Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2011-03-07SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 53 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2011 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Jim Schutz, Interim City Manager Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 7:00 PM Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Greg Brockbank, Vice -Mayor Damon Connolly, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Marc Levine, Councilmember Absent: None Conference with Labor Negotiators— Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Negotiators: Jim Schutz, Leslie Loomis, Cindy Mosser, Robert Epstein Nancy Mackle 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 1 - Confidential SElU 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: 8:25 PM United Market/Target: - File 9-1 Ed Duman stated that United Market was a very fine food merchandiser with an amazing variety of food not available in either Costco or Target and it was a pleasure to shop at that store. He noted the well-paid employees were abundant, helpful and universally friendly and he believed location was the reason for United's success. Mr. Duggan suggested that United could start a shopper shuttle reaching out to those such as seniors and the handicapped with a ride to and from United on demand. Mi Pueblo did this and saved dollars on reducing the need to recover shopping carts. He also suggested matching Target on groceries to benefit the Canal population who spend their small incomes on food and remittances to families back home and who live in San Rafael in poverty. Mr. Duggan commented that United's effort to protect their grocery business blocks access to items such as clothing and other products sold at Target. Cheaper food and clothing is essential to the 12,000 people and Target fills that unmet need. With regard to seizure of cars in traffic stops Mr. Duggan suggested that those forbidden by law to have a driver's license cannot be persecuted for driving without one, noting all inhabitants were entitled to equal protection of the law. Patch.com: File 9-1 Nicole Elv, San Rafael Patch editor, reported that Patch.com would live blog this evening's Council meeting. Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: CONSENT CALENDAR: SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 54 2. Approval of Minutes of City Council meeting of Minutes approved as submitted. February 7, 2011 (CC) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion at the request of Ken Bovero, Marin County Arborists. RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE ROUTINE AND EMERGENCY TREE SERVICES CONTRACT 2011/2012, BUDGET LINE ITEM NO. 001-44-47001-9270, TO KINGSBOROUGH ATLAS TREE SURGERY, INC., BASED ON THEIR ESTIMATED BID AMOUNT OF $243.521.00 (BID OPENING HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 3. 2011) (PW) — FILE 4-1-627 Ken Bovero, Marin County Arborists, stated one of the bid requirements was that companies submitting bids should be located within a thirty -mile radius of San Rafael City Hall; however, according to Google and on a radius map, the successful bidder was out of that area. He stated he would have expected City staff to carry out their due diligence by checking on bidders. Indicating his employees live in San Rafael and he had been operating in Marin County for thirty years, Mr. Bovero stated that the City should look into where this business was operating from. Public Works Director Nader Mansourian explained that the contract documents called for the contractor's yard or office to be located within 30 miles of City Hall. The lowest bidder, Kingsborough Atlas Tree Surgery, Inc. provided an address in Novato for the yard where their equipment is stored and subsequent to review, staff was satisfied that the low bidder was responsive and the bid was accepted. Concurring with Mr. Mansourian, City Attorney Rob Epstein stated that having reviewed the low bid he found it to be responsive. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Levine seconded, to adopt the resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 13117 — RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE ROUTINE AND EMERGENCY TREE SERVICES CONTRACT 2011/2012, BUDGET LINE ITEM NO. 001-44-47001-9270, TO KINGSBOROUGH ATLAS TREE SURGERY, INC., BASED ON THEIR ESTIMATED BID AMOUNT OF $243,521.00 (BID OPENING HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: 4. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTED AS AN URGENCY MEASURE ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL OF CERTAIN LARGE GROUP HOMES THAT ARE TRANSITORY IN NATURE, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF (CA) — FILE 13-16 x 9-3-16 x 9-3-85 Mr. Epstein explained that at the City Council's last regular meeting, various residents expressed concerns regarding recent proposals to establish in residential neighborhoods group homes for persons in recovery from substance abuse and alcohol addiction. Staff analyzed the proposals from the operators who refer to their proposed businesses as "clean and sober homes" and it was their understanding that seven or more persons are intended to be housed in each of the proposed facilities, not counting on-site residence managers. Staff further understood that no medical care or treatment services were proposed to be provided at these facilities. For that reason, such uses do not require state licensing, regardless of whether they are housing six or fewer, or seven or more persons. Mr. Epstein reported that when the City Attorney's office researched the matter in consultation with the Community Development Department, it was determined that the proposed use currently is not a permitted use anywhere in San Rafael. He explained this was because the category within which "clean and sober homes" would best fit — a category for purposes of the proposed moratorium was SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 55 defined as large unlicensed group homes — was not currently an enumerated use category in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Epstein clarified that if the use was not listed in the zoning ordinance it was not permitted. Mr. Epstein stated that local land use regulation of facilities designed to house persons in recovery from substance abuse and alcohol addiction is constrained under state and federal law. He explained that such persons are considered disabled under the law and are entitled to request reasonable accommodations in connection with their housing. The law requires, in particular, that cities make reasonable accommodation to disabled persons in connection with land use and zoning regulations. Mr. Epstein stated the answer to the question of what was "reasonable" was a fact -intensive analysis, varying under circumstances depending upon the facts in different places. Case law was still developing in this area with more questions unanswered currently than answered. However, various cities had been sued in connection with their specific attempts to regulate similar uses, e.g., the City of West Hollvwood was currently being sued in connection with its efforts to apply its rather robust rent control ordinance against "clean and sober homes" in that community. In addition, various cities across the United States had been the subject of lawsuits filed by the Federal Department of Justice in connection with those cities' specific attempts to adopt permanent regulations relating to similar uses -- Garner, NC, Columbus, IN and Dalton Township, MI. In Dalton Township, the Department of Justice initiated an action in July, 2010. Dalton Township entered into a settlement agreement with the federal government less than seven months after the case was filed and paid a substantial amount of money to the federal government in connection with that action. Meanwhile, Los Angeles has a similar debate as to how to regulate "clean and sober homes" and has been struggling with what to do. Mr. Epstein reported that the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission looked at a comprehensive revision to its zoning ordinance last October and was scheduled to revisit the matter again last month, and he believed they were still working on the issue. Mr. Epstein reported that very late this afternoon a lengthy letter was received from Mr. Gorman, Attorney, Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin, Yountville, who indicated he represents Bay Area Sober Living, LLC and TLC Residential, Inc. In his letter Mr. Gorman described a list of his concerns and legal objections to the proposed moratorium and while not specifically threatening to sue the City, Mr. Gorman stated that adopting the moratorium this evening would "expose the City to legal challenges." Having carried out some brief research on Mr. Gorman, Mr. Epstein reported that Mr. Gorman had published articles in this area, most recently in the Real Property Law Journal, published by the State Bar Association, an article entitled: "Alcoholism, Drug Addition and the Right to Fair Housing" — how the Fair Housing Act applies to sober living homes. Mr. Epstein noted Mr. Gorman's request to work with City staff, the City Attorneys Office and any other interested parties, to develop a cooperative approach to this matter. He (Mr. Epstein) appreciated that offer and looked forward to conferring with Mr. Gorman on this subject, as he had not had the opportunity to do so because of the late receipt of the letter. Fully aware of these concerns and against the backdrop discussed, and given the absence of San Rafael land use regulation in this arena, Mr. Epstein recommended that the City Council consider adopting a temporary moratorium on the establishment and operation of unlicensed, large group homes, as described in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Epstein stated that in his judgment, under the circumstances, it was the reasonable and responsible thing to do. Effectively, taking a time out to allow the City Attorney's Office, working with the Community Development Department staff, to study this complex and challenging subject, with the intention of returning to the Planning Commission and City Council eventually with proposed zoning ordinance amendments designed to both address the interest in establishing this use in San Rafael, as well as the community concerns regarding it. Mr. Epstein issued an assurance that any such new regulations would be carefully crafted to avoid any conflict with state and federal law. Regarding the legality of adopting a temporary moratorium, Mr. Epstein stated he was aware of no case in which a city had successfully been subjected to a legal challenge for adopting a temporary moratorium for purposes of accommodating a zoning ordinance study under these circumstances. Indeed, this type of situation was precisely the reason the Legislature provided the Government Code Section that allowed for the possibility of considering a temporary moratorium of the nature proposed this evening. He reiterated that under the circumstances currently being faced by the City, this was the responsible and reasonable course of action. Mr. Epstein stated it was his understanding that the City of Murrieta, San Bernardino County, in 2005 was faced with a community conflict regarding "clean and sober homes" and it similarly adopted a temporary moratorium at that time, later making amendments SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 56 to its zoning ordinance; he had obtained background information regarding this from the current City Attorney of Murrieta. Mr. Epstein reported that the temporary moratorium would expire in 45 days if adopted, unless staff requested an extension prior to then. He explained that under state law, the City Council could adopt extensions to the moratorium such that it potentially could last as long as two years. Mr. Epstein stated it was not staff's intention to take that much time on this project; however, the assignment was complicated and came at a time when Planning staff was already burdened heavily by other matters. Noting the next agenda item this evening was the City Manager's budget report concerning the need for even more cuts in the upcoming budget, Mr. Epstein stated that in the event the City Council adopted the proposed moratorium, staff would request the community and sponsors of the proposed use to appreciate that they would do their best to address all issues in due course. Mr. Epstein noted that some communications received from persons objecting to the proposed moratorium raised a point regarding staff's previous handling of an unlicensed sober home facility in Terra Linda. He believed it was staff's understanding, based on the typical size of homes in that neighborhood in Terra Linda, that the proposal in question concerned a small — six or fewer persons — unlicensed facility, rather than a seven or more person larger facility — the issue under discussion this evening. Mr. Epstein reported that staff had received many questions on how the City might approach code enforcement in the event the use already had allegedly been initiated or if someone allegedly established the use during the period of the moratorium. He explained it was staff's judgment that an unlicensed group home of any size was not an enumerated use in the City zoning ordinance and therefore, was not a permitted use. Staff however, believed that the City was extremely constrained under the law from regulating such homes that house six or fewer people; therefore, absent other potential code violations, it was unlikely that code enforcement would be initiated at this juncture against any unlicensed group home operating with six or fewer people while going forward and engaging in this study with staff. As for large, unlicensed group homes (housing seven or more persons), Mr. Epstein indicated he could not state precisely at this juncture what the City's enforcement response would be, for several reasons: - Any delay in code enforcement does not constitute permission or authorization of an illegal use — an illegal use remains an illegal use regardless of whether the City immediately takes action against it. The Code Enforcement Department was subject to the same budgetary limitations being felt across all City departments and he would not offer preliminary opinions about what the City might do in response to various hypotheticals. Code Enforcement is a fact -intensive process, typically initiated by complaint, which the City reviews and conducts investigations into as deemed appropriate and as staffing permits. Mr. Epstein stated that staff typically does not discuss the specifics of code enforcement operations for the same reasons the Police Department does not describe the specifics of its operations, e.g., the Police Department typically does not advertise where and how it is going to engage in traffic enforcement. When considering civil prosecution of violations of the Municipal Code — Code Enforcement - staff prefers to reserve announcements of how, where and why such prosecutions are being engaged in until it is deemed appropriate to share this information with both the alleged code violator and the community at large. Councilmember Connolly inquired as to where the six or fewer regulation came from. Mr. Epstein explained that both federal and state law provisions governed regulation in this area. The Fair Housing Act was primarily the applicable law; however, the Americans with Disabilities Act contained relevant law, together with State Housing Act provisions and other laws. Reiterating that the subject was complicated, he stated Mr. Gorman's letter and articles on the subject were lengthy. Confirming he did in fact receive a copy of Mr. Gorman's letter, Councilmember Brockbank inquired whether the language "expose the City to legal challenge" referred to the moratorium or the City prohibiting the use entirely. Mr. Epstein explained that Mr. Gorman was referring specifically to the proposed moratorium, and his letter laid out numerous legal arguments as to why he believed the moratorium was defective. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 57 Jennifer Turek, Culloden neighborhood resident, having recently experienced financial difficulties, suggested that in the current economy perhaps others would attempt something similar. Commenting that San Rafael had turned into the stepchild city of Marin County, she believed ways existed that would work better for the business community; something like this would not be as offensive if the huge issue in the downtown business area did not exist. Georqe Ford, Executive Director, Waterview SLE, 1215 Lincoln Avenue, San Rafael, stated that this particular property was both commercial and residential, licensed and credentialed. In the business for seven plus years, he reported he was the former Chair of the Marin Commission on Drugs and Alcohol, appointed by the Marin County Board of Supervisors, and elected for two terms by the executive body. In an effort to assist, Mr. Ford stated that by definition these were not group homes, which according to the agencies defining them - Child Protective Services or social agencies - were generally for adolescents and teenage groups, whereas, at a state level the facilities under discussion were Sober Living Environments (SLEs). Referring to CAARR — the California Association for Alcohol and Addictive Recovery Resources, Mr. Ford suggested that, should staff wish to see the tight guidelines associated with operating a sober living environment, they should contact this organization and obtain one of their packets. Referring to a publication for Northern California containing several hundred credentialed sober living environments, Mr. Ford noted several colleagues in attendance this evening who had been operating sober living environments for some time in a constructive, structured manner. He stated that sober living environments were contributing to the recovery of the community. Hugo Landecker, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association and Steering Committee for the San Rafael Federation of Neighborhoods, stated he had attended many meetings and talked to countless people on this subject from which he developed a two-page list of negative reactions, with no positives. Favoring sobriety and treatment, he stated that those trying to refrain from substance abuse deserved respect and support; however, this needed to happen in a safe environment and in a credible program. These unlicensed facilities did not meet any standards and he commented that sober living conditions should have no negative impacts on others; however, the Culloden and Marin Street facilities did not offer this. Having received an email from a respected member of the community and recovering alcoholic who was very active in the substance abuse recovery community, Mr. Landecker stated that rather than supporting the facilities the email described the facilities on Culloden and Marin Street as being for- profit, opportunistic, commercial ventures, as well as being parasitic towards a group of legally disabled persons. Furthermore, the email described the facilities as unregulated, unsupervised and defined them as mass human storage facilities — this was how this informed person saw the issue. Mr. Landecker stated that these proposed unlicensed sober living houses were in historic wood -frame buildings — tinderboxes, currently exempt from meeting even the most basic fire safety standards and were no place for a large group of transitory, vulnerable people in a fragile stage of their lives. Besides offering a risk to their clients, the impacts of these unregulated, overcrowded facilities on neighborhoods would be significant. He urged the City Council to adopt the proposed temporary moratorium as a lot of work needed to be done. Steve Patterson, Chair, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, thanked Community Development Director Bob Brown, Planning Manager Paul Jensen, City Attorney, Rob. Epstein and Deputy City Attorney II Lisa Goldfien for all their work. Concerned that the moratorium would only apply to homes with seven or more residents, Mr. Patterson inquired why it did not include all clean and sober living homes. He believed that the moratorium would not impact the facilities at 1 Culloden Park or 201 Marin Street since those programs were already underway. Mr. Patterson thanked residents from Culloden Park, Gerstle Park and other neighborhoods for attending this evening, as the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods cared about all neighborhoods. He believed San Rafael was being viewed as a dumping ground for all types of programs, including clean and sober living homes and the problem was that this issue would not have come before the City were it not for neighbors. Commenting that the City was not aware of how many such programs existed in San Rafael, Mr. Patterson requested that staff try to determine the locations of these programs. As an elected City Attorney, Mr. Patterson stated Mr. Epstein was not an advocate of the people, rather his job was to keep the City out of court and as a result he was concerned that his legal opinions would be incredibly conservative. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 58 Michael McLain, stated he was a citizen of San Rafael in recovery and as an African American and gay person, he expressed concern about the use of the term "those people." While he did not believe sober living environments were perfect people trying to put their lives together would come to a standstill with a moratorium in place. In an effort to help, the community should assist in developing a new situation or protocols to assist with concerns. F.X. Roche, Forbes Neighborhood HOA, stated there were zero negative implications with the moratorium. There was no downside to taking the necessary and vital 45 days to carefully consider and review how large boarding house style group homes could be addressed by local zoning ordinances and it was in the best interests of all that the complex legal issues were studied before reaching decisions with long-term repercussions. With regard to the operators of the proposed facilities, as they too wanted to be good neighbors, Mr. Roche hoped they would welcome this clarity. Mr. Roche stated that, in addition to the moratorium having zero negative implications, the potential land use had far-reaching impacts as well as long-term implications on all neighborhoods of San Rafael. While the facility at 1 Culloden helped prompt the discussion, with numerous old homes in the community this attempted business model could easily extend throughout the City. He stated this was not a discussion about 1 Culloden or Gerstle Park, rather it was a discussion and review of how the community could best accommodate these facilities while addressing the concerns of the neighborhoods. Mr. Roche stated that the impacts of these facilities warranted a close and careful examination. The impacts included everything from adding cars and traffic to single-family neighborhoods to the issue of safety in regards to converting houses into what could only be described as boarding houses. The only way to balance everyone's interests was to issue the moratorium. Lindsav Ferquson, Jr., Marriage Family Therapist and Addiction Specialist, stated today, March 7, 2011, marked his 17th year of successful sobriety. Seventeen years ago he entered a group home in San Rafael and managed to restore his health, his life, purpose and meaning. He stated he was saddened to hear that people could not live together and had not heard from anyone against group homes who cared and respected a person changing their path. Owning several group homes, he stated he had Fire Marshal and Building Inspector clearance and had every amenity to promote safety. David Maver, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, stated his understanding was that the Federation was not opposed to a home with four to six residents. The bigger issue to him was why San Rafael was becoming the community that supported all these sober homes. Noting clients were not necessarily from San Rafael and citizens should be served first, he questioned why such homes were not located in Ross or Kentfield. With rents of $4,000 per month he proposed a further $1,000 tax because of the nuisance these homes could create. Mr. Mayer suggested limiting occupancy to four — six people and regulating those already in existence. As a former resident of Gerstle Park, Mr. Mayer stated that Gerstle Park was getting the majority of these homes, and he urged approval of the temporary moratorium. Jonathan Parkhurst, Gerstle Park resident, stated that he recently foreclosed on a property that was an illegal sober -living facility. Reporting that he came to Marin County through the Mill Street Homeless Shelter, he stated he had owned property in Marin and the men he allowed to stay in his house were the safest he knew and were now active in the community. Indicating he was neither for nor against the moratorium, he suggested looking at the bigger issue, not just what it affected in the community or property values. Seth Wiles, representing a group home, stated they were opposed to the moratorium and wished to ensure the City Council had received the letter from their attorney submitted this afternoon. Confirming that their legal position was stated in this letter, Mr. Wiles stated they wanted to ensure they understood the City's concerns and offered their willingness to work with City staff, City Attorney and anyone else on policies to address the matter. He urged the City Council not to adopt the moratorium this evening and have staff meet with them on this issue. Mr. Wiles requested that Attorney Gorman's letter be included in the formal record of the proceedings on item #4 on this evening's agenda. Tonv Arcuria, reported that Sonoma County had dealt with similar issues and noting similar cases throughout the state and country, he indicated he had done considerable research on the issue, could answer the questions raised and provide solutions. He encouraged the City Council not to adopt the moratorium because even though temporary it was taking discriminatory action, and there needed to be proof these homes would have a negative effect on the environment. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 59 Operating the only SLE certifying agency in the state, Mr. Arcuria reported that he had certified the TLC home which had been in operation for some time. He invited staff to contact Arcuria, CAARR, etc. for information on resolving the situation in a way that could benefit everyone. Perry Litchfield, San Rafael, supporting the moratorium, stated this was not an issue of alcoholics, addicts or property values, rather the important issue concerned the safety required for those in recovery as well as those in adjoining houses and he was also concerned at the lack of standards for unlicensed homes. Bayside Marin, founded by Mr. Litchfield, was licensed, had six or fewer residents with many requirements to follow. It was constantly audited by the state to ensure the safety of those in the facility, while under the present system there was no guidance. Mr. Litchfield stated he was troubled by statements this evening, some of which sounded as though there was a prejudice against those seeking recovery; however, he understood the concern of the neighbors. Debate was needed to ensure the neighbors' and recovery community's concerns were addressed. The proposed time-out was exactly what was needed. Amv Likover, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association Board Liaison to the Committee Examining Sober Living Facilities, stated that her family chose Gerstle Park because of its diversity; however, there was a lack of City planning. Because of Gerstle Park's proximity to the downtown many urban problems existed and she urged adoption of the moratorium to study the issue closely so that San Rafael did not lose community cohesiveness. Noting recovery facilities on every block, Ms. Likover stated that, while the community favored these facilities, they should be planned. Mayor Boro inquired as to why the moratorium did not apply to homes with six or fewer residents. Mr. Epstein explained that a state statute was relevant that governs licensed facilities. Federal and state law govern discrimination and there were legal opinions concerning the authority of a city to regulate against six or fewer that were unlicensed; however, at this time his best judgment, based on substantial reading over the past week, was that the City's ability to regulate six or fewer was extremely constrained under the law as it currently stood. Responding to a comment made by Mr. Patterson on the role of the City Attorney, Mr. Epstein explained that it was absolutely his job to exercise caution and conservatism in the course of providing legal opinions to the City Council. He indicated he did not represent a private client, nor did he have a circumstance where he could advise the most aggressive course of action as he might do with a private client in a different position than the stewards of the public trust. Mr. Epstein stated he was doing his best to understand the law and serve his client, the San Rafael City Council. Mayor Boro stated he saw the moratorium as a "time out." The issue came before the City Council two weeks ago and until that time staff and the City Council were pretty much unaware of what was happening. The City Attorney's recommendation was a 45 -day moratorium to look specifically at unlicensed group homes of over six people. While a lot had been heard about protecting the concerns of those with a problem, he also believed in the right to protect the concerns and assure the rights of the community that could be impacted by projects such as this. Mayor Boro stated there needed to be some structure around this type of use in the community and he looked forward to adoption of the moratorium and the City Attorney addressing the issue. Councilmember Levine reported having spoken with a friend living on Marin Street on Sunday last and his take away from this conversation was how good a job the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association did ensuring residents were aware of what was going on. Similarly, the Culloden neighbors did a great job ensuring neighbors were aware of the situation and also informing the City Council. Noting very effective advocacy in education, he offered congratulations on how effective neighborhood outreach could be. Should there be a sense that, once elected to the City Council, councilmembers forgot they live in a neighborhood, Councilmember Levine stated this was not the situation as he remained the same person raising two children on Alpine Street where he knew everyone's name. Fortunate to have this experience, he stated he would like that to be everyone's experience because the sense of neighborliness, neighborhood and friendship experienced by his family over the past seven years had been so rewarding, enriching their lives in a way never imagined when they decided to move to the area. As encapsulated by Mayor Boro, Councilmember Levine stated this was a time-out to understand how SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 60 this would impact the City and he encouraged staff to work with other jurisdictions in Marin County to see how they were dealing with this issue. He suggested there could be an approach which was right for San Rafael which was also strengthened by a multi -jurisdictional approach. Councilmember Levine stated the issues of substance abuse and the challenges of sobriety could not be discussed in a vacuum. He believed San Rafael has been an easy place for businesses to obtain liquor licenses; therefore, in helping people find sobriety in their lives, access to alcohol issues should be addressed. Noting liquor licenses had saturated cities in different jurisdictions, in partnering with other jurisdictions, particularly Marin County, to discuss sober living, he suggested staff also revisit the public convenience and necessity ordinance to ascertain what other jurisdictions were doing and how San Rafael could continue to partner with them to make access an issue to solve. He believed that for too long it was known that alcohol was a problem; however, there was still denial in dealing with the access end. While not linking it he believed it was something that in time should be dealt with also. Councilmember Heller stated that the temporary moratorium was the best action the City could take at this point to provide the time necessary to study the law and also to ascertain what other jurisdictions had done. With regard to the large amount of emails received she believed Mr. Jensen was coordinating a response - they were very informative and all were read. Councilmember Heller confirmed she would vote in favor of the moratorium. Councilmember Brockbank stated that in his private practice he had practiced a lot of landlord -tenant law representing landlords and tenants, including many in group homes. He had also been involved in homelessness issues and currently sits on a countywide policy committee on homelessness; therefore, he believed he had sympathy for those in recovery and living in group homes. He indicated he was also well aware of the City's limited ability to have any control or jurisdiction over regulating or requiring a permit for group homes of six or fewer people; however, he was unaware and shocked to learn recently of the large proposals for seven or more residents in dense neighborhoods that were also claiming the City did not have the right to regulate them. Councilmember Brockbank stated he fully supported the work of the City Attorney and concurred that the moratorium was the right way to go — a time out with no downside. To those believing this was action to damage the rights of those in recovery, he stated it did not. Those in recovery had every right to seek any sober living home they chose, including in the City of San Rafael going forward, as long as there were six or fewer residents. Councilmember Brockbank stated he looked forward to and appreciated the City Attorney's proposed daunting task to try to figure out what could and could not be done in this complicated legal environment, hopefully returning with an ordinance which met everyone's needs. Councilmember Connolly stated he supported the moratorium which he believed would be an opportunity to evaluate the complex issues involved. He concurred with the comment that it would afford time to discuss and agree on appropriate standards. San Rafael wanted to support opportunities for those wanting to turn their lives around by seeking recovery; however, he agreed with the neighbors who raised legitimate concerns. Having visited the Culloden site he stated he was surprised to hear fourteen residents would live in a home in a neighborhood. Given those legitimate concerns, the complexity and competing interests, he believed it was time for a time-out to pursue the appropriate course of action. Mr. Epstein corrected a clerical error in the ordinance where Title 14 of the Municipal Code was mistakenly referred to as Title 19. The title of the Ordinance was read: AN ORDINANCE ADOPTED AS AN URGENCY MEASURE ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL OF CERTAIN LARGE GROUP HOMES THAT ARE TRANSITORY IN NATURE, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirely and refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1893 by the following vote, to wit: with the correction noted. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 61 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION OF CITY'S BUDGET PROCESS (CM) — FILE 8-5 1) RECESSION PERIOD BUDGET ACTIONS 2) FACTORS AFFECTING FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 3) BUDGET CALENDAR 4) COUNCIL CONTEXT Using PowerPoint, Jim Schutz, Interim City Manager, provided highlights of the staff report. Recession Period Budget Actions — Mr. Schutz reported that the economy started to take a downward trend in the first half of 2008, drastically sinking in the second half of 2008. As noted in the staff report, in Fiscal Year 2008-2009 staff began making reductions to the budget —a lot of budget reductions are made in adopting the budget, with even more reductions in mid -year. This occurred in 2008-2009 and again in 2009-2010. Mr. Schutz explained that in Fiscal Year 2008/2009 positions were reduced, with more reductions at mid -year, and reserves were brought down to 5.5%. At that time in putting together the framework and strategy behind what the City Council's response to the recession would be, staff looked at not just reducing costs, but also considered the idea of growing new revenues and seeking other state and federal moneys through the Economic Vitality Plan. Mr. Schutz stated that in 2008/2009, the City Council adopted the first furlough, fire dispatching was contracted out, the Master Fee Schedule was updated to raise revenues, departmental reorganizations around position eliminations took place, retiree health benefit was lowered and the City partnered with other jurisdictions. Mr. Schutz stated that at the end of the 2008/2009 fiscal year, the City Council put together its first Service Prioritization List. Mr. Schutz reported that in the beginning of Fiscal Year 2009/2010 in the midst of a severe recession a further 20.11 positions were eliminated for a total of 28.61 positions. As the year progressed, staff realized the extent of the problem was worse as there were a number of unanticipated items, such as the state withholding almost $750,000 in revenue, and a higher reduction in sales tax than predicted; therefore, by mid fiscal year staff anticipated reductions of the order of $3.5 million for 2009-2010 and $4.4 for 2010-2011. Reporting that meetings were held in January, 2010 to deal with the problem Mr. Schutz stated that on January 4, 2010 a further 12.75 positions were reduced, with a further 12.9 position reduction at the subsequent City Council meeting — a 12% reduction in overall city staff - from 445 to 390 positions. In sum, this equated to over 100,000 hours per year of City service. Mr. Schutz reported that for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 $4.4 million in cuts were made in January, 2010; therefore, in many ways it was a carry forward document, such as a second year of furloughs, no percentage increases for cost of living adjustments or operating expenses, deferrals of purchases and replacements, etc. With four months remaining in this fiscal year, Mr. Schutz reported that the most recent mid -year budget required using a further $135,000 from General Fund reserves in order to bring the mid -year into balance. Factors Affecting Fiscal Year 2011-2012 — With regard to pension costs, Mr. Schutz reported that the actuarial valuation would not be received until the end of March; however, early estimates from MCERA indicated that costs for next year would be approximately $15.75 million, an increase of $1.5 million over this year. The City had taken several actions already to address post -employment costs such as retirements and healthcare or OPED costs; however, unquestionably, there was more to do in this area and the type of increase from one year to the next was a good example of why the City Council was focused even more on this moving forward. With regard to the concept of one-time savings from prior years, Mr. Schutz stated that to fill an over $4 million hole, one-time in nature reductions are looked for. He explained the idea behind the furlough was a one-time reduction — a savings for that year — and there were a number of similar items in the January, 2010 reductions. While this was positive in closing these deficits, on the negative side, absent more revenue or some type of improvement to the financial picture, those one-time reductions needed to be filled again the following year. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 62 Regarding revenue projections, Mr. Schutz reported that the Finance Director's report last month showed modest growth at best and unless new revenue sources were found, revenue bases appeared to be re -setting at a lower level. Reserve levels at 2.4% were too low and Mr. Schutz reported that Nancy Bennett, League of California Cities, recently distributed a non-scientific survey which identified San Rafael as the lowest on the list. With regard to the state budget, he stated that perhaps at the next Council meeting there would be a better idea as to how that looked. Staff was anticipating reductions in library, community services and redevelopment, together with a lot of unknowns around what realigning state programs would mean. With regard to unknown factors, Mr. Schutz stated that any new, unplanned costs not already in the budget would have a serious impact on the budget. Mr. Schutz forecast a General Fund deficit in 2010-2011. Staff would return at the Council meeting of March 21, 2011 with a projection as to what this deficit would look like. Labor negotiations would commence with all bargaining units, with the exception of Child Care. With regard to the draft budget calendar, Mr. Schutz stated that a balanced budget would need to be adopted by July 5, 2011. Meetings in the interim would be difficult as a deficit was projected. In terms of Council Context, Mr. Schutz inquired as to what would be most useful going forward, noting the bi-annual Citizen Satisfaction Survey would be presented at the March 21, 2011 meeting. Referring to the Five -Year Areas of Priority and Emphasis, he believed it made sense to evaluate these to ascertain whether they remained the areas of priority and emphasis the City Council wanted to set for staff. He indicated these were important for staff as they generated Goals and Objectives on a departmental basis. With regard to the exhaustive exercise of looking at all City services and prioritizing them, Mr. Schutz stated that even though time had gone by and reductions were made since this exercise was undertaken to prioritize city services into categories of: • Service Level to remain unchanged; • May Consider Service Reductions, or • Willing to Reduce Services; if this procedure worked, the process could be redone, revising the sheets to reflect the current reality Mr. Schutz reiterated that staff would return on March 21, 20111 with the Citizen Satisfaction Survey results and some early projections. Subsequently, time would be allocated to the framework of Goals and Objectives and Areas of Emphasis and Prioritization of City Services. Mayor Boro noted April 18, 2011 as a possible workshop for the City Council. Mr. Schutz stated there were competing items and dates, which prompted him to suggest starting some Council meetings early. He noted the Target Community Impact Report item was projected for the meeting of April 18, 2011, with an anticipated early start. Unless there was objection from the City Council Mayor Boro suggested a half-day retreat Should the City Council choose a half-day retreat, Mr. Schutz proposed early April. Expressing concern that action could be taken on the Target Community Impact Report on the same evening it was presented, Councilmember Brockbank questioned whether there would be some lag time before action was taken. Mr. Epstein reported that staff had been carefully planning for the Target Community Impact Report meeting. The meeting was planned to commence at 6:00 p.m. and, given all of the public testimony already heard and all of the work already done, that meeting would hear the Community Impact Report by its author, Target would make a presentation to respond to questions posed and members of the public would be invited to comment on the Community Impact Report rather than the project's merits, to the extent these had already been discussed at considerable length at several prior meetings. Suggesting public comment be limited to comment on the Community Impact Report, he stated staff was hopeful that the matter could be closed and returned to the City Council for deliberation and possible decision at a reasonable hour. Mr. Epstein indicated the goal was to put the City Council in a position to begin deliberations that evening, rather than have the issue carried over to a further SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 63 meeting, re-agendizeing and having a lot of the public return with the expectation or belief they should be participating in the process again. While this participation was welcome, should the public continue to participate each time the matter was continued, the City Council would never get an opportunity to deliberate. Councilmember Brockbank stated he was withdrawing his request, as this schedule sounded fine. Mr. Schutz commented that the Budget Calendar was generated prior to the established date for the Target item. Councilmember Heller inquired as to a projected deficit amount. Stating he wanted to give the Finance Department until March 21, 2011 to work on a number, Mr. Schutz reported that with one-time moneys in the current year and with a further $1.5 million in pension costs, the $2 million figure would be reached pretty quickly. Councilmember Heller requested an update on library funding. Agreeing with Mayor Boro's suggestion for a separate retreat to discuss the budget, Councilmember Brockbank suggested staff provide indications of the impacts on departments of taking different actions. Mr. Schutz stated that department directors would make presentations identifying the effects of reductions. In addition to the deficit figure, Councilmember Brockbank noted the 2.4% reserve figure would need to be discussed. Councilmember Levine inquired whether the City would need to draw from reserves again to finish out the year. Finance Department Director Cindy Mosser stated that at this time it would not be more than the $135,000 mentioned in February. Councilmember Levine stated that from reading a report from the Library Trustees he got a sense that the General Fund being flat appeared to be a very positive thing, absent the information of increasing costs, and he expressed concern for all departments if that was the message they received. Councilmember Levine recalled that fourteen months ago in going through cuts and presentations by staff, he felt as though department heads had a focus on lamenting what could not be done any longer and warning about what could not be, and what a bitter experience it was for him to sit through this rather than focusing on and championing what would be accomplished, whether a narrower focus or meeting the expectations of residents with an excellent level of service with what the City did have. Councilmember Levine believed it unfortunate that the message for him was "what a sorry sack of potatoes we are in" rather than focusing on a narrower set of services and doing it excellently. He favored the latter rather than the "less with less" message which did not put the City in a positive light. Concurring that the City needed to stay positive going forward, Mayor Boro stated he would like to know for sure what significant things were being done today that could not be done tomorrow, which was not to say that what would be done tomorrow would not be done well, rather he wanted to ensure there was an understanding that certain things expected by constituents may not be happening, and there would be no surprises. He believed there needed to be an understanding that certain items taken for granted would not be available and then focus truly on what could be accomplished — a little of both was needed. Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Levine seconded, to accept the report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Schutz for his presentation. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011 Page 64 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 6. Marinwood Communitv Services District: 9-1 x 9-3-31 Interim City Manager Jim Schutz stated that with regard to the agreement with Marinwood, he and Fire Chief Gray met with Mayor Boro and Councilmember Connolly to work towards a no -cost mutual aid agreement and Chief Gray had been working with the Marinwood Fire Chief on this solution. He reported that as of January, 2011, Marinwood was still seeking a three-year contract extension at the figure of $300,000 plus annually; however, staff believed San Rafael could provide better service to San Rafael and Marinwood through the mutual aid agreement and implementing changes at fire station #3 and other parts of North San Rafael. Mr. Schutz stated staff remained as committed as ever to regionalization and coming up with a way to conduct regionalization that made sense in the fire service. Staff would continue to meet with Marinwood working towards the no -cost agreement which they believed would result in better service to both San Rafael and Marinwood residents. Adding this item to a study session or Council Retreat would be a good opportunity for Chief Gray to provide a more comprehensive update. Councilmember Heller inquired as to when the City's financial commitment to the Marinwood CSD ended. Mr. Schutz confirmed that it would end on June 30, 2011 and funds would not be included in budget projections for next year. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS / REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense) North Bav League of California Cities: - File 9-1 x 9-11-1 Councilmember Brockbank reported that he recently attended the North Bay League of California Cities' Quarterly Dinner/Meeting at which the keynote speaker, Burlingame City Manager, discussed shared services, a topic of growing importance, which was well received. Corporate sponsorship of League dinners was also discussed; however, no decision was made. Next meeting scheduled for April 28, 2011 in Novato. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:24 p.m. ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2011 ALBERT J. BORO, Mayor SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/07/2011