Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2011-01-03SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/03/2011 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 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 Members of the public may speak on Agenda items. OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 7:00 PM None CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Damon Connolly, Vice -Mayor Greg Brockbank, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Marc Levine, Councilmember Absent: None 8:24 PM City Attorney Rob Epstein announced that comments regarding agenda item #4 — Target Community Impact Report - should be made during that item; however, general comments regarding the merits of the Target store project would be appropriate at this time. Target: - File 9-1 Denise Castellucci stated she supported San Rafael small businesses and expressed opposition to a second Target in the County of Marin. 166A Park Street Fence: - File 9-1 Amanda Faucher stated that lowering the six-foot fence at 166A Park Street to four -feet would completely interfere with her privacy, due to the large windows facing the street, and negatively affect her comfort. She submitted signed petitions from neighbors strongly supporting leaving the fence unaltered. Michael Barsotti stated that lowering the six-foot fence at 166A Park Street would jeopardize the safety of his fiancee and their dog. He requested that the City Council allow the fence to stay at its current height. Yorick Phoenix, Novato, stated he supported retaining the six-foot fence at 166A Park Street and noted that he recently counted twenty-two fences over four -feet high on Park Street. Michelle Miller, 166A Park Street Property Owner and Novato resident, requested that the fence be allowed to remain as it and while decisions on the fence were pending she would appreciate an extension to prevent exposure to a potential $500 per day fine for non-compliance. She also suggested updating the ordinance so that old neighborhoods with buildings such as hers had a legal mechanism to maintain fences. Community Development Director, Bob Brown, stated staff was trying to reach resolution on this active Code Enforcement case, originating from a complaint. While there was a compliance date, Ms. Miller had not been informed of a fine; however, in the absence of compliance the issue could be subject to a hearing in a month or two. Councilmember Levine moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: 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 01-03-2011 CONSENT CALENDAR: RECOMMENDED ACTION: ALL MATTERS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE TO BE APPROVED BY ONE APPROVAL OF THE MOTION, UNLESS SEPARATE ACTION IS REQUIRED ON A PARTICULAR ITEM: FOLLOWING ACTION: 1. Appointment to Civic Center Station Area Advisory Approved staff recommendation. Committee (P10-002) (CD) — File 9-3-63 Goals and Objectives — Eighteen Month Review and Accepted report. Updates to the Recession Action Plan and Economic Vitality Plan (CM) — File 8-5 3. Resolution Increasing the Settlement Authority of the RESOLUTION NO. 13089 City Manager for Workers' Compensation Claims (MS) — RESOLUTION INCREASING THE File 7-1-31 x 9-6-3 SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY MANAGER FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. FOR PREPARATION OF A COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDY FOR THE SAN RAFAEL TARGET STORE PROJECT AT SHORELINE CENTER (CD) — FILE 4-3-516 x 10-2 - Target Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle stated this was a Professional Services Agreement for a Community Impact Study for the Target project, the purpose of which was to provide a lot more detail on the sales tax, employment and the fiscal impacts to the City to better inform the City Council on the net benefits of the project. Indicating staff was recommending AECOM to produce the report, Ms. Mackle reported that they were ready to work quickly with staff to determine a scope of work that would be a data -supported and unbiased way to help determine the community benefits staff believed the City Council and the community desired, based on public testimony and City Council comments during the last two City Council meetings. She stated that AECOM would look at the whole trade area; however, would focus on San Rafael specifically, including the downtown. In addition, they would look at case studies of several communities listed in the report and as economists, staff at AECOM could evaluate trends, such as the decline or upswing in the economy during the specified time periods. Ms. Mackie reported that assessment of affordable housing would not be included as San Rafael currently had an ordinance on affordable housing and an impact fee for affordable housing was in place. As mentioned by the City Attorney, Ms. Mackle stated this was a Community Impact Study looking at the economy and economic issues. Issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, traffic, zoning, etc., were dealt with in the EIR and Addendum to the EIR and were not part of the scope of work or discussion. Reporting that the work in the Community Impact Report would be quite extensive, Ms. Mackle explained that it would take ten weeks to complete the first administrative draft, based on the scope of work before the City Council this evening. Should work be added to this scope, the costs and time period would increase. Without changes she estimated the report being before the City Council at the second meeting in March at the soonest; however, this could be April, depending on how fast data could be collected. Ms. Mackie confirmed that the applicant would bear the $79,000 cost; however, should the City Council require additional study, the Interim City Manager would negotiate with AECOM as part of the contract. CC 01-03-2011 Interim City Manager Jim Schutz explained that historically, the City contracted with RBF Consulting to prepare the project EIR and AECOM (formerly ERA) was the economic firm who prepared the Urban Decay Analysis required by CEQA. Mr. Schutz stated it was typical in preparing EIRs that the lead firm put together its team of sub -consultants in different specialties — in this case, economics, cultural resources etc. Mr. Schutz stated that staff's recommendation was to use AECOM to conduct the study because of their history on the project, in large part due to the fact that they had prepared the Urban Decay Analysis and had been involved in the public hearings on this project to date. The first part of the initial template that became the scope of work was staff putting together Council questions from the two public hearings, and then AECOM adding their expertise. Commenting that it was valuable to have AECOM representatives attend both public hearings, Mr. Schutz stated that AECOM was well respected and would perform an unbiased analysis. Should the City Council direct staff to conduct an RFP (Request for Proposal) process, a further three-four months would be added to the timeframe and staff was not recommending this course of action. Mr. Schutz stated that Alexander Quinn, AECOM, was in attendance and could provide specifics on his firm's expertise and the scope of work. Alexander Quinn, Director of Sustainable Economics, AECOM, stated that AECOM was a large 40,000 - person, global firm. The economics group primarily consists of professionals from Economic Research Associates (ERA), which started in the 1950s and had done numerous analyses around community commercial impact assessments. His previous firm, EDAW, was acquired by AECOM, and these two firms now make up the planning, design and economic practice of AECOM. AECOM was not working with Target, was independent of Target and they ensure that their analysis was hard on data and unbiased in its form. Reporting that AECOM had done a number of urban revitalization strategies, Mr. Quinn explained that ERA worked on the B Street Feasibility Study, had done work in Berkeley and San Francisco, and conducted a Community Impact Assessment on Wal-Mart in South San Francisco (a project that was denied), an Urban Decay Study in Eureka, as well as a project in Truckee. All studies analyzed big -box retail and its impacts on historic downtown settings. Mr. Quinn reported that in each case the market was unique; therefore, each local market had to be evaluated. Regarding the scope of work, Mr. Quinn explained that initially a basic review of the project would be conducted to obtain as much information as possible, including, if possible, actual wage information from Target. In the event Target did not provide this information other sources could be used; however, they would not be as perfect as Target providing this data. Market Assessment - Mr. Quinn explained this was the traditional real estate supply and demand analysis looking at vacancy rates, inventory and retail mix, and ascertaining how things had changed because of the 19% decline in retail sales in California between the third quarters of 2006 and 2009, especially in automobile retail sales. These would be normalized statewide and compared to the local jurisdiction. Mr. Quinn reported that subsequently, the amounts of spending capable and capture within San Rafael would be evaluated. This would be specific to San Rafael and how it impacted the supply, and would be based on categories and not individual stores. Economic impacts - Mr. Quinn stated this was not just the economic change specific to Target but the net difference, i.e., how declines in other places and benefits at Target balanced out. Where feasible, employment information in terms of wages and benefits would be provided and he noted that Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics provides information on specific census blocks Fiscal Impacts — The net change, not just what Target brought but what it would change in terms of competitiveness for San Rafael overall for sales and property tax. Case Study Assessment — This would be very dependent on cities' participation. Because of the necessity to obtain localized retail taxable sales from the Bureau of Equalization, local jurisdictions would have to provide disclosure of confidential information releases. Cities identified for the study - Davis, Albany and Dublin — had recently introduced Targets. Discussions would also take place with Economic Development Directors, and in their absence, Chambers of Commerce With the cities of Davis, Albany and Dublin identified for the study, Councilmember Brockbank noted concern expressed on what constituted a comparable city — geographic proximity, population, similar downtowns etc. As Davis and Dublin were some distance away, he inquired whether Napa or other closer cities could be included. CC 01-03-2011 Mr. Quinn clarified that Napa was listed as a potential city to study and explained that the study would be based on the demographic parallels between San Rafael and the comparable cities. Ms. Mackle stated that of the six cities listed, the scope of work would look at four; therefore, all would be considered to ascertain the most comparable demographically. Councilmember Connolly requested further information on AECOM's experience with Community Impact Reports. Mr. Quinn explained that in the Wal-Mart study AECOM looked at the labor, local community and commercial impacts associated with introducing a Wal-Mart and it was found there would be some deleterious impacts on the local downtown with negative urban decay impacts. From that study it was concluded there would be some significant impacts and the project was denied. With regard to other Community Impact Reports, Mr. Quinn stated he was currently working on one for California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco. Truckee had an historic downtown and with a proposal to locate a new retail establishment just south of downtown, the Community Impact Report would assess the implications to the downtown, how different they were in terms of retail goods, whether there was sufficient market support within Truckee to accommodate this, competition, mitigation measures, etc. Other cities studied included Berkeley, San Bernardino, Eureka, Elk Grove, etc. Councilmember Connolly inquired whether AECOM had ever done work for Target. Unable to speak for the entire firm, Mr. Quinn stated that within his groups, Economic Research Associates, EDAW and Planning and Urban Design Group, no one had worked for Target, nor did anyone in the San Francisco office; however, it was possible that someone in the overall organization had at some time worked for Target. Noting the study would focus on San Rafael as a relevant market, Councilmember Connolly stated that some issues were raised about whether it would be more appropriate to define the relevant market in a different way, perhaps broader. Explaining that the captural area was broader than San Rafael, Mr. Quinn stated the question then was how San Rafael and the commercial establishments in that market would be impacted. As economists, they evaluate general spending and where the money was coming from. Councilmember Connolly noted on page 2 of the proposal that the analysis would not include primary data collection and inquired as to what this meant. Indicating this was direct survey, Mr. Quinn explained that the analysis was primarily relying on ES202 data — Economic Survey 202 data that comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the BOE, Bureau of Equalization — taxable sales data - or the firm data on how the area is performing. Appreciating Mr. Quinn's comments that it was optimal to receive wage and benefit data from Target, Councilmember Connolly stated he believed Target should be forthcoming with that information as the applicant seeking approval. He confirmed that AECOM would seek that direct data; however, should Target continue to claim proprietary information, he inquired as to the alternatives. Mr. Quinn listed three primary sources: • California EDD (Employment Development Department) which provides wage information by North American Industry Classification System - NAICS Code. • Private sources, such as www.alassdoor.com who obtains confidential information on wages by category. Being self-reported, he could not speak to the quality of the data. • Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamic data which provides wage ranges by locality, down to a census block group level - downtown San Rafael would be an example. Noting each source had its imperfections, Mr. Quinn stated it should be recognized that for downtown San Rafael, it would be necessary to gain information on the earnings of the proprietors also; however, the most perfect data would be from Target. 4 CC 01-03-2011 Regarding the definition of retail, Councilmember Connolly stated that, given the new business model Target was moving towards and the potential impacts on the community, an analysis of the existing grocery businesses in the relevant market would be appropriate. Mr. Quinn stated that the study would look at food stores and the retail -spending potential in the food store category at occupancy and compare that to the amount of existing supply and capacity. Recognizing that the study would not single out specific grocery stores that were losing money, he stated the study would demonstrate that, should the Target development occur, it would take a certain share of existing demand. Mr. Quinn confirmed that the study would look at taxable versus non-taxable. Councilmember Connolly concurred that in selecting case studies, it would be necessary to evaluate similarly situated stores, demographics, types of downtown, mix of retailers, etc. Mr. Quinn believed it would also be helpful to have examples where there was a cohesive downtown area next to a Target store in order to see the juxtaposition of the two. Regarding the presentation of the data and how the report would be generated, using the Wal-Mart example of finding deleterious impacts, Councilmember Levine inquired as to how those impacts would be communicated and how the data would be presented in a factual way. Mr. Quinn stated it was primarily mathematics looking at what was projected for the year the project opened, comparing this to the surrounding supply, retail performance and the extent of the decrease. The study would show the supply, estimated demand of the market area, how it changed with the Target store, and the impacts on existing stores in the area. Councilmember Levine suggested the study show not just the net positive or negative fiscal revenue for the City, but also spending money that would be recirculated throughout San Rafael due to a loss or increase of jobs. Indicating the first part dealt with the impact to the commercial establishments, Mr. Quinn stated the second question dealt with the economic gain or loss associated with this project. The impact of the net on San Rafael would then be evaluated and used to ascertain how it resonated through the local economy. Councilmember Levine inquired whether there was an example of perhaps getting the data wrong, where a decision was made; however, the impact was different from that anticipated. Mr. Quinn stated that AECOM's data was very transparent and could be reviewed and criticized. He stated there probably were examples of projections provided by ABAG, etc., forecasting a growth in income of a certain amount over a period of time while actual data showed a decline; similarly with increases. He explained that real per capita income growth was being compared with consumer expenditure surveys to figure out what retail categories were growing or shrinking. Established local, economic data and projections were being used in the analysis; however, projections were difficult. Councilmember Levine noted the Urban Decay Analysis discussed an increase in market demand with an increase in income, and he invited Mr. Quinn to discuss the relationship between consumer spending and increase in income and the correlation between the two. Mr. Quinn explained that when gross per capita income increased, a certain share was discretionary and a portion would be cut off due to inflation. The remainder was discretionary spending that could be spent within the local economy or elsewhere. He indicated this mechanism was used to figure out the trajectory of how things were growing, also looking at population growth, which increased spending. Using these two parameters it was possible to determine the expected increase or decrease in retail sales demand. With the low growth in population in Marin County and the trade area identified in the Urban Decay Analysis, Councilmember Levine stated that a lot of the spending growth was tied directly to income. Mr. Quinn noted that the study would not only include a traditional Urban Decay Study asking a very specific question on whether commercial establishments were left permanently vacant, but also look at the net change, and from that, new data as of 2009 would be produced. The data presented would likely be a better reflection of the next five years. CC 01-03-2011 Councilmember Levine inquired whether trends continued to be that as income grew people would continue to spend at historic levels Reiterating his comment regarding the decline in California retail sales of 19% from the third quarter of 2006 Mr. Quinn stated that certain categories lost more than others. Some fixed expenses had generally remained relatively healthy, such as grocery and general merchandise, while other discretionary spending on automobiles, luxury and durable goods had seen substantial declines. On the wages issue, Councilmember Levine stated data was cloudy at best with regard to actual wages and incomes of proprietors and he inquired as to the accuracy of this date, whether Target's or others. Stating it was different for different data sources, Mr. Quinn did not know how accurate the glassdoor.com data was since it was limited in what it provided. The LEHD data was the unemployment survey and the wage survey being reported to the EDD and Bureau of Labor Statistics; therefore, he felt confident with the employee information. In terms of gross receipts, he felt comfortable to the extent it was reported as taxable. Non-taxable was normally done on a gross revenue basis. Wage ranges would not be very good data; therefore, the accuracy was different by the type of data used. He indicated that the best form would be to have the Target information as well as the LEHD data to understand downtown San Rafael. Appreciating the explanation, Councilmember Levine noted the different nuances in the way questions were being asked was to have the best sense possible of the type of report to be presented so that the City Council would be a position to make the best decision possible. Councilmember Connolly inquired whether the employment statistics would be broken down into full-time versus part-time employment and whether benefits were offered. Mr. Quinn stated that the benefits question would be difficult as the LEHD survey information did not necessarily include that data while Cal EDD did; therefore, for San Rafael he would not be in a position to specify how many positions were benefitted versus not, unless Target provided that information. Cal EDD would have the information by category; however, it would not be specific to San Rafael. Mr. Quinn stated that part-time and full-time employees' statistics would be available. Mayor Boro noted in the Cost Proposal that case study assessments amounted to approximately $4,000 per community and he recommended that six such studies be carried out. Mayor Boro suggested including a question on whether Target met their sales tax projections and a question related to disposable income, noting the comment that Marin had low population growth and high per capita income. With regard to how to normalize things, Mayor Boro directed Mr. Quinn to an article in a recent issue of the Press Democrat which assessed the retail market in Santa Rosa and how one of the new stores at San Rafael's Northgate had exceeded their expectations by fivefold this holiday season. They intended to retain those employees hired for the holiday season; however, the vast majority of employees were part-time. Following up on the issue of wages, Councilmember Heller inquired whether it was the industry norm for companies to make their books available for inspection, as it appeared to be asking too much from companies with such competition. Mr. Quinn stated the more information a company provided the better it would be for them as otherwise average multipliers were relied upon. As a publicly traded company some information was available on wages; however, it was not specific to the geography or provided by classification. Councilmember Heller inquired whether other retail industries would be evaluated in studying wages. Mr. Quinn stated that specific categories would be looked at together with location. He added that restaurants, manicure businesses, etc. would be based on the LEHD and again would be wage ranges. Councilmember Brockbank reported having learned twenty-five years ago that San Rafael had a jobs/housing imbalance; however, this was not discussed as part of this project and he inquired whether this issue was likely to appear in some form. Mr. Quinn stated the study would look at the change in employment as part of the analysis; however, it would CC 01-03-2011 not deal with the current jobs/housing balance and how it would change. He believed the EIR did address those questions in the Employment and Housing section. Mr. Brown reported that staff looked at the comparison of this proposal with the General Plan projections and it was very much within those commercial projections. The last General Plan made a definitive effort to address the jobs/housing imbalance. The focus had been shifted to far more housing than job production. Target was the largest of the commercial opportunities seen in the last several years, and, given the fact that there was so little vacant commercial property available, staff did not anticipate a great deal more. Councilmember Brockbank noted Target indicated in their application that typically 85% of their employees lived within two miles of their store and he inquired whether this claim would be addressed in the case studies or elsewhere. Mr. Quinn responded affirmatively. Councilmember Brockbank noted many Target opponents had made the claim that money circulating in the economy was much greater with a locally—owned business than it was with a chain store. As this appeared to be a major economic issue for the City, he inquired whether this issue would be addressed in the study. Responding, Mr. Quinn stated that only to extent of wage information, how much people were being paid, where they lived versus where the local proprietor lived would that information be available. Looking at information on gross receipts and information on wages would provide an understanding of profit, i.e., revenue that could be further injected into the local economy. Mr. Quinn explained that that share was the level of localized money versus a chain where the profit goes to stockholders. He stated that the difficulty was figuring out the share of profit of each establishment, whether or not they lived locally and how much of that money was spent within the local economy. He commented that a number of studies conducted on this issue had varied outcomes. Councilmember Brockbank stated a lot of people considered that the problem with chain stores generally, and especially big -box retail, was that it created not only such low wages but was fighting for ever lower wages, creating a so called `race to the bottom', which could have psychological as well as economic impacts throughout the community, and he inquired whether this would be considered in the report. Responding Mr. Quinn stated the study would evaluate generally how that impacted individual establishments at that level. On a macro level, he stated they had not scoped for any type of assessment of how this had larger impacts on the competitiveness of retail and how that impacted wages within specific industries. The study would not state that these specific sets of establishments would reduce labor costs by a certain amount to compete with Target because 1) he believed it false precision; and 2) very little data was available to get to that answer, necessitating a lot of assumptions and accounting for a lot of literature reviews to get to that analysis. Regarding Mr. Quinn's experience doing Community Impact Reports, specifically on the effect of big -box retail, Councilmember Brockbank stated he was unsure whether experience was a good thing. He inquired as to what level of experience with Community Impact Reports on big -box retail was the right amount and whether Mr. Quinn had that right amount. Mr. Schutz stated he believed the appropriate level of experience was understanding these types of studies, having done this sort of work before and having the type of qualified firm that understood the data available in order to put these studies together. Mr. Schutz stated he would think there was no upper limit on what was too many, rather he would want to ensure that someone doing such a study for the City had done these types of studies previously and understood the local market. Mr. Quinn confirmed that AECOM Vice -President, Ben Sigman, attended the Planning Commission hearing and that he (Mr. Quinn) had access to the public's comments. Councilmember Brockbank inquired as to when it was necessary to go out for an RFP and when staff felt it appropriate, based on having pre -selected a firm whose representatives sat in on the few meetings, to go ahead with that firm. Ms. Mackle stated it depended on the project. There was no requirement to go out for an RFP for a Professional Services Agreement, whereas with construction projects a formal bid process was required. In the event the funder required an RFP or state funds were involved the RFP process would be followed; CC 01-03-2011 however, in this case where AECOM sat through all meetings and the firm had a special knowledge, staff believed it made sense to use them. Councilmember Levine inquired as to what type of experience AECOM had with public benefits analysis, specifically the public benefits that Target and the City had agreed to — a bus pass program and a bicycle program. On the question of how to get to mode shift for Target employees to take advantage of those programs and actually change the way they commute to and from work, he inquired whether this type of analysis would be part of the Community Impact Study or outside the scope. Mr. Quinn stated it would be outside the scope in terms of traffic specifically as this was an economic study, dealing with fiscal, employment and economics: Fiscal — Impact on budget and General Fund; Employment — The change in jobs and the type of wages being offered; Economy — How it resonated through the economy — indirect and induced economic impact. Mr. Quinn clarified for Councilmember Levine that he had done public benefit analysis for Climate Action Plans and AECOM had done a number of different cost benefit studies for a proposed new port in South San Francisco. Should the scope of the project be expanded, Councilmember Levine inquired whether AECOM had the staff, expertise and acumen to analyze the date on how to get the type of mode shift that would have an impact. Mr. Quinn believed it would be a study for Fehr & Peers or Nelson Nygaard at that level. Mr. Brown stated it could be something that a transportation consultant would look at, although looking at items such as a transit pass program or a bicycle discount program might be speculative, for even a transportation consultant with experience to guesstimate mode shift. Councilmember Connolly indicated that often in Community Impact Reports there is an evaluation of the social costs, which could include public infrastructure and social benefit programs and whether those costs increase. He stated that through the public testimony a number of possible externalities or public costs had potentially been identified and Councilmember Levine was getting granular on some of those brought up that were of concern. More broadly speaking he questioned whether potentially highway improvements were needed and should jobs be created without health benefits whether this increased costs societally. Councilmember Connolly stated he was aware that these types of issues were considered in some Community Impact Reports. Mr. Quinn stated that occasionally they would be evaluated in terms of larger social issues, primarily through a literature review and not individual analysis of the specific community. Noting it varied by the geography being evaluated, he explained that certain burdens were not placed on a local jurisdiction but on the County, State or Federal government; therefore, the impact on the City of San Rafael could be very different from the State of California. Councilmember Levine stated he believed it was necessary to be granular about the agreements or promises being made by Target; therefore, promises of transit pass or bicycle programs needed to be understood with some prediction as to the outcome to understand what this meant to the project. He indicated he could not support the project without having a sense of what the actual public benefit meant to the community. Mr. Brown stated staff understood that Councilmember Levine wanted specifics from Target; however, translating those specifics into a reduction in vehicle trips based upon a path to the Shoreline Bike Path or trying to promote ridership among employees would be very difficult to hone in on. Mr. Brown reported that in the EIR Mr. Mansourian takes a very conservative approach; therefore, mode shift is not discounted for transit users, bicyclists, etc. Councilmember Levine stated he appreciated the conservative approach to these numbers. Ms. Mackle stated that the desire for more details in these programs was clear from the last meeting; therefore, Planning Manager, Paul Jensen, compiled a list for Target requesting more details using the Novato store, should that be the best example, and it was hoped to receive this in writing before the next meeting, probably in March. CC 01-03-2011 Councilmember Levine stated he would like to have this information in sufficient time to study prior to voting. Councilmember Connolly stated he would like the issue of public costs, such as infrastructure costs, etc., considered to the extent appropriate. Mr. Quinn stated the study could be more detailed on the fiscal analyses portion of the work and address some of the impacts associated with it. Social costs would be more difficult to evaluate specific to San Rafael. Mayor Boro suggested that this could be pursued in discussions with other cities. Mr. Quinn noted that the study could also include the literature review; however, it came with very specific points of view. Ms. Mackle clarified that the study would attempt to obtain a sense of social costs through the survey portion with the other cities. Mayor Boro stated an attempt could be made to obtain this information. Mr. Schutz stated another part was drilling down to as much detail as possible on the Fiscal Impact Analysis section. Mayor Boro stated that, while it was not a public hearing, public comment would be taken Mr. Epstein noted that it was not a time for public comment on the merits of the proposed Target project, rather he suggested that public comment be solicited on the proposal before the City Council for the Community Impact Report. Therefore any interested members of the public wishing to comment on the scope of the report should be invited to approach the podium. Steve Burdo stated he had been involved in Community Impact Reports since 2002 and it struck him as odd that the proposal was tendered 48 hours after the request went out without a bid project. Every CIR he had worked on was by open bid process and he advocated for a more thoughtful approach. Mr. Burdo stated he believed direct data collection should be part of the scope of work and this was how information would be obtained from the Target employees or other San Rafael employees on wages. He reported that in 2005, he undertook a similar project on a Wal-Mart store in Hartford, CT and gathered over 600 surveys from workers in various departments regarding wages. Should the City Council wish to include this in the scope he indicated that his firm, Kathleen Russell Consulting, could staff that part of the scope of work, noting he had significant experience in this area. Mr. Burdo stated he strongly advocated a bidding process and direct data collection. Barry Taranto stated that the City Council's questions and comments had allayed some of his concerns regarding the contract for a Community Impact Report. He expressed the hope that City Council meetings would soon be televised. Expressing dissatisfaction that some questions raised this evening were not included in the staff report, he stated that a lot of pieces to the puzzle were answered verbally this evening which should have been in writing. Believing it should be a consultant contract rather than a professional services agreement, Mr. Taranto stated an explanation should have been provided in the staff report as to why this did not go out to bid, commenting that there should be a ceiling with regard to going out to bid. He complimented AECOM for their website and Alexander Quinn for the great job in explaining his company. Mr. Taranto noted that Sunday newspaper advertisements for Target featured a lot more food items and believed it important that market and advertising should be included in the study and he requested an improvement in the content of staff reports. Martv Bennett, Santa Rosa Junior College Teacher and Co -Chair Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County, stated that in 2008, the City of Petaluma passed a Community Impact Report for a large commercial retail and the Living Wage Coalition was very much a part of a community effort that implemented this; subsequently, three Community Impact Reports on large projects were completed for the City of Petaluma. Mr. Bennett noted a letter was submitted from Land Use and Planning Consultant, Scot Stegeman, which he CC 01-03-2011 resubmitted this evening. Mr. Bennett reported that Economic Research Association was a division of AECOM which was a global corporation with extensive business in contracting relationships with Target. As this would be the first Community Impact Report for the City of San Rafael and the County of Marin it was important to get it right and there should not be the appearance of a conflict of interest, and in their letter they had provided substantial documentation that there was a direct conflict of interest. Mr. Bennett stated that the letter noted three firms with experience with community impact reports and economic impact reports, two of which were local, Keyser Marston Associates and Strategic Economics, and Civic Economics, all of which would be very qualified and impartial in terms of providing a community impact for this Target. Mr. Bennett stated the letter also outlined the fact that the scope of work could be much more specific with regard to the retail market analysis and the trade area studied. He noted that when a CIR was prepared by a consultant for the City of Petaluma in 2009 for a shopping center on East Washington Street, Target would not provide their wage and benefit data; therefore, he believed it highly unlikely they would provide it in this instance. Based on that experience they had concerns about the best practices for estimating wage and data sources. Mr. Bennett stated there was extensive information in the public record about the wages and benefits at Wal- Mart. He explained that the largest class action suit in American history involving 1.6 million women in relationship to gender bias at Wal-Mart had gone forward. He indicated that the pioneering studies on Wal- Mart wages and benefits could be found at the U.C. Center for Labor Research and Education and he submitted that Target wages and benefits were similar. Mr. Bennett stated they believed it important not only to have fiscal and employment impacts but also affordable housing, neighborhood and human services and smart growth impacts. It was critical that policymakers had all of this information in one document in order to understand all of the costs and benefits. Herb Moran, San Rafael, commended the City Council for the concept of a Community Impact Report; however, what was laid out by staff and AECOM was an Economic Impact Report. With the differences distinguished it did not appear reasonable that the City Council could approve AECOM to conduct this study. With the great effort put forth by the members of `Keep it Local San Rafael' to assist Mr. Moran believed it curious that no assistance was sought from them in formulating the parameters and he inquired as to who decided on these parameters because they were just a small portion of what was contemplated in a CIR. Noting that the Community Impact Study would have lasting effects, Alan Blau, Mill Valley, expressed concern regarding the parameters and scope of the study and how they were determined. Having in the past hired many consultants who sometimes wanted to determine the scope, it appeared as though this was done in this case. Mr. Blau inquired why the preliminary report was not being distributed to allow for public comment prior to preparation of the final report and he was surprised that Mr. Quinn could not answer whether Target was a customer of other divisions of his organization and possible conflicts. Mr. Blau questioned the rush and not following the RFP process as he believed AECOM was not the only firm who could do this work. Bill Carnev, Sustainable San Rafael, thanked the City Council for creating the opportunity to bring forward as much information as possible. Sustainable San Rafael submitted a letter on December 23, 2010 outlining suggestions for the scope of work. Staying within the bounds of economics, he indicated there were three broad categories summarizing their concerns: The report should include a serious discussion of the externalized costs of the Target business model, as something of this scale was unusual for the community and it needed to be understood as thoroughly as possible what was entailed in the business model. Externalized costs would include items such as healthcare, consumer debt burden, public subsidies which allowed business models such as this to stay afloat, and what that said not only about the possible impact here, but the long- term viability of this business model, and bottom line, the impact of this large-scale business model on the more localized business models it was hoped to encourage in a truly sustainable community. • There were opportunity costs in allowing this development to go forward in terms of losing the opportunity to concentrate large retail energy closer to existing business districts where it could have a synergetic effect and help the flow of customers to the City's existing businesses. • San Rafael's portion of the local climate change adaptation costs entailed in the development i.e., 10 CC 01-03-2011 costs needed to protect Target's considerable investment from the inundation and/or isolation of the site, predicted by BCDC as a result of sea level rise. He recalled that staff had stated at the previous hearing that such costs could approximate to $2 billion region -wide to protect approximately $48 billion worth of improvements throughout the Bay Area. Prorating that back to San Rafael would represent approximately 4% of the value of improvements — with a $30 million project the cost to the City potentially could be in the range of $1,200,000. Mr. Carney stated he would like an economist's opinion and serious study in consultation with the expertise of BCDC and others. It should be brought forward not as an environmental concern but also narrowly as an economic concern. San Rafael faced the potential of huge costs related to this development and any other within the zone identified by BCDC as subject to flooding, potentially within the next 30 years. Mr. Carney indicated there was a nexus to the community benefits package and they had recommendations concerning what could be included that would help address, particularly sea level rise. Gail Naooell, San Rafael, stated she was a little perturbed by the proposed scope of work; however, if it was being limited to an environmental impact, she suggested studying issues which could be assistive and possibly predictive to the overall impact of Target on the community, such as the economic impact of the actual construction of comparable Target projects. She noted Target indicated they would utilize local construction companies and she believed this could be granularized further by talking to the local architect hired to design the building, the absence of which would reveal a lot about Target's intentions. Jerry Belletto, San Rafael, stated that the General Plan and the Climate Change Action Plan were visions of what many citizens wanted San Rafael to be and he noted both plans consistently called for densities near transit hubs. He suggested including in the CIR some type of 'what if' alternative — perhaps Target located closer to a transit hub would provide a comparison of what some of these problems would be over time. Denise Castelucci, Marinwood, requested clarification on the conflict of interest issue with AECOM and Target. With regard to Mr. Quinn's proposal and comments on net benefit analysis, she inquired as to how much Target puts into local community projects on a consistent basis compared to local small businesses. Phil Tucker, Project Director, California Healthy Communities Network — Tide Center, stated he was glad the City Council was moving forward with a Community Impact Study, although he was unsure whether AECOM was the right consultant for the job. He stated that a study of the Novato Target and its effect on sales in this primary trade area was necessary to have a complete picture of the impact of the two stores in tandem. This was a new model to this area and no good data was available on the percentage of non-taxable sales, pharmaceuticals and groceries. Noting Target's comment that of the 450,000 transactions reviewed at the Novato store, approximately 350,000 were from Southern Marin, Mr. Tucker inquired as to the synergy with a Target store in San Rafael and he urged consideration be given to the primary trade area including the overlap of the Novato store and proposed San Rafael store. Regarding charitable giving, Mr. Tucker believed the study needed to include what Novato had received in charitable giving from Target and how the local residents had benefitted, and he urged the City Council to look at the trade area as well as just the solitary store. Jim Geraahtv, commenting that the race to the bottom was due to globalization, stated that the Canal neighborhood was populated because of globalization. In terms of health benefits, he believed the question in the study should be which employees could afford the benefits, i.e., how high would the deductibles be. Noting Cal Park Tunnel was a community benefit, he stated that bike lockers and 10% discount for bicycles purchased at Target were not a community benefit. Applauding the City Council for commissioning this study he urged them to look at what would affect the community. Dana Phillips, San Rafael, expressed concern that the data being used could be inadequate in terms of population because of the suggestion that the census in California could be inaccurate. She also noted that some areas in San Rafael which were zoned industrial had a lot of residential buildings; therefore, she was unsure how Mr. Quinn could evaluate who lived in the San Rafael when the City did not know. Quoting Wendell Berry, a farmer in Kentucky: "a good community insures itself by trust, by good faith and good will by mutual help" Jonathan Frieman stated he could not find the word "community" in AECOM's proposal and an economic impact analysis was not a community impact report. Subsequent to the City Council meeting of December 20, 2010, Mr. Frieman stated he understood there would be a scoping session with the community invited to provide input on what should be covered in the report, and he was shocked to learn a proposal was available shortly thereafter. 11 CC 01-03-2011 Quoting Lily Tomlin "no matter how cynical you get, you can't keep up' Mr. Frieman stated he was discouraged. The Planning Department indicated they were familiar with AECOM, yet the letter demonstrated they were not so familiar. Mr. Frieman stated that `Keep it Local San Rafael' did not feel good to always say no and had they been invited into the process, they would have been working together with the City. He stated that, as the appearance of some type of impropriety taking place with AECOM was a concern, he had contacted other firms and learned that they always looked for alternative uses of the land and had been very successful in coming up with twenty different uses. Mr. Frieman urged the City Council not to approve this agreement this evening and invite the community to a public forum to discuss how they would be affected. Stating that this was a recommendation to approve an agreement, Mayor Boro explained that this process had been used time and again in the Planning Department on projects where supplemental work was required without going through an RFP process, and he inquired whether there was any impropriety with this process. Mr. Epstein stated this process was consistent with the way the City had done Professional Services Agreements in the past. While analogies had been made to conflict of interest intakes done by attorneys' offices, from his understanding and review this was a large, nationwide firm and he was unaware of whether running conflicts was called for in their industry. With regard to the City's approach, it had been handled consistent with similar matters in the past. Explaining that the RFP process was very common, Ms. Mackle stated staff makes a recommendation and the City Council, on behalf of the community, either agrees or disagrees, and this was the standard approach. Regarding how the scoping came together, Ms. Mackle stated that it was based on the last City Council meeting. It started with a list of items obtained from the two public hearings and staff and the consultants, over several conversations, worked to build the scope of work. She explained that scoping sessions, typically were put together for an EIR, not for a study such as this. It was being brought to the City Council in this open forum, intentionally to allow public comment on the scope of work. Ms. Mackle reported that the Draft Administrative Report was another typical step. Data was not being changed rather comments were taken on formatting, readability, etc. It would be presented to the City Council in public session before acceptance. With regard to a comment concerning inadequate data, Ms. Mackle stated this was a challenge in any report and she believed the consultant was attempting to obtain the most clear, concise and reliable data as possible. Addressing what Novato had received in charitable contributions, Mr. Schutz stated that if the City Council so directed, questions on the Novato store's level of charitable giving and whether Target was a good corporate citizen, etc., could be included. Mayor Boro suggested that this question be included for all six communities. Mr. Schutz stated that additions to the scope would include: • Increasing the four case studies to six • Evaluating commute distances for employees • In as much detail as possible, breaking down fiscal impact analysis • Using case studies to evaluate the public cost • Using case studies to evaluate charitable contributions Regarding Mr. Quinn's comment of "what side one was on", Mr. Schutz believed that Mr. Quinn was referring to the literature review which often had a skew to it of whether or not it was in favor. Addressing public comments on the impacts of globalization, overseas working conditions or cheap oil for global shipping, Mr. Schutz explained that, while respecting these types of questions, staff was attempting to put forward a scope of work that reasonably assessed the economic impact of Target on the community. Staff was directed to generate a Community Impact Study, which was how it was referred to in the scope, that reasonably assessed the economics of Target in the community — data would have to exist that could be 12 CC 01-03-2011 accessed and from which to draw conclusions for review in a report. Mr. Schutz believed it would be impossible to reach a point where every possible question was answered to the complete satisfaction of all parties; however, staff's goal was to provide the City Council with enough information to reasonably assess the impacts of the proposal on the community. Unfortunately, some of the specifics raised by the public could not be included in the current recommendation. Reiterating Ms. Mackle's comments on the difference between this process in terms of community scoping and an EIR, Mr. Brown explained that in an EIR, scoping was required by the state, but was done at the Planning Commission level at a similar type hearing as tonight's. A draft scope is presented to the Planning and the community comments. Mayor Boro stated he believed there should be definite numbers on taxable versus non-taxable and the amount of money coming to San Rafael as projected by Target. Mayor Boro stated he found comments on the absence of public input on the study to be an insult. He explained that when this project came before the City Council the question of a having a Community Impact Study was raised and the response was that it was not required as part of the EIR process, and there was an Urban Decay Study. During the first and second hearings many questions were raised that appeared could be answered by the Community Impact Study; therefore at the meeting of December 20, 2010, he suggested that a Community Impact Study be undertaken, taking all the issues raised and incorporating them. Therefore, to state that there was no community input was disingenuous. Approximately 100 people addressed the City Council over the two December hearings, with approximately a further 20 this evening; therefore, he believed the issue had been addressed correctly — public input was received and was reflected in the scope of work. Should someone wish to raise an issue not addressed in the scope of work it should be discussed this evening; however, the foundation for the scope of work was the testimony received from approximately 100 people in the first two meetings, not something generated by staff or the consultant. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Epstein had provided his opinion on any alleged impropriety with the process. Responding to a comment that the City seemed to be rushing the process, Mayor Boro explained that this project had been in process since 2006 and it was reaffirmed by the City Council in 2009 as a top priority for San Rafael. Extensive work had been done and he believed it important that a project be moved forward as expeditiously as possible and not find ways to slow it down, which was not his style. Should someone have something legitimate they would like to have added, it should be conveyed to Ms. Mackle and incorporated in the scope of work. Mayor Boro clarified for Mr. Geraghty that, should a member of the public have an important issue not heard by the City Council, he assumed it would have been raised this evening, as having a further meeting on the issue did not make sense. He reiterated that to date a lot of input had been received from the community and this had been incorporated in the scope of work. What could be obtained was yet to be determined,- however, etermined;however, he believed the study reflected the wishes of the community. Regarding the issue of the appearance of conflict, Councilmember Connolly inquired whether it made sense to at least have a conflicts check done by the firm, specifically whether AECOM did business for Target. Councilmember Heller inquired of Mr. Quinn whether AECOM did business with Target. Having been asked this question this afternoon Mr. Quinn reported that he was unable to ascertain whether of the 40,000 plus employees globally, there had been a project with Target. Locally, there was no example of AECOM working with Target. Providing a different perspective on this issue Councilmember Brockbank explained that the reason an attorney had a different standard was because it was not the responsibility of the person hiring the attorney to run the conflicts check. The burden was on the attorney to know whether there was a requirement in his industry not to work for someone who was opposing someone he represented in the past. Councilmember Brockbank believed economists did not have similar standards, otherwise Mr. Quinn would have made AECOM's obligation to avoid such conflicts known. Councilmember Brockbank noted all types of different standards existed in different industries and he assumed economists were not the same as attorneys. Councilmember Heller stated she had seen a draft of the scope of work this week and signed off on it, as it comprehensively covered the City Council and public's suggestions and requests. She stated she did not like to see the community "pick on staff' for any impropriety since they had not been improper in anything 13 CC 01-03-2011 they had done. Staff took direction from the City Council on areas they wished to have studied; they listened to the hours of testimony from the public and generated this scope of work. Councilmember Heller stated she looked forward to a succinct 25-30 page report. Mr. Schutz listed the items to be added to the Scope of Work. Increase number of case studies from 4 to 6, each to include: ✓ Charitable contributions, public costs and other externalized costs ✓ Difference from original Target projections provided versus what actually occurred Evaluate commute distances for employees In as much detail as possible, break down fiscal impact analysis. Mr. Schutz confirmed that the fiscal impact was already in the proposal; however staff wanted to include as many categories as possible to make it as comprehensible as possible. Regarding charitable contributions, Councilmember Brockbank believed this would not be difficult to obtain. Mr. Schutz stated his understanding was that while information had been received in the past about how much they would contribute on a percentage basis, the question in the scope of work related more to actual figures in that community, and whether the community was comfortable with the amount eventually received Regarding the comment on direct surveying, Councilmember Brockbank believed a cheap and simple way would be to include some questions on Target in the City's bi-annual polling, due to begin soon. Mr. Schutz stated the professional services agreement with the consultant to prepare the survey would be agendized at the next City Council meeting. A similar process would be followed as in the past where the City Council had an opportunity to provide input on questions. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Levine seconded to adopt the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 13090 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. FOR PREPARATION OF A COMMUNITY IMPACT STUDY FOR THE SAN RAFAEL TARGET STORE PROJECT AT SHORELINE CENTER AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14 CC 01-03-2011 5. ELECTION OF VICE -MAYOR FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR YEAR 2011 / CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES 2011 (CC) — FILE 275 x 9-1 Vice Mayor Connolly placed in nomination the name of Councilmember Brockbank to serve as Vice -Mayor of the City of San Rafael for year 2011. Councilmember Heller seconded the motion and Councilmember Brockbank was elected Vice -Mayor for 2011. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Levine moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to accept the City Council appointments to committees as unchanged, with the exception of the addition of the Pension Ad -Hoc Committee — Councilmember Levine, with Mayor Boro alternate. Barry Taranto suggested that all Councilmembers have an opportunity to serve on important committees to gain experience. Noting each City had a different method, Councilmember Brockbank clarified that Mayor Boro requests input each year from Councilmembers on committee assignments. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 6. PRESENTATION BY MARIN SANITARY SERVICE ON PROPOSED NEW PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE (CM) — FILE 4-3-32 Economic Development Coordinator Stephanie Lovette explained that this is the time of year when the City Council, as part of a public hearing, is asked to approve the maximum rates for garbage services. The franchisers group, consisting of surrounding cities and some County areas, does so at the same time. Ms. Lovette announced that the public hearing for the rates would take place at the February 7, 2011 City Council meeting. She explained that n the past, the City Council and the public had asked for the opportunity outside of the rate hearing to hear about new programs, rate implications of the new programs and to receive feedback as to what types of programs the public would like to see going forward. In making her presentation, Patty Garbarino, President, Marin Sanitary Service, would focus on food waste. Pattv Garbarino, introduced members of Marin Sanitary Service (MSS) in attendance: Ron Piombo, Equipment and Safety Committee, Steve Rosa, Operations, Dispatch and Routing, Todd Start, Union Shop Steward and Commercial Recycling Coordinator, Nick Minton and Joe Garbarino, together with Joan Irwin and Kay Korlette, Environmental Forum. Building on the workshop and Study Session of September 20, 2010, Ms. Garbarino stated she would address how the proposed residential food composting program would work and its priority timeline, followed by a brief presentation on MSS's program and partnership with the Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA) to divert commercial food waste and make renewable energy and then compost, and the potential for multi- family unit participation in the residential food waste composting program. Operating off of a recycling base of 75% diversion, Ms. Garbarino stated that the future direction of solid waste management had been determined by Marin County's Hazardous and Solid Waste Management JPA's Zero Waste Feasibility Study accepted in January, 2010, San Rafael's Climate Change Action Plan and the Marin Sanitary Services Waste Characterizations Study, which was an audit of residential and light commercial disposed -of waste, the basis for the Marin County Zero -Waste Feasibility Study. With regard to specific programs, Ms. Garbarino displayed a chart which she indicated reflected how this would impact the diversion, how the diversion could increase and its timeline, e.g., enhanced commercial recycling and multi -family recycling should increase diversion by 6% to 81 %. Residential food waste composting which should begin March 1, 2011, should produce an additional 3% and as high as 7% diversion when fully impacted, conservatively reaching 84% diversion. Commercial food waste composting — 15 CC 01-03-2011 Food Waste to Energy program, which may start mid -2011, early 2012 with a 3% diversion, would bring the total to 87% and with the ongoing 3% carpet recycling and drywall composting program, to 90%. Ms. Garbarino issued a reminder that the definition of zero waste is "90% - don't bury, don't burn." Mayor Boro clarified that the Food to Energy program applied to MSS, and other companies diverting to CMSA should increase the number in Marin County overall, lowering Marin Sanitary Services' costs. Cities serviced by Mill Valley Refuse Service had signed letters of interest. Regarding the potential for multi -family unit participation in the residential food waste composting program, Ms. Garbarino stated she could also discuss the concerns for extending the 20 -gallon can to multi -family units, and the California Air Resources Board regulations as they pertained to MSS's need to replace their fleet. She noted that much of their operations resulted from either a community or legislative mandate. Residential Food Waste Composting - Ms. Garbarino stated that in early 2010, MSS begun a pilot residential composting program in three neighborhoods in its service area. It was well received and implemented with very little problems. However, due to Title 14, Natural Resources - Division 7, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 17.331, Frequency of Refuse Removal "Refuse shall not be allowed to remain on the premises for more than seven days in order to prevent propagation, harborage or attraction of flies, rodents, or other vectors" this co -mingled food waste with green waste must be collected weekly - a change from the bi-weekly green waste collection program. Having approached the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), the Department of Environmental Health and Cal Recycles for a waiver of this regulation, Ms. Garbarino announced that none was granted. Idealistically, in a perfect world it would be wonderful down the down road to be able to switch back the weekly collection of the black cart to every other week, keeping in mind that Marin Sanitary Service was the first independent garbage company to sign up for the California Climate Action Registry — carbon footprint audited. The idea of additional trucks on the road went against what MSS represented and what they would like to be doing; however, this enhanced their diversion, driving down, in a different way, their carbon footprint. Ms. Garbarino displayed a chart of green waste being processed, etc., to go up to the composting facility in Zamora, and noted the generation of such waste was far too high. Ms. Garbarino explained that the Zamora composting facility was located in the agricultural zone. MSS currently uses four full-sized rear -loading packer trucks and one small rear -loading packer truck for its green waste program. With the exception of the small truck, MSS would need to increase the number of trucks and drivers to cover the cost of the weekly collection. Customers are informed of what can go into the co -mingled cart through can stickers and hangers, the quarterly newsletter and their website. The Customer Service Department was prepared to answer questions thoroughly and effectively. As with all other operations, the Operations Department would continually review all routes to ensure the greatest level of effectiveness, efficiency and diversion. Ms. Garbarino stated that, while MSS expected an initial 2011 diversion increase of 3%, the actual projections for 2012 and beyond for residential food waste composting were roughly 7%. She stated that it was important to remember, and the reason they could move forward now on this program, was the permitted status of this facility. She distributed a chart that identified where Zamora falls in terms of the capacity available in the greater Bay Area. She pointed out that Redwood Landfill did not have the capacity to take MSS's residential green waste or food waste so the options were very few. Because of the volume they handled, Marin Sanitary Service could not take their material to a non -permitted facility. Noting some in West Marin were mentioned, she clarified that Redwood and Sonoma did not have the capacity. On the back of the chart, there was a map of the greater Bay Area with Zamora circled in blue. Addressing Commercial Food Waste to Energy and composting, Ms. Garbarino explained that commercial food waste is dealt with completely differently from residential food waste because food waste in a commercial situation is highly volatile, released many gasses and needed to be dealt with in a different fashion and permitting system. She believed CMSA would schedule public hearings in March, 2011 regarding bids for construction to commence in the summer and early fall. Food Waste Composting in Multi -Family Units — Ms. Garbarino reported that only two communities in California had multi -family food waste composting currently, although the program was offered through property owners in four other communities with 25% 16 CC 01-03-2011 acceptance. Issues of space and vectors were a concern and while multi -family units have recycling and green waste service offered to them, this program extension would require three additional trucks and staff routes. MSS recommended that this service be offered on a case by case basis and if requested, move to a fully implemented program in the next rate year. Noting that MSS would be working with staff to develop a potential studio rate over the next year for multi- family units of 10 and under, Ms. Garbarino stated the studio rate was offered to a 10 -unit apartment complex nearby because they had one individual per unit, and the minimum base in Ordinance No. 1649 — Section 9.19.130 - 1993 of one unit to a 32 -gallon container appeared to be adequate. With regard to the recommendation that customers have some type of container in their kitchen for food waste, Mayor Boro inquired whether Ms. Garbarino had a recommendation. Ms. Garbarino stated that MSS recommended against it for two reasons: 1. As everyone was trying to reach zero -waste, this would be an additional plastic container; however, the $3- $5 container might be a reminder to use the food waste program and the green waste container 2. Mill Valley Refuse Services was not using it. Some other recyclers and composters in the community who had used them found that people were using them for something other than the intended purpose. In order to keep costs down and refuse at a minimum, she recommended that people use a bowl or something convenient to dispose of kitchen waste Rather than MSS providing a container, Mayor Boro suggested they make a recommendation of what to use. Ms. Garbarino stated that MSS could create a display of recommended items available. Councilmember Heller suggested that perhaps containers could be made available by MSS on request, adding the cost to bills. Councilmember Brockbank inquired whether information on containers could be provided with bills. Ms. Garbarino stated that this information could be included in the newsletter and posted on the website. Ms. Garbarino stated that essentially it was a very simple program. They owned a quarter of the partnership at Zamora, which was the only permitted facility within hauling distance from Marin County. People inquired about the program regularly and the benefits of the diversion were huge for MSS. Named Marin Zone. she reported that it is sold 100% into the agricultural zone. Mayor Boro requested clarification on the process of the Food to Energy Program: food would be processed by MSS, brought to CMSA and eventually converted into energy which would be used at that plant or sold back on the grid, with nothing going out to the dumpsite. He inquired as to the process after the waste enters the green can. Joe Garbarino stated this program was a great advantage to residents, especially in fire hazard areas. He explained that green cans are brought to Marin Sanitary Service and from 4:00 p.m. to midnight the contents are ground, and during the early hours of the morning four trucks transport the waste to Zamora where it is composted, re -composted and pollutants removed. He reported that many truck loads of the final product are donated to different organizations, including City parks, Davidson school fields, etc. The procedure is fast and efficient. Mr. Garbarino confirmed that commercial food waste only was brought to CMSA. Ms. Garbarino confirmed that commercial waste consisting of large volumes of gaseous food waste has to go to a different place as the Zamora permit would not allow that quantity, whereas direct composting is not a problem. Similarly, the digesters at CMSA cannot accept green waste. Councilmember Levine inquired as to how transportation costs per ton could be the same as Redwood. Ms. Garbarino stated that Marin Sanitary Service charges the same as Redwood. Appreciating the fact that the community had a concern that MSS was going to Zamora she stated that since starting green waste composting they had not charged more than the trip to Redwood. 17 CC 01-03-2011 Applauding Marin Sanitary Service's ingenuity, creativity, forward thinking and new initiatives, Councilmember Brockbank stated he had no problem with considerably higher rates to advance these worthy causes. To make the system more sustainable and progressive, he suggested: More steeply tiered rates 1. Pay As You Throw program would be better yet 2. Radically rework the entire system by which Marin Sanitary Service charges to compensate them for their success in diversion Appreciating these comments, Ms. Garbarino noted that at some point they became recyclers not haulers. She stated that they could make a presentation for the rate hearing on progressive rates. She noted Pay As You Throw required having a scale on the truck for weighing because of charging by weight. It also involved California Weights and Measures, each truck needed to be metered which would be prohibitively expensive. Councilmember Brockbank suggested it could be something small embedded in the handle of the cart. Believing it still involved Weights and Measures, Ms. Garbarino stated she would check and report back. Councilmember Brockbank suggested a reward system. Ms. Garbarino explained that MSS had a participation rate in recycling and green waste of between 90-95%. Councilmember Brockbank stated MSS should be rewarded for that and suggested those not doing as well as they could, perhaps could be motivated economically. Mayor Boro noted that at the rate hearing on February 7, 2011 Marin Sanitary Service would explain the fact that some trucks needed to be upgraded to comply with the latest laws and in other cases, purchase new, more expensive trucks. Ms. Garbarino stated MSS had predictions out to 2015 and would work with staff on how to explain it to the City Council. Joan Irwin, Chair, Marin Food Scrap Recycling Task Force, stated that a year ago there was no food scrap recycling in Marin County. Last year, Mill Valley, Tiburon, Corte Madera, Belvedere and several special districts started the practice and Novato would be voting on the issue later this month. The City of San Rafael was a big supporter and she expressed the hope that the City Council would vote in favor of the program next month. Regarding how food goes from the table to the green bin, Ms. Irwin recommended finding a container which could be filled. The advantage of having a purposeful container was not so much for the collection of waste to put in the green can, rather it announced a change in behavior. Marin County was served by five different haulers - four major and one special district hauler; therefore, there would be an issue of consistency, which would hopefully be dealt with through the Local Task Force of the JPA. Ms. Irwin stated it would be necessary to ensure that education take place as it would be important for residents to see why the program was to their advantage. Kav Korlette stated that composting improves the quality of the soil and believed that San Rafael should join the Bay Area cities already recycling food waste. Appreciating the fact that San Rafael was moving towards residential food waste composting, Bill Carnev, Sustainable San Rafael, looked forward to the remaining 10% moving aggressively to zero waste. They looked forward to the work of the Joint Powers Authority on waste management — they were working on a model franchise agreement, and as a franchise agreement in San Rafael recycles each year, Sustainable San Rafael looked forward to an updated agreement, with Marin County and the combined jurisdictions seriously evaluating how to achieve zero waste. Mr. Carney believed that getting a composting facility long- term in the agricultural zone of Marin County was something that the City should be aspiring towards, as well as encouraging home composting. Mr. Carney stated he would like to see the introduction of a ten-gallon can as a step beyond the 20 -gallon can and tiered rates, so that people would be encouraged not only to produce less waste, but also to take in less packaging, etc. in order to get by with less going to the landfill and along those lines, the reduction of upstream sources of waste needed to be addressed, perhaps educationally and informationally. 18 CC 01-03-2011 Gail Naapell, San Rafael, stated she composts her own food scraps and inquired whether she would have to pay an additional charge for not placing food scraps in the green bin. Believing the goal was zero waste, she inquired as to what happens with the diverted material. Ms. Garbarino stated she could have this conversation with Ms. Nappell separately with regard to where everything went; however, getting to zero waste did not mean the waste just completely evaporated, although green waste and food waste evaporated or shrunk down by 50% and that material went back into the soil. She stated that getting to zero waste would require looking at generation. Defining zero -waste as "90% Don't Bury, Don't Burn," Ms. Garbarino stated that getting beyond 90% was feasible; however, West Marin was not a feasible location for the types of volume the urban corridor in Marin had in terms of green waste and food waste. Because of the terrain and the proximity of streams, creek, the water board, the air board and the waste board, there was no feasible place other than Redwood for that type of facility. She stated that backyard composting was not favored by the Health Department and not deemed kosher by the Environmental Health Department either because of vector management. She stated it could be problematic in an area where people lived closely together. With regard to whether residents would have to pay for the addition of green waste whether or not they were using it, Ms. Lovette confirmed they would, and under the new rate proposal it would go against both commercial and multi -family; however, those two classes of customer would not be permitted to participate in the green waste, although they would be charged for it and the City Council would need to address this issue in the rate hearings. Mr. Joe Garbarino explained that MSS was essentially waste management — they managed the waste generated by residents for reuse. Some was being sent to a landfill until a better use was found; however, in the meantime the waste was being managed and he believed no one in the United States was doing a better job of this than Marin Sanitary Service, and they would continue with support of the City Council. Jim Geraghty inquired as to the difference between rates and fees and how Proposition 26 would affect the City's ability to increase fees and rates. Mayor Boro stated staff would provide this information in the staff report for the February 7, 2011 hearing. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 7. None. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS / REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense) 8. Marin Enerav Authoritv: - File 271 x 4-13-125 Councilmember Connolly distributed an update on the Marin Energy Authority. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:45 p.m. ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2011 ALBERT J. BORO, Mayor 19 CC 01-03-2011