Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2010-08-16SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/16/2010 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 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 — 7:00 PM None CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Damon Connolly, Vice -Mayor Greg Brockbank, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Marc Levine, Councilmember Absent: None 8:02 PM Smart Meters:- File 9-1 Vicki Sievers, San Rafael, expressing opposition to the installation of Smart Meters, requested support from the City Council to help ensure that the precautionary principle prevails. The Marin County Board of Supervisors joined San Francisco and Santa Cruz counties in requesting a moratorium from the California Public Utilities Commission and several Bay Area municipalities had taken similar actions and she believed voices from every elected leader were important in this matter. She noted PG&E currently was the only supplier of readily available information concerning Smart Meters — material almost propaganda -like in its nature — which boasted of the supposed virtues of the program; however, with no advice to consumers of potential side effects. She noted the adverse effects on human health and living tissue of EMF and RF radiation were well documented, while the effects of long-term exposure on the pulsings of Smart Meter devices were unknown. Ms. Sievers stated it appeared imperative that city and regional governments speak up and communities large and small should not give free rein to a corporate entity motivated essentially by profit rather than public health, security, safety and privacy and she requested that the San Rafael City Council join the action. Marin Square / Traffic Siqnals: - File 9-1 Noting Marin Square was a valuable source for retail sales tax, Barry Taranto expressed concern at possible future development by Sutter Health at this location. Having attended the Hospital District Board Meeting last week, he commented that Marin General Hospital should be applauded for the transfer. Mr. Taranto suggested that an unused traffic signal on Andersen Drive be turned off or removed and noted slow pedestrian access at traffic signals in Terra Linda. Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: CONSENT CALENDAR: RECOMMENDED ACTION: ALL MATTERS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE TO BE APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ACTION: APPROVED BY ONE MOTION, UNLESS SEPARATE ACTION IS REQUIRED ON A PARTICULAR ITEM: 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 08-16-2010 Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular City Council Meetings of August 2, 2010 (CC) 2. Second Readinq and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 1886 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN SAN RAFAEL COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2" (CA) — File 6-55 Minutes approved as submitted. Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1886. 3. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager, RESOLUTION NO. 13025 Individually, to Accept Grants of Interests in Real Property on RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR Behalf of the City (CA) — File 2-2.1 AND CITY MANAGER, INDIVIDUALLY, TO ACCEPT GRANTS OF INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY 4. Resolution Approving Participation in the Institute For Local Government's Recognition Program, The Beacon Award: Local Leadership Toward Solving Climate Change (CD) — File 13-1 5. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into an Agreement with HF&H Consultants, LLC to Perform a Review of Marin Sanitary Service's 2011 Rate Application, in an Amount not to Exceed $60,000 (CM) — File 4-3-306 x 4-3-32 7. Resolution Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant Program Under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 (CS) — File 202 x 9-3-65 8. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending July, 2010 (Fin) — File 8-18 x 8-9 RESOLUTION NO. 13026 RESOLUTION APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S RECOGNITION PROGRAM, THE BEACON AWARD: LOCAL LEADERSHIP TOWARD SOLVING CLIMATE CHANGE RESOLUTION NO. 13027 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC TO PERFORM A REVIEW OF MARIN SANITARY SERVICE'S 2011 RATE APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 13028 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 Accepted Monthly Investment Report for month ending July, 2010, as presented. 9. Post -Disaster Business Recovery Strategy (MS/ RDA) — Accepted report. File 13-11 10. Resolution to Reorganize the Public Works Department with RESOLUTION NO. 13029 a Particular Focus on the Engineering Division to meet RESOLUTION TO REORGANIZE THE Industry Standards (MS) — File 9-3-40 x 7-8-8 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WITH A PARTICULAR FOCUS ON THE ENGINEERING DIVISION TO MEET INDUSTRY STANDARDS 12. Resolution Awarding a Contract for the 60 Hillside Avenue Retaining Wall Improvements Project, City Project # 11147, to Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc. in the Amount of $71,016.00 (Bid Opening held Tuesday, August 10, 2010) (PW) — File 4-1-620 RESOLUTION NO. 13030 RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE 60 HILLSIDE AVENUE RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 11147, TO MAGGIORA & GHILOTTI, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,016.00 CC 08-16-2010 13. Resolution Approving the Subdivision Improvement RESOLUTION NO. 13031 Agreement for the Two Lot Subdivision Located on 45 Happy RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION Lane Entitled "Parcel Map — Lands of Breitmayer" (PW) — IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE File 5-1-365 x 10-3 TWO LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 45 HAPPY LANE ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP — LANDS OF BREITMAYER" 14. Adopt Plans and Specifications for Street Resurfacing 2010 Approved staff recommendation. and Authorize the City Clerk to Call for Bids (PW) — File 4-1-624 15. Resolution Authorizing the Temporary Closure of City Streets RESOLUTION NO. 13032 for the 31St Annual Parade of Lights and 19th Winter RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Wonderland and Snow on November 26 and 27, 2010 (RA) — TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CITY File 11-19 STREETS FOR THE 31ST ANNUAL PARADE OF LIGHTS AND WINTER WONDERLAND ON NOVEMBER 26Th AND 27Th, 2010 16. Resolution Authorizing Street Closures for the West End Neighborhood Annual Picnic on Sunday, September 26, 2010 on Neame Avenue from Santa Margarita to West Crescent Drive from 8:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. (RA) — File 11-19 RESOLUTION NO. 13033 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STREET CLOSURES FOR THE WEST END NEIGHBORHOOD ANNUAL PICNIC ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2010 ON NEAME AVENUE FROM SANTA MARGARITA DR. TO WEST CRESCENT DR. FROM 8 A.M. — 6 P.M. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of staff: 11. RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE FREITAS PARKWAY AND LAS GALLINAS RESURFACING 2010 PROJECT, CITY PROJECT #11152, TO GHILOTTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $558,851.16 (BID OPENING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2010) (PW) — FILE 4-1-619 Public Works Director Parviz Mokhtari reported that following the bid opening and during preparation of the staff report a slight discrepancy between the specifications and plans for one item was discovered. Apologizing for the error, he recommended that the City Council reject all bids; staff would make the necessary correction and rebid the project. Councilmember Levine moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded to reject all bids and rebid the project. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 17. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING NEW CHAPTER 1.16 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ENACTING DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING REGULATIONS FOR INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES IN CITY ELECTIONS (CA) — FILE 9-4 — Independent Expenditures City Attorney Robert Epstein explained that Independent Expenditures were defined in the California Political Reform Act as communications that are made by any person or committee (a committee could be a person in this very challenging area of law) which either expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or the qualification, passage or defeat of a clearly identified measure or, taken as a whole, unambiguously urges a particular result in said election. CC 08-16-2010 Noting this had been an item of interest and inquiry for some time, Mr. Epstein explained that the City Council originally discussed the matter at a meeting in August, 2009 when there was some interest in looking at the type of ordinance being proposed this evening. At staff's urging, it was taken off the agenda last year to afford the City Attorney's Office time to consider the ramifications of the City of San Rafael's entering into an area of law and enforcement where there had been no previous involvement. Mr. Epstein stated that the Vehicle and Penal Codes were enforced with the Police Department and Zoning and Building Codes were enforced with the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Divisions; however, enforcing the type of laws enforced by the Fair Political Practices Commission was not an area of previous involvement, apart from some local reporting requirements. Mr. Epstein thanked Deputy City Attorney II Lisa Goldfien for her work on the project. Reporting that state law already requires reporting for independent expenditures, Mr. Epstein explained these effectively were moneys spent on communications in elections by people interested in achieving a certain result, and not by the candidate involved in the communication. Such expenditures were made in Marin County and observing them on the rise created interest in having an ordinance in San Rafael to identify the source. In some cases this would duplicate already existing requirements at the state level requiring forms to be filed with the San Rafael City Clerk; however, the timeframe was somewhat different in that the key form was required to be filed within a 90 -day period (state requirement was 16 days) prior to the election in the event of an independent expenditure totaling more than $1,000. This filing would disclose the identity of those making contributions at the defined levels and citizenry could access this information on the City's website. Mr. Epstein reported that in addition to the filing requirement and disclosure of the identify of those responsible for the independent expenditure with the City Clerk, the communication -- most commonly a mailer — would be required to contain some information identifying the independent expenditure and the source of the mailer. Mr. Epstein stated the proposed ordinance did not attempt to limit the amount of money persons or committees could spend on Independent Expenditures, nor did it attempt to regulate what the contributors could do with their money in terms of the speech and advocacy in which they engage in local elections. Such a regulation would violate the First Amendment, which was not the intention, rather staff was simply proposing for Council consideration the addition of a law that would require those making independent expenditures to disclose their identity and make that information readily available in San Rafael. Having discussed this proposed ordinance in August, 2009 and again at a Special Study Session in January, 2010, Mr. Epstein reported the City Council appointed a sub -committee consisting of Mayor Boro and Vice -Mayor Connolly to consider the provisions. Violation of the ordinance was discussed and provisions were included to address this issue: Civil track penalty of $500 ($500 limitation under City Charter), with the potential to levy this sanction daily over a period of time subsequent to having alerted the violator, and a separate potential criminal sanction — misdemeanor prosecution should the facts merit. Indicating that the ordinance was intended to have an expedited method for addressing complaints, Mr. Epstein explained that a person who believed the ordinance had been violated would come to the City, identify the violator and produce prima facie evidence upon which to base the claim. Should the City Clerk, with assistance from the City Attorney's Office, determine there did appear to be a violation, the person or persons would receive notice and have the opportunity to be heard. Mr. Epstein stated that In the event this process was necessary, staff did not wish to have it take place over an extended period of time as most interest occurred during the election cycle. He believed the City Attorney's Office would succeed in soliciting a panel of volunteer attorneys in the community willing to act as hearing officers. In the event a complaint was made and the respondent required such a hearing, a hearing officer would be empanelled relatively quickly to hear and decide the issue. Mr. Epstein stated staff believed this was a workable ordinance. It was efficient in design and addressed the community interest, which was to add more transparency and disclosure to the making of independent expenditures in San Rafael. Councilmember Brockbank questioned whether there would be a penalty in the event someone unknowingly violated the ordinance by failing to disclose. Mr. Epstein agreed that inadvertent violations of the ordinance should lead to excuse. Staff anticipated it would take some time to learn about the new law, should it be adopted; however, on being informed, prompt compliance 4 CC 08-16-2010 would be expected Councilmember Brockbank commented that people who did this without knowing the law may be few and far between and he requested clarification on committees donating to other committees and remaining anonymous. Lisa Goldfien explained that the mailer would not necessarily reveal all donors. The mailer should reveal the donating committee and have the website address available so that an interested party could look at the campaign statements for the issuing committee. If another committee was named on the mailer, it would not necessarily trace back all the donations to that committee; however, that committee also would be under obligations to file reports under state law, which would also be filed locally. She indicated it would require some detective work on the part of the citizen; however, it was becoming unwieldy to try to make San Rafael's ordinance reach back that far. Councilmember Brockbank requested clarification on whether this ordinance addressed circumventing the possibility of anonymous, negative mailers with an unknown source. Mr. Epstein stated the idea was to require those who would otherwise remain anonymous to declare themselves and for citizens to have easy access to that information locally. On the question of enforcement, Mr. Epstein commented that someone in the community could produce a communication funded by an independent expenditure — in a City Council campaign denied by all candidates — with no information on the proponent; however, with the expectation that the City would investigate. This raised concerns about adding an assignment staff was not equipped to perform. The FPPC had investigators working on such issues; however, the expectation under the City's ordinance was that a citizen with a complaint would provide information and evidence reasonably identifying the source, which could be challenging for the complainant and also San Rafael which did not have a department set up to carry out this function. Referring to page 2 — item 3 of the staff report — "The City Clerk is directed to post the reported information on the City's website on the same or the next City business day" Councilmember Heller commented that this could be too much of a burden to place on that department in an election season, and she requested the timeframe be expanded somewhat. Mr. Epstein suggested that the City Council deliberate the concept when the public hearing was closed; however, having reviewed the ordinance with the City Clerk he believed she was comfortable with its provisions to the extent they obligated her. Noting the entire point of the ordinance was transparency and that committee to committee donors or those donating under $100 would not be listed, Councilmember Levine inquired whether there were limitations or the ability to require the inclusion of the officers of the committee in the disclaimers on the campaign communications. Mr. Epstein explained that to the extent state law required, for example, a treasurer to be identified, should they wish to do so, the City Council could add such a requirement to the ordinance. Regarding the ability of a violator to appeal to the Marin Courts, Councilmember Levine inquired as to the likelihood Marin Courts would have time, ability or interest in adjudicating such an issue. Mr. Epstein explained that the code section mentioned in the ordinance — avenue for writ review for a person unhappy with the hearing officer's decision — allowed for a somewhat more expedited, less -intensive preparation before the hearing by everyone involved than the mandate procedure with which the City Council was more familiar — 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He indicated that with a complaint concerning a land use decision, the ordinary mandate procedure involves preparation of a record which was a considerable amount of work for the City and lawyers involved, and the Court; however, this would be somewhat less. Mr. Epstein commented that from his experience of late at the Marin County Courthouse, as with any case filed, he would have questions as to when the hearing would be set because of lack of staff. The matter however, would likely be heard by a court commissioner; therefore, an earlier hearing could be possible. Noting the City Attorney's interest in having the issue dealt with in a timely manner and even before the election took place, Councilmember Levine stated that in the event a decision was appealed it was unlikely to be completed in a timely manner. Mr. Epstein stated that, assuming the complaint was made sometime before election day, the ordinance was set CC 08-16-2010 up to at least have the possibility that the entire matter could be addressed and have an independent hearing officer make a fair and impartial decision promptly. In the event of a challenge it was unlikely that the Court would be able to have the issue heard prior to the election. Regarding Item 2. — Page 2 of the staff report, Councilmember Levine inquired as to how the City was empowered to compel reporting to third parties. Mr. Epstein explained that it was not unusual for statutes to require persons to publish information in local periodicals and newspapers and in this instance, the Marin Independent Journal was selected because it was the only daily newspaper operating in San Rafael and the most likely news vehicle for prompt dissemination. Councilmember Levine expressed concern that in political speech this could be challenged. He noted that in addition to publication there also was a requirement to inform other candidates or committees, and he inquired how this was distinguished from sharing with a periodical. Clarifying, Mr. Epstein stated that the City of San Rafael did not govern what the Marin Independent Journal published. Rather, under the ordinance the information is required to be sent to the newspaper and the newspaper could choose whether or not to publish, which differed from paying to cause publication. Councilmember Levine inquired as to how the City had the ability to compel political speech to be reported to third parties. Mr. Epstein stated he believed this was a matter worthy of deliberation by the City Council, noting staff was attempting to create disclosure. Absent a requirement to forward this information, the Marin Independent Journal had the ability to check the City Clerk's website on a daily basis. Barry Taranto, San Rafael, stated the issue was whether this was the City's role and how much it would cost to enforce, and he believed the website should include campaign committees. Agreeing with the intent he questioned whether the ordinance included School Board Sanitation District elections, etc., and commented that filings should be with the Marin County Registrar Voters' Office, Mr. Taranto suggested forming a Sunshine Task Force or Ethics Committee to deal with all such issues. Jon Orteaa, San Rafael, noting there were different means of expression, questioned how to determine non compliance with the ordinance. He suggested there be more concentration on voter turn out and increased participation in the process. Referring to new legislation in Congress dealing with the Dream Act, which allowed undocumented residents access to the process of becoming a voter, he suggested that, rather than complicating the process, it should be simplified, perhaps through public financing. Elisa Giambastiani, League of Women Voters of Marin County, reported that two years ago the League of Women Voters of Marin created a Campaign Reform Committee because of their belief in fair and transparent elections. "People had a right to say what they wanted; however, voters had a right to know who was saying it." She applauded Mr. Epstein and Ms. Goldfien for their excellent work on the ordinance and believed it was a wonderful response to the committee's concerns. Ms. Giambastiani stated the ordinance would create transparency about where money to support candidates or an issue was coming from, and when voters knew who was funding a campaign to influence an election, they could make a more informed decision. Ms. Giambastiani indicated they appreciated that the reporting period was extended to 90 days prior to the election, as opposed to the FPPC's requirement of 16 days, and applauded the requirement to send a copy of the report to other candidates or committees and the Marin Independent Journal, as well as providing proof of that service. Ms. Giambastiani stated that one of the most important aspects of the ordinance was that information would be posted to the City's website, so that voters could easily access the names of contributors and expenditures made by the committee. During the last supervisorial election, she found it easy to obtain information on contribution expenditures from Marin County's website which in previous years had been difficult. She concurred with filing in San Rafael rather than Sacramento, together with prominent disclosure on campaign mailers of the top donors, together with city and state of residence, which would better inform voters of the interests behind campaign communications. Ms. Giambastiani indicated the League of Women Voters was also pleased that the ordinance required campaign communications to include a reference to more information being found on the City's website. They applauded the authors for using a panel of volunteers as hearing officers, saving the City staff time and money while creating some consequences for violators, together with the timeliness, plus the publicity of complaints would be a negative consequence. CC 08-16-2010 Referring to Item D. 3. — Section 1. 16.050 — page 5 of the ordinance, Ms. Giambastiani suggested that for telephone calls the disclosure be made at the beginning of the communication rather than the end. Ms. Giambastiani reported that passage of the ordinance would enable the League of Women Voters of Marin to visit other cities with a model ordinance they could replicate. She indicated that more disclosure benefitted everyone and the community won when voters were informed. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Responding to Mr. Taranto's inquiry as to which other elections would be subject to the ordinance, Mr. Epstein explained that San Rafael Board of Education elections would fall within this ordinance and disclosure would be required if independent expenditures were made in connection with such elections; however, School Bond measures would be under Marin County's purview. This ordinance would also apply to City Attorney and City Clerk elections. Regarding Mr. Ortega's question concerning the issue of express advocacy captured by the concept of regulating independent expenditures, Mr. Epstein explained that, should the words "vote for" or "vote against" appear on a mailer, the person funding such mailer was engaging in "express advocacy" and an independent expenditure requiring disclosure had occurred. Absent these words, under the current definition of "express advocacy" the communication must "unambiguously urge a result in the election." He suggested that a photograph or cartoon that perhaps could be interpreted in different ways by different people might not necessarily unambiguously urge a certain result and therefore, would not be captured by the ordinance. Mr. Epstein reported that, because all of these definitions are taken from the Political Reform Act, San Rafael's definition of independent expenditure and express advocacy would be similarly circumscribed with adoption of the ordinance. He indicated that staff felt it unwise to try to invent an entire new series of definitions of these ideas for the City Council's and community's purposes, hence the reason for borrowing from the Political Reform Act. Mr. Epstein reported that on Thursday, the FPPC met in Sacramento specifically to consider their new chairman, Dan Schnur's proposal that the definition of express advocacy be expanded to capture more communications than currently defined by the terms and regulations to which he referred. The Commission was receptive to the idea; they did not take action on Thursday, rather would consider it in the future. Mr. Schnur's position was that the possibility of expanding the definition had been created by the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case and his memorandum concerning the subject of how he proposed to expand the definition of express advocacy was lengthy. Should the City Council adopt the ordinance and the FPPC in Sacramento chose to expand its definition of express advocacy, this community would borrow that same expanded definition and perhaps the political cartoon Mr. Ortega referred to would then be captured by the ordinance, and if disseminated, the person who paid for the dissemination of the information would be required to disclose their identity. Understanding the City did not have the staff to conduct investigations, Councilmember Brockbank inquired whether staff had reviewed the Richard Rubin Water Board case. He noted the District Attorney investigated the issue, and the FPPC investigated the issue over five years, resulting in Mr. Rubin serving his full four-year term and a year into his second term before a decision was rendered. Councilmember Brockbank reported that the printer of the mailer in that particular case informed him personally six months ago that if subpoenaed he would divulge that information. He questioned why it would take the District Attorney a year or two to investigate and why it would take the FPPC five years when the printer of the mailer would supply the information if subpoenaed. Mr. Epstein stated he was not familiar with the specifics of the case other than what he read in the Marin Independent Journal. Thanking Ms. Goldfien and Mr. Epstein Mayor Boro reported that he and Vice -Mayor Connolly had met with both attorneys and he believed a workable ordinance had been generated, which perhaps could be refined going forward. He agreed that the ordinance provided transparency and believed voters did not want outside parties or groups to influence local elections, regardless of the content. On the esoteric issue of express advocacy, Mayor Boro stated he was not interested in whether someone was praised, condemned or a condemnation was implied with a cartoon, rather people were interested in not having it happen. Referring to the Provision of Code of Fair Campaign Practices form signed by all City Council candidates in 2007 and 2009, Mayor Boro quoting item 6 "1 shall immediately and publicly repudiate support deriving from individuals or groups which resort on behalf of my candidacy or in opposition to that of my opponent to the methods and tactics which I condemn" believed the public was looking for the candidates themselves to react. Unsure of the interpretation of "methods and tactics" he indicated it also stated that "the individual looks to immediately and publicly repudiate the support." He CC 08-16-2010 commented that this document was not part of this evening's ordinance, rather it was state -issued, which each candidate offered to sign. On the issue of public financing, Mayor Boro stated the person who was advocating the most continued to issue independent expenditures and he found it interesting that those who were financed publicly would have spending limits while any individual could spend all they wanted under federal law on independent expenditures and would gladly identify themselves; therefore, he did not believe public financing was the key to success. Regarding the issue of a 90 -day period, Mayor Boro questioned whether 180 days would be better. Mr. Epstein stated that any time frame that made sense to the City Council could be used. Aside from the issue of Ms. Giambastiani's comments on telephone communications, Mayor Boro stated that the ordinance should be supported. Councilmember Connolly concurred that this was a positive step in furthering the goal of greater transparency in local elections and he commended staff for their hard work. He commented that it was directed at one particular form of false and misleading campaigning — a failure to properly disclose who was behind an advertisement; however, it did not, nor should it, regulate the content of any speech. As noted by the City Attorney, a First Amendment issue was associated, and what could be negative speech to some could be necessary illumination to others in terms of the information provided, and he did not favor attempting to define what constituted negative political speech. However, it was the responsibility of individual candidates as to how they reacted to a particular speech that emerged. Councilmember Connolly noted some interesting and important issues were raised this evening and he had no objection to any appropriate amendments. In light of Mayor Boro's earlier comments regarding expanding the time frame, Mr. Epstein stated Ms. Goldfien had pointed out that in discussing the concept of the next business day, about which Councilmember Heller expressed concern, with the City Clerk it was with the idea of the shorter timeframe of 90 days. Should the City Council consider expanding this timeframe, staff suggested consideration be given to relaxing the timeframe during which the City Clerk is required to post the information on the website. Based on Mr. Epstein's suggestion, Mayor Boro indicated he would defer to the 90 -day period and a timelier reporting, which could be revisited if necessary. Councilmember Levine stated he would like to pursue the idea of requiring the name of the treasurer for committees not reporting a donor — committees receiving money from another committee or committees having contributions of $99 or below. Voters wanted to be informed of who was participating in elections and what was going on in San Rafael. As a bystander in 2007, he was bewildered by the flurry of mail received for a City election — this was clarified for him in 2009. Councilmember Levine indicated he would be interested in pursuing this issue should the City Council be amenable to including the committee treasurer's name when no donor was reported over the amount specified. Thanking staff and the sub -committee, Councilmember Heller stated that public financing was a completely different subject and did not belong in this discussion. Cities such as San Rafael would find it impossible to locate funding sources, whereas larger cities such as Portland allocate funds from their General Funds, which also necessitates adding staff to the City Clerk's office. She offered to discuss this issue with interested individuals. With regard to Item 3, page 5, Councilmember Heller concurred with having the telephone call communication at the beginning of the call. She believed the ordinance did a good job of increasing transparency and fairness in City elections. Councilmember Brockbank indicated he supported the amendment to delete the words "or end" at the end of Section D. 3. — Page 5 and he supported Councilmember Levine's suggestion to list the treasurer. Expressing appreciation to the sub -committee and City Attorneys Office, he indicated the risk was that staff would be overburdened, in which case, amendments could be made or the issue could be dropped. Even bigger was the chance that this ordinance would not accomplish what was intended because independent expenditures could still be done without punishment, either through unawareness, or compliance without regulation of content or quantity. While he had doubts regarding effectiveness, he considered it worth trying because of the large and perceived discomfort; it might not diminish independent expenditures and people might not regain their courage to run for office. Councilmember Brockbank stated he was unclear as to Councilmember Connolly's comments that it was directed at false and misleading mailers and he believed the point was not to draw any value judgments. CC 08-16-2010 Councilmember Connolly clarified that it was a particular type — Citizens for a Better San Rafael, funded by Exxon. Regarding Ms. Giambastiani's comments, Councilmember Brockbank concurred with her first statement, that voters had a right to know who was speaking; however, with regard to her statement that voters had a right to know where candidates where getting their financial support, he explained that the point of independent expenditures was that it was not financial support to candidates, rather someone using their own funds to elect or defeat a candidate, and he cautioned against using this language. He expressed support for the ordinance with possible consideration of changes in the future. Commenting on Councilmember Levine's concept regarding including the under $100 contributors, Mr. Epstein requested that, should the City Council be inclined to do this, the issue be continued to the next meeting to afford staff the opportunity to review the Political Reform Act. He doubted it would make much difference in the current election cycle, explaining that even with the introduction of the ordinance this evening, with second reading scheduled for September 7, 2010, and the effective date October 7, 2010, the ordinance would not be effective for long during the first election cycle. Mr. Epstein noted that when FPPC Commissioner Schnur discussed expanding the definition of express advocacy, he suggested that the expanded definition not be implemented until after this election cycle, as people were relying on the rules currently in effect and it could be unfair to add something new suddenly. In San Rafael's case, the change was not so complicated and the concept of affording people time to learn the ordinance and for excuse of innocent violation was built in. The Political Reform Act does not require disclosure for donations of $99 or under and if added, staff would need to get it right. Councilmember Connolly clarified the amendment should be limited to disclosure of the treasurer. Councilmember Heller requested clarification as to the $500 penalty as she understood the County of Marin had a $1,000 penalty. Referring to Article 3, Section 54 of the City Charter, Mr. Epstein quoted: "VIOLATION OF CHARTER AND ORDINANCES. To prescribe fines, forfeitures and penalties for the violation of any provision of this charter, or of any ordinance; but no penalty shall exceed a fine of five hundred dollars or six months imprisonment, or both." He noted it was not unusual in Code Enforcement cases when informing a landowner they were in violation of the Code and if unwilling to abate the public nuisance and the situation continued over a period of time, an administrative hearing officer would levy $500 per day fines. With regard to whether a 10,000 mailer would be considered one violation, Mr. Epstein stated staff's most reasonable interpretation was that it would be one violation; however, more language could be added to clarify, if necessary. Ms. Goldfien confirmed the revisions to the ordinance: • Section 1. 16.050 D. 3. — delete the words "or end" in the last sentence; • Section 1.16.040 E. — instead of the next business day, the language would read "same City business day as received or as soon as possible thereafter." • Section 1. 16.040 D. — After ......... with the largest contributor listed first — language added: "If a listed contributor is a committee, the campaign communication shall also disclose the identity of the treasurer of the donor committee." Mr. Epstein clarified that the $2,000 referred to the trigger for disclosing the identity of the person contributing $2,000 or more on the independent expenditure communication itself. The requirement for disclosure of the independent expenditure and anyone who contributed more than $99.99 was the $1,000 threshold; therefore, contributions totaling more than $1,000 to the independent expenditure would trigger the requirement for filing with the City Clerk disclosing the identities of those making contributions in excess of $99.99. Mr. Epstein further clarified that a specific person's name would not necessarily appear on that mailer. As currently written, if a contribution of more than $2,000 was made by a committee to the funding of an independent expenditure, only that committee would be mentioned, not those persons contributing to that committee; however, information would be available on the City's website about contributors to that committee. Ms. Goldfien re -read the revision, "If a listed contributor is a committee, the campaign communication shall also disclose the identity of the treasurer of the donor committee." She added that it would include the name of the entity issuing the independent expenditure and the City's website would publish their reports. CC 08-16-2010 The title of the Ordinance was read: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADDING NEW CHAPTER 1.16 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ENACTING DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING REGULATIONS FOR INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES IN CITY ELECTIONS (as amended) Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1887 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None After a short recess the City Council Meeting resumed at 9:25 p.m. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: 18. RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $262,400 FOR SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM FROM OCTOBER 1, 2010 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (PD) — FILE 9-3-30 Chief of Police Matt Odetto reported that this item was an opportunity to accept a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety in the amount of $262,400. The additional funding would offset the normal program of traffic safety and enforcement in areas where attention was needed in the past, including red light enforcement, as well as DUI education. These grants would also provide incentives for both educational and enforcement operations. Chief Odetto stated that rarely do Chiefs of Police get the opportunity to receive this type of money and staff would be looking at innovative ways to address the issues of traffic safety. Noting ongoing concern regarding the transparency with DUI checkpoints, Chief Odetto reported that two years ago staff discontinued announcing the location of these checkpoints; however, was unable to collect data on whether announcing the location made a difference or not. Going forward staff had been directed to announce the location of checkpoints in press releases. Lieutenant Glenn McElderry reported that STEP (Selective Traffic Enforcement Program) offers a variety of enforcement tools for a year, with the grant beginning on October 1, 2010 and ending on September 30, 2011. Providing background, he indicated that for several years the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provided the Police Department with numerous grants which supply funds for additional educational enforcement, operations that would not be feasible otherwise, including DUI drivers' license checkpoints, DUI saturation patrols, red light enforcement, speed enforcement, warrant sweeps and court stings. Previously San Rafael had a STEP grant from October, 2006 to September, 2008. Following that the OTS, through NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), had a focus on more alcohol enforcement, the reason for receiving two grants named "DUI Enforcement and Awareness" over the past two years. Lt. McElderry stated that the STEP grant would greatly increase the Police Department's ability to employ education and enforcement strategies to reach identified goals, reducing persons killed or injured in traffic collisions and the Police Department would be more successful in curbing problems associated with DUI drivers, unlicensed and suspended drivers, red light runners, speeding vehicles and distracted driving — cellphone and texting. Lt. McElderry reported that the STEP grant identified goals and objectives — reduce number injured and killed in alcohol involved collisions, hit-and-run, motorcycle and nighttime collisions, collisions at intersections, red light and speeding vehicle collisions, together with increasing seatbelt use through enforcement and education. Objectives of the STEP grant include: • Issue press releases throughout the grant period • Submit an application for the California Law Enforcement Challenge • Conduct seatbelt usage surveys at various times during the grant period • Conduct Standardized Field Sobriety Testing for 5 officers • Conduct 5 DUI/drivers' license checkpoints 10 CC 08-16-2010 • Conduct 6 DUI saturation patrols • Conduct 8 distracted driving enforcement operations • Conduct 3 highly publicized Specialized Motorcycle Enforcement Operations • Conduct 5 red light enforcement operations • Conduct 5 high collision intersection enforcement operations • Conduct 5 speed enforcement operations • Increase driver safety through seatbelt enforcement • Develop a Hot Sheet program for patrol officers - currently in place • Conduct 3 Court Sting operations • Increase department -wide impounds by 1% • Increase the department's enforcement index Lt. McElderry stated the grant would also be used to purchase equipment: 3 Preliminary Alcohol Screening devices, 5 Lidar devices which have video incorporated, increasing officers' evidence for traffic court. The implementation would be similar to the previous STEP grant, and the grant would become live on October 1, 2010. Enforcement operations would be scheduled throughout the year, keeping staffing and weather in mind. Equipment could be purchased after October 1, 2010 and operations would be completed by September 30, 2011. Lt. McElderry stated the grant would provide countless hours of education enforcement of traffic laws to the community that the Police Department could not otherwise provide. Reporting that staff analyzed the results from the previous STEP grant and gauged its effectiveness on the community, he explained that the grant which began in October, 2006 and ended in September, 2008, had very similar objectives. Its effectiveness was determined by comparing collisions statistics prior to the grant to collision statistics after a year of grant enforcement. In this case 2005 was compared to 2007, a year after the grant operations began, and the results indicated a 34% decrease in those injured in traffic collisions, 16% drop in intersection injury collisions, 75% drop in red light running injury collisions and a 30% drop in injury collisions caused by speeding. To further examine the effectiveness of the STEP grant when comparing statistics from 2007 to a full year after the grant expired in 2009, Lt. McElderry reported a 60% increase in the number of people injured in collisions, a 47% increase in intersection injury collisions, a 53% increase in red-light running injury collisions and a 78.5% increase in injury collisions caused by speeding. The previous STEP grant was shown to be very effective in lowering collision statistics and studies continually show that enforcement was a critical element in gaining compliance with the vehicle code, resulting in fewer collisions. Lt. McElderry noted that, since 2006 the Office of Traffic Safety had awarded the San Rafael Police Department over $1.5 million in traffic safety grants. Grants were awarded on a competitive basis with all other law enforcement agencies throughout the state that applied. He indicated that the grants were instrumental in creating safer streets in San Rafael for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists and the STEP grant would allow the Police Department to continue efforts in addressing the community's greatest concern: traffic safety and congestion. Lt. McElderry stated there were many objectives in the STEP grant, all of which were focused on increased traffic safety. Vehicle impounds being one of the objectives, he reported that California's 30 -day impound law came out of the 1994 Safe Streets Act as a result of studies showing that those who drive while unlicensed or with suspended or revoked licenses are overly represented in vehicle collisions. Since the law went into effect, hit- and-run collisions in San Rafael had decreased 61 % since 1994 and the most recent research update in 2008 from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety indicates that 1 in every 5 fatal collisions involved a driver who was definitely or possibly driving with an invalid license or no license. Lt. McElderry reported that budget cuts and decreased staffing in the Police Department had increased the need for the STEP grant, as traffic safety grants were the department's only long-term solution to maintaining existing education enforcement levels. Traffic safety achievements in 2007 were accomplished through the resources of the STEP grant and higher staffing levels in the traffic unit. Lt. McElderry reported that in 2007 he was the Traffic Sergeant and had 8 officers in the traffic unit, which currently has 1 sergeant and 4 officers. Accepting the grant would have the effect of increasing officers' ability for enforcement for this grant year, while declining the grant would jeopardize any future grant opportunities and impact the traffic safety of the community, which had been identified by the City Council as one of the Police Department's budget goals. Councilmember Brockbank expressed appreciation for Lt. McElderry's staff report, particularly the comprehensive statistics, and indicated he supported removing drunk and unlicensed drivers from the streets. He requested further clarification regarding the statistics on increases with enforcement and decreases without enforcement 11 CC 08-16-2010 and whether the numbers were meaningful. Regarding injury collisions, Lt. McElderry stated the goal was to reduce injuries and fatalities, noting a 34% decrease in those injured in traffic collisions — 219 in 2005 to 144 in 2007. He indicated he did not believe a value could be put on each number other than the public expected the Police Department to do everything possible to create a safer environment for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Referring to the objective to increase department -wide impounds by 1 %, Councilmember Brockbank commented that perhaps having a quota to increase the number of impounds was somewhat suspicious. Lt. McElderry reported that impounds was an implied expectation in the grant — 1 % = 8 or 9 vehicles. Councilmember Brockbank questioned whether this was an inappropriate quota by the OTS. Lt. McElderry explained that the grant contained language to the effect that in no way should the agreement give an officer an expectation to write a particular amount of citations, impound a certain number of cars or arrest a certain amount of people on an operation. He confirmed for Councilmember Brockbank that the grant would not be jeopardized if the quota was not met. Councilmember Brockbank questioned whether it would give officers a greater enthusiasm to impound more cars each year. Lt. McElderry stated it was implied that more enforcement would result in increased impounds. Regarding increasing the enforcement index, Councilmember Brockbank suggested that perhaps better tracking was necessary regarding what the numbers entailed. Referring to the staff report which indicated there was a similar STEP from 2006-2008; however, 2009 was different, Councilmember Brockbank stated it did not appear that different; therefore, he was surprised to see huge changes in numbers in 2009 absent STEP, and further large changes again in 2010 with the STEP, and he questioned whether it was so different in the STEP as to account for such dramatic statistical changes. Lt. McElderry explained that in 2008 when the grant was expiring another STEP grant was applied for; which typically were one-year grants; however, the OTS changed it to a DUI enforcement and awareness grant. He was informed by the OTS that NHTSA was pushing for more alcohol enforcement, and the DUI enforcement and awareness grant was strictly checkpoints and saturation patrols. Councilmember Brockbank inquired as to the level of discretion on impounds. Lt. McElderry stated that in San Rafael, officers had discretion; however, staff encourages the use of the Vehicle Code to increase traffic safety. Statistics indicate that taking vehicles from unlicensed and suspended drivers was effectively doing this. While they have discretion, officers are encouraged to apply the law fairly. Regarding impounds, Councilmember Brockbank indicated he had questions and would like to have more information. Mr. Epstein stated there was more than one reasonable interpretation of the statute, which was common; therefore, it was reasonable to read it to afford discretion to the officer to choose whether to impound in an individual circumstance. The statute did not necessarily mandate impounding in every circumstance and as stated by Lt. McElderry, this does not occur. On the question of when it was appropriate for the officer to exercise his discretion, Mr. Epstein stated this was a matter debated by the Police Department in its training, education and work on a daily basis with officers in the field who return to their command staff, discuss individual situations encountered, and check that department policies are appropriately enforced and carried out as communicated by the Chief of Police and through the Captains and Lieutenants. Mr. Epstein suggested that attempting to direct the Police Department as to how it should exercise its discretion was not an appropriate place for the City Council to be for a number of different reasons, including specific legal reasons. Regarding the STEP grant objectives, Councilmember Heller inquired whether motorcycle and red light enforcement operations were separate. 12 CC 08-16-2010 Lt. McElderry explained that with red light enforcement, typically six or seven officers would on a given day focus specifically on this issue. He clarified that red light and speed enforcement activities would be conducted separately. Congratulating Lt. McElderry on obtaining this competitive grant, Councilmember Levine inquired what distinguished San Rafael and its Police Department from other cities that did not receive the STEP grant. Lt. McElderry explained that currently, it was the relationship between the Police Department and the Office of Traffic Safety, noting A+ grades had been received at audits. Reports are timely and San Rafael hosts the Avoid the 13 — a grant awarded to the entire county, albeit hosted by one agency, which had been San Rafael for many years, primarily because of the availability of staffing. Staff had also conducted training seminars with the OTS, a good relationship had been developed and statistics demonstrated the grant funds were needed for enforcement. Councilmember Connolly noted from statistics from 2007-2009 an increase which corresponded with staff's analysis with the expiration of the grant; however, there were DUI checkpoints during that time period which included license checks, etc. He inquired whether staff could ascertain where the additional breadth of the program resulted in the favorable statistics. Lt. McElderry explained that during that time DUI enforcement awareness was carried out and a DUI mini grant added additional checkpoints. In evaluating the history of enforcement of a particular violation he stated that a lot of enforcement operations — speed and red light running in high collision intersections — were focused on one aspect and it was that enforcement over time that gained compliance. He reported that the STEP grant did not exist after 2008; therefore, the volume of enforcement it provided was not being achieved. Regarding intersection injury collisions, Lt. McElderry reported that staff gathers statistics from throughout the City and identifies areas of enforcement, and in those types of situations it is any type of enforcement at that intersection. Judith Bloombera, Marin Organizing Committee and San Rafael resident, stating that, given the emphasis by the OTS on grants, which historically related to alcohol -involved collisions, inquired as to the difference in time in which a car could be impounded for a DUI versus an unlicensed driver. Regarding the appropriateness of the City Council's direction to the Police Department concerning the issue of discretion in impounds, she inquired as to the legal issues involved. Regarding the length of time a vehicle could be impounded for a DUI versus an unlicensed driver, Lt. McElderry explained that, should the DUI driver have a valid license, the car would be impounded for a Vehicle Code section that just implies the driver was arrested and the car would go. With a valid license the car would be returned to the registered owner on claiming it at the Police Department. Regarding unlicensed or suspended license drivers, Lt. McElderry stated the 30 -day impound law would take effect, noting the 30 -day impound law would only affect drivers without a valid license, had never been issued a license or drivers with suspended or revoked licenses. Mr. Epstein thanked Ms. Bloomberg for her question and explained that his comment referred to the concept in the Municipal Law concerning discretionary acts of a municipal employee versus ministerial acts. Indicating it was easier to describe what a discretionary act was not by describing a ministerial act, Mr. Epstein stated the most common example was when a person applies for a permit that has a specific set of criteria to be met and the applicant fulfills those, the municipal employee's act of granting the permit is a ministerial act - the municipal employee had no discretion to apply in his or her function of issuing the permit. Should the permit be refused, the City would be exposed to liability for its employee's failure to carry out the ministerial act. Mr. Epstein reported that the police force working on streets engages entirely in discretionary activities — the law affords officers wide discretion to perform their function without specific direction in each individual instance and with that the law affords them and the City immunity from liability for their conduct. He indicated it was of concern for the City Attorney, when it was suggested that a City Council would direct the police department as to how it would perform its discretionary functions by directing or ordering that something be done in a specific way, because suddenly the officer was placed in the position of having to adhere to a specific requirement laid out by the City Council and had to figure out the correct decision, perhaps making a mistake. City Council direction, as opposed to direction from the Police Department, was perhaps transposing the officers' discretionary function into something more mandatory, and laying out a new set of requirements to follow that could expose the City to problems, where advertently or inadvertently a mistake was made. Mr. Epstein noted that other policy issues would be at play, should the City Council propose to reach around the management staff to direct employees with regard to any specific functions. 13 CC 08-16-2010 Councilmember Brockbank questioned why it would be inappropriate for the City Council to set a broad general policy that all City employees would be expected to follow, as long as it was not imposing upon the discretion of the employee in some inappropriate way. Noting one person's policy was another's direction, Mr. Epstein stated that Councilmember Brockbank's comments sounded like a specific direction — don't impound, whereas a policy could be more like "try not to impound" or "consider whether or not you need to impound in any specific instance"; whereas, Lt. McElderry indicated police officers already do this by exercising discretion on a case-by-case basis on whether or not they would impound. Mr. Epstein stated he understood the general department policy was to encourage officers to impound in any situation in the City where someone was unable to produce a valid driver's license. Statistics bore out that the likelihood of someone being involved in a motor vehicle accident was greatly increased for those driving without licenses and the general department policy was to encourage the officers to impound, while also affording them the discretion on an individual basis of determining the appropriateness. Councilmember Connolly inquired whether the practices of other jurisdictions had been evaluated Lt. McElderry stated he had been in contact with other jurisdictions; however, traffic safety being the backbone of the purpose, enforcing laws and applying for grants, etc., would be done to increase that safety. Not wishing to speak for other agencies he stated that, when statistics indicated that impounding the vehicle had a positive effect, this had a huge impact on the motoring public. Mayor Boro stated his personal belief was that driving without a license was illegal. The City Council had a responsibility to uphold the law and ensure streets were safe. He indicated he would have no problem with illegal residents obtaining drivers' licenses; however, California had not allowed this. He favored the idea of people being trained to operate a vehicle; however, the reality was that untrained people obtained access to vehicles and statistics showed that unlicensed drivers had a higher rate of accidents; therefore, he believed unlicensed drivers and their vehicles should be off the street. He emphasized that the City Council had an obligation to enforce the law and by letting someone return home with their car, who perhaps in a week or two was involved in a fatal accident, and it was found that discretion was used to allow the driver back on the street, the City could be liable. More importantly, Mayor Boro believed the community was liable. He recalled an incident where six boy scouts in a van were involved in an accident with an illegal driver who ran from the scene. Fortunately, no one was killed, although several were hurt and the father could not return to work for two months. Believing the City had an obligation to keep the streets safe, he indicated the City must ensure in conducting these checkpoints that an unlicensed driver should not be allowed to drive. Checkpoints were very well signed in English and Spanish and going forward the locations would be published in the newspaper, which would afford drivers the opportunity not to go through the checkpoint. Mayor Boro stated that the Chief of Police, not the City Council, should set policy for the Police Department, and he and his staff should be responsible for enforcing the law. Acknowledging it was a huge issue, Mayor Boro stated the City had worked very closely with people in the community who were new to the Country, not here legally and who drove. Staff had worked in the Canal neighborhood on the issue of towing, resulting in a good solution which would likely be permanent so that people's cars would not be towed if certain conditions were met. When a driver without a license was stopped, the Police Department was not doing its job if the driver was not cited and the car taken away. Councilmember Levine stated that state law not permitting undocumented people to have licenses was unfair and unjust. He had pondered what it would take for a city to state it was fine for people to drive and perhaps they could find another way to learn to drive and meet the appropriate standards, and even to insure themselves; however, he was unaware of a model or mechanism to enable that. Stating it was an unfortunate circumstance, Councilmember Levine indicated he would continue to advocate on behalf of people having the ability to drive, as he believed it would protect everyone when people had licenses and insurance coverage. Noting she was in agreement with Mayor Boro, Councilmember Heller stated she would vote to adopt the resolution to accept the grant. Councilmember Connolly indicated his sense was that the grant provided necessary funding for a range of enforcement activities and the statistics bore out the benefit to the community. He indicated his concern was with DUI enforcement checkpoints, which served a valid purpose in keeping intoxicated drivers off the road; however, San Rafael and other communities had come under publicity recently regarding double-digit impoundment numbers per one or no DU Is. This raised issues of discretion, whether there were issues of disparate impact that affect particular segments of the community and how other similarly -situated jurisdictions were dealing with these 14 CC 08-16-2010 issues. Although these questions remained, Councilmember Connolly stated he was satisfied that, given the range of objectives through the STEP grant, he could support it. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Levine seconded, to adopt the resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 13034 — RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $262,400 FOR THE "SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM" OCTOBER 1, 2010 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S RESPONSE TO THE 2009-2010 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED — "SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS: A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO SCHOOL SAFETY" (PD) — FILE 269 x 9-3-30 Police Captain David Starnes stated the Grand Jury had issued a report on June 22, 2010 entitled "School Resource Officers: A Proactive Approach to School Safety" and noted the research in the report was based on interviews with County officials, City officials, police officers, deputy sheriffs and school official authorities. Captain Starnes reported there were 8 findings and 3 recommendations. Findings: 1) School Resource Officer differs from a Patrol Officer in that they require specialized training. Staff agrees - The School Resource Officer is sent to trainings for interviewing juveniles, juvenile law, child abuse and mentoring, to name a few. 2) School Resource Officer promotes strong, collaborative relationships between schools and the Police Department, benefitting the community. Staff agrees - The School Resource Officer attends numerous meetings with school officials. 3) The School Resource Officer helps create an environment where teachers feel safe to teach and students feel safe to learn. Staff agrees - The School Resource Officer is very visible on campus, wearing a full police uniform when on duty and driving a marked police car which is parked on school grounds. Patrolling the campus, the School Resource Officer raises visibility which helps promote a safe feeling on school grounds. 4) The School Resource Officer, along with school officials and families, are a critical part of intervention and prevent unlawful and harmful behavior. Staff agrees - The School Resource Officer works closely with school officials and families to prevent unlawful or harmful behavior. A critical part was when a School Resource Officer witnesses bad behavior in a student, the student is referred to counseling provided by the San Rafael Police Department to help curb undesirable behavior on the school grounds. 5) The School Resource Officer funding is not assured beyond the 2010-2011 school year. Staff agrees - Currently, staffing and funding were available to provide a School Resource Officer for the year; however, after this year, it would be weighed on a case-by-case basis, depending on future City or State budget problems. 6) The School Resource Officer costs are borne by local police with no financial contributions from the schools. Staff agrees - The City of San Rafael and the San Rafael Police Department pays for 100% of the School Resource Officer. 7) The School Resource Officer is in a position to monitor and address gang and drug activity in Marin schools. Staff agrees - With the School Resource Officer being on campus as much as they are, they develop 15 CC 08-16-2010 good relationships with students and receive helpful information regarding illegal activity: drug activity, parties, gang -related activities, which allows the Police Department to act before they occur. Current School Resource Officer, Corporal Rogelio Leon, was a gang expert — one of the few in the county. 8) The loss of the School Resource Officer position will deprive youth of an important, positive connection with law enforcement. Staff agrees - The School Resource Officer is usually the first point of contact for juveniles at school and the relationships they develop would be lost, if the position were eliminated. Captain Starnes stated the Grand Jury report had 3 recommendations, 2 of which the Police Department already complied with. Recommendations: 1) The School Resource Officer program should be retained in schools where they currently exist and established where they don't. San Rafael currently has a School Resource Officer with no intention of eliminating the position at this time. 2) Marin County public entities make the School Resource Officer Program a budget priority. Already a high priority within the Police Department budget. 3) Marin County school communities take the lead in working with City Council and law enforcement to identify sustainable funding to maintain the School Resource Officer position. The San Rafael Police Department will continue to work with schools to try to find unique ways to find funding for this position. Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 13035 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO THE 2009-2010 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS: A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO SCHOOL SAFETY" AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 20. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AUDIO/VIDEO UPGRADES IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PROCUREMENT OF AUDIOIVIDEO SUPPORT SERVICES, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTEGRATED VIDEO ARCHIVE SYSTEM (MS) — FILE 9-3-88 x 9-3-14 Information Technology Manager Gus Bush reported that this topic had been under discussion for some time. The City Council had expressed interest in going forward with a system that would allow for an upgrade to the audio/video capabilities in the Council Chambers, as well as provide the ability to webcast and eventually broadcast public meeting proceedings on television. Having looked at possibilities for several years, Mr. Bush stated staff generated a comprehensive approach; however, due to the lack of resources in the budget, the project had not moved forward. This evening's discussion would hopefully result in City Council approval to move forward with the first phase of the project. Noting three specific actions, Mr. Bush explained that the first was to proceed with the first phase of purchasing equipment for the audio/video system in the Council Chambers. Having looked at different options, both in researching what other cities and counties in nearby agencies were doing along these lines and taking recommendations from the City Council on different types of equipment and approaches to consider, staff decided to essentially put quite a bit of equipment in the Council Chambers for different functions; however, all of this was not possible at this time. Staff therefore, would like to move forward with the minimum requirement to afford initial capabilities to meet the primary goal of broadcasting meetings. Mr. Bush stated the current proposal included installation of necessary electrical, lighting and other upgrades to the infrastructure in the Council Chambers, as well as installing a large screen. Currently, a portable projection screen was utilized for PowerPoint or other presentations and it was recommended that this be replaced with a 16 CC 08-16-2010 much larger drop-down, motorized screen, as well as a mounted projector which would provide more capability and enhanced visibility for the audience. Noting this would be the first phase of the project, Mr. Bush stated that eventually staff's goal was to proceed to a system comparable to agencies such as Sonoma County, Marin County, City of Novato, City of Petaluma and others, utilizing a complete system, involving multiple screens and strategically located television screens in other parts of the Council Chambers and in the lobby. Mounted cameras and upgrades to the sound system would be added; however, these were included in the long term plans. Secondly, regarding support staff and support services to run the equipment, Mr. Bush reported that staff intended to emulate other agencies by partnering with the local provider of public access television, the Community Media Center of Marin (CMCM), which currently provides those services for the local public education and government channels on Comcast cable. The Media Center had the capability to almost immediately webcast meetings with a delayed broadcast on cable Channel 27. Mr. Bush stated staff recommended that the City Council authorize setting aside up to $50,000 in order to provide CMCM's services — in some cases, this might involve bringing in one camera and one person and in other cases, it could call for additional equipment and a mobile studio to be set up in the Council Chambers. Although the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Planning Commission and Design Review Board meetings would be concentrated on initially, options for additional meetings would be available as necessary. Mr. Bush stated the third component related to evaluating options for implementing a video archive system. Staff was currently working with the Marin Telecommunications Agency to evaluate options for a shared solution. Staff anticipated purchasing and implementing a system for approximately $20,000, together with operating costs for a year for a further $20,000, and hopefully the system would be in place by the end of 2010. Mr. Bush stated the final element involved implementing Action Minutes — an approach other agencies use. These minutes would not include the same level of detail, rather would reference the video and audio files to provide additional detail. While these minutes would summarize actions taken they would not include almost verbatim details; however, a verbatim transcript could be provided on request. It was anticipated that this procedure would be used by the Community Development Department and City Clerk's Office. Minutes would be available on the website with links to proceedings. Mr. Bush introduced Barbara Thornton, Executive Officer, Marin Telecommunications Agency, and Michael Eisenmenger, Director, Community Media Center of Marin, who would provide comment on partnerships with the City on the different aspects of the project. He reported that staff intended to work with these partners over the next month to test the capabilities and processes to be used prior to going live with any changes. Barbara Thornton, MTA Executive Officer, stated the MTA had worked closely with Mr. Bush and the CMCM over the past year to look at what could be done in the Council Chambers and determine how to generate resources from the local community as well as cost savings from the City Clerk's office. Reporting that over time she had been working with Granicus, Ms. Thornton indicated that the Media Center could carry out many of these services; however, she also had been working on centralized capabilities for Granicus services, or some other provider, to allow all cities in Marin to share in the cost, and Granicus was now in a position to offer those services. She reported she was also working with Michael Eisenmenger, Media Center, on services they could provide. Michael Eisenmenqer, CMCM Director, indicating that the Media Center was looking forward to working with the City, reported that they work with the Marin Energy Authority at some of their board meetings held in the Council Chambers. He noted that in addition to having the Council Chambers prepared and capable for San Rafael meetings, other community meetings could be facilitated. Mayor Boro requested clarification on the costs for each service. Mr. Bush explained that it would cost $15,000 for equipment, installation and infrastructure upgrades, $50,000 for support services and a total of $40,000 for the Granicus type video archives system. Mr. Nordhoff stated this included an acquisition as well as ongoing cost to deliver the Granicus system. Mayor Boro noted the commitment would be $50,000 per year. 17 CC 08-16-2010 Mr. Bush believed the ongoing cost would be between $40-70,000 depending on how many meetings would be televised and broadcast and how many would be recorded and integrated with the minutes and agendas. Estimating six meetings per month, Mr. Nordhoff explained this included two standing Design Review Board meetings, two standing Planning Commission meetings and two standing City Council meetings; however, this would not limit the capability, particularly should other agencies wish to use the facility, at their own cost. Mr. Bush noted the ongoing cost would be identified in the regular budget process. Mayor Boro expressed concern with regard to utilizing just one camera and how it would be perceived versus conducting professional telecasting. He noted TAM meetings used three cameras to televise staff, podium and the Board and he understood San Rafael would not have that capability. Mr. Nordhoff explained that the capital investment to purchase a three -camera, fixed mounted system would be substantial, which would then lend itself to the question of who would operate this apparatus. Staff's intention was to conduct testing using the Media Center's equipment and expertise, either with a one or two camera option, for review by the City Council Noting the City Clerk's Office had lost a staff position over the last couple of years, Mr. Nordhoff stated that technology would be a driving influence and of importance concerning how business is conducted in the future. The issue had been discussed for several years and he appreciated Ms. Thornton's remarks concerning breakthroughs in cost sharing with the provider. Mr. Nordhoff reported having used the system to watch other meetings and he was comfortable with the public becoming increasingly more interested in watching meetings live, or after the fact. Mr. Bush pointed out that the existing proposal did not allow for mounted cameras to be installed because of the large cost involved; however, having discussed the matter with Mr. Eisenmenger, CMCM would be able to bring in up to four mobile cameras to ensure proper coverage of different speakers. Assistant City Manager Jim Schutz stated that Item b. under Recommendation in the staff report was what Mr. Bush referred to. He explained that $50,000 was for the Community Media Center of Marin, which included utilizing multiple cameras. Mr. Schutz confirmed for Mayor Boro that three cameras could be operated for $50,000 and explained that this figure was built to include different needs for different meetings. Mr. Bush concurred that the $50,000 would include up to three cameras. Indicating the project should be professional, Mayor Boro questioned the cost long-term. Mr. Nordhoff stated that if the City Council was satisfied with the approach described this evening and liked the idea of utilizing the resources of the CMCM, the cost would be in the $50,000 - $70,000 range annually. Resources were available to get the project started; however, there would be an ongoing commitment. Councilmember Connolly inquired as to how many cameras the City of Novato used. Mr. Nordhoff believed they used at least two, and probably three cameras: one directed at the screen, one directed at the dais and one directed to the staff or public, depending on who was speaking. Councilmember Connolly stated his gut feeling was to take the incremental step toward the ultimate goal; however, he inquired whether implementing the entire system would be superior or whether there was an advantage to incrementally working up to the Cadillac version, either in efficiency, cost-saving or knowledge. Having discussed this type of approach with the consultant, Avidex, who provided design services, Mr. Bush reported they felt that San Rafael was looking at a three-step approach in order to arrive at the Cadillac version and this first step was a good place to start. They provided a recommendation on how to upgrade, with the idea that it would take a further two fiscal years; however, every step would include additional capabilities. Mr. Bush stated that the CMCM had the ability to provide their own equipment to supplement the City's; however, as more equipment was installed in the Council Chambers, they would only need to provide support services to run the equipment. 18 CC 08-16-2010 Mayor Boro stated he approved of the partnership with the CMCM, and requested assurance that there would be three cameras at the beginning of the process. Mr. Nordhoff directed the City Council to Attachment 1 which outlined the rates. He noted a three -camera switched production would cost $800 per three-hour meeting, with a cost for additional hours. He noted twenty- four council meetings annually @ $800 per meeting, utilizing three cameras, would cost $20,000. As there always would be a cost to operate the equipment, it made more sense to utilize the CMCM. Councilmember Brockbank expressed support and thanks for the staff work and requested clarification on the table of figures at the bottom of page 2 of the staff report. Mr. Nordhoff clarified that there were two designated Information Technology -related funds: one in Community Development which totaled $35,000 and a sinking fund for computer replacement and other related items. Since the City had been delayed in installing some personal computer replacements, some capacity was available, in particular, one-time moneys to start the process. These funds were already in the budget and were being re- distributed towards the project. From his experience, Councilmember Brockbank stated that even though production values were low, no one ever questioned the value of televising meetings. He also was involved with high-tech production studios; however, this did not mean the low-tech productions were not worth doing, for a fraction of the cost. Councilmember Brockbank stated he did not question the costs; however, he inquired whether ultimately the point could be reached where costs could be reduced, perhaps when the City installed fixed cameras. He also noted the Cadillac version in Santa Rosa, in addition to their main studio, had a small studio from which a talk - show host could manipulate cameras, etc. without a crew, and he inquired whether eventually, trained volunteers could run the system. Mr. Eisenmenger stated it was a possibility, although it would require a lot of multi -tasking. City Clerks did use this technique, particularly at the Marin Civic Center. He believed robotic cameras were easier to operate and the pricing at the CMCM was based on manually -operated cameras, which meant additional operators on the cameras. If the goal was to go multi -camera throughout, he believed it would be in the CMCM's interest to bring in robotic cameras and loan them to the City on a long-term basis. Thanking Gus Bush, Michael Eisenmenger and Barbara Thornton for collaborating on this issue, Councilmember Levine believed it was a model for CMCM to increase revenue and to support the services that it provided to cities, while also recognizing the wonderful community benefit on channels 26 and 27. For the City to support that work by buying services was a great model and he wished CMCM much success, noting he did not wish to negotiate the prices down just yet. Mr. Eisenmenger pointed out that channel 30, the educational channel, was launched a month ago. Regarding costs, Councilmember Brockbank believed the principle so deeply embedded in public access was that in the past, it was all free, since the work was done by all volunteers. He inquired whether CMCM offered free productions utilizing all volunteers. Mr. Eisenmenger stated that the CMCM was an all -member organization and for members having taken classes and becoming certified, the use of the equipment was free, which was priceless for non -profits and other organizations. CMCM's mission for residents was to provide low cost training and access to the equipment, noting over 250 certifications has taken place in the first year of operation. Mr. Eisenmenger confirmed for Councilmember Brockbank that a studio production could be done using volunteers. Mayor Boro urged the City Council to move forward with the proposal as long as there were at least two dry telecast runs using three cameras before going live. Stating she was ecstatic about the proposal, Councilmember Heller suggested setting policy for outside groups who used the Council Chambers. Mr. Nordhoff stated that the City Clerk's Office would maintain the policy and use of the facilities. City Clerk Esther Beirne confirmed for Mayor Boro that she had distributed copies of the action minutes to the City Council and would provide copies of the complete version. 19 CC 08-16-2010 Mayor Boro believed the issue of minutes and accessing data needed to be discussed further. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff would figure out a way to access archives and perhaps project to the screen. Ms. Beirne stated there would be links wherever possible that would easily access different points in the minutes when needed. Barry Taranto, San Rafael resident, believed the money spent on the proposal would be far outweighed by the public benefit and suggested fixed cameras be installed, similar to San Francisco's City Hall. He suggested checking out the website www.sfaovtv.ora and investigating the possibility of obtaining a grant from the Marin Community Foundation, since televising meetings would benefit those with not a lot of money, or perhaps funding could be obtained from other agencies, such as the Water Board, Marin Energy Authority, etc. Concurring with Mayor Boro, Mr. Taranto believed the superior version should be installed and perhaps with the CMCM televising other agencies' meetings San Rafael might get a reduction in the cost. He believed the Council Chambers was good for broadcasting and he urged the City Council to proceed with the project. Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Levine seconded, to adopt the resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 13036 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AUDIO/VIDEO UPGRADES IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PROCUREMENT OF AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPORT SERVICES, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTEGRATED VIDEO ARCHIVE SYSTEM 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. 6. LEGISLATION AFFECTING SAN RAFAEL (CM) — FILE 116 x 9-1 With respect to the state positions Mayor Boro indicated these could be addressed at the next City Council meeting. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff had intentionally held off, primarily on Proposition 22, and deliberation was taking place at the state level about language in the ballot argument and what it did or did not express; therefore, before bringing a formal action to the City Council, stall wanted to let that legal process settle down. Proposition 26, further constricting local ability with respect to fees, would be a matter of interest, and he suggested including the Transportation Authority of Marin $10 vehicle registration fee addition. Mr. Nordhoff indicated that these items could be brought back to the City Council in resolution format for action. Mayor Boro confirmed that the City Council would act on SB 3642 and HD 5766 this evening. Councilmember Brockbank suggested modifying the staff recommendation and deferring action this evening on taking positions on the state and local propositions; however, take action to support SB 3642 and HD 5766. Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Levine seconded to accept the report with the modifications specified. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 21. None 20 CC 08-16-2010 COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS / REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense) 22. Marin Enerav Authoritv (MEA): - File 271 x 9-1 Councilmember Connolly reported that the MEA Technical Committee was gathering information on Smart Meters and a follow-up to today's hearing would be scheduled in the near future. Councilmember Heller and Mayor Boro reported that Smart Meters had already been installed in their neighborhoods. Mayor Boro noted a newspaper article indicated that the City and County of San Francisco had installed similar meters in all businesses and residences for water meter readings. He believed the issues of health, welfare and the common good had already been addressed in San Francisco. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:21 p.m. ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2010 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 21 CC 08-16-2010