Loading...
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