HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2000-02-02
If A1j~ s
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BLVD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
INTERVIEWS:
February 2, 2000
7:30 P.M.
7:05 P.M.
7:15 P.M.
PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the presentation of all
points of view, members of the audience should:
(1) Always Address the Chair; (2) State Name and Address; (3) Slate Views Succinctly: (4) Limit Presentations to 3 minutes; (5)
Speak Directly into Microphone.
A. INTERVIEWS - (MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING - Tiburon Representative)
1) Mary Rogers, 7:15 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL
C. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
D. PUBLIC QUESTIONS 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. Matters requiring action will be
referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or Staff for consideration and/or placed on a
future meeting agenda.
E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
2) CITY OF BELVEDERE'S REED WATERSHED DRAINAGE DIVERSION
PROJECT - (Council Ad Hoc Committee Report - Mayor GramlCouncilmember
Bach)
3) BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (Status Report -
Vice Mayor Thompson)
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion and
which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Any
member of the Town Council, Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of an item for discussion.
4) MONTHLY TOWN INVESTMENT SUMMARY - As of December 31, 1999-
( Accept)
5) AMICUS BRIEF REQUEST - Arne/co E/ectric v. City of Thousand Oaks (in Division
Six of the Second Appellate District Court, Civ. No. B129406) - (Approve)
6) NED'S WAY - a) Vacate a Portion of 40-foot wide Access & Utility Easement -
(Resolution)
b) Accept Quitclaim Deed for portion of Street as Public Roadway - (Resolution)
7) PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT - Portion of87 & 91 Via Los Altos; La
Cresta Roadway and Utility Easement - (Consider Acceptance of a Portion of Said
Easement for Pedestrian Ingress & Egress Purposes) - (Resolution)
~
.
G. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
8) MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING - (One Vacancy)
9) PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION - (One Vacancy)
10) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - (One Vacancy)
H. NEW BUSINESS
11) STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY99-00 - (Authorization to Utilize Traffic
Impact Funds for additional streets in current fiscal year)
12) CPUC WORKSHOP ON RULE 20A FUNDING FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF
UTILITIES - (Discussion of Support for Continued Funding)
13) COUNTY-WIDE BAN ON JET SKIS - (Conceptual Consideration of Ban on Jet Ski
Use in Town Waters)
14)DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - (Impacts upon
Business Community)
I. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
15)DOG WASTE DISPENSERS FOR TffiURON PARKS & MULTI-USE PATH -
(Status Report)
16)HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - Review of ABAG Regional Housing Needs
Determinations - (Planning Director)
J. COMMUNICA nONS
17) TffiURON FERRY FEEDER BUS ROUTE NO. 11 - (Letter from Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway & Transportation District to Town Manager, dated January 20,
2000)
18) MARIN COUNTY TRANPORTATION FUNDING BALLOT MEASURE
November 2000 Election - (Board of Supervisors & Congestion Management Agency
Actions to Support)
K ADJOURNMENT
Future Aeenda Items
--Main Street - Hours of Delivery
--2024 Paradise Drive - Carport Enclosure - (Stan & Chong Cook, Applicants) - (February 16)
--Ferry Dock & Waterfront Access Improvements - Town Engineer's Report - (February 16)
--Centro West Speeding Issue - Town Engineer's Report - (February 16)
-Appeal of Design Review Board Denial of Request for Site Plan and Architectural Review to construct additions to
an existing single-family dwelling - AP# 58-312- 1 1 (Bronte Residence) - (February 16)
--Amendment to Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan - 70 Monterey Drive, AP#34-394-07 - Deborah & Marc
Strull, Applicants - (February 16)
--Recognition of Town Service - Past Board, Commission & Committee Members - (Jvfarch 16)
s
DATE OF MEETING:
February 2.2000
NO.2. 2000
DATE POSTED:
January 28. 2000
NOTICE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR HOLDING
CLOSED MEETING OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will hold a
Closed Session. More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated below:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(a))
Stanlev Grav v. Town of Tiburon-
Marin County Superior Court Case No. CV 000283
Lk~~.
(
s
NAME: M"'- 7iJ, E. \<..aG ~R..S
MAILINGADDRE : -:l...\'-'< e~...:t\R<\ I:-
TELEPHONE: Home: '-1. ~s "\~~ Work:
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (lfapplicable)
TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) ,,'" DATE SUBMITTED: \/ ~'-t 100
I
...-.'
. lLG,,,(l.o,,,,,,
Fax No.
Q't9';l,o
".:.lo.-",,-L::
~'A
1- \
\;..)4
\
Q..,\.. 0 -.
,t;) _u.:J.. \<..~"" ~..
~"'- ~ ""'-- ""^ , ,,-t..,. '.....
~
,
<:::..Q"-.....rL~
~
(~,-^:--'--o. .
\.) ...
~r(r^"'J
\I
-\:Q. .
iltfI11!litll!
~~ ~'Ci'"
\ 'Z. "'^-~ &-, ISV-..
~i",....t
cs-"-.,,
~ P~~......~--," ",--L\
'1.... 1..':" ~ ~
~ '" ...J:l ~ ~"
l>..........cIi... "G '" "" ~ A! ...: \
~
(
~c <,..
.~ .,~ ~._.
"""
~
\:': ""..... i
"./
"""'-
----------------------------------------------1r01N1l IIaJl IJse -------------------------------------------------
_ Date Application Received:
I ~ / 3 - 0 0 Interview Date:
2...-)-O{)
1-:/ 'J/~.
_ Appointed to:
(Commission, Board or Committee)
(Date)
_ Date Term Expires:
Length of Term:
jrn 12/95
2
CL',
lA~
'~k\
s
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIeURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CAS&c&t'f&D35-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
JAN 1 3 2000
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TISURON
COMMISSION. BOARD & COMMITTEE
APPLICATION
The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions,
boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen
vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local
governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in
serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and
returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and
informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year.
Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community.
~A
Robert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
....Jlillllllilllll
Indicate Your Area(s) or Interest in Numerical Order
(#1 Being the Greate.t Intere.t)
PLANNING PARKS & OPEN SPACE
DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION
HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
BUDGET & FINANCE LIBRARY
RECYCLING & WASTE MANAGEMENT
DOWNTOWN REVIT ALIZA nON TASK FORCE
>< c-'OMM.(fSION oN A6i;t/6-
( Tir51!tJ,J ;&r,f.Q.~~ )
1
s
DEPARTMENT 0 F HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
.-------..,
..........."...........A..../,......._..
NIUJcy Rubin. Director
Robert Kleinert
Town Manager
TOWN OF TIBURON
1905 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECEIVED
MAY 1 8 \999
DIVISION OF AGING
10 N. SAN PEDRO Ro., STE. 1012
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903
PHONE: (415) 499-73%
FAX: (415) 499-5055
May 14, 1999
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN Of TIBURON
Dear Mr. Kleinert:
As you know, each of the eleven incorporated cities in Marin has an appointment to the County
Commission on Aging, whicu also. has ten seats appointed by the Board of Supervisors.
'The term of your appointee, Jim Rice, is up as of JWle 30,1999. We would appreciate your Town
COWlci1 reappointing or selecting another resident to sit on the Commission.
In making appointments for this seat, the COWlcil should be aware of State and Federal laws and
regulations that require the following membership composition for advisory cOWlci1s to Area
Agencies on Aging:
. A majority of persons 60 years of age or older;
. Service providers and consumers;
. Members who reflect the geographic, racial, economic, and social complexion of the
planning and service area they represent.
The current composition of the Commission on Aging (23 members) includes 16 members over
the age of 60, seven members Wlder 60, and service providers and consumers.
Enclosed is a Responsibility Statement which describes the roles and responsibilities of our
Commissioners.
We would appreciate confirmation of your Town's appointment at the earliest possible date. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
7.lT~
L~ Rntt~
Director
LR:gm
s
Revised 5/91
RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT
MEMBER, COMMISSION ON AGING
DEFINITION:
Appointed position, by Board of Supervisors or local City Council, to serve as one of
21 voluntary advisors to the Board of Supervisors on issues affecting the elderly of Marin
County. the Commission on Aging is a federally mandated advisory council to the Board
of Supervisors, which serves as the policy-making board of the Area Agency on Aging
within County government.
The Commission on Aging is also designated by the State as the local long term care
lead agency and project review body, and as the local Adult Day Health Care Planning
Council.
SKILL LEVEL AND FUNCTION:
Appointed Commissioners are expected to have an active interest in and a willingness
to become knowledgeable about the needs and concerns of Marin's elderly residents,
whether living in their own homes or in institutions, and those caring for them in the
community in which they live.
According to the statement of purpose in the by-laws, the Commission shall:
1. Provide information about attitudes, needs, and opinions of the elderly to
the Board of Supervisors and the Area Agency on Aging staff.
2. Advise on the development and implementation of the Annual Area Plan
in conformity with State and Federal regulations.
3. Serve as a forum and a strong advocate; provide leadership for the elderly.
4. Hold public meetings on the Area Plan, on the needs and priorities of the
elderly, and recommend programs to the Board (Board of Supervisors) for
funding.
5. Advise the Area Agency on Aging Board on allocations of funds, and on
legislation affecting policies pertinent to the elderly.
s.
6. Serve as a source of community education pertaining to the needs and
programs for the aging.
7. Consult and maintain contact with special groups which have responsibilities
related to the older American.
REQUIREMENTS OF MEMBERSHIP:
1. Serve a three-year term.
2. Attend monthly meetings of the Commission which are held on weekdays,
during daytime hours. No member may be absent without a valid reason
for more than three consecutive meetings.
3. Be willing to abide by Roberts' Rules of Order.
. 4. Members who receive compensation from or have a fiduciary interest in
any program funded by the Area Agency on Aging must abstain from voting
on funding of that particular program.
5. Serve on at least one standing committee or task force which may meet
monthly or more often, depending on need.
6. Be willing to participate with staff in annual contract review and monitoring
of projects to assure efficient services to Marin's elderly.
7. If an appointee is a City representative, a commitment must be made to
report to the appointee's City Council on an annual basis regarding the
activities of the Commission.
wp:COA-RESP.STI
s
TmURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Meeting:
To:
From:
February 2, 2000 Item:
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT -
AS OF THE MONTH ENDED December 31, 1999
CONSENT # L(
Subject:
TOWN OF TIBURON
Institution! Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $5,258,174 5.639"/0 Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
Total Invested: $5,258,174
TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution! Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $239,853 5.639"/0 Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
Bank of America Other $0
I Total Invested:
$239,853 I
Notes to table information:
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): The interest rate represents the effective yield for the
month referenced above. The State of California generally distributes investment data reports in the third week
following the month ended. (As received January 21, 2000)
Acknowledgment: This sununary report accurately reflects 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 progrll1tl herein surrnnarized provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to rneet
next month's estimated expenditures.
~~D""~
January 27, 2000
cc: Town Treasurer
T/p~4. ) S
~
PARKER, MILLIKEN, CLARK, O'HARA & SAMUELIAN
.. PROFESSIONAL. CORf'OORATlON
NOWLANO C. HONG
AlTORNEYS AT LAW
333 SOlffi-l HOPE STREET. 27111 FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9007 I -[ 488
iELEPHONE (2 1 3) 683-6500
CLAUDE I. '"AAKER {I S71-llil52l
..OHN s. ""LUK!:N (I 8g,3- I 98 I
R.ALPH KOHL.M~l!:" (I QOQ- J ,.76)
,....CSl"'lU!: (2 I 31 ee3-eeeQ
January 20, 2000
WRITER'S OIRECT DIAL NUMBER:
(Z 1 3l 663-6580
fD) ~ @ ~ ~ ~"ifm~sCO"
U1J .IAN 2 6 2000 U!J
TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TOWN 0,. Ti5URON
TO:
ALL CALIFORNIA CITY ATTORNEYS
RE:
JOINING IN THE AMICUS BRIEF FOR THE APPEAL OF THE TRLU
COURT'S ADVERSE JUDGMENT IN THE Amelco Electric v. City of
Thousand Oaks (in Division Six of the Second Appellate District Court, Civ.
No. B129406):
ISSUE:
APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINES OF:
(1) "TOTAL COST RECOVERY" BY A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR, ALLOWING THE RECOVERY OF ALL COSTS,
PROFITS AND OVERHEAD INCURRED ON A JOB BEYOND THE
AMOUNT SET IN THE CONTRACT; AND
(2) "ABANDONMENT"
TO A PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.
We request your city's Amicus assistance by joining that brief (on a no-cost basis)
regarding the appellate court's review ofajudgment against the City of Thousand Oaks for $2.1
million in additional compensation to a public works construction contractor. That judgment
was based on th.e '~otal cost recovery" a..'1d contract "abandcr'u'Ilent" doctrines. These doctrines
allow for the creation of an implied contract or quantum meruit recovery contrary to the holdings
of Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Ca1.2d 83 and South Bay Senior Housing Corp. v. City of
Hawthorne (App. 2 Dist. 1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1231. The League of Cali fomi a Cities' Legal
Advocacy Committee has approved the preparation of an Amicus brief in this matter. Our firm
will be preparing that Amicus brief.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CASE
The plaintiff, Amelco Electric, was the low bidder for electrical work of the Thousand
Oaks $64 million Civic Center project. Amelco's bid and contract were for $6.1 million.
Perhaps, due to the limited construction activity at that time, the contractor aggressively bid the
LEAGUE AMICUS ASSISTANCE
Page I
s
project on a low profit and no overhead basis. Pursuant to the written contract, progress
payments were made and releases obtained. However, after finishing the job, the contractor
made, to the City's surprise, a "total cost recovery"claim for extra compensation in the amount of
$1. 7 million. The claim included monies to recover all of the contractor's costs, plus an amount
for overhead and profit on the entire job. The claim was based on an alleged breach of the
written construction contract, and also on the equitable theory of implied "abandonment" of that
written contract.
The City had 32 change orders on this large project. All change orders followed the
formal and written process set forth in the contract. These change orders added $1.1 million to
the original contract amount, which represented only an 18% increase to the initial total contract.
The contractor tracked other costs and impacts of City actions or changes to the project,
but it did not do so concerning the alleged impacts due the City's breaches. Although a large
sophisticated electrical contractor, it simply testified that due to the numerous sketches, record
keeping of the actual impacts was too difficult. Thus, Amelco never established at trial a fixed
cost impact or a direct causal relationship between any City action (be it the sketches or
whatever) and its damages. Rather, they asked for a "total cost recovery", summarizing "they
died of a thousand cuts" from handling these informational sketches.
A $2.1 million dollar "total cost recovery" verdict was rendered by the jury against the
City for both a breach of the written contract and for abandonment.
WHY THIS CASE MERITS CITY ATTENTION
Cities have numerous limitations on their authority to contract, particularly public works
contracts which must be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder. Under the abandonment
theory, if tied to a cost recovery claim, the contractor is not bound by the contract price or the
negotiated change orders, and the city becomes liable for any and all contractor inefficiencies
(costs plus profit/overhead, or practically a blank check). That type of lawsuit is really a
quantum meruit action, which the courts have traditionally denied against public entities. With
limited public funds, a city should be able to reasonably budget for its public projects, relying on
negotiated change orders and releases. A contractor should not be able to unilaterally determine
the contract has been abandoned, thereby creating fiscal budgeting havoc. It is CO!1lIIlOn place
that in constructing a public project there will be some change in the work. If the public entities
have an exposure to an abandonment claim where written change orders are agreed to, every
contractor will be encouraged to make such indefinite claims.
Keeping separate and accurate records of the actual costs to the contractor of any
additional work or changes is the most reliable method of qualifYing costs or damages. The
"total cost" method negates the bargain both parties made. That doctrine should not be used to
convert public contracts from a fixed price low bid arrangement to a cost plus contract.
LEAGUE AMICUS ASSISTANCE
Page 2
s
ISSUES OF AN AMICUS BRIEF
l. No quantum meruit recovery against public entities.
One who makes a contract with a public entity takes notice of those limitations on its
power to contract. Morrison Homes Corp. v. City of Pleasant on (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 724,727.
"And even though the person with whom the contract was made has supplied labor and materials
in the performance of the contract and the public agency has received the benefits thereof, he has
no right of action to recover in quantum meruit the reasonable value thereof." (Citations
omitted) "The competitive bidding requirement is founded upon a salutary public policy
declared by the legislature to protect the taxpayers from fraud, corruption, and carelessness on
the part of public officials and the waste and dissipation of public funds. " Miller v. J. M
Mckinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88. Generally, when a statute limits a city's power to make
contracts to a certain prescribed method, impliedly prohibiting any other method, a contract that
does not conform to that prescribed method is void and no implied liability can arise for benefits
received by the city. A "total cost recovery" converts a fixed price low bid contract to a quantum
meruit recovery, or the contract into a cost plus contract.
2. Total cost recovery disfavored.
Because the total cost method does not require the contractor to break down and prove its
costs or to link each extra cost item directly to the owner's actions, that method of damages
should be a disfavored remedy. Total cost allows the low bid contractor to recover its entire
costs incurred on the job, including added on profit and overhead. In Huber, Hunt & Nichols v.
Moore (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 278, the court did not allow the inadequacies of the contractor's
accounting system to alter the contractor's normal burden of proving causation between the
owner's acts and the contractor's damages.
3. Unjustified betterment.
A fundamental principle in contract damages is the court should place the nonbreaching
party in the same position it would have been if the contract had been fully performed. Its goal is
not to make a better contract or to create profit where none existed. When a contractor has
aggressively bid the project on a low profit/no overhead basis, a verdict cannot include
unexpected profit and overhead.
4. Abandonment.
Abandonment of a written construction contract may be implied by the acts of the parties.
Opdyke & Butler v. Benjamin Silver (1952) III Cal.App.2d 912. Abandonment has been
justified because the scope of the work, when the contractor finally undertakes the actual work,
greatly exceeded that called for under the original written contract. Daugherty v. Kimberly-Clark
Corp. (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 151,156. However, no California abandonment case has been
found where a public entity was the owner. Public works projects must be awarded to the lowest
LEAGUE AMICUS ASSISTANCE
Page 3
~
~
bidder and meet certain statutory requirements. Abandonment converts the written low bid
contract to a quantum meruit recovery.
In addition, both the City and the contractor must act in such a way as to abandon this contract,
and there must be excessive changes. C. Norman Peterson Co. v. Container Corp. of America
(1985) 172 Cal. App.3d 628. In Peterson the contractor had a "not to exceed" cost of
$4,789,000 and for a project to be completed in 18 months. Shortly after the bid, both parties
became aware that the initial drawings were inadequate. Thereafter, revised drawings were made
but some were up to 14 months late, yet the project was completed on time. The contractor
repeatedly complained about lack of revised drawings and their additional costs. The contract set
forth a formal procedure for change orders. However, there were so many changes that the
formal written change order process became an expedited oral process. The hundred plus change
orders added $3,405,713 to the original contract of $4,789,000, a 71 % increase.
STATUS AND JOINDER OR CONSENT
Wendy Lasher of Lascher & Lascher (of Ventura, CA, Tel. No. 805-648-3228) is
handling the City's appeal now filed with Division Six of the Second Appellate District Court.
The City's opening brief was filed in mid December 1999. Our Amicus brief is due around mid
February 2000. We, therefore, request those cities wishing to join the Amicus, to return the
attached written consent form by February 4, 2000. Please specifY how the name of the public
entity or the City Attorney should be printed on the brief.
Thank you for your support,
IJltwlatdt! fbr.
Nowland C. Hong 0
cc: Cynthia Morgan, League Staff
Rene Chouteau
Robert Flandrick
Ariel Calonne
Robert Shannon
LEAGUE AMICUS ASSISTANCE
Page 4
RECORDING REQUESTED
RETURN TO: TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TffiURON
1505 TffiURON BOULEY ARD
TIBURON, CA 94920
T/-e~ )J~. k.
(~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
VACATING A PORTION OF A FORTY (40) FOOT WIDE ACCESS AND UTILITY
EASEMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON NED'S WAY
ASSESSOR PARCEL 58-151-35
WHEREAS, a forty (40) foot wide access and utility easement was established and
accepted by the Town of Tiburon as part ofa parcel map (PM 16-37) recorded with the County
of Marin; and
WHEREAS, said easement is depicted on a subsequent parcel map (pM 26-43) recorded
in December 1997, including the notation that the "westerly 5' of the 40' access and utility
easement "D" to be abandoned under separate instrument." The purpose for this note regarding
future abandonment of the unused 5 feet of the 40-foot easement was to facilitate development of
the Ned's Way Garden Homes senior housing project; and
WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon is now desirous of vacating the 5-foot wide portion of
the 40-foot wide access and utility easement as previously indicated in 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Town has researched the matter and concluded that vacation of the
portion of the access and utility easement will not adversely affect any in-place public utility
facilities nor interfere with any required access.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
that.
1. Pursuant to Chapter 4, Section 8334(a) of the California Streets and Highways Code, the
Town of Tiburon does hereby summarily vacate that 5-foot wide portion the subject
access and utility easement as described on attached Exhibit" A".
2. This summary vacation is made pursuant to the authority of Chapter 4, Section 8334(a) of
the California Streets and Highways Code which allows municipalities to summarily vacate
an excess right of way of a street not required for street purposes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon held on , 2000, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
~
-
THOMAS GRAM. MAYOR
s
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description for Abandonment of Easement
All that real property situate in the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, described as
follows: .
The westerly 5 feet of the 40-foot access and utility easement "D" as
shown on that Parcel Map recorded in Book 26 of Parcel Maps at Page 4 3 ,
Marin County Records.
Prepared by:
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, 1Ne.
o
z
W
@
.....J
- '. ,,~~;,G""
;.;<tc$lif'
~~m
Q)~~
";l t-~I
,(I}
~c;
J-,.,!
,,~'t
3~
.",a
lL ~"..,,"
'''0 ..
- -'.
'_ :,1'
- '1::'.-'.
~. .\
......... . -~'
Cf\Q
I-z
1l.l:J
Q)2
o .
~e<",J
S' 0~oc (
?L~+j
2U
_J -.-
_ 0,/ r,
(\ L,T- ....-..-
,-,1-- n
illtj) >.:
w 7-- ,~
it Ll fi:
" -..j ()
f)- C'j ""0
'- " ..
, \ :-
'.ii .; "
:" ,"';
~- -,
F
/1\" €.
~\.'2.\'(/)"-"
S /1\'
. \'2. (/) .(/)"-"
-.
,~
S I.)
J'.:I' ~
'q'- .-/
l"~ ,I
I.) /.~ "'J
a::.COdJ
'3
Q'
QQ
,Q
"'~
<:' ():)
():)-
.'"
<S'l
<D
ill
N~
I-U
()~
-1_
0\
- ~.L'1~
\:\",vt. ___-
..---,~:--- ,-r
--- €.p.S€.i'\€''I-' \
'F';:;;:
F,
-<1<
~~
~
SIb- I
~ /
~
" /.
'-.-.
. I I.
~
"\l
s:
'7
';l)
~
W
"+
o
\..S;,
~tJ
\,.-00\
Su ,
'-
I-
Z
ill
r:
ill
Q)
~
s
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 2/
To: TOWN COUNCIL
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTORW'
Subject: CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF A POR nON OF NED'S WAY FOR PUBLIC
STREET PURPOSES
Date: JANUARY 28,2000
BACKGROUND
The Town has requested that the Hilarita quitclaim a portion (approximately 480 linear feet) of
Ned's Way to the Town for public street purposes. This quitclaim would expedite the Ned's Way
Garden Homes project, and facilitate that project's requirement to construct approximately 18-20
additional public parking spaces on the east side of Ned's Way for the benefit of surrounding uses.
The Town already holds an access easement over this street, but the Hilarita- Tiburon Ecumenical
Association (Hilarita) holds underlying fee ownership. Upon completion of the senior housing
project, public use of this portion of Ned's Way will increase substantially. Town Staff considers
acceptance of the quitclaim as sound planning and the proper approach to the changing
circumstances facing that portion of Ned's Way in the next several years.
None of the existing perpendicular parking spaces along the west side of Ned's Way is located
within the quitclaim area. These spaces are on private Hilarita property outside of the roadway
easement. The Town will not assume any maintenance responsibility for these Hilarita parking
spaces.
There would be minor long-term maintenance costs associated with the acceptance. However,
such costs are minimal and the entire portion of Ned's Way considered for acceptance is currently
in excellent condition. It is anticipated that the senior housing project developer will repave the
entire portion upon completion of the senior housing project.
Hilarita is requesting that the Town favorable consider the creation of additional parking further
up Ned's Way in the future, the costs to be borne by Hilarita. There is also a reversionary clause
in the deed that would revert the property to Hilarita ownership should the Town at some point in
the future abandon Ned's Way as a public street. Staff has no objection to the reversionary
clause.
Tihurof/ Town Couf/cil
StaJl Report
2/2/2000
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 1) accepting a portion of Ned's Way for
public street purposes.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution, quitclaim deed, and legal description.
Public street accept rpt.doc
Tihuron Town Council
Staff Repart
2/2/2000
s
2
s
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ACCEPTING A CONVEYANCE
FROM THE HILARlTA-TmURON ECUMENICAL
ASSOCIATION OF A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS NED'S WAY
(PORTION OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 58-151-25)
1. Findings of Fact.
A. Portions of the roadway conunonly known as ''Ned's Way" are frequently used by the
general public as a means of access to property that was the site of the former Tiburon
Town Hall and police station and to the new Town of Tiburon Police Station.
B. The lowest approximately 75 linear feet of Ned's Way is currently a dedicated public
street within the Town of Tiburon. The adjacent approximately 480 linear feet of
Ned's Way ("Property") is currently owned in fee by the Hilarita-Tiburon Ecumenical
Association ("Grantor") but is likely to receive additional public use due to the
anticipated construction of a senior housing project on the adjacent former Tiburon
Town Hall property. The senior housing project developers have requested that to
facilitate development of their project, the Town of Tiburon clarifY the status of the
Property. Increased public use of the portion of Ned's Way above the Property is not
foreseen at this time.
C As a condition of approval of the precise development plan for the senior housing
project, the Town of Tiburon has required the installation by the developer of
approximately 18-20 perpendicular public parking spaces on and adjacent to the
Property.
D. At the Town's request, the Grantor has offered to quitclaim the Property to the Town
for public street purposes. The Property is more particularly described in Exhibit A
to this resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The
Property is further described in attached Exhibit B for illustration purposes only.
E. The Property is presently owned and maintained by Grantor and is subject to an access
easement held by the Town.
F. Grantor has previously requested, and the Town previously agreed, to provide
signage, striping, or other mutually acceptable methods to better indicate that private
parking spaces on the property retained by Grantor are not to be used by
unauthorized parties.
E)IJ!IBIT }1,1 o. J_
s
G. Grantor has previously requested, and the Town has agreed, that in the event that the
portions of Ned's Way retained by Grantor come to be used more widely by the
public in the future, the Town would seriously consider assuming ownership and
maintenance of those portions of Ned's Way directly affected by such increase in
public use.
H. Grantor has also requested that the Town of Tiburon indicate that it would favorably
consider a potential future request by Grantor to allow construction of additional
perpendicular parking spaces further up Ned's Way north of the Property. The Town
of Tiburon does not at this time oppose the Grantor's potential future request to
construct additional parking spaces as described above and will give due consideration
to any future request for such by Grantor.
2. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED by the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon that
the Town of Tiburon accepts the Property offered by Grantor as conveyed by the quitclaim deed
attached hereto and incorporated herein. The quitclaim deed shall be executed by the Mayor and shall
be recorded with the Office of the Marin County Recorder.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
on , 2000 by the following vote:
AYES
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS
THOMASGRAM,MAYOR
Town ofTiburon
ATTEST
DIANE CRANE, TOWN CLERK
\shared\sandersonINed's Way Accept2.doo
s
Recording Requested by:
Diane Crane
Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
APN# 58-151-25 (portion)
QUITCLAIM DEED
The Hilarita-Tiburon Ecumenical Association ("Grantor"), hereby quitclaims to the
Town of Tiburon, a municipal corporation ("Grantee"), all its right, title and interest in .
that real property situated in the Town of Tiburon, Marin County, California, which is
more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
grantor intends hereby to convey to Grantee a fee interest in said property, which by said
conveyance shall become a public street. In the event that the Town abandons the public
street on said property, the property shall revert to Grantor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has subscribed its name this _ day of
,2000.
Hilarita Tiburon Ecumenical Association
By:
Its:
DEED, NEDS WAY E4SEMENT
1
s
EXHIBIT A
"LEGAL DESCRIPTION"
Being an extension of "Ned's Way", Town ofTiburon, Marin County, California, and described
as follows:
COMMENCING at a point on the Northeasterly line of Tiburon Boulevard at the Southeasterly
comer of Parcel D as shown on the Map of Hilarita, Recorded in Book 16 of Maps at Page 1,
Marin County Records;
TIIENCE Northwesterly along said line of Tiburon Boulevard North 62054'00" West, 75.00 feet
to the Southeasterly comer of Parcel A of said map;
THENCE North 27006'00" East, 56.14 feet to a point of curve;
THENCE through a tangent curve concave to Southeast having a radius of 435.00 feet through a
central angle of2030'00" and an arc length of 18.98 feet;
TIIENCE South 60"24'00" East, 23.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE through a curve concave to the Southeast, from a line to the radius point bearing South
60"24'00" East with a radius of 412.00 feet, through a central angle of 27030'00", an arc length
of 197.75 feet;
THENCE North 57006'00" East, 101.50 feet;
TIIENCE through a tangent curve concave to the Northwest, having a radius of 338.00 feet,
through a central angle of39000'00", an arc length of230.07 feet;
TIIENCE South 71054'00" East, 12.00 feet to an angle point;
TIIENCE South 72034'32" East, 20.00 feet to a point of curve;
THENCE through a curve concave to the Northwest, from a line to the radius point bearing
North 72034'32" West with a radius of370.00 feet, through a central angle of 39040'32", an arc
length of 256.21 feet;
TIIENCE South 57006'00" West, 101.50 feet to a point of curvature;
TIIENCE through a tangent curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of 380.00 feet,
central angle of 27030'00", and arc length of 182.39 feet;
TIIENCE North 60"24'00" West, 32.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Prepared by:
M""",
LEGALD[s
69-40LEGDESC.DOC
s
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
To:
From:
Subject:
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 2/2/2000
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
PORTION OF 87 AND 91 VIA LOS ALTOS; LA CRESTAROADWAY AND
UTILITY EASEMENT: CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF SAID
EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES
JANUARY 27,2000
-:;;
Date:
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of June 16,1999 the Town Council considered a request by Sky Road residents
requesting acceptance of a roadway and utility easement in the La Cresta Subdivision. The
purpose of the request was to create legal access across this easement to Via Los Altos and
thence to the Tiburon Ridge Trail. Creation of legal access from Sky Road was also contingent
upon the County of Marin accepting a pr~viously rejected pedestrian easement connecting Sky
Road to the La Cresta roadway and utilities easement (see Exhibit 1).
The Town Council agreed to accept a fifteen (15) foot wide portion of the easement on the
condition that Marin County accept its public pedestrian easement connecting Sky Road to the La
Cresta easement (please refer to Exhibit 2, minutes of the 6/16/99 Town Council meeting).
ANALYSIS
On January 4, 2000, the Marin County Board of Supervisors accepted the pedestrian easement
from Sky Road to the La Crest a Subdivision boundary. This acceptance was officially recorded
on January 18, 2000 (see Exhibit 3)
Upon hearing that the County would accept its easement, the Town Engineer prepared a legal
description for acceptance of a IS-foot wide portion of the easement that works well in the field.
The Planning Director and Town Engineer field-checked the easement alignment and verified that
it is very walkable and has essentially no impact on landscaping or other improvements in the
vicinity that have been installed by neighboring homeowners.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
]/]/2000
1
s
RECOMMENDA nON
That the Town Council adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 4) accepting a IS-foot wide portion of the
easement and reject the remainder.
EXHIBITS
1. Drawing of easements and their vicinity.
2. Minutes from Town Council meeting ofJune 16, 1999.
3. Copy of Marin County Certificate of Acceptance.
4. Draft Resolution and legal description.
La cresta ppe2 report. doc
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
2/2/2000
2
/
/
~
.----..
v 'O~., s
~ <4 P~a ~e 8
~ e~fr/ar,
(~ I~ "" r.;;;;,
~~C) "" I.:.:;J
"-
City
~O$e.
?,,~ ."
~J.4'.S':S'lo4.'
"-
"-
"-
,
<3
"
't' 0''''
,t ,,"
.'
,
,0
'0
@
~
.,
.... ,-
,.~ ...,
"'/lH.e:
Public
....,..',,!
3; %5
'1/
,
11~1--
/" <8
I
.' !.!.-
<' ;
~ . c:;
.
r--. </
~ }.,7
,j
..j ,-
~ .
<
.-..;.
,
@;
-.
'\, ',- ~(;
--,
'?c.......... so.
'-
2S
19
~
@
"
~--' .......
~...
1~2
G
1..;.- _.d
Area 0 f
la
Unaccepted public
pedestrian easeme
(Marin County)
<2
.... c~
p, .~,::
....:;,~:
2/
r--.
~
, '
JY
CIl'tl
rt-C
'ib"
CDi-'
CD .....
rt-Cl
40.31 25
S59" 10'[ ~
65.31 ~
8.:JO
~ ""
", ...,
e ~
:>1
l~'
, .1'--....
/ O:-c""-
I ~o..s..e.ss..
I '.
53 2. ~ .,...,
....~ - -.. S' 'I
.....k c '~..~ -
"'<:9.59'w
....07.'5" ~--
~
.'
~-,
""
8-~~
.. .
~ .
"
"'- r
"- ~2 ;
....-. ...
. -
I
~. 3<(
----l:.Os
l
...t' /
~ .... /
'- t," /
-~'../
"'~
/ 17
.I
~"
o
.t-
o --
f OC:,,,
~
.
~ -
! ~ 37
-I:
'ti-
@
~
I
:<!" s~
\ ..-~,\; ~
o-~l "'17 ">"+-'7~"~ S.
",.'1: ~ .... ....00'0.,
1" < s " ....,.
I .. -. ..' . 9..
~. 0.3_.0-
14. $9....... "'''.. :s
'S ~ .'
w..... Pc
''-< ,,~\'
"
'.
,
I LJm;ts
/
---
10
o
1134c
@)
1-
~
, f.~blic
I Jc; 2..
/'
~\... 7'f' d7
I
(< .. !..(.:...;
"q L ,'c
,TOS
.. ....,e
83
--
16
@
'"' -l
,
S"_9 ?
.,/ ..,;.......
Ie 72- <
(!)" , . /,-,\.
, /~',
~".. ...:0
'-":.'
~ ..:.e
~
~
~
,
.
E
@ft.
~ :,
----<..
"<I !....
Unaccepted .J78.01
public roadw~
easement ~
(Tiburon) 1.52 Ac.
2
i'=
~
~ ......
~ ~
'" ~
S5!110'E:
128.28
~
..c
'4-
....
~
~
.1'"
~
~.....
S4305'[
JI~.OO
@
1.61 Ac.
3
~-
-<.
~
.~
.9(,
'09."
EXHIBIT No.L
'-.
.'
,
IFU[b~ @@;f7
so
, 570,000. She also said the settlement was structured so that the property owner defendants
would contribute $15,000 to the plaintiffs and $90,000 in plaintiffs' attorney fees, and th e
Town would "front" its $70,000 toward that payment. The property owners would t add that
amount to debt of the assessment district.
During public comment, Nat Marans, Spanish Trail, said he had been in con with State Parks
& Recreation Dept. officials who had told him there were exceptions to t ADA requirements,
which would not require any changes to the" character of the Town. " e also said the lawsuit
was "a racket" brought by plaintiffs attorneys and recommended th ouncil deny the settlement
and designate Main Street an historic street.
Councilmember Thompson said the proposed improvemen 0 the downtown area would
enhance the integrity of the downtown area and make it er for pedestrians.
Councilmember Hennessy said the Town wanted t nsure accessibility to people with disabilities
and that the downtown merchants would pay f< ost of the improvements.
Vice Mayor Gram said that conformance h the ADA was the law of the land, and although
there were some minimal exceptions, t own did not qualifY for them. He said he had been in
touch with one of the State officials erred to by Mr. Marans, a Nfichael Mankin, who said that
the Town was making a good de . on and noted the Town had a good ADA consultant in
Richard Skaff Gram also agre that the street [Nfain Street] would be enhanced.
Mayor Bach said he had nt many hours on the issues involved in reaching a settlement, and
said it would be a win- n situation for everyone.
orth said the draft resolution must be amended to reflect the new Town
0,000
To adopt Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Settlement Agreement
on behalf of the Town providing for Improvements to lower Main Street to
Facilitate Providing Wheelchair Access to Downtown Businesses.
Thompson, Seconded by Gram
AYES: Unanimous
,
Council agreed to move to NEW BUSINESS
~ LA CREST A PEDESTRlAi~ ROADWAY EASEMENT _ Discussion &
~ Recommendation regarding Town Acceptance - (Planning Director)
Planning Director Anderson said that in 1982 an offer of dedication was made to the Town but it
was never accepted. He said that the easement in question would become the only legal access
to the Ridge Trial once the surrounding lots were developed. He said acceptance of the easement
would have to be made jointly between the County of Marin and Town ofTiburon.
Town Council J.4inutes #1166
June 16, 1999
Page 7
EXHIBIT NO.
2-
..---
.~_..~
_..
_.
/
,
.-
~
~,
.-
~
;:>
Anderson said there was a I5-foot easement on County property into the La Cresta Subdivision, V~i'
and a 40-foot roadway and utility easement on Town property. He said it was the Town's
General Plan policy to connect neighborhoods to Open Space, and that pedestrians and bicyclists
used the easement only.
Anderson said there would be little maintenance since the easement was already paved, but he
acknowledged that some of the adjacent property owners might feel a loss of privacy. For
instance, Anderson said he had spoken with Mr. Koh, new owner of 91 Via Los Altos, who had
questions about the easement since the previous landowner had put landscaping over it.
A possible solution, according to Anderson, was for the Town to accept only a portion of the 40-
foot easement. Mayor Bach suggested matching the 15-foot County easement.
During public hearing, Leonard Gray, 94 Via Los Altos, said that people in the neighborhood
were "up in arms" about the Town notice which stated there was a 40-foot roadway, but he said
he did not think anyone would care if it were just a path being created.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To accept a I5-foot Sky RoadlVia Los Altos public roadway easement, reject the
remainder, and work out the joint acceptance with the County of Marin.
Thompson, Seconded by Gram
AYES: Unanimoll<
PUBLIC HEARING (continued)
TJPDATE TIBURON MUNICIP AL CODE - Ordinance Amending Chapters 2 , 3 & 16 of
Code Pertaining to Town Administration _ (2nd Reading & Adoption)
closed the public hearing. There was no public comment.
To read abov rdinance by title only.
Hennessy. Secon by Gram
AYES: Unani s
Mayor Bach read, "an Ordinance of the Town unci1 of the Town ofTiburon Amending
Chapters 2, 3 and 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Co Pertaining to Town Administration."
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt above Ordinance.
Hennessy, Seconded by Gram
AYES: Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews, T
11) UPDATE TffiURON MUNICIPAL CODE - Ordinance Amending ions 13A-12;
13B-IO; 13F-12; 15A-IO; 19-11; 20-39; and 25-3 Pertaining to Code E
Town C ounci/ Afinures i:i 1161,
June 16, 1999
~.~ordir> Otfi~e
Count1 af
IWrln
JOAN C. TMAVER
card.r
:0
Rec~rded ac the Request cf:
2111NIIQliJ
REC FiE
TO Il.
NDFU
TOTAL TEllllEREll
CHIl'E
,RII
.08
,08
,1IIl
.1111
Coun[)i of Marin
Department orrarks. Open :5pacl!! &. Culrurlll Serv:ces
WI'I~N Il~CORDED IlETUR..'1 TO,
Counl)lof .\1arin
Oepill1menlo'~blic Worlu
Ilc:ll cUllle Secr;on
1'.0 9014166. Civic C~r.t~ STflnch
San Rafael, CA 9491 J-lI 86
Auc:ntloo; Lee: C. Collinli
1I:91AII 18-!an-29IIa 2_1I_116ii
JO IlSRIIlI3
AREA: Sky Road- Tiburon
APN: 34-430-02 (pm)
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEI'TA.~CE OF GRA:\'T
OF INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the COUNTY OF MARIN, a political
subdivision of the State of California, through the Department of Parks, Open Space &
Cultural Services, hereby accepts the OFFER OF DEDICATION, from Bijan Madjlessi
and Biganeh Madjlessl, of the 15 foot Pedestrian Easement 1}1ng ',vithin Lot 2, as shown
on Sheet 4 of 6 Sheets, in Parcel Map Volume 25 at page 92, :Marin County, and by order
of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin it hereby consents to the recordation
thereof by its duly authorized officer.
JAN - 4 2000
DATED:
PRES T
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ATT~ST. ~~
-fklt~L fd;.
Ceputy Clerk 6
~;\Ril:Il\ E:Sh1"il:',lu's Falder\Pa.rk~.c:'pel1 $pace'.5ky ROid'J'OR.\1- C_A - 1oI2.dcc
EY".-rrBIT NO.3-
s
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE
TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
ACCEPTING IN PART AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF AN EASEMENT IN
THE LA CRESTA SUBDIVISION (RM 18-75)
(PORTION OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 34-330-19 & 34-330-20)
Section 1. Recitals
WHEREAS, a 40 foot wide roadway and utility easement was irrevocably offered
for dedication to the Town ofTiburon as "Parcel F" on Record Map 18-75, but said
easement was initially rejected by the Town ofTiburon; and
WHEREAS, the Town has subsequently determined that a portion of the roadway
and utility easement is publicly beneficial for purposes of public pedestrian ingress and
egress; and
WHEREAS, the Town has further determined that only a portion of the roadway
and utility easement is needed to accomplish said pedestrian ingress and egress.
Section 2. Acceptance of Offer of Dedication in Part.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon hereby accepts that portion of the roadway and utilities easement (Parcel F ofRM
18-75), as described in attached Exhibit "A" and graphically depicted for illustrative
purposes on attached Exhibit "B", for purposes of pedestrian ingress and egress, and
rejects the offer of the remainder of the roadway and utility easement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council directs that the Town
Clerk record this resolution of acceptance
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of
, 2000 by the following
vote:
AYES:
COUNC1LMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No
--/--/2000
I
EYT-!IBIT NO. 4
s
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
THOMASGRAM,MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
La cresta easement reso.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
--/--/2000
2
$
EXHIBIT A
PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
All that certain real property situate in the Town ofTiburon, County of Marin, being an
easement for pedestrian ingress and egress over a portion of Lots 17 and 18 as shown on
the map entitled "La Cresta" filed in Book 18 of Maps at Page 75, Marin County
Records, said easement more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the southwesterly terminus of the line labeled "N 590 E, 61.00'" on
the centerline of the Pubic Roadway and Utility Easement labeled "Parcel F" affecting
the northerly 40.00 feet of Lots 17 and 18 as shown on said map;
Thence North 59000'00" East, 6.00 feet to a point on the northeasterly line of Lot 17 and
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence, said easement being 15.00 feet in width lying 10.00 feet northwesterly and 5.00
feet southeasterly of said centerline, South 59000'00" West, 6.00 to curve concave
northerly;
Thence westerly along said curve with a radius of 175.00 feet through a central angle of
26000'00",79.41 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
Thence westerly and southerly along said curve with a radius of 100.00 feet through a
central angle of63035'57", 111.00 feet;
Thence, said easement being 25.00 feet in width, concentric with said centerline, and
lying 20.00 feet northwesterly and 5.00 feet southeasterly of said centerline, southerly
along said curve with a radius of 100.00 feet through a central angle of8035'48". 15.00
feet;
Thence, said easement being 15.00 feet in width, concentric with said centerline, and the
southeasterly line of which lying 5.00 feet northwesterly of said centerline, southerly
along said curve with a radius of 100.00 feet through a central angle of9018'15", 16.24
feet;
Thence South 8030'00" West, 30.16 feet to a point on the southwesterly boundary of Lot
18 and the terminus of said easement.
6940peas.doc
Ol/21iOO
-iC
S
1L SCHWARIZ ~'IES, INC. @
Civil Engineering & Land Surveying
79 Galli Drive
NOVA TO. CA 94949
(415) 883-9200 FAX 883-2763
EASEMENT
SHEET NO. 1 OF 1
DATE 01/21/00
DATE 01/21/00
JOB PEDESTRIAN
JOB NO. 6940
DESIGN BY JRH
CHECKED BY I LS
SCALE 1" = 50'
..
/. ~
----- Area of Acceptance
1'l- U,,'-
L<lS A~.!c;;oS
, .p'
, ,
~\
~
EXISTING 40' R/BLIC ROAOI'/A Y
AND I/TILlTY EASEHfNT
I
\
I
J
,
I;s;,
,},:
I
/'"
N $.;>, I' \J
~ ~<~?b'~, (jj
" 5.s:q;,,~
POB
')>
\\
\ ----\
\~
..:1: 8035'48" 25'
R= 100.00' \
L 15.00
5' --------
~ R=4::::b::>
------ -- ,-~' ......
...... ....--. --- <:...
'0 / /\- ',,'~', 5 10'
// ~ _ - _ "-~9:>~" '- 15'
/ '\b~' ---r ,,= Q'I1JI5' r '" ", "',,'
1jJ,' 'if = ImcX?' I " /' .,:, "
fi,?jJ I L= 16.24' I '\. /, ':~>
'1 /' I I /' '0q, '--_
I I "-: ~<~R_, ---,
I EXISTING ./.IE. I "- -~::'<?s-q;-
lYE ~ E I ", '
L__ '. '-,
/8 --- -_J -......"'Cb'
/7 ~
gt- Vi,,-
las A \\-05
PO.C.
ell v~"'-.-
Los A \~"2> .:;-:::~ :'.':.' '\:~.::':':.s"':::.~~
.:0 ....'.? ,"~,"'..~,'._." . .
..::~5'
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
PO.C. = POINT OF COHHENCEHENT
POB. = POINT OF BEGINNING
s
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. x..:- /0
To: TOWN COUNCIL
From: TOWN CLERK
Subject: COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO CURRENT VACANCIES
1) MARIN COMMISSION AGING - (One Vacancy)
2) PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION - (One Vacancy)
3) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - (One Vacancy)
Date: February 2,2000
BACKGROUND
The notice period for receipt of applications for current vacancies on Town Boards,
Committees & Commissions expired on January 31, 2000. The following applications have been
received and interviews conducted by the Council in January of this year.
Town Clerk Crane Iacopi will give an oral report at the February 2,2000 Council meeting
to apprise Council of any additional resumes that may have been submitted after this report was
prepared (January 28, 2000).
1) MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING - (Vacancy created by Jim Rice's resignation)
~ MARYROGERS
2) PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION - (Vacancv created by Alice Frederick's
aooointment to Planning Commission)
}> HELEN LINDQUIST
3) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD -(Vacancv created bv Carla Howard's resianation)
~ DOLORES DAVIS
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council make appointments to fill current vacancies at its February 2,2000
regular meeting, or defer making appointments if it wishes to conduct further interviews.
D. Crane Iacopi
Town Clerk
s
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 2, 2000 ITEM:
TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000
ADDITIONAL PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION
-It II
New Business
BACKGROUND:
This item is for authorization to augment the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Street Improvement Program to
undertake an additional $100,000 in street rehabilitation projects.
DISCUSSION:
A total of $379,000 is currently appropriated for street improvement projects in Fiscal Year 1999-2000. This
includes nine (9) street projects that will primarily be funded with a State STIP Grant ($245,000), and
remaining projects and associated engineering costs will be funded with Town Streets & Drainage Reserve
funds ($134,000).
The Office of the Town Engineer has identified several additional streets which are under consideration for
inclusion in the Spring 2000 Street Rehabilitation Contract, some include::
Upper North Terrace Sugarloaf I?rive
Lower North Terrace Round Hill Road
Cazadero Lane Old Landing Road
Venado Drive
As currently estimated by the Town Engineer, the above-mentioned supplemental projects require an
additional $355,000 in funding in order to complete the proposed improvements..
Since July 1999, the Town has been receiving Street Impact Fees to the new Tiburon Street Impact Fund.
As of December 31,1999, a total of $115,000 in Impact Fees has been received to the Fund. The Town
therefore has monies available to undertake a portion of the proposed supplemental street improvement
projects during this fiscal year.
The Town Engineer recommends the inclusion of all proposed supplemental projects in the upcoming
Spring 2000 Contract Bidding Period, in order to better determine which projects may be approved and
undertaken.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Town Council approve (1) the inclusion of all proposed supplemental streets projects in the upcoming
contract bidding period. and (2) authorize the appropriation of $1 00.000 of Tiburon Street Impact Fund
monies to undertake supplemental street improvement projects.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Approved Tiburon Street Improvement Program, Fiscal Year 2000 (Budget Page 38)
l~
R. Stra nzl
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
I
.
I
1
1
h
s
Street Improvement Projects -
Fiscal Year 2000
Street & Sidewalk Improvement Budget
Sources of Funding
Amount
Project ExpendITures
Amount
25,000
30,000
33,000
40,000
15,000
30,000
30,000
47,000
18,000
23,000
63,000
15,000
10,000
$ 379,000
Stale STIP Grant Award .
Tiburon Streets & Drainage Reserve
245,000
134,000
Total Funding Sources:
$ 379,000
Streets Projects Engineering
Centro East (Paradise-Solano)'
Comstock Drive'
cf Greenwood Beach Road
Irving Court .
Jefferson Drive'
cf Sidewalk, Mar West- TPC
Silverado Drive'
Solano Street'
Virginia Drive'
Vistazo West.
Washington Court .
Provision for Miscellaneous Repair
Total Planned Improvements:
cf Carry Forward
. STIP Funded Street Project In February 1999 the County notified theTown that it will receive Stale (STlP) Program Funds to
ccmplete 9 street rehabilITation projects, as identified by the Town Engineer. The STIP funds WIll be augmented with Streets &
Drainage Reserve funds to ccmplete these and other improvements.
TOWN OF TlBURON Municipal Budget Plan, Fiscal Year 2000
38
~
~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO.
IL
To:
TOWN COUNCIL
From:
TOWN MANAGER
Subject:
Date:
RULE20AUNDERGROUNDING-CPUCSTUDY
February 2, 2000
BACKGROUND
The California State Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is conducting a workshop at
their offices in San Francisco on February 10 & 11, 2000 for the purpose of discussing issues
relating to the current rules and regulations for the replacement of overhead electrical and
communication facilities with underground facilities.
The CPUC is then required to submit a report to the State Legislature on or before
January 1,2001 with recommendations relating to:
. Encouraging utility undergrounding systems
. Enhancing public safety
. Improving reliability of the utility systems
. Providing more flexibility and control to local governments
The Commission will be soliciting comments and feedback at the workshop pertaining to
the benefits of undergrounding, the costs of undergrounding, and the formula currently used to
allocate available funds among local governments.
RECOMMENDATION
This directly affects Tiburon and all other municipalities as it relates directly to Rule 20A
& B funding for utility undergounding. The Town should support Vice Mayor Thompson's
efforts concerning increased funding for Rule 20A & B undergounding efforts and present our
recommendations and the MCCMC support to the CPUC on February 10 or 11.
R.L. Kleinert
EXHIBIT
--CPUC White Paper
s
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
e'-,,;~-. ';
'.j;- .'
,.",.
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102-3298
January 13, 2000
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN RULEMAKING 00-01-005
On January 10,2000, we mailed to you a signed decision in the above-referenced
proceeding. It has been brought to our attention that the attachments to the decision
were inadvertently omitted. A White Paper, dated November 19, 1999, and prepared
by the Energy Division, as well as a copy of Assembly Bill No. 1149, were to accompany
the Order Institution Rulemaking.
The Order Institution Rulemaking also ordered the Energy Division to conduct a
workshop on issues pertaining to the Commission's current undergrounding program.
The workshop is scheduled for February 10 and 11, 2000. The workshop will follow the
prehearing conference scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on February 10, 2000.
*
Enclosed please find a copy of the Notice of the February 10 and 11, 2000, workshop as
well as copies of the White Paper and Assembly Bill No. 1149.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
L~t: ~ (j, ....oJ \
LYrfu T. Carew, Chief G - CI
Administrative Law Judge
LTC:hkr
Attachments
61349
s
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
e'.
..... ~
. ~ .:
" "'.".
",,,
50S VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102-3298
Energy Division
Undergrounding Workshop
Dates: February 10, 2000,
following 10:00 a.m.
Id Prehearing Conference
S-k+e "'B",,' [^- j February 11, 2000, 10:00 a.m.
Pla~~8H. . '-"l Auditorium
Lf 5S ",1&eYl L . . Avenue
Gu..+&- San Francisco, CA 94102
Pursuant to AB 1149 (Stats. 1999, Ch. 844), and the implementing Ru1emaking 00-01-005, the
Energy Division has scheduled a workshop on issues pertaining to the Commission's current
undergrounding program, and possible changes to that program.
AB 1149 requires the Commission to conduct a study as to ways to amend, revise, and improve
the rules for the replacement of overhead electric and communications facilities with
underground facilities and to submit a report on the study to the Legislature on or before
January 1, 200 1. The legislature also directed the Commission to include the following specific
issues in its study:
. Discovering and eliminating barriers to establishing continuity of the existing
underground system and ways to eliminate uneven patches of overhead facilities,
. How to enhance public safety,
. How to improve reliability, and
. How to provide more flexibility and control to local governments
In addition to these enumerated issues, the Commission also wants to look at both the broad
policy issues raised by the program, as well as the details of program implementation. The
Energy Division's White Paper, distributed with the Rulemaking, raises many such issues.
The goal of the first day of this workshop is to allow parties to discuss, comment upon. and if
possible reach consensus on what issues need to be addressed and in what order and priority.
The goal of the second day of this workshop will be to allow parties to discuss what data and
information may be available through data requests, and if possible to reach a consensus among
parties on needed data. The Energy Division will use information and opinions gathered at these
workshops, and in any further written comments, to prepare a workshop report as directed by the
Rulemaking. The Administrative Law Judge and the Assigned Commissioner will consider the
workshop report in detennining how to proceed in this ru1emaking.
The workshop will be held in the Commission's Auditorium, located at 505 Van Ness Avenue,
San Francisco, CA, on February 10 and 11, 2000. The first day of this workshop will begin
immediately after the prehearing conference scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday,
61357
-1 -
s
February 10,2000 and will run as late as 5:00 p.m. The second day of this workshop. also in the
Auditorium, will begin at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, February 11,2000, and will run as late as
5:00 p.m. Any member of the public may attend this workshop. The Auditorium is
wheelchair-accessible.
To focus issues at the workshop, we invite all interested parties and members of the public to
submit preliminary written conunents or position statements. You may submit a statement even
if you are unable to attend the workshop. If you wish staff to review and sununarize these
statements before the workshop itself, please ensure that they are received at the Commission no
later than February 3, 2000. Later or updated conunents will be accepted until 20 days after the
workshop, and considered in the workshop report.
Such statements should be sent to:
Mark Ziering
Energy Division, Room 4011
CPUC
San Francisco, CA 94102
Parties may submit further or updated conunents bye-mail: maz@cDuc.ca.l!ov. Questions about
the workshop may be directed to Mr. Ziering at that web address orby phone (415 703-2282).
Further. from time to time, information about the workshop will be posted on Energy Division's
portion of the Commission's web site, WWW.CDUC.ca.l!Ov.
-2-
s
February 10,2000 and will run as late as 5:00 p.m. The second day of this workshop, also in the
Auditorium. will begin at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, February! 1,2000, and will run as late as
5:00 p.m. Any member of the public may attend this workshop. The Auditorium is
wheelchair-accessible.
To focus issues at the workshop, we invite all interested parties and members of the public to
submit preliminary written comments or position statements. You may submit a statement even
if you are unable to attend the workshop. If you wish staff to review and summarize these
statements before the workshop itself, please ensure that they are received at the Commission no
later than February 3, 2000. Later or updated comments will be accepted until 20 days after the
workshop, and considered in the workshop report.
Such statements should be sent to:
Mark Ziering
Energy Division, Room 4011
CPUC
San Francisco, CA 94102
Parties may submit further or updated comments bye-mail: maz@cpuc.ca.lwv. Questions about
the workshop may be directed to Mr. Ziering at that web address or by phone (415 703-2282).
Further, from time to time, information about the workshop will be posted on Energy Division's
portion of the Commission's web site, WWW.cPuc.ca.gov.
-2-
s
The Commission's Program Regarding the
Undergrounding of Electric Distribution Lines
A White Paper
November 19, 1999
Energy Division
California Public Utilities Commission
550 VanNess A venue
San Francisco, CA 94102
s
INTRODUCTION
Since 1967, the Commission has required new electric service connections
to be placed underground, and has funded a gradual program to replace
existing overhead distribution lines (and concomitant communications
lines) with new, underground service. AB 1149 (Aroner) has been signed
into law, requiring the Commission to study various aspects of the program,
and to report to the legislature by January 1,2001.' In particular, the
Commission must study the following issues:
1) Discovering and eliminating barriers to establishing
continuity of the existing underground system and ways to
eliminate uneven patches of overhead facilities.
2) How to enhance public safety.
3) How to improve reliability,
4) How to provide more flexibility and control to local
governments.
The Commission may wish to undertake a more thorough investigation of
the Electric Tariff Rules, operations, and results related to this program.
This white paper identifies various issues, including those enumerated in
AB 1149, which the Commission may wish to consider.
The program is tied to a number of important Commission goals. In
general, the Commission seeks to improve the environment, public health,
public safety, and the quality of electric service. At the same time, the
Commission wants to keep electric rates as low as possible, other things
being equal. To balance these considerations, the Commission may wish to
consider the benefits of undergrounding compared to its costs, as well as
consumers' willingness to pay for various benefits.
Broadly speaking, the program consists of two parts. The first requires
developers to put utility services underground in new subdivisions. The
second governs 1) when and where a utility may remove overhead lines and
replace them with new underground service, and 2) who shall bear the cost
of the conversion. The ratepayers share of the cost of conversions appears
to be between $130 and $180 million annually.
I See Appendix A of this white paper for the full text.
Undergrounding White Paper Page 2
s
At this rate of expenditure, as discussed below, it can be argued that it
would take centuries to underground the entire state's distribution system.
Therefore, at the broadest policy level, the Commission may wish to explore
the circumstances where the many benefits to undergrounding exceed the
cost. Broadly speaking, there are three options: 1) to underground the entire
system statewide, 2) to underground just selected portions (as in the current
program), or 3) end the program entirely.
The Commission may also wish to examine the details of program
implementation. The question is whether the program best directs available
funds to the areas of greatest need, and whether it operates efficiently.
Finally, the Commission may wish to examine how the program coordinates
with other aspects of Commission regulation, including various aspects of
Electricity Restructuring. More generally, telephone wires and television
cables are moved underground along with electric service,
mSTORY OF THE PROGRAM
The program has a long and complicated history. A brief summary appears
below.
In 1967, the Commission adopted a policy of encouraging undergrounding.
Prior to that time, there was no explicit requirement that new facilities be
put underground, Further, property owners desiring to replace an overhead
system with an underground system had to form an assessment district to
bear the costs. The Commission adopted the new program uniformly for all
utilities by prescribing tariff amendments (D.73078, 67 CPUC 490).
New subdivisions (and those that were already undergrounded) were
required to provide underground service for all new connections. Utilities
(both electric and telephone) would bear the costs of installation except for
trenching, conduit, and backfilling. Utilities were authorized to request
exemptions from requirements where house lot sizes were very large, or
where undergrounding was otherwise impractical. The Commission
recognized, however, that it was not generally practical to put transmission
facilities underground.
Undergrounding White Paper Page 3
s
The Commission also established three programs that allowed customers,
localities, or utilities to replace overhead with underground service if
specified conditions were met. The Commission asked each utility to
submit a budget for the new programs. The Commission adopted tariff rules
that required communications utilities to coordinate with electric utilities in
order to place their lines underground as well.
In 1969, the Commission clarified its policy. In particular, it required all
service extensions to be placed underground, with utilities bearing all costs
except those of trenching and backfilling, which remained the
responsibility of developers (D. 76394, 70 CPUC 339). In 1970, the
Commission confirmed that underground service was mandatory in new
subdivisions (D. 77187, 71 CPUC 1134). In 1976, the Commission
extended its policy regarding undergrounding to cover distribution lines of
any voltage classification (D. 85497,79 CPUC 503).
A number of subsequent resolutions and decisions ordered utilities to
increase budgets for replacement of overhead with underground facilities.
In 1981, Resolutions E-1930 and E-1931 ordered such increases for PG&E
and Southern California Edison in order to "maintain construction activity
at the historicallevel..." (D. 82-01-18, 7 CPUC 2nd 762).
The Commission has also changed the formula used to allocate available
funds among local governments. At fIrst, funds were allocated to local
governments based on population. In 1982, the Commission recognized
that some areas (where most service was already underground) had
relatively little need for undergrounding, and approved a formula based on
the number of meters served by overhead lines. The Commission also
adopted a procedure for shifting funds away from communities that were
not using their allocation promptly. Finally, the Commission allowed local
governments to require utilities (for example, through franchise agreements)
to install the fIrst 100 feet of utility-owned underground facilities free (D.
82-01-18,7 CPUC 2nd 749).
In 1990, the Commission reexamined the allocation issue, and struck a
compromise between the two previous policies. Henceforth, allocations
would be based on 1990 levels, with increased funding allocated half and
half on the basis of total meters and overhead meters, respectively. To the
extent that funds exceeded 150% of the previous year's allocations,
Undergrounding White Paper Page 4
s
however, those funds were allocated according to the number of overhead
meters.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Commission may wish to examine the program's accomplishments over
the last 30 years, compared to the program's cost. The two main provisions
of the program are the requirement that new subdivisions receive
underground service, and the roles governing conversion of overhead to
underground systems.
The requirement for underground systems in new subdivisions may have
had very large effects on California's landscape. During the explosive
growth of the last 30 years, California's population has grown by more than
60 percent, largely in new subdivisions. The exact impact is difficult to
measure, since many developers might have provided underground service
in the absence of these roles.).
The program for undergrounding existing overhead facilities has provided
benefits through out the state but has affected only a few percent of the
state's overhead facilities. Since 1967, perhaps 4,0002 miles have been put
underground, leaving roughly 150,000 miles above ground. This progress
has cost cumulatively over $2 million (without adjustments for inflation).
These benefits, however, are widely distributed throughout the state,
because funds are allocated to each local government entity.
THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF UNDERGROUNDING
The Commission may wish to encourage undergrounding where the benefits
exceed the costs, if those costs and benefits are equitably distributed. The
Commission may wish to consider the existence, nature, and extent of these
costs and benefits, and how potential benefits can be measured and valued.
As is discussed below, the Department of Health Services (DHS), at the
Commission's request, is conducting a study of the health impacts of
electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which examines undergrounding as a
2 This is a very rough estimate; actual mileage figures are not available. The estimate assumes a cost of
$200 per foot, or roughly $0.5 million per mile, at the lower end of current cost estimates. This is lower
than the costs cited by the Commission in 1982 of $250 to $1000 per mile; the lower current cost estimates
may be due to newer technology.
Undergrounding White Paper Page 5
~
.
potential mitigation measure. A discussion appears below of the potential
costs and benefits of undergrounding. At the same time, the Commission
may wish to consider whether other approaches could yield similar benefits
at lower cost.
Costs
It can be argued that, all other things being equal, residents and
governments prefer electric lines to be placed underground; but
underground service may be relatively expensive, especially where an
overhead system is functioning and has considerable remaining life. The
Commission may wish to examine what costs are incurred by providing
underground service, both in new subdivisions and for conversions,
Costs may be especially significant for conversions. According to
Commission staff, utility estimates for conversion range, speaking roughly,
from the high tens to the middle hundreds of dollars per foot of line,
anywhere from $.5 million to $3 million per mile. Some claim, however,
that costs could be much lower, perhaps $ .1 to $ .15 million per mile. 3 The
proponents of lower estimates claim that modem technology, such as
remote-controlled drilling, could lower costs substantially. Further, they
argue that current projects, as short as 600 feet or a city block, are in many
cases too small to exploit economies of scale. The Commission may also
wish to explore whether costs could be lowered through competition,
special incentives, or other actions.
Benefits of Undergroonding
There are many potential benefits to undergrounding: The Commission
may wish to consider the existence, extent, and value of these benefits;
whether benefits and cost responsibility are properly linked; and whether
J Oakland's fire area was undergrounded under D. 92-12-016. In response to a staff data request, PG&E
has reponed costs of only $30-$40 per foot. However. the utility claims that low figure stems from
incorrect cost accounting, due to the urgency of the project. Moreover, according to PG&E. costs may have
been lower because workers often were able to disregard existing water. sewer and gas lines, since many of
these had been destroyed in the fire. Others assen that low costs were due to economies of scale available
to a large project, and savings due to extensive use of new technologies. such as remote-controlled,
directional drills. A cost of $30 per foot is equivalent to $150.000 per mile.
4 The list of benefits was in part suggested by the repon, "Estimate of Potential Annual A voidable Costs
From Undergrounding Elecuic Power Lines in California," prepared for a stakeholder group in the
Department of Health Services Electromagnetic Field Study.
Undergrounding White Paper
Page 6
s
alternative programs could obtain similar benefits at lower cost. The
examples below illustrate potential benefits. The Commission may wish to
ask Utilities Safety Branch (USB) to provide a report, including a data base
of recent incidents on the system, to facilitate analysis by parties. The
Commission may also wish to collect data from utilities in order to create
California outage and circuit data bases.
Perhaps the most noticeable benefits are aesthetic. These benefits are
arguably greatest along California's miles of scenic highway, in parks and
recreation areas, and in crowded urban env.ironments, but there may be
some benefit in almost any location.
Along with aesthetic benefits come possible increases in property value
that accrue primarily to property owners along the route. Such increases
raise the issue of distributive equity; more particularly, the extent to which
the program matches cost responsibility to the enjoyment of benefits.
There are also potential benefits to public and worker safety. Perhaps
most dramatic is any potential reduction in the number of fatalities and
injuries due to contact with overhead facilities, direct or indirect. Accident
reports show that people are killed or injured with some frequency, for
example, by driving into power poles, while using metal poles to harvest
fruit, or while installing roof antennas. In some cases, such accidents cause
power outages, decreasing system reliability.
However, merely enumerating accidents in the overhead system does not
prove the cost-effectiveness of under grounding; rather, careful analysis is
required. Perhaps 70% of California's line-miles are overhead; thus, it can
be argued that by pure chance, one would expect 70% of problems to occur
near overhead lines. Data from a recent Utility Safety Branch Report may
be indicative, if not conclusive. During 1998, utilities reported 18 people
were killed at or near above ground lines, while only one was killed near
underground facilities (and that was a drowning at a water intake grating),
suggesting that underground facilities indeed involve fewer fatalities. The
statistics for injuries however, may show a different pattern. In that same
year, 36 people were injured at or near overhead lines, while a third as many
were injured near underground facilities, indicating no apparent advantage
to underground lines. And it appears that utility employees working on
Undergrounding White Paper Page 7
s
underground cables are at more risk of injury than those working on
overhead lines.
Safety concerns also highlight another issue: whether the same benefits
could be achieved at lower cost through approaches other than
undergrounding.. For example, the Commission has sponsored a program
to encourage use of non-conductive poles in agriculture. Other approaches
may include better signage, or even relocation of dangerous lines.
Compared to overhead lines, underground lines may provide a higher level
of service reliability than overhead lines. Clearly, overhead facilities can
be damaged by wind or aircraft, or shorted out by trees or dense fog,
interrupting service to customers. Citizens may believe that underground
service is more reliable, but there appears to be no conclusive proof of that
contention. On the other hand, even if modem underground facilities fail
more rarely, they may be harder to inspect, diagnose and repair. increasing
the length of any outages that do occur.'
To help resolve this debate (and to shed light on other reliability issues) the
Commission may wish to order that respondent electric utilities promptly
respond to data requests from Energy Division aimed at building a statewide
outage and circuit data base, covering at least the last five years. That
database would record outages affecting each substation or circuit, shall
include the miles of underground and overhead line in each circuit or
substation, and other relevant data as requested by Energy Division.
Note that the Commission's Performance Based Ratemaking (PBR)
program may provide guidance on the valuation of reliability benefits.
These programs place an implicit value on reliability, which are roughly
equal to $15 every time a customer loses power; plus $15 per hour of outage
experienced by a customer.' The Commission may wish to ask parties to
comment whether these values are reasonable.
Undergrounding may also reduce the danger of fire and other threats to life
and property. When power lines are near trees, direct contact can start fires
, Some underground CIrcuits, particularly those buried directly rather than in protective conduit. may
actually fail at higher rates than overhead facilities.
'The incentives cited apply only to sustained outages (those that last more than 5 minutes), and are
currently applicable only to San Diego and Edison; PG&E has proposed a similar mechanism. Various
PBR systems include various sets of additional incentives.
Undergrounding White Paper Page 8
s
(and of course cause outages). Such fires can endanger both lives and
property. Further, fallen power poles, and live electric wires can frustrate
emergency evacuation; as shown by vivid reports from the Oakland Hills
fire.
An additional benefit of undergrounding existing overhead facilities is that
it creates a potential for conversion of existing overhead, copper,
communications lines to high-capacity, fiber-optic lines. Unlike copper
lines, fiber-optic lines can be placed very close to electric power lines,
potentially reducing total costs.
Some argue that undergrounding can also reduce utility and public costs.
For example, underground systems may require less maintenance, and
smaller line losses, than corresponding overhead systems, In turn, smaller
line losses may reduce generation and its associated environmental costs.
Finally, burying lines underground may also reduce overall public exposure
to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). The public has expressed concern that
EMF exposure may cause some cancers and other health disorders. In
Decisions D,93-011-013 and D.95-II-017, among others, the Commission
funded a study by the Department of Health Services of the health effects of
electromagnetic fields (EMFs) due to power lines. According to
preliminary reports from DHS, undergrounding can reduce EMFs in most
cases. However, the potential health effects alone may not justify
undergrounding's cost. Therefore DHS is studying whether the many
benefits of undergrounding, considered together, exceed those costs.
OVERALL FUTURE OF THE PROGRAM: WHAT SHOULD THE
BUDGET BE?
Clearly, an expanded conversion program has the potential for major cost
impacts on ratepayers. If the lowest of the cost estimates are correct, putting
all 150,000 miles of overhead lines underground would cost at least $15
billion, adding roughly 60% to the $25 billion dollars now invested in
electric utility plant. By comparison, annual electric revenues are roughly
$17 billion. The Commission may wish to consider the validity of these
estimates, and the likely effect on rates of an expanded program.
U ndergrounding WhIte Paper Page 9
s
One option would be to expand our program to underground all overhead
lines statewide over a specified period of time. The Commission may wish
to solicit comments from parties on a number of issues related to this
option. First, could the state reach the goal within a reasonable number of
years without a major increase in rates? Second, do the benefits of this
option outweigh the costs and the impact on rates? Third, do Rules 20(A),
and 20(B), which place the cost of the program on participating property
owners, properly balance benefits and costs? In particular, does the
apparently limited demand for conversions under these programS indicate
that ratepayers are generally unwilling to bear the costs of statewide
undergrounding?
A second option would be to try to set an annual budget that would achieve
high priority projects within perhaps 20 years. The current program, for
example, allocates sizeable annual allocations which are adequate for only a
fraction of the potential undergrounding work. The Commission may wish
to consider how many projects are high priority, either because benefits
outweigh costs, or for other pressing reasons.
The usefulness of this second option may depend on whether and how one
can define "high priority." One approach would be to defme certain types
of projects as high priority, and determine how many projects would fit into
those categories statewide, and how much those projects would cost.
Presumably, those categories would be marked by positive (or relatively
high) costlbenefit ratios. Another way of designating high priority projects
would be to underground all areas above a particular population density.
The Commission may wish to require utilities to report on the number of
line miles that run through areas of different population density, including
the total number of urban, suburban, and rural line miles.
A third option would be to continue the program at current funding levels.
If it is difficult or time consuming to assign strict costs and benefits to
projects, but clear that projects benefit communities in important ways, is
maintenance of the status quo budget a reasonable option?
A fourth and final option would be to bring substantial ratepayer funding to
an end, and rely on variants of Rules 20a and 20b for future conversions.
The Commission may wish to consider whether most high priority projects
Undergrounding While Paper
Page 10
s
have already been accomplished, and whether remaining projects are likely
to show positive cost-benefit ratios.
THE CURRENT PROGRAM: PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
As indicated by above, one can divide the program, and associated
rules into two parts, The first part requires that facilities in recent and new
subdivisions be placed underground, and determine who pays for which
parts of the facilities. The Commission may wish to consider whether these
rules meet the Commission's goals, and to' report any significant problems
with the program. The second part dictates how much utilities (and thus
ratepayers in general) must share in the costs of undergrounding existing
overhead lines (Rule 20 for the largest utilities). Rule 20a, which provides
substantial ratepayer funding, may raise the biggest issues.
Rules Governing New and Recent Subdivisions. .
Under Rules 15 and 16, utilities are required to put new distribution
facilities and new services underground. Exempted are residential
properties, which were legally described before May 5, 1970, in
subdivisions with significant overhead services. Overhead service may be
provided to subdivisions, if allowed by local ordinance, where the minimum
parcel size exceeds three acres. Rules require that utilities (and thus
ratepayers in general) eventually pay for cables, switches, and transformers.
Other costs (including trenching and backfilling) are borne by the
developer; though such facilities are conveyed to the utility, which
henceforth is responsible for maintenance. To deviate from these rules,
utilities must file advice letters with the Commission's Energy Division,
showing that parcel sizes are large, or that undergrounding is not practical
locally.
New construction may be the optimal time to achieve the benefits of
undergrounding, since minimal additional trenching and backfilling, beyond
that required for water and other services, are required. The rules may help
to preserve the appearance of subdivisions that are predominantly
underground.
Undergrounding White Paper Page 11
s
The Commission may wish to consider several issues. The frrstis whether
the current program meets Commission goals, and whether the benefits of
the rule outweigh the costs. The second is what difference exists in costs,
both to ratepayers and to.members of the public, between overhead and
underground service. The Commission may wish to consider whether the
cost-effectiveness of the program can be improved.
The Commission may wish to focus its investigation by deferring
consideration of changes to line extension roles (such revisions to free
footage allowances), unless these are clearly tied to necessary changes in the
broad direction of the undergrounding program.
The Commission may wish to consider whether deviations from
undergrounding rules are granted appropriately. One approach would be to
require each electric utility to provide a data base on each deviation granted
over the last 5 years; including the date, the advice letter number, the
number of parcels affected, the average size of parcels covered by each
application, the justification for the exemption, and whether the
Commission approved the advice letter.
Rules Governing Undergrounding of Existing Above-Ground Facilities.
Rules 20a, 20b, and 20c provide three approaches to undergrounding
existing facilities, under which ratepayers fund decreasing shares of project
costs, respectively. Unsurprisingly, available data suggest that utilities
spend more on Rule 20a than on 20b and 20c combined. Furthermore,
demand for undergrounding under Rule 20a exceeds currently budgeted
funds, while utilities fund all eligible Rule 20b and 20c projects. Because
of the larger subsidy provided for Rule 20a projects, that role is probably
the focus of most controversy.
Rule 20c
Under Rule 20c, any electric customer may convert as long as it reimburses .
the utility for all costs. In particular, the customer must make a non-
refundable advance to the utility equal to the cost of the underground
facilities, less the estimated net salvage value and depreciation of the
replaced overhead facilities. Under these Rules, it would appear that
conversion has minimal impacts on other ratepayers. The Commission may
Undergrounding White Paper
Page I:!
s
wish to consider: 1) whether the program achieves Commission goals cost-
effectively; 2) whether the program in fact results in ratepayer indifference
to such a project, and 3) whether any changes are required. The
Commission may wish to require reports from each respondent utility on
miles undergrounded, costs to ratepayers, and other matters.
Rule 20b
Rule 20b provides limited ratepayer funding for conversions if certain
conditions are met. Ratepayers bear the cost of cables, transformers, and
other electrical equipment, but the balance of the cost, including conduits
and structures, must be borne by the applicant.
The applicant must satisfy a number of conditions. First, all property
owners served by the overhead lines must agree to conversion in writing; or
local governments must require those property owners to make any
necessary wiring changes (that is, the new electrical service line and panel).
Second, as in Rule 20c, the customer must make a non-refundable payment,
but in this case it must be "equal to the excess, if any, of the estimated costs,
of completing the underground system and building a new equivalent
overhead system. In practice, this may involve forming a special
assessment district. Third, the project must include both sides of the street
and extend for one block or 600 feet, whichever is smaller. Finally, the
lines to be converted must be along public streets and roads, unless the
utility and the applicant agree to make an exception. As for Rule 20c, the
Commission may with to require respondent utilities to submit a report on
the such projects, including, for example, miles undergrounded, and
ratepayer costs.
On its face, Rule 20b(2)(c), which governs the amount contributed by the
customer,. is ambiguous. Under one possible interpretation, the applicant
must pay the cost of conversion less the cost of a new overhead system. It
can be argued that ratepayers in general bear the same cost as they would if
an entirely new overhead system were installed, as well as the cost of
depreciation on the old system, but benefit from any salvage value
remaining in the latter. Thus, the customer would pay less than under Rule
20c.
Undergrounding White Paper
Page 13
s
The Commission may wish to consider a number of issues. First, how is
Rule 20c(2)(c) actually interpreted in practice? Second, what share of total
project costs are borne by ratepayers, both in percentage terms, and by
accounting category? Is this degree of cost sharing equitable, or should the
Commission adjust the fOIDlula? Third, are Commission Rules burdensome
in any way, and if so, how can they be changed to make it easier for
communities to participate? In particular, does the requirement for a non-
refundable charge, or the probable need to form a special assessment district
hamper participation? In sum, does the program meet the Commissions
goals, or could changes improve the program?
Rule 20a
Because ratepayers bear most of the costs of undergrounding under this rule,
demand for conversions under this rule is relatively high, and the potential
for controversy relatively great.
Budget Levels and Cost Sharine
Rule 20a arguably balances society's interest in undergrounding with the
interests of individual property owners who benefit directly from the work.
In brief, this balance is accomplished by: 1) fixing a budget for the program
(roughly $130 million for all jurisdictional electric utilities), 2) allocating
these funds among local governments according to the number of overhead
and underground meters, 3) empowering local governments to designate
which projects receive these funds, under defined criteria, and 4) requiring
that homeowners pay for upgrades to their own property, which appear to
total roughly 10-20 percent (in many cases, over $1000) of total project
costs.
Efficiencv of Rule 20a
The Commission may also wish to concentrate on how to make the Rule 20a
program most efficient, whatever the budget level. The Commission may
wish to consider several issues. First, does the program encourage the
Undergrounding White Paper
Page 14
s
lowest possible costs? Second, how can the program direct funds to high
priority projects? Third, what level of cost sharing is appropriate,
considering both equity and efficiency issues? Fourth, is the current form of
program finance, and traditional incentives for participation, consistent
with the performance based ratemaking systems (PBRs) and other aspects of
Electric Restructuring and/or competition? Should potential technical or
economic changes in electric markets (e.g., Distributed Generation, or DO)
be considered?
Boldine Costs Down
The Commission may wish to consider whether the program achieves
results at the lowest cost possible, In this connection, the Commission may
wish to consider three issues. The first issue is whether the program
encourages the use of the newest, most efficient technology. The second is
whether the program encourages projects at the most efficient scale. The
third issue is whether the Commission should attempt to introduce
additional competition into the program.
Undergrounding work has traditionally involved extensive and costly
excavation and construction, but technology changes constantly. The
Commission may wish to consider whether new technologies can achieve
similar results at lower cost, provided that any technologies chosen strike an
appropriate balance between costs and benefits. The Commission may wish
to consider potential problems with the new technologies, induding safety
issues.
At least as important is the scale of the projects themselves. Commission
Rules allow projects as short as a city block. The Commission may wish to
ask parties to comment the relative efficiency of projects which meet these
minimum guidelines, as well as the efficiency of the average project under
the current system. At what project size can efficiencies of scale be
realized?
There are at least three ways in which the Commission could encourage
larger projects. The first, increasing size requirements, could increase
efficiency, but could also force jurisdictions with relatively small
allocations to postpone projects until the minimum size can be reached. The
practical effect may be that some communities might have to wait years to
Undergrounding White Paper
Page 15
s
receive full funding of projects. A second approach would be to
administratively rotate funds over a period of years, with a preference for
neighborhood or city-wide projects. The Commission may wish to consider
the equity of delaying funding to one group of jurisdictions, while
accelerating projects in another. A third approach would be to facilitate but
not mandate large projects. For example, the Commission could explicitly
allow jurisdictions to enter into agreements rotating full funding. Areas
with pressing needs might agree to receive a smaller share of funds sooner.
The Commission may wish to ask parties to comment on the extent to which
municipalities are already entering into such agreements.
Finally, the Commission may wish to consider the potential for increased
competition and resultant cost savings. Current Commission Rules allow
parties to construct electric facilities and to contribute them to the utility, as
long as the utilities (and thus ratepayers) are made whole for any associated
tax impacts. The Commission may wish to determine the extent to which
such provisions are used now in the undergrounding program, and whether
rule changes are appropriate to encourage more competition.
Directin2 Allocations to Bi2h Priority Proiects
The Commission may wish to consider the manner in which Rule 20a funds
are allocated between projects. The current rule allocates to each local
government in part according to the community's number of total overhead
line miles, and in equal part on the community's total line miles.' At that
point, each local government decides which projects should be funded.
However, the are required to choose projects that relieve congestion of
traffic or electric lines, or that bury lines crossing through recreation or
scenic areas. The Commission may want to make a number of changes to
the allocation method or guidelines.
The Commission may wish to consider allocating funds to high priority
projects statewide. One way to do this could be to directly allocate funds to
projects of special merit, perhaps through requiring and reviewing cost
benefit studies. However, this would place a heavy administrative and
adjudicative burden on the Commission. Another approach could be to
establish criteria that would tend to fund high priority projects. However, it
7 Where a year's undergrounding allocation exceeds the previous year's by a specified amount, the excess is
allocated on solely on the basis of overhead miles.
Undergrounding White Paper
Page 16
s
might be difficult to design suitable criteria, and the Commission might
have to senIe disputes among parties. The Commission may wish to
consider retaining allocations to local governments, but to make other
changes in the program.
First, the Commission could change the formula for allocation between
communities. For example, should the balance between overhead line miles
and population be retained? Or should the Commission add a provision to
direct more funds to low-income areas?
Second, the Commission could expand the criteria for projects. For
example, the Commission could add public safety, reliability, and economic
development to existing criteria. If the Commission takes this approach, it
may wish to consider whether current criteria are functioning well, and
whether to adopt dispute resolution processes to be followed when cities
and utilities disagree about the meaning of the criteria.
Third, the Commission could eliminate most criteria. For example, the
Commission could give more discretion to local governments to allocate
funds to any undergrounding projects in the community,
In closing, the Commission may wish to consider whether allocations
should be restricted to undergrounding projects. For example, should a
local government, either through its own discretion or through agreements
with its local distribution utility, be able use the allocation for other
purposes entirely? The Commission may wish to order respondents to
report any actual redirections of funds during the program's history.
Shann!!: Responsibility for Costs
The Commission may wish to consider whether the program pays too much
or too little of total project costs. As described above, the current program
pays for what will become utility property only. Using 20a allocations for
other purposes could benefit customers and cities, but would also change
the balance between private and public funding, and reduce the total miles
undergrounded (assuming a fixed budget for the program). There are at
least two potential rule changes.
First, parties report that many projects stand virtually finished but yet
U ndergrounding White Paper
Page 17
s
unused, because homeowners have not yet installed the necessary
underground service connection and panel. The Commission may wish to
authorize use of 20a funds for such customer costs. This could expedite
projects, but might also reduce the number of line miles undergrounded by
10- 20 percent. If the Commission finds that most of the delays occur in
low-income areas, it may wish to fund panel and service conversion only in
such areas.
Second, local governments say that administrative costs, and concomitant
improvements (such as conversion of city-owned streetlights), place a
substantial burden on participating cities. This may be particularly true in
low-income areas.. The Commission may wish to fund such activities,
particularly in low-income areas, limited to a fixed amount of total funding.
This change would reduce the total number of miles undergrounded, if
budget levels are fixed, by a proportionate amount.
UNDERGROUNDING IN THE RESTRUCTURED ELECTRICITY
MARKET
The Commission may wish to consider whether changes are warranted
under the new market structure for electricity. While distribution and
transmission remain regulated, the Commission may wish to consider
whether a market solution to undergrounding might be available. If the
Commission wishes to retain an undergrounding program through the
UDCs, however; it may wish to consider the incentives for utility
participation as well at the equity impacts of any changes.
Currently, utilities recover undergrounding costs only when a project goes
into service. At that point, the utilities can put capital costs into ratebase
The Rule 20 ''budget'' does not represent a pool of dollars, but rather an
advance approval of capital additions to utility property.
Under restructuring, however, routine additions to utility capital do not
receive funding; these are already funded in the adopted rates. The question
is whether Rule 20 expenditures are routine. Insofar as Rule 20 is over 30
years old, the Commission may wish to confirm that such funds routine, and
therefore included in current rates.
The counter-argument is that the incentives for utility performance may be
Undergrounding White Paper Page 18
s
weak, since delaying projects makes funds available for other utility uses.
Thus the Commission may wish to structure ratemaking to encourage utility
compliance. Depending on the incentives inherent in current ratemaking,
the commission may wish to monitor the progress of the program more
closely, and to impose sanctions where delays are traceable to the utility.
As noted above, there are many other causes of delay. Therefore, the
commission may wish to investigate what barriers to completion exist, and
which are ultimately the utility's responsibility.
Telecommunications Tariffs
The Commission may wish to consider whether current Telecommunication
Tariffs Rules adequately achieve the Commission's goals. For example, as
discussed above, the Commission may wish to consider whether overhead
telephone or data lines should be replaced with fiber optic lines in areas to
be undergrounded. Similarly, the Commission may wish to consider
whether its current rules should or do assure whether other utility wires,
such as television cables, are buried along with electric utilities.
Transmission Projects
As noted above, the Commission declined to require that new transmission
service be placed underground. The Commission may wish to consider
whether advancing technology has made feasible a program to underground
transmission lines andlor whether the current CPCN process for
transmission lines gives adequate consideration of building new lines
underground.
Setting Priorities for an Order Instituting Investigation.
If the Commission decides to issue an Order Instituting Investigation, it may
need to establish priorities among the many issues raised above. The
Commission could choose to examine issues of cost effectiveness first; if
the Commission decides that all or part of the program is not cost effective,
then all or many implementation issues, respectively, become moot.
However, such a course would delay consideration of implementation issues
that may be central to parties' concerns. In any case, the Commission may
wish to defer consideration of cost effectiveness until the DHS EMF study
is completed (see Benefits, above). The Commission may wish to schedule
Undergrounding White Paper
Page 19
s
a workshop with parties to gather information, and perhaps to reach
consensus on priorities.
Undergrounding White Paper
Page 20
s
Assembly Bill No. 1149
CHAPTER 844
An act relating to public utilities.
[Approved by Governor October 8. 1999. Filed
with S<<mary ofSwe October to. 1999.)
AB 1149.
facilities.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory
authority over public utilities and. under that authority, has adopted
rules for the replacement of overhead electric and communications
facilities with underground facilities.
This bill would require the commission to conduct a sNdy as to the
ways to amend. revise. and. improve those rules. as specified. The
commission would have the authority to revise these rules without
prior approval of the Legislan..e. The commission would be' required
to submit a repon on lhe study to the LegislaNfe on or before
January I, 200 I.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
Aroner. Underground electric and
communications
The people of the State of California do e.act lIS follows:
SECTION I. (a) The Public Utilities Commission shall conduct
a study as to the ways to amend. revise, and improve rules governing
the replacement of overhead electric and communications facilities
with underground facilities. The issues to be addressed shall include.
but not be limited to, all of the following:
( 1) Discovenng and eliminating barriers to establishing
continuity of the existing underground system and ways to eliminate
uneven patches of overhead facilities.
(2) How to enhance public safety.
(3) How to improve reliability.
(4) How to provide more flexibility and control to loc:ll
governments.
(b) The Public Utilities Commission may revise these rules
without prior approval of the Legislature.
(c) Notwithstanding S""tlon 1550.5 of the Government Code. the
Public Utilities Commission shall submit a ropon on the sNdy
required by subdivision (a) to the Legislature on or before January
1.2001.
o
94
I
106
s
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
/3
To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATIORNEY
Subject: BAN ON JET SKI USE IN TOWN WATERS
CONCEPTUAL CONSIDERATION
Date: February 2, 2000
BACKGROUND
At the Town Council meeting ofJanuary 19, 2000, the Council indicated that it wished to discuss the
possibility of enacting a ban on the use of motorized personal watercraft ("PWC"), commonly known
as 'Jet skis," within Town waters. The Council directed staff to agendize the consideration of such
a ban in concept before an actual ordinance was brought before it for first reading.
The Marin County Board of Supervisors adopted a ban on PWC on October 26, 1999. The Board
has asked that all Marin cities and Towns with waterfront areas adopt a similar ban to provide
uniformity throughout the County and assist in the enforcement of the County's ordinance. Town
Manager Robert Kleinert has polled other city and town managers in Marin County and none of the
other jurisdictions have taken action on the County's request.
A copy of the County's ordinance and request are attached to this report.
ANALYSIS
The proposed ban raises the following issues:
1. Enforcement: At this time, the Town has no resources for enforcing regulations on
watercraft.
2. Potential Technological Improvements: It is possible that in the future, PWC manufacturers
will be able to reduce the noise and emissions that motivate the ban.
3. Potential Litigation. Two lawsuits have been filed against this ordinance.
These issues are addressed below.
s
Ban on Motorized Personal Watercraft
February 2,2000
Page 2 of2
1. Enforcement.
The Town of Tiburon Police Department does not presently have any watercraft that could be used
to issue citations to persons violating the proposed ban. Accordingly, I would recommend that the
Town Council authorize the County Sheriff's Office to enforce the ordinance. The Sheriff's Office
may also face resource constraints, but it does have a boat that could be used for enforcement.
2. TechnololZical Improvements.
There are several means of addressing this issue. The first method, recommended by staff, is to
provide in the ordinance that the Council shall have the authority to find by resolution that certain
PWC whose emissions and noise impacts are sufficiently low so as not to cause the impacts that
motivated the ban are exempt from the ban. The Council would be able to create this exemption by
a resolution that either (a) established maximum pollution and noise thresholds; or (b) specified
particular makes and models of PWC whose emission and pollution levels had been found to be
sufficiently low to fall outside the intent of the ordinance. Any person could apply to the Council for
such an exemption.
A second approach would be to simply amend the ordinance when improved, more environmentally
friendly PWC before available.
3. Potential Litigation.
According to Deputy County Counsel David Zaltsman, two lawsuits have been filed against the
County's ordinance. The court has denied a request for a preliminary injunction against the
ordinance, which bodes well for the County's position. However, enacting a similar ban could well
draw the Town into similar litigation.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council should take public testimony regarding the proposed ban. Staff's recommendation to
the Council is to direct that this matter be tabled until the lawsuits pending against the County's
ordinance are resolved. However, ifthe Council wishes to proceed with adopted the ban as requested
by the County Board of Supervisors, the Council should resolve the enforcement and technological
issues discussed above and direct staff to return with an appropriate ordinance for first reading.
EXHIBITS
Marin County Ordinance and Request to Marin Cities and Towns
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARIN COUNTY
';; / ~
-t7::~f~ . 7 ~/ f ~
.. . $. ;.-
~ I S
AOMINISTRATION BUILDING
3501 CIVIC CENTER DR., SUITE 329
SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94903-4193
TELErHONE (415) 49947331
FAX (415) 499-364$
TOO (415) 499-61n
htto: Ilmarin.orlt/mc/bosl
To: Ed San Diego, City Manager, Belvedere
James R Robinson, Town Manager, Corte Madera
Jean Bonander, City Manager, Larkspur
Don Hunter, City Manager, Mill Valley
Roderick 1. Wood, City Manager, Novato
Rod Gould, City Manager, San Rafael
Brock Arner, City Manager, Sausalito
Robert L. Kleinert, Town Manager, Tiburon
From, _'wRroo.P=;drn' ~~ \/
Re: Jet Ski Ordinance ~
RECEIVED
NOV 2 2 1999
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TlBURON
'0
~
Date: November 19, 1999
As you know, on October 26, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance banning
personal watercraft from navigable waters over which the County has jurisdiction. A copy of the
adopted ordinance and a map prepared by our Public Works Department are enclosed for your
information.
We are requesting that all Marin cities and towns with waterfront areas adopt a similar
ordinance. This will provide uniformity throughout the County and aid in the enforcement of the
ordinance.
If you have any questions about the ordinance, please contact David Zaltsman in our County
Counsel's office at 499-6117. Thank you for your cooperation in this county-wide endeavor.
cc: Board of Supervisors
Enclosures
2ND VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT ClERJ(
JOHN KRESS . HAROLD C. BROWN . ANNETTE ROSE . STEVE KINSEY . CYNTHIA 1. MURRAY . MARK J. RIESENFELD
SAN RAFAEL SAN ANSELMO SAUSALlTO SAN GERONIMO NOVATO
1ST DISTRICT 2ND DISTRICT 3RD DISTRICT 4TH DISTRICT 5TH DISTRICT
s
ORDINANCE NO. 3302
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AMENDING CHAPTER 11.36 OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE
PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF BOATING
WITHIN THE BEL MARIN KEYS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
AND UPON NOVATO CREEK AND THE REGULATION OF
PERSONAL WATERCRAFT WITHIN ALL SHORELINE WATERS
AND ESTUARIES OF MARIN COUNTY
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin does hereby ordain:
SECTION I: LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS
A. The Westem or Ocean Shoreline of Marin County is home to a portion of the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary as well as the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary. In addition, this shoreline is also covered in large part by the PI. Reyes National
Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Each of these entities has banned,
proposed banning or significantly restricted the use of "motorized personal watercraft" (PWC),
afso designated as "thrill craft" within their territory.
B. These regulations were all adopted following public comment processes that
resulted in extensive findings by the Agency with respect to the numerous and significant
adverse affects PWC have on people, wildlife and the environment generally.
C. For example, following the adoption of Regulations by the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary, the Personal Watercraft Industry Association sued the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") which promulgated the Regulation. In
upholding the Regulation, the federal Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit noted:
The record is full of evidence that machines of this sort threatened the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA received written comments and
testimony from marine scientists, researchers, federal agencies, state agencies,
state and local govemments, business organizations, and more than a hundred
citizens on the issue of regulating these machines. Everyone agreed-personal
watercraft interfered with the public's recreational safety and enjoyment of the
Sanctuary and posed a serious threat to the Sanctuary:s flora and fauna. The
Page 1 of 13
~
-
concept of a 'sanctuary" entails elements of serenity; peace, and tranquility. Yet
the commenters described instances of personal watercraft operators harassing
sea otters and other marine mammals, disturbing harbor seals, damaging the
Sanctuary's kelp forests, menacing swimmers, divers, kayakers, and other
recreational users, and generally disrupting the esthetic enjoyment of the
Sanctuary. All concemed recommended either prohibiting personal watercraft
outright or restricting them to specific areas in the Sanctuary. No one urged NOAA
to do nothing about the problem.
D. Similarly, the proposed Rule for the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary is buttressed by numerous studies and comments. A portion of the background for
the proposed Rule is especially on point:
The nearshore waters of the Sanctuary are particularly vulnerable areas
where myriad marine invertebrates and algae reside, where bird rookeries and
pinniped haulout sites are present, where many critical nursery and food source
habitats for wildlife are located, and where many nearshore users of the
Sanctuary's water tend to concentrate. The nearshore waters of the Sanctuary are
also those areas most impacted by the operation of MPWC. Lawson's Landing, a
current MPWC launch site, is situated at the largest pinniped haulout in Tomales
Bay, and is also within a quarter mile of Walker Cre.ek delta, where the highest
concentration of wading and shore birds occurs in the Sanctuary, and where sea
otters have been regularly observed.
The nearshore waters of the Sanctuary are the areas most heavily used for
recreation, canoeing, rowing, kyaking and swimming. These activities are often
conducted very close to shore and may be dependent on calm waters. The ability
of MPWC to go very close ,to shore (due to their shallow draft) and move in
unpredictable ways may be detrimental to the safety and aesthetic experience of
those conducting these more benign recreational activities. NOAA believes that
MPWC operation in nearshore areas creates a user conflict that can be avoided
by keeping MPWC offshore.
E. In adopting a complete ban on PWC, the GGNRA also made extensive
findings. However, these were summarized succinctly as follows:
This prohibition is necessary to prevent adverse impacts and disturbance to
wildlife such was waterfowl, sea birds and marine mammals. The loud, high speed
nature and maneuverability of perSonal watercraft creates impacts to wildlife
including interruption of activity, alarm and flights; avoidance and displacement;
interference with movement; alteration of behavior; and nest abandonment.
This prohibition is also necessary to avoid conflict with other visitor uses such
as fishing, boating, kayaking, and boardsailing. The loud engine pitch and volume
Page 2 of 13
s
of noise are also disturbing to park visitors and intrude upon the opportunity for a
quiet, peaceful park experience.
The degradation of water quality due to unburned fuel emmissions (sic) from
the two-stroke engines is also a concern.
F. This Board, having reviewed the full administrative record including testimony
from the public hearings leading up to the adoption of this ordinance concurs in the findings and
conclusions reached by these federal agencies.
G. The situation is just as critical on Marin County's eastern shoreline. The
eastern shoreline of Marin County stretches from Sa usa lito's boundary with the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area to the mouth of the Petaluma River. This area combines a
remarkable amount of nature with cities.. and recreation. It is a favorite spot for hikers, kayakers,
sailors, birdwatchers, bicyclists, and others to enjoy the outdoors. People from all over the
world visit to view the unique and beautiful shoreline. Along with being a mecca for tourists and
outdoor enthusiasts, the Marin shore hosts numerous important habitats for endangered,
threatened, and sensitive species. The Califomia Department of Fish and Game has identified
seven environmental sites of concern along this section of the shoreline. These are 1) The
Richardson Bay Marshes; 2) Paradise Cove; 3) The Corte Madera Marshes; 4) The Marin
Islands; 5) The McNear's Beach Salt Marshes; 6) The China Camp Marsh; and 7) The
Petalurna River Marshes. Among the several species of concern in these areas, several are
listed as either endangered or threatened. These include the Brown Pelican; the Salt Harvest.
Mouse; the California Clapper Rail; the Snowy Plover; the Peregrine Falcon and the California
Least Tern.
Wildlife biologists throughout North America have testified on the existing and
potential impacts of personal watercraft on birds, marine mammals and fish. PWC pose a
unique threat to wildlife and wilderness areas because they are multiple impact machines.
Page 3 of 13
s
"
Because PWC's discharge tremendous amounts of unburned fuel and oil
containing carcinogens and reproductive toxins, the raw emissions from this craft threaten to
seriously damage aquatic ecosystems, and the wildlife that live within them.
PWC's are also a physical threat to wildlife because they:
. typically travel at high speeds
. can travel at high speeds in shallow water near islands and sensitive habitats
. regularly change direction and speed without warning
. emit high-pitched whining sounds
. lack low-frequency, long-distance subsurface sound which would allow
wildlife enough time to avoid collisions
. change pitch and sound level with every maneuver
Numerous studies reveal that "behavior habituation" to inconsistent stimuli, such as
c6nstantly changing noise or a highly maneuverable object, often does not occur. Richard
Osborne, the Curator of Science Services at The Whale Museum on San Juan Island, believes
that "it is doubtful that marine birds and mammals would every be able to habituate to, or adopt
to this characteristic of PWCs."
H. Personal watercraft (PWC) are responsible for dumping approximately 44
million pounds of hydrocarbon pollution into US waters every year - the volume equivalent of
over four Exxon Valdez spills.
Two-stroke' engines operate 01:1 a mixture of gasoline and oil, discharging 25% -
30% of this mixture unburned into the water.
. An average two-hour ride on a PWC may dump three gallons of gas and oil
into the water.
. The California Air Resources Board reports that a seven hour ride on a 100
horsepower PWC emits the same amount of pollution as driving more than
100,000 miles in a 1998 passenger car.
Page 4 of 13
s
Studies from the University of California at Davis and other large universities
demonstrate that the pollution from the marine two-stroke motors is a serious threat to the
environment. This includes threats to:
. Human health due to pollution of drinking water
. Fish populations (studies show enzymatic disturbances, genotoxicological
effects and reproductive disturbances to trout, salmon and herring
. Zooplankton populations at the base of the aquatic food chain
I. PWC-generated noise is particularly disruptive and irritating to wildlife, marine
recreationalists, as well as shoreline residents and wildlife enthusiasts. The intensity and
frequency of PWC sound is one component of PWC noise which tends to disrupt nearby wildlife
and humans. Personal watercraft produce noise levels in the range of 75-115 decibels per unit.
cOmparable to that of a city street. The American Hospital Association recommends hearing
protection for noise decibels exceeding 85 decibels.
J. The Califomia Air Resources Board (CARB) recently concluded that marine
two-stroke engines are one of the largest sources of air pollution in Califomia. According to
Marl< Carlock of the CAARB, on a typical summer weekend day, such craft generate 777 tons a
day of hydrocarbon emissions, an amount exceeding that of all 16 million Iight-duty passenger
cars in the State. The majority of those emissions are by a relatively small number of PWC.
Of particular concem, two-stroke motors cause ground-level ozone, which is
created by the photochemical reaction of nitrogen and hydrocarbons. Ozone causes smog, in
addition to respiratory effects such as coughing, chest pain, asthma, and shortness of breath. It
affects people with compromised or developing respiratory systems, such as the elderly and
children. Nitrogen itself can also hann human health.
Page 5 of 13
s
Two-stroke engines also emit extremely high levels of carbon monoxide (CO), a
poisonous gas that reduces blood oxygen levels, causes headaches, nausea, and dizziness,
PWC riders sometimes complain that after following directly behind another PWC, they feel faint
and can lose control of their craft. Some marine engines have CO emissions of up to 1078
grams/kW-hr, a level of over 300 times higher than maximum levels for a new automobile.
Beyond their human health effects, other negative environmental effects are also
associated with ozone and nitrogen. For example, ozone injures plants and materials, and the
EPA estimates that excess nitrogen from two-stroke motors may be responsible for up to two
billion dollars annually in crop damage in the United States. (40 CFR Parts 89, 09, 91 October
4, 1996.) Nitrogen also contributes to the secondary formation of particulate matter in the form
of nitrates, acid deposition, and excessive growth of algae in aquatic systems. Particulate
matter has recently been implicated as a human carcinogen, and is created at extremely high
IENels in jet skis.
K. Finally, unlike other forms of recreation, PWC have a negative impact on
almost every other activity occurring in the same area. PWC destroy the outdoor experience for
other recreationalists such as swimmers, surfers, windsurfers, kayakers, canoers, hikers,
birdwatchers, fishers, and tourists by creating noise, hazardous conditions, congestion, and
causing wildlife to flee.
L. Although safety concems are not one of the bases upon which this Board can
regulate PWC pursuant to the Harbors and Navigation Code, this Board must share the concem
expressed by other agencies:
The safety record of PWCs shows a disproportionate level of PWC accidents
and injuries relative to the numbers of this type of vessel. In Califomia in 1996,
16% of all registered vessels were PWCs, yet PWCs were involved in 45% of all
boating accidents and 55% of all injuries. In a report released in May 1998, the
National Transportation Safety Board noted that while the overall number of
Page 6 of 13
s
recreational boating fatalities has been declining in recent years, the number of
PWC-related fatalities has been increasing. The majority of these accidents are
attributed to rider inexperience and lack of skill, operation and use patterns,
excessive speed, alcohol use, and conflicts with other vessels in congested use
areas.
SECTION II:
Chapter 11.36 of the Marin County Code is hereby amended to read:
CHAPTER 11.36
WATERCRAFT REGULATION
Section 11.36.010
Section 11.36.020
Section 11.36.030
Section 11.36.040
Section 11.36.050
Section 11.36.060
Section 11.36.070
Section 11.36.080
Section 11.36.090
Findings and Purpose
Definitions
Speed limit
Prohibited use of personal watercraft
In Special Use Area
State or Federally Funded Facilities
Water skiing
Swimmers
Buoys
Violation-Penalties
SECTION 11.36.010 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
Local use regulation of watercraft in the waters of this state are authorized by
Sections 268 and 660 of the California Harbors and Navigation Code in the areas of time-of-day
restrictions, speed zones, special-use areas, and sanitation and pollution control.
The provisions of this chapter with respect to boating within the Bel Marin Keys
Community Services District and upon Novato Creek are intended to protect and promote the
public health, safety and general welfare, to preserve the environment, and to protect the value,
worth and enjoyment of the lagoons and waterways within Bel Marin Keys Community Services
District and upon Novato Creek from damage due to noise and wave action caused by
excessive speed, and to prevent injury to person or property as a consequence of boating
activities within said areas.
Page 7 of 13
s
With respect to the prohibition of the use of personal watercraft within all shoreline
waters and estuaries of Marin County, the purpose of this ordinance is to reduce existing
conflicts and limit potential conflicts between uses of the shoreline waters and estuaries of Marin
County, eliminate adverse impacts to the diverse and unusual species found in the shoreline
waters and estuaries of Marin County, promote overall public safety, and decrease hydrocarbon
pollution that is disproportionately caused by personal watercraft.
Conflicts between uses have the potential to increase in the future because of
increasing use of Marin County's marine waters as well as use and development of shoreline
areas. Examples of conflicts that currently occur in addition to fish, marine mammal and wildlife
habitat disruption are those between personal watercraft and individuals engaged in water
sports such as kayaking, windsurfing, swimming, and canoeing, due to the nature and design of
personal watercraft including high maneuverability, high speed, ability to travel in shallow areas,
and noise patterns that are unique and annoying.
These same unique characteristics of personal watercraft also cause conflicts
between shoreline uses in areas zoned for residential and open space activities.
SECTION 11.36.020 DEFINITIONS
As used herein, the following terms have the following meanings:
1. .Personal watercraft" means a vessel, as defined in California Harbors and
Navigation Code !l651(s), that is less than 12 feet in length. propelled by machinery, that is
designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel, rather than in
the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside the vessel.
2. .Soecial-use area" means all or a portion of a waterway that is set aside for
specified uses or activities to the exclusion of other incompatible uses or activities.
Page 8 of 13
s
3 "Vessel" means every description of watercraft used or capable of being used
as a means of transportation on water, except either of the following:
(a) A seaplane on the water;
(b) A watercraft specifically designed to operate on a pennanently fixed
course, the movement of which is restricted to a fixed tract or ann to which the watercraft is
attached or by which the watercraft is controlled.
SECTION 11.36.030 SPEED LIMIT
No person shall operate any motorized vessel upon the following areas of the
lagoons and waterways in Bel Marin Keys Community Services District and Novato Creek, in
excess of five (5) MiI~s Per Hour:
1. Novato Creek from the Triple Box Culvert at the entrance of the Bel Marin
Keys community to one hundred yards downstream from the most easterly of the two locks;
2. Within a minimum of One Hundred Twenty-Five Feet (125) from the shoreline
of all of the lagoons south of Bel Marin Keys Boulevard, or within a minimum of Two Hundred
Feet from the shoreline of Laguna Bel Marin, and through the narrow channel connecting
Sunset and Sunrise Lagoons to the entrance of Sunrise Lagoon.
The board of directors of Bel Marin Keys Community Services District shall post
Novato Creek and the lagoons and waterways specified above, with a five mile per hour speed
limit notice.
SECTION 11.36.040 PROHIBITED USE OF PERSONAL
WATERCRAFT IN SPECIAL USE AREA
(a) Use and operation of personal watercraft in the area designated in subsection
(b) as a special use area is incompatible with competing uses and is therefore prohibited.
Page 9 of 13
s
(b) For the purposes of this Chapter, the Special Use Area shall consist of all
waters within the territory of the County of Marin accessible from a shoreline, or the farthest
extension of the shoreline of Marin County as defined by its landmarks. The area is to include
the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean from the Sonoma County line to the Golden Gate Bridge and
the San Francisco Bay shoreline from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Marin/Sonoma County line
at the Petaluma River. The Special Use Area includes but is not limited to all Estuaries
(Estero), rivers and bays within Marin County jurisdiction. This Special Use Area shall also
include a distance of 7 miles inland from the mouth of the rivers or navigable creeks.
In the event that another regulatory authority has exclusive jurisdiction over any of
the shoreline of the Special Use Area, the Special Use Area shall begin at the boundary of the
shoreline under the jurisdiction of the County of Marin.
(c) The regulation contained in this Chapter shall not apply to any motorized
v13ssel or personal watercraft owned, operated or controlled by the United States, any California
State agency or by any local government agency within Marin County engaged in bona fide
emergency or rescue operations or other operations conducted solely to protect public health
and safety.
SECTION 11.36.050 STATE OR FEDERALLY FUNDED FACILITIES
If any officer, department or agency of the County constructs a recreational boat
launch facility with funds provided pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 9504(b)(2), or other state or federal
funds which require that personal watercraft be permitted, the responsible officer, department or
agency shall designate, and the Board of Supervisors shall confirm by motion, an access
corridor for personal watercraft from the facility and through the special use area. The
responsible officer, department or agency shall notify the Office of the County Administrator
prior to entering into any commitment to construct any facility covered by this Section.
Page 10 of 13
s
.'
SECTION 11.36.060 WATER SKIING
The following regulations and limitations shall apply in waters within the territory of
the Bel Marin Keys Community Services District to water skiing:
1. No more than three boats shall tow water skiers on Sunrise Lagoon, and no
more than four boats shall tow water skiers on Sunset Lagoon, at any time.
2. Boats towing water skiers shall be limited to twenty-two feet overall length,
measured from to stem to transom, in all lagoons where water skiing is allowed.
3. Water skiing is prohibited in the water surrounding the street of Cavella Cay, the
waters bordered by the streets Caribe Isle, Bel Marin Keys Boulevard, and Del Oro Lagoon, and
that portion of Laguna Bel Marin south of a line from the west end of the dock at 145 Caribe Isle
and the east end of the dock at 60 Montego Key, as indicated on the water safety map which
was attached to Ordinance 3028.
All water skiing shall follow a counter clockwise pattem, and shall be limited to the
designated ski areas; as shown on the Water Safety Map, attached as Exhibit A to ordinance
3028, in Laguna Bel Marin, Sunrise and Sunset Lagoons; except that beginner double ski skiing
shall be allowed in Unit 4 lagoons designated as Lagoons 4A and 4B on the Water Safety Map
attached to Ordinance 3028.
CHAPTER 11.36.060 SWIMMERS
Swimmers in waters within the territory of the Bel Marin Keys Community Services.
District shall wear intemational orange swim caps when swimming beyond twenty-five feet from
the dock face, or beyond fifty feet from the shoreline. Swimming shall not be allowed in areas
which have been designated ski areas.
Page 11 of 13
s
,
,
CHAPTER 11.36.070 BUOYS
No buoy shall be placed in any lagoon or waterway within the territory of the Bel
Marin Keys Community Services District except by permission of the Bel Marin Keys
Community Services District board of directors.
CHAPTER 11.36.080 VIOLATION-PENALTIES
Any violation of this chapter shall be deemed an infraction punishable upon a first
conviction by a fine of not more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), and for a second
conviction, within a period of one year, by a fine not exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00),
and for a third or any subsequent conviction within a period of one year by a fine not exceeding
Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00).
'.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or held unenforceable in any application, including in case of state
or federal preemption, this ordinance shall be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable and if
rendered invalid or unenforceable due to preemption, such invalidity or unenforceability shall
apply only during the period of preemption. This ordinance shall be liberally construed to
effectuate its purpose.
SECTION IV. This ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Classes 7 and 8, (14 Cal Code Regs 99 15307 and
15308).
Page 12 of 13
.s
r:
SECTION v.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect as of thirty (30)
days from and after the date of its passage, and shall be published once before the expiration of
fifteen (15) days after its passage, with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against the
same in Marin Independent Journal, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County
of Marin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Marin, State of California, on the 26th day of October, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS Harold C. Brown, Jr., Steve Kinsey, John B. Kress, Annette Rose
NOES: SUPERVISOR Cynthia L. Murray
ABSENT: None
~---tcv~
PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ATTEST:
7!!::f-l(.u.~
CLERK I
O~nQ 1~ nf 1~
"'f. t ~~ t,
".
MARIN
COUNTY
MARIN COUNTY JURISDICTION
I
.
L2J
NQ seAl F'
SOlvo
~-'I
COu, ,
,q'y
--------------
, NOVATO /
)\ r-~-
\ L__
"'-'v
SAN P A B L 0
BAY
...~
SAN RAFAEL
TlBURON
~
SAN FRANCISCO
COV....T or MARZ.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
SURVEY SECTION
10-99
SHEET
co-1et_.kl_ban
_11 x17,dwg
DRAWING FILE
R.D,
D.H.
DATE
DRAWN
CHECKED
OF
:s
TOWN OF TIBURON
ST AFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
I~
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
FEBRUARY 2, 2000
The Downtown Main Street Assessment District project is finally underway with the recent break
in the weather As we anticipated there has been, and will continue to be, various impacts and
mmor problems for our Main Street merchants relating to the work These relate primarily to
better slgnage, improved access for delivery and refuse removal and information that the various
businesses are open to the public.
In an effort to address certain impacts, I would like Council's authorization to waive the Town's
sign ordinance restrictions relating to store-front and signage on lower Main Street for the next
three (3 )months, or whenever the street is totally reopened to normal vehicular and pedestrian
access
While this IS not a major consession for the Town, it is one that could be of significant assistance
to those affected businesses and their sales efforts during this awkward period.
R L Kleinert
Town Manager
RLKshm
s
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
---
ITEM NO. (5
To:
.TOWN COUNCIL
From:
TOWN MANAGER
Subject:
Date:
STATUS OF TIBURON DOG WASTE RECEPTACLE SYSTEMS
February 2, 2000
BACKGROUND
There has been considerable publicity recently regarding the Parks & Open Space
Commission's recent review and recommendation for new dog waste disposal dispensers in the
Town's park areas and along the Multi-Use Path. The POSC is recommending the
implementation of a new "Dispoz-a-Scoop" system and the purchase of dispensers at an estimated
cost of $3,200.
I have advised both the Commission and Public Works Department that this request will
be considered during the Town's annual budget process in May and June of this year.
EXHIBIT
--Memo from Associate Planner Theriault to Town Manager, dated January 6,2000.
;s;
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CC:
FROM:
TOWN MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT
ASSOCIATE PLANNER THERIAULT 1-
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PURCHASE DOG WASTE
RECEPTACLE SYSTEMS FOR TOWN PARKS AND THE
MULTI-USE PATH
SUBJECT:
DATE:
JANUARY 6, 2000
BACKGROUND:
On October 12, 1999, the Tiburon Parks and Open Space Commission reviewed correspondence
from residents who expressed concerns about the unsightly and unhygienic appearance of dog
waste in Town parks and along the Multi-Use path. The correspondence complained about the
"tacky" current solution to the problem (installations of plastic jugs, filled with plastic shopping
bags, mounted on wooden posts). The Commission agreed that this solution was not in keeping
with the character of the Town and directed Staff to research alternate solutions.
On November 9, 1999, Staff presented the Commission with two systems for dog litter control
designed for use in parks and other public recreation areas. The Commission reviewed the
products, costs and issues such as the practicality of each product and health and safety for Town
Public Works employees. The system is similar to a system used in the City of Belvedere and in
County parks. The Commission determined that the "Dispoz-A-Scoop" system would be cost
effective, the more sanitary of the two systems and would provide a much more attractive litter
control system than the curr.ent installations. A copy of the November 9, 1999 POSC minutes is
attached. (See Exhibit 1. Staff will provide the "Dispoz-A-Scoop" brochure for the Council's
review at the December 1. 1999 meeting).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Commission is recommending acquisition of 52 dispensers and 4 cases of refills. The total
:r
initial cost for this system would be $3217.50. The Superintendent of Public Works, Tony Iacopi,
estimates that the on going cost for maintenance of the system should be less than $1,000 per
year. The Commission determined that this would be a minor cost considering the improvement
to the litter control problem which the system would provide. A copy of the estimate for the
purchase of the system is attached. (See Exhibit 2). In addition, the Public Works Department is
recommending the purchase of two garbage cans to use with the system. The purchase of two ..
garbage cans would cost .
RECOMMENDATION:
The Commission respectfully requests the Town to fund the initial installation of the bag
dispensers and the annual costs associated with maintaining the bag supply. Staff recommends
approval of the expense and for the Town Manager to direct Staff to order the system for
installation in the 1999-2000 fiscal year.
EXHIBITS:
1. Parks and Open Space Commission Minutes, November 9, 1999
2. Estimate of Costs for "Dispoz-A-Scoop" system from Hagel Services
~
MINUTES NO. 172
PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 1999
Regular Meeting
Town Hall Community Room
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Canter called the regular meeting of the Parks & Open Space Commission to order at 7:39
P.M., Tuesday, November 9, 1999, in the Town Hall Community Room, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard.,
Tiburon, California.
A, ROLL CALL
PRESENT
COMMISSIONERS
Canter, Allen, Burgin, Eth, Fredericks, Sullivan, and
(at 8: IS p.m.) Zender
EX-OFFICIO
Associate Planner Theriault, Public Works Superintendent Iacopi.
B. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
There were none.
C. STAFF AND COMMISSION BRIEFING
There were none
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of October 12, 1999 (No, 171) MIS (Canter/Fredericks) to approve as
corrected (6-0). Corrections: page 1 Chair Canter; page 4 add as second sentence: The
ordinance would establish a streamlined processing procedure for the flood plain
improvements.
E. BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Dog Litter Problem in Public Parks (Public Works)
The problem of dog litter on the Multi-Use Path and in public parks was discussed at the October 12
meeting It was agreed that the current sign/plastic bag system was ineffective and unattractive, and
staff was asked to research a better solution.
Tiburon Parks & Open Space Commission
I
Minutes No. 172 - November 9, 1999
s
Public Works Superintendent Iacopi was present and showed samples of two systems. He explained
his preference for the "Dispoz-A-Scoop" from Petpro. That system has 100 scoops per box, while
the other has 800 per box. With the current maintenance schedule of three times a week, he felt it was
completely adequate and more cost effective to have the smaller number. He commented that this
type was used by a majority of the parks in Marin County. He was especially interested in the fact that
these scoops close, creating more sanitary conditions for maintenance workers than the current
system or the other brand. It is also a fast, clean, and easy method for the dog-owners.
Mr. Iacopi stated that 52 dispensers would be needed for the parks, Multi-Use Path, and parking lots.
There are currently 40 locations, which would be replaced with the new system and others added to
make it as convenient as possible. He noted that the ones by the Marsh had been removed to
discourage dog-walking in that area.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that this would be cost effective even if the Town pays for the system,
because it should reduce the cost of keeping the parks clean. He thought some realtors may be willing
to sponsor these.
Commissioner Allen stated that this started with complaints from the homeowner's associations.
Perhaps they would sponsor as well.
Superintendent Iacopi stated that financially this system would be less expensive than the plastic bags
currently being used and in addition, they are waterproof and can be sealed. If this cost was in the
budget, sponsorships would not be needed. The consensus was for the Town to budget this cost
Commissioner Sullivan asked if there would be a problem with people taking the bags and using
elsewhere Mr. Iacopi thought that could not be controlled, but they had had very few problems of
that nature with removal of toiletry products from the new bathrooms. Mr. Sullivan wondered
whether the bags could be purchased in bulk. Mr. Iacopi said that would present a storage problem.
It was thought perhaps the Town could go in with another town to get a bulk price.
The consensus was that the Dispoz-A-Scoop system would be cost effective, sanitary, and much more
attractive than that currently in use, and would encourage owners to pick up after their dogs.
MIS CanterlEth (6-0) to recommend to the Town Council that the Town fund the installation and
maintenance of the Dispoz-A-Scoop system.
F~OI1
FAX NO.
Jul. 21 1998 02:22PM Pl
s
,
HACEL SERVICES
80 BELVEDERE STRIIT, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901
HAGEL MAINTENANCE
(4151453-5350
"
HAGEL SUPPLY
(4151456-2955
VU~ T lBB
ony OF T.[I~IJRON BUr FOR DI$F'OZ-A ";:COOP
lynN' TONY IACCJPI
06/22/99
'TONY, 'Pli:R OUR CQNVERSI\fWN ENCL.i)::l!::D PLEA:;:E FINl; THE BID FOR IH~:
DISF'O--A-:,:COOfO DCII:mIE BAI~8 AND DI':;(,ENE:EF<:~.
DISP"N:3ER ik Sl.C.N WI MOLlNTIN/J HAiWWARE 1.3lBS EACH $90.()() EA
BULK DISF'OS-A-SCOOP 1 (l(rr).. PER C'ASE $120.00 CS
BID 2::: Dl~";PENSt::R8 $2~i20,,()()
4 CA'CiE::o: HE]~ I lL..~: $ I~,,:O. <)1)
FREIGHT $ 210.00
$3~~10. O(l
r(.~x $ 217.~O
TOTI~L. $~'217. 50
PL.EA~:E CrAI_L ME A. ~3. A. P Wt'il::N YUU ARE m:MrY lr..l PU\l:E 'fHI S URDEH
WIL.lIAM B. WIlCOS
HA('EL SllPPl. Y COMPI-\NY
.
;r
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 1/26/00
10
To:
From:
Subject:
PLANNING COMMISSION
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLAt'lNING DIRECTOR ~
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE: INTRODUCE PLANNING CONSULTANT
Ai'll) REVIEW ABAG HOUSING NEEDS DETERiVlINATIONS
JANUARY 20,2000
Date:
Introduction of Consultant
The Town is in the beginning stages of a Housing Element update as required by state law. The
Town has retained planning consultant Lisa Newman to assist with the update process. Ms.
Newman will be in attendance at the meeting and will be introduced to the Planning Commission.
Review of ABAG Housing Needs Determinations
The Town is in receipt of its allocation of housing needs numbers from the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG). These numbers have previously been distributed to the Commission
but are attached for convenience as Exhibit I. There is a review and appeals process available to
the Town should it contest the numbers as assigned by ABAG.
Town Staff has reviewed the housing needs numbers with the housing consultant. It is our
professional opinion that the housing needs numbers assigned to the Town of Tiburon are not
unreasonable or disproportionate, and that sufficient sites exist to accommodate the potential for
such units, as required by Housing Element statutes.
Staff recommends that there be no appeal of the ABAG housing needs determination numbers and
that the community work expeditiously and in good faith to achieve a successful housing element
update.
EXHIBITS
1. Memo dated 12/1/99 regarding ABAG housing needs determination.
TlBCROV PL I.v.V/VG COIL\//SSION
STAFF REPORT
/:]6,00
~r
'-::=nn r.= t:=:lr=0'""0"7
1-' .'-=' 'l':; ';H,.-.,t
tr~:..=.j!-. 0'...~.;Li- U
TOWN OF
.TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
TOWN COUNCIL & TOWN MANAGER
PLANNING COMMISSION
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR iA;-'
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETER.\'IINATION
DECEMBER I, 1999
TO:
The Town has received its "regional fair share housing determination" numbers from the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). These numbers are attached for your
information The regional fair share housing determination numbers must be adequately
addressed in the Housing Element
While a jurisdiction is not required under state law to actually provide this number of units, it does
need to have the means in place for such housing numbers to be possible. In short, this means
having sufficient sites, either vacant parcels zoned or developed parcels up-zoned, to
accommodate the housing needs numbers such that a developer could theoretically construct the
units through a normal entitlement process (i e. without need for a rezoning or general plan
amendment).
The housing needs numbers for Tiburon are lower than were anticipated by Staff. They are as
follows
Construction :"Ieed for Period 1999-2006
Income C ategorv
# ofCnits
Very Low Income Units
Low Income Cnits
Moderate Income Units
Above :Vloderate Income Units
24
14
29
83
TOTAL l;NITS
150
"S'VT_TTPT'T' 1\TO
~Lu.Jt..Jt.....J........."" .
I
'$
The Town has until February 29, 2000 to submit comments to ABAG regarding the housing
needs numbers. An appeals period will commence sometime in the Spring of2000 should a
jurisdiction consider its housing needs numbers unacceptable. Staffwill review the numbers with
its Housing Element consultant (Lisa Newman) and make a recommendation to the Planning
Commission and Town Council as to whether an appeal should be filed.
Staff's initial reaction to the housing needs numbers is that they are lower than anticipated, are not
unreasonable, and can be accommodated.
Attachment
AaAG Regional Housing Needs Determination
Construction Need Distributed By Income Category
1999-2006 Housing Element Period
Marin County
s
HCD Regional Housing Need
230,743
Jurisdiction
Regional Allocation of V L Above Average Yearly
HCD Units ery ow Low Moderate Moderate Need
~~~&~~~~;!~i'i;!~~t~}~~~~~~~~~fi,~~~OE2~?~~~2~~'&~~
98 16 10 25 48 13
16.4% 10.0% 25.3% 48.3%
BELVEDERE
CORTE MADERA
FAIRFAX
103
10 29
9.9% 27.8%
45
43.8%
J4
LARKSPUR
MILL V ALLEY
2,253
417
18.5%
219 635
9.7% 28.2%
300
NOVATO
ROSS
SAN ANSELMO
192
18 49
9.4% 25.8%
-
15 43 88
8.3% 24.2% 50.0%
14 29 83
9.0% 19.2% 55.8%
126 241 738
9.5% 18.2% 55.9%
517 1,413 2,298
643 1,654 3,036
SAN RAFAEL 1,951
~~~o 176 31
~ 17.5%
TIBURON 150 24
;;;\ L. 15.9%
. '\:mik:OfPorated . 1,321 216
T~~~orated ...... ~~ ;,~~:o
M~~[Jf~ .'~',m
24
'20
176
699
875
.....'"
~~~
"
$~ousing Needs
,~ ABAG Association of
?JJf -~ '. Bay Am
~ Governments
Regional Housing Needs Jurisdictional Review Numbers
ASSOCIATiON OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
r!3}'
o
Re:Jrese~lllng Cry and County Governme"rs of :he San FrancIsco 3ay Area
ABAG
Date:
November 24, 1999
MEMO
To:
City and Town Mayors
County Board of Supervisors Chairs and Presidents
Regional Housing Needs Determination Contacts
RECEIVED
NOV 2 9 1999
Cc:
City, Town and County Managers and Administrators
Community Development and Planning Directors
Eugene Leong, Exe~utive Director j.~f
Alex Amoroso, Senior Planner ;y'
Regional Housing Needs Determination 1999-2006
Release of Preliminary Numbers
TOWN MANAGERS OFriCE
TOWN OF TiBURON
From:
Re:
This memo and attachment serves as official transmittal of the Regional Housing
Needs Distribution (RHND) responsibilities for each Bay Area jurisdiction. The
RHND process is a State mandate, devised to address the need for and planning of
housing across a range of affordability and in all communities throughout the State. Each
jurisdiction within the Bay Area (101 cities, 9 counties) is given a share of the anticipated
regional housing need. The Bay .Auea's regional housing need is specified by the
California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and
finalized through negotiations with ABAG. The time frame for the current RHND
process is June 30,1999 through December 31, 2006 (a seven and a half year planning
period).
Following eXTensive discussion at their November 18th meeting, the ABAG Executive
Board approved the release of preliminary numbers for the RHND. Attached to this
memo, you will find a table that shows the housing need responsibility that ABAG has
identified for your jurisdiction, as well as other jurisdictions in your county. As required
by law, this table further delineates each jurisdiction's housing need responsibility by
income category.
This official release .ofthe R.Hi'<TI numbers initiates a 90-day review period, which
begins on December 1, 1999. Each jurisdiction has the oppornmity to evaluate its
identified need and the distribution of that need across income categories. ABAG will
evaluate and respond to all comments received from Bay Area jurisdictions. The final
day for comments to be received by ABAG is February 29, 2000.
\-1ell ,r: ':"-::::'::~:
:: ~ :0\
.JJ",anc::
~~"fcrr
':'t;':' - .:, ~"~
r,j;<
::", .:')..;_7"~,~,
nrc',~',"cac;: :j';C'i
""'~
.Cc
-::'eO:' :: :'::r' ',1-:' : _~r' '.:'
~ -,'-'-
I. ,;("~ ,j ",jr~l,j )":~'-_.:.~~~,
oS;
Following this 90-day review by the jurisdictions, a 60-day review period begins for
ABAG. The ABAG review period will begin on March 1,2000. ABAG's response to
jurisdictional comments must be complete by April 28, 2000.
At the end of the 90-day and 60-day time periods noted above, the ABAG Executive
Board will be asked to adopt a final set ofRHND numbers for each jurisdiction. After
adoption of the numbers, an appeals process will be available to jurisdictions. The ABAG
Executive Board will define the appeals process, and the resulting procedures will be
made available to all jurisdictions.
ABAG is currently setting dates, places and times for several RHND informational
meetings around the region. Notification of these meetings will be available on the
ABAG web-site in early December. We are tentatively planning for these meetings to
take place in early January. Staff will be available at these meetings to answer questions
related to this process, the methodology and other general questions.
Jurisdiction specific questions, comments and concerns should be directed to:
ABAG
Alex Amoroso, Senior Planner
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604-2050
510.464.7955
AlexA@abag.ca.gov
RHND information is available for review and download on the abagOnline web-site at:
www.abag.ca.gov/planning/bousingneeds/index.hnn
The RHND Information packet includes:
· A distribution of numbers to all Bay Area Jurisdictions.
. A description of the methodology used to distribute the RHND numbers to each
community.
· State Housing Element Law 65580-65589.8 regulations pertaining to this RHND
process.
· A schedule/calendar of dates and timeframes for this process.
· Executive Board RHND PowerPoint Presentation, November 18, 1999.
:S
~
De~ ;h.
I?-
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE. HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
January 20, 2000
Mr. Robert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94942
RECEIVED
JAN 2 4 ~OOO
TOWN MANAGtRS OFFICE
TOWN OF TisURdN
Dear Mr. Kleinert:
Re: Golden Gate Transit Route 11 Tiburon Ferry Feeder Bus Service
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District operates Golden Gate Transit (GGT)
bus Route 11 which provides peak-period feeder bus service for arriving and departing
ferryboats at the Tiburon ferry landing. Route 11 serves the Little Reed Heights neighborhood
via Rock Hill Drive, Hillary Drive, Geldert Drive, Porto Marino, and Stewart Drive, and
terminates at Tiburon Boulevard and Blackfield Drive.
In the morning, buses starting at Tiburon Boulevard and Blackfield Drive turn left onto Stewart
Drive and travel through the hillside neighborhood and back to Tiburon Boulevard. During
outbound afternoon trips, buses travel the hillside in the opposite direction, returning to
westbound Tiburon Boulevard from Stewart Drive. The right turn from Stewart Drive onto
Tiburon Boulevard is a difficult turn for standard size buses, which tend to encroach into the
left-turn pocket on eastbound Tiburon Boulevard. GGT buses have been involved in two
accidents in the last eighteen months at this intersection. On the other hand, left and right
turns from Rock Hill Drive onto Tiburon Boulevard are easier to negotiate.
Subsequent to a field investigation, GGT has decided to change the alignment so that buses
travel the hillside loop in the eastbound (morning) direction for all trips. That is, in the
afternoon buses would travel westbound on Tiburon Boulevard to Stewart Drive, turn right
onto Stewart, and continue the loop to Rock Hill and Tiburon Boulevard, a signalized
intersection. Buses would then turn right onto Tiburon Boulevard and continue to the terminus
at Tiburon Boulevard and Blackfield Drive. This change would add approximately four
minutes travel time to afternoon passenger trips to points beyond Rock Hill Drive such as
Tiburon Boulevard and Cecilia Way.
The proposed change is identical to a change made several years ago to GGT Route 9 Tiburon
ferry feeder bus. This route travels a loop via Reed Ranch Road and Blackfield Drive in the
BOX 9000. PRESIDIO STATION. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94129-0601. TELEPHONE 415...921 5858
~
Mr. Robert L. Kleinert
January 20, 2000
Page 2
same direction for all trips regardless of time of day. This enables buses to return to Tiburon
Boulevard at Blackfield Drive, which is a controlled intersection.
GGT intends to implement this change on March 13, 2000. District staff has discussed this
change with John Hugunin, Deputy Town Engineer, and Police Chief Peter Herley, Neither
expressed objections to the proposed change. This letter is therefore written to advise you in
advance of this proposed change. Please call me at (415) 257-4465 or Senior Planner Harvey
Katz at (415) 257-4416 if you have questions or concerns. Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours.
C----~ ~ -
~~-~ /~/~ /-
/'
Jerome M. Kuykendall
Director of Planning
and Policy Analysis
JMK:gj
c: Wayne T. Diggs
Tony Clark
Harvey A. Katz
a:c:=-wordlhu.i\Rtoollchange.OIO.Joc
.
i
~
~
Z'2~
fY OF MARIN
AnMlNISnA1l0N
4151499-0570
ACCOlINTlNG
4151499-6528
AmoRT
451-A_ilDAD
NOVAlll, CA 94945
415/891-1754
fAX 4151891-1264
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
4151499-6516
fAX4151499-3250
CAPrrAL PRoJECrS
415/499-1871
fAX 4151499.3724
ENGINEERING & SURVEY
415/499-1871
fAX 4151499-3124
COUNTY.GARAGE
4151499-7380
f.. 4151499-3738
LAND DEVELOPr.IENT &
FLOOD CONTROL DJsmCT
4151499-6549
PRINTING
415/499-6371
fAX 4151499-6611
COUNTY PuRCHASING AGENT
4151499-6371
Co'IAIUNICAnON MAOOVIANCE
4151499-7313
fAX4151499-31J8
ilEAL EsTATE
4151499-6578
FAX 4151499-3124
RCM.D MAIN1'ENAHCI:
415/499-7388
FAX 4151499.3656
TRAme ENGINEERING
4151499-6528
TRANSIT DISTRICT
4151499-6099
fAX 4151499-6939
WASTE MANAGEMENT
4151499-6647
fAX4!5/499-3724
I-ktk;(J, I~
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
.'
P. O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913-4186. 415/499-6528' FAX 415/499-3799
.,.
January 25, 2000
Mehdi Madjd-Sadjadi, P. E.
Director
Marin County Board of Supervisors
County of Marin
Civic Center
San Rafael, CA 94903
Dear Board Members:
SUBJECT: Planning for Transportation Funding Initiatives
For the past several months the County and Cities have been working together to
be in a position to be able to place a transportation funding measure on the
November 2000 ballot. This letter will provide your Board with an update on
options for the November ballot, a timeline for completion of work to meet the
deadline for placing a measure on the ballot, work that needs to be done and
issues of governance for implementation of a tax measure.
Traffic congestion continues to be the number one issue facing local government
in Marin as well as the Bay Area. Our inability to leverage local funds when
competing for large State and Federal forces us to plan for 10-12 years before we
can deliver a significant project such as the San Rafael Gap Closure Project that
waited for full funding for over a decade. It is essential to try again for a sales tax
measure to fund local transportation improvements.
What are the November Ballot Options?
There are three possibilities for placing a transportation sales tax measure on the
November 2000 ballot:
· The adoption of a State Constitutional Amendment such as seA 3 by the
Legislature would allow the adoption of transportation sales taxes by a simple
majority vote in each county in California. The SCA 3 option is not within
our realm of control and, at the present time, may have a 50-50 chance of
clearing the Legislature. Action is expected' on such a proposal after the
March 2000 primary election.
· A general sales tax similar to the 1998 Measures A and B.
· A special local transportation sales tax with 2/3 voters approval,
Board of Supervisors
January 25, 2000
Page 2
cS
If your Board wishes to place a November 2000 sales tax measure on the ballot, all the
above-referenced options have one thing in common. They all have the same deadline of
August 11, 2000. This is the final day which the Board of Supervisors can adopt a resolution
and place this matter on a November 7, 2000, ballot
The following calendar has been prepared, which describes the major steps necessary to
reach the August 11 deadline.
February 2000
~arch 2000
April 2000
~ay 2000
June 2000
July 2000
August 2000
November 2000
Finalize Governance Issue (applicable only to SCA 3)
Conduct Poll & Analysis
Continue Technical Work for:
Bike/Pedestrian Plan, Local Road Plan, Inter-modal Bus,
SMART, Traffic ~anagement ~easures
Exit Poll - Analysis SonomalNovato
Continue Technical Work ~ch 2000 Election
Complete Expenditure Plan & Release
Draft Expenditure Plan
Draft Resolution for type of initiative
Final Expenditure Plan
City Council Resolutions
~ Resolution
Board of Supervisors Election Resolution
Election
. After the November 1998 election, exit polls of voters were taken which indicated why
voters did not vote for Measure B, although ~easure A passed. While many answers
were given, one of the predominant answers was there was not enough information about
the need for the various transportation improvements and how the money would be spent
within the specific categories. To effectively reflect the public's desire in the
Expenditure Plan, the previous polls need to be reviewed and analyzed. New polls need
to be compared with previous ones to see whether there is a significant shift in voter
opinion or whether public opinion is similar to the way it was two years ago.
To respond to these concerns in preparation for a future ballot measure, your Board, the
Transit District and the C~ have agreed to fund studies to provide information about
rail service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and local bus lransit. Furthermore, the train
study is near completion. The local roads need is being prepared, and traffic management
measures are being evaluated.
cS
Board of Supervisors
January 25, 2000
Page 3
~uchneeds to be done in a relatively short time remaining. Staff and consultants should
be in place to conduct the required tasks. The tasks can be divided as follows:
Conduct Technical Analysis:
Train, Local Roads, Bus, Bicycle and Pedestrian
~aster Plans are well underway or near completion.
Discussions are in progress to identify traffic
management measures. By ~arch, we should bring
all these together and create a cohesive and seamless
plan.
Conduct Polls:
What is the public's perception of the problem? The
solution? Which mode(s) of transportation do they
desire? Which mode(s) of transportation will they
support with new tax dollars? This information will
help us in reshaping the technical studies in response
to public comment
Outreach and
Communication:
~assive communication is needed among
Cities/County and other Stakeholders to assure the
path we are following continued to be the one
supported by public. A significant outreach program
must be created to assure maximum public
participation in shaping their expenditure plan.
A process must then be put in place to accomplish these tasks between now and August.
GovP.!'nance
As stated previously in this letter the three possible scenarios for a ballot measure are:
1. SCA 3,
2. ~easure A + B (Advisory Transportation Plan, general sales tax), and
3. Special transportation sales tax (2/3 vote majority vote).
All three have in common the same August deadline for putting a measure on the ballot
and the need for technical transportation studies to provide the underpinning for a
transportation plan.
For Items 2 and 3, the Board of Supervisors has the sole authority for placing the measure
on the ballot and would anm;n;ster funds generated from the sales tax. However, the
Board of Supervisors has always coordinated its efforts with ~arin's City Councils.
cS
Board of Supervisors
January 25, 2000
Page 4
For Item I (SCA 3), the proposed State legislation specifies that a majority of the cities
representing a majority of the population must approve the transportation plan, mlli that
the Board of Supervisors must vote to place the measure on the ballot The legislation
also requires that the plan designate a governing body to oversee the implementation of
the plan and expenditure offunds.
Under SCA 3, staffbelieves that a new Authority is the best way to prepare and
implement the Expenditure Plan. It is proposed the Authority be comprised of five
County Supervisors and one representative from each of the eleven City and Town
Councils, with possible consideration for giving additional votes to San Rafael and
Novato. However, this requires creation of a Joint Powers Authority or a ~emorandum
of Understanding. Neither of these alternatives can be accomplished in the timetable that
we have calculated, since every Cityrrown Council and the Board of Supervisors must
officially hold hearings and approve this concept Furthermore, this new Authority can
be designated as the implementing agency under the SCA 3 scenario.
In consultation with County Counsel, it is therefore recommended that the Board of
Supervisors and Congestion ~anagement Agency conduct a series ofjoint special
meetings to develop a potential Expenditure Plan for any of the tax measure options.
If SCA 3 is not the scenario for the ballot measure, then these joint meetings could
continue in an advisory role under either one of other two scenarios. Staff recommends
that these joint meetings begin in ~arch and serve as a hearing body for the development
of a transportation Expenditure Plan and for making a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors and the eleven City and Town Councils.
We discussed this recommendation at the ~'s January 20 meeting and informed the
Board of Directors that, subject to your Board's approval, this matter will be put on the
~'s agenda for February 24. We also encouraged each member to discuss this matter
with their City Councils.
Role and resDOnsibilitv of the Joint Board ofS~ervisors and Conlrestion ~analrement
Alrencv ~eetinlrs and the Plann;T11r Process:
Begin meeting at least once a month and review and approve all aspects of the
transportation funding plan.
Examples are:
. When to conduct polls.
z
Board of Supervisors
January 25, 2000
Page 5
· What questions to ask.
. What do the analyses suggest?
· Review master plans and conduct mini-workshops.
· Select projects for the Expenditure Plan.
· Approve outreach program.
· Adjust Expenditure Plan as needed, based on information from outreach and polls.
If your Board concurs, the recommended date of the joint meetings will be set for the
fourth Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m., which is the same as the CMA/CWP A
meetings. This way, eleven City representatives and one County Supervisor have already
reserved the date and time. If any CMNCWP A business needs to take place, it can be
scheduled for 7:00 p.m., prior to the joint meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Authorize the President of the Board of Supervisors to request that the ~ also
endorse the joint meeting concept.
2. Direct staff to return in two weeks with a list ofreco=ended consultants, the
contracts, and the required budget.
REVIEWED BY:
[Xl County Anmin;!<trator
[ ] Auditor Controller
[Xl County Counsel
[ ] Human Resources
[ ] N/A
[Xl N/ A
[ ]N/A
[Xl N/ A
Respectfully submitted,
:t-
Farhid Mansourian
Chief Assistant Director
,
FM:mr:e:lfarbad\bosOll400.doe