced pertained to construction of the new garage, and Mr. Lynn stated these would be addressed in the public notification phase and the community outreach for that project. Before identifying the new rates, Mr. Lynn stated the ultimate goals for the Parking Services Fund are to fund operations and create adequate reserves to promote stability within the fund. Explaining there are three reserves, he stated that anything above these operating expenses goes into these reserves for facility maintenance, future equipment needs and a catastrophic reserve, such as the costly replacement of a disabled elevator. In this way, he stated, the funds could remain self-sufficient even in unanticipated situations. Mr. Lynn explained the rates were arrived at by evaluating present and future expenses, and enhanced service and equipment over a ten-year period. He stated the rates had been adjusted to meet the needs of financing for both the meter modernization and the garage. He identified the rates as follows: On -Street Parking Off -Street Parking Current Rate 30 cents per hour 35 cents per hour Proposed Rate 60 cents per hour 30 minutes — no charge 50 cents for next 30 minutes 50 cents per hour thereafter In line with this, Mr. Lynn explained that when parking rates and monthly parking rates are raised, i.e., from $45 to $60, it would also be necessary to adjust parking fines and penalties. He identified these as follows: Current Rate Proposed Rate Expired Meter Rate $15.00 $20.00 Overtime Parking $18.00 $22.00 Expired Meter with $20.00 $25.00 Overtime With regard to the pre -paid card, Councilmember Heller inquired whether this could also be used on the street. Responding, Mr. Lynn stated that although meters are being purchased that have that capability, in discussions with some merchant groups, staff learned they did not wish to carry another card. He explained staff believed the pre -paid card could be of benefit to garage users who as regular parkers not wishing to deal with machines, could purchase a card similar to a monthly parking card. He further explained that staff is presently in discussions with the Business Improvement District and Chamber of Commerce regarding the possibility of using a token. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 5 Responding to Councilmember Heller's question as to the type of purchaser, Mr. Lynn stated these could be people who park in lots in a ten-hour area that may not necessarily have a change machine. He indicated tokens could also be used by merchants as validation for customers; however, this is in the preliminary stages. Councilmember Miller inquired whether the new sample meter was still installed. Responding, Mr. Lynn stated that a slightly different housing had been installed on this meter; however, the look is similar. He confirmed that Councilmember Miller was referring to an example proposed for the Fourth Street area that is presently installed at the San Rafael City Plaza, on the north side of the street. Mr. Lynn further explained that all meters in the City would get new mechanisms. He stated that in order to keep with the beautification project on Fourth Street, an ornamental pole that matches the lighting will also contain the housings. He added that due to installation needs, this may not be implemented until after January 1, 2003; however, it is being purchased as part of the project. Councilmember Heller inquired whether this had been presented to the neighborhood associations. Mr. Lynn reported they had been given the proposed rates. With regard to the proposed rate increases, he stated an internal survey of neighboring and similar cities had been conducted and was included in the packet, and in all cases, these rates are either in line with or below current market rates. He stated it is also in line with the CUB Parking Study projections for these fiscal years; implementation was delayed beyond the timeframe recommended by the study. Mr. Lynn reported that in each of the community meetings he addressed the equipment, garage and new rate structures. Councilmember Heller confirmed they had been well informed in advance. In addition, Mr. Lynn stated that prior to tonight's meeting, a letter was forwarded to all merchants from Mission Avenue to Second Street and from Irwin Street to H Street. Councilmember Heller stated she was on the list for quite a few of the neighborhood associations and in monitoring over the past six months, had not seen any problems or criticisms with this coming forward. Mr. Lynn confirmed that concerns were addressed by staff. In terms of short-term parking, staff believed the 30 free minutes addresses this issue. Regarding the fiscal impact, Vice -Mayor Cohen stated the beginning of the staff report indicates that $6.5 million comes from revenue bonds supported by the Parking Services Fund. Debt service begins in fiscal year 02/03, ramps up further in 03/04 and continues at that rate, and he requested clarification on this. Responding, Mr. Lynn stated the debt service had not yet been decided on. He indicated the idea is being entertained of either capitalizing interest, in which case no debt service would be paid until the structure is open and operating, or use reserve funds. He stated that the figures in the fiscal impact area include debt service. Vice -Mayor Cohen noted the staff report lists the revenues and expenses for the current fiscal year, and projected revenues, expenses and debt service for 02/03. Mr. Lynn clarified that the debt service also includes the equipment, which could be a different type of funding. Vice - Mayor Cohen stated it then continues to ramp up to almost $2 million in fiscal year 03/04. Mr. Lynn explained that January would only be half of a fiscal year; therefore, the rate increase was only realized for six months. Vice -Mayor Cohen stated the debt service that takes expenses from $1.2 million to $2 million per year assumes that debt service is being carried on the revenue bonds. He stated there could possibly be a different way to restructure this; however, these numbers assume debt service. Noting that revenues go up each year, Vice -Mayor Cohen stated he assumed this was not just due to the rate increase, rather also due to the increase in the number of parking spaces, as the new structure adds 400 spaces. Mr. Lynn concurred, noting the structure adds monthly and transient revenue. As meters do not operate at 100% capacity, Mr. Lynn stated an increase in the percentage of usage of meters had been observed, realizing a small gain in actual usage. Vice -Mayor Cohen declared the public hearing opened and invited comment from the audience. Nancy McCarthy, President, Marin United Taxpayers Association, stated it was their belief that in large part, redevelopment created the need for this parking. She stated that approximately four — five years ago at a League of Women Voters meeting, someone from the Redevelopment Agency spoke of how great redevelopment would be, and she, Ms. McCarthy, having raised the issue of parking, was informed by Redevelopment Agency staff that parking SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 6 would not be an issue. Ms. McCarthy stated this is not the case and redevelopment has not paid for the parking. She stated the Macy's building that came on line two years later than it should have, with a different developer from the one selected by Vision 2000, has no anchor tenant, which was a requirement of the contract, and there is virtually no significant income from this building. She reported that San Jose is contemplating not allowing further office buildings as they are not providing any revenue. She stated San Rafael is filled with office buildings, insufficient parking and increased parking rates, and she believed it to be inappropriate to infer this is not going to cost the taxpayers money. Ms. McCarthy stated taxpayers would be hit with a much higher dollar amount because redevelopment did not, as it should have, pay for this type of improvement. She stated this is the type of planning that was discussed at the beginning; these concerns were raised at the outset and now the consumer of public goods is having to pay. Aside from this issue, Ms. McCarthy questioned that subsequent to someone receiving two or three parking tickets whether they would return to downtown San Rafael. She reported there had been multiple letters to the Marin IJ concerning people receiving parking tickets for parking in front of See's Candy, indicating they would not return to downtown. With regard to the free 30 minutes, she stated it was not possible to get from a car in this new parking lot to some store downtown and back in 30 minutes. Working at 1010 B Street, Ms. McCarthy stated there are many people who have left that office building because of parking problems. She noted meter maids hover to issue tickets for expired meters, as clearly, this is how the new building would be funded. She believed it to be shortsighted to consider people would continue to come to the downtown and pay this higher rate, rather that go to nearby malls. Since certain portions of the City are overdeveloped, Ms. McCarthy suggested evaluating the Redevelopment Agency to determine whether cuts should be made in staffing, etc., and use those funds to pay for the parking issues. Fielding Greaves, San Rafael resident, Marin United Taxpayers Association member, echoed Ms. McCarthy's sentiments. Contrary to Mr. Schonbrunn's comments, he stated he could not commend the actions over the past few years of development, as the problem had been exacerbated in a number of respects. He instanced Fourth Street where width had been added to the sidewalk in a number of places, which usurped previous parking spaces in order to create sidewalk cafes, etc. Because of the redevelopment and development in the City, he stated traffic is almost at gridlock. He reported that on Third Street on occasion in the afternoon, he had to wait for three changes of a traffic signal to proceed one block, and this he found unacceptable. He recalled that in tonight's Redevelopment Meeting when discussing development, it sounded as if more development was being encouraged, looking forward to continuing the growth of the City. Mr. Greaves suggested it had gone too far already. With regard to the 30 minutes free in the parking structure, Mr. Greaves did not believe this would accomplish what was intended. He expressed his fear that in the long term, small businesses would be driven out of business as people would frequent malls where there is adequate parking. Personally, he stated he did not favor attempting to park downtown presently. Mr. Greaves stated the problem lies with too much development and he urged the City Council not raise the parking fees and reconsider the entire issue of the parking structure. There being no further comment from the audience, Vice -Mayor Cohen closed the public hearing. Councilmember Miller stated he found the development of downtown had made it better. He stated development pertains to betterment and he believed the downtown had grown beautifully according to the Vision of the citizens over the past few years. He noted that as the downtown had grown, more people were attracted to it, thereby necessitating the provision and hospitality of a parking place. Councilmember Miller stated he viewed parking as part and parcel of a better downtown and continued what he believed citizens requested in the Vision. With regard to parking meter rates, Councilmember Miller believed these to be reasonable, understandable and lower than most. He commended Parking Services Manager Chad Lynn for the work done and the outreach carried out, indicating his support for the plan. Councilmember Heller concurred with Councilmember Miller's comments, noting the process had been underway for almost two years with the community, taking input on all aspects every SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 7 step of the way. She stated she was happy with the outcome, which would continue to move the City forward and furnish the necessary parking. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. Before voting, Vice -Mayor Cohen stated he recalled in the early to mid 1990s criticism leveled at the City of San Rafael was to the effect that not enough was being done for downtown. The problem was not the availability of parking, rather finding an open store; downtowns were dead and San Rafael was the latest victim. He stated the community had done a remarkable job, not only in turning this around, but despite some of this evening's comments, making downtown San Rafael a model to be emulated around the Bay Area. Vice -Mayor Cohen reported that his file of articles concerning downtown San Rafael and how communities throughout the Bay Area are looking to San Rafael as a model, is large. Noting Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Greaves had left, Vice -Mayor Cohen stated it was quite ironic that the Marin United Taxpayers would be arguing that consumers should not be asked to pay for parking. If consumers did not pay, he inquired who would, and suggested this would be taxpayers who do not use the service. Believing that a fee for service approach should be right in line with what a taxpayers group should be advocating, Vice -Mayor Cohen stated this is exactly what is proposed. Noting Mr. Greaves stated that should he be unable to find parking he would go to Northgate or the Village at Corte Madera, where adequate parking exists, Vice -Mayor Cohen stated adequate parking is exactly the intended goal for downtown San Rafael. Being unaware of who made the comment Ms. McCarthy referred to that "parking would never be a problem," he recalled studies being conducted approximately every ten years on the need to add parking to the downtown, and this is an indication of success rather than failure. Commenting on Mr. Schonbrunn's points, Vice -Mayor Cohen stated he continues to find the Vision compelling in the sense of taking the smart growth approach and encouraging people not to drive in favor of using transit. He stated that some of the problems faced meant he would pass on the opportunity to do this in this case. Explaining, Vice -Mayor Cohen stated he believed a shuttle system without a transit system behind it would not get the job done as it would be necessary to ascertain who the customers of the shuttle system would be. Should shoppers be asked to drive from, for instance, Fairhills, park and take the shuttle, Vice -Mayor Cohen pondered whether once in their car with no parking available downtown, they would drive to the mall. Unless there was a shuttle to serve suburban development, which might never be achievable, he believed people coming from Point San Pedro Road, for instance, would just pass by if they considered there to be insufficient parking. Vice -Mayor Cohen commented that if a shuttle were to serve employees, thereby reducing parking demands, it would only work in conjunction with transit, and he was not hopeful of seeing this in the near-term future of Marin County. To top off recent events in Marin which led him to that conclusion, he indicated having read a public opinion survey, just published by the Public Policy Institute of California, which suggested that although smart growth is discussed a lot, Californians as a group, by overwhelming numbers, like driving alone in their cars. While there is a need to give people alternatives to that choice and change their minds, Vice -Mayor Cohen stated the City Council also had an obligation to wrestle with continuing to make downtown San Rafael a success. In that vain, he believed it was necessary to give consumers what they desired and the conclusion was that consumers in downtown San Rafael want adequate parking, to enjoy all the sidewalk cafes. a) RESOLUTION NO. 11204 — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RATES AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller and Vice -Mayor Cohen NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips and Mayor Boro Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. b) RESOLUTION NO. 11205 — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW SCHEDULE OF PARKING PENALTIES AND LATE PAYMENT PENALTIES FOR NOTICES OF PARKING VIOLATIONS, AND RESCINDING ANY PREVIOUS SCHEDULE OF PARKING PENALTIES AND LATE PAYMENT PENALTIES AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller and Vice -Mayor Cohen NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips and Mayor Boro SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 8 Vice -Mayor Cohen congratulated Parking Services Manager Chad Lynn. 13. Public Hearing — CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.34 REGULATIONS FOR MASSAGE AND/OR BODYWORK OFFICES AND ESTABLISHMENTS, OWNERS AND PRACTITIONERS, AND SECTION 1.08.020 REGARDING DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER (PD) — FILE 9-10-3 x 10-3 x 9-3-30 Vice -Mayor Cohen declared the public hearing opened Lynne Ohlson, Management Analyst, Police Department, reported that Police Chief Cronin could not be in attendance this evening and Lieutenant Kelly would substitute. Permit Officer, Warren Taylor, was also unable to attend. She explained that Warren Taylor had processed the massage ordinances, and many of the changes were brought about by issues he identified as needing clarification in the current ordinance, needing changes, or just being added. To assist in further identification of a massage applicant, Ms. Ohlson stated staff contacted several other cities and evaluated other ordinances to locate language, which could assist in addressing the problems. She reported that Milpitas, Cathedral City, Millbrae, several cities of similar size and some larger cities, had some very good language, which afforded direction in terms of fingerprinting, testing, notification of property owners and general language to assist with these details. Having drafted language, with the assistance of the City Attorney's office, Ms. Ohlson reported that she and Warren Taylor again met with the same group as twenty-one months ago, and having perused the proposed changes, invited the group to provide feedback. They were also requested to assist in drafting a very basic test, to include: • a test that anyone who had completed 100 hours would be able to pass; • could be easily administered; • translated into the predominantly required languages of those making application; and • a test that could be scored immediately. Having generated a draft test, Ms. Ohlson reported that a public hearing took place on October 24, 2002. She indicated that from 192 notices sent out for this meeting, the attendance numbered approximately 20. Subsequent to this meeting, further refinements were made to be in a position to present the ordinance to Council this evening. Councilmember Heller requested clarification on the testing administered by the Police Department. Ms. Ohlson explained there would be approximately 30 questions on basic anatomy, which would reveal whether the applicant had actually completed 100 hours in classes on anatomy. She stated staff intends to have this test translated to offer it in different Chinese dialects, Spanish and Vietnamese, and also a test that could be administered orally. In order to obtain a massage therapist license, Councilmember Heller inquired as to the type of licensing authority. Ms. Ohlson explained this is a permit to offer massage services and presently the permit authority is the Police Department. She confirmed it is necessary to have 100 hours of massage classes from any certified school. Lieutenant Kelly explained the reason for the test is the belief that several schools are so- called diploma mills, not located in San Rafael. He stated there is one in California, which the State has been requested to investigate (has not yet occurred), and another in New York State, where the Police Department has no authority. Although sometimes a certificate is presented to the effect that 100 hours have been completed, Lieutenant Kelly indicated there is reason to believe the 100 hours were not completed. Councilmember Heller inquired as to the appeal process. Ms. Ohlson explained that language in the original ordinance presented stated the appeals process was to commence with the Police Chief, as the Permit Authority, and would then go to the City Manager. She stated this ordinance specifies times for the Department to respond to an appeal, length of noticing, etc., together with affording the City Manager, or any Code Enforcement official, the right to state it should be heard by an Administrative Officer. This, she explained, is the reason for the addition of the section defining the role of an Administrative Hearing Officer. Vice -Mayor Cohen invited comment from the audience. V. Roy Leftcourt, attorney, representing a number of massage establishments in San Rafael, requested Council to take no action at this time on this legislation. Explaining his objections to the process, he indicated having learned this evening for the first time that 192 notices were SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 9 mailed out for the October 24th meeting. He advised Council that those notices were mailed out on or about October 17, 2002 and his clients received them on or about October 18 and 19, 2002. He stated the notice indicated that comments in writing needed to be submitted by October 15, 2002, a deadline that had now passed. Mr. Leftcourt stated the meeting was scheduled for October 24, 2002 (a World Series night) and it was endemic as to why such a small audience was present, as from 192 notices, perhaps, 20 plus people attended. He did not believe this to be a fair representation of the massage bodywork community and considered the reason to be lack of notice and the night on which it was held. Stating a final objection, Mr. Leftcourt reported it was a very active meeting; a number of people spoke and made numerous suggestions, and his impression was that those comments were being well received and he interpreted they would be written into the legislation. Representing primarily minority women speaking English as a second language, Mr. Leftcourt stated he was firstly concerned about the test, believing it should be given in the spoken language, and while it appeared interpretation would be embodied, he did not see it included in the current legislation. Mr. Leftcourt reported that Permit Officer Taylor's suggestion was that everyone who already had a permit license would be "grandfathered" in and would not be required to take the test, and again, he stated this did not appear to be in the legislation. With regard to Division 6 in the ordinance, he reported a very heated debate in terms of landlord interests and noted the staff report indicates the revised ordinance addresses the concerns on notification of property owners and testing requirements; however, a number of issues were raised by the massage/bodywork community, such as "who was entitled to know and why was the Police Department enforcing landlord/tenant law, instead of the Civil Courts." Mr. Leftcourt stated his understanding was that after the sparsely attended meeting, there would be at the very least, one other meeting regarding the proposed changes to permit community input on approval or disapproval; therefore, he was somewhat surprised to learn this was before the City Council this evening. He believed the community was not adequately noticed as to the proposed legislation. Finally, Mr. Leftcourt stated this legislation had only been in effect since February of this year and most legislation is usually given at least one year for evaluation, at which time, should there be problems, the various parties would confer in an effort to reach resolution. He respectfully requested that the City Council take no action at this time, the Permit Department of the Police Department once again, should contact the community, schedule a meeting, receive full input, and should legislation be needed, the ordinance could be brought back to the City Council, subsequent to full community input. Kate Kinsey stated she had just moved to San Rafael this year from Sonoma County, where she had to close her business because of ordinances similar to this. She indicated this was done by a Police Department with very good intentions and reason. Ms. Kinsey stated that of those she had spoken with in the past two and one half weeks since the original meeting, the feelings were of great respect, both for the Police Department and the community of bodyworkers who voluntarily gave a tremendous amount of time to support the Police Department and provide input. She stated this small group represented a very vast and diverse community. Other issues she encountered included a tremendous amount of fear that signing a petition the Police Department might see would place the signatory under suspicion or make them the subject of police harassment. Ms. Kinsey reported an issue she encountered almost universally was that this was a futile effort because the City Council would not listen to anyone other than the Police Department. Not wishing this to be a reflection on the City Council, Ms. Kinsey stated this is part of the apathy that there is no point in fighting City Hall. With regard to a petition she possessed, she reported having received approximately 52 signatures to date, with at least three other petition sheets still being circulated. She read the petition: "We, the undersigned, request that the City Council of the City of San Rafael delay their approval of the proposed revisions to Ordinance No. 1761. We recognize that legislation takes time, effort and money to create, and even more of the same to repeal. It is naturally I wish that all City legislation be created with great care for her citizens. We recognize that the proposed changes were presented to this community of legitimate small business owners with insufficient notice and without adequate statistical and legal information." Ms. Kinsey stated a lot of this was due to minor human error and certainly, not intentional; however, it did happen. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 10 She continued "We recognize that Ordinance 1761 has been in effect for only one fiscal year and this is not enough time to adequately review and analyze its effects on the community, nor its long-term effectiveness. We, therefore, request that the City Council delay the passage of any amendments to Ordinance 1761 until at least the 2004 fiscal year and that full legal, financial and community impact be made to the Council, as well as the community, well in advance." Rhonda Kutter, Acting -Chair for the Massage Ordinance Advisory Committee, noted several members of the community mentioned they did not feel they had adequate notice, and this was a concern. She indicated they had been working with Warren Taylor and the Police Department since the implementation of this ordinance. She stated that Police Chief Cronin brought the fingerprinting issue to their attention right away and she believed everyone in the community had worked through this and understood that the Police Department, for proper identification, required fingerprinting. Ms. Kutter expressed appreciation that the City was willing to work with them, and in particular, with the passage of the last ordinance. She stated it was a huge relief to the bodywork community to have the local zoning ordinances changed. Her concern was the repeated feedback from other bodyworkers that having gone through the permit process, they were informed they could not do zoning in a particular area that was properly zoned. She reported having since notified Community Development Director Bob Brown who was attempting to deal with this, and she had not received any recent comments of this nature. With regard to some of the current changes, Ms. Kutter stated all professional bodyworkers would prefer to have no local ordinance; however, they understand that since there is no state regulation at this time, the City believes it needs to act. Regarding the test, she stated that although the Massage Ordinance Committee did work on the test, it still was her intuition that the City could regret ever instigating it. She favored keeping it simple; however, was not completely comfortable with it. With regard to the hours, Ms. Kutter stated that instead of a yearly renewal, the continuing education could be extended to include a longer workshop every two years. Presently, the requirement is 6 hours of continuing education annually. She stated this is a problem for her as she has been on maternity leave for a year; therefore, keeping her permit, etc., active had been somewhat of a challenge. Should this not be written into the ordinance, Ms. Kutter proposed there be some policy for a case-by-case basis, under special circumstances. Ms. Kutter stated there had been some confusion regarding when the licenses and permits are due for renewal and she requested an assurance that this be clarified by the conclusion of the process. She stated they had been attempting to coordinate this with licensing so that business licenses and permits expire simultaneously, and she would like to ensure this is no longer an issue. Ms. Kutter requested the grandfathering issue also be clarified. She expressed appreciation for the inclusion of at least a partial exemption for those who are nationally certified for the test. Ms. Kutter also expressed appreciation for this opportunity and indicated she understood there were many members of the community unable to attend this evening. Kay Lawson, San Rafael resident and bodyworker, reiterated the comments of the previous speakers to the effect that the time between the last somewhat informal meeting and this evening's meeting was too short, as so many interesting ideas arose. She suggested the proposed ordinance be delayed until these issues were reviewed, noting a larger turnout would better reflect the legitimate bodyworkers of San Rafael. Fritzie Schnel stated she had been a bodyworker and massage therapist for approximately twenty-three years, and thirteen years in San Rafael. She reported having been a part of the Massage Ordinance Advisory Committee believing that as ethical bodyworkers, they needed protection, and found the Police Department, Lynne Ohlson, Police Chief Cronin and Warren Taylor, to be extremely amicable in understanding the needs of their community. Ms. Schnel indicated that the statements of other speakers were valid and they as ethical bodyworkers, believed somehow, they had been caught up in the controversy the Police Department is seeking to clear from San Rafael, and were required to be fingerprinted and take tests. She reported that most of those with whom she had spoken in their community believed that those people who attended state regulated and approved schools had already taken their tests and procured certification. She stated this is, therefore, a controversial issue concerning the effectiveness or efficacy of a test for those with different modalities and may not be able to pass a test. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 11 For her personally, Ms. Schnel stated she regretted the ethical bodywork community was involved; however, she deeply respected the process undergone with Lynne Ohlson and Warren Taylor, to arrive at a point where at least the ordinance was reasonable and as respectful as it could be, given the circumstances that it does disrespect them to begin with. She indicated her appreciation for what had been done so far, and expressed the hope the City Council would take into consideration the sentiments concerning the timeframes. She stated that with more people speaking out, the massage community would feel less disrespected, which is important to them, as well as the Police Department. There being no further comment from the audience, Vice -Mayor Cohen closed the public hearing. Lynne Ohlson, Management Analyst, explained that on the night of the public hearing it was learned the gap between the letters leaving the Police Department and the date of mailing was much wider, and while there was a question on this, it was probably close to the required ten days notice. She reported she and Warren Taylor answered telephone questions and believed those with concerns had an avenue to address these concerns. With regard to grandfathering, Ms. Ohlson explained there is a capacity in the permit procedure to deal with issues on a case-by-case basis. On the question of the 6 hours per year being carried over to another year, Ms. Ohlson stated they would prefer this not be part of the ordinance, in favor of having something to evaluate and review. On the issue raised by Mr. Leftcourt regarding landlord/tenant notification, Ms. Ohlson explained the City of San Rafael does not require a special Use Permit for a massage business, rather new applicants could self -certify they have notified the landlord, as well as have the landlord present something to the Police Department, to maintain flexibility while obtaining the information deemed necessary for properly processing the permit. On the question of testing, Ms. Ohlson stated staff did indicate that those who possessed the national certificate were not required to undergo the anatomy test; however, there would be testing on the local ordinance, which would be comprised of approximately three questions on how to operate in the City of San Rafael, and the required regulations. Lieutenant Kelly stated Ms. Kinsey had made a statement concerning those who signed a petition being in fear of police harassment. He expressed assurance to Ms. Kinsey and those signing the petition, that this would absolutely not occur and offered his personal guarantee. He encouraged anyone signing the petition who believed this did happen to file a citizen's complaint, indicating he would be glad to supply forms, etc. He stated that should someone believe this had happened, it would be thoroughly investigated. With regard to the comment that Ordinance 1761 had only been in effect since February, 2002, Lieutenant Kelly stated processing of applications was initiated in July of 2001, and at this time, over 200 applications had been processed and permits issued. He stated staff had a great deal of experience in the whole process and probably had been contacted by everyone wishing to operate a bodywork business in San Rafael. Ms. Ohlson clarified the date of February 2002 in the staff report should have read February, 2001. With regard to testing, Councilmember Miller inquired whether this primarily related to the substance of the ordinance or the science and art of bodywork. Ms. Ohlson explained there are approximately thirty questions, which were generated by the Bodywork Advisory Committee. Seven questions would relate to a combination of hygiene, anatomy, physiology, etc., with three relating to the ordinance, making a total of approximately ten questions. She added that someone who had been through certification would be deemed to have gone beyond the seven basic questions. Noting several requests for a delay for further discussion, Councilmember Heller inquired whether the procedures had been made available to everyone in the bodywork community. As Warren Taylor was not in attendance, Ms. Ohlson indicated her belief this had been done. Ms. Ohlson stated that when the 30 days was considered, which could appear somewhat rushed, this was also to address Ms. Kutter's concern regarding the licensing. She explained that business licenses end on December 31; therefore, staff was endeavoring to combine the massage and business licenses for the calendar year. Because so much pertains to renewal, staff was attempting to ensure the ordinance was in effect at this time. Noting the continuing education portion appeared to be a problem to some, Councilmember Heller requested clarification. Ms. Ohlson explained it was six hours per year and as was explained in the original ordinance dated February, 2001, this could be anything from business SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 12 practices, as well as specifically massage and massage modality, to also afford the opportunity to operate in a small business to enhance those skills as well. While recognizing at the time that most of the classes were longer, Ms. Ohlson stated staff wanted to ensure it was being kept current; however, not making it onerous to go through a lengthy period of time to keep licenses current. Councilmember Heller inquired as to where this particular type of education is offered. Ms. Ohlson explained there are a variety of schools available locally, as well as taking any type of course to assist in operating a business, through community colleges, etc. She added that an on-line course would also be acceptable, provided evidence of completion could be furnished. On the timing issue, Vice -Mayor Cohen inquired whether it was staff's concern that the licensing gets off this year or is it on an ongoing basis. Ms. Ohlson confirmed it would be on an ongoing basis. Vice -Mayor Cohen inquired whether a way could be found to address this and get back in sequence next year, suggesting perhaps, there was no reason to rush. The community response generally had been fairly supportive, or at least recognized the City's legitimate concern relating to licensing. He commended the Police Department and the bodyworkers for working together on these issues. He believed it would be regrettable if there were an impression of a rush to judgment from tonight's meeting, when perhaps somewhat more discretion would leave people feeling more comfortable. Vice -Mayor Cohen stated that from his general experience, it is a mistake to rush into something that does not need to be done so quickly. While understanding the timing issue on licenses, he inquired whether a way could be figured out to get them back in sequence so that by the end of next year, both licenses would become due at the same time. Ms. Ohlson indicated her understanding and appreciation of this and explained that it was several months into the year when staff first began issuing licenses. She indicated people were inquiring as to how they would know when licenses were due and requested staff attempt to coordinate this. She stated that Warren Taylor is now ready to issue notices to Finance to be mailed with the business license renewal notice. Councilmember Miller stated he was attempting to weigh the public process with the urgency of the ordinance. He indicated his understanding of the severe reluctance of new immigrants with English as a second language, to come forward, especially when the document contained some errors and the meeting was scheduled for an inappropriate night. He noted it had been a wonderful process to date; however, everyone who testified this evening indicated they were being rushed. In terms of the urgency of the ordinance, Councilmember Miller suggested figuring out a means of holding a further meeting in a month or two to maintain the good faith generated to date. City Manager Rod Gould stated Council was not hearing this evening of the frustrations of some residents and nearby business owners concerning the City's inability to use the current ordinance to force illegitimate massage therapists out of town. He indicated these people believed the current ordinance had been somewhat effective in some areas; however, utterly ineffective in others, and some people had been able to exploit the loopholes to continue to offer illegitimate massage and bodywork services. Mr. Gould stated these people were quite angry and as staff had heard from them, he was surprised they had not been heard from this evening. He explained this whole effort was an attempt to work with the legitimate bodywork community to close the loopholes in as respectful a manner as possible to the community, and make good on the commitments to the remainder of the community desiring enforcement of the laws and regulations. Concurring with Ms. Ohlson, Mr. Gould stated to get off schedule would make it very difficult to catch up in less than a year on the need for simultaneous permit and license renewal. As an alternative, he suggested allowing this ordinance change to go to print while directing a further public meeting be held sometime after the first of January, 2003 to have a full airing of bodyworkers' concerns relating to the amended ordinance and permit further changes. He indicated this would permit the maintenance of permits on schedule with business licenses and close some of the loopholes that have become apparent in the current ordinance. Councilmember Miller stated this appeared reasonable and especially if there was a positive proposal to return to this issue on a date certain; however, he was still somewhat uncomfortable. Councilmember Heller indicated her understanding of staff's problems and the community's dissatisfaction with the process, which made her uncomfortable. She inquired when the business license was due for renewal. Assistant City Manager Ken Nordhoff confirmed this to be February 16, 2003. Councilmember Heller inquired whether the ordinance needed to be passed to print this evening. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 13 City Manager Rod Gould explained that in two weeks, the renewal notices would normally be mailed out and should Council take action this evening, a notification could be included with this to the effect that the permit, as well as the renewal of the business license, was necessary in order to practice in San Rafael, hence the urgency of this evening's action. Regarding coming back in two weeks and whether this would miss the deadline, City Manager Gould informed Councilmember Heller this could potentially be done in two weeks should it be ready and the bodywork community could hold a meeting in that two weeks. Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis stated that to wait another two weeks would mean the ordinance would not become effective until the middle of January, 2003, which raised an issue in terms of whether or not it could be combined with the business license. Vice -Mayor Cohen inquired whether a permit was currently required under the existing ordinance. Ms. Ohlson confirmed a permit is required and the mailing is the renewal notice for those currently holding permits. She confirmed for Vice -Mayor Cohen that in renewing their permit they would be required to be fingerprinted if they were not fingerprinted before. She explained there is a procedural plan to conduct a modified test if necessary; however, from her last conversation with Warren Taylor, it was her understanding he wanted to grandfather the existing people in. Vice -Mayor Cohen stated the specific concerns articulated pertained to the landlord notification and grandfathering. He was satisfied with the response on these and also on the concern relating to the testing process and the desire to discuss some refinements. He indicated not having heard much on the fingerprinting or the administrative officer issue, and the clarification of language, which he assumed were the issues under scrutiny pertaining to loopholes. He inquired as to the language in the draft ordinance that closed the loopholes. Lieutenant Kelly stated it also addresses those who have not been fingerprinted and explained that while not including fingerprinting in the original ordinance, voluntary compliance was requested and paid for by the City. Under the revised ordinance, he explained it would be mandatory for anyone not fingerprinted to be fingerprinted upon renewal, at their own expense. With regard to Division 3 in the proposed ordinance, Deputy City Attorney Davis stated this did not provide terms for grandfathering, and it would be amended to do so. Interpreting Division 6, he stated this is a grandfather provision as it indicated that new applicants after January 1, 2003, would be subject to this; however, testing was not. Mr. Davis stated this could be amended or be a provision that is not part of this ordinance. He stated it was his understanding the primary loophole is fingerprinting, which is a real concern. Vice -Mayor Cohen inquired whether a portion of the amendments could be acted upon. Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis stated it was his opinion the ordinance could be passed to print without a particular Division, which could be deferred for a later amendment. Vice -Mayor Cohen stated he had some questions regarding the whole testing issue. He suggested perhaps a resolution would be to go ahead and act on the fingerprinting and administrative changes, deferring the language on testing and landlord negotiation, have a follow-up meeting with those who expressed concern on these items and bring that back to Council as quickly as was reasonably possible, thus permitting fair public process. He believed this would maintain the renewal schedule. He commented that the idea of adopting the ordinance changes while scheduling a further series of meetings in a few months did not appear to him to be the correct approach. City Manager Gould stated that Council could approve the ordinance amendments as proposed; however, stipulate that before the City could administer a test, it would be necessary to meet with the bodywork community and bring the test back for Council approval via resolution. This would dispense with the necessity of the entire process of amending the ordinance again; however, that portion of the ordinance pertaining to the test would not be effective until a) staff had again met with the bodywork community, and b) it was brought back to the Council for consideration, before the test was administered. Councilmember Heller stated this helped as she believed there still needed to be some discussion with the community. She believed the timeframe was somewhat off for the community and she did not wish to pass the ordinance in its present form, believing there was insufficient public input. To entertain that approach, Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis stated Division 3 would now read "Written proof that an applicant has successfully completed by a 70% or higher passing score, a written examination in a form approved by the City Council by resolution..." For it to become effective, it would have to be approved by a resolution of the City Council. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 14 Councilmember Heller confirmed the language could be passed now; however, a disclaimer would be inserted to the effect that nothing would happen until a resolution was passed. Mr. Davis confirmed that should the resolution not be approved by the City Council, there would not be a test to implement. Mr. Davis stated this was one approach to Division 3 of the ordinance. Councilmember Heller inquired about the grandfathering. Deputy City Attorney Davis stated that should this be desired, language to address this would be required. To make this applicable to new applicants, not renewal applicants, this language would need to be inserted. City Manager Gould stated staff would agree with this stipulation should this be Council's desire. He stated it would make it explicit that existing permit holders would be grandfathered. Regarding Division 3, Mr. Davis stated the language could be further modified to read: "Written proof that a new applicant applying after January 1. 2003." From the audience, Mr. Leftcourt, attorney, inquired whether new legislation needed to be returned to Council for consideration. Vice -Mayor Cohen responded in the negative, explaining that the ordinance had not yet been passed to print and he deferred to the City Attorney. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti concurred, explaining that Council had the right to modify a proposed piece of legislation as deemed appropriate; however, changes made after the matter was passed to print was a different matter. Mr. Leftcourt questioned whether there could be public comment subsequent to the changes Mr. Ragghianti stated this would be a matter for the Chair. With regard to the modification to Division 3, Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis clarified the language could be as follows: "Written proof that a new applicant applying after January 1, 2003, has successfully completed..." He stated this would address the grandfathering Councilmember Heller confirmed that the process was laid out in the set of procedures and inquired how people would know about this. Ms. Ohlson confirmed they receive a copy of the ordinance and instructions defining the steps to be followed, together with the application and business license application and pertinent information on fingerprinting, etc. Councilmember Heller confirmed that to include this language the ordinance could be passed to print. Thereafter, a public meeting could take place, with subsequent approval of the test by Council, thus maintaining staff's timeframe. Stating his concern was for the public process, Vice -Mayor Cohen stated the comments received pertained primarily to the testing and landlord issue. He inquired whether it would be possible to adopt the changes relative to identification, fingerprinting and administrative procedures, and not adopt testing or landlord notification language until there had been an opportunity to have further discussion with the bodywork community concerning the content of those suggestions, rather than "shoe horn" it in and return to it. While acknowledging it would require a further ordinance amendment, he suggested it could make people feel better about the process and their ability to speak and obtain some response and change. Vice -Mayor Cohen confirmed staff's concern was to get the language on identification into the ordinance and adopted prior to the existing permits becoming due for renewal, and to have this done simultaneously with the business license renewal on February 16, 2002. City Manager Gould added that as soon as possible staff wished to be in a position to act on what are clearly viewed as fraudulent certificates of education. Vice -Mayor Cohen inquired as to the number of new applications received per month. Ms. Ohlson stated that Warren Taylor figured he was receiving 20 — 25 applications monthly, much higher than anticipated. Should the ordinance not be adopted, Vice -Mayor Cohen inquired whether the problem was that those currently holding permits would renew their business license and permit without this language, or whether the schedule would be upset. Responding, Ms. Ohlson confirmed that with the proposed changes to the ordinance, those renewing and not already fingerprinted would have to be fingerprinted; however, the sections SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 15 in Division 3 concerning testing and landlord would only affect new applicants Vice -Mayor Cohen inquired as to the consequences of not acting this evening and whether those renewing permits would be in a position to continue for a further year without the proposed provisions. City Manager Gould responded affirmatively, adding that permits would have to be issued to new applicants without fingerprinting or testing, and he believed some of these people were not conducting legitimate bodywork and massage. Councilmember Heller indicated her satisfaction with the proposed compromise, i.e., passing the ordinance to print, and qualifying the language, which she believed would protect the citizens of the City by ensuring the operators were legitimate. Councilmember Miller stated he was still somewhat curious regarding how the testing could be postponed pending further discussion. City Manager Rod Gould stated the suggestion to Council was that the testing could not become effective until approved by Council subsequent to a meeting with the members of the bodywork community to further discuss the issue, as this appeared to get most of the attention this evening. He confirmed that the City Council would control when testing would commence, under what circumstances and the form it would take. Councilmember Miller indicated he was comfortable with postponing the testing in order to return to it subsequent to further discussions with the community. With regard to continuing education, Vice -Mayor Cohen inquired whether there would be an opportunity to address this issue. Councilmember Heller stated she was comfortable on the continuing education issue as there were so many venues where this is available constantly. Having tested the ordinance for a year or so, the issue could be revisited. The title of the ordinance was read. - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.34 REGULATIONS FOR MASSAGE AND/OR BODYWORK OFFICES AND ESTABLISHMENTS, OWNERS AND PRACTITIONERS, AND SECTION 1.08.020 REGARDING DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER" (as amended — Division 3 — First sentence paragraph 2 to read) "Written proof that a new applicant applying after January, 2003, has successfully completed, by a 70% or higher passing score, a written examination in a form approved by the City Council by Resolution, that tests the applicant's basic knowledge of anatomy, physiology, hygiene, massage and the requirements as stated in Section 8.34.090. " Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and to refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1792 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller and Vice -Mayor Cohen NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips and Mayor Boro COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 14. LAFCO — Local Agency Formation Commission: - File 149 Councilmember Heller reported having attended a LAFCO conference last week, participating on one of the Boards and discussing Marin County. She stated she hoped to again attend in two or three years. There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12002 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/18/2002 Page 15