Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2010-06-07SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2010 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2010 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, City Manager Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk Members of the public may speak on Agenda items. OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 7:00 PM Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items. CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM a) Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: Jane Doe v. Citv of San Rafael, et al. Marin County Superior Court Case #CV075966 Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Damon Connolly, Vice -Mayor Greg Brockbank, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Marc Levine, Councilmember Absent: None b) Conference with Labor Negotiators— Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Negotiators: Jim Schutz, Leslie Loomis, Cindy Mosser, Robert Epstein, Ken Nordhoff Employee Organization(s): San Rafael Fire Chief Officers' Assn. San Rafael Firefighters' Assn. San Rafael Police Mid -Management Assn. San Rafael Police Association Western Council of Engineers Local I - Confidential SEIU Miscellaneous & Supervisory SEIU Child Care Unit Unrepresented Management Unrepresented Mid -Management Elected City Clerk and Elected Part -Time City Attorney City Attorney, Robert Epstein announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:06 PM Latino Basketball Leaque Fees at Pickleweed Communitv Center: - File 9-1 John Ortega requested that the City Council give consideration to lowering the fee charged to the Latino Women's Basketball League for use of the Pickleweed Community Center gymnasium, noting the contract is due for renewal. With Mr. Ortega interpreting, Edvan Lopez, Latino Women's Basketball League, urged the City Council to help remedy the situation. City Manager, Ken Nordhoff noted that there had been extensive conversations on the last occasion league fees were due and he had suggested Ms. Lopez meet with the Chair of the Pickleweed Advisory Board, which she did. He noted a Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, 1400 Fifth Avenue, and placed with other agenda -related materials on the table in front of the Council Chamber prior to the meeting. American Sign Language interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3198 (TDD) or (415) 485- 3064 (voice) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Paratransit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. CC 06-07-2010 long-standing policy at the Pickleweed Community Center concerning discounting rental and programmatic rates, and while $81 per hour did not necessarily compare favorably with Corte Madera, Pickleweed was a brand new, modern facility; therefore, the rate was very competitive in terms of what was offered at Pickleweed. Mr. Nordhoff reported that subsequent to adoption of the budget, staff would conduct a citywide Master Fee Schedule update, for adoption in the fall, at which time the City Council could evaluate policy on fees in general at Pickleweed. Mr. Nordhoff indicated that at the appropriate time staff would be glad to solicit Mr. Ortega's input and that of others. Red Light Cameras: - File 9-1 x 9-3-30 Jim Thomas, California representative for the National Motorists Association, expressing opposition to red light cameras stated there were much more effective engineering solutions to keep the danger level down. Should the stated accident reduction figures in the report provided to the City Council on May 25, 2010 be correct, he believed these most likely were related to the increase from 3 — 3'h seconds in the yellow light time, together with less driving. He questioned the validity of the camera vendor, Redflex, conducting the survey. Mayor Boro stated that correspondence submitted from Mr. Thomas would be included in a Red Light Camera report which would be agendized for a future meeting. Councilmember Levine moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: CONSENT CALENDAR: ALL MATTERS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE TO BE APPROVED BY ONE MOTION, UNLESS SEPARATE ACTION IS REQUIRED ON A PARTICULAR ITEM: 2. Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular City Council Meetings of May 17, 2010 (CC) RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ACTION: Minutes approved as submitted. 3. Resolution Adopting Local Public Agency Goals and RESOLUTION NO. 12963 Policies for Community Facilities Districts, in Connection RESOLUTION ADOPTING LOCAL PUBLIC with Formation of a Mello -Roos Community Facilities AGENCY GOALS AND POLICIES FOR District for Maintenance of Publicly -Accessible Park and COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS PURSUANT Recreation Improvements at the Village at Loch Lomond TO THE MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES Marina (CA) — File 6-55 ACT OF 1982 4. Resolution of Intention to Form Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 for Maintenance of Publicly -Accessible Park and Recreation Improvements at the Village at Loch Lomond Marina (CA) — File 6-55 5. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for Professional Services with RBF Consulting for Assistance Needed to Prepare an Addendum to the Previously Certified Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report (CD) — File 4-3-471 6. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) — File 116 x 9-1 7. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Pertaining to Compensation and Working Conditions for Public Employees Union Local One — Confidential Bargaining RESOLUTION NO. 12964 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES PURSUANT TO THE MELLO-ROOS COMMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982 FOR MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS AT THE VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND MARINA RESOLUTION NO. 12965 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN RAFAEL TARGET STORE PROJECT AT SHORELINE CENTER (Term of Agreement: from June 7, 2010 to June 7, 2011 for an amount not to exceed $72,940) Accepted report. RESOLUTION NO. 12966 RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS CC 06-07-2010 91 0 10 11 12 13. 14 Unit [Local 1 — Confidential] (July 1, 2010 Through June 30, 2011 (MS) — File 7-8-7 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Pertaining to Compensation and Working Conditions for the Western Council of Engineers (July 1, 2010 Through June 30, 2011 (MS) — File 7-8-8 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Pertaining to Compensation and Working Conditions for Service Employees International Union, SEIU Local 1021] (July 1, 2010 Through June 30, 2011 (MS) — File 7-8-1 Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 12687 and Adopting a New Resolution Establishing the Compensation and Working Conditions for Unrepresented Management Employees ("Managers") (effective July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) (MS) — File 7-3 Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 12688 and Adopting a New Resolution Establishing the Compensation and Working Conditions for Unrepresented Mid -Management Employees ("Mid -Managers") (effective July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 (MS) — File 7-3 Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 12689 and Adopting a New Resolution Establishing the Compensation and Working Conditions for the Elected City Clerk and Elected Part -Time City Attorney (effective July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 (MS) — File 9-3-14 x 9-3-16 Resolution Directing the City Manager and the City Finance Director to Withhold Five (5%) Percent of the Monthly Compensation of the Mayor and Councilmembers During Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and to Donate Said Funds Into the City's General Fund (MS) — File 9-1 Resolution Awarding a Contract for the Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Happy Lane Pedestrian Improvements Project, City Project No. 11121, Federal Project No. SRTSL-5043(028), to Ghilotti Bros. Inc. in the Amount of $123,000.00 (Bid Opening Held on Wednesday, June 2, 2010 (PW) — File 4-1-617 FOR EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL ONE — CONFIDENTIAL (hereinafter called Local 1 — Confidential) RESOLUTION NO. 12967 RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE WESTERN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS (WCE) (One year agreement from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) RESOLUTION NO. 12968 RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY SEIU LOCAL 1021 RESOLUTION NO. 12969 RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 12687 AND ADOPTING A NEW RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR UNREPRESENTED MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES ("MANAGERS") (effective July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2010) RESOLUTION NO. 12970 RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 12688 AND ADOPTING A NEW RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR UNREPRESENTED MID -MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES ("MID - MANAGERS) (effective July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) RESOLUTION NO. 12971 RESOLUTION REPEAING RESOLUTION NO. 12689 AND ADOPTING A NEW RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR THE ELECTED CITY CLERK AND ELECTED PART-TIME CITY ATTORNEY (Effective July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) RESOLUTION NO. 12972 RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR TO WITHHOLD FIVE (5%) PERCENT OF THE MONTHLY COMPENSATION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 AND TO DONATE SAID FUNDS INTO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND RESOLUTION NO. 12973 RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL, (SRTS) HAPPY LANE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 11121, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. SRTSL-5043(028), TO GHILOTTI BROS. INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $123,000.00 CC 06-07-2010 15. Resolution Awarding a Contract for the ADA/DOJ RESOLUTION NO. 12974 Compliance Curb Ramp 2009-2010 Project, City Project RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR #15006, to FBD Vanguard Construction Inc. in the Amount ADA/DOJ COMPLIANCE CURB RAMP 2009-2010 of $454,003.00 (Bid Opening Held on Wednesday, June 2, PROJECT, CITY PROJECT #15006, TO FBD 2010 (PW) — File 4-1-616 VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $454,003.00 16. Resolution Approving the 2010-11 Annual Report of the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement District and Declaring Council's Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment for the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2010-11 and Directing the City Clerk to Schedule a Public Hearing for June 21, 2010 to Consider Levying the Assessment (RA) — File 224 x 183 RESOLUTION NO. 12975 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2010-2011 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DOWNTOWN PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DOWNTOWN PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 21, 2010 TO CONSIDER LEVYING THE ASSESSMENT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None APPEAL HEARING: 17. QUEZADA MARKET, 90 BELVEDERE STREET — RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO OVERTURN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN) AND GRANT THE APPLICATION TO ALLOW ALCOHOL SALES AT AN EXISTING BUSINESS — QUEZADA MARKET (CD) — FILE 273 — Quezada Market Principal Planner Raffi Boloyan reported that this was an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to overturn staff's denial of a PCN. He explained that a PCN was a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity and was a means of permitting alcohol sales within a community. The State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) is the government agency which regulates and permits alcohol sales within the state. Types of alcohol sales include: • On -Sale Licenses, which allow consumption on premises, such as restaurants and bars; • Off -Sale Licenses, which allow purchase of beverages to be consumed off-site; • Banquet Licenses, Caterers' Licenses and Distribution Warehouse, etc. Noting a finite number of alcohol licenses in operation, Mr. Boloyan explained that most were transferred from one area or business to another — it was a commodity with an industry behind it. In certain communities licenses would come from a different county or from within the same county or city and they could also transfer from person to person on premises. In certain areas with an over -concentration of alcohol licenses, where crime statistics exist, ABC does not issue any new licenses, even transfers, unless the local city or county granted a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity. Mr. Boloyan explained that not all types of alcohol licenses required the local jurisdiction to make a PCN finding. All off -sale licenses and certain on -sale licenses always require that a PCN first be granted in over -concentrated areas; however, many on -sale licenses and other types could be granted by ABC without any local control. With regard to the PCN process, Mr. Boloyan stated that, if ABC determined a PCN was required for a license transfer, an applicant must apply to that local jurisdiction for consideration of the PCN. Each city or county had their own criteria for considering PCN requests — in San Rafael, Resolution No. 10299, last updated in 1998, establishes the review criteria and the process for the City's consideration of PCN requests. Seven criteria were included in this resolution to be considered by the City as part of its determination of whether the public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of another off -sale or on -sale retail liquor license. He indicated the PCN resolution requires that the City consider all seven criteria as part of its review; however, does not require compliance with all seven. Mr. Boloyan stated the intent of the PCN criteria was to: 1) Consider the specific request for the PCN; 4 CC 06-07-2010 2) Determine whether there would be public convenience or necessity served by the issuance of another license in that over -concentrated area; or 3) Whether a segment of the population not currently being served would receive service by the issuance of another license; 4) To consider the request in light of the seven review criteria. The seven criteria were contained in the staff report and addressed in the Planning Commission staff report attached. Mr. Boloyan stated the application before the City Council this evening was for a Type 21 license, which permits off - sale of beer, wine or liquor. The application was initially reviewed by staff at a public hearing on September 17, 2009. Staff did not find that the addition of a new license in this area would serve public convenience or necessity, because of numerous other small markets in the neighborhood that also served beer, wine and liquor, and the application was denied. Subsequent to an appeal by Mr. Quezada, applicant, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 26, 2010 and ultimately granted the appeal on a 4:3 vote, overturning staff's denial. The decision to overturn was based on the finding of the majority that Quezada Market was closer in proximity to the population center than the other stores in the neighborhood and granting a PCN would reduce the distance that residents would have to travel to obtain their groceries and/or alcohol, if desired. Secondly, the close proximity would promote walking and/or biking, which would serve as a public convenience, and thirdly, granting a license to this small, existing neighborhood business would allow it to remain, grow and thrive in these tough economic times. This decision was ultimately appealed by two different parties — a joint appeal was filed by the Canal Alliance and the Marin Institute. Mr. Boloyan reported that three main points were raised in the appeal letter: 1) The Canal Community already has 29 locations that sell alcohol, which was an overabundance of access to alcohol: Mr. Boloyan clarified that the staff report indicated there were 30 existing licenses contained in that census tract, which was the case approximately two weeks ago; however, as of today, ABC records indicated there were now 29 licenses — a caterer's permit, type 58 license, had expired. Of the 29 licenses, 12 allowed off -sale; therefore, with the proposed PCN at this location the total for the area would be 13. A color -coded map had been prepared to graphically illustrate the concentration of the 13 existing off -sale licenses. Mr. Boloyan explained that the entire point of the PCN process was that there was an over -concentration of licenses and process was established to allow a city or county to consider additional licenses if they felt it would serve a public convenience or necessity. He reported that with that in mind the Planning Commission considered the 7 review criteria and the majority found that granting of the license to Quezada Market would serve public convenience based on the close proximity to the residential population, would promote walking or biking and help an existing small business grow. 2) The Canal Alliance operates an after-school program for at -risk youth in the same building: The Planning Commission considered this fact as one of the seven review criteria and the majority found that the public convenience would outweigh the potential issues. They also considered that the alcohol sales proposed at Quezada Market would be limited. 3) Although Quezada Market would be a responsible server, their business may not survive and the market could turn into a full liquor store: Mr. Boloyan reported that staff consulted with ABC on this issue. Should a new operator purchase the market business and associated liquor license they could take over and operate the business. It would be considered a person-to-person transfer in ABC's world, and would be allowed to continue as such. The operator could continue type 21 sales, which would be a grocery store, including ancillary sales; however, Mr. Boloyan stated it should be noted that, although the type 21 license in ABC's permitting authority would allow a full liquor store to be operated at the location, the City would maintain zoning control, and in the core Canal industrial district, a liquor store, which is predominantly liquor sales and ancillary grocery sales, was not an allowable nor a conditionally allowable use. Mr. Boloyan noted another scenario that could unfold based on this appeal point was that if the business was sold and the alcohol license was not included in the sale, a new owner would have to obtain a license, and should there be an over -concentration of licenses in that area, they would need to apply for a PCN to the City to bring in the new license. A variable was that, should that transfer occur within 90 days, a 90 -day rule would apply, i.e., a premises licensed and operating with a similar type of license could operate without a PCN from a local CC 06-07-2010 jurisdiction Mr. Boloyan stated that the staff report contained all correspondence received up to its preparation, solely the comments from the Canal Alliance and the Marin Institute. Since the preparation of the staff report, one new piece of correspondence had been received from the Marin Institute and Canal Alliance which had been distributed to the City Council this evening. Mr. Boloyan confirmed for Councilmember Heller that Quezada Market could not become a full liquor store. Councilmember Levine inquired as to the basis of finding whether it was a liquor store. Mr. Boloyan stated that the current zoning ordinance did not contain a definition of liquor store; however, these words were used in the land use tables, which then would apply. Staff would interpret this to mean that, if the predominant use of the building was for liquor sales and the ancillary use for grocery, household goods, etc., it became a liquor store. Councilmember Levine inquired whether the City had the authority to review gross receipts to make that finding. Responding affirmatively, Mr. Boloyan reported that staff requests this type of information when determining land uses. With regard to the youth center proximity, Councilmember Connolly inquired whether there were mitigating measures that could be insisted on or included in any approval. State law prohibited selling alcohol to minors and he was aware that smaller grocery stores appeared to lock up hard liquor. Mr. Boloyan stated that most of the types of controls a city usually establishes on a use were derived because of a use permit requirement for a project. Given that this use did not require a use permit because it was considered ancillary alcohol sales, the only permit the City had authority over was the PCN. He explained that up until about two or three years ago the City routinely applied conditions of approval, similar to use permits on PCN's; however, ABC no longer accepts conditions on PCN determinations and the City either had to approve or deny. Should the operator willingly and voluntarily make their intentions known through this process, there would be some indication of what was expected in the record. Indicating the map was helpful, Councilmember Brockbank noted from the Planning Commission minutes that Commissioner Kirchmann favored more clear guidelines from the City Council on PCNs and inquired how often PCNs arise. Mr. Boloyan explained that the PCN had been established for longer than twelve years and last updated in 1998. On average there were approximately two — three annually; however, in the last few years they had become more controversial with a couple being appealed. Generally PCNs were administered at staff level — the first appeal was from Mi Pueblo. Councilmember Brockbank requested greater clarification on PCNs, noting it appeared logically more likely to allow a PCN in an area currently without a liquor license, and he inquired as to the importance of physical proximity. Mr. Boloyan explained the Planning Commission's rationale was that the area to the north was the primary residential area in the canal and this would serve the majority of those high density properties. In reading the Planning Commission minutes, Councilmember Heller noted the question was raised as to why not a beer and wine license only. Mr. Boloyan stated that staff encourages applicants to try to find a license from within the same tract to avoid creating a net increase in licenses; however, the procurement of licenses involved many factors. The point from the Planning Commission meeting was that the applicant intended to sell a specific type of alcohol which would not be allowed under beer and wine only. Since PCNs were generally handled at the staff level, Councilmember Levine inquired as to how many had been denied or approved at staff level. Mr. Boloyan stated that since 2000, staff had reviewed approximately 12 PCNs and they had all been approved until Quezada Market's. CC 06-07-2010 Quoting from a letter received this evening from Marin Institute — "in fact, the Canal has the highest concentration of locations selling alcohol in a residential area in the City of San Rafael" Mayor Boro noted Northgate had many stores and restaurants selling alcohol. Mr. Boloyan stated that ABC's calculations are based on the census tract and boundaries could be different. Marin Institute could be alluding to the dense area in a circular ring around the canal. He noted there were a lot of licenses within the City of San Rafael staff was unaware of. Regarding Councilmember Levine's question on how many PCNs are typically approved, Mr. Brown stated that staff takes a pretty hard line on their issuance; therefore, applicants receive a fair amount of advance warning as to the criteria used. He noted the second criterion states that the business had to be in some way unique from others having PCNs. Staff places a lot of weight on that criterion — the reason for denying Quezada Market — because of numerous, similar small markets in the immediate area. Councilmember Levine inquired whether staff's forewarning deterred applications for liquor licenses. Mr. Brown stated staff tries to provide a realistic assessment to applicants prior to their expending funds to apply. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Mr. Boloyan stated that in years past the conditioning of PCNs was more routine, which gave staff more comfort to impose conditions to memorialize certain limitations, hours of operation, not selling individual cans, etc. Tom Wilson, Canal Alliance, referring to Councilmember Heller's question regarding an existing license operator, believed an exception was stated, i.e., someone with an existing license would be able to use that license without having to go through the process with the City. Mr. Boloyan confirmed that in the instance where a business sells to another business owner and the alcohol license also sells to the same business owner, ABC indicated that they would allow a person-to-person transfer which would not require applying to the City for a PCN. Regarding an operator coming in with his own license, Mr. Wilson inquired whether this operator could use that license without going through the PCN process. Mr. Boloyan explained that in that instance, the business owner would have to obtain a PCN unless ABC indicated the 90 -day rule applied. Addressing the Quezada family, Mr. Wilson stated they had been good neighbors for many years and had run a good business in the neighborhood, participated in civic activities and he had a lot of respect for them. They had built their reputation and their store on the principle of not selling alcohol and tobacco; however, he understood they were now selling tobacco and getting into alcohol sales, which was disappointing to him. Mr. Wilson explained that the main issue for him was the proximity of the store to the Marin Institute youth program. 60 middle and high school students would attend next year, for a total of 80 students five days per week. Using a map Mr. Wilson identified Canal Alliance and Quezada Market, noting a distance of 300 feet between them. He indicated that the parking lot between the buildings was the front yard for the program; students congregated there and it was the natural route home for shoppers at the market. He commented that the annual Drug and Alcohol Free Cinco de Mayo celebration to educate the community on having a party without alcohol is held in this parking lot. Should alcohol be sold at Quezada Market he believed some who abused alcohol would "hang out" in the parking lot and he was concerned that youth members would use these people to purchase alcohol for them. The potential to be abused or mistreated could also exist. Noting the youth involved in the program were particularly vulnerable, Mr. Wilson commented that this was not the average youth population, rather they were young people who suffered from poverty, had overcrowding in their homes, a fear of ICE. taking away their parents, their families were often split and separated by immigration laws, they spoke a second language, were exposed to gangs and carried anti -immigrant attitudes. Addressing the issue of the market becoming a liquor store, Mr. Wilson commented that the Quezadas indicated they needed to increase their business and were looking to an alcohol license to help accomplish that. In the event they failed or sold to a new operator, the new operator could not turn the store into a liquor store, rather could make alcohol a much more prominent part of their inventory and sales. Liquor could be displayed more prominently, changing the CC 06-07-2010 ratio of food to liquor without making it a liquor store Mr. Wilson reported that Quezada Market was closer to the population center than other stores and therefore, more convenient, from which the public would benefit, as indicated in the staff report. There was a distance of 600 -feet from Mi Tierra Market on Medway to the apartment building at the 400, which was the heart of the Canal 300-350, and all of the buildings along Canal Street were very close to the store. Of the 5 type -21 licenses in less than a square mile area, he noted three were less than a half -mile from Quezada Market. He added that Mi Tierra was about 2,000 feet or four -tenths of a mile from Quezada Market, the liquor store on Medway was less than half a block further away and More for Less was less than a half -mile away. Referring to the comment that close proximity would promote walking or biking, Mr. Wilson stated it was already a neighborhood of people who walked. With regard to Quezada needing alcohol to compete and survive, Quezada Market had served the neighborhood for years without alcohol sales. They now had a much improved store, a great operator and a long record of success during much leaner times in the community. Their continued participation in community events and good marketing of their high -road position not to sell alcohol in an already alcohol -saturated community would serve them well. Mr. Wilson addressed the specifics of the PCN criteria: • That it would not result in an increase in the total number of off -sale or licenses - The license in question was from Ralph's Market in Marinwood, which was very different from the Canal. • That it will serve a segment of the City's businesses or residents not presently being served - There were plenty of places where alcohol could be purchased just blocks away from Quezada Market. • That it will not be located within 1, 000 feet of an incompatible facility, such as "facilities designed and operated to serve minors" - It was 300 -feet from the front door of the youth program, with the parking lot the playground. • That it won't be in a crime area - Although Mr. Wilson did not believe the Canal was a high -crime area, he felt the recent uptick in violent crime and recent police enforcement made it necessary to pay attention to the sale of alcohol, since the use of alcohol was included in almost all violent crimes. • The existing business at the site had 3 or more reported crimes - Figures were used from 2006, when there were more than three per month in a calendar year. Regarding Mi Pueblo, Mr. Wilson felt there was a difference between a supermarket and neighborhood store and explained that in a supermarket people were usually doing their heavy shopping and their alcohol purchases were incidental to the other purchases. He noted that Mi Pueblo had the resources to employ guards to make sure there was no loitering in the area. Mr. Wilson stated that everyone at Canal Alliance works very hard, in many cases in partnership with the City of San Rafael, to keep children safe and out of harm's way and one more liquor license virtually in their front yard would not bring them closer to achieving success. He urged the City Council to uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's decision thereby denying the PCN and preventing the alcohol license at Quezada Market. Bruce Livinaston, Marin Institute, thanked Mr. Wilson for his comments and expressed appreciation for all he did for the youth in the neighborhood. Indicating Marin Institute was located on the same block he stated they cleaned up their parking lot almost every night from litter and alcohol cans, noting alcohol was very easily purchased. Merchants in the neighborhood were tired of public drinking and activities happening at night related to alcohol, noting a gas station and other locations nearby with liquor licenses which were very convenient to the neighborhood Mr. Livingston stated that Marin Institute was an Alcohol Industry Watchdog Group, a National organization training for decades on responsible beverage service, specifically on the issue of convenience and necessity. Booklets were available online — Michael Sparks and Jim Mosher, nationally recognized experts on these issues, came from the Marin Institute. Commenting that convenience and necessity were not something to take lightly, Mr. Livingston indicated they liked the criteria and rather than addressing them again, they needed to be enforced. Commenting that this was a neighborhood of walkers and bicyclists, should that be the primary concern, he suggested installing crosswalks, bike lanes, slowing down traffic, etc. Mr. Livingston urged that the criteria be taken very seriously and believed another liquor store was unnecessary. CC 06-07-2010 Fernando Quezada, Quezada Market, stated that his family opened their store in 1996. Acknowledging there were liquor licenses in the neighborhood, he stated there were mistakes on the tract which he was trying to resolve with ABC. Mr. Quezada stated they wanted to provide the convenience and necessity to customers who had been shopping at Quezada Market for the past 14 years. Noting Mr. Wilson's comments regarding the sale of tobacco products, he clarified that they had been selling tobacco products; however, did not advertise them, nor would they advertise liquor. He reported that since Mi Pueblo opened his sales had decreased. Likewise, having a liquor license would not mean the Canal community would consume more liquor. Reporting that he serves as President of the Central Marin Youth Center, Mr. Quezada stated he respected youth and in acquiring a liquor license his employees would be trained not to sell alcohol to underage youth. Commenting that he takes care of cleaning outside his store, Mr. Quezada stated it was not his intention to make Quezada Market a liquor store, rather he was offering a commodity which would make it easier for people to do their full shopping. He confirmed that he would only sell 6 and 12 packs. Of the 29 liquor licenses, Mr. Quezada stated that one owned by Valentine Vineyards was not counted because it was not freely transferrable within the census tract. He also noted that at the time he and Mi Pueblo applied, there were much less licenses. Reiterating that his store would not become a liquor store, Mr. Quezada stated he wished to provide the necessity and convenience for his customers. Jorae Castillo, Community Organizer, Marin Institute, speaking in English and Spanish, requested that the application be judged justly and according to the ordinance criteria, and businesses and government needed to act responsibly. They educate their children to be responsible and not to drink, and they also wanted to try to change the community and make it healthier. He believed the City had these criteria to judge applications for licenses for the well-being of the community. Mr. Castillo thanked the Quezada family for being responsible business owners and for trying for as long as they could not to apply for a liquor license, and for serving the community. Carlos Espino, Canal Alliance, stated he would be translating for the following speakers: Speaker suggested Council thoroughly weigh the decision because as a mother she was concerned about youth not having easy access to alcohol, noting Quezada Market was close to where children play, go to school, etc. She also expressed concern about creating more garbage. Anna Martinez stated she supported Canal Alliance because she was not in favor of Quezada Market obtaining a liquor license. She believed it dangerous for children at difficult ages to have alcohol so near them. Omar Guerrero, opposing Quezada Market obtaining a liquor license stated that while supporting the market as a store for the community, they were attempting to make the community safer with activities not involving alcohol consumption. Jasmin Gonzalez, Youth Concilio, stated that, while she supported Quezada Marke, she believed there were already sufficient stores providing liquor, noting children could easily obtain liquor. Marao Hernandez, Youth Concilio, stated she was opposed to Quezada Market's liquor license application because she believed it made alcohol easily accessible to youth in the community and there were already enough stores in the Canal that sold alcohol. Edwin Tecum, Youth Concilio, stated he was not in favor of Quezada Market obtaining a liquor license because he knew many young people who were drinking at ages 14 and 15. Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Espino for his help. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. According to the staff report Mayor Boro noted Mr. Quezada had two other locations, Novato and Napa, with liquor licenses, and he inquired whether ABC had reported any problems at these locations. Responding, Mr. Boloyan reported no violence at either location. CC 06-07-2010 Noting the City could no longer conditionalize this approval, Mayor Boro believed conditions could be imposed that the owner would agree to, i.e., a guard on site at certain times and not selling certain types of alcoholic beverages. Confirming Mr. Boloyan's explanation that by law it could not be conditioned, Mr. Epstein, City Attorney, clarified that any conditions would be voluntary which staff could not enforce. Concerning the number of liquor licenses, Councilmember Heller inquired whether this was the only censes tract in the City with an over -abundance of liquor licenses. Mr. Boloyan explained that primarily commercial census tracts had an over -concentration and therefore, needed PCNs for new licenses. Regarding consultation with the Planning Department concerning licenses prior to procuring one, Councilmember Levine inquired whether this took place between Quezada Market and Community Development. Mr. Boloyan stated he believed it did, noting a different planner was involved; however, he believed the concern about the initial application was made to the applicant before applying. Recalling discussions regarding scheduling a study session on the approach to PCNs and reviewing the PCN process because the ordinance was so old, Councilmember Levine inquired as to the type of goal setting the City could do to reduce the over -saturation going into the future. If the question was how to reduce the current concentration, Mr. Brown stated this was extraordinarily difficult because they were a commodity and traded, etc. Instead, should the question be how the PCN process was administered, he explained that criteria were in place, which could be changed. Also, although the individual operators could not be conditioned, some over -arching regulations could be created that would apply to all liquor sale locations; however, the question was how actively and rigorously they could be enforced. Councilmember Levine questioned whether setting some type of policy goal of reducing liquor licenses in San Rafael by 10% over ten years could legally be done, or by planning, attempt to do. Mr. Nordhoff stated that Council would have to frame the actual objectives it was trying to achieve. Even achieving the figures defined, he questioned whether this would impact alcohol sales in the community. He believed some deliberation was necessary on regulation or ordinance changes. Mr. Brown explained that staff operates administratively based upon Council's direction. In this application's appeal, Council would send a message to staff and to the Planning Commission; therefore, greater articulation on how the City Council would like PCNs to be administered would assist staff in the future. Councilmember Brockbank recalled reading that this was not similar to a legal case on appeal where an error had to be found in the Court below and abuse of discretion or the misapplication of a law proven, rather the City Council could apply its own interpretation of the standards, regardless of the Planning Commission's action. Mr. Epstein responded affirmatively. Councilmember Brockbank stated that he really liked to see good businesses grow and thrive and he had no reason to believe Mr. Quezada ran anything but a good business, unless the price was too high, and in this case he believed the price was too high. While understanding the arguments in support, he questioned at what point this broke down. Councilmember Brockbank stated he was impressed by Mr. Wilson's comment that this was not just any community of youth, rather a particularly vulnerable population of youth present each day 300 -feet from the front door of Quezada Market; from his interpretation of the criteria he believed they were not met, particularly with this vulnerable population of youth. Noting Mr. Quezada had no intention of advertising, which was admirable, Councilmember Brockbank questioned whether a successor would honor this commitment. Understanding the position that there were sufficient alcohol sales outlets so as not to result in increased sales, Councilmember Brockbank expressed concern over impulse purchases by regular customers or by passers-by, which could lead to an increase in consumption. He indicated he was also impressed by Mr. Livingston's comments that merchants were angry at the problems of public drinking, and also by the youth and those from Canal Community Alliance who addressed the problems of drinking. With regard to timing, Councilmember Brockbank stated that alcohol was becoming a growing problem, which needed 10 CC 06-07-2010 to be addressed on a lot of levels, one of which was to recognize there were too many liquor licenses risking more problems. Councilmember Brockbank stated the overall message, if the resolution was approved, was despite all the alcohol- related problems in society, there could always be another place to sell alcohol, and at some point this was a message he did not want to continue to send. Increasingly in recent decades, tobacco advertising and availability had been restricted, stronger warnings were provided, the makers become legally liable and eventually the amount of smoking went down, and he expressed the hope that alcohol was not too far behind. He commented that the Marin County Fair even restricted alcohol advertising and expressed the hope that alcohol consumption would start dropping; however, this would not be realized unless the line was drawn some place, and this for him was a place to draw the line. Commenting that she knew Quezada Market quite well, Councilmember Heller concurred that its location was in a community that walked a lot and also with the Planning Commission's position that it would be closer to the population. Indicating she would deny the appeal she stated it was her belief that if Quezada Market was not helped, it might go out of business. She commented that this business would not be having a problem but for the fact that a very large supermarket opened close to the community. She believed in supporting a business that had already been there and had been a good neighbor to the community through the years she had known of them. Councilmember Connolly thanked both sides for their comments and staff for the excellent work. Indicating it was a tough call for him, he stated he had visited the site, purchased some items from the market, had a site inspection, and received more information regarding the youth program in proximity. He learned that Quezada Market was on a main street, with a parking lot around the corner and an after-school program servicing middle and high school students in a separate building. Although the students were indoors throughout the program, there was some overlap coming and going. Councilmember Connolly stated that Quezada Market had a long history of serving the immediate community -- a concentration of people in the immediate area who relied on the market. As things stood, residents had to buy groceries at one market and if they wanted to purchase alcohol, go elsewhere, which he believed adversely impacted a small business and created inconvenience for the community. Indicating that he would like to see some strong steps taken in terms of preventing youth from having access to alcohol, Councilmember Connolly believed Mr. Quezada was prepared to take such steps, being mindful of the hours when youth were present. Indicating Mr. Quezada needed to bolster training Councilmember Connolly stated it appeared as though he intended to sell beer and wine only. Should alcohol be included, which it technically could under the license, it would create a situation where, as with a lot of small markets, it would be locked it up. He also noted Mr. Quezada did not intend to advertise liquor. On balance, Councilmember Connolly stated he sided with denying the appeal. He believed it would create a necessary convenience for the public and felt confident Mr. Quezada recognized that. His market was located on a main drag, a youth program was located nearby that operated certain hours of the day; therefore, he needed to be hyper -vigilant in that situation about preventing alcohol sales to minors. Reporting that he also visited Quezada Market last week, Councilmember Levine stated he was pleased by the market. He was greeted by friendly staff, the lighting was bright, and he wished it was his own neighborhood market, noting Sun Valley Market was closed. He recalled hearing stories on how great the meat counter once was at Sun Valley market; however, he realized it was slowly turning into a liquor store in a very family-oriented neighborhood. Councilmember Levine noted Quezada had a great deal of success for 14 years and wished it many more years of success. He believed that if the City were granting liquor licenses based on how great a business was and how good the owners were, it would be the way he would want to cast his vote; however, in this instance he believed the Planning Commission, in a split -vote majority, got it 100% wrong. Looking at the public convenience and necessity, he believed it would be dishonest for him to uphold the Planning Commission's findings. It would also send a terrible message to the very capable and competent staff who tried to use their discretion to create policies and approve plans for businesses in the community as a whole. He stated the City Council needed to be as clear as possible to staff as to the types of priorities and how they should be treating business and communicating to them when they applied for permits. Councilmember Levine indicated he did not know whether this would be the message from the City Council this evening; however, in reading the PCN guidelines, this was how he would need to vote. Councilmember Levine wished Mr. Quezada much success and stated he planned on visiting the market again; however, he would vote to uphold the appeal. Councilmember Levine recalled, subsequent to his recent election, being emailed photographs from Canal residents of people passed out in the Canal neighborhood. Realizing this was not Quezada Market's issue to bear, nor was it 11 CC 06-07-2010 the reason for his vote, he indicated he wished to ensure that staff heard the concerns of people living in San Rafael and heard the priorities of the City Council to ensure San Rafael was not over -saturated by liquor stores. Councilmember Levine stated a policy should be in place that sought to reduce the number of liquor licenses because much like the massage ordinance, a propensity for certain types of stores to open was crowding out the environment for other types of business. Therefore, an important message to send was the desire to have a mix of businesses, not just certain types in certain neighborhoods. Reiterating this did not reflect on how he felt about Quezada Market, rather looking at the PCN, this was how he found it. Mayor Boro thanked all those in attendance, together with staff for the well-written staff report, noting Mr. Boloyan did a great job, and answered a lot of questions. He quoted from the staff report: "The PCN Resolution prescribes that the City is to consider the seven criteria as part of its review, but does not mean that compliance with all seven criteria is mandatory." He noted current law dictates that the issues be considered; however, they were not mandatory. With regard to Mr. Quezada's track record in the neighborhood and what he had done for the community, Mayor Boro stated that to him it was a matter of fairness. Several months ago the City Council wanted Mi Pueblo to locate to San Rafael; however, they wanted to sell liquor, and some in attendance this evening supported that, while some did not, and it went forward. Quezada Market had fourteen years invested in the City and was requesting a similar privilege. Mayor Boro commented that alcohol sales would not increase in San Rafael, rather it would be spread out and as a matter of fairness to this applicant, there should be consistency. Having voiced his concerns to Mr. Wilson earlier today, Mayor Boro noted it was a difficult issue to work on. He understood the issue with the children and appreciated that they were present this evening; however, it appeared people believed children could purchase liquor in the store, which would not happen. He realized the issue of adults purchasing alcohol for minors could take place at Mi Pueblo or any other location; therefore, based on the current status of the application, he would vote to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Although Mr. Quezada could not be requested to do anything, Mayor Boro stated he looked to him to address the issues raised this evening — drinking in the parking lot during the day, sales of single cans, etc. He believed it important that Mr. Quezada work with staff on this issue and provide something that would mitigate some of the issues raised. Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 12976 — A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL (AP10-001) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION GRANTING AN APPEAL AND OVERTURNING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN) WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE (TYPE 21 OFF -SALE, GENERAL) TO ALLOW ALCOHOL SALES AT AN EXISTING BUSINESS, QUEZADA MARKET AT 90 BELVEDERE ST (APN: 008-082- 49). WITH THIS ACTION, THE PCN (PCN09-002) IS THEREBY GRANTED AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Connolly, Heller & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank and Levine ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The City Council took a five-minute break at this time. PUBLIC HEARING: 18. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 14 (ZONING ORDINANCE), SPECIFICALLY AMENDMENTS TO SELECTED CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS TO: A) CORRECT ERRORS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN TEXT AND ZONING MAP; B) DELETE OBSOLETE PROVISIONS; C) EXPAND AND MODIFY LAND USE DEFINITIONS; D) ADDRESS STATE -MANDATED WATER CONSERVATION; AND E) AMEND PROVISIONS TO ADDRESS CITY BUDGET CUTS AND TO ASSIST BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CURRENT ECONOMIC RECESSION — CITY FILE # Z009-001 (CD) — FILE 10-1 x 10-2 Planning Manager, Paul Jensen, stated that last year Planning Division staff initiated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, primarily as a general clean-up; however, as work progressed several items were unfolded that needed to be changed, the work program expanded and staff ultimately decided to divide the amendments into two phases, the first of which was before the City Council this evening. He noted that each amendment fell within one of the five categories: 1) General clean-up of errors, inconsistencies — changes were recommended to one problem section. 12 CC 06-07-2010 2) Amending and adding land use definitions — over time industries and land use changes. 3) To address a state mandate — The State of California now requires water -efficient landscaping provisions and restrictions and albeit the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) administers these, the City has to coordinate with them since it deals with land development and how landscape plans are designed. 4) Respond to mid -2009 staff and budget cuts — This is primarily addressed in some changes being recommended to the design review permits. 5) Facilitate new and existing businesses — Currently, there were a lot of vacancies in the community. The City Manager had generated a program to assist new and existing businesses and staff had recommendations to address this. Regarding the review process to date, Mr. Jensen reported that the Planning Commission held two public hearings on the amendments and their edits were included in this evening's packet. Additionally, a presentation was made to the Chamber of Commerce, and received a favorable review. Likewise, the Downtown Business Improvement District. Three lengthy work sessions with representatives of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods were also held, resulting in further edits to the amendments presented this evening, and a Special Study Session with the City Council was held on May 3, 2010. Mr. Jensen outlined four issues that triggered the most discussion at the Planning Commission level and with outreach: • Reducing the process for use permit review for routine and non -controversial commercial land uses; • Special provisions being recommended for the downtown's West End Village related to parking; • Changes to the Design Review permit thresholds; and • Expanding the Community Development Director's authority to downgrade or reduce use permit review Lowering the use permit review — Mr. Jensen explained that tables on Page A-15 through A-48 covered all land uses and pertinent zoning districts. The tables indicated whether a use was permitted, whether a use permit was needed, whether the use permit required Planning Commission approval or whether it would be approved at the zoning administrator level, or not permitted at all. Noting the tables contained changes he explained that on certain routine commercial land uses in most of the commercial zoning districts, the level of review was being lowered from the Planning Commission — represented as a C -- to the Zoning Administrator's level of review — represented by CZ. Mr. Jensen reported that these were routine applications and not controversial and staff did not propose any changes for eliminating the use permit review for any use. That public process would still be maintained. Regarding the West End Village parking provisions, Mr. Jensen explained that the West End was the area along Fourth Street between D Street and where it merges with Second Street. It functioned much like the rest of downtown but did not have the benefit of the parking district; therefore, there were some challenges with changes in tenancy in this area where parking would have to be examined carefully. Staff had come up with a recommendation to allow changes in permitted land uses in existing buildings without requiring parking. For example, a retail store that wanted to change to a beauty salon would have a slightly different parking standard, and this would be allowed to happen without looking at parking. Mr. Jensen noted this also worked in reverse. Mr. Jensen stated this was supported by a parking survey and study that was prepared with the coordination of the City Traffic Engineer, which concluded that the supply was greater than the demand -- an attachment in the staff report summarized the study. He noted that if someone proposed additional square footage to buildings, new residential units or new development in the West End, they would have to comply with parking requirements. Noting the Planning Commission was supportive of this approach, Mr. Jensen reported that they wanted staff to monitor it for two years to ensure that the supply and demand were in synch. With regard to revisions to design review, Mr. Jensen stated this was the one section that probably triggered the most comments with the Planning Commission and with outreach to the Federation. Explaining that internal shifts were proposed in the level of review, he stated the ordinance was set up so that a major Design Review permit would go through the Planning Commission, a minor Design Review permit through the Zoning Administrator and administrative Design Review permits. Internal shifts were recommended at that level of review with some changes in the thresholds of review. The only item recommended for elimination from Design Review were decks — the City was historically required a design review for elevated decks; however, an exception was that this requirement would continue in the hillside areas, from where most applications stem. 13 CC 06-07-2010 Mr. Jensen reported that staff originally proposed changing the thresholds for reviewing second -story additions. Currently, the ordinance is set up so that any second -story addition of any size requires design review and staff proposed making changes to that; however, as a result of the Planning Commission's review and outreach to the Federation, staff had backed off on that recommendation. Regarding the Community Development Director's authority for use permits, Mr. Jensen stated that a new section was proposed which allowed the Director to reduce the review of a use from the Planning Commission level to the Zoning Administrator level if certain findings could be made -- the use was non -controversial, routine and would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission and the Federation expressed concern regarding this provision, primarily because it appeared to be open-ended. The recommendation was for some safety requirements to be built into the language, i.e., should the Director choose to downgrade a use permit from the Planning Commission to the Zoning Administrator, the notice given for the hearing should include some language indicating that the downgrade was occurring, which would provide a Planning Commissioner the ability to direct that the application be bumped up to the Planning Commission level. Additionally, it would afford the public the ability to request that it be bumped up without an appeal or without having to file a fee for an appeal. Regarding Phase II, which would be presented later, Mr. Jensen reported this would contain more substantive topics including wireless communication facilities and streamlining the permit structure for these, Wetland Overlay District over 20 years old and not consistent with the City's current wetland policies where clean-up changes were necessary, and the Climate Change Action Plan included a number of recommendations and implementation measures to be folded into the Zoning Ordinance. Having checked with Mr. Brown and Mr. Boloyan regarding pages A-76 and A-77, for consistency, Mr. Epstein requested the following additions: Section 86. 1.a.- reference to residential lots with slopes — insert the word "average" to read "....average slopes of twenty-five percent..." to match the definition at the top of the page. He requested the same amendment to Section 88. C.1. — insert the word "average" before slopes. He noted that on Page A-79, the word "average" was picked up again in Section 91. 6. Regarding second units, Mayor Boro inquired whether there were changes in Phase I. Mr. Jensen confirmed there were changes to parking and explained there was a recommendation to allow alternative locations to accommodate parking for second units. He stated that currently the ordinance was set up so one could widen their driveway to accommodate a parking space for a second dwelling unit. Should the site be challenged, i.e., a hillside area, etc., and other appropriate locations were available to site the parking for that unit, this would be allowed with a design review permit. Noting the Design Review Board was advisory, Councilmember Levine inquired as to where their decisions went. Mr. Brown stated they could either go to the Zoning Administrator or to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Levine confirmed it was an advisory community board that helped advise staff and have community engagement in the process. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Joel Eis, West End bookstore owner, complimented staff on the work on this amendment concerning traffic. He commented that after a period of time all of the efforts made about mass transit meant less car use in the area, noting a lot of bicycle use and a sense of neighborhood. He believed the ordinance addressed the reality of the ratio of users of businesses and the fact that parking was not a major concern. He also noted that businesses had varying parking times because of opening and closing hours resulting in the same spaces being occupied by different clientele, and the ordinance addressed this in a positive way. Mr. Eis stated he was aware of several businesses in the area that were poised to expand and help the economy in the area by taking over spaces. Focusing on a real shift in the social structure in the area was more in line with the real use of that neighborhood. Nick Kailas, San Rafael, inquired whether the ordinance would change the balance between the values of environmental protection and housing. Responding in the negative, Mr. Jensen confirmed that no major policy issues were included in the ordinance. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. 14 CC 06-07-2010 The title of the ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14 — ZONING, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SELECTED CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS TO: A) CORRECT ERRORS AND INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES; B) DELETE OBSOLETE PROVISIONS; C) UPDATE ZONING FOR SELECTED PROPERTIES ON THE CITY -ADOPTED ZONING MAP; D) EXPAND AND MODIFY LAND USE DEFINITIONS; E) INCORPORATE PROVISIONS TO ADDRESS A STATE -MANDATE FOR WATER CONSERVATION; AND F) AMEND PROVISIONS AND LAND USE REQUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS CITY BUDGET CUTS AND TO ASSIST BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT IN RESPONSE TO A NATIONWIDE ECONOMIC RECESSION (ZO09-001)" Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1882, as amended, to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: 19. LIBRARY OPERATIONS REVIEW TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT (LIB) — FILE 9-3-61 Commenting that the majority of those in the audience participated on the Task Force, Library Director David Dodd expressed appreciation and thanks. He explained that this was the final report from the Library Operations Review Task Force, which went through an intensive process of evaluating the way the library works. Dividing into five working groups, a total of twenty-seven people participated and returned with recommendations pertaining to each area of the library's work. A group then took those recommendations and crafted the final White Paper which was backed up by all of the final reports of each working group. It did not stand alone, rather took into account the fact that some items in the final working group papers were not called out specifically; however, would be part of the overall work of the Task Force. Reporting that the library was facing two major eventualities, Mr. Dodd noted the possibility that the electorate would approve a parcel tax measure tomorrow (June 8, 2010) that would provide a revenue stream to augment the current proportion of City funding for the library, and the possibility of a second 10% budget cut in the coming fiscal year. Mr. Dodd stated that in the course of looking at the library operations, it became clear that there were a number of recommendations that should be implemented, regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's election - highlighted in Section 1 (page 2 of the White Paper) -- Over -Arching Recommendations. These included instituting a new volunteer position as a concierge, emphasis on grant -seeking and more self-service by patrons, more cross -training of library staff, evaluating potential outsourcing of library functions, conducting ongoing customer surveys, exploring the possibility of a gift card for payment of fines and investigating ongoing partnership potential throughout the community with organizations and businesses. Mr. Dodd stated the second part of the report addressed recommendations for what should happen, should there be a need to have a 10% ($241,347) departmental budget reduction — this could be achieved through a series of options each of which had a rough dollar value attached to reach the overall number. He reported that a current staff vacancy afforded a starting point in terms of saving; however, there would be a reduction in service hours at the downtown library. Other savings could be achieved by reducing General Fund allocations to the materials budget, realign somewhat Pickleweed Library's hours in terms of the furlough — maintaining the overall library open hours - continue to assign technical services staff members to work on the circulation desk and reduce programming efforts to schools and other organizations. Mr. Dodd explained that the third part of the report related to what the menu of options might be for a Citizens' Oversight Committee and staff to consider, should the voters approve the parcel tax, which included adding open hours, instituting a concerted library card drive so that every schoolchild had a library card, potentially eliminating the rental fees charged for DVDs and audio books, restore some of the materials budget and databases, consider adding additional online resources, specifically add an online homework assistance service, potentially to increase the contribution to the Marin Literacy Program and with the remainder, set aside a certain amount of funds annually for anticipated needs for capital improvements. 15 CC 06-07-2010 Mr. Dodd thanked staff and the public for their hours of work, and noted the recurring reference in the customer survey of the public's appreciation of staff for the success of the library. Mr. Nordhoff clarified that, should the tax measure be successful, a process would begin to levy the tax — first collections in December — together with appointing an oversight committee. This would be coordinated through the Library and Library Board and returned to the City Council for action. Having served on the Operations Review Task Force, Councilmember Levine stated it was a great experience and he believed customer service at the Library was outstanding. Regarding his concern on the suggested cuts to outreach and programming to children and schools, he believed it unfortunate that this needed to be on the table of proposed cuts. Similar to his high degree of respect for Community Development staff and their recommendations, he had a high-level of trust in Mr. Dodd's discretion as a manager, because the library was outstanding, and he believed Mr. Dodd would do everything possible to ensure the library ran as efficiently as it did today, regardless of the outcome of the vote. Councilmember Levine stated he would be more comfortable removing the proposed cut, understanding the discretion of the librarian to do what was necessary to run the library in the best fashion possible. Councilmember Heller thanked Mr. Dodd, staff and everyone who worked on the report. She indicated she found staff very open to looking inside their own building and at their own jobs, which meant they were working for the betterment of the community, the City and constituents. Councilmember Connolly thanked Mr. Dodd and staff for spearheading the effort, which included much community involvement and members of the City Council. He was keeping his fingers crossed on Measure C, noting the report drove home the point that Measure C needed to be passed. With regard to reducing hours, Councilmember Connolly stated he had hoped to see a scenario where hours remained the same, recognizing they already had been cut significantly, and he invited Mr. Doff to explain further. He also inquired whether there was a scenario where hours would not have to be reduced, putting aside Measure C. Mr. Dodd explained that a large price tag would be attached to hours reduction. A lot of work was done evaluating the tasks of each staff member, together with staffing the desks. The building had significant physical challenges in terms of monitoring activity and it was difficult to envision a way of reducing staff to a point to remain open for this number of hours without jeopardizing the safety of the collection or patrons. Councilmember Connolly inquired whether there were alternatives to reducing the hours. Commenting that every alternative for staffing the library was explored, Mr. Dodd stated he had invited staff to provide him with the minimum staffing levels to get by, and each staff person, in addition to evaluating this issue, agreed to take on more reference desk time, which cut into other functions. He stated that everyone would like to see the library open 72 hours per week and closing the doors was not easy for anyone in the library profession. Councilmember Brockbank stated it appeared to those not having the benefit of serving on the Task Force that it was preferable to cut staff at each open hour of the library by 10% rather than cut the total number of hours; however, he recalled Mr. Dodd's recent remarks that the library was full-service and when open certain people were needed at certain hours. Trusting the councilmembers, together with all others who sat on the committee, he indicated he would support their recommendation. Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to accept the report. Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Dodd and the committee members present for their work. Sean Prendiville, Board of Library Trustees, stated there was no way to get by without cutting hours. A specified number of staff members were needed to keep the building, collection and patrons safe. Following up on Councilmember Levine's suggestion that as part of accepting the report the last item under Section II of the White Paper — Page 3 - "Reduce outreach and programming efforts to schools and other community organizations" be omitted from the final report, Mr. Nordhoff requested that the City Council consider this and either amend it into the motion or take the necessary steps. He believed Councilmember Levine was suggesting that this item be eliminated from the final report with an expectation that with the competent leadership in the library should this route be necessary a $241,000 cut could be achieved without necessarily approaching it in this manner. Councilmember Levine stated he would be satisfied and more comfortable with this. Commenting that the library was 16 CC 06-07-2010 about building a literate and democratic society, he wanted to encourage a new generation of library users. Should Measure C pass, one of the recommendations was to ensure that every child in San Rafael had a library card, which was a very commendable effort; however, should it not pass, he questioned whether there would be any outreach to the next generation of library users. Staff confirmed that the financial impact was estimated at $3,000 - $6,000. Mr. Nordhoff indicated that this level of financial discussion was probably not necessary at the dais; however, should the direction be to implement Recommendation II, he would be working with Mr. Dodd to return with a package to build into the budget. Should the City Council not be interested in that particular area of service, staff favored making that choice at this time. Councilmember Heller stated she had been looking at this as an overall list that may or may not come back to Council with each and every item should it be necessary to cut the 10%. She indicated she would afford Mr. Dodd the ability to retain an item such as this as the list would not look the same in the event of a cut. Councilmember Heller stated her point in having this item included was to bring to the schools a request that they also look at libraries going to schools with a little assistance from them, as she did not believe the City was responsible for all of the community outreach into schools. Noting the final product was not being adopted this evening, Mayor Boro stated that, should Measure C unfortunately fail, staff would return with refinements and he suggested having this debate then. Councilmember Levine stated he would like to make it very clear that he did not favor making this cut. A priority for him as a councilmember was to reach out to every child in the City and to try to save $3,000 - $6,000 and include it in a statement as part of these cuts was beyond him. He noted a lot of children who did not get to the library could find out about this resource; therefore, sending a message that children who did not have a voice would not have this resource was a wrong message to send. Commenting that some Councilmembers would like to have the library open more hours, Mayor Boro stated that this evening's action was not final, rather the report was being accepted as presented. With the outcome of Measure C fairly imminent, Mr. Nordhoff stated staff would implement either Item II or III to build a budget to be presented on July 6, 2010 and there would be no further exercise at the staff level of relooking at these issues. He indicated the clear understanding should be that generally there would be less hours, people, materials and services. In accepting the report, recommendations from Item II would be implemented, if necessary. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Levine ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 20. REVIEW OF CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 (FIN) — FILE 8-5 Finance Director Cindy Mosser reported that in the process of adopting a balanced budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and to revise Fiscal Year 2009-2010, budget information was reviewed on several occasions. Budget balancing decisions from January 4 and 26, 2010 were included for the revised 2009-2010 budget, extending those decisions to Fiscal Year 2010-2011 budget. Staff continued to monitor state actions; however, a final budget had not been presented. Ms. Mosser reported that sales tax projected for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 had a slight increase to $14.6 million, which was approximately 34% of General Fund taxes. A slight increase was also anticipated from the Transactions and Use Tax for a total of $5.8 million. With regard to expenditure assumptions, Ms. Mosser noted: • Continuation of the furlough program • Fire Association had delayed their increase for six months; • No increase for cost of living expenditures -- changes related to contracts such as Animal Control; • Vehicle replacement deferred for a further year for non -safety equipment. The total appropriation was $79.2 million. Subsequent to budget review meetings with departments, Mr. Nordhoff reported that because of lean staffing in public 17 CC 06-07-2010 safety departments, in instances of retirements, injuries or other circumstances, because of the time involved in recruiting people and have them functioning to capacity, budget adjustments could be necessary to accommodate either the use of temporary help or over -hiring. This would be a one-time expenditure which he considered necessary based on meetings with the Police and Fire Chiefs. Mr. Nordhoff reported that Mayor Boro, Vice -Mayor Connolly and he had been spending some time over three — four months meeting with the Marinwood Community Services District to take the results of the Matrix study and ascertain whether there was a new long-term agreement that could be structured to improve the service levels provided in both communities in a cost-effective way. Noting discussions had been fruitful, he indicated a further meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, June 22"d, with several more also scheduled. The current agreement would lapse on June 30, 2010, an extension of which could be in the range of $300,000, currently not appropriated in the figures presented by Ms. Mosser. Should the agreement be extended, it would be agendized for the City Council meeting of June 21, 2010. A companion document would outline some of the steps occurring over the next few months as part of extending the agreement. Regarding the Capital Improvement Program, Mr. Nordhoff reported that Mr. Mokhtari and staff from Public Works were working on numbers, and staff hoped to present a draft at the meeting of June 21, 2010. However, he indicated it would not be presented until funds were identified. With regard to pension funds, Mr. Nordhoff reported that Ms. Schutz, Ms. Mosser and he were involved in the pricing conference call with Standard and Poor's last Thursday. A rating result was anticipated this week, which would influence the cost of borrowing. Mr. Nordhoff noted that adoption of the budget would be agendized for the meeting of July 6, 2010. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 21. MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL TRANSITION (CM) — FILE 9-1 Noting Councilmembers had received individual requests with respect to correspondence on a publication being generated by Marin General Hospital with regard to the transfer of funds, Mr. Nordhoff recalled a discussion on this issue several month ago. At Council's request, Mayor Boro submitted a letter to the Attorney General requesting a full review of the appropriateness of taking those funds. An investigation had been conducted and the matter was now considered closed. Mr. Nordhoff commented that staff was not requesting anything specific at a Council or corporate level with respect to the recent requests from the hospital district. Councilmember Connolly reported that as individuals the City Council was being requested to consider signing a letter to be sent to Sutter concerning the cash transfers. He was considering that request and imagined his colleagues individually were doing so also. He indicated he was aware Sutter had purchased property located at Marin Square in San Rafael and noted there were some reports that Sutter could be interested in developing that parcel; however, nothing had been put forward at this time as to what they intended to do there. There was no specific development application or time frame as to whether anything would be forthcoming in that regard. Councilmember Connolly stated he was viewing the issue as one of general applicability to Marin and San Rafael residents, and by signing the letter he would not be affecting his ability to exercise independent judgment on any development application received from Sutter, should one ultimately arise. In this way he analogized his role and that of his colleagues as almost judicial officers because this essentially was what they would do in reviewing the development application, should it get to that level, and just as a judge on one given day could need to rule on a specific issue relating to a party and make that judgment, in no way would this prejudice the judge in making a ruling on a different issue involving the same party at a later time. He indicated he was looking at issues arising in that way and was confident that his colleagues would be undertaking a similar process without bias. Mr. Nordhoff confirmed he would forward a copy of the October, 2009 letter from Mayor Boro to Councilmember Levine. Noting Councilmembers perform two different and distinct roles, both legislative and quasi -adjudicative, Councilmember Brockbank stated he understood that in acting on an appeal on a land use decision from the Planning Commission, they acted in a quasi -adjudicative role, and he requested clarification on whether a land use application of this magnitude would be before the City Council regardless of whether it was appealed from the Planning Commission. Mr. Epstein indicated he believed that was correct; however, nevertheless, they would be acting in a quasi - adjudicative role regardless of whether it came up on an appeal, because in a land use matter, the law was applied, 18 CC 06-07-2010 typically by the Municipal Code or at times the California Environmental Quality Act or other applicable laws, to the facts of a land use application. When someone wanted to develop land, the City Council was sitting as a quasi - adjudicatory body. With regard to Councilmember Connolly's comments, Mayor Boro stated that obviously he was welcome to do whatever he felt was correct and to state his position; however, each councilmember would make his or her own individual decision. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: (including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense) 22. None. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:55 p.m. ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2010 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 19 CC 06-07-2010