Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2010-04-19SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2010 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2010 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, City Manager Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk Members of the public may speak on Agenda items. OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 7:15 PM Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Damon Connolly, Vice -Mayor Greg Brockbank, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Marc Levine, Councilmember Absent: None CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 —7:15 PM 1. Conference with Labor Negotiators— Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Negotiators: Jim Schutz, Leslie Loomis, Cindy Mosser, Robert Epstein, Ken Nordhoff Employee Organization(s): San Rafael Fire Chief Officers' Assn. Western Council of Engineers San Rafael Firefighters' Assn. San Rafael Police Mid -Management Assn San Rafael Police Association Local 1 - Confidential SEIU Miscellaneous & Supervisory SEIU Child Care Unit Unrepresented Management Unrepresented Mid -Management Elected City Clerk and Elected Part -Time City Attorney City Attorney, Robert Epstein announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:16 PM Massaqe Parlors: - File Brad Sears requested that while studying the proposed Massage Parlor ordinance, the City Council declare a moratorium on issuing new permits. Councilmember Levine moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: CONSENT CALENDAR: ALL MATTERS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE TO BE APPROVED BY ONE MOTION, UNLESS SEPARATE ACTION IS REQUIRED ON A PARTICULAR ITEM: Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular City Council Meetings of April 5, 2010 (CC) RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ACTION: Minutes approved as submitted. Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, 1400 Fifth Avenue, and placed with other agenda -related materials on the table in front of the Council Chamber prior to the meeting. American Sign Language interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3198 (TDD) or (415) 485- 3064 (voice) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Paratransit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. CC 04-19-2010 Call for Applications to Fill Three Four -Year Terms on the Park & Recreation Commission, due to the Expiration of Terms of Ralph Mihan, Fred Warnecke and Craig Yates, with Terms to Expire end of May, 2014 (CC) — File 9-2-4 Approved staff recommendation. a) Called for applications to fill three, four- year terms on the San Rafael Park and Recreation Commission to expire the end of May, 2014; b) Set deadline for receipt of applications for Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 12 noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, City Hall; and c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, May 17, 2010, commencing at 6:00 PM. 4. Report on Annual Filings — Fair Political Practices Accepted report. Commission Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests for Designated Employees, Including Consultants, Design Review Board, Downtown Business Improvement District Board, Geotechnical Review Board, and Park and Recreation Commission (CC) — File 9-4-3 Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending March, 2010 (Fin) —File 8-18 x 8-9 Resolution Designating April 26 through April 30, 2010 Mosquito and Vector Control and West Nile Virus Awareness Week in the City of San Rafael (MS) — File 9-2-9 Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Publish a Request for Proposal for Parking Services Citation Processing and Select the Most Responsive and Qualified Proposal by Use of Competitive Negotiation (MS) — File 4-3-507 x 9-3-87 Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Enter Into an Agreement with the County of Marin to Provide Right -of -Way Acquisition Services for the 1-580/NB 101 Connector Project Including Bellam Blvd./Francisco Blvd. East Sidewalk Widening in an Amount not to Exceed $36,000 (PW) — File 4-13-120 x 9-3-40 10. Resolution Accepting a Proposal from Econolite Control Products, Inc. for the Procurement of Traffic Signal Equipment in the Amount of $128,683.31, Waiving Competitive Bidding Pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 11.50.090(B), and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Execute the Purchase Agreement in a form Approved by the City Attorney (PW) — File 4-2-331 Accepted Monthly Investment Report for Month ending March, 2010, as presented. RESOLUTION NO. 12942 RESOLUTION DECLARING APRIL 26 — APRIL 30, 2010 MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL AND WEST NILE VIRUS WEEK RESOLUTION NO. 12943 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PUBLISH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PARKING SERVICES CITATION PROCESSING AND SELECT THE MOST RESPONSIVE AND QUALIFIED PROPOSAL BY USE OF COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION RESOLUTION NO. 12944 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF MARIN TO PROVIDE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SERVICES FOR THE 1-580/NB 101 CONNECTOR PROJECT INCLUDING BELLAM BLVD./FRANCISCO BLVD. EAST SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $36,000 RESOLUTION NO. 12945 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FROM ECONOLITE CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC. FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,683.31, WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING PURSUANT TO SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 11.50.090(B), AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY CC 04-19-2010 11. Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 12935 and Authorizing the Temporary Closure of City Streets for the Marin Concours d'Elegance DRIVE on May 15, 2010 on A Street, between Third Street and Fifth Avenue, from 1:00 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. (RA) — File 11-19 RESOLUTION NO. 12946 RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION 12935 AND AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CITY STREETS FOR THE MARIN CONCOURS D'ELEGANCE DRIVE ON MAY 15T", 2010 ON A STREET BETWEEN 3RD STREET & 5T" AVENUE FROM 1 PM — 5PM AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, at the request of Mr. Roger Roberts. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT BERNSTEIN, INC. P.S. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE SMART COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $151,000 (PW) — FILE 4-3-508 x 245 Recognizing that the City had been a long-time supporter of SMART (Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit), Roger Roberts stated it appeared to him that the responsibility for station planning was included in SMART's budget. While the City might wish to assist SMART in its present financial circumstances with some San Rafael station planning costs, in doing so he believed it important that San Rafael have an understanding with SMART regarding recovery of costs. Referring to Page 6 of the staff report — Time and Cost Estimate — Mr. Roberts stated it appeared that as much as half the contract could be costs SMART would normally be required to cover and he requested that staff try to achieve a claw back arrangement to recover the portion of costs attributable to SMART. City Manager Ken Nordhoff explained that SMART was in the process of dealing with a number of issues to get its rail line active by 2014, one of which involved station area planning at their 14 stops along 70 miles. He noted a second meeting was scheduled for April 29t', 2010 at the San Rafael Corporate Center to discuss the actual planning at the station — downtown: the platform to be installed adjacent to Whistlestop Wheels; and Civic Center: under the Highway 101 overpass. Additionally, Linda Jackson, Principal Planner, had been working with a number of local transit agencies and they had secured two grants to carry out some station -wide area operational planning. Excluding the physical location of the platform, it would evaluate all the inter -operability of buses, taxis, pedestrians, cyclists and San Rafael's traffic circulation system. Mr. Nordhoff stated that staff in the Public Works Department recognized that in studying closely all of the elements related to SMART, from quiet zones to crossings on Andersen Drive, a number of issues required specific rail expertise, as proposed in the contract under discussion. Noting SMART was incurring costs with station planning at their specific locations, Mr. Nordhoff reported they were also assisting with some of the engineering work related to some of the line configurations, etc., and the grants secured, which aggregated to over $500,000, mostly with small local matches and a lot of money through MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission), would facilitate a full comprehensive study of those two areas, including some potential housing opportunities, parking, etc. With regard to Mr. Roberts' concern to ensure funds were being used appropriately, Mr. Nordhoff confirmed this would just be work committed to assisting with San Rafael's needs, particularly with respect to the MTC grant, together with some of the other operational impacts of the train through San Rafael. Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 12947 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT BERNSTEIN, INC. P.S. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE SMART COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $151,000 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CC 04-19-2010 PUBLIC HEARING: 12. REVISION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1879 (GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE) TO INCORPORATE COMMENTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CD) — FILE 10-2 x 10-3 x 115(2020) x 13-1 Having received comments on the Green Building ordinance from the staff of the California Energy Commission (CEC), Bob Brown, Community Development Director, explained that to receive their approval, San Rafael needed to incorporate into the ordinance, six times, that Title 24 is the minimum energy standard in the land. Believing in brevity in the Municipal Codes, Mr. Brown stated that to get this ordinance through the state, these changes needed to be recommended. Should the City Council approve the revisions, the second reading would take place in two weeks with the ordinance becoming effective in early June. He would work on completing the hand-out materials together with staff and public stakeholder training. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. The title of the ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 12.44 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ("GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS"), AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1879, TO INCORPORATE PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE 24, PART 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AS THE MINIMUM ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARD" Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Levine seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1881 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: 13. CONSIDERATION OF PARTICIPATION OPTIONS FOR CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ELECTRICITY ACCOUNTS IN THE MARIN ENERGY AUTHORITY'S MARIN CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM — PHASE 1 CUSTOMERS (CM) — FILE 4-13-125 x 271 With regard to the matter of recusal, City Attorney Robert Epstein stated that other Marin Energy Authority issues came before the City Council in which Mayor Boro recused himself on the ground that he owned stock in PG&E. Although presented as one agenda item, this evening two matters were before the City Council The first question for consideration concerned whether to be a customer of Marin Energy Authority, and as to that issue, Mr. Epstein stated his advice to Mayor Boro was to recuse himself because his economic interest was potentially, directly impacted by that decision. He recommended Mayor Boro leave the dais and Council Chambers for that portion of the agenda item, with Vice -Mayor Connolly handling the matter. Depending on the outcome of the first part of the agenda item, Mr. Epstein stated that, should item #2 be considered — assuming the City Council chose to be a customer of Marin Energy Authority — the question was whether to participate at the Light Green or Dark Green level and arguably, there could be no conceivable impact on Mayor Boro's economic interest with regard to that decision. At most, it would be an indirect impact on his economic interest, and given the status of PG&E as a Fortune 500 company and the de minimis impact of whether the City of San Rafael chose to be Light Green or Dark Green on any PG&E revenue, Mr. Epstein concluded Mayor Boro, if he chose, could participate in the second decision to be made by the City Council, pending the outcome of the first decision. Mayor Boro recused himself for the first part of the agenda item and left the Council Chambers. Regarding the issue of whether the City of San Rafael should be a customer of the Marin Energy Authority, Vice - 4 CC 04-19-2010 Mayor Connolly invited Mr. Nordhoff to present the staff report Mr. Nordhoff reported that dating back many years staff had been exploring, and finally, formally decided, to join the Marin Energy Authority in November, 2008. As such, San Rafael was not only represented by the Vice -Mayor on the Board, but owning some 160 electricity accounts with PG&E, had the opportunity to consider whether or not to remain in the program. An extensive amount of work was done by the Marin Energy Authority staff leading to a contract being awarded by the MEA Board in February, 2010, with Shell, North America, to put forth rates and launch the Phase 1 program - formally closing on May 7, 2010, billing would not commence until approximately July, 2010. As customers now in the system, the decision would not focus on residents or businesses of the City, but rather on the business of the City of San Rafael, and he had delineated in the staff report some of the facts leading up to that decision-making. Referring to the Climate Change Action Plan, he stated that only 1 % of the greenhouse gas emissions in the City of San Rafael come from City facilities, operations, etc. Being a Phase 1 customer in the program, Mr. Nordhoff stated the first decision was whether to remain in the Marin Clean Energy program or by some affirmative action opt out of the process. Subsequently on Mayor Boro's return he would discuss choices relating to the cost of the products should the City Council choose to remain in the program. Councilmember Brockbank stated he felt strongly that San Rafael should not opt out of the program for a variety of reasons. Since the price had been set with the Shell contract, he indicated it appeared to him that the City was quite safe. He would have no hesitancy in opting out, should he believe the City was being put a risk, while leaving citizens to choose whether or not to remain with Marin Clean Energy. However, not only did he believe the City was not being put at risk, rather the much talked about risk was dramatically overblown -- the energy supply was stable and safe and the City stood to save money as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Councilmember Brockbank stated that in part 2 of this item he would discuss the issue of how much it would cost to comply with AB 32 should San Rafael opt out; therefore, he strongly supported not opting out and remaining with Marin Clean Energy. Councilmember Levine inquired whether other jurisdictions had taken up this issue yet. Mr. Nordhoff stated that the Town of Fairfax and City of Belvedere had made decisions to remain customers of Marin Clean Energy, and the issue was on the City of Sausalito's agenda for tomorrow evening. He had not heard of formal action taken by Tiburon, Mill Valley or the County of Marin. Councilmember Heller confirmed that the City Council could take no action and remain in the program. Mr. Nordhoff confirmed that lack of a motion would mean San Rafael remained in the Marin Clean Energy program. Should it be the sense of the Council, Vice -Mayor Connolly requested that the City Council take an affirmative vote to decide to become customers. As the City's representative on the Marin Energy Authority Board, he believed risk had been thoroughly evaluated, a great contract had been negotiated and there was a positive vision that would help the City as a business and set the stage for a lot of benefit for residents and businesses in the City of San Rafael going forward. He indicated that the program, which would be one of the most innovative in the nation, was set to launch of May 7, 2010 and he believed this was the backdrop to this evening's decision. Councilmember Brockbank moved and Vice -Mayor Connolly seconded not to opt out and affirmatively remain with Marin Clean Energy. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Heller, Levine & Vice -Mayor Connolly NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro Mayor Boro returned to the Council Chambers. Continuing with the second part of the staff report, specifically relating to the costs of two program options under Marin Clean Energy, Mr. Nordhoff recalled that he had noted in the January 4, 2010 staff report that staff would return with specific costs. Prior to the Shell contract the Light Green product was essentially equivalent and it was assumed there would be some additional cost in choosing Deep Green. With the Shell contract now in place, there was no additional cost for energy consumption with the Light Green product — $0.07 / kWh; however, he had provided the full rate schedule as some of the rates for buildings and streetlights were on a different scale. Work was also carried out by MEA staff to evaluate all City accounts — Attachment B - which delineated an additional CC 04-19-2010 $53,000 for Deep Green, beginning next fiscal year, above current appropriations of $876,000 for electricity. Given the City's fiscal challenges over the past few months and anticipated financial struggles for the foreseeable future, Mr. Nordhoff recommended choosing the Light Green product, noting this would not forego any future consideration of Deep Green. He explained that remaining with Light Green essentially doubled the amount of green energy relative to greenhouse gas reductions, with an anticipated 50% level over the term of the first Shell contract of five years. Councilmember Brockbank inquired as to how much it would cost to meet AB 32 compliance if done in a way other than choosing the Deep Green option. He suggested that perhaps $53,000 was too high a price for the difference between Light and Deep Green; however, it could be a good deal compared to the other options. Mr. Nordhoff stated this was the reason he raised the issue earlier concerning San Rafael being just 1 % of the 100% goal; therefore evaluating what San Rafael could do with respect to its funds needed to be in the context of trying to achieve an overall 25% reduction by year 2020, from a community perspective. He confirmed San Rafael did not have an accounts goal and a City of San Rafael goal. Councilmember Brockbank inquired whether San Rafael municipal operations had an AB 32 goal. Mr. Nordhoff explained this was embedded in the overarching goal of 25% for the community. He recalled that in the plan the majority was transportation -related, followed by residential, office buildings, etc.; therefore, meeting the goal was attempting to target it in the most holistic or universal way for the City. Councilmember Brockbank stated that in order to have an impact and influence on the remainder of the city, City operations was setting an example, and he wanted to be clear that councilmembers could set an example individually by opting for Deep Green, as he had done, because the cost to him was miniscule. He believed it important to note that the City Council as individuals could set a personal example and opt for Deep Green; however, as stewards of the City's money, a different calculus was needed. He commented that he had wanted to choose the Deep Green option for the City until he saw the cost; however, hoped it could be done in the future. Favoring Light Green, Councilmember Heller believed that as stewards of the public's money, the City Council did not have the right to make that extra expenditure at this time; however, in the future it could be re-evaluated, perhaps opting for Deep Green. Councilmember Connolly noted staff concluded that there would be a $53,000 increase in cost to opt up to Deep Green. He indicated he would like to see a specific analysis of that cost related to costs that would otherwise be associated with implementation efforts for the Climate Change Action Plan. In reviewing the Climate Change Action Plan, he noted Marin Clean Energy was specifically stated as a program to pursue, along with other options, and one cost that could arise in pursuing other options related to whether a consultant needed to be hired. In prioritizing how to tackle the Climate Change Implementation Plan, his sense was that a lot could be achieved by opting for Deep Green. Evaluating the impact on greenhouse gas reduction targets achievable through Marin Clean Energy versus other important options, this was a true cost benefit analysis that in the long term could save money. Councilmember Connolly stated he would like to see that type of analysis done. Commenting on how to measure the best value for money and whether it was worth $53,000, Councilmember Levine believed that having an understanding of the tradeoff and cost of cutting those emissions would make it easier for the City Council and could inform them as to how, if even available, the funds would be spent. He commented that perhaps it was too early in terms of budget planning to have a sufficiently clear picture. Recalling that much of November, December and January was spent radically realigning the City's budget, reducing services and laying off employees, Mr. Nordhoff stated that going forward issues needed to be addressed around rebuilding reserves, together with other prudent and important items. He commented that the perspective of $53,000 in the context of a $78 million budget should not be lost, noting other items valued at $50,000 or $100,000 could come forward in the future requiring deliberation on funding worthiness. Not wishing to give the impression that everything being decided was driven by dollars and cents, financial outlooks and budgetary decisions, he believed this was an opportunity to make a fairly strong statement towards the City Council's goals, noting nothing precluded a change in the future for financial or other reasons. Pursuant to discussions with Mr. Brown Mr. Nordhoff reported that in the budget process staff would take a number of remaining strategies in the Climate Change Action Plan and seek direction on what to work on next. He noted BERST and the Green Building ordinance took a substantial amount of staff time, expertise and volunteerism from councilmembers and others. While some items could have a hard cost, some were not sufficiently developed to CC 04-19-2010 ascertain the trade-offs Roqer Roberts, Marin Conservation League, stated that while they would like to see San Rafael join with Fairfax and Belvedere in going Deep Green, they recognized the financial realities to be faced. Indicating it was unclear whether there was a penalty or cost associated with opting for Deep Green later, he noted provisions in the contract for replacement of service sourcing that allowed flexibility in adding more green energy over time; however, he believed Shell would exact some type of cost for this. Should that cost was passed to cities and towns for deciding to opt for Deep Green later, this issue should be considered in connection with postponing that decision, as it could be found that the real cost could be $20,000 or $30,000 instead of $53,000 if in fact, there would be an added charge for opting for Deep Green later. Bob Spofford, Sustainable San Rafael, stated Sustainable San Rafael would love to see the City opt for the Deep Green program; however, equally important was the core message of Marin Clean Energy, which was not about Deep Green, rather the fact that the type of reduction being considered could be achieved at no cost currently. He believed it a mistake if a message were spread to the effect that the "only thing you can do under MCE is Deep Green or it isn't worth doing." Sustainable San Rafael was very cognizant of the fact that $53,000 was real money for the City in a very difficult year; therefore, they tended to support staff. They would like to see a concerted effort to obtain Deep Green, and personally, he believed the price would be less a year from now. Mr. Spofford stated his sense was that when MCE went live and components of the Shell contract emerged, the flood gates would open for a lot of people wishing to sell renewable energy to MCE. Assuming natural gas prices did not escalate, Shell and MCE would find themselves in a much better position that they could project currently. He supported the analysis requested to ensure an understanding of the real cost Having attended the San Rafael Rotary debate recently between Joe Nation and Marin County Supervisor Charles McGlashan, Jim Bitter, Mill Valley, reported that in response to a question from the audience on the true cost of solar and wind, Supervisor McGlashan indicated it was included in the Shell contract — Mr. Bitter believed the cost of solar and wind was from two to four times as much. He believed 100% green was a fraud on the public and felt San Rafael had an obligation to get it right because the rest of the country might follow. Echoing Councilmembers Brockbank and Heller, Mayor Boro stated he did this on the basis that opting for Deep Green could take place at any time, e.g., it could be an option in the budget for next year. He indicated he was convinced by the paragraph in the staff report that now was not the time — "As noted in the City's Climate Change Action Plan, San Rafael's facilities and operations account for only 1 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions for our community." The question therefore, was what the City could do to get the other 99% to come from the community. He continued — "Electricity accounts represent only a fraction of this 1 % calculation" — perhaps half of one percent. While the impact, psychologically, might feel good, at this point financially, it would be more prudent to wait - the issue could be considered in building the budget for the following year should the outlook improve. Mayor Boro stated efforts should be made to obtain the other 99% from the community. Councilmember Connolly believed the City should set the goal of opting for Deep Green, no matter what the actual percentage of the load. Ultimately, with further analysis, he felt a disproportionate positive benefit would be found from going to Deep Green in terms of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, ways of implementing the Climate Change Action Plan, and ultimately complying with AB 32. Mindful of the tough unprecedented budget times and noting $53,000 was a lot of money, Councilmember Connolly concurred with Mayor Boro's idea of revisiting the issue as part of the next budget process — one year hence. Reporting that he had opted for Deep Green, he favored continuing to look at the most cost-effective options the City could utilize to achieve its goals. Commenting on the amazing success of becoming a customer of the Marin Energy Authority and Marin Clean Energy and having twice the amount of clean energy, Councilmember Levine stated this took a lot of work and was a huge accomplishment. He congratulated the City of San Rafael - residents would have a choice - the City Council and staff who worked on the issue and noted that the City Council could decide to opt up later, without penalty. As noted by Mr. Spofford, it set a great example — residents of San Rafael would see that the City was a Light Green customer which could send the message that they also could participate in Marin Clean Energy, despite the proliferation of propaganda and in an era of less, the City was doing this without added expenditure. Believing this great night should be acknowledged, Councilmember Levine stated the budget should not be lamented when something very progressive, forward and good for the community was being done. Councilmember Connolly stated it should be noted that the City Council would reevaluate the issue. Councilmember Heller suggested a motion be made to remain with the Light Green program, re-evaluating the issue next spring during budget discussions. CC 04-19-2010 Mr. Nordhoff stated that should it be the pleasure of the City Council, staff would be glad to fold the issue into budget negotiations next spring. With regard to Mr. Roberts' concern about exit fees, Councilmember Brockbank requested clarification on whether there was a fee to switch between Light and Deep Green. Councilmember Connolly stated there would be no such fee. Mr. Nordhoff explained that there would be exit fees to move back and forth in the PG&E program; however, there were no fees to move up or down on the degree of Green in the Marin Clean Energy program. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded to opt for the Light Green program and to reevaluate the issue next spring. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. RESPONSE TO REQUEST TO INSTALL FENCE ALONG MUNSON PARK (CM) — FILE 9-3-65 x 9-2-4 Mayor Boro reported that this item was raised at Open Time several meetings ago and it was pointed out that the recommendation was based on findings of the Park & Recreation Commission; however, unlike Planning, no appeal process exists through the Park & Recreation Commission. The City Council requested the City Manager to investigate and he had provided a report. Mr. Nordhoff reported that he had discussions with Carlene McCart, Community Services Director and researched the Municipal Code, which he delineated in the staff report, also providing several exhibits and additional information. This evening's packet also included items provided by Mr. Ross on March 1, together with a memorandum from Ms. McCart and minutes from the Park & Recreation Commission meeting. Working with Ms. McCart Mr. Nordhoff explained that they delineated the uniqueness of Munson Park, deemed inactive or parkette, as opposed to some active parks — Exhibit D in the staff report. He believed the Park & Recreation Commission did a good job of deliberating the issues and looking at the alternatives, and the case could be made that they arrived at a reasonable conclusion, including some cost-sharing and addressing some of the safety needs; however, did not go so far as to create a false sense of more active use of Munson park by putting a fence in place, which was not the intention. He was aware of a number of these parks in North San Rafael that were open and exposed to streets, etc., and while some of these smaller facilities were great, they were not intended for sports, etc. Mr. Nordhoff stated his recommendation was that the City Council could continue to uphold the offer made by the Park & Recreation Commission, if the funds were raised. Indicating he was prepared to support the staff recommendation, Councilmember Brockbank stated it raised some policy questions however. He was unaware of when it was appropriate, or less appropriate, for an individual member of the public or group to request consideration of improvements to parks. Therefore, he requested clarification on the types of projects where neighbors were encouraged to share or shoulder all of the costs, versus when it would be appropriate for the City to pay the entire cost. Councilmember Brockbank inquired as to at what point, if ever, the City incurred potential liability for having a park sufficiently large to make it logical that citizens would engage in the types of activities that might in fact endanger people. He also inquired as to procedure for consideration of projects. Mr. Nordhoff stated that the Park and Recreation Commission, whose duties were delineated in the staff report, historically carries out an extensive amount of community involvement, master planning and prioritizing of where limited funds are spent. In this case most of the issues being deliberated involved major improvements, park renovations etc.; therefore, smaller items such as this, probably would not rise to being on list, or rise per se, because a huge menu of smaller items would be generated. He indicated that these types of requests are directed to the Park & Recreation Commission, whose purpose was to deliberate the request in the context of how parks were used, available funds, etc. Mr. Nordhoff believed a reasonable offer was made by listening to the request and determining to take an action, noting fencing one side of Munson Park would not have topped a list. The Park & Recreation Commission made an overture based on interest from Mr. Ross, at least. Regarding cost-sharing, Mr. Nordhoff explained this was a standing arrangement for projects large or small. Freitas Park had been built and renovated 10 years ago; however, Phase II had not been completed. The idea CC 04-19-2010 had been to find matching funds to facilitate completing the next phase. He noted this was common in several other locations across the community. Ms. McCart agreed that the City had a long history of shared costs with park improvements, usually initiated by the neighborhood. She could not recall ever going beyond 50% donation by the community, matched by the City, and this had been very successful in building playgrounds several times at Sun Valley and Bret Harte Park, Freitas Park and a number of other projects. City Attorney Robert Epstein stated that public safety was consistently and regularly considered by City staff in connection with the design of public improvements of all sorts, including "pocket parks" such as Munson Park. Regarding dangerous condition cases, he explained these were tough cases for plaintiffs to make as a number of immunities applied — recreational use immunities — and the plaintiff's conduct would always be considered to determine whether even the first hurdles of imposing liability could be met by a plaintiff, noting each case was decided on its own facts. Mr. Epstein issued an assurance that these types of issues were at the forefront of staff's considerations when such improvements were being designed and approved. Ben Ross, Terra Linda, inquired as to when Attachment D to the staff report had been prepared. Mr. Nordhoff explained that it was on the City's website and had been available for quite a while in different formats and was a delineation of the City's active parks and their uses. Referring to the categories on Attachment D, Mr. Ross stated that there were two picnic tables at Munson Park which were not referenced. Ms. McCart explained that Munson Park was not considered to be a group picnic area and large groups were not encouraged to picnic there, although picnic tables were located at the park for casual users. Areas where groups were encouraged were designated and had facilities to serve them. Mr. Ross reported that quite a few people had family picnics there and to him picnic tables constituted a picnic area. Regarding ADA accessibility, Mr. Ross inquired whether staff was aware of ramps to enter Munson Park from the sidewalk, noting the box was not checked. Regarding other facilities, Mr. Ross reported the presence of an ADA water fountain in the park, also not checked. Ms. McCart explained that modernizing, renovating or updating parks was done in compliance with ADA mandates. Noting the Park & Recreation Commission favored hedges over a fence, Mr. Ross explained that the community did not wish to contribute money because they preferred a fence instead of bushes. The bushes would only cover approximately one-third the distance of a fence for the same cost and the community expressed concern that bushes could die over the years and would necessitate installing a sprinkler system. He commented that perhaps had the fence been offered, it could have been easier to raise the funds. Referring to the definition of parkettes on page 2 of the staff report, Mr. Ross questioned Munson Park being defined as a parkette because it had picnic tables, drinking fountain and a large enough area to play volleyball and baseball. With regard to setting a precedent for passive park improvements, page 3 — Mr. Ross understood there was no other park in San Rafael having a major road adjacent with cars travelling at 40-50 mph. Ms. McCart explained that there was a passive park across the street, on the other side of Freitas. She stated that most neighborhood parks were at least one to three acres in size and typically in San Rafael, most neighborhood parks were approximately three acres. Mr. Ross inquired whether any parks were adjacent to a 40-50 mph roadway. Ms. McCart indicated that she did not believe so. Mr. Ross stated this was the issue. Mr. Ross stated that the hedge cost of $5,500 versus the cost of a fence was a big question in the community as CC 04-19-2010 they believed the entire length would be much better, and understanding money was scarce, he questioned whether the issue of Munson Park could be placed on a list for future consideration. Mr. Nordhoff stated that Hillview Park and one at the corner of Las Gallinas and Freitas Parkway were similar in size - smaller, but also inactive — and were exposed to cars passing in both directions. Mayor Boro noted from the staff report: "Munson Park falls into this second category [inactive/passive]. The City's practice and Commission's long-standing directive have supported not creating improvements at these locations (such as fencing, structures, etc.) that would encourage lively use." He reported indicating to Ms. McCart that he did not understand why the Park & Recreation Commission even discussed a hedge. Mayor Boro believed nothing should be done at this park as it was consistent with this type of park at other locations and even if the community was willing to pay, it did not make sense to plant a hedge and essentially setting up a false expectation of safety. Councilmember Connolly believed this park appeared to be somewhat unique in that it was located around a curve on a busy thoroughfare. Being a little bigger than those alluded to by Mr. Nordhoff he considered it somewhat inviting to more activity than would be the case in a smaller park, and he inquired as to the most cost-effective way of dealing with this situation in current times. Mayor Boro stated he was not aware of any incidents or problems with this park and inquired whether there were any records of accidents associated with its use. Ms. McCart stated she had no reports of any accidents at Munson Park, nor had she had requests from anyone else regarding the issue. Councilmember Heller stated she favored a fence because it did not need water; however, she supported upholding the Park & Recreation Commission's decision if the neighborhood shared in half the cost of a hedge, and she made such a motion. With no second, the motion failed. Having visited these parkettes, Councilmember Levine stated they had visual appeal, were enticing and provided shade and relief for those walking and cycling; therefore, he saw merit in having them. Subsequent to observing traffic conditions at Munson Park, he reported that the shoulder was uneven and unpaved and he questioned why anyone would use it as it appeared to be a visual and physical warning track not to go near traffic. He expressed concern that bushes could provide a false sense of safety which could be a reason for changing the findings. He reiterated that he felt very unsafe at the location. Councilmember Brockbank stated his opposition to a hedge was that it needed to be watered and would cost more for only a third of the distance. Should the objection to a fence be aesthetic, he personally favored a combination of the two — inexpensive qualities of a fence with the aesthetic qualities of a hedge. Noting it had proved difficult to raise half the cost, he found it hard to believe that if motivated the neighborhood could not raise a few thousand dollars at some point in the future, at which time the issue could be reconsidered. He respected the decision of the Park & Recreation Commission, subject to possible reconsideration and modification should there be sufficient interest by the City Council to raise the issue at some future time. With regard to the issue of hedge versus fence, Ms. McCart explained that the proposed fence went from corner to corner completely blocking in the park and the thinking was that a hesitation or barrier drawn out to the very edges of the tapers was not needed, instead offering an opportunity for hesitation so that someone young enough would stop or slow down before reaching the sidewalk, etc. was a better way of achieving safety and aesthetic enhancement. Councilmember Brockbank stated he was unsure procedurally how this issue came before the City Council. Mr. Nordhoff stated he followed instructions from the meeting where staff was requested to offer a recommendation. He indicated that normally, issues such as this would be handled by staff or referred to the entity involved with the previous final decision, or some combination. Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to put Munson Park on a list of future potential Park and Recreation improvements to be considered periodically by the City Council. Councilmember Brockbank commented that it might never rise to the level of being funded in the foreseeable future. He concurred with Councilmember Connolly that Munson Park appeared unique in many respects in that it was bigger than most parkettes and lent itself to the types of activities which could cause a problem. Councilmember Levine inquired as to the long-term plans for Freitas Parkway, stretching from Highway 101 to the 10 CC 04-19-2010 end of Freitas, with regard to cycling and walking paths and calming traffic. Mr. Nordhoff explained that from the promenade, heading back towards Del Presidio and Northgate, a connector had yet to be funded and built. Ultimately, a promenade / multi -use path / bike path / pedestrian area would be constructed. Uniquely in those blocks some of the infrastructure existed off the road, although not in great condition in many segments. Although the design point had not been reached these were the anticipated long-term improvements along that corridor, and the project that would spur changes on both sides of Freitas Parkway. Mr. Nordhoff confirmed for Councilmember Levine that the improvements would be in both directions. Making a substitute motion, Councilmember Levine moved to have Munson Park considered strongly in developing the promenade plan up to the western terminus of the pathway. Although Mayor Boro admired Mr. Ross' zeal for the issue, he did not see many people in the Council Chambers supporting the issue. People had ideas; however, the City Council did not have to respond to every idea presented. At some point staff could acknowledge the fact that when the promenade was completed some improvements could be made; however, he believed improvements, such as a hedge, would change the character of the park making it an active use. Mayor Boro favored doing nothing at this time, with the idea that in the future when and if the promenade was built, enhancements to the park could be evaluated. With regard to the first motion, Mr. Nordhoff explained there were limited Parkland Dedication Funds that were paid out as development came to the City. The City Council had seen such a list over the past few months and staff could bring this back in the budget development process identifying what limited moneys were directed to what projects, together with a longer list of unfunded items, and the City Council could decide to reorder the list. This would come through the Park & Recreation Commission. With respect to the promenade, Mr. Nordhoff indicated there could be additional non -motorized grants, etc. in the future and any design along the Freitas corridor would not only need to consider what was needed at Munson Park, but also look at other safety or appropriate improvements, when trying to cohabit drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Should funds be available he believed there would be opportunities to make improvements along the segment in front of Munson Park. Mr. Nordhoff confirmed that his second comment did not tie into the substitute motion, rather he was commenting on Councilmember Levine's query on what was planned for the future at this location, which could be two or twenty years from now and had nothing to do with the list or what was funded on the list. Mayor Boro noted that a motion was not necessary to make that happen, rather it would always come before the City Council in reviewing Parkland Dedication Funds. Mr. Nordhoff confirmed that this would be before the City Council at least once annually. Mayor Boro inquired whether there was a need for the motion moved by Councilmember Brockbank and seconded by Councilmember Connolly. Mr. Nordhoff indicated he did not believe anything negative came from ratifying what had been proposed; albeit redundant in this case.. He favored taking some affirmative action to bring the issue to closure this evening. Mayor Boro inquired as to why this park should be singled out, and further why potentially shift policy on the use of a parkette. He believed Councilmember Levine's approach to be a lot more creative and unique than the current motion. Councilmember Connolly indicated it added a little more credence to considering it as part of a list. His perspective was that this park was somewhat unique in size and location, noting the petition was signed by 150 people. Mayor Boro commented that those who signed were not in attendance. Councilmember Connolly noted they signed their names and he had read the description, which was pretty clear. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11 CC 04-19-2010 Agreeing the park was unique and a wonderful asset to the neighborhood, Councilmember Levine also wanted people to be safe, and he did not wish to encourage unsafe behavior or recreation at a park not suited to such activity. Having spent at lot of time at Munson Park he believed certain recreational activities could take place there safely; however, chasing a ball into the street was unsafe. Mayor Boro noted Councilmember Levine indicated he felt the long-term plan for the promenade could be an impetus to look at this park in the future. In the meantime, by not accepting the staff report the issue of the hedge would be off the table; however, the park would be evaluated as part of future plans for the promenade. Councilmember Levine stated that in looking at this park as part of the promenade recreation could actually be added, which he believed was a very positive alternative. Councilmember Levine moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to incorporate consideration of Munson Park into future plans for the promenade. Councilmember Levine indicated he believed cycling and walking needed to be encouraged in all of San Rafael. Munson Park could bring people from their homes in that neighborhood through the park to enjoy it, while also encouraging them to use the park and alternative means of transportation to travel, rather than by car. He believed it a natural addition to the park to consider cycling, walking and running. He confirmed he had a citywide vision, which Munson Park was part of. Councilmember Brockbank indicated he was more comfortable restricting the issue to Munson Park in this particular case. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 15. Median Improvement and Maintenance: - File 9-3-40 x 9-3-11 City Manager Ken Nordhoff announced that a Point San Pedro Road neighborhood group would host a meeting on May 1 at 10:00 a.m. at St. Luke's Church to discuss median improvements and maintenance. Clarifying that the City would not be in attendance to make a pitch or focus on a project, etc., he indicated that this should be the group's meeting to present in their own way the work done, options explored and what, if any, level of interest existed to do something about improving four miles of medians. He noted an attempt was made to form an Assessment District in 1998 that failed. He reported that this group had done a lot of good research, reviewed records in the City Clerk's office and received input from Public Works, together with financial consulting. Mr. Nordhoff noted it would be fairly expensive to commence the formation of an Assessment District, aside from building improvements. He commented that the group had segregated themselves from the Point San Pedro Road Coalition for obvious reasons. Mr. Nordhoff noted he had informed the group of a conflict for the City Council on May 1, due to promenade commitments. Councilmember Heller noted she would be out of town on May 1, 2010. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: (including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense) 16. Earth Dav/ First Five Marin Event: - File 9-1 Noting April 22, 2010 was Earth Day, Councilmember Levine reported that a lot of friends would be working at College of Marin on Saturday, April 24, 2010. Councilmember Levine announced he would be attending a breakfast on Friday, April 30th hosted by First Five Marin. Leaque of CA Cities Quarterly Dinner: - File 9-11-1 Councilmember Brockbank reported that the quarterly dinner meeting of the North Bay Division of the League of California Cities would be held in Yountville on April 29, 2010, and encouraging councilmembers to attend, he indicated the topic was medical marijuana. American Sports Institute: - File 9-1 Councilmember Brockbank announced that Joel Kirsch, American Sports Institute, would be travelling across Marin County in mid-May doing push-ups to raise awareness in public schools of childhood overweight and obesity. 12 CC 04-19-2010 Proposition 15: - File 9-1 x 116 Councilmember Brockbank announced a kick-off event for Proposition 15 (Pilot Project for Publicly Financed Elections for the Secretary of State's office, four and eight years hence) on Sunday, May 2, 2010 in the Council Chambers at City Hall from 2-4 PM. Speakers would include Marin County Supervisor Susan Adams, State Senator Mark Leno and Assemblyman Jared Huffman and he (Councilmember Brockbank) would emcee the event. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:50 p.m. ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2010 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 13 CC 04-19-2010