Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1996-07-03 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF TIBURON 1101 TIBURONBLVD. MEETING DATE: MEETING TIME: CLOSED SESSION: JULY 3, 1996 7:30 P.M. NONE PLEASE NOTE: In onlerlD gIYe aU Interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to onaura the presentation or all points of view, members or the audience should: (1) Always Address the Chair; (2) State Nama and Address: (3) State VIOWS Succinctly; (4) umtt Presentations to 3 minutes; (5) Speak Dlractly Into Microphone. In campIiance with lha Amaricans wiIh Disabiilias Act, If you need special assistance to par1lcipa1a In this meeting, please contact Town Hall (415) 435-7373. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enabla tho Town to maka raasonable arrangemants to ansura accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA nle III 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 matters 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. Matte,.. requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission. Board, Committee or Staff for consideration and/or placed on afu/ure meeting agenda. D. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS I) MCCMC FIREFLOW SUBCOMMITTEE - (Vice Mayor Thayer) 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 molion unless separate aclion ;s required on a particular item. Any member of the Town Council, Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of an item for discussion. 2) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5,1996 and June 19, 1996 (Approval) 3) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - May 31,1996 (Receive) 4) NINTII ANNUAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHILI FESTIVAL - Saturday, September 7, 1996 (Approval) 5) RESOLUTION GRANTING APPEAL RE: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - "Derryberry" Property, Landmarks Society - Owner (Adoption) 6) AMICUS CURIAE REQUEST - City of Agoura Hills, Berkeley & San Jose 7) APPLICATION FOR RECEIPT OF FEMA FUNDING - WINTER 95/96 STORM (Resolution) G. PUBLIC HEARING 8) PROPOSED TOWN FY 1996-98 BUDGET PROGRAM - (Continuation of Public Hearing) A. Overview of Current and Proposed Capital Improvements 1) Streets Improvements 2) Drainage Improvements 3) Conununity Development Improvements B. Review of Open Space Program C. Review of Debt Service Program D. Contract Services Study - County SheriIT's Department I) Consider cost & time requirements for consultant's analysis E. Formation of Budget Oversight Committee 9) REPEAUADOPT NEW CHAPTER 19 OF TOWN MUNICIPAL CODE- ENCROACHMENT PERMITS - (1st reading of Ordinance) (Continuedfrom June 19) H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10) "GREEN CAN" YARD WASTE PROGRAM - Discussion ofMVRS Rate Structure II) HARROMAN PROPERTY - Request for Appraisal 12) NED'S WAY HOUSING PROJECT - Future Direction I. COMMUNICA nONS J. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS K. ADJOURNMENT " ~ Ilk A/r;. l(1J) DR ArT TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wolf called the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon to order at 7:30 P.M., Wednesday, June 5, 1996, in Council Chambers, 1101 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. A. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Hennessy, Thompson, Thayer, Wolf Ginalski EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth, Planning Director Anderson, Assistant Planner Borba, Finance Director StranzJ, Chief of Police Herley, Town Clerk Crane B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If anv) Mayor Wolf announced that Council heard a report but no action had been taken. C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS None. D. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMITIEE S & COMMISSIONS Mayor Wolf announced that Michael Heckmann was resigning from the Planning Commission because he and his wife had moved to San Rafael. MOTION: To appoint Mohamad Sadrieh to the Planning Commission; to appoint Carla Howard to the Design Review Board [to fill vacancy created by Sadrieh's appointment] Thayer, Seconded by Hennessy Unanimous Ginalski Moved: Vote: Absent: E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITIEE REPORTS 1. Jerry Riessen, Co-Chair of the Last Chance Open Space Committee, said the committee had met for the first time in a long time to discuss the latest developments in the purchase of the Harroman Property. He said the committee would like to get detailed information from the Town Attorney and needed to know specifically when the closing date for the purchase of the property might be. Secondly, Riessen said the committee was entering an "information gathering phase" and would survey the public to determine the level of commitment for an additional bond issue. He said the TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1089 June 5,1996 committee's expectation was positive and that a possible February election was being considered. Councilmember Thayer asked if that would be a special election and Mayor Wolf asked who would pay for it. Riessen said that the committee was looking into those questions. Riessen asked for Council's approval to get an updated appraisal from Art Gimmey of the property in order to explore options for selling the property in the event the ballot measure failed. Councilmember Hennessy asked about the possibility of putting the measure on the ballot in November. Riessen said the deadline for the November election was July which was too soon. Councilmember Thayer said he endorsed the idea of an appraisal and asked for it to be re- agendized. Mayor Wolf asked what the property had previously been appraised for. Riessen said $3.2 Million and that it was probably worth more now. Town Manager Kleinert said he would set up meetings with Collette and Gimmey. F. CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Town Council Minutes #1087 (May 15, 1996). 4. MontWy Investment Summary - April 30, 1996. 5. Annual Adoption of Override Tax for 1972 Open Space Bonds. 6. Annual Adoption of Special Tax Levy - Point Tiburon Community Facilities District. 7. Annual Adoption of Gann Act Limit (FY95-96). 8. Creation of "No Parking" Zone between Reed Ranch Road and Stewart Drive. 9. Support ofHamiIton Army Airfield Re-Use Plan. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To Adopt Consent Calendar Hennessy, Seconded by Thayer AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Ginalski In a continuation of Committee Reports, Mayor Wolf said she and [Belvedere Mayor] Steger Johnson had met to discuss the selection of candidates for the Downtown Revitalization Task Force. She said that if Council agreed, the final candidates would be selected by the Mayors and Vice Mayors of both cities, and the appointees would represent a variety of perspectives and skills. The total number of appointees would be limited to seven (7). Mayor Wolf read the mission statement of the Task Force: "GOAL: To create a viable downtown community which serves residents' needs by: 1) Assessing community needs, desirable uses, merchant and resident perceptions. 2) Identifying problems and possible solutions." TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1089 June S, 1996 2 G. PUBLIC HEARING 10. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - 2305 Centro West - Buckerfields, Owners; Marans, Brown, Drew Gehrmann, Talbot & Wintersteen, Appellants. Assistant Planner Borba said the appellants were claiming the variance in rear yard setback and floor area ratio (FAR) exception were improperly granted by the Design Review Board, and that the neighbors were not adequately notified about the proposed project. Ms. Borba said that neighbors within 300 feet of the project were notified, and that plans were sent to the Old Tiburon/Lyford's Cove Architectural Committee but staff received no response. Planner Borba said the original calculations of the proposed project were misleading since the garage had been added into the FAR incorrectly. The applicants proposed to construct an additional 877 Sq. Ft. of living space to an existing duplex. The project required a variance for encroachment into the rear yard setback (12' in lieu of IS' setback), and an FAR exception (3,823 Sq. Ft. in lieu of2,899 Sq. Ft.). Councilmember Hennessy asked if the change in calculations affected the lot coverage. Borba said no and that it was still within the zoning limits. Councilmember Thayer asked if any precedent was being set by granting the exceptions. Borba replied negatively, noting that each project was evaluated on the merits and with regard to speciaJ circumstances. Mayor Wolf opened the public hearing. Nat Marans, 2312 Spanish Trail, said he would speak on behalf of the appellants. Mayor Wolf clarified that there was a 20-minute time limit for each side to speak. Mr. Marans contested the calculations made by the Planning Department and said the total FAR would be in excess of 4500 Sq. Ft. He said that Old Tiburon was trying to keep the style of the older homes and to prevent overbuilding in the neighborhood, and said the variance granted by the DRB was "going too far." Dick Buckerfield, Applicant, said that he and his wife agreed that there should be guidelines, but stated that almost all the proposed excavation would be done underground and would not be evident after the work was done. He said their home would occupy less than 35% of the lot after completion of the project. Mr. Buckerfield also said that he had spoken with his neighbors and had invited them to see the property. He subsequently got letters from 38 neighbors who supported the project. Brenda Buckerfield, Applicant, said that Pat Montag told her she had not authorized her letter [in opposition to the project] and that it had been written at Nat Maran's request. Miles Berger, Chair of the Design Review Board, said that body routinely limits construction in TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1089 June 5, 1996 3 order to establish neighborhood consistency. He said that Mr. Marans had misrepresented himself by reading an excerpt from "side yard" rather than FAR exceptions in the zoning ordinance. Berger said that actual wording of the requirements were, "1) visual size and scale is compatible ..., 2) compatible with physical characteristics of the site." Berger noted that the Design Review Board had the discretion to grant or not grant approval based on these requirements, and that Town Staff gives direction and the DRB gives additional direction. Berger stated there had been no "reasonable" objection from the neighbors and that a property owner should have the freedom to design within guidelines. He further stated that the Buckertield project was underground on three sides and was an example of the "best way" to add bulk and mass to a residence. He added that he wished more projects were as easy to review. Berger concluded by saying the Design Review Board would apply the same high standards to future applications and protect the rights of the property owners. Nat Marans rebutted Mrs. Buckertie!d's remark about the Montag letter, and said "if you don't want the General Plan [to be followed], then tear it up." J.J. Wintersteen, 2315 Paradise Drive, said the area was getting more dense and that he only found out later [after the notice went out] what that actual numbers of the project were. Bert Talbot, 2345 Paradise Drive, resident for 27 years, said he was concerned about the allowance of future development and that Staff should be criticized for "encouraging this." Mayor Wolf closed the public hearing. Councilmember Thayer said "the price of freedom was eternal vigilance" and commended Nat for promoting FAR's before the Town adopted them. He said the Town's efforts to implement FAR's brought an initial storm of protest from the Building Industry, but after a comprehensive study by Scott [Anderson], it was noted that Tiburon was the only community in the Bay Area which did not have them. Thayer said he was on the Planning Commission at the time and there had been a lengthy public debate before adoption of the guidelines. He said it was agreed that FAR's would be guidelines, not strict unbending rules, and that exceptions must be provided for. Thayer said he had looked at the project and felt it was a good example of an exception. He said the Design Review Board had reached the right result. Councilmember Hennessy said she had initial concerns but, after visiting the property, she said she agreed with Thayer and would vote to deny the appeal. Councilmember Thompson said he approved of and supported the need for FAR's and that Staff had a long list of projects which had been denied on that basis. He said he had visited the project and talked to neighbors and felt that project kept bulk and mass in check. Mayor Wolf said she concurred with Miles Berger and the Council and that variances should be TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1089 June 5, 1996 4 examined on a case by case basis. She said the Buckerfields had been sensitive to their neighbors and were willing to incur additional costs in order to have a project that would be compatible with the neighborhood. MOTION: To Deny the Appeal of Design Review Board Decision to Approve an Addition and Variance for Rear Yard Setback and FAR Exception at 2305 Centro East. Thompson, Seconded by Hennessy Unanimous Ginalski Moved: Vote: Absent: Town Attorney to prepare resolution. H. COMMUNICATIONS 11. Blackie's Pasture!fiburon Boulevard Undergrounding of Utilities Project. Town Manager Kleinert gave Council an update on the progress of the project. He noted that work would commence in June and continue through the summer, and that 13 poles would come down in October. Councilmember Thayer asked ifit was a true undergrounding project or just a realigrunent. Kleinert said it was an undergrounding project. Councilmember Thompson inquired about whether the Reedlands would be next in line for undergrounding. Town Manager Kleinert said there was a good chance it would be next. 12. FY96-98 Budget Hearing Schedule. Council noted the hearings would take place at the June 19, July 3 and July 17 regular Council meetings. I. STAFF AND TOWN MANAGER REPORTS None. J. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Wolf adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. sine die. NICKY WOLF, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1089 June S. 1996 5 TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES Jk~ JJv.1(k) DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wolf called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency to order at 7:38 P.M., Wednesday, June 19, 1996, in Council Chambers, 1101 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. A. ROLL CALL PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS & COUNCILMEMBERS: Ginalski, Hennessy, Thompson, Thayer, Wolf EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth, Planning Director Anderson, Finance Director Stranzl, Public Works Superintendent Iacopi, Chief of Police Herley, Sgt. Aiello,Town Engineer Moharnmadi, Town Clerk Crane B. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of October 18, 1995 Minutes. MOTION: To Adopt October 18,1995 Minutes Moved: Thayer, Seconded by Thompson AYES: Ginaiski, Thayer, Thompson ABSTAIN: Hennessy, Wolf Co PUBLIC HEARING Finance Director Stranzl gave the Fiscal Year 95-96 recap. He said the $380,000 Property Tax Increment was less than previous years due to overfunding by the County. Mayor Wolf clarified that "overfunding" actually represented advance payment of the funds. Stranzl said the Town would pay $380,000 to the Community Facilities (Mello Roos) District in the coming fiscal year. Stranzllisted the expenditures in the fiscal year: Cecilia Place and the renovation ofHilarita which would be re-appropriated into the next fiscal year. Mayor Wolf asked if the Hilarita had asked for more money for the project. Finance Director Stranzl answered affirmatively but noted that the Town had asked Hilarita to "tighten up" where possible. There were no public questions or comments. There being no further business, Mayor Wolfadjoumed the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting as the Tiburon Town Council. A. ROLL CALL Same as roll call above. TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1091 June 19, 1996 B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If anv). Mayor Wolf announced that Council had received an update on a labor contract negotiation but that no action had been taken. Co PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS None. Moved: Vote: D. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITIEE S & COMMISSIONS MOTION: To reappoint Tom Gram to another term on the BelvedereJTiburon Joint Recreation Committee; to reappoint Sharon Bass to another term on the BelvedereJTiburon Library Agency Board. Thompson, Seconded by Thayer Unanimous E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS None. F. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Town Council Minutes #1088 (May 29, 1996). 3. Tiburon Triathalon Special Event Permit - July 28, 1996 (Approval). 4. "Smoke Free Marin" - Resolution Opposing Extension of Bar Smoking Exemption (Adoption). 5. Renewal of3-year Community Block Grant Cooperation Agreement with County of Marin (Authorize Mayor to Sign Agreement - Resolution.) 6. Belvedere Centennial Celebration - Resolution. 7. Denial of Design Review Board Appeal-2305 Centro West. 8. Amended Tow Tall Construction Management Plan - Resolution. 9. Farewell to Town Employee Dan Catron - Resolution. Planning Director Anderson asked to say a few words about Item No.9. He told Council that Dan Catron and his family were moving to Washington State and read the Resolution wishing him well. Councilmember Thompson made a motion seconded by Ginalski to adopt the resolution as read. Council unanimously agreed. Councilmember Hennessy said Dan was a real gentlemen and it had been a privilege to work with him. Councilmember Ginalski echoed her sentiments. Councilmember Thayer said Dan was quick to respond and complete in his answers. Councilmember Thompson said that Dan got right to the point. Mayor Wolf said Dan was extremely helpful and a pleasure to work with. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt Items 2 through 8 on Consent Calendar Hennessy, Seconded by Thompson AYES: Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1091 June 19, 1996 2 G. PUBLIC HEARING 10. Appeal of Certificate of Compliance - BelvederelTiburon Landmarks Society "Derryberry Property" located between 1410 and 1470 Vistazo West, AP#58-223-11. Associate Planner Catron said the lot was divided in 1990 and that the Town by law could add certain conditions to the Certificate of Compliance that would have been applicable at the time, He said the Landmarks Society had appealed the first two conditions of compliance: 1) a boundary and topographical survey, and 2) minimum lot width of 50 feet and slope requirements. Councilmember Thompson asked about the zoning of the parcel. Catron said it was zoned RO-2 and the lots on either side were zoned R-2 & R-3. Planning Director Anderson said he thought the zoning of the parcel was a mapping fluke because it looked like a roadway. Councilmember Hennessy asked which subdivision the lot had been part of. Catron said the lot was created by deed and was once part of90 Lyford Drive. Mayor Wolf opened the public hearing. Roger Felton, President of the Landmarks Society, hung a map showing the U-shaped lot connecting to 90 Lyford Drive. He said it should have been zoned R-2 which had less stringent requirements. F eIton said the lot was given to the Landmarks Society by the Derryberrys for the express purpose of creating open space by putting the brakes on the development of the [adjoining] Jay property. The lot in question would have been the roadway onto the Jay Property. Andrew Allen, Vice President of the Landmarks Society, said he had worked with Mr. Derryberry on the title transfer and noted there was a condition in the grant deed that the lot be retained as open space. However, he said there was a clear contemplation of creating future value for the land, as well as an understanding that Landmarks would have to get consent for any future sale. Allen said Mr. Derryberry had agreed that proceeds of the sale of the property would be divided with two-thirds to Landmarks and one-third to him. Councilmember Hennessy asked for the appraised value of the land and was told $300,000 with an easement; $50,000 without. She also asked whether the open space designation had been recorded. Allen answered in the negative and stated that the purpose of the open space designation was "to keep a string on the property." Stan Hobbs, 1470 Vistazo West, property owner adjacent to the lot in question, quoted from a past Landmarks brochure which said the Society was dedicated to saving the property as open space. He said that open space is safe only if it is held in public trust. Hobbs further stated the property was illegally subdivided in 1965 and was not in compliance with current zoning requirements. He stated Council's only course of action was to deny the appeal. Ben Taylor, Vistazo West, representing Vista Vistazo Homeowner's Association, said the TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES # 1 091 June 19, 1996 3 Landmarks Society had done a lot for the community but said he strongly opposed their appeal, stating the Grant Deed fequired the property to remain as open space and that no exceptions should be made fOf Landmarks, landowners or developers. He said Landmarks should be required to do a full survey and answer all questions. He suggested the property be given to Marin County as open space per the original intent. Fran Mayberry, Vistazo West, expressed concern that the Council did not have enough information on which to base a decision. She said a survey to determine slope and square footage was needed. Jerry Riessen, Co-Chaif of the Last Chance Open Space Committee, said the County had purchased an easement to the property, but not the lot, and latef released the easement to the Landmafks Society. Riessen said developing the steep lot was not out of character with othefs in the neighbofhood. He said the Town would be a beneficiary in that Landmarks would turn ovef its portion of the proceeds of the sale fOf open space. He concluded that the decision of the Council would come down to "greater good vefSUS a more focused use," and that the funds would benefit the whole peninsula. Jim Craig, 1410 Vistazo West Condominium Association, said the there was an unlikely view disruption but questioned whether the lot would meet the fequirements for marketabl1lty due to the steepness of the slope. Councilmember Hennessy asked Mr. Allen for a signed copy of the most recent agreement with Derryberry. Mr. Allen presented a copy ofa letter from his file dated May 12,1989 to Council. Mr. Hobbs asked that the letter be submitted into the record. Councilmembef Ginalski asked Town Attorney Danforth to confirm that only the grantor could release a condition of the deed [affirmed]. Councilmember Thayer said Council did not have a letter from Mr. Derryberry feleasing the open space conditions. [An undated agreement signed by the Derryberrys was submitted into the record.] Mayor Wolf closed the public hearing. Councilmember Thompson said he had walked the property and concurred with Staff that the property should have been zoned R-l. He said the original intent of the deed was to assist in the preservation of the Jay Property as open space and that the lot's sale would now benefit both the Town and the neighbors. Councilmember Thayer said he was on the Planning Commission when Jay submitted his application to develop New England style homes on the adjoining property, and that the Commission had re-zoned the property fOf a lower density. He sympathized with the neighbors' desire to save the [Derryberry] property as open space but said it could still be used as access to the [Jay] open space through the Design Review Process. TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES # 1 091 June 19, 1996 4 Councilmember Hennessy said the letter provided by Mr. Allen showed the intent to abandon the easement if the Jay property was preserved as open space and said the sale [of the Derryberry property] would be for the betterment of the community. Councilmember Ginalski said he would conditionally approve the sale of the property if a topographical survey was done in order to ensure compliance with the General Plan zoning requirements. Mayor Wolf said she concurred with the majority of Council. She instructed Town Attorney Danforth to note in the resolution that the property was not subdivided in compliance with regulations in effect at the time, but that Council rendered its opinion based on a mapping "fluke" and that the public good was being served in overriding that condition of compliance. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To Grant the Appeal of the BelvederelTiburon Landmarks Society Thompson, Seconded by Hennessy AYES: Hennessy, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf NOES: Ginalski Planning Director Anderson clarified that the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance only meant the lot would become a legal parcel but a determination would have to be made later through the usual process if it was a buildable parcel. 11. Proposed Town two-year budget program (FY96-98). Town Manager Kleinert gave an overview showing a preliminary FY96-97 budget of$9 million and FY97-98 budget of$5 million, the difference in numbers being in capital improvements. He said that revenues and expenditures were about the same but did not include salary and benefit adjustments for non-represented employees. Kleinert said that general fund reserves remained at 25% of the total Town budget with a decrease from $3.3 million to $1.7 million due to the construction of the new Town Hall. Kleinert noted the five-year Street Improvement Program consisted of maintenance only as opposed to the reconstruction called for in the failed ballot measure. In summary, Kleinert said the proposed budget showed a slight deficit but that sales tax revenue was up a little and the transient occupancy tax was doing well. He listed some ways the Town could save money, by replacing the gas lights downtown with PG&E, reduce the maintenance on the chemical toilets at McKegney Green by replacing them with a permanent structure [previously proposed by the Parks & Open Space Commission], and a possible consolidation of the Planning Commission with the Design Review Board. Council commented on the amount of State take-away of funds (ERAF) from the local tax base. Councilmember Thompson noted in FY96 this represented a net loss to the Town of$248,000, and $1,520,000 over a six-year period. He said this would have paid for a new Police facility. Councilmember Hennessy said ERAF made it difficult to build reserves as the Town had done in the past. Finance Director Stranzl noted that investment earnings would drop as reserves TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1091 June 19, 1996 5 diminished. Finance Directof Stranzl feviewed each department's operating budget with Council. Planning Directof Anderson noted that the budget for Community Development for the past two years had predicted a reduction in design review which had not turned out to be the case. MaYOf Wolf suggested that the person hired to replace Associate Planner Catron fill a dual role of PlannerlDesign Review. Mayor Wolf noted the depfeciated cost of police vehicles was up $25,000 over fouf years. Chief Hefley said there was now only one domestic manufacturer of police vehicles as opposed to three. Council discussed the proposed reclassification of Sgt. Aiello's position to Lieutenant. Chief Herley said the reclassification reflected the duties already performed by Aiello, and the position would be non-union. He also noted the position was not eligible for overtime thereby mitigating the $10,000 annual increase. Town Manager Kleinert noted the number of meetings (Disaster Council, Homeowners' Associations, etc.) Aiello had to attend on overtime, and said the understanding was that Aiello would still be on patrol when the force was short-handed. Councilmember Hennessy asked about the need for so many cars in the police fleet. ChiefHerley said there were six marked cars and two other cars [for traffic enforcement], and they were all necessary in the event anyone car was out of service. He noted that three marked cars wefe on the street at all times. There was a brief discussion about the Public Works budget and whether it would make sense to use volunteefs to help with the work. Town Manager Kleinert said it was difficult to use volunteers because of the time it took to train them and the need for supervision. Superintendent Iacopi noted that Boy Scout volunteers had been used to paint the stencils of the storm drain warnmgs. Mayof Wolf said she was pleased at the savings in Town Engineering. Town Manger Kleinert said Town Engineer Mohammadi had been a feal asset to all the departments. Mayor Wolf commented on the $35,000 shortfall in the budget, the questionable ERAF rebate, and the last year of the PERS surplus, and noted that "Proposition 13 was coming home to roost." She said she believed the majority of resident supported Prop. 13 and that it was the Town's obligation to deliver services in as cost effective manner as possible. Wolf said she was sad to hear oflow employee morale [at the Town CounciVStaffRetreat], but said the only solution to the budget dilemma was to follow the mandate of Prop. 13 by reducing the amount of government. Wolf said Tiburon had a fine police department but questioned whether the same services could be provided at a lowef cost. She proposed hiring a dispassionate third party to do an analysis of TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1091 Jillle 19, 1996 6 contracting with the Sheriff's department versus a Town police force, and stated it was not a reflection on the performance of the Tiburon police force. Wolfsaid she still expected [the Town] to build a public safety building. Councilmember Thayer said the big "ifs" were whether there would be a cost savings and the same level of service, but said he did not oppose the idea. Wolf said she disagreed with Town Manager Kleinert's assessment of "good" and "bad" budget year, and stated there were no more good years. Thayer agreed that costs go up every year. Councilmember Hennessy said she opposed the idea as "going backwards." She said the community wanted a local force, felt strongly about it and identified with the officers on the force. She said she would not vote to spend money on a study. Councilmember Ginalski said the real question was whether the Town should have a balanced budget, and that he would defer further comments until he heard from the Chief of Police. Councilmember Thompson said that due to the magnitude of State take-aways the Town was faced with a different scenario than in years past. ChiefHerley said he was shocked at the proposal. He said the community wanted their own force and suggested that Council ask the community what it wanted. Herley said the average tenure of officers within the department had risen from 16-25 months when he first joined the department to [a current] 11 years, and questioned whether the Council's plan was to destroy morale within the department. Mayor Wolf suggested that the Sheriff's Department could hire the same officers to work in Tiburon. ChiefHerley said it did not work that way. Councilmember Ginalski said Wolf s proposal was not new but that the Chief expressed some valid concerns, and that he should be involved in the process. Ginalski said Council should do what is best for the community and have a long-range plan for the budget into the next century. Councilmember Thayer said he had been through three years of study on consolidation of the fire districts and felt the trend was inevitable. He noted, however, that safety was a high priority. Councilmember Hennessy suggested a community survey but Mayor Wolf opposed the idea until the community could be told how much it would save by consolidating with the County. Town Manager Kleinert said he had always supported consolidating county government but suggested starting with the districts. Sgt. Aiello suggested asking the citizens whether they would be willing to have a special tax for public safety. TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1091 June 19, 1996 7 Mayor Wolf said that it was necessary to first establish a desired level of service. She said Chief Herley had maintained that the department could not maintain their level of service with certain past staff reductions ( i.e. an investigator). Councilmember Thayer said the first order of business was to find out what such a study would cost. Town Manager Kleinert was instructed to make inquiries and return to Council. 12. Repeal/Adopt New Chapter 19 of Town Municipal Code - Encroachment Permits (1st reading). Item continued. H. NEW BUSINESS 13. Southern Marin Dispatch Joint Powers Agreement. Councilmember Thompson said he had placed the item on the agenda so that the Town could give notice to use as a bargaining tool during the budget process. The other Councilmembers noted there did not appear to be any reason to withdraw from the JP A and recommended no action. I. COMMUNICATIONS None. J. STAFF AND TOWN MANAGER REPORTS 14. Union 76 Service Station Expansion at Blackfield Drive/Tiburon Boulevard. Planning Director Anderson said he would send a letter in response to the environmental review to the County Planning Department. K. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Wolf adjourned the meeting at 11 :34 p.m., sine die. NICKY WOLF, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1091 June 19, 1996 8 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: TOWN COUNCIL Meeting: FINANCE DIRECTOR Item No: MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY STATEMENT ASOFMAY31,1996 JULY 3, 1996 3 1. TOWN OF TffiURON Institution! Agency Amount Interest Rate Maturity State of California $7,646,901 5.502% Liquid Local Agency Investment Fund Total Invested: $7,646,901 I 2. TffiURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Institution! Agency Amount Interest Rate Maturity State of California $1,234,199 5.502% Liquid Local Agency Investment Fund Total Invested: $1,234,199 Notes to tables: · State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) - The interest fate represents the effective yield fOf the month referenced above. The State generally distributes data reports in the third week following the month ended. · Acknowledgment: This SUllllIl8l)' report accurately feflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in confonnity with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted by the Town Council. The investment program hefein summarized pfovides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures. BY: co~ Richard Stranzl, Finance Director June 21, 1996 TOWN OF TIBURON ~ II,! 1155 TlBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920. (415) 435-0956 OFFICE OF THE TOWN MANAGER Robert L. Kleinert June 18, 1996 Ms. Georgia Kirchmaier Executive Manager Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 563 Tiburon, CA 94920 SUBJECT: NINTH ANNUAL CHILI FESTIVAL Dear Georgia: This letter will confirm the Town's granting a Special Event Permit for the closure of Main Street on Saturday, September 7, 1996, for the Chamber's Ninth Annual Chili Festival. The hours of the festival are 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., with street closure beginning at 6:00 a.m. for set-up and ending after clean-up at 5 :00 p.m. The Town of Tiburon is also aware of and consents to the one-day sale of alcoholic beverages by the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce for this event. Very truly yours, Robert L. Kleinert Town Manager RLKldlc cc: Tiburon Police Dept. Tiburon Planning Dept. Tiburon Public Works Dept. pI-- ;1/0. ~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANTING AN APPEAL OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 95-06 FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY ON VISTAZO WEST STREET COMMONLY KNOWN AS "THE DERRYBERRY PROPERTY" (THE BELVEDERE- TIBURON LANDMARKS SOCIETY, OWNER) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 48-223-1 I WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon received an application for a certificate of compliance for property located between 1410 Vistazo West Street and 1470 Vistazo West Street (the "Derryberry Property"), owned by the Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society; and WHEREAS, the subject property was created by grant deed in March of 1965 without compliance with the subdivision procedures mandated by state and local law; and WHEREAS, in 1990, the Derryberry family conveyed the subject property to the Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society as a means of preserving the adjacent Jay property as public open space; and WHEREAS, the Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society has committed to reimburse the Town for a portion of the cost of acquiring the Jay property and wishes to sell the subject property to raise the funds for said reimbursement; WHEREAS, Town staff issued a conditional Certificate of Compliance requiring the Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society to comply with the regulations that would have been applicable had the subject property been created as a legal parcel at the time it was conveyed to the Belvedere- Tiburon Landmarks Society, as authorized by the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Sections 66410 et seq. ; and WHEREAS, the Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society has appealed Conditions 1 and 2 of the Certificate of Compliance, which required, among other things, conformance with certain lot width and lot area standards applicable to the creation of new lots; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the appeal on June 19, 1996, at which time the Council, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents in the record, the Council found that the public interest would benefit from the removal of the two appealed conditions; and that the subject property was compatible with other properties in the area and based on said findings determined to uphold the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that: 1. The appeal of the Belvedere- Tiburon Landmarks Society is hereby granted and Conditions 1 and 2 are deleted from Certificate of Compliance No. 95-06. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on July 3, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: WOLF, THAYER, THOMPSON, GlNALSKI HENNESSY NONE NONE NOES: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NICKY WOLF, MAYOR Town of Tiburon AITEST: DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK J~-:-24-13?~ 12:~~ _IT( -4TTJ~:"--IE'i"::, J=r=I-=-:=: ';443':;.41 ;:0. :]2---a3 .' City of Berkeley Office of the Cily Altomc! Martin LUTher King, Jr. Civic Center Building 2180 Milvis Street Berkeley, California 94704 Telephone: (510) 644-6380 Telecopy: (510) 644-864 I .--.-- . I I. ~-f(H If ~. MEMORANDUM Date: June 19, 1996 To: All Interested Cities From: Manuela Albuquerque, City Attorney Zaeh Cowan, Assistilllt City Attorney Re: Amicus Request Citizens fOr ResDOnsible Gove.rnment (CRG) v. Citv ;)f Albanv Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 746987-9 The City of Berkeley is prcparing an amicus curiae brief in support of the p",titioner and appellant, Citizens for Responsible Govermuent, in CRG v. City of Albanv, presently pending in the Court of Appeal. We arc seeking other interested cities to sign on to thc Berkeley anllCtlS brief. The ease and issucs are slunmarized below; please feel free to call beh Cowan of the Berkeley City Attorney's ome~ at (510) 644-6380 for more infonnatioll. Facts of the Case The City of Albany and Ladbroke Racing negotiated a complex set of land u;;e changes including a development agreement granting vested rights to a 150,table card roOm at Ladbr'oke's horse racing facility (Golden Gate Fields) on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. The development agreement would permit 150 tables to be operated 365 days per year, 24 hours per day. Golden Gate Fields is adjacent to Berkeley's waterfront-- in fdct its parking lot lies partially within the Berkeley waterfront. Although no environmental review has been conducted, if successful, the project has the potential to s~gnificantly add to traffic on Berkeley streets, including to some extent residential streets. Thc City of Berkeley also has concerns about possible inere.1Ses in crime rclated to dcvelopment of another card room in the arel In order to permit the development of the card room on an expedited basis, Albany did not follow its pre-cxi,t1ng requirements for consideration of developmer.t agreement, {see (~ TeJ,,<ommvnlc.ti,ns Device forlh" 0.,,1 (.s1~) 644-691'; JJ'-i-2.J-133;.=, 12:22 :'ITr' ~TTJ;:;>lEr"'; J;;I::: ;-I..L::-;.H t=' . ,J3 03 . ..I,micus Request Citizens for ResDonsibJe Government (CRG) v. City of Albany lwle ] 9, 1996 Page 2 Government Code ~65864(c)), but rather simply rescinded them, and placed the development agreement, along with a zoning amendment and olh~r measures, on the ballot. All of these discretionary a~tions were taken without any review or analysis under CEQA. Albany takes the position that CEQA was not applicable to its actIOns beca:.!se it "approved" nothing for CEQA purposes; rather it merely submitted to voters the lund use changes that it had negotiated and endorsed. After the election, the City filed a CEQA Nctic~ of Exemption for the "project" as defined in the Development Agreement, i.e.. a ISO-table card rOom consisting of a specified arC8 at a specific location operating 011 a 24-hour per day basis. Albany's position is based on Lee v. Lompoc (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1515, a Second District case which held that a city-sponsored ballot measure which was necessitated by a council deadlock was exempt from pre-election CEQA review. Subsequent to the tIling of the court challenge, Albany adopted a resolution stating that it would prepare an ElR; however the development agreement severely cOl1stra.ills Albany's ability to condition or deny the project approval. ISsues The petiTioner and appellant CRG raised several issues, includi:1g a challenge to the ballot language as violating Business & Professions Code ~ 19819, which requires a citywide vote in order to authorize card rooms and specifies the language to be included on the ballot. The amicus brief being prepared by Berkeley will focus on the CEQA question, i,e., whether a city and developer can negotiate a development agreement detining the developer's ves:ed rights in a project and then evade enviroronenlal review of lhe project and feasible alternatives thereto by placmg the development agreement on the ballot for approval by the voters in the first instance. Fust" the City of Berkeley will argue that the development agreement statute establishe. the exclusive method by which cities may enter into development agreernenLS-- namely, after public hearings and approval bv the citv council, and only upon fonnal action of the city council approving the underlying project. Although such an approval may be subject to referendum, the voters may not approve the development agreement in the first instance. Accordingly, thc dccision to place the dcvcloprn\!11l agreement on thc ballot was ullm VIres, and the court need not reach the CEQA issue Or Lee. Second, Berkeley's amicus brief will argue that even if:he Albany City Coullcil's decision to place the development agreement on the ballot was not a violation of the developmcnt agreement statute that Lee should be limited to its unique facts (i.e., a council deadlock a:"ld JJj-2<-l-1:t'~6 12:23 -I T I ":'TTJ:;:'{;:'('; J=;= I.:=: ::,~4::,;4~~ r'. .J4~ :J:::, Amicus Request Citizens for Resllonsible Government (CRG) v. Citv of Albanv June 19, 1996 Page 3 requirement of a future EIR) and should not be extended to the situation here, where the development agreement places strIct constraint. on the City of Albany's ability to requirc mitigations under the promised future EIR. Finally, Berkeley will argue that ~ is simply wrongly decided and should not be followed by the First District. In this regard, howcvcr, and unlike tho appellants, Berkeley will llQ! be advancing a categorical rule that anY discretionary council-sponsored initiative is subject to environmental review. Rather, it will articulate a rule which would exempt from environmental review those council-sponsored initiatives (I) intended to compctc with cltizen- sponsored initiatives, and (2) whose impacts fan within the envelope of impacts of the CEQA-exempt citizens initiative with ivbich they are competing. Although Albany has argued that this case does not ,aise serious environmental concerns. in fact Berkeley, as a neighboring city, has stmng concerns about the environmental impacts of the project On the stTeet~ and neighborhood. (ppmanly in Berkeley) aq)acent to the project. Moreover in the absence of any environmental review, it is premature to make aoy assertion about the scope of the project'. environmental impacts, and any such asscnions arc unsupponable. As you know, often CEQA is the only vehicle for a city to ensure that its neighboring junsdictions account for the adverse extraterritorial irr.pacts of their land use and development decislCns. Thus, from Berkeley's perspective., the ballot box was abused in thIS cas~ in order to evadc the r'1quircmcnts that the impacts on the environment (and on Berkeley) be evaluated at the outsct of rhe planning and approval process. An opinion uphoidiog Albany's techniq'Je could open the door to other evasions of CEQA by aggres.,ive developers and compliant local officials and voters, This could in turn significantly lessen the bargaining position of local govemrneots that endeavor to promote rcsponsible ehange and development through observance of the letter and intcnt of CEQA Finally, it should be said that the Berkeley City Ccu.:lciI is aware of the sensitive a:ld unfommate nature of this controversy, which finds two neighboring cities 00 opposite sides of a legal issue of great significance. Ncvertheless. in a dense, fully-developed urban area such as the iuner San Francisco Bay Area, wilere a decision in one jurisdiction will inevitably affect others. it is critical that all cities play by the I1llcs, rules which allow all those who will be affected by a decision to bave a voice in it, regardless of whicb side Df a boundary line they happen iive on. Since an appcllatc jecision on this issue will oe fortbcoming as a result of this case, Berkeley fcels compclkd to articulatc for the coun (he competing interests at J~'.-2~-1~3S 12;~:; ~ITl' ':'TTJRf_Ii::,"; J:="=r:.t:: S.:l~?;.:Jl ~. .J:,,- -J3 Amicus Request Citizens for Responsible Government (eRG) v. Cil\' of Albany June 19, 1996 Page 4 stak~. Very t:-uly YOurs, MANUELA ALBUQUERQUE City Attorney ~/:::t..------- By: ZACH COWAN Assistant City Attorney ZC;pab CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 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 June 18, 1996 Re: ROBERT F. COLEMAN. et al. v. THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY Dear Colleague: The purpose of this letter is to request that you join in the amicus brief being prepared by this Office in support of the Santa Clara County Open-Space Authority in the above-referenced case. The amicus brief will address three issues: 1. Whether an assessment imposed as part of an assessment district created by the Authority is, in fact, a special tax; 2. Whether the creation of the assessment district by the Authority constitutes a .project" under CEQA; and 3. Whether the Authority had the power to not include certain properties within the district even if those properties arguably would receive some benefit from the assessment district improvements. The City believes that these issues have importance to all California cities. . The above-referenced case concerns a taxpayer's challenge to the assessment district formed by the Authority for the purpose of financing acquisitions for the preservation and maintenance of open space. The assessment district covers a large part of Santa Clara County, although not all of the County, and involves an assessment based on the land use of each parcel. Appellants, Robert F. Coleman and The Santa Clara County Taxpayers Association, are appealing to the Court of Appeal in favor of the Authority from a judgment entered after the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment disposing of all eleven causes of action. 34439_1.DOC 1 In its amicus brief, the City will argue generally that assessments such as those imposed by the Authority are not special taxes. As part of this discussion, the City anticipates arguing that the assessment at issue was a proper apportionment of the special benefit of the public project to the property owners within the assessment district. The City will also argue that the formation of an assessment district is not subject to CEQA because the creation of funding mechanisms do not constitute .projects." Finally, the City will argue generally that the authority creating an assessment district has discretion in drawing the boundaries and deciding who to exclude. The executive committee of the League of California Cities Legal Advocacy Committee is urging that cities participate as amici in this case. If you are interested in joining in the amicus brief, please complete the attached form and return it to this office no later than Wednesday, June 26, 1996. Thank you for your time and interest in this matter. Very truly yours, JOAN R. GALLO, City Attorney By: Auiif l?::, GEORG RIOS Assistant City Attorney . 34439_1. DOC 2 . 'J To: Lisa Walstrum Legal Assistant City Attorney's Office 151 West Mission Street San Jose, CA 95110 I FAX: (408) 277-3159 I Re: ROBERT F. COLEMAN et al. v. THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY YES, PLEASE INCLUDE MY CITY IN THE AMICUS BRIEF. Name of City Your Name and Title IN THE INTEREST OF ENSURING THAT YOUR CITY IS INCLUDED IN OUR BRIEF, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU RESPOND VIA FACSIMILE NO LATER THAN WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1996. Thank you for your cooperation. .' RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PFlOFESSIONAL COI'lPORATlON GLENN Fl. WATSON ROBERT Q. BEVERLY HARRY L. GERSMON DOUGl..'S W. "RGUI!! MARK 1... lJIIMKEN ARNOLD SIMON ERW"IN E "OLEA OAROLC 0 PIEPER ALLEN E. PlI!NNETT STEVEN L. DORSEY WILLIAM L STRAUSZ ANTHONY B. ORFiWF'lY MITCHELL E. ABBOTT TlMOTl-lY L NEUFEL.C GREGORY W. STEPANlC1CH FlOCHELLE SI'lQWNI! DONALD STEFlN MICHAEL .JENKINS WlI.UAM I!L RUOELL QUINN M. &ARROW CAROLW. LYNCH .JEFFREY A. RABIN GREGORY M. KUNERT Tl-10MAS M. ..liMBO MICHELE SEAL BAGNEAIS AMANDA F. SUSSKINC ROBERT C. CECCON SAYRE WEAVER STEVEN H. KAUFMANN GARY I!!_ GlANS .JOHN J. HARRIS KEVIN G, ENNIS ROBIN Q. HARRIS MICHAEL ESTRADA lJI\UI'IENCE S. WIENER STEVEN A. ORR MICMAS!" G COLANTUONO C, EDWARD OILI(ES PETER M. THORSON DEBORAH R HAKMAN SCOTT K. SHINTANl e. TilDEN KIM RUBIN O. WEINER $ASK1A T, ASAMURA KAYSER O. SUM!! SAUl.. JAFFE CRAIQ ~, STI!EI..!! T. PETER IOIERCI!! AI..ISON E. MAKER IIENJ~MIN BAANOUW TERENCE Fl. BOGA OOUGLAS A. CARI..EN O"NIEL 1... PINES USA M. BONO WINNIE TSIEN Jl!NNIFER L MART CIANI!! "FtKOW GFtOSS FtOXANNE M. CIAZ RICHARD RICHAROS (1916-1988) June 14, 1996 THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES. CAUFORNIA 80071-1."9 (213) 626-8.a. FACSIMILE (213) 6215-0078 0" COUNSEl.. WILUAM K. KRAMER 0382892 OUR FILE NUMBER A0130-01019 TO THE CITY ATTORNEY: Re: Denny's, Inc. v. (Court of Appeal City of Agoura Hills, Docket No. B 098621) et al. Dear Colleague: On behalf of the City of Agoura Hills, I am writing to solicit your city's support as amicus curiae in an important case now pending in the Court of Appeal in Los Angeles. The case has important implications for the power of cities to regulate free- standing pole signs. The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities has agreed to sponsor an amicus curiae brief and Deborah Cooke, Esq., of Kronick, Moskowitz, Tiedemann & Girard has agreed to prepare the brief at no cost to the participating cities. In order to add your city's name to the list of amicus curiae supporting the City of Agoura Hills in this appeal, please sign the last page of this letter and mail it directly to Deborah Cooke at the address shown. The Issue: The appeal will resolve an important question of first impression regarding a city's power to regulate certain types of on-premise advertising signs, specifically free- standing pole signs, roof signs, revolving signs, neon signs, and flashing signs. Business & Professions Code Section 5499 provides, in substance, that a city may not require the removal of an existing on-premise advertising sign on the basis of height or size where special topographic circumstances exist which would make it difficult to communicate with the public. The City of Agoura Hills in 1985 adopted a comprehensive sign ordinance which, among other things, prohibited all freestanding pole signs and reauired the removal of all existina free-standina pole sians after expiration of a seven-year amortization period. The City also prohibited a RI~HAROS, WATSON & GERSHON June 14, 1996 Page 2 number of other different "types" of signs. At the end of the seven-year amortization period, the owners of pole signs in the city first sponsored an initiative measure to emasculate the sign ordinance (which was rejected by 70% of the voters). Thereafter, the pole sign owners' applications for zoning variances were rejected by the City Council. The pole sign owners then filed suit and the Superior Court entered a declaratory judgment finding the ordinance violated Section 5499. The City contends that the ordinance does not offend Section 5499 because it does not require the removal of an existing sign based upon its height or size - - rather., all signs of a certain type, namely free-standing pole signs, are absolutely prohibited regardless of height or size. The trial court held that the ordinance in effect regulates on the basis of height because it prohibits the only means by which signs can be elevated so as to be seen from a distance. The Court ignored the fact that business owners are permitted to erect wall signs of varying heights. The tallest wall sign in the City, fOr example, is fifty eight feet in height. Sianificance: Cities which adopted ordinances regulating on-premise advertising signs prior to 1983 are "grandfathered" and are apparently not affected by Business & Professions Code Section 5499. However, all cities which were incorporated after 1983, or which have adopted or amended their siqn ordinances since 1983, are directly affected by Section 5499. This section has never been interpreted in a reported appellate decision. Some of the largest fast-food chains and oil companies (McDonald's, Denny's, Chevron, Burger King, Jack-in- the-Box, Mobil, Unocal, and Texaco) have identified the Agoura Hills ordinance as a primary "test case" and have devoted substantial resources to this litigation. perhcps most unsettling is the court's conclusion that a prohibition of a "type" of sign can run afoul of Section 5499's "height or size" restriction, even if height or size are not mentioned in the ordinance. Suppose that a city decides to prohibit all "roof signs", or all "neon" signs, or all "flashing" signs. The same rationale used by the trial court could be invoked to declare such ordinances invalid. After all, requiring removal of a neon sign built in the 1950s could, in effect, be a regulation on the basis of "height or size" if a replacement sign of the same height is prohibited by one or another ordinance. Indeed, in this case, the trial court held that Section 5499 is violated by an ordinance which requires the removal of an existing sign if erection of a legally conforming replacement sign would involve substantial expense. Furthermore, the trial court's decision re-writes the statute by providing that the requirement of "special topographic circumstances" is RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON June 14, 1996 Page 3 satisfied by virtually any visual obstruction. In one case, a billboard on an adjacent piece of property partially obstructed the visibility of a restaurant by passing motorists, and the court held that this was a "special topographic circumstance" sufficient to warrant preservation of the pole sign under Section 5499. Common Interest: All cities which were incorporated after 1983, or which have adopted or amended their sign ordinances since 1983, are directly affected by Section 5499, and are potentially interested in this appellate case. Importance of Amicus Support: The City of Agoura Hills believes that amicus support from numerous cities from elsewhere throughout the state will help impress upon the appellate court the far-reaching significance of the ruling in this case. Schedule: The appellant's opening brief is due not later than July 1, 1996, and we have requested that the amicus curiae brief be filed concurrently therewith. In order to add your city's name to the list of cities supporting the amicus curiae brief, please sign the last page of this letter and mail or send it via facsimile to Deborah Cooke. Please feel free to call me or Mitchell Abbott at (213) 626-8484 if you have any questions regarding the appeal or the city ordinance in question. Sincerely, Gregory W. S nicich City Attorney City of Agoura Hills MEA:mea 0382892 "' RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON June 14, 1996 Page 4 AUTHORIZATION FOR AMICUS CURIAE LISTING Please consider this letter authorization for the listing of our city as an amicus curiae in support of the position taken by the City of Agoura Hills in the above- referenced appeal. I understand that our city will incur no financial liability for legal fees or costs in connection with the amicus curiae brief which is being prepared free of charge. CITY OF By Title or Position PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORMS TO: DEBORAH COOKE, ESQ. KRONICK, MOSKOWITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 400 CAPITOL MALL, 27th FLOOR SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-4417 TELEPHONE (916) 321-4500 FAX (916) 321-4555 J6/27/96 1::;:44 State 01 Calilornia OFFICE OF EMf:...OENCY SERVICES DES - 4154352438 Disaster Number J~1e. It Federel PA Number _ ~. 7. State Application Numb. r DESIGNATION OF APPliCANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION BE IT IlESOLVEO IIY THE TOWN COUNCIL llof'41 of C)'-.c:MIIfJ Of GoWI'''''''', e.OVI , OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON IHIIN 01 O'IIMIllOI'\I THAT SIA MOHAMMADI 1....IM.t D..,,'l.... ",MIl TOWN ENGINEER ROBERT L. KLEINERT OR 1'''illol 4~. at D..ilt"ol'" "11'111 TOWN MANAGER ITitl'l RICHARD STRAl'lZL 011 TOWN FINANCE DIRECTOR IHwM of O"iOtlaled "Ol''lli rt"lff is "ere by authorized to execute lor and in behalf of the TOWN OF TIBURON . a public entilY 11Vm. ~, ""g'nlItTlonj established under the laws ot the State of Calilornla, IhlS application and to file it ,n t1\8 01l'ce ot Emergency Services tor the purpose ot obtaining certain federe' financial assistanc~ under P.l. 93-288 as amended by the Robe" T, Staltar< Disaster Relief and ,Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, endlor stete Ilnancial aSSIStance under the Naturll Olsaste AsslslInce ACI for Disaster fFl044. Storm ofi~lIl.)1,5occu"ed in September ofl995 ~i'1', f:1ot:tI:I, h""11M'" otf;.1 IM,,",ntD.III IYI.I THAT the TOWN OF TIBURON . a public entity established under the laws ot the State of I""......" urv.r'U.UO"! Californ... hereby lIuthorizes its agenl to provide to the State Office of emergency services tor allmaners pertaining Ie such slate disaster ISsistanee the assurances and agreements reqUired. Passed and approved this 3rd liollUI day of JU~;';O'>"" . 19 96 I"....' IN_.antJTlll.IlI'..oP,lI....''''_.,d....COune:.,..."*''J NICKY WOLl", MAYOR AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: "'OIl'lt'"llTirlIOl o\J!JltllV,lIl1_"-'CI,ClI\,IlOC""'-"'wt NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: I.....,. "" "'" 01 "'"rOVo~ _''''e! e, CO\,ll\CiI MI",iIlltfl ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CERTIFICA TION I, Diane L. Crane ,_, , duly appointed~ Town Clerk rr".Gie!lr, a' co.tdY'''QOtt,e1fll of the Town of Tiburon i....",.eIO'Oll\llllltan' , do hereby cerllty that the above is a true and COrrect copy c a resolution passed and approved by the Tiburon Town Council 1~'C1Drgi'ICIC>>.O'c.cn.or"''''\l'"rl of the TOWN OF TIBURON llll......01 Cl'II.n".f>cInl on tll' 3rd day of July l~an",1 19 96 ~ CD.,.J Dele: Ie.." Gt Cllrl""nt 011.:;.11 Diane L. Crane l~''''llltlj Ot"S """ 1:10 I"'~ 1"", 0&8 'ertlft TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT To: TOWN COUNCIL Meeting: JULY 3, 1996 FINANCE DIRECTOR Item No: # f' PROPOSED 2- YEAR BUDGET PLAN - FISCAL YEARS 1997 & 1998 1. Capitallmprovement Program 2. Open Space Acquisition Program 3. Debt Service Program From: Subject: Background: This item is for continued Public Hearings on the Proposed Two- Year Budget Plan for the Town for Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998. Initial Public Hearings on the Budget were held on June 19, 1996 and concerned the proposed Operating Budget Plan. This Public Hearing is for consideration of the proposed Capitallmprovement Program and review of the Town's Open Space Acquisition and Debt Service Programs. Staff Report Attachements are from the previouslv submitted Preliminary Bud~:et Plan. and provide a basis from which all elements of the Capitallmprovement Program (with the exception of the ongoing Redevelopment Agency Projects) may be discussed. Recommendation: Town Council hold Public Hearings on the proposed 2- Y ear Capitallmprovement Program, and adopt Streets, Drainage and Community Development Projects for Fiscal Years ending June 30th 1997 and 1998. Attachments: 1. Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 a. Capital Improvement Plan, Pages 96-110 b. Open Space Acquisition Program, Pages 94-95 c. Debt Service Program, Pages III-lIS d. Statement of Fund Balances, Page 8. Page-l Town of Tiburon, Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Commentary: Tiburon's Capital Improvement Program has four (4) primary components: 1. Street Improvements 2. Drainage Improvements 3. Community Development Improvements 4. Tiburon Redevelopment Agency Improvements 1. Street ImDrovements The Town's regular street maintenance program is funded primarily with State Gas Tax funds. The Gas Tax Fund currently receives approximately $160,000 in State Gas Tax proceeds annually. The Fund started Fiscal Year 1995/96 with a reserve balance of $172,200, and project expenditures totaling $235,500 were authorized. It is now projected that the Gas Tax Fund will close the current year with a reserve balance of$121,700. In Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 the Town proposes to fund $213,000 and $187,000 in street improvement projects, respectively. At the end of the two year period the estimated reserve balance of the Gas Tax Fund will be $64,000. This amount represents less than fifty percent (50%) of estimated annual Gas Tax revenue to the Fund Activity in Fiscal Year 1995/96: Gas Tax resources were appropriated for improvement projects in the following areas: Esperanza Centro West Stewart Drive Lyford Drive Mar East Terrace Palmer Court Sommer Court Mara Vista Eastview SouthridgelCayford The overall authorization included provision for miscellaneous repairs during the year. At the end of the Fiscal Year the Gas Tax reserve balance will be approximately $121,000. - 96 - EXHIBIT NO.l~. Town of Tiburon, Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 CAPITAL EMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Activity in Fiscal Year 1996/97: The Town proposes to allocate S213,OOO in Gas Tax Fund resources for the following street improvement projects: Pine Terrace McCart Court Theresa Court Karen Way Venus Court Centro West East Terrace Upper N. Terrace LowerN. Terrace Greenwood Beach Rd Mar East The overall appropriation includes a provision ofSlO,OOO for miscellaneous repairs. The estimated Gas Tax Fund reserve balance on June 30, 1997 will be S79,300. Activity in Fiscal Year 1997/98: The Town proposes to allocate S187,OOO for the following street improvement projects: Cecilia Way Juno Road Mercury Apollo Road These four (4) improvements projects will require an appropriation of S 177,000 from the Gas Tax Fund, as in 1997, provision for S10,OOO in miscellaneous repairs is proposed. The estimated Gas Tax reserve fund balance on June 30, 1998 will be S64,100. 2. Drainal!e ImDrovements Current and proposed Drainage Improvements are funded primarily with resources of the General Fund Streets & Drainage Reserve. Supplemental funding for drainage improvements may be available from the Tiburon Boulevard Improvement Fund or property owner participation in cost sharing of such improvement projects. - 97 - Town of Tiburon, Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 CAPITALEMPROVEMENTPROGRAM Activity in Fiscal Year 1995/96: General Fund Streets & Drainage Reserve resources were augmented by $180,000, through reallocation of General Fund Reserves. Reserve Fund resources were appropriated for all authorized drainage improvements. The Cayford/Southridge drainage improvement project was completed; the proposed Corporation Yard Drainage Runoff and Greenwood Beach Road projects have not been completed and are carried forward for completion in Fiscal Year 1996/97. Funds were also used for miscellaneous repairs to the storm drainage system. The estimated closing Streets & Drainage Reserve Fund balance is $239,800. Activity in Fiscal Year 1996/97: The Town proposes to allocate $137,000 for the following drainage improvement projects: Tiburon Boulevard/San Rafael Ave Sugarloaf7Place Moulin Trestle Glen Canal Corporation Yard Runoff System Greenwood Beach Road carry forward (1996) carry forward (1996) The Tiburon Boulevard improvement Fund will be utilized for the Tiburon Boulevard/San Rafael Avenue project, and Streets & Drainage Reserve resources will be used for drainage maintenance of the Trestle Glen Canal, repairs in the Sugarloaf7Place Moulin area, and the previously authorized Corporation Yard Runoff and Greenwood Beach Road projects. Reserve funds are also allocated for miscellaneous drainage repairs. The estimated closing Reserve Fund balance will be $164,000. Activity in Fiscal Year t 997/98: The Town proposes to allocate $10,000 for miscellaneous repairs to the drainage system. - 98 - Town ofTiburon, Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 3. Community Development Improvements Community Development Improvements represent a wide range community projects and activities. Appropriations from the following restricted funds and General Fund Reserves have supported various Community Development Improvements: General Fund Reserves Park Development Capital Outlay New Town Center Construction Activity in Fiscal Year 1995/96: Capital Proiects Restricted Funds Low & Moderate Housing Marsh Restoration Flood Plain Restoration Open Space Acquisition Property Development Tiburon Playground Tiburon Boulevard Improvement Street Frontage Improvement The following community development activities and improvement projects were authorized, and have been completed, or are pending and will be carried forward to Fiscal Year 1996/97 : Completed Blackie's Pasture Improvements Corinthian Stairs Repair Marin Renter's Program Marsh Maintenance Funding Tiburon Playground Fund Shoreline Park Lighting Repairs Carry Forward. Pending Belveron Mini-Park Improvements Linda Vista Undergrounding Purchase ofBMR Units (2) New Town Center Facilities Harroman Property Purchase Designation of Trails and Paths The Blackie's Pasture Improvement Project was largely grant funded (TDA and SBA). The proposed purchase of the Harroman Open Space Property initially required the utilization of some Capital Outlay Reserve funds, however while the purchase has been pending the Open Space Acquisition Fund has accrued sufficient investment earnings to completely fund the acquisition. - 99 - Town of Tiburon, Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The construction contract for the New Town Center Project has been approved and awarded, and work will commence in June 1996. The New Town Center Construction Reserve Fund was augmented to provide additional resources for the awarded contract and contingency funding for construction and technical services. The Linda Vista Undergrounding Project is fully funded by the property owners of the Assessment District. Activity in Fiscal Year 1996/97: The Town proposes to allocate and carry forward $2,539,900 for the following Community Development Improvements: Elephant Rock Reconstruction Marin Renter's Rebate Program Tiburon Historical District New Town Center Construction Belveron Mini-Park Linda Vista Undergrounding Purchase ofBMR Units Purchase ofHarroman Property Designation of Trails and Paths carry forward (1996) carry forward (1996) carry forward (1996) carry forward (1996) carry forward (1996) carry forward (1996) Grant funding will be sought for the Elephant Rock Reconstruction Project. Activity in Fiscal Year 1997/98: At this time no projects are proposed for 1998. 4. Tiburon RedeveloDment Ae:encv ImDrovements The Redevelopment Agency's Housing Set-Aside Fund receives tax increment revenue which is to be used for purposes of increasing, improving or preserving low and moderate income housing. - 100 _ Town ofTiburon, Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Activity in Fiscal Year 1995/96: Two projects were carried forward in Fiscal Year 1995/96: (I) the EAHlCecilia Senior Housing Project, which is in the predevelopment phase and will be scheduled for construction later in 1996; and (2) the TEAlHilarita Renovation Project, for which the RDA-funded improvement effort is nearing completion. It is estimated that total Housing Set-Aside Fund resources available, net of set-asides for both projects will be approximately $580,000. Activity in Fiscal Year 1996/97: The Agency will allocate and carry forward $620,700 in Housing Set-Aside Funds for the Cecilia and Hilarita Projects as follows: EAHlCecilia Senior Housing TEAIHi1arita Renovation $584,700 $ 36,000 The Cecilia Project will complete predevelopment, and undertake site improvements and construction later in 1996. The RDA-funded Hilarita Renovations Project will be completed by mid-Summer 1996. With completion of the projects estimated total Housing Fund Resources will be $770,000. Activity in Fiscal Year 1997/98: At this time no projects are proposed for 1998. -101 _ FISCAL YEARS 1997 & 1998 Illlllillii!ililiill.i'iiill,iii~111I SOURCES & USES OF FUNDS FOR ALL PROJECTS SCHEDULE OF TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVENUES, EXPENDITURES & SOURCES OF FUNDS 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Budget Estimated Budget Budget SOURCES OF FUNDS Town Funds flood Plain Interest 125,000 0 125,000 General Fund Reserves Capital Outlay 47,000 28,452 16,000 New Town Center Construction 1,345,000 164,000 1,540,000 Park Development 15,000 15,788 1,500 Streets & Drainage 53,400 27,547 75,800 10,000 Linda Vista Undergrounding Fund 102,200 38.600 63,600 LowlModerate Housing Fund 224,300 3,300 224,300 3,300 Marsh Restoration Fund 25,000 27,235 Open Space Acquisition Fund 485,500 0 502,500 Property Development Fund 129,500 4,254 State Gas Tax Fund 235,500 231,426 213,000 187,000 Tiburon Boulevard Improvement 5,000 Total Town Funds: $2,787,400 $540,602 $2,766,700 $200,300 Otber Fund. SBA Grant 12,000 9,438 IDA Grant 67,000 67,750 Other Grants 67,000 Property Owners Project Area (GBR) 56,200 0 56,200 Total Other Funds: $135,200 $77,188 $123,200 $0 Tiburon Redevelopment Arency Housing Set-Aside Fund 842,700 222,000 620,700 Total Redevelopment Funds: $842,700 $222,000 $620,700 $0 Total Source. of Funds: $3,765,300 $839,790 53,510.600 5200,300 - 102 - FISCAL YEARS 1997 & 1998 Illilllllil,Ii!illjlliI19.:JI'III~'IIIII. SOURCES & USES OF FUNDS FOR ALL PROJECTS SCHEDULE OF TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVENUES, EXPENDITURES & SOURCES OF FUNDS 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Budget Estimated Budget Budget PROJECTS & USES OF FUNDS Streets Improvements Miscellaneous Provision 20,000 16,000 10,000 10,000 Centro West 42,500 42,500 Eastview 25,000 25,000 Esperanza 10,000 10,000 Lyford Drive 45,000 45,000 Mar East 26,300 26,300 Mara Vista 21,000 21,000 Palmer Court 7,000 7,000 Sommer Court 4,000 4,000 Stewart Drive 10,000 10,000 Terrace Court 4,700 4,700 Southridge Easement Improvements 20,000 19,926 Pine Terrace 14,000 McCart Court 5,000 Theresa Court 5,000 Karen Way 30,000 Venus Court 23,000 Centro West 23,000 East Terrace 12,000 Upper N. Terrace 15,000 LowerN. Terrace 10,000 Greenwood Beach Road 40,000 Mar East 26,000 Cecilia Way 35,000 Juno Road 43,000 Mercwy 63,000 Apollo Road 36,000 Total Streets: $235,500 $231,426 $213,000 $187,000 Drainafe Improvements Miscellaneous Drainage 5,000 4,895 10,000 10,000 Corporation Yard Run-Off Repair 2,100 0 2,100 Greenwood Beach Road Area 82,500 0 82,500 Southridge Easement Improvements 20,000 22,652 SugarloaVPlace Moulin Improvements 30.000 - 103 - FISCAL YEARS 1997 & 1998 iM,m;;:.;;.;.l*flfJt;"M'";;';8~iW;'M"YWE""'il~ifg;R~CiiiJl?iif~ ........:............~~:._.,:.,III}'-..,.,' -.....,'. c' .._.r::-"~:;w::~ . _ ,_,_"'::.}....E:_..__~...,__~".. ":H.'::::':;::::::::": :.,:,.... ,".. ..". .",. .", . .::.;.~:::..:.::..:;::.:::::::'.;:;..:&...:::...::.;~:::.~:.'.:...~;".::,;;;'::::...::;'::;.~:..i.:...;:::::;:::;,;:::::.:::.:.::;;:.::;.;::::::::::.;::::~::::;:~:>:.;.:.::;::~.:::.::::~:::.;.~:.:':::::':~::;:':';"':::':':<* SOURCES & USES OF FUNDS FOR ALL PROJECTS SCHEDULE OF TOTAL CAPITAL iMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVENUES, EXPENDITURES & SOURCES OF FUNDS 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Budget Estimated Budget Budget Tiburon Boulevard/San Rafael Avenue 5,000 Trestle Glen Canal 7,400 Total Drainage: $109,600 $27,547 $137,000 $10,000 Community Development Belveron Mini-Park Repairs 1,500 0 1,500 Blackie's Pasture Improvements 86,500 86,976 Downtown Corinthian Stairs 30,000 28,452 Elephant Rock Reconstruction 67,000 Linda Vista Undergrounding 102,200 38,600 63,600 LowlModerate Housing Units 221,000 0 221,000 Marin Renter's Rebate Program 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Marsh Maintenance Plan 25,000 27.235 New Town Center Facilities 1,595,000 164,000 1,665,000 Open Space Paths & Trails 2,500 0 2,500 Open Space Purchase - Harroman 500,000 0 500,000 Shoreline Park Lighting Repair 4,500 4,254 Tiburon Playground Fund 6,000 6,000 Tiburon Historical District 16,000 Total Community Development: $2,577,500 $358,817 $2,539,900 $3,300 Tiburon Redevelopment Agency Cecilia Senior Housing (BAH) 684,700 100,000 584,700 Hilarita Preservation (lEA) 158,000 122,000 36,000 Total Redevelopment: $842,700 $222,000 $620,700 Total Us.s of Funds: S3,765,300 S839,790 $3,510,600 S200,300 - 104- nen~ [......IG.......!~ :::{, :,;;:, '''''; ,.;.:. iTal"" "..0 >Ol..J ,......~ lil~ ..1.....-" ~? , ;:,:,' '"Q ; il...... ';:E';~"'" ['. .'. 'III'" n ...., :- ,.,.. V:-\\ I,:!l ""0"'" 11~lo t,.A;..,u Wed.,,. li;ll~ ".iiI.........., ~ g..... ;l :<.,~... "t-!. h~;~~~:~ ,..., ,.,.......... g..=d '" 1""~""fI'.l Ilioi~ ii..i~ """""""fI'.l ,. ,,~: ,",'."" ,>,.:-,.,.:.:.....;. "",:,:.;:-:.;.;.: co '" '" ..... o<l .... '" '" ..... ~ ~ ~ U fI'.l l.:: ~ ...... .. bOtlObObObObOO 1z ,g,g,g .5 ,g,g,g,g,g,g31 555 I [555[51r es """""" """""" ""8 0..'" 00- g ~~ 0 ...-g - ~(Il ....- ~ S~ ~ ~-g ...(Il ~ ~ ~-~g ~- ~g.~.g~.g~- 'li ONO V'I \0 "It'r---'l::t_I,f\O\ .5 - -..,. - ..,. N N N_ '" 1;! ~ ~ ~ ~~~ g ~~~.~.g~.g ... ~ 0" o M" 0" V'I \0 "'I't't'--V-lI)O ~ N -...- ..,. N NNN ]]]11 8.8.8.8- E e e e 0.. 0.. o..Q., 11 1 ~ e e ""'" "" ~~~~ v" vll,f')" 0 - .... ~~ ~ M" f'l"'l" ~.f N N I ll1 ~ 0 .. ..... j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E- E-E-E- E-E-E-E-E-E-E-CS E-E-E-E- E-E- E- :l :l :l :l ., :l :l :l :l :l :l :l dd :l :l :l :l :l :l :l co 0 000 0 0000000:) 0000 00 0 .5 .!l 8 E ~ " 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ~ S .9 B ,g B B .!l ] 5 555 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 '" "''''''' '" l'/')r./'JCI)tlJtl'.Jl'J')tf)l'J') (l)l'J')lZ.lrl) '" '" '" ~ ~ fI'.l ~ ~ s: o ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ fI'.l 1l l 5 j !l, :) .. .~ ~ 5'~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ i; dd :9.g l'J') 6.. 2i _~.. ~.5!~ Cd ~ 0'"0 tI.) ;::3 ~ ~ ~;~~ : 3 ~ .1; s: ~ =. ~ = I ~ ~~ ~] ~ ~~ <~~: Oc E-~(Il~~ ~~ ~-8~ ~j~leg~~E- 88~~~~~1~ ~~~~~~51~~~~~~~~>~ ~~1 u ~E-~ 0 ~;;s E-_ [fj Y.1~u;Z;!=l ~ ~:;;!O ~o ~ - l'J').....:I f-o~CIJ ~tI) Ii! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :il :il :il ... ... ... &': &': &': ~ ~ &': ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :il :il :il :il :il :il ,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... &': &': &': &': &': &': &': ] ~ ~ .;l E-E- 3 3 ~~~ ~E-E-1:1~ ~88~~~1~~ ~E-<~..!2Uo Iir !=l~~Z(Il",~~!=l ~~~~ ffi&J !ii ""~~;::! >u ~ - i i ~ ! :il :il ~ ,.... ,.... ,... ,... &': &': &': &': II I 'I:~ .if I~ ""...,0 li!1 ~ !il~l~ nlr~ I....i:i..........ll.... ;~ "III"" R ,if ,~ 110,. ,JP;no ..:I..E..,............;..l!..~~. ii~'" ... j!b ClrE-< ;!~ ......'...en li! 1111 i]]i ~~~~ ~~ c..c..c..Q., c..c..Q.,Q.. ~~~~ C> C> 00- "l. ~~ l/")MM\O' ... "'-g M<o:t\QM 00 - ~~ '" ~-~-~-~- C> C> ...- C>_ ~~ ,,",00\0 .., -g - - V N - ... -~ '" \0 ] ... "t "~ - .., ... '" \0 ~ ~ ... C> ... C> - ~ "l. lfl -g .., ... ~ '" <':':':":";:,:':" ";';::';-""',.".' j .. .8 ] I '" o .... 1:i 1:i 1:i 1:i f-oE-f-of-o gj gj gj gj 0000 .9 B B S S S S S Cl.)tI)CI.)rJ] 1:i 1:i 1:i 1:i f- [-q... f- ~ : gj : 0000 .9 S B B S S S S cnCl.)CI)CI.) co en 0\ :i 0\ ~ - f;r;l ~ :; ~ r-- - ~ = 0\ :I: .. 0\ ~~u E - 0 .. 11 uu< e ~ Ill: ~~~ ~ "e- >- ~ '" ~ ""' !:JCl .5 f-< I !:J .8 f- ~~>-~ ~ ~ . z ~ '/l ;$~~3 f;r;l z~ < - ~ ffl~~~ '/l U ==loU...., -; u~~o en f-< Q,. ~3~~ ~ ~~ - Ii:: en .s ~ i ~ ~ ~ o 1:1 a (I; to- ,... ,... ..... OJ en (J) OJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,... ,.... ,.... ,... ~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 IIII~ ;I:~ ~;B'~~ (Il~ f:ll: IiI ,;> 1......0>. ........ m ~t sICa I~ !.:~::;~ i.t;~ Ilri 'o~ ;;I~ ;" . 00 0\ 0\ - 0<1 r-- 0\ 0\ - ~ !e :;! u CIl [;:: ~g, "'-g ;c:l ] .S ~Ul on '" '" -- ~ -g c:l en ~ ~ ~ ~ o g:: ~ ~ t.-' 0( ~ ~ ~ 1a ES """, ~ 00- ~a ",-g ~c:l ~ <;; g ~ V'l '" 00 ..; g V'l J 00 ~ ~ !.b '" .5 5 old ! '" il I E " ~ ". .5 .!= '" 'e- t1l :g ~ g S ~!ij.!l - '" - ~ ;;'i ~ " Cl'EJ g> tIJ ""' .S C) .Q _~ 0"" ~.~ E 'S: 9 o '" o-l ~ 0 t1l""- U '" ~ ~ ~ ~ c;; ] ~ 5 " 8 .... o 8 .... !.b .. .5 5 old J '" ~ UlS-e c:x: * ~ .... ~>- ....~iS 0-.., I 9 co 5 2 ~ lX"'o ~!iju ".!:! oo~ >- '" 0 z~~ o -6 .~ i=:.= ::0 < "''' et:: fr 0... o lX .5 ~ o u - , c;; ] ~ 5 " 8 V'l .... 00 o 8 V'l .... 00 88 .., '" "D~ \Q~ '" V'l " g>~ .~ ~ ~t !J: '" g <~"i ~ E 0 olX Ol., ~"5 ~ o"c:l p:: g>] ::I:.5 ~ i;> u"!'l a:l <-611" !il ~cq CI~5!il O.t:l e-5 0'" 1;!i:i2 ~!ll 9 gj Cl o ~ ~ ~ c;; * I '" V'l "" .... '" ~ <;; '" !.b ..~ .5 1;l 5!- old~ i ~ j,j~ '" ~ :l .. !i Ii .~ ~5Q t1l>old '" e '" < ".- t1lS! 51"'''' O ~ ~ . fl 0 1;l ~SV:!- < Ii'., 1(1 ul-oi;)o ttJE8~ ou~~ @ ~ '0'", i5~~:ii C) o '" '" ~ c;; !.b .. .5 5 old :l ! '" ij !- ~ ~ ~ 5 e ~t ~ ~ j~ ~-6 ~ .= o ~ ~~ Cl C) '" ~ c;; ] ~ ". ~ <;; .., e; ". .5 ~ iii g "" E:: ~ < ~ ~.8 ~!.b f!! '" ~ .~ o-l-6 a:l'; a! g3 e3 !- N I c;; I e ". ] ~ ". ~ '" 8 ... ,.: !.b '" " 'S ~ CI old ! '" "'il :ii " !.b .. .5 '" -6 .5 is .'" ~il ~w u'" z~ t1l ._ o-l '" Cl!il ~o ~ '" I c;; o o q o - '" o o o. ..... .., - '" ..... ... "l. ..... ... '" o o oc.. '" o - '" I .... o ..... ~ - c " e " > f ". .5 " .. .. c 0; .. l:I ;; ~ Ilill~ ~;;I}:,~ li!~ -~ tllli;> .1&1..... I~i:l ,..aL.o Ii IIIGlg ;;.....i..................~ ~:::::::::';:;:::::;: E::: :'::':VJ .. . ."::-.".0.. eUrt\; 00 '" '" - o'<J r-- '" '" - ~ ~ ~ u CI) tI:: :u J:&l 00- ~~ !;;-g ~'" ....- $~ !:~ 1 .5 ~l;; ~~ III c0- co- -- " 00 ~ ~ llo o '"" ~ f;I;l ~ I o u ~ ~ .a S- " 8 '" - o 8 '" J 00 ;ij !3 "" ~ ~ 5 Ei go l o ~ "'- il [ 5 ! 0. .s z ~. o .~ ~! ~ Iii <5 ";< Ii ~ ~ z.5 o~ ~"'- r;j '" I I ~ I '" S; ",. 00 8 on '" 00 805( on8es r-:r-:c-i "'- l~~ lc5c5 0<< ~~g] "'- ",)!l ~ I ~ 6,)!l)!l o.siiii g; .~ ~ ~ ~0.2o ~~.~.t Iii ., bO -" " '" <d ~ '6. < 0000= e;]]~ - :a:a Iii ~~ll.....:I j '" 2 " I M on .... 00 M ~. o '" ~ 8 '3 Og. u '" e. ~ ~l;;"" < ~ Iii f-<~_ 1Zl~~ I., Iii ~:s 1ii.<1 'S c: '" 0 "u o 1l ~ u"eo ~.~ ~ O ~ 0 ,,"" ~~.s o Q '" ~ I 0. ~. .... '" 5 11 "" !/ ~o c5~ ll"'- ~ib J z<"" g~1ii f-< .00 g ~.~ ~ ~ ~.a Ii z g tii 2 o '= . Co. frl"O~.5 ~15"""O :.:.." OJ c u 0 t;i 0 o ~ ll'''' ~ ~ ~ I :ii ~ lir 8 ~ ~ "' ! ~ ] i ~ ",. '" ~- 00 '" 8 M N o - I ] ~ :> ~ .S ....l tl .~ o .~ 25 Q ~.~ 5 .lj ~ .- '" o'<l~ p:: .. 0'- flJ ~ cd ~;ij~ =q~ < !;b:> f-< II .. "'"""" >..::.s <-,....l ~ ....l ... I ~ ] S- " ~. M M o ~. - M M ~~ "0...,.; MOo - bO .5 ~ J ! )!l . .~ ~ ~'" 2 ..: .,.1:> ~- ..'" u c:. v""" 25 :a :a ",::Ei! ::> ~ OJ O.9::E :I:&\c ~"O~ ffi~~ Qii,;: o !3 ~ ",-.5 ~ 9 OJ ~ .J :\! 2 G ~ ! ~ 2 ..!! a- 8 8 "" ..; 8 "" ..; 8 "" ..; on "" M ...: M 8 "" ..; ~- on M 15 .." E ~ ~ ~ <Xl o ..... ~ o ~ ; "'- I'l ~ Iii ~~ ~o. ~J: ~~ ",.8 z!i ~ ~ ~.~ gJ .~ ~ .~ ~::E !::E ! ~ 8 i "'!"~ [ ..!.'~ I~ol~ 0.... 11E~ iil! 1.111...,'.:.;1"1 IEJ "I: "'0" ~.,j li'a:,o I""::':u ~'iil~ "...........".< -"IT"":~ ""'- -:"': ~;c; WSIO la'vi 1~li~ :>:.:-:-:-:;:-,.:.:.. :..::::...,,:-.......; ~:rt:::\} ">:,........,"'. 00 0\ 0\ - o(l r-- 0\ 0\ - ~ ~ :il u <I) Ii:: 1B o " ~~ ",-'" Oll~ ~~ ",-g ~a:l ......., ~oo lli:-g ~a:l ~ .~ '<>UJ ~ III '" '" -~ !l, -g a:l J OIl >€I ~ ~ ~ ll.. o ... ~ r-1 ~ I o u II I I ,5 1 <2 ~ " ~ vi ~ ~- ~ - ~ vi ~ "1. ~~ o"v-." ..,. '" on,_ ]l;! ... ~ I] u .~ ~s: ...] ~..: z l'J ~ .., ...c::~ "-" .,<::! en 0 ~.., 6 fo-I C)';::2 ;;:J.G~ U19] < 8. ~... t>:o< EJ 6 z" ~ UJ S 0 uO'" ~ e :. " " - ., "-~ 0,5<2 ... ~ ~ ! 1: ~ <2 ~ " ~ 8' on o ~ 8 on ~o 8" on 6;5' "-= ~ 'O! "S ::R <:r~ ,,- <~ 83 " :; ~o !l~ oar u 8 ... ~ .. t>:.~~ 0"" R~ fE~O% z ~ l:>;E 0~5.... e:: - 0 tIJ - eU." 5 8.'~ 0 0'8",'" u~,.r::;~ <ii:S:::. UJe~'U ~ g 15 '~ "'- a!fi'- ",:1:,,0 Z ~ III ~ ~ 1: ~ <2 ~ " 8 on .... o 8 on .... 6 .., 'O! 's <:r ~ ~ 0. '" ! i~ ~i OD <>::'s eo 6 ~.., UJ .. uSb <'O! e;Cl ffi "'- o I {j I ..,. on '" ..; 8 on ..; 1 .9- ~ o J ::E i=l '" ~q "'<.:: el I'i i?il;! !2~ eloo ::l'B ~~ "'- 0 ~ .; ~~ 5l en N ! I ~ -0 3 :; o :3 "i- U f ...:S~ U ~ " ;:;l"ll'"' f==.g C/)._ c.. a ~ ~' :;;l .c. U g 0. 1:: ;:;:""68- o.z;'" ~ t;!jSOl Jl"3iJ: z 19 8'" 08."ii !3 f!l ... . 8 i jj 0. ~ ~- '<> ~ -0 J ~ ~ "'- 1 'stb '" ili' 1Il Q. . ~ 0 19 ~~,g 0.0." ~ 00.0 ~<2.p; S"'8~ 050. <>:: ~ ,5 0 el 0; ,.~ >- ~ S'- -!)l's" ~:a'S -!l z s.~ ii o '" e ~ !3UJ ... f!l ... ~ i ... o o "'l. ... "" o o <I). '" ::t ... "" ..... - "'l- Oll III ... "" o o "l ..... ..... "l ... "" I '" o .... :; - " .. a .. ,. e ... .!l - " .. B ... .5i .. ;; 1:1 ... ;:= " " a e .. u ;; - ~ Town of Tiburon, Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 OPEN SPACE ACQUlSmON PROGRAM Commentary: in 1972, the voters of TibuTOn approved a general obligation bond issue in the amount of $1,250,000 for the purpose ofissuing bonds to acquire land for preservation as open space. Several properties have been purchased - primarily between the years 1973 and 1983 - however, subsequent planned purchases of open space lands have been restricted, primarily because of the acceleration in land values and the Town's limited Open Space Acquisition Fund resources. Unexpended Fund proceeds have been invested continually since January 1973; these resources, combined with subsequent investment earnings has enabled open space land acquisitions in excess of the original $1,250,000. Activity in Fiscal Year 1995/96: Open Space Acquisition Funds ($487,000) and General Fund Capital Outlay Reserve Funds ($13,000) totaling $500,000 were appropriated for the Town's participation with the Marin County Open Space District in the purchase of the Harroman property. Because of pending litigation between the property owner and the Town, the proposed purchase was delayed. It is probable that the transaction will be completed in Fiscal Year 1996/97. Activity in Fiscal Year 1996/97: Open Space Acquisition and Capital Outlay Reserve funds in the amounts of$490,OOO and $10,000 respectively, will be carned forward and reappropriated for the proposed purchase of the Harroman property. While the purchase has been pending, unexpended Open Space Acquisition monies have been accruing investment earnings, as a result there may not be a need to use Capital Outlay Reserve monies for this purchase. Purchase of the Harroman property will deplete the Open Space Acquisition Fund to a nominal balance. There will be no funds available for subsequent acquisition or maintenance of open space properties. Activity in Fiscal Year 1997/98: None proposed. EXHIBIT NO.~ - 94 - FISCAL YEARS 1997 & 1998 tlllltllll;IlllI1111111111111111,llilllllllillllgii:ligI PROPERTIES ACQUIRED SCHEDULE OF OPEN SPACE PROPERTY ACQUIRED WITH PROCEEDS OF 1972 GENERAL OBLIGATION OPEN SPACE BONDS PERiOD: 1973 to PRESENT Date Acquired Property Owner 1 1973 November Eavy 2 1974 JWle KMC 3 1975 March Cormell 4 1975 May Atkinson 5 1975 July R.U.S.D. 6 1975 September CalTrans 7 1976 Febrwuy Marin Housing 8 1977 August Hamon 9 1981 October Ward 10 1983 March CalTrans 11 1995 March . Jay Property Description Acreage Purchase Purchased AmoWlt 25.00 $232,000 1.60 23,000 10.00 103,000 60.00 200,000 12.80 190,000 4:l.60 251,000 2.00 36,000 10.00 200,000 0.40 0 End of Gilmartin Drive near St Hilary's Church Blackie's Pasture Blackie's Pasture Ridgeline, NW Tiburon adjacent to Ring MOWltain Middle Ridge, Central Tiburon Richardson Bay Shoreline, from Blackie's Pasture to San Rafael Ave. Adjacent to Reed Union School and Hilarita Complex Middle Ridge, Central Tiburon Exchange of Property. Greenwood Beach Road I Tiburon Boulevard parcel for Reed Ranch Road Lot Adjacent to parcel at Greenwood Beach Road I Tiburon Boulevard 0.25 2,900 Joint participation with Marin COWlty Open Space District (Old St. Hilary's Open Space) Community Facilities District, 1993-1 100,000 12 1995 Pending, Nov. Harroman Property Joint participation with Marin COWlty Open Space District (Old St. Hilary's Open Space) Community Facilities District, 1993-1 500,000 Total Acreage & Costs 165.65 51,837,900 Projected Total Food Resources, as of JWle 30, 1996 $ - 95 Town ofTiburon, Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 DEBT SERViCE PROGRAM Commentary: The Town's Debt Service Program is comprised largely of municipal bond issues associated with the financing of public improvements in specific neighborhood, subdivision or development areas. Such issues have generally included 1915 Act, Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act, and Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act bonds. Only one bond issue is a general obligation of the Town - the 1972 Open Space General Obligation Bonds. 1972 ODen SDace Bonds: Dated November 1972. General Obligation Bonds. Amount $1,250,000, at approximately 4.9"10. Term 1972 to 2002. The bonds were authorized by a vote of two-thirds of the qualified voters in a special municipal election, for the purpose of authorizing the sale of bonds for the acquisition ofland for preservation as open space. The Town is obligated to levy an ad-valorem tax upon all property within the Town in order to secure resources necessary for payment of the bond's principal, interest and associated fiscal charges. The current override ad-valorem tax rate levy is approximately $6.00 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. CibrianILa Cresta Assessment District Refundinl!:. 1989-1: Dated October 1989. 1915 Act improvement Bonds. Amount $840,000, at 6.6% to 7.75%. Term 1991 to 2003. The bonds were issued to refund outstanding bonds of the Cibrian Drive and La Cresta Assessment Districts. The purpose of the Cibrian Drive issue was to finance surface and subsurface street improvements and utilities including: grading, paving, curbs and gutters, sewer and water mains, street lights and other associated improvements. Gilmartin Drive Refundinl!: District. 1993-1: Dated July 1993. 1915 Act improvement Bonds. Amount $3,545,000, at 3.75% to 6.70%. Term 1994 to 2007. The bonds were issued to refund outstanding bonds ofthe Gilmartin Drive 1987 Refunding District. The purpose of the initial Gilmartin Drive issue was to finance surface and subsurface street improvements and utilities including: grading, paving, curbs and gutters, sewer and water mains, street lights and other associated improvements. - 111- EXHIBIT NO.~ Town ofTiburon, Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 DEBT SERVICE PROGRAM Point Tiburon Community Facilities District. Soecial Tax Refundin2 Bonds of Communi tv Facilities District 1985-1. 1990: Dated June 1990. Limited Obligation Special Tax Refunding Bonds. Amount $5,573,000, at 6.60% to 7.90%. Term 1991 to 2010. The bonds were issued to refund previously issued bonds of the Point Tiburon "1985 Special Tax Bonds of Community Facilities District, 1985-1." Authority for issuance of the 1985 bonds was with the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act. The purpose of the issue was to finance the acquisition of some public improvements in the Community Facilities District. Some public improvements included the following: construction and acquisition of surface and subsurface street improvements and utilities including grading, paving, curbs and gutters, sewer and water mains, street lights and other associated improvements; construction of a shoreline park; construction of storm drainage facilities, and associated improvements necessary for completed public improvements. The bond's principal, interest and associated fiscal charges are payable from the combined proceeds of an annual Special Tax Levy and an annual payment of$472,500 in tax increment revenue from the property owners in the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency Project Area. It is anticipated that tax increment revenue will be available until 2003, after such time the Special Tax will be the source for all debt service requirements of the bonds. Special Tax and tax increment payments to the district are used for debt service requirements of the Marks-Roos bond which were used to refund the bonds. Tiburon Public Facilities Financin2 Authoritv. Marks-Roos Bonds. 1990-A: Dated May 1990. Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act Bonds. Amount $7,948,000, at 6.60% to 7.90%. Term 1991 to 2015. In May 1990, the Town formed the Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority (TPFFA), issued and sold $7,948,000 ofMarks-Roos for the purpose of financing and acquiring public improvements, and included the following proposed uses of the proceeds: Via Capistrano Street Realignment Assessment District, Hillhaven Utility Undergrounding District, Old Tiburon - 112- Town of Tiburon, Preliminary Budget Plan, Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 DEBT SERVlCE PROGRAM Utility Undergrounding Assessment District, and Refunding of the Point Tiburon Community Facilities District Bonds. The Via Capistrano and Hillhaven projects, and the Bond Refunding were undertaken. In April 1993 Staff initiated proceedings to collapse the TPFF A Bond Pool and called bonds_ The Marks-Roos bonds are secured with revenues from the assessment district bonds of Via Capistrano and Hillhaven, and the community facilities district bonds of Point Tiburon. HilIhaven Undel"2roundin2 Assessment District. 1990-2: Dated May 1991. 1915 Act Improvement Bonds. Amount $434,263, at 7.70% to 7.90%. Term 1992 to 2006. The bonds were issued to finance the relocation ofuti1ity services _ electricity, telephone and cable television - to below ground locations. Special assessment revenues of the district are used for debt service requirements of the Marks-Roos bonds. Via CaDistrano Assessment District. 1990-1: Dated July 1990. 1915 Act Improvement Bonds. Amount $225,000, at 7.70% to 7.90%. Term 1991 to 2015. The bonds were issued to finance the widening of Via Capistrano and for changing the street from one-way to two-way access. Special assessment revenues of the district are used for debt service requirements of the Marks-Roos bonds. Linda Vista Undel"2roundin2 Assessment District. 1994-2: Dated May 1996. 1915 Act Improvement Bonds. Amount $62,661, at 4.25% to 6.50%. Term 1996 to 2011. The bonds were issued to finance the relocation of utility services- electricity, telephone and cable television - to below ground locations. - 113 - FISCAL YEARS 1997 & 1998 Illlljlrf~111,.IIIII!llflllilll FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPAL, INTEREST & FISCAL CHARGES Description Principal Interest Total eo Clbrian/La Cre.ta R.funding DI.trict 45,000 34,936 579,936 80-160-4100 California Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Issued January 80-160-4200 1990. Term 1991-2003. Refunding amount: 5840,000. 51 PI. T1buron Community Facmtl.. District 360,000 313,620 $673,620 51-160-4100 1985 Point Tiburon Public Improvements. June 1990 51-160-4200 refunding of 1985 MelIo-Roos Bonds. Marks-Roos Bonds of the Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority. Issued June 1990. Term 1990-2010. Refunding of 55,573.000. 76 GUmartin Drive Refunding District 210,000 184,224 5394,224 76-160-4100 California Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Issued July 76-160-4200 1993. Term 1994-2007. Refunding 53,545,000. 78 Hillhav.n A.....m.nt District 22,000 28,017 550,017 78-160-4100 MaIks-Roos Bonds of the Tiburon Public Facilities 76-160-4200 Financing Authority, issued JWle 1991. Term 1991-2006. AmoWlt of issue $434,200. 60 Unda Vista Und.rgrounding A.....m.nt District 0 2,891 52,891 80-160-4100 California Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Issued June 80-160-4200 1996. Term 1996-2011. AmoWltofissue: $62,661 87 Op.n Space Acquisition Bond. (1972) SO,OOO 20,750 570,750 87-160-4100 Open Space General Obligation Bonds. December 1972. 87-160-4200 Term 1973-2002. ArnoWlt 51,250,000. 50 Tiburon Public Facmti.. Financing 360,000 352,738 5712,738 50-160-4100 Marks-RoosBondPoo1. Authorized May 1990. Term 50-160-4200 1991-2015. AmoWltofissue 57,948,000. 52 Via Capistrano A.....ment District 3,000 15,225 518,225 52-160-4100 Marks-Roos Bonds of Tiburon Public Facilities Financing 52-160-4200 Authority, issued JWle 1990. Term 1991-2010. Amount of issue 5225,000. Total D.bt Service 51,050,000 5952,401 52,002,401 - 114 - FISCAL YEARS 1997 & 1998 Mi'il;i,;il;l'E""'lliisW";;~jJ;:::g;i;g;R'''. ,,;:::;;;;.;*=: .,.",..-'_.......,..............",.... _, __._'_ .....,...,___..=....,.J..::: _.~JIiiiii,i.....r:__,_ ;~,~~.. ::::,:::::::;:::*::::::~H::::.:I;:::::::~'::;:,::8::::;:::::::::;:::::;;;:::;:.;:::;~:::::::::;~::::::;]:~1::l::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~::;:::::;:::::::.::::J::::::::::::;::::::::;~::::::::::::::~:::::;::::::::::::::~~::::::::< FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPAL, INTEREST & FISCAL CHARGES Description Principal Interest Total 80 ClbrlanILa Cresta Refunding District 50,000 31,503 S81,503 80-160-4100 California Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Issued January 80-160-4200 1990. Tenn 1991-2003. Refunding amount: S840,OOO. 51 Pt. Tiburon Community Facilities District 385,000 286,235 $671,235 51-160-4100 1985 Point Tiburon Public Improvements. June 1990 51-160-4200 refunding of 1985 Mello-Roos Bonds. Marks-Roos Bonds of the Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority. Issued June 1990. Tenn 1990-2010. Refunding of S5,573,OOO. 76 Gilmartin Drive Refunding District 205,000 173,856 S378,856 76-160-4100 California Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Issued July 76-160-4200 1993. Tenn 1994-2007. Refunding $3,545,000. 78 Hillhaven Assessment District 24,000 26,246 S50,246 78-160-4100 Marks-Roos Bonds of the Tiburon Public Facilities 78-160-4200 Financing Authority, issued June 1991. Tenn 1991-2006. Amouot of issue $434,200. 60 LInda Vista Undergrounding Assessment District 1,861 3,586 S5,447 60-160-4100 California Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Issued June 60-160-4200 1996. Tenn 1996-2011. Amount of issue: $62,661 87 Open Spa.. Acquisition Bonds (1972) 75,000 18,250 $93,250 87-160-4100 Open Space General Obligation Bonds. December 1972. 87-160-4200 Tenn 1973-2002. Amount $1,250,000. 50 Tiburon PubUc Facilities Financing 385,000 324,453 S709,453 50-160-4100 Marks-Roos Bond Pool. Authorized May 1990. Tenn 50-160-4200 1991-2015. Amount of issue $7,948,000. 52 Via Capistrano Assessment District 3,000 14,994 $17,994 52-160-4100 Marks-Roos Bonds of TibW"on Public Facilities Financing 52-160-4200 Authority, issued Juoe 1990. Tenn 1991-2010. Amount of issue S225,OOO. Total Debt Service SI,128,861 S879,123 $2,007,984 -115 - FISCAL YEARS 1997 & 1998 GENERAL, C.I.P. & REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS STATEMENT OF FUND BALANCES FOR GENERAL, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT & REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30m 1994 to 1998 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Actual Actual Estimated Budget Budget GENERAL FUND Unreserved, unallocated: 857,703 1,358,500 868,700 941,500 952,000 Umeserved, desigoated for: Capital Equipment Replacement 211,548 131,576 272,375 260 000 275000 Capital Outlay 89,248 50,740 17,488 1,488 1,488 Employee Compensated Leave 253,703 211,311 227,001 222,001 217,001 New Town Center Construction 1,217,357 1,347,302 1,543,303 3,303 3,303 New Town Hall 0 0 0 0 0 Park Development 105,845 76,704 5,638 1,638 1.638 Revenue Sharing 802 0 0 0 0 Self Insurance 239,474 160,892 166,511 166,511 166,511 Streets & Drainage 91,531 87,391 239,844 164,044 154,044 Total General Fund: $3,067,211 $3,424,416 $3,340,860 $1,760,485 $1,770,985 OTHER RESTRICfED FUNDS Flood Plain Restoration 246,276 259,906 274,806 159,806 167,706 Lowltv1oderate in-lieu Housing 1,011,491 1,072,747 1,140,147 981,547 1,050,547 Marsh Restoration 114,882 121,347 100,012 105,012 110,312 Open Space Acquisition 562,255 476,773 503,773 2,273 2,373 Police Asset Forfeiture 14,344 7,590 11,618 11,718 11,818 Property Development Tax 125,329 152,634 20,130 28,630 37,530 State Gas Tax 84,618 172,235 121,709 79,309 64,109 Street F rootage Improvement 8,571 8,167 7,617 8,017 8,417 Tihuron Boulevard Improvement 49,532 125,115 138,619 140,519 147,512 Tihuron Circulation System Improvemen 1 10,300 20,900 Tiburon Planning Area Mitigation 2 0 65,770 69,570 73,049 76,699 Tiburon Playground Improvement 0 0 6,802 7,102 7,502 Total Other Restricted Funds: $2,217,298 $2,462,284 $2,394,803 $1,607,282 $1,705,432 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RDA General Increment 51,904 40,220 39,220 42,720 45,520 RDA Housing Set-Aside 822,547 979,197 1,202,997 770,797 967,397 Total Redevelopment Agency: $874,451 $1,019,417 $1,242,217 $813,517 $1.012,917 -- l'!21es to tabk 1 New Public Facilities & Traffic Mitigation Fees Schedule. Fund replaces Tiburon Boulevard Improvement Fund. 2 Previous Fund Name - Tiburon Boulevard 101 Wye Improvement. Change result of new Mitigation Plan. - 8 EXHIBIT NO.hb. TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. ?-o To: From: Subject: Date: TOWN COUNCIL TOWN MANAGER CONTRACT SERVICES STUDY - COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT July 3, 1996 BACKGROUND At Town Council's June 19 preliminary budget hearing, Staff was directed to determine the approximate cost ofa study which would analyze the Town's current level of police services and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of contracting such services with the Marin County Sheriff's Department. ANALYSIS Three (3) consulting agencies who perform such studies responded with the following estimated cost and time ranges: Estimated cost = $7,500 - $15,000 Estimated time to complete = 60-90 davs RECOMMENDATION If it is the sense of the Council to proceed with a formal consultant's analysis and study of Tiburon contracting its police services with the County of Marin, then the Town should assist in the data/information collection. The Town Manager should be directed to formally contact the Marin County Administrator's office and request an initial cost quotation or proposal from the County Sheriff's Department for police services based upon the Town's current level of services. Town Staff would provide the Sheriff's office with required information concerning staffing policies, calls for service, equipment, etc. An RFP or Scope of Services would then be prepared for an independent third-party to analyze a proposal which reflects a desired level of police services for the Town. By the Town pursuing such initial information from the County, it would relieve the consultants from obtaining this data and should thereby reduce the overall cost and preparation time for the analysis and study. RL. Kleinert TOWN COUNCIL ST AFF REPORT TO: FROM: TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, ~ ~ PLANNING DIRECTO~ MEETING DATE: 7/3/96 REPORT DATE: 6/11/96 ITEM NO.: l' SUBJECT: REPEAL CHAPTER 19 OF THE TIBURON TOWN CODE AND ADOPT NEW CHAPTER 19 REGULATING ENCROACHMENTS (Ordinance-1st reading) BACKGROUND Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Town Code forms the basis for regulation of encroachments onto Town streets, right-of-ways, and Town property. Among other things, it establishes application procedures and implementing standards and requirements. The Town currently operates under a 1953 Marin County ordinance adopted by reference upon the Town's incorporation in 1964. It is considerably out of date. At its 1995 Council/Staff retreat, the Town Council established the revision of Chapter 19 as a "medium" priority goal, with an estimated completion date of March 1996. ANALYSIS A draft revised Chapter 19 has been prepared with important contributions from the former Town Attorney, current Town Attorney, Town Engineer, and Superintendent of Public Works. Staff has attempted to keep the revised ordinance simple yet adequately comprehensive. Authority for review and approval of encroachment permits is assigned to the Town Engineer, except in any instances where a permanent encroachment is proposed, in which case the Town Council acts on the application. Current Town policy also makes this distinction, except that the Superintendent of Public Works (rather than the Town Engineer) reviews applications for encroachment permit. Staff believes that because of the technical nature of many encroachment permit applications, the Town Engineer is the most appropriate professional to review them. This is the method of operation used by Marin County. The Town does not receive a large number of encroachment permit applications, and the additional costs of having the Town Engineer process them is insubstantial. TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 71319' 1 RECOMMENDATION That following a public hearing, the Town Council move to read by title only, and then pass first reading of the ordinance by roll call vote_ EXHIBITS 1. Draft Ordinance. 2. Current ordinance. lmunicode\chap19.rpt TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 7/3/JO 2 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ORDINANCE NO. N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TmURON REPEALING CHAPTER 19 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 19 OF THE TmURON MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO ENCROACHMENTS Section 1. Findings. WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that the Town's existing provisions with respect to encroachments into Town streets, right-of-ways, and other lands are outdated and in need of revision; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held public hearings on 1996, and , 1996 and has received and considered public testimony on this matter; and WHEREAS, all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has found that the proposed Town Code revision is consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and other ordinances and regulations; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has found that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements ofCEQA per Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 2. Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code Repealed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that Chapter 19 (Streets and Sidewalks) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Draft Revised Encroachment Pennit Ordinance (Munt Code Ch. 19) rev. 6/11196 1 EXHIBIT NO. ... " 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 Section 3. Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code Added. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that a new Chapter 19 entitled "Encroachments" is hereby added to the Tiburon Municipal Code as follows: Sections: 19-1 19-2 19-3 19-4 19-5 19-6 19-7 19-8 19-9 19-10 19-11 Chapter 19 ENCROACHMENTS Definitions. Encroachment Permit Required. Application and Fees. Action on Application. Revocation of Permit; Relocation or Removal of Encroachment. Responsibility for Repairs and Maintenance. Surety and Maintenance Bond; Exceptions. Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Insurance. Public Utility Permits--Special Provisions. Emergency Excavations. Penalty for Violation. Section 19-1. Definitions. "Encroachment Permit" means a permit issued by the Town to approve work Draft Revised Encroachment Permit Ordinance (Muni Code Ch. 19) rev. 6/11/96 2 .., .....'.. .....$.. ...~.:ty 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 within, upon, or beneath Town streets, street right-of-ways, or on Town-owned land. "Town Council" means the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon. "Town Engineer" means the Town Engineer of the Town ofTiburon or his designee. "Town-owned land" means land in which the Town holds a real property interest, but which is not a Town street or street right-of-way. "Work" is construed to include (but not be limited to) the erection of any structure; placement of any improvement; filling; excavation; installation or removal of utility lines or pipes; installation or construction of curb cuts, curbs, or gutters; installation or construction of sidewalks or driveways; installation of roadway approaches; or removal or planting of trees or shrubs. The term "work" shall also include the business or trade of selling, vending, hawking, or peddling any merchandise, article, or item whatsoever. Section 19-2. Encroachment Permits Required An encroachment permit for work within, upon or beneath the Town streets, street Draft Revised Encroachment Permit Ordinance (Muni Code Ch. 19) rev. 6/11/96 3 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (b) (c) right-of-ways, or Town-owned land shall be required and issued in accordance with Division 2, Chapter 5.5 (Sections 1450 et seq.) of the California Streets and Highways Code and the provisions of this chapter. Section 19-3. Application & Fees. (a) All applications for encroachment permit shall be on forms supplied by the Town and shall be accompanied by a drawing and/or plan clearly describing the proposed work, as well as any other materials specified on the Town's application forms. Except for exemptions specified herein, all applications shall be accompanied by a non-refundable application fee as established in the Town's current fee schedule. The application fee may be waived by the Town Manager if the applicant is a volunteer group performing a service beneficial to the community, or if the applicant is repairing a sidewalk fronting his property or trimming landscaping. An inspection fee shall also be established and levied as deemed necessary. Prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit, the applicant shall deposit an inspection fee determined by the Town Engineer as adequate to recover the costs of inspection. Inspection fees are hereby waived when the applicant is either a local governmental entity such as a special district or school district, or is a utility company regulated by the California Public Utility Commission. However, the Draft Revised Encroachment Permit Ordinance (Mun; Code Ch. 19) rev. 6/11/96 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 contractor performing the work for the utility company or government entity shall be required to secure an encroachment permit and pay all fees pursuant to this chapter. (d) If any work requiring an encroachment permit is begun without a permit, the application fee shall be doubled to compensate for the extra staff time involved in inspecting completed or partially completed work. Section 19-4. Action on application; Appeal. (a) The following encroachment permit applications shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Town Council: (I) Encroachment permit applications entailing the construction of buildings, car decks, carports, garages, or other permanent structures of a substantial nature. Encroachment permit applications that would have a substantial adverse effect on vehicular or pedestrian circulation, or on public health and safety. The Town Council may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application. (2) If approved, such applications shall require a recorded encroachment permit. In no event shall construction of enclosed living space be allowed to encroach within public right-of- way. Draft Revised Encroachment Permit Ordinance (Muni Code Ch. 19) rev. 6/11/96 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (a) (b) (c) (b) All other applications may be acted upon by the Town Engineef, who may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application. In his reasonable discretion, the Town Engineef may refer any application to the Town Council for action, or may require recordation of any encroachment permit. (c) The decision of the Town Engineef may be appealed to the Town Council pursuant to provisions of Chapter 16, Section 3.08 of the Tiburon Town Code. Section 19-5. Revocation of Permit; Relocation or Removal of Encroachment. The Town Engineer may revoke any encroachment permit for reasonable cause, including but not limited to the failure to abide by conditions of approval. The decision of the Town Engineer to revoke a permit may be appealed to the Town Council pursuant to provisions ofChaptef 16, Section 3.08 of the Tiburon Town Code. Each encroachment permit shall contain a statement that it is revocable by the Town. An encroachment pefmit shall contain a condition that in the event of the future impfovement of the street, stfeet fight-of-way, or Town-owned land, which in the discretion of the Town Engineef fequires the felocation or removal of the Draft Revised Encroachment Permit Ordinance (Muni Code Ch. 19) rev. 6/11196 6 - .~. ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 encroachment, or in the event that the Town Engineer determines it is reasonably necessary for the public health, safety, or general welfare, the permittee will relocate or remove the encroachment at his sole expense. In that event, the Town Engineer shall serve on the permittee his written demand specifYing the relocation or removal of the encroachment and specifYing a reasonable time within which the relocation or removal must be commenced. The permittee must thereafter diligently prosecute the relocation or removal to completion. Section 19-6. Responsibility for Repairs and Maintenance. The permittee or his assigns in interest shall be responsible for maintenance and repair of any work for which a permit was issued. Should at any time any work performed under the encroachment permit become defective through lack of proper maintenance, such defect shall be considered as sufficient reason for revocation of the permit as provided in Section 19-5. Section 19-7. Surety and Maintenance Bond; Exceptions. (a) Except as stated in paragraph (b) below, before granting a permit under the provisions of this chapter, the Town Engineer may require the applicant to file with the Town a satisfactory surety and one year maintenance bond, or other form of monetary security acceptable to the Town Engineer, in such amounts as the Town Draft Revised Encroachment Permit Ordinance (Muni Code Ch. 19) rev. 6/11/96 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Engineer deems sufficient to guarantee completion and maintenance of the improvements. (b) A bond or monetary security shall not be required of any county, public corporation or political subdivision which is authorized by law to establish or maintain facilities in, under or over any Town street, nor shall the application of any such governmental unit for a permit be denied. Every such applicant is entitled as a matter of right to a permit, but is otherwise subject to the provisions of this chapter and to all reasonable conditions of the permit. The Town Engineer may require of any such applicant a bond in a sum not to exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) if such applicant has in fact prior to such application failed to comply with the provisions of this chapter or with the provisions ofa previous permit. Section 19-8. (a) Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Insurance. Before granting a permit under the provisions of this chapter, the approving body may require the applicant to file with the Town a certificate of insurance for bodily injury and property damage liability naming the Town as additional insured. The minimum limits of such insurance shall be fixed by the Town Engineer in such amounts as he deems sufficient, and in fixing the limits he shall use as his basis the cost and hazards involved in the work sought to be performed under the permit. Draft Revised Encroachment Pennit Ordinance (Mum' Code Ch. 19) rev. 6/11/96 8 ,;....+t. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (b) In cases involving excavation, grading, or trenching, the applicant shall be wholly responsible for locating any underground utilities. Section 19-9. Public Utility Permits - Special Provisions. (a) Any county, public utility district, or municipal water district is entitled to a blanket permit, renewable annually, for the installation of its service connection and for ordinary maintenance of its facilities located or installed in Town streets; but the Town Engineer may revoke any such blanket permit if the permittee fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter. However, any contractor performing work for the county, utility company, or municipal water district on any specific project shall be required to secure an encroachment permit from the Town. (b) Public utility districts and municipal water districts shall file with the Town a faithful performance bond annually, covering all permits required under this chapter, in such amounts as the Town Engineer deems sufficient, conditioned upon the proper compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Section 19-10. Emergency excavations. A permittee may excavate openings in Town streets or street right-of-ways to make repairs in the case of an emergency requiring immediate action. In such cases, any Draft Revised Encroachment Permit Ordinance (Muni Code Ch. 19) rBV. 6/11/96 9 .. ~;,.-.. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 affected utility companies and the Town Engineer shall be promptly notified of any such 2 action and such permittee, at his own expense, shall immediately replace such street or 3 street right-of-way in as good condition as before such excavation. 4 5 Seclion19-11. Penalty for violalions. 6 7 Any person, firm or corporation, or agent or employee thereof, who does any of the acts 8 specified in this chapter without the authority of such a permit is guilty of a misdemeanor 9 and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to penalties pursuant to Section 36901 of the Government Code, as amended. Such person, firm or corporation is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of this chapter is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm or corporation and is punishable as herein provided. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Town Council hereby declares that it would have passed this and each section, subsection, phrase or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, phrase or clauses be declared unconstitutional on their face or as applied. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage the same, or its legally required equivalent, shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against the same, at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town of Tiburon. Draft Revised Encroachment Permit Ordinance (Muni Code Ch. 19) rev. 6/11/96 10 "';w'- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon held on , 1996, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon held on , 1996, by the following vote: vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NICKY WOLF, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK lmunicodelch19.fm Draft Revised Encroachment Permit Ordinance (Muni Code Ch. 19) rev. 6/11/96 11 ".. .~, ^" ( '--- CHAPTER 19. STREETS AND SIDEWALKS.* Sections: 19-1. Permits for excavations, encroachments, etc., in streets. Adoption by reference of county regulations governing street encroachments. 19-2. -For state law as to authority of town relative to streets, sidewalks and other public places. see Gov. C. ~ 40401. As to special gas tax street improvement fund, see 99 5.2 to S-4 of this Code. As to improper posting of advertisements in streets. etc., see 9 8.1. As to throwing. depositing, etc., of handbills in streets, see 9 8.3. As to underground utility districts. see ch. 12. As to street names in subdivisions. see 9 14-024. As 10 requirements for streets and thoroughfares in subdivisions. see 9 1443. As to street trees and shrubs. see ch. 15. an. 2. As to parks and recreation generaUy. see ch.t8. As to motor vehicles and traffic generally, see ch. 23. As to operation of motorcycles on unimproved roads. see 9 23-3. Sec. 19-1. Permits for excavations, encroachments, etc., in streets. * The director of public works may issue written permits authorizing the permittee to do any of the following acts within. upon or beneath the roads of the city: (a) Fill. (b) Excavation. (c) Installation of utility pipes. (d) Installation or construction of curbs and gutters. (e) Installation or construction of sidewalks and driveways. (I) Installation or construction of road approaches. Sec. 19-1 . (g) Removal or planting of trees. (Ord. No.9,' ~ I.) .As to building permits generaJly, see 9 13-1 et seq. afthis Code. Sec. 19-2. Adoption by reference of county regulations governing street encroachments. * Sections 2 through 11, both inclusive, ofOrdi- nance No. 649 (as amended to June 23, 1964) of the county, known as "An Ordinance of the County of Marin, State of California, authoriz- ing the Road Commissioner of the County of Marin to issue permits for the placing of encroachments upon county highways and providing penalties for the violation of any of the provisions thereof", are hereby adopted bv refer- ence as part of this chapter insofar as the sa"me are applicable to the land within the city. Three cer- tified copies of such county ordinance are to be maintained at the office of the town clerk. Where used in. such county ordinance, the terms County and "rounty of Marin'" shall mean the town; and \he terms Board of Super- visors" and "Marin County Board of Super- visors" shall mean the town council. All other references to boards, departments, officers, agents or employees of the county shall be construed to refer to their counterparts per- forming the same or similar functions for the city, including any county boards. so functioning by arrangement between the county and town. (Ord. No.9, 99 2, 3.) -For state law as 10 adoptIOn by reference. see Gov. C. 5002~.1 to 50022.10. 166 .' EXHIBIT NO. ~ \ ...,..., -...~...;:.,; . f." , :-. '.. I .'.~ .~ -i:.'~.' " ,; ~ . f: I '.Sl'l' ~' ii' .~ "~ :~ ,~' ;-i~ .;.;. ,'>:II ';l .OS i~ :~,... :~ )-2-' i>1:' >'.t '~ >If 't~: "~ ,,1t. ~~ l~ ~ .~ 41\ '% j ~l ';IS 'I~. ..ft. .J: .#! g Fi"~ :'>:oj f . ..;~ "'i:; ,e, t:];, .n /,,,:" ii ~ ,:~ ~ ~ .\ } ~ > ~ me.- .~ ',", ....< ~'-:iIl n . ":r::f U ~a.. ~.l, r z;/( 'J ~~i , .,.-:. ~~);.::.J \')~;' 0':':\::i\";j~tS(J~=:.~ ;-.:;..' 'l',;:, ..,~'..:.J:r .~,/ i~~:'~j ~~Fl~~;~;~ _~.;:..._~f.:.'2. ~~ i;;~' . . ~ e:, :)~i' '~:;:;; C;i::"r.~; 1;1"" .'I:'\~1J2. ~~t.~.~,:_;: ;);.' :.;il:,:,:r:'o:'.~ ','j\ 'l:f'k"1.:C,"~:::i; \: ;.~~ I,:;:!.; (':IJ;::-'~':l'I OF 1~':.H:::';~ ~'.'\: (;.:,3'.l"}; ':~r: mi'::.'::, I'::r:~':!~,~ .~L~':::'.!:':: ;.'.. '::.:;::!::\',:':3 Lm~';..C".r:rD:G!G i?:-:;:Y,-i.:cr::::.;s i,:'.'):l ';:W; ;.i.':OI,,:','~'L,:! :L.' ;':';:i: ..~::,,:lm ',)~.. ~jr~':t:VI::'0:~J 01" .~!-:;:, c0tLe,~ C1" K11lj,'Z ~.W ',:'L;:'..:L~'J.i'S:,C:;~; rJ \':T\~:cr :'.~i: ~; ::,.,',iJ ':~~: :./:!:,::_,;~:i'.; '~;::F> . p;.!.u,;;: ') ~ "..:..':'~.:; ':~: '=;-~::l :~O:'I.t CC'"i:!:d.::~dC~\GZ' or <',.:!C (~:;'-'~':~. ;.:.ti~c::.!.:;.:. ~:.; \),:.- ~":~'l"'jait..;..,:c t.o (;0 any c:' 'vh:" foJ.}_c:~i:;.r; r;.Jc.r. ,'>. ';.:-.0 C0~i:~'i.;7 o.\' :~,J.:.."j.;'1; ~~~~~~':'~~;:~~'l':;~:'~ -- ::;~C' . .. . . , "i.~',.;'..:..:;) :-:.:~7::':?'-':'= ~'.' :; ,-l':':::.~ .-..1 '.~.!::l ;;';-':C;.: ]: ~"i', "J ; ~:; ; \ (i ~ ,ei {.n ...J :.;:':\~:;!..::';-".:;.:~',1 ::n:.:.-i;,'}l.Lt.:;.Cc. ai" "l.i!:.-:i.b:ty ?iiX:S ~C.1.st~11).:":c).":;1 Qj.' co;.:;.:;i.ruo::';;'icn of (' "::lS ,.. 1 "'lJ ' ;'.',~.~~ ~ :.-..~:,.-_'~.'~. '..~ ,~.'n- ~...;~ ~:'..-.~ ...._- --'_"''-'.' ., ::,.i:;-i;;;ll.:.'V..Cll or C':::1S;;.rcci:.~~on 0;;''' _ :.._ , . . _ . '.1 _ ~ _ _ .::'!'..-;;'''-.:L:.;.~:'::':i.Ci! or C;;J,,'l.s'':'.:I~c~..;.i(1,: ::.r l.c:::d ~p;::-.J~r;~!2.':; ;:''::!:C":.:J. :;:::-;6/0\" :~J.""n~;:i:':lG'-o:t ;:.r:;::~ .,.... :;::-':;':.0. ::::'.:"';': or eO:}.lc-:.:re:.c,n. m.' ;~L':::;j-~'. ~)~' ::::.:'.;.l,:-.....-..,;~ -:::.\c:.~(._c ';;10 '::.-:'c~ :::;! cl' ~ac &.:~.~ ...,...... :J~:! '~....~l'.::; :.~:::t'J.Cj:~ ,.iit::lc.l..~.~ f:.hc .:.:.~.rtb~.;:.;.-;;.:r of.' c....:!;::. p<:...~:;:;~, i:; !,!~:U};,~.. c~: .:: :::!:,,::_ ;~~o,~ .:.~1[~~~01; ~~~3tf,:;!O~;,*'c~~f.~~~~.~~::-~~~,~:~;, ;~f'~:~;;~~:.':~f. ~~.~:;,~:.~~~:~:~; f~~b;. ~~~:".;';;~~E:::~~: vrmt~~~:,~~ ~~E~~'i~~f~c~f:~~~~)E ~~.~ ".~;:lr~~~~:Lh'::~ ~~.":, ~~~: ":' :::-,:.':~,:;~ :~: ~\i::~r e,ct c;:):'!.~ ~:r.im.. th~ ;:i;:.'c.l:Ol'i';;'~: I):' ~_ 'rl'i~:\,'J;t ,-:.':.~'.:.:i-;:. i:..;:....=:.l 1~~.':;:::,.;._~;:~. ,~ ~~,(, .- ::~yJ:L.;:.;icn.'i o:i' ;:~;oct:i.(.':n 1 ,:>1: .t~is o:,cl:i.:._':ar:''':3 E!l~ll ~:3 do,::: ::':2 u.'::.;:;1:':"l;'::1';'';: :;.!.';'I: ',;,,::;; r,?l.L(:~:::.::': pr~\':<.siO:J= :..f thiu o.:di.r.:..:.1CC .:>!Jc:;';h:o :;'C!l'.7.:: ~!!.:d (:c::::i';;,::,o":,:,; 0.: ~;UC:l \";;':.t''::.:.:':'. ~~ i:';j~~;:~~~:!.~t~..~;'{~I~r~;_~ ;~~~~~t,~~~~~:~x~~~~~~'~~:,j.~;~~~.;~~;;:;.;,~,:;~~ :~~~~;~~~.~~.~ '~~~ ~~~;:'~~~ ~iit:;.c~ ;?,S ;=i'o-"'e; t:i.:ll :.::-:31' Pi':,V:i.G::! ::;uch C:;i::Cl~ '':::-::;:(,.:::~:'.L:';:~~, ':'<. .:~= ':':'::"c :;'o,-:.'.:.:'.;:-':"! ,:11::! ";,h= ~:l:;,;~' ~.;: :;i1ic:;, "\,hz ;:orl: i~ too l:::: \~':lT::; <2::. tl:~ C"-:':I',:1~:i i~;):(j cc;.-;::;i:;;;:;i;::::-:.~ ;,~i...,::..;;:c:.::::.~;:-.7 !:r '~:'_ :-:::'c:',,(;;~iG,l ':};.' '~;1" .il:.'..gh~:<:'.:.~. '::.C'.c:~c;,: .!.!; 1:11:. :~cr:;'li~ i:;;;s':~':J to a p:)-,'~i;;:;'0'~ ci' '';;103 .;..,~~ .::;)~c:.'..."~;~c:l icl ~::1.::i.,:~':-:1 S ;~;~:~,~~.~~~ ,:~~l'~~i~~~~~.~~~~r i~~~~~U~.1!~~:~ ~~~':J i;~c ~~~;~D::::.~I~'~"_~~~~:~;~~~~~~,;.;(: ~~i;~;:~:~~ ~~~~!~~~\~;~ 1 !:~o~~~:~~:~~~:;:~~l~~~~~' ~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~:i:j,~~~"m~~:~;~:i~~:.~ ~f n1~c';",,:::"ic ';;'i:::c ,rit~1in ~,-";1ic.." th:3 ~or:,: of' :;..clo~~::.t:!.c;; ~.'...S-~ b:;: ;;:'-::~:=:JC-;C. 'i-:,::: ~::.:rlj:;,.';;=c ~ I ~.....,"'. <::' .' l""~' :1.0') C,.. "'J~l ... '1''''' , l' . , .. ,,,,;,:,'';::::'.i';i::i 5.li. :;2.1.,: c;::~'l::':;,tl ~a':~i. ~;~::i~;i~;1;;~~~~:t~~~;~g;~~~~~~~:~~:i~~~I~:~f::i;~~~~.~ ~};i~:~J~,~i~:f~~g~:~E:' fhC~~~;~d._;ic';;(;t~~\1:;;~:r,;~':;o c;~;~~~~~~~~:c. :;i1ici! tjl.:~ ei1:.1J. n.:;;-' 1:: L;~s ':.:~~n ~:.!-::! l').,.~ ~~~~;~t'~ ;~~~~ ~:~~1~;~~'1 ;.~~~~~~~.: ~~~~~;~:~~~~~f~~ ;~:~,~ ~;;~~::~;~ c~~ ~'~;r~" ~.~~~:~.~;~~ ~Jt~\'~;~.~ ~h 't._ II... ,._....':J,I,;l>...... '11.0.._.1.. '[J::.Y ..1._ ~.._.~..J"..~_l. c,_"' O~ "...~.. .,1'1'_:C"1._.1.\,;.~ ,,;) ..\--.., '_:'l:.. .t\. ~J (:"i~.~;..:.~~i.cr.cr. .<w ~~ .. . ~'E~.;.i':':C': 6: l'- -., r...~ ""-y ~,:.,".r"Io,:..':c_,.,_~~,...__c;'",-_~~'.''',.:2',~,-:'.; :"~.'.'..,.C~.'_-~,..:'.::'l:i,.;.','.._'.~~,:~'~':-- ::.';.. ....__ '.':~':,~...'.; :;;~~.:.~,' :;lr.,~.> ~,-.~..c~,'::..'~~.,~.'~_!:: ~,'c;~.::_~.,,:-.;-:,:.~.~.,j"'J:"":;" . .~",' -. v '~',' ~. :,:::. ')~.':::';':' ':"::,'.,-: , ., "," _ ... .~\ ~~:,-.,.:'.~;::-;.::l:;::,'J:-: ;.C..'il~'~ '.)~c]J. '::;:):"~::;t.'." :!.:.-~ [.:..-=,~ .., ::-j ::'~'~'" :':.~" '::::,. ::,1r. .<;1..,':,;!,:.'::;::J.; i',::;:::; -:.:, ;j',_:.. :,:'r..1 :;-!;::,;:,r;,~:J. :~\':::'..' " ~.~'::J_'~';;";_'_:' ''':!' _,,' ....".f (..'i.....j _.1... :.:':r.r~ :::)I~:.;~';'!.r::: .:.." ~'':'-'C!:U :'-'(~:; ~,:I:.-~'::,:..:>;':. l ,.;.~'.:., (,': ~,:';:l.l.,. ::~;~:;"::,..,~_::~.::,.:~_~F-~j~~~..,.....',~.,~:.:,.,'..-.:,'~.'c~'::-:'_:(;_~.: ~:) ~-;""--.~.:;~':'':' '.... ... ,..... 'I '.. ';..:'.":::;. "1 - -..~." '-..} ::':.;::;:':-; r.:: "::'.:'::::'~:J~~? ;:''-~';'';''''::'' "., ~ . -. " ..... ............ .~, . ....'....... -.~ ~~ iY.t .,~ .~ ;1li ~. ,~ ~~' i :~~- ~ "~ 'I ;~ ..:~. "p, f$;:' :r& :fdZ u:< ...t~ I ~~~ 1- . if' .;(fl. J.k ?~ j,~, .-:i.1."', .,~ 'It ;:.~. .q:~' :;it;- -"10 ..if;:' ,.~, ,.tiM. ~~i "3~{ ',';, ~t .'t!. iiJi; .i +1 ~ :~ ..~~:t!~ ,r:~ .~." l.i:: -.,"". I)~ '.'1~ :.:;:J: ~~f:' :i:-.; ~:-~. ~... ,t~ ~~~'-" ..), ;~J: * ..... ;~~~ ,~ ~ :~ -~ ,: ~ :~.:,~~:.-, ~:~~:::-:. c;:.:...~r: '...... ';,)U:T<i hi. 3:~::~"'Y ';2::.!1:' ...:. ~ ~.:> : :.:,..._;.:-~, ',):<. ;'.'\".: :;i>: c.: ~ ,)~',: ~!..:;,..:':j t:: ...:; ;:;'.lQ.j cc.rd:"-::'j.c~ a'J ;~l~::(),'.1 ~;'.::~',l =,. ;.:::,;:.~ _; .::1. ~.:.' '.;: '; - ~,.::;:T::C-;~ 'i": :';::.2 ;!~':'.:i:i.l~'.:~.-: :JT !~i.:'i .:'-:":~:L~1r: in i:1~':'.~'~~;:;~ :-;;1:'.1:( ":,: ':7~.:';1'~ .:u::" ~~;;f~~J~~:~~~~~f~;:~~:;Eii~i:~1~1r~;~':.. ."8;~f,~:-~~:;;~-~~~~~t;:~~\~~~~~{~q.~~~ ~~~~~~.f~;~i6~,~~~~~t. c~~:~~;~~~_~~ l~;jail ~j;1J :)i"C::U' \:~~-;'?.'':'..:.1:'~.~ 'i'~l;~ l.:c;:.i:~":J' ::\~::d. Cc::-.;;..L::~iC-l:r_l' ~;l1~'.2.l !'::!.=:'.:il'C f:.::':;:;: .:::~~",;U-.::!~::' .::.'~ IiI::: ":-j:i:h \:.i.C: ,..:,I).....:..~~ , t"... ~.,....o ('1 \ l1 L:...... . 11.:r; ..:1'" 'T''''~nt''' ~ ' .::If ~",~~:i.l~:;'.-::::_."") t,1') ;.;;:=;..r,_l' -:;:i..: l:;.:.;~i].i'(.:-" _~..t_'.:~:".':.::..:o~';~~,,~.~._:.t:,~.',.~~.-.=.o7',~,""..<~...~.~:;.:,,~.:~,:~.~:.I.:::'..:.,:,~~.'....'.~.~.~,; "':"":"]:0:.:1 ;'l'~' .,.~;'.'::' ~~ ' ,.... ....\ -'n '.), -..'~ . J...., 'Co A'" ,.."". - ~ ~ -" ~. ~ ~~. y, '- ~~ "'~. ~;~';,~~"~,ti.i~-~~;:'~U~l ~~~~~~~.~:\~~~~i ~~"l'~~:~ .~:~~., ~E;~~' g~~f~~~~f~~i;;~a~~~~;s~O~Z~'\~~h~~ ~:~~i~! ~~.~;.i..~;~~-~ j .~~:\;~~~~~"'~~d~~~...~~;~~ ii! ~:i. '::':.'.l:,lri:. tr: i;~ l;z,.~'~'cl'.,!z:d ~~.::.:.i,::r -;;,r..e p:::~....it.. :;-i:Cl'7:C;; 8: VIJ::::i'C ~r~:::~i::l.?,: :: p{';l.:li':;, \"'---::'~~::,i.' ';;';:0 yl....;7:i..:;ic:-.:; c::: i~~lis o::u.:L:~.::~:::;) i.;h:! "'t't' ;~';:"::...C; C',):.::cizziC!:C1:' :::;aall. ...~:::{nri....l1' the ,.ppJ.iC.:i.",':. to i"L~.03 ~;:~<:.11 t.ilo ~o~;.~j iJ~' S~m'vi..cc Ij-:,:;'i:. Cow:1;;y ~ ::i~U:;l'a~i;.ory i)01id.:r-3s.:i~l~ .,,~.t.!?~ G,Ju\~'::'Y. ~);l.' ;:~...'i..':!. :iu each .:::n::rm:.t <l5 the ~~L~~:1;-i~j~~~S~;~~~~~8~~~S o~~f~~J.~~;i~~~~~~J.C.~~d 0::1 ;;n~ nr~:;:i~ ;:~~.:?~=,~:::: c;r ~i:c ';;i~;~~'~"'~~~.~~. C~~~~~:l~fi~t~~~~~~~~~i~~~:'i~~r. p*~i.:iz~]. "Z~~;~~;~~~l~:\:~.~~:~rG ~~~t~~~~~~c~e::_. 'J:.c :;,i"'~:jJ.:LGi1 ::>!' r:!.:'i!.:.c.in :'!......}' t.(;-j,';.c:; 0;" l~<:~il:::;;'i.~s in, ;'Zl~C.l'~ ~.!.. C7C:::' ;;r;,V l"":U.....J.ic :i:'~~;:. 'j ~~~~:ti~;~t <;i;l;~~~~~~d i;~ ~i1;~~~:'~ ~~7~~~~~~~1~,il;;'~~J~~:' ~~r~~~:~;;;~/~~~'~~;;D.j~~~=-J ; ;;~ ~~'~~~~;i~~d~';~;~~:~::~~;;~:~~a ~~~d:'~~b a~~r~~.~~~,~;.;3~;~.~~~i;~~~~ ~~~,l~~I~~~~::J~~~;=C:~ .d:'.:!~f ;;:1y :ud. ~~pl-:'c~l-.::' oJ bond i..l .:I ';:;U;:J net '::'0 C:~::::;.2ri t~~n'::':r--';;~:1.'.::;~::! :.~OlJ..11'::; ;~~ ;-~:~~. ~;~v~;i~~~h(,2Jii;k~o.l-~~: d~~~l~~~ ;~c ~~i~~'~l~f~~ ~ ~~;"~~~~~i~:~~~~::,~ ;.~~; ~~~~~~:;~.~~ ~::.? 17 :::~(:r.:'2:-! Ie: fJ.W cit:! L".L~i.;;i,.:.l i.::;;ilit.7 (E,,;~rj_~t.. :':'.'.l~~c;~~:=l ::.:It:.~.~ :::j.:::~:.~i:;t .:::; :~l._~:: -;0 .3 ~.L::::-.;~,-;;;' l):::.,:,,'LC- ,:.:::::;::~i..'J.',; .:.2\:a:.:L1.; i~~~ t:~::J ~...;:;~<U.12:;i~:: of j.t:! ~-::..."..'-J.c::: =,:;:;--;::1.::'1 .:nc 2:'J; r...l...j:;'~:::.i.:" :';"!;L,l;:#~r::':1::~ c...~ ;i.~s '::':!.c:;.l-l:~i~:; loc:::.k,ci cr i:J:~';;'3~':."::.l ::';'1 :;~~ ~;::~~~l~~ ~~1:~~:1.~o C~~~~~/~~~.~h L~~~~~~;~~~~c~~Y c~~~:~~~~ ~~~~~~~;= ~l~~~~~~~ ;~~:~;'~cl1 7..j'( 1.;4 ~'~'...c:-::.';!;d i.:'l ~ :pr~i.~'::':' C~Cf.:l ~~...'.Ci1 r.:.u.u.c::..~::::!. u-;;'i.l:.I:::'y ,iiGt:ri:::-:;', ::u~lc:;_:;~l :;::;:.m' ;;~~.c=~ ~~:o~:~~~~~I;i~~",~~;C8. :ii~~:rict j ~,:; C:1t~,~..1~~ .;;<:, c ~:m,;;~~,:'~ ;7,':11:.-. i.l,,-::r.. :"'11;:~ti.~:li:l~ .._I.... _c.. 1,. .-f ...... ....;':.....1:." c-..:.bz:'G;ico:, c1..tl:.:.:o, 0.:- '.~:~:;,'.c:'";:J O~ id:',:; o:,j~.r:.: ~c: j.~ ~~~~~ifJ~~~~~~~~h~~~!~j~;~l~~~~~!~~f;:;~~~g:.. ;~iftr~;~~~: ci~~~i~f~2~:[~f:f~~:f~~:1f;:~i~~~i~:~~i~!:~~~~ji:;~~t~ 'i:~ i;~~:~;'!~~ ~~~;~~'l :; ;~;:::~~~ ~~: :;~~'T~; ~=~~~i~~~~{~~ L":\~~ ~;;.~;~ :~~:: t:~~:: ~ :~; '~~~;~~~~;G~~_~..;.:~,~ ~~3:;'~'~;:\~ ~_;.~~~~ ~ ::'i.~~ ~t':1 J :...;.:. ':;;D E':-.r. ".:;')::.~~,';'.:l -~'.;.;;~o:J, ~: r'_c:;'-:F:.~.-,r of :;:_il::::.,'.1!. c:i......::.:~!..:ti.~..~ ::':1 :'1::J C~:::.~.:t ,,: ~:.:;r:.;, t,~l:f!f~~::~:f~L~J I~~.t~~~:.::~~:;~~:.;;;~~~~~~di~fl;:~;l~t;:~~';~~r: Z:;l~::!.yj_:::.';:; ,1[' -~;;) :,~.:.~~ O.r -::;." ,2 . ." TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT To: TOWN COUNCIL FINANCE DIRECTOR Meeting: Item No: ruLY 3,1996 # / () From: Subject: GREEN WASTE PROGRAM - ALLOCATED RATE FOR RESIDENTiAL AND COMMERCiAL ACCOUNTS Background: This item is for review of the allocated rate charged to commercial accounts for the Green Waste Program. At this time the monthly rate allocated to all residential and commercial accounts for the Green Waste Program is six percent (6.4%). Discussion: The 6.4% Program Fee is allocated to all residential and commercial accounts in order to advance the community's interest in meeting the overall waste diversion goals mandated by the State (AD 939). Some business owners have expressed concern that the current Fee is burdensome, as commercial accounts, particularly for restaurants, have the Program Fee applied to account billings which are in excess of typical residential account billings. The majority of downtown businesses do not have a green can as they cannot use them (there is no landscaping and/or yard waste. ) Mill Valley Refuse Service implements this Program Fee to recover the cost of the Green Waste Program, however the Program Fee rate may be adjusted between residential and commercial accounts should Council choose to redistribute and reallocate Program costs. Mill Valley Refuse Service has provided three (3) possible scenarios for adjustment of the rates between commercial and residential accounts, which are outlined in the following Table. Commercial % change Residential % change Added from current from current Annual Cost rate rate to Resident Current 6.40% 6.40% Scenario 1. 5.40% -15.63% 6.73% 5.16% $0.60 Scenario 2. 4.40% -31.25% 7.07% 10.47% $1.25 Scenario 3. 3.40% -46.88% 7.42% 15.94% $1.90 The Table shows that one point reduction to the commercial rate requires a 5% increase in residential rates. A 15% reduction to the commercial rate requires a 5% increase to the residential rate (the annual Fee for a typical (one-can) residential account would be increased by $0.60. A two (2) point reduction in the commercial rate requires a 10% increase to the residential rate 1 (approximately $1.25 per year). The Tiburon Peninsula Recycling Committee has considered this issue and supports the Current rate structure. Recommendation: Town Council receive report from Mill Valley Refuse Service and consider possible adjustment of the Program Rate between residential and commercial accounts. Attachments: 1. Mill Valley Refuse Service, Green Waste Rates, June 27, 1996. 2 * .~._....: . Mill "llE' IJ IlllJll ' ""'CE, ~ ~ INt. ~ PHONE, (415) 457.9760 F.I\X: ., PO BOX $557 - SAN RAFAE:l... C,A.L..IFORNIA 949 i 2.3557 (415) 457.3003 ~~~~O~~[Q JUN 2 7 1990 To: T1buron Town Council TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICi TOWN OF TIBURON June 27,1996 Re: Green Waste Rates Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members, UHIGINAL Over the past few months there has been much discussion over the Increase to all rate payers to fund the "Green Can" program. Some of the commerclal accounts feel they are being unfairly charged for the program since they do not participate. The program has been implemented to meet the requirements of AB 939, which requires all Cities and Counties within California to reduce disposal tonnage. These goals must be met by the entire community, the rate structure that has been adopted by the Town ofTlburon for the "Green Can" program is identical to other areas served by ~NRS, and not unlike many cities In California. In the event that the Council chose to reduce the charges to the commercial accounts, increases to residential accounts will be required. The following is three possible scenarios. COMMERCIAL CURRENT RATE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL CURREJo..'TRATE REQUIRED 6.4O'J-i> 5.40% 6.40% 6.73% 6.4ffi6 4.40% 6.4r.Y'AJ 7.07% 6.40% 3.40'1-6 6.40% 7.42% I will attend your Council meetIng July 3rd. to answer any questions that you may have. SlJ~~~___e'~ Rick Powell, General ;\1anager MVRS /" :;:.. .. F.il~ II TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. II To: From: Subject: Date: TOWN COUNCIL TOWN MANAGER HARROMAN PROPERTY - REQUEST FOR APPRAISAL July 3, 1996 At its June 5, 1996 regular meeting, Council heard a report form Jerry Riessen, Co-Chair of the Last Chance Open Space Committee, concerning that group's plans for the next phase of the Harroman Property land purchase. Riessen said the committee was entering an "information gathering phase" and planned to conduct a survey to determine the level of community commitment for an additional bond measure in the Spring. Riessen also asked for Council support in order to get an updated appraisal on the property in order to explore other options in the event the ballot measure failed. Town Manager Kleinert indicated that he would arrange for a meeting of appraiser Art Gimmey and Jerry Riessen to discuss the Harroman property. Hopefully, by Council's July 3 regular meeting the cost of an updated appraisal can be considered by the Town Council. RL. Kleinert TOWN COUNCIL ST AFF REPORT TO: TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 7/3/96 REPORT DATE: 6/26/96 ITEM NO.: 12- FROM: SCOTT ANDERSON, /~ PLANNING DIRECTO~ SUBJECT: FUTURE DIRECTION ON NED'S WAY HOUSING PROJECT BACKGROUND On June 18, 1996, the Town Council held a workshop with the Planning Commission and Senior Housing Advisory Committee (SHAC) to consider recommendations for future use the property at Ned's Way. The attached memo represents an attempt to move forward based upon direction provided by the Town Council at the conclusion of the workshop. RECOMMENDATION That the Town Council carefully review the attached memo and provide corroboration and direction at the meeting. TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL TOWN MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ SUBJECT: RESULTS OF 6/18/96 TC/PC/SHAC MEETING DATE: JUNE 21, 1996 The purposes of this memo are two-fold: 1. To attempt to formalize the results of the above-referenced meeting, since not all in attendance may have left with a clear impression. 2. To suggest implementation procedures based on direction provided. This memo focuses only on areas of the workshop where there appeared to be majority support or consensus from the Town Council, not on areas which received only individual or minority support. Concerning the 1.6 acre (lower parcell Council Direction 1. The direction of the Town Council was to pursue a project consistent with the voter-approved Measure K. This means a 25 unit senior housing project designed for independent living. The SHAC recommendation, in the event this scenario was selected, was for ownership (for sale) units. Staff Suggestions: A) Direct SHAC to polish its RFP (Appendix A of the SHAC report) for the 25 unit project for final review by Town Council. B) Direct Staff to begin processing of the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Tentative Parcel Map, 1 2 B) Any further efforts toward development of this parcel desired by Town Council should be directed to SHAC. A) Limited Staff resources should not be expended on this matter. staff Suggestions: 1. The Council made clear that any pursuit of housing on the upper parcel would require voter approval. Several potential obstacles to development were mentioned: a lawsuit settlement from the 1970's, access issues, deed restrictions imposed by the Marin Housing Authority, community garden relocation, and cooperation with Hilarita, for example. No specific direction was provided to Staff to pursue development of this parcel. council Direction Concerning the 2.0 acre (upper parcel) C) If the Town Council chooses to move forward with an affordable rental project, the actual developer should be selected through a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process. B) It is not recommended that much additional time be spent investigating this alternative. A) SHAC and Town Staff are highly skeptical as to the ability of such a project to "pencil out", even using all the Town's affordable housing funds. Staff Suggestions: 2. The Council requested additional information from Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAH) regarding the feasibility of a 25 unit senior affordable rental project at the site. C) Direct Staff to contact redevelopment counsel Jack Nagle to further discuss the possibility of future acquisition of the site by the RDA at an appropriate time. As a point of clarification, RDA acquisition of the site would not require a 100% affordable project; the affordable requirement would be the same as if the Town owned the property. and CEQA analysis to accommodate a 25 unit senior project. 3 \scott\shacnntg.mem staff will fOllow-up on this matter with the appropriate parties and report back to Town Council. staff Suggestion: 1. The Council directed Staff to investigate the conversion of Town-owned units from "moderate income" to "very low income" status. Council Direction Existina Point Tiburon Marsh BMR Units Staff Suggestion: None 2. The Council requested from Jerry Riessen a "time line" for a possible ballot measure concerning sale of the 2-acre site in order to raise open space acquisition funds. THIRD, we are doubtful of achieving a comparable level of service for less money. The pay scale is higher for county officers than for our local officers. To the council members who say our department is "top heavy" in its administration, let the facts be known that we have a chief and 4 sergeants. The chief and 1 sergeant are 100% administrative. The other 3 sergeants spend 60-70% of their time in the field in supervisory positions with the rest administrative. In an effort to achieve a level of service which provides someone on duty at all times with supervisory training, we have 3 corporals. Whether or not the full time administrative sergeant is elevated to SECOND, to use an outside agency would put the town in a position of weakness in holding the members of that agency accountable for the level of service contracted. We are much more in favor of having our own police force of people with whom we have grown familiar over the years and which has built a level of trust between our community and our law enforcement officers. FIRST, the shortfall in the budget was presented as $35,000 for the year In a discussion with members of the council we learned that the deficit could be as much as $70-75,000. In either case, we are talking about 1-2% of the $3.3 million budget. It doesn't make sense to disrupt the lives of our local, loyal police officers over a budget that is only 98-99% funded. We doubt the accuracy of any budget forecast within those limits. We CONCERNED CITIZENS would like to express to the council that we are not interested in the concept of "rent-a-cops" from the sheriffs dept. or any other outside organization, regardless of the perceived savings. We feel strongly that the money (estimated at $7,500-$15,000) to perform the study could be better spent. We base this opinion on the following: In an article in the I-J last Friday, it was disclosed that our Mayor suggested that in order to achieve a balanced budget we should explore the possibility of contracting our police protection with the county sheriff's department. It was proposed that a study be performed to evaluate the concept to see if significant savings could be achieved with "comparable" service to our community. The City Manager has been directed to determine what the cost of such a study would entail and report back to the council at the July 17th meeting. Re: Exploring the concept of contracted police protection TOWN i\1MAGER'S OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON To: Mayor Nicky Wolf & The Town Council From: Concerned Citizens of Tiburon ~. ~ ) ;' I i :1 v~ //~ ) . y /( ,/{At DON'T MESS WITH THE LA~i~~(&~!~U~~~ ru JUN 2 8 1996 Bill Kuhns Dave Bennett Chris Morrison Daren Engel AI Burnham Jim Bryant Don Batten Keith Morrison Brian G. Swift FOURTH, since contract negotiations are beginning with the police association, we consider that the timing of such a proposal to be in very bad taste and to be inconsistent with appropriate metl'lods of bargaining with our local government employees. This type of activity is very bad for the morale of our local police officers, who deserve our support. If the Mayor feels that the Chief of Police is stubborn and protective of his department, then she should deal with this at the bargaining table, not in an open forum such as a council meeting which would be sure to end up in the media as has happened. We expect the Mayor and council to act responsibly with respect to these issues. Do you fire the whole police department because you can't negotiate successfully with its chief? Is this the same logic that was behind wanting to fire the planning commission because they didn't do what she wanted? We are fed up with this childish behavior, and demand this ridiculous idea be put to rest immediately. Don't mess with the law! lieutenant, as proposed by the chief, we do not consider this structure of our police protection to be anything short of prudent, if we want to continue to achieve a high level of service from our police protection. . -"~--