Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2015-04-01TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard April 1, 2015 Tiburon, CA 94920 Closed Session: 6:15 p.m. Regular Meeting - 7:30 p.m. AGENDA TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION (6:15 p.m.) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Section 54957.6) Bargaining Unit: Tiburon Police Association Employee Group: Unrepresented Employees Negotiators: Town Manager and Director of Administrative Services CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL. CALL Councilmember Fraser, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Tollini, Mayor Doyle ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. PIease limit your comments to three (3) minutes. INTRODUCTIONS - Introduction of new employees: Patti Pickett, Office Assistant Lea Stefani, Community Development Aide Denise Feiling, Building Technician CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of March 4, 2015 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Council Minutes - Adopt Minutes of March 18, 2015 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane-lacopi) 3. Investment Summary for February 2015 - Receive report (Administrative Services Director Bigall) 4. 2312 Spanish Trail - Adopt resolution denying appeal of Design Review Board approval of a site plan and architectural review for the construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setbacks (Community Development Department) 5. Major Crimes Task Force -Recommendation to Approve Amendments to Major Crimes Task Force Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (Town Manager Curran, Police Chief Cronin) 6. Resolution - Commendation of Diane Crane Iacopi on 20 years of service to the Town 7. Resolution - Commendation of Ann Danforth upon the occasion of her retirement ACTION ITEMS 1. General Plan Annual Status Report - Recommendation to Review and Accept Annual Status Report (Community Development Director Anderson) 2. Assessment Ballots - Request for Direction Regarding Assessment Ballots for Town Property Received from the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector and Control District (Administrative Services Director Bigall) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Contracts - Recommendation to approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 3A of the Municipal Code regarding contract bidding limits (Public Works Director Barnes) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests ADJOURNMENT GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere -Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, www.citiburon.ca.us. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability -related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER eew Z Mayor Doyle called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 4, 2015, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no comments. PRESENTATION Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Tollini Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Minute Clerk Hennessy • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Wireless Siting Policies— Greg Stepanicich, Marin Telecommunications Agency (MTA) Mr. Stepanicich reviewed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 regulating wireless facilitates and cell towers and interpretations of FCC requirements since its adoption. In 2014 the FCC published an interpretation of statute 6409(a) that requires any application for co -location of a wireless facility at any licensed wireless facility that existed prior to 2012 and approved under local requirement, to be approved as long as the changes are not found to be substantial. He stated that local jurisdictions must approve a tower or facility outside the public right-of-way, with an increase in height of 20' or 10%, whichever is greater, and a tower within the right-of- way, with a height increase of 10% or 10', whichever is greater. He stated that building codes and safety standards reasonably related to health and safety will apply. The review period is limited to 60 days after an application is complete, although this can be extended by mutual agreement. If the reviewing entity fails to act, the application is deemed to be approved. He reviewed rules regarding when the review period clock starts and limitations on incompleteness letters. The new rules become effective April 8, 2015. He suggested the Town review its current rules and procedures as the Planning Commission will not have the discretion to deny an application for many changes on existing facilities. In response to questions by the Council, Mr. Stepanicich stated facilities can be reviewed and Town Council Minutes 4xx -2015 March 4, 2015 Page I limitations can be imposed regarding height standards. He noted that the FCC has federal standards regarding environmental concerns of emissions from radio towers, and as long as the changes meet the federal standards, the emissions cannot be considered in making a decision. He stated new facilities would still be subject to discretionary review and that there is a very clear prohibition on requiring more stringent standards than what federal standards have declared. Director of Community Development Anderson stated that staff is not particularly concerned about the new regulations due to the small number (only five) and nature of the existing wireless facilities in Tiburon to which the new collocation rules would apply. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 2340 Paradise Drive — Adopt resolution of findings for denial of an appeal of Design Review Board approval of a site plan and architectural review for the construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling (Community Development Department) The Mayor asked for public comment. There being none, he called for a motion. MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item No. 1, as written. Moved: Fraser, seconded by Fredericks Vote: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS 1. Appointments to Town Boards, Commissions and Committees — Consider reappointment of commissioners and appointments to fill vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions and Committees (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) There was a brief discussion of the Town Council, and they agreed to accept the Town Clerk's recommendation for reappointing of interested candidates to expired terms, and to make appointments to the Heritage & Arts Commission and the Building Code Appeals Board. MOTION: To appoint Laura Fennema to the Mosquito & Vector Control District Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fredericks Vote: Unanimous MOTION: To appoint Sandra Chin to the Heritage & Arts Commission Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fraser Vote: Unanimous MOTION: To reappoint the following persons: Erica Williams to Planning Commission Linda Emberson and John Kricensky to Design Review Board Peter Winkler to Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 4, 2015 Page 2 Mark Swanson to Building Code Appeals Board Jerry Riessen and Jane Jacobs to The Ranch Committee Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Tollini Vote: Unanimous Councilman Fraser expressed appreciation to all who have served as volunteers on the Town's Boards, Commissions and Committees. MOTION: To direct staff to advertise for existing vacancies for the following positions: Heritage & Arts Commission Building Code Appeals Board Library Agency Board Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Tollini Vote: Unanimous 2. Town Attorney Services — Consider Approval of Request for Proposals for the Provision of Town Attorney Services (Danforth, Bigall, Curran) Town Attorney Danforth stated the Request for Proposals for the Provision of Town Attorney services was included in their agenda packet. She suggested Council seek public comment, review and revise the RFP if desired and direct staff to circulate the final RFP to municipal law firms in the region, the League of California Cities Department of City Attorneys, and other potentially interested parties. Councilmember Fraser requested that the RFP not be limited to law firms, but that sole practitioners also be considered if they meet all the requirements. In response to Councilmember O'Donnell, Town Attorney Danforth stated the position will be a contract relationship whether an individual or a firm. MOTION: To modify the Request for Proposal for the Provision of Town Attorney Services to include sole practitioners who meet the requirements, as well as firms, and to circulate the RFP to appropriate entities. Moved: Tollini, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: Unanimous PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 110 Solano Street— Consider appeal of Planning Commission review of permit to operate a portion of an existing two-family dwelling as a Seasonal Rental Unit (Community Development Department) — continued from January 21, 2015 Torun Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 4, 2015 Page 3 Owners/Applicants: Courtney and Sandy Anderson Appellants: Cathy and Joe Haraburda Address: 110 Solano Street Assessor Parcel No.: 059-143-35 Planning Manager Watrous reviewed the staff report. On August 27, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a review of the seasonal rental unit permit for the property located at 110 Solano Street. After considering testimony from the applicants and neighboring property owners, the Commission determined that the applicants were operating in substantial compliance with the requirements of their seasonal rental unit permit. The owners of the property at 120 Solano Street (Cathy and Joe Haraburda), filed a timely appeal of the Commission's determination. Mr. Watrous described the history of the seasonal rental unit, beginning in 2013 with complaints from the owners of the property at 120 Solano Street about the use of the subject property as a seasonal rental unit. On May 6, 2013, staff conditionally approved the subject application, including a condition of approval stating that the approved permit was for the upper dwelling unit only. On May 16, 2013, Joe and Cathy Haraburda, owners of the adjacent property at 120 Solano Street, filed an appeal of this decision. The Planning Commission considered the appeal on June 26, 2013, and on July 24, 2013 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2013- 07 partially granting the appeal and adding conditions of approval to the seasonal rental unit permit regarding use of the private driveway and swimming pool and requiring a one year review of the permit. The Planning Commission conducted the one year review of the permit on August 27, 2014 and heard testimony from the applicants and the appellant, as well as from several renters who spoke about the behavior of the appellants toward them. The applicant's attorney suggested that the Planning Commission continue the review hearing to give the applicants, appellants and their attorneys an opportunity to attempt to revise an existing maintenance agreement between the property owners to address the issues that have arisen from the seasonal rental unit. The Commission asked the appellants if they would be willing to consider a continuance for this purpose. Mr. Haraburda said that they would not be agreeable to such a discussion. The Commission encouraged the applicants and the appellants to meet to work out their differences, but after the appellants indicated that they would not agree to a continuance, the Commission voted to find that the applicants were operating in substantial compliance with the requirements of their seasonal rental unit permit. On September 8, 2014, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this determination. Mr. Watrous reviewed the grounds for the appeal. He stated that the Planning Commission acknowledged that it was difficult for the Town to determine the veracity of complaints regarding the seasonal rental unit, but noted that suspicion of non-compliance was not proof of non-compliance. The Commission determined that none of the testimony presented by the appellants at the meeting demonstrated definitively that the applicants had not complied with the requirements of their permit. The Planning Commission also reviewed the numerous e-mails to Town staff by the appellants and applicants collectively and heard from the applicants, Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 4, 2015 Page 4 appellants, their respective attorneys and others at the August 27, 2014 meeting. The Commission found much of this evidence to be contradictory and acknowledged the difficulty in monitoring and definitively determining compliance with the conditions of approval. However, the Commission determined that based on the staff recommendations, evidence in the record and presentations and comments made at the meeting that the applicants were in substantial compliance with the terms of their permit. Mr. Watrous stated that the Planning Commission appropriately conducted its review of the subject seasonal rental unit permit and that, based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record, it appears that the applicants are operating in substantial compliance with the requirements of their permit. He recommended that the Town Council hold a public hearing, take testimony on the appeal, and close the public hearing, deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intention to deny the appeal and direct Staff to return with a resolution denying the appeal for consideration at the next meeting. Planning Manager Watrous reviewed the appeal procedure and in response to various Council questions, stated that the definition of a Seasonal Rental was "any dwelling unit rented for a period of 31 days or less." He stated that the Town does not have resources other than website searches to see if the unit is being rented out. In response to questions, he stated that the Town has no information whether the units have separate meters but the area sometimes referred to as a "third unit" does not have a kitchen and is not considered a unit. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Chris Skelton, attorney representing the appellants Cathy and Joe Haraburda, used a power point presentation, copies of which he gave to Council and staff, to illustrate his statements. He stated that the Town is at a crossroads for dealing with seasonal rental units. He asked the Council whether seasonal rentals were a privilege or a right, staring that currently the Town treats them as a privilege since conditions of approval are imposed. He noted that his clients believe that this property was not well suited for a seasonal rental unit and he suggested additional conditions might be imposed. Mr. Skelton presented an overview of the applicant's and appellants properties, and stated that the Planning Commission's concerns about this application at the beginning were well founded. He stated that residents and vacationers have different mentalities. Mr. Skelton presented advertisements from different home rental websites indicating that the studio unit is available for rent with the seasonal rental unit and that home exchanges were still occurring for all units. He presented screenshots of the online advertisements, including one from Stopsleepgo.com, which depicted a "luxury 5 bedroom with pool'; a home exchange website advertising a "luxury, 2, 3, 4 or 5 bedroom unit" and TiburonVacationRental.com indicating two units for rent. Town Council Minutes #ss -2015 Manch 4, 2015 Page 5 Mr. Skelton compared this seasonal rental unit to another permit application that had been denied by Town staff. He submitted a chart which illustrated the permit conditions of approval and his clients' contentions that these conditions had been violated. He stated that the garage was unavailable for parking by his clients on one occasion. He felt that there was inadequate parking on the site and that, based on the advertising and use of the property, 4.5 or 5 parking spaces should be required. He noted that a B&B would require one parking space per guest. He cited an extensive review of correspondence between the Town, and applicants and appellants, as well as copies of ads on different websites. Mr. Skelton stated that the applicant seemed to demonstrate a creative use of categorizing guests, such as family, friends, and house sitters, to circumvent the seasonal rental permit process. He acknowledged that there have been allegations back and forth about who is using the pool and short of hiring a private investigator he did not know what the appellants could do to document these violations. He suggested making seasonal rentals a use by right and not a conditional use. He stated that the conditions of approval were carefully crafted by the Planning Commission and the applicant had not demonstrated compliance with these conditions. Mr. Skelton, on behalf of his clients, stated that the seasonal use permit should be revoked or additional conditions should be imposed, including a 6 or 12 month review of compliance; a 24 hour advance written notice of new renters; staff pre -approval of all advertising material; demonstrate compliance with current parking requirements; and continue imposition of the current conditions of approval. Courtney Anderson, applicant, representing himself and his wife Sandy, stated that only one neighbor has a problem with his permit. He stated that the ads submitted by Mr. Skelton were prepared several years ago and current ads were changed when the conditions of approval were imposed. He said that originally did not understand that the seasonal rental conditions applied to home exchanges, and stated that at one point he had to refund about $40,000 in rental fees. Mr. Anderson presented a power point presentation and asked Council to reject the appeal. He stated that the issues in the appeal did not have anything to do with the seasonal rental unit and he felt that the appeal was about damaging his family, friends and anyone associated with them. He enumerated several instances when the Town of Tiburon's resources (police, building inspector, planning staff) were used for the purpose of damaging him and his wife. He reviewed claimed that the Haraburdas violated the maintenance agreement and park their car too close to washer/drier and cabinets so that there is no access to the garage. He claimed that there was constant harassment of his family and guests, stating that his sons were afraid to have friends over to visit. He said that they had to resort to short term rentals as their long-term renters complained about harassment from the Haraburdas. He stated that other neighbors do not complain about the use and have signed letters stating that there are no issues. He stated that most renters have one car and are vetted and go through security checks. He said that they rent to a maximum of 4 adults and 2 children and that the tenants do not disturb the neighbors. Town Council Minutes #ax -2015 March 3, 2015 Page 6 He cited the benefits of seasonal rental units to Tiburon, asserting that vacation rentals in Tiburon contribute approximately $4 million annually to downtown restaurants, shops, grocery and drug stores. He stated that the appeal has nothing to do with the seasonal rental and that they follow every permit stipulation, even though the driveway restriction is an inconvenience to guests who are old or frail. Mr. Anderson stated that there is a solid concrete wall and no windows on the back side of the house facing the Haraburdas' home and that sound tests with an OSHA certified sound meter showed no sound above ambient levels. He said that he and guests congregate on the water side of his house, which has two decks. In response to Councilmember O'Donnell, Mr. Anderson stated that there have been approximately 25 seasonal rentals over the past 2% years. In response to Vice -Mayor Tollini, Mr. Anderson stated that approximately 25 business associates and friends stayed at this address during the same period. In response to Councilmember Fraser, Mr. Anderson stated he does not have a permanent residence in Tiburon and that he has stayed in the lower unit about 150 days in the past year. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Andrea Howard stated that she has rented the upper unit for the past 4 months. She stated that she has used the driveway twice and both times she was approached by Mrs. Haraburda. She said that there are not a lot of people coming and going all the time from the units. There being no further comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Chris Skelton stated that he was disappointed that the hearing tumbled into "character assassination." He stated the ads he showed tonight from different web sites were posted after the November 4, 2013 conditions were imposed. He stated that the number of neighbors complaining did not matter, as one neighbor was the focal point. He inquired whether the Town has received the benefits of this use and asked the Council to look into whether the 25 renters paid Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). He stated that a revised maintenance agreement cannot provide resolution to the issues at hand. Paul Smith, attorney for the Andersons, stated that this process was being subverted for the appellants' concerns. He stated that there are no neighbors complaining, just the co-owners, as three properties share amenities. He suggested that the maintenance agreement between the property owners be amended to set rules, but the Haraburdas refuse to do so. He stated that John Sharp, the attorney for the Haraburdas at the Planning Commission meeting, tried to negotiate a review of the maintenance agreement and they refused, and now Mr. Sharp is no longer representing them. Mr. Smith characterized the Haraburdas' actions as a vendetta and stated that they were sucking up Town resources. He stated that the Town standards for seasonal rental units are specific and deal with off-site noise and external disturbances. He said that this was an unusual situation with the applicant and appellants as co-owners and he felt that the solution was Town Council Minutes &x -2015 Mach 4, 2015 Page 7 to set rules between them and that it was inappropriate for them to use this process to further a vendetta. In response to Councilmember Fredericks, Mr. Smith stated that it took some time for the Andersons to understand how the seasonal rental requirements work and that they now understand and for quite some time have been abiding by the rules. Councilmember O'Donnell stated that when the rules are set, participants are expected to abide by the rules. Mr. Smith responded that the Andersons have received repeated approvals of the seasonal rental permit and that the issues the Council was hearing tonight were being used to pursue a vendetta. Mr. Anderson reiterated that ads shown in the screen shots were old, and he did not know initially that home exchanges were considered to be seasonal rentals. Councilmember O'Donnell questioned Mr. Anderson as to whether he had taken any actions that would aggravate the Haraburdas. Mr. Anderson responded that he did not believe so and added that they were paying the transient occupancy tax. Councilmember Fraser pointed out that the issue before the Council was whether the Andersons adhered to the conditions of approval and he found it difficult to tell whether they were in compliance. He said that he was a bit surprised that Mr. Anderson did not refute any of the accusations of the applicant or present any evidence. He felt that this was a civil issue. Mr. Anderson stated that he had supplied the Planning Division with copies of rental contracts. Councilmember Fredericks asked staff for guidance regarding the appropriate evidentiary standard to apply on this matter. In response, Town Attorney Danforth stated that she did not believe that the ordinance provides any such guidance. She noted that the Council had two contradictory accounts of events and should determine which account is more credible. The more credible party would have the preponderance of evidence on their side, but that the burden of proof is usually on the accuser (i.e., the appellant). Councilmember Fredericks asked if the appellant has not overcome the presumption of innocence, whether the Council should uphold the Commission's determination, and Ms. Danforth replied affirmatively. Councilmember O'Donnell asked if there was any possibility for staff to determine compliance or violation. Ms. Danforth stated that compliance is difficult to prove and that staff looks for evidence of non-compliance. Councilmember O'Donnell asked if it would be a good idea in the future for the Town to require applicants to submit an annual report of exactly the number of tenants that would determine the Transient Occupancy Tax. Director of Administrative Services Bigall replied that the Town currently gets a statement for rentals less than 31 days, but it does not provide the level of detail that as suggested. Councilmember O'Donnell agreed that all the bad blood and stories are irrelevant. He did not think that the burden of proof was met that the property was being misused. He said that he Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 4, 2015 Page 8 would vote to deny the appeal. Having said that, he definitely believed that the Andersons have not acted in good faith at all times and he believed that has created animosity and was unfortunate. He said that he would vote to deny the appeal because there was no concrete evidence that the terms have been violated. Councilmember Fredericks agreed that the issue was whether there was compliance with the terms of the permit. She recognized the difficulty of neighbors to document violations. She felt that the Council did not have enough evidence to prove violations. She stated that she would deny the appeal but was concerned about the whole process and felt sympathy for people who are faced with people constantly coming and going. She said that it was difficult to find peace with the situation, but she did not see any evidence that the terms of the permit have been violated. Vice -Mayor Tollini stated that she was on the Planning Commission when this permit was first reviewed. She said that it was sad to see contention between neighbors, but the horrible things have nothing to do with the process. She said that she was not sure whether she would vote to approve this permit if it initially came to her today. She stated that the Planning Commission tried to create something that would work, but it has not worked. She thought that there was evidence in the record that the permit was violated in 2013 with the home exchanges, but that the screenshots were not convincing evidence. She hoped that the neighbors would get along better. She stated that there was insufficient evidence of violation and she would deny the appeal, but she did not feel that there had been adherence to the spirit of the approval. Councilmember Fraser agreed with his fellow Councihnembers and said that he would vote to deny the appeal. He said that this was a civil matter and that he did not have hard evidence of compliance or noncompliance. He said that the only people who can fix this situation are the two neighbors. He said that it was difficult for the Council to follow this and perhaps difficult for the neighbors, too. He stated that the appellant has exhausted all the resources of the Town and he suggested that they can ignore it or try to work something out. Mayor Doyle agreed and said that this was disconcerting and had been handled badly between the parties. He felt that such vacation rentals can cause a loss of neighborhood feeling. He agreed with Paul Smith that this matter has to be dealt with in a civil manner. He said that going forward the applicant knows what they can and cannot do and he told them to make sure that their ads are correct. He said that he was upset with the amount of time, including that of Town staff and the applicants and appellants, that has been used to deal with this. Councilmember O'Donnell asked if the Town could update its policy on Seasonal Rentals to include requirements for an annual report, including a calendar showing what dates the property was rented for seasonal rental purposes, so that there is a way to verify compliance. Director of Community Development Anderson stated that this could be added as a condition of approval for future permits. Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 4, 2015 Page 9 MOTION: Direct staff to return with a Resolution denying the appeal. Moved O'Donnell, seconded by Fredericks Vote: Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Vice -Mayor Tollini reported the RBRA workshop will be on March 14 from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the Bay Model. She noted that there is a greater influx of boats being dumped in the Bay and residents of West Shore Road in Belvedere are threatening to sue. TOWN MANAGER REPORT None. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests of February 20 & 27, 2015 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Doyle adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. FRANK DOYLE, MAYOR /r11111MIS TERRY HENNESSY, MINUTES CLERK Town Council Minutes #ax -2015 March 4, 2015 Page 70 TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER eo,2 Mayor Doyle called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 18, 2015, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Vice -Mayor Tollini and Mayor Doyle PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes, Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Minute Clerk Hennessy CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of February 24, 2015 special meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. 110 Solano Street —Adopt resolution denying appeal of Planning Commission review of permit to operate a portion of an existing two-family dwelling as a Seasonal Rental Unit (Community Development Department) 3. Town Council/Staff Retreat— Adopt summary of action items from March 6, 2015 Town Council/Staff Retreat (Town Manager Curran) Councilmember Fredericks asked that Item 3 be removed from the Consent Calendar. Chris Skelton, Ragghianti-Freitas LLC, representing the Appellants at 110 Solano Street, asked that Item 2 be removed from the Consent Calendar, and asked the Council to consider a modification to the Resolution and add as a condition of approval notice for the neighbors for any seasonal rental. He stated that this would open lines of communication to make seasonal rentals more transparent. Vice -Mayor Tollini noted she was on the Planning Commission when this item was approved, and they thought they had implemented conditions of approval addressing the concerns at that time. She felt that it did not seem that it would be difficult to provide the neighbors with the information of who is coming and going in the lower rental, giving 24, 36 or 72 hour advance notice and letting them know how long the tenants will be in the unit. She said that this would go Town Council Minutes #xr -2015 March 18, 2015 DRAFT Page 1 a long way to alleviate tensions. She suggested adding a condition of approval to the resolution requiring the applicant to provide some advanced notice to the neighbor. The Town Manager noted that at the Council Retreat there was discussion about revisiting the seasonal rental ordinance and said that that will be forthcoming. The Mayor removed Item 2 from the Consent Calendar. MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item No. 1. Moved/Seconded: Fraser/Fredericks Vote: Unanimous 3. Town Council/Staff Retreat — Adopt summary of action items from March 6, 2015 Town Council/Staff Retreat (Town Manager Curran) Councilmember Fredericks requested an addition to that March 6 minutes regarding a proposed state assembly bill that would limit a local jurisdictions' ability to attach conditions approval of to PG&E's permits to install EV charging stations. MOTION: To adopt the summary of action items from March 6, 2015 Town Council/Staff Retreat as amended. Moved/Seconded: Tollini/Fraser Vote: Unanimous 2. 110 Solano Street— Adopt resolution denying appeal of Planning Commission review of permit to operate a portion of an existing two-family dwelling as a Seasonal Rental Unit (Community Development Department) The Council discussed proposed modification of the Resolution. The Town Attorney advised the Council they might consider delaying this item until all parties to the appeal were present. After consideration the Council determined to not require any change to the resolution before them, and staff agreed to agendize consideration of modifications to the Seasonal Rental Unit Ordinance on April 15. MOTION: To adopt resolution denying appeal of Planning Commission review of a permit to operate a portion of an existing two-family dwelling as a Seasonal Rental Unit at 110 Solano Street, as submitted. Moved/Seconded: O'Donnell/Fredericks Vote: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS 1. Award of Contract — Consider award of bid for construction of Dairy Knoll Stairs and Path Improvements Project (Public Works Director Barnes) Town Council Minutes 9= -2015 March 18, 2015 DRAFT Page 2 Mr. Barnes stated that the Town received 5 bids for the construction cost and the low bidder was Darren Taylor Construction with a bid of $116,909 which includes the cost of the conduit which was not included in the previous bid. This low bid was within $100 of the Town Engineer's estimate. He recommended amending the CIP budget to increase the funding for the project to $162,236. In response to Council questions, Mr. Barnes explained how the bidding process works, noting that most bidders attend the bid opening or call within hours to find out who was the successful bidder. Councihnember Fraser complemented the Town Engineer for his focus and discipline and stated it was a pleasure to work with him. The Mayor opened the meeting to the public. There being no comments, the Mayor returned item to the Council. MOTION: To amend the CIP budget to increase the funding for the project to $162,236 for the Access and Pathway Improvements for the Dairy Knoll Recreation Facility, and to approve the award of contract to Darren Taylor Construction, Inc. in the not -to -exceed amount of $116,909 with a 15 percent contingency of $17,536. Moved/Seconded: Tollini/Fredericks Vote: Unanimous PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 2312 Spanish Trail— Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a site plan and architectural review for the construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setbacks (Community Development Department) Owners/Applicant: Malcolm and Bonnie Wittenberg Appellant: Jennifer Dunbar Address: 2312 Spanish Trail Assessor Parcel No.: 059-201-32 Dan Watrous, Planning Manager, reviewed the staff report which outlined the detailed discussions at the Design Review Board meetings resulting in approval of a Site Plan and application for construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard and both side yard setbacks at 2356 Spanish Trail Road. A timely appeal was filed by Jennifer Dunbar, the appellant. Mr. Watrous described the review of the application by the Design Review Board at the November 6, 2014, December 4, 2014 and the January 15, 2015 meetings, including concerns Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 18, 2015 DRAFT Page 3 raised by the appellants and the Board and revisions made to the project design during that review. He stated that at the January 15, 2015 meeting, the Board supported the variance requests, suggested that pulling the great room addition and deck back four feet from the rear represented an appropriate compromise and voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the revised plans, with the additional conditions of approval that the south wall of the first floor great room and the adjacent deck be pulled back 4 feet and that an adequate landscape plan be approved by staff prior to issuing the building permit. On January 26, 2015, the appellant filed a timely appeal of this decision. Mr. Watrous reviewed the grounds of the appeal and the staff response as outlined in the Staff Report. He stated that from the evidence provided, the Design Review Board determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances and appropriately applied the guiding principles of the Zoning Ordinance in its review of this project. He said that the project design, as conditionally approved by the Board, would adequately address potential privacy, sunlight and visual impact concerns and the Board was able to make the findings required to support the requested variances. He recommended that the Town Council hold the public hearing, deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intention to deny the appeal, and direct Staff to return with a resolution denying the appeal for consideration at the next meeting. In response to questions from the Council, Mr. Watrous stated that the deck indicated in green on the plans on display represented what the Design Review Board approved and did not represent a change. He noted Design Review Board Char Gordon Cousins was present and would address that question. He also pointed out property lines and setbacks on the displayed plans and explained the requested variances. Jennifer Dunbar, Appellant, stated that she was a realtor and was familiar with surveys and property line disputes. She stated that the Applicants purchased the house at 2312 Spanish Trail knowing that there were design constraints. She said that they have bought and flipped several properties in downtown Tiburon. She stated that her hat was off to the Design Review Board and she characterized the previous project designs as "egregious." She noted she and her partner Richard Wodehouse have made compromises and were not challenging the project setbacks. She said that they objected to the windows, building bulk and shading. She said that the shadow studies presented by the project architect were "dubious" and felt that the DRB discussion was confusing. She stated that their main concern was to remove the "L" shaped deck in front of bedroom 2, stating that it would be 20 feet from their kitchen window and would be very impactful. She said that she and Mr. Wodehouse had given a lot. She noted that pushing back the great room and its deck would cause the upper deck to be cantilevered above the middle level. Richard Wodehouse described his issues with the proposed decks and stated that the story poles were not connected with tape at the DRB meeting. He said that they had asked the DRB to cut eliminate the bedroom deck and instead it was cut down to a 4 foot wide walkway. He said that if the deck had been removed, they would not have filed the appeal. He said that this deck was unnecessary and he requested that it be removed. He quoted Principle 6 of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines to avoid massive overhangs and cantilevered elements. He expressed Town Council Minutes #= -2015 March 18, 2015 DRAFT Page 4 concerns regarding the lighting and requested that the Council apply restrictions and allow the appellants to approve the lighting. He stated that there is an old existing fence between the properties and he wanted to be able to approve any improvement and landscaping in that area beforehand. He quoted Principles 9, 8 and 2 of the Hillside Guidelines. He stated that he was trained in mediation and suggested they should have had a chance to have more input during the planning process to see plans before they were submitted. He thanked the DRB for their efforts. In response to questions from the Council, Mr. Watrous stated that Town staff would review the revised plans, and that although landscaping and lighting plans are available to the public when submitted, ultimately it is a staff decision. He noted that all lighting has to be downlight fixtures. Malcolm Wittenberg, owner and applicant, stated they that have lived on the Tiburon Peninsula for over 20 years. He said that they purchased this building after visiting an open house 18 months ago and that the structure is over 100 years old, dilapidated and in need of remodeling. He explained how they met with the Planning Staff and was advised that expansion of the building toward the south would not require a variance. He said that Ms. Dunbar would not meet with them but they consulted with Mr. Wodehouse and he suggested that if they did not expand the building downhill past the Magnolia tree that it would not impact their view. He said that they asked Mr. Wodehouse about the project design after the story poles went up and he expressed no concerns. He described the first DRB meeting as "acerbic" and although they did not think of a 3,500 square foot structure as massive, it was apparent that the roof would have blocked views from neighbors to the north. He said that the plans were for 2,000 square feet for the main house and 1,000 for a second unit. He stated that after the DRB asked them to reconsider their floor area they hired Hank Bruce as their architect. He described the changes made to the project design, including pulling the additions back uphill, which necessitated moving a wall closer to their neighbors. He stated that Ms. Dunbar never met with them prior to the DRB meeting. He said that everyone agreed that there was no longer a view impact, but because the houses are so close together the Board asked to eliminate part of the bedroom deck which would be closest to the southwest comer of the Appellant's home. He stated that there is currently a deck in that location and that they were asked to make a pre-existing condition better. He said that at the third DRB meeting the Board was comfortable moving the great room and its deck back 4 feet and he said that the resulting 22 foot by 28 foot deck would serve three areas of the house. He said that Board recognized what they did and concluded that there would be no views blocked and no privacy issues. He stated that the project was 100 square feet under its FAR and had only 20% lot coverage. He stated they have reduced the bedroom deck from an area that held furniture to a small area for plants. He asked the Council to consider what the real impact would be on the neighbors, stating that they have a 180 degree panoramic view and cannot see most of their building from their house. He felt that the Appellant's deck had morphed into something that drives this appeal. He stated that that deck is used for their dogs and showed photos of the deck. He also noted that during this design review process, his neighbor added furniture and a hot tub on their deck and that workers are now building a structure on the deck without permits. He said that this deck had become a focal point and had not been so before. Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 18, 2015 DRAFT Page 5 Gordon Cousins, Design Review Board Chairman, stated that his recollection of the DRB's discussions fell somewhere in between those of the applicant and appellant. He described changes made to the bedroom deck, stating that it had been a large space for entertaining and the Board had asked for it to be pulled back, but he had envisioned the resulting connecting walkway. He said that a compromise was to allow the connection but pulling the great room deck back. He said that the concern was not a view issue but rather one of activity on the deck. He said that this was one of the most challenging projects he had seen. He felt that it was reasonable to allow the applicant to get floor area close to their FAR and he explained why the Board supported the variances, describing the character of the existing and proposed setbacks. He said that the Board worked with the applicants on the rooflines and said that the shadow studies represented a worst case scenario. He did not recollect the DRB discussing the upper level deck and explained that when the DRB saw that deck it was above the great room and when that was pulled back, the Board did not discuss the cantilevered deck or specify that it should be moved back. He stated that the story poles were placed on top of the proposed deck. Albert Delima, architect for applicant, reviewed the displayed plans, pointing out the changes, variances and property lines. He answered questions about the upper level deck and the existing lower level deck. He stated that the project would move new activity areas further away from the Appellant's home. The Mayor opened the meeting for public comment. There being no comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Ms. Dunbar explained the repair work they were doing on their deck, stating that the dog ramp had always been there. Mr. Wodehouse stated that they do not see the existing deck but would see the new deck. He said that 100 square feet of the floor area derives from a shed. He said that the work being done at their house has nothing to do with the subject application. Mr. Wittenberg said that their proposed floor area had nothing to do with the shed. He noted that the upper level deck had not been pulled back and that the DRB was clear that the great room should be pulled back 4 feet to reduce its visual impact. He said that the existing deck is closer to the neighbor's house than the proposed deck. He said that foliage will screen the proposed walkway and that the DRB required landscaping to address this issue. He stated that the appellants were tenants for 4 years before purchasing the property and knew of existing privacy issues. The mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Fraser stated that anyone who lives in Old Tiburon knows that its houses are in close proximity. He said that it was hard to tell where the property lines are and he was unsure who would be fixing the fence which needs repair. He said that these properties have existing nonconforming issues. He said that the application needs variances and landscaping and perhaps the neighbors might be involved in how the landscaping would be done. He thought that the DRB did a good job, but he thought that there was no exact answer on the right thing to do and he wanted to hear from other Councilmembers. Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 18, 2015 DRAFT Page 6 Councilmember Fredericks noted that she lives in Old Tiburon and knows the neighborhood. She said that there are a lot of houses close together and she wanted to focus on the application without trying to cure the idiosyncrasies of the neighborhood. She said that it was problematic to expect neighbors to agree on landscaping and she agreed that staff should have the final decision, but it was reasonable to ask for feedback from the neighbors. She noted there have been compromises and that the setback variances were minimal. She said that this is an odd -shaped lot and the structural placements are unusual. She reiterated that the project would be 100 square feet below the FAR and would have only 20% lot coverage. She felt the applicants had done a reasonable job of accommodating the needs of their neighbors and she said that she was inclined to support the decision of the DRB. Councibnember O'Donnell agreed with his colleagues' comments and said that he would vote to deny the appeal. He felt that felt the DRB did an excellent job of fashioning a good compromise and creating an L-shaped walkway to the deck. He suggested language in the motion that staff pay close attention to landscaping screening at the deck level. Vice -Mayor Tollini agreed that the DRB did a great job in coming up with a good compromise. She noted the challenges of the site with the houses close together and said that she did not think that the DRB contemplated the top deck. She thought that perhaps it would be more reasonable to cut it back so that it would not jut out, resulting in a 4 foot or 5 foot' deck, as the deck would be noticeable from the Appellant's kitchen. She hoped for some compromise on the landscaping and said that she would like to see the two parties work together on that issue. Councilmember Fredericks said that the upper level deck was previously above the structure of the great room and would only extend 3 feet, 8 inches out. Councilmember O'Donnell said that he had no problem with that deck, as it would serve only a small upper bedroom. Mayor Doyle stated that the DRB made a good decision and tried to pull the bulk of the house to the left. He said that the Hillside Guidelines were written to protect views straight out and not across the property. He said that he was not sure what else the applicants could do, as a 4 foot wide deck would not be very big. He said that he was more concerned regarding the lighting inside the house. He thought that the DRB did what they could and the project design had come a long way. He said that the deck had been pushed pretty far away and thought that it would afford more privacy to the neighbors. In response to Council, Mr. Watrous stated staff would be happy to consult with the appellants regarding the landscaping. MOTION: To direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying the appeal and direct staff to incorporate a collaborative process with the Appellant in reviewing landscaping to provide privacy. Moved/Seconded: Fredericks/Fraser Vote: Unanimous Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 18, 2015 DRAFT Page 7 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Fredericks reported: AB 1220 proposes to prohibit a local agency from leavening a tax for occupying a short term rental. • AB 40 addendum would prevent the Golden Gate Bridge District from collecting tolls for bicyclists unless it extended to all state bridges. The Bridge District wants a discussion as part of their long term plan. Councilmember O'Donnell noted Mike McGuire proposes a statewide tax for short term rentals be collected by the internet provider, who would not be able to post any ads for cities that have banned short term rentals. TOWN MANAGER REPORT Town Manager Curran reported on engaging Rob Epstein for interim legal services as needed. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests March 6 & 13, 2015 ADJOURNMENT to CLOSED SESSION MOTION: To adjourn to Closed Session at 9:15 p.m. Moved/Seconded: Fraser/Fredericks Vote: Unanimous CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL --ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: dispute regarding 110 Gilmartin Building Permit. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY Mayor Doyle said there was no action to report from closed session. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Doyle adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 18, 2015 DRAFT Page 8 FRANK X. DOYLE, MAYOR IMMY436 DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 March 18, 2015 DRAFT Page 9 ;' b ♦F Nom^ f��RN1A � STAFIF REPI To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 BACKGROUND Mayor and Members of the Town Council Administrative Services Department Investment Summary – February 2015 10, Town Council Meeting April 1, 2015 Agenda Item: CC- 3 Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended February 28, 2015. FRMA— &U1 Agency February 2015 Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency $20,641,499.06 0.266% Liquid Fund (LAIF) Housing note to $ 800,000.00 0.260% Based on Town Manager Contract Money Market $ 100,000.00 0.10% Liquid an of Marin) Total 1 $21,541,499.06 The total funds invested at the end of the prior month were $21,541,499.06; therefore the Town's investments remain unchanged from January 2015. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by accepting this report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing – safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. I7TdU��luICU YMN1110 Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the Investment Summary for February 2015 Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services To: From TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting April 1, 2015 Agenda Item: eG Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail; Adoption of Resolution Denying Appeal of Design Review Board Approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Two -Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setbacks; Malcolm and Bonnie Wittenberg, Owners/Applicants; Jennifer Dunbar, Appellant; File No. 21.4216 (,.Assessor's Parcel Number: 059-201-32 Reviewed By: / I_: I�J�Sl1,i/11J� 1' At its meeting of March 18, 2015, the Town Council held a hearing on this item and directed Staff to return with a resolution denying the appeal. The draft resolution is attached as Exhibit 1. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution. 1. Draft Resolution Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF I RESOLUTION NO. (Draft) -2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON DENYING AN APPEAL BY JENNIFER DUNBAR OF THE APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2312 SPANISH TRAIL, WITH VARIANCES FOR REDUCED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to consider a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (Town File #21426) for the construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a floor area exception, on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail, proposed by Malcolm and Bonnie Wittenberg ("Applicants"); and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the owner of the adjacent home to the east at 2356 Spanish Trail (Jennifer Dunbar, "Appellant"), raised objections to the proposed project and asserted that the additions would block views and sunlight and create privacy issues. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns and concluded that the size of the project was too large for the neighborhood and that the visual mass of the proposed project was unacceptable. The Board also indicated that it could not support the requested variances or floor area exception and continued the application to the December 4, 2014 meeting to allow the applicants to redesign the project; and WHEREAS, the Applicants submitted revised application materials, presented at the December 18, 2014 Design Review Board meeting, that included a modified request for a side yard setback variances and a new request for a reduced front yard setback variance, while eliminating the request for a floor area exception; and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the Appellant stated that the revised project would still result in view, privacy and visual mass and bulk problems for their home. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that the revised project design was a significant improvement and moved the project in the right direction, but the Board concluded that the rear decks were too large, particularly off the second bedroom, and should be reduced in size. The Board then continued the application to the January 15, 2015 Design Review Board meeting; and WHEREAS, the Applicants submitted revised application materials that reduced the area of the first floor deck in front of the second bedroom, modified the roof and windows, reduced the floor area of the basement level and revised the project colors and materials, which revised materials which were presented at the January 15, 2015 meeting; and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the Appellant raised objections to the revised project design, but noted that their main concerns centered on the size of the great room extension and deck, and on the bedroom deck closest to their home. The Design Review Board supported the variance requests and suggested that pulling the great room addition TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (DRAFT) -2015 APRIL 1, 2015 and deck back four feet from the rear represented an appropriate compromise. The Board voted 3-0 to conditionally approve the project, with the additional conditions of approval that the south wall of the first floor great room and the adjacent deck be pulled back four (4) feet and that an adequate landscape plan be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2015, the Appellants filed a timely appeal of the Design Review Board's decision; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2015, the Town Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the appeal and considered all evidence in the record regarding the proposed project and the Design Review Board's review of the application; and WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents in the record, the Town Council determined that the Design Review Board appropriately applied the guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and other relevant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in its review of this project. The project design, as conditionally approved by the Board, would adequately address potential privacy, sunlight and visual impact concerns, and that the Board was able to make the findings necessary to grant the requested variances; and WHEREAS, the Town Council voted 5-0 to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301(e) of the CEQA Guidelines in that the additions constitute a minor alteration to an existing structure, the project is located in an area where all public services and facilities are available, and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby deny the appeal of Jennifer Dunbar. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on April 1, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: FRANK X. DOYLE, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (DRAFT) -2015 APRIL 1, 2015 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Manager, Peggy Curran Chief of Police, Michael Cronin Town Council Meeting April 1, 2015 Agenda Item: ice, S Recommendation to Approve Amendments to Marin County Major Crimes Task Force Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement In 1979 the County of Marin and the various cities and towns of the county entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the express purpose of creating a Major Crimes Task Force to operate throughout Marin County for the benefit of all the Marin agencies. The Task Force is a specialized unit staffed by members of the Sheriff's Department and allied agencies. Its primary focus is the enforcement of statutes related to the trafficking, distribution, manufacture and sale of illegal drugs. The Task Force is also available to assist local agencies in major investigations. Membership has changed over the years with San Rafael withdrawing in 2003 and rejoining in 2015; Ross and Sausalito withdrawing in 2014 and the CHP joining in 2009. The JEPA and its subsequent amendments were repealed and replaced through the adoption of various updates in 1985 and 1995 and 2012. The attached JEPA (Exhibit 1) replaces the one adopted in 2012. ANALYSIS The attached draft JEPA incorporates three significant changes: Membership of the Task Force (Page 8). A new provision to allow for "in-kind" payment of any member's costs by assignment of an officer to the Task Force (Page 12). New language describing the apportionment of any costs arising from any claim, action, liability, damage settlement or award not covered by insurance (Pages 15, 16). These changes were reviewed and recommended by the Marin County Counsel's office and a final revision (Exhibit 1) was returned to the Major Crimes Task Force Oversight Committee for approval. The Oversight Committee met on February 9, 2015 and voted unanimously to adopt the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. Tiburon Town Manager Peggy Curran is a member of that Committee. rave i Ur 4 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council \-Icc[ing April 1, 2015 Staff believes membership in the Task Force continues to provide significant benefit to the Town. The MCTF will be even more robust in the future now with San Rafael's recent decision to rejoin its ranks. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Town's contribution for 2014-15 was $35,417.00. The contribution for the upcoming year is expected to be $27,421. The proposed agreement does not change the formula for determining the Town's contribution. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to approve the amended Marin Major Crimes Task Force Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. Authorize staff to execute the agreement on behalf of the Town of Tiburon. Exhibits: Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement dated February 9, 2015 Prepared By: Michael Cronin, Chief of Police PAGE 2 OF 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Marin County Major Crimes Task Force JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT February 9, 2015 DRAFT Table of Contents Section 5.7 - Claims Handling ,Page 19 Article 6 - Withdrawal Section 6.1 -Notice Section 6.2 - Rights and Obligations Page 20 Article 7 - Termination Section 7.1 - Required Notice Section 7.2 - Distribution of Assets Page 1 of 20 Forn Fort Fort Section 3.8 - Administrative Support for the Task Force Page 3 Recitals Page 4 Article 1 - General Provisions Section 1.1 - Purpose Section 1.2 - Creation of Task Force Page 12 Section 1.3 - Terms of Agreement Page 5 Article 2 - Oversight Committee Page 13 Section 2.1 - Goveming Board Section 2.2 - Terms of Board Page 6 Section 2.3 - Members of the Oversight Committee Section 2.4 - Voting Procedures Page 14 Section 2.5 - Bylaws Section 2.6 - Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson Section 2.7 - Secretary Page 7 Section 2.8 - Powers and Duties of Oversight Committee Page 8 Article 3 - Task Force Section 3.1 - Designation of the Task Force _ t c Section 3.2 - Powers of the Task Force Section 3.3 Organization of Task Force within the Designated Policy Agency Section 5.7 - Claims Handling ,Page 19 Article 6 - Withdrawal Section 6.1 -Notice Section 6.2 - Rights and Obligations Page 20 Article 7 - Termination Section 7.1 - Required Notice Section 7.2 - Distribution of Assets Page 1 of 20 Forn Fort Fort Section 3.8 - Administrative Support for the Task Force Page 11 Article 4 - Fiscal Matters Section 4.1 - Annual Budget Section 4.2 - Controller/Treasurer Section 4.3 - Member Contributions Page 12 Section 4.4 - Contributions In -Kind Section 4.5 - Funds and Accounts Page 13 Section 4.6 - Investments Section 4.7 - Procedure for Approval of Demands Section 4.8 - Property Records and Control Section 4.9 - Bonding Page 14 Article 5 - Insurance and Indemnity Section 5.1 - Indemnity Section 5.2 - Liability Insurance Section 5.3 - Uninsured Claims and Losses Pae 15 Section 5.4 - Workers' Compensation Insurance Section 5.5 - Apportionment _ t c ce..t:__ c F - Fvrantint, Section 5.7 - Claims Handling ,Page 19 Article 6 - Withdrawal Section 6.1 -Notice Section 6.2 - Rights and Obligations Page 20 Article 7 - Termination Section 7.1 - Required Notice Section 7.2 - Distribution of Assets Page 1 of 20 Forn Fort Fort Page 21 Article 8 — Miscellaneous Section 8.1 — Definitions Section 8.2 — Legal Counsel Page 22 Section 8.3 — Dispute Resolution Section 8.4 — Amendment Section 8.5 — Execution in Counterparts Page 22-24 Member Signature Pages Fom mNot E Paee 2 of 20 MARIN COUNTY MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT RECITALS: ----Eorrt The COUNTY OF MARIN (hereinafter "COUNTY") and the CITIES/TOWNS OF BELVEDERE, CORTE MADERA, FAIRFAX, LARKSPUR, MILL VALLEY, NOVATO, DOSS SAN ANSELMO, c ^ r TO SAN RAFAEL and TIBURON (hereinafter "MEMBER AGENCIES") have authority to perform law enforcement functions for their respective communities and desire to help each other in the detection, investigation and apprehension of major crimes, including highly mobile criminal narcotic trafficking, thus reducing major narcotic activity and combating its influence throughout the County., MEMBER AGENCIES are authorized to contract with each other for the joint exercise of any common power pursuant to California Government Code Sections 6500-6514. MEMBER AGENCIES are authorized to conduct activities in a manner set forth in California Penal Code Section 830.1. 4. MEMBER AGENCIES previously entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement in 1979 for the purpose of creating a Major Crimes Task Force. That Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and its subsequent amendments were repealed and replaced through the adoption of an updated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement on July 1, 1985. That 1985 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and its subsequent amendments were repealed and replaced through the adoption of updated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreements en -in 9eteber-10; 1995, and4n-2009 and on August 21, 2012. Those Joint Exercise of Powers Agreements are hereby terminated and replaced through the adoption of this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the July -August, 2009 Addendum to Joint Powers Agreement with the CHP shall remain in full force and effect. Page 3 of 20 MEMBER AGENCIES, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: RTICLE I Fora GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1.1 Purpose. (a) The purpose of this Agreement is the joint funding and policy direction of a unit of peace officers and support personnel, herein called the Marin County Major Crimes Task Force (hereinafter "Task Force"), for investigation, detection and apprehension in connection with major crimes including highly mobile criminal narcotic traffickers thus reducing major narcotic activity and combating its influence throughout the County. (b) It is understood by the parties to this Agreement that the Task Force will function as an adjunct to the basic police services provided by the individual police agencies and is not intended to supplant existing local police services. It will be funded and staffed only to the extent that the general budgets of the member agencies and supplemental funding sources are able and available. Section 1.2 Creation of Task Force. _ _ -Forn (a) There is hereby created a public entity to be known as the Marin County Major Crimes Task Force, herein called the "Task Force." The Task Force is a public entity separate and apart from the member cities and county and shall administer this Agreement. (b) Exercise of the common powers of the parties hereto shall be subject to such restrictions as may exist for each of them independently. Section 1.3 Terms of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective upon the date the Agreement is last executed by the parties as attested by the signatures of the Mayor and Clerk of each city/town and of the President of the County Board of Supervisors and shall continue in effect until terminated as herein provided. ,ARTICLE 2 FOM OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Section 2.1 Government Board. Page 4 of 20 (al The Task Force shall be administered by a Board of Directors consisting of nine members, one to be a City Councilmember appointed by the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers, one to be a member of the Marin County Board of Supervisors appointed by the President of the Board of Supervisors; two to be City Managers appointed by the Marin Managers Association; one to be the Marin County Administrator; two to be Chief Law Enforcement Officials appointed by the Marin County Police Chiefs Association; and two to be residents of Marin County who are not members of any City Council or the Board of Supervisors, not the County Administrator and not a city manager or chief law enforcement official in Marin County. One resident member shall be appointed by the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers, and one resident member shall be appointed by the Marin County Board of Supervisors. (a) (b) Each appointing agency may appoint an alternate board member who may act in the absence of a board member appointed by that agency. The Marin County Administrator may designate an alternate who may act in his or her absence. (c) The Board of Directors shall be called the "Oversight Committee." All voting power of the Task Force shall reside with the Oversight Committee. Section 2.2 Terms of Office. (a) The Marin County Administrator shall serve as long as he or she holds the position of County Administrator. All other members of the Oversight Committee shall serve terms of two years. (b) The City Councilmember, one City Manager, one Chief Law Enforcement Official, and the resident appointed by the Board of Supervisors shall serve terms beginning January 1 of even numbered years. (c) The County Supervisor, one City Manager, one Chief Law Enforcement Official, and the resident appointed by the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers shall serve terms beginning January 1 of odd numbered years. (d) Members may be reappointed without limitation. (e) All vacancies on the Oversight Committee shall be filled by the appointing entity as soon as possible to complete the unexpired term of the Committee member being replaced. Section 2.3 Members of the Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee shall provide for regular quarterly meetings at a fixed date, time, and place. All regular and special meetings shall be called, noticed, and .---- Forrt numt Paee 5 of 20 Forrt conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 54950, et seq., of the California Government Code. Section 2.4 Voting Procedures. (a) A quorum shall consist of at least a majority of the voting members of the Oversight Committee and shall be required for all meetings of the Oversight Committee. (b) All decisions and actions shall be by a majority vote of a quorum. (c) Each member of the Oversight Committee shall have one vote. Section 2.5 Bylaws. The Oversight Committee may adopt, from time to time, such bylaws, rules and regulations for the conduct of its meetings and affairs as are necessary for the purposes hereof. Section 2.6 Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson. (a) The Oversight Committee annually shall elect a Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson from among its members for one year terms beginning January 1. The Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson shall not serve more than two consecutive one-year terms. (b) The Chairperson shall sign all contracts on behalf of the Task Force and shall perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Oversight Committee. (c) The Vice -Chairperson shall perform all of the Chairperson's duties in the temporary absence of the Chairperson. Section 2.7 Secretary. (a) The Chief Law Enforcement Official of the designated policy agency, pursuant to Section 3.1(a), shall serve as Secretary to the Oversight Committee. The Secretary shall cause minutes to be kept of Oversight Committee meetings and shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member of the Oversight Committee and to each member agency as soon as possible after each meeting. (b) The Secretary shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be filed with the Secretary of State and the State of California pursuant to Section 6505.3 of the California Government Code. Page 6of20 Section 2.8 Powers and Duties of the Oversight Committee. Policy direction of the Task Force shall be vested in the Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee shall have the duty and power: (a) To review and determine that program priorities, policies, operational scope, size and budget of the Task Force. (b) To monitor and report to member agencies and appointing associations or legislative bodies on operations of the Task Force. (c) To monitor the operations and supervision of the Task Force by the Designated Policy Agency to assure that the Task Force targets major crimes violators and that incursions on civil rights and injury to innocent persons are avoided. (d) To provide direction to the Designated Police Agency regarding Task Force activity in a non-member municipality and regarding requests from the Chief Law Enforcement Official of a member agency for assignment of all or part of the Task Force to investigate a specific local problem. (e) To designate the Controller/Treasurer of the Task Force. (f) To designate the policy agency to run the Task Force. (g) To adopt such policies and regulations that in its judgment may be of value in providing adequate direction for financial and administrative matters to carry out the provisions of this Agreement. (h) To enter into contracts for services as authorized in the Task Force's budget. (i) To establish policies and procedure for the allocation and use of asset forfeiture funds consistent with applicable State and Federal law and with the purposes of this Agreement. AIMCLE_3 ------ _--- TASK FORCE Section 3.1 Designation of the Task Force. Forn The Oversight Committee shall designate the police agency of one of the MEMBER AGENCIES as the Designated Police Agency under this Agreement. The Task Force established pursuant to Section 1.1 of this Agreement shall be comprised of personnel from the Designated Police Agency and personnel from police agencies of such other MEMBER AGENCIES as the Oversight Committee may vote to include as Task Page 7 of 20 Force personnel. It is agreed by the parties to this Agreement that the Designated Police Agency shall be one of the following police agencies: Marin County Sheriffs Depaft nentOffice, er--Central Marin Police Authority, Novato Police Department; or the San Rafael Police Department, since these twe-four agencies are large enough and best suited to handle the functions of a Major Crimes Task Force. Section 3.2 Powers of the Task Force. In carrying out the purpose of this Agreement as set forth in Section 1.1 herein, a peace officer member of the Task Force shall be and is hereby deemed to have prior consent, within the meaning of Penal Code Section 830. 1, of the Chief Law Enforcement Official of each member agency, or the person authorized by the Chief Law Enforcement Official, to exercise peace officer authority within the boundary of every party hereto, and said peace officer is hereby empowered to act in the same manner and to exercise the same powers as any peace officer of said party; and his or her actions shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and the generally accepted practices and procedures for law enforcement of the designated police agency. Section 3.3 Organization of the Task Force within the Designated geliey Police Agency. (a) The Task Force shall be established as a separate organizational entity within the Designated Police Agency, allowing for multi jurisdictional participation. Separate budget, income and expense records, equipment inventories, and fund accounts for the Task Force shall be maintained by the City or County whose police agency manages and supervises the Task Force. (b) The Task Force shall not be used to supplant any service or service deficiencies of the Designated Police Agency, but shall remain totally focused on its its mutually agreed upon countywide purpose. Section 3.4 Assignment of Personnel to the Task Force. (a) The Designated Police Agency shall have sole responsibility for selecting and the right to select which of its own employees will perform Task Force assignments and be members of the Task Force. The Designated Police Agency shall have sole responsibility for disciplining and removing its own employees in compliance with applicable policies and procedures of the Designated Police Agency. Should the Oversight Committee vote to allow personnel from another MEMBER AGENCY to participate in the Task Force to satisfy their annual member contribution, that MEMBER AGENCY shall select its own employee(s) to be members of the Task Force. The Task Commander or his or her designee may participate in the employee selection process if agreed to by both parties. The MEMBER AGENCY shall have sole responsibility for disciplining and removing Pape 8 of 20 its own employee(s) in compliance with applicable policies and procedures of the member agency. The Designated Police Agency shall consent to the selection of employees from another MEMBER AGENCY to work on the Task Force. If consent is denied the Oversight Committee shall vote on the proposed selection at a regularly scheduled meeting. The Oversight Committee decision shall be final. (b) Personnel serving in the Task Force, while governed by the rules and regulations of the designated City or County or MEMBER AGENCY, shall be assigned to the Task Force for reasonable periods of time in order that expertise is developed and applied in accomplishing the purpose of this Agreement. (c) Assignment of personnel to the Task Force shall not be subject to any impacts of the regular operating budget of the designated police agency or member agency, since funding for the Task Force is dedicated by action of all member agencies. Section 3.5 Operational Control. Except as provided in Section 3.7, below, responsibility for the operational control, direction and administration of the Task Force shall be vested in the Chief Law Enforcement Official of the Designated Police Agency who shall be responsible for direct supervision of the Task Force and shall provide coordination with and liaison to the Oversight Committee as necessary to ensure that Task Force priorities and goals are being properly implemented. Section 3.6 Exercise of Task Force Powers in Nonmember Jurisdictions. The Task Force shall not operate in, assist, or serve municipalities in Marin County not signatory to this agreement except pursuant to direction of the Oversight Committee. In providing such direction, the Oversight Committee shall consider situations where an investigation commenced elsewhere cannot otherwise be concluded without crossing the boundaries of a non -participating jurisdiction. Section 3.7 Investigation of Specific Local Problems. In the event that a request for assistance to a MEMBER AGENCY is approved pursuant to direction of the Oversight Committee, the Chief Law Enforcement Official of the requesting City or County may assume overall supervision of Task Force members so assigned solely with respect to Task Force involvement in that specific assignment. Task Force employees so assigned shall remain under the agreed to supervision of the Chief Law Enforcement Official of the requesting City or County for the duration of the specific assignment approved by the Oversight Committee. Paee 9 of 20 Section 3.8 Administrative Support for the Task Force. Administrative support for the Oversight Committee shall be provided by the Designated Police Agency which shall include in its annual budget costs associated with administrative support tasks including, but not limited to, meeting notices, preparation of minutes, compliance with the Brown Act, office supplies for Task Force business, insurance, and an annual financial audit. ,ARTICLE ---- ---- ---- --- Forn ----------------- FISCAL MATTERS Section 4.1 Annual Budget. The Designated police agency shall prepare annually and submit to the Oversight Committee by April 1 of each year, a budget for the Task Force setting forth proposed service levels, staffing expenses and anticipated grant funding or other outside funding (including, but not limited to asset forfeiture funds) and the proposed amount of Net Local Costs (total budget less grant funding and other outside funding) to be shared among the parties. After review and any modification deemed necessary by the Oversight Committee, said budget shall be adopted by the Oversight Committee and submitted to the parties hereto not later than May 1 of each year, and shall be deemed approved by the parties pursuant to their individual approval of their respective budget allocations to the Task Force for the ensuing fiscal year Section 4.32 Controller/Treasurer. The Oversight Committee shall designate the Controller/Treasurer of the Task Force who shall serve as depository and custodian of all Task Force funds and who shall perform all authorities, duties, and obligations set forth in Section 6505, 6505.5 and 6505.6 of the California Government Code. The designated Controller/Treasurer shall be responsible for the establishment of procedures for the disbursement of funds in accordance with the approved annual budget of the Task Force and shall maintain and make available to the parties hereto complete records of all income, disbursements and other financial information regarding the Task Force. These responsibilities shall include maintenance of financial records, cooperation in the preparation of an annual independent audit and preparation of reports pursuant to any and all applicable regulations for any and all funds including asset forfeiture and grant funds received by or on behalf of the Task Force. Section 4.23 Member Contributions. The contributions to be made by each party to this Agreement to fund the Net Local Costs of the Task Force shall be based on the approved budget and shall be pro- rated in accord with the following formula: Page 10 of 20 a) A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the first six (6) Task Force employees plus attendant expenses, shall be borne by Marin County; and the balance shall be borne by the participating cities prorated on a formula giving equal weight to population, using the most current annual State Department of Finance census data, and the most current total assessed valuation, as determined by the March I" valuations established each year by the Marin County Assessor's Office. No change in proration of contributions specific to 4.2(a), above, shall be effected except by the written amendment to the Agreement and signed by all parties hereto. Nothing in this agreement mandates that Marin County must have a specific number of Task Force employees. Section 4.4 Contributions In -Kind. Subject to the approval of the Oversight Committee a member agency may seek to satisfy their annual member contribution by assigning an officer to the Unit and applying their fully salaried/benefitted Full Time Employee (FTE) cost as an offset to their member contribution per Section 4.3. In the event the value of the full cost FTE cost is less than the required member contribution the member agency shall offset that difference by making a cash contribution equal to the balance owed. In the event the value of the full cost FTE is more than the member agency's required contribution, no credit shall accrue to the agency. Any request to provide in-kind contributions of staff in -lieu of a member contribution per -- - Forn Section 4.3 shall be for no less than one full fiscal Year and shall be renewed each fiscal year thereafter, subject to the approval of the Oversight Committee. Should an agent rora�cu ctcuu c uu. accrue to the agency for each full month the member agency's officer was assigned to the Task Force during that particular fiscal year. The balance of any required payment necessary to meet the agency's annual member contribution per Section 4.3 shall then become immediately due to ensure solvency of the program. Section 4.45 Funds and Accounts. At a minimum, the Controller/Treasurer shall establish and maintain separate funds and/or accounts for income and disbursements from the following sources: Department of Treasury Asset forfeiture account; Department of Justice Asset forfeiture account; member contributions (Task Force operating account). Section 4.56 Investment. The Controller/Treasurer is herby authorized to invest any and all funds received by the Task Force in any investment medium authorized for local government pursuant to Page 11 of 20 State law and in such investment media and in such limited amounts as may be established in the written investment policy of his or her agency. Interest earnings shall be credited to the appropriate Task Force account pursuant to Section 4.3, above, and may be used for any purpose consistent with authorized uses for which the principle amount may be used. Section 4.67 Procedure for Approval of Demands. The Controller/Treasurer shall implement procedures as adopted by the Oversight Committee, for the approval of all demands against the Task Force. Section 4.78 Pronerty Records and Control. (a) The Controller/Treasurer shall maintain an inventory of all capital equipment and other property contributed for Task Force use by any party hereto or by any other person or organization and of all capital equipment purchased with Task Force funds, including, but not limited to, funds contributed by parties to this Agreement, grant funds, and asset forfeiture funds. (b) The Secretary shall have charge of, handle and have access to all records of the Task Force, other than those financial records under the control of the Controller/Treasurer, and of all physical properties of the Task Force. Section 4.89 Bonding. The Oversight Committee shall designate the respective amounts of the official bonds of the Secretary and Controller/Treasurer and of such other persons who may from time to time be designated by the Oversight Committee as having charge of, handling or having access to any funds and/or property of the Task Force. ARTICLE 5 Forn INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY Section 5.1 Indemnity. The Task Force shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless MEMBER AGENCIES and their employees, agents and elected officials, in connection with any and all claims, lawsuits, liability, or damages arising out of Task Force activities. Section 5.2 Liability Insurance. Page 12 of 20 (a) A General Liability insurance policy with a minimum combined single limit of at least one-two million dollars ($1-2,000,000) and an aggregate of at least one-two million dollars ($4-21000,000) will be maintained in force at all times, covering, at a minimum, the Marin County Major Crimes Task Force, all personnel assigned to the Task Force or engaging in Task Force activities, all MEMBER AGENCIES, and the members and alternate members of the Oversight Committee, for any liability arising out of Task Force activities. The policy shall include costs of investigation and defense as covered items. The annual premium for said insurance will be made a part of and paid from the annual budget of the Task Force. (b) A public officials liability insurance policy with a minimum combined single limit of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) and an aggregate of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) will be maintained in force at all times, covering, at a minimum, the members and alternate members of the Oversight Committee. The policy shall include costs of investigation and defense as covered items. The premium for said insurance will be made a part of and paid from the annual budget of the Task Force. (c) Any deductibles included in the General Liability Insurance policy shall be paid first from asset forfeiture funds, to the maximum extent allowed by applicable State or Federal law. If use of asset forfeiture funds to pay the deductible amount is prohibited by applicable law for the particular claim and/or if available asset forfeiture funds are insufficient to pay the deductible amount then the deductible amount shall be paid from the Task Force annual budget and/or from Task Force reserve funds as may be authorized for this purpose by the Oversight Committee. Section 5.3 Uninsured Claims and Losses. Should the Task Force's General Liability insurance policy fail to cover any claims, losses or expenses arising from any and all activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, or if such policy is not available for a premium deemed appropriate by the Oversight Committee in relation to the budge of the Task Force, then the Oversight Committee shall immediately notify in writing each of the parties to this Agreement of the status of the insurance policy or lack of coverage and the cost of claims, loss or expenses shall be apportioned among the parties to this Agreement as provided in Section 5.5 herein. Section 5.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Unless otherwise provided in the service agreement between the Designated Police Agency and the Task Force, the Designated Police Agency is solely responsible for payment of any and all workers' compensation benefits for an employee of the Designated Police Agency assigned to the Task Force. Each MEMBER AGENCY is solely responsible for payment of any and all workers' compensation benefits for an employee of the MEMBER AGENCY assigned to the Task Force. Page 13 of 20 Section 5.5 Apportionment. To the extent that any claim, action, liability, damage settlement, or award is not covered for any reason by insurance policies, the parties to this Agreement agree to pay these costs as follows: (a) Any deductibles included in the General Liability Insurance policy shall be paid first from budgeted but as of yet unexpended funds from the Task Force annual buffet. (b) Second if the available Task Force annual budget funds are not enough to cover the claim assets belonging to and owned by the Task Force may be sold as authorized for this purpose by the Oversight Committee to meet any financial obligations. (c) Finally, if the Task Force and its members are unable to satisfy any and all claims and judgments through the above listed means the Task Force as an entity has no Pape 14 of 20 - - Forrt numt • (a) Any deductibles included in the General Liability Insurance policy shall be paid first from budgeted but as of yet unexpended funds from the Task Force annual buffet. (b) Second if the available Task Force annual budget funds are not enough to cover the claim assets belonging to and owned by the Task Force may be sold as authorized for this purpose by the Oversight Committee to meet any financial obligations. (c) Finally, if the Task Force and its members are unable to satisfy any and all claims and judgments through the above listed means the Task Force as an entity has no Pape 14 of 20 - - Forrt numt choice but to disband and sell off any and all assets. The funds generated from the sale of the assets shall then be used to satisfy any outstanding claims or judgments Any monies left over shall be distributed to the membership agencies using the same formula as contributions are calculated. EFom numt Section 5.6 Exception. The provisions of Sections 5.2, 53 and 5.5 of this Agreement, wherein the Task Force and its members agree to accept responsibility for claims not covered by insurance, shall not apply when liability is caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee or agent of the Designated Police Agency or the employee or agent of another MEMBER AGENCY while such employee or agent is not involved in carrying out the provisions of this Agreement. Section 5.7 Claims Handling. In the event of a dispute regarding whether or not an exception as contemplated in Section 5.6 herein applies, the dispute resolution procedure set forth in Section 8.3 of this Agreement shall be used. Task Force Commander shall, upon receipt of a "notice of claim" naming the Major Crimes Task Force, initiate the claims handling process. The notice document will be forwarded to representatives of the Task Force's General Liability Insurance Company designated by that insurance company (as of the date of this agreement, claims shall be scanned and sent via email to: publieen4ityelaima&��- Jeff.Mann@ioausa.com) with copy to QPI^ Risk Manager and County Counsel. In the event a claim may be reported to the County through either Risk Management, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or County Counsel, such claims shall be directed to the specific designated County of Marin counsel for the Major Crimes Task Force who shall proceed to notify parties and commence evaluation of claim. Designated County Counsel shall review information provided in the notice of claim against the County of Marin and determine if the claim involves alleged actions of the Major Crimes Task Force, in which case designated County Counsel shall issue the standard County rejection letter, including a statement advising claimant that in taking the actions alleged in the claim, the officers were acting on behalf of the Marin County Major Crimes Task Force, not the County of Marin, providing direction to claimant to present the claim to the Task Force for further consideration. Upon notice of a claim by either of the above means, Task Force Commander shall conduct his standard investigation and forward his report with attachments to Designated County Counsel. This report may be sent on to representatives designated by the Task Force's General Liability Insurance Company (as of the date of this agreement, Carl Page 15 of 20 Warren) based on the criteria for claim reporting. If it is not forwarded, it will be retained. rARTICLE 6 WITHDRAWAL Section 6.1 Notice. Fam Any party may withdraw from this Agreement by filing written notice of intention to do so with the Oversight Committee. The rights and obligations of such party hereunder shall terminate six months after the date of filing such notice. The Committee, within fifteen (15) days of the filing of a withdrawal notice, shall mail a notice thereof to all parties to this Agreement. Removal of any party from this Agreement shall in no manner affect the rights and obligations hereunder of the remaining parties. Section 6.2 Rights and Obligations. In the event of a withdrawal from this Agreement by any party, such party shall not be entitled to the return of any funds contributed to the Task Force, nor to any share of asset forfeiture funds nor to the return in cash or in kind of any materials or supplies until termination of this Agreement as herein specified. A party withdrawing from the Agreement shall continue to be liable for its proportionate share of any liability incurred during the period of this parry's participation in the Agreement as set forth in Section 5.: herein. ARTICLE 7 TERMINATION Section 7.1 Required Notice. Forn This Agreement shall be deemed terminated when the agencies representing Fifty Percent (50%) or more of the population of Marin County file a notice of intent to withdraw. Section 7.2 Distribution of Assets. Upon termination, all non -monetary assets held by the Task Force shall be liquidated and the proceeds, combined with all monetary assets (including asset forfeiture Pave 16 of 20 funds and any moneys received through State or Federal grants), shall be distributed to the parties hereto in proportion to the contribution of the parties. ARTICLE 8 MISCELLANEOUS Section 8.1 Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in this Article shall, for the purpose hereof, have the following meaning herein specified: (a) Agreement. "Agreement" means this joint exercise of powers agreement. (b) Chief Law Enforcement Official. "Chief law enforcement official" means the highest ranking police manager of a member agency. This is usually the Police Chief of a city or town or the County Sheriff. (c) Designated Police Agency. "Designated Police Agency" means the Marin County Sheriff's Office, Central Marin Police Authority, Novato Police Department or the Marin County Sheriffs Dep.-- en+ San Rafael Police Department, whichever is selected by the Oversight Committee to organize and operate the Task Force. (d) Major Crimes. "Major Crimes" means illegal activities, primarily felonies such as, but not limited to, narcotic trafficking, whose characteristics include such features as high mobility, complex organization and widespread incidence throughout the County and for which effective detection, investigation and apprehension are demonstrably enhanced by the removal of artificial jurisdictional, organizational and geographic limitations that are likely to inhibit efficient utilization of police resources and application of up-to-date police methods that can be directed at such activities. (e) Member Agency. "Member Agency" means Marin County or one of the cities or towns which has signed this joint exercise of powers agreement. (f) Net Local Cost. "Net local cost" means the amount of the annual budget of the Task Force which is funded by contributions of the Member Agencies after the amount of funding for the annual budget from any grants, use of asset forfeiture funds, use of investment earnings and use of any other direct income generated by the operation of the Task Force have been deducted. (g) Oversight Committee. "Oversight Committee" means the governing board of the Task Force established by this joint exercise of powers agreement. Page 17 of 20 Fom EForn norm (h) Task Force. "Task Force" means the unit of peace officers and support personnel which is created by this Agreement to accomplish the purpose of the Agreement. Section 8.2 Legal Counsel. Unless the Oversight Committee determines otherwise, the Marin County Counsel shall serve as legal counsel to the Task Force and provide all routine legal advice and service including attendance at Oversight Committee meetings if necessary. Section 8.3 Dispute Resolution. Any dispute among the parties to this Agreement shall be decided by neutral binding arbitration and not by court action, except as provided by California law for judicial review of arbitration proceedings. In the event of such dispute, the parties shall attempt, by unanimous agreement, to select a neutral arbitrator. In the event of their inability to reach unanimous agreement on an arbitrator such dispute shall be submitted to an arbitrator selected by the presiding judge of the Marin County Superior Court. Section 8.4 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended from time to time upon recommendation by the Oversight Committee. Any amendment shall require a written amendment to the Agreement approved and executed by the MEMBER AGENCIES. Section 8.5 Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand the day and year below written. Dated: CLERK COUNTY OF MARIN Dated: CITY OF BELVEDERE RN CLERK Pape 18 of 20 Dated: CLERK Dated: CLERK Dated: TOWN OF CORTE MADERA IHs TOWN OF FAIRFAX Ii CITY OF LARKSPUR Pape 19 of 20 BY: CLERK Dated: CITY OF MILL VALLEY BY: CLERK Dated: CITY OF NOVATO BY: CLERK Dated TO- AQs! OF ROSS BY• Pape 19 of 20 Dated: Isimaj TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Dated: CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BY: CLERK Approved as to form: CITY ATTORNEY Dated: CLERK 1colvAl aI1Y11.16)zI m Page 20 of 20 r1l )��' TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council MeetingA1505 Tiburon Boulevard pril, 12015 /� Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: C. W To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Manager Commendation for Town Clerk Diane Crane Iacopi in Recognition of Twenty Years of Service to the Town of Tiburon Diane Crane Iacopi has served Tiburon in the capacity of Town Clerk for 20 years. Attached is a resolution of the Town Council commending her for her outstanding service. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Approve the Resolution recognizing and thanking Diane Crane Iacopi for 20 years of outstanding service. Exhibits: Resolution Prepared By: Peggy Curran, Town Manager Dan Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1 Resolution No. -2015 A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Commending Diane Crane Iacopi On her 20`n Anniversary of Employment with the Town of Tiburon Whereas, Diane Crane Iacopi commenced her career as Town Clerk for the Town of Tiburon in the days of yore in the lair of the Old Town Hall on March 20, 1995; and Whereas, Diane serves the Town Council with yeomanly efforts, providing all manner of staff reports, agendas, minutes, notices and packets, and delivering sustenance; and Whereas, Diane oversees that indispensable hallmark of our democracy — elections — by interacting with both local voters and the Registrar of Voters, spending long hours on each and every election day, but always grateful for an uncontested (or, better yet, cancelled) Council election; and Whereas, Diane implements the will of the California Fair Political Practices Commission by chasing down and collecting statements of economic interests from Councilmembers, Commissioners, Boardmembers and Town employees in a manner akin to herding cats; and Whereas, Diane is designated Notary Public, for which she must attend a multitude of conferences for continuing education to be able to demonstrate proficiency in reviewing ID cards, collecting signatures, obtaining thumbprints and officially crinkle stamping documents while protecting the Town from legal challenges therefrom; and Whereas, Diane is the keeper of the Town's administrative records, which involves filing that beggars belief amongst most rational beings, and shepherds special event permits, acting as a liaison between the pesky bureaucratic demands (like insurance) of the Town and community folks who just want to throw a party somewhere on Town property; and Whereas, Diane has received a most unexpected and welcome side benefit to her employment with the Town by meeting and wedding her husband Tony, another loyal and well-respected Town employee of many years; and Whereas, Diane has managed to accomplish all these things with good humor, abiding professionalism and courage through changing times, changing Councils and changing personal circumstances; and Whereas, the Town Council and Town staff have come to greatly appreciate, rely upon, respect and hold great affection for Diane. NOW THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby heartily thank and congratulate Diane Crane Iacopi on her 20 years of distinguished service to our community. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on March 18, 2015, by a vote of the following, to wit: AYES`. COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: FRANK X. DOYLE, MAYOR ATTEST: DANIEL M. WATROUS, DEPUTY TOWN CLERK To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Manager Town Council Meeting April 1, 2015 Agenda Item: cc, Recommendation to Adopt of Resolution Commending Town Attorney Ann Danforth Upon the Occasion of her Retirement A resolution for Ann Danforth will be made available prior to the Town Council meeting. Thank you, Peggy Curran TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1