HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgr 1999-06-16 (Connally)T
TOWN OF TIBUkON
t
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD • TIBURON • CALIFORNIA 94920 • (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
June 18, 1999
Addressees: Attached list of parties to Connally v. Main Street Properties
Re: Connally et al. v. Main Street Tiburon Business
Case No. C95 00875 SBA
Counsel:
I am pleased to inform you that on June 16, 1999, the Town Council approved the Settlement
Agreement. This approval included a $10,000 increase in the Town's contribution to the Main
Street project, as requested by the property owner defendants.
The Agreement provides that it may be executed in counterparts. Accordingly, I am sending each
party a duplicate original. Please have your clients sign the document where indicated, with your
approval as to form and forward the originals to Mr. Frankovich with a copy to me.
Mr. Frankovich should send me a copy of the agreement signed by the plaintiffs and himself.
After I have copies with the signatures of all parties, the Town will prepare a check for the
Town's contribution of $70,000.
The Agreement provides that the Town will advance its contribution of $70,000 to the defendant
property owners, Mr. Zelinsky, Ms. Abrams, the Purdys and Jon Won, to assist in the payment of
the plaintiffs' compensatory damages and attorneys fees. To streamline the process, the Town
will pay the money directly to Mr. Frankovich upon receiving a written request to do so from the
defendant property owners. Attorneys for the defendant property owners may make this request
by signing where indicated below and returning this letter to me.
Very truly yours,
Ann R. Danforth
Town Attorney
Enclosures
cc: Mayor and Town Council (without enclosure)
Robert L. Kleinert, Town Manager (without enclosure)
Patrick M. Venn, Hanson Brid$re=tt ~Marcus & Vlahos (without enclosure)
On behalf of )41[41by\ owner a end
(property ant request that the Town advance its
c tribution to t e Main S eet project of $70,000 directly to Mr. Frankovich.
. t
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASE
This Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release ("Agreement") is entered into
as of , 1999, between PATRICK CONNALLY and DONALD STICKEL
("Plaintiffs"); EDWARD ZELINSKY, BARBARA ABRAMS; EDWIN PURDY AND NANCY
PURDY as trustees for the Purdy Family Trust; JON WON; TIBURON TONDAMS, a California
Corporation; JOHN ROONEY, and BEVERLY CHARTON (collectively, "Owner-Defendants"); and
the Town of Tiburon, a municipal corporation ("Town").
RECITALS
1. Owner-Defendants are owners of property and/or businesses located on Main Street
in Tiburon, California, in the downtown area, as set forth in Exhibit A ("Subject Properties"). The
block on which all of these properties are located is approximately 350 - 390 feet long. The right
of way on this block is 40 feet wide. The sidewalks fronting the Owner-Defendants' properties are
owned by the Town and are five feet wide. The lanes of travel within the right of way are 30 feet
wide. Main Street was constructed in the late 1880's. Most of the properties fronting Main Street
were also developed in the 1880's. However, many of the original structures were damaged or
destroyed in a 1921 fire. Accordingly, the structures currently fronting Main Street primarily date
from either the 1880's or the 1920's. In addition to being the primary thoroughfare for the Town's
historic downtown area, Main Street is a primary means of access for citizens of the Town and of the
City of Belvedere ("City") living in the Corinthian Island area.
2. The Town is the owner of the right of way fronting the properties of Owner-
Defendants and must approve any encroachment therein. In addition, any external modification of
the improvements on Owner-Defendants' properties requires Site Plan and Architectural Review by
the Town.
3. Plaintiffs are each "physically handicapped persons" or "individuals with disabilities"
requiring the use of a wheelchair to travel in public places. Plaintiffs cannot use stairs.
4. On March 15, 1995, Plaintiffs filed Connally et al v Main Street Tiburon Businesses
et al., Case No. C-95-00875 SBA., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California charging that Owner-Defendants and various other property and business owners had failed
to provide wheelchair access to their establishments as required by state and federal law.
5. As a result of the filing the Connally litigation, the Owner-Defendants and several
other defendants filed encroachment applications with the Town, requesting permission to construct
wheelchair ramps on the Town's sidewalks. On March 6, 1996, the Town granted one of the
applications. However, the remaining applications were denied as infeasible.
MAINSTADA4.SET
c
6. The Owner-Defendants have contended that it would create an economic hardship to
construct the necessary accessibility improvements on their own properties. Accordingly, after their
applications to place ramps on the Town's sidewalks were denied, the Owner-Defendants asked the
Town to consider what improvements to the street and/or sidewalk that the Town would allow to
facilitate access to the subject properties for persons in wheelchairs. Plaintiffs and Owner-Defendants
have argued that the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U. S.C.A. 12101 et seq., requires the Town
to permit modifications to its right of way for the purpose of providing wheelchair access to their
properties.
7. In response to the Owner-Defendants' request, the Town held a series of workshops
and meetings beginning in 1996, after the Town denied the ramp applications by the Owner-
Defendants and concluding in September of 1998. Because of Main Street's importance to residents
of both the Town and the City, the Town Council formed a joint task force with the City to consider
modifications to the Town's right of way that would allow the Owner-Defendants to provide
wheelchair access to the Subject Properties.
8. The joint task force submitted to the Council a final report dated August 27, 19981
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On September 16, 1998, the Council held a public
hearing on the report and determined that its preferred option was Alternative B. Accordingly, the
improvements referred by this Agreement as the Project intended to facilitate creating wheelchair
access to the Subject Properties are those improvements described in concept as Alternative B.
9. On November 16, 1998, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("Complaint")
naming the Town as a defendant, alleging that in denying the ramp applications of the Owner-
Defendants, the Town had failed to make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices and
procedures to provide access to public accommodations. The Complaint also named Harry Matthews
in his official capacity as Mayor of the Town and Mogens Bach, Tom Gram, Terry Hennessy and
Andrew Thompson, in their official capacities as members of the Town Council of the Town.
Accordingly, hereafter in this Agreement, "Town" shall include the aforesaid named Mayor and
Councilmembers.
10. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary litigation and to achieve the benefits of
increased accessibility-to persons with disabilities, the Plaintiffs, Owner-Defendants and Tovm desire
to settle the aforementioned litigation on the terms set forth in this agreement. On June 16, 1999, the
Town Council considered the proposed settlement adopted Resolution No. 3335, which is set forth
in Exhibit C and which approved this Agreement and authorized the Mayor to execute this Agreement
on behalf of the Town.
AGREEMENT
The Plaintiffs, Owner-Defendants and the Town in consideration of the mutual
covenants of the Agreement, hereby agree to the following terms and conditions:
MAINSTADA4.SET
2
1. The Town shall process and approve the implementation of Alternative B ("Project") as set
forth in this Agreement.
2. The total Project cost is estimated to be $310,000. This is a preliminary, estimate only. The
Town will contribute $70,000 to the cost of the Project and will take such action as is
necessary to formally appropriate such funds. The City has agreed to pay an additional
$60,000, as described in Exhibit C. The Owner-Defendants will cooperate with the Town in
the formation of a benefit assessment district to fund the balance of the actual Project cost,
as provided by law and this Agreement ("District").
A. The District's boundaries shall be as described in Exhibit D. However, the boundaries
of the District shall be modified to exclude the property commonly known as the site
of the Guaymas restaurant provided that Owner-Defendants Zelinsky and Abrams can
obtain the consent thereto of eighty percent of all other members of the District. The
boundaries of the District shall be modified to exclude the property commonly known
as the site of the Tutto Mare restaurant provided that Owner-Defendants Zelinsky and
Abrams can obtain the consent thereto of all other members of the District. The
parties to this Agreement hereby consent to the exclusion of both properties.
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subparagraph A, the properties known as the sites
of the Guaymas and Tutto Mare restaurants shall be included in the District as
provided below:
1. In the event that the cost of the Project exceeds $350,000 both properties shall
be included in the District so as to bear their share of the increased cost.
2. In the event that either of the properties is found to have caused or
contributed to unforeseen conditions that arise during the Project, which
conditions must be corrected or repaired at the District's expense, said
property or property shall be added to the District so as to bear the increased
cost to the extent caused or contributed by said property or properties.
3. The Town will take the steps necessary to form the District, subject to reimbursement as set
forth in this Agreement. The Owner-Defendants will not object to the formation of the
District.
A. The Town will retain a District Engineer. The District Engineer will be responsible
for Project Design and Engineering; and will develop a total Project cost estimate
("Engineer's Estimate"). The District Engineer will also determine the amount of
economic benefit that each property in the District will realize from the Project. The
District Engineer will allocate assessments among the properties in the District
according to the benefit that each property will receive. The properties owned by the
MAINSTADA4.SET 3
Owner-Defendants listed in Paragraph 9A shall bear certain additional assessments as
set forth in this Agreement.
B. The Town will proceed with environmental review and final approval of the Project.
These actions will involve the use of both outside environmental consultants and
Town staff.
C. All funds necessary to design, process, construct and complete the Project will be
provided by the District except for the Contributions provided by the Town and the
City of Belvedere. To the extent that formation of the District requires expenditures
before the District is formed and able to sell bonds, the Town shall advance the
necessary funds, but such payments shall be chargeable to the Project. The Project
will not be charged for the time of Town staff but will be charged for the costs of such
outside consultants as the Town in its sole discretion finds appropriate to retain to
assist in the review and processing of the Project. Prior to the start of Project
Construction, the District will reimburse the Town for the funds advanced under this
paragraph.
D. The Total Estimated Project Cost shall be the sum of the Engineer's Estimate, a ten
percent construction contingency, Project Monitoring Cost (as defined in Paragraph B
of this Agreement), the costs associated with the District's formation, project design
and environmental review and supervision of Project construction by the Town
Engineer. The District will sell bonds sufficient to fund the Total Estimated Project
Cost, less the City's Contribution of $60,000.
E. Within 30 days of the date of this Agreement, the Town will advance its Contribution
of $70,000 as a loan to be used for partial payment of the compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs specified in Paragraphs 9.A and 9.13. This will raise the
amount of Project costs that must be funded by the District under Paragraph 3 by
$70,000. In consideration for the advance of the Town's contributions, the Owner-
Defendants agree that the assessments required to finance this increase will be borne
solely by the properties in the District belonging to the Owner-Defendants listed in
Paragraphs 9.A and 9.B.
F. The Project Monitoring Cost, to be paid as set forth in Paragraph 9, is a cost of the
Project and shall be paid by the District. Within 30 days of the sale of the District
bonds, the District shall reimburse the Owner- Defendants listed in Paragraphs 9.A
and 9.B for their payment of the Project Monitoring Cost. Said Owner-Defendants
acknowledge that this element of the Project is for the bene ~t of their properties and
will increase the amount that must be raised by the District by $35,000. Accordingly,
said Owner-Defendants agree that the assessments needed to finance this increase will
be borne solely by the properties in the District belonging to said Owner-Defendants.
MAMSTADA4.SET 4
4. After the Project receives final approval pursuant to Paragraph 2 of this Agreement and the
District funds are available for use, the construction of the Project shall proceed as set forth
herein.
A The Town shall advertise for bids to construct the Project. The Town shall award the
contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder as required by state law and
local ordinance. Bid opening shall be timed so as- to allow construction of the Project
to begin at the earliest practical date. In light of the heavy traffic experienced in the
Project area during the summer, the earliest practical date would be either the early
spring or late summer. In any event, Project construction shall be timed so as to allow
completion before the traffic levels increase in May or in the late summer/early fall,
after the heavy summer traffic but before the rainy period begins.
B. In the event that as awarded, the contract price exceeds that the Engineer's Estimate,
the Town and the District shall raise further funds for the Project sufficient to create
a Construction Fund equal to the contract price plus a ten percent contingency
reserve. The Town's contribution to the shortfall shall be in the same proportion to
the shortfall as is $70,000 to the Total Estimated Project Cost.
C. The Town shall promptly award the Project contract after the District has raised any
funds required under subparagraph B. Having awarded the contract, the Town will
take all reasonable measures to ensure that the Project is completed as designed in a
timely fashion.
5. In the event that the Owner-Defendants fail to cooperate in the formation of the District as
required by this Agreement, the Town will take no further action until the Owner-Defendants
have deposited the funds necessary to complete the Project with the Town. If the Owner-
Defendants have failed to provide said funds for a period of more than 90 days, this
Agreement shall terminate.
6. The Town will implement the Project as a public works project, in the interests of efficiency
and public health and safety. The Owner-Defendants will cooperate fully with the
implementation--of the Project as a work done primarily for their benefit. Without limiting the
foregoing, it may be necessary to modify the property of the Owner-Defendants to protect
it from construction. The Owner-Defendants shall have ten days to review any such
modifications before they are implemented. If the Owner-Defendants fail to object to the
modifications within that time, they shall be deemed to have consented thereto and to have
waived any claims arising from said modifications.
7. The Project is limited to those improvements described in Alternative B. It does not include
additional improvements to the properties of the Owner-Defendants, if any, that may be
required to render them accessible in accordance with applicable law. Any such additional
requirements shall be subject to the normally applicable permit requirements.
MAINSTADA4.SET 5
8. In the event that the Project is not completed by November 1, 2001, or in the event of any
substantive breach of this Agreement, the parties hereby waive any statute of limitations
defense that may arise after the date of this Agreement and will allow Plaintiffs to refile an
action for equitable relief to make the public accommodations located on the Subject
Properties accessible. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall
constitute a waiver of any affirmative defenses, including any statute of limitations defense,
that may have existed on the date of this Agreement.
9. In addition to formation of the District and implementation of the Project as set forth in this
Agreement, the Defendants shall have the following responsibilities to Plaintiffs:
A. Owner-Defendants EDWARD ZELINSKY, BARBARA ABRAMS, EDWIN PURDY
AND NANCY PURDY as trustees for the Purdy Family Trust; and JON WON, as
the Owner-Operator of TIBURON TONfNIIES shall pay $15,000 in compensatory
damages, to be divided between the two Plaintiffs.
B. Plaintiffs have claimed $203,000 for attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses. In
settlement of this claim, Owner-Defendants EDWARD ZELINSKY, BARBARA
ABRAMS, EDWIN PURDY AND NANCY PURDY as trustees for the Purdy
Family Trust; and JON WON, as the Owner-Operator of TIBURON TOMNIIES shall
pay $90,000 and shall further assign certain rights as set forth in Paragraph 9C of this
Agreement. Of the $90,000 cash payment, $35,000 shall be for the cost of
monitoring the formation of the District and Project implementation ("Project
Monitoring Cost").
C. Owner-Defendants, EDWIN PURDY AND NANCY PURDY as trustees for the
Purdy Family Trust; JOHN ROONEY, and BEVERLY CHARTON will assign their
rights against their insurance carriers relating to this litigation to Plaintiffs' counsel.
Owner-Defendants EDWARD ZELINSKY and BARBARA ABRAMS will assign to
Plaintiffs' counsel any such rights that they may have in their tenants' insurance
policies as added insured.
D. Town-shall install a plaque in the Main Street sidewalk measuring 12 inches by 12
inches, inscribed as set forth in Exhibit E.
E. All payments required under this Paragraph 9 shall be made to Plaintiffs' counsel, as
identified on the signature page of this Agreement, within thirty days of the mailing
or delivery of this executed Agreement by Plaintiffs.
10. The Plaintiffs, the Owner-Defendants and the Town accept this Agreement in full settlement
and compromise of their litigation against each other and of any related claims of any kind,
including, without limitation, all demands, damages, bodily injury, emotional distress, actions
and causes of action of every kind and nature, including attorneys fees, costs, and litigation
expenses in any way related to the Complaint, known or unknown, existing, claimed to exist
MMNSTADA4.SET 6
or which can ever hereafter arise out of or result from or in connection with any and all acts
and omissions of the parties herein released from the beginning of time to and including the
date of this Agreement, including but not limited to the matters and things described in the
Complaint. Without limiting the foregoing, the Plaintiffs and the Owner-Defendants further
agree that this Agreement shall fully and forever discharge and release any and all claims and
causes of action, whether now known or now unknown, which the Plaintiffs have against the
Owner-Defendants, or which the Plaintiffs and the Owner-Defendants may have against the
Town arising out of the events, incidents or circumstances referred to in the Complaint,
including any claims for attorneys fees and costs.
To the extent that the Complaint contained any claim for bodily injuries and damages resulting
therefrom, Plaintiffs acknowledge that each has been fully advised and understands that said
injuries are of such character that the full extent and type of injuries are not known at the date
hereof and that each and every injury might not now be known and further understands that
said injuries, whether known or unknown at the date hereof might possibly become
progressively worse and that as a result thereof further damages may be sustained by
Plaintiffs; nevertheless, Plaintiffs desire by these presents to forever and fully release and
discharge the other parties to this Agreement and understands that by the execution of this
instrument no further claims may ever be asserted by Plaintiffs.
11. This Agreement includes an express waiver by all parties of Civil Code
Section 1542, which states: "A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by him must have materially-affected
his settlement with the debtor."
Edwin Purdy (init.) Nancy Purdy (init.)
Plaintiffs (init.)
Edwin Zelinsky (init.) n Won (init.) Beverly C arton
s
Barbara Abrams (init.) Tiburon Tommies (init.) Town of iburon (init.)
Mayor, Town of Tiburon
John Rooney
MAINSTADA4.SET 7
or which can ever hereafter arise out of or result from or in connection with any and all acts
and omissions of the parties herein released from the beginning of time to and including the
date of this Agreement, including but not limited to the matters and things described in the
Complaint. Without limiting the foregoing, the Plaintiffs and the Owner-Defendants further
agree that this Agreement shall fully and forever discharge and release any and all claims and
causes of action, whether now known or now unknown, which the Plaintiffs have against the
Owner-Defendants, or which the Plaintiffs and the Owner-Defendants may have against the
Town arising out of the events, incidents or circumstances referred to in the Complaint,
including any claims for attorneys fees and costs.
To the extent that the Complaint contained any claim for bodily injuries and damages resulting
therefrom, Plaintiffs acknowledge that each has been fully advised and understands that said
injuries are of such character that the full extent and type of injuries are not known at the date
hereof and that each and every injury might not now be known and further understands that
said injuries, whether known or unknown at the date hereof might possibly become
progressively worse and that as a result thereof further damages may be sustained by
Plaintiffs; nevertheless, Plaintiffs desire by these presents to forever and fully release and
discharge the other parties to this Agreement and understands that by the execution of this
instrument no further claims may ever be asserted by Plaintiffs.
11. This Agreement includes an express waiver by all parties of Civil Code
Section 1542, which states: "A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected
his settlement with the debtor."
Plaintiffs (init.)
Edwin Zelinsky (init.)
Barbara Abrams (init.)
John Rooney
Edwin Purdy (init.)
Jon Won (init.)
Tiburon Tommies (init.)
Nancy Purdy (init.)
Beverly Charton
Town of Tiburon (init.)
Mayor, Town of Tiburon
MAINSTADA4. SET 7
AW 30 '99 12:13PM FENWICK-WEST
P. Z:-3
or which can ever hereafter arise out of or result from or in connection with any and all acts
and omissions of the parties herein released from the beginning of time to and including the
date of this Agreement, including but not limited to the matters and things described in the
Complaint. Without limiting the foregoing, the Plaintiffs and the owner-Defendants fijrther
agree that this Agreement shall fully and forever discharge and release any axed all claims and
causes of action, whether now known or now unknown, which the Plaintiffs have against the
owner-Defendants, or which the Plaintiffs and the Owner-Defendants may have against the
Town arising out of the events, incidents or circumstances referred to in the Complaint,
including any claims for attorneys fees and costs.
To the extent that the Complaint contained any claim for bodily injuries and damages resulting
there&orn, Plaintiffs acknowledge that each has been fully advised and understands that said
injuries are of such character that the full extent and type of injuries are not known at the date
that
hereof and that each and every injury might not now be known and further understands
said injuries, whether known or unknown at the date hereof might possibly become
progressively worse and that as a result thereof further damages may be sustained by
Plaintiffs; nevertheless, Plaintiff's desire by these presents to forever and fully release and
discharge the other parties to this Agreement and understands that by the execution of this
instrument no further claims may ever be asserted by Plaintiffs.
11. This Agreement 'Includes an express waiver by all parties of Civil Code
Section 1547.1 which states: "A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
eacecuti ng the release, which if known by him roust have materially affected
his settlement with the debtor.„
Plaintiffs (init.)
Edwin Zelinsky ('init.)
Barbara Abrarns (init.)
John Rooney
Jon Won (init.)
Tiburon Tommies (init.)
i
Nancy Y (init.)
Beverly Charton
Town of Tiburon (init.)
Mayor, Town of Tiburon
MAINST'ADA4.SET 7
or which can ever hereafter arise out of or result from or in connection with any and all acts
and omissions of the parties herein released from the beginning of time to and including the
date of this Agreement, including but not limited to the matters and things described in the
Complaint. Without limiting the foregoing, the Plaintiffs and the Owner-Defendants further
agree that this Agreement shall fully and forever discharge and release any and all claims and
causes of action, whether now known or now unknown, which the Plaintiffs have against the
Owner-Defendants, or which the Plaintiffs and the Owner-Defendants may have against the
Town arising out of the events, incidents or circumstances referred to in the Complaint,
including any claims for attorneys fees and costs.
To the extent that the Complaint contained any claim for bodily injuries and damages resulting
therefrom, Plaintiffs acknowledge that each has been fully advised and understands that said
injuries are of such character that the full extent and type of injuries are not known at the date
hereof and that each and every injury might not now be known and further understands that
said injuries, whether known or unknown at the date hereof might possibly become
progressively worse and that as a result thereof further damages may be sustained by
Plaintiffs; nevertheless, Plaintiffs desire by these presents to forever and fully release and
discharge the other parties to this Agreement and understands that by the execution of this
instrument no further claims may ever be asserted by Plaintiffs.
11. This Agreement includes an express waiver by all parties of Civil Code
Section 1542, which states: "A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected
his settlement with the debtor."
Edwin Purdy (init.)
Plaintiffs init.)
Edwin ~Z ' sky init.)
Barbara Abrams (init.)
John Rooney
Jon Won (init.)
Tiburon Tommies (init.)
Nancy Purdy (init.)
Beverly Char-ton
Town of Tiburon (init.)
Mayor, Town of Tiburon
MAINSTADA4. SET
12. The Plaintiffs, Town and the Owner-Defendants will execute and file a Stipulation for
Judgment incorporating this Agreement and agree to an entry of judgment ordering the
Plaintiffs to dismiss all causes of action in the Complaint with prejudice according to the terms
of this Agreement. The court may enter judgment upon submission of the documents by the
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs shall submit said documents to the court within 30 days of the date
of this Agreement.
13. Plaintiffs represent and warrant that there are no liens that will in any way affect any party to
the Agreement arising out of or relating to the Complaint save and except those held by a
party hereto. Plaintiffs will defend and hold the other parties hereto free and harmless from
any cost, including attorneys fees, loss, damage or liability incurred by or imposed upon the
other parties or their insurance carriers by reason of any lien not herein disclosed.
14. The court will retain jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, the parties thereto and
the settlement of this action for the purpose of issuing such further orders or directions as may
be necessary or appropriate to construe, implement, modify, enforce, terminate or reinstate
the terms of this Agreement until November 1, 2001, unless a party to this Agreement
requests the court to extend the court's jurisdiction for good cause. In addition, the parties
stipulate to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.
15. In the event that any party should default in their responsibilities under this Agreement, the
court shall retain jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensatory damages, attorneys
fees and litigation expenses, if any, to be awarded to the non-defaulting parties as a result of
such default.
16. The Owner-Defendants shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Town harmless from and against
any and all claims and other challenges that may be asserted by any person against or arising
out of the formation and operation of the District as provided by this Agreement. This
obligation shall include, without limitation, the payment of any awards of costs or attorneys
fees against the Town as a result of defending this Agreement. In addition, without limiting
the forgoing, in the event that this Agreement is challenged by litigation, the Town shall have
the option of tendering the defense of such action to the Owner-Defendants.
17. This is a compromise settlement agreement of disputed claims, and the execution of this
Agreement shall not constitute or be deemed or construed as an admission of liability on the
part of any of the parties.
18. The parties acknowledge that they have been represented in the preparation of this Agreement
by the below-listed counsel. The parties further acknowledge that they have read this
Agreement and that they are fully aware of its intent and its legal effect and they have not
been influenced to any extent whatever by any representations made to them by each other.
The parties further represent that they participated in the negotiation of this Agreement and
that it will not be interpreted against any of them as the draftsperson in the event of a dispute
about this Agreement.
MMNSTREETUT 8
19. This Agreement represents the sole and entire agreement between the parties hereto and
supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations and discussions. among them with respect to the
subject matter covered hereby. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and
signed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto.
20. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be
deemed an original, and this Agreement and all signed counterparts shall constitute one and
the same instrument.
21. This Agreement is deemed executed on the date first written above.
22. This Agreement, consisting of 11 pages, shall be construed and enforced in accordance with
law of the State of California.
23. This Agreement includes the following Exhibits, which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference:
Exhibit A Owner-Defendants and Subject Properties
Exhibit B Joint Task Force Report
Exhibit C Town Council Resolution No. 3335
Minutes of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Belvedere
City Council
September 10, 1998, letter from City of Belvedere Mayor
Faggioli to Town of Tiburon Mayor Matthews
Exhibit D District Boundaries
Exhibit E Sidewalk Plaque
IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, TIE PARTIES HERETO SET TBEIR HAND THIS DAY OF
1999.
PLA NTIEFS
PATRICK CONNALLY
DONALD STICKEL
SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
MAWSTREETUT 9
19. This Agreement represents the sole and entire agreement between the parties hereto and
supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations and discussions among them with respect to the
subject matter covered hereby. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and
signed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto.
20. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be
deemed an original, and this Agreement and all signed counterparts shall constitute one and
the same instrument.
21. This Agreement is deemed executed on the date first written above.
22. This Agreement, consisting of 11 pages, shall be construed and enforced in accordance with
law of the State of California.
23. This Agreement includes the following Exhibits, which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference:
Exhibit A Owner-Defendants and Subject Properties
Exhibit B Joint Task Force Report
Exhibit C Town Council Resolution No. 3335
Minutes of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Belvedere
City Council
September 10, 1998, letter from City of Belvedere Mayor
Faggioli to Town of Tiburon Mayor Matthews
Exhibit D District Boundaries
Exhibit E Sidewalk Plaque
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO SET THEIR HAND THIS <9 DAY OF
Jo/c/, 1999.
S
ATRICK NNALLY
d6~L~-Ae jz&'a
DONALD STTCKEL
SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
z
MAINSTRMTM 9
SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
OWNER DEFENDANTS
EDWARD ZELINSKY
EDWIN PURDY
Trustee, the Purdy Family Trust
NANCY PURDY
Trustee, the Purdy Family Trust
?"ON
BARBARA ABRAMS
TIBURON TO1VIl1i MS, a California
Corporatiog
Its: L r-e - ,
BEVERLY CHARTON
JOHN ROONEY
THE TOWN OF TIBURON
By:
Mayor, Town Manager, Town of Tiburon
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Thomas E. Frankovich
Attorney for Plaintiffs Connally and Stickel
Gary A. Gavello
Attorney for Defendants Edward Zelinsky.and
Barbara Abrams
Willis C. Silverthorne,
Attorney for Defendants John Rooney and
Beverly Charton
Emmett Stanton
Attorney for Defendants Edwin and Nancy
Purdy, Co-trustees, Purdy Family Trust
MAINSTREET.LIT 10
SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
OWNER DEFENDANTS
EDWARD ZELINSKY BARBARA ABRAMS
TIBURON TOMMIIES, a California
EDWIN PURDY Corporation
Trustee, the Purdy Family Trust By:
Its:
NANCY PURDY
Trustee, the Purdy Family Trust BEVERLY CHARTON
JON WON JOHN ROONEY
THE TOWN OF TIBURON
By:
Mayor, Town Manager, Town of Tiburon
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Thomas E. Frankovich
Attorney for Plaintiffs Connally and Stickel
Willis C. Silverthorne,
Attorney for Defendants John Rooney and
Beverly Charton
Gary A. Gavello
Attorney for Defendants Edward Zelinsky and
Barbara Abrams
Emmett Stanton
Attorney for Defendants Edwin and Nancy
Purdy, Co-trustees, Purdy Family Trust
MAINSTREETUT 10
ALIG 30 1 99 12 : 14PM FErwCK-WEST P . 3/3
SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
OWNER-DEFENDANTS
EDWARD ZELINSKY
Y
ste , the y Family Trust
,f
ANC Y
Trust a Purdy 'ly Trust
BARBARA ABRAMS
TMURON
Corporation
By:
Its:
BEVERLY CHARTON
JON WON
TOWN OF TIBURON
By:
Mayor, Town Manager, Town of Tiburon
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Thomas E. Frankovich
Attorney for Plaintiffs Connally and Stickel
Gary A. Gravello
Attorney for Defendants Edward ZeHnsky and
Barbara Abrams
JOHN ROONEY
Willis C. Silverthorne,
Attorney for Defendants John Rooney and
Beverly Charton
Emmett Stanton
Attorney for Defendants Edwin and Nancy
Purdy, Co-trustees, Purdy Family Trust
TOhS11ES, a California
MAINSTREET.I,IT 10
SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
OWNER DEFENDANTS
EDWARD ZELINSKY
EDWIN PURDY
Trustee, the Purdy Family Trust
NANCY PURDY
Trustee, the Purdy Family Trust
JON WON
T'HE TOWN OF TIBURON
BARBARA ABR.AMS
1 ib UKUN TUN VIIES, a California
Corporation
By:
Its:
BEVERLY CHARTON
JOHN ROONEY
By:
Mayor, Town Manager, Town of Tiburon
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Thomas E. Frankovich
Attorney for Plaintiffs Connally and Stickel
Gary A. Gavello
Attorney for Defendants Edward Zelinsky and
Barbara Abrams
Willis C. Silverthorne,
C r Defendants John Rooney and
Ch
Emmett Stanton
Attorney for Defendants Edwin and Nancy
Purdy, Co-trustees, Purdy Family Trust
MAINSTREET.LIT 10
SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
OWNER DEFENDANTS
EDWARD 221~
KY
saxsaxA AsxAMs
EDWIN PURDY
Trustee, the Purdy Family Trust
NANCY PURDY
Trustee, the Purdy Family Trust
JON WON
THE TOWN OF TIBURON
By:
Mayor, Town Manager, Town of Tiburon
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Thomas E. Frankovich
Attorney for Plaintiffs Connally and Stickel
Gary A. Ga llo
Attorney for Defendants Edward Zelinsky and
Barbara Abrams
TIBURON
Corporation
By:
Its:
BEVERLY CHARTON
JOHN ROONEY
Willis C. Silverthorne,
Attorney for Defendants John Rooney and
Beverly Charton
Emmett Stanton
Attorney for Defendants Edwin and Nancy
Purdy, Co-trustees, Purdy Family Trust
TON vITES, a California
MAINSTREETUT 10
-.C* . Awk.,
SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
V , - L) - L-
David Lotholm, Grahai4 0 James
Attomey for Jon Won affd
Tiburon Tommies
Ann R D birth
Town Attorney, Town of Tiburon
MAWSTREET.LIT 11
EXHIBIT A
OWNER-DEFENDANTS AND SUBJECT PROPERTIES
ProQerty Address Owners
Tenant
38 Main Street
Edward Zelinsky
John R. Rooney
.
Barbara Abrams
32 Main Street
Edward Zelinsky
Not Applicable
Barbara Abrams
35 Main Street
Edward Zelinsky
Not Applicable
Barbara Abrams
13 Main Street
Edward Zelinsky
Not Applicable
Barbara Abrams
46 Main Street
Edward Zelinsky
Beans's Inc., dba Westerley
Barbara Abrams
44 Main Street
Edward Zelinsky
Not Applicable
Barbara Abrams
28 Main Street
Edward Zelinsky
Not Applicable
Barbara Abrams
15 Main Street
Edwin Purdy, Trustee
Not Applicable
Nancy Purdy, Trustee
17 Main Street
Edwin Purdy, Trustee
Marjorie Tenner
- - Nancy Purdy, Trustee
41 Main Street
Tiburon Tommie's, Inc.
Jon Won
A
MOInSt ADA Settlement Ezh E1 XH MIT NO.
TIBURON MAIN STREET TASK FORCE
Summary of Task Force Findings
August 27, 1998
The Task Force was formed at the request of the new Tiburon Town Council in
December of 1997, to take a renewed look at the consequences of transforming lower
Main Street into a one way street.
The Task Force was comprised of Ann Otter, Mayor of Belvedere; Justin Faggioli, Vice
Mayor of Belvedere; Bob Branz, Belvedere Town Engineer; Tom Gram, Council
Member of Tiburon; Mogens Bach (Task Force Chairman), Vice Mayor of Tiburon; Sia
Barmand, Tiburon Town Engineer; George Gnoss representing a group of residents
from Corinthian Island; and Steve Sears, Downtown merchant and President of the
Chamber of Commerce. Also attending meetings were Charlie Abrams, Abrams
Associates; Ed San Diego, Belvedere City Manager; John Lundquist, Belvedere Chief
of Police; and Peter Herley, Tiburon Chief of Police.
In the early fall of 1997, the previous Town Council approved in concept a plan
developed by DKS Associates to transform lower Main Street into a west bound one-
way street and ordered the Town Engineer and Planning Director to proceed with a
partial CEQA study as needed. This action was taken in order to help solve the access
problem to several Main Street stores not conforming to the Americans with Disability
Act's guidelines. A law suit, filed against the non-conforming property owners to make
them correct those deficiencies, the Tiburon Police Chief Herley's often expressed
concerns about the safety of the narrow sidewalks and the delivery trucks double
parking during unloading of supplies and merchandise, gave further cause for the Town
to act on the matf-er:
However, since strong objections were voiced to the new Council from nearby residents
of Corinthian Island, the Belvedere City Council and some Main Street merchants the
new Town Council agreed that although not opposed to the previous Council's
decision, more information and data should be reviewed before making a final decision.
The charter of the Task Force was therefore to evaluate the objections from the
Corinthian Island residents, Belvedere officials and merchants, and to give them an
opportunity to add new data to substantiate their claim. The Task Force was to review
and re-evaluate the traffic study and proposal developed by DKS Associates,
commissioned jointly by Belvedere and Tiburon, as well as a new traffic study
. K""T4MIT NO.- 6M
developed by Abrams Associates. This new study was commissioned by the Corinthian
Island residents objecting to the one-way plan. The task force was to consider the
issue of ADA compliance, safety, the interest of the street merchants, nearby residents,
parking, and general and long-term impact on the Downtown area. The Task Force
was also to look into and consider other plans that may not have been considered at
first. The Task Force would summarize its findings and submit them to the Tiburon
Council.
The remainder of the Task Force's Summary includes the following:
Overview of Options
Traffic Consultants (DKS and Abrams) comments concerning the two
plans
Issues upon which the Task Force reached agreement
Other issues in support of and in opposition to the one way plan
OVERVIEW OF THE OPTIONS:
The Task Force studied drawings with plans of various traffic layouts. The plans were
labeled Option 1 R, 2, 3R, or A, B, C and D (see enclosed). Plan A is a DKS Associates
One Way plan originally adopted by the prior Tiburon Town Council, but modified by
the Tiburon Town Engineer with some improvements. Plan B is developed by DKS
Associates for two way traffic. Plan D is developed by Abrams Associates for two-way
traffic. It was agreed that Plan D was essentially the same plan as Plan B. Plan C is
more of a concept plan developed by Sia Barmand depicting the traffic flow if Main
Street were turned into a no traffic pedestrian Promenade.
The Promenade concept was discussed as an alternative to any traffic plans and there
was some support for the idea. One aspect of the Promenade concept was considered
workable for any of the plans. A Promenade would have the sidewalks and street
surfaces at the same level (except for drainage swales). No curbs. A Promenade
would have to have a street area in the middle delineated and kept clear for emergency
vehicles and general passage. That area would have to be delineated with pavers or
concrete lines in the street surface. It was agreed that this concept would have several
benefits. If the structure of Main Street were to be changed in the future, changing it
would be easier and less costly. The Paver type surface would help slow traffic. And,
the overall street and sidewalk surface could be raised so that ramping of the sidewalks
would be less noticeable and hazardous to tripping. Finally, this approach would lend
itself better to beautification of Main Street.
2
It was generally agreed, though, that the many unknowns of a Promenade plan with a
greater impact on the surrounding areas, combined with a negative response from a
majority of the merchants, made this proposal difficult to consider at this time. In
addition, reports from other cities which have Promenades were not favorable. (Santa
Monica and recent articles on Chicago's experience were mentioned.)
The Task Force therefore concentrated on discussing the pros and cons of plans A)
One-Way and B) Two-Way as well as the objective and subjective differences of the
DKS and Abrams traffic reports. The two reports do not agree with each other. DKS,
who conducted a more thorough study is clearly in favor of the one way plan, but
concedes that two-way traffic would work. The Abrams report recommends two way
traffic and is highly critical of any one-way plan and of the DKS study. Both Traffic
Engineers are supporting their reports with a lot of general traffic data i. e., one way
traffic always moves faster, one way traffic only works if there is a parallel street for
traffic going in the opposite direction, etc.
Even though the Task Force members are perceiving the problems differently, it was
generally agreed that much of the traffic data from both reports used to back up
recommendations do not necessarily apply to Main Street since Lower Main Street is
only a block long. In fact, the block is shorter than the length of a football field. It was
also agreed that both plans provided for sidewalks wide enough to accommodate ADA
approved access to the stores, although the wider the sidewalks the less pronounced
and safer the ramps. Further, on busy weekends, the street did in fact become more of
a Mall than a street, with people walking on, and crossing everywhere on the street. It
is expected that this trend will continue no matter which traffic configuration is selected.
PLAN A: ONE-WAY ON LOWER MAIN STREET:
The DKS Resort:
Again this proposal-is recommended by DKS Associates in their report of August 20,
1997, and backed up with the follow-up letters dated September 11, 1997, October 30,
1997 and April 6, 1998, responding to the criticism of the Abrams Study. DKS's main
reason for supporting the one-way plan is better and less congested traffic flow and
especially that they consider it a safer plan.
Among the favorable traffic and safety aspects highlighted by DKS are:
Less traffic on lower Main Street. Corinthian Island and Yacht Club will exit via Ark
Row as will the parking lot traffic. (Parking lot traffic is not supposed to exit via
lower Main Street, there is a No Left Turn sign at the exit, which is widely
ignored).
3
Less traffic predicted from Beach Road on to upper Main Street.
Wider north side sidewalks (one-way 8 feet vs. Two-way 6 feet which is 33% wider) for
pedestrians. The wider sidewalks also mean a less undulated walking surface
around the wheel chair ramps to the stores. (The south side sidewalk is 8 feet in
both Plan A and B). The total increase in the north side sidewalk area with the
increased width is about 100 square feet.
A wider traffic lane which then creates a wider buffer zone between cars and
pedestrians. (One way 11.5 feet vs. two-way which is 9 feet for both lanes).
Safer passage for bicyclists due to the wider traffic lane (but only for Westbound traffic
because bicyclists cannot legally travel Eastbound on the.one-way street).
Safer conditions for unloading during morning truck delivery.
Among the negative aspects highlighted by DKS are:
Inconvenience for Corinthian Island residents exiting from Alcatraz who must make a U
turn at the roundabout, facing congestion at times and use upper Main Street to
get to Tiburon Blvd.
Parallel parking on the wrong side (south side) of the street. Parking with the existing
two-way traffic is on the north side.
Potential for higher vehicle speed, but can be mitigated with speed calming devices.
Increased northbound traffic on upper Main Street.
DKS believes that the lesser traffic along with the pedestrian enhancement and safety
outweighs the inconvenience to the Corinthian Island residents having to detour
to get to Tiburon Blvd. It is pointed out by DKS that during their study, many
Corinthian Island residents did in fact make a U turn to get to Tiburon Blvd., Post
Office or The Boardwalk, via upper Main Street. This observation was made by
Task Force members as well.
The Abrams Report:
The Abrams report dated February 23, 1998, is critical. of the DKS report and one-way
recommendation. It concludes that the DKS study is only a partial report and that the
one-way plan has serious problems that have not been adequately addressed. It states
4
the inconvenience to the Corinthian Island residents and safety problems for
pedestrians and bicyclists. The Task Force noted that the Abrams Report was
prepared without the DKS Supplemental letters of September 11 and October 20, 1997,
which contained crucial traffic counts.
Among Abrams major points of critique are;
The wider sidewalk on the one-way plan is not an issue since the two-way plan will
provide almost the same width of sidewalk. (Note: Plan B two-way has an 8 and
a 6 foot wide sidewalk. Plan D, by Abrams has an 8 and a 7.5 foot wide
sidewalk. However, the Abram drawing shows the street to be 41 feet wide
instead of 40 feet. The actual Abrams width of sidewalks would likely be 7 and 7
feet wide of 6 and 8.)
Pedestrian Safety, although subjective, the one-way plan is no safer than the two-way
plan. The two-way plan, with its slower traffic, will be safer for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
There are no provisions for bicyclists to travel east. However, they may travel
eastbound in the designated (westbound) bike lane, against the flow of vehicular
traffic.
The one-way plan creates hardship for the Corinthian Island residents having to make
a U turn at the roundabout. This results in misdirection, longer travel distance
and added time.
Greater potential for delays of emergency vehicles heading towards Corinthian Island.
It will be more difficult to exit the parking lot.
There will be added traffic on upper Main Street.
There will be added traffic and congestion on Beach Road and by the Beach
Road/Tiburon Blvd. Intersection.
The report further mentions that issues such as additional energy use and extra air
pollution have not been addressed by the DKS report.
On issues such as street parking, truck loading, solving the ADA requirements and
cost, the Abrams report states that there is not much of a difference in either
plan.
5
The Abrams report does not have anything favorable to say about one-way traffic on
Main Street.
Issues brought up by opponents of the One-Way plan not in the DKS or Abrams
reports:
The one-way plan does not allow enough space for passage of cars when trucks are
double parked for unloading. This will also block emergency vehicles.
The two-way plan offers more flexibility for the future.
The two-way plan will have less impact on the business district.
The two-way plan will require less of a CEQA study since it is not deviating much from
the current traffic pattern.
A petition has been circulated by a lower Main Street business owner and signed by
most downtown merchants. The result is as follows:
Nine business owners from lower Main Street, representing 18 stores, and 28
business owners from upper Main Street are against the one-way plan.
Three business owners on lower Main Street are in favor of the one-way plan.
Four business owners on lower Main Street, and one business owner on upper
Main Street have expressed no opinion as to which plan they favor.
Issues brought up by the proponents of the one-way plan and not in the DKS or
Abrams Report:
The wider sidewalks create better opportunities for street beautification and store
advertising.
The wider sidewalks make for a better and safer pedestrian environment benefiting the
store owners.
Street parking can easily be accommodated on either side of the street.
Other Issues:
6
In either plan, the problems with the unloading trucks double parking can be mitigated
by making the street parking areas timed loading zones only.
The issues of the general impact of changing the traffic on Main Street was not
discussed much beyond what has been summarized above.
The issue of the long-term impact to the community was not discussed since it was
agreed that the Task Force members were not in a position to foresee this with the data
available.
Issues upon which the Committee reached acireement:
After reviewing both plans and the traffic reports, the Committee members felt that the
Report should summarize the issues that the Committee agreed upon.
ADA not an issue with either plan.
If the hotel/inn goes in as recently proposed next to Sams (the old Dock
Restaurant), the Committee agreed that to accommodate loading and unloading under
either plan, two spaces directly across Main Street should be marked as loading zones
(white curbs).
The cost of each Plan will not be materially different.
Emergency access: the two-way plan is better because it gives emergency crews more
options and provides better access to Corinthian island.
Bicycle Safety: Although there were some concerns that the narrower lanes in the two-
way plan might create safety problems, the two-way plan is preferable.
Bicyclists will be able to ride legally on both sides of the street. It is illegal in
California for bicyclists to ride against traffic. The one-way plan would prohibit
bicyclists from legally riding east on Main Street. This prohibition would create
an enforcement problem and could lead to safety problems. It should be noted
that there will not be bike lines in the two-way plan. Bikes will travel in the traffic
lanes.
Flexibility: The two-way plan is more flexible. The Town Engineer has suggested
constructing the two-way plan curbless with .18 feet of roadway and striping. If
the Council determines at a later date that the two-way plan is not working, it will
be easier to convert to the one-way plan than vice versa. The Committee
agreed that both the two-way and one-way plans should remain curbless.
7
Implementation: The two-way plan will be easier to implement because minimal CEQA
delays will be encountered since the two-way plan is very similar to the current plan.
Downtown Merchants: The downtown merchants have overwhelmingly endorsed the
two-way plan (the numbers are summarized on the next page). The Committee
believes that they are an important part of our community and will be the group
most directly affected by any changes.
Truck Deliveries: The one-way plan will not allow cars to maneuver around a double-
parked truck. The two-way plan allows cars to maneuver around double-parked
trucks but forces them into oncoming traffic, something close to the existing
situation. A solution is to ban non-commercial parking until 10:30 a.m.
weekdays and Saturday and then ban trucks from making deliveries the rest of
the day. The Committee felt that a solution to the early morning double parking
problem might be to explore with Main Street properties allowing free parking in
the Main Street lot until 10:30 a.m.
Sidewalks: The one-way plan is preferable. The north sidewalk will be 2 feet wider in
most areas; south sidewalk will be the same under both plans.
Parking on Main Street; Although some committee members felt parking should be
liminated to allow for wider sidewalks and traffic lanes, the merchants are
adamantly in favor of retaining the parking on Main Street. It was agreed that
parking could, and should, remain on the north side of the street in both plans.
Attachments: Plans A, B, C, & D; Alternative Comparison dated 3/9/98 and sketches X
& Y.
8
T
C~
{
i ~
• J
•t
Z ~
t
r
}
i
. Z
F
~ s
pt
}
ll
,
Main
Street Task Force jagport
r July
10, i 1998
August ~7, 1998
l
V
~
W
d
.
e.~..
d
f
1
Main Street Task Force report
July )10, 1998
'r August 27, 1998
`o 1
I
i 77
i r
3
I
i
S
O
o~
R
I
R*AD
1
Main Street Task Force Report
July 10, 1998
August 27, 1998 ;
w
v
{O
c
V
V
`V
%Ok
A
0
v
0
r-~
• Main Street Task ~bree Report
July 10, 1998 .
August 27, 1998 _
•
.1,
w . ~
g
• z ~ 3
~ O
~f
0 t
1
0
`Q►J'~
• ~ ~ X11 0~ •
Main 5..reet Task Force Report
'
July
14, 1998
August 27, 1998
'
y
4
~
4
~
~
~
O
C
c
.
,
s
.
,
z
z
z
w
w
w
w
a
~
=
~
a
W'
W
E
p
4~
4.
4"
O
O
z
O
a
O
3
o
z
00
g
w
N
=
z
z
z
O
N
N
V
~.L
O
vs
O
W
y
u
.C
o
C%
w
w
u
u
u
0
0
0
~
00
00
o
cc
o
IV
N
~
~
C
Q
V
a~
42
~
m
O
z
~
O
p
~
u
a~
42"
~
w
C
C
C
C
E"'
N
~
o0
h
`
O
O
z
z
z
z
Zj
N
N
V
c
a~
u
o
z
y
3
3
>
_
0
RS
U
3
~
y
>
~
cn
u
•c
u
Cn
SE
a
~
~
~
• C
~
o
.
V
E
a
....1
a
=
V
u
S
cn
o
s
s
Q
H
H
U
a
,
'
A
a
A
S
Z
a
.S
z
o
°
o
o
o
z
a
E
a
E
-
C
r
cis
w
; i a.iii -otreet='T'ask---Force- Report
: -may ~~99Q--~ i ~ ~ ' -
l~QD ~D.rFd 0.4ve w•~r~ wi T7/
3
ao ` ~
.lu
9
lc
0
...4?
a ~ ~y
.g
\ v
/45
8
SKE?cH )C
V
ki
14
3
'9
b
Q
. . . 9. . •
- . r..' . Mai: reet Task Force Report
. ~ - : - ~ ~ ' • July 10 , 1998..... _
-7r 1998
-August .2
i
h
o :v
~ L
v ~ `r
1?
v 0.
706
v
3
b
SAL**Fi tf1 Y
RESOLUTION NO. 3335
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON BEHALF
OF THE TOWN PROVDING FOR EMYROVEMENTS TO
LOWER MAIN STREET TO FACILITATE PROVDING
WHEELCHAIR ACCESS TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES
VVI EREAS, several businesses located on Main Street in the downtown area of Tiburon have
been 'sued for failure to provide accessible public facilities to persons using wheelchairs as required
by law, in an action entitled Connally v. Main Street Tiburon Business et al.; and
WHEREAS, said downtown businesses are located in relatively small premises and
accordingly would find it difficult to locate a ramp inside their premises for persons using wheelchairs;
and
WHEREAS, said downtown businesses have requested that the Town consider modifications
to the Main Street Public right of way that would facilitate the installation of wheelchair ramps; and
WHEREAS, although the Town's own public facilities are fully compliant with all applicable
accessibility requirements, the Council recognizes that increased accessibility of private businesses
in the downtown would benefit the general public; and
WHEREAS, the Town has developed a preferred means of modifying the Main Street public
right of way so as to facilitate the creation of access of the businesses to persons using wheelchairs
and has further offered to contribute $70,000 to the project; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon was recently added as a defendant to the Connally
litigation and finds that.-although it does not believe that it would be found liable in said case, it is in
the public interest to settle this suit promptly by moving forward with the above-described Main
Street project; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 1999, the Town Council considered the draft Settlement Agreement,
which is attached to this Resolution, and after hearing all the evidence, determined to approve the
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that
the Settlement Agreement is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute said Agreement on
adaSettlemtAg2.AUT
'EXHIBIT N
behalf of the Town. Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Town Attorney shall have the authority
to approve any minor modifications to the Agreement that do not substantially affect the Town's
obligations.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
on June 16, 1999 by the following vote:
AYES :
C O UNC ILMEMB ER S :
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
None
None
(:57/
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE. TOWN CLERK
MOGENS BACH, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
adaSettlemtAg2.AUT.doc 2
IT NO._._._.
03/18/1999 10:08 4154352438 TOWN OF TIBURON
03/18/98 THU 10:38 FA 416 436CITY-BELVEDERE
F,FPq1gv nutes of the Regular Clry of Belvedere Chy Council Meeling
tember 8, 1998
7
OTHER SCHEDULE tTF.MS
10. Review final sin Street Task Force repor
PAGE 07
► L!RO% 14002
RECEIVED
MAR 111999
City Manager San Diego summarized the staff report. TOWN OF TIBURON
George Gncss, SO Alcatraz Avenue, said that the preferred solution is two-way This solution
would cause less congestion. Whereas one-way would be a problem for bicycle traffic that would
be diverted to Beech and Tiburon Boulevards and the only advantage of one-way was so that one
sidewalk could be two feet wider, he recommended that the City contribute funding for a two-
way plan.
Tom Gram, Tiburon Councilmember, requested that the Council make a decision tonight and
give specific reasons for their decision.
Cam Baker, 38 Alcatraz Avenue, agreed with Mr. Gram that the decision be made tonight and
suggested that tht City make a significant financial contribution for a permanent .wo-vAay
solution.
Mayor l±aggioli said that ADA compliance can be achieved with the two-way proposal and
parking is not an issue governing the traffic flow and gave the following reasons for maintaining
two-way traffic on Main Street:
• Alternate 8 provides the greatest ingress and egress to Belvedere and does not create safety
concems at the intersection of Beach Road and Main Street
• The solutions to the ADA and parking issues are independent of the two alternatives
• Alternate A creates a dangerous condition for bicyclists on Lower Main Street
• Alternate B allow cars to go around double narked vehicles while Alternate A does not
• Alternate B allows greater flexibility in the future
IF Alternate B allows for better access for emergency vehicles to Main Street and Corinthian
Island.
Councilmember Johnson said he was in fAvor of maintaining two-way traffic for the following
reasons:
• Bicycle and pedestrian safety
• Traffic speeds up-when its going one-way `
• T1ie turnaround problems
• Access and egress to Corinthian Island
Emergency vehicle access to Corinthian Island
• Main Street serves two cities but one community and this Council would not negatively
impact Tiburon to solve a Belvedere problem
• We all want a permanent two-way solution and with an agreement from Tiburon. its such,
would recommend contributing to the project
Councilmember Helfrich agreed that this issue is of great concern to the entire community and
would greatly impact the intersection of Beach Road and tipper Main Street.
Councilmember Sams and Vice Mayor Wiley agreed that they both strongly supported the two-
way solution and suggested that the City condense its comments in the form of a friendly letter to
Tibtaon.
EXHIBIT N0.
03/18/1999 10:08 4154352438 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 08
• ` `'`~""`-i• WJ3#L;u,%3CU UJITC Vroaetles to take in reaching a mutual ag, :nt with Tiburon
for the two-way traffic soltttton and decided that the less restrictive Belvedere's offer, the more
acceptable it would be to Tiburon.
Tiburon Coyncilmember Gram said he estimated the project cost would $250,000 with funding sources from Tiburon, 9clvcderc and downtown building o owners.
EXHIBIT NO.(Z:
U-1/1b/1yyj lu:1 / 41n"JnzQJb 1UWN Ur I1tSUF-~UN f'L3lat UI
03118199 11tH 10:38 FAX 415 435 CITY-BELVEDERE ► l R0\ ® aoj
Minutes of the Regular C4 of Bel vederc City COUnC11 Meeting
September 8. 1998
Page 8 .
City Manager San Diego said the City's proposal was to put up fiends matching Tiburon's wit!) a
$60,000 limit.
Mayor Faggioli summarized the Council's thoughts on leaving Main Street open to two-way
traffic:
For the t%vo-way solution. Belvedere would match Tiburon's contributions, up to 560,000,
with one-hilt' Ripon commencement and one-half upon completion of the project.
• 'Che City anticipates that this is a permanent solution and that any change in the future would
involve Belvedere's participation in its resolution.
If the Town of Tiburon chooses to consider reversing its decision for compelling public
safety, health and welfare, or legal reasons within the five-year period after substantial
completion of the project, the City and Town will meet and confer. And if the Lity of
Selvedere still does not agree to these reasons then there will be a complete return of capital
to Belvedere if the Town of Tiburon chooses to overturn its decision.
■ Meet and confer (goes forever)
• Any changes oiler S years are only subject to meet onl menu will he
requested.
MOTiO belvedere will contribute up to $60,000 toward the roadway an sidewalk
improvements if the following conditions are met:
• Alternate B is selected as the approach to traffic flow on Main Street
• rho City's contribution would be a dollar-for-dollar match to what the Town contributes to
the project tip to a maximum of $60,000.
• The City will pny S30,000 at the commencement of the project and the remainder upon
protect c:umpletion
• During the first five years after completion of the project, the Town agrees that it will only
abandon Alternate B for compelling public safety, health & welfare or legal reasons. If the
Town chooses to abandon Alternate B within the initial five-year period, the City and the
Town will meet and confer regarding the reason for the change. Following the meet and
confer process, if the City still does not agree with the need for change, the Town shall
reimburse the City for the full amount of whatever contribution is made. After the initial
five-year period has.clapsed, the Town agrees to meet and confer with the City prior to any
decision to abandon the two-way traffic flow associated with Alternate 8, however, no
reimbursement of the City's contribution shall be required.
MOVED: By Sams, seconded by Johnson. Unanimous approval.
n~-
MOTION: To adjourn.
MOVED: By Johnson, seconded by Sams. Unanimous approval.
ng %%~ftrned at 11:30 JIM.
Y'itlR FORRt:OING were
C oultcil held on October S, 1996, by the following vote regular mteting of the Belvedere City
AYES: Johnson, Wiley, Mayor f aggioli
NOES: None
ABSENT: Helfrich, Sams
APPROVED:
i AA EXHIBIT NO.-
03/18/1999 10:17 415435243P
ATTEST:
- i~l
Edmund H. San Diego, C' y le
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 02
Just4M. ~apol a~ .
EXHIBIT NO.(2--
03/18/1999 10:17 4154352438 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 03
- 03/11J/98' THL: 10:41 FAX 416 436 CITE'-BELvEDERF. IBURON 1Z 004
CITY of BELVEDERE
450 San Rafael Avenue • Belvedere, CA 94920
Tel: 415 / 435-3838 0 Fax: 415 / 435-0430
September 10, 1998
Honorable Harry Matthews, Mayor
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon CA 94920
Dear Harry:
At our City Council meeting on Tuesday, September 9, we considered the issue of the Main
Street traffic circulation report prepared by the Main Street Tank Force. As a result of our review
of the report, particularly the eleven points that all parties agreed on, the City Council of
Belvedere believes that the best solution to resolving the various issues that have been raised
regarding Main Street traffic is to implement the two-way traffic flow consistent with the
report's Alternate B.
We base our conclusion on many factors including
• The solutions to the ADA and parking issues are independent of the two altematives
• Alternate A creates a dangerous condition for bicyclist' on Lower Main Street
• Alternate B allow cars to go around double parked vehicles while Alternate A does not
• Alternate B allow3 greater flexibility in the future
Alternate B allows--for better access for emergency vehicles to Main Street and Corinthian
Island.
Consequently, we request that the Town rcaffi m its previous selection of Alternate B as the
preferred alternative for downtown Tiburon's future.
Toward that end, Belvedere is prepared to contribute up to $60,000 toward the roadway and
sidewalk improvements. The contribution would be made within the following stricture:
Alienate B is selected as the approach to traffic flow on Main Street
..1 y _..lf i .
EXHIBIT NO. C-
03/18/1999 10:17 415435243E TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 04
03/18/09 TH1'. 10:42 FAX 416 43C .40 CITY-BELVEDERE :181'ROX ~tiU:i
Mayor Harry Matthews
September 9, 1998
Page 2
• The City's contribution would be a dollar-for-dollar match to whet the To%%m contributes to
the project
• The City will pay 530,000 at the commencement of the project and the remainder upon
project completion
• The Town agrees that it will only reverse its decision for compelling public safety, health &
welfare or legal reasons and if the Town chooses to reverse its decision within the five-year
period after completion of the project, the City and the Town will meet and confer regarding
the reason for the reversal. Following the meet and confer process, if the City still does not
agree with the need for reversal, the Town shall reimburse the City for the full amount of
whatever contribution is made. After the five-year period has elapsed, the Town agrees to
meet and confer with the City prior to any decision to abandon the two-way traffic flow
associated with Alternate B; however, no reimbursement of the City's contribution shall be
required.
In developing this structure, we want to make sure that the Town understands that if a truly
compelling reason exist, that would necessitate an abandonment of Alternate B, Belvedere will
confer with the Town in an open manner in assessing whether or not it agrees with the Town's
proposed course of action.
I will Attend your upcoming Council meeting and will be available to answer any questions you,
the Town Council or Town staff may have.
Harry, we sincerely appreciate the opportunity the Town has provided us to be a party to the
evaluation of the Main Street altematives and continue to stand ready to work together with the
Town in addressing problems that confront us, regardless of the jurisdictional boundaries.
Yours truly,
Vi
Justin Faggioli
Mmor
cc: City Council
cr9 ~rr~re
EXHIBIT NO.~
JJJ y
a fit a s
~
I
g
1 i
ce
a N
g
s
s
EXHIBIT N0.
it
Y
{
i
•
EEO
L7
W
E~
z
Q
z
0
N
a
H
z
3
0
0
r-
f~ o
C~o
o
M f~
~V z
r
z
r
~T
z
o ~
Icy
L~
l r ,
O ~
O E-O
~ o
maw
0
N
;-4
N
...M
z
4
ri.-•r
0
0
L']
z
Z
z ~
J
z^
Now"
z
r.
tin'loo
Ozo~
z~
V z O
r
==^'z
o"
pv~
o
o
N
Z
0
U_
u
D
EXHIBIT N4. F