Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2016-06-03TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST May 30 - June 3, 2016 TIBURON Correspondence, Notices and other Information 1. Memo - May 31- Federal Court Filing by Martha Company 2. Letter - June 1- Governor's By -Right Housing Proposal -Notice of Opposition 3. Email - June 1- RFP - Zero Waste Schools Program link 4. Letter - June 1- Jeff Foran. Thank You acceptance - Belvedere/Tiburon Board Agenda, Minutes 1. Cancellation - June 8 - Tiburon Planning Commission regular meeting REGIONAL, NOTICES AND AGENDA Correspondence, Notices and other Information 1. Friday Memo - June 2016 - MCEP Grant 2. Notice - June 4 - Corte Madera Community Center Public Workshop & Open House 3. Newsletter - Spring 2016 - Colantuono Highsmith Whatley, PC - Update on Public Law 4. Notice Card - Angel Island Immigration Station Dedication Benches Agenda, Minutes 1. Agenda - June 6 - Belvedere City Council 2. Agenda - June 8 - Tiburon Fire Protection C-/ DIGEST Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Developmen SUBJECT: Federal Court Filing by Martha Company DATE: May 31, 2016 The Martha Company has filed a motion with the U. S. District Court, Northern District of California requesting intervention in the ongoing processing of the Easton Point development applications. The motion asserts that the County of Marin has unnecessarily delayed processing of the Easton Point applications for many years and is unable to comply with the two prior stipulated judgments issued by the federal court. The motion requests that the court re -impose a structure, including specific timelines and procedures, on the County's environmental and merits review of the 2008 (current) applications. As an alternate, the motion requests that a "special master" be appointed to oversee future compliance. The motion also asserts that the County has, over time, enlisted "third parties" to assist in undermining or escaping its obligations under the stipulated judgments, including, among others, the Marin Open Space District, MMWD, and the Tiburon Fire Protection District. The motions asserts that such actions by third parties "in active concert or participation" with the County are impermissible and must cease. The filing proposes a strict time schedule (on p. 13) for County action on the Final EIR and project merits. Alternatively, appointment of a Special Master is suggested to shepherd compliance with the two prior judgments. The filing is attached. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 19 Jonathan S. Kitchen (SBN 80270) jkitchen@coxcastle. coin Michael H. Zischke (SBN 105053) inzischke@coxcastle.com James M. Purvis (SBN 281596) jpurvis@coxcastle.com COX, CASTLE &NICHOLSON LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 262-5100 Facsimile: (415) 262-5199 Attorneys for Defendant, Counterdefendant, and Counterclaimant MARTHA CO. (ATTORNEYS CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) j[] W IIAY 2t; 2015 J1 PLANNING DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND DIVISION) COUNTY OF MARIN, a California County, Plaintiff, vs. MARTHA CO., a California corporation; TOWN OF TIBURON, a California municipality; RUSSELL KEIL; JERRY RIESSEN; MAXWELL DREVER; MARILYN KNIGHT; JOANNA KEMPER; and MARK BEWSHER, individuals, Defendants. RUSSELL KEIL; JERRY RIESSEN; MAXWELL DREVER; MARILYN KNIGHT; JOANNA KEMPER; and MARK BEWSI-IER, individuals, Counterclaimants, vs. COUNTY OF MARIN, a California County; MARTHA CO., a California corporation; and TOWN OF TIBURON, a California municipality, Counterdefendants. MARTHA CO., a California corporation, Counterclaimant, vs. . COUNTY OF MARIN, a California County, Counterdefendant. LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments Case No. C06 0200 SBA NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION, AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE MARTHA COMPANY'S MOTION TO ENFORCE AND REQUIRE MARIN COUNTY'S COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENTS AND, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER -1- Date: Time: Judge: Dept: Action Filed: July ' 13, 2016 1:00 p.m. Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong 1300 Clay Street, Oakland, CA Courtroom 210, Second Floor January 11, 2006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 19 Paul Charles Smith (SBN 137664) psmith @ inarinlaw. coin KEEGIN HARRISON, et al. 1000 4th Street, Suite 600 San Rafael, California 94101-3182 Telephone: (415) 456-4000 Facsimile: (415) 456-1921 Attorneys for Defendant, Counterdefendant, and Counterclaimant MARTHA CO. LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICIIOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments - 2 - Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 19 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION 1 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 4 A. The Martha Company 2 5 B. The 1976 Judgment Requiring the County to Approve 43 Homesites 3 6 C. The County Refuses to Accept Martha's Application for Development 7 and Directs Martha to Apply in Tiburon 4 8 D. Martha's Unsuccessful Attempts to Process its Application in Tiburon 4 9 1. The First Tiburon Draft EIR and County Comments Against the Project 4 10 2. The Second Tiburon Draft EIR 6 11 E. The 2007 Judgment Requiring Project Approvals Within 14 Months 12 and the 2008 Project Application Pursuant to that Judgment 6 13 F. The County's Multi -Year Environmental Review Process 8 14 G. The Board's 2014 Refusal to Certify the EIR 8 15 H. The County's Ongoing Project Review 9 16 M. ARGUMENT 10 17 A. This Court Has the Power to Enforce the Two Judgments. 11 18 B. Given the County's Failure to Comply with the Schedule as Set in the 2007 Judgment, the Court Should Impose New Timelines and 19 Procedures. 11 20 C. Alternatively, the Court Should Appoint a Special Master to Ensure Compliance With the Judgments 13 21 D. The Court Should Order the County to Cease and Desist From Taking 22 Any Actions Inconsistent With the Judgments or That Otherwise Undermine the Mutual Intent of the Parties as Memorialized in the 23 Judgments 14 24 IV. CONCLUSION 15 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 4 of 19 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Federal Cases Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556 (2d Cir. 1985) 11, 13 Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004) 11 Gary W. v. Louisiana, 601 F.2d 240 (5th Cir. 1979) 13 Jeff D. v. Kenzptlzorne, 366 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2004) 11 Nehmer v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 494 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2007) 11 New York State Association for Retarded Children v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956 (2d Cir. 1983) 13 Regal Knitwear Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 324 U.S. 9 (1945) 14 Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) 11 State Cases Martha Company v. County of Marin, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C75-0125RHS 3 Federal Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) 14, 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 70 13 LAW OTTICOS OF COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FR-CISC:° Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments - 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 5 of 19 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 13, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard in Courtroom 210, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, located at 1300 Clay Street, Oakland, California, or before a Magistrate Judge that the Court may designate pursuant to section one of the Court's November 8, 2007 Stipulated Judgment (ECF No. 131), the Martha Company ("Martha") will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 53, 65, and 70, as well as this Court's inherent authority, for an order: (1) setting new timelines and procedures by which the County of Marin must take final action on Martha's development application; (2) alternatively, appointing a special master to oversee the completion of Martha's entitlement process; and (3) requiring the County, including any third party in active concert with the County, to cease and desist from taking actions inconsistent with or that otherwise undermine the terms of two judgments. As explained more fully below, this Motion is made on the .grounds that the County's failure to comply with the plain terms of two stipulated judgments, which require the County, among other things, to approve 43 single-family, residential homesites on Martha's property within a specified timeframe, has frustrated, impeded, delayed, and precluded Martha from developing its property as provided for in the judgments and has resulted in substantial harm to Martha. This Motion is based on this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities appended hereto, the Declarations of Michael Tamoff, Scott L. Hochstrasser, Mark E. Reed, and Michael H. Zischke filed herewith, and the complete files and records of the above -captioned action as well as those in Martha Company v. County of Marin, No. C 75 0125 RHS. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION For over 40 years, Martha has been attempting to develop up to 43 homes on a 110 -acre parcel in Tiburon, California. However, no matter what it has proposed, or what it has compromised or negotiated, and indeed, no matter what this Court has ordered, all of Martha's attempts have been • deliberately frustrated by the County. Despite two stipulated judgments and various orders of this Court, virtually nothing has been achieved. LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICHOISON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 6 of 19 Indeed, the project is almost no further along today than it was when litigation between Martha and the County first began in 1975. Most recently, in March 2014, the County refused to certify the project environmental impact report, even though its own staff recommended certification, and even though the judgments required the County to have taken final action on Martha's proposal some five years earlier. Apparently the County finds it more politically acceptable to flout this Court's orders than to be perceived to be agreeing with what Martha has proposed. Nor is the County's recent behavior an isolated occurrence. For decades, the County has alternately sought either to undermine the judgments (e.g., by refusing to even accept Martha's development applications) or outright invalidate the judgments themselves. Enough is enough. This Court needs to intervene, not only to enforce its own judgments and prevent those judgments from being deliberately undermined, but also to supervise the County's ongoing environmental and merits review of Martha's proposed project and ensure it comes to an end. The cost to Martha up to this point, in both time and money, has been enormous. Martha therefore brings this Motion seeking an order requiring the County to comply with the two stipulated judgments. In addition to any other relief that the Court deems necessary, Martha respectfully requests that the Court: (1) set new timelines and procedures by which the County must take final action on Martha's development application; (2) alternatively, appoint a special master to oversee the completion of Martha's entitlement process; and (3) require the County to cease and desist from taking any actions inconsistent with or that otherwise undermine the terms of two judgments. Such relief is necessary in order to ensure that Martha finally obtains the promised benefits of the two judgments. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Martha Company Martha is a family -run corporation owned and directed by members of the Reed family. Since the 1920s, members of the Reed family or Martha have owned the undeveloped property that is the subject of this litigation—approximately 110 acres on the southeastern tip of the Tiburon Peninsula in Marin County, California (the "Property"). The Property is Martha's only significant asset. \\\ LAN OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICIIOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 7 of 19 B. The 1976 Judgment Requiring the County to Approve 43 Homesites In January 1975, following the County's change in designation of the Property to "Ridge and Upland Greenbelt," which down -zoned the Property to reduce the maximum allowed density,' Martha brought suit against the County.2 In its complaint, Martha asserted a claim for inverse condemnation, contending that the County's actions constituted an unconstitutional taking of the Property. See The Martha Company's First Amended Counterclaim Against the County of Marin ("Counterclaim"), July 10, 2006 (ECF No. 74), at 4:18-22 (admitted at Marin County's Reply to First Amended Counterclaim ("Reply"), July 26, 2006 (ECF No. 76), at 3:1-3). In late 1976, following discovery, the parties settled the matter in a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, which the County Board of Supervisors approved by unanimous vote. Declaration of Michael H. Zischke in Support of Motion to Enforce Judgments and Confirming Meet and Confer Compliance Before Filing of Motion ("Zischke Decl."), Ex. B; see also Counterclaim at 4:23-26, 5:7-8 (admitted at Reply at 3:1-6). Judgment thereafter was entered by the Honorable Robert Schnacke in December 1976 (the "1976 Judgment"). Zischke Decl. at Ex. C. Among other things, the 1976 Judgment requires the County to take certain specified actions with respect to the Property: • Approve a minimum of 43 single-family residential units on minimum one-half acre lots;3 • Allow homes to be situated within the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt area (i.e., within 300 feet horizontally and 100 feet vertically of visually prominent ridgelines);4 and 1 These actions severely curtailed Martha's ability to develop the Property. The down -zoning, for instance, reduced maximum density on the Property from between 300 and 400 units to a maximum of only 34. See Counterclaim at 4:9-17 (answered at Reply at 2:20-23 (documents "speak for themselves")). 2 See Martha Company v. County of Marin, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C75-0125RHS. 3 In particular, the County acknowledged that "43 single family residential units located on one-half acre minimum lots is consistent with the goals of the general plan and will allow [Martha] a feasible economic use of [its] property." Zischke Decl. at Ex. C. 4 The County further acknowledged that, due to the character of the Property, "there are not sufficient areas suitable for development on the site without utilization of a portion of the property for construction within 300 feet horizontally or within 100 feet vertically of visually prominent ridge lines." Zischke Decl. at Ex. C. LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 8 of 19 • Refrain from citing aesthetic, environmental, ridgclinc protection, traffic and other factors to limit density unless Martha sought permission to develop more than 43 residential units. Id. In exchange, Martha agreed to substantial and costly compromises. It is required to dedicate approximately 50 percent of the Property as permanent open space and allow reasonable public trail access through the remaining non -dedicated portions. Id. It also relinquished its claim to development at the prior density, as well as any claim to damages and/or attorneys' fees. Id. C. The County Refuses to Accept Martha's Application for r Development and Directs Martha to Apply in Tiburon In March 1986, after years of raising capital and developing proposed uses for the Property, Martha wrote to then County Planning Director Mark Riesenfeld to inform him of its intent to submit an application for development of the Property. Id at Ex. D. In response, Mr. Riesenfeld directed Martha to apply to the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") and the Town of Tiburon for annexation and to instead submit any development application to Tiburon. Id. at Ex. E. At the time, Mr. Riesenfeld must have known that that direction would completely derail the project. First, Tiburon had a development moratorium in place. Further, Tiburon previously had applied to LAFCO to annex the Property for the purpose of preserving it as open space. See id. at Ex. F. County Counsel also already had opined that the 1976 Judgment did not bind Tiburon. In addition, Assistant County Counsel Thomas G. Hendricks already was on record that the 1976 Judgment would not be binding on Tiburon should annexation occur. See id at Ex. G. D. Martha's Unsuccessful Attempts to Process its Application in Tiburon 1. The First Tiburon Draft EIR and County Comments Against the Project Perhaps naively, but without otherwise waiving any of its rights under the 1976 Judgment, Martha followed the County's directive to make formal application to Tiburon to annex the Property and develop it in accordance with the 1976 Judgment. Unsurprisingly, Martha's experience in Tiburon did not go well. Tiburon, for instance, thereafter took four years to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "First Tiburon Draft E1R") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 9 of 19 ("CEQA"), which it circulated for public review in May 1996. Once the First Draft EIR was released, however, County Planner Andrea Fox urged Tiburon to approve a project with a dramatic reduction in density with no ridgeline development, consistent with the EIR' s "environmentally superior alternative" (which consisted of a total of five lots on the 110 -acre Property, all of which would be adjacent to an existing water tank and far from any ridgeline).5 See id. at Ex. H. While doubtless "environmentally superior" from the County's perspective, Ms. Fox's encouragement to Tiburon that it approve only five units with no ridgeline development was inconsistent with the County's own obligations under the 1976 Judgment to approve 43 units on the Property, including ridgeline areas. These initial comments were indicative of what would become a larger trend—so long as Martha proceeded in Tiburon, the County believed itself to be not only unburdened by the 1976 Judgement but also able to seek to impose its own policies on the project. Ultimately, although the comments received on the First Tiburon Draft EIR warranted at best only limited revision, the Tiburon Planning Commission determined that the First Tiburon Draft EIR should be tossed out and an entirely new EIR prepared. In response, Martha elected to revise its development application and submit an updated plan that, among other things, further reduced density on the Property to 34 lots and provided for over 88 acres to remain in public and private open space. See Counterclaim at 7:10-20 (answered at Reply at 3:12-13 (lacks information or belief sufficient to respond)). When Tiburon forwarded the revised, 34 -unit proposal to the County for comment, however, the County once again took theopportunity to criticize the project's density and its inconsistency with County ridgeline policies—the very prohibitions that the 1976 Judgment preclude the County from raising. See Zischke Decl. at Ex. J. 1\1 5 Although this alternative is characterized as a "10 -Lot Alternative" in the First Draft EIR, only five of the lots were on the 110 acres that was the subject of the 1976 Judgment. The other five lots were on a separate parcel that Martha no longer owns, which was not included in the prior litigation, and therefore was not subject to the Judgment. For the same reason, Martha's proposal in the First Tiburon Draft EIR is described as having 49 lots; however, only 44 of them were on the subject Property. See Zischke Decl. at Ex. I. LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICROLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments 5 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 10 of 19 2. The Second Tiburon Draft EIR Over two years later, in September 2001, Tiburon released a new Draft EIR (the "Second Tiburon Draft EIR"). Once again, the County did not hesitate to comment. In a November 2001 letter, for instance, Ms. Fox again requested that the project "be revised to eliminate proposed ridgeline development to avoid the significant visual impacts and make the project consistent with adopted [ridgeline] policies." Id. at Ex. K. The County Open Space District also commented on the Second Tiburon Draft EIR, similarly asserting that "[i]f development is inevitable on this site the preferred development proposal should be the nine lot plan with homes clustered well below the ridgeline adjacent to existing developed areas." Id. at Ex. L. Ultimately, after many more months of public review and hearings, Tiburon concluded that the Second Draft EIR could not be certified without substantial further study. See Counterclaim at 7:24- 27 (answered at Reply at 3:12-13 (lacks sufficient information to reply)). After two full Draft EIRs and a complete project overhaul, it was apparent to Martha that it would get nowhere in Tiburon. It was equally apparent that the County sought to ensure that Tiburon would approve no development not in complete harmony with the County' s own ridgeline policies, even if such goal served to undermine the County's representations and obligations under the 1976 Judgment. Martha therefore decided to abandon its application in Tiburon and return to the County. E. The 2007 Judgment Requiring Project Approvals Within 14 Months and the 2008 Project Application Pursuant to that Judgment In April 2005, Martha submitted a revised development application to the County (the "2005 Application"). This 2005 Application proposed 40 units (31 market -rate units and 9 affordable units) on minimum half -acre lots—three fewer than the minimum 43 units allowed under the 1976 Judgment. It also proposed that 54% of the Property be placed in dedicated public open space and that an additional 32% be placed in deed -restricted private open space, such that 86% of the Property would be preserved for scenic and recreational purposes. The 2005 Application also exceeded the 20% affordable inclusionary housing required by the County. In addition, the revised plan was able to mitigate every significant adverse environmental impact identified in the Second Tiburon Draft EIR. See Counterclaim at 8:19-28 (admitted in part and answered in part at Reply at 3:14-19). LAW OFFICES or COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 11 of 19 The County, however, once again refused to accept Martha's application. See Counterclaim at 9:1-4, Ex. C (answered at Reply at 3:20-23 (document speaks for itself)). Instead, in January 2006, the County initiated the present lawsuit in an effort to invalidate the 1976 Judgment. See County's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Jan. 11, 2006 (ECF No. 1). It was a preposterous thing to do. Not surprisingly, in September 2006, this Court granted Martha's motion to dismiss both the County's Complaint as well as various opponents' Counterclaims, thereby upholding the enforceability of the 1976 Judgment. See Order, Sept. 8, 2006 (ECF No. 78). In December 2006, Martha filed a motion seeking to hold the County in civil contempt of the 1976 Judgment and for appointment of a special master. See Notice of Motions, Motions, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Order to Show Cause Why County of Marin Should Not be Held in Civil Contempt and Sanctioned for Violation of Judgment Entered in Martha Co. v. County of Marin, No. C 75 0125 RHS and Motion for Appointment of Special Master Under Rule 53 or Rule 70, Dec. 4, 2006 (ECF No. 82). While the matter was pending, however, the County decided to seek a stipulated judgment. The "Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation" (the "2007 Judgment"), which was entered by this Court in November 2007, represents the second time that the County and Martha have agreed to resolve their disputes regarding the development of the Property. By its express terms, the purpose of the 2007 Judgment was to provide a "timeline and procedures for enforcing the 1976 Judgment." See Zischke Decl. at Ex. M, at 2:15-17. To this end, the 2007 Judgment provides, among other things, that: • The County is required to approve 43 homesites on the Property; • Each of the 43 sites must be at least one-half acre in size; • The County must allow some development within the Ridge and Upland Green Belt; • The County must both certify a Final EIR in conformity with CEQA and act on Martha's development application within 14 months of the date of receipt of a revised submission from Martha; and • Any development alternative or any proposed mitigation measure that does not accord Martha all rights to which it is entitled under the 1976 Judgment is legally infeasible unless required to assure health or safety. LAW OFFICES OF COAL, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 12 of 19 Id. at 2:23-28, 3:5-7, 3:15-18, 3:20-22. Consistent with the 2007 Judgment, Martha submitted a revised application to the County in December 2008 (the "2008 Application"). F. The County's Multi -Year Environmental Review Process Even though obligated to take final action on Martha's application within 14 months of submission, the County did not even release a Draft EIR until March 2011—some 27 months after receipt of the 2008 Application. See Declaration of Scott L. Hochstrasser in Support of Motion to Enforce Judgments ("Hochstrasser 2016 Decl."), 9[ 5. Between March 2011 and January 2013, Martha's consultants met with the County and other related agencies, including the County Department of Public Works, the County Open Space District, and the Town of Tiburon, to explore feasible mitigation measures and potential project responsibility for, among other things, a new Marin Emergency Radio Authority tower and open space dedication on the Property. During this time, the County Planning Commission also held its single public hearing regarding the Draft EIR, as permitted by the 2007 Judgment. See Zischke Decl. at Ex. M, at 4:10-12. The County released a Final EIR in June 2013—some 54 months after receipt of the 2008 Application. See Hochstrasser 2016 Decl. at 9C 6. Then, in October 2013, staff presented the EIR to the County Board of Supervisors and recommended that it be certified. See Zischke Decl. at Ex. N at 4:18-21. But the Board declined to do so and instead requested that Martha provide the County with a substantial amount of additional information, including: (1) a new traffic study of potential impacts on nearby schools; (2) more information regarding construction impacts; (3) more information regarding impacts to neighboring communities; and (4) more information regarding fire flows. See id. at 63:1- 74:6. After Martha provided all of the requested information, the County requested still more information, which Martha in turn provided. See Hochstrasser 2016 Decl. at Ex. A. G. The Board's 2014 Refusal to Certify the EIR The Board finally held another hearing on the EIR in March 2014—some 63 months after receipt of the 2008 Application. See Zischke Decl. at Ex. 0. In preparation for this hearing, County staff once again recommended that the Board of Supervisors certify the EIR. See Hochstrasser 2016 Decl. at Ex. B (staff noting that the LIR "provides thorough discussion and analysis of impacts and alternatives consistent with what is reasonably feasible, and is now adequate and complete to be LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLICOX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SANFRANcIScO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments - 8 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 13 of 19 acceptable for certification"). But the Board once again refused to certify the EIR. Instead, given its stated concern regarding the feasibility of certain project components, the Board decided that it would hold off on voting on certification of the EIR until it could consider a more specific project proposal in the context of a merits hearing. See Zischke Decl. at Ex. 0 at 100:22-104:8. In a March 14, 2014 follow-up letter, the County's Contract Planner, John Roberto, requested that Martha inform the County as to how it intends to proceed through the County's merits review phase. Mr. Roberto also identified certain areas of concern identified by the Board of Supervisors at the March 2014 public hearing, namely: (1) water tank design and fire flows; and (2) potential impacts on listed, threatened, and endangered plant and animal. species. See Hochstrasser 2016 Decl. at Ex. C. H. The County's Ongoing Project Review Over the ensuing months, Martha analyzed in detail each of the concerns identified in Mr. Roberto's letter. In mid -2014, for instance, Martha communicated with the Marin Municipal Water District ("MMWD") and the Tiburon Fire Protection District, respectively, to determine the engineering viability of a water tank with a base elevation of 590 feet (Martha's preferred elevation) and confirm that fire flow standards could be met at such an elevation. And in August 2014, following a number of meetings, the Tiburon Fire Protection District concluded that a water tank at 590 feet could comply with fire flow standards. See Declaration of Michael Tarnoff in Support of Motion to Enforce Judgments ("Tarnoff Decl."), at Ex. A. Likewise, although MMWD has not formally approved the design of the proposed water tank and has expressed concern with visual impacts and its own long-term liability, it has at least confirmed that a water tank with a base elevation of 590 feet could be designed and constructed. See Tarnoff Decl. at Exs. B, C. During this time, Martha also engaged consultants to assist in the development of alternative mitigation measures that will achieve the goal of avoiding the "unmitigated taking" of "Identified Species," as required by the 2007 Judgment, while preserving the project layout as reflected in the 2008 Application. The result of this work was the development of alternative measures to those included in the County's EIR (most of which call for significant project layout changes), which were presented to the County in October 2015. See Zischke Decl. at Ex. P. LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP sANFR4NCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 14 of 19 Based on its review of these and other aspects of the project, Martha informed the County in August 2015 that all of the Board's concerns can be addressed without modification of the 2008 Application. See Zischke Decl. at Ex. Q. Since that time, Martha and County staff have engaged in a number of discussions regarding the County's merits review. But to date, little if any progress has been made. Among other things, County staff has continued to express concerns with respect to: (1) the location and elevation of a proposed water tank; and (2) the feasibility of off-site species mitigation. See Zischke Decl. at 9[ 22. While Martha remains committed to working with the County through the entitlement process, as it has done all along, enough is enough. Again not surprisingly given the history, it has significant concerns regarding the County's willingness to move the merits review process toward ultimate project approval. Indeed, it does not believe the County will do what it is supposed to do unless this Court orders it to do so. Given these issues, Martha has brought the current Motion. III. ARGUMENT Since it initially approached the County in March 1986 with the intent of submitting its development application, Martha has endured over 30 years of largely unnecessary delay. The cost to Martha has been enormous—to date, it has spent over $5.6 million in development costs. See Declaration of Mark E. Reed in Support of Motion to Enforce Judgments, at 9[ 3. Nor has such delay and expense resulted in any tangible benefit to Martha. Instead, the vast majority of the past 30 years has been consumed by the County alternately seeking either to undermine the 1976 Judgment (i.e., by requiring Martha to proceed in Tiburon) or outright invalidate that judgment itself. Nor has the 2007 Judgment otherwise succeeded in moving the County's review process along in any timely manner. Whatever its motivation, it is clear that the County is unable to comply with the two Judgments without judicial supervision. Thus, in addition to any other relief deemed necessary by this Court, Martha respectfully requests that the Court re -impose a structure, including specific timelines and procedures, on the County's environmental and merits review of the 2008 Application. Alternatively, to the extent that the Court finds that this matter would best be managed through the appointment of a special master, Martha requests that the -Court appoint a special master to oversee future compliance. LAW OFFICFS OF COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments - 1 0 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 15 of 19 Further, given the County's pattern and practice of undermining the process along the way, Martha requests an order requiring the County, including any alter ego of the County, to cease and desist from taking any actions either inconsistent with the County's obligations under the Judgments or that otherwise undermine the mutual intent of the parties as memorialized in those judgments.6 A. This Court Has the Power to Enforce the Two Judgments. A consent decree, which has elements of both a contract and judicial decree, not only embodies an agreement of the parties but also is an agreement "that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees." Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378 (1992); see also Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 440 (2004) (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) ("Federal courts are not reduced to approving consent decrees and hoping for compliance. Once entered, a consent decree may be enforced.")). Indeed, a court has an affirmative duty to protect the integrity of its decree. This duty arises particularly in those instances where the performance of one party threatens to frustrate the purpose of the decree. That is, a party who has obtained the benefits of a consent decree—not the least of which is the termination of the litigation—cannot then be permitted to ignore such affirmative obligations as were imposed by the decree. Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir. 1985) (emphasis Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting the "strong federal interest" in ensuring that judgments are meaningful). B. Given the County's Failure to Comply with the Schedule as Set in the 2007 Judgment, the Court Should Lnpose New Timelines and Procedures. In interpreting the parties' obligations, this Court should construe the language of the Judgments under ordinary contract principles. Nehmerv. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 494 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2007). Where the plain language is clear, extrinsic evidence need not be considered. Id. Here, by its express terms, the purpose of the 2007 Judgment was to provide a "timeline and procedures for enforcing the 1976 Judgment." See Zischke Decl. at Ex. M, at 2:15-17. To this end, 6 This Motion is brought without otherwise waiving any right of Martha's to later seek damages against the County. LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICAOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments - 1 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 16 of 19 the 2007 Judgment identifies a clear timeline: the County was required to both certify a Final ETR in conformity with CEQA and act on Martha' s revised development application within 14 months of receipt of such application. Thus, where Martha submitted the 2008 Application in December 2008, the County was obligated to take final action by February 2010. See id. at 3:15-18. Nonetheless, the County did not release a Draft EIR for the project until March 2011—some 27 months after receipt of the 2008 Application. The County then waited until June 2013—some 54 months after the 2008 Application was. received—to release the Final EIR. And even when the Board finally held its hearing in October 2013—some 58 months after receipt of the 2008 Application—it still declined to certify the EIR, despite staff's recommendation that the EIR be certified at that time. Instead, the Board requested that Martha provide it with substantial additional information, further delaying another public hearing on the EIR until March 2014—some 63 months after the 2008 . Application was received. Then, when the Board actually did hold a second public hearing, and when staff again recommended that the EIR be certified, the Board still refused to certify the EIR. Now, over seven years after receipt of the 2008 Application, the County still has not certified the EIR and it has barely begun its merits review of the project. Nor is the County's delay with respect to the 2007 Judgment an isolated occurrence. For decades the County alternately sought to undermine and/or invalidate the 1976 Judgment. In 1986, for instance, the County outright refused to accept Martha's development application and instead directed Martha to proceed in Tiburon—where the odds of any approval were essentially zero. When Martha then followed such directive to proceed in Tiburon, the County authored numerous letters in an attempt to dramatically reduce the density and developable area of the proposed project. Ultimately, after a decade of review by Tiburon, including the preparation of two Draft EIRs, Martha decided to return to the County. But rather than accepting Martha's application, the County instead filed the present lawsuit in an attempt to invalidate the 1976 Judgment. Over the years, Martha has sought to work with the County to move the entitlement process forward, rather than seeking immediate judicial relief. But after decades of review, Martha still has yet to receive any project approvals. The cost to Martha, in both time and money, has been enormous. LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICIHOISON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments - 12 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 17 of 19 Accordingly, Martha believes that it will get nowhere unless this Court re -imposes a structure, including certain timelines and procedures, on the County's environmental and merits review of the 2008 Application. Such deadlines should, at a minimum, establish those dates by which an EIR must be certified and a project ultimately approved, thereby bringing this prolonged dispute to a proper end. Specifically, Martha proposes the following schedule: • Within 30 days following notice of entry of the Court's order on this Motion, the County shall identify those aspects of the 2008 Application it cannot support, if any, and the reasons; • Within 45 days thereafter, as necessary, Martha and the County shall jointly petition the Court for binding instructions in accordance with sections 4b and 4c of the 2007 Judgment; • Within 45 days after notice of entry of the Court's binding instructions, Martha shall submit to the County any final revisions to the 2008 Application, as necessary; and • Within 45 days thereafter, the County shall take final action to certify a final EIR in conformity with CEQA and to act on the 2008 Application. These orders are appropriate and necessary given the County's long pattern of delay. C. Alternatively, the Court Should Appoint a Special Master to Ensure Compliance With the Judgments. Alternatively, to the extent that the Court finds that this matter would best be managed by a special master, Martha respectfully requests the appointment of a special master under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure section 53 or 70 in order to ensure future compliance with the two Judgments. Without question, the appointment of a special master is within the prerogative of this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, 70; see, e.g.; Berger, 771 F.2d at 1569 ("In enforcing its orders, a district court may take such steps as are appropriate given the resistance of the noncompliant party"); New York State Association for Retarded Children v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956, 962-64 (2d Cir. 1983) (affirming district court's appointment of a special master at state expense under Rule 53 to monitor compliance with consent judgment, and citing cases); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 601 F.2d 240, 244-45 (5th Cir. 1979). Among other things, a special master could oversee the completion of the County's environmental review and entitlement process and ensure a resolution of this matter that is fair, expeditious to and expedient to the County. LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments -13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 18 of 19 While the specific duties and terms of service of a special master would be clarified pursuant to the Court's later instruction, at a minimum Martha proposes that a special master be appointed to ensure the County's timely compliance with the Judgments, including the imposition of new specific timelines and procedures in line with those proposed above, as well as to assist the Court in any other assigned duties as necessary. Martha would also propose that the special master have the authority, as necessary, to: (1) direct, supervise, monitor, and report upon implementation and compliance with the Judgments; (2) propose structures and strategies for timely resolution of the matter; and (3) communicate with the parties and attorneys as needs may arise in order to permit the full and efficient performance of the special master's duties. D. The Court Should Order the County to Cease and Desist From Taking Any Actions Inconsistent With the Judgments or That Otherwise Undermine the Mutual Intent of the Parties as Memorialized in the Judgments. Finally, Martha seeks an order from this Court requiring the County, including any actions in active concert or participation with third parties, to cease and desist from undermining the respective Judgments, as is prohibited by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). In particular, Rule 65(d)(2) provides that injunctions and restraining orders bind the following who receive actual notice: (1) the parties: (2) the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (3) "other persons who are in active concert or participation with" the parties or the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys. Courts have uniformly held that this language means that an injunction binds not only the party to the suit but also those who aid and abet the party's violation of an injunction. See Regal Knitwear Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945) (noting that "defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original proceeding."). As explained more thoroughly above, the County has for long sought to undermine and otherwise escape its own obligations under the two Judgments. At times, however, the County has enlisted the service of third parties—ostensibly not bound by the Judgments in an effort to further avoid taking final action on Martha's application. These entities most recently include, among others, the Marin Open Space District, MMWD, and the Tiburon Fire Protection District. To the extent that LAW OFFICES OP COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments - 14 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 136 Filed 05/25/16 Page 19 of 19 any entities are acting "in active concert or participation" with the County to undermine the such conduct is impermissible under Rule 65(d)(2) and must immediately cease. Accordingly, Martha respectfully requests an order from this Court, consistent with Rule 65(d)(2), requiring the County to cease and desist from taking any actions inconsistent with or that otherwise undermine the mutual intent of the parties as memorialized in the two Judgments, including any actions in active concert or participation with third parties. IV. CONCLUSION Martha respectfully requests that the Court invoke its authority to enforce the Judgments and order the County to comply therewith, such that Martha may at last obtain the promised benefits. DATED: May 25, 2016 COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP LAW OFFICES OF COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP SAN FRANCISCO Martha Co.'s Motion to Enforce Judgments By: /s/ Jonathan S. Kitchen Jonathan S. Kitchen Attorneys for Defendant, Counterdefendant, and Counterclaimant Martha Co. - 15 - 7 ski Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • www.rownoftiburon.org June 1, 2016 Honorable Assembly Member Adrin Nazarian Chair, Assembly Budget Subcommittee #4 State Capitol, Room 6026 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax: 916-319-2199 Honorable Senator Richard Roth Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee #4 State Capitol, Room 5019 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax: 916-323-8386 RE: Governor's By -Right Housing Proposal Notice of Opposition Dear Honorable Chairs Nazarian and Roth: Erin Tollini Mayor Jim Fraser Vice Mayor Frank X. Doyle Councilmember Alice Fredericks Couneilmember Emmett O'Donnell Councilmember Greg Chanis Town Manager The Town of Tiburon strongly opposes the recently released proposal by Governor Brown to preempt local discretionary land use approvals of specified housing developments by having all such approvals be considered "ministerial" actions. This means eliminating opportunities for public review, project -level environmental review and meaningful design review that act to keep such project designs compatible and in character with their surroundings. Attaching such sweeping and impactful legislation to a budget trailer bill is fundamentally undemocratic and short-changes meaningful and appropriate legislative review and consideration by committees in a deliberative fashion. Public engagement and participation in review of projects that can have significant impacts on individual communities is a prized principle of representative democracy. Stripping this public process away by using a back -door process only increases public frustration and erodes public trust in its legislators and in government generally. We have reviewed the Technical Modifications to the proposed trailer bill, as distributed today in an e-mail announcement issued by the State Department of Housing & Community Development. Contrary to the claim in the announcement that the Governor's modified proposal "would complement, not override local housing 1 plans", we find the modifications to the trailer bill to be largely symbolic and not a genuine effort to restore a material measure of local review and discretion over affected housing developments. They do nothing of substance to soften the near total preemption created by this seriously flawed piece of legislation. • On behalf of the residents we represent who deserve a voice in the future shape of their community, the Town of Tiburon respectfully states its opposition to this trailer bill. Respectfully, = � Zo. Erin Tollini, Mayor Town of Tiburon Alice Fredericks, Councilmember Town of Tiburon Cc: Senator Mike McGuire Assembly Member Marc Levine Nancy Hall Bennett, League of California Cities, nbennett@cacities.org Dan Carrigg, League of California Cities, CarriggD@a,cacities.org Town Council Digest Diane Crane Iacopi Subject: Attachments: CY"' g DIGEST RFP for ZW Schools Program RFP for ZWSP Contractor.pdf Hello All, Attached is,the RFP for our Zero Waste Schools Program. Link below: http://zerowastemarin.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/RFP-for-ZWSP-Contractor.pdf Please forward to anyone you think may be interested in applying. Thank you! Casey Poldino Zero Waste Specialist County of Marin I Dept Public Works Waste Management Division P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael. CA 949134186 P: (415) 473-6170 I F: (415) 473-2391 cpoldino tmarincounty.org Join Marin County's move to Zero Waste! Visit vvvsw.zerovvastemarin.org ZER WA EMARIN Email Disclaimer: http://www.marincounty.org/mainldisclainaers i June 1, 2016 Ms. Diane Crane Iacopi Town Clerk Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Diane, C`g DIGEST Please thank the members of the Town Council for my reappointment to the Belvedere - Tiburon Library Agency Board. Their unanimous support is a vote of confidence that I truly appreciate and I look forward to three more years with this important community institution. Sincerely, DELL liit' JUN -Z 2016 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION THE REGULAR TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2016 HAS BEEN CANCELLED THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016 SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY Friday Memo for June 2016 \().'=2-.7' „„ The Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP) has received a $35,160 grant from the Marin Energy Watch Partnership to develop annual community greenhouse gas inventories for all Marin jurisdictions for years 2005 through 2013 (or 2014 if data is available) to supplement the existing 2005 and 2010 inventories. This work will provide a better picture of how emissions have changed over the years and document our most recent progress on meeting our greenhouse gas reduction goal to reduce emissions 15% below 2005 levels by the year 2020. MCEP will prepare and present a report to the Town Council later this year. The grant also provides funding to update the Marin Sustainability Tracker, an innovate interactive map that shows Marin communities' progress on 12 metrics related to energy, waste, transportation, water use, and greenhouse gas reductions. MCEP is a partnership of all eleven cities and towns in Marin County, plus the County of Marin, the Transportation Authority of Marin, Marin Clean Energy, and the Marin Municipal Water District, MCEP's mission is to track greenhouse gas emissions and implement member jurisdictions' climate action plans. :ION tis JUij-, 4, UJ16 87,30-'8!00 PM CO RTE MADE T THE rrr'IL COMMUBbl8TH' CENTER located at 498 Tacnalpass Greve FOR .A PU L C WORKSHOP AND OPEN HOUSE ON PLAN 6AY AREA 2040 If you care about development and transportation in Marin County, please join us for a discussion about population, housing and jobs projections for the Bay Area and Marin County; and, on the three land use and transportation scenarios proposed for the 2017 Update on Plan Bay Area. Your voice will contribute to the selection of a preferred scenario, which will be decided by the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in September 2016. an BayArea 040 For more details, visit planbayarea.org, or contact us a info@planbayarea.org or please call (415) 778-6757. COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY PC LOS ANGELES 1 NEVADA COUNTY 0,1 weissenrati Update on Public LaF_� 6 i 400 New Water Rate -making Agencies! By Michael G. Colantuono California is becoming the last Western State to regulate groundwater in 2015 with the adoption of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). It requires formation by mid -2017 of local groundwater management agencies (GMAs) to regulate some 400+ groundwater basins the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) has identified as high- or medium -priority basins. SGMA designates 15 such agencies; the rest will be designated by local agencies proposing to fill that role or forming coalitions by joint powers agreement or memorandum of understanding. Counties get the job by default if no other agency steps forward. If a county declines the role, DWR must fill it. Single -agency GMAs or participants in collective GMA may be counties, cities, or special districts with "water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin." GMAs must develop and enforce management plans to reduce groundwater pumping to each basin's safe yield. Plans are due by January 31, 2020 for basins in "critical overdraft" and by January 31, 2022 for other high- and medium -priority basins. Plans must seek to reduce production to sustainable yield within 20 years of plan adoption. Thus, all high- and medium -priority groundwater basins are expected to achieve water balance by 2042. Whether this means groundwater recharge, pumping reductions, or both, it is plain a substantial new regulatory regime must be funded. This means new fees on those who use groundwater — including municipal utilities, farmers, private well operators and others. These may be collected on the property tax roll, on water bills and/or as new charges on pumping. Legally, these can be understood as service fees under Proposition 218 or regulatory fees under Proposition 26. (continued on page 2) COBDEN & DUNN: RISING STARS Super Lawyers has named Michael R. Cobden and Ryan Thomas Dunn to its roster of 2016 "Rising Stars" —the top 2.5% of younger attorneys evaluated by their peers. Mike chairs our Municipal Practice Group. He is Town Attorney of Yountville, Assistant City Attorney of Auburn, and General Counsel to North Yuba Water District and Garden Valley Fire Protection District (El Dorado County). He is our leader on police and law enforcement. Ryan chairs our Litigation Practice Group. He handles a wide range of litigation; current cases include a CERCLA matter for a Fortune 500 company, appellate defense of a lawyer- client dispute, and disputes involving water rates, assessments, franchise fees, _air ort funding, and land use. Co gratulations, Mike and -F an! .� �. • "4. c......- zr..� .�.v..:c. v.._�., ci.��.:,:.:.-'.: New Rate -making Agencies (cont.) Pump charges and other service fees will be subject to the notice, hearing and majority protest requirements of 1996's Proposition 218. These can fund preparation of plans; investigations and monitoring; enforcement; and, water supply. Such fees are limited to the proportional cost of serving each parcel. Therefore, statutes requiring rate preferences for agriculture arguably violate Proposition 218 — that question is pending in the California Supreme Court. Regulatory fees can fund preparation of plans and regulation and must bear a fair or reasonable relationship to pumpers' benefits from or burdens on a GMA's services and programs. These require noticed hearings under SGMA, but Proposition 26 has no procedures like those of Proposition 218. Such fees may fund plan development, meter installation and inspection, and the like. An augmentation charge may be more useful to implement groundwater plans, especially if recharge is to be funded. Rate -making is legally complex due to Propositions 218 and 26. Each of these 400+ new agencies will need rate -making consultants, will need to engage groundwater users and other local agencies to achieve consensus and to establish and implement their plans. Legal counsel will be needed, too, for rate -making and for the inevitable disputes that rate -making and regulation will produce. Communities should soon identify their GMAs and start the process of building consensus. This ambitious new regulatory program will affect every community that overlies a high- or medium -priority groundwater basin — affecting water availability and cost, land use, economics, and the environment. Communities which start soon may find that the necessary consulting serves are more readily available and at lower cost than those who wait for the corning rush. For more information on this subject, contact Michael at MColantuono@chwlaw.us or (530) 432-7359. MMBA Factfinding Applies to All Bargaining By Pamela K. Graham The San Diego Court of Appeal recently ruled in San Diego Housing Commission v. Public Employment Relations Board that Meyers Milias Brown Act (MMBA) factfinding applies to all bargaining disputes, not just impasses in bargaining memoranda of understanding (MOUs). This is unwelcome news for local government management. Implemented by 2011's AB 646, MMBA factfinding obligates public employers to submit labor disputes to an advisory factfinding panel at a union's request before they impose a last, best and final offer. The process is overseen by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), the agency that administers public sector labor laws. San Diego Housing Commission involved an impasse in negotiations over the effects of layoffs. The Commission persuaded the trial court that AB 646 only applies to impasses on MOUs, not other bargained issues. PERB argued factfinding applies broadly to any bargaining dispute. PERB compared the MMBA impasse provisions to those of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) and the Higher Education Employer -Employee Relations Act (HEERA). The appellate court unanimously agreed with PERB. The court relied heavily on the rationales of two 2014 PERB decisions that found AB 646 factfinding to apply not only to MOU impasses but also to any negotiations in the scope of representation. The court gave great deference to PERB's interpretation of labor relations statutes, writing its "findings within that field carry the authority of an expertness which courts do not possess and therefore must respect." The court applied the same reasoning in reaching its similar holding in County of Riverside v. PERB, involving an impasse in effects bargaining over a (continued on page 3) One Person, One Vote; Not One Voter, One Vote By Holly 0. Whatley In Evenwel v. Abbot, the U.S. Supreme Court recently resolved whether the one -person -one -vote principle established in the 1960s requires state and local governments to equalize voting districts based on voter -eligible population as opposed to total population (i.e., including children, non -citizens, felons, etc.). The 8 -member Court (due to the Scalia vacancy) answered with a resounding "no," but left unresolved whether districting on the basis of registered voters offends the Constitution. The Evenwel plaintiff challenged the practice of drawing Texas Senate districts based on total population. She argued this resulted in unequal districts measured by those eligible to register to vote, which devalued her vote compared to those in other districts and therefore violated Equal Protection. The Court recognized that different standards apply to congressional districts and to state or local districts. For congressional districts, the maps must be drawn "with populations as close to perfect equality as possible." But state and local districts may deviate from this standard to a limited extent to accommodate a variety of interests. Where the largest and smallest districts deviate by less than 10 percent, the districting is presumptively valid; greater than 10 percent deviation, however, and districts are presumed invalid. The Court noted the Framers of the Constitution and of the post -Civil War Fourteenth Amendment understood that representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote. For example, non -voters, such as children, have an interest in public schools. And "ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents" promotes equitable representation. Thus, drawing districts based on total population complies with the one- person one -vote principle and the Constitution. Though Texas opposed Plaintiff's contention its use of total population was unconstitutional, it urged the Court to find that a state could equalize districts based on voter -eligible population. The Court declined to decide that issue. Thus, it could return to the Court's docket in the future, perhaps after Justice Scalia's successor is seated. In the meantime, local districts can use total population to equalize their districts without running afoul of the one-person one -vote principle and likely should do so to avoid becoming a test case. California's Constitution could easily be interpreted to require more than does the federal Constitution and any standard other than one -person -one -vote involves risk of suit. For more information on this subject, contact Holly at HWhatley@chwlaw.us or (213) 542-5704. MMBA Factfinding (cont.) new background check policy for information technology employees. Local governments must now be prepared to participate in factfinding hearings on all bargaining disputes if impasse procedures are invoked. This affects how employers prepare to bargain; how they document bargaining; how they frame last, best and final offers; and how long it takes and how costly it will be to impose a last, best and final offer. The results of fact finding are legally advisory only, but they can be politically potent and they can affect the strength of an employer's position in litigation. The bottom line for employers: proceed with caution. For more information on this subject, contact Pamela at PGraham@chwlaw.us or (213) 542-5702. COLANTUONO HIGHSMIT.H WHATLEY, PC SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 140 htGRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 I'I'I'IlliutiiiI1"'Il'li'llliIi1111111"Illlli1111illl"II'll1ll T26 P1 Town Of Tiburon Greg Chanis Town Manager 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon CA 94920-2530 PRESORTED FIRST-CLASS MAIL US. POSTAGE PAID MAIL MASTERS Are you on our list? To subscribe to our newsletter or to update your information, complete the form below and fax it to 530/432-7356. You can also call Marta Farmer at 530/432-7357 or subscribe via our website at WWW.CHWLAW.US. Name Title Affiliation Address City State Zip Code Phone Fax E-mail ❑ Mail ❑ E -Mail 0 Both Our newsletter is available as a printed document sent by U.S. Mail and as a PDF file sent by e-mail. Please let us know how you would like to receive your copy. The contents of this newsletter do not constitute legal advice. You should seek the opinion of qualified counsel regarding your specific situation before acting on the information provided here. Copyright © 2016 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC. All rights reserved. X51, ate a Bench r �TM Honor those who came before us. Located on the Immigration Station site, there are 28 benches.available for personal dedication. These benches are available in locations specifically chosen to recognize and show reverence for those`who came before us. Initial sponsorships are available for a term of 15 years, renewable for a second 15 years at half the rate of the initial sponsorship. There are two ways to select the Bench that will display your plaque. Visit our new Immigrant Heritage Benches website, www.aiisf.org/ and dick on "Open The Doors" Or plan a visit for a guided tour of all the Bench locations. To arrange your own site visit, please call Grant Din, 415.348.9200x11, or email at gdin@aiisf.org. Ella Clarke and Andrew Lowe at the bench dedicated to their great grandparents, Look and June Lowe. AGENDA - SPECIAL MEETING INCORPORATING STUDY SESSION BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL JUNE 6, 2016, 4:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 450 SAN RAFAELAVENUE, BELVEDERE, CALIFORNIA DIGEST ,e/a -I COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC The public will be given an opportunity speak on each agenda item when it is called. Upon being recognized by the Mayor, please state your name and address, and limit your oral statement to no more than three minutes. The Council welcomes comments and questions raised by interested citizens but typically does not respond during the comment period PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE OPEN FORUM This is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly address the City Council on any matter that does not appear on this agenda. Upon being recognized by the Mayor, please state your name, address, and limit your oral statement to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear to warrant a more lengthy presentation or Council consideration will be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting. 1 OTHER SCHEDULED ITEM M 1. Interview applicants for the open position on the Belvedere Planning Commission and consider an appointment to the Commission. STUDY SESSION 2. Preliminary discussion on proposed amendments to Belvedere Municipal Code Title 11, "Water and Watercraft." ADJOURN NOTICE: WHERE TO VIEW AGENDA MATERIALS Staff reports and other materials distributed to the City Council are available for public inspection at the following locations: • Online at www.cityofbelvedere.org/archive_aspx • Belvedere City Hall, 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere. (Materials distributed to the City Council after the Thursday before the meeting are available for public inspection at this location only) • Belvedere -Tiburon Library, 1501 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon. To request automatic mailing of agenda materials, please contact the City Clerk at 415/435-8908. NOTICE: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The following accommodations will be provided, upon request, to persons with a disability: agendas and/or agenda packet materials in alternate formats and special assistance needed to attend or participate in this meeting, Please make your request at the Office of the City Clerk or by calling 415/435-3838. Whenever possible, please make your request four working days in advance. Date Posted: 06/02/2016 OTHER SCHEDULED ITEMS BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL JUNE 6, 2016 To: Mayor and City Council From: Alison Foulis, City Clerk Subject: Interview applicants for the open position on the Belvedere Planning Commission Recommended Motion/Item Description Interview applicants for the open position on the Belvedere Planning Commission and, if desired, appoint a new Commissioner. Background In February 2016, Commissioner Jan Andersen resigned from her position, leaving an unfilled vacancy on the Belvedere Planning Commission. Notice of the vacancy was posted at City Hall and the Belvedere -Tiburon Library pursuant to law, as well as on the City's website and e - newsletter. To date, six applications have been received from the following residents (submitted letters of interest and resumes are included in the attachments): • Crispin Barker • Steven Block • Christopher Lacey • Joseph Miller • Claire Slaymaker • Larry Stoehr This special meeting was scheduled to interview the applicants for the vacant Commissioner position at one time. All applicants have indicated that they will be present at the meeting to answer questions from the Council, with the exception of Mr. Lacey who has already interviewed with the Council during a previous Planning Commission recruitment effort and is therefore not required to do so again. Recommended Motion/Item Description Interview applicants for the open position on the Belvedere Planning Commission and, if desired, appoint a new Commissioner. Attachments Letters of interest and resumes from applicants Barker, Block, Lacey, Miller, Slaymaker, and Stoehr. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1 RE, Belvedere Planning Commission position opening 6/02/2016 To whom it may concern RECEIVED JUN 0 2 'nib City of Belvedere My name is Crispin Barker and I'm 51 years of age 1 am a Belvedere home owner, residing at 214 Bayview Ave . I have had a 32 year career in construction, contracting and development. Currently I am the owner of successful boutique construction company based in San Francisco, for the last 16 years. MON. We cater to both commercial and residential clientele, although I would say our reputation is for bespoke single family residences and remodels is what we are known for . I was born and educated in Britain. the son of American Father architect and an English mother county councilor . My mother was a planning councilor in Plymouth and a local politician for many years. I inherited her passion for community involvement and betterment. My brother too is an architect who now lives and practices in San Francisco. Its fair to say we grew up amongst construction , as our family homes were always under a state of "development ". I have been resident and citizen in the United States 32 years, I underwent a construction apprenticeship in New York City for 4 years before moving west in 1992, And have been a resident of the bay area for 24 years. resume I am the proud owner and co-founder of Barker O'Donoghue Master Builders in San Francisco. 16 years in existence, almost $50,000,000 in gross revenues to date. Our residential construction division: handles bespoke single family dwelling projects for design minded clients and architects. Awards and media include twice AIA 'one of ten best' projects in San Francisco 2006, 2013, We also achieved the first Leed Platinum certified residential project in San Francisco for our Carver St project. Our 22nd St/ 900 Carolina development has been used in a BMW ad and for Hewlett Packard also. Commercial projects : Clients include Yahoo and Zynga, Annunciation Cathedral, Noe Valley Ministry Church and the Dataway offices.. We are specialist in design and fabrication, and developers and producers of award winning corporate spaces . Whilst also involved in comprehensive historic refurbishment projects . My company is currently involved in construction the new ground -up Annunciation Cathedral . A new edifice and landmark in San Francisco's Mission district at Valencia and 14th St . Reason for applying for this position I purchased my Belvedere home 2013 and it is important to me to not only be involved in the community in which I live but to help preserve the integrity of Belvedere planning and development. By accident and subsequently impulse, I purchased my wonderful home in late 2013. I feel supremely lucky to have landed in quite possibly the loveliest place in the world. My home is a very nice original 1949 two bedroom house over looking the yacht club. 1 am home at last in Belvedere, and to express my gratitude, 1 in turn would wish to help and participate and give back to the town which 1 call home. I feel that with my back ground i am able to appreciate good design, spot bad design, whilst at the same time l have no particular aesthetic bias. I also understand and appreciate the burden on home owners of trying to improve or enlarge their homes and the incumbent expense. That is to say i recognize on the one hand preserving the nature and beauty of Belvedere whilst also sympathizing with residents desire to improve and update their homes . To wit, I would like to humbly offer my stewardship of the planning position available. I thank you in advance for your consideration Best regards Crispin Barker Steven J. Block 213 Golden Gate Belvedere, CA 94920 415.999.9526 March 1, 2016 Honorable Claire McAuliffe Mayor, City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920 Re: Letter of Interest, Planning Commission Dear Claire, I was, of course, very saddened to hear about Jan's illness and sorry to hear she will no longer be able to serve on the planning commission. I am writing to express my interest in taking over for her on the commission. I have had the great fortune of living in Belvedere since 1998. During that time, I have completely renovated both 213 Golden Gate Avenue and 332 Golden Gate Avenue. I served as owner -builder (i.e. the general contractor) for the renovation of 213 Golden Gate Avenue and for a substantial portion of the renovation at 332 Golden Gate Avenue. This experience has given me significant insight into the permitting and planning processes as well as the significant challenges faced by city staff. Moreover, as a long-time resident, I am acutely aware of the challenges the City faces regarding planning and development. Obviously, great care will be required addressing the emerging building challenges arising from the increased building heights in R-1 L and the ever-present impulse to maximize built space throughout the City. Letter of Intent 3/1/2016 p. 2 Finally, I believe that it is very important to support each resident's plans for their home. In the overwhelming majority of cases such support can be maintained through a collaborative approach between the homeowner and the Planning Commission. That said, I am cognizant of the required findings set forth in our General Plan and Municipal Code for granting of variances and floor - area exceptions. I want to ensure that the commission's work continues to reflect the interests of the city as a whole and to do what I can to protect the unique character of Belvedere. As someone who lives in close proximity to one of the City's more notorious old -code planning failures, I am quite sensitive to the costs of getting it wrong. Please let me know if you have any questions about my interest or capacity for this position. All the best, Steve Alison Foulis - City Clerk From: Christopher Lacey Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:38 PM To: Alison Foulis - City Clerk Subject: Planning Commission Opening Importance: High Good Day. It has come to my attention that there is an opening for the Planning Commission. I applied and interviewed for this position this past summer. I still have strong interest in serving on the Commission. I believe that my credentials are on file and in the Council minutes. Thank you and I sincerely hope to hear from you regarding this matter. Best regards, Christopher 1 1 April 2015 City of Belvedere 250 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920-2336 ATTN: Hon. Robert McCaskill Mayor RE: Letter of Interest Planning Commission Dear Mayor McCaskill, HAND DELIVERED My name is Christopher Lacey and 1 currently reside at and I have been a resident of Belvedere for nearly three years. The purpose of my letter is to introduce myself and to express interest in serving on the Belvedere Planning Commission. I am 50 years old and hold a Bachelor's Degree in Architectural Engineering from The Pennsylvania State University. 1 have enjoyed a successful career in the Construction Industry for nearly 30 years. During my career I have managed both residential and commercial projects ranging in construction value from $50,000 to $175,000,000. I have acted as constructor, construction manager, project manager, owner, developer and inspector. I have managed or developed projects in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and California. I was also a volunteer fireman in New Jersey for nearly seven years. I have been a CA licensed Contractor since 2009 and although officially retired I currently manage my two companies, Bay Area Redevlopment, LLC and Blue Water Yacht Harbor, LLC. I believe my extensive knowledge and experience in the construction industry would be an asset to the Planning Commission and as such would relish the opportunity to discuss my qualifications with you and your team for a position on this Commission. I can be reached at my home my cell lr at Thank you in advance for your consideration. I sincerely look forward to hearing from you soon. Very truly yours, pher Lacey Alison Foulis - City Clerk From: Joseph Miller Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 1:37 PM To: Alison Foulis - City Clerk Subject: Planning Commission - Application Dear Ms. McAuliffe: I am very excited to apply for the opening on the planning commission. My wife, two sons, and myself moved into Belvedere last September after we purchased our first home at 400 San Rafael Ave. Being an Eagle Scout, I have passion for serving our community. In particular, the planning commission is of great interest to me, as my profession is in commercial real estate and I have been involved in multiple redevelopment projects. Recently, I worked with Irene Borba and Scott Derdenger to remove 11 diseased pine trees from my property. The approval process was very intriguing, and since has motivated me to pursue an opening on this commission. Qualifications: In 2003, I graduated from DePaul University in Chicago, earning degrees in finance and accounting, with an emphasis in real estate. During college, I was fortunate to apply my coursework, while completing an 18 -month interning at one of Chicago's most respected full service commercial real estate firms. Between 2003 and 2007, I made several career moves in Chicago, ascending from a property accountant at Equity Office Properties and RREEF, to portfolio management at Heitman. In 2008, I moved to San Francisco as the portfolio manager of an opportunistic real estate investment fund, which was backed by and eventually went defunct along with Bear Stearns. When the opportunistic fund finally closed down during the Great Recession in 2010, I overcame the tight job market by teaching myself multiple programming languages, acquiring technical skills suitable for employment within a tech startup. In 2011 and 2012, I entrepreneured a data services company that provided fundamental research and market analysis to financial professionals. In 2012, I became one of the first Software Engineers at Chartboost, where during my tenure we raised Series A funding from Sequoia Capital, grew from 20 to 140+ employees, and became a leading provider of mobile ad tech. I was able to quickly learn and implement new data technologies at Chartboost without having a technical background, successfully tackling "big data" issues that arose as the customer base expanded globally into thousands of customers. This month, I joined Marcus & Millichap, a commercial real estate brokerage where I am being trained to sell office buildings within San Francisco. I look forward to the opportunity to speak with you more about how I can be of great service to your commission. Sincere Regards, Joseph Miller 1 4iy+0 T 9 9 9 p O 9 t a e• d 9 9 C c 9 e .. 9 9 c d a 4 a_ 9 d e: a a e cui- 7V1 V V 9 O, C /• 4 4 4 O i C C 4 C O 9• C 4 9 9 i. C C O i 4 4 N 9• i. 0 PALO ,� r� . h a a H � � ry � T i• S n 9 R d f• ! d O n C O a. f C Commercial & Residential Interiors Dear Claire, I understand that I am under consideration for a seat on the Planning Commission and I wanted you to know that I am flattered by the approach and would be very interested in the position. It would be a great way for me to give back to the Belvedere Community, using my expertise in commercial and residential interior design. 1 have been working in design for over 30 years. I first had my own design firm in Texas for 9 years, then worked for IDS, a British Design Firm in Hong Kong, for 5 years before coming back to San Francisco and starting a Design Firm here. I have worked for many local Architects and Contractors so I feel that I could bring a strong and deep understanding of design to the Community. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thanks so much for your time. Best, Claire 1 Belvedere 1Vay Belvedere. CA 94920 MI 415 435 2649 Fax 415 435 0749 claireslay4 comcast.net • ?i.S:i.D. f C.I.D. Alison Foulis - City Clerk From: Claire Slaymaker Subject: My history in Belvedere Date: April 17, 2016 at 5:10:51 PM PDT To: Claire McAuliffe Dear Claire, In addition to my professional qualifications, I would like to give you and the Commissioners a little background on my history in Belvedere. My husband Rob and I have lived in Belvedere for 23 years and raised our son Christopher here as well. I have had extensive experience with the Belvedere Planning Commission and its codes through 2 additions to my home and while working with 5 clients on extensive remodels and additions to theirs. I have chaired the Belvedere Block Parties twice, Co -Chaired the Belvedere Millennium at the San Francisco Yacht Club, presided as president of the San Francisco Yacht Clubs Auxiliary and I was on its Board for many years. I have corresponded with commissioners over the years and have a good understanding of the job and time involved. Please feel free to email me with any questions. My Best, Claire CLAIRE SLAYMAKER Claire Slaymaker is an Interior Designer practicing in San Francisco with projects in the US and Abroad. She specializes in projects where she works with owners and contractors/architects on the development of design concepts during the construction phase of extensive remodeling and new construction projects. This includes color and general finishing consulting, electric, plumbing fixtures selection and space planning. Claire has had her own design business in San Francisco for the past 24 years. Between 1985 to 1989 she worked in Hong Kong for IDS, a British design firm, focused on commercial and residential design. Prior to that she had her own design firm and retail store in Texas. Claire is currently a member of ASID and SFMOMA's Modern Art Council. Claire received an MA from Southern Methodist University in 1973, and did graduate work at Inchbald School of Design in London and Parsons School of Design in Paris t LAJL,Iii. Belvedere. CA 94920 2/25/2016 Dear Mayor and Council Members, Re: Planning Commission Position I am interested in being considered for service on the Belvedere Planning Commission. 1 grew up in Belvedere, attended Del Mar and Redwood high schools (1964 through 1971) and lived in the area again from 1994 through 1999. We, my wife Kathy and I, bought our house on zo Peninsula Rd in 1999 just prior to being transferred overseas. We have rented out our home until just recently and will be moving back into it in June 2016 after I retire from my employer in Santiago Chile. 1 have a long history with Belvedere, love the area and the people, was an avid sailor when I was young and am so looking forward to being back. I am a mining engineer and have been working for many years in business development for BHP Billiton, involving mining property valuation and assessment. I am interested in serving on the Planning Commission to help maintain the beauty and special character of our community and to give something back now that I am retired and can serve. Being an engineer, I think my skills could be useful reviewing and understanding drawings, drainage issues, geotechnical issues, etc., and having managed due diligence teams, my communication and people skill experience could also be useful on the Commission. I will be returning to California in early April and am available thereafter to serve if you find me an acceptable candidate. Thank you for your consideration. If you would like any additional information please contact me by email, or we can arrange a skype meeting if you prefer. Warm regards, Larry Stoehr I do not have a US phone yet, however, you can reach me though my wife Dr. Kathleen Stoehr at , and I will return your call. Larry J_ Stoehr cJ o BHP Copper —Santiago 1360 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 150 Houston, TX 77056-3030 +56 22 579 5425 Office +56 99 743 0096 Cell EDUCATION The Wharton School -Graduate Division Philadelphia, Pa Master of Business Administration, May 1984. Concentration in Finance. U niversity of Arizona Bachelor of Science in Mining Engineering, December 1975. Graduated with Distinction. EXPERI EN CE Tucson, AZ BHP Billiton Ltd. 8194 to Present Project Manager — Copper Strategy & Business Development 1/13 — present Developed and managed the copper business' price protocols for copper, molybdenum, lead and zinc which are used for planning and valuation of acquisitions, divestitures and project investment decisions. This entails valuation modeling of all known producing mines and estimating potential future supply and costs. In addition, continue to lead due diligence of potential acquisition targets and internal investment/ divestment decisions. Currently located in Santiago, Chile. Project M anager — Base M etal s Strategy & Business Development 10/06 —12112 Lead effort to acquire a significant operating mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo which reached Board level decision. Lead and directed multi -skill teams in evaluating both natural resource greenfield project and operating asset acquisitions. Directed due diligence assessments of acquisition targets including a major undeveloped project in Alaska. Managed relationships with potential business partners and government authorities as appropriate. Worked with Business Analysts, Consultants and Technical Services to ensure project valuation studies were completed to the required standard. Located in Santiago Chile three years.. Asset Leader Joi nt Ventures 7/02 —1 0106 Stewardship of BHP Billiton Base Metals investments in non -operated joint ventures: Antamina, Highland Valley and Alumbrera. Accomplishments included; Identifying opportunities to enhance value and execution; Encouraged optimization of the assets; Ensured and protected BHPB's interests; Recommend appropriate restructuring of interests as required; Maintained and developed reporting requirements; Developed and recommended exit strategies as appropriate; and, Maintained representation on the various committees and boards. Served as Chairman of Compania Minera Antamina's (" CM A") Technical Committee, Secretary of CMA's Advisory Committee and member of various steering committees. Initially located in Melbourne Australia, relocated to Houston TX USA and finally to Santiago Chile. M anager Business Development / New Business Evaluation 8/94 — 7/02 Managed the identification, evaluation, promotion and development of new business opportunities in the Minerals Industry for BHP's World Minerals Division. This involved working closely with BHP's exploration, process development, legal and finance groups and with external financial institutions, consultants, mining and exploration companies. The goal was to identify joint venture and acquisition opportunities that met BHP's investment and strategic criteria. Examples of my activities included development of a gold strategy designed to capture more value from gold exploration efforts. Participated in due diligence of several major nickel laterite projects in Australia. Reviewed the Maleeva polymetalics advanced project development in Kazakstan. Negotiated a ,bint Venture deal for BHP involving a major zinc deposit in China and brought the project to a Senior Management decision. Evaluated and negotiated the possible entry into US soda ash business through acquisition. Initiated evaluation and then co -managed disposal of $500 million platinum mine in Zimbabwe. Last worked on capturing the Tenke Fungurume opportunity in the DRC, which involved negotiations with the State mining company officers and Government Ministry level along with World Bank and IDC. Initially located in San Francisco then relocated to Melbourne Australia. THE DOE RUN COMPANY 8/84to8/94 ST. JOE M I N ERA LS CORPORATION & ST. JOE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Sales Manager - Prime responsibility for development and implementation of sales and purchasing strategies including forward trading on metal exchange markets. Sold $50 - $75 million/ yr. to international (Japan, Australia, India, Europe, Canada) and domestic customers. Continued leading role in strategic planning and acquisition evaluation. Special Assistant to the President - Developed business plan for successful $40 million entry into recycling automotive batteries. Led team of outside consultants reviewing assets and management practices, which resulted in a significant improvement in profitability. Created and managed company long-range strategic planning effort. Evaluated several potential acquisitions compatible with current business activities. Active inside member of team established to take Doe Run public. Manager Business Development - Responsible for technical feasibility and investment recommendations for various new business prospects and new developments in South America, Australia, China, Canada and USA. Managed the initial on site feasibility work and negotiated mining contract for the $50 million Golden Patricia gold mine in Ontario, Canada. Larry Stoehr October 2014 Page 2 of 3 WHITE PINE COPPER DIVISION, COPPER RANGE CO. 1/81 to 1/83 Underground Mine Superintendent - Responsible for 30% of underground mine production and all special mine excavations. Accomplished a 25% productivity increase through improved organization. Supervised seven salaried and 70 hourly employees. Assisted with Start-up of advanced copper refinery and casting plant. CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM CO., AMAX, INC. 1/76 to 1/81 Senior Engineer - Responsible for underground equipment selection and under ground mine planning. Shift Boss - Responsible for various aspects of mine production from both underground and open pit operations. Major experience in ground control and repair, equipment maintenance, development mining, block caving, open pit operations and engineering. Supervised up to 34 hourly employees. Summer Experience - w hi le attending college. 1971-1975 Climax Molybdenum Co., Amax, Climax, CO. - Development Miner Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, CA. - Student Intern, Mining Department. Bechtel Corporation, Delta, PA., nuclear power plant construction Quality Control Engineer. Western Mining Corporation Limited, Morrowa, Western Australia, Australia. - Laborer and geology assistant at open pit iron mine. Homestake M ining Company, Creed, Co. - Claim Surveyor and concentrator laborer. Professional Associations: Industry Advisor to the United States Department of Commerce, U.S. delegation of the International Lead and Zinc Study Group. Member of the American Mining Congress- MineralsAvailability Committee Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Engineers, Inc. Personal Proficient with Excel, Word, PowerPoint, M S Project. Enjoy sailing, snow skiing, tennis and golf. I have a great wife and two wonderful adult children. Larry Stoehr October 2014 Page 3 of 3 /;A CITY OF BELVEDERE Memorandum elIV June 2, 2016 TO: Mayor McAuliffe and Members of the City Council FROM: Patricia Seyler, Chief of Police Mary Neilan, City Manager Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Preliminary discussion (study session) on proposed amendments to BMC Title 11 "Water and Watercraft" Since the 1840's, people have been living on boats in Richardson Bay. This anchor -out population grew in the 1960's as people sought a free spirited life, and again in 2010 when anchorages in Oakland/Alameda, San Leandro, and Redwood City closed to stem environmental damage, causing some of the anchor -out population to move to Richardson Bay. In 2008 approximately 98 vessels were anchored in Richardson Bay. By 2015 there were approximately 210-240 vessels. While some boats in Richardson Bay are used as residential houseboats or "Iiveaboards," many are also used as storage or garbage boats. These derelict boats present health, safety, and public welfare issues for Belvedere. Boats that are abandoned or break free from their anchor can drift into Belvedere waters, washing ashore and risking both safety and property. The Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA), of which the City is a member, is responsible for the management of and activity in Richardson Bay. However, due to the increased number of vessels in the Bay and the limited resources of RBRA, their ability to respond to problems in Belvedere is limited and may not meet Council and community expectations. The Council asked for a means of citing these derelict boats that would discourage their owners from allowing them to become a nuisance in Belvedere, augmenting what the RBRA is able to do on our behalf. The Council has also expressed concern that as other RBRA agencies take on additional enforcement in their jurisdiction, occupied boats may move to Belvedere waters. The Council wanted to be sure the Belvedere Municipal Code provided tools to prevent that from happening. City of Belvedere • 450 San Rafael Ave. • Belvedere, CA 94920-2336 Phone 415.435.8908 • Direct 415.435.8906 • MNeilan@cityofbelvedere.org The proposed amendments to BMC Title 11 would enhance the enforcement options already in place by: 1) requiring every boat to have a permit if in Belvedere waters for over 10 hours, or face a citation and/or potential impoundment of the boat; and 2) prohibiting residential houseboats in Belvedere. Current Regional Boat Regulations. Currently, Belvedere's Municipal Code does not limit the length of time a boat may remain in Belvedere waters. Additionally, the Code allows houseboats with City per nission. RBRA regulations provide that any boat in the jurisdictional waters of Richardson Bay (which include Belvedere waters) must have a permit to remain more than 72 hours. However, that regulation is not being enforced. The regulations also provide that RBRA will remove derelict boats that wash ashore within 24 hours. Due to budgetary constraints RBRA is not always able to remove these boats within the 24 hour period. The City of Sausalito requires any boat in Sausalito waters over 10 hours to have written permission from the city. Although Sausalito's ordinance was adopted in 1981, it has rarely been enforced. Recently, Sausalito indicated it would move towards enforcing its boat permit ordinance in an attempt to remove derelict boats and boats that are being used as storage vessels. Sausalito has started a public outreach campaign to inform boat owners that boats without a permit will be issued a citation and possibly removed. Proposal The attached Code revisions propose a new boat permit requirement and prohibit houseboats, and also reiterate and clarify the City's authority to enforce existing state law. In summary: 1. Boat Permit Required. a. Any vessel within Belvedere Waters in excess of 10 hours must have and display a City permit. Permits will only be issued for boats affiliated with the San Francisco or Corinthian Yacht Clubs, or for boats owned by a Belvedere resident or a guest of a Belvedere resident. b. Any vessel without a permit will be cited and subject to financial penalty. Boats that remain over 10 hours may be impounded and stored by the City. c. If left unclaimed for 30 days, the vessel will constitute abandoned property and the City may sell or dispose of the vessel. 2. Vessels that pose an immediate hazard to health, safety, or the environment may be impounded and stored by the City. If left unclaimed for 30 days, the vessel will constitute abandoned property and the City may sell of dispose of the vessel. City of Belvedere • 450 San Rafael Ave. • Belvedere, CA 94920-2336 Phone 415.435.8908 • Direct 415.435.8906 • MNeilan@cityofbelvedere.org 3. In accordance with State law, the City may remove and dispose of Marine Debris within 10 days of posting notice. Marine Debris is a boat or boat material that is not seaworthy and cannot be made seaworthy. 4. The City may remove and dispose of any abandoned vessel remaining in Belvedere Waters 30 days after posting notice. 5. Residential anchor -outs, or houseboats, are prohibited in Belvedere Waters. Enforcement Challenges and Fiscal Impact To date, Belvedere has relied on RBRA to enforce Limits on anchor -outs and to abate abandoned and derelict vessels in Richardson Bay. Adopting our own (and more stringent) requirements means these tasks would likely become our responsibility. Unlike Sausalito PD and the County Sheriff, the City does not own a boat, nor do we have personnel trained in water based enforcement. The City will need to explore options to contract for these services or invest significant resources in the equipment and training necessary to enforce this Code ourselves. Required tasks include boarding the vessel to post a citation and determining if the boat is occupied, registered or abandoned; hauling the boat (or debris) to a location for storage; complying with due process requirements; and potentially destroying the boat. Staff can speak to this in more detail at the study session. In the corning months, the RBRA Board may be asked to consider increasing its budget to enhance both abatement and enforcement in Richardson Bay in a way that meets members' needs. If the RBRA board adopts a more robust program (that will likely mean increased member contributions) the need for Belvedere to enforce its own ordinance may be minimized. However, adopting an ordinance in Belvedere prior to identifying a viable means of enforcement could lead to confusion and frustration among residents. Staff is reluctant to recommend the Council adopt this code revision until the enforcement question is answered. Attachment: 1. Draft ordinance amending BMC Title 11, "Water and Watercraft" 2. Map of RBRA jurisdiction City of Belvedere • 450 San Rafael Ave. • Belvedere, CA 94920-2336 Phone 415.435.8908 • Direct 415.435.8906 • MNeilan@cityofbelvedere.org cityofbelvedere.org CITY OF BELVEDERE ORDINANCE NO. 2016 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE AMENDING TITLE 11 "WATER AND WATERCRAFT" OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A BOAT PERMITTING REQUIREMENT, PROHIBIT HOUSEBOATS, AND OTHER MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONSISTENCY CODE AMENDMENTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS A. WHEREAS, There are a large number of boats in Richardson Bay, including residential houseboats, storage boats, garbage storage boats, and derelict and abandoned boats; and B. WHEREAS, derelict, abandoned, and improperly anchored boats and marine debris in Richardson Bay wash ashore on Belvedere properties and into Belvedere waters; and C. WHEREAS, Title 11 of the Belvedere Municipal Code provides regulations for watercrafts and their use; and D. WHEREAS, the State of California became the owner of all tidelands pursuant to a land grant, which the City holds in trust for the public benefit pursuant to various legislative grants from the State; and E. WHEREAS, the California Constitution guarantees the public freedom of access to and the right of navigation on all navigable waters, and the right to exercise the incidents of navigation thereon; and F. WHEREAS, in furtherance of protecting the public safety and welfare, local jurisdictions may impose reasonable regulations regarding boats within their jurisdictional waters; and G. WHEREAS, the water within the City of Belvedere's jurisdictional boundaries is an open water area for the public purpose of recreational boating and unobstructed water vistas for the public and residents; and Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 2 of 16 H. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that discouraging boat owners from allowing boats to float adrift in Belvedere waters or become beached on land is necessary to protect the public safety and welfare because floating abandoned and beached boats cause damage including property damage, impairment of public vistas, and environmental damage as pollution and debris are released from damaged boats; and I. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that discouraging boat owners from allowing boats to float adrift in Belvedere waters or become beached on land is also necessary to protect the public safety and welfare because abandoned and beached boats present significant navigational hazards; and J. WHEREAS, City permission for vessels to moor, anchor, or otherwise be present in Belvedere waters in excess of a 10 hour period is in furtherance of protecting the public safety and welfare, and necessary to ensure the continued use of Belvedere waters for recreational boating and unobstructed water vistas; and K. WHEREAS, the City Council finds prohibiting "liveaboards", houseboats, and all other watercrafts that are used for the purpose of residential dwellings in Belvedere waters is necessary for the public safety and welfare because such residential boat use is inconsistent with the use of the area for recreational boating and providing unobstructed water vistas for the public and residents, and can impair navigation; and L. WHEREAS, the City has initiated text amendments to the City's "Water and Watercraft" Title 11 of the Municipal Code to require boat permits, impose a penalty if a boat is present in Belvedere waters in excess of 10 hours, prohibit houseboats, and other administrative and consistency code amendment issues (collectively, "Code Amendments"); and M. WHEREAS, the Code Amendments are categorically exempt from the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") per CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), which exempts projects that clearly will have no significant adverse environmental impacts; and N. WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 13, 2016 and considered all evidence presented and testimony given during the public hearing regarding the Code Amendments; and O. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Code Amendments are necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare as described herein and in the staff report incorporated by reference, are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the Belvedere General Plan, and are consistent with the objectives of the Water and Watercraft Ordinance; and Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 3 of 16 P. WHEREAS, nothing in this legislation is intended to affect the City's ability enforce applicable local, state, or federal laws including, but not limited to Richardson Bay Regional Agency regulations, and state laws including Harbors and Navigation Code sections 522, 523, and 550, as may be amended from time to time. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DOES ORDAIN THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE AS FOLLOWS: *please note that with the exception of Chapter 11.05 below, all new language is underlined, and deleted language is in strikeout. Chapter 11.05 is entirely new, and is not underlineclfor ease of reading. SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS Chapter 11.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: 11.04.010 Definitions. 11.04.020 City Manager authority. 11.04.030 Applicability. 11.04.040 Vessels Subject to Control of City. 11.04.050 Public Nuisance Declared. 11.04.060 Remedies. 11.04.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases, when used in this Title, shall, for the purpose of this Title, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section: A. "Abandoned Property" refers to any hulk, derelict, wreck, or parts of any Vessel, sunk, beached, or allowed to remain in an unseaworthy or dilapidated condition in Belvedere Waters without a Permit for 30 days or more, and without a watchperson or other person being maintained upon or near, and in charge of the Vessel. B. "Anchoring" refers to using equipment carried on the Vessel to maintain position in the water. C. "Belvedere Waters" means and refers to any and all of the navigable waters of Richardson Bay or San Francisco Bay covering submerged lands held in trust by the City. D. "Harbors and Navigation Code" refers to the California Harbors and Navigation Code, as may be amended from time to time. Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 4 of 16 on the assessor's map as owned by the City. and is not principally used for transportation. "Houseboat" also includes any vessel anchored, moored, berthed, or otherwise present in or on any part of Belvedere Cove and/or in or on any • habitation by any person(s) for longer than seven days in any thirty day period. E. "Impound" means the removal and storage of a Vessel by the City. F. "Liveaboard" refers to a Vessel that is used by any person(s) as a residence and/or is occupying that Vessel and engaging in those usual and customary activities associated with a person's residence or abode such as, but not limited to, sleeping and preparation of meals. This definition will also include any individual using a Vessel for four or more days or nights within any seven-day period as a place of business, storage use, professional location or other commercial enterprise, when transportation is a secondary or subsidiary use. F. "Marine Debris" refers to a Vessel, or part of a Vessel, including a derelict, wreck, hulk, or part of any watercraft or dilapidated Vessel that is unseaworthy and not reasonably fit or capable of being made fit to be used as a means of transportation by water. G. "Mooring" refers to making fast to a mooring buoy having a fixed permanent anchor. E.H. "Moorings" means any weight, chain, rope, float structure, and/or appliance used by a vessel for anchoring purposes, and which is not carried aboard such vessel as part of the regular equipment. �. I "Pier" means any fixed or floating structure for securing vessels, loading or unloading persons or property, or providing access to the water, and includes wharf, dock, float, or any other landing facility. E "Vessel" and "craft." The words "vessel" and "craft" each mean and include vessels, "mooring " or "pier," and every other structure adapted to be navigated from place to place for the transportation property and/or persons by any means. (Ord. 81 5 §1, 1981; prior code -23 1; Ord. 158 NS (part), 1969.) Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 5 of 16 J. "Vessel" shall mean every description of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water, as further defined in the Harbors and Navigation Code section 21. 11.04.020 City Manager authority. A. The City Manager -police administrator shall have the authority conferred upon him or her by this Title and by other local, state or federal laws. B. Whenever a power is granted to, or a duty is imposed upon the City Manager, the power is granted to, or a duty is imposed upon the City Manager, the power may be exercised or the duty may be performed by such other person as may be designated by the City Manager for the enforcement of the regulations set forth in this Title. 11.04.030 Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall have no application to Vessels operated by the United States of America, the State of California, or any governmental entities or their agencies or instrumentalities. This Chapter shall have no application to any Vessel in an emergency situation as determined at the discretion of the City Manager and/or City Police Chief and/or his or her designee. 11.04.040 Vessels Subject to Control of City. Every Vessel entering Belvedere Waters shall immediately become subject to the order and direction of the City, and all Vessels shall be Anchored, Moored, or otherwise present in Belvedere Waters only with the required Permit pursuant to this Title. 11.04.050 Public Nuisance Declared. A Vessel that is in violation of any provision of this Title shall constitute a Public Nuisance. 11.04.060 Remedies. The procedures and remedies set forth in this Title are cumulative and in no way prohibit the City from utilizing any other provision of federal, state, or local law including, but not limited to, regulations, procedures, and remedies adopted by the Richardson's Bay Regional Agency, and Harbors and Navigation Code Sections 522, 523, and 551. (*Please note that Chapter 11.05 below is entirely new, and is not underlined for ease of reading.) 11.05 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS; REMEDIES FOR MARINE DEBRIS, AND ABANDONED OR DERELICT VESSELS. 11.05.010 Permit. A. Permit Required. Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 6 of 16 1. It shall be unlawful for any Vessel to Moor, Anchor, berth, store, or otherwise be present in Belvedere Waters for a period of more than ten (10) consecutive hours without (1) a valid permit to do so from the City; and (2) having paid all applicable fees established by City Council resolution ("Permit"). The Permit must be displayed on the Vessel at a location that is visible from the outside of the Vessel at all times. 2. Permits may be obtained at the City Police Department pursuant to this Section after payment of a permit fee as established by City Council resolution. Each Permit shall be valid for a period seventy-two (72) hours. Any Permit that is in arrears is invalid. 3. The Police Chief in his or her discretion may issue a Permit in the following circumstances: a. as necessary for temporary events associated with the San Francisco Yacht Club or Corinthian Yacht Club; b. for Belvedere residents who require temporary anchorage; or c. for guests of Belvedere residents who require temporary anchorage. 4. Vessels are allowed to Moor, Anchor, or otherwise be present in Belvedere Waters for a period of up to ten (10) consecutive hours without a Permit. B. Penalty. 1. The owner of a Vessel in violation of this Section shall pay to the City a penalty of five hundred dollars (5500) ("Penalty") for each and every day the Vessel does not have a valid Permit. Each day constitutes a separate violation. 2. For Vessels in violation of this Section, the City shall issue a Penalty notice ("Penalty Notice") by affixing a notice to the Vessel detailing the violation and Penalty owed to the City. The City shall also mail the Penalty Notice to the address of the Vessel's last owner of record on file with the Department of Motor Vehicles by first class mail, in cases where the Vessel has a discernable registration number. 3. The Penalty Notice shall state the address and telephone number of the City, and contain information regarding how to pay the Penalty and appeal the Penalty if desired. The Penalty Notice shall state that the Vessel is subject to Impound after seventy-two (72) hours from the time of posting the Penalty Notice if a Permit is not obtained or the Vessel removed. Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 7 of 16 C. Impound. The City may Impound a Vessel that remains in Belvedere Waters without a Permit after seventy two (72) hours after the Vessel has been posted with a Penalty Notice. To Impound any Vessel, the City may relocate or secure the Vessel until such time as all fees or charges are paid in full, including, but not limited to, past due Permit fees, Penalties, interest, legal fees and costs, and charges for mooring, storage, and/or maintenance of the Vessel during Impoundment at the direction and reasonable discretion of the Police Chief. If the Vessel remains in Impound for a period of thirty (30) days without being claimed, the City may sell or destroy the Vessel pursuant to the provisions of the Harbors and Navigation Code. D. Public Nuisance. A Vessel that is Moored, Anchored, or otherwise present in Belvedere Waters in violations of this Chapter shall constitute a public nuisance. E. Costs Recoverable. All costs incurred by the City, including attorneys' fees, for the enforcement and prosecution of this Section, and for the removal, storage, and disposal of any Vessel, and any associated costs, pursuant to this Section and all applicable provisions of local, state, or federal law, may be recovered by the City from the owner of the Vessel through any appropriate legal action in a court of competent jurisdiction. F. Vessel Removal Fund. All Penalty moneys collected pursuant to this Section shall be deposited in a separate City fund, to be established by the City Council, which fund shall be used for the enforcement of this Chapter and in furtherance of its purposes. 11.05.020 Inmlediate Impound of Vessels Posing Hazard. A. The City may immediately remove without notice and Impound any Vessel in Belvedere Waters under the following circumstances: 1. The Vessel interferes with, or otherwise poses a danger to, navigation or the public health, safety, or welfare. 2. The Vessel poses a threat to adjacent wetlands, levies, sensitive habitat, and/or protected wildlife species or water quality. 3. The Vessel is found or operated with a registration date in excess of one year before the date it was found. B. The City shall mail a notice to the owner, if known, that the Vessel shall be deemed Abandoned Property and disposed of or sold by the City if left unclaimed for thirty (30) days, information regarding how to reclaim the Vessel, and the City's address and telephone number. C. Within thirty (30) days of notice, or if no such notice is possible, within thirty (30) days of Impoundment, the owner may reclaim the Vessel upon the payment of all fees and charges, Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 8of16 including but not limited to, past due Permit fees, Penalties, interest, legal fees and costs, and charges for mooring, storage, and/or maintenance of the Vessel during Impoundment at the direction and reasonable discretion of the Police Chief. If the Vessel remains in Impound for a period of thirty (30) days without being claimed, the City may sell or destroy the Vessel pursuant to the provisions of the Harbors and Navigation Code. D. All costs incurred by the City, including attorneys' fees, for the removal, storage, and disposal of any Vessel, and any associated costs, pursuant to this Section and all applicable provisions of local, state, or federal law, may be recovered by the City from the owner of the Vessel through any appropriate legal action in a court of competent jurisdiction. 11.05.030 Disposal and Sale of Abandoned Property. A. The City may dispose of or sell Abandoned Property within Belvedere Waters if left unclaimed for thirty (30) days after posting notice on the Abandoned Property. B. Notice pursuant to this Section shall be affixed to the Vessel and mailed to the owner's address of record if there is discernable identifying information on the Vessel. Notice shall contain a statement that the Vessel shall be deemed Abandoned Property and disposed of or sold by the City if left unclaimed for thirty (30) days, information regarding how to reclaim the Vessel, and the City's address and telephone number. C. All costs incurred by the City, including attorneys' fees, for the enforcement and prosecution of this Section, may be recovered by the City from the owner of the Vessel through any appropriate legal action in a court of competent jurisdiction. 11.05.040 Marine Debris. A. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Belvedere Municipal Code, or any and all other laws, the City may remove and dispose of Marine Debris that is sunk, partially sunk, or beached in or on Belvedere Waters after 10 days of giving notice of such action upon the following conditions: 1. The Marine Debris has no value or a value that does not exceed the cost of removal and disposal; 2. The City give notice that the Marine Debris shall be removed within 10 days if not claimed or removed, such notice either by attaching such notice to the Marine Debris, or mailing notice first-class mail to the owner's address of record if there is discernible identifying information on the Marine Debris. Said notice shall include the City's address and telephone number. Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 9 of 16 B. The costs incurred by the City for the removal and disposal of the Marine Debris pursuant to this Section, including attorney's fees, may be recovered from the owner or the person/entity who placed the Marine Debris in the public waterway or beach land, through any appropriate legal action in the courts of California. C. The City may immediately remove and dispose of Marine Debris that constitutes a public nuisance or a danger to navigation, health, safety, or the environment, unless the Marine Debris is whole and the owner of the Marine Debris is identifiable, in which case the Marine Debris shall be stored for ten (10) days to permit notification of the owner, if possible. If the owner is not immediately identifiable, the Marine Debris may be immediately destroyed or otherwise disposed of. D. The owner of any Marine Debris stored by the City may recover the Marine Debris upon payment of all cost incurred for the removal and storage of the Marine Debris. 11.05.050 Liveaboards are prohibited in Belvedere Waters notwithstanding a valid Permit. Chapter 11.08 WATERCRAFT OPERATION 11.08.010 Launching facilities. It is unlawful to launch or remove from Belvedere Waters the corporate limits of the City any Wessel except at such locations as are designated for that purpose, or at such locations as are provided with launching facilities to do such work. 11.08.020 Unsafe or dangerous mooring or anchorage prohibited. It is unlawful to a Anchor, mMoor, or fasten to any pier within Belvedere Waters the corporate limits of the City as to be unsafe or dangerous to any other Wessel previously lying at Aanchor, or Mmoored, or fastened to any pier. 11.08.030 Mooring limitations. It is unlawful to make fast or tie any Wessel to a Mmooring belonging to another Vvessel without the owner's permission, or to make fast or tie to a Wessel already occupying a Mmooring without the owner's permission, or to anchor so close to the 'Wessel occupying a Mmooring that the other Wessel is endangered. 11.08.040 Obstruction of navigation—Unlawful acts designated. It is unlawful to tie up or channels, or to prevent or obstruct the passing of other vcsscls or to voluntarily or carelessly sink piles in any channel or berthing space in such a manner as to obstruct, impede or injure other vcsscls or the navigation thereof. It is a violation of this Chapter for any Vessel to prevent or obstruct the passage of other Vessels in any way including, but not limited to floating in or Anchoring a Vessel within Belvedere Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 10 of 16 Waters so as to obstruct channels, or prevent the passing of other Vessels, or voluntarily or carelessly sink or cause a Vessel to be sunk in Belvedere Waters. It shall be the duty of the owner of any such Vessel to immediately mark it by a buoy during the day and by reasonably sufficient lighting at night, and to maintain such markings until the Vessel is removed. The owner of the Vessel shall immediately commence the removal of the Vessel and prosecute the removal diligently to completion. Any failure to immediately and diligently remove the Vessel shall be unlawful constitute an immediate hazard pursuant to this Chapter and Harbors and Navigation Code section 523 and the City immediately Impound the Vessel. 11.08.050 Speed restrictions. A. No persons shall operate a Wessel, boat or other watercraft within the corporate limits of the City in Belvedere Waters at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for other Wessels, property, and persons on such waters, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. B. No person shall operate a Wessel or boat or other watercraft in Belvedere Cove, described as that area of water within a boundary line extending from the southeasterly point of Belvedere Island to the southeasterly point of Corinthian Yacht Club breakwater, at a speed in excess of five nautical miles per hour. 11.08.060 Safety of vessels—Storm warnings. It shall be the duty of every owner or operator or other person m charge of a Wessel to apprise themselves of weather conditions and to heed storm warnings, and to take such steps as are necessary under the circumstances to insure the safety of such Wessels in the event of unusual tide and weather conditions. It shall also be the duty of every owner or person in charge of a Wessel to inspect at reasonable intervals the Mnioorings, bilges and appurtenances of such vessels to preclude hazards common to Wessels and insure seaworthiness. Chapter 11.12 HOUSEBOATS 11.12.010 Compliance Requirements mandates. Each and every houseboat within the corporate limits of the City shall comply with each of the mandatory requirements set forth in this Chapter. 11.12.020 Mooring Off street parking specifications. A houseboat shall be moored or otherwise secured to a slip, wharf or pier having a right of access to and from the public roads, provision for ingress and egress by standard size passenger automobiles to and from the public .. , .. . or otherwise secured. Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 11 of 16 11.12.030 Connection to sewage system required. Each and every houseboat within the corporate limits of thc City shall bc connected to thc City sanitary sewage system, in accordance with the plumbing code adopted in Chapter 16.0'1 and the zoning ordinance set forth in Title 18 of this to be a dwelling and a building for purposes of this Chapter. 11.12.010 Location restrictions. Houseboats shall not be permitted in areas where such use is not authorized by the zoning ordinance of the City, or where such use would be in violation of any provisions of this Codc. A. Occupy, or causc or permit another person to occupy any vessel anchored, moored, berthed, or otherwise present in or on any waters within thc corporate limits of City as living quarters or a place of habitation for longer than seven days in any given thirty day period without first securing a valid permit as hereinafter provided; B. Discharge untreated sewage into any City waters or waterways; C. Dump or throw garbage into any City waters or waterway; D. Cause or allow any vcsscl located on or moored to his property to bc occupied in contravention of this Chapter for a period of seven days following receipt of a written notice from the City Manager specifying the vessel involved and the location thereof; E. Furnish or supply electrical service, natural gas or fresh water, or provide a sewer connection to any vessel for which a valid permit as hereinafter provided has not been secured. 11.12.060 Permits. 11.12.060 Pcrmits. A. Form Fcc. All applications for permits to reside in any vcsscl in or on City waters shall be made in writing to the City Manager and shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee of one hundred fifty dollars, or such other fcc as the City Council may, by resolution, establish in the information: 1. The size, type and location of the vessel for which a permit is sought; Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 12 of 16 2. The number of people to be accommodated on board; 3. A description of what provisions have been made for disposal of sewage and graywater 4. A descr-iptien of what previsie s have been made for cennection to shoreline utilities; necessary to effectuate thc provisions of this Chapter; 6. Manner of access to and from vessel. which the permit is requested will not create a hazard to thc health, welfare or safety of the subject to such conditions as the City Manager deems appropriate to insure compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. D. Posting. Permits shall be permanently maintained upon the vessel. E. Term Renewal. All permits issued hereunder shall be effective for a period of thirty Permits may be renewed by resubmission of an appropriate application and payment of a nonrefundable fcc as then established by current "City resolution," to cover thc cost of processing and inspcction. City shall not be required to renew any permit issued hereunder. F. Inspections Revocation. The City Manager or his/ her authorized deputies shall have the authority to board and/or inspect any vcsscl after reasonable notice to thc owner or occupant when he has reasonable cause to believe that the vessel is occupied in violation of the provisions, • may dispense with notice requirements of this Section and may board and/or enter any vessel in hereof. actions of thc City Manager by reason of failure to grant a permit, revocation of a permit, or impositien of any conditions relating to the permit, the applicant or permittee shall have the right to appeal to the City Council in writing within ten days after notification of the action of the City Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 13 of 16 addressed to the appellant at the address shown on the application or permit. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall render a decision, which decision shall be final. H. Liability for Damage to Vessel. By issuance of any permit described herein, City assumes no risk on account of damage to any vessel located in or on City watcrs, nor to persons or equipment located in or upon any such vessel. I. Temporary Occupancy on Yacht Club Property. Mcmbcrs and registered gucsts of Corinthian Yacht Club and San Francisco Yacht Club shall be exempt from the permit provisions of Section 11.12.060 of Title 11 of this Codc. Both yacht clubs referred to herein, however, shall require Chapter 11.16 PIERS AND MOORINGS 11.16.010 Construction and operation by City authority when. The City Ceouncil may acquire or cause to be constructed such floats, wharves, piers and other facilities on City property as may be desired; and the City Ceouncil may rent or lease in whole or in part such floats, wharves, piers and other facilities to individuals, nonprofit associations and such other organizations as it may determine. The City Ceouncil may further, by resolution, establish charges for the use of such floats, wharves, piers and facilities. 11.16.020 Plans and specifications—Compliance with City requirements. Plans and specifications for piers and moorings shall be in compliance with requirements adopted by the City Council. 11.16.030 Lighting facilities. The City Manager -police administrator may require any occupant of any float, wharf, pier or other facility to install and maintain lighting facilities on such float, wharf, pier or other facility when in the discretion of the City Manager -police administrator said installation is required as a safety measure. 11.16.040 Private piers and moorings—License and permit required. It is unlawful to place, erect, construct or maintain piers or moorings on City property without having first obtained a revocable license or lease and permit to do so. 11.16.050 Filling, excavating or construction on in -undated lands—Requirements. It is unlawful for any person or entity to fill or cause to be filled any inundated lands or lands subject to inundation, or to excavate therein, or to construct any piling or other structure thereon or therein within the corporate limits of the City without having first complied with the provisions of Chapter 16.16 of this Code. Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 14 of 16 11.16.060 Permit—Required for occupancy—Exception. It is unlawful to occupy any float, wharf, pier, or other facility on City property designated in Section 11.16.010 without a permit first having been issued by the City Manager -police administrator, unless the City has determined to devote the facility to public use. 11.16.070 Attaching more than two Wessels to City facilities—Permission required. It is unlawful to make fast more than two vessels abreast at any such float, wharf, pier or other facility on City property designated in Section 11.16.010 without first having obtained permission from the City Manager -police administrator. 11.16.080 Permit—Fees and conditions. A. Permit fees may be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. Applicant shall pay an initial permit fee upon issuance of permit and thereafter shall pay the City a yearly fee as established by said resolution; such fee is due and payable on January 1st of each year, and shall be paid in advance. B. The permit shall provide that when the owner is in arrears for a period of thirty days, the City Manager -police administrator may at his option take over such mooring and convert it to use by the City, or permittee designated by the City; and further, as to private piers and moorings, when such owner has been in arrears for a period of six months or more, the Title to said piers and moorings shall be vested by operation of law and without notice in the City; provided, however, that at any time within the said period of six months, the owner shall have the privilege of redeeming such mooring by paying the total accrued charges. 11.16.090 Transfer permitted when. Transfer of any pier or mooring may be permitted in accordance with revocable license provisions. Chapter 11.20 MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS 11.20.010 Refuse Disposal. It is unlawful to dispose of any refuse, material, garbage, timbers, sewage or other waste matter into the waters within the City limits. 11.20.020 Disposal of oil, paints and other offensive articles. It is unlawful for any Vvessel to discharge or dump in the water or leave standing on any float, wharf, pier or upon any shoreline, roadway or parkway any oil, spirits, gasoline, distillate, kerosene or other petroleum or paints, rubbish, cleanings or any other offensive articles. 11.20.030 Boarding vessels or tampering with mooring prohibited— Exceptions. No person shall, with intent of malicious mischief, board any Wessel, yacht or other watercraft Mmoored, tied or Aanchored within Belvedere Waters the corporate limits of the City, nor shall any person board any Wessel without the consent of the owner or person in charge of said Wessel, yacht or Ordinance No. 2016 - City of Belvedere Page 15 of 16 watercraft. No person shall tamper with or in any way molest or interfere with the Mtoorings or anchorage of any Wessels, yachts or watercraft without the consent of the owner or person in charge of said Wessel, yacht or watercraft. 11.20.040 Petroleum products—Sale, use and storage prohibited where. The storage, handling, keeping, use or sale of gasoline, distillate, or any liquid petroleum products on floats, wharves, piers, and other facilities is prohibited. 11.20.050 Storage of fuel containers prohibited where. Empty drums, tanks, barrels or other containers used for the transportation of fuel, gasoline, distillate, kerosene or other inflammable products shall not be allowed to remain on any float, wharf, pier or other harbor facility, nor shall they be left on any shoreline, roadway or parkway. 11.20.060 Fuels, explosives and flammable gases—Storage restrictions. It is unlawful for any person to keep in storage any gasoline, fuel, explosive or inflammable gases whatsoever, or empty containers which previously contained such gases or products, on any float, wharf, pier or other harbor facility or aboard any Wessel, except in fuel tanks which are made part of the Wessel, while tied up or at Aanchor. The City Manager -police administrator may order the removal of such products or containers at any time in the interests of public safety. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance regardless of whether one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases should be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. To this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of its passage. Within fifteen (15) days following its passage, a summary of the Ordinance shall be published with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance and the Deputy City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the adopted Ordinance along with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance. INTRODUCED AT A PUBLIC HEARING on , and adopted at a regular meeting of the Belvedere City Council on 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Ordinance No. 2016- City of Belvedere Page 16 of 16 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Allison Foulis, City Clerk Claire McAuliffe, Mayor 2 \?. _ • ,•• .7 - Jima.. ,r < 0 _ I CO CnLIJ ••••k -45j, 0< = co a < <0 7;.x. TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2016 6:30 RM., HEADQUARTERS FIRE STATION 1679 TIBURON BLVD. DIGEST 2. CONSENT CALENDAR All items under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and may be approved by one motion of the Board of Directors unless a request is made by a member of the Board, 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 Board and do so at this time. A. Approval of Minutes, May 11, 2016 3. COMMUNICATIONS (Action) 4. PUBLIC OPEN TIME for items not on the agenda This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons who want to address the Agency on any matter not fisted on the agenda. The Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits discussion of items that are not duly placed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please Note: the Chair will allow time for public comment on each agenda item. 5. CHIEF'S REPORT A. Monthly Report (Discussion) B. Approve Step Raise — Captain/Fire Marshal Jessica Power, Range 325, Step #2, $8,874/mo., effective July 1, 2016 (Action) 6. TREASURER'S REPORT A. Finance Committee — Directors Sears and O'Neill (Discussion) Finance Committee Meeting —Wednesday, June 8, 2016, 1800 hrs. Headquarters Fire Station, 1679 Tiburon Blvd. B. Approve Warrants and Payroll (Action) 7. PUBLIC BUDGET HEARING AND FINAL BUDGET. F/Y 2016/17 A. Approve Resolution for Appropriation of Tax Proceeds, #2016-07 (Action) B. Approve Resolution that the Special Tax will not be levied for F/Y 2016/17, #2016-08 (Action) C. Approve Resolution of Annual Budget F/Y 2016/17, #2016-09 (Action) 8. RESOLUTIONS A. Approve Resolution authorizing Chief Pearce to sign the Joint Powers Agreement for Hazardous Materials Spills Management, #2016-10 (Action) 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. MERA — Chief Pearce (Discussion) B. SMEMPS — Director O'Neill (Discussion) C. PERSONNEL — President Kirchhoff and Director O'Neill (Discussion) 10. BOARD COMMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT NEXT REGULAR TFPD BOARD MEETING: July 13, 2016, 6:30 P.M. A complete agenda package is available for viewing at 1679 Tiburon Blvd. Copies of past TFPD minutes are available for viewing at the same location. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ifyou need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District office at 435-7200. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements.