Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2019-07-10 @6:01MINUTES CITY COUNCIL °4 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO n U O LIFO SPECIAL SPECIAL MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2019 6:01 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 6:16 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Addiego, Nagales and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Garbarino, and Mayor Matsumoto. AGENDA REVIEW No changes. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 1. Report regarding Resolution 87-2019 approving the Third Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Du -Safety for safety program consultant services, for an additional $70,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $445,000. (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director). Human Resources Director Lockhart provided an overview of the safety performance, total costs incurred and 2019 work plan. Councilmember Nicolas inquired about the increase in safety performance from 2017 to 2018. She inquired about lessons learned from former vendors. Human Resources Director Lockhart explained that the rate could have increased due to an increase in reporting. Vice Mayor Garbarino stated he was impressed with the progress made to reduce injuries throughout the City. Human Resources Director Lockhart indicated that the Police and Fire Departments have done additional training in work injury prevention. Mayor Matsumoto expressed her appreciation to staff for their efforts in work injury prevention to mitigate potential claims. Councilmember Addiego stated the numbers were great with a focus to save money. He stated incidents were unpredictable and unforeseen for public safety personnel due to their profession. Motion — Councilmember Nicolas/Second — Councilmember Nagales: To approve Resolution 87- 2019 approving the consulting services agreement with Du -Safety for safety program consultant services, for an additional $70,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $445,000. Unanimously approved by roll call vote. 2. Report regarding an introduction of an ordinance amending Title 6, Chapters 6.04, 6.16 and 6.90 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to street vendor, sidewalk vendor and peddler regulations. (Mike Rudis, Master Sergeant) Master Sergeant Rudis presented the report regarding an ordinance amending Title 6, Chapters 6.04, 6.16 and 6.90 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to street vendor, sidewalk vendor and peddler regulations. He indicated that Senate Bill 946 ("SB 946") amended California law to limit cities' ability to regulate sidewalk vendors operating via non -motorized conveyances within their jurisdictions. SB 946, which became effective on January 1, 2019, decriminalized such sidewalk vending activities and afforded additional protections to vendors against local regulations. Absent cities adopting a sidewalk -vending program consistent with SB 946, sidewalk vendors are free to vend within the city so long as they vend in compliance with the provisions of SB 946 (codified at Government Code sections 51035 et seq.). SB 946 covers stationary or roaming sidewalk vendors selling food and merchandise from a non -motorized cart, stand, or their persons, on sidewalks and pedestrian paths. It does not apply to vehicular vendors such as food trucks or ice cream trucks. Cities may not regulate sidewalk vendors except through regulations that are consistent with SB 946 requirements. Under SB 946, local government regulations must be directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns aside from specifically enumerated statutory criteria. Particularly, local governments may not rely on "perceived community animus or economic competition" to regulate sidewalk vendors. To illustrate, the government may not prohibit sidewalk vendors to locate in front of businesses that sell similar food items or merchandise as the vendor in order to protect those businesses against competition. It is also important to note that violation of sidewalk vendor regulations are only punishable by administrative fines specified under state law; local governments may not prosecute such violations as criminal offenses. He summarized SB 946's requirements: Impermissible Regulations The City may not impose the following regulations under any circumstances: Prohibit roaming sidewalk vendors (moving from place to place) to locate in exclusively residential areas. • Require sidewalk vendors to first obtain non-government consent or approval before doing business. ® Criminalize violations of sidewalk vendor regulations or the failure to pay applicable fines. Permissible Regulations (1) The City may require vendors to comply with generally applicable laws, and to obtain a permit with application requirements. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 2 (2) The City may regulate time, place, and manner of sidewalk vending that are directly related to obiective health, safety or welfare concerns. Examples of regulations that are permissible if based on such concerns include: • Restrict where sidewalk vendors can locate in the public right-of-way. • Restrict the overall number of sidewalk vendors permitted within the city. • Impose hours of operation, sanitation, and disability access requirements. • Require vendors to obtain additional governmental licenses and a state seller's permit. (3) The City may also prohibit vendors from locating next to a certified farmers' market, swap meet, or a temporary special event permit issued with notice, during the term of the permit. (4) The City may regulate sidewalk vendors in public parks, subject to specific statutory restrictions. The City of South San Francisco ("City") currently regulates street and sidewalk vending under Chapter 6.90 of the Municipal Code. The existing Chapter 6.90 only permits street vendors operating from a motorized vehicle to do business within the City pursuant to a vending permit. Under the current ordinance, sidewalk vending via non -motorized conveyances, such as a pushcart, stand, or wagon, are prohibited with the exception of certain temporary sidewalk sales held by organized merchant groups. These existing regulations under Chapter 6.90 are inconsistent with SB 946 requirements. Thus, staff has prepared the proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 6.90 consistent with SB 946 in order to impose regulations that aim to protect public health, safety and welfare. The amended Chapter 6.90 would regulate three types of vendors: (1) street vendors, which are those vendors operating from a motorized vehicle (i.e. a food truck); (2) sidewalk vendors, which are those vendors operating from a non -motorized conveyance (i.e. a fruit stand) and located on public sidewalks and public pedestrian paths only; and (3) peddlers and solicitors, which are those that travel from place to place or house to house offering merchandise or services (i.e. a magazine subscription sales person), but not conducting businesses on a street or sidewalk or other public pathways. The amended Chapter 6.90 would require these vendors to obtain a vending permit and comply with requirements. Noting that peddlers and solicitors must be fingerprinted and subject to background check. Master Sergeant Rudis discussed prohibited locations, distance and accessibility. He continued to discuss public safety, health and welfare requirements, and special rules for parks. He noted the penalties for violating Chapter 6.90, applicable to all vendors, as noted below. Operating without a permit: • 1 st offense: $250 • 2nd offense within one year of the first: $500 • Each additional offense within one year of the first: $1,000 Violating Chapter 6.90 requirements (when vending with a permit): • 1 st offense: $100 • 2nd offense within one year of the first: $200 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 3 • Each additional offense within one year of the first: $500 • Subsequent violations or failure to pay fines may constitute grounds for revocation of vending permit. Applicable to Sidewalk Vendors only: Violations or failure to pay a fine is not punishable as a criminal offense. A cited sidewalk vendor may request a determination from the City for their ability to pay the fines. • The City may allow the vendor to complete community service in lieu of paying the fine, waive the fine, or offer an alternative disposition. • Failure to pay fines or complete the alternative community service/disposition may constitute grounds for revoking a permit or deny a subsequent permit application. He noted that the penalties and provisions applicable to sidewalk vendors are replicated from SB 946 requirements and the City is otherwise preempted from enacting additional penalties. Thus, consistent with Chapter 6.90, staff recommended amending section 6.04.180 of the Municipal Code to exempt sidewalk vendors from criminal liability for violations related to business licensing requirements. Likewise, Section 6.16.110 of Chapter 6.16, relating to the imposition and payment of business license taxes, also contain certain regulations for peddlers and solicitors with which they must comply in order to obtain a license. Master Sergeant Rudis recommended that those regulations be consolidated with the amended Chapter 6.90 and Section 6.16.110 be modified accordingly. Councilmember Nagales expressed his concern on the timeliness of outreach and inquired if the City would warn sidewalk vendors of the new policy and waive fines. Master Sergeant Rudis stated the Police Department issued 20 citations, within the last four years. He stated that officers retain the right to inform vendors. Councilmember Nagales inquired about vendor limitations on Grand Avenue. Master Sergeant Rudis indicated that there were opportunities for sidewalk vendors to operate on the 100 -300 block of Grand Avenue. Vice Mayor Garbarino expressed his concern with compliance such as obtaining a business license. He requested that staff continue to exercise due diligence and show kindness for individuals trying to make a living. Master Sergeant Rudis stated that most violations have been citizen -initiated complaints; officers have shown consideration and not issued fines. Mayor Matsumoto inquired about the cost of permits. Master Sergeant Rudis stated the costs of a business license was $95.25 plus $15.00 per employee, and $50.00 per vehicle. He stated vending permit costs had not been determined and the Council would determine the cost. Councilmember Addiego stated that the City must update its rules to meet the State's requirements. He shared his concern with citing sidewalk vendors and not the employers. He discussed taco trucks and asked the requirement for moving every 30 minutes. Master Sergeant Rudis stated street and sidewalk vendors had to move every 30 minutes. He indicated that the City is unaware the matter in which sidewalk vendors are employed. Mayor Matsumoto shared the history with past vendors and current regulations. She inquired about the current structure of street vendors and health permits. Master Sergeant Rudis stated the City had SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 4 not had personal experience with vendors and the Police Department only enforced on resident complaints. City Attorney Rosenberg indicated that Council could eliminate the 30 -minute regulation and enforce the ordinance. He explained that the code was not consistent with state law and the proposed changes will codify. He stated staff would bring back an ordinance to eliminate the 30 - minute moving requirement. Councilmember Addiego questioned the impact of removing the 30 -minute moving requirement. Vice Mayor Garbarino requested that the matter come back for Council consideration. City Manager Futrell suggested Council approve the ordinance to comply with state law and schedule a study session in the near future to discuss the 30 -minute rule and possible impacts. Motion — Councilmember Addiego/Second — Councilmember Nicolas: To waive reading and introduce an Ordinance amending Title 6, Chapters 6.04, 6.16 and 6.90 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to street vendor, sidewalk vendor and peddler regulations. Unanimously approved by roll call vote. 3. A report regarding an introduction of an ordinance amending Title 4, Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to monetary limits for public contract procurement methods. (Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney) City Attorney Rosenberg presented the report and indicated that the California Public Contract Code generally require municipalities to competitively bid public works projects in excess of $5,000. This process requires that each project valued in excess of $5,000 have plans and specifications prepared by an engineer, be advertised, follow a formal bid process laid out in the Public Contract Code, and projects awarded by Council go to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act ("the Act"), enacted in 1983 and codified under Public Contract Code section 22000 et seq., provides an alternative means for municipalities to streamline public works contract procurements. Cities that adopt the accounting procedures set forth under the Act may perform public projects within certain dollar thresholds with its own workforce or by informal bidding procedures. Prior to January 1, 2019, the Act authorized public projects of $45,000 or less to be let without competitive bidding and be performed by force account, authorized public projects of $175,000 or less to be let by informal bidding procedures, and required public projects of more than $175,000 to be procured through formal bidding. Additionally, the Act permits participating public agencies, in the event all bids solicited informally for the performance of a public project are in excess of $175,000, to award the contract at $187,500 or less to the lowest responsible bidder if the agency determines its cost estimate was reasonable. Assembly Bill 2249 ("AB 2249"), signed into law in 2018 and became effective on January 1, 2019, increased these bid limits under the Act. AB 2249 amended Sections 22020, 22032, and 22034 of the Public Contract Code to state: (1) public projects of $60,000 or less do not require bidding, (2) public projects between $60,001-$200,000 require informal bidding, and (3) public projects over SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 5 $200,000 require formal bidding. Additionally, if all informal bids received for the performance of a public project exceeded $200,000, AB 2249 permits participating public agencies to award the contract at $212,500 or less to the lowest responsible bidder if it determines its cost estimate was reasonable. He summarized the following changes: Alternate Bidding Procedure Before AB 2249 After AB 2249 Amount of contract where no competitive bidding is $45,000 or less $60,000 or required less Amount of contract where Informal Bidding is $45,001- $175,000 $60,001 - required $200,000 Amount of contract where Formal Bidding is $175,001+ $200,001+ required Amount of contract that may be awarded if all bids $187,500 $212,500 received are over $200,000 City Attorney Rosenberg indicated the City of South San Francisco (City) previously opted to adopt the accounting procedures set forth under the Act and adopted an informal bidding ordinance under Chapter 4.04 of the Municipal Code to utilize the alternate bidding procedures set forth under the Act. As AB 2249 has adjusted the dollar thresholds, staff recommends that Chapter 4.04 be modified to be consistent with this change in state law. Vice Mayor Garbarino stated the amendment would speed up the process and eliminate staff time. City Attorney Rosenberg confirmed that the amendment would codify current thresholds. Motion — Vice Mayor Garbarino/Second — Councilmember Nicolas: To waive reading and introduce an ordinance amending Title 4, Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to monetary limits for public contract procurement methods. Unanimously approved by roll call vote. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business Mayor Matsumoto adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Submitted by: - PU tA19M 111i" �U, osa Govea Acosta, CMC, CPMC City Clerk Mayor Approved by the City Council: O 9 / ) V / ZU) 1 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 6