HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2003-01-06SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Pagel
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2003 AT 8:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM:
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items.
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM:
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor
Barbara Heller Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
a) Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Negotiators' Names: Ken Nordhoff, Lydia Romero
Employee Organization:
San Rafael Firefighters' Association
b) Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation
Significant Exposure to Litigation, Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1)
One Case: Claimed Breach of Agreement with Marin Major Crimes Task Force
Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan announced that no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
None
8:15 PM
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as
follows:
ITEM
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of
Monday, December 16, 2002 (CC)
4. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending
November, 2002 (MS) — File 8-18 x 8-9
5. Adoption of State of California 2002
Standard Specifications and Plans for
Construction Projects (PW) —
File 9-3-32 x 9-3-40 x 1-6-1
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Minutes approved as submitted.
Accepted Monthly Investment Report
for the month ending November,
2002, as presented.
Approved staff recommendation:
Adopted State of California 2002
Standard Specifications and Plans
for Construction Projects.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
3. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1795 — AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING
SECTIONS 2.16.025, 2.16.026, 2.16.027 AND 2.16.028 OF THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.10 TO THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE USE OF CITY PARKS AND BUILDINGS
(CS) — FILE 9-3-66 x 9-3-65 x 13-8 x 9-3-61 x 9-3-85
Hugo Landecker, President, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, indicated that as they had
not been aware of the ordinance heretofore, he wished to comment briefly.
Regarding the requirement for insurance for events including 25 or more people, he stated his
association had been attempting to obtain an insurance policy for approximately two years;
therefore, he believed purchasing insurance to meet the requirements of this ordinance would
be difficult and costly.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 1
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 2
Concerning the prohibition against vehicles in parks, Mr. Landecker explained that in Gerstle
Park, they occasionally hold events in the picnic area, near the tennis courts, and as hauling
supplies uphill is pretty tough, together with the difficulty for older people and the handicapped,
he questioned whether an exception could be made to allow vehicle entry in such
circumstances. He noted this probably also applied to other parks in the City.
On the availability of special events insurance, Rod Gould, City Manager, reported the City
works with an insurance carrier who would offer to write a one-time coverage for special events
for non-profit groups. He encouraged those wishing to obtain such insurance to shop around to
ascertain whether they could do better than this carrier; should it be possible to obtain a rider on
a homeowners' policy to cover the event, this would be acceptable. Not wishing to be terribly
strict, Mr. Gould stated staff believed good Risk Management practice requires that the City
have some indemnification to ensure some risk transfer in the event of an accident.
Community Services Director Carlene McCart stated that typically, policies for large group
events run approximately $100 - $130 per event and are available to non -profits as well as
private parties. This, she indicated, is sold through the reservation procedure.
With regard to the exception for Gerstle Park to haul supplies up to the picnic area, Ms. McCart
reported that presently, vehicles are allowed into parks for events as part of the permit process
Concerning Gerstle Park specifically, she reported there is a chain across the access road,
which would be removed when groups needed to access the upper portion, or for participants
requiring closer access. She confirmed for Mayor Boro that this is part of the permit process.
Councilmember Phillips inquired of Mr. Landecker whether there may have been
miscommunication with regard to these two issues. Mr. Landecker stated the ordinance as
written was very explicit; however, he was satisfied if the permit process took care of the issue.
The title of the ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING
SECTIONS 2.16.025, 2.16.026, 2.16.027 AND 2.16.028 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL
CODE AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.10 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO
REGULATE THE USE OF CITY PARKS AND BUILDINGS"
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the
reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and approve final adoption of
Charter Ordinance No. 1795 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
PUBLIC HEARING:
6. Public Hearing —
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY MARIN SANITARY SERVICE FOR A RATE
INCREASE FOR REFUSE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES AND ADOPTION
OF RESOLUTION AMENDING AGREEMENT SETTING RATES (MS) —
FILE 4-3-32 x 13-2
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and invited Assistant City Manager Ken
Nordhoff to present his report.
Ken Nordhoff stated this was a request by Marin Sanitary Service for a refuse rate increase
and was a consistent practice with five other agencies over the past several years; he noted
the company makes application based on its projected costs for the coming year. He indicated
the City had worked with the consulting firm of Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, specialists in the
refuse and solid waste industry, who evaluated the application. Mr. Nordhoff explained a
process whereby a summary review is done for two consecutive years, followed by a detailed
review; this was the second year of a summary review, working off indices agreed upon with
the company.
Mr. Nordhoff reported that the company had proposed a 2.49% increase in their rate
application; however, Hilton's review demonstrated the actual rate increase necessary to be
5.5%. Having outlined the majority of reasons for that change in the staff report, he indicated
that most of these centered around much higher health insurance costs, an increase in
workers' compensation and an increase in the cost in liability insurance, particularly in light of
situations such as 9-11. He noted these increased costs were similar to those being
experienced by the City of San Rafael.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 2
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 3
Reporting having met with representatives of the other franchising agencies, Mr. Nordhoff
stated all agreed on Hilton's findings and were taking the rate recommendations in the report
back to the various elected bodies.
Consistent with past practice, Mr. Nordhoff stated staff recommended awarding the increase,
and while it could appear somewhat out of character this year compared to the CPI, he stated
the staff report indicated that to evaluate the increases of the past six years, including this
year, the average was an approximate 2.6% increase.
Mr. Nordhoff reported being in the process of evaluating a different method of allocating costs,
together with the possibility of imposing a residential refuse impact fee, which, given the
forthcoming state budget and what Governor Davis had proposed in terms of removing
highway funds for street paving this year and in the coming years, may be an item for
consideration. He suggested bringing these two options back for consideration at a future
meeting.
Mr. Nordhoff recommended adoption of the resolution, noting representatives from the
company were present should there be questions.
Patty Garbarino, President, Marin Sanitary Service, stated they were looking forward to
working with the City and Hilton Farnkopf not only on the vehicle impact fee, but in addition,
the changing methodology, which she believed was on course.
Nancy McCarthy, on behalf of the Marin United Taxpayers Association with offices located in
San Rafael, noted a great deal of outrage when this contract first went through due to its
length, stating it was another monopoly without ratepayer input. Ms. McCarthy reported having
been very involved with the MTA, noting there would be a fifteen -year contract with AT&T
without public comment on the rates She noted also that DSL rates would increase, putting
citizens in a similar situation as Boston and elsewhere where a 10% - 15% increase was
envisioned.
She stated this entity (Marin Sanitary Service) did not open its books to the public; however,
was providing something similar to a utility service and sending out monthly bills.
With regard to PG&E, she stated there now were rate hearings, as a result of Sylvia Segal
setting up TURN, with such information included in bills. She indicated that many of the
constituents of the Marin United Taxpayers over the age of sixty find these increases not as
sterile as a consultant indicating the increase seemed appropriate.
Having looked at the parking meters today, Ms. McCarthy stated that while she could not read
the number to call and complain, observed many people on the street complaining about that
increase.
Ms. McCarthy noted that everything was now going to ratepayers and in this context, she did
not deem it appropriate without seeing books directly and informing the public as to profits
being made. She inquired whether any of the funds used by Marin Sanitary Service went
towards the tens of thousands of dollars expended in San Anselmo for the full-page
newspaper advertisements. Noting the lack of competition in this environment, she believed
San Anselmo benefited from such a debate. Ms. McCarthy believed it to be inappropriate to
rubber stamp yet another rate increase on an incredibly lengthy contract. She indicated it was
up to this Board to set up the mechanism for notices to go out in bills and the franchisee
required to show profits and where money is spent to the community, as opposed to certain
aspects being divulged to some consultant.
Under these circumstances and at this time, Ms. McCarthy stated she was opposed to this
increase without fuller disclosure to the community now facing more rate increases in this
difficult economy.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
He then invited Assistant City Manager Nordhoff to describe the process with the consultant
and explain the availability of the records to the public should they choose to see them.
Mr. Nordhoff explained that language is contained in the agreement which addresses the
availability of records should someone choose to come into his office and see these.
Explaining one of the reasons for working cooperatively with five other agencies, he stated
there was a time in the past where the company would spend resources, and each agency
spent resources, going through annual reviews. This was costly from a time and money
aspect; therefore, they now work together to achieve this.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 4
Mr. Nordhoff stated that as part of this rate setting process, a full audit of the company records
is carried out every three years, starting with a brand new baseline looking at actual costs of
wages, fuel, trucks, etc., ensuring the costs associated with the franchise are just those and
not costs associated with the Marin Resource Recovery or other unfranchised operations or
disallowed expenses. Taking this detailed review, he stated a summary review is generated
based on actual changes in labor contracts or indices to various items, such as fuel, etc.
He confirmed for Mayor Boro that all this information was available for review by the public.
While not speaking for the company, he indicated the City's information was public record.
City Manager Gould added he believed it to be important for all ratepayers to look at the value
provided for the charges paid and in this case, he felt the City was in a very good position with
Marin Sanitary Service. Besides the consultant examining the books and looking at expected
revenues and expenditures to determine what rate adjustment was necessary, he indicated a
comparative market survey is also carried out to determine where Marin Sanitary Service's
rates in San Rafael fit amongst other Bay Area communities of like size and complexity. While
it found San Rafael was in the middle, there was nothing "middling" about the service received
from Marin Sanitary Service. Having worked in a number of cities, Mr. Gould reported the
number of calls and complaints received concerning the refuse service in the City were
diminimous in comparison with most cities, which meant much less time spent by staff running
down these issues with the hauler. Further, he stated that lots of praise is received from
people in connection with the responsiveness of Marin Sanitary Service, especially on special
pickups and community service.
In terms of recycling and reuse, Mr. Gould stated that Marin Sanitary Service is tops in the
State. He stated that under State law, unless a means is found to recycle or reuse 50% of the
garbage being produced in the community, the City could be liable for up to $10,000 per day in
fines and penalties. He indicated this would not happen in San Rafael or Marin because Marin
Sanitary Service had led the way with 67% recycling, and to his knowledge, was the best in
the State. Mr. Gould stated this was due to the fact that Mr. Garbarino led the revolution and
had innovated each year to push that ever higher. In terms of return on investment, Mr. Gould
stated he believed this was an exceptional bargain and the ratepayers were well served,
especially considering the rate increases over the past six years, as pointed out by Mr.
Nordhoff, had been less than the CPI in the Bay Area.
Marin Sanitary Service President Patty Garbarino indicated the company would be happy to
insert a notice in bills; their books are an open situation and she would be happy to have
anybody look at these.
She stated that San Anselmo is a separate account and would remain so for the next couple of
years.
Mayor Boro requested that Mr. Nordhoff work with Marin Sanitary Service in the future with
respect to notification. He noted Mr. Nordhoff had made the issue of the availability of the
results and disallowances very clear.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 11236 — RESOLUTION TO SET MAXIMUM RATES AND FEES FOR
MARIN SANITARY SERVICE REFUSE AND RECYCLING
MATERIAL COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES TO
BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2003
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
7. a) AMICUS PARTICIPATION/SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE: - File 9-3-16 x 11-7
b) RECONSIDERATION OF PARTICIPATION IN AMICUS PETITION SUPPORTING THE
CITY OF SACRAMENTO'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO U.S. SUPREME COURT
FROM FEDERAL NINTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION IN BARDEN V. CITY OF SACRAMENTO,
293 F.31D 1073 (9T" CIR. 2002)
City Manager Rod Gould stated that in recent weeks, Council received a number of
communications concerning the case of Barden v. City of Sacramento, together with Deputy
City Attorney Eric Davis' legal analysis of that case. He stated the question was whether or
not San Rafael should continue as a party in an Amicus Brief in support of the City of
Sacramento, seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the 91" Circuit's decision finding that
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 5
sidewalks and the maintenance of sidewalks constituted a program under the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Mr. Gould stated he would discuss this, and discuss further, past
efforts to maintain sidewalks in San Rafael, what had changed, and what could be done in
the future, given the fiscal constraints.
With regard to Barden v. City of Sacramento, Mr. Gould deferred any legal questions
concerning interpretation of the case to the attorneys; however, in his view, the reason why
San Rafael and some 200 other cities joined in the amicus to support Sacramento was the
concern that should the 91" Circuit ruling be upheld, cities and counties with sidewalks would
be easy targets for class action lawsuits by groups claiming that cities were not repairing
their sidewalks in total fast enough. Given the fact that in most cities, sidewalk maintenance
had been deferred in light of fiscal constraints for many years, Mr. Gould stated staff
believed this would leave many cities open to lots of litigation, and he did not think another
unfunded mandate from Federal or State was something the City could support.
Mr. Gould stated, that on the other hand, in talking with various disability rights advocates
he learned that this case was being viewed as a major civil rights struggle and one where an
issue that had been ambiguous at best before, whether or not the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) applied to sidewalks, had to be settled. He indicated the fear was that
should the 91" Circuit ruling, which finds that sidewalks are indeed covered by the ADA, is
overturned, this would be a setback for the disabled, fearing cities would feel free to ignore
their responsibilities to ensure sidewalks are in proper repair.
Mr. Gould noted various claims being made on both sides for which staff could not find
support. A claim by cities was to the effect that should the 91" Circuit case be upheld, they
would be required to repair all sidewalks within a year; however, staff did not see this
anywhere in the 91" Circuit ruling, nor was there any mention of a timetable. He indicated
staff's belief that a court would not require a city such as San Rafael to spend $15 million in
a single year to repair all its sidewalks at once. On the other hand, Mr. Gould stated that
some advocates indicate the Court would allow up to 40 years to bring sidewalks up to a
proper condition and again, staff did not find any evidence in the ruling in the ADA itself as
to what constituted a proper timetable, finding only an exception indicating that should a city
prove undue hardship as a result of the cost of having to bring its facilities up to ADA
standards, it could be grounds for exemption.
For all of these reasons, Mr. Gould stated it was staff's belief that the benefits of joining the
amicus brief at this point were outweighed by the disadvantages of so doing, as it had been
perceived as an issue about equal rights to access to City sidewalks. While not being in a
position to indicate San Rafael's being a member of this amicus brief would make much
difference with the U.S. Supreme Court, he believed to continue would color how San
Rafael was viewed by a number of human rights organizations and disability rights
organizations.
Mr. Gould stated staff's recommendation was for Council to give direction to have San
Rafael's name removed from the amicus brief.
Discussing the important issue of sidewalks, Mr. Gould reported staff's dissatisfaction for
some time with their condition, noting Council had addressed doing a better job with
sidewalks in budget discussions. He stated that new development had been required to
install sidewalks, the City had done its share of ramps, approximately $100,000 per year
had been appropriated for facility upgrades to comply with the ADA and historically,
approximately $100,000 had been applied to sidewalks also. Mr. Gould stated that in the
budget of a year and a half ago, Council had put almost $400,000 aside; staff was excited
about this in the belief that to spend approximately $400,000 per year, the City could begin
to make up for lost opportunities and take a bite out of its most decrepit sidewalks. He
reported that utilizing this money for repairing big chunks of sidewalks on Lincoln Avenue
was very successful; however, unfortunately, due to three quarters of falling sales tax,
adjustments to the budget were necessary in June, 2002, that included taking $281,000 out
of the sidewalk budget, reducing it to the $100,000 per year applied historically, which was
not sufficient.
Pondering what other cities do to take better care of sidewalks, Mr. Gould stated it had been
brought to staff's attention in conversations with the Marin Council for Independent Living —
Bob Roberts, Executive Director, and Mr.Birdsey, who was in attendance this evening, that
the State Highways Code put clear responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks onto the
adjacent property owners. He stated many cities do the same in their Municipal Codes,
holding property owners responsible for the sidewalks in front of their properties. Noting
San Rafael, historically, had not done this, Mr. Gould stated that sometime in the early
1990s, Council directed staff to give consideration to this; a staff report was presented, and
because of some neighborhood opposition, the report was tabled and sent back for further
study; however, never resurrected. Mr. Gould expressed certainty that given the depressed
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 6
economy, and more importantly, the fiscal devastation to be wrought on all levels of local
government as a result of the $35 billion state deficit, it would be quite some time before
San Rafael would be in a position to put significant additional funds towards sidewalk
maintenance.
Mr. Gould sought Council approval to request the City Attorney's Office to carry out an
analysis of the state of the laws regarding sidewalk liability and determine what had
changed since the last time San Rafael examined it, with an eye to perhaps, amending the
Municipal Code and seeking partnerships with private property owners to do a better job
and stretch the $100,000 a lot further. In this way, greater progress could be made in
upgrading sidewalks long neglected.
Stating his recommendation to Council was twofold, Mr. Gould stated:
1) It did not make sense to remain a member of the amicus brief on Barden v. City of
Sacramento; and
2) He sought approval to investigate the possibility of seeking more property owners
involvement in sidewalk maintenance in San Rafael.
Councilmember Heller requested clarification on the Municipal Code with regard to whom
the responsibility belonged.
Responding, Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis explained the Municipal Code at this point
does not explicitly state that individual property owners have any responsibility. He stated
the Streets and Highways Code does provide that a city may look to abutting property
owners to maintain that property, and proceed with liens and collection of costs for repair of
defective sidewalks in the event the city chooses to do so.
Regarding trip and fall in front of a property owner's home where clearly the property of the
homeowner is at fault, Councilmember Heller inquired as to responsibility. Stating they
definitely come to the City, Mr. Davis deferred to Mr. Guinan, Assistant City Attorney. In
cases such as this, he was not aware of the joinder of the adjoining property owner.
Explaining, Mr. Guinan stated that for purposes of liability, the Streets and Highways Code
section had no applicability, noting a San Jose case several years ago, raised that exact
issue. In a tort case where there is an incident of trip and fall on a sidewalk in front of a
property and the cause of the defect to the sidewalk is clearly attributed to the adjoining
property owner, Mr. Guinan stated staff would attempt to join the adjoining property owner
for purposes of at least bringing in the homeowner's carrier to obtain a contribution to some
type of resolution of the case. He indicated this does not frequently happen and in most
instances of sidewalk problems with liability claims, whether a tree or drainage pipe, it
usually had been City owned.
Mr. Gould stated that where a City owned tree, drainage pipe, etc., was causing the break
or ramp, that liability would still be with the City and would be the City's public responsibility
Regarding sidewalk cuts and spending approximately $100,000 per year, Councilmember
Heller inquired as to the status.
Public Works Director Dave Bernardi explained that staff had concentrated available funding
on areas of greatest pedestrian traffic, i.e., around Northgate Shopping Center, Terra Linda
High School, routes to Terra Linda High School and the downtown Lincoln Avenue, in an
effort to utilize the available funds effectively. As additional funds become available through
different projects, such as traffic signal projects, if the ramps were not already in place, they
would be installed. Neighborhoods built in the late 1960s or early 1970s are yet to be
completed; however, Mr. Bernardi stated they eventually would.
Councilmember Heller noted the City had a lot of neighborhoods without sidewalks and
inquired whether this would be evaluated in an attempt to increase the amount of these.
Mr. Bernardi stated Council had adopted a policy not to construct frontage improvements
unless in specific circumstances. The last sidewalk he could recall Council funding was on
Woodland Avenue, near the school, and was primarily a safety issue for children going to
school; however, normally, Council would not construct frontage improvements.
Noble "Rocky" Birdsey, Marin Center for Independent Living, distributed to Councilmembers
copy of an e-mail he received from Bob Roberts, copy of a Sacramento Bee editorial,
together with a County of San Francisco letter explaining their reasons for not participating
in the amicus brief.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 7
Firstly, Mr. Birdsey thanked City staff for recommending withdrawal from the amicus brief.
For obvious reasons, he requested the City of San Rafael to remove itself from the amicus
brief, explaining that the disability community perceived this as an anti -disability action by
the City of San Rafael. Should this be an amicus which would prevent women or any other
minority group from equal access to City services, he seriously doubted that the City of San
Rafael, or any other city, would participate in fighting a court order for equal access.
Mr. Birdsey stated this was not merely about the disabled community, rather it concerned all
pedestrians: seniors not wishing to trip and break a hip, parents with strollers, and a
community where every person is a pedestrian and every tripping hazard is an invitation to
the world of disability. He understood the City's concern and that the Court ordered cities
to immediately fix all sidewalks, noting there was nothing City staff could locate regarding a
timeline.
Mr. Birdsey stated the Marin Center for Independent Living (MCIL) believed the City of San
Rafael and all cities in Marin should join in efforts to create a County commission on
disability and that such commission be made available to the cities of Marin for setting
priority access in each city. Mr. Birdsey stated that the MCIL wished to request both the
disability community and the City of San Rafael to refrain from drawing lines in the sand.
They did not believe the City of San Rafael had bad intentions in deciding to participate in
the amicus brief and while the City is concerned about breaking the budget, the advocates
were concerned about breaking their wheelchairs. With legitimate concerns from all, Mr.
Birdsey expressed the hope of finding level ground. By treating each other with the
deserved respect, it would be possible to roll forward and work proactively together. On the
sidewalk program, he looked forward to working with City staff and Council in the future in
an effort to effect change with the limited budget available.
Jerry Mendes expressed gratitude for the opportunity to speak. He explained he was not a
resident of the City of San Rafael; he resides in Mill Valley, has been in Marin County for
approximately 25 years and visits San Rafael regularly on business, both downtown and
Northgate.
Noting Council knew how to do their jobs better than he, Mr. Mendes stated he was present
to discuss a human rights issue, noting that perhaps, the City was already in the process of
making a decision he would support.
Mr. Mendes stated he believed the Barden case in Sacramento was indicative of a city that
did not do the required job. He noted the many demands on the City's available funds and
the impending difficult fiscal year for this City and all others in California; however, he
indicated there were hundreds of thousands of disabled people in California, perhaps
millions, and he was present to speak on their behalf. He stated he did not represent a
group, rather the interests of the disabled.
Stating it would be an easy decision for this Council, or any Council in California, to vote to
support the amicus brief, and a politically safe decision; however, he believed it courageous
to say "No." He encouraged Council to make the courageous decision and say "No" to the
amicus brief.
Lenny Karpman, Member Human Rights Commission, Member ACLU Board, past advisor
to Cam Sanchez, former San Rafael Police Chief, and proud resident of San Rafael, stated
he was not present to complain about what had not been done, rather to praise what had
been done. He concurred with Mr. Gould in that there was a lot of innuendo on both sides
as to what could happen. He, himself was bemused to find there were no timelines
anywhere. Mr. Karpman stated he went to the Department of Justice records and found all
the regulations he could. The Department of Justice guidelines to cities on Sidewalk Access
and Curb Cuts were very reasonable and no history of ever putting any community into
bankruptcy or closing down Social Services, etc., was evident.
Mr. Karpman stated he was present as an advocate for human rights and civil liberties and
because he was proud of what the City does. He favored Mr. Gould's two
recommendations and indicated he would do anything possible to support the City in this
action.
George Pegelow, Chairman, Marin County Human Rights Commission and member of the
Board of Directors of the ACLU, Northern California, applauded Mr. Gould in his
recommendation to withdraw the City of San Rafael from the amicus brief. He indicated his
belief that it was a fundamental human right and the City of San Rafael would give a wrong
impression of its commitment to improving sidewalks in the environment for the disabled
should it leave its name on the brief. He, therefore, indicated his support for staff's
recommendation, stating he would applaud Councilmembers if they voted to remove the
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 8
City from the amicus brief
Jonathan Freeman also applauded staff's recommendation to withdraw from the amicus
brief and believed it would have an effect. Recalling that 92 cities were involved, San Diego
just having dropped out, he stated that if the Court saw more and more cities withdrawing,
certiorari would very likely not be granted as it, indeed, is a civil rights issue. Aside from it
costing a certain amount of dollars, he stated the overall message was to tell a certain group
of people they were not wanted in the City due to lack of passable streets.
Councilmember Miller stated City Manager Gould was absolutely correct and the speakers
were right on target that as a government, San Rafael had a duty, responsibility and
obligation to stand for the human rights, dignity, opportunities and well-being of persons with
disabilities. He believed the action by Council following Mr. Gould's advice was well taken
and would serve to continue the remarkable relationship the City already has, especially
with the Center for Independent Living.
Mayor Boro stated he appreciated the fact that Mr. Gould brought this to Council's attention
recently and having seen some of the comments received, he believed there were some
misconceptions on what the City was attempting to do, which by any stretch of the
imagination was certainly not intended to not support the needs of those with disabilities.
He fully supported the staff recommendation and invited someone to make a motion.
Councilmember Heller congratulated Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis on his report. She
stated that in faxing the report to several interested members of the community today,
pursuant to telephone conversations, they had no further questions, nor were they present
this evening. She stated it was a good report for the entire community.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the following
motion:
1) City of San Rafael to withdraw support for the amicus brief — Barden v. City of
Sacramento, 293 fed 1073 (91" cir.2002).
2) Staff directed to research the legal status of sidewalk maintenance and liability; to
be returned to Council for consideration at a future date. The different interest
groups to be kept informed.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
8. a) Canal Youth and Families Initiative: - File 9-3-65 x 9-1
Councilmember Miller distributed material regarding notification of a grant award from the
San Francisco Foundation in the amount of $17,500 to support the Canal Youth and
Families Initiative. He stated this was a continuation of his previous report.
He explained the first page was the Foundation's letter and the second and third pages
identified the accompanying budget.
Councilmember Miller stated that of interest in the Grant Agreement were the Outcomes
and Activities, which were to strengthen collaborative efforts in the Canal community of San
Rafael to provide positive alternatives to teens to reduce violence and teen pregnancy:
1) To strengthen the Canal Youth and Family Council by coordinating monthly
membership meetings of youth and parents;
2) Develop additional partners to join with existing CYFI Steering Committee. Each
partner brings new services to the CYFI;
3) Expand the "Summer of Peace" kickoff event to provide families and youth access to
summer programs.
Councilmember Miller explained that this grant establishes a policy whereby the issues of teen
pregnancies, as well as violence among youth, are approached through after school programs,
thus enhancing the remarkable existing collaborative program in the "Summer of Peace," which
is to be expanded to year round.
Councilmember Miller stated the second part of the report concerning the Canal Youth and
Family Initiative was the actual grant submitted by David Donery, Supervisor, Pickleweed
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 9
Community Center. He explained this was an excellent and outstanding piece of work for the
simple reason that Mr. Donery had reached out regarding the policy question of how to
approach teen pregnancies and violence, and at the same time, comes back to support even
further the $8,000 grant to the communications program.
Regarding the final page, Councilmember Miller stated this repeats the Neighborhood,
Residents, Resources, and the eight gatherings. He explained that one work group emanates
from each gathering to make one sole effort to "start a fire" in that particular area.
Councilmember Miller stated that in order to get the information out to the community at large to
get them engaged, the efforts set out in the "Pocket Guide for Marketing Representatives"
would be used. He explained that commencing on page 12 of the guide, training exercises
included:
• Define the goals of the effort;
• Establish the Mission Statement;
• Results the organization achieves;
• Ways in which these results and mission are meaningful to that person;
• Overall target audience — A -list, B -list
• What I will say about the organization or cause to catch people's attention;
• What I will ask other people to explore their interests;
• How I will bridge other people's interests to this organization or cause;
• What I will do to make sure I'm in control of a next step with a potential prospect;
• Being a part of this promotion effort is important to me because;
• Who I will call with questions and leads.
Councilmember Miller stated that page 28 gives tips for the marketing representatives.
He explained that each one would be able to work this out as there was a full system of
mobilizing people for marketing success and this was just one small part. He stated it had ways
and means of training those marketing representatives, explaining it was not merely sending
out people who liked to conduct outreach, rather it would establish and help them rise to the
level of marketing representatives and have greater participation, greater numbers at the
gatherings and greater engagement in the project.
In reading the grant, Councilmember Miller stated it could be seen how this ties into community
based governance and he foresaw how these procedures could be adopted in other outreach
endeavors. He believed the Community Services Department and the Canal Neighborhoods
community would lead the way and be in a position to offer a great deal of advice and help in
future efforts.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Boro thanked Councilmember Miller for his hard work,
noting that with the involvement of Community Services Director Carlene McCart and Public
Works Director Dave Bernardi, together with other departments, good progress had been
made. He noted that over the past several years, more and more people in the Canal
community had become involved in their business, which was important. Reaching out to youth
he believed to be extremely important and these people would be the future of San Rafael.
Councilmember Heller inquired whether the grant was one-time or ongoing. Reporting it was a
one-time grant, Councilmember Miller expressed the hope that as the grant runs for a couple
more years, it should be possible to continue. He stated that Dave Donery was the key player
with the Foundation and reading the grant application offered a good idea of what was
happening in the Canal neighborhoods.
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12003
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 01/06/2003 Page 9