The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 1996-09-04 A. ROLL CALL B. BUSINESS MEETING 1) CONSIDERATION OF BOND REFINANCING- A. Agreement for Legal Services - (Adopt Resolution) B. Agreement for Engineering Services - (Adopt Resolution) C. Authorization for Purchase of Town Refunding Bond and Issuance of 1996 Refunding Revenue Bonds - (Adopt Resolution) D. Authorization of Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement - (Adopt Resolution) C. ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1) MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 1996 MEETING - (Approval) C. ANNUAL MEETING 2) ANNUAL REPORT - FY 1995-96 3) FISCAL YEAR AUDIT REPORT 1994 - 1995 (Accept) D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4) CECILIA PLACE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT - Revised Development & Loan Agreement - (Approval) D. ADJOURNMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY In compfJanCe with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Town Hall (415) 435-7373. NotifICation 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II] (1) Atways Address the Chair; (2) Stale Name and Address; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) Umn Presentations to 3 minutes; (5) Speak Directly Into Microphone. PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard. and to ensure the presentation of all points of view, members of the audience should: SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 7:30 P.M. 7:15 P.M. MEETING DATE: MEETING TIME: CLOSED SESSION: REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF TIBURON 1101 TIBURON BL YD. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA " , "C ~ 7) MMWD FIREFLOW IMPROVEMENTS - (Oral Report & Adopt Resolution) H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS G. PUBLIC HEA-RING 6) APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 21,1996 - (Adopt) 5) LETTER OF ARRANGEMENT TO PERFORM FY1995-96 AUDIT - (Accept) 4) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARYSTATEMENT-July31, 1996-(Receive) 3) AMICUS CURIAE REQUESTS - Ellis v. State of California; Nordyke v. County of Santa Clara - (Recommend Approval) 2) TIBURON PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY - (Adopt Resolutions) A. Agreement approving Joint Refunding Agreement between TPFA and Town ofTiburon B. Intention to Conduct Reassessment Proceedings (pursuant to Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act Bonds, without notice or hearing) C. Approving Reassessment Report and Confirming Reassessments a) Reassessment Report - (Accept) D. Authorization for Issuance and Sale of Refunding Bonds F. CONSENT CALENDAR The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion and which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Any member of the Town Council. Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of an item for discussion. D. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 1) DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE - (Mayor Wolf) A. ROLL CALL B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any) C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Please confine your comments during this portion of the agenda to mailers not already on this agenda, other than items on the Consent Calendar. The public will be given an opportunity to speak on each agenda item at the time it is called Presentations are limited to three (3) minutes. Mailers requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or Stafffor consideration and/or placed on a future meeting agenda. TOWN COUNCIL 8) SENIOR HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (Approval ofRFP for development of 1.6 acres at Ned's Way for Senior Housing) 9) HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLAQUES AT BLACKIE'S PASTURE - (Adopt Recomendations) I. NEW BUSINESS 10) LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION POLICIES - (Review of Proposed Revisions to LAFCO's Sphere ofInfluence and Dual Annexation Policies) J. COMMUNICATIONS K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS L. ADJOURNMENT Future Af!enda 1tems - Seotember 18. 1996 Elephant Rock Repairs Corinthian Island Steps Police Statistics (January - June, 1996) Budget Fund Transfers ViacomfTCI Service Area Extensions NOTICE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR HOLDING CLOSED MEETING OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL DATE OF MEETING: SEPTEMBER 4. 1996 NO. 16 -1996 Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will hold a Closed Session. More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated below: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Section 54957.6) Agency Negotiator: Ann Danforth Employee Organization: TPA (Tiburon Police Association) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES DRA~T tiJ4# ! -- CALL TO ORDER Chair Wolf called the meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the Town of Tiburon to order at 9:39 p.m., on Wednesday, August 7, 1996 in Council Chambers, 1101 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. A. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: Ginalski, Hennessy, Thompson, Wolf ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: Thayer EX OFFICIO: Executive Director Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth, Planning Director Anderson, Police ChiefHerley, Minute Clerk Crane B. NEW BUSINESS I. Approval ofJuly 17, 1996 Minutes. MOTION: To approve Minutes #RA-52-96, as submitted. Moved: Vote: Thompson, Seconded by Hennessy AYES: Hennessy, Ginalski, Thompson, Wolf NOES: None ABSENT: Thompson C. BUSINESS MEETING 2. Cecilia Place Senior Housing Project - Status Report. Project Manager Gideon Anders informed the Board that the three construction bids had come in substantially higher than anticipated. He said the reason for this was two-fold: 1) Re-engineering of site work due to improper fill from the Highlands Subdivision; 2) Reductions in the number of units and design changes in order to gain approval from the surrounding neighbors. Anders also noted the original funding did not take into account the fees for sewer hook-up which were now estimated at $108,000. In total, Mr. Anders asked for $412,000 in additional funds. The Board noted that $750,000 had previously been allocated by the Redevelopment Agency for the project, part of which was a loan. Anders informed the Board that the contract had to be signed and construction started by September I in order for the development to qualifY for low income tax credits. The Board asked numerous questions concerning alternative sources of funds or the possible structuring of a loan for the additional funds. Boardmember Hennessy, stating that she was a proponent of senior housing, expressed concern about continuing to subsidize a project that was already so far over budget. She also questioned whether the funds needed to complete the site work would continue to rise. During public hearing, Karen Nygren spoke of all the work Planning Commissioner Schrier had done to "sell" the project to the community. She said that the Ecumenical Association for Housing had an excellent reputation and the Town should support the project as much as possible. Chair Wolf concurred that Cecilia Place was a valuable project and recommended granting the additional funds. She asked Anders not to use all the money, if possible, and to find a way to pay back some of it, if possible. MOTION: To direct staff to further negotiate cost-sharing or loan arrangements for the additional required project funds; to authorize staff to take actions to mitigate and reduce project costs associated with utility hook-up and permit fees. Moved: Vote: Wolf, Seconded by Thompson AYES: Ginalski, Thompson, Wolf NOES: Hennessy ABSENT: Thayer D. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Redevelopment Agency of the Town of Tiburon, Chair Wolf adjourned the meeting at 10:33 p.m., sine die. NICKY WOLF, CHAIR ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE, MINUTE CLERK #RA-53-96 August 7, 1996 2 .TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REPORT To: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FINANCE DIRECTOR Meeting: Item No: SEPTEMBER 4,1996 #2 - "e,oA From: Subject: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ANNUAL MEETING- FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 Backe:round: The Tiburon Redevelopment Agency regularly schedules its Annual Meeting for the first meeting in September. The general purpose of the meeting is to provide updated information concerning financial status of the Agency for the fiscal year most recently completed. General Increment Fund Activitv Total cash and investment resources of the General Increment Fund are $16,093, and resources are not reserved for project expenditures. In fiscal year 1995/96, the Agency received less tax increment revenue from the County than was projected ($371,786 v. $502,500, according to the Fiscal Agreement Plan). This was the result of the County having advanced to the Agency, annual tax increment revenues greater than $502,500 in prior fiscal years. Consequently, in 1995/96 the Agency paid less to the Point Tiburon Community Facility District than is normally required by the Fiscal Agreement Plan ($380,000 instead of$472,500). From this point forward, the Agency expects to be allocated the regular amount of tax increment revenue according to the plan of the Fiscal Agreement. The Redevelopment Agency has now paid $4.345,137 to the Point Tiburon Community Facilities District, and $2,742,363 remains to be paid to the District. 1 Staff projects that the Agency will make its final payment to the District in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. During 1995/96 the Fund repaid the remaining $45,000 owed to the Housing Set-Aside Fund. In May 1993 the Fund borrowed $75,000 from the Housing Set-Aside Fund to make a State- mandated payment to the County ERAF. The Agency has reported this loan to the State and County as indebtedness of the Agency: The law required the loan to be repaid to the Housing Fund by 2003. Housine: Set-Aside Fund activity Total cash and investment resources of the Housing Set-Aside Fund are $1,169,964, however total available resources are $240,863. 1 Payment to Pt.. Tiburon CFD - The Fiscal Agreement provides that the Agency will pay a total of $7,087,500 to the CFD for debt service of the Special Tax Bonds. 1 TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REPORT To: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FINANCE DIRECTOR Meeting: SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 #3 - RDtf From: Item No: Subject: ACCEPT AUDIT REPORT - FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1995 Backl!:round: This item is to accept Coopers & Lybrand's Report on the Audit of Component Unit Financial Statement of the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1995. Recommendations: Board of Directors accept Annual Report Attachments: 1. Redevelopment Agency Audit Report (previously submitted, meeting of August 21, 1996) 1 ..........-,.--. . " " I . i. . . u U (f)C >-(tj 0)>- 0..0 83' Uoi:l >- w z c; c < f- Z c; :; "- o ..J '" >- '" " iij z o S '" ;:: ! , i I l , , '" f- Z ~ o u "- o UJ ..J ~ '" f- Z ~ >: '" o u U ." f- Z ~ Z "' "- ~ " z ~ N ~ '!i E , o g ." ;; E e . ,. ,;; . .~ Ii: ~ ~ -0 ~ t ij.;; .' C ~<2 B. :aE 5 . ~~ 01 . . > 8 ~ 5~ ~ ' ,,; ~ ~ u o ij E. E~ .!< C . , ,;;"- "" .5 . ~ .5 ~ ~ ij O~ uu "" C <2 "3 C ~ ~ il, ';j C . "" C 8. 'S ~ '" .s ~ o t: o ~ . '" . . ~ '" 8 ij . '" "" . .5 ~ o U C ~ R 5 o U "" " c co C 0\) '- 0\) o...c;; 0 '" .... _ :>-.0\) ~~~~ . . 0\) .... C C ...c;; _~ 0 0 ....- ~'2 '- '" 0\)'5. o <0: .... 0 '" -o"J:! c c~....<o: 0\) c ~ '" ~ 4.> <0: ~ - C ~ ~ -5 ~ ~ ~ ;; B .9 <.I 4.> <0:._ ~ :>-. t;; :>-. ..g~~~ - u ~ .- ~ .~ 5 J2.g 8- "" . ~ ~'2 ~ C ," o <n _ :::I E~ ~ 0 o 0_ u . n. c c.lJ;;; g E ~ g ~ g;)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "" f'c; ~ E ~ ~;q [:. E3 "" 5 B "E .s ~ ~ ~J.2 "2 <''05 c -i5 C ~ t E g ~ {; 0 _ c ~ CJ '"' ;... 5":.rJi::;;; ~ -c 6 ""B "2 '" "-1, cr: ~ '" -g 2 '" 3 ::::=:::..2-52 g 2/,'"' <: E c ,S; ;;-= E ,. g-'-' e r; 3 ~ e c _ , c o M ~ " ~ "" C , "- . C :) ,Q U ~ ." u "" 0 ""ij ::;; a -;;;- ~ ti"1:j C 3a:l ~ ]~ ':; c::>.c :! ,g t!j - 5 e g~ ~ ~ 5~",rii~~g > 0 i;I 1! :) liS =: ~ ~ '0 0 > ,-u-5~U oa-ga~.9] c i;I.a i.i: J:; d:: 0\) E t:Q""ia 's ~ :.2 ~ ~g fi ::J ~ ~ ~~~ ~] ~ .5 ~ ~ ~ ~ .5 1; ~: 0 ~ 0...<: IV U V u u, .9 5 :c "'5. ~ ! ~ f- '-"--- .s]e~~~:.a .~ .... :'1:: -g - ~ ~EE8..g~:::1 C {: E P..-- :; 0 <0: 4.> 0 ~ o. "E c::>. ~ .... IV 8"'0 t;; ~ ~ 5-5 u c 5.- E u <0: IV < C c'o';;: IV co,~ .- IV C U ~ 'il .- P.. ~ <Ii ~ E ~ -g u <.C'~ :>-.~ <0: ~'2 ..0 .... ..0 :) <0::) C U l:: o-5E~E~Q ~~lg~i' -5 ar E "liS :: l:: .... 0 ~ '(3 .g. ~ 8 -d ~ 's ~ u C u :; -5 5..a c U ~ "'0 "" "" 5 '~.2~E~~ -a. t;; ti <.J :::1'2 t;; "" 0"'<: "'0 c ~<. ] __ E ~,g ~ e.n '" -g 0'" ii E '2 ~ "" u ~'2 0 ::: '" <V:J 2-ge<-5~Eg :E ~ ~ :: e. g '- <U~J~5~~8...s: -5.!: ~ E ~ c.. E ,:;; c: ,~ .n .;,: 0 e.n 0 <:l .- ] g <:l _ .~ ~ ~ o ~ _~ - _ _ ~ ]~~-"'05~:g ~~~E-086g :,; fr::: ~ ~ ~ U <:l -0 g E '-' '" ~"5 ~ '" 0;;; 5 ;) ~ '" i~'_:~ ~ ~~.g '-' l:: "'0 OJ U ~ ~ 6 ~~~~-5~i::;c.. ~ :: "" .!< '0 " " C " , ~ " " C " > " '" E " E ~ u .s ~ f- "" :a t: o ~ " '" . .~ D. E o U ~ E " o u u <: "" ~ , u " '" . u o ..J E u "" C . ~ . "" .s E.~"2 5 6.5 2 &. ~ E ~.9 -00 :. ~ ~~=;;-g ~'ii,~ca:: .6 ~'~.,g U g 4)': -5 co...<: 0 ." - . ~ .... 0 t: ..:! 5 :; :a .9 5. ~] ......95"'0 g ~ ~ ~ "'0""2 ~.=.. -oo:::~-g .u_ ~~"2~ 5 ell 6 0 .... U ......c ~ ~ g:.: - "" ~"'O"O :::I .- l:: ... <'<I :s <2 ~ 0 ~]a:l~ C c- 'E ~ E ~ :J C <U :J " u E ~ '- ~ ~a~3E o . 0 o g <<i'';: JJ 5'0 E! ~ c::>.;; ~ "" E c: 0 . ..col.C", ~ u . ;;;;'> !~ia!:=> . c: P.. 0'1: :>-.:)"'....c::>. ~ ~ e] co ~ili.i j-.... ~~.:&:~ ~.6<U~-e 'ii o.S: 6 E.. -5'5.6:;~ ::1_ ..... l:: <':;n .J2 (' -g ~ 52 g ~...:; ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~"B .-. o..~-o:::-e o ( !< ~ " .... ~ ~ z ~ ~ V> "' 5 f- :s z g:ta ~ tsji ~ .>( f- [2..J 0 ~~ ~ ~~ :;! ~'" !< ~V> ~ ~i ~ ~u 8 ~~ ~ ~ ~ " u &] -~ .~ o~ M_ . . co OM ~ . ~ c . 0 ~~ c _ "'<2 3-" ,. 5 o ij; . > ~ .~ . . ~ ~ _ E <2 0 u ~ .:; M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..,.0-.0..... ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ r-:..; N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \00....,., ~ ~ N ~ -- ~ ~g ~ o::o~~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ..;'" N N ~ -;; *~~~ ~~~ ~-~ >6<601:J'~ ..,"".....:! ~ ~ ::n; ~ "'....-- oOot$oQoro" ..,....,.,'" ;; 0\"'0- _N ~ ~~ 0 v:iori vi Nt-- ~ i 'il iJ U H ~~il.] H ~lO"~! ~~ ~ ~ a",.. . ij 'iI . '5 8;> ~~1.... <lI. ~ou6 ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.1 ~I ~ ~ ~ ,: ~ :;; ~. ~ ~ ;; ~ ;; Ii ~ ~ L! ~Ql!: lU ~-~~~! u ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~~g-~'E~ ~~~p~ i:C!j~uh~ ~~~ 8 o~ ~ '"' ~ "" ~ ;i "" ~ g o 8 ~ '"' ~ "" @ " " ~ ~ " '" ~ ~ g o ~ ; 8 ::l ~ ~ " ~ S " ~ ; ~ '"' ~ " if h ~?- o ~ ~~ it In -lIl . ~~~ ~h ~ e i; ~ :; g ;; ~ ;:: ~ 0 ":t-i ~ - o. "t ;;;;;; " ij ~ ~ , i Jl ~ ii ~ ~ j .. S ~ 1. . ,. . ~ ~ f r ,!! t; Z ~ !< ~ ~ '" " i:j z " 5 !3 f- M ~ ~ V> '" ~ .... ~ :;! !< ~ ~ " " .... :;! ~~ g: :; -~ g'~ . . co OM ~ . ~ c . 0 ~~ c _ "'<2 3-" ,. ~ ] ;; ~ .~ .s 3. _ E <2 8 -;; , .... ~ V> Ul U ~ :;! '" " ~ S -" o u ]~ ~~ E~ 88 ~ h !5s .... ~ ~ ~ ::;g~ .u ~ :;l 6] !-5'" 1~ u 5:2-0 . ~ 3 O~'-'- ,,~ .~ ! 3 o~ 8 g ~ , a ~ ::; ~ & ....._000 ~~ ~ ~N ~ rii ;sf ~ ~ ~ '" <: 6~ 1-.5'" ~~ u OS$~;:;; '"""''''>0 "';":00 ,...; ;g"'v;~ ~ ~-lI .~ ~] :l!Jl~ ....NN_ .........000- 00_"'''' "':";00": ::::!..,.",~ ~ ]~ .......00 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ iJi">.tf 0 _ N ~ ~ I i:ll ~ ~ Bhl ~....so i:I N i'i ,.; ~ :< ~o :l,:; ~~ -il; 8 " ~ ~ :2 ~~ -~ ~ !:: .,; ~ $~N ~ ~ r-'~'~ -~~ N ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ON ~~~ ~~~ ":ri....- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - N ~~ ",06 N ; ~g ., ~ E " ~H 6 e g B t;j i" .5 F- 5 8 5 C !i , 0 , , " , ~ '" rJ ';i t; O::~ -;;.... < ...5:13 ,.....5 r, <:t: t; ~ "d ;! 1J ~ {; , Ei:::] ~j~.s;-O~O""'1- b!u~ 0 3 ~ ., ~ :6 ..,. ~~. ~ ;1 ~ E ~ " 8 "\ N ~ ~ o :! .. ~ 1;l~ g~ ~ ~ "\ il; 1;l '"' ~ v ~ :; ~ ~ ~ ~~ N g ~'a ,. ... 5 '" w i1 "' ~ ~ d ... d ~ ~ " ~.. ei:5~<t "...~ P"e " u..c ii ~ J:l.",_1l :0 1=='" c ~ !3 ~ ~ -,~ ~ 51...:0 .. -g ~ _.J:> ,. .....,~ lIl~P.gt=::5!5..l >J" . , ' ~ . ~ t:~3u.9t;t1-< d "j ~ 'il ~.,o 00 ~ ~:2 ~~ ~ g~1 '"~ ;; ~~ ~~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~. ~ "'. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ " ;;; ~ o ~ N ..,." _ N N. _. ;:;;:; ~ N ~ ~. '" 1!l o ;i ~ ;;:; ~ ~ ~ ~06 " N ;;;; ~. ~ 8. ~ ':i ~ g ~. ~ N ~ ~ ~ a ;; !; ~ ~ N r:ff1 o. -: ;;;.; ;:; ~ e ~ ~ .,;g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... -." u - ~ j l' . ~ ~ ..~ ;l!,t " .. ~ u ,- ~ ~ \C.'=; ~ N N;; ;; ~ ~ ~. ~ ~. ;;; g :;; N II &~ ..:..; U'I ~. ;; ~'&~I g ~~~ r-- \(l <'1 1'-. ;:; ;; ~ i!! ~ N ~. ::; "\ !1! ~ ~ N .,; ;; ;; 00 N N "" ~~ ~ ~ E ~ -< .~ ~ ~ .:o~:o] :; g~::;.g,.~ 11 8 ;l!il,uil,-, ~. ~~~~.ill l.h.h~- ~$ .g.~,s'p] i: ~~.!a OI~ 8".2:> 1'" ~IJljl~I!~~ ~~ g,:: i:t:: cz: ;:l "" " " ~ ~ u " 'il -ll .:l ~ ... I ] '~ I J .. i .. .. . . . ~ ~ f ,!! .... , M .~ ) ! ;; ': ...::, . \i~t ,.:~;f~ ~ >- '-' z '" Q -0: !;o '" ~ o ..., !;: '" ~ z ~ ~ ~ ... " w ~ '" ... -0: ... ~ ~ . 2 a frE 3~ . - ~... '" 0 ~ ~ :hE o E - a E . <E ._ " o '" <.1.5 ~, i:L2 ~;f! -0: . -~ .... E . ~5 ~ ~ ~ . . > '" 0 '" 9 " '" ~-5luGEt::>.lUU~"'lU .... ';i ~.;: lU';;; ~ -5 -5 ::1 g,.s '0 .... '0 E ::I ~'o '-.:: ~... 00"'1:1 a. 0 < o;:s.o::; 0 ~"5 ~ .~.s.... :;j ~ ~ lU a o l:::'- s: >"'O.,g coo.!:! .... :;;;Ol.>E'.g..g~~6ov>~ s: E CI.> c.s lU 0 . U lU >......!::I e E1 ';j '"a " g. 5 .!:: -e ~~ 0 Po 8 "'0._ ... .. ... ~ 0 0 ~ t,l ... .::1 g">. 0...5 0 '- ~ 0 .~ ILl U lU ~ U C'- r- 0 ~..... "2 -g :a..a 5 I:: f- 111"'00 <I.l a c ::lu'ot:;~~~-5 gf-t: ~ 5 ]cc..ElU~3Eal~?i-u:l~ ~~.g~;S-s~"O u';:: c~ IU l:iV)5f-~ "O~;SOIU--S := if:"""'O '2....&:! 3.~'- ::!"'O.o,...;.. OQ c: E 0 -.a ...... ... 0 if: a l! E= >.~.- v .... ... U III l:i <U ~.~ ..."'3 ';j D"O oS ~... ~-s ~ ~"'fl ~ j;j -c:I.D a'a :a ~ cllaucqege~"'!::;. <u:c .c; II) lU - l'Q' E;a ~ ~ cq :3':;:' oS 1; ~ tl "iJ F u ';::I 5 c '- z 'E'u :; IS. g..c .c_]O 0.'- O.c;f-<- -5<9.~-s g 5-,.go::;es-g::3,Q;~1U eo if: .... F=.c a. ~ cIi "'3':: c.!:: < ",.5 ~...... g.l1.. .... ~ 1= 0 lU 0 ...l t: o. ~. '" C >. eo Il.l ,,_."..... .E'jj .,g.:!l-< g IU C ;j IU 0'1 _ lI.l U a. 1-0.... 4J '" &. E o.s - ~ ~ = ~ x,.", -S.5 ~]"l';.'~~~~]'~:; ~'a~ ~ -8 ~ :~ .5.g 0 fr.B 15 !-o 0 IU"'O' "C "t:I:5 C -0 C ;t ~ fo.o ~~~8 t.....s.s ~~~].s 0>>8 CQG 5 8-5:-91;; ~u-o :; .'2 M '8 :s s:; 1) :a E-- -< 5 8 5 ~ g~] ~.s.8 ~~ ~~> ~ t;l E'~-o c-"'"13 ~ C'" 4) C ..cOClSco~a-::iSo~-::i-=~ fo.oUV1,5<S::,S~fo.o< g.~< ~ "8~ ~ :~ E : II ~ . .8 .5 ;;'-g ,~ ~ , 8- . . - - fi.~ ~~ .~ "'. . '0 OJ L .-:.. .~'~ . ~ 5'g .s ~.u .s ~ ~ -gSb ~.'O R-5 :; 1[-5.... .!!I:.2 8 '2' :; :!.5 ca 1=f c:":: o o. 0'- i 8.3~ 0 E ... a . .8 Q.,-5 E--'og , "'Q1)"'=''g 5 II :; ~ :g .... .....c ~ ~ ~ ~ o co C C ~ a ~..a ~ fr ~ <a :a: ;..;-a ,~'5 :E 'o'~ 8"] '5 51!.5 ~"~..a .E .a a "'~"E .a~~~ 'oo~g co:.= u .i:j ~ ....~~ ~"Ov:; -5j~g g..c ~-g -g 3.: fl .~ '0 i ~ ~:g E ~ O.!2:3 .... ~ ~... (l ~il.il !l 5 0 '" g ~.M E e ... E-- 5 ~ -5 >-::: 5 ......-::: co Cjl o i: 00-<= !i 41 C ~ 9li"b h:El (l "'c.!. '" : ii ~ ... "SlUOl'=l~ Pl::KJVUg lytm l~uodU1OO x<ol{lJO uDd p.l\bl1J'! ~ am ~ou !If!.(U8dWO;);)tl;qL tlllll>;:;:S LH-lIlns 1~9 f66$ 1196llS 8s:<:tlLlIS ~ 81<:>$ om;r- I>OOHS '661 'Ot ~unr'!IJ'!soI:J 0$ ISl>'l>rns 1~It'ltl1'1S LI>!;'tLO'IS LItS'rLO'IS l>06'I'S ~ t661'I.(Jllr'~ 3:JNV1VQ aNlU In'ttts LtO'1>6S (008'OEIS) 119'61lS IlnOIS (OO6'(IIS) 8l'(!tS ((89'11$) (OO6'91S) :(s:.m)I:IOJllOIJ;I{loA\O Aml!~A..o:mu:a.w (.(:lIC1PY~p)~ l6\'01l:iS) (6lnl~S) (OonLtS) l6l6 O~SJ t6f60SS) or- 0' (oos: lLI>S:) toos: ZLI>$J :(Qln) ~ 9u!3UWf~ l~I:a.\:JPJOj (6f6'O,) (6f6'OS) 0 (6(6'OS) (6f6'0') 0 0 0 0 PI~ptIW('wrIoPaJ!JI\\-.CIt{l() p~!O U911!:lV~ ,qyunlUUlO:) . (oonLI>) (OOS'ZLI>) . . . . (OO,'ZLv) (OOS'ZLv) -luaw.(8dl~fVX!.:I <$lSn) S]:)ll!lO$ ONI.)NYNl:IlIllU.O L9L'S:Li:S L91>'L19$ OOL'll>f$ OS:S'OLlS OS9'9S1$ (OO6'fll$) 81ts$ 8Ili'09I>$ OO9'S:S:I>S :Aml'~~J:a\O:mu:a.w , (~!~!J~p) ~x3 ) HIlla ~ oo~ 8L~S 6SlI lIO~$ ~ 006 ([~S - LLT.U ~ 001>1>9$ :UJl\lI~f'lO~ ("(- L9i'~ ~ 0 . ,---- [( ~ ~ ~llpUllUI,IVI:EI-~ 8L6'L61 tl\>'IlL OO\>'9Lt 8L6'L61 tllt'8L OOlt'9LZ . . . ~:>>roJd(Vl!d.:> 9tl'SI 'Ln!> 00L'f9 188'01 619'9l OOs:'Lf I>\>t'v 9S6'll OOt'9t llQU(tlA\OlI~~ .. SnllUlaN3dX] 01 '" ~'I) Ot'" ~~LS ~ [6<)1<;$ 16'lI'Jl$ ~ 01>0$ 0~6 OlSS OOOOlSS '1~~'lIlIllOl ""f~,>,s~'~- Di-;;i'lj~-- ,---- lll'>'\IS~ ""fIi9'~ 0 ,---- ~"'" S')~'.) I S9S'l',l OOO'SI> HrOI Hnlt OOO'Sf (6f'9 f6f'91 000'01 ~UJ)5;lhllUJ ('}I'J'~1 ) ~ll(l'N OOO'SL9 (f91'0 Hll'gl OOO'S91 (ESn) Lt-nOS 000'01' &:11<--..1 S3JlN3A311 Pl~';l.,,,~U;,-,~ llr"I_'V-~ p;j~ ~l"j"\nJun) ----rm\Jv ~i'TiiI (~I'llUl'\~Jun) J1lllPV ~ ~l'I'''''\1"J ~1'l')j('\I!J ~1'lUJ<\\UJ --=-~"''''''',\ -;r-HroUl1^ -:)JUlI'Jll^ SIVHlltl.l."iIl!l';OJ ~-pi.mjJrlsv'\Jsiulrnoll -punjjU:lUCl.1Jll( X'.11U~\W.) :! u z -< 0; .. ... ~ I !l1 o u o ... ~ I:! o z o e , ~ . ~:g ....l:! -s-a 'Qli' ~ ~ l~~ OQ,~ 'n ,3 p..;g 5 ~~ B'E a co :JI.O:: ~ B:~ ... . . 'C ~ Q ...; ~ ~ 5~ ~.s 3~ u . :; " " . '" E ",0 .~~ [3 g !;i tlJi : M ~ 0 .;;e- :; it p ~ 5 0'" -" . '::-5 0'0 lii'a 0., ],,, ~ ~ ,5 &. :; E . S '~co " ~ 0'0 ~~ ..2 ~ u ... .5 -g , 'B o o U ~ 5661 'OE :lUTlr P~pul.n::l^ rc:'SI:l :ll(l JOJ SJd.U aN.ill lV.lNJI'IlN'llJi\OD 11V - lYODY ONY (SISYO dVVD) .i3:)0I10 SJ.)NY1V8 ONil.:l NI S3DNVlD ONY SJ}Ll.lIONJJXJ 'SJilNJATl:l.:lO l.NJ~"nlV.lS aJNlm~O,) AJNJDV .lN3~\jJOTIA30]1I NOllODU ,. u z "' o "" !< !!! 0. o ...J ~ "' ~ 6 !5 ~ ,. !iE "' o "" !< !!! 0. o ...J g; "' Cl ~ Z o '" " '" i=: '" !< !!! ~ ... '" :;I o :;; ;; '" ... ~ !< !Ii o eo ~ o u a ... ~ "' f- a z '" !< "' :; ~ "" ... '" :;I o ~ ;; '" ... ~ !< ~ ~ o u o ... '" ~ o z 51 5~"'8 ~6 ~ ~.~ c:: "" - 0 ::: ~ ~ -g ~ ~ :u ~ <2 u ... U > "'0 a ~'6- ~ ~ ~ g Ci. ~ ~.g ~ c:;;~ a ~~~~ii o c.o . .., 0 a. <: ~1 E "I ~ 'F "'0 1:! 'S ... a ~ On e .5 ~ .~ 5 tl€~8~ .5 ii ~ e u '0 e.5 ~ 5 >"o..g-;; I:Il) 1a~-=~s .g ~.!~ ~"5 Cl. 0"'0 4.l ... 1:;; c u :;; ~ 'il.g ~ ~ ~ 8~~55 1" ..:- ;:. J:J"O '" -g .9 [.ft :l..::- l<-2 o U iI,) LlJ c.. ; ~ 5 ~,g ;g l! ~ 5 - fr- ~ t It ~ .5:2 ... ti a ~;t g..-f . ~ c: '" "" 0 g ::l ~ ~ ;P!;;"'O fi U C ... G c::: (j u ~ .s .5 .M ~-=eo.~~ 1ii . . ';< 'il . i!' '6 . 51- ~ u :a ~ E I ~ ~ :; i .l! S 1ii j;' -5 ~ u :a ~ ~ <22 ~:g :g ::i e-~ " u 0.= .sg o o 0 o u ~ .9 :2 ~ " .~ '" o . :. . " o <2 . .~ u o . ~ "" . ~ f- >; ~ o " '" -,; " . E E . > o ~ e-- 5 g ~.,;"'8'~ ~5u<a]g'<<i15 d3~:-=u5E'::: 0...... u u '(;:j ;:.'::; lG 'g:?g5Ee~E 5! a ';8.~].5 ~ eeGt=u"'15';: - '<: ;$ <lJ .g...- U .:~ c~'2'.g g~ 0<2.2 _ 0. a "'8 ::l u <II '5:-;:: .. c:: .. j:Q ell c '0 u 0 ::l 0::1 ..; ~.2 ~ g E 'o'~ ~ l'::l ;;;; ... 0 ~ c 2 >. o.-c lG U ell 0 <<l <;J ~g-""'F2'~eu ::l a ~ g o.~ a ~ ] g.~1- ""3 g.] ... u :l] ~ !:: "'.:: 1:; 3 OJ ......c c: ~ 0 01),-::: o.'o;t 8...."'0 ]]E<;J~::l~fi ~:i.a>eui3..u -s ~ c e 5 ll)..... oS ","'O..a 2: ~'8' ~ C;j a a =;a '" ... 0. g ~.ld .g u .. ;G gfl"C'::; Cl.:3 .. E..g.= '';:: a.~ ..!2 .D WI U c:: g..~ '" c. ",-a 6 e .g ~ u ~ K.~ 5 ~13'~ ~13 ~g..~ ~ C5 lij 2"5 a 5...5 g.1l 13 c. l5;.D'~ ~ ~ ~~ -o~<o;I~gc::.u<o;lO ~B'3B::atl=,n~ m::B~~e]~<'3 >,.... <0;1 - ~ Co. '" :::J = g g.-o.5 -s ~ ~ ~ 0 011 -0 5 g '" R e "'1J Ol) <0;1 R '" ~ 1l 0.. ~ .... <-o.,;~oooo..I:5 u a"tl ... ... 5 <0;1 u ... ~~.z~~-tll~[ ": "" c - ... u 11 3 R~-5'5 ~ ~.~.~ ~ CO-o C 0<3 :a - u LL.._ ~-s<<J:3 ~.S ~ ~ '" ... u LL. ;]~'t 5 3 'a ~ co 0 '" 0 <~uu u : ~ 5 <'3.003 "aBe.5! -o-ou!-o ..a,~ ~,~ . 0l)g.0p..~ .5 ~ ~.... a ~~='a.D &..,2 f ~ E o _ ~ u <<J 0..' !-o 5 ij ~ e-'o > 5 ~ r:: ~ ~ ~;;..,j 0.5 -5 e 3':.,g "'51J..;S,:: -g~~B~ ::J....", 'iiI c u u..~ ~ dJ'~ ]~~~~ 1j3.a ooo..E o -,~ 0:1 u ~ "i;I =' ;:l-O ~..9~~.8 o " > . " . '" g.s '; . " . .(j'02 ~ .-'>~ ~. . 2~ .s -g'~ ~ . " ~~.8 .9.0 ~ "5 B :3 0." 5 11 Iii',!! :: j S <Ec.."O E.... ~ " ~" g ~ 5 ~~~ -.- "S-s'ci ~EE . " :.o-go c." ~ ~ g.~ u f:! - ~ :a.g> oS ~ Z ~ e,~'~ .~ ~ 13 ~ ... E ~ 0 .... u 0 u u b p. u r::.s &.-s o " , . " . '" ~~NEOO~~-o3 ~.g--o'B s ~ 5... ui:lou=~_uu O~fC;ieu..c:::::J1i ~'@,5.2~;':2~ ij :a 'l.l~<<J~.D il Z,-S ;g fa ~ 5 '1: ~.2 ... -a o :J ~-s 0 'S: .!;l 0 :;t 'E.c~u:E~ugg o :;: ... :a"~ 0 >'''0 u 0.._ <IS '" Ol)"" ";:I ... C ...~-ouu't:u:=o " c~-...~ = :a ... .... 2."",1.C u o:l >C R ... .0 U E-o .= S :: t' ~ a;s u ~ l: ..-. U ... _ u Cot ~"3 0.. u .~ ,5 .g ~ ~ R ~ [~~"S ~ '8 oeo<<J.~g.~~ii.li-.::iu C u ... u ....0 0 t: ::::: ~ u -o;s 1':t >,'C ::l 35gae:a.....,g~~ -o:.a.....~;"aP;E.s fa 0 '5 ("l"8 R u u 13 '3~g.]H30-5e]'~~ -E;...E u 0..0 u._ ::a :3 Q., Ii ... E ~ 5.. u.":::: uC"';~5uE .-s::a a ~..c:::C:6~ ~-g]~ ... ~ C::l . "'l:;'S: >. ~ (j'... ~<~ ~~.~!. ~5::Ect=. Cue ..... OfI\o..o U c.g u _ _ 5"'l:; 0 e g'~~.8~"2 O-'~"u8.".'-' e-=5~ue~i:;8; ~ .0.. B:.:::I.5.s Q., o..c::: e.o .e " -= <<J n ~.... "9 C ij ("l'';: ~ :a 85g~e~ ~O~:.:::I~a ~ ~~~1!:a .5~H~ ~ "3c~ai~ .~ u "C _ u bbEE5'-c o a. u 0 ()..Q t::a = .., ~ e~ ~5U ~ ~ ~~ 5 g ~ u'~ ~ ~ "0 .E~"a,,] "E:i 02 >"5-;::;- &51Jg~~ !:5~a8'~ 5 ~ 8..s... eo n <<J g E ~ .a :i ="ou~~~u g~~~gl.Q~ ... c::} <<I ... = 5 .~ ~ u] -S t ~--8;u~B o ..-.. -5 c _ _ E::.< ~ <<I U e &...!..s.5 n c <2 E u ~"C :;t.5 ~3~~-85-;;- 00 u ~ <Ii..a ;;.. ~ '3.s'~ ? U f:! :J C 5 ::J.g.5 . eo :;t. 0... u oj 5 ~ 1l:I: . :a ,=,'u \0..0 "51! 52;- n ij o fr. ~" . Jj '" ... -0 t ~ ij 'i:j -0 3 ~ g;s ~ a IJ.. E 01)._ 0 u u "" ~ . " ~ c o 0- f ~ . " " > . i a " o '" o u ~ o b ~ .9 ,1J " 1l 1 .. lis EM 8"2 ... 0 tZ ~ g " . >E . " 8 "ii'1: ~O- " . .H "" -1l Iii So!! .~"@ 3 ' d ~~ ~ 8 .~ .8 .oj;' "--5 2 c ~.l! " ~ .1l ~~ e . . " -50 1!1 ~'R >E e ill ~1~ o u . u. . . - ~ ~ 5 . - " . c Cat ..a :a a ~g.., c . . ~? u <"::I ~-5~ ....:.a ... ~ il i:; 1l " c 'E o u 1l , ..3 c o U '" ~ .)~'~1 "..r'. ,'.... ,'1;-,.. >- u z w '" "" !Z ~ o .... ~ OJ Q ::J 15 !5 ~ >- u Z OJ '" "" ffi '" .. o ~ w Q ::J z o !5 '" ;: ~ .... z l'! " I" "" .... '" ~ u z "" re .... ~ ~ o !l1 8 ~ '" I" ~ '~2 ~ a ~ ~ ~ .::-,.9....:;0- ~ e- ~ '00- .;:: 5.g .... ~ ~ ~ e.(I':; c:: ii'j ~ ~<2E~:; r: 'E Q. c....._ ~ E~~~"2 :0 0. ~ ;:..;; u ~~-g~o~ b:> <<l e.o8 ~ ~ ~ g .s ci c:: Il.> 0 u 0 Il.> ~C:;~gf;;~ '-' 0 N'" ;:.., '" ~.B ":.!: ~] ~f:;~...E~ .~ Il.> ~.~ "$< .E! '0 t: a.:::: 20 r- 0 <<l 0.0 ~;g]o~o" :11 g Q: ~ s:: ;g... 0,>' Ioo't 8 8..-5 g.~ c;j !!I..?- 0 ""ij ~ 6 5 ~ .... ?i ... "';: 5~t'O~~ >..... 8.. IU U ... oOo....c ~ II) ... II> ... ... u.J:: 0."0 0. 0 ....,; .5"'0 II .... ?i' 'lJ"-= ~~;t:l~.EE X.5~~<(l!~ e..c 0 i: u ~ t; 0."2 ~._;s f- <V o.~ u ~ I,C) ._ o. '00 0\ ...: g ] ",0:0\ 8..<<l "0 ~E::S~~ ~.J:J 8 <':l ui ?i"2 ;S. (>''''C 0 E"'O ::J ~~.a:gll.>llc UC..-..ci5_1l.> g. a i)'oo :> 0 g ~oiJ~~:E' e10rJ ~'o.5'~ 8 i I" "" .... '" ?l u ~ re .... ~ !Z w z o e. '" o u o .... ~ w .... o z ~~3 n c ~ ~:e. '>:,!:.s g 1:1 - -'C o.~ ~ ~ E.J:J ~.5 -6~ E. ~ a.::cso o 0 I: ~ E~rl~ ~ c..g ~ C]'"C g. ~"3 :;j tl o ~ 6 ~ r- :;.~~ "'0 'O;:g ;g g ~ ~ ~ '';:: :i 0 oS 0.'"0 0 'r: ~ c '" ::I' " 0 '" ~l'; .~ 5""d~~ ... :a ::a 0 ~"8 e ~ ",.g 8";;; .- .- c:: ~:g g.g t2'o"'~ Il.> rl ~ g. "5g.g'Q .5 ~.~ ... ~ ~~] E <2 '" .. ~"B~~ v E ,- 0 ~ ~ 5:~ f-< 0..... C. "2 o E o ~ :; ~ E '" '" "EI C, H ~ e~8'o.g ::J Il.> "t: E"O ~:a~aa -~.Eca~ .5 :> lU ::::I 0\ 0", "'C s- Q.,.... U :;... ~ot:u2 ;..:Sti.;:i.( .;: -;;'1: ~ <II ~S.EE.~ ~ ;a ~::.::a = ~g.;:i~~~ 0"1'o~ 0:9 >.~ <II 10'21- '5~-gJ:E'o e02~s~ Q...... E ';;j 80 " Q." 00 E-< -s~~>~g~ .;:i.., ~~..... .~ ~ ~ ~ 6 :s vi......5:~g- ~,...:;..... 5 ~ " - tl QO.- " 00 at'S 2::1:S-5 < .... .~ ~ ;j t ~ gQe=~]': ;j " 0 0 ;j 0 ';; ~ 8 '513 8 o _'~ e.;j'';: 1i.g R cd.1a.; <II t;:j ..... l-o u::O .~ is.g cE t 0 ~ "1:;1" il' -;; .. t:~...-g<llt ;;;:"1" 'E'.;::<2e'Oc - Ea".ug~ Ogi!.c.ccd 1.11..1., S 0 ~ " ()>0~:;E-<3 ~.~ 5'E g'~ <: E ~ IO~..,... g e UNO ~ot.~-o E-< U.5 e.v. t:: .,j t '5 i:'i . .. .; I .. ~ 2: ~ :; bi 2::~ "" " <; E M" g~ ~o 13 '0 5~ ~a ~, 00 ~ ~ ",,0 " 0- .g 5 0.0 " "" ~.[ 3 :; o 0- :- E ~o ] ~ ~1l ~- @ .5 "~ ~ 2 o c E ~ . " ;:: 0. .~ c ~ ~ o.~ E " 8] ~ E . ~ " > c ~.s '5 ~ . 0" s 3 E-- U 5b c'a, >.]-o.g cd .c ;j.2,,, 0 "3 ~ -5 ti .ij t 5'~ :a -5 .~~.g 3~ Os ~ ~ 5 ~ -g.5 U "1::)2 ~ .~~ :;;a3;::l :a ~ ~.~ 1) " .. ~ ~ ~ ~::l liij~ '5 e.;> 5 0 E.~.5:C .5 t;:j-o ~:2:E ~ ~~ ~ ~ .5 :; ~ 0.\ e -g e 5.5 e. cd 5~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~.5 ~ g .~.;:i.<II ~.~ o ;:.:; ~ :: t E-<'5 ~ ~ ~ 1l . -5"@g ... <u .... 0 .5:a t E c ~ t -g a';:; 2. 5 :J .E ~ '0 oo~ " E .- l'<:I 2'::: "0 J:i<...~g ~...; g -g ~ g 5 ;:: ;j 8 10 E.5 IO~ c ~gj5 ~gl ~~2]~ I- t:: Q. '" ._ c . fi U N ~o.....~tt'e3.8 Bcg::,-':::t::o_ :0--'< 1:: ~ ~1ll]o5l~J.t..E-g 10 0 <II 10 "'-;;en- l-o-]8~'otcd~ e1J..a3 C-;::C... 0 10'" O.a u U.E- ~.~~: ~ i~]~~ '~~<;J~t:3~~'S <II _ ... C l-o ... =~::J"3..Ei" Z 51O..c;tiu-g fiwg 1=;- ~Cll"':a t:)~<II il:=- t:: .Ei'~.,",,~ >.~'c" "0 - U . Cllt': l-o o-_~'5b U ;,; ~ :J.C a:s cE glJ..c ii'~"a~'''i""go ... o.,c 0. 0 6:; <:.- ~ u 5 t-o c;;;-.::: a u Ii ~<aua2~~-s.fiB ;j..oa~e~ugFl.::J 5~:a'lil~C.(t.::-g libl;l: ]~~]~S~tf~e L.lOifu"Oe!oua,g ~ t: " e :; ~ e-il n ~fr~8EtH5.~~8 'a ....B.5,g .O'~ t:i c >. t;u..,Ul-ol-o 000_ .-.;:i'aE.a e- co'~~ Sa '0 e ~ "'3 ~ l-o'~ ;j- c8;0i::;H<2i5"l'J5 :JoCllE"li} ...../.Ll- 0'- l-o "0 <II l-o ;;;!... <II >. :=JsI95e.E9~~b:e <a e. IU U "t:I I.l.o ;: 3 0 ..oCll~Etta~]~o~ 1!....::::l..S!~IO~<;U-o ;j '" ~ l-o ;j <II.~ U "';a J.t.. -:5 ",CE J.t.. eo -5 -5 e. i;'lf g.o ~~ ]"" .3] ~:: 1f 'f ~ ~~ui U-o= 'a ~ e B i::' g ';'Ih "'~"" -lli:~ .5 <II J! \; " 0 ~ 3 3 5 en 5- 'g"'3~ ~2ij 0::> . .... . . ,,-5 ~ -5'00.. .~ ~ ~ .s.g .( 1i:I ~-C ~:g~ l5."-:'a:l ii~;; ~d.& !!'2o c "~ .. 0 . - . .1== 5 ~ · s . ~t;i~ 2~ii f-o.su c ;g ~ !:: i5M~QOvi ~ Ui :::. ~ .g .. ; ~ . ~ ?3 ~ ~ E g ~ oS ~ c ~ <;J {; "1a j U ~ o. M ~ ~ c o . o " E " . > .5 ~ :; "" . u . .~ c " "" "" " "" .... ~~:! .:::...~ 5 beE 'C e. ~ 000 "" - " :ioe. ""'c.5 . f:f.,g3 ~ .- :i'- fi g -< fir co ~ u 0 <: U:.;:i~Jl n1J.g:: :;;.~: ~ ~ 0 0 ~ '" -s a 0 ~ a U 1-0 :is E'3 ~ ~ e ~'S 1::80'" e !i>-] &" ~ ~ E;;~~lS -5 . U >. "Oli-s~ ~ iLs a :a ~:l.~ ClI ClI 6 a lllli .2 ~ ;>~ 5 ~~ ~.5.5 -g . ''''311' -;:. ClI'a,':::" "9Sij"ji .-Io~ ~ Z 3 o 5. e E-< e. l-o'- U_19 & ..s b co 0 ~'5'6 6 ~Ui .,; .. ""1l ~~.:::.. ag.g "0 _ . .. .s~6 ..,~ e- ~"s ~.g 0 J!;:j5 ~~5. e.:-9... ~...."" !j... e J.t..O~ U ~ g :g 0 ;: .::!.... " tI ~'E "'-,g ~E~ '~,g u o " " :I: " . .!! .~ G~w -gE~ ~ 0."" '" 0 C "Od)'(;; C > , " " 0 Et~:Z: o ~ " ..J~<2 -&:2 c C Jf.2 dJ....-;;j ~ c'o U e 5l .;:i lL( ""i=] g: ~.- -_c . c " 3'- E ~ " , .s'~ ~ n ~ > .5 011 ~ c :I: ~ c . .... ... ~ " , .,3 c o U 1l , .5 E <3 ~ ~ I I i j .,c t ') ~ ..; g: lo., GI ~ E 1i '0 a O..J:::..c 0 03';;"<1:: .... ~fi S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , <<l ~ ~ ~ ::: "~ ~ ~'" ~~" ~~ r~ 0 0 .!!" g 0 " o. tj . C "'N-o_ o ~ 3 o. ~ ] 6 >.- <oS s:: ~~ ~ ~ ." ~~E~ c 0 ~ ~ "is Eu ~ ~ 6] e '~ .'9 '" " c ;;:; 0.( ~ "'~ <u~c.. ;; '" , ~ ~ Vl:E ~;; e ~ IX> ~ .... Sl.,g GI 0 ::: .~~ ]ll:r--~ ~ Jl e Id ~ a ~ 1! E - ...... ,VI C ~ ~ ~ u ).0 . o 0 "2 ~ ~ g ~ 6 ..... t;: ~ ~ ~. -s ). u- ~. :i u ~2 'T c " ';j~ e.-o Vl 01 5 ~ ~ u Z ~ o u U 'T ~ ~ ::: u c ] ~ 5.~ ~ e ~ E ~ -5 ;: '" '" 8 ~ '5 ] 8] 0 i Oz '" '';:::< c..c <1\ c .. ." Uo ~ ~5 ~]:.s~ " ~ ~ 0- ::: E ....':;: .:::(.L,....-;a ~ 0_ ~&. 2 <<J <2 ti "B~ ~ I;:u ~13 ~ g g 5 ~ g ~ ~ ~ N :23 :g:6 '- 0 ~ ~ ~. " ~ .. I .,," ~ U 0.'" .. ~ ~ ~ .- 0 ~:;! , , 'u a; ;st,;)~ ~ ~ h~ ~. .. .. ;:; H ~ ~ . 013 ~ ~ ~ N ~i ~ c f'O'\ t;>~ 5 ~ ~ u , .s'" '" ;; ~~ ~ 5'g~ ~ ~ 0 u u ~ Ii ~ e Jl ". - '" u ;; .... u ~~ ~ ~ c , ~"~ ~.s~ ~ u~ el~ E of! . ~.s ~ g g: oS;: z ). u"~ i ~ ~ ~ .9] i"iz 0.0 ~~. ~ ~-;. ~ ~ ." o.~ :;: ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ "E e "'0 "c_<<l '" ~ ~ ~ '" g~ '" .g1J.l-g:6 "" i;> .,,~ ~ ....':;: ~o-o ~ i;> " .~ 0 ~ '" 0 5 ~& i.~ - ;; :i1 :>; ." " U -s ...g& 0 0 :>; '5ba is " ~g-8...(;; * u -"", <2 0. 0 0 0 g "'u '" u ~ ,Q >u~ fr.,Sb .~ ~ ~~I1 ~~ ':'~'15 . u enE.2 ~:9~~'o -!l~ .~p -S S .ff.~~ ~1i o 0 u :::l ti g 1l.l_";:J :;"0 <2 e u gooo~ .- > u , 0 Vic::I::r:.... ~~~ ). ~ '" o ." !< ~ o .J ~ '" Cl ~ Z o '" '" co ;: I .... ~ :;! tl g ~ .... ~ ~ !l! o " ? o u o .... ~ w .... o z u "'" ~u_ - 0 0 " 0 _ o '" . ~.,,~ 3]: ~ "- "g'og ~ ~ g Cl.g ~ o ~ c ':f:E~ ~ 0 " a "'ii:I-c ::gD..2 <( E '5 o ~< "' 0 u "'c~ - u _ ~ a$' .~ {j-g ~ g.~ o.D 8 o ~ eo" g.t: tl 8. 00 . =' ~ VonC:o Cl\.~ ~_. ..... _ u.,... ~<-....loo') -0 0 U <l.> U tJ -5 ti ~ <C.3 ~ ';.~"E-g '5 '8 ~] ..c::c.,.... <II ;; "0 ~ 0 <g~~ .5 co 8 ;:, o0~~ g:.3~~ - '" <:; e.fJ . 0 '" c:: ~ 0 .._ '-''::::: !=;2 c < ::: ;::J ~~~~ o ~ c.: 0 ~ c o ~ ~.........,; ,200_ u u 0 <II [5 ~ o 0 l:i e ii ~.5'g. 'g ~ ~ ~ 4.l...>.bO ff131i~ '5.: g- ~ E:8-a.~ E ........ C 4.l~~.g 1; 0\0", Q/j- o. ~ "''00-0 U 0 u ..e~~5 -0 Eo... .g 55 C:-g 8-]'o~ .......'" I:: '5 '00.9 :.2.-,....(;$ ~~*E tl 00 ~ ~ .,,'" '" '" ~ "0 E;;",<<( -gg~g m b ~ ~ ~ g. ~ ~ ::::"<::-1:: ~ ~'~.g .;:; c <2 11 ~.g '@ ~ :q ~ U lJJ ~t g E' ~v~g Vl~gu .51:-59 f'i2~g 0\ ""'u c 0\ - c:: e.> - Vl '-' ~ oS.5 %J:: " ~ 6 E ~ S " Jr ~ o u " :a e.9;S '5 ':fi2S~ OO'Eb'O .., r' ~'a ~ e- "'c.....o41 f"-. U 0 3 :> ~ ~ ~ ~ 'a "" 4.l"O"O ~ :a;S] '" ~ ~S-]8 E_~ ~~.g'ot!, "' 0 0 ~~~~~ M._ >';;a 4.l ~iS'~] o-u-o ..... -.- ~ cnc"O,.a 13 ~~ ~ "5 .~ E ~ ~ Jij 0 ~ 0 l.I.. ~:: fr.Me .>.... "': ~ ] 0 U V) v ",c..og;o l.O ~:;,j _ ~ .M<.,gC:c -U<IIMU "'-5:..auft <8 >.:: 5 u E~.g:;~-g u u 0 :::J ~ u ~ 0..... '" g'3'-'0 gf 0.:> CT8 0..;;;; "O--g::o~~ :: '" eM. b"t a '5 !'I a 0 <II:t CT:$'~ M ; U ::o;;:;u -5 <II O'a 5 -00 '>.~'~~ 5'; 5 ~ B ~ ~g. Cll-Vl.2cV) <<( g -ti ~.~;; U~~L_a..... ~"'.....a:I:o 6: ~ g o u 0 ~h u ~ ~ 7l'~ E~:a .9.~ ~ U U e <; 0.::1 Vi :a ~ " u u ~ " -510"0 >.-. c ~~o ~~~ u'" _ '~"O 5 g. a E u ~ 0 ~ ~ g ~ 00....... ~c: ~ o , .... :J.:;i! ." '" u .M ~ ~ . ....=0"0 o:.~ E 3 ::::::~~ -o'oB::=? " '" E 4! ""T I:: 0 !) &g<i:;Vl -.U ~ gf o U "'._ :;;s E g 5 .9 e ::c ..... '" U U -0 E if: oS ~ ~:! E ~ ;;. ii.g ~;~~ ~ g ~ ~ u._ U 0 ..c:.'!::: <II l:: - -0 V 0 .s"g.s.o >"]"3 ~ .o-uo ~~o. -8 5 ~ <i .a ~t):a o ~_ ou lu_.. . .0 Cll~ ~-g 0< r--::J .... u..c ~.J,I., ~.s:a~-8 ~~':~ 'B:;r:....... , .5'..... 5'3 n It.,g E ~cn OQ.... ~ bO c 5os.~ 'C;; e a ~ ::J ::J U ,::: ~ 0 ~ ~.::I C:I: .... cu ou u U 5<<55-; '2 ou '0 :>..... ~~ ti: ~~ ","0 8.5 ~ as U 13 e ~ J,I., -5 Ei ~ U ou n Jij.f! ~ilii ~ ~ 5"3 j E~bI:l-~o ~.;;;.~. ;S ~ g g u ,Ei oJ: J: "1 l5."'''''';:l .5 'i;'~~ c C U 0 o OIl'g 'il.".o '"1i 2 ou 51':;; ~;:<~]a o 0 ~ 5 U <II iJ /:.ll._ -0 ~'2 <: tl 5 5 ~ U -0 ou 0 B -S ~ 6iEl.Lls.~ "ll " .. E o u .. . "':'I :p' ) =: r . -f .,'.. .' ..~' .:., ">ii, ' . .i.- .., ',," .... .. . ., ~ . . ,. "! . " " . 1 . I , l . "C l!?l:: Q)~ Cl..O 83- ()~ f- '" ~ '" '" tj 2: "" ::; .. :!' o '-' ~ 2: ~ 2: " o '-' '-' .. ... 2: .. Q z: .. .. .. Q ~ "E . o '" ;:- c ~.~ .. E ~~ au ..2 c. ~ e . , ~ ~ ~E c 0 E c ~ ~ ........ ~jf~.s5.:~5 "1:..!!.~ >. >. 5 5."'3 ~ll~~]Eti:; '" .....c 111 '" IlJ 0.0 Ill..&:: '-' i;lt.:: ff:;; 111 E .~ ~ .~ ~ :a.- g 0:.> .... '" .... E :=-.!!: E 13 c ~ eo '" ::: c.. 2b'E.o g'E-~~ E ~E]~::Icc8 '" 0 ~ "l:: "tJ ~ 8.. '" E~.o?~<~-t' F 5 .2" ~ ~.5 5 ~ ~~.2..9-<.:O< <: :..::: "';;:; 3 111 lI1~u~~j!E-5 .s;;;'" '-> .- 111 eo ':;:']'o~~gEl:: >,.... CI.> t:I c..::.g ~ g-D<<i'i::E~::J~ ~&v.i(:sE~g-~ <-II1~Q.>'l.ICUC c-o-=oi;g.Clo II1N'o~O ...s"t [1:- '" Q Iii;;:; -5 ~ o ~ E ,~ g -5":i <'II ~"E E]...J.5 <U-:: ~fti~""l:'o-cg5 II} -C._... :';l <'II E p::~g.~g",:a~ 6 ti ~ ~ :~ ~ g ~ ;; - ~ ;:".:::;g t) e ..c a ',:: I:: C ..._'" f='.::J ~d "< (; i)- IU E ,Pi ... ~ 5 5 -5 1I}.5 ,9 IE.,.; Cl) eo -c~E""'OO\<< .~ ~; ~ ~ :. ~ .5 .9 ~.~<<l~e""'<86;;:; U.5 :g 6 E ~ :B g .~ ~ -c.2 c 8 ~ "Vi"B 8..l5"" ~.~~]El]~@g '0 s u '" IU 32 ;t ",-5 ::J <IS :G ~ g ::;: c.> > C ] 2 ~ ~.g lij]~c~ .g ~ e g t:: 1lJ.~ 0.. ~ ::: ~ ~ ~"s ~ ~~~~~ ;:;;-5...~ ..c l::::J::::l '" "tJ 0 '" 0 ( 1lJ.~ r:: "'... Q.- ]--g-g.88 "g]'"'u"'O !! U ~ ~ g "'.E 5 .::: <Ii ..c:: "E ~_ .~ ~ II} :j"s 5 ~"!:: U <G e 8:0 5- a ~ e la ::: e t; "3 -0 U ou E ::j :if 8~.~~O~ ~ ] -5 "0 ~ ~ .5 -5 U '2 U U E":ii -5 '5.l;} "gfluc::o<:s E 3 ~ ,- l::i 'i <G 0"_ ~ 0 U ::. U"Q. <-0 ~ 8 E"'O c:: ~:c .'" ~ ~ ~.g :g (;> ~"2 <: 'Vi s; 5 6~.s 8 e~ ..... - ~ .... ~ ~.~ 's: 5 !:!"'O ~ (:; E;" u8 s~E -5 ~ ~ ..c:: ~=;a U 0 "~~ ,5 'O-~ "'0 ~ . ,t:! ~ u"'O"B ii 0 :a.a<;:i;:..J g ~ Vi ~ 'c: U <<1"::- <..l c:: ~ ~ "~ ,~ ,~ ..c:: u..... -"S >,.J::"~ 9.."_ U.: lI"I ~,q ~ 0 g: u ~ 0(;;;....... (:; bS VggO~O ;S~ M tl_'" ~..... g ,t:. l:i ..c::C::::j~= ~"g:;;: ~ g "€~ -206 ~.... u ou U ~ ~ ~;s ~ ~ ~ ;.-.,5 en 5e~"E~ 5,~ l.C <9 ;., ~5-u~.o ae-5"'-S e ~ ~,~ ~ (;>"~ 's"E'~ 5 ~"'O U ~ ~"a <G U <..l ..... "s 'f .s ~ .s-g~6~ '-o"'il-o ... g la U ~ 5 ui "2 .... <- -;a 051 v l;}~ ~ ..se.s~~j.i; . u IE o . ... -" g c . o~ '-'2' ~ 'e <<1:'= Vie . c -5 ,~ ~ c a ,g , ~'E c . ~'5 <,~ .~ ~ c - . 'c:--e c 8 ,g e . u E2S ~5. ,- 'c: . -5 . .g~ -S ,: 1lt: E IS. .- e ,~ '" t:5 &. ~:f ~ ~ ,~ ~ ;O::t: ~ ~ ~ J . E ~&: l3~ 0.0- "~ ~ u . c~ e e ""2' c 0. . . "'''' li l! ;; 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ !.:]J s. ~ ~ :! ~ ;:! ., ... '" ~ ~ ~ . ~ .. '"' N ~ . ~ ::;\ ~ ~ ill !:: ~ ~ ~ li ~ ~ ~ N ~ 0 . ~ . ~ ~ '" Ih <; ~. " ~ N ;;; ~ ~ i'. lO!. ~ ... J .. ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~. . ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ l:l . ~~ ~ s G , li . . ~ ~ ~ ~ :1 ~ ~ 8: ~ ~ ~ ; i2. :;; ~ ~ '" ~ l~ . ~ ffi l:l ~ ~ 5" ~ g ~ ~ :; ~ "' u . ~ . " :5 g .. ~ . ~ 0 ~ ~ i:i ~ 0 ei ~ !:: . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N E ~ ~ :!' '" .. ':;] ~ ~ ~ ~. N 0- ~H~ :! ., o. 0 :;;I ~ " g il. '" g :< ~ :;l; "- " !:l -> ,~ ~~H j 0 ~ "" ~ ~ ~ :;;I ~~ " ~. !;' '" ~ it ~ ~. ~ ~ '"' ~ ~ ~ ~ :> ~- c :1 0 " ] l:l "' U N ~ N ~ "' ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0 -' '" 1i ~&~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ::;\ ::t ~ ~ ., ~ z '" ~ ~ ~' N ~. ",' g ~ 0 ~ "' ,. , 0 ~ N ~ ~ :0 '" ~ lB:€ ~ ~. . ~. j ~ '" '" '" ] '" '" ~. ~. =i ::i ::i ::i ~ " "" " ~ ~ " f: Q '" 1l '" 3 j 5 ~ l~~~ ~. . ~. ~ . N 2 ~ ~ ~ :! ~ "- ~ u ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ w i N ~ ~ ! ~ '" ~ ~ ~ '" -"-:. - . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ G J i.I 0 ., ! -> :i ~' ~. ~. ~ '" " '" :0" ~ "" ~ .;>",t ~ . ~ . ~ u 0 i -> ,.51 I ~ J ~~ g " < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ;;: >- j ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ " , I ! I i j ! l l ~ ! . 1 . f . . " " " I . 1 71Y>\- . R D4 it 1/ TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM TO: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DATE: September 4, 1996 FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND REST A TED DISPOSITION, DEVELOPMENT AND LOAN AGREEMENT WITH EAH ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND On August 7, 1996, the Board of Directors considered an application from the Ecumenical Association for Housing ("EAH") for additional Agency funding of $412,000 for EAH's Cecilia Housing project. This request arose from increased costs associated with site preparation, project construction and utility fees, as explained in the staff report from Finance Director Richard Stranz1 dated August 7, 1996. The Board determined to provide the requested additional funding and directed staff to negotiate the necessary amendments to the project's Disposition, Development and Loan Agreement ("DDLA"). The Board directed staff to structure the additional funds in the form of a loan to the extent possible and to further require the expense to the Town by attempting to reduce the project's costs. ANALYSIS According to the applicant, the additional funding cannot be in the form of a conventional loan because of limitations on project financing imposed by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee ("TCAC"). Accordingly, the proposed amendment to the DDLA provides the additional funding as a 99-year interest free loan. The amendment contains the following features in response to the Board's directions: I. The new loan will convert to a 30-year loan bearing interest at three percent (3 %) in the event that the project is transferred. 2. The applicant is required to apply to TCAC for permission to obtain the new funds as an increase to the Agency's existing construction loan for the project. If TCAC so authorizes, the new loan will be converted to an increase to the construction loan, which is a 30-year, interest- bearing loan. 1 3. The applicant is required to apply for a ;eduction or waiver of sewer impact fees. Any reductions in these fees shall be reflected in a decrease in total project funding. 4. The applicant will be allowed to begin drawing upon a portion of the new funds upon obtaining a grading permit, to cover grading and site preparation costs. 5. To conform to the funding requirements of TCAC, the amendment would be effective September 1, 1996. If the Board approves the amendment, staff will prepare complementary amendments to the promissory note and other documents implementing the DDLA. RECOMMENDA nON It is recommended that the Council approve the attached First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Disposition, Development and Loan Agreement with Ecumenical Association for Housing. EXHIBITS 1. First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Disposition, Development and Loan Agreement 2 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DISPOSITION, DEVELOPMENT AND LOAN AGREEMENT FOR TIBURON HIGHLANDS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT This First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Disposition, Development and Loan Agreement for Tiburon Highlands Housing Development (the "First Amendment") is entered into as of September 1, 1996 by and between the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, a public body, corporate and politic (the "Agency"), and Ecumenical Association for Housing, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the "Developer"), with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. The Agency and the Developer initially executed a Disposition, Development and Loan Agreement for Tiburon Highlands Housing Development as of July 1, 1994, which was amended and restated in its entirety as of March 1, 1995, and was further amended and restated in its entirety as of October 1, 1995 (the "Second Amended DDLA"). B. Unless otherwise defined herein, certain capitalized terms refer to and utilize the capitalized terms defined in the Second Amended DDLA. C. Pursuant to the Second Amended DDLA, the Agency sold the Property to the Developer for the construction and operation of sixteen units of affordable senior housing (the "Development") . D. In addition to the conveyance of the Property, the Agency, among other things, committed to loaning the Developer the Agency loan in the amount of Three Hundred Thirty-Nine Thousand One Hundred Forty-Nine Dollars ($339,149). E. The Agency Loan was made to provide partial financing for the development of the Development in conjunction with funds from the County of Marin (the "County Funds"), funds from the Marin Community Foundation and equity from the sale of low- income tax credits. F. The Developer has received construction bids for the construction of the Development and estimates for the cost of 102029.PSO 1 permits and fees which have sUbstantially exceed the Developer's initial estimates for the cost of the Development. G. The Developer has requested additional Agency assistance to close the gap in financing the Development and the Agency has agreed to increase the Agency Loan by Four Hundred Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Three Dollars ($412,373) (the "Supplemental Component"). H. The Developer has obtained additional funds through the AHP Loan and the Supplemental County Loan which under the terms of the Second Amended DDLA would constitute the Agency Credit. I. These additional funds are needed to finance the Development and will not be used as the Agency Credit at this time. THEREFORE, the Agency and the Developer agree that the Second Amended DDLA shall be amended as follows: 1. The first sentence of 5.1 shall be amended to read as follows: "Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agency Documents, the Agency hereby agrees to lend, and the Developer hereby agrees to borrow, an amount equal to Seven Hundred Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars ($751,522) minus the Agency Credit, if any." 2. The first sentence in the second paragraph of section 5.1 shall be amended to state that the Agency Loan shall have three components and a new subsection 5.1(C) shall be added as follows: "(c) the "Supplemental Component" is intended to. supplement the Construction Component of the Agency Loan in financing the construction of the Development and shall be in an amount not to exceed Four Hundred Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Three Dollars ($412,373). The Supplemental Component shall not bear interest. (1) Full payment of the principal of the Supplemental Component shall be due upon the earliest of: a. Transfer provided a Transfer of the Development other than a permitted or approved by the Agency as in Article 8; I02029.PSO 2 I02029.PSO b. the occurrence of an Event of Default for which the Agency exercises its right to cause the Agency Loan indebtedness to become immediately due and payable, or for which the Agency Loan indebtedness is automatically specified to become immediately due and payable pursuant to applicable subsections of section 9.4 below; or c. the ninety-ninth (99th) anniversary of the Interest Commencement Date. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.1(c) (1), in the event of a Transfer of the Development under Section 8.4 (other than as contemplated under sections 8.4(a) and 8.4(d)) the term of the Supplemental Component shall be amended to a term of thirty (30) years beginning on the date of the Transfer. The recharacterized Supplemental Component shall bear interest at the rate of three percent (3%) compounded annually. Payments on the Supplemental Component will be due annually on July 31 until the Agency Loan is repaid in full, beginning on the July 31 following the date of the Transfer and continuing on each July 31 for a period of thirty (30) years; provided, however, that annual payments shall be made only to the extent that there exists Surplus Cash; provided, further, however, that any Surplus Cash shall be applied first to the Predevelopment Component and the Construction Component and then, after all payments required on the predevelopment Component and the Construction Component in a given year have been made, ninety percent (90%) of the remaining Surplus Cash shall be applied as a payment on the Supplemental Component. If the amount of Surplus Cash is not sufficient to pay the currently due interest on the Supplemental Component, the amount of currently due interest not paid shall be deferred and added to the principal amount of the Supplemental Component; shall thereafter be treated as principal due and deferred; and shall bear interest at three percent (3%) per annum, compounded annually. (3) Three Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($390,000) of the Supplemental Component shall be disbursed for grading and site preparation in accordance with the following provision of this subsection 5.1(c)(3). The balance of the Supplemental Component shall be disbursed pursuant to the provisions section 5.4 and shall be treated for purposes of 3 disbursement in the sa~ manner as the Construction Component. Satisfaction by the Developer of the following requirements shall be conditions precedent to the Agency's obligation to disburse Three Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($390,000) of the Supplemental Component: (a) The Developer shall have obtained a grading permit for the Property. (b) The Agency shall have approved site Work Contract(s) pursuant to section 3.6. (c) There shall exist no condition, event or act which would constitute a breach or default under this Agreement or any other Agency Documents or which, upon the giving of notice or the passage time, or both, would constitute such a breach or default. (d) There shall exist no breach or default declared by any lender or other party under any document related to the Permanent Loan, the County Loan, the MCF Funds, the AHP Loan (if any), or the Partnership Agreement. A breach or default shall be deemed "declared" for purposes of this subsection upon delivery of notice to the Developer that such breach or default is already existing or will exist upon passage of time without a cure being made by the Developer. (el All representations and warranties of the Developer contained in any Agency Document shall be true and correct as of any disbursement of the Supplemental Component of the Agency Loan. Upon satisfaction of the above conditions precedent and upon receipt of a written draw request from the Developer in form acceptable to the Agency setting forth the expenses previously incurred for which reimbursement is requested in connection with grading and site preparation of the Property, the amount of funds needed, and a copy of the bill or invoice covering the applicable cost, the Agency shall from time to time disburse the Supplemental Component of the Agency Loan. The Developer shall apply all disbursements for the purpose requested. 3. Section 5.2 shall be amended to change the date for the Interest Commence Date and the Payment Date from March 31 to July 31. Each reference to March 31 in Section 5.2 shall read July 31. I02029.PSO 4 4. Section 5.2 (b) shall be amended to add a new third paragraph to read as follows: "Developer has received additional funding under the Supplemental County Loan. Developer intends to use these funds to partially repay the Predevelopment Component. Up until the time of the first disbursement of the Supplemental Component, any funds paid by Developer to the Agency to repay the Predevelopment Component shall be eligible to be reloaned by the Agency to the Developer subject to the disbursement procedures under section 5.4." 5. A new Section 5.10 is added as follows: "section 5.10 Special Supplemental Component Provisions. The Agency has provided the Supplemental Component to the Developer to assist the Developer in meeting anticipated cost overruns of the Development. As a condition of providing the Supplemental Component to the Developer, the Agency has required and the Developer has agreed to the following provisions: (a) Sewer Fees: Developer shall make a good faith effort to apply for and obtain a reduction or a total waiver of the sewer impact fee for the Development. Any reductions in the above referenced fees shall be included in the calculation of the Agency Credit pursuant to section 5.1. (b) TCAC Authorization: Prior to the receipt of the Form 8609 from TCAC, Developer shall apply to TCAC for a written decision regarding whether the provisions of the Supplemental Component may be immediately amended to a thirty (30) year loan and treated as an increase in the Construction Component. Upon receipt of TCAC's written approval, the annual payments required under the Construction Component shall be immediately adjusted to include the increased Supplemental Component amount. Prior to submitting its request to TCAC, Developer shall submit the request to the Agency for its review and approval. Notwithstanding the changes and deletions contained herein, all other provisions of the Second Amended DDLA remain the same. I02029.PSO 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agency and the Developer have executed this Agreement on or as of the date first above written. DEVELOPER: ECUMENICAL ASSOCIATION FOR HOUSING, a California nonprofit PUblic benefit corporation By: Its: ATTEST: AGENCY: TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic By: By: Robert L. Kleinert Its: Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: I02029.PSO AU TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority (TPFFA) & Tiburon Town Council To: TOWN COUNCIL & TPFF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meeting: From: SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 PFr/i -# I FINANCE DIRECTOR Item No: # IOwA.! {OUNClL:i;t L. REFINANCING OF 1990 MARKS-ROOS REVENUE BONDS AND 1989 CffiRIAN DRIVEILA CRESTA REFUNDING BONDS - PROCEEDINGS OF THE TffiURON PUBLIC F ACILITlES FINANCING AUTHORITY (TPFF A) AND TffiURONTOWN COUNCIL Subject: Summarv This item is for approval, by the Town Council (and Council acting as the Board of Directors of the Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority), of resolutions which will implement a refinancing/refunding of the 1990 Marks-Roos Revenue Bonds and 1989 Cibrian Drive Special Assessment Bonds. The proposed refunding will result in reduced total debt service and lower special tax and assessment levy(s) in four districts (1) Point Tiburon Community Facilities District (CFD), (2) Via Capistrano, (3) HilIhaven, and (4) Cibrian Drive, and will also result in a reduction of $233,000 in principal to be paid by the property owners. In aggregate, total debt service (principal and interest) paid by the property owners will be reduced by well more than $1,700,000, which represents approximately 25% of existing total debt service. Outstanding principal to be paid will be reduced from $4,358,000 to $4,125,000, and the term of maturity of the bonds in the Point Tiburon and Cibrian districts will be reduced by two years. Backl!round to DroDosed refundinl! Because of the decline in interest rates in recent months, Staff and Mark Pressman Associates (Underwriter) have reviewed the bond issues of the Town concerning the feasibility of refunding certain bond issues in order to provide savings to the property owners in those assessment and special tax districts. Two (2) bond issues have been identified which will provide significant savings: the 1990 Mark-Roos Revenue Bonds of the TPFFA and the 1989 Cibrian Drive Assessment Bonds issued by the Town. Town Council approval is necessary to refinance the Cibrian Bonds. The Town Council, in their role as the Board of Directors of the TPFFA, must approve the sale of the 1996 Refunding 1 Revenue Bonds, which provides the funding necessary to payoff existing 1990 Revenue Bonds and purchase the 1996 Refunding Reassessment Bonds (Cibrian Drive) to be issued by the Town. The exact amount of the new Revenue Bond issue cannot be determined until the bond escrow is funded with US Treasury securities which will defease the Prior Bonds to their next payment dates of October 2, 1996 and March 2, 1997. No public hearing or legal notification is required because the proposed refunding will decrease the assessment liens and annual payments of the affected property owners, and because there is no extension of the maturity of the property owner's bond obligations. Structure of the refundinl! The proposed refunding will be a joint undertaking of the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority (TPFF A). I The Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 allows local agencies to pool issues for refunding purposes and sell new bonds to payoff existing issues. The Authority will be the issuer of the Refunding Revenue Bonds and will issue Refunding Revenue Bonds sufficient to: (1) payoff existing bonds, (2) purchase the Cibrian Refunding bonds, (3) pay associated costs of issuance, and (4) establish a reserve for future delinquencies. The proposed reserve account will be held by the trustee until the Revenue Bonds are fully paid. The proposed reserve account is to be funded at 3.08% of the estimated $4,125,000 par amount of the Revenues Bonds, which is $127,050. Subsequent interest earnings of the reserve are intended to be reinvested and accumulated in the reserve until the reserve account reaches the maximum allowed 2, at which time earnings will be used to retire the Revenue Bonds prior to their maturity as funds are available. An advantage of the proposed refunding is the current availability of existing bond reserve assets to the property owners. The property owners will be credited with a pro-rata share of their district's respective bond reserve fund balance in determining the new amount of outstanding bond principal and the related new special assessment levy(s) and taxes. The Underwriter has I In May 1990, the Town and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Financing Agreement and formed the TPFFA for the purpose of issuing Marks-Roos Revenue Bonds to refund the Point Tiburon Community Facilities District Bonds, and finance public improvements in the Hillhaven and Via Capistrano areas. 2 Least of ten percent of the proceeds of the Revenue Bonds, or; 125 percent of the average annual debt service on the Revenue Bonds. 2 structured the new debt service repayment schedules to correspond to property owners' existing special tax and assessment levy schedules, so that in addition to the annual tax savings accruing to the property owners, the final year of debt service is further reduced by an amount equivalent to the reserve fund credit. As previously indicated, the reserve account for future delinquencies will be established with proceeds of the sale of the Revenue Bonds and receipts due from the 1996/97 tax roll which are not used for that year's debt service on the Revenue Bonds. A further advantage of the refunding and restructuring of the bonds is that consolidation of the four (4) districts into the one Marks-Roos issue will bring about a reduction in annual trustee administration fees, and result in Staff administrative efficiencies. The current Revenue Bonds' interest rates range from 7.40% to 7.90% on outstanding principal of $4,358,000. Final matUrity is scheduled for October 2015. For the Proposed Revenue Bonds interest rates are currently estimated to range from 4.25% to 6.25% on outstanding principal of $4,125,000, with final maturity scheduled for October 2015. The refunding results in significant reductions in outstanding principal and total debt service to be paid to term in 2015. Estimated savings result from taking advantage of current market conditions, lower interest rates for the term of the bonds, and utilizing excess bond reserve and invested assets of the respective district bond funds. Estimated savings for the Point Tiburon and Cibrian Drive districts are sufficiently great that the term of their respective bond debt will probably be reduced by two years. The proposed par amount of the Revenue Bonds is $4,125,000, with an estimated yield of5.38%. Revenues to meet the semiannual payments on the Revenue Bonds will come from the proceeds of the special tax and assessment levy(s) of the four bond issues which will be owned by the TPFFA. The special taxes and assessment levy(s) of the districts are collected on the regular property tax roll by the County of Marin. Town Staff has been working with Mark Pressman Associates (MPA, Underwriter), the law firm Sturgis, Ness (current Bond Counsel), and LL. Schwartz Associates (Engineer) concerning the analysis for and logistics of this refunding. MP A submitted proposals for trustee services to six banking institutions; Staff has reviewed the proposals and now recommends that the Bank of New York Western Trust Company be appointed the trustee for the refunded bond issue. Bonds identified for refundinl!: The existing 1990 Marks-Roos Revenue and 1989 Cibrian Drive Assessment bonds have been identified to be refunded to provide savings to the property owners. The Cibrian Bonds were issued by the Town, and the 1990 Marks-Roos Revenue Bonds of the TPFFA, which are 3 supported by the special assessment levy(s) and taxes of the Point Tiburon CFD, Via Capistrano and HilIhaven Undergrounding Districts. Summary information concerning each bond issue is presented below. 1. Cibrian/La Cresta Reassessment District. 1989-1. with a par amount of $840.000. These bonds were issued to refund the original 1983 Bonds, the proceeds of which were used to finance surface and subsurface streets, utility and related improvements in the Cibrian Drive and La Cresta Assessment Districts. Current outstanding principal is $425,000. The County indicates that the current ratio of assessed value to assessment liens is approximately 70 to one. 2. Marks-Roos Revenue Bonds (ofTPFFA). 1990-1. with a par amount of $7.984.000. These bonds were issued to purchase the bonds of the Point Tiburon CFD 1985-1, Refunding Series 1990; HilIhaven Undergrounding Assessment District 1990; and the Via Capistrano Assessment District 1990. Current outstanding principal is $4,358,000. Underlying issues of the TPFFA are described below. a. Pt. Tiburon CFD 1985-1. Refunding 1990. with a par amount of$5.573.000. These bonds were issued to refund the 1985 Special Tax Bonds, the proceeds of which were used to finance construction and acquisition of surface and subsurface streets, park, utility and related public improvements in the Point Tiburon project area. Current outstanding principal is $3,845,000. The County indicates that the current ratio of assessed value to assessment liens is approximately 19 to one. b. Via Capistrano Assessment District 1990-1. with a par amount of$225.000. These bonds were issued to fund public improvements associated with the widening of a divided section of Via Capistrano to accommodate two-way traffic. Current outstanding principal is $184,000. The County indicates that the current ratio of assessed value to assessment liens is approximately 16 to one. c. HilIhaven Undergrounding District 1990-2. with a par amount of$434.263. These bonds were issued in 1991 to fund utility and associated undergrounding improvements in the HilIhaven Assessment District. Current outstanding principal is $342,000. The County indicates that the current ratio of assessed value to assessment liens is approximately 50 to one. The consolidated value to lien ratio is approximately 25 to one. It is the opinion of the 4 Underwriter that this ratio is high and is sufficient to adequately secure the Revenue Bonds. According to data provided by the County there are two (2) delinquent property owners among the four districts (which includes approximately 200 1iened properties). The delinquency rate is one percent (1%); County wide the rate is approximately three percent (3%). The proposed bond reserve should provide sufficient funding for delinquencies. At this time it is estimated that average annual debt service in the four districts will be reduced in a range of8% to 50%, as follows, and as presented in Exhibit 3.a. by the Underwriter. Table: Debt Service Savings from Refunding Issue District Current Proposed Percent Average Annual Average Annual Reduction Debt Service Debt Service Pt. Tiburon CFD (a) 200,892 126,673 -36.9% Hillhaven 50,558 46,719 -7.6% Via Capistrano 19,526 15,402 -21.1% Cibrian Drive 80,704 40,085 -50.3% (a) Pt. Tiburon CFD debt service is net of the Redevelopment Agency contribution. The special assessment and special tax levy for fiscal and tax year 1996/97 has been implemented by the County Tax Office, and may not now be modified in aggregate. Subsequent savings of refunding will be realized commencing with the tax year beginning July 1, 1997. The Point Tiburon Special Tax levy will experience a significant reduction beginning July 1997 - estimated to be in the range of20% to 30% - which will benefit the residential and commercial property owners in the District. Property owners in the Point Tiburon Community Facilities and Cibrian Drive districts will realize significant savings in addition to the anticipated reduction in their respective annual special assessments: As previously mentioned, the term of maturity of the bonds of the Point Tiburon and Cibrian Drive districts will be reduced by two years. 3 3 The reduction in term of maturities is - Cibrian Dive from 2003 to 2001, for Point Tiburon from 2010 to 2008. 5 Underwriter that this ratio is high and is sufficient to adequately secure the Revenue Bonds. According to data provided by the County there are two (2) delinquent property owners among the four districts (which includes approximately 200 liened properties). The delinquency rate is one percent (1 %); County wide the rate is approximately three percent (3%). The proposed bond reserve should provide sufficient funding for delinquencies. At this time it is estimated that average annual debt service in the four districts will be reduced in a range of8% to 50%, as follows, and as presented in Exhibit 3.a. by the Underwriter. Table: Debt Service Savings from Refunding Issue District Current Proposed Percent Average Annual Average Annual Reduction Debt Service Debt Service Pt. Tiburon CFD (a) 200,892 126,673 -36.9% Hillhaven 50,558 46,719 -7.6% Via Capistrano 19,526 15,402 -21.1% Cibrian Drive 80,704 40,085 -50.3% (a) Pt. Tiburon CFD debt service is net of the Redevelopment Agency contribution. The special assessment and special tax levy for fiscal and tax year 1996/97 has been implemented by the County Tax Office, and may not now be modified in aggregate. Subsequent savings of refunding will be realized commencing with the tax year beginning July 1, 1997. The Point Tiburon Special Tax levy will experience a significant reduction beginning July 1997 - estimated to be in the range of20% to 30% - which will benefit the residential and commercial property owners in the District. Property owners in the Point Tiburon Community Facilities and Cibrian Drive districts will realize significant savings in addition to the anticipated reduction in their respective annual special assessments: As previously mentioned, the term of maturity of the bonds of the Point Tiburon and Cibrian Drive districts will be reduced by two years. 3 3 The reduction in term of maturities is - Cibrian Dive from 2003 to 2001, for Point Tiburon from 2010 to 2008. 5 Recommendations: : Town Council convenes first as the TPFF A Board of Directors and second as the Town Council, to take actions and adopt appropriate resolutions to implement the refunding: Authorizinl! Actions of the TPFFA Board & Town Council: TPFFA BOARD Approve refunding of the 1990 Marks-Roos Revenue Bonds, consider the revised agreement between the Town and TPFFA respecting terms of repayment, and consider other actions as may be suggested by Bond Counsel 1 Agreement for Legal Services 2 Approving Agreement for Engineering Services 3 Authorize Purchase of Town Refunding Bonds and Issuance of 1996 Refunding Revenue Bonds 4 Authorize Preliminary Official Statement 5 Attachments: I. Exhibits Submitted by Underwriter (MP A) 2. Resolutions C:=:.' I'" :<"..&_ ) A ffcckm "4 TOWN COUNCIL Approve refunding of the 1989 Cibrian DrivelLa Cresta Reassessment Bonds, consider the revised agreement between the Town and TPFF A respecting terms of repayment, and consider other actions as may be suggested by Bond Counsel Joint Refunding Agreement between the Town ofTiburon and the Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority Intention to conduct reassessment proceedings, pursuant to Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act bonds Reassessment Report Reassessment Report and confirming reassessments Issuance and sale of refunding bonds 6 DATE 8123196 8128196 8130196 9/4/96 9/5 - 9/11196 9/11196 9/24/96 9125/96 10/1 196 NOVEMBER SNBA MPA S&A TIEE _.. --' . "'-'II.. r",',-,_ "',L->-.>.IMh r~J~..,./,- .L L : ". 1 ~.,l:': , lJ'" ~ ~ I-''-'.Gl:. 1 ~ I Ik~ # I pr-FA TOWN OF TIBURON TIBURON Pl'BLlC FINANCING AUTHORITY 1996 REFUNDING REVENl:E BO:\"DS PROPOSED CALENDAR REVISED AUGUST 2.1, 1996 PREPARED BY MPA. SAN FRANCISCO. CA ACTION INITIAL ANALYSIS SUBMITTED BOND RESOLUTIONS AGENDIZED FOR COUNCIL RESPOI'iSIllLE PTY MPA TOWN POS REVIEW COMPLETED BY BOND COUNSEL MPNSNBA COMPLETED POS REVIEWED WITH FJN. DEPT OF TOWN MPArroWN FINAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO TOW:-l FOR DlSTR. MP NSNBA!S&A To -;;TJe.,iI;U"2~ '<om H CO, DetJt. Co. :>I'l('.ne. Phon" " Feu .. 3 S"- .2'" 3 ::311. SEND OUT CALL NOTICES (CONDITIONAL) COUNCIL ADOPTS APPROPRIATE RESOLUTIONS (SmfMARY PROCEEDING) PRE-PRICE 1 PRE.~1ARKET BO:>:DS PRICE BONDS PRECLOSE CLOSING ESCROW FUNDED BONDS CALLED TRANSCRIPT COMPLETED TRANSACTION SUMMAR Y RE\ 1EW STURGIS, NESS, BRUNSELL & ASSAF (BO:-JD COUNSEll MARK PRESSMAN ASSOCIATES (UNDERWRITER) SCHW ARTZ & ASSOCIATES (MAPPING EN"GINEERS) TRUSTEE (TO BE SELECTED) B Posl.lt' Fax NOle 7671 ~ ~ TOWN /TIEE TOWN MP AffOWN MPAffOWN ALL ALL PARTIES MPA/T"OWN TIEE S:-rn A MPNTOWN / n < x n .... n < x n iii ;; ;= ... iii iii ;; ;= ... '" n .... 0 " '" n ,.. 0 ;; ,. X .. ... ;; ,. X .. Z " ,. ~ ,. z :J! ,. ~ ~ en < ID < 0 m 0 !!l m '" .... z 0 '" z '" '" '" ,. ,. z z 0 0 . . . In . . z >o~ .. '" ,......0 '" .. '" '" ,..m~ '" '" .. .. .. ....... .. '" .. '" '" s%... "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 c:"o 0 0 0 0 0 tI ,. "'....m 0 0 0 0 0 . . . mZID . . ~~ '" "'m.... II . ,. "'0 ,.::E", ,.~~ 1:", ",,..m .. '" FeW ....- ;" -" en mO'" - '" ...;::m 0'" "'''' '" - mO llln< '" .. ... '" .. (5mo !'>_...... ..'" "'..'" illm "'Z ~ ,.c; '" '" ... '" '" CWO -0 - .. w:"''Cn ~~ ",. :j"'m "0 " " " "0 ~t3= "'... o ex> "''''0 ,..,.. 1:0- 0 0 0 0 0 ~!il "'... ...'" 000 ;:l 0 0 0 0 0 ~@~ Z ,.ID'" -I ....,..Z ;= :ccn~ C) m;:;!!l '" '" '" 6i cn~o '" .. 0 mo en '" 0 ... '" 0 c: me 0'" " " " " " W,.'" ....JJ.... :J> Z'" 0 0 0 0 0 :D ~mm _m 0 0 0 0 0 Z "'0 0 ...e ",m ;~ rrimz d~ :J> c:< Z w~=< "'... mm '" "'... 0.. "'0'" 0'" ~ "'.... '" ex> .. .. '" OW :""<0 :""Co oi.oi:o ~N ....0 ",0 ~ .. .. .~ ~ "tI ...,. ,.." "'''' -'" "''''''' "'- ,.. m" ~ ....- en ....1: ~~ ~~ "'''' ?fl.cfl<fl. ..'" en l!:m z~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ~~ ....,. A i!l '< '< A ~~ ~ "tI x" 0 0 0 0 (I) (")~ m mm ~ 1/1 (I) 0.... "'Z ... ... ... ... ... c: OJ ;::m :D "n io '< io io io m ;;: m< 1:< 0 .. 0 0 0 0 ;;: :D JJ-< "tI mn !!l )> (") 00 .. '" '" '" '" m ~ "'ex> "''''.. .... ~~ :D "'z N Co Co Co A ;:'" :D ." 00 "'''' 000 - '" 0 "'.... .. .. .. .. 0 ~~ ,,'" -< ,. -......-...... men u,r.nu, :...,:... ~, c: JJ 00 "'''' "''''.. "'''' ....!ll xi!! ~~ 0 ~ .... '" '" ex>"'''' ..... lila; "tI OlD '" .. .. .. ~ ." Z 00 00 006 00 m ",c: N N :.. io )> m ........ ~~ !2 00 00 000 00 .. .. .. 0 .. z " :D m- JJ " ",0 ~ Z 0 ~ ~Ol !'> ~I\) '" a ~ ,..Z N N " ex>" 0'" '0':>-<0 :. m ~ < ~ ~ < n ~ C) m - .. '" 0 ..."'''' ... Z ~ ~ UI JJ .... "'''' "''''''' -.. 0 " iii ::! "'A 00-, w:""o, CD:"" mm ;! " ill \l :D ~ "'''' "'''' "''''0 "'''' '" == (J) m I: ,. h < z .... '" '" '" '" '" m m c: 0 0 0 0 0 m JJ '" ~ 0 0 "W Z " :D ~ .. .. '" '" ~.... Gi c: e I '" " I]J n m f)J x ~~~ I]J 5i -< m '" ex> - .. '" 0 '" !> !!> 0 0 c: '" 0 0 m C ,.. '" ... .. .. '" ~ ~~. ~ 0 '" .. Z ~ m '" .. '" .. '" JJ ,. ... '" C S (J) .... en :D x ::!l ~ m ~ ~ .... z~ \!l '" .. .. ...... "'0 ... '" 00 .. '" "''''''' ..0 ~!ll en !" 0 .. '" ,. Hl~m co ~~ -......-......-...... Co:aw ::l '" " ... -... '" "! ~ "'''' 00 - -- "'''' lila; Z '" .. 0 ... .. '" "'''' "''''''' ..... ex> .. '" '" '" 00 00 000 ~m m " h1 m 00 00 000 "'.. in '" "0 c: II ..'" -'" '" ~~ '" '" .. !" !"' ... .. 0 .. l>>N a,N c=",.-...... ... :.. ;" ex> '" ...0 .. '" "'..'" .. .. '" '" ..0 0- "''''''' -'" mm '" '" .. '" '" Co <0 -'" oJ..m :..'" " ..'" ...... "''''.. .... '" .. ~ .. '" I'" '" 0 '" ... '" '" '" '" ..'" ,,'" '" '" ~z mm .. '" .. <ON ..'" '" .. "'~ '" 0 !"' ... '" "'.. ..- "''''.. '" !> U. .. "'''' -'" "''''''' 0'" ~~ '" '" '" -:)1 :....tin Com mJ.. '" '" .. .. ~ "''''... ... ... 0 .. 0 "'''' ..'" "''''.. ...'" '" '" '" "'~ ex> '" ex> '" '" '" '" '" TIBURON PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY FORMATION STRUCTURE TOWN OF 11BURON (TOWN COUNCIL) nBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (COUNCIL MEMBERS AS DIRECTORS) JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT nBURON PUBLIC FACILmES ANANCING AUTHORITY (COUNCIL MEMBERS AS DIRECTORS) PREPARED BY MPA, SAN FRANCISCO <<:> 1996 .-'.._--_._---.-_.._--~--~. ._. -.---------- TIBURON PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY FORMATION STRUCTURE TOWN OF nBURON (TOWN COUNCIL) nBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (COUNCIL MEMBERS AS DIRECTORS) JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT nBURON PUBLIC FACILmES RNANCING AUTHORITY (COUNCIL MEMBERS AS DIRECTORS) PREPARED BY MPA. SAN FRANCISCO (!:) 1996 ,-...---- ----..-.---...---..----- .... -..-------- . 0 :tl ill iii ~ 3]~ill c 0 ~ Z :tl m - ;!! :tl "tl < ~ i> z CD z ~ <: 0 i m z c: CD c z ~z~ m iii a z C m 0 en C o!il!i! :tl c - lD , m CD i> :tl :tl 0 ~ ~ t5 <: :tl CD Z m en z ffi en m C en ~ en z c -l iii ~ :tl c: CD :tl -0 < -0 [ CD 0 ::J ::t z "' C "tI CD DJ "tl c: "tl ~ :xl en 0 m :tl N c: Z in lD m z ;;: en 0 :tl C en c "tI " Z m m 0 m ~ ~ c: - C "tl ~ :tl ~ :8 c: 0 . DJ '? in z =e c "tI r- en c ~ ~ c: m m d iil (; :tl m C m en . :tl "T1 ~ < r- m 00 Z :tl c: CD :iEF m - c :tl 03 lD ::J ~ CD 0 Q. < "T1m z :i" -0 [ CD C '" ::J "T1cn "' c en lD CD C:"T1 0 ::J -l z- Q. .. o~ "' .. cnz ~ 0 0 z 0 0 ::t C> c: ~ :tl F lD ~ m ~ 3 c: > en c: :tl C 0 m ~ m 0 ~ in "tl ~ -0 en z 0 "tl 0 in m :tl Z "tI 0 en "tl ~ ~ c: 0 c: c: c: Z lD ~ Z C :xl z z c 0 0 -l 0 Z ~ m Cl :g !lJ ~ :tl CD Q. ~ ~~ 0 CD III < :: So ~ ....; CD -l ::J ~ c.. ~ 0" ~ 0 0 "tI CD 0 ~ :; ;s 3 ::t :;~ - ~ CD c- O' 0 "tI ::J C 0 - ~ c _ :: 0 (3 CD ~ ~ ::l -l CD '" ::J ~ ~ CD CD "' " ::J IlO II> Q n ~8 '< ~ ~ a: o ~ c:l: "c. :1::) 01- Zw :2cn ti:1- cnZ w;:) 1=0 :JO -0 O~ ~~ 0;:) :Ju.. m :) Co Z o a: :) m 1= W -W ~~I- Za.,CJ) O>-~ mml- Ween ::)w<t iD;:)~ >CJ)z WCJ)c::c a: :::.. m !z CJ)_w ZZCJ O:S:<t EoCJ .....I-z CJ>-_ :Jm~ mec. OWen ...J::)<t C3CJ)z o ~ 3: ~ 0 .... W 00 o a: w~~~~ ~~~~~ a: W _ o , 0 ZI-CIl [tfiJ~ wif ~a:~ I!:! a. . ffi~ ~a: 00_ it I' !l! :- 1 --- --- --- --- --- - --- --- --- -- --- --- --- - -- I -~oz ~I-~~ ::E..J I- ~1(~~ <(00 - ~- I <::7ij o .- (/) '__ .~ .... CJ 'C ~ I 0(;;, ::J Q) c: Ln '0...; c: .- 0 .00.0 >-<::en caOo> .- 00 ell 0 <Xl I- lLO> C:E " .- ~ 0> -1.t)~UT'"" m; 00 mUi..;,.... ~=> ~ :>.- E . .!: co I- "'...; 0. en 0 00> ~ E ca III Z a.~ S ca Q) Q)'O III 0<( I en ~ <:: <( <(=> .J '-- J l '" <:: CD";::.a .2: .!:2 c: (I) 00.2"0 . Q) <:: C-a:o ca E ell 15~<D 6<(~ ~ $ jO IunO)S\p anssl leu!8po ue 8u!pnpu, $ :a)Pd ledDUlld TI'aX :rm ledpUlld :MO\aq pam)ads se JaljeaJal.j1 AlIenum? pu" 'L661 'l Jaqwaldas 8upuawwo) sluawAlld ledpupd I.jjlM 'L661 'l I.j)J"W aq l\"l.js spuOH al.jl uo luawA"d ISalalU! ISJ!} a41. :a1npal.jos AlJ.llllew pue luamAed IsalalUI ISl1:l '(.,:JlQ.. al.jl) Auedwo:J ISnJl A.IoI!sodaQ al.jl I.jI!M UOH"JIS!llaJ 10j alq!llna aq IHM pUll WJOJ 1")ISAl.jd U\ pan 55! aq II!M sal")!lHJa) a41. 'Joalal.jl I"J8aIU\ AUIl JO OOO'S$ jO sald1l]nw U! SUOH"u!lliouap puoll . AII"pas pan 55! aq 01 spuoq palals!lla~ :spuOH jO lDlO:! $ :SPUOH jO lunoUIV '(.,Spuog papunJal1.. a'll ',,\aA\1oalloo) (.,spuog anuaAalI 10Pd.. at{l) 'spuog sool1 -S'l'''W V-0661 sallas '''l!-,ot{lnV llU!OUllU!.!I saml"".!l o!lqnd uOlnq!.L a'll pUll (.,spuog 6861 Ull\lq!;).. a'll) 1-6861 sal,as '1-6861 llu!punJal1 p!'lSm luamssassV lllSal;) ll'IlaA!'Q Ullpq!;) llu!punJal jO asodmd al.jl JOj '("luawaaJllv lsnll" aljl) 9661 'Sl Jaqwaldas JO 5" pal"P ("aalsnJl" al.jl) aalsnJl s" Auedwo:J lsnll ulalsaM ANH pue Alpo41nv al.jl '("UMOl" al.jl) uomq!l JO uMol a41 Iluow" luawaaJllv lsnll " pue '(.,M"l pUOH" aljl) al"IS a41 jO apo:J luawwaA09 a41 JO 1 all!l 'L UO!S!A!Q 's Jald"l.j:J JO '(t8S9 Uo!pas I.jl!M 8upuawwoJ) t apH.l\f llU\lnlHSUOJ 'papuaw" 5" 'S86l JO PV 8U!100d pUOH I"J01 sOO~-S'l'''W al.jl Ap"lnJ\ll"d pu" ("al"IS" al.jl) "!WOHl":J JO al"IS al.jl jO SM"1 al.jl 01 lu"nslnd Alpol.jlnv al.jl Aq panss! 8u!aq '(.,spuOH anuaAa~.. a41) pal"illl!sap "\Wom":J 'uOlnq!l JO UMOl '("AlPoljlnv" al.jl) Alpol.jlnv Ilupu"u!:! saHmJ":! Jnqnd uomq!l aljl Aq paJaJjo aq 01 spuoq 'II" ue41 ssalloU lnq 'II" asm,plnd Ol sJaJjo Aqalal.j 'anss! paJUalaJal aAoq" al.jl jO (.,lalPMJapufl.. aljl) lalPMlapun llu\ll"u"w s" '(V dW) s:n VDOSSV NVWSS,Hld )\~VW :AlpOl.jlnv aljl JO sJaqwaw J"aQ eJUloJ!le:J 'uomqU. jO UMO~ '(,,AtJ.lo41ny,, a\{l) AlJ.lo\{lny ilupueu1:l saHlIpe:! olIqnd uomqU Aq panssI aq Ol spuoll anUaAall ilUWull}all 9661: a\{llOj pellUO:J aselpmd puoll :all "!WOm"::> 'uomq!l uo.mq!l jO UMol Alpoljlnv llU!Jueu!:! samuJ":! J!lqnd uOlnq!l pl"oll Alpo41nV alq",ouoH a41. 9661 ' Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority __, 1996 Page Three copies of the Preliminary Official Statement dated . 1996, relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement") deemed final by the Authority for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Rule") and to satisfy Municipal Securities Rutemaking Board (the "MSRB") Rule G-32 or any other rules adopted by the MSRB, and approved for distribution by resolution of the Authority. Within seven business days from the date hereof, the Authority shaH deliver to the Underwriter a final Official Statement, executed on behalf of the Authority by an authorized representative of the Authority and dated the date of Closing thereof to the Underwriter, which shaH include information permitted to be omitted by paragraph (b)(l) of the Rule and with such other amendments or supplements as shall have been approved by the Authority and the Underwriter (the "Officiat Statement"). The Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, including the cover pages, the appendices thereto and all information incorporated therein by reference are hereinafter referred coHectively to as the "Official Statement:' The Underwriter agrees that it wilt not confirm the sale of any Bonds unless the confirmation of sale is accompanied or preceded by the delivery of a copy of the Official Statement. (b) The Resolution shaH be in full force and effect, and shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented except as may have been agreed in writing by the Underwriter, and there shall have been taken in connection therewith, with the issuance of the Bonds and with the transactions contemplated thereby and by this Purchase Contract, all such actions as, in the opinion of Sturgis, Ness, Brunsell & Assaf, Emeryville, California, Bond Counsel for the Authority, shall be necessary and appropriate; (c) Between the date hereof and the Closing date, the market price or marketability of the Bonds at the initial offering prices set forth in the Official Statement shall not have been adversely affected in a material way, in the judgment of the Underwriter (evidenced by a written notice to the Authority terminating the obligation of the Underwriter to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds) by reason of any of the following: (1) Legislation enacted (or resolution passed) by the Congress of the United States of America or a decision rendered by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America or by the Tax Court of the United States of America, or an order, ruling, regulation (final, temporary or proposed), press retease or other form of notice issued or made by or on behalf of the Treasury Department or the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America, with the purpose or effect, directly or indirectly, of imp{lsing federal income taxation upon the interest as would be received by the owners of the Bonds; Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority , 1996 Page Four (2) Legislation enacted (or resolution passed) by the Congress of the United States of America, or an order, decree or injunction issued by any court of competent jurisdiction or an order, ruting, regulation (final, temporary or proposed), press release or other form of notice issued or made by or on behalf of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any other governmental agency having jurisdiction of the subject matter, to the effect that obligations of the general character of the Bonds, or the Bonds, including any or all underlying arrangements, are not exempt from registration under or other requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or that the Resolution is not exempt from qualification under or other requirements of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended, or that the issuance, offering or sale of obligations of the general character of the Bonds, or of the Bonds, including any or all underwriting arrangements, as contemplated hereby or by the Official Statement or otherwise is, or would be, in violation of the federal securities laws as amended and then in effect; (3) Any amendment to the Federal or California Constitution or action by any Federal or California court, legislative body, or other authority materially adversely affecting the tax status of the Authority or the Town, its property, income, securities (or interest thereon), validity or enforceability of the assessment or the ability of the Authority to acquire the Refunding Bonds as contemplated by the Trust Agreement and the Official Statement; (4) Any event occurring, or information becoming known which, in the judgment of the Underwriter makes untrue or misleading in any material respect any statement or information contained in the Official Statement concerning the Authority or the Town, the improvement projects, the landowners, or the property assessed; or (5) Any calamitous act of God such as flooding, land movement, or other which directly or indirectly affects the value of the property assessed and/or the security of the Bonds; or (6) The declaration of war or engagement in major military hostilities by the United States or the occurrence of any other national emergency or calamity relating to the effective operation of the government or the financial community of the United States. Oosing Conditions: (a) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall have received copies of each of the following documents: (1) The Official Statement and each supplement or amendmer1t, if any, thereto; Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority __, 1996 Page Five (2) The Resolutions and the Trust Agreement, certified on the date of the Closing by an authorized officer of the Authority as having been duly adopted and as being in full force and effect; (3) An unqualified opinion in substantially the form included as Exhibit B to the Official Statement, dated the Ctosing Date and addressed to the Authority, of Sturgis, Ness, Brunsell & Assaf, Emeryvilte, California, together with a reliance letter of Sturgis, Ness, Brunsell & Assaf, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Underwriter, to the effect that such opinion addressed to the Authority may be relied upon by the Underwriter to the same extent as if such opinion were addressed to it; (4) A certificate signed by an appropriate Authority official to the effect that (i) such official has reviewed the Official Statement and on such basis certifies that the Official Statement does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (ii) that the representations and warranties of the Authority contained herein are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the Closing Date with the same effect as if made on the Closing Date; and (iii) the Authority and the Town have complied with all the agreements and satisfied all the condi tions on its part to be performed or satisfied under this Purchase Contract, the Resolutions, the Trust Agreement and the Official Statement at or prior to the Closing Date; (5) A Continuing Disclosure Certificate signed by an appropriate Authority official in substantially the form included as Exhibit F to the Preliminary Official Statement. If the Authority shall be unable to satisfy the conditions to the obligations of the Underwriter to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Bonds contained in this Purchase Contract, or if the obligations of the Underwriter to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Bonds shall be terminated for any reason permitted by this Purchase Contract, this Purchase Contract shall terminate and neither the Underwriter nor the Town shall be under any further obligation hereunder. In the event that the Underwriter fails (other than for a reason permitted by this Purchase Contract) to accept and pay for the Bonds at the closing, the lessor of the amount of one-quarter of one percent (1/4%) of the principal amount of the Bonds or $10,000.00, less appropriate expenses as designated below, shall be full liquidated damages for such failure and for any and all defaults hereunder on the part of the Underwriter, and the payment of such amount to the Town shall constitute a full release and discharge of all claims and rights of the Town against the Underwriter. Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority 1996 Page Six Authority and Town Covenant: The Authority and the Town shall covenant in the Resolution and the Trust Agreement to take any action within its powers to maintain the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. Assignment: With written consent of the Authority, MP A may assign this Purchase Contract to another qualified Underwriter. Expenses: Except as herein described, all expenses and costs of the Authority incident to the performance of its obligations in connection with the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds to the Underwriter shall be paid for by the Authority. The Underwriter shall not be responsible for and the Authority shall pay all fees and reasonable expenses of Bond Counsel and other professional advisors employed by the Authority, fees and expenses of the Trustee, all preparation and printing costs for the preliminary and final Official Statements, including all costs of reproduction and distribution thereof; all costs of preparing the Purchase Contract, the Official Statement, and the Authority Resolutions, including all costs of reproduction and distribution thereof; costs of preparation, printing, signing, transportation, delivery, and safekeeping of the Bonds; costs of obtaining the overlapping debt statement; regulatory agency fees, property owner notices and travel by Authority staff, Authority officials, or the Authority's professional advisors. The Authority's obligation to pay any of the foregoing expenses shall be contingent upon the issuance and delivery of the Bonds as contemplated by this Purchase Contract and the receipt by the Authority of the purchase price of the Bonds as set forth herein. Place of Closing: To be arranged. Time of Closing: Not later than 48 hours after the Authority notifies the undersigned that the Bonds are ready for delivery. If the subject Bonds are not available for delivery by 5:00 p.m. on the aforementioned Closing date, the Underwriter reserves the right to renegotiate the price and/or the rate of interest. Expiration: This offer expires at 5:00 pm on ,1996 Very truly yours, MARK PRESSMAN ASSOCIATES Mark Pressman Managing Principal Accepted by: Authority Treasurer ~LG-23-86 1q 07 ~~UM, STU~G1S LAW 10 5106520180 PAGE 2 , ....J:1. . MEMORANDUM OF PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1996, IN CONNECTION WITH 1996 REFUNDING REVENUE BONOS Ik/vt it :A (T~ ( (U\A cJ ) By taking the following p~oceedings, the Town Council will create a new district which will result in lower debt service for all assessed owners. No notice or public hearing is required pursuant to the Refunding Act of 1984 or the Marks-Roos Local Bond pooling Act ot 1985. These p~oceedings will consolidate the 1990-A Marks-Roos Authority Revenue Bonds and the cibrian Drive/La Cresta Assessuent District Refunding 1989-1. 1. Resolution approving Agreement between the Tibu~on Public Facilities Financing Autho~ity and the Town of Tiburon. This is to be Dassed. Please see additional instructions. 2. Resolution of intention to conduct reassessment proceedings pursuant to the Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 Improvement Act bonds, without notice or hearing. This is to be nassed. 3. Reass.ssment Report. This is to be filed. Please see additional instructions. 4. Resolution approving Reassessment Report and confirming reassessments. This is to be passed. 5. Resolution authorizing issuance and sale of refunding bonds. This is to be cassed. Please Bee additional instructions. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO TOWN CLERK: A. Please have the Agreement between the Town and the Authority executed in quadruplicate, attaChing a certified copy of the resolution to each executed copy. Please keep one copy in the file for the Authority and one for the Town and return two copies to our Office. B. The Reassessment Report should be marked filed and conrirmed using september 4 for both dates. Do not complete any other certificates at this time. Please keep all copies ot the report in your file until you receive further instructions from this office. C. Please provide a certified copy of the Resolution approving Reassessment Report to the County Auditor's office. D. Please provide a certified copy of the ReSOlution authorizing issuance and sale of refunding bonds to ~UG-23-96 14,~-1 ~hUM bJ.UH~lb LAW lU bl~bb~~l~U ~A~E 3 , . ~ . D. Plea.. provide a certifi.d copy of the Resolution authorizing issuance and sale of refunding bonds to E. Please provide two certified copies of each adopted resolution to our office. STVRGIS, NESS, BRUNS ELL , ASSAF By: Edwin N. Ness 2 ./ Jk~ .::/i ~ (2) " RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORN EYS AT LAW A PARTNERS....,P INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS J.....,,""....OORl!:. ""'u" '-REDERle "'''''''K W'L'-'''''' " "'EL ",e.......o A. CURNUTT LEON"'''D......'''''''E'' JO"'N"...UALIIUT..H' ""e"'A",- w, ,....0:'-'. NIL.-ORD W. DAHL,""R TH"OOO"" I WALV.CE,JR,' I''''TfI,CK..."",.."TO'' ..'e....."oP,$...'" R,,""RTe,BRAUN ItOW""" D. SYBESM"', -'A,' THO...",SS,S",..,NG""- 0...1,1'0 C. .........SE". CLIFFORDE FAIEDEN N'C""ELO.RU.'N ,,,... G "'V,,,' .....:...."Ey... OO"RM"'" JD!U:P" D. C"",.UTH STAN WO'-COTT' ROIIERT S, BOWER DAVID J. AlE:S....'RE .."FtC,,, A. FORSYTH .....'LL'..... M. MART'CORENA ,J",..ES L. ..O"...S .......E No:"SON LAN""''''R WILLIAM J. CAPLAN ..'e....."'....-...o".......; PM'L'I'O.I<O.... JOIB, O. "UPltABERG SH;vt::...... "'CHOL!I THO......S G. ''''OCK'NGTO'' wllL'''M w. WYNOE:III E:VIll'0''''IV'C''1l0...L......'' .......0...1.1.... ......IIU5H .......V.. ORE:E:N THO.....S.).c.....NE: ......."IlI...-.....Z'E:A ..."...THO:"'N"'.)O;:NSON OU"E fr, W...HLOUI5T ..'c....."o G. "ON1'E:v'oo:O LOIII'S.....N"'R5..'1'.. o:ANESTW, "......TT'" '" ItUZ....ET.. H"'N..... ,,'..0.1'..0....50.. 611 ANTON BOULEVARO, SUITE 1400 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1998 OIRECT ALL MAIL TO: P O. BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 9262B-1950 FAX (714) 546-9035 .)"'V"O:T"'VLOA""'CO;:" O...V'O Ill. coso..ovo;: H.....S v..... L'GTE" STEP..E....., 0:1.1.,,, .....TTHE:W ". ROSS .)E:FFREvwERT..",..ER ROIllERT 0, OWO:N ...o.....N.VOL"O:I'l1' .)EF..-R"V....GOLOF...R.. I'."O:V'....R...Z'L L"'V"O:H...r;LZER L.S"'H........SON ..'C.....EL".SC...TTERV DEBR"'DUN..STEEL O...V'O H. HOCHNER EL'S" ",T""'V"U" 0..... SC"'T"''' .).....ES S. WE'SZ C...ROCL.OE....LER "''''T'''<':''O.''<C'''LL''' I'l'CH"'I'lO ". HOWELL ....P...TR.C"..UNOZ ELL"'.. 5. 1l"'''cI'lOFT P"'UL.). SIEVERS S.D"''''",LH...RIlOTTLI;; D...v'..... F. .....ROE.. '..........'L"...NU ')D!lEP" L, .....G... "' """"0 C, "'LO"," scon ", ,,"'NT"'O"'T'" .....w..."O L' S.....OR....).VOUNG "'LL",.. C, OST""G"'R '" .)UL....L.ONO .)1;;....,"o:R WH'T"'-5Po:RLING "OllE..T",,"'OE:L LO"'C.H"''''''RL STE:VtN .., COLt....... STEvEN.). GOON OOUGL...S.).oO;:....'..GT004 1'0000,1.'1'..-,.. 51'EVI;;..". "ULOOWNEV "'NTHO"V.),"cC:US"O:R .)"FFRl!:v R, IlI1'l0w.. SUl!:L"''''C:OCC'N5 KA..... ". C.....LSON l!:RIC I. OuN.. TELEPHONE (714) 641-5100 .... W. "UT"''' 11880-'''721 .)....."'S II. 1'UC"",.., 5... 11888'1"'50) "'''FORO W. O"'HL. "... 0....;>->..881 H. "OOOE:R HOW"'LL 11,..25-,..831 ....PI'OOI'1<5SIO........C:O..O'O_TlO.. G..."v,....-. S.....LLE...."'...:;"'.. O...v,O.).O.....'"...LOI,''' 0"- C:Ou"S"'.. August 15, 1996 TO ALL CALIFORNIA CITY ATTORNEYS Re: Amicus (1996) Brief in Ellis v. State 44 Cal.App.4th 170 of California Dear City Attorney: We have volunteered to prepare an amicus brief on behalf of California cities interested in the issues in Ellis. Ellis dealt with an action for inverse condemnation brought against two public entities, the State and the City of Los Angeles. In a published decision, the Second District Court of Appeal held, first, that the defense of contributory fault was not available in an inverse condemnation action. Holding tort theories of liability to be inapplicable to inverse condemnation cases, the court found there to be no basis for apportioning liability between the owners/plaintiffs and the State. Its second important detendants, although sued properly held to be jointly to plaintiffs' property. ruling held that the two public entity for allegedly different "takings," were and severally liable for all the damage This case has been accepted for review before the Supreme Court. The brief we are preparing will be a concise statement indicating the concerns of cities and indicating their support of the State's position. Although some cities have indicated their desire to join in the brief, some have indicated additional time was needed to allow the matter to be considered by their City Councils at a duly noticed regular meeting. Thus, we delayed filing the amicus brief to allow additional cities to consider whether they wished to join the brief. 23SI099999-0071f3012262. a08ilSf96 ., " RUTAN &. TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A P"RT"~""H'P '''CllJl>'..<:; P"O~~5SlO..Al CO"pO"""0NS ALL CALIFORNIA CITY ATTORNEYS August 15, 1996 Page 2 If you would like to join in the brief, please let me know within 14 days, as we need to file the brief. I will provide all joining cities a copy of the brief for their files. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, Ln_-_____ ~~~ HVL:eg 235/099999-0071/3012262. .08/15/96 CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY -.- J/e ~ " If 3{b) , 151 WEST MISSION STREET SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95110 Telephone (408) 277-4454 Facsimile (408) 277-3159 JOAN R. GALLO City Attorney INVITATION TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF August 15, 1996 Re: Nordyke v. County of Santa Clara. et al. Dear Colleague: The Executive Committee of the League of California Cities Legal Advocacy Committee is urging that cities participate as amici in this important gun show case currently pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The purpose of this letter is to request that you join in the amicus brief being prepared by the San Jose City Attorney's Office in support of the County of Santa Clara in the above- referenced case. This concerns a challenge by gun show promoters to the County's ban on the sale of guns at gun shows on the County-owned fairgrounds. The County neither banned the gun shows themselves., nor restricted communications at the gun shows. The District Court invalidated the ban on the ground that it infringed upon constitutionally protected free speech rights. Judge Ware ruled that the sale of guns constitutes constitutionally protected speech, rather than conduct and that the County could not adequately demonstrate that the ban was narrowly tailored to meet a substantial government interest. It is from that ruling that the County of Santa Clara now appeals. The reversal of this ruling is important because the City of San Jose and other California cities also have property used for proprietary reasons, such as convention centers, upon which reasonable restrictions on conduct should be permitted. The City of San Jose will be briefing the following issues: 1. Prohibiting the conduct of selling guns on the property of the public entity does not infringe upon constitutionally protected speech; 36916_1.DOC CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY II ..!--//{I-\. 1/ 3 (h) , 151 WEST MISSION STREET SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95110 Telephone (408) 277-4454 Facsimile (408) 277-3159 JOAN R. GALLO City Attorney INVITATION TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF August 15, 1996 Re: Nordyke v. County of Santa Clara. et al. Dear Colleague: The Executive Committee of the League of California Cities Legal Advocacy Committee is urging that cities participate as amici in this important gun show case currently pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The purpose of this letter is to request that you join in the amicus brief being prepared by the San Jose City Attorney's Office in support of the County of Santa Clara in the above- referenced case. This concerns a challenge by gun show promoters to the County's ban on the sale of guns at gun shows on the County-owned fairgrounds. The County neither banned the gun shows themselves., nor restricted communications at the gun shows. The District Court invalidated the ban on the ground that it infringed upon constitutionally protected free speech rights. Judge Ware ruled that the sale of guns constitutes constitutionally protected speech, rather than conduct and that the County could not adequately demonstrate that the ban was narrowly tailored to meet a substantial government interest. It is from that ruling that the County of Santa Clara now appeals. The reversal of this ruling is important because the City of San Jose and other California cities also have property used for proprietary reasons, such as convention centers, upon which reasonable restrictions on conduct should be permitted. The City of San Jose will be briefing the following issues: 1. Prohibiting the conduct of selling guns on the property of the public entity does not infringe upon constitutionally protected speech; 36916_1 DOC Re: Nordyke v. County of Santa Clara. et al. August 15, 1996 Page 2 . . 2. Even if prohibiting the sale of guns on public property is somehow found to infringe upon constitutionally protected speech, the prohibition is constitutionally justified by the County's interest in curbing the public health and fiscal crisis created by the proliferation of gun violence. The City believes that these issues have importance to all California cities. If you are interested in joining in the amicus brief, please complete the attached form and return it to this office via mail or facsimile no later than Friday, August 30, 1996. The brief is due to be filed on September 3, 1996. Thank you for your time and interest in this matter. Very truly yours, JOAN R. GALLO City Attorney By: ~~ia A::~ t::, c,L;:/ Robert Fabela Deputy City Attorney 36916_1 DOC TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: TOWN COUNCIL Meeting: FINANCE DIRECTOR Item No: MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY STATEMENT AS OF JULY 31, 1996 SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 :// L! / I. TOWN OF TIBURON Institution! Agency Amount Interest Rate Maturity State of California $7,586,490 5.587% Liquid Local Agency Investment Fund T otallnvested: $7,586,490 2. TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Institution! Agency Amount Interest Rate Maturity State of California $975,261 5.587% Liquid Local Agency Investment Fund Total Invested: $975,261 Notes to tables: · State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) - The interest rate represents the effective yield for the month referenced above. The State generally distributes data reports in the third week following the month ended. · Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in conformity with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted by the Town Council. The investment program herein summarized provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures. BY: ~~ Richard StranzI, Finance Director August 23, 1996 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT To: TOWN COUNCIL Meeting: SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 FINANCE DIRECTOR Item No: CONSENT # 5 AUDIT SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1996 - APPROVAL OF LETTER OF ARRANGEMENT FOR AUDIT OF TOWN AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS From: Subject: Consent Item: This item is for approval of the Letter of Arrang:ement submitted by Coooers & Lybrand to perform the annual audit of the financial statements of the Town and Redevelopment Agency for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1996. The proposed fees are five percent greater than 1995. The adopted 1996/97 budget includes Town and Redevelopment authorizations as follows: Budget Authorization Town General Tiburon Redevelopment Total Fees: 19,600 4,000 $23,600 Letter of Arrang:ement 17,250 3,750 $21,000 The firm also charges for expenses associated with conducting the annual audit, which usually add one to two thousand dollars to the base fee cost. The current budget authorization for the annual audit is sufficient for the submitted letter of Arrangement. Recommendation: Town Council adopt the Letter of Arrangement as submitted by Coopers & Lybrand for the 1996 audit of the Town and Redevelopment Agency. Attachments: 1. Letter of Arrangement, dated August 21, 1996 Coopers & Lybrand COOp.'. & Lybrand L.L.P. 333 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2119 telephone (415) 057-3000 a professional services fjrm facsimile (415) 957-3394 (415) 957-3372 August 20, 1996 Mr. Richard Stranzl Finance Director Town ofTiburon 1155 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 Dear Richard: Attached is our Letter of Arrangement for the 1996 annual audit of the Town's financial statement. Our total 1996 fees for the audit will be $21,000 detailed as follows (1994 and 1995 fees are presented for comparison purposes only): 1994 1995 1996 Town $17,220 $16,500 $17,250 RDA 3.780 3500 3.750 Total $21.000 $20.000 $21.000 As we have previously discussed, we reduced our fees by $ I ,000 in 1995 reflecting the fact the you took full responsibility for preparing, typing and editing the Town's and RDA's financial statements. Our 1996 proposed fees reflect a small cost of living increase and are the same fees we charged the Town in 1994. Please review, sign and return this Letter of Arrangement to me. t Ve ,t ly yours, attachment EXHIBIT NO. 1.. Coopers & Lybrand LLP. is a member of Coopers & Lybrand International, a Swiss limited liability association. ! " I ~ ii ~~ tQ~ ~ .. .. I j . . ~ . ! I~ ~~.. 'I" .". ..1. . .; .; ~ i f. " . . . . 8 u "0 ~C Q)~ = 0>> O.....J 006 '" c, ~ " ~ ~ . gc.. ~ ~.s: '- ~.2 r:iJ ~ (;5 ~ "';; E ~ .u <.2 8: it ~ =- ~ ~ ~.~ '~ ]~E;: i:: s...s .~ < ~ c .- ~ t; ~ - .~ "'0 ::: U .0;; ...c: ~ E & 8 ~.f E "'0 .f ::; 8 ~ 8 '. ~] ~~ - i::;::: >- .= &.2 2 11 ~~.:- ~ 1::! E g ;:; o;l '" .~ ~ l(~ .~ ~ g ~ E ~ ~ ~ <.2-1::!~ .5.0 c.. 0 l:i ~ '" ::: 'S~'ovi U IJ l:i 1j -S -S 5 E "'O...c:~... ~:.2 E ~ ~~- 1.= ;.~ 0:: 5:2.5~~ 'tij:.....~l;:;U IJ <r:;:; IJ IJ ~ S:!...5.z:.z: . o ~ o < j 0 on ~ ~~ ~~ u C 0: . ~ :V~ i , i g ~ g i' .., -" " ~ " " " E " ~ . '" o " . ~ '" ~ ~ ci N o ~ o < " ~s; -;:: .f~ ~ .~ :: g:::.~ if. B :; s; '"2 - -S ;::::i c:l ::s ~ :-- ~:; ~ 0:: - C) - ::0 '" , <r, -s ::: - .~, " o ~ o .5 J . ~ u "' " o ~-g e <':I IJ :i ~ C ~ .~ .9 . C . ~ u . 't ti' ~ -E ~ . C ~~ . C . . :.c :a '" 0 iiii U .~ cj'; E Iii .~ ,; = 0 ~~ g ~ o c- U , " " u -S ~ o ." " o . E . -S . ~ . o .i?i . " u ~ E ~ . o::l '" .s"i .E .=: 5;- o~ :0 c ~ u .ra :2' ~ ~ . ~ - <2 ";i o::l ,,2 o . ~ ~ ~ li . c..~ ~.a .~ .- u . 8 ~ . ~ -S . ;q~ . to " ~ ~ li .~ c.. "'" 5 E t- ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ :; ~ ~ '" . ~ o o ~ ~ . ~ " C ~ . . ~ ~ E ~ g .fj~ .2 " ~ Cll.~ g b " . s o e :r. " =" ]]~~ lS.S "6 E .3' [E ~ ~ _ <':I B '" ~ E 'E .cuEE g-I- 0 o IJ ~'t u -5 -= u -0 . E e- ~ ~ ~ a ---....2 '" ~ ~-o'~ o u to ~.- ~ :;:: :=" ~ ::: "i - ... ... c 5 : -5 .~ ].~ ~ 'E ~~~~c ; ~ :; 0 g 6,- 0 (;5 r- r- ,--5,.; u-5 ~ ~~ ::J '- - 0 c '" 0 :; c.. C ~ <r. 3- '-' ':.I ;2 '" _ ti ;:, =: "B B ~ ~ ~ ~f ... ';; ~ 3 6 C _ ""::l E. ~-5 .2 '" :l <':I .. ~ -a ~ ~ -:J ~ ~ '- c ~ s: <':I o '" E C '-'""::l;::; ~ :; ~ C ;:l 11 - ~ :; .::... E :.c-....~~u r- :: --5 " 5 ~B.:~~~' t...c: c.. u c.. u-uc ~ u C ;=: .s 0; g,;; !.i c... 'H_~_~~E~<':I to ~ ~ C 'U . ~ ... -B ~ ". :..... ..: 0;- .. .. -5 -5 <.2 ~~~-~'U ~ ::: 15 '-' 0 ::: ~ '" ~ -2., 11 ;-:J ~~~~~2o U <;;;':a . ~] ~ ~go~ ~vi~.2~~~ ~ ~ g-~ . r:iJ <;JJ IJ B ~ -: ~ 2.~ ~B~~~-5~ e~~-g~E3 0..:: ~ IJ '" ~ .9 g ::j 'U ::..5 E 'Ug1j~g~~ a ~ ~.~ f;' ~ z .0;; -5 eIj x E U-o ~ .9 c u '" ;; "6 '" -:a ~.;:: ~ 1::!.:!! ;:l'u IJ is. >-. ::I t; "'.D ~ E E "BB.,g~.,g~ 2E-;;.g~(;5:a 0. := .-... . t.Q g ~ :: ~ -5 :a.5"B ~.g~'oo::l]B s:: '" ."= r:iJ;3 g Il.l .- :~ E -= ffl'- ~ .". .... =0 ." .., ~ -3 ... ~:;:~ ~ -g~i~~~"2 ~.!:::.s -g ~ S'o.~ o ~ ~ 11 B.~ ~ s 0- 0: g-g] . 0 c " " U r:iJ -5 S::...c: 6."= -5 E ~ 8 c . .;; 2 '"2 () Q " c.l> u ;::: -< ~ " ;: ;: " u '" 'U ;:l c.l> U -:J "" ~ g ... C _ ::J "&o;;;h~ E -5" g ~ -i .~ tJ <:l <:l 0; U <.2 .3 f j] ;H~j~: ~-~g@"9~~ .g <:l ~ ._ ~ ~::: 2 ~.g11:::12f"B ~ ..g ~ g .- ~.: J~ :~ @ .~ .2 ~ : ~, ~ <':I c..ls..-<':I..;"",~-g U U E _"c...c: ...c:._ u ... t':I Cl;."= ,::-g~E"'3o~~ Ot':l~.8~~u ~ g ~ ~ .~ : ~ :a ~.2Z]-g;:8.~ ~ ~.; 2 a o::l := ~ = ... cco._ =.'." _.~ ~ t..;: .!; -g.::_ ~~~'O~o::l_o ~ 3 ~ c -; :; jg '" ._ e 5.g l:i 0':;; :~ ]~-gs~'oa03 5~":EB~~~ o ~ 'E ~ ::I t':I t g gp '" ti -0 ~ 8'tij .- .~ .~ !: ~ sr ~ ff ~ .g o t; "'0 -- ~ - :-:::: 2'.9 t ~ ~ 5 -5 Clj-O c.. 5 s .~.2 ~ B ~ .s. ::r: .~ ~ g .g .3 ~ ~ ~;:! ~-:;: ~ C.C.5 5 ..!2 E ~ .2: E.g -3 0'" Clj .6 G ~ E <.2 c Cl; := ~ Vi ~ ~ E .s: ~ .~ ~ E ] B B ~ o;l U IJ <2 . u " ~ ~~ o o c u ~-a g o o .E :; . " " E . ~ :a g ca U >- .n c o . o::l ~ elj Jj.~.E 5 -0..0 C 0 IJ 1l.l.i5..s 5 -0 03 .-2<2,s.g E __.,g B ~ i5 ~] J2 E.!:! o::l : ~ ~ ~ -5 "'....... u'tij g g g;g 2'0:] c. c 0 ~ ._ ~ "'0 ~ :.il ~ ~ .. '" E " .t :- :; ~ ~ E c c 2'- :: C E a.-5 -5i:.i:.~ .~ .- .... ... ~, :g g.~ 8 ~ 9 c.. t':I _ .....c...c: . "'g g :::.~] ~ ~ '" ",.E c -.= ;:l ;:l .C .- 2 " 'l) ;;; 5 u -:J --::l :.;:; ;...,~ 0 ;:;.~ ::: E a. 0..."= t f j j . I ! ~ ~ . 2.s.5 ca ~ g E"o c:::.D g.g::: "_..q o::l ~-:-g-2EO .gg~a2g u . 0 a::~~E8~ s:: ;:l 0 ~ c 0 j 13.~ ~.~ ~ f=] B~:: 5 .5~oE~~ --::l ~~ ~,:: ;> ~ ,- 0.- ~ ~;;;;g::g ~~~]=o E <.=. <r: c: ~ ~ ~~cBc..c" ~ ~ -- - :::. ca'O].s'O~ .u '" 11 _.... g : ~ .5 ~ :3 t;:; 'E c.l>'-'.... '-' c ...c: --::l '" ~E.~~~2 e. ~ ~ 2' g ~ 5. ;;; '" E -.s: ".''; '.; ;3 ~ 'tij ~ c..;:! c.. ~ ~ t: 8 "i .g' €1..~ ~ :;;:: 3 ; 6 2.,2 :j ~".; r3 ~ ...c: --::l >0 5 ~ 2 g ~ B ~-: ~ c.. u - '" <':1"'-' c: 'U .... I1H t: E g,o ! . J . . . ~ ~ . ! ~ v ~ 0 ~ w - " co:.. N i :g t ~ "II. 1:i '" r:: c 2- E ~ b "~ 2 " r::"':::i C ~ ~ - ~ ] 8 ~ .~ Cf; -5 u _ = '"'::l ~"3 ]]~2 ~~::: .- 2 -0 2' ~>.gCll .g ; g] -3 ~.~ ~ ~::a E .... .... -= 0 d -0<'><";;;..<:: a .S .s .-<;:: '" .,; c;t i:t .... o:l U ~ 's ~ ~ .s::E~ .~ ~ ~ E ~ 0. 0 ~ Ci ~ ~ :; ~:; '" !l ~ E >.'~i o C tl.> '" (,> o:l .. u kf2~~ :.::: ;t -< <U g.uO~ u ~ .9 "," -g:= ~ ~ <2 E"= a '0 8 ~ [ , w , < ] 0 " 0 "' g ~~ ~~ u 0 ii1 .~ " 0 ::;.... ~~ ~ ~ - . 00- N " - ~ ...c: ::J 0 U ....] OIl ~ '" <<1 '" ~ u ~ 0 j~~~~ '" .... s::: c u ::i ~ ~.~ -= ~ 00 > .9 ~ '3] ~ C ~~~~~ 13 ::: .... ~ '" .- s::: 'E ...c: ]:.5E8"3 (II .!: ~ u III ,;;! !9 e: U ~ t .~ .g .~ Eo'- E ~ i3. 0_ & E "'2 'g'~ 2 8 o:l c.. E ~^~ ~.< E -E :: r: '0 '0 ~ i: 'E 'lJ '" 0 8 E ~ .~ .2 ~ ~.- c C r:: <":l is. .~ c ~ " E '& ~ ~ ~'c I P ..-; c.. ! o " 2 ~ ~ .r. ~ ~~ " ~ - ~! " -'I ...., ,... ::: ;,.J ;.) ;rj .....' 2 ;: - " ~ '-' ~ ;': - '5 ~ ~. ~ '- ~ ~ ~ t;.- '-' ~ '-' i 1 'J ~ f ~ ~1 ~ ~ '" ~ - -0 C '" '" C -- "F :.i:i o:l ell::t:i- C 0 2. 'f: on "<:; o:l ..c 2 .S "'..: '-' c.. ~ 0 '5 ii-o.,g '" ~ ~ E ~ t E 0 2. OJ o:l l- v >.~ - ~ -g t C.s 5 o:l ~.~ ell ~ ~:E""CC!J _. '_~ ~ 'B c J u o:l ~ g 5.:q ~ ]"(;j ~ ~ 0 ... - 'j; c g ~~ o;ll) g..!:! .....J d C '-' '" ~ E '3 c..:s 00,..1:;...... t~~~~ P. '" '" 0 g 11 ~ i .~ Us jj ~.. 1Il:a ..&:: ~ ~..c ~ ~ ~ "E ~ ~ '0 ~ E -5 ti '" 'E -g '" -5] ~ .- :9 ~ "'0 E,g~ a'3 ::: -0 i:t e c ] la ~ n,g "uc <ii ~~~E~ o ... t1l .- ~.fE~~ ... p. 2 a ~ ~ ~ 'u E .S ; -5 -5 -5 c ~ g 2 '0 ~ g .~.s IV .-,.-, "0 ~ u E '-' .. '- E ~:::'~a'=..25S.:~c::lc:lJ ulV g't;...~..28 8_ 's "'9 B rJ '"" 1V'2 ~ E ::: u o:l -'-' ~~~~ Ec~~ Eu'gg U ~'.5 .- ~S~'51~~~~ g;~;;._ u 0 Et 0 o:l 9. _ "0 ~ - ... C "0 ~ - o:l:./) .- c"3 ~ 5 ..e ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 'E E: ~ ~ 8 8 - ;.:: c '" ~ ~ .... ~ '-'.J:: c.. ::I t;.J:: -= 5 ;;. !l' ~.8 -'- o:l go 0 l;g"Ou;;i"'g,-"O...u~ E:r.ag.~ .a~~a:::-=~ ~ ~'f~' * E ;2:;; E"''= 2':: ._2 'g :~ & If ~ ~ E:~ g ~ ] ::IO:~0~$'-=50]3~:; :u (; P. :;: -= ~ = .L _ '-' e.!::! ~ c ff ~ 'c ] 5.0 ~ 5.S ~ '3 '<<igc~ ;;~2:'~~c.~E t: .... uSu B ~.- e (; ,S:! t1l U t1l ,_ ...; 8... '~~a~.g>E5B;:..:a ;;; -= o:l c.. ~ >.. t1l.;;: 5 * :./),~ ;:J ~ -= -0 a 1:1) 5 ~ :a:.o C ::l g ~.g ... IV a u ,5 ;;.g >.. ,5 '^ 8 E a :;:-= ~ c !; ~ e 'E a ;;; ~ g..c "';::: '0 l] e,~ ~ ] :g :;; -= 1:: ti.- ~ .; t: ... t1l t: - ,- '-" ~ 8...c 3; ;; c: a 'i gp.= <2 ~ ti "," ~ e 0 -0 E o:l E a t1l c.- -= t1l o:l ....J:: 1;: .. t1l ~ E ~':]'i:j g E 5'~ ~.s].g '-CC<;lQ.......S.. ~o-o~ C 0 tll i!:! e cP.o 0 c:.- CD c g t1l -ti l] t1l ~ CD ~ .::: "0 c ~ ] "," CDC",C _avo - ~~-o ~.:2~'€...o c.::: ti ~ ~o9 tllEaa~;:J8."'E:::l3; '':::-0 ~E'o Eu';:'IV~ ~ ~ _ 00:.0 ~ ~IVC$ag"'~~8.s:aa~ .~ 0 U C <;j t1l:::l -0 .. :s ;;;; ''B"E 5 ,- 'u b ~ E ~ u a E '0 ~ ~ ~ ~~" a '~'g E ~'~ ~ E a P. t1l iil <2 g ~ u ~ S:' .- ~ -a 0 0. g. (; t: t1l U .. ~ (,:: g a .::! 'u g t1l ]:a e .~ ] g EO'" ';;j' ~.g tll <: -.- P..D _ >.. t1l -= E E '" c.. E ... "' .... ... E~<2E'o:5~2~ -0 '" c IV >.. ~ i: E u ... ;; ~ fi._ ~ ... 8 a .3"8 iil ;;; ~ ~ C_.g' if tll 8 t;; :f! e E o:l ~, "oo-oooEc ~ 2 ~,~ ~:9 :2 ~ ~ . u e a e ;; 0 .- e e 2 ::I co'" - '" 0. E':]lO::-=~]'~e 20o]o-tllo.... <;;;Els..:!;l~o9~.s - 8 1:1).,2 e "'"'2.,g c g~:~:E~t,:.g~ c_-o~2u.J::oc::l 8'-~c-c1lc30 "iU ~'- ~.: e e.g ~ .5 E .5 ~ ~ g ~ o:l 8 ... '" 0I,I"Oc..c~"'u52 .5~~g8::1~1o~ -'" E':; >- "iU] 1: g :: 8 ~-gg~5e2~E~ 0::1 .c-c:..c:..;:38~ ~g~o,5~",o0 _ .,g c 'e f 1ii.~ ~ '0 ~ .~ t 's - ~ '0 e .~ a ~;: :s!.g~<;j8c~c:..~O ~ ~ ~ .~ j ~ i : ~ .~ ~ i ~ ~.~ ~:~ ~ 5 g. <:; 'l.> C C"'o 0 -;::: ~ 0 oc.~c..;j'Ec -5 ; .~ .2 ~ g. 'B - ~ '5 g -@ ~ c u ls.. ~ Is .- "'0 ...;;; '5. E ;.:-g -5 6~2o-5i '2~ '- ;;! ~ g ~ E .2 ~ ... .; ~ 2 .2 E' ~ E ; ~, ~ .11 2.;/. ; .~ 1 ~J ~ !:; ~ 5 C":! .... .'" '..> - o:l - ',,> '[i .~-"'~-g~~"'g2u <_ <:;nE~,"'C;::-:J o " <;j ~ 2 E.;:; -0 " . " :~ .S ~ t1l E ~ -~ ~ P. o ~] .....~ 01,1 -"5 ~ u 0 .::-53; o C " c 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~.~ ~ frog - ~ -0 u 2 g. f:: E E i;; .- Eo... ~ ~ ~.,g E ... E ~ o:l "0 :.J 0 E ~ .5 -g <E c:lJ 5 5- ... C ? 'l.> 5.'3 ;",-0 c_~ .9t.:::o:.2 , 0 5 ::; c vi 2" ~ OJ ~ 5 2','8 c: c ::: ~ ;..,~ '-' e.. ~ '" ~ C -00-=-5 ~ ~ g <2 ~o 2 2 C u c:..~E2 ~::l OJ ~ ~ ~ ~ '_ ;:j '3 .... " "" " 51 ~i " ....., ~I :.F; ~ '" :.J 2'".g, 'E ~ g ~ ; ~ I ~~ g""B g E ~ 8 '" ;.. u ;.- :; ~ .5 ~ g' ~ i::: ;":::l C ~ '-' -g e, ~ .. ~ n ~ 5:.s ~.~ ~ '0 g -5 i::: 5 >.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ 5 - ::I t:: ~ c <.2 C" o:l ;;l ::; ... .,g o.~]::c -O_~c elJ'~ .J::_.E ^ . .~ - ... ii ~.2 ~ ~ ~g~B~ ..... '" ~ ~] 0", 0 '" U ~ 'S;: -= g f:: 8 a 0 ''::: 'Z e:e.E ~ ~ c. c ~ 0" i <:J:ll":l ls......c.... .3 3 g. ~ ~ ff E 0 ~ 1ij o e:3: ~ ~ ..<.;....; .,- t1l g ... is '-: <: '- ,: >...?;> iil o ~ 2 "iU ~ t:: 5 ~ g.;;;; .00 0. '" ._ .- c:l '" ~ t:g 0 <: 0"",<:-:: C 0 "." .9 .2 ~ o o u ~.~. "~ ; ~ " . .J::2 ....J 13 ....J 5- ~ c~ ] 2 '":-;:f ad a ^ &2 g r; U > -0 '';:; 1ij ,~ ~.g ~ -~ " . ~ 0 -.... ^ " "~ u - E ~ o.c CD';; " " '2 :.2 1ii a: vi ~ ~ .-. o~ o OI,I:U 'o,~ g . u "5.c 00 ^ 0 " 2 g .:; . " 0 0.- .< g.~ g '0 ~ ~ 01,1 ~ -g.v ~ ~ '0 ~ :f! - C ::I __v -._~-5 ~o- Co :..g 'So ,:2 :".~ ~, l":I o <;j..!::! E 'e ~ ~ '0 -a'i .~ g ~ '" a c.. _ EO.: E <:i '';:; .- e p.u~ o..g-o u 0 ~ c 13 ~ go 2 5 '- u;:; l":I.LJ ~.9 ';;; '2 ~ "o.ls..OtCDuoo;;.J::~o ~.,g <;lQ'f'-= e ;; -5 -= ~ :-: ~ t: :::l .... c:= 0 .J:: 0 ... 1;:"3 i': o ....,::: ~ -0 11 ;;; .... 0 e ,0,;;:"'2 lI: 'Z <213:a Iii tll -=...0 E g.-g] ~ ~.q8 ~ -;:"~:f!; E'" <<l 2'0 e] g"'O g!:!.:2 ~ ~.i>~ ti- c.. 'Vi -0 la ~ <ii 3 ~ <;j 2 -:: ~ ~ R a iil <: ~ ~ ~ E .2 ~ ~ ~ $' ~ 1:: ~ ~ 3; e <<l CD::a u ; ~ ~ .. ~ 3 E 0 -0 E .S "'0 ~ p ti E~ -E,o.g1ijo;;<:s_o. ~5gE~~!"5~ "'E~ ~ 5 ~ 8 ~ E ~ 5.5 ....u~.~ ~ u E g~-5~ 8~~ ~ _2 ~.~: '" ~ ' l'::I 'w tE 0 0. .~ E ~ E e -; '0 ~ -3 '" "':: 5 ;: E :: ~.5 ~ c; tE ~e~":: ~ ~ ~ .q ~ ;: ... ::a '0 .~ g.5 ~ g : 8 E~~~ ~ c'o U:b5 8 c 0 :.J 0 ... .= ~ ~ ;.!~'2-g~ "'-=''8 ~-= ~~.;; e: ... 0 o:l u ...2 c c c..,~ c g, 0 u.; 5 . s @ 11 .5 :.J "0 o:l ;1.s = C5;5 .f' ~ 0 o:l rl -i -5 ~ ~ -= '" t: t:: z a t: .,g 0: 'w "":::l 2 .~~~i~l~~iij:~ .~ ~ ~ g .s 2 -g B ~ ~ ~ 'g ~ ::I ~ _ :: '0 _'" <':l ;:; "2 .~.9 E (,:: u <':l.3 ~ '" i:: ~ ~ o:l '" a ~ .~ 'u-' - c ::;'g'E';:; U ~OI,I"O 8.~ _..>.g~~'s g,~:g]~ ~ E ~ ~].s ~ ~ ~ ~ g j ~ ~~ l ~ ~ g: gj - " ci~ N , cD o < ~ ;3 ~ or. " 2 " ~ - OJ ~ ""0 <..l .!: " ] ~ ~ c...: E .J ] c '" ~ ]~ ~~ " 0 ii2 . ~ ~~ cOd ~; '" <.J- "~ g. ~~ o . ~ U ." ~o 5 E - " "~ ^~ - " " 8.. "B .:: e ~ ~ c.. ~ E l!:.oB e ~.S! ~"E..a i:: 0.> ::J " " 0 E ~ >. ~ .2 W.~] .~ E ~ -5 <2 ~ ~.= ~ <';:;;;;.8 fl '';: ~~ 'i c..!.:: ~ OJ) a is. .5 0 <'(1 ~ ::J '-' a.> ~ '" <' 5h......... 0 '<;j'~:; 8 ~ - ~ ~ J 'E >. <'<I;;; ~ "" 0.> - '- U Il.> 8 '" .~O]~:~~ :; .~ ~ <Ii ~ :~ .5 ~ ~ ~ "=' :g u '2 ., ~ a <'3 ~EaEg~ eg~~'~~ c.. U .:: 'u E 0 ~ ;:..,-t: o.>..s .... ~]~~.~~ ~ '';:; ~";:; ~ ~ f- E"~:g ~ ~ l!:.o ;:!: 13 ~";: _~;q~U~ ~ C . ~..c :>-, .:: .- .~ "'0 ~ ~ Eg~~~~ri :g'~EE~Eu E~c'~c 'j g '..:: ~ ~ p.";; f ~_~~~c_.; ~:- "'O:E ::l c: ~ <..l C :'l '-' eI> c... c: ~ '..J ~~-~~.~~ E ?]5:-- u ~...- ] :: ;!' :;' '-' ~, _ 11 ! . -< "' c " ;:: 6 i7. ~~ ~ '- '" ~ ;0 E'" i:: E ~ S.f' ~ E 2 l;:; ~'-€"3 ~F~~ E.g ~ ~ o:l '0 g ~ .~ -~.S:! ;...,~ ..... '" ... .~ ~ g .... <2 g ~ ~ 0" 0 ..... :J ~ :; S E'~ <2 ~.:- c t.cg ~ 0 c~ ~~.s ~~~ _I-~'o$~~ .8 d :.J t":<: C 0 8.. E ~ 2. P g ::: :!::1 ~ '" ~ ..c -5 ~~~,<.s~Cll c.. c 0.> ~ .... >..S "'~ >. u t: <'<l 0.> >- E Q.J: t;: oS oS 1] l.;:. 8 .... Cll...!:! <Ii' 0 Cll<~'E~:;~ ,s <Ii i:; 3 2::::.~ . :3 ou IlJ 8 c.. ..g ~ 8'~ g ~.~ ~ ::J:';:; ~E~t;':::';:~~ 5 Q.,~.s . ~:::: c .= CIl- O..::.l... .- ~'Erala8]7J~ !:::.~ ~ 3: ""'::;..c 1! 8 8'~ ~,2~'g ~:;l....g~E~~ ia~~~Ot:::O~ la ....- 4.l '-' 4.l l:j ~~Q.t;6Q. ~:6a~~~';;gt;" 3: 1;.~ a : lJ: E ~ :a ~ ~ >::-..9';: .0 B....s c 4.l C " .. ._" ~ .~].~ ~ ] ~ 3 ~~~u=~e-Q., o 8 :.;; [.~] ~ g .~ ~.~.s E ~ 0"''0 g 4.l ~ a ~B~c.; '- ~ g...j ~ ~ <<l....l u 4.l '0 ""0 :c ~ "3 ~ ., c 015 E u -Bi ;:., .8.s ..;....l u-:~~ g,~ ~ l::l ra g' 0 dI "';,c;::r: g. ~" 0 .-;:: 8 oj U ~ :l: u <2 .~ F < ::l E ~ g vi 0 g a ~ ~.:= ~ .~ .s.!a] ;; t .s ~ ~ -5 ~ .; 4.l I:;: ""0 ~ .~ ~ 23 .:= ~ ::l '" ;:., 6 i::: ~ i::: ~.~ B B'~ t ~ ~ -3 ; u ~ ~ ~;,c;'& g 2 . '-'..c r::... .~ '3 ~ ~ ~ c c ~. ~ _ 0 ('j o. ~'~.2 _ ~ t 0 ::l 2 c E f ~J .~' :! ~ 8 c: '"2~~ ~ = ~"~ -~ ;,~ ~ ~ " c ;; eJJ :;i := ,,~ ~ c > " , ,,~ - " r:/J ~ 5 B ] ~.g '-' i::: -5 B g. ~ ~ E ~ 5.. .0 0 .5 ~ :Ii c.; ~ c J; 5 -J r::... - >=: ,.j :;Jj.~ c E ~.E g..g 'g. ]6g~~~2 "3 ~ J5: a <<l 'lJ - ':2~-E....= ~ - ~ .8 .8 <>d t: lJ: vi :;; ~ Q :Il ~ ~ ,~ .~ ~o-~~]B'E 'ri..: 0 0'5 g.~ ;; -: <3'~:.5;;;-g ~ c Co i:: t'<l g,.:::..... 8 .8 ~;;; a~~~~E~ ~ e'~ -a.'2 ~ ~ ~ ....".g"O ~';g 5 0 ~.;; 0 t; '" 3:~:::I2-d-5B c - '" Q., s:::: 0 dI 'aEu~E~E 5 E.s ~.- ~ ;:: '-' lJ: ... II) ~:::I 0 ~-.g~E]-g ~ B 3 l::l .- .;: ~"O r:.9 g, B ;:. II) ;;;I..::! 4.l ., "t:J 'EiQ:!:! ff' ~ 'S 0 ~.€2;~.8::;; g5c..8.~c~ <:T..c <l,l ::l dI'U .- ~ ~.c .~ t; ~ ] 0 = ~ -s.;;; ;:.,:::.~ g E"3 E ~ a '" !3 ~.:= 2 u~&~~~ia ~ g, [~ ~ 8 ~ " " o oi > .8 . ~ " ~ ~ " ~ " " ~ E . " '0 " -5 II) '" ... u -5 ~ g g <.9 i5.. '0 0 0;:; 1:: p. ~ -B 2- ~~ ~.<< -g ~.= .- ., ~ '" ~ c.c 'lJ c ~ t'<l t!l t'<l ~g-5~ .s ~ ~ .~ c c: E <.2 8 ~ u $;1!o~ "'I <;I C r--: '" 0 ;;;; E'~ g " u 0 2~~~ -5 u c~ .~ .8 :':l - ~ ~ .~ a ~.~. ~.g t: o. " C 0 "0",',) ~ ~.~ .~ ~ ~ ~ C f_ :oi, c '" ~ -" E o '" ~ " ~;i E 0 -BE ~'E ~<.2 ~ ~ c .~ - 0 ~~ u - E>.9 "~ "5 ~ c :~ .- ..2~ ~ ~ "'2 ". 0 ~::s 6 ~ "~ .... E .... -5 2 .- g ...1 ~ " :; 3.~ 2 v ~ !:; ::l 2 <J.~ " c ." ',) ;:- 5 0 ~ " E _ = c v:;; ~ ~ " " " -0 ~ o ~ -:; :; c 0 -~ c:. ~ ~ c c: ."~ f. Co.. ~ 8 ~M ~ -" 2 ~ " ~ c ~ t ~ .... U r.r. 0 " ~ ~ .E " L " ." c 00 00 o ~ 06",; ~A ~ ~I t: E :; ;;:, :-< c Le',) c ~' 1; ra ~ ',) ~... c ~ ~ <J ~ f- Z 6 E. B " c o 0. " " :0 . ~ " 0. ~ C . " " ~ " . ~ " t; ~ c " . ~ 'e .= "'~ & ~ - . 0" N i -< " . .: l.! IJ'" -; .~ :.a::= .:.. o Ei:~ o 0 o 0 u ~ -5-" .~ ~ . " ~ .~ u " -, . 0. ~N . ~ ClI;;..,V"l " c ~ :a ~ ~ 5 ',.> o.n " _ 0 . . ~ "~ ~ .:J:::I;; 5 ~::- ~:::: ..:: o ~ ,., .~ v. 0 -5 ::I.", .~ s::: u.':: ~ ~ E :5 ~ ~ 0 o "~ ~ -g:; I: ~ r'"l :;"2 ~ ~o .?!'~ :;:; o t:- ~ o.~ ~ :... ::- ;H N ~ c ~ ~ --g:-f: "- ~ ~ " c ~ c - , _.f)i'~i;~.:~,;;~~"q.t;. )~~il' . ~ p\. > ::"'i!t~;.:-;.-:~: "~'~t.? '" .... " Cl u .E " "' u '" .,; >- al Cl E i r w '- ~ ,.., ,.., <: i~ " z If~ If fp TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wolf called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:34 P.M., Wednesday, August 21, 1996, in Council Chambers, 1101 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. A. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: EX OFFICIO: Ginalski, Hennessy, Thompson, Wolf Thayer Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth, Town Engineer Mohammadi, Finance Director Stranzl (9:00 p.m.), Town Clerk Crane B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If anv) Mayor Wolf announced that no action had been taken in closed session. Co PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Stan Schriedman, 51 Hickory Road, Fairfax, said he had come to the meeting "to see democracy in action" after reading about local events in the newspaper. He said he thought it was healthy to have a discussion regarding the Police issue. Town Manager Kleinert introduced Capt. Paul Golden of the United States Coast Guard, who was attending the meeting because of his interest in local government and in his pursuit of a degree in Public Administration. D. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES None. E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITIEE REPORTS None. F. CONSENT CALENDAR I) Amicus Curiae Request - Breneric Associates v. Del Mar City Council - Approval. 2) Ayala Day Celebration - Resolution. Councilmember Hennessy added the words "tug of war" to the sports challenge portion of the resolution. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To Adopt Consent Calendar, as amended Thompson, Seconded by Ginalski Unanimous Town Council Minutes # /095 August 21, 1996 I Absent: Thayer G. PUBLIC HEARING None. H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3) Police Services Study. Town Manager Kleinert recommended Council action to suspend further implementation of the Police Services Study until October 2, reflecting Council consensus at the August 7 meeting to "table" the issue to a future date. He noted that no formal action was taken on August 7 because the item (and Councilmember Thompson's recommendation for a "reconstituted committee") was in the form of a Council report rather than an action item. Mayor Wolf opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Hearing returned to Council. Councilmember Thompson said he thought it was a good idea to postpone the study. He stated that "we all have the exact same goals", i.e. to have a meaningful budget discussion, and that the proposed study had gotten off to a bad start. Thompson stated that he supported the study for two reasons: 1) he did not want [any] service levels reduced, and 2) he felt that would be the inevitable result if"we don't look at the budget." Councilmember Hennessy said she had opposed the study from "the get go," and stated she did not want the Sheriff s Department to do any kind of police work in Tiburon. She stated that consolidated police services with Belvedere, Sausalito and Mill Valley might take place in the future, and if the study included that option, she would support it. Councilmember Ginalski expressed concern that suspending the study merely sent it to "the municipal cooler" [quoting an Independent Journal article], and said he did not want to wait until October 2 to address the issue. He said Council had voted to form a committee and had directed the committee to make a report. He stated that Town leaders should be more proactive in.voting to dismantle the committee or make it a committee to study the budget as a whole. Ginalski said the people had spoken against having the Sheriffs Department provide services and said that the Council should listen to the will of the people. Mayor Wolf said she had heard from numerous people who thought that looking into all the options was important. She also said consolidation [with other cities' police departments] might be good, but as recently as last year there was no interest from either Mill Valley or Sausalito. Wolf said she would be willing to wait for Councilmember Thompson to come back with a proposal for a reformulated committee and/or scope of study [on October 2], but noted there did not appear to be enough votes to table the issue until then. Town Council Minutes # 1095 August 21, 1996 2 Councilmember Ginalski made a motion to disband the "Blue Ribbon" Committee, which was seconded by Hennessy. No vote was called due to ensuing Council discussion. Councilmember Thompson said he could not vote for the motion because he wanted to leave open the option of utilizing the Sheriff's Department in some capacity. He gave an example ofa reverse contract whereby the Tiburon Police might patrol some unincorporated areas ofTiburon in exchange for other services (Le. a detective from the County), resulting in cost savings and greater efficiency for both parties. Councilmember Ginalski continued and revised his motion. MOTION: To rescind Council's approval to study consolidation with the County [Sheriff's Department] and table the item until October 2. Moved: Ginalski, seconded by Hennessy. Vote: AYES: Ginalski, Hennessy NOES: Thompson, Wolf ABSENT: Thayer Councilmember Thompson attempted to break the deadlock with another motion. MOTION: Moved: To table the current committee, putting it on hold for future notice (and letting the members know that the Council appreciated their willingness to serve), until October 2 when Council will look at the entire budget with a new focus and new committee. Thompson, no second. Councilmember Ginalski said Council should show "good faith" to the community by moving to disband the committee. Councilmember Hennessy agreed. Mayor Wolf pointed out that the current committee members were familiar with police services and she felt it was important to have people who are familiar with public safety on a committee to study the issue. She said the same thing applied to a study of planning or other areas. Councilmember Thompson's motion died for lack ofa second. Councilmember Hennessy tried another motion. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To table the committee as proposed. On October 2 we [Council] will work with the Town Manager and come back with ideas to solve the budget crisis and [decide] whether or not to consolidate any Town services (i.e. police, public works, building, planning) with any other entity. Hennessy, Seconded by Wolf. AYES: Hennessy, Thompson, Wolf Town Council Minutes # 1095 August 21, 1996 3 NOES: ABSENT: Ginalski Thayer Councilmember Hennessy asked for the motion to be re-read. Councilmember Ginalski asked for clarification of the term "to table," and noted that his vote against the motion was because he thought it deferred the issue of whether or not to disband the committee formed to study the possibility of contracting with the Sheriff's Department for police services. Town Attorney Danforth allowed Councilmember Hennessy to change the phrase "to table" to read "to disband," in order to be more precise in her intended meaning. However, Danforth ruled that the vote stood and she would not allow another vote, stating that many of the people who had come to hear the issue had already left. Revised Motion: To disband the committee as proposed. On October 2 we [Council] will work with the Town Manager and come back with ideas to solve the budget crisis and [decide] whether or not to consolidate any Town services (i.e. police, public works, building, planning) with any other entity. K. COMMUNICATIONS 8. Ferry Service to Angel Island State Park. Town Manager Kleinert referred to a letter from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District informing the Town of the District's upcoming consideration of and possible interest in providing service to Angel Island State Park. Kleinert noted that Red & White Fleet already provided service from San Francisco to Angel Island State Park. Mayor Wolf said Town representatives had met in the past with the Bridge District regarding ferry service between Larkspur and Angel Island. Wolf said the Town had an interest in protecting its local ferry service (Angel Island Ferry), and that the Town's General Plan said no more than 25% of Angel Island traffic should come through Tiburon. She said the problem had been getting good data from the Park Service. Councilmember Hennessy read a letter from attorney Stephan Leonoudakis dated Apri125, 1996, to San Francisco Supervisor Willie Kennedy, proposing ferry service to the East Garrison of Angel Island from San Francisco for low income families. Hennessy suggested this was merely an excuse to initiate ferry service and undercut the private carriers. Mayor Wolf opened the matter for public discussion. Terry Koenig, Red & White Fleet Marketing Manager, pointed out that even though Red & White Fleet has a public (pUC) permit to operate ferry service from San Francisco to Angel Island, the company had received nothing from the Bridge District about the proposed additional service. Town Council Minutes # 1095 August 21,1996 4 Koenig said Red & White had only a 20-30% load factor to Angel Island at this time, so there clearly was no need for additional operators out of San Francisco. Koenig further stated that Red & White Fleet continues to work with at least two community groups in San Francisco to provide discounted ferry service. Koenig said it was important to Red & White Fleet, as well as in the Town's interest, for Tiburon to be a good tourist destination, and to ensure the success of the local ferry operators and Angel Island State Park. Mayor Wolf said she had been a big supporter of East Bay to Angel Island Service. Koenig said the State had already put a lot of money into the East Garrison dock. Ron Duckhorn, Blue & Gold Fleet, said his company started ferry service from the East Bay this year. He said the merger/sale of the two companies, Red & White to Blue & Gold, would be final in October, and that people on both sides envisioned an expanded transportation network in the Bay that would serve not only tourists but locals, as well. Duckhorn asked Council not to support a public agency coming into competition with the private carriers at this time. Maggie McDonogh, Angel Island Ferry Service, said when her company last appeared before the Bridge District, they were told the District would not make runs to Angel Island unless the private carriers weren't interested. McDonogh said that most of her customers came from Marin and Sonoma Counties. Council reiterated the need for statistics showing more accurate levels of patronage and where visitors were coming from. All three carriers agreed to provide them. Karen Nygren, 2 Paseo Mirasol, said the Town should encourage Angel Island State Park to stay, and asked where the signs for parking and bus parking were that had been promised by the Town. Nygren felt this [lack of signage/parking problems] was the impetus behind the State seeking support from the Bridge District. Council concurred that the Town should be represented at the September 5 Bridge District hearing and agreed to send either Councilmember Ginalski or Thompson, and Planning Commissioner Klairmont. K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS 10) Red & White Ferry Dock Realignment Application. Town Manager Kleinert said he had been contacted by the State Proposition 116 Program Manager informing him that the grant funds previously set aside for the ferry dock realignment were still intact and asked whether the Town still had any interest in them. Kleinert asked for Council direction. Town Council Minutes # 1095 August 21, 1996 5 Mayor Wolf asked whether an ADA-accessible dock could be built that was substantially smaller than the previously proposed dock (125' x 40'). Town Engineer Mohammadi said he was confident the dock would be much smaller but said he could not be more precise without further study. Councilmember Ginalski questioned whether the dock could be built without encroaching into Town Open Space. Mohammadi said he did not think it could. Councilmember Hennessy said she thought the Town should pursue the $710,000 grant. Councilmember Thompson said he had voted against the project last year due to the concern of neighbors and the encroachment into Open Space. Mayor Wolf opened the item for public hearing. Terry Koenig said Red & White supported the original proposal but was willing to work with the community to overcome the problems if it were reconsidered. Larry Doan, Pt. Tiburon, said he respected the Engineer's viewpoint regarding reconfiguration of the dock, but said he remained concerned that a new dock would forever change the character of the area. David Irrner, developer of Pt. Tiburon, said the homes were expensive and that buyers were told that the tide lots were left as open space in perpetuity, and that he could not imagine anything being built there that would not be intrusive. Jay Key, Pt. Tiburon, said he worked hard to get to where he was, and that he and other homeowners at Pt. Tiburon would work hard to block the project going forward. Councilmember Hennessy asked whether at some point in time the current dock would need to be upgraded to be made ADA accessible. Koenig said the current dock was "grandfathered." Councilmember Thompson said he would like to see some new options, stating that wheelchair access as well as emergency preparedness were important considerations. Thompson said the parties should work together to come up with a solution. Councilmember Ginalski said that people were "sick and tired of repackaging projects," and that the open space [tide] lots had reverter clauses attached to their title. He said the dock would be like "building a parking lot in the water," and said that the State funds should be released to some other project. Mayor Wolf said she favored a little bit of work to investigate the possibilities but suggested a time limit. Town Engineer Mohammadi said it would take six to eight weeks to gather basic Town Council Minutes # 1095 August 21. 1996 6 information about the new project. Mayor Wolf and Councilmember Hennessy favored going forward. Councilmember Thompson said he could not support the study if the dock encroached on the [open space] tide lots. Councilmember Ginalski said no further work should be done by the Town and the item should be reagendized for public hearing. H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4) Town Memorial Policy - Policy Guidelines and Recommendations by Heritage & Arts Commission. Mayor Wolf suggested Heritage & Arts set up a fund for contributions and then recommend appropriate memorials. Council concurred. A clarification was made to the existing policy that a person did not have to be deceased to be memorialized. MOTION: Moved: Vote: Absent: To adopt Town Memorial Policy, as amended. Ginalski, Seconded by Hennessy Unanimous Thayer 5) Sister City Program. Council directed Councilmember Hennessy to proceed with her proposal to find out whether Kinsale, Ireland was interested in becoming a Sister City with Tiburon. I. NEW BUSINESS 6) Fiscal Year 1994-95 Audit Report. Mayor Wolf asked about the lateness of the report. Finance Director Stranzl said he saved the Town $2500 - $3000 in preparing part of the report himself, and that it could be done a lot quicker in the future now that a groundwork had been laid. Town Manager Kleinert said the auditors recommended a paper trail for budget overages and recommended bringing appropriate resolutions to Council on a quarterly basis. J. COMMUNICATIONS 7) 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Measure for Parks, Open Space & Cultural Services - November, 1996. Town Manager Kleinert said that 40% of the proposed sales tax revenue would be distributed to the cities in Marin County based upon population and other criteria. Councilmember Thompson said it would be beneficial for parks and future open space acquisitions. Mayor Wolf said that even though cumulative taxes might make other measures harder to pass in the future, the proposed tax was not a bad thing. K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS 9) Special Six- Year Worker's Compensation Loss Report. Town Manager Kleinert noted Town Council Minutes # 1095 August 21, 1996 7 information about the new project. Mayor Wolf and Councilmember Hennessy favored going forward. Councilmember Thompson said he could not support the study if the dock encroached on the [ open space] tide lots. Councilmember Ginalski said no further work should be done by the Town and the item should be reagendized for public hearing. H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4) Town Memorial Policy - Policy Guidelines and Recommendations by Heritage & Arts Commission. Mayor Wolf suggested Heritage & Arts set up a fund for contributions and then recommend appropriate memorials. Council concurred. A clarification was made to the existing policy that a person did not have to be deceased to be memorialized. MOTION: Moved: Vote: Absent: To adopt Town Memorial Policy, as amended. Ginalski, Seconded by Hennessy Unanimous Thayer 5) Sister City Program. Council directed Councilmember Hennessy to proceed with her proposal to find out whether Kinsale, Ireland was interested in becoming a Sister City with Tiburon. I. NEW BUSINESS 6) Fiscal Year 1994-95 Audit Report. Mayor Wolf asked about the lateness of the report. Finance Director Stranzl said he saved the Town $2500 - $3000 in preparing part of the report himself, and that it could be done a lot quicker in the future now that a groundwork had been laid. Town Manager Kleinert said the auditors recommended a paper trail for budget overages and recommended bringing appropriate resolutions to Council on a quarterly basis. J. COMMUNICATIONS 7) 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Measure for Parks, Open Space & Cultural Services - November, 1996. Town Manager Kleinert said that 40% of the proposed sales tax revenue would be distributed to the cities in Marin County based upon population and other criteria. Councilmember Thompson said it would be beneficial for parks and future open space acquisitions. Mayor Wolf said that even though cumulative taxes might make other measures harder to pass in the future, the proposed tax was not a bad thing. K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS 9) Special Six-Year Worker's Compensation Loss Report. Town Manager Kleinert noted Town Council Minutes # 1095 August 21, 1996 7 Tiburon's excellent record, giving special recognition to Police and Public Works. Councilmember Hennessy suggested giving a $50 bonus to all Town employees. On another subject, Councilmember Hennessy reported to Council that $10,000 had been raised in raffle prizes for the Ayala Day Celebration on October 19. She said that posters would be going up around Town to advertise the event. There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Wolf adjourned the meeting at 9:56 p.m., sine die. NICKY WOLF, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes # 1095 August 21, 1996 8 T/-eM # l- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ENDORSING A NOVEMBER 1996 BALLOT MEASURE BY THE MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT FOR COUNTYWIDE FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, many officials have been concerned about the threat of fire storms and fires resulting from seismic events in Marin County and the inadequacy of the fire flow within the area, and WHEREAS, a multi-jurisdictional Fire Flow Study Group spent the last two years identifying the fire flow needs within the Marin Municipal Water District area, and WHEREAS, this study involved the fire professionals from each jurisdiction who identified the needs and prioritized the projects throughout the district by looking at the fire threat on a regional basis, and WHEREAS, the Study Group then took the list of needed projects and developed recommendations for funding the projects incorporating the results of an independent poll of the voters within the MMWD area, and WHEREAS, this Study Group, along with the Marin County Fire Chiefs Association, has asked the Marin Municipal Water District Board of Directors to place on the November 1996 ballot an advisory measure asking the voters to support an annual fire flow fee of $75 per parcel for fifteen years to fund the necessary fire flow and seismic upgrades identified in the study, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council ofthe Town of Tiburon hereby expresses its endorsement ofthis action by the Marin Municipal Water District and encourages the voters to support this measure in November as one ofthe most important public safety measures to come before the voters in decades. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ofthe Town Council ofthe Town of Tiburon held on September 4, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NICKY WOLF, MAYOR Town of Tiburon ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK ., , . ~ - MEMORANDUM I~-^~\ ~ ~; \~ ,:: ;';~~ !-::-\ ',1,.,1.. ![-- ,l '" !,:'_'-:~J 11 )1 ,., - ;~~:j ') .,.. L ~<~ ; .~ ,JUL DATE: July 24, 1996 f'..i (;i\N,.\GER'-.3 O;::FiC: -reV',I>l C;= Ti3UPO:') TO: Ed San Diego, Belvedere /Rabi Elias, Ross 0/ Jim Robinson, Corte Madera o/Beth Pollard, San Anselmo ""-Phil Gorny, Fairfax V"Rod Gould, San Rafael v Jean Bonander, Larkspur II' Brock Arner, Sausalito v'Doug Dawson, Mill Valley Bob Kleinert, Tiburon .IMarty Nichols, Marin County . ,..iDt. ' Pamela J. Nicolai, MMWD ---; .h-vJ.,.,-, FROM: RE: Fire Flow Measure for November 1996 Ballot The MMWD Board at a special meeting on Thurs. July 18th voted to place the ballot measure on the November ballot proposing a $75 per parcel fire flow fee for a period of fifteen years. I have included a copy of the ballot question and resolution for your information. Again, thank you all for the work you have done to date and for the participation of your fire flow council representative and your city in funding the poll. Also thank you Fire Chiefs for coming the other night. The next step is for your councils to consider endorsement of the ballot measure. I have drafted a sample resolution of support for you to work off of if you so choose. Again, please let me know when the item is scheduled so we can have some people there if there are questions. It really makes a difference and takes some pressure off of you and your council if some of the Study Group members can be there to field some of the questions. Some of you have already contacted me. If you need anything, please call me at 924-4600 x211. Thanks again. " Whereas many officials have been concerned about the threat of fire storms and fires resulting from seismic events in Marin County and the inadequacy of the fire flow within the area, and Whereas a multi-jurisdictional Fire Flow Study Group spent the last two years identifying the fire flow needs within the Marin Municipal Water District area, and Whereas this study involved the fire professionals from each jurisdiction who identified the needs and prioritized the projects throughout the district by looking at the fire threat on a regional basis, and Whereas the Study Group then took the list of needed projects and developed recommendations for funding the projects incorporating the results of an independent poll of the voters within the MMWD area, and Whereas this Study Group, along with the Marin County Fire Chiefs Association, has asked the Marin Municipal Water District Board of Directors to place on the November 1996 ballot an advisory measure asking the voters to support an annual fire flow fee of $75 per parcel for fifteen years to fund the necessary fire flow and seismic upgrades identified in the study, Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of hereby expresses its endorsement of this action by the Marin Municipal Water District and encourages the voters to support this measure in November as one of the most important public safety measures to come before the voters in decades. MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 6778 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARIN COUNTY PROVIDE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR AN ADVISORY VOTE ON A FEE FOR FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN MARIN COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 5,1996 WHEREAS, it is the determination of the Board of Directors of the Marin Municipal Water District that a special election be held in the District on Tuesday, November 5, 1996 at which there will be submitted to the qualified voters of the District the following measure, to wit: Shall the Marin Municipal Water District fix and collect an annual fee of $75 per parcel of private property for 15 years to pay for fire flow improvements to enhance fire suppression and improve post-earthquake fire flow, including the costs of design, installation, capital, alteration and replacement of facilities and equipment related to supplying water for fire protection purposes? Advisory Measure L): (Fee for fire flow improvements) and WHEREAS, a State of California general election will be held in Marin County and the District on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, and it is the desire of the Board of Directors of the Marin Municipal Water District that said special election be consolidated with the general election, insofar as the territory of the District and the County is concerned. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Marin Municipal Water District as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin is hereby requested to order the consolidation of said special election with the general election to be held in the County on November 5, 1996, insofar as the territory of the District and the County is concerned; and to provide within the territory affected by said order of consolidation all necessary election services and to canvass the results of said election. MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 6778 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARIN COUNTY PROVIDE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR AN ADVISORY VOTE ON A FEE FOR FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN MARIN COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 5,1996 WHEREAS, it is the determination of the Board of Directors of the Marin Municipal Water District that a special election be held in the District on Tuesday, November 5, 1996 at which there will be submitted to the qualified voters of the District the following measure, to wit: Shall the Marin Municipal Water District fix and collect an annual fee of $75 per parcel of private property for 15 years to pay for fire flow improvements to enhance fire suppression and improve post-earthquake fire flow, including the costs of design, installation, capital, alteration and replacement of facilities and equipment related to supplying water for fire protection purposes? Advisory Measure L): (Fee for fire flow improvements) and WHEREAS, a State of California general election will be held in Marin County and the District on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, and it is the desire of the Board of Directors of the Marin Municipal Water District that said special election be consolidated with the general election, insofar as the territory of the District and the County is concerned. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Marin Municipal Water District as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin is hereby requested to order the consolidation of said special election with the general election to be held in the County on November 5, 1996, insofar as the territory of the District and the County is concemed; and to provide within the territory affected by said order of consolidation all necessary election services and to canvass the results of said election. Resolution No. 6778 Page 2 2. The Secretary of the Board of Directors of the District is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the due adoption of this resolution and to transmit a copy to the Board of Supervisors of the County and to file a copy hereof so certified with the County Clerk of the County. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1996 by the following vote of the Board. AYES: Directors Gibson, Hill, Huffman, Nation and White NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ~ ~ ~aG cretary, Board 0 Directors .' \ '~;cf*~;~S,)<' {e,:,. .... i,~~i~;'''' ..:. <;,J-..j. \. ~';$\i.'~,,~ t', '_ ;lr.. f$.,.,.,"'>.I'i,. ; ;'!i~~1i~.f}~<~";\;-,,'i~!~" : -, ,,' ;r~___ :,,/~~;~f,~~~';1}~)~,.:. . prove Resolution 6778 whiCh consolidates the election placing an advisory measure on the November ballot. ~The ballot measure proposes a fireflow fee of $75.00 that would be :collected annually on the property tax bill for a period of 15 years on each privately owned i.~"a' reel. ".'"(11- .' ",','..,'.,' _,',":~:~"'::.."',.4."..'..',..,;'t. .co.._':..':.".:;,"..):!:;'.:",'_,",'"" :".'~it ":. "'~':'\"'~(' .,,:: ~__ ,;~\::~}i~:.8;;;d~~~1~;~,,-~;;,_:i~~~,~j~:<.~::'~:.f';::\-... ",,"'^'_ _",:;." '. .,' c:_ . :;. 'y"!!, ': . .~. ".',.~~,'. .., -..... ,;. -,'." -, ~ .: ~ :','.:i .........~.,~,:...~'..::: - _"':~~"'(~:fo,~_.~~'t!::" -, ~ "'W'st,:,:,-:":/d;:, ..1""':r,'!i;tl'".,...,,,. .~. '.- ~~:,;,,"" ; . :<':i,.';;~~~;~i~~';lFt:~~~V~';~jt;~~~~. .." . <<i. 1,~"" . ',. ': '''>}';[~~:r;i';~i!~~{';;;~~:~'"ii..::\,~;:-i~...'' '.,. BACKGROUND ..' ,......'l..'ry..... " e '.' "'~.t,~=.."d"",..,....." " '\'"'~''' i."' . .,~ - ,. ,,_. . ,f~./:'-'$;,,<'''L''''':JiiJ:'~~l>.4'~l'tl~, ~ ..... ~~:;}JU~..j~~~t"~.. "s~.c~--',..:-.,._<S;.-..".. _,' '..,...~1.:..c;;.,..'-,i:.t~,..f1.'.i.;.-*"t",..-~~~:tl{t<,'i"~~ ..:',~" ~\ :::.::iJi,-t~'I$~~:,%:~fJ;,';:'-,'!:-',. !<,}::l~:.-::l'",.'J:''':>.~ '''--~.',~.?t'_''' ..... .,~:"'~ ::' In response to a general concem about fire suppression following the Oakland Hills Fire and recommendations in the 1992 and 1993 Grand Jury reports, a group of citizens and public ..<~~~ ,; officials formed the Fire Flow Study Group. The Fire Flow Study Group's first meeting was >"on February 14, 1994. The group's goal was to determine the modifications to the MMWD . water system required to provide adequate levels of fire flow throughout the MMWD service area 'JI""k-:::{ . " ~ ,.,.., ~ _ . ~:$fi..(....t,.J.'')''''^ ,. 0",., i-':-,' .. .'_ , ~ ~ ' ;1;; f'~~~i<-'r':f;:'''''~ ~ . ... ,..../,.-__ .., ~~ ~,~_ 'c '_""~.;..;'...'_ t:,',- '~,*,...,,":,";'<'fl { ~I<::'"" 'f.".[ ..f. rt ..-h -; _ .' ., ',,4:' ~ ; J.e~~~-if1-~.~~! q,"."/""" ..,'.,...,..,.~...<r:....u..:.~'..._. _"n':-' ,.jr::;-:\~ , '.~'; "b" After lilcquainting itself with the general background on the subject the Study Group, with the ~t, help of its Technical Advisory Committee, had each fire jurisdiction review the status of fire 1~~ flow on, the same basis using a survey form. Members of the Technical Advisory Committee ;~; ::.then sat ~own .with .fire officials to verify t?e ~~~as i~ w,~!~~. ~~p~oveme:.nt.~ ,:",:r~ neede~ ,an~." "'.\';, ~the relative cntlcallty of each area. .'l,.,c'c;^ ".~~"~.,#",r;:!;:,?",>if -:- ': .{~;!",;,',l{, ~"!i'if}:,}.':'~-;,!>," ' :' ;r. . J1Y.i~~~"'~i'!.!,1t,' -"'~"',}i#~~n:..1;1' ~.:r~,:".-,_\/. :;\'I\.~~_~ .'1 .,'~;;,?~",-.:, . l. 'Y""" ~, ~ :r !~~ .4 . ..~, ",~. 1.',.1 -~ '._ ' _ "''; i . ]#', 1_.. y.. . , , ~:H',Y..j;.: ; ,....The results of the survey found that there were areas of fire flow concern spread throughout.r<...~..~. :.:;~ :'i....., ," 'f':"the various fire jurisdictions. The areas were rated into four general levels of concern. The ;'"s. ~~~:~;r~Technical Advisory Committee of the Fire Flow Study Group reported that changes in fire flow ~~ !"u;;!'!5;..,J':;'i requirements over the years resulted in situations where a pipeline that was designed for 500 "-t" 't!J;::::;;,~ gallons per minute (gpm) was now expected to deliver 1,000 gpm. With the more recent fires~~d\ :/:;;',: . following the Oakland Hills Fire it was found that fire officials were now looking to flows of 1,500 gpm in areas where wildlands abutted developed are~s (urban/wildland interfaces.) ~ ITEM No.: MEETING DATE: July 18, 1996 ';t~; '.;ot'....i~.." .jil!i!i:' , :;~:~:'\\ ':i] ;I.., '. ~~, ."fr-;,"'~", Following the survey a comprehensive study was prepared by consultants Kennedy/Jenks and MMWD staff to determine the improvements required to meet the desired flows as requested by the fire officials. As a part of that process, the consultants, MMWD staff and fire officials met together to determine the tactical manner in which fire flow would be utilized to allow for .<c';.,~ the optimization of improvements during the pipeline modeling process. There was also discussion of the type of fires anticipated including structure fires, wildland fires and fires -", . ><'''t-,;,.,,' ;c ,-'- .' "..,..~ ,',.;:0-,.,;:-" .','.."'.i:~}~::,,.~ ~,~;;';~~~;0:;;~~.jii~I~'.~i,':_~}" r...:..........,........,:.____.~_'ii..".:~~....... ."l}' . ,'c. '-; . ~;:;}-:~:~~~~/,.~ ~-;':j,f,:-~;~::: ~ ,": >:~,;,~:k}:~:":',;,~ '.. '~y.J..~~$\~il"4'":'/~" :';-";T~~'~''':lr!}i~. " . ,'.'" .., ~ ',~, .... ".'_".<,.. . ."ajjt1~~t~,H)~fi~~~., . prove Resolution 6778 which consolidates the election placing an advisory measure on the iNovember ballot. '~The ballot measure proposes a fireflow fee of $75.00 that would be ."' ':~"\ :eollected annually on the property tax bill for a period of 15 years on each privately owned '.~ ~i\' tI'i'f\~t 'parcel" ""'ii'j:W")l""" . . ,,":.:,\.. f;':~~/~'{",~~1""i!;"~~""~'l':J~;'i."""-"'-~" "co' <c~,. . ~;:;;~?:,,:~, ..' "".;;"""'i :',.<;;>ii:fil~~;;zrt'iif:f~~H;;:,,~];f,:j{~,}.jt)t..... '';:''!~'il! ' ,,~:-,9' "":""".'.- ~' _" -', .~ ~,;J;: ;#::~~'i<:",,~!\' l~ ~~i"'it~...-'4j' ~';~4'ilrr7. 'r,::"- ;'J~~\;0... ";":,:'~.'-. BACKGROUND .:j~<~:~,. . .,:,"'.i,i~~.~,r:.:~.&~~~~{.~.iJjr.~1~j:~:~.ttt.,'i,.f;;{:.;, -"~~> ?~:lt~I~~~~r;:~,L: , " " ".>:l;.r?\:~~!.fh~;:~,:.}~,:g~~~.~_~-~'!t"':'!~l;l:~~~f-:-._' ':.' .1 .In response to a general concern about fire suppression following the Oakland Hills Fire and . recommendations in the 1992 and 1993 Grand Jury reports, a group of citizens and public ,: officials formed the Fire Flow Study Group. The Fire Flow Study Group's first meeting was '" on February 14, 1994. The group's goal was to determine the modifications to the MMWD . water system, required to provide adequate levels of fire flow throughout the MMWD service . . area. ,,'~i:~~{~i!j~;<J;;,,:'.; _ ' < _:.-~'~:, ~ .' _ , <'::,_:~i";-";",!,:ic\oi~.t(::i1~"r-;.f.J::.""t.i~\':J_~ .f/':.".;...-:.,. .:l -;;, ..":' . -: . ,';'~:,,:,,', -,_"!'::~:A-;'~ ~..~....t.'if~ ....,;,~~,:'."..,~ "1 . ~+.>~..;....j1'" ~ ~ ""', ' , ,,,,,,:~':~"i " ;/'7;: After~~~ai;'ting .itself with the genera.1 background on. th~ s~bj~c.t the S!~dy' Group, with t~e ,~.':tt' help of Its Technical AdVISOry Committee, had each fire Junsdtctlon review the status of fire Witr~ ~ow on)he same basis using a survey form. Members of the Technical Advisory Committee :~~~~ :~:~:~t~~W~i~~~li~~:f:~~~I~:~averi~~"t~~/~~;;~~i;J.~~~;fJiV;~~:~~~~;::.:;~~~,.~~~ ," .;', ~~litf1t'!l,;r,)Tc:t!)j~", ':b-li'~"'"'r tr"Ni,c;~'., if;'"':'",,,~,,- d.',',,"?;'.. ... . ':.'::"'." ':;;&!;e . , ,c'",;t.,....The re~ults of t~e .sur:v~y found that there were areas of fire flow concern spread throughout ..~'7.,~ ",~~~f;'the vanous fire Junsdlc!lons. The areas were rated Into four general levels of concern. The ';YJ'k. ';~+~':;~~';:rechnical Advisory Committee of the Fire Flow Study Group reported that changes in fire flow .:,sio..., ..;}i..j),,::::i requirements over the years resulted in situations where a pipeline that was designed for 500,t.f4. 1:7:::;/;" ~o~:~:~~e;h~ib~~I~g:dm~~:sF~r~~te~~~c:~~~~ :~i:~~~ ~~~i~fsm~e~i~0~~0~~~~9r~~~I~~~:~~i:Rr? 1,500 gpm in areas where wildlands abutted developed are?s (urban/wildland interfaces.) ~ ITEM No.: MEETING DATE: July 18, 1996 ',:s~ ;~~';: l };,~ ,~ ~ Following the survey a comprehensive study was prepared by consultants Kennedy/Jenks and MMWD staff to determine the improvements required to meet the desired flows as requested by the fire officials. As a part of that process, the consultants, MMWD staff and fire officials met together to determine the tactical manner in which fire flow would be utilized to allow for '~i.:,t the optimization of improvements during the pipeline modeling process. There was also .~:. ; discussion of the type of fires anticipated including structure fires, wildland fires and fires~':ti:, . .. '.' " -"'~'-.,'.'c~~~;:.:~,",ji:11.t~.'r,,:,,~;1~~ "',' '. .~...,.=~, "'d," -;,,!~';:~iJ;."''<'_'i''_''''', ''''i::>.'. .'C';r'.~-. --4~..I_"",. , , . , . .~~.; ~s, _....tlj.,.lS..~....~..~~<<N..,~,,'MII't,~.,,~,...'l. '''-c' ".,,,, . "''''~~;~: " . ..,anlicipatedfollowing an earthquake. While tactical approaches and modeling were used to ""c":".':,' determine the distribution piping improvements to provide the requested fire flow, the keys to ']....;~ '.. :"fire suppression following an earthquake were determined through tactical response which "~~ :;:,,'..,\)J?iallowed the extent of the backbone (transmission) system requiring evaluation to be . ,,,#,,l' ')*1~f,~~~::1fi 1~~J~m i ned. . ....~~ "'l't...'"",;.'~ .I{,"r~',:" .' .~." ,.' offshoot of the survey was identification of a. number of "quick-fix" improvements, i.e. tank }';, 1!;.1'..~~..:.~..;r'..'i..~....~.~.'..'.t.~. O~~;afj~r;:~i~~~~;n:~. f~~~. S~~:~tl.Yin 's.t~:..I.I.: :.~I.oe n..F.s...IOw.W. h~~~ d~~~O~~:~~o I~~~~d i~~: ~..:..~~.. ...:...f,;~f.'. /: '~'f~~f!' MMWD funded t~e. Installation of over 100 fir; ,hyd~ants In 1995 through a supplemental ,;~ ,,~~;~i~}allocatlon of $1 million by th~ MMWD Bo~rd:,.,.:j:;t?'. . . . . ,. ..L';:~;;c'~~~ '~I~'i'{~~k2~~~.:.,t ..: .', '. .'.. .~i.#~~("i;2l~!( " ..... '" ., ..,. ...... '.LI'i,~f'~) .r: .. )i,'i"iN'.. Fire, Flow Master Plan Complet~on .' .i;Ni\\$'!~'fiJ!~f.,:"::'.',,:':""":' 1/"'.";:" ",. ,,'.',,:. :', ..:,!,;j.,v::)f\.~,;\,"\; ','" ".: It-.,. ;t;i.. :~.-:.':;.';~'..,- '~fX'.~~)'! t,~J(t'..:'\-:;:,- :" ',-'. ,..::t~:.t"(:;.~\~~::\: k<'&:Rl'f';;',;:'ii1.~,~i.;~.;~,t:~~~~. ..' \~~.~~~~.!'W1.Z;~.~~,.,~n:\\,~ ::,: .../::<t;-;':;;'"!:S~1< ;_:'.?:"~~::--;;;--:~;-r~.:t'!,~>t.).:~':,q:;;if~.: ::;~'iij~,~ .. ....:tcl..~~,-":~'_.l}',.. F'... ..,'..' . -'. .,', " "..,~,v,.......,- ."...... '~",. ;j',.",..;I'.~..:,.')..'" ,". "'__~"." _ '.. .,__""....... ......J.~;;.,.~~~-m~..f.., :,~\~!~t'~,!n Fall of 1995 the Fire FI~w ~aster Plan was comple!ed. It is a ~i~nificant docume~t dueto". . . ': . . . :ltS unprecedented coordination of the fire flow requirements within MMWD's service area. ' . . Since MMWD currently rehabilitates approximately six miles a year of pipelines based on their .. ' "Ieak history, the Master Plan becomes a way to assure that the appropriate size main is ""; . install:d to assure the required fire flOW... . .' . . "~a\~1~~tr~i; ~ 'The Fire Flow Master Plan recommends the replacement of approximately 100 miles . of. i~1 distribution system piping and transmission mains (about 12% of the entire piping system), "i~::' ,. '.'the installation of additional tank storage at four locations, the installation of 12 additional .ii'li't'r . pressure reducing valves and two upsized valves, seven pump station by-pass fittings, andiJ;:.~ seismic bracing at 25 facilities on the backbone system. The estimated total cost of the;i,h~: system modifications is $77 million in today's dollars. '. ' ....'~-., ..?C ,"......... '. ""..:,. The MMWD's current rehabilitation program currently replaces about 5 miles of pipeline a year or about 0.6% of the District's system. About 1 mile of the current rehabilitation effort is anticipated to also address improvements of the Fire Flow Master Plan. The proposed "",~,,,, replacements for fire flow improvement, over a fifteen year period, are about six and a half . !l...e'.;',';' .., ; ._ . )\,~i1es of pipe and the combined programs, excluding overlap in programs, would be about ten 4 ',;-):md a half miles of pipe or more than double the current annual pipeline replacement effort. '.: '~/f~';f:.);~~~?~:..,~~;>:j~~:,.- :~. '- - . ,. ";;~:\%::Study Group / Voter Poll Recommendations ,--':. .",,~ ".' :'.' :,,1, ;.., ' . .. ,0;; ~~)~ -.,~,+~,:~,:,; "4!j1,;; t'i~ , '<m~~:; ~t.;.., 'J ;....... . ~. <"~~.. Following the completion of the Kennedy/Jenks study, the fireflow study group prepared a report which is attached and dated March 1996 which recommended pursuing an advisory ballot measure, using the authority of water purveyors under Government Code 953069.9 to place a fireflow fee on property. Further recommendations of the study group included the "pay-as-you-go" approach which is less expensive than bonds. . '. ',:~i:Jf .,,:~~.'~. : / . Several questions remained unanswered concerning issues such as cost distribution and equity and the preferred time frame for the completion of the fireflow projects. The study group decided to commission a professional pollster to survey voter opinion. Summary results of the poll are also attached. The poll results led to the final recommendations of the study group that the ballot measure be set at $75.00 per year for a period of 15 years and that the fee be equally charged to each parcel. .', < ....J. ... ,~; ~ ',p''-:::.'' ,'- ,,-,,!~.""":U':".. .' ~~,~~tY~~{"" -',- . \~:!.~~~:~~' .....?6'^. "''''-l.~.~''I~"""",...~_~~;.;,;,..",''''t'''';''-''"r.'''''''''>'''~''''';~J.'''1"0;' . '.c..\ .", "" ',., h' " Construction Coordination " If the voters approve the ballot measure in November, the sheer size of the proposed program .;~'.will require ongoing coordination with the fire officials and with the public works directors to ,;",;//'.:assure that the individual projects are being designed and sequenced in the most cost'" .;~,?'<:.effective manner. The coordination would not only assure that the Fire Flow Master Plan -,.:?,';:,.implementation is performed efficiently, but would also allow the cities, towns and the county.> ,.' ,"'?' .i:j'><. to coordinate their road work with the program to allow cost savings to the community through .~~, ":L; ;;::"co' mb'lned pro,iects..... ...,c.... , ',#,1:3.' '':, ':~-;;>>:~.~'<-"~, _', , ' . ;_.',~,,' _J._.!....,.';~~;:,"';_,.:<~>.";;._(_~';.. ,-~ y.~:~~~/ .~:,:';,~I_~i)~.~;'?>;~~';~'~og~~'~\;Zi,;:'_::,:f'~~:~~,i t;"_J'"-('_;-':',:,, ....,. . "'. ' "'. .'; , ,':,;:~~?'!t.t~,,)~:. :>~"~':>The coordinatiorieffort would utilize a multi-year 'planning cycle that would always be looking <'~f:5Y .,""..... '"':.,' . '.",'.'. .:.;,...:"Jhree years ahead. The look three years out would be to assure that any other project in a "''-'1' ,:::.:.;v.i'.Wproject'~ work area is identified and considered in the coordination effort. The look two years .,,;t#;'x:, :. iQut WOo uld be to assure that all funding is being put in place for all aspects of the work to be "~.' '~.'~,:;.'. "erformed. The look one year out would be to do any fine-tuning of projects and to resolve :~~ .':"Ijf;?,c!f,jr,any permitt.in~.~ssu.;sprior to preparation of plans and specifications for construction of the., .t~.( . . ",,'4~1:p~oJects.;~'r"~""'V .',. . . . . .,.;t:;;"",' >,"~",,~-~--' ...'~, .~;"i' '. ""-i"''''-'Wt.)y.,~;J-"',, ,', '';>'''';, -,,' .' . /~'" ,.'.' H.(!,.~:,~~,:t~~,::,:(,.::>';, ',':w;"~~_ r1li.m--~~~ ~;~ _,:1:,' C " ,. ..,': S:':;,CEQA Compliance ". ..... ... -: f,!- 1,t;~'~1i:~fii:~:~ _~ .~ -.< ,,;,:,,:->,'~'f,,';t,,^.lt~~f~~' ". , . The Fire Flow Master Plan provides a preliminary look at more than 100 projects to be_ ,constructed over a 15-year period. Since more detailed analysis and design is required on the various elements of the Plan, the environmental review will be performed on elements of the Plan one to two years prior to their construction and following the initial coordination efforts as outlined above. Most of the Plan elements involve replacement of existing pipes and are.. anticipated only to have construction impacts. Addition of storage through construction of tanks has the most potential for impact and will need to be studied and reviewed with the local,._ jurisdiction on a site by site basis. Attachments: ~(:;i~~~i:Y.1 : .I/'y.t.:)X ~. ";t;~;i;,~. 4: '-:~~4":t~!~i;::'5. {~1:7?J"~~it. '~." ;'.:i~':'.. I~r /.:.~ .<.-, :<:'j':',;;c:":: ';:;,#Resolution No. 6778 . "/: Fireflow Chronology ., Fire Flow Study Group Report , Public Opinion Poll Executive Summary Poll Selected Data Tables 1 'i~~t:, "'. . ,-,~.; . ,",'" -,......-" ''', ~~ i~'~/~'.~<'.\ '. .._~"'<J ~",."~ '-;.~~ii:.r,i .:..;~'t~:k;~ ITEM NO. .~ . - MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 6778 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARIN COUNTY PROVIDE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR AN ADVISORY VOTE ON A FEE FOR FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN MARIN COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 5, 1996 WHEREAS, it is the determination of the Board of Directors of the Marin Municipal Water District that a special election be held in the District on Tuesday, November 5, 1996 at which there will be submitted to the qualified voters of the District the following measure, to wit: Shall the Marin Municipal Water District fix and collect an annual fee of $75 per parcel of private property for 15 years to pay for fire flow improvements, enhance fire suppression and improve post-earthquake fire flow, including the costs of design, installation, capital, alteration and replacement of facilities and equipment related to supplying water for fire protection purposes? Advisory Measure (_): (Fee for fire flow improvements) and WHEREAS, a State of California general election will be held in Marin County and the District on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, and it is the desire of the Board of Directors of the Marin Municipal Water District that said special election be consolidated with the general election, insofar as the territory of the District and the County is concerned. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Marin Municipal Water District as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin is hereby requested to order the consolidation of said special election with the general election to be held in the County on November 5, 1996, insofar as the territory of the District and the County is concerned; and to provide within the territory affected by said order of consolidation all necessary election services and to canvass the results of said election. Resolution No. 6778 Page 2 2. The Secretary of the Board of Directors of the District is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the due adoption of this resolution and to transmit a copy to the Board of Supervisors of the County and to file a copy hereof so certified with the County Clerk of the County. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1996 by the following vote of the Board. AYES: NOES: ABSENT President, Board of Directors ATTEST: Secretary, Board of Directors Historically 1989 1991 1994 (Feb) (June-) 1995 (Nov) (Sept) 1996 (Jan) (Mar) (May) (July) Fireflow Chronology Fire Chiefs and City Managers have worked with MMWD to address fireflow but on a very minimal level annually Grand Jury does a report on need for fireflow improvements and encourages MMWD to incorporate fireflow into its area of responsibilities Loma Prieta Earthquake Oakland Hills Fire Fireflow study group called together by Hal Brown Short-lead-time projects carried out during 1994 Study group recommends MMWD go forward with a major study to identify, prioritize and estimate costs of improvements needed to address fireflow. District contracts with firm of Kennedy/Jenks to work with the Fire Chiefs. Kennedy/Jenks works with fire chiefs in indentifying standards, developing criteria for setting priorities and modeling the system, with numerous reviews with each chief individually in their jurisdiction and with the group of chiefs as a whole to test the district wide results. MMWD Board allocates an additional $1 million toward increased efforts in fireflow (primarily hydrants) Study by Kennedy/Jenks completed and endorsed by the Marin County Fire Chiefs Fireflow Study Group completes review of the study and the alternatives for addressing the problem and submits their recommendations to all of the Marin jurisdictions for consideration. Fireflow Study Group receives fjnancial support from the cities, county and fire districts as well, and from the Marin Community Foundation to conduct focus group and polling study of the issue to finalize some of the recommendations. Firm of Solem & Associates hired. Polling complete REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FIRE FLOW STUDY GROUP TO THE JURISDICTIONS OF CENTRAL & SOUTHERN MARIN Executive Summarv This report and recommendations are offered to all jurisdictions responsible for providing firefighting services throughout Southern and Central Marin, i.e. within the Marin Municipal Water District boundaries (the study area). The report outlines a definitive response to the manifest need for improved fireflow and seismic integrity of our shared water system. This problem has long evaded solution because of both its magnitude and uncertainties regarding which agency should assume financial responsibility. The recommendations embrace a major public works program (described in Attachment A) to be carried out over 10-15 years, together with a carefully crafted financing plan. The recommended projects are the product of two years of painstaking efforts by both water and fire professionals, under the Study Group's leadership, to identify and make use of every potential opportunity to reduce cost without compromising desired public safety goals. The report and recommendations are tendered unanimously. I. The Study Group The Fire Flow Study Group came together in February 1994 at the invitation and under the chairmanship of Supervisor Hal Brown. It is an unprecedented voluntary coalition with representation from the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), the County, cities and towns of Marin, the fire districts, and the public at large. It is staffed by a technical committee consisting of fire chiefs, water engineers, public finance experts, and top city, county and District management. It has met every few weeks. It is a working group whose meetings have been open to the public. II. Purpose The Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and the Oakland fire in 1991 brought to the public's attention the danger of water system failures during catastrophic events. Technological strides in firefighting equipment have outstripped the volume (gallons per minute) capabilities of much of the existing water delivery system. Compounding this is the newly-recognized vulnerability of our water supply to a seismic event. The purpose of the Study Group has been to develop a cost-effective, comprehensive resolution to these twin issues, utilizing both near-term and longer-range means. The Study Group recognizes that water system integrity is only one of several elements of fire/disaster preparedness. Vehicular access, use of fire-resistant building materials, and aggressive vegetation management on both public and private lands, are among the other important ingredients. Study Group members believe that the local REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FIRE FLOW STUDY GROUP TO THE JURISDICTIONS OF CENTRAL & SOUTHERN MARIN Executive Summarv This report and recommendations are offered to all jurisdictions responsible for providing firefighting services throughout Southern and Central Marin, i.e. within the Marin Municipal Water District boundaries (the study area). The report outlines a definitive response to the manifest need for improved fireflow and seismic integrity of our shared water system. This problem has long evaded solution because of both its magnitude and uncertainties regarding which agency should assume financial responsibility. The recommendations embrace a major public works program (described in Attachment A) to be carried out over 10-15 years, together with a carefully crafted financing plan. The recommended projects are the product of two years of painstaking efforts by both water and fire professionals, under the Study Group's leadership, to identify and make use of every potential opportunity to reduce cost without compromising desired public safety goals. The report and recommendations are tendered unanimously. I. The Study Group The Fire Flow Study Group came together in February 1994 at the invitation and under the chairmanship of Supervisor Hal Brown. It is an unprecedented voluntary coalition with representation from the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), the County, cities and towns of Marin, the fire districts, and the public at large. It is staffed by a technical committee consisting of fire chiefs, water engineers, public finance experts, and top city, county and District management. It has met every few weeks. It is a working group whose meetings have been open to the public. II. Purpose The Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and the Oakland fire in 1991 brought to the public's attention the danger of water system failures during catastrophic events. Technological strides in firefighting equipment have outstripped the volume (gallons per minute) capabilities of much of the existing water delivery system. Compounding this is the newly-recognized vulnerability of our water supply to a seismic event. The purpose of the Study Group has been to develop a cost-effective, comprehensive resolution to these twin issues, utilizing both near-term and longer-range means. The Study Group recognizes that water system integrity is only one of several elements of fire/disaster preparedness. Vehicular access, use of fire-resistant building materials, and aggressive vegetation management on both public and private lands, are among the other important ingredients. Study Group members believe that the local FIRE FLOW STUDY GROUP REPORT March 1996 Page 2 jurisdictions, together with organizations such as Fire Safe Marin, are best suited to address those elements and urges them to continue doing so as rapidly as may be practicable. III. Methodology Early in its existence, the Study Group was cautioned that a full-scale, highest-standard fix of fireflow problems would probably cost several hundred million dollars - far beyond what Marin residents could reasonably be asked to pay. Recognizing the need to reduce that figure, the Study Group's approach has been to (1) employ detailed technical examination to find cost-saving tactical solutions, and (2) identify and implement shorter-term measures, such as new hydrant installations, that have the effect of reducing the need for some longer-term, more expensive improvements. A detailed technical study was conducted to identify all fireflow and seismic weaknesses systemwide and to obtain consensus on a comprehensive package of site-oriented improvements tailored to Marin firefighting realities. The results of that study (described in Attachment A) form the basis of the Study Group's longer term recommendations, contained at the end of this report. Concurrently, inexpensive, practical improvements to immediately benefit and enhance firefighting resources, were identified and carried out prior to the fire seasons of 1994 and 1995. A key ingredient in the ultimate success of this effort has been the close cooperation of all fire chiefs within the study area, and key water district engineers. Their work has included exhaustive, area-by-area cataloguing and mapping of fireflow inadequacies within their respective jurisdictions as well as collectively. This in-depth joint analysis has also proven to be fertile ground for ideas for cost-saving tactical solutions to potentially expensive problems. The Study Group urges that such cooperation continue. A. Short-Term Accomplishments The first round of recommendations produced a series of short-lead-time projects carried out in 1994 with joint funding by cities, fire districts, the County and MMWO: 29 hydrants added in key locations, approximately one mile of water mains in several locations 1, in addition to the previously acquired three miles of large-diameter hoses and 1 MMWO's expanded water main rehabilitation replacement program has funded several of these. The Study Group's recommendations anticipate the continuation of the rehab program to dovetail with fireflow needs wherever possible. FIRE f"LOW STUDY GROUP REPORT March 1996 Page 3 portable hydrants2 (stored in three different locations) to assist in meeting major fire emergencies. In addition to these programs recommended by the Study Group and implemented by MMWD, 11 large, existing water tanks in high fire hazard areas were outfitted with equipment to make them directly accessible to firefighting units. The approximate $50,000 cost of this important effort was split by MMWD and the city or fire district in which each tank is located. This was a demonstration project in two senses - as a relatively inexpensive method of boosting fireflow capability, and as a gesture of cooperation of our local public agencies with MMWD. Additional improvements carried out in 1995 as a result of the Study Group's recommendations included: · Installation of 41 hydrants at additional key locations chosen by the fire officials. · Hydrants in nearly all jurisdictions were repainted with red, orange, green or blue tops, a uniform code signalling to firefighters what the flow capacity is of each hydrant. In major conflagrations, with firefighting units from numerous jurisdictions working together, this code will help maximize knowledge of flreflow capacity at the scene. Identification of other water sources, such as swimming pools, with road markers such as those used for hydrants, is under review by local jurisdictions. Further improvements recommended by the Study Group for 1996 and being funded by a special contribution of $1 million by MMWD include upgrades of over 20 hydrants, and installation of nearly 100 new hydrants in key areas. B. Long Range Improvements In November 1994 the Study Group recommended that MMWD go forward with a major engineering study to specify, prioritize and attempt to reduce costs of the hydraulic improvements needed for adequate fireflow capability, as well as seismic safety related to major transmission lines and storage tanks. The Water District adopted the recommendations, and engaged the consulting firm of Kennedy/Jenks to work with both water and fire agency representatives on this project. The study followed intensive investigation and field work performed over eight months by the fire chiefs, water district staff, and Study Group technical advisors to develop as much information as possible in-house, so as to minimize study costs. 2 The deployment of portable hoses proved invaluable to firefighters in both the Lama Prieta and Oakland events. FIRE FLOW Sl UDY GROUP REPOR r March 1996 Page 4 Firefighting and MMWD authorities, working closely with the consultant, then developed a tailored set of performance standards for upgrading fireflow, varying according to terrain, population, and other circumstances. The standards made it possible to specify the precise goals to be achieved for particular locations: how much water (flow), how long (duration of flow), and how fast (pressure). Standards for pipe integrity during seismic events were devised through a similar process. These goals underlie the study's subsequent engineering recommendations on what combination of pipes, pumps, etc. is needed in each location. The result of this process is a schedule of approximately 100 fireflow improvements and 46 seismic improvements of varying magnitude, as well as construction cost estimates (Attachment A). The improvements have been prioritized according to need, through a painstaking process involving both water engineers and the fire chiefs. The seismic and fireflow needs of all areas within MMWD are included. There are clear benefits to each and every area and resident within the study area. IV. Recommendation The total cost of the recommended long-range program, as described in Attachment A, is approximately $77 million. The MMWD has already committed to fund at least $15 million of this amount over a 20-year period through budget allocations to its water main Rehabilitation and Replacement Program. The remaining amount will require special funding. All parties are committed to reviewing this throughout the implementation period for ways to reduce the costs. The Study Group recommends as follows: 1. A unified, multi-jurisdictional, regional approach using MMWD boundaries, embracing the entire prioritized package of improvements, is the best way to plan and fund this program. Rationale: Fires and earthquakes do not respect the jurisdictional boundaries of agencies within the study area. Accordingly, as MMWD implements its ongoing pipeline rehabilitation program it does so based upon need rather than local boundaries. Likewise, public safety responses to major emergencies are also not bounded by agency distinctions. Major losses to the property tax base of every agency would result from any disaster of the severity of the Oakland fire. The recommended regional approach is consistent with these realities. The fire chiefs and technical experts have unanimously urged this approach. FIRE FLOW STUDY GROUP REPORT March 1996 Page 5 2. "Pay as you go" financing over a 10-15-year period is the most cost-effective option. Rationale: Eighty percent of these costs are required for projects necessary to replace or upgrade water mains currently capable of meeting less than 50% of required fireflow. The level of special funding enables the most critical projects to be completed within about the next 8-12 years. Pay-as-you-go financing coincides with a phased construction period. Because of engineering and construction constraints, the entire recommended program could not practicably be implemented in less time without overly disrupting traffic and possibly hindering fire protection. This approach also avoids the substantial costs of borrowing. The 1 0-15-year time period both limits annual per household cost and assures citizens that the charge will sunset at a specified time. 3. A fireflow charge authorized under Government Code ~ 53069.9, to be collected on the property tax bill, is the best funding method. With the assistance of financial advisers from Bartle Wells Associates and East Bay MUD, following a thorough exploration of the options the Study Group has concluded that this approach is the most desirable. The charge would be based on the benefit of fireflow protection and not on water consumption. 4. An advisory election to affirm the program should be held on November 5, 1996. Rationale: Due to the size and cost of this program it is felt that a vote is warranted even though one may not be required for this method of financing. The November '96 date will maximize voter participation without delaying implementation of the program. It also will permit adequate time to develop public education materials prior to the election. 5. Lead agency: For purposes of placing the matter before the voters it is recommended that the County of Marin and MMWD serve as joint sponsors. It is further recommended that MMWD serve as the implementing agency for all aspects of design and construction of the improvements. It is suggested that the MMWD Board consider establishing an oversight committee, embracing fire officials, other agency representatives, and/or the general public, to monitor implementation of the program. Rationale: The County and MMWD both have authority to place the item on the ballot for the geographic area embraced by the program. Further, the joint FIRE FLOW STUDY GROUP REPORT March 1996 Page 5 2. "Pay as you go" financing over a 10-15-year period is the most cost-effective option. Rationale: Eighty percent of these costs are required for projects necessary to replace or upgrade water mains currently capable of meeting less than 50% of required fireflow. The level of special funding enables the most critical projects to be completed within about the next 8-12 years. Pay-as-you-go financing coincides with a phased construction period. Because of engineering and construction constraints, the entire recommended program could not practicably be implemented in less time without overly disrupting traffic and possibly hindering fire protection. This approach also avoids the substantial costs of borrowing. The 1 0-15-year time period both limits annual per household cost and assures citizens that the charge will sunset at a specified time. 3. A fireflow charge authorized under Government Code ~ 53069.9, to be collected on the property tax bill, is the best funding method. With the assistance of financial advisers from Bartle Wells Associates and East Bay MUD, following a thorough exploration of the options the Study Group has concluded that this approach is the most desirable. The charge would be based on the benefit of fireflow protection and not on water consumption. 4. An advisory election to affirm the program should be held on November 5, 1996. Rationale: Due to the size and cost of this program it is felt that a vote is warranted even though one may not be required for this method of financing. The November '96 date will maximize voter participation without delaying implementation of the program. It also will permit adequate time to develop public education materials prior to the election. 5. Lead agency: For purposes of placing the matter before the voters it is recommended that the County of Marin and MMWD serve as joint sponsors. It is further recommended that MMWD serve as the implementing agency for all aspects of design and construction of the improvements. It is suggested that the MMWD Board consider establishing an oversight committee, embracing fire officials, other agency representatives, and/or the general public, to monitor implementation of the program. Rationale: The County and MMWD both have authority to place the item on the ballot for the geographic area embraced by the program. Further, the joint FIRE FLOW Sl UDY GROUP REPORT March 1996 Page 6 placement makes a strong statement about the cooperative nature of this undertaking. It is anticipated that the other agencies, benefitting from this comprehensive program will provide their endorsements of the ballot measure, and that the ballot statement will reflect such support. MMWD is structured to carry out the program, which is one of the largest public works projects ever put forward in Marin. Due to its magnitude, a qualified oversight committee could assist the MMWD Board of Directors in monitoring its progress. 6. Private sector financial support should be sought from Marin County business and other major institutions to educate the public, prepare the matter for the ballot, and fund the campaign. Rationale: All businesses, especially businesses with a special interest in public safety issues, will benefit from the program and should be asked to support it. In addition, support should be sought from other entities and community institutions whose purposes are aligned with this or other public safety measures. H I rown, S Group Chairman Chair, Board of Supervisors /l)~~ AI Boro Mayor, City of San Rafael (!u~ y Betsey C r Vice-May ,City of Mill Valley ~;o~di~ resident, MMWD U~/'#- Jared Huffman Vice President, MMWD /OA ____'R r -4iet~ich Stroeh Former General Manager, MMWD _l~ 'ci2L.- t.~ Kathleen Foote Trustee, Marin Community Fdn. n Lando ief, Kentfield Fire District and President, Marin County Fire Chiefs Association, 1995 [Attachment A: excerpts or summary of Kennedy/Jenks report] F:\OMSION\GENMGR\WP\FIREFLow.REPORn96A 3/&'96 . SOLEM & ASSOCIA lES Public Relations and Public Affairs 550 Kearny Street, Suite 1010 San Francisco. CA 94108 4151788-7788 fax 4151788-7858 MARIN FIRE FLOW STUDY GROUP PUBLIC OPINION POLL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY July 1, 1996 Methodoloav Between June 13 and June 19, 1996 Solem & Associates conducted telephone interviews with 600 randomly selected registered voters served by the Marin Municipal Water District. We asked 67 questions and the average interview lasted 20 minutes. Results from a study of this size have a margin of error (95 times out of 100) of :!::4 percentage points from the result which would be obtained if literally every individual in the population were interviewed. This margin of error applies to aggregate results in the range of 40 percent to 60 percent. For results that are higher than 60 percent or lower than 40 percent, the margin of error is proportionately smaller. Solem & Associates wishes to thank The Marin Fire Flow Study Group for commissioning this research with our firm. Kev Findinas . The Marin Municipal Water District is well respected. Seventy-one percent of the respondents strongly or somewhat approve of the job MMWD is doing on a day-to-day basis. Twenty-two percent give a somewhat or strongly disapprove rating but further in the survey respondents are prone to be influenced by criticism of the District. Not surprisingly, the only other government agencies which show a higher approval rate are the police and sheriffs departments and the fire department. . The respondents clearly believe Marin County is susceptible to a fire of the magnitude of the Oakland Hills fire (86 percent feel such a fire is very likely or somewhat likely to happen) and 70 percent feel such a fire would be a major disaster and/or Jives would be lost. . MMWD customers not only realize the potential for a devastating fire but also understand that preventative measures must be performed We tested the attitudes regarding fire prevention in two ways by asking respondents to state whether they think the work has been done and if they think the specific prevention step should be more of a priority. Forty-five percent of the respondents feel local government has limited the threat of a major fire by removing vegetation and 77 percent feel that this should be more of a priority. While only 28 percent of those polled believe that old water pipes SOLEM & ASSOCIATES Public Relations and Public Affairs 550 Kearny Street, Suite 1010 San Francisco, CA 94108 415/788-7788 fax 415/788-7858 MARIN FIRE FLOW STUDY GROUP PUBLIC OPINION POLL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY July 1,1996 Methodoloav Between June 13 and June 19, 1996 Solem & Associates conducted telephone interviews with 600 randomly selected registered voters served by the Marin Municipal Water District. We asked 67 questions and the average interview lasted 20 minutes. Results from a study of this size have a margin of error (95 times out of 100) of :!:4 percentage points from the result which would be obtained if literally every individual in the population were interviewed. This margin of error applies to aggregate results in the range of 40 percent to 60 percent. For results that are higher than 60 percent or lower than 40 percent, the margin of error is proportionately smaller. Solem & Associates wishes to thank The Marin Fire Flow Study Group for commissioning this research with our firm. Kev Findinas . The Marin Municipal Water District is well respected. Seventy-one percent of the respondents strongly or somewhat approve of the job MMWD is doing on a day-to-day basis. Twenty-two percent give a somewhat or strongly disapprove rating but further in the survey respondents are prone to be influenced by criticism of the District. Not surprisingly, the only other government agencies which show a higher approval rate are the police and sheriff's departments and the fire department. . The respondents clearly believe Marin County is susceptible to a fire of the magnitude of the Oakland Hills fire (86 percent feel such a fire is very likely or somewhat likely to happen) and 70 percent feel such a fire would be a major disaster and/or Jives would be Jost. . MMWD customers not only realize the potential for a devastating fire but also understand that preventative measures must be performed. We tested the attitudes regarding fire prevention in two ways by asking respondents to state whether they think the work has been done and if they think the specific prevention step should be more of a priority. Forty-five percent of the respondents feel local government has limited the threat of a major fire by removing vegetation and 77 percent feel that this should be more of a priority. While only 28 percent of those polled believe that old water pipes Page 2 Executive Summary or lines have been replaced to limit the threat of fire, 71 percent feel this should be more of a priority. In addition, while only 15 percent of the respondents believe that water lines have been strengthened to withstand a strong earthquake, 67 percent feel it should be more of a priority. These priority issues were given much higher ratings than building more reservoir tanks, installing more fire hydrants and widening roads which scored 50 percent, 52 percent and 55 percent respectively. When asked, respondents show that they believe the biggest problem in fighting a major fire is old, inadequate pipes (56 percent) rather than not enough water (13 percent). . It is notable that while respondents believe that inadequate pipes and lines must be strengthened or replaced to prevent a disastrous fire, or damage from a major earthquake, the data shows that most are not aware of Marin County fire chiefs' recommended list of improvements or of the Fire Flow Study Group (68 percent unaware and 78 percent unaware respectively). Yet, when read a list of the Study Group's report, 80 percent found it believable that the county's water pipes are mostly outdated, 74 percent found it believable that the pipes are no longer adequate to fight fires. 61 percent believe the system does not deliver water quickly enough and 83 percent believe that parts of the system may not withstand major earthquake unless pipes are updated. In addition, the respondents gave the importance rating of these conclusions either a comparable or even higher rating percentage than those numbers listed above, which suggests high saliency for these measures. . Responses to questions responding to project costs showed that 54 percent would be in favor of paying more a year and getting the work done more quickly while 29 percent prefer to pay less over a longer period of _ time. Yet, when we tested three financial debt models most respondents chose the lowest rate, longest term option by a narrow margin. . The majority of respondents (40 percent) would like the tax payer cost included as a line item on their property tax bill rather than water bill (28 percent) and 41 percent of the later category would like to see it on their property taxes if it was deductible. . Sixty-three percent of all respondents felt that all homeowners should pay equally--regardless of how much specific work is done in their area. This scored highest in rank order in the following communities: Unincorporated areas (82 percent), Larkspur (81 percent), Fairfax (70 percent), San Rafael (67 percent) Sa usa lito (64 percent), Mill Valley (63 percent), San Anselmo (54 percent), Corte Madera (63 percent), Belvedere-Tiburon (43 percent) SOLEM & ASSOCIATES , Page 3 Executive Summary and Ross (38 percent). The later score is the only community that doesn't show a polarity for the concept of homeowners paying equally. . A strong majority (79 percent) agree that the public should be given detailed information concerning the scope and cost of the project. . Seventy-five percent of respondents regard fire flow project as a . medium-high to high priority (42 percent urgent and 33 percent real problem) while 13 percent feel the current system is adequate. . We tested support for the project in two ways: once after the respondents have heard an overall cost figure and pro and con arguments and again after taxpayer cost alternatives are discussed. The measure starts out strong at the first test (58 percent in favor-to-14 opposed) and support increased to 64 percent in favor-to-13 opposed at the second test. This second test shows it was supported in every community and every demooraphic crouP. Support was strongest in Fairfax (73 percent), San Anselmo (70 percent), Mill Valley (68 percent) and San Rafael (66 percent), Larkspur (62 percent), Corte Madera (57 percent), unincorporated areas (55 percent), BelvederefTiburon (48 percent), Sa usa lito (45 percent) and Ross (38 percent). . When asked of respondents if the project should be implemented even if the voters turn it down, 61 percent felt it should while 22 percent gave a negative response. SOLEM & ASSOCIATES . SOLEM &ASSOCIATES 550 Kearny Street, Suite 1'010 San Francisco, CA 94108 415/788-7788 fax 4151788.7858 Public Relations and Public Affairs Marin Fire Flow Study Group Public Opinion Poll Selected Data Tables Please note: All numbers are expressed as percentages. Some totals may be more than 100 percent because of rounding off. 1. Performance Rating: We tested the way a variety of government .' agencies are regarded in the way they perform their job. These results reinforce the comments which were expressed in the two focus groups. Str Smwht Smwht Str dnk/ App App Disapp Disapp no op Board of Supervisors 13 48 10 5 25 County Administration 1 1 45 11 4 29 City Council 14 42 11 6 27 City Administration 16 40 11 5 29 Police and Sheriff's Depl. 37 46 6 6 6 Fire Department 64 28 2 1 6 MMWD 31 40 14 9 7 School District 26 37 11 1 1 16 2. Fire Risk: Respondents were asked if they thought a large fire (similar to the Ml. Vision fire or the Oakland Hills fire) was likely in the residential area of Marin County. Very likely 53 Somewhat likely 33 Somewhat unlikely 8 Very unlikely 2 Don't know/not sure 3 Page 1 of 4 3. Fire Prevention: As the following table makes clear respondents do not think prevention work has been done, yet they strongly think prevention measures should be more of a priority. Done More of a Driority Remove vegetation 45 78 Widen roads 23 55 Build more reseIVoirs or storage tanks 20 50 Install more fire hydrants 28 52 Replace old water pipes or lines 28 71 Strengthen water lines to withstand a strong earthquake 15 67 4. The way MMWD manages its affairs: As a note of caution, respondents are concerned about the way they perceive MMWP spends its money. This is indicative of the problems many voters have with the spending of public money at all levels of government. MMWD manages its money carefully MMWD has become a spend thrift 30 42 28 Don't know/Not sure SOLEM c(-ASSOCIA TES Page 2 of 4 . 5. Project Financing: Voters show that they prefer to pay more a year in order to get the work done more quickly, yet selected the lowest rate, longest term option by a narrow rate. Pay more a year and get the work done more quickly 53 Pay less each year and pace the work out over a longer period of time 29 Don't know/Not sure 17 : Yes Pay $63 a year for 20 years .' 54 Pay $75 a year for 15 years 44 Pay $87 a year for 12 years 49 No Don't know 29 17 38 18 33 18 6. Fairest way to pay: Themajority of voters felt that all home owners should pay equally'- regardless of how much specific work Was done in their area. This was also clearly expressed in the two focus groups. Pay based on work in their area 28 All pay equally 63 Don't know/Not sure 9 SOLEM c(CASSOCIATES Page 3 of 4 7. Second test vote: The second test vote was supported in every community and every demographic group. For , Against, Don't know 64 13 24 , . Community Rankings: Don't Know/ For Against Not Sure Fairfax 73 13 13 San Anselmo 70 11 19 Mill Valley 66 11 21 San Rafael 66 11 23 Larkspur 62 12 27 Corte Madera 57 10 33 Unincorporated Areas 55 36 9 Belvedere/Tiburon 48 20 32 Sausalito 45 24 30 Ross 38 25 38 , . SOLEM {(:ASSOCIATES Page 4 of 4 7. Second test vote: The second test vote was supported in every community and every demographic group. For . Against, Don't know 64 13 24 , , Community Rankinas: Don't Know/ For Against Not Sure Fairlax 73 13 13 San Anselmo 70 1 1 19 Mill Valley 68 11 21 San Rafael 66 11 23 Larkspur 62 12 27 Corte Madera 57 10 33 Unincorporated Areas 55 36 9 Belvedererriburon 48 20 32 Sausalito 45 24 30 Ross 38 25 38 , , SOLEM {(-ASSOCIATES Page 4 of 4 TkM ~ 6' August 30, 1996 MEMO To: Tiburon Town Council From: Larry Smith Subj: Senior Housing Advisory Committee Recommendation We are recommending a Developer Competition for senior housing on the 1.6 acres of town property identified for that purpose. The committee believes the town will achieve optimum use of that land by conducting such a competition. The attached Request For Proposals (RFP) describes in detail how the competition would be conducted. Your attention is directed to page 2 which describes Tiburon's offer, some elements of which will commit the Council to certain actions to be started immediately. Your attention is also directed to page 5 which offers the services of this committee to help determine the winner of the competition. You'll need to appoint two Council members to participate. We are proposing to send an RFP to selected developers who have either expressed interest already or who we have determined to have experience in building senior housing. We expect this list to have 10 to 15 potential participants. It is the committee's judgment that we allow 90 days for a response. We are asking the Council to approve getting started and to appoint two council members to serve with the committee on the panel of judges. With your approval of the plan, this committee is prepared to work with the Town Staff for a successful competition. TOWN OF TIBURON 1155 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA. 94920 September 4, 1996 RE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SENIOR HOUSING SITE AT TIBURON TOWN HALL SITE To Whom it May Concern; The Town of Tiburon is pleased to offer an opportunity to create a senior housing development on the current Town Hall site located off Ned's way near its intersection with Tiburon Boulevard. In a recent municipal election over two-thirds of Tiburon's voters approved the sale of Town owned property for the purpose of building senior housing. The proceeds of the sale are to be used for the construction of new police facilities. The purpose of this Request for Proposal ("RFP") is to solicit specific development proposals for the design and construction of a market rate senior housing project. The need for senior housing on the Tiburon Peninsula (including Belvedere and Strawberry) is driven by three broad perspectives: (1) Aging local residents whose homes have become too big or too cumbersome and who want something smaller, and strongly desire to stay in the community. (2) Local residents whose parents are aging and want them to live nearby for ease of supervision and care. (3) Seniors from other parts of Marin County and the Bay Area who would like to live on the Tiburon Peninsula. The emotional attachment of many local homeowners to the Tiburon Peninsula is a powerful marketing consideration. The option of staying in the community after selling the large family home is currently limited to small tract homes built 40 years ago and hillside condominiums built 20 to 30 years ago. There are no facilities offering congregate care. The creation of attractive, affordable homes that recognize our senior citizens' special needs is worthy of the density bonus provided for in Tiburon's General Plan. We appreciate your interest in this project, and encourage your participation. Sincerely, Town Manager TIBRFQ.WPDAugust 28. 1996 1 . TOWN OF TIBURON 1155 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA. 94920 '.-' September 4, 1996 RE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SENIOR HOUSING SITE AT TIBURON TOWN HALL SITE To Whom it May Concern: The Town of Tiburon is pleased to offer an opportunity to create a senior housing development on the current Town Hall site located off Ned's way near its intersection with Tiburon Boulevard. In a recent mUnicipal election over two-thirds of Tiburon' s voters approved the sale of Town owned property for the purpose of building senior housing. The proceeds of the sale are to be used for the construction of new police facilities. .,; . - 1'<'.'''_ ._"".,rL"'> t. ,'~.'.._, '.','_. .._' ,.; " The purpose of this Request for Proposal ("RFP") is to solicit specific development proposals for the design and construction of a market rate senior housing project. The need for senior housing on the Tiburon Peninsula (including Belvedere and Strawberry) is driven by three broad perspectives: , (1) Aging local residents whose homes have become too big or too cumbersome and who want something smaller, and strongly desire to stay in the community. (2) Local residents whose parents are aging and want them to live nearby for ease of supervision and care. (3) Seniors from other parts of Marin County and the Bay Area who would like to live on the Tiburon Peninsula. The emotional attachment of many local homeowners to the Tiburon Peninsula is a powerful marketing consideration. The option of staying in the community after selling the large family home is currently limited to small tract homes built 40 years ago and hillside condominiums built 20 to 30 years ago. There are no facilities offering congregate care. The creation of attractive, affordable homes that recognize our senior citizens' special needs is worthy of the density bonus provided for "~-mTibui-oii's General Plan.-" "'-' "."".'.> We appreciate your interest in this project, and encourage your participation. Sincerely, Town Manager llBRFQ. WPDAugust 28, 1996 1 THE TOWN OF TIBURON'S OFFER The Town of Tiburon is offering for sale approximately 1.6 acres of property ("Property") located at Tiburon Boulevard and Ned's Way. This acreage is part of a larger parcel that the Town will retain for other purposes, including an existing corporation yard, a new police facility, a community garden and two acres designated as open space. Adjacent to this property are a child care center and the Reed Grade School (grades K - 2). Across Ned's Way is the Hi1arita, a low and moderate income housing project that was built in the early 1970s. The Town's minimum price for 1.6 acres is $1,400,000. The purchaser will be required to demolish and remove two World War II barracks type buildings on the Property. The Town of Tiburon will provide or do the following: . ALTA Boundary Survey (to be provided) . Topographical Map (enclosed) . Geotechnical Report (enclosed) . Appraisal of the Property (enclosed) . Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (to be provided...Town will take responsibility for regulatory clearances for all contamination, if any) . Amend the General Plan and rezone the Property to accommodate the project . Subdivide the Property to create a separate parcel for the project . SatisfY CEQA requirements for the General Plan amendment, zoning amendment and lot split (Developer will be responsible for CEQA clearances for the housing project) . Provide Tiburon Redevelopment Agency funding to "buy-down" up to seven very low income units (see enclosure). . Provide demographic information about the target market for Tiburon and Belvedere (enclosed). · Relocate the Community Garden TIBRFQ.WPDAugust 28. 1996 2 GOALS FOR THE PROJECT The following goals adopted by the Tiburon Town Council on (insert date) are to guide the project: . Small scale housing for Seniors (one spouse must be 62 years of age or above). . Approximately 25 "for sale" units. . Seven units to be very low income and the Town may subsidize their sales. . Access, circulation and parking configuration shall be designed to minimize traffic problems. These challenges will be presented at a meeting of developer participants on ,1996. . Make available an appropriate level of physical amenities to provide for assisted living (services would be contracted for by the unit owners from third party providers). Tbe Town Council acknowledges the difficulty of providing these services in a small project of this nature and encourages a creative approach. * . Provide common facilities such as a community room with kitchen facilities. . Generate a minimum of$1,400,000 on the sale of the 1.6 acre site at Ned's Way. . Create an attractive "neighborhood" environment. . Encourage one on-site apartment for a "staff' person, office, etc. . Project design to be governed by Americans with Disabilities Act standards. *See Addendum "Recognizing Seniors Special Needs .... a Concept" T1BRFQ.WPDAugust 28.1996 3 THE TOWN OF TIBURON'S OFFER Tbe Town of Tiburon is offering for sale approximately 1.6 acres of property ("Property") located at Tiburon Boulevard and Ned's Way. This acreage is part of a larger parcel that the Town will retain for other purposes, including an existing corporation yard, a new police facility, a community garden and two acres designated as open space. Adjacent to this property are a child care center and the Reed Grade School (grades K - 2). Across Ned's Way is the Hilarita, a low and moderate income housing project that was built in the early 1970s. The Town's minimum price for 1.6 acres is $1,400,000. The purchaser will be required to demolish and remove two World War II barracks type buildings on the Property. The Town of Tiburon will provide or do the following: . AL T A Boundary Survey (to be provided) . Topographical Map (enclosed) . Geotechnical Report (enclosed) . Appraisal of the Property (enclosed) . Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (to be provided...Town will take responsibility for regulatory clearances for all contamination, if any) . Amend the General Plan and rezone the Property to accommodate the project . Subdivide the Property to create a separate parcel for the project . Satisfy CEQA requirements for the General Plan amendment, zoning amendment and lot split (Developer will be responsible for CEQA clearances for the housing project) . Provide Tiburon Redevelopment Agency funding to "buy-down" up to seven very low income units (see enclosure). . Provide demographic information about the target market for Tiburon and Belvedere (enclosed). · Relocate the Community Garden TIBRFQ.WPDAugust 28. 1996 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The Property is a 1.6 acre site located on Ned's Way near its intersection with Tiburon Boulevard. It is currently developed with two barracks-type buildings which house the Tiburon Town Hall and Tiburon Police facilities. The site is bordered to the west by Ned's Way and The Hilarita, an affordable apartment complex; to the north by a two-acre parcel considered as open space; to the south by the Reed elementary school (grades K - 2) and the Belvedere/Tiburon Child Care Center; and to the east by the Town Public Works facility. To the immediate south is a 1 acre site on which the Town of Tiburon intends to build a new police station. The Property is a moderate up-slope offering views of Belvedere. The location is in a residential neighborhood near Tiburon's multi-use path and is within a third of a mile of shops serving residents' needs. Also within a short distance are the Post Office and Library. SCHEMATIC MAP (Shows buildings to be demolished and location of Police facility and facilities bordering the site) TIBRFQ.WPDAugust 28. 1996 4 . ~ ' )- .~~ ! !' 'Ja;i .~,I 'l.,.1 ;f. ~:;. ! '~ii , ~- ~ ':( . .~. ~. r - .. o fT1 "1:J '<" ;:tI 2:. ...... Cl ;y 0_0 c: ~ r m- "tJm"TIr' '" - tn ZO;U Cl ~t ~ i;! g =1Z:-I(1) ;. ~ fj IT' ~1 ~th~~ ~ Z ,,0,: lli . pZ"o _ 0-<--1 f:!j~ brnZ rl' l ~ "n cO' c ~ (j) ~ tn a x > 0 ;; 0 on % () () ;< () '" ." () >> )J '" () 0 r'ii ~ 0- Ul ,,0 '" p m F --..... " 'II ::t no , .U ~ .... '9" ~.. t""' -So > ~~ :;:::l n- .... '"0 t-..) . .a? ~ > , . .f! 0 > ,00 > ,,~ :;:l J i")' ^ n <:~ n :;:l ~ ~ .~ m . H r-' m . :n 0 m . 0 z g 1l1l. 00_ >> ~ :-:\ :n ~ ~ fJ; " &~ / 0 . 0 ~ 0-' ,., ~ ~ g ;n. 0 o. z ... ~ p ~ 80 '" i5 iZ . ~ f!J <4 ~ "'<60_ 2:>> 0'" ..." >>:D o enx c' :Den <n "]" 'fil , n n c o ( 8 r " ~ !i !I;! oP-\\J€.vJp..'i ",t~O " 5: Ul Ul Co> o z " m a 2j 40 9 .... -. ~Q. ".... ~ !\ o :Jll ~ 1\IIUflON nt-VO -...:!"..~..:..':-" '''':::~i ..~.:....,.....~~_. _ -= :,_.:....:...l... SITE DESCRIPTION The Property is a 1.6 acre site located on Ned's Way near its intersection with Tiburon Boulevard. It is currently developed with two barracks-type buildings which house the Tiburon Town Hall and Tiburon Police facilities. The site is bordered to the west by Ned's Way and The Hilarita, an affordable apartment complex; to the north by a two-acre parcel considered as open space; to the south by the Reed elementary school (grades K - 2) and the Belvedere/Tiburon Child Care Center; and to the east by the Town Public Works facility. To the immediate south is a 1 acre site on which the Town of Tiburon intends to build a new police station. The Property is a moderate up-slope offering views of Belvedere. The location is in a residential neighborhood near Tiburon's multi-use path and is within a third of a mile of shops serving residents' needs. Also within a short distance are the Post Office and Library. SCHEMATIC MAP (Shows buildings to be demolished and location of Police facility and facilities bordering the site) TIBRFQ.WPDAugust 28, 1996 4 f.~' No' .... eilJ." .... .... .'-'_:'1 or,~-, ..........,,.,., ~..lJ;.'"...'.. .....1,..- '. . ~'.'" . ;<f ". .~ _......,-, :;'j-:!'p - , _T.. ' .!J. ~ Cj ~ Cj ~ ("'l o z ~ ..... ~ ..... o Z r:F.J " :::JZ=!!!! ~ ~~~il~ :IJUi:n... ~ ~~g~ ~ - }>-1 ~ 0-< 0 ,.~" ~~z o x en ,. "').. Z r- '" ~ j; r- o i ~ ~ ;; 8 en 0 () " 0 ~ () n 0 n U> l-> "" , > n , :>:l ~ 1:'1 '?~ ~ :>:l . \ n , '" t'1 t" == . - . &: , :>:l ,00 - " ~ " I ) ." 90 . 00 '0 .' ~ 0; ~ -< 60_ 50 40 .~ ~0 '", -J .' , ""'" :>:It'1 02 ...- 1:'10 n:>:l ....,::: o ~ '" - 2 ~ :n m m c l'l :z: 8 ~ I lol .' ~ TIBURON WILL CONDUCT A DEVELOPER COMPETITION Because of your stated interest, credentials and experience with Senior Housing project~, you have been selected to participate in a developer competition. The number of developers invited to compete will be limited to approximately four, and their selection will be (has been) based on interviews and other research activities. The winner will negotiate a satisfactory Disposition and Development Agreement with the Town to purchase the property and build and sell an approved senior housing project. A panel of nine judges made up of the Senior Housing Advisory Committee plus two Tiburon Town Council members will judge the competition. The criteria for judging the competition and the weight assigned to each are as follows: 1. Experience on Senior Housing projects 15% 2. Financial proposal benefiting the Town, e.g., the purchase price of the Property, timing of payments, etc. 25% 3. Quality of design that recognizes Senior's assisted needs., including, 60% . parking . traffic and pedestrian circulation . common open space . private open space . interior common space . unit layout and ease of access . exterior architectural appearance .See Addendum "Recognizing Seniors Special Needs .... a Concept" TIBRFQ.WPDAugust 28.1996 5 TIBURON WILL CONDUCT A DEVELOPER COMPETITION Because of your stated interest, credentials and experience with Senior Housing project~, you have been selected to participate in a developer competition. The number of developers invited to compete will be limited to approximately four, and their selection will be (has been) based on interviews and other research activities. The winner will negotiate a satisfactory Disposition and Development Agreement with the Town to purchase the property and build and sell an approved senior housing project. A panel of nine judges made up of the Senior Housing Advisory Committee plus two Tiburon Town Council members will judge the competition. The criteria for judging the competition and the weight assigned to each are as follows: 1. Experience on Senior Housing projects 15% 2. Financial proposal benefiting the Town, e.g., the purchase price of the Property, timing of payments, etc. 25% 3. Quality of design that recognizes Senior's assisted needs., including, 60% . parking . traffic and pedestrian circulation . common open space . private open space . interior common space . unit layout and ease of access . exterior architectural appearance .See Addendum "Recognizing Seniors Special Needs .... a Concept" TIBRFQ.WPDAugust 28, 1996 5 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Each Respondent to this RFP is required to submit the following materials and information: 1. Respondent's name and address and the name and address of any proposed partner or joint venturer in the project. 2. Principals of the respondent's development entity (corporate officers, principal stockholders, general or limited partners, etc.) 3. The respondent's previous relevant project experience (including joint ventures) and projects currently being pursued, specifically examples of rental or for sale senior housing projects; photographs and brief descriptions of projects (date completed, location, services provided and method of provision, e.g. third party services or services provided in house; and affordability levels). 4. Identification and description of the role of key individuals, including all technical, planning and architectural consultants, in the development team who would be involved in the planning, or the implementation ofthe development, including their background experience. 5. Respondent's references, including the names and addresses of respondent's bank(s), debt and equity partners, etc. 6. Experience in obtaining CEQA clearances. TIBRFQ.WPDAugust 28, 1996 6 TIME AND PLACE FOR SUBMISSION OF RESPONSES All Responses Are to Be Delivered to the Town Tiburon no later than 5:00 P.M. on , 1996. The respondent shall submit 12 copies to the following address: Town of Tiburon 1155 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA. 94920 Attention: Robert Kleinert, Town Manager TIBRFQ.WPOAugust 28,1996 7 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Each Respondent to this RFP is required to submit the following materials and information: I. Respondent's name and address and the name and address of any proposed partner or joint venturer in the project. 2. Principals of the respondent's development entity (corporate officers, principal stockholders, general or limited partners, etc.) 3. The respondent's previous relevant project experience (including joint ventures) and projects currently being pursued, specifically examples of rental or for sale senior housing projects; photographs and brief descriptions of projects (date completed, location, services provided and method of provision, e.g. third party services or services provided in house; and affordability levels). 4. Identification and description of the role of key individuals, including all technical, planning and architectural consultants, in the development team who would be involved in the planning, or the implementation of the development, including their background experience. 5. Respondent's references, including the names and addresses of respondent's bank(s), debt and equity partners, etc. 6. Experience in obtaining CEQA clearances. TIBRFQ.WPDAugust 28, 1996 6 T/e~ iF! AUGUST 30,1996 TO FROM: TOWN MANAGER TOWN COUNCIL VICTORIA ARNETT WORDING AND PLACEMENT OF INSCRIPTIONS - BLACKIE'S PASTURE SUBJECT: At the request of the Town Council, the Heritage and Arts Commission reviewed the wording and discussed the placement of the inscriptions for Blackie's Pasture with Larry Smith, Chairman of Blackie's Brigade. The premise of our design and location is to keep the area as natural and harmonious as possible. The present setting shows the peninsula is rocky and the surrounding grassy and urban hills have huge stones and rocks lying around. The bronze plaque for Blackie, already in place, rests on a granite stone. To promote and continue this harmony, the Heritage & Arts Commission makes the following recommendations. 1. The 2' x 3' bronze inscription entitled "The Beautification of Blackie's Pasture" should be placed on a large stone, indigenous to the area, such as granite, in order to give a low-key, no-frills look. The stone should be interesting and of a natural-looking shape and not appear to be sophisticated or carved. The permanent stone will be impervious to water and no real maintenance would be required. This would tie the large, inscribed stone with the rocks on the road and those lying around the pasture, as well as link the plantings with the surrounding flora. The inscription may face the bay or the path, whichever looks artistically better. (For wording, see Exhibit 1, and for location, see Exhibit 2, "Names Plaque".) 2. The bronze caption concerning the donors and designers of the garden should also be a smaller, interesting, indigenous stone, faced at the artist's discretion, for the same reasons as listed above for the large stone. (For wording, see Exhibit 3, and for location, see Exhibit 2, "Ruth Lese Plaque".) These placements should tie in with Blackie's stone, but be removed from it. 3. The legend with photograph dedicated to Sam Shapero is historic in nature; therefore. we suggest that it replicate the plaque on the Donahue Building. That inscription is of anodized, sun-proof aluminum with wording etched in. The 26" x 24" marker will be placed at the beginning of the bridge, near the new garden, on the inside left rail, facing Richardson Bay. The wooden bridge provides a natural setting for the inscription and links the history to the pasture and the path beyond. The sun and water will highlight it at this site. (For wording, see Exhibit 4, and for the location see Exhibit 2, "Shapiro Bridge".) Victoria Arnett, Chair Heritage & Arts Commission VA/jp Attachments ~ (Proposed Plaque in Bronze) , , THE BEAUTIFICATION OF BLACKIE'S PASTURE Sam Shapero's vision and action secured this property for public enjoyment. The Tiburon Peninsula Foundation sponsored the beautification project. Blackie's Brigade, a group of Tiburon and Belvedere volunteers, gave their time and money to complete the project. The community is especially grateful to the following: Mirella Abbo Harry B. Allen Foundation Backen Arrigoni & Ross, Inc. Kelly & Maggie Baylor Bracken & Keane Hazel Carter Bob & Jackie Crowder Larry & Lois Enslow Joanne Ferro Murray & Evie Fox Richard & Phyllis Garrick George & Barbara Gnoss Susan Beyrle & Gordon Haight Richard C. Hill Michael & Scott Kaplan Nancy Knoble William & Geri Kuhns John & Marilyn Loden Peter Mackby & Nancy Mason Robert & Lois Meredith Trygve & Gerd Morkemo Ellie & Bill Price Allan & Jeffrey Rappaport Bruce & Sylvia Ross Richard & Jill Sideman Larry & Diane Smith Gary Spratling Andrew Thompson Tony & Lynne Veronda Bruce Abbott Mogens Bach Stan Bala Serj Berelson Hester Burn-Callander Michael & Helen Cooper Peter Davis Marlo Erickson W.R. Forde Associates Joe Garbarino Mark Ginalski Sidney & Susan Goodwill Robert & Hilda Harrison John & Jeanie Hoffmire The Kellett Family Al & Joy Kuhn Diane Licht Kent & Vicki Logan Barbara Mathew Jim & Janet Mitchell Irving Moulin Becky Winslow Pringle Harvey Rogers Hal Schmidt Henry Siegel Wayne Snow Myles Cameron Temby Tiburon Town Staff Effie Westervelt EXIDBIT NO.-L ~ ~/ '--. II ( ~ -'" IlJltJ --::J >La- ~:5 I cJ)r>- ~D 1.. eJ 0/ ~~ a.<( - <(..1 "j;<1- V' / / III . ? !;: Ii; r \ ~v1 ~ IV G :r" "..i :<:a.- \ " , ~ 3& i=:"i ~<1.. / , , ./ ~(" PC 'h.. ~0 ;,).~ , \ \ " !u ~ t# ~t "'- a ~'-".-'-' $ F"---- / ~ i:!l :z o VI A. ill .;: cr s! aJ. EXIDBITNO.2. A . -' f ,. Designed and planted by Blackie's Brigade this garden was made possible by the children of Ruth Lese. EXIDBIT No.3 ~ ------- ./ ~f '-.. ~ '----.-.. . .-' ~al .- $ F'---- III . ? !;;: tii -'" 1.u11l --::> :J.Q- ~:5 I ciJP- iD 1 ~ 0/ ~~ a.. <( -- <(..1 :ra. If' ~ ~ '--, /I !u ","-I' ~'<.9 Iff ~ , ~ Pb 'h., 00~ :J:<:) / r \ ~v1 19 IJJ G ;[4:: .c-' :<:a.. \ \ \ "- , > ~ ~ ~'!:l :rCt .....~ ~a.. / < o VI A ill "" :t: oJ al ; . ..' " \ \ , EXHIBIT NO. 2.. . .' .' . SHAPERO BRIDGE In 1969, a visionary named Sam Shapero (who served as Tiburon's Town Treasurer), decided that Blackie's Pasture needed to be preserved and protected. Sam did two things. He bOl:.ght one-third of the land and donated it to a foundation he created - The Tiburon Peninsula Foundation. This foundation then raised the money to buy another third. The foundation gifted its two-thirds to the Town of Tiburon on the condition that the town wrestle the remaining third from Caltrans. The town managed to do just that and from this start came not only Blackie's Pasture, but McKegney Green and South of the Knoll Park. We are forever grateful to Sam Shapero. EXHIBIT NO...!:L TOWN COUNCIL ST AFF REPORT FROM: SCOTT ANDERSON, ~~ PLANNING DIRECTOR MEETING DATE: 9/4/96 REPORT DATE: 8/29/96 ITEM NO.: /0 TO: TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION POLICIES - Review of Proposed Revisions to LAFCO's Sphere of Influence and Dual Annexation Policies BACKGROUND Marin Local Agency Formation commission has circulated a draft of proposed revisions to its Sphere of Influence and Dual Annexation policies. Comments on the proposed revisions are due to LAFCO on the following dates: September 16, 1996 for Sphere of Influence Policy comments; and October 14, 1996 for Dual Annexation Policy comments. Soheres of Influence Government Code section (GCS) 56076 defines "Sphere of Influence" as follows: "Sphere of Influence" means a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the [LAFC] commission. GCS 56425 directs that: In order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities, the commission shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county. In determining the sphere of influence of each local agency, the commission shall consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 9/4/96 1 (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. The Government Code does not appear to provide any more specific guidelines for the creation of Spheres of Influence than those quoted above. Each LAFCO appears to have great discretion in the matter, and each develops its own policies relative to SOIs. The Town of Tiburon's Sphere of Influence, as established by LAFCO many years ago, consists of the entire Tiburon and Strawberry Peninsulas east of U. S. Highway 101, excluding the City of Belvedere and the Town of Corte Madera (see Exhibit 1). Dual Annexation Dual annexation is not a concept specifically referenced in state legislation, but rather a policy adopted by individual LAFCOs in response to circumstances within that county and the prevailing philosophy as to what constitutes orderly development and efficient provision of services. According to a 1987 LAFCO survey, ten (10) other counties in California had adopted dual annexation policies similar to Marin LAFCO's. Dual annexation policies tend to be adopted in counties where most of the population lives within cities and towns, and where most development is encouraged in the vicinity of cities and towns. Seventy-two (72) percent of Marin County's people live in cities and towns. The Marin Countywide Plan's "city-centered corridor" versus "inland rural corridor" concept is intended to preserve and promote this pattern, and is precisely the type of policy which logically leads to adoption of dual annexation-type policies. other counties with similar demographic situations and development patterns are Napa County and Ventura County, both of which have rigorously enforced dual annexation-type policies. At the other end of the spectrum is Sacramento County, where an overwhelming majority of the population lives in unincorporated areas. Sacramento County LAFCO will probably never adopt a dual annexation policy; in fact, the county actively fights the incorporation efforts of its communities. ANALYSIS The proposed LAFCO policy revisions are outlined in a memo from LAFCO dated July 31, 1996, attached as Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 provides the current Dual Annexation Policy language for comparison purposes, but does not contain current Sphere of Influence (SOI) pOlicies for comparison purposes. Town Staff has attached LAFCO's current SOI policies as Exhibit 3. TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Q/4196 2. Planning Department staff finds the proposed revisions to both sets of policies greatly disturbing. Some of Town staff's major specific concerns are described in detail in the memo dated 8/21/96, attached as Exhibit 4. The Marin Managers and Marin Planning Directors have been advised of our concerns and requested to support the Town's position (see Exhibit 5). On a more general level, Staff has the fOllowing comments: 1. The proposed revisions to both sets of policies are not in the best interests of long-term planning, but instead suited to short-term political horizons and temporary expediency. In town Staff's opinion, strict application of the current dual annexation policy is still the best method to overcome decades of non-planning and haphazard governmental boundary setting. The policy sometimes seems unpopular and even dictatorial in the short run, but makes sense in the long run. LAFCO's efforts should be aimed at the implementation over time of its statutory goals and responsibilities. 2. The proposed SOI policy revisions are not very clear; Town Staff is not certain exactly what LAFCO is proposing with respect to SOI policies. For example, it is unclear whether the new language would completely replace existing SOI policies, or if some existing SOI policies are intended to remain in place. In contrast, the dual annexation policy revisions are set forth in a clearly understandable format. 3. The proposed SOI policies appear to be a dramatic departure from current policies, and could result in huge sections of the Town's Sphere of Influence being stripped away. 4. The proposed revisions to the dual annexation policy would greatly weaken it and could easily result in even more illogical governmental boundaries than currently exist. 5. No CEQA analysis has been prepared relative to the proposed policy changes. RECOMMENDATION . That the Council support retention of current Sphere of Influence and Dual Annexation policies as adopted. . That Staff be directed to forward the Town's comments and recommendations to LAFCO. TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GJ4/PoS 3, EXHIBITS 1. Map of Tiburon Sphere of Influence boundaries. 2. LAFCO memo dated 7/31/96 outlining proposed policy revisions. 3. Current LAFCO Sphere of Influence policies. 4. Memo from Planning Director to Town manager dated 8/21/96. lafco.rpt TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 9I4,.'g15 4, , . d ~ '. ~ ::l .. 71 co c ~ :D ~ L..? ~ . F ~ / / ./ 0 i . " . , p' ~ " , '" - 1-' , ~~ /0-::;:;:/ './' ~1Il "8C~~lll l r r r , ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ " . ~- ~! ~ ; . . ! , . ~ ! , , ~f " , .. " - , .. .. , , I . . . . . , , . ~ . . , . 0 0 - ... V- i; 0 , U :r .. 4It (t ~ 0 ~~ it ... 8 l- ~ ... s . ~ ("l l' I[ i Wm I, ~_ ~, . _ ,'-~. ~- i. ~ p. i =- . , . ~ :~~:~~ ~ ::::~,.~ ~~~~p I 5 ~... , ". -,- ,. c. ~' .' ~ ., ~ ~ RACCOON SlllAITS " c '" l> !il " o :D '" l> :rn ;: C .. .. C l> I Z '" C C '" m .>.... .. :,t{ .~~,: li";':~~~'" ~~lY ~ '0 1996 ~ ---- ~L~ R:=' ~V:7\V!E:D AUG 0 ~, 19':16 . ., . . . I , 31, ---.- MEMORJ.NDUM TOWN OF TIBURON PL~';NING &. BUILDING DEPT. To: Cities: Finance ./ City Council Members, City Mana3~rs.~ Directors and Planning Dir'~ctors'C/ Affected Agenc~es: San~ r~c~':.s County of Marin: B~ard of Supervisors. Administrator and Auditor,Contro:ler From: Dawn Mittleman, Executive Officer Re: LAFCO's Dual Annexation Policy Review LAFCO periodically reviews its policies in order that they continue to serve the purpose for which they were created, while responding to current circumst,mces and relevant issues. One of the original goals of the Dual Annexation Policy was tc encourage annexation to cities. One reason for this was that the cities were '~multi-purr-ose" in that they were able to provide a variety of servicea. This geal however, has not been met. Conditions have changed since the Dual Annexation Fol icy was enacted. A,~ a result of reduced property tax revenue and budget constraints, cities are relying on special districts to provide an increasing variety of services once provided by cities, Another goal of the Dual Annexat1:m Policy was t:o create logical service boundaries. This goal has not ~ee~ met because parcels are annexed on a piecemeal basis. C'ne possible reason is that LA?CO has not required that: c:.::1es develop specific, struet~red plans, to collaborate ir. the ef::::rt to clean 'IP boundary proble:ns, The evider.ce sh::ws that cities have expended effort to Suppor': the Dual ~..nnexa':io:n Policy in cases ot: prcperties that afford them tax revenue that covers ::r.e cost of services or those in which cr.e city is in':erested because cities prefer to be t~e governing bcdi28 fer I,and use Cldlil"l/.tm" F;wlIl \\i:lliam:. .'vTt"f1/iJ('n: C. Henry BJfnCr, G;lry Gja~onljf1i. Jvhr. Kre~5. !\"lml'l~lr\ f<i~-hnrd~I', :C'I-l~' Tt-;I~'c:r. D.I':;,1 J. \""lre' Altenwus.' Jeffr;.- B"'n("hfi~lc.1. Ilnrr-ar:\ H!:l:c... l-hrn \I1()~\r\.', lHJy .:5r....Inn-.el): !;nnllfl'l' O,'Jh'('I, 1):\""0 '.11tlitnan Marin Local Agency Forfnation COJ1llnissioll J50; Civic C..:nll"1' D,j'.'l,' S.lI1 Ibf.I(,"1. C;difornlll 94903 Tc:lepbmc (4ISJ ,~'}l).-,':N.'i ,..ll....illll!~. '../.i, .L~)tJ.(tl(l' < i f:;X~IBIT NO.~ " J July 31, 1996 LAFCO's DAP Review Page 2 decisions, However, repeated waiving of the Dual Acnexation Policy in cases of property that is not coveted by the city, is producing the illogical boundaries anj the unsig~tly and difficult to administer "Swiss cheese effect" that che policy was originally developed to combat, Since the cur~ent policy provides for NO exceptions for contiguous property, it became necessary to make exceptions in cases of health hazax"d, LAFCO must now ask that the cities pull together (with one another and with LAFCO) and make a ccncerted effort to correct the boundary problems that have cccurred due to the leniency with which we all have tended to invoke the ~ual Annexation Policy. The Commission will support the cities in their bids to annex those properties they find to be of particular 'interest, provided that the properties in question serve to create logical boundaries and that the cities involved in turn support LAFCO in its legislative mandate to correct the current boundary situation, It is proposed that cities develop a plan and schedule fer annexing and detaching properties, as well as a plan for provic.ing services and for addressing property owner concerns. Cities may also assist in this effort by helping to correct "split,jurisdiction" propertieE where it vlould ameliorate bou~dary problems, A detach~ent p"ogram is a necessary companion to a strong. strictly-followed Dual Annexation Policy in the guest to create logical boundaries, ~ The Dual Annexation Policy does not a?ply to unincorporated areas outside a city's Sphere of Influence. The~efore, LAFCO could delete unincorporatec isla~ds fro~ a city's Sphere of Influence, To achieve this deletio~. residents of an unincorporated area could initiate t~e procedu~e by crea~ing a funding ~echanism to offset ~~e Ccunty's cost for delivery of services to islands. Tr.is would address the LAFCO mandate to reduce dUPlication of service3 a~d inefficient delivery of s€~vi=es. One purpose of revising the policy is to specify exceptions to the policy (for areas within the SOIl that may be made by the Comm~ssion. ?roviding the C~mMissi=n with specific exceptions makes for a stronger poliCY; one that does not inv~~e deviation. For E}:a~p:8, an exception could b~ granted if and only if t~e property owners are will~~g to .sign an agreement no~ to oppcse future municipal annexa~ion and if the de~elopment potenti~l for fewer than t~ree single-family homes. Iind,\d"pICl~ 96 , , . July 3::', 1996 LAFCO's DAP Review Page 3 The Commission has directed Staff to discribu:e :he attached "Work~ng Paper" f01: Comments from cities a:1C affected agenc~es, The purpose of this meno is to solici: suggestions for possible improvements to LA?CO's Dual Annexation Policy, Working together, LAFCO and the cities can create a serviceable, apprcpriate and user-friendly policy that can work fOr cities, co~nty, special districts and property owners alike. Formal action by your council/board as well as comments from your staff should be returned to LAFCO by Sectember 16, 1996. Your response will be included in the ExeCut~ve Officer'S Report reviewing the .Dual Annexation Policy, Please contact the LAFCO office if you have any questions. atcachment hr.dold"plcll % f July 31, 1996 LAFCO's DAP Review Page ~ "Working Paper" for LAFCO's Dual Annexation Policy Review Attach..nent A Basis for Poli~ 1. Leoislative Policv which Sstablished LAFCO Law A. Encourage orderly growth and development by determining logical and timely bcundary changes of local agencies, B. Bstablish community service oriorities to reflect local circumstances, conditions and limited financial reso~rces. Purpose of Policy ('The fundamenta.l Com~ission policy is tr..a::. the extension of urban s€rv:..ces promotes urban develcpmen~ and that suc~ develo~Ment belc~gs in cities. This policy is predicated on the fact that cities exist to provide a broader range of municipal services than t~e C01..lnty." (LAFCO SO! policy) nWorkinq Pap ern Recommendations Dual Anne~ation Policy in Relatio~ to Spheres of rnfl~ence It is the CommiSSion I s mandate ;Jr.der State la'^, to coordinate efficient del:o.very of government ee.-:-vices and to reduce costly dU91ication cf services, The Dual Annexation ?cli~y app:ies to property situated in the "Citv-Cente=ed Ccrrido=" as defined in ~h8 Marin Countvwid~ ~lan and lo~ated within a city's Spher~ cf Influence. A. Inclcsion of uni~cor~~r~:~d land wi~~in a city's Sphere of Influence requires that the city adopt :he fo:lcwing: 1. A plan for prcvidirlq services demo~strating ~!:~ city's abil~:y to p;~v~de eff~cie~t ~ervi=e :0 t~e ar'~a . lind,,',d;lplcl2.96" . . ~ July 31, 1996 LAFCO's DAP Review Page S 2, A property owner suppor:: plan deClonstrat ing tr.a ~ the city's cOC1rni::rnent to addressing prcperty owners I COncerns and meeti:1'.;T their r:eeds. 3. An annexation a:ld pre-zoning sched'.;le demonstra~ing the city's prcgra~ to init~ate annexation of the area, Priority shall be give" to areas which create loaical service boundaries and allow for ef:ic~ent delivery of services. B. Exclusion of unincoroorated 'ar.d from a city's Sphere of Influence requires that the city initiate detachment of parcels which create illogical boundaries and inefficient delivery of services. c. Exclusion of unicoroorated lan~ frcm a city'S Sphere of Influence may be initiated by property O~'ner approval of a funding mechanism to offset ::he Coul:ty's additional cost for delivery of services to unincorporated isla"cs and to fund any Curre:ot use of city services, Dual Annexation Policy A. La:Jd Conticuous to r~UllH:::oal Lin:its: An:lexations of unincorporated Larod to spe.::ial districts which provide services ~eces~a~y fOr urba~ deve~op~ent shall require CO:Jcurren~ an:Jexatio~ to a city if the land is located withi~ ~he city's S~here of r~f:Jence boundary, LAFCO may gra:Jt an exception to this PO~lCY provided that the C8m~issi8n make f~ndings of fact basec u~cn compliance wi~h app:icable criteria l~sted below: 1, The develcpmer.t ~oter.tial fcr t!:e area is less than three single fa~iLy units, 2. The property owners havo: signed an agreement r:o~ to oppose fu~ure municip31 ~nnexatio~. B. ~nd Not Conti~~ous ~c Xunici.al L~mit~ For non-contig:.IOus prope:-ties, ~.~FCO ~ay grant an except~on to Policy A provided that the Com~issic:o make findings of fact based up.:)n c::rnpliance ",ith ap;>l~cabl", criter:a listed below: 1. Policy waiver is necessary ':c ccrrec': 3. h~a.lth !:azard, linda'dap:ct2.95 .. - July 31, 1996 L,~CO'9 DAP Review Page 6 2. The property owners l:ave signed a:o agl'e"'~ent not to Oppose future mu~ici?a: annexa:ion. 3. The develop~ent potential =cr ~~e area is less than three single fa~i:y units. Iinda\,d<1plcr2,96 . . . July 31, 1996 LAFCO's DAP Review Page 7 Attachment B' ~~inq Dual Annexation Polic~ Tr.e Dual A:mexation Policy applies to property situated .in the "CitY-Centered Corridor" as de::ined in the ~I"ri,., Countv General Plan and located within a city's Sphere of Influence, A. Land Contiauous to Municioa.l Li~its: Annexations of unincorporated land to special districts which provide services necessary for urban development shall require concurrent annexation to a city if the land is located within the city's Sp~ere of Influence boundary. B. Land Not Contiauous to M~nic~pal Li~its: For noncontiguous properties, LAP.:O may grant an exception to Policy A if the site adjoina an established unincorporated community "hie}: is cux'rently prcvided water, sewer, ~olice. or fi~e prctectior. sE~vices by the County and/or special districts_ In order to grant a policy exception, LA?CO sr.all make findings of fact based upon Cumpliance with applicable criteria listed below: 1. The County Board of Supervisors has ;icopted a cOl1\r.1:.u:i ty plan governinc;: :he '..1r.inccr?orac.€d <:i.rea, and ~hat a comn~un.:.::y plan is deemed by t::e Com"'issi:m ::0 be> apFropx'iate fer the are" i:l ques::ion, 2. Approval of policy \vai',rer has l:een sul::nit:ted in writing to ~AFCO by the city c8uncil whose S~here of Influe~ce incl~cas :he site. 3. Affected spe2.ial districts are preBently wil~ing and c3.pable of ~xte~.:.in;) 1..lrcan servi.::~s. 4. County Bo?rd of Supervisors has approved a master devc:opment plan project which will not promote further develcpm~~t teyo~d the fartheat exte:lB~Cn of service on the subject property, (Originally adopted: July 13, 1977; Revised: J~n~ary :3, 1993) hnda'.d'plcI2,96 . . Sphere of Influence P~llcies 1. The Cundamen':al policy of the CommiS5ion in considering the development status of land located in or adjacent to 311 established city sphere of in(luence boundary shall be that the extension of urban-type services promotes urbdl1 development 3lld that such development belongs in cities. Thi. policy 1S p~dicated on the fact that cities exist to provide a broa.der range of municipal services which generally include:s police and fire protection, sanitation, parks and recreation, and street light- ing and _aintenance services, (Adopted: July 13, 1977) . 2. Already developed unincorporated 1311ds located within the established sphere of influence boundary of a city and which benefit from =unicipai service. pro'fided by such city should be annexed to that city. Vacant land in the 5ame position should be ~nexed prior to development. (Adopted: July 13, 1977) 3. Urban development which could conflict with subsequent city annexation efforts .hould not be permitted to occur outside a city, (Adopted: July 13, 1977) 4. Staged urban development contribute~ to the orderly gro~th of urban areas, a primary goal of the ~arin Local Agency Formation Commission. LAFCo promotes the timely conversion of land to urban uses 3lld will effectuate tllis goal through encouraging urban development to occur in incorporated vacmt Ll1lds located adjacent to already existing developed ar~as. Conversely, LAFCa discourages conversion of tm- developed unlncorporated territory located on the periphery of a city bound~ry to urban uses prior to utili~ation of vacant lands located within the city area. '. S. Except for proposals initiated by LAFCo, amendment of a sphere of influence boundary may be approved by LAFCo when such action is consistent with the Commission's Policy Guidelines ~nd statutory criteria. Requests for amendment shall comply with all of the following minimum requirements: A. Land shall be physically Contiguous to the existing city or special district boundary(ies). B. Land shall be adjacent to an existing developed area. C. Water, sanitation, and fire protection services shall be immediately available to the land. Amendment at the sphere of influence boundary shall precede Commission review and approval of subsequent annexation reque~ts. EXHIBIT NO.~ ., , , MEMORANDUM TO: ROBERT KLEINERT, TOWN MANAGER SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ FROM: SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND DUAL ANNEXATION POLICY REVIEW BY LAFCO---COMMENTS ON LAFCO'S "WORKING PAPER" DATE: 8/21/96 Observations of the Staff Analysis Preceding the proposed revised policies: 1. The analysis lacks a historical perspective of the dual annexation policy and provides an over,simplilied, overly-generalized, and sometimes inaccurate assessment of a rather complicated situation. Many situations which involve application of the dual annexation policy are unique, and can vary considerably from jurisdiction to jUl'isdiction, and even within the same jurisdiction, 2. The analysis ignores the strength and flexibility of the current dual annexation policy and focnses only on its imperfections. There is no recognition of the lengthy time frame which is required for the dual annexation policy to achieve its goals. It took many decades of "non-planning" to create the illogical boundaries which the dual annexation policy seeks to correct; it will certainly take more than the approximately 20 years the dnal annexation policy has existed to correct them. Observations on the Proposed Sphere of Influence (SOl) Policies 3. The Working Paper docs not provide the CUlTent LAFCO SOl policies for comparison purposes. A quick look at them will tell you why, since the existing policies (attached as Exhibit I) are very much at odds with the proposal. The proposed changes appeal' to be potentially devastating depending on their application. Entire SOls could be stl'ipped from cities on the basis of their failnre to meet the reqnired criteria, as discussed below, 1 EXHIBIT NO.!1:. " , 4. The proposed language in (A) "lnciuslOn of Unincorporated Land" appears to create a situation where unincorporated land would be removed from a city's SOl unless the city does all of the following: a. Adopts a plan for providing services demonstrating the city's ability to provide efficient service to the area. b. Adopts a property owner support plan demonstrating the city's commitment to addressing property owner's concerns and meeting their needs. c. Adopts an annexation and prezoning schedule demonstrating the city's program to annex the area. The problem with (a) is that it presumes annexation of the entire sphere all at once, rather than incrementally as is always the case with SOls. This is highly unrealistic and places an undue burden on cities. The problems with (b) are obvious. The phrasing here smacks too much of extortion. The Town ofTiburon has ah'eady been faced at a public meeting with the question "How much are you willing to pay me [to annex]?" from a resident who is awaiting final LAFCO action on annexation of his property to the Town. Cities will certainly be cognizant of property owners' concerns. Under the law, LAFCO is prohibited from direct land use regulation, and for good reasons, and should not make such incursions part of its policies. The over- politicization of LAFCO members seldom has positive results. I have no problem with (c) if it is reasonably interpreted by LAFCO. 5. The proposed language in (B) "Exclusion of Unincorporated Land" makes no sense at all. First, cities do not "detach" parcels from their SOl, only from their corporate limits. A detachment is essentially a de-annexation, and has no relation to Spheres ofInfluence. Second, there is a huge "middle ground" between (A) and (B) which neither policy covel's. On what basis is LAFCO to modify existing SOls when neither policy fits 95% of the land involved? 6. The proposed language in (C) "Exclusion of Unincorporated Land" sounds fair and reasonable in theol)', but is almost certainly impossible to quantify and document and reality. The complexity would be astounding, and contrary to LAFCO's mandate to promote efficiency and rational service boundaries. ,2. , Observations on the proposed revisions to the Dual Annexation Policy (DAP) 7. The existing policy is not broken, and doesn't need to be "fixed", It contains enough flexibility (through city waivers) to be effective in most instances. Perhaps LAFCO has been too lenient in allowing cities to waive LAVCO's policy without exceptionally good reasons. 8. The language in (A) "Land Contiguous" allowing waiver for areas with development 'potential of less than 3 single family homes is arbitrary and will piecemeal SOls into irrelevancy. This language cuts cities totally out of the process and substantially weakens the DAP. Concerning (2), what is to keep cities from annexing one year later, since there can be no protest? This policy would not be fair to LAFCO either, since repeated requests for annexation from the cities would occur in areas of contention. Implementation of this policy would accelerate the "swiss-cheese" effect which LAFCO staff insists it is trying to correct. ~cott\larco.mem 3, $' 'ON .LISIHXI Sluawq:l1lny I/1J Jagmrnw l1h\0~ llaUJa[)l 'illaqolI "S;lA!loafqo pUll sreog IreJaAo Sl! ;lAa!ljol1 Ol O;)dVi JOJ Sa~all1JlS uual guoI lsaq aql UJ1lwaJ haq~ 'UO!ll1Xauuy rena pUll aouanJlUI JO aJaqds gU!plUgaJ sa!o!Iod luaJJIl:J S,O;)dViJo qloqjO UO!lualaJ lloddnS 'a "(paqOllnl1) 966I 'IZ ls~ny pall1p 'JagllUllW l1h\0~ aql Ol WnpUllJOWaW S ,JOpaJ!a glIJU1l1lId aql UJ papa[JaJ S1l Sluawwoo h.mUJW!IaJd s, uOJnq!~ Ma!^alI ';) '(..Jadl1d gUP(JoM" paqol1nll) sa!::l!Iod asaqljo q01l:l Ol SUO!l110y!POW pasodOJd ,SjJ1llS O;)dVi Ma!^alI 'g "(paqOl1nl1) ho!Iod UO!lllxauuy rena pUll ho!Iod IOS lUaJJIl:J S,O;)dVi Ma!^alI "V :gUJMOnOj aql op Ol nOhjO qOl1a agJn PInoM I 'plUgaJ s!ljllll "ho!Iod UO!ll1Xauuy rena alp JOj 966I 'vI Jaqopo pUll hO!Iod!OS alp JOj 966I 'SI Jaqwaldas hq O;)dVi Ol pan!Wqns aq PInoqs SlUawwO;) 'ho!Iod UO!l1lXauuy rena O;)dVi (z pUll 'ho!Iod (ms) aouanJlUIjo aJaqds O;)dVi (I :8UJWaouoo sa!::luagll papajJ1l pUll Sa!l!::l wo.IJ sluawwO:J JOj ,.Jadl1d gUP(JOM" 11 papJ1lMJoj S1ll{ O;)dVi Sill;)nOd O;)dV'I :l.;)3IllilS ~lIHNI3:TI1 gog :WOUi 966I 'IZ ~SflDflY SlI3:DYNVW NnJYW :O~ WnGNVlIOW3W @~ Tel September 12, 1996 Ik ~ :rt:- 0 Mr. Robert Kleinert Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1155 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 i I'. ~) f:::; (r~ IT::; uP WI r~I'I::"\ 1_' 1 ---. "....'J '---I " ,~- )' __, - ....- '--"". .... ...-..... I I' i: I'" J/ .) l; ._~/ ... .<.." 1 .) 1':,Q/, . '._.,L, '.' .l~ TO\NN i'AAdAGE~~';:'; o:~f!CE TCVJ~,! OF TiSU;:(ON R E: Li ne Extensi ons Dear Bob, I look forward to seeing you and having the opportunity to discuss line extensions of cable television service in the Town of Tiburon, I appreciate your concern and those of the Town Council on this matter. As you are aware, Section 13 of the Franchise Agreement, outlines the requirements for future line extensions and provides specific guidelines. I have attached a copy of Section 13 for your reference. TCI understands your community desires to have a wide variety of programming options. In an effort to provide more information, to areas where service is unavailable and there are no immediate plans to extend cable service, we often refer residents to one of the satellite dish service companies, Today there are a variety of options available to residents in selecting a provider for their home entertainment. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (415)459,5333. Sincerely, .J2A4 ~~ Shirley Gulbransen General Manager enclosure Tel Cablevlslon of California, Inc. 1111 Andersen Drive San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 459-5333 FAX (415) 258-0136 An Equal Opportunity Employer residential unit or unit~~within ninety (90) days from the date of occupancy. .\ ~ : "i Section 13. Line Extensions - Upon written request from any resident desiring Cable service, Viacom shall extend its Cable System to any residential unit that is located on a portion of any Street with a density of fifty (50) or more separate residential units per linear mile, as measured from the closest contiguous Cable distribution point; provided that such residential unit is unable to receive at least three (3) San Francisco broadcast television stations. In cases where such residential units are able to receive at least three (3) San Francisco broadcast television stations, Viacom shall provide an amount equaling $750.00 per subscribing residential unit toward the cost of extending Cable Service. Viacom's contribution shall increase annually as follows: -Year one through year five, 100% of the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index Builders Code, -Year six through year ten, two thirds (213) of the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index Builders Code, -Year eleven through year fifteen shall equal the amount contributed at the close of year ten. In addition, Viacom will, in a timely manner, negotiate all assessments required for the extension of its Cable distribution plant, with each City/Town or County. 'Once the assessment is determined, Viacom will pay $750.00, to increase annually in proportion with the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index Builders Code, per subscribing household toward the cost of extending its distribution system to said household or households. The remaining costs of extending the distribution plant shall be levied only on the residents of that Town. Charges for line extensions to the property lines are exclusive of standard installation charges which will be added to the property line. Upon written request from any Resident desiring Cable Service, Viacom -12- shall extend its Cab1e".,~ystem to any residential unit" (within the service I "; located on a portion of any Street with a density of less than area) that is fifty (50) separate residential units per linear mile, as measured from the closest contiguous Cable distribution point; provided that such residential unit is unable to receive at least three (3) San Francisco broadcast television stations, and provided further that the cost of Viacom's time and materials shall be shared equally among all Residents requesting service in the extension area, except that Viacom will absorb the first Seven-Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) incurred for the extension of the Cable System to each Resident requesting ~able Service. Viacom's contribution shall increase annually as follows: -Year one through year five, 100% of the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index Builders Code, -Year six through year fifteen, two thirds (2/3) of the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index Builders Code. Section 14. Temoorary Removal of Cable for Relocation of Bui1dinas - Viacom, upon seventy-two (72) hours advance written notice from any person holding a building permit issued by the Town, shall temporarily remove, raise or lower its Cable to permit the moving of buildings. The expense of the temporary removal, raising and lowering of Cable, shall be paid by the person requesting the same. Viacom shall have the authority to require payment in advance. Section 15. Chanaes Required bv Public Imorovements or Emeraencies - Viacom shall, upon 4B hours advance notice, at its expense, protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate in the same Street or other public place, or remove from the Street or other public place, any of its property when required by the local Director of Public Works by reason of traffic conditions, public safety, Street vacation, freeway and Street construction, -13- Robert Kleinert Town Manager TOWN OF TIBURON 1155 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Peter Mayne Lie IvL iUu. ? i~~~~u~~\D\ uti 'I';:, 0 'C~h .....-!) i).u\J J \J'J.... 1~ I , 11 f TOWN rvjANAGER'S OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON August 27,1996 Re . Old Landini: Road Sewer Assessment District(OLRADl Dear Bob Thank you very much for your kind letter of August 21 st. All of us also thought that our 8/15/96 meeting went well, and that good progress was made in our annexation discus, sions. We certainly appreciated your impressive delegation of Tiburon Town and Council members, and noted with particular satisfaction your unanimous agreement to proceed in ~ a mutually amicable fashion by deferring any OLRAD annexation decision for one year. 1\ As agreed, 1 will send you and Mayor Wolf our draft summary of this meeting, for your review, comments and additions/deletions etc. Then, at Tiburon's initiative and with suggested participants beyond OLRAD we will meet again to continue this productive dialogue. Unfortunately urgent business matters require me to be in Europe until Sept. 23d, but 1 will have the promised draft to you that week of9/23. Meanwhile I wish you all a pleasant back-to,school week, and remain very truly yours, ~\~" Cc: ' Nicky Wolf , Paradise Drive Property Owners Assoc , Jeff Chanin 4350 Paradise Drive · Tiburon · 94920, USA Tell Fax (415) 435-5625 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 FROM: JA YNI ALLSEP CONTRACT PLANNER AGENDA NO: 8 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GUEST HOUSE AND STUDIO AT 185 GILMARTIN DRIVE APPELLANTS: HARVEY AND EMILY A. POPPEL PROPERTY OWNER: PETR KIRITCHENKO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Deny the appeal of Staff's intent to issue the building permit for the project at 185 Gilmartin Drive; and 2. Adopt the attached Resolution ratifYing the policy of the Town Planning Department to extend design review approval under limited circumstances relating to internal processing delay. BACKGROUND: On April 21, 1994, the Design Review Board (DRB) approved Site and Architectural plans for the project at 185 Gilmartin Drive. The project includes the construction of a single family residence, guest house and studio. The DRB approval was appealed by Harvey and Lee Poppel, and on August 17, 1994, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 3049, denying the appeal and approving the application for site plan and architectural review, subject to the conditions contained in the resolution (see Resolution No. 3049, attached), A building permit application and construction documents for the project were submitted to the Tiburon Building Department, along with appropriate fees on June 17, 1996, Although the building permit application and construction documents were submitted more than 60 days prior to the expiration date of the Site Plan and Architectural Review approval, the permit was not issued due to an internal delay in processing the permit as outlined in the analysis section below. Upon learning that it is Town Staff's intent to issue the building permit for the project at 185 Gilmartin Drive (assuming that the construction plans are found to conform with the design review approval and state and local building codes), Mr. and Mrs. Poppel filed the subject appeal. TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 Pursuantto Section 105,1 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code, such appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Town Building Official are considered by a Board of Appeals. Chapter 13 of the Town's Municipal Code (Building Regulations) designate the Town Council as the Board of Appeals, The following is a chronology of the Design Review and Building Permit process for this project, April21 1994 - Site and architectural plans for the residential development at 185 Gilmartin Drive are approved by the Design Review Board (DRB), May 2, 1994 - Harvey and Lee Poppe!, residents of 147 Gilmartin Drive, files an appeal of the Design Review Board's action to approve the plans for 185 Gilmartin Drive, May 18 1994 - The Tiburon Town Council considers the Poppel's appeal of the Design Review Board's approval. After considering all of the evidence in the record, the Council voted 3-2 to remand the application to the Design Review Board (DRB) for the following specific concerns: trellises landscaping, the amount of hardscape, lighting, views, and number/siting of accessory buildings, July 7, 1994 - The DRB hears the matter again and considers the concerns raised by the Town Council. After reviewing the revised plans for the project, the Design Review Board votes to recommend that the Town Council approve the revised proposal with conditions, August 3. 1994 - The application is brought back to the Town Council for a second public hearing on the appeal. After considering the revised application, the July 7, 1994, action of the Design Review Board and the entire record of the project, the Town Council votes unanimously to deny the appeal and approve the application for site plan and architectural review, subject to certain conditions. August 17 1994 - Town Council adopts Resolution No, 3049, denying the appeal and approving the application for site plan and architectural review, subject to the conditions contained in the resolution. January 1996 - Project architect, Miles Berger, contacts staff to confirm the time frame of the Design Review approval and to inquire about the building permit and plan check process, Planning staff advises Mr. Berger that he should allow six to eight weeks for the plan check process to be completed. June 17 1996, Mr, Berger submits building permit application and construction documents to the Tiburon Building Department, along with appropriate fees and a cover letter dated June 14, 1996 (see attached). July 16, 1996 - Planning Staff completes design review conformance check. Note: the actual conformance check was completed within a period offour working days, The conformance check process was delayed due to a number of reasons: Limited Planning Staff (June resignation of Associate Planner Dan Catron, planned time off of Design Review staff member), the July 4th TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 Page 2 holiday, and a high volume of design review and building permit (conformance check) applications during the months of June and July. July 17. 1996 - Planning Staff advises Mr. Berger that conformance check has been completed and that construction document have been transmitted to Independent Code Consultants (ICC) for plan check review. Mr. Berger expresses concern about the time frame of the building permit process, Staff assures Mr. Berger that consistent with Town policy, since he submitted the building permit application at least two months prior to the expiration of the design review approval, the approval would remain valid so long as the applicant continues to work diligently toward obtaining the building permit. July 29 1996 ,Staffwrites follow-up letter to the property owner, Mr. Kiritchenko, explaining the Department policy regarding delays in the building permit process that are beyond the control of the property owner and applicant (see letter to Mr. Kiritchenko, dated July 29, 1996), August 7. 1996 ,Comments on plan check review from ICC received by project architect August 20. 1996 ,Revised plans re-submitted to ICC for final review. August 20 1996 - Letter submitted by Albert Bianchi, attorney representing appellants Harvey and Lee Poppel regarding time frame of Design Review approval of 185 Gilmartin Drive (see attached letter dated August 20, 1996), August 23, 1996 ,Town Manager sends letter to Mr. Bianchi explaining the Town's policy regarding internal delays of processing building permits and the Town's intention to issue the building permit if the construction plans are found to conform with the design review approval and state and local building codes (see attached letter from Town Manager to Mr. Bianchi), August 29. 1996 - Construction documents re-submitted to Town Building Department by ICC. August 30 1996 - Letter submitted by planning consultant Scott Hochstrasser, representing appellants H31vey and Lee Poppel, appealing the Town's intent to issue the building permit for 185 Gilmartin Drive, September 6, 1996 ' Appeal form and fee submitted by Poppels, ANALYSIS: Appellants' Grounds for the Appeal: The following is a summary of the issues raised in the letter from Mr, Hochstrasser dated August 30, 1996, which represents the appellants' grounds for appeal. Staff's response to each issue follows, ISSUE L Tiburon Town Council Resolution No, 3049, which approved the design review for J 85 Gilmartin Drive, contains specific conditions specific to this particular project TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 Page 3 regarding the expiration of the approval. Resolution No, 3049 was adopted on August 17, 1994 and the two, year approval period ended on August 17, 1996. RESPONSE: Section 4(a) of Town Council Resolution No, 3049 reflects the standard wording regarding expiration of Site Plan and Architectural Review approval after two years, as contained in the zoning ordinance applicable to this project (No, 9 N,S. as amended), In cases where staff is unable to issue a building permit prior to the expiration due to an internal processing delay, it is the Town's policy to issue building permits after the stated expiration date provided that the applicant has submitted the application for a building permit at least six to eight weeks prior to the stated expiration date, Although the two-year period ended on August 17, 1996, it is Staff's intent to issue the building permit for the project at 185 Gilmartin Drive, based on the above policy and for the reasons set forth below: . Project architect Miles Berger submitted the building permit application and construction documents for the project to the Tiburon Building Department on June 17, 1996, more than 60 days prior to the August 17, 1996, expiration date of the Site Plan and Architectural Review approval. . There were internal delays in completing the required design review conformance check due to the following circumstances: Limited Planning Staff (June resignation of Associate Planner Dan Catron, planned time off of Design Review staff member), the July 4th holiday, and a high volume of design review and building permit! conformance check applications during the months of June and July, . The delay in processing the building permit is due to reasons beyond the control of the applicant rather than lack of diligence on the part of the applicant, Based on the advise of Staff; the project architect submitted the building permit application and construction documents for the, project more than 60 days prior to the expiration date of the Site Plan and Architectural Review approval. Although this would nonnally allow sufficient time for review and issuance of a building permit for the project, there was an internal delay in processing the permit due to the circumstances outlined above, Under the circumstances, Staff believes that there was substantial conformance with the limits of the Site Plan and Architectural Review approval. ISSUE 2. Condition 4 (a) specifically states that unless a building permit has been obtained the approval shall expire. As of the date of this letter no permit has been obtained. RESPONSE: Comment noted. As stated previously, Section 4(a) of Town Council Resolution No. 3049 reflects the standard wording regarding expiration of Site Plan and Architectural Review approval, as contained in the zoning ordinance, Although a building permit application and construction documents for the project were submitted more than 60 days prior to the expiration date of the Site Plan and Architectural Review approval, a permit was not issued due the internal delay TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER lB, 1996 Page 4 in processing the permit as outlined above, The issuance of the building permit is on hold pending consideration of this appeal. ISSUE 3. Condition 4 (a) specifically states that not only must the building permit be obtained, but construction must have also commenced and be diligently pursued toward completion or the Design Review expires. No construction has commenced on the site as of the date of this letter, RESPONSE: The applicant has diligently pursued this project by filing the building permit application and making the necessary revisions to the construction documents in a timely manner. As explained above, a building permit was not issued within the normal time frame due to the internal delay in processing the pennit. The issuance of the building permit is on hold pending consideration of this appeal. Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Building Regulations) does not permit construction to commence without first obtaining a building permit from the building inspection division. ISSUE 4. ISSUE 4a The applicants have not diligently pursued obtaining the permit and/or commencement of construction as demonstrated by the followingfacts: The original applicants who received the project Design Review approval are no longer the current owners of the property. RESPONSE: The applicants have demonstrated diligence by filing the building permit application and making the necessary revisions to the construction documents in a timely manner. As with any Site Plan and Architectural Review (Design Review) approval. the approval issued for the project at 185 Gilmartin Drive runs with the property and is not affected by the transfer of ownership of the property. ISSUE 4b The building permit was filed on June 17, 1996, eight weeks before the Design Review expired.. the Town Manager's letter states that under normal circumstances the building permit process takes 6,8 weeks, However, this is not a normal project because the application is for over 13,675 square feet of building development, The building plans have been in the review process for over nine weeks and were found to have several deficiencies. The plans need several revisions to comply with building code requirements, RESPONSE: As stated above, Staff advised the applicant to allow six to eight weeks for the building permit process to be completed, which under normal circumstances is sufficient time for the building permit process to be completed. In addition, the delay was not due to the scope of the project, but due to the internal delay in processing the permit as outlined above, Furthermore, the number and type of plan check revisions to the construction documents for this project were typical of any residential development and was not the cause of delay. ISSUE 4c No attempt to commence construction has been made before the Design Review approval expired and the Design Review has not been vested physically on the land TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 Page 5 in any w~. RESPONSE: As explained above, a building permit was not issued within the normal time frame due to an internal delay in processing the permit. The issuance of the building permit is on hold pending consideration of this appeal. Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Building Regulations) does not permit construction to commence without first obtaining a building permit from the building inspection division. ISSUE 5. The property owner is not the same as when the original Design Review was approved At the time the original Design Review was approved in 1994 the property owner had established, through the courts, application of 1985 Town ofTiburon design policies and regulations..,. The original property owner has lost their right to develop a house that is substandard under the current rules. The Town must take the opportunity to correct a substandard condition and plan for development of the property at 185 Gilmartin Drive consistent with the current design standards, RESPONSE: The Stipulated Settlement Agreement dated April 6, 1988, granted the prior owner the right to develop the property under the 1985 policies and regulations for a period often (10) years. The Town Attorney has reviewed the terms of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the Town and the previous owners of the property and has advised Planning Staff that the transfer of ownership of the property does not change the Town's obligation to abide by the Settlement Agreement, The Settlement Agreement expressly inures to the benefit of all successors of the property. Resolution RatitYing the Policy of the Town PI.nning Department Staffbelieves that the current policy of extending Site Plan and Architectural Review approval Wlder limited circumstances is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and is a fair and reasonable way to avoid the wasteful and repetitive process of requiring applicants to resubmit the project for review and approval by the Design Review Board. To avoid any future controversy, Staff recommends that the attl!ched resolution be adopted which ratifies the existing practice and Town policy of extending Site Plan and Architectural Review approval under limited circumstances. RECOMMENDATION: It is Staff's opinion that it is particularly appropriate in this case to apply the Town's policy of extending Site Plan and Architectural Review approval under limited circumstances relating to internal processing delays. Staff believes that it would be inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the efficient administration of the Planning Department to require that the applicant resubmit the project for review and approval to the Design Review Board (and if appealed, to the Town Council) because a building permit could not be issued within the normal time frame due to delays that are beyond the applicant's control. Staff recommends that the Town Council deny the appeal of Staff's intent to issue the building permit for the project at 185 Gilmartin Drive. Furthermore, Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached Resolution ratifYing the policy of the Town Planning Department to TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 Page 6 EXHIBITS: 1. Appeal Notice dated September 6, 1996, with attached letter from Scott Hochstrasser, dated August 30, 1996, 2. Town Council Resolution No, 3049, Denying Appeal ofDRB Decision and Approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for 185 Gilmartin Drive. 3. Letter from Miles Berger, Berger Detmer Architects, dated June 14, 1996, 4. Letter to Mr. Petr Kiritchenko, dated July 29, 1996. 5. Letter from Albert Bianchi, dated August 20, 1996, 6. Letter of Response From Town Manager to Albert Bianchi, dated August 23, 1996, 7. Draft Resolution. TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 Page 7 " . .~ TOWN OF TIBURON 5"~t"~r:::!!~I'~~ , ~~.iI ;1" . . SEP 0 .'. 1996 NOTICE OF APPEAL . . .!OWN OF TlSUnO" F- - '''''J:','r=,- t') f"'" 1\1 -..~.~.;.-.;: u lJ~:!..D~N3 DE?1: APPELLANT Name: dGlZ L. .~. L.E€ A'. ~.I""A"./ &. :?_~ L. ~7..- ulI.c.., ~ Ad~ress: ~z. &ICN -z>,c ~ ~ ~....,.:;;-'" C;4, , Telephone: {if 1<)) l{.s'7-~z.z.'f (Work) @tor) 4<::'7 - ~I 0 9<1~J?j (Home) ACTION BEING APPEALED Body: -;'#!J~ ~___d~ #~_r_I''''''''.c. ~...__ ~ , Date of Action: <;( -l!.~ - "7 c Name of Applicant:~ I'~ K/A.'i"fc:#4rl /<0 ~ ,..o~~h,;rz;;1fA.. ~ Nature of Application: DES"~ "A!?t!E-<J 11f:...., n S- C;;-I ~--r,;:; ~.4v~ I GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages, if necessary) ~tE. ~ ~I'f.d" ~d /Y/~I~ ~-3C- 9C,' 70,' ..4?'~,.c... ./ - /~-.J 6"~..!CI.J ~.' .-S,,~L. ~r"c..i('rbt. , ~ r~...1' ,..;,.,_/ ~.-#,~ Ad'<!..... . 'L F'[' )v\.. f{v-."-JV\..- DR' d ast Day to I e: ale ccelve: . / C<"~~1 Fee ($300.00) Paid: V Dale of Hearing: C~ January 1996 Q-(p-9rc To hP c& fe(""'--~cI EXHIBIT NO. 1 - cc ( P.12.h./AA-'fzj ~/f-. /uw;U A4.NA-68( [CJ uJ;V C ~6et( c c "" Scott L. Hochstrasser International Planning Associates " 42 Glen Drive. Fairfax, CA 94930 USA. phone & fax (415)459-6224 August 30, 1996 Honorable Mayor and Town Council Town of Tiburon 1155 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL RE: Appeal of Administrative Decision - 185 Gilmartin Drive Dear Mayor and Council: My office has been engaged to assist Harvey L. and Lee A. Poppel, who live at 147 Gilmartin Drive, which is next door to the property at 185 Gilmartin. The Poppels are concerned that the Town staff plans to issue a building permit for development at 185 Gilmartin Drive when clearly the Design Review approved by your Council on August 17, 1994 has expired, On August 20, 1996 Albert Bianchi, attorney representing the Poppels, sent a letter to Tiburon Town staff notifying them that the Design Review approval for 185 Gilmartin Drive has expired and is now null and void. (See attached copy of the August 20, 1996 letter.) Mr. Bianchi also made it clear that because the Design Review has expired the clients would oppose any issuance of a building permit relating to 185 Gilmartin Drive, On August 23, 1996 the Town Manager sent a letter to Mr. Bianchi's office notifying him that it is the Town policy to issue permits after the stated expiration date of design review approval where, the applicant has submitted the building permit application at least six to eight weeks before the expiration date, Moreover, the Town Manager made it clear that the Town intends to issue the building permit if the application and construction drawings are found to conform with the design review approval and building codes. On behalf of my client, I hereby appeal the administrative decision made by the Town Manager to issue the building permit if the construction drawings are found to conform with the design review approval and building codes, The basis for this appeal is as follows, 1. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No, 3049, which approved the design review for 185 Gilmartin Drive, contains conditions specific to this particular project (See condition 4.(a)), Condition 4. (a) specifically states that the approval shall expire and become null and void two years from the adoptions of the resolution, Resolution No, 3049 was adopted on August 17, 1994 and the 2 year period ended on August 17, 1996. I ( ( 2. Condition 4. (a) specifically states that unless a building permit has been obtained the approval shall expire. As of the date of this letter no permit has been obtained. 3. Condition 4, (a) specifically states that not only must the building permit be obtained, but construction must have also commenced and be diligently pursued toward completion or the Design Review expires. No construction has commenced on the site as of the date of this letter. 4. The applicants have not diligently pursued obtaining the permit and/or commencement . of construction as demonstrated by the following facts; a, The original applicants who received the project Design Review approval are no longer the current owners of the property. b. The building permit was filed on June 17, 1996, eight weeks before the Design Review expired, the Town Managers letter states that under normal circumstances the building permit process takes 6,8 weeks. However, this is not a normal project because the application is for over 13,675 square feet of building development. The building plans have been in the review process for over 9 weeks and were found to have several deficiencies. The plans need several revisions to comply with building code requirements. c, No attempt to commence construction has been made before the Design Review approval expired and the Design Review has not been vested physically on the land in any way. 5. As noted in item # 4,(a) above, the property owner now is not the same as when the original Design Review was approved, At the time the original Design Review was approved in 1994 the property owner had established, through the courts, application of 1985 Town of Tiburon design policies and regulations to their specific project. The major advantage to \Ising the 1985 regulations is that they did not contain a maximum- house size standard. The Town standards changed to limit maximum house size before the 1994 approval and this is still the case, As a result of the court action the house approved in 1994 is more than 2 times larger than what can be permitted today. The original property owner has now lost their right to develop a house that is substandard under the current rules. The Town must take the opportunity to correct a substandard condition and plan for development of the property at 185 Gilmartin Drive consistent with the current design standards, In summary, under the specific terms and conditions of the approval, your Council will find that the Design Review approval for 185 Gilmartin Drive clearly has expired and is now null and void, Accordingly, given the facts of this case as presented above, I strongly urge your Council to reject the Town Managers decision to grant a building permit even though the Design Review 2 ( ( .. ' is no longer valid. Finally, I hereby request that I be notified immediately if the Town of Tiburon or any contract department staff issues any sort of permit or intends to take any action whatever with regard to the property at 185 Gilmartin Drive. Sincerely, (f:tHoc:~serq-t:,-?~ 3 r L L , RESOLUTION NO, 3049 A RESOLUTION OF mE TOWN COUNCIL OF mE TOWN OF TIBURON DENYING AN APPEAL AND AFFIRMING mE DECISION OF mE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVING SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR 185 GILMARTIN DRIVE (AGINS) WHEREAS, on September 2, 1993 and April 21, 1994, the Design Review Board ("DRB") held duly noticed public hearings to consider a site plan and architectural review application by Ms, Bonnie Agins to construct a new single family home with various accessory structures at 185 Gilmartin Drive; and WHEREAS, after fully considering the application and all revisions made by the applicant, the relevant ordinances and regulations, the 1988 settlement agreement and all other oral, written and documentary evidence submitted, the DRB approved the application with conditions on April 21, 1994, by a vote of 2,0 (two members absent and one abstaining); and WHEREAS, the DRB approval was appealed in a timely manner by Harvey and Emily Poppel, owners of 147 Gilmartin; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held a noticed public hearing on May 18, 1994, The hearing was conducted de novo, with both the appellants and the applicant allowed to present all relevant evidence, After considering all of the evidence in the record, the Council voted 3,2 (Ginalski, Nygren and Thayer-yes; Thompson and Wolf,no) to remand the application to the DRB for review by more than two members for the following specific concerns: trellises, landscaping, the amount ofhardscape, lighting, views and the number/siting of accessory buildings; and WHEREAS, the DRB heard the matter again on July 7, 1994 and considered the concerns raised by the Town Council in light of revised plans submitted by Ms, Agins, After considering all evidence raised in the public hearing, the DRB voted to approve the project with conditions by a vote of 2-1 (one member abstaining and one vacancy); and WHEREAS, the application was brought back to the Town Council for another public hearing on August 3, 1994, After considering the revised application, the July 7 action of the DRB, all evidence presented to the Council that night and the entire record from the previous Council and DRB hearings, the Council voted unanimously to deny the appeal and approve the application for site plan and architectural review with conditions. NOW, mEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that the appeal of the decision of the DRB approving site plan and architectural review for 185 Gilmartin Drive is denied and the application is approved based on the following findings and subject to the conditions set forth below: 1 EXHIBIT NO. 2- - r 1. The application was processed and reviewed pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between Donald and Bonnie Agins and the Town of Tiburon, dated April 6, 1988. Based on Section 3,0 of that agreement, the application was reviewed under the policies, standards, ordinances and laws adopted by the Town as of October 16, 1985, These include the Town's previous General Plan, the previous' zoning ordinance (No.9 N,S, as amended) and the Hillside Design Guidelines, which have not been amended since October 16, 1985. The Council finds that the stipulated settlement is a valid agreement. 2. Under the applicable zoning ordinance, the property is zoned RPD-1. The project is on a parcel of 60,025 square feet. The approved project consists of a main residence of 10,446 square feet, a garage of 750 square feet, a detached guest house of 1,970 square feet and a detached studio of 509 square feet for a total of 13,675 square feet of building, This equals a lot coverage of 13.9 percent. 3. The Council finds that the project as conditioned is consistent with all applicable policies, standards and ordinances. Specifically, the Council finds that: (a) The project is consistent with the General Plan in effect on October 15, 1985. (b) The project is consistent with the building envelopes and other requirements of the master plan, precise plan and subdivision map approved for the Agins property, l (c) The project conforms to the setback requirements in the applicable zoning ordinance, All of the approved structures are located within the building envelope (which establishes the setbacks) with only some small portions of roof eaves encroaching beyond the envelopes. Section 12(B) of the applicable zoning ordinance expressly permits roof eaves to encroach into setbacks up to two feet. This limit is expressly incorporated into the project by condition. (d) All three approved structures conform to the maximum height limit for the RPD-l zone. The primary structure is less than the thirty foot (30') maximum. Some portions of the two accessory buildings exceed the standard 15 foot limit for the RPD-l zone established by Section 10,4(D)2 of the applicable zoning ordinance. However, the Council finds, pursuant to Section 6,34 of that ordinance that the extra height is necessary by reason of the terrain of the property. In previous plans submitted by the applicant, both of the accessory structures were within the 15 foot limit. In order to move the accessory structures out of the Poppel's line of view to San Francisco, the structures were relocated on the eastern side of the property which slopes steeply. The only portions of the accessory structures exceeding the 15 foot limit are on the downhill sides of the structures, L (e) Condition 9 of Exhibit B to the 1988 stipulated settlement between the Town and Ms. Agins (amendments to the Precise Plan) does not prohibit the two curb cuts approved for the project as it only addresses general access issues for the entire Agins subdivision. 2 r (f) As revised and conditioned, the approved project is consistent with the goals of the Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings, Since first reviewed by the Town in 1992, the structures have been relocated to preserve more of the Poppel's San Francisco view; the main building has been reduced in overall square footage; substantial portions of the structures are built below grade, thereby reducing the apparent mass and bulk; the main building has been reduced in apparent bulk and mass through redesign including changes in the rooflines, reduction of second story elements, moving the main and accessory structures further away from Gilmartin Drive; and addition of more landscaping (with reduced heights) while decreasing the hardscape of the project. (g) As revised and conditioned, the approved project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. While the overall project is quite large, it is on a parcel of approximately one and 1/3 acres. Evidence presented to the Council shows that in terms of lot coverage, percentage of hardscape and floor area ratios (although the latter is not directly applicable to the project because of the 1988 settlement agreement), the approved project is consistent with surrounding properties. 4. The project shall comply with the following conditions of approval: (a) This approval shall expire and become null and void two years from the adoption of this resolution unless a building permit has been obtained and construction has been commenced and has been or is being diligently pursued toward completion. l (b) The development of the project shall conform to the plans date stamped July 27, 1994, on file with the Town of Tiburon, Any modifications to the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Town. (c) All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and no lights shall be placed in the wells, (d) The applicant shall meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit. (e) Prior to' the issuance of occupancy permits, all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings and irrigation shall be verified by a planning department field inspection prior to the issuance of the occupancy permits. (f) Prior to building inspection approval of the structure foundation, the builder shall provide graphic documentation of the "as-built" foundation heights and location by the project's structural engineer or a licensed land surveyor, The documentation shall be provided to the Tiburon Building Department prior to the building inspection approval of the structure foundation. L (g) The trellises shall not block the water view of the residence at 147 Gilmartin Drive, as viewed from the living and dining rooms of that residence, The trellises may be shortened in length or height or may be removed entirely to comply with this condition. Planning staff shall confirm that no blockage exists prior to issuance of the 3 r l L , building permit by viewing the trellises from the affected rooms at 147 Gilmartin Drive. The point of observation of the trellises shall be from an elevation of five feet above the upper floor level of the residence at 147 Gilmartin from the center of the dining room window, just behind the window. feet, (h) No roof eave or overhang may encroach into any setback more than two (2) PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on August 17, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Nygren, Thompson, Thayer, Wolf, Ginalski NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None e KAREN N Town of Ti , MAYOR ATTEST: 4 BERGER DETMER'~CH 7;::~j ili June 14, 1996 Dean Blurrequist Building Inspection Departrrent Town of Tiburon Tiburon, California 94920 Re: Building Perrrit Application 185 G ilrra rtin D rive Dear Dean, We are looking forward to beginning construction on the 185 Gilrrartin Drive project. This is the property forrrerly owned by Mrs, Agins and it has a specific tirre frarre around it's issuance of a building permit. We are rraking application fully two rmnths prior to the August 17th deadline which we believe will give your departrrent the tirre required to process the application. Please contact us with any questions you rray have or additional rraterial you feel are required for the application and issuance of perrrit. Tirre is critical to us, Thank you for your help, Sincerely, _VVV\ \ffh ~& Miles Berger ' 400 MONTGOMERY ST PEN THO USE EXIDBIT NO. 3 S ,0\ N F R ,0\ N CIS C 0 C ALl FOR N I ,0\ 94 1 04 TEL 415 6770966 F,o\ X 4 I 5 6 7 7 0 9 6 4 -", " TOWN OF TIBURON 1155 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373 FAX (415) 435.2438 July 29, 1996 Mr, Petr Kiritchenko c/o Berger/Detmer Architects 400 Montgomery Street The Penthouse San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: 185 Gilmartin Drive Dear Mr. Kiritchenko: This letter is intended to clarify the time, frame of the Design Review approval for the property referenced above, The Design Review application for 185 Gilmartin Drive was approved by the Tiburon Town Council (on appeal) on August 17, 1994, Pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (9 N,S,) applicable to this application, this Design Review approval is valid for a period of two years from the approval date, or until August 17, 1996, The building permit application and construction documents for the residence was submitted on JUIl,e 17, 1996, well in advanced of the two-year expiration of the Design Review approval, A period of six to eight weeks is typically required for the plan,check process to be completed, before a building permit can be issued. As staff realizes that the property owner and applicant cannot be held accountable for delays beyond their control, i.e, delays of Town staff and or consultants due to work load, vacation, illness, etc, it is the Town's policy that the Design Review approval remain valid so long as a building permit application, construction documents and appropriate fees have been submitted at least six to eight weeks prior to the Design Review expiration date, .awl the applicant is diligently pursuing the issuance of a building permit and co=encement of construction, EXHIBIT NO. 4 Mr. Kiritchenko 185 Gilmartin Drive July 29, 1996 Page 2 In summary, please be assured that since the building permit application, construction documents and fees for 185 Gilmartin Drive were submitted more than eight weeks prior to the Design Review expiration date, this approval will remain valid so long as the issuance of the permit continues to be diligently pursued. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 435,7396 if you have any questions regarding your permit application. Sincerely, ~.~ JA YNI ALLSEP Contract Planner cc: Miles Berger Dean Bloomquist, Town Building Official . ,..\ ~. BIANCHI , ENGEL KEEGIN & TALKINGTON L.MTED UA8IIJTY PARTNERSHIP , , ALBERT BIANCIII STAFFORD W. KEECIN VICTORIA W. TALKINGTON WENDY L. WYSE RODERT L. HARRISON JEFFREY S. SCHOPPERT VICKI L. RANDALL ATTORNEYS AT LAW Of COV.'4SEL W. GREGORY ENGEL DANIEL T. BERNHARD August 20, 1996 HAND DELIVERED i [~)) if; (C~ [~ :1 ::\) i;.~ ~,:~~::~-' !:'-'.' , ~.! ~.~ Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town Hall 1155 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 hUb...: i:' TCiV-Ji'! :;;J:~,j<.:..Gt:H.3 c;:;;-;c: -r-C'....::: C:-: T!;~L'F.C~..t Re: 185 Gilmartin Drive Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This office represents Harvey L. Poppe I and Lee A. Poppel, who live at 147 Gilmartin Drive, which is next door to the property at 185 Gilmartin Drive. Your records will show that the Town Council, on August 17, 1994, adopted Resolution No. 3049, which affirmed the decision of the Design Review Board approving a site plan and architectural review for 185 Gilmartin Drive. However, the resolution contained the following condition, among others: "(a) This approval shall expire and become null and void two years from the adoption of this resolution unless a building permit has been obtained and construction has been commenced and has been or is being diligently being pursued forward completion." I have been informed that no building permit has been issued for 185 Gilmartin Drive and that construction has not commenced. Therefore, under the specific terms of the quoted condition, the approval has expired and is now null and void. Accordingly, my clients wish to go on record opposing any issuance of a building permit relating to 185 Gilmartin Drive. Moreover, Tiburon Town Code section 4.02.11 states that: "Following the denial or revocation of an application for site Plan and ArChitectural Review, no application for the same or substantially the same design or site plan shall be filed within one year of the date of denial unless the denial is made without prejUdiCEXInBIT NO. 5 COURTHOUSE SQUARE' 1000 FOURTH STREET. SUITE 600 . SAN RAFAEL. CALIFORNIA 94901.3182 TELEPHONE (415) 456-4000 . TELECOPIER (415) 456-1921 . INTERNET 75557,173@compu...ve,com .. r' -' BIANCHI, ENGEL, KEEGIN & TALKINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY PART'NERSHIP Tiburon Town Council August 20, 1996 Page 2 The failure of the developer to obtain a building permit and com- mence construction as required by the condition in the resolution constitutes an effective "denial or revocation" of the application. Accordingly, no application for the same or substantially the same design or site plan may be filed within one year. Further, although we are aware that Tiburon Town Code section 303(d) allows the building official discretionary authority to extend a permit under certain circumstances, such authority must be exercised before the permit has expired, and must be shown to re- late to circumstances where the project is unusually large or com- plex and where the permittee has proceeded with due diligence and made substantial progress, but is unable to complete the project because of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the per- mittee. None of those circumstances exist here. I will send a copy of this letter to the Tiburon Planning Depart- ment, and I request hereby that I be notified immediately if the Town of Tiburon or any department of the same receives any sort of application or intends to take any action whatever with regard to the property at 185 Gilmartin Drive. Respectfully, (})Jed-D~ Albert Bianchi AB:tb cc: Tiburon Planning Department Mr. and Mrs. Harvey L. Poppe I Mr. Scott Hochstrasser TOWN OF TIBURON 1155 TIBURQN BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435.7373 FAX (415) ~35-2438 August 23, 1996 ....".. '""...."~1-D ;'''w;{ ,.".., " ~.... i' ~, !:-a. , 'J' . . - !.'. t..- '. . .4UG ~j 1996 TOW;"J OF T1EURCN ~;:"':,. ~.' ~:~~:J ~ C~:~C':~~S ~E:?T.. Albert Bianchi Bianchi, Engel, Keegin & Talkington 1000 Fourth Street, Suite 600 Tiburon, CA 94901-3182 ~S-~-'" -;:7) t.'''' . PI"', "' :' ~ , Re: 185 Gilmartin Drive TC..... .' ...~~.. --,C01 FL!-\.i\I\:::::........ ...;...;:;";;;:JG DE?T. Dear Mr. Bianchi: This is in response to your letter to the Tiburon Town Council dated August 20, 1996, regarding the design review approval and building permit for 185 Gilmartin Drive. For the reasons set forth below, strict enforcement of the design review expiration date is not appropriate with respect to this project Under normal circumstances, processing of building permit application documents requires six to eight weeks. The applicant for the subject project submitted the building permit application and construction documents on June 17, 1996, two months before the expiration date of the project's design review approval. This submission was made after Town planning staff advised the project architect that submission of the necessary building permit documents at least two months before the expiration date of the design review approval would be considered timely. Unfortunately, due to unusually high workload and loss ofa member of the Town's professional planning staff, the Planning Department was unable to issue the building permit before August 17, 1996. It is the Town's policy to issue building permits after the stated expiration date of design review approval where, as here, the applicant for the project has submitted the building permit application and construction documents at least six to eight weeks before the expiration date and is working diligently to obtain the issuance of the permit and commence construction. That policy seems particularly appropriate in the present case. Accordingly, the Town intends to issue the requested building permit if the application and construction drawings are found to conform with the design review approval and state and local building codes. EXHIBIT NO. (0 Mr. Albert Bianchi August 23, 1996 Page 2 of2 If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please call Ann Danforth, the Town Attorney, at (415) 435,7370. v/ldours Robert L Kleinert Town Manager cc: Mayor and Town Council ofTiburon Ann R, Danforth, Town Attorney Scott Anderson, Planning Director Jayni A1lsep, Planning Department Dean Bloomquist, Building Official RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RATIFYING THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO EXTEND ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREAS, under Chapter 4 of the Town's Zoning ordinance, the Town requires that new construction undergo Site Plan and Architectural Review by the Design Review Board; and WHEREAS, Site Plan and Architectural approval normally expires two years after the date of approval unless the applicant has obtained a building permit; and WHEREAS, the normal time for processing a building permit is six to eight weeks and therefore it has been the practice of the Planning Department staff to inform applicants to submit applications for building permits at least 60 days before the expiration date of their Site Plan and Architectural approval; and WHEREAS, from time to time the Town staff is unable to process the applications within 60 days because of the press of other business; and WHEREAS, it would be inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and efficient administration of the Planning Department to enforce the expiration date and require applicants to resubmit their projects for Site Plan and Architectural approval by the Design Review Board where the lapse of time is due to internal processing delays and not to lack of diligence on the part of the applicant; and WHEREAS, it has been the practice of the Planning Department in such cases to issue building permits after the expiration date of the Site Plan and Architectural approval where the applicant submitted the application for a building permit at least 60 days prior to said date and the Planning Director has determined that the lapse is due to internal processing delays rather than to lack of diligence by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, that: 1. The Council hereby ratifies the policy of the Planning Department to extend the term of Site Plan and Architectural approval where the applicant has submitted the application for a building permit at least 60 days prior to the expiration date of the applicant's Site Plan EXHIBIT NO, 9- and Architectural approval and the Planning Department staff has been unable to issue the building permit prior to said expiration date because of internal processing delays. 2, The Planning Director shall have the authority to grant said extensions for a period not to exceed 60 days. All previous decisions by the Planning Director to grant extensions pursuant to this policy are hereby ratified, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on September 18, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NICKY WOLF, MAYOR Town of Tiburon ATTEST: DIANE CRANE, TOWN CLERK IkM~ 3- TIBURON POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: THE MEMBERS OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL (VIA TOWN MANAGER) PETER G, HERLEY, CHIEF OF POLICE DATE: SEP 12, 1996 FROM: SUBJECT: CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) PROGRAM Assembly Bill 3229, known as the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program (now California Government Code Sections 30061 et seq. and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 181890 et seq.) allocates $100,000,000 to cities and counties for police and district attorney services, These funds are designated as the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF). The Town of Tiburon's allocation is approximately $19,200! There is a strict Maintenance of Effort provision of the Bill which mandates that the funds cannot supplant funds already allocated to police or sheriff's departments. There are also yearly auditing requirements which mandate ensuring the funds are allocated to "frontline" crime fighting areas. One requirement for receipt by a city of the funds is that there must be a public meeting each September to discuss what the funds will be allocated for. Based on the fact that the amount is insufficient to hire a much, needed officer lost due to budgetary constraints, it is the Police Department's recommendation that the funds be allocated for in,car video systems (costs range from $5000 ,$7000/system). These video systems have proven their worth time and time again as not only an aid to addressing complaints against police officers, but, also, as a means of avoiding lengthy court trials -- both civil and criminal. They are also invaluable as an tool to tape various criminal acts. For example, a few years ago, the Town had to pay very high costs to respond to a lawsuit against it for actions taken by officers in an incident where both the officers and our police dog were injured after being attacked by two suspects. The injuries to the dog being so severe that she had to be retired from her service to the community. The entire incident took place directlv in front of a police unit. Would we have had the video system installed in the police unit at the time, a very costly criminal trial and even more costly Federal court trial would have undoubtedly been avoided as the incident would have been completely filmed by the video system.. that there would have been no "interpretation" of the events:' While the Town prevailed in the suit. the cost to the Town and ABAG was in the tens of thousands of dollars -- which does not even take into account the tremendous costin terms of Police Department manhours necessary to defend the suit. Attorneys who represent cities in lawsuits arising out of police actions call the in-car video system the "Police Defense Tool of the 90's." For this reason, the allocation of the State COPS funds received by the Town of Tiburon for acquiring this system is proposed. It is the Police Department's recommendation that the Tiburon Town Council approve this proposal for allocation of the COPS funding. .......--. 'j't" #" /,~:- /" ./': -' .. , ~'--I'- MEMORANDUM September 13, 1996 To: B~b Kleinert It .I. t From: Hal Edelstein and Jim Wilson, Project Management Team - ~ (IV..) Subject: New Town Hall AUTHORIZATION FOR CHANGE ORDERS The bidding documents for the new Town Hall included the basic requirements for a satisfactory building, However, several improvements have been proposed, some of which are necessary or desirable for functional reasons, and some that would improve the appearance and quality level. Therefore we have requested estimates from the Contractor for a number of such items, We have received quotations from Midstate Construction as follows: 1. Change the flooring material in Council Chambers from vinyl " composition tile to maple hardwood tiles, glued down: , , . . , . , . . , . . . , $7,948 Comment: Hardwood is a more appropriate, warmer and attractive material for the Council Chambers than vinyl composition tile, and is longer lived, Carpet could not be used because of the intent to use the space for multiple purposes, including dancing and other activities that could not be done on carpet, We recommend that this change be approved, Extend exterior cedar vertical board siding and battens down over the concrete block foundation, to within 6" of the finished grade: maximum of , . , . . , . . , , , , , , , , . . . , , , . . . , , , . . , , . . . , . . . , . . $5,906 Comment: The cedar boards and battens is now detailed to stop at the top of the concrete block foundation, As we see the building rising out ot the ground, it is evident that leaving 2 to 3 feet of exposed block will not present a satisfactory appearance, Also the proposed revision will provide a better waterproofing condition, We recommend that this change be approved not to exceed the amount indicated, We believe that the cost of the change may be reduced, and will work towards that end, Changes to partitions and doors; addition of low partitions: , , , , , , , . . . . $11,244 Comment: DuriT}t, the course of laying out and verifying furniture layouts with stat!, it was found that a number of partitions and doors had to be changed and added from the bid documents, Also low partitions were added to the Contractor's work rather than purchasing more expensive and less satisfactory screens from furniture manufacturers, We recommend that this change be approved, Change electrical outlets and lighting to accommodate furniture layout revisions and to add additional outlets: , . , , . , , . , . , , . , , , . , , . $10,999 Comment: Same reasons as above item, We recommend that this change be approved. Change acoustic tile ceiling in Council Chambers to a wood slat acoustic-backed ceiling: , . , . . , , , , , . . . , , , . , , . , , , , . . . . . , . . .. $26,515 Comment: This change would provide a more attractive and esthetically warmer space in the Council Chambers, but it would be hard to justify this much additional cost, 2. 3, 4, 5. HE:\w5\ti.b\memtib ld6 /' - 6, Although desirable, this is not a high'priority item, and we cannot recommend that this change be approved, Change asphalt composition roof shingles to synthetic "Eternit" slate shingles similar to tne Library: . , , . , . , , . . , , . . , . . . . , . . , , . . , . , , $56,806 Comment: Although many people have expressed a desire for this change, the additional cost would be substantial, although part of the additional cost would be made up over time because the life of the synthetic slate shingles is several times that of asphalt composition shingles. However, there is some opinion that the Town Hall cannot and should not emulate the Library materials, We suggest that we continue to investigate other materials for the roof that would be more substantial and attractive but would involve less additional cost than this estimate, As of this writing we have not received final estimates from the Contractor for the following: 7, Cabinets, casework and shelving: This work includes necessary built- in cabinets, casework, counters and shelving for work areas and public areas that were not part of the bid. The Council table is being deleted from the estimate because Anne Ellinwood has genera lly offered to pay the entire cost of the Council table, to be built by a furniture maker desi~nated by her, We have not yet receIved final prices for this work, but believe it will not exceed a maximum of: , . , , . . . . , . . . . . , , . . , . , . . . . . , , . , , . ,$20,000 Comment: We are investigating various means of reducing these costs, including, if necessary, ofitaining other competitive bids. We recommend that this change be approved for expenditure not exceeding the maximum amount, 8, Clocks for the Clock Tower, Comment: There have been tentative offers to fund the c/ock(s), so there may be reduced or no cost to the town, 9. Add cooling for occupied spaces not presently specified to be cooled in the construction contract. Comment: The Town staff has suffered fur many years through uncomfortable days in the old Town Hall, and consequently nas repeatedly (and understandably) requested that their new spaces be cooled, Hoivever, the new Town Hall will be far better insulated in accordance with stringent California Energy regulations, and also the spaces will be mechamcally ventilated through fhe ducts that also provide heating. Provisions in the construction contract have been made to easily add cooling should it be desired later, We recommend that the building be occupied for a period of time before deciding this issue, \ HE:\w5\tib\memtib ld6 TOWN OF TIBURON MEMO -/ ' .j.._ ,.Le V'v\.. fr /D-C!- To: BUILDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE - PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM TffiURON TOWN STAFF STAFF COMMENTS ON DIRECTION OF NEW TOWN HALL September 13, 1996 From: Subject: Date: BACKGROUND Staff was recently asked to provide input to the new Town Hall Project Management Team regarding certain items that are still outstanding or that Staff would like to see included in the new Town Hall construction. The importance of this request and the purpose of our comments is two-fold: 1) Staff is looking forward to moving into the new Town Hall but has certain concerns about the viability of working in the new building; and 2) Many residents who voted for the new Town Hall did so in order to provide Staff with a better place to work. Staff s comments should be taken in the context of fulfilling the "spirit" and not just the "letter" of the voter mandate. COMMENTS Staff would like to see the following items included in the new Town Hall Construction: . AIR CONDITIONING This, by far, was top of the list. Staff is very concerned about being able to work in a building with no air conditioning, not only for health and safety reasons, but from a productivity standpoint as well. . FURNITURE Staff (and the Project Management Team) has spent many hours on furniture lay- out and planning. Staff is prepared to take most of the hodge/podge, hand-me- down furniture from the existing Town Hall with them and has asked for very little replacement furniture. However, due to the smaller size of offices and overall BUILDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Page 2 September 13, 1996 work space in the new Town Hall, "built-in" furniture and cabinetry should be considered to maintain productivity in many offices and work areas, . ACOUSTICS Given the decrease in Staff work space in the new building, and the fact that Planning, Building, Design Review and Town Hall Reception will share contiguous public counter-space, Staff would like consideration given to floor, wall and ceiling materials that would provide a buffer for noise, . AESTHETICS Town Staff is happy to concur with the voters' desire that the new Town Hall not be the "Taj Mahal," However, given the momentousness of the occasion of erecting a new Town Hall, Staff would like to see consideration of materials for the roof, exterior siding, entry lobby and other visible public areas that would enhance the beauty of the building and make it, at the very least, somewhat compatible with the new Library under construction next door, Let's ensure that we have a Town Hall that the community can take pride in, If additional monies are required to achieve this, then it is important that the Town determine what monies are needed and determine appropriate funding sources, One possible money-saving idea concerns the proposed Clock Tower, Staff has heard that donations will be solicited for the clock. In addition, some have commented that a large clock face at the front of the building would be out of character with the pastoral view of St. Hilary's and the surrounding hills behind Town Hall. One suggestion would be to leave the tower empty or turn it into a tower similar to the one atop Westminster Presbyterian Church, thereby saving the Town money. The construction of the new Town Hall seems to be progressing well and is ahead of schedule, Town Staff offers its congratulations to the Building Advisory Committee, Architect and Contractor on ajob well done, and looks forward to the Committee's inclusion of the above items in the final construction phase. TIDURON TOWN STAFF cc: Town Council MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 FROM: TOWN MANAGER ITEM: ![ -0 SUBJECT: DONATIONS OF ARTIFURNITURE FOR NEW TOWN HALL BACKGROUND The Town has received several proposed donations of art objects and/or furniture for the New Town Hall from local residents. The Town's Project Management Team has been apprised of these proposals, RECOMMENDATION That Council establish an Art Donations Committee which can consider, accept and acknowledge those donations which would be appropriate for the New Town Hall offices or Council Chambers, If Council concurs with this recommendation then Staff will discuss the matter with the Heritage & Arts Committee and provide the Council with specific recommendations for the Committee. RLK:shm TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT To: TOWN COUNCIL TOWN MANAGER Meeting: Item No: SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 # I), -- 4 From: Subject: SALARY & BENEFIT COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS - NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES [FY 1996/97] This item is for Town Council approval of salary and benefit compensation adjustments for non- represented employees of the Town ofTiburon, effective July 1, 1996, A general salary increase of3.0 percent is proposed for most employees of this group. A $50-$75 per month adjustment is also recommended to the monthly medical insurance allowance provided to the mid,management employees of this group. Non-Represented employees of the Town include the following management and mid- management positions: Manal!ement Mid-ManalJement Town Manager Town Clerk Town Attorney Senior Planner Planning Director Associate Planner Chief of Police Building Official Finance Director Police Secretary Superintendent Public Works Assistant Superintendent The total annual cost of the proposed adjustment in salary and benefit compensation is $24,405, There appears to be issues concerning equity adjustments in salary compensation for certain positions in the Non-Represented group. Staff will address these concerns in the near future, Recommendation: 1. Town Council approve the salary and benefit compensation adjustments proposed above, effective July 1, 1996, 2. Town Council adopt the draft Resolution authorizing implementation of the proposed compensation adjustments for the Town's Non,Represented employees. Exhibits: 1, Draft Resolution - Compensation Adjustments, FY 1996/97 2. Table - Proposed Salary & Benefit Compensation Adjustment EXIllBIT 1. RESOLUTION NO. >,/ .0' A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1996 TO JUNE 30,1997 WHEREAS, Non-Represented positions of the Town are comprised as follows: Town Manager Town Attorney Chief of Police Planning Director Finance Director Supt. Public Works Assistant Superintendent Building Official Town Clerk Senior Planner Associate Planner Police Secretary WHEREAS, compensation levels for Non-Represented employees were most recently adjusted effective for the period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve as follows: Salary Adiustment: A base salary adjustment of3,O percent for all Non-Represented positions (excepting those of Senior and Associate Planner), to be effective July 1, 1996 Benefit Adiustment: The monthly medical insurance allowance provided to mid- management positions is to be increased to $375, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on /, . +-. , 1996 by the following vote: , . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BY: NICKY WOLF, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK EXHIBIT 2. The following Table presents the proposed salary and benefit adjustments: (1) a salary increase of 3,0% for all positions excepting those of Senior and Associate Planner which were upgraded through department restructuring and reclassification, and (2) standardizing the amount of the monthly medical allowance provided to mid-management positions, Table: Salary & Medical Insurance Allowance Adjustments Proposed for Fiscal Year 1996/97 '~. Salary Medical Allowance Change Position Cw-rent Proposed CWTeIlt Proposed Net , Town Manager $7,249 $7,466 $450 $450 Town Attorney 6,750 6,953 400 400 Planning Director 5,186 5,342 400 400 Chief of Police 6,370 6,561 400 400 Finance Director 4.473 4,607 400 400 Supt Public Works 4,725 4.867 400 400 Town Clerk 3.476 3,580 300 375 Senior Planner 4,000 4,000 325 375 Associate Planner 3,333 3,333 325 375 Building Official 4,082 4,204 325 375 Police Secretary 2,923 3,011 300 375 Assistant Superintendent 3,751 3,864 300 375 Monthly totals: $56,318 $57,788 $4,325 $4,700 Annual totals: $675,816 $693,451 $51,900 $56,400 I" L ,.' ,- Notes to table: The incremental change resulting from the salary adjusment is $17,635, from standardizing the regular medical insurance allowance, $4,500. Combined incremental costs are $22,135, Not included in Table calculations is the resulting incremental increase in annual PERS costs, which is $2,270 (for sworn public safety personnel (1) $488, for all others (11) $1,783, The total added cost of the proposed adjustment in salary and benefit compensation is $24,405 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT To: TOWN COUNCIL FINANCE DIRECTOR Meeting: Item No: From: Subject: SEPTEMBER 18,1996 # /,~ -L~, REALLOCATION OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 Back2round: This item is for Town Council approval of recommended reallocations in the aggregate amount of $132,000, among the unallocated and designated reserves of the General Fund, Staff also proposes the establishment and funding of a new designated reserve to account for resources of the effort to plan and build new a Police facility, Proposed Reallocations: The following Table delineates the proposed reallocations among existing and new reserves of the General Fund, Schedule of Proposed Reallocations of General Fund Reserves Unallocated Reserve Employee Compensated Leave Capital Equipment Replacement Capital Outlay Street & Drainage New Town Centllr Construction New Police Facility (a) Park Development Self-Insurance June 30, 1996 Estimated $925,000 227,000 273,000 19,000 232,000 1,451,000 o 7,000 166,000 $3,300,000 (a) Proposed new designated reserve of the General Fund, Un allocated & Desi2nated Reserves of the General Fund: Proposed Reallocations ($100,000) (32,000) o 50,000 42,000 o 40,000 o o $0 July 1, 1996 Revised 825,000 195,000 273,000 69,000 274,000 1,451,000 40,000 7,000 166,000 $3,300,000 -'. This section provides a brief description of the basic purpose for, and current financial status of, the Unallocated and Designated Reserves of the General Fund, The use of all General Fund 1 resources is a matter of policy concern and direction of the Town Manager and Town Council. General Fund Unallocated Reserve - Intended to reserve fund resources in the range of 20% to 25% of planned operating budget expenditures. This reserve fund balance represents a contingency which allows the Town to mitigate the impact of adverse financial conditions, The estimated reserve balance on June 30, 1996 is estimated to be approximately $925,000, The planned 1995/96 Operating Budget is approximately $3,300,000: In accordance with recent budgetary practices, 25% would require a reserve of $825,000, The proposed reallocation of $100,000 to other designated reserves provides sufficient coverage for unanticipated fiscal impacts. Caoital Eouioment Reolacement Reserve (CERR)- To provide funding for General Fund departmental capital outlay expenditures. Reserve receives an annual depreciation allowance from each operating department of the General Fund; the current allowance is approximately $125,000, The estimated balance on June 30th is approximately $273,000, which represents nearly two years reserve funding for equipment replacement purchases, No reallocations are proposed, Capital Outlay Reserve - For acquisition, construction or improvement of public property and facilities, This reserve has recently been used for Town facilities' improvements (Administration, Police, Public Works, Council Chambers, etc.) Current estimated resources are $19,000. This has recently been used for repair of the Corinthian stairs and other planning costs associated with improvement or construction of public facilities, A reallocation of resources to this reserve in the amount of$50,000 is proposed. Emoloyee Comoensated Leave Reserve - To provide reserve funding for employee compensated leave costs, The current total liability for compensated leave approximately $260,000, the estimated reserve balance on June 30, 1996 is approximately $227,000. The proposed reallocation of $32,000 to other designated reserves leaves a balance of $197,000, which represents 75% funding of the combined leave liability, New Town Center Construction Reserve - For acquiring, constructing or improving new Town facilities, Fund established Fiscal Year 1993-94, following 1994 Measure M, Ballot. The reserve received a transfer of funds in 1995/96, the current estimated balance on June 30th is $1,451,000,1 No reallocations are proposed, - New Town Police Facilitv Reserve - To be established for the purpose of providing and accounting resources for the costs associated with planning and constructing a new Police Facility. A reallocation of resources in the amount of $40,000 to this reserve is proposed, Park Development Reserve - To provide resources for the improvement or maintenance of park facilities, not accounted for in the General Operating Budget. The estimated June 30, 1996 balance is $7,000, This balance is maintained for possible single audit costs associated with the New Town Center Reserve: A transfer of funds in the amount of$125,000 from Flood Plain Interest funds is pending, 2 IDA grant funds received in 1995/96. No reallocations are proposed, SelfInsurance Reserve - To provide reserve funding for coverage of Town's general liability and workers' compensation insurance programs, It has been suggested by our liability program risk manager that a reserve equivalent to three (3) occurrences, or $150,000, is an adequate minimum level. Current resources are approximately $166,000, No reallocations are proposed, Streets & Drainage Reserve - To provide resources for construction of improvements to the streets, curb and storm drain collection system. Estimated total resources are currently $232,000, a reallocation of $42,000 to this reserve is proposed. Recommendation: 1, Town Council approve the establishment ofa new reserve - New Town Police Facility Reserve - and adopt the proposed schedule of reallocations to certain designated reserves of the General Fund, to be effective for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1996. 3 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT To: TOWN COUNCIL TOWN MANAGER Meeting: Item No: SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 # /~ c From: Subject: RECLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING SECRETARY POSITION & COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT Back2round: This item is for Town Council approval of reclassification of the position of Building Secretary (currently staffed by Romney Fennell) to that of Permits Clerk, This action also requires a compensation adjustment. Discussion: As a result of the 1995 labor negotiations between the Town and its Miscellaneous (MAPE- represented) Employees Staff reevaluated the position of Building Secretary in terms of job characteristics and compensation, The position should be reclassified to incorporate the job duties and tasks which are non-secretarial in nature, and which now comprise a significant portion of the job. The position title which most closely matches current job responsibilities is that of Permits Clerk, There are few comparative benchmarks for this proposed reclassification: The Town's labor negotiator (IEDA) recommends a monthly salary range for the reclassified position of Permits Clerk, which compares to the current range for Building Secretary, as follows, Proposed Current Permits Clerk Building Secretary $2,413 - $2,943 $2,237 - $2,720 The Building Secretary is currently at Step-E, $2,720. It is recommended that the position be reclassified and the incumbent be placed at Step-D, or $2,803 per month, This represents Ii salary adjustment of approximately 3.0%. It is also recommended that the reclassification and readjustment be implemented retroactive to January 1, 1996. The estimated total added cost of the reclassification is approximately $900. Recommendation: 1. Town Council approve the recommended reclassification and salary compensation adjustments proposed above, to be effective on January 1, 1996, Exhibits: 1. MAPE correspondence, dated 8/12/96 2. Staff Memorandum, dated 9/11/96 MAPEl SEIU 949 ""- ,.--.- I I' ( , _.J }'" Marin Association of Public Employees! SEW Local 949 AFL-CIO Steve O'Keefe Executive Director representing public employees in tlte follcrwing jurisdictions: Central Marin Sanitation Agency City of Novalo City of Sao Rafael City of Sausalito College of Marin County of Marin Marin County Housing Authority Marin Municipal Water District Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Abatement District Town of Corte Madera Town of Fairfax Town of San Anselmo Town of Tiburon August 12, 1996 Robert Kleinert Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1155 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, California 94920 Re Reclassification Romney Fennell, Building Secretary Dear Robert This letter will serve as a follow up to our meeting of August 6, also attended by Ms Fennell, Union Steward Heidi McVeigh, Dean Bloomquist, Building Official and Scott Anderson, Planning Director The department reviewed Linda Becker's findings in the classification/compensation analysis for the position of Building Secretary and the union presented it's views in connection with the issue. Ms. Fennell and I have had an opportunity to assess the findings of Linda Becker and agree that the position be reclassified to Permits Clerk and that the salary as recommended be adopted as well. In view of Ms. Fennell's over ten (10) years of demonstrated abilities in the Building Division and her current placement on the salary schedule at step E, we believe that placement in the new class be also on the step E We request that this increase be made retroactive to January 1996, the date that the other classification issues were approved Please call or write to confirm your response to our requests. Thank you for your consideration of this lon9'standing issue Sincerely, c: Romney Fennell Heidi McVeigh if .~ 4340 Redwood Highway, SIe. A37, San Rafael, CA 94903-1106, 4/5/479-0949 (FAX) 4/5/479-0963 '. _1 ~:. MEMORANDUM TO: ROBERT KLEINERT, TOWN MANAGER SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ FROM: SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING SECRETARY TO PERMITS CLERK DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 I am in receipt of the letter from Bill Castellanos of MAPE/SEIU dated August 12, 1996. At your request, I have discussed this letter and the findings of the Town's consultant, IEDA, with the Town's Building Official, especially with regard to the retroactivity and appropriate step for the incumbent Building Secretary. It is our joint recommendation that the salary schedule put forth in our earlier discussions, based on IEDA's recommendations, be adopted; that the incumbent Building Secretary be reclassified immediately to Permits Clerk, with salary retroactive to January 1, 1996; and that the incumbent should be placed at step D of the new salary range, with a review for possible step increase six months from the date of the Personnel Action Form (PAF) completion. Please let me know if you concur, and I will prepare the appropriate PAF. ~ :"1.. 1 dl'.> 1.) ~'U '._'(0 -<f' i MAPEl SEIU 949 ,---- - r I , , j ./ Marin Association of Fubll< Employoesl SEIU Lo<:.1 949 MI.-CIO Ste...e O'Keefe L:6€udw Dindtlr rtpreulIdnz pdlk ettpJDJ<<:$ in tlt.r following j_rlsdJctUJtu: Centn.1 Mario Sanitation Agney City of Novato City of San hfael City of Sawalho CoUege or Mario County of Marin Marin Coumty Housing Authority Marin Muaicipai Water District Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Abatement District Town of Cone Madera T(lwn of Fairfax Town of San Anselmo Town or Tiburon .L.) . .~,) , , \.~ .... l" --., v ".> -, v ~~~7-!l1 August 12,1996 Robert Kleinert Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1155 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, California 94920 Re: Reclassification Romney Fennell, Building Secretary Dear Robert: This lelter will serve as a follow up to our meeting of August 6, also attended by Ms Fennell, Union Steward Heidi McVeigh, Dean Bloomquist, Building Official and Scott Anderson, Planning Director The department reviewed Linda Becker's findings in the classification/compensation analysis for the position of Building Secretary and the union presented it's views In connection with the issue Ms Fennell and I have had an opportunity to assess the findings of Linda Becker and agree that the poSition be reclassified to Permits Clerk and that the salary as recommended be adopted as well. In view of Ms. Fennell's over ten (10) years of demonstrated abilities in the Building Division and her current placement on the salary schedule at step E, we believe that placement in the new class be also on the step E We request that this increase be made retroactive to January 1996, the date that the other classification issues were approved. Please call or write to confirm your response to our requests Thank you for your consideration of this long,standing Issue Sincerely, c' Romney Fennell Heidi McVeigh 4140 Redwood Iligh",.y, Sr~ A37, S.n Raf.ei. C4 94901-1106, 4/!/479,0949 (FAX) 415/479,0963 MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 FROM: TOWN MANAGER ITEM: '- I) I,~,/ SUBJECT: NEW POLICE FACILITY BACKGROUND The Senior Housing Advisory Committee (SHAC) wilI soon be pursuing Requests For Proposals for Senior Housing at the Tiburon Town Hall site. The Town should now proceed with the schematic plan stage for the proposed New Police Facility to be located at Tiburon Boulevard and Ned's Way. These plans wilI provide specific detail and enable cost estimates to be prepared for the project, Timing is important now for the folIowing reasons: A To enable a Spring 1997 construction start. B. To provide necessary information for a grant funding application by the Town. RECOMMENDATION 1. That a new Restricted General Fund Reserve be established similar to the Town's New Town Hall Fund. This new reserve fund would be entitled ''NEW POLICE FACILITY", 2, That $40,000 be transferred at this time from the Town's General Fund Unal10cated Reserve to the proposed New Police Facility Reserve Fund, 3, That the Building Advisory Committee (BAC) be authorized to proceed with contractual arrangements for the schematic design phase for the New Police Facility. RLK:shm / .~:J /' ~.' I L.\,'" . .._~-::;.,. ':"" , ./ --...... ? / _._~.... .