HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2009-06-15TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Week of June 8 -15, 2009
Tiburon
1. Letter - Alice Fredericks - Possible Angel Island Closure
2. Letter - Alice Fredericks - Request Opposition to AB 155
3. Memo - Peggy Curran - Tiburon Talk Mailer
4. Email - Ann P. Meredith - Smoke-Free Tiburon Public & Housing Plea
5. Email - Brian Service - Cutting of Trees on Tiburon Blvd.
6. Monthly Report Design Review - May 2009
7. Yearly Recap Design Review Submittals - 2009
Agendas & Minutes
C
8. Agenda - Design Review Board - June 18, 2009
9. Minutes - Planning Commission - May 27, 2009
10. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - June 10, 2009
Regional
a) Letter - League of Women Voters - Campaign Reform Ordinance
b) Report - Grand Jury - Savings Marin's Major Crimes Task Force
c) Bay Trail Rider - Newsletter - Spring/Summer 2009, d) Bay Area Monitor - Newsletter - June/July 2009
e) Estuary - Newsletter - June 2009
f) Western City - Magazine - June 2009
g) Invitation - Angel Island Immigration Station - Annual Dinner - 9/18/09
h) Invitation - Moosefeed Luncheon - December 11, 2009
Agendas & Minutes
i) Public Meeting Notice - Vegetation and Biodiversity Mgmt Plan- 6/23/09
Council Only
Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • wwwci.tiburon.ca.us
June 5, 2009
Senator Mark Leno
State Capitol, Room 4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Leno :
11iG a
This letter seeks your opposition to AB 155 (Mendoza) regarding local agency
bankruptcies. The bill would require local agencies to first obtain approval from
the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission before filing for
bankruptcy.
Our opposition centers on two points: the important principal of local control,
and the lack of necessity of the proposal.
Regarding the former, this bill would substitute the judgment of the California
Debt and Investment Advisory Commission for that of locally elected officials.
Bankruptcy is not something any local government would enter into lightly.
Quite the contrary, such a decision would be intensely discussed and debated
locally, with have significant local consequences. It is appropriate that this
decision rest with those most affected and closest to the issues, facts and options
at hand.
Regarding the necessity, do we really need more bureaucratic process in the State
of California? Bankruptcy courts and judges are trained in this area and doing
their job. They have the responsibility to determine the need for bankruptcy. j
Another layer of review and approval to solve local financial crises will only add
to the difficulty and bureaucracy of an already painful, indeed wrenching, process
for those few agencies in these desperate situations. The CDIAC has nothing to
add here, in fact, it may only serve to create a political forum at the state level for
what is inherently a local calamity.
sc ' '
j.
Sponsors of this bill suggest that local governments will simply choose
bankruptcy as a means of getting out from under union contracts. It is a naive and
unsupportable supposition that local governments would ever choose bankruptcy
if any other means of problem-solving is available to them. It is a complete and
utter last resort for cities that have reached the end of their financial tether -
F, y.
9
hardly a tactic.
In sum, this bill is both unnecessary and dangerous. Local agencies are struggling
a '2
to do right by their 'communities; the state should not step in and substitute both
its judgment and its own process over local control and decision-making. No
x
fe
~ i.
r;
Y 1
level of government is closer to its constituents - taxpayers and citizens - than
local government. Please don't make difficult times and decisions even harder t
addirrg,.unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and control.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. It is appreciated.
Sincer , .
lice re eric s, Mayor
Town of Tiburon
cc: Tiburon Town Council
Assemblymember Jared Huffman
League of California Cities
J
L,,F1. r
2
Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 F 415.435.2438 - www.ci.tiburon.ca.us
Sinilar letters were sent to Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Assemblyman Jared Huffman.
June 5, 2009
Senator Mark Leno
State Capitol, Room 4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Leno:
VFAliceJreder4cks
:MaYoF
4J!
M}i[~e5 Berter
ry, D►ck Collens
Cwuncilrne6ber
4~
Tom~iGram
Counci n ember
Angel Island, slated for closure, is one of the most likely candidates for an
exception to the blanket decision to close state parks. As a follow-up on my visit Jeff'slavitz
Councdniember
to you at your Sacramento Office on June 5, 2009, I would like to document our
conversation and explore the reasons and means to keep Angel Island open to the
public for the benefit of Tiburon and the entire Bay Area.
Marga , t.A. Curran
1. Angel Island is a magnificent asset for the entire Bay Area.
Town ,Man er
'ag
Many thousands of adult and family visitors and hundreds of school children who
take field trips there are enriched by their experiences on Angel Island each year.
It is a significant tourist attraction and a local treasure. Angel Island, which is
,
within the incorporated limits of the Town of Tiburon, is a jewel in the bay not
r
only because of its natural beauty and the extraordinary 3600 views it affords of
the entire region, but because of its history. Angel Island served as the
Immigration Station, the Ellis Island of the west, for thousands of Asians
migrating to our great state over the past century. This history has vividly come
to life now that the immigration facilities have been beautifully restored, at no
small expense, for public education and enjoyment.
2. Angel Island can be financially self-sufficient.
Raising the entrance fee to the park just one dollar would erase the already
"
insignificant operating deficit for the park. Angel Island receives an average of
`
180,000 visitors annually, each paying an entrance fee of $3 for adults and $2 for
r
children. According to the Park Superintendent, Angel Island receives
r
approximately $900,000 from the state every year, and returns over $700,000 in
'
revenue. This means the shortfall is something under $200,000. No doubt there
are other efficiencies and cost-saving measures the Park staff could produce as
well. This means THERE IS LITTLE OR NO MONEY TO BE SAVED IN
l
CLOSING ANGEL ISLAND!
3. Downtown Tiburon is heavily reliant on Angel Island tourism.
Tiburon is the jumping off point for Angel Island. Many, if not most, of Angel
Island- bound tourists get there by coming to Tiburon on ferry, and then
Y 'q
t .
embarking on the ferry ride to the island. Ferry riders not only make Tiburon's
downtowns vibrant, they do so without a heavy burden of automobile traffic. En
route, park visitors spend time in downtown Tiburon, eating in our restaurants and
shopping in our shops. Without this major source of foot traffic, our downtown is
likely to suffer a serious setback. It is difficult for businesses at the end of a long
peninsula to succeed - their radius of shoppers is significantly limited by
geography. Closing down Angel Island may well close down Tiburon's business
district. It will also stifle the very economic activity needed for recovery in these
challenging times.
The Town of Tiburon urges you to intervene in the park closure process and
remove Angel Island from the cut list. It makes no economic sense to close a
park that can be self-sufficient or very nearly so. The park as a destination
contributes to economic activity in the entire Bay Area by stimulating tourism. It
particularly vitalizes the Tiburon's business community. What a great loss and
waste of funds it would be to close Angel Island State Park just after the
restoration of its historic treasures such as the Immigration Station!
I hope I will be able to thank you in person for taking swift and effective action to
save Angel Island State Park. If any of us can be of service in keeping the park
open, please let us know.
Cordial
Alice Fredericks, Mayor
Town of Tiburon
cc: Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Chamber of Commerce
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Director Ruth Coleman, State Parks
David Matthews, Angel Island State Park Superintendent
Marin Supervisor Charles McGlashan
Charles Dalldorf, League of California Cities
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Date: June 11, 2009
To: Mayor and Town Council
L/-~
Peggy Curran, Town Manager Q
From:
Subject: Tiburon Talk Mailing to Town Residents
o,G~~r3,
As you know, we are always trying to solicit new subscribers for Tiburon Talk. The
general information they convey on a monthly basis is useful for residents, but the most
important reason for increasing their distribution is public safety - we want to maximize
the reach of Tiburon Talk Special Bulletins when emergencies strike.
Toward this end the attached letter went out this week to all households. We will let
you know what kind of response it generates.
Thank you.
0 0•,
z'
Town of Tiburon
o a
~ a
~01 IP N Important Public Safety Request
r.
Dear Tiburon Resident:
HELP US We'll get right to the point: the Town wants to be able to reach you in an
HELP YOU! emergency!
What with oil spills, sewage spills, nasty winter storms, flu scares and perhaps
something more serious around the corner, we want to provide the timeliest
possible information to residents. We were able to convey news about all of
these incidents quickly and efficiently to subscribers of Tiburon Talk, the
Town's monthly e-newsletter, through a Special Bulletin edition. Because e-
mail is likely to be the fastest and most direct way of communicating with
citizens in an emergency, we want all residents to be on our list!
As a subscriber, you will receive Tiburon Talk every month to help keep you
apprised of what's happening with your Town government. You'll also
receive Special Bulletins when emergencies arise. A sample of each is
enclosed. You can also view previous issues of Tiburon Talk and Special
Bulletins on the Town's website at www.ci.tiburon.ca.us/news.
2 MINUTES It only takes a few minutes to act on one of these options:
2 OPTIONS
Option 1: Visit the Town's website at www.ci.tiburon.ca.us and sign up right
at the bottom of the home page. All we need is your e-mail address, and
you're done.
Option Z: If you don't use a computer or would prefer to get Tiburon Talk
mailed to you, just fill out the form below and mail it in. You'll get a printed
copy of Tiburon Talk sent to your home every month.
Thank you for helping us help you. Let's hope we never have a major emergency, but if we
do, we will all get through it better if we are able to communicate early and often.
Sincerely,
-1 7
~GC~ l
Alice Fredericks, Peggy Curran, Mi ael Cronin,
Mayor Town Manager Chief of Police
Please PRINT CLEARLY, clip and mail to Town Clerk, 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, CA 94920:
Name(s):
Street Address:
Phone Number(s):
(ea
April 24, 2009
A WORD FROM THE TOWN MANAGER
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR - MILES BERGER, VICE MAYOR - COUNCILMEMBER TOM GRAM
COUNCILMEMBER RICHARD COLLINS - COUNCILMEMBER JEFF SLAVIfZ
T I B U R O N
HERITAGE
do A R T S
COMMISSION
Tiloaron Talk wLonthtti e-newsletter)
Neighborhood Meetings
Last year I encouraged homeowners
associations and other neighborhood
groups to invite me to attend one of their
meetings (yes, I know, that sounds a lot
like I'm inviting myself to crash your
gatherings).
While it's true that I love to use these occasions to explain
Town projects and policies, the main value in them is that
I get to hear from you, the residents, and visit with you in
your neighborhoods. There really is no substitute for that
face-to-face interaction that lets me see the Town from
your vantage point. Learning what's on your mind and
what opportunities or problems you see around Town is
invaluable. It enables me to make Town Hall more
responsive to community concerns and to better serve the
Town Council in its quest for productive, efficient and
customer-service-oriented governance.
So, I extend my offer once again. If you think your
neighborhood organization would like to hear from me, or
has something to tell me, please give me a call at
435-7383 or send me an e-mail at
pcurran@ci.tiburon.ca.us to set something up. I'll be as
accommodating as I can be schedule-wise, and take as
much or as little time as suits your needs.
Tiburon Boulevard Improvements
Sometimes it is frustrating that the Town does not control
Tiburon Boulevard. Its ownership by the state agency,
Caltrans, means we don't get to determine traffic
management measures like signals and speed limits or
similar elements that are normally under the purview of
local government. But, there is an upside to this
arrangement from which we are about to benefit in a big
way: we don't have to pay for its maintenance. The
Boulevard is badly in need of repaving, and Caltrans is
about to spend $1.4 million to do the job. Caltrans will
commence this effort in June, working in the evenings to
accomplish the task during lighter traffic periods. It will
be hard to live through, no doubt, with lane closures,
delays and construction noise, but in the end we will have
our main traffic artery greatly improved without a huge
local outlay of cash or new debt.
We'll let everyone know the specific schedule when it is
provided to us by Caltrans. When it does get underway,
and that sensation of annoyance starts creeping up your
spine as you await your turn through a lane closure delay,
take a deep breath and some real solace in knowing we
didn't have to pass a local tax or dig deep into Town
reserves to make it happen. We'll all be back in action on
a much improved Boulevard in no time.
State Ballot Measures
Confused about the myriad measures on the special May
19 ballot - the ones the State Legislature created as part
of their budget "compromise"? If so, consider attending
the May 6 Town Council meeting, which starts at 7:30
p.m. Amy O'Gorman, of the League of California Cities,
will be making a presentation to clarify the purposes and
consequences of these measures. Amy is an expert on the
California legislature and has been advancing the interests
of cities in that context for years.
Sincerely,
Peggy Curran
NEWS BP EFS y
TOWN HALL HOURS ARE A-CHANGING
CD,
1 14
Starting Monday, May 4, on a trial
basis, hours at Town Hall will be shifted
as follows:
--Town Hall will be closed to the public
Fridays, although staff will work every
other Friday (Town Hall currently closes
at noon on Fridays).
--Town Hall will be open longer hours
Monday through Thursday, with no
reduction in overall hours we are available to the public.
NEW MONDAY - THURSDAY HOURS
BUILDING DIVISION:
7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING:
7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING:
8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
We at Town Hall look forward to serving the public during
these new hours! Feedback is welcome.
VOLUNTEER OlaPOATUNITIES
ATTENTION: MEDICAL PERSONNEL
Disaster preparedness efforts on the
Belvedere/Tiburon Peninsula have
progressed remarkably over the past
four years and include the Get Ready
program which originated here on the
peninsula and has now spread to the
entire county. So far we have trained
over 10,000 residents countywide.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiA first aid station, another vital part in
our preparedness for a disaster, is now a reality. The
centrally located Del Mar Gym will serve that purpose
thanks to the Reed School District. Now we need to
organize a group of medical volunteers to staff the facility
in the event it is ever needed.
On Saturday, May 9th we will hold an orientation meeting
from 9 to it a.m. (at the Del Mar Gym) to discuss
operation of the unit and coordination with the police and
fire departments and emergency services. We will conduct
tours of the facility and have emergency equipment on
hand for inspection including the TFD ambulance and
disaster trailer and the EMS supply trailer.
C F0 view cov►APle-te issue, ViSs t u.s at wvjvj.ci:ti(ouron.ca.us/news)
(Sample Special oattetin)
N i.dik a r . - j
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR - MILES BERGER, VICE MAYOR - COUNCILMEMBER TOM GRAM
COUNCILMEMBER RICHARD COLLINS - COUNCILMEMBER JEFF SLAVITZ
April 28, 2009
SPECIAL BULLETIN
The following is a Public Health Advisory published today by
the Marin Health and Human Services Department:
Swine Flu Information
What is swine flu? Swine influenza (swine flu) is a
respiratory infection of pigs caused by Type A Influenza
virus. This virus normally does not infect humans.
However, the current strain of swine flu is causing illness in
people in the U.S., Mexico, and other countries. It is also
spreading from person to person. Most people in the U.S.
who have become infected have had only mild flu illness.
Please contact your healthcare provider IF you have these
symptoms:
• Temperature of 1001F (37.80C) or greater, AND
• Cough or sore throat
Seasonal flu, has tapered off, but may still be present.
Swine flu may be considered if you have these symptoms
and have traveled to Mexico or other locations where swine
flu has been confirmed, in the 7 days prior to symptom
onset, or have been in contact with someone who is ill and
traveled to these areas in the 7 days before they became
ill.
How to protect yourself and others:
• If you or a family member are ill, stay home. Do not
go to school or work. If you have the above
symptoms, contact your healthcare provider as
needed.
• Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you
cough or sneeze. Throw the tissue in the trash after
you use it.
• Wash your hands often with soap and water,
especially after you cough or sneeze. Alcohol-based
hand sanitizers can also be used.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth. Germs
spread this way.
• Try to avoid close contact with sick people.
Not everyone needs to be tested, but IF you have the
symptoms above SWINE FLU testing is FREE
Call for more information: 415-499-6823,
www.marinflu.org
FAQ - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Swine Influenza and You
What is swine flu?
Swine Influenza (swine flu) is a respiratory disease of pigs
caused by type A influenza viruses that causes regular
outbreaks in pigs. People do not normally get swine flu, but
human infections can and do happen. Swine flu viruses
have been reported to spread from person-to-person, but in
the past, this transmission was limited and not sustained
beyond three people.
Are there human infections with swine flu in the U.S.?
In late March and early April 2009, cases of human
infection with swine influenza A (H1N1) viruses were first
reported in Southern California and near San Antonio,
Texas. Other U.S. states have reported cases of swine flu
infection in humans and cases have been reported
internationally as well. An updated case count of confirmed
swine flu infections in the United States is kept at
http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/investigation.htm CDC and
local and state health agencies are working together to
investigate this situation.
Is this swine flu virus contagious?
CDC has determined that this swine influenza A (H1N1)
virus is contagious and is spreading from human to human.
However, at this time, it not known how easily the virus
spreads between people.
What are the signs and symptoms of swine flu in
people?
The symptoms of swine flu in people are similar to the
symptoms of regular human flu and include fever, cough,
sore throat, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some
people have reported diarrhea and vomiting associated with
swine flu. In the past, severe illness (pneumonia and
respiratory failure) and deaths have been reported with
swine flu infection in people. Like seasonal flu, swine flu
may cause a worsening of underlying chronic medical
conditions.
How does swine flu spread?
Spread of this swine influenza A (H1N1) virus is thought to
be happening in the same way that seasonal flu spreads.
Flu viruses are spread mainly from person to person
through coughing or sneezing of people with influenza.
Sometimes people may become infected by touching
something with flu viruses on it and then touching their
mouth or nose.
How can someone with the flu infect someone else?
Infected people may be able to infect others beginning 1
day before symptoms develop and up to 7 or more days
after becoming sick. That means that you may be able to
pass on the flu to someone else before you know you are
sick, as well as while you are sick.
What should I do to keep from getting the flu?
First and most important: wash your hands. Try to stay in
good general health. Get plenty of sleep, be physically
active, manage your stress, drink plenty of fluids, and eat
nutritious food. Try not touch surfaces that may be
contaminated with the flu virus. Avoid close contact with
people who are sick.
Are there medicines to treat swine flu?
Yes. CDC recommends the use of oseltamivir or zanamivir
for the treatment and/or prevention of infection with these
swine influenza viruses. Antiviral drugs are prescription
medicines (pills, liquid or an inhaler) that fight against the
flu by keeping flu viruses from reproducing in your body. If
you get sick, antiviral drugs can make your illness milder
(Tn ~112 rnwnnlAkA r44IAA. viSi+ Itis At VJI/JVJ•Gl.tl(OarOR-Ca.tkislevii )
Page 1 oft
DIGEST
Peggy Curran
From: Ann P Meredith [annpmeredith1 @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:29 PM
To: Joan Palmero; Peggy Curran; askalicenow@usa.net
Cc: Curry, Robert
Subject: Smoke-Free Tiburon Public & Housing Plea
June 8th 2009
Dear Alice, Peggy & Joan & The Town/City Council of Tiburon:
Hi to all. Happy Summer. I'm writing this note as a belated follow up on a mention in The Ark a while back
about tobacco smoke in town. I am one of the many concerned people who have a difficult time with all the
smoking that goes on outside the restaurants, on the hiking paths and on the streets in Tiburon and would very
much like to see you all pass an ordinance to ban smoking in Tiburon. I understand from speaking with you
Joan that you too as many others are having a difficult time with smokers where you live.
Especially as an involved resident of Tiburon and with all due respect I am writing to express my concern over
Tiburon's continued acceptance of tobacco smoke inside multiunit housing. I myself had to sign a non-
smoking' lease to move in but/and other tenants are still allowed to smoke. This is unfair and unhealthy for me.
Multi-unit buildings were not designed to contain tobacco smoke within a given unit, making it common for
tobacco, smoke to spread under doors, through vents and pipes, and from open windows. Currently, many
tenants such as my self at my home in Apt#22 at 30 Harbor Oak Drive are suffering under these ongoing and
dangerous health conditions. Everyday I am exposed to 2nd hand smoke from neighbors who are smoking when
their smoke wafts into my apt, on my deck and in to my lungs. By now we all know that 2nd hand smoke is
more deadly than 1St hand.
I work very hard to live and work a healthy smoke free life but/and need your help in this regard.
While I have been told that Tiburon has reduced the community's exposure to tobacco smoke in places such as
restaurants and bars it is unacceptable that tobacco exposure is so prevalent in front of these premises and that it
should be able to threaten me and other Tiburon residents while walking along the street as well as inside our
own homes. In response, I strongly urge you to require that all multi-family buildings and public parks, areas
and walkways become smoke-free.
Smoking in an apartment is not a protected right under any state or federal laws and there is no legal challenge
to such an ordinance. In 2007, the City of Belmont passed such an ordinance making all multi-unit apartment
buildings smoke-free and in February 2008, the City of Novato passed an ordinance requiring that 50% of
existing units and 75% of new units be smoke-free. Changes such as these are also receiving nationwide
industry support, as discussed in this article from the National Apartment Association
(http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/UnitsDec2007.odf).
Until a law protecting multi-unit residents is passed, I and all tenants in Tiburon are at risk of being exposed to
tobacco smoke at any given time inside their own home. Such a situation increases the threat of stroke, asthma,
cancer and other health problem in our community. Please protect our city from the dangers of secondhand
smoke and help make our wonderful town of Tiburon a better place to live.
I hope very much that you will all work towards an acceptable solution for the better health of our community.
I am happy to help you in any way possible to help Tiburon to become smoke-free.
6/8/2009
Page 2 of 2
Most Sincerely,
Ann
Ann P Meredith
30 Harbor Oak Drive #22
Tiburon CA 94920
t.415.789.5396/annt)meredith l-(a,gmail.com
cc
Bob Curry
Marin County Department of Health and Human Services
Tobacco Related Disease Control Program
10 North San Pedro Road STE 1013
San Rafael, Ca 94903
(415) 507-2559
rcurry@co.marin.ca.us
Visit us at: WWW.smokefreemarin.com
Judith Derenzo
Tobacco Control Policy Coordinator
Bay Area Community Resources
171 Carlos Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: (415) 444-5580 x336
Fax: (415) 444-5598
www.bacr.org
"The BACR mission is to promote the healthy development of individuals, families and
communities."
Email Disclaimer: http://www._co.marin.ca.us/nav/misc/EmailDisclaimer.cfm
6/8/2009
Page I o(1
DIGEST 5 ,
Peggy Curran
From: Brian Service [brian@serviceconsulting.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:32 PM
To: Peggy Curran
Cc: Councilmember Richard Collins
Subject: Re Cutting of trees on Tiburon Blvd
Peggy
I want you to bring this email to the attention of the board of supervisors
Today I sat for nearly 60 minutes trying to get out of Tiburon while Caltrans cut a few branches off trees
I understand the town decided this had to be done during daylight hours
Let me say that you and Caltrans created a safety issue of large proportions
A flag man at each end of the tree cutting and Tiburon uniformed sitting snuggly close by is no way to
manage a mile (or two, or three) of backed up cars
Ridiculous planning by you and Caltrans
Had there been an emergency I hesitate to think how people could have been moved in time and safely
from Tiburon. I certainly would not have wanted to be an injured/sick person under such circumstances.
You simply did not plan-and you are people we pay to do this
I ask for better communication, and planning, in the future
I understand we have a big re-sealing project to follow... hopefully this learning process will ensure that
safety and convenience of town tax payers is a priority.
Brian Service
Tiburon resident
J
6/8/2009
TOWN OF TIBURON
OFFICE OF DESIGN REVIEW
MONTHLY REPORT
MAY 2009
D~r4!FS,T
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS:
NUMBER SUBMITTED
2008
►
NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
2
1
►
MAJOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
2
1
►
MINOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
2
2
►
(not eligible for Staff Review)
►
SIGN PERMITS
2
1
►
TREE PERMITS
3
1
►
VARIANCE REQUESTS
5
1
►
FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS
3
1
►
EXTENSION OF TIME
0
0
STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS:
Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less -than 500
square feet. 10 17
APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL
0 0
REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary
DATE OF REPORT: June 9, 2009
DIGEST
0 co
C
F-
LO
LO
ti
LO
O
O
ti
O
O
T
CV
O
Q O`
oo
(O
M
r
r
O
U
W
Q
z
O
O
U
N
Q
r
Cl)
J
Q
H
a
w
F-
~
H
C~
Q
l)
C
J
w
5
w
w
z
Z
CO
W
co
O
C4
r
r
cm
r
r
r
r
O
N
a
W
}
N
N
N
N
M
LO
M
C)
Cl
N
LL
J~
Li
0-
Q
M
r
r
N
I-
co
CO
O
co
Q
w
O
r
N
O
r
r
r
(o
O
N.
r
m
W
r-
N
O
O
N
r-
N
O
O
LL
Q
O
O
O
co
O
N
T
w
>a-
F-
L
w 3:
z
Q
0
¢
2
F-
Q
z
F-
a
z
0
N
t
a
w
w
F-
N
u
a
a
>
F-
a
X
w
a
li
W
>
W
w
U.
to
O)
-i
w
a
Q
o
a
0
N
I I
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA
~'FS
TOWN OF TIBURON DATE: 6/18/09
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD MEETING TIME 7:00 P.M.
TIBURON, CA 94920 AGENDA NO.: #10
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 for the record; (3) State views/concerns succinctly; (4) Limit
presentation to three minutes; (S) Speak directly into microphone and (6) All documents submitted at the
meeting must first be submitted at the Staff table, to be entered into the record and retained by the Town.
If an item is continued, it is the responsibility of interested parties to note the new meeting date. Notices will
not be sent out for items continued to a specific date.
Any documents produced by the Town and distributed to a majority of the Design Review Board regarding any
item on this agenda, including agenda-related documents produced by the Town after distribution of the
agenda packet 72 hours in advance of the Board meeting, will be available for public inspection at Tiburon
Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920.
A.
B.
C.
D.
1.
E.
2.
F.
ROLL CALL: Chair Doyle, Boardmembers Chong, Kricensky, Tollini and Wilson
PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
STAFF BRIEFING
CONSENT CALENDAR
1535 Tiburon Boulevard Met. Life Insurance Signs
OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
526 Comstock Drive Singh
New Dwelling/Variances CONTINUED TO 7/2/09
NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
3. 13 Maravista Court Rankin GarageNariance
4. 22 Mercury Avenue Dibble New Dwelling
5. 166 Rock Hill Road Robberts New Dwelling
G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #9 OF THE 6/4/09 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
H. ADJOURNMENT
"PLEASE NOTE THAT AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER"
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES NO. 981 `
May 27, 2009
Regular Meeting
Town of Tiburon Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
Chair O'Donnell called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Chair O'Donnell, Commissioners Corcoran, Fraser, Frymier, and Kunzweiler
Absent: None
Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson, Environmental Consultant
Elizabeth Purl, and Minutes Clerk Levison
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING:
Director of Community Development Anderson provided the following briefing:
• Copies of the draft update Zoning Ordinance are available. The first Commission hearing
on the item is scheduled for June 10, 2009 along with two other items.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. PARADISE DRIVE PREZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PROJECT: CONSIDER MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO TOWN
COUNCIL REGARDING THE PREZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 85
ASSESSOR PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 230 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEASTERN END OF THE TIBURON PENINSULA &
AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
AFFECTING 22 OF THOSE ASSESSOR PARCELS AND MAKING MINOR
CORRECTIONS TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT AND MAPS; Town of Tiburon -
initiated; Files R208-01 and GPA2008-01
The Director of Community Development presented the staff report, stating that in April 2008,
the Town received applications from property owners of several properties along the
southeastern end of the Tiburon Peninsula for prezoning of their properties. Following analysis
and the preparation of an environmental review document for the project, the matter has returned
to the Planning Commission for hearing and recommendation to the Town Council.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 27, 2009 MINUTES NO. 981 DRAFT PAGE I
Mr. Anderson reviewed the prezoning process and explained that in 2008, the Planning
Commission established a prezoning study area that encompasses 85 assessor parcels totaling
about 230 acres of unincorporated territory on both sides of Paradise Drive, forming a rational
and logical boundary for the purposes of prezoning study. The study area is a mixture of single-
family residential, two-family residential, undeveloped land, tidal, and public agency-owned
parcels.
Mr. Anderson detailed the proposed General Plan amendments that would change the Tiburon
prezoning designation of 22 parcels of land to match the existing County of Marin zoning as
closely as is practicable. Additional amendments include a Tiburon General Plan Land Use Map
legend correction and several minor text and mapping errors unrelated to the prezoning.
The Town retained the firm of Impact Sciences Incorporated to prepare an initial study pursuant
to CEQA. The initial study concluded that the project would not result in a significant impact on
the environment with mitigation measures. A draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared
and released for public review and comment on April 20, 2009. The initial study and draft
mitigated negative declaration analyzed the implications of the project through potential
annexation by LAFCO, should that happen. The document indicated that the project had the
potential to create one additional dwelling unit in the prezoning area when compared with
baseline development potential allowed under the Tiburon General Plan, and that the differential
was environmentally insignificant. The document concluded that mitigation measures adopted in
the 2005 General Plan EIR remain applicable to this project and proposed additional measures
involving cumulative climate change impacts and adequate provision of emergency access.
Mr. Anderson advised the Planning Commission that its role at this hearing is strictly advisory
and is to make a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed general plan
amendments and prezoning designations. In doing so, the Commission shall review and consider
the environmental documentation prepared for the project, but need make no formal
determinations with respect to that environmental documentation.
Commissioner Frymier asked for clarification on the proposed general plan amendments
regarding density. Mr. Anderson explained that the General Plan assigns density values
representing an allowable number of units per acre and that those designations differ slightly
from those currently assigned by the County of Marin by its zoning. A comparison between the
two equates a High Density Residential designation in the General Plan to R-2 (two-family
zoning), which allow 11.6 units per acre. Medium High Density Residential in the General Plan
is the equivalent of R-1 (single-family) residential zoning, allowing up to 4.4 units per acre on a
lot of 10,000 square feet in area. Medium Density Residential in the General Plan allows up to 3
units per acre and equates to RO-2 zoning, while Medium-Low Density Residential equates to
RO-1 zoning with slightly over 1 unit per acre allowed. Low-Density Residential, or .5 units per
acre, is the equivalent of RPD (residential planned development) zoning, at specified densities.
Commissioner Frymier asked what purpose the proposed amendments serve. Mr. Anderson
provided an example by explaining that a number of properties proposed for prezoning are zoned
R-2 by the County of Main but would be prezoned R-1 by the current Tiburon General Plan
density designation. The amendments would correct this situation. The Town's longstanding
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 27, 2009 MINUTES NO. 981 DRAFT PAGE 2
practice when prezoning and/or annexing property is to avoid creating unnecessary
nonconformities with developed parcels whenever possible.
Chair O'Donnell asked for an explanation of up-zoning. Mr. Anderson stated that all of the
parcels identified for general plan amendment have a county zoning that is higher density than
what the current Tiburon General Plan designation would allow. To reduce a parcel's density and
zoning equivalent during prezoning creates the potential for nonconformities and, in order to
avoid this wherever possible, staff is proposing that certain parcels be prezoned up to match their
current County zoning, necessitating the general plan amendments for those parcels.
Chair O'Donnell asked if up-zoning would be considered an overall benefit to an individual
parcel. Mr. Anderson clarified that the practice is an attempt to keep owners of developed parcels
whole and not take anything away from them, from a zoning perspective, during the prezoning
process.
Commissioner Corcoran questioned and confirmed that the Planning Commission's role this
evening is purely advisory. Mr. Anderson reiterated that the Commission's role is to review and
consider the environmental documentation before making its recommendation to the Town
Council.
Chair O'Donnell asked whether or not parcel owners were individually notified of the potential
zoning changes. Mr. Anderson said that all property owners in and within 300 feet of the affected
area have been notified. Owners of those parcels proposed for General Plan amendment were
sent individual letters explaining the purpose of the amendment.
Chair O'Donnell opened the public hearing.
Russ Keil, applicant, described the history of the Tiburon Peninsula and its evolution from an
isolated rural area into a close-knit and sophisticated community. He said while being served by
County entities was appropriate in the past, times have changed. He highlighted two major
governmental functions that are of concern to him: planning and safety. Mr. Keil stated that the
Marin County Planning Department is out of touch with local issues and needs, which call for a
local oversight that was previously unnecessary. As to public safety, he cited a family member's
recent need for emergency assistance, and explained that he was fortunate enough to have had an
officer of the Tiburon Police Department exercise the consideration to track him down at his
offices in San Francisco and inform him of the emergency. Mr. Keil doubted that either the
Marin County Sheriff's Department or the Highway Patrol would have gone to the same lengths.
He stated that when he was asked to consider the annexation of his property, he realized that
times have changed and that the Town has evolved such that annexation only seems appropriate.
Jerry Riessen expressed strong support for the annexation proposal, stating that the
environmental document is very well crafted, the project has been well-noticed, and the Town is
on very solid ground in proceeding as recommended.
Scott Hochstrasser referepced the letter from Hanson Bridgett dated May 20, 2009 and made
arguments against the proposed annexation. He stated that the entire proposal is in opposition to
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 27, 2009 MINUTES NO. 981 DRAFT PAGE 3
the guidelines set forth in the 2005 updated General Plan and questioned whether or not the
Commission could legally make the findings to support the proposal. Mr. Hochstrasser cited
numerous General Plan policies and annexation procedures, argued that staff has not supplied a
suitable impact analysis or sufficient data, and doubted that the parcels in question could
physically support what the zoning amendments would allow.
Chair O'Donnell closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chair Kunzweiler said that, having sat on the Planning Commission when the General Plan
was drafted, he is well aware of the details and its intent. He acknowledged Mr. Hochstrasser's
point that the General Plan discusses the annexation of unincorporated Paradise Drive as a
general concept, and explained that it was simply not appropriate to "parcel the area up" at that
time with respect to future annexation. The history of annexation shows a comprehensive
annexation of the entire Paradise Drive area to be economically infeasible and larger than what
the Town can support. This much smaller annexation is a logical step in the overall process. He
explained that when the General Plan was updated and annexation addressed, an EIR was
prepared for the purposes of prezoning and annexation. He noted that in addition to Planning
Commission and Town Council hearings, that the General Plan and its supporting documents
were reviewed by the public and accepted by the State. In light of that, one can only assume that
the EIR is sufficient enough to move forward. He believed the proposed amendments to the
General Plan do not pose a substantial change to what is currently in place, provide a benefit to
all citizens without violating the intent of the General Plan, and expressed full support for the
amendments and staff recommendation.
Commissioner Fraser echoed Vice-Chair Kunzweiler's comments. He said that he, too was a part
of the General Plan's development and the result is a solid foundation for the future of the village
of Tiburon. He concurs with the findings and amendments, believes the environmental document
to be complete, and supports the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Corcoran concurred with Vice-Chair Kunzweiler and Commissioner Fraser,
stating that the Commission's role tonight is limited to simply advising the Town Council. Based
on that limited role, he said he can support what is a request from citizens who, but for an
arbitrary line, would already be a part of the town.
Commissioner Frymier echoed fellow Commissioners' comments and concurred that some of the
public comment received falls beyond the Planning Commission's limited role tonight. Based on
the fact this was initiated at the request of residents and the Commission's role is so limited, she
supports the recommendation.
Chair O'Donnell concurred and advised the public that the General Plan is more of a guideline
than a binding document. Those guidelines call for changes and amendments on occasion and as
circumstances change. He said that the proposal calls for transferring the zoning of these parcels
to the Town in an upzone fashion that clearly benefits property owners. He thanked Mr. Keil for
his presentation and said that as a community, the positive aspects of this potential annexation far
outweigh any negative impacts. He stated support for the recommendation.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 27.2009 MINUTES NO. 981 DRAFT PAGE 4
ACTION: It was M/S (Fraser/Kunzweiler) to adopt the Resolution as drafted. Motion carried: 5-
0.
MINUTES:
2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular meeting of May 13, 2009.
Chair O'Donnell requested the following amendment to the minutes:
• Page 3, 2nd full paragraph - He asked that the EIR consider the possibility of
undergrounding at least a portion of the parking accessed from Mar West Street, under a
potential addition location, possibly to serve Town Hall and Library staff.
ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Fraser) to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2009 meeting
as amended. Motion carried: 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m.
EMMETT O'DONNELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 27, 2009 MINUTES NO. 981 DRAFT PAGE 5
,sr to
TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard June 10, 2009 - 7:30 PM
Tiburon, CA 94920
ACTION MINUTES
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM
Chairman O'Donnell, Vice Chairman Kunzweiler, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner
Fraser, Commissioner Frymier
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
All Commissioners Present
There Were None
Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do
so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to
undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda.
Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a
future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3)
minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the
administrative record.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING There Were None
Commission and Committee Reports
Director's Report
DISCUSSION ITEM
1. GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM SIX MONTH REVIEW [LT]
PUBLIC HEARING
Review Conducted
2. END OF PARENTE ROAD AND END OF ANTONETTE DRIVE: PRECISE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE TWO BUILDING SITES ON A 10.2 ACRE
PARCEL; FILE #30703; Lionel Achuck, Owner; Tom Newton, Applicant;
Assessor's Parcel No. 03 8-111-16 (Continued from April 22, 2009 [DW]
TO BE CONTINUED WITHOUT DISCUSSION TO JULY 229 2009
Tiburon Planning Commission June 10, 2009
Action Minutes
Page 1
3. 1600 MAR WEST STREET: REVIEW OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
GRANTED TO EXPAND A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITY (TIBURON
PENINSULA CLUB; FILE #10406; Southern Marin Recreation Center, Inc., Owner;
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-17, 76 & 84 and 058-240-21 [DW] Review
Conducted _
4. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE REFORMATTING
AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE;
FILE # MCA2008-09 [DW] Continued to June 24,200-111
MINUTES
5. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Regular Meeting of May 27, 2009
Approved as Amended
ADJOURNMENT At 8:35 PM
a061009
Tiburon Planning Commission June 10, 2009 Page 2
Action Minutes
DIGEST
'R
League of Women Voters of Marin County
4340 Redwood Highway, Suite F-0 108
San Rafael CA, 94903
June 6, 2009
Peggy Curran, Town Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd..
Tiburon CA 94920
Dear Peggy:
For the past year the League of Women Voters of Marin County has conducted a
campaign to reduce negative campaigning in local elections, which effects the willing-
ness of qualified individuals to run for elected office. As part of that effort, we have
worked with the Marin County Board of Supervisors to create an ordinance that will
require greater transparency of the individuals and organizations who fund independent
expenditure Committees (IECs), the groups largely responsible for misleading and
negative campaigning.
During the past year the Board of Supervisors drafted and extensively researched a
campaign reform ordinance to create greater transparency for independent expenditures.
It was adopted at its June 2 meeting. Now we are anxious to present this ordinance to
all of the towns and cities on Marin in hope that they, too will adopt a similar ordinance.
We are also asking all elected officials and prospective candidates to sign a Fair
Campaign Practices pledge. It is our belief that if all elected bodies in Marin are focused
on fair and transparent elections, negative campaigning will be reduced.
We would appreciate having a few minutes on your Council's agenda as soon as possible
to present the ordinance and answer any questions that the Council may have. Please let
us know when that might be possible. Attached is a copy of:the ordinance and the Fair
Practices Campaign Pledge. My email is: elissag57@comcast.net.
Best regards,
Elissa Giambastiani, Chair Campaign Reform Committee
LWVMC
ORDINANCE NO. 3519
ORDINANCE OF THE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ENACTING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM FOR INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES;
AND ALSO FOR PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE TERMS
OF THIS ORDINANCE -
SECTION I. FINDINGS
The Marin County Board of Supervisors finds as follows:
WHEREAS, integrity in the political process is of paramount importance in County elections; and
WHEREAS, in prior County elections, mailers by independent expenditures have, at times,
contained misleading information and voters have not always been aware of who supports or opposes a
campaign message; and
WHEREAS, meaningful disclosure laws related to Independent expenditures in County
elections are essential to the political process because they ultimately affect the voters' ability to
make informed choices; and
WHEREAS, increased disclosure requirements for independent expenditures in County elections
will ensure transparency of independent expenditures so that voters are provided information on
contributors, contributions and expenditures in a timely manner,
follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin does hereby ordain as
SECTION II. Chapter 2.02 is hereby added to the Marin County Code as follows:
Chapter 2.02 Disclosure and Reporting Requirements for Independent
Expenditures.
Section 2.02.010 Purpose:
The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure transparency of,independent expenditures so
that voters are provided information on contributors, contributions and expenditures in a timely
manner.
Section 2.02.020 Intent:
This ordinance is intended to supplement the Political Reform Act of 1974. Unless a
word or term is specifically defined in this ordinance, or the contrary is stated or clearly appears
from the context, words and terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined or used
in Title 9 of the California Government Code, in which the Political Reform Act of 1974 is
codified, and as supplemented by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission as
set forth in Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, as the same may be, from
time to time, amended.
Section 2.02.030. Definitions:
The following definitions shall be used for the purposes of interpreting the provisions
of this ordinance: r/
Page 1 of 5 Ordinance No. 3519
(a) "County candidate" means any person who is a candidate for a county office as
defined in section (d) below.
(b) "County measure" means any local measure placed on the ballot by the County of
Marin in an election which is governed by the Elections -Code..
(c) "County election" means any primary, general, runoff, special or recall election.
(d) "County office" means the office of county supervisor, assessor-recorder, auditor-
controller, county clerk, treasurer-tax collector, district attorney, sheriff, and coroner..
(e) "Elective county officer" means any member of the board of supervisors, the
assessor-recorder, auditor-controller, county clerk, treasurer-tax collector, district
attorney, sheriff, or coroner, whether appointed or elected.
(f) "Individual" means a living person contributing funds.
(g) "Independent Expenditure" means an expenditure made by any person or committee
in connection with a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat
of a clearly identified candidate or the qualification, passage or defeat of a clearly
identified measure, or taken as a whole and in context, unambiguously urges a
particular result in an election but which is not made to or at the behest of the
affected candidate or committee.
Section 2.02.040. Reporting of Independent Expenditures:
(a) Disclosure of Payments for Independent Expenditures shall be as follows:
(1) At any time, any person, including any committee, that makes or incurs
independent expenditures that combine to $1,000 or more in support of or in
opposition to any candidate for elective County office or any County measure
as defined herein shall report to the Marin County Registrar of Voters office
within twenty-four (24) hours by certified mail, fax or e-mail each time this
threshold is reached.. The form of notification is described in subsection (a) (2)
and (a) (3) of this section. Additionally, all contributions of $100 or more shall
be itemized in the report and shall be posted with the report immediately to the
County's website.
(2) The notification shall consist of a declaration made under penalty of perjury and
signed by the person or officer and the treasurer of the group making the
expenditure, specifying the following: (i) if applicable, each candidate who was
supported or opposed by the expenditure; (ii) the amount spent to support or
oppose each candidate or measure; (iii) if applicable, whether the measure
was supported or opposed; and, (iv) the expenditure was not behested by the
candidate or candidates who benefited from the expenditure.
(3) In addition, the notification will include the date and amount of the payment, a
description of the type of communication for which the payment was made or
incurred, the name and address of the person making the payment, the name
and address of the payee or committee, and a copy of the mailing or
advertisement, or a copy of the script or recording of the call, transmission, or
advertisement. The Marin County Registrar of Voters shall determine the
reporting form to fulfill the notification requirement,
Page 2 of 5 Ordinance No 3619
Section 2.02.050. Additional Requirements for Campaign Communications Funded By
Independent Expenditures
(a) Campaign communications funded by an independent expenditure supporting or
opposing County candidates or County measures shall include the following
disclosures: "This communication was not authorized by candidate _(name)_ for
_(office)_" or "_(name) initiative proponent".
(b) Campaign communications funded by an independent expenditure supporting or
opposing County candidates or County measures shall include the names of the
three largest contributors of $2,000 or more listed in order of their contribution
amounts (the largest contributor listed first), city and state of residence. In the event
that more than three donors meet this disclosure threshold at identical contribution
levels, the first three highest shall be selected according to chronological sequence.
If the committee can show, on the basis that contributions are spent in the order they
are received, that one or more of the contributions received from the three highest
contributors have been used for expenditures unrelated to the candidate or ballot
measure featured in the communication, the committee shall disclose the
contributors making the next largest cumulative contribution of $2,000 or more. The
communication shall further include the following: "Additional information regarding
the contributors of $100 or more to this committee can be found at
www.marinvotes.org." The disclosure required by this section shall be presented in a
clear and conspicuous manner as to give the reader, observer or listener adequate
notice as follows:
(1) For printed campaign communications that measure no more than twenty-four
inches by thirty-six inches, all disclosure statements required by this section
shall be printed using a typeface that is easily legible to an average reader or
viewer, but is not less than 10 point type in contrasting color to the background
on which it appears. For oversize printed campaign communications, all
disclosure statements shall constitute at least five percent of the height of the
material and be printed in contrasting color.
(2) For video broadcasts including television, satellite, internet, telephone and
cable campaign communications, the information shall be both written and
spoken either at the beginning or at the end of the communication, except that
if the disclosure statement is written for at least five seconds of a broadcast of
thirty seconds or less or ten seconds of a sixty second broadcast, a spoken
disclosure statement is not required. The written disclosure statement shall be
of sufficient size to be readily legible to an average viewer and air for not less
than five seconds.
(3) For audio, telephone call or radio advertisement campaign communications,
the disclosures shall be spoken in a clearly audible manner at the same speed
and volume as the rest of the telephone call or radio advertisement at the
beginning or end of the communication and shall last at least three seconds.
The requirement shall be satisfied by using the words "on behalf of
immediately followed by the name of the candidate or committee that pays for
the communications.
Page 3 of 5 Ordinance No 3519
(c) For purposes of this section, "campaign communication" includes any of the following
campaign related items:
(1) More than 200 substantially similar pieces of campaign literature distributed
within a calendar month, including but not limited to mailers, flyers facsimiles,
pamphlets, door hangers, e-mails, campaign buttons 10 inches in diameter or
larger, and bumper stickers 60 square inches or larger;
(2) Posters, yard or street signs, billboards, super-graphic signs and similar items;
(3) Television, cable, satellite and radio broadcasts;
(4) Newspaper, magazine, internet website banners and similar advertisements;
or,
(5) 200 or more substantially similar live or recorded telephone calls made within a
calendar month.
(d) For purposes of this section, "campaign communication" does not include: small
promotional items such as pens, pencils, clothing, mugs, potholders, skywriting or
other items on which the statement required by this section can not be reasonably
printed or displayed in an easily legible typeface; communications paid for by a
newspaper, radio station, television station or other recognized news medium; and
communications from an organization to its members other than a communication
from a political party to its members.
Section 2.02.060. Enforcement of Chapter
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Marin County Code, any person who
knowingly violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
shall be liable as set forth in Section 1.04.270.
(b) In addition to the penalty set forth in subsection (a) of this section, any person who
intentionally or negligently violates any section of this chapter shall be subject to an
administrative fine for a sum of $5,000 for each violation, or up to 3 times the amount
of the communication, whichever is greater. In imposing the administrative fine, the
Registrar of Voters shall issue a notification of violation setting forth the violation and
the amount of the fine.
(c) Any person subject to an administrative fine pursuant to subsection (b) of this section
shall have the right to request an administrative hearing within forty-five days of the
issuance of a citation for a civil violation of this chapter pursuant to the authority
granted to the board of supervisors by Government Code Section 25845, subdivision
(i). To request such a hearing, the person requesting the hearing shall notify the
Marin County Administrator's office in writing within forty-five days of the issuance of
the citation. The Marin County Administrator's office shall refer any request for a
hearing to an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge shall conduct an
evidentiary hearing on the matter within ninety days of the request for the hearing
unless one of the parties requests a continuance for good cause. The administrative
law judge shall render a decision within thirty days of the conclusion of the hearing.
Either party may appeal the decision of the administrative law judge pursuant to the
requirements set forth below in subsection (d).
Page 4 of 5 ordinance No 3519
(d) The person upon whom a civil fine is imposed pursuant to subsection (c) of this
section may appeal the decision of the administrative law judge. The county may
also appeal the decision of the administrative law judge.. No appeal can lie unless the
party filing the appeal has first properly requested and obtained a hearing as set forth
under subsection (c) of this section. The appeal must be filed within twenty days
after service of the final decision issued by the administrative law judge pursuant to
California Government Code Section 530694, subdivision (b).. The procedures
outlined in Government Code 53069.4 shall apply. (Ord. 3462 § 1 (part), 2006)
Section 2.02.010. Severability and Preemption
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is
held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application, and to this end the
provisions of this chapter are severable. The civil fines and fees imposed by this chapter do not
preclude other potential civil actions or criminal prosecution under any other provision of law.
Section 2.02.080. Enforcement of Chapter
This ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to 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 days after its passage, with the names of the supervisors voting for and
against the same, in the MARIN INDEPENDENT ,JOURNAL, a newspaper of general circulation
published in the county of Marin. (Ord. 3462 § 1 (part), 2006)
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Marin held on this 2"d day of June, 2009 by the following vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS Susan L. Adams, Steve Kinsey, Charles McGlashan,
Judy Arnold, Harold C. Brown, Jr.
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
PRESIDENT, BOA F SUPERVISORS
ATTEST:
CLERK
Page 5 of 5 Ordinance No. 3519
[C~,a@
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MARIN COUNTY
FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES PLEDGE*
I BELIEVE:
• Voters benefit when candidates discuss the issues rather than engage in
personal attacks.
• Negative campaign tactics distort the truth and increase voter apathy.
• Negative campaign tactics damage the election process and, ultimately,
our democratic system of government.
• Negative campaigning discourages qualified people from running for public
office.
THEREFORE I PLEDGE:
• that my campaign for public office will be free of misrepresentations of the
facts or of the positions or arguments of opposing candidates, without
giving up the right to fairly criticize the records, policies, positions,
statements, or tactics of the opposing candidates.
• that my campaign will be free of statements that are misleading because of
omission of the essential facts or of inferences that are not true.
• that my campaign will be free of personal character attacks, whispering
campaigns and anonymous mailers, emails or telephone calls.
• that my campaign will be free of appeals to negative prejudices based on
race, gender, religion, national origin, physical health, age or sexual
orientation.
• that my campaign will immediately and publicly repudiate any methods,
tactics or statements against a candidate by groups supporting my
candidacy that are not in accord with these guidelines.
• that my campaign will identify those responsible for my campaign
advertising and literature.
Signature
Date
*Based on the California Fair Campaign Practices Code. The names of elected officials and
candidates signing the pledge will be publicized through the League of Women Voters Marin
County's media outreach. Please sign and mail the pledge to League of Women Voters of Marin
County, 4340 Redwood Highway, Suite F 108, San Rafael, CA 94903
DIGEST
DIGEST
~ 7
T
-lar~.n County Civil Grand. J urn
r~
ti
June 3, 2009
Mayor Alice Fredericks
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Grand Jury Report-Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force
Dear Mayor Fredericks:
Enclosed please find a copy of the above report. Please note that Penal Code Section 933.05(f)
specifically prohibits disclosure of the contents of this report by a public agency or its officers or
governing body prior to its release to the public, which will occur three days after the date of this
letter.
The Grand Jury requests that you respond in writing to the Findings and Recommendations
contained in the report pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05 (copy enclosed). The Penal Code
is specific as to the format of responses. The enclosed Response to the Grand Jury Report Form
should be used.
Governing bodies should be aware that the comment or response from the governing body must
be conducted in accordance with Penal Code Section 933(c) and subject to the notice, agenda,
and open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. The Brown Act requires that any
action of a public entity governing board occur only at a noticed and agendized meeting.
The Penal Code is also specific about the deadline for responses. You are required to submit one
hard copy of your response to the Grand Jury within 90 days to each of the following:
The Honorable Verna Adams
Marin County Superior Court
P.O. Box 4988
San Rafael, CA 94913-4988
Jeff Skov, Foreperson
Marin County Civil Grand Jury
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275
San Rafael, CA 94903
Responses are public records. The clerk of the public agency affected must maintain a copy of
your response. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 415-492-8589, or at the
address on this letterhead.
Sincefely,
Je-ff-9kov, Foreperson
2008-2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures: Penal Code Sec. 933.05; Penal Code Sec. 933; Response to Grand Jury Report
Form 11
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275, San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel.-415-499-6132
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM
Report Title:
Report Date:
Response by:
By:
FINDINGS
■ I (we) agree with the findings numbered:
■ 1 (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered:
(Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are
disputed; include an explanation of the reasons therefor.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
■ Recommendations numbered have been
implemented.
(Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.)
■ Recommendations numbered have not yet been
implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
(Attach a timeframe for the implementation.)
■ Recommendations numbered require further analysis.
(Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or
study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by
the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the 'public agency when
applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury report.)
■ Recommendations numbered will not be implemented
because they are not warranted or are not reasonable.
(Attach an explanation.)
Date: Signed:
Number of pages attached
Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force
June 3, 2009
Town of Tiburon
Response Form
§ 933.05. Responses to Findings
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding
person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response
shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the
reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented
action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,
with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed,
including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not
exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel
matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or
department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury,
but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel
matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected
agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations
affecting his or her agency or department.
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the
purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that
person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation
regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request
of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report
relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the
approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a
public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final
report.
(Added by Stats.1996, c.1170 (S.B.1457), § 1. Amended by Stats.1997, c.443 (A.B.829), §5.)
California Penal Code
933. (a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding J 'ud e of the
f nal report of its findings and recommendations that pertain superior court a
matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject
may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at an ti
the term of service of a grand fury. A final re ort ma y me during
responsible officers, agencies, or p y be submitted for comment to
departments, including the county board of
supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge e that
in compliance with this title. For 45 days after the g ~ 'g the report is
end of the term, the foreperson
and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to c
recommendations of the report. clarify the
(b) One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto
be in compliance with this title shall be laced on file ~ found to
p e with the clerk of the court
and remain on file in the office of the clerk. The clerk shall immediately forward a
copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that
report and all responses in perpetuity. at
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on t
operations of any public agency subject to its review' he
body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior
court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body, and every elected county officer or ntrol
the grand fury has responsibility pursuant to Y agency head for which
Y p Section 914.1 shall comment within
60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information
to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations e copy sent
matters under the control of that county officer or agency p pertaining to
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and
county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All
these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to th of
the superior court who impaneled the rand ' the presiding fudge of
fury reports shall be laced on f grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
p file with the clerk of the public agency and the
office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain
in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with on file
final report by, and in the control the applicable grand fury
of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it
shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.
(d) As used in this section "agency" includes a department.
I/
2008-2009 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force
June 3, 2009
N
I
SUMMARY
Merin County Civil Grand Jury
For more than 30 years, the Marin Major Crimes Task Force has worked as a specialized
undercover unit comprised of highly trained investigators who focus on drug-related
crimes throughout the county. The Task Force assists local law enforcement agencies in
major investigations and arrests.
The results of its investigations are impressive. In 2007 and 2008, the Task Force made
119 arrests and seized drugs with a street value of $8.5 million. It confiscated handguns,
rifles, shotguns and automatic weapons, along with approximately $451,000 in suspected
drug money. Law enforcement officials are convinced that reducing drug traffic in the
county also reduces property crimes such as burglaries of homes, stores, cars and schools.
They believe about half of these crimes are drug-related.
Funding of the Task Force is accomplished through a joint powers agreement between
the county and its municipalities, and is supplemented by a share of funds from property
seized during drug arrests. When the Grand Jury began looking into the operation of the
Task Force in the fall of 2008, there was a distinct possibility that the unit might be
disbanded or severely cut in size. The City of Novato was facing a budget crisis and had
decided to withdraw in order to cut costs. San Rafael had withdrawn its support in 2003
for similar reasons. Without funding from the two largest cities in the county, costs for
the remaining communities would be prohibitive.
In recent years, the Task Force has included six investigators, a field supervisor and a
lieutenant, all supplied by the Sheriff s Department. The staffing has been supplemented
by an independently funded three-member probation enforcement team that monitors
high-risk narcotics offenders who are on probation. That team includes one sheriffs
sergeant, one deputy sheriff and a San Rafael police officer.,
Recently the Sheriff has proposed reducing the number of Task Force members his
department contributes. Additionally, Novato has reconsidered its withdrawal from the
Task Force and plans to assign a police officer to the unit. Novato's participation is
subject to city council approval.
The Sheriff proposes to reduce his department's staffing by two investigators and one
sergeant. He suggests that the investigators be replaced by one officer supplied by the
California Highway Patrol and another by the Novato Police Department. These steps
would result in a 9 percent reduction in the current costs for the balance of fiscal year
2009 and a 38 percent reduction in costs for all jurisdictions for the new fiscal year,
which begins July 1, 2009.
June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 1 of 10
Saving Marin's Maior Crimes Task FnrcP
Additionally, the City of San Rafael has been crunching the numbers to determine if it
could contribute an investigator and financial support to the unit. If it did contribute, the
Task Force would require less funding by the other municipalities and the county.
In April 2009, the county-wide committee that oversees the Task Force approved the
Sheriff's plan, which now needs to be approved by members of the joint powers
agreement. Those approvals should be acted upon before the start of the new fiscal year
on July 1, 2009.
The Grand Jury recommends that the cities, towns and County of Marin move forward
with these proposals to reorganize the Task Force and reduce its cost while maintaining
the essential elements of its drug-fighting mission.
The San Rafael Chief of Police has told the City Council that he cannot spare an officer
for the Task Force and that, if the city were to rejoin the joint powers agreement, its
contribution should be purely financial. The Grand Jury believes that the City of San
Rafael, by not participating in the Task Force joint powers agreement, is not fulfilling its
responsibility in the overall major crime-fighting effort in the county. As it stands now,
San Rafael benefits from the efforts of the Task Force without contributing its share.
BACKGROUND
The Major Crimes Task Force was formed in 1977 at the recommendation of the Marin
County Police Chiefs' Association. It was a cooperative effort linking Marin's I 1
municipalities and the county in a joint powers agreement to provide a central
investigative unit capable of crossing jurisdictional boundaries in the detection,
apprehension and prosecution of highly mobile criminals. The Task Force was intended
to supplement the efforts of local law enforcement by providing expertise, investigative
assistance and the ability to conduct undercover operations.
The Task Force works under the direction of an oversight committee comprised of city
managers, county officials, police chiefs and an appointed citizen. The committee meets
quarterly.
Prior to July 1993, officers from the various participating agencies staffed the Task
Force. Since then, it has been staffed exclusively by sheriff s personnel.
Salaries of Task Force personnel are funded by participating municipalities and the
county based on a formula keyed to population and assessed values of property. For
example, Novato in 2008 provided $193,849 while Fairfax provided $25,738. The size
of the Task Force has fluctuated over time, but typically it has averaged five to six
investigators, a sergeant and a lieutenant. Representatives from the California Highway
Patrol and federal agencies have been added when needed.
June 3, zuuy Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 10
Saving Mann's Major Crimes Task Force
The focus of the Task Force over the years has evolved to narcotics investigations
because, as one Task Force member said, "Drugs are a fundamental part of most criminal
behavior, and our quality of life is impacted by drug-related crime." He said that all
neighborhoods are affected by the drug trade, adding, "Drug users need money for their
habit and frequently will focus on the more affluent neighborhoods to commit burglary,
auto theft and robberies."
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury interviewed sheriffs personnel, chiefs of police, mayors and members of
the oversight committee. Members of the Grand Jury rode with Task Force investigators
to observe their operations. The Grand Jury searched the Internet and local newspapers
for articles to track Task Force operations, major cases and arrests, and drew upon the
statistical information regarding criminal activity from local law enforcement agencies.
DISCUSSION
The objectives of the Task Force are to:
• Provide investigative assistance to local law enforcement agencies.
• Coordinate drug enforcement investigations with local, state and federal agencies.
0 Reduce drug trafficking by targeting dealers and suppliers.
• Detect, apprehend and prosecute individuals involved in major crimes.
The mission of the Task Force is to ensure "that the citizens of Marin shall live in a
narcotic-free community."
Financial contributions from the county and municipalities pay for the operation of the
Task Force. Fifty percent comes from the county, and 50 percent from other participating
jurisdictions. In fiscal year 2009, the total amounted to $1.2 million, an increase of
approximately $100,000 from the previous fiscal year. Some of the operating costs are
funded by seized assets of those arrested in drug-related investigations.
The Mann Superior Court determines whether seized assets and property can be turned
over to the Task Force.
State law allows some money and property seized in drug investigations to be turned over
to law enforcement agencies for use in crime-fighting activities. Some of the qualifying
offenses include possession of narcotics for sale, sales and transport of narcotics and
manufacturing of drugs. Monies are distributed only after a conviction for a qualifying
offense, and if a judge orders the distribution. Should a case be settled for a non-
qualifying charge or if there is no conviction, the assets must be returned. In some years,
seized assets were a key aspect of the funding of the Task Force. Generally, however
they have been an unreliable source. Forfeiture funds distributed to the Task Force
totaled $27,809 in 20®6 and $1,011 in 2007.
June 3, 2009 Mann County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 10
Savine Mann's Mainr C'rimPC Taclr Fr
The following chart shows how asset forfeiture funds have fluctuated from year to year:
While Marin County has a relatively low crime rate, property crime is a continuing
problem.
The California Department of Justice reports that in 2006, the latest year for which
statistics are available, Marin County had 196 robberies, 1,354 burglaries of homes and
businesses, and 822 thefts from motor vehicles. There were 21575 incidents of petty theft
(under $400 value), and 1,199 incidents of grand theft (more than $400 value). Police
chiefs interviewed by the Grand Jury estimated that about half of the property crimes
were drug-related.
Drug use in Marin County
According to police, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and other illicit drugs
have been popular in Marin for many years, affecting people of all ages. The Task Force
in 2007 and 2008.seized 37670 marijuana plants and 67 pounds of processed marijuana;
5.25 pounds of methamphetamine; 5,655 tablets of ecstasy; 12.6 pounds of cocaine;
4,499 doses of LSD; 265 tablets of OxyContin; and a small amount of GHB, the date rape
drug. See the Glossary at the end of this report for a brieHescription of drugs
confiscated in Marin.
Although most of the Task Force's work is concentrated on low- and mid-level drug
dealers, some of the operations have produced very large results. During late 2007 and
early 2008, the Task Force was involved in a narcotics case that started in West Marin
and ended in the Modesto-Turlock area. That multi jurisdictional investigation yielded
more than 100 pounds of methamphetamine, three vehicles, five handguns and $60,000.
It resulted in 21 arrests. The street value of 100 pounds of uncut methamphetamine is
$4.5 million.
June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 10
- ud`G Approximately
Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force
Arrests of dealers often uncover evidence of other crimes. One investigation ended with
the arrest of a Novato couple for street sales of OxyContin. A search of their residence
yielded 150 oxycodone pills (the generic form of OxyContin), a quarter pound of
marijuana, and $4,000 in cash. The couple's four children were removed from the
dwelling by Child Protective Services due to the presence of the drugs.
Early this year, the Task Force obtained a search warrant for a condominium in Novato
where a known dealer lived. In addition to items listed in the warrant, the officers found
computers and other electronic equipment stolen in burglaries from schools and homes
throughout the county. A Task Force spokesperson said that during searches related to
drug investigations it is not uncommon to recover stolen property, including automobiles
and auto parts, as well as evidence of such other crimes as mail theft.
In December 2007, the Task Force first encountered a relatively new drug known as
Molly, which is a form of ecstasy. This drug, growing in popularity among Marin's
young adults, alters one's perception. The Task Force has made six arrests in the county
for possession of Molly, which sells for as much as $2,000 per ounce. A sheriff's
spokesperson told a reporter that Mann appears to be the focus of the Molly business in
the Bay Area.
Task Force investigations during 2007 and 2008 resulted in 71 search warrants, 119
arrests, $450,952 in seized cash, and seized drugs with a total value of $8.4 million. A
number of handguns, rifles, shotguns and fully automatic weapons were also seized.
A valuable weapon against crime
Statistics alone do not show many of the benefits of drug enforcement, such as the impact
on property crimes. Frequently when the Task Force serves a search warrant, it finds
stolen property and evidence of other crimes. The Grand Jury repeatedly heard that if
there were no Task Force, the county would see an increase in property crimes and more
narcotics activity, including more open-air sales of drugs.
An official from a small police department, who has been in Marin law enforcement for
more than 30 years, views the Task Force as an "insurance policy" for his town. From
his perspective, the Task Force is essential because his department does not have the
staffing to attack major crime. If there were a major investigation to be conducted, he
would call on the Task Force.
The Task Force also provides educational value to the community. Its members
frequently speak about Marin's drug problem at schools, homeowner association
meetings, parent/teacher sessions and other forums. Their presentations include displays
of confiscated drugs whose appearance is probably unfamiliar to most Marin residents, as
well as candid discussions of the ways these substances affect the lives of users, from
long-time addicts to young, middle class experimenters.
June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 10
Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force
Efforts to reorganize the Task Force
In 2003, San Rafael, the largest city in Marin, opted out of the Task Force, and removed
itself from the joint powers agreement. This was done largely because of the rising cost
of participating in the Task Force. Novato, facing a $2.2 million deficit in its city budget,
decided in early 2009 to follow San Rafael's lead and withdraw from Task Force
funding.
In an interview with the Grand Jury, a member of the Task Force Oversight Committee
said that the economics of the Task Force operation had become untenable and that
scaling down the number of officers and returning to a multi jurisdictional staffing
approach might be the best solution to maintaining the unit. He said that without San
Rafael and Novato participating, there would be no way the other cities and towns of
Mann could pick up the cost.
In an effort to maintain the Task Force and make it more affordable for the various
jurisdictions, the Sheriff proposed a reduction in the number of his personnel in the unit.
At the same time, the California Highway Patrol offered to donate an officer to the Task
Force. With this reorganization and the inclusion of a Novato officer would come a
9 percent cost reduction to the municipalities for the remainder of fiscal year 2009 and a
38 percent reduction for the next fiscal year. This led officials in Novato to reconsider
participation in the Task Force, by contributing one investigator to the team. In addition
to this basic staffing, the Task Force would continue to be augmented by the
three-member probation enforcement team.
The Grand Jury learned that San Rafael officials had been considering a similar
contribution of one investigator. However, the San Rafael police chief told the City
Council in April that he could not spare an officer for assignment to the Task Force. If
San Rafael were to rejoin the joint powers agreement, its participation should be strictly
financial, he said.
The Grand Jury believes that the City of San Rafael should see the importance of re-
joining the Task Force, since much of the county's drug-related activity occurs in that
city. One Task Force member told the Grand Jury that most of Mann's drug activity
occurs in the cities of San Rafael and Novato. San Rafael should participate and share
the costs involved in fighting drug-related crime.
Where is the Task Force headed?
On April 13, 2009, the Task Force Oversight Committee adopted a 2009-2010 budget
that represents more than a one-third reduction from the current budget. The committee
also approved the Sheriffs restructuring plan. In addition, the Novato Police Department
has agreed to supply an investigator-subject to approval by the City Council. Novato's
cash contribution would be reduced to approximately $39,000.
June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 10
Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force
The Oversight Committee's recommendation now goes to all participating law
enforcement agencies for approval, then to local governmental bodies and the Board of
Supervisors for budget approval.
Staffing of the 2009-2010 Task Force would include a sheriff s lieutenant, a sheriff's
sergeant (who would oversee the Task Force and the probation enforcement team), three
sheriffs deputies, one Novato officer and one Highway Patrol officer.
The Oversight Committee told the Grand Jury it hopes the City of San Rafael will rejoin
the Task Force. That would further reduce the costs to the other governmental bodies.
The Task Force appears to be moving forward. The Grand Jury recommends that each
community in the county shoulder its share of responsibility_for_the Task Force, both
through staffing and funding. Economic times are difficult; but placing funding of the
Task Force high on the priority list is important, since all communities benefit from its
investigative services. We recommend that each city and town council, as well as the
Board of Supervisors, approve the Sheriffs proposal in order to retain the effectiveness
and existence of the Task Force.
FINDINGS
The Grand Jury finds that:
Fl. The Marin Major Crimes Task Force has been in successful operation since 1977,
focusing in recent years on drug-related crimes in the county.
F2. At first, the Task Force was staffed with investigators supplied by the participating
law enforcement agencies. More recently, the staff has come solely from the Sheriffs
Office, while funding has come from municipalities and the county.
F3. Law enforcement officials believe that half of all property crimes committed in
Marin are attributable to the sale and use of drugs.
F4. Due to budget constraints, cities are having increasing difficulty. funding the Task
Force, with San Rafael having withdrawn its financial support and Novato announcing its
planned withdrawal.
F5. The withdrawal of Task Force funding by communities would impede drug
enforcement in Marin County.
F6. The Task Force is a much-needed unit that benefits the entire county.
F7. The reduction in the number of sheriffs deputies and the inclusion of investigators
from other agencies, as well as the California Highway Patrol would provide a sound
solution to the funding issue.
June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 10
Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force
F8. Since 2003, the City of San Rafael has not financially supported the operation of the
Task Force, even though much of the county's drug crime occurs within its jurisdiction.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recommends that:
R1. The Task Force continue to function as a cohesive unit, with investigators being
supplied from the ranks of the Sheriff's Department, the California Highway Patrol, the
Novato Police Department, the San Rafael Police Department and supplemented by the
three-member probation enforcement team.
R2. The County and all municipalities support the Task Force by funding the joint
powers agreement.
R3. The City of San Rafael return to its participation in the Task Force.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses from the following:
• The Marin County Board of Supervisors, all cities and towns, and the Sheriff to
F17 F21 F31P F4, F5, F67 F7, and R1 and R2.
• City of San Rafael to all Findings and Recommendations.
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or,response of
the governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code Section 933 (c)
and subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown
Act.
California Penal Code Section 933 (c) states that "...the governing body of the public
agency shall comment to the presiding judge on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body." Further, the Ralph M.
Brown Act requires that any action of a public entity governing board occur at a noticed
and agendized public meeting.
The Grand Jury invites a response from:
• The Mann County Major Crimes Task Force Oversight Committee to all
Findings and Recommendations.
• The Mann County Chiefs of Police Association to all Findings and
Recommendations.
June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 10
Saving Marin's Maior Crimes Task Force
GLOSSARY
This glossary is intended to inform the reader about drugs found in Marin County, as well
as the effects the user may experience.
Cocaine is a highly addictive central nervous system stimulant extracted from the leaves
of the coca plant. In its most common form, cocaine is a whitish crystalline powder that
produces feelings of euphoria when ingested. It is also known as LCcoke," "blow, " LCC, 71
"flake," "snow" and "toot." It is most commonly inhaled through the nose or "snorted,"
but can be dissolved in water and injected.
Crack is a smokable form of cocaine that produces an immediate and more intense high.
It comes in off-white chunks or chips called "rocks." Little crumbs of crack are
sometimes called "kibble & bits."
Crystal Meth is a form of methamphetamine. Crystal Meth is almost instantly addictive.
See Methamphetamme.
Ecstasy is a hallucinogen and produces stimulant effects like amphetamine. It is also
called MDMA and "the feel-good drug." Mostly found in pill form, ecstasy eliminates
anxiety and suppresses the need to eat and sleep.
GHB (Date Rape Drug) is a degreasing solvent or floor stripper mixed with drain
cleaner. GHB is a clear liquid that looks like water. Large doses can lead to death.
Heroin is white or dark brown in color, odorless, and a bitter crystalline compound
derived from morphine, and is highly addictive. It is three times as potent as morphine. It
is injected intravenously for its fastest effect on the brain. It is a central nervous system
depressant and produces a dreamlike state of warmth and well-being. Heroin produces
both physiological and psychological addictions.
Ketamine is an odorless, tasteless drug that is found in liquid, pill or powder form. It
distorts sounds and sensations and makes users feel detached from reality. Sensations
range from feelings of floating to being separated from the_ body, which in some cases
have been described as near-death experiences.
Khat are leaves from East African trees chewed for their stimulating effects such as
euphoria, and can produce mild to moderate psychological dependence.
Marijuana is a member of the cannabis sativa family and is also known as Indian hemp.
Marijuana is a somewhat weedy plant, and is also called "weed,'' "pot" and "grass." The
narcotic ingredients allegedly have stimulating effects. After smoking, the user often has
a feeling of well-being. Excessive amounts of the drug can lead to hallucinations and
disorientation. ,
June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 10
Saving Mann's Mainr CrimPC Tnclr F
Methamphetamine is a central nervous system stimulant used both medically and
illicitly. It can be taken orally, intranasally (snorting), by injection or by smoking.
Effects can include chest pain, changes in vision, fast or irregular heartbeat, and loss of
contact with reality.
Molly is a form of ecstasy. It is commonly known as a drug that is one molecule shy of
ecstasy, and produces altered senses of time, perception and self-esteem.
OxyContin is a narcotic (Oxycodone) analgesic used to treat patients who have moderate
to severe pain that requires continuous treatment for an extended period of time. It is a
central nervous system depressant and must legally be obtained with a physician's
prescription.
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that
reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of anv person who
provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions
of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil
Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury
investigation.
June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 10
DIGEST RECEIVED
• JUN 1 1 2009
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Marin County
Department of Parks and Open Space
3M Civic Center Drive fQ60. San Ralbel. CA 94003 (4151499-63J7
Contact: Elise Holland
Planning and Resources Chief
(415) 507-2820
June 3, 2009
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
Open Space District Hosts Public Meeting on
Vegetation and Biodiversity Management Plan
June 23, 2009
6:30 to 8:30 pm
Board of Supervisor's Chambers, Room 320, Marin Civic Center
The Marin County Open Space District has begun an effort to develop a Vegetation and
Biodiversity Management Plan to reduce fire risk and to protect native species and habitats on its
34 open space preserves. The first in a series of public meetings concerning the plan will be held
on Tuesday June 23, 2009, 6:30 to 8:30 pm, at the Marin County Civic Center (Board of
Supervisors Chambers), in San Rafael.
According to Planning and Resource Chief Elise Holland, the project is the Open Space
District's most significant and far reaching land stewardship initiative in its 37 year history. The
District is undertaking this important effort in partnership with local fire departments because of
the close proximity of Marin's communities to District wildlands. The goals of the plan include
reducing the risk of wildfire on open space, preserving native plant communities, and reducing
populations of exotic species and weeds.
For more information, please contact Mischon Martin, Natural Resource Program Manager
at (415) 507-2056.