CITY OF BELVEDERE

CITY OF BELVEDERE Memorandum

September 19, 2013

TO: Mayor Cromwell and City Council

FROM: Mary Neilan, City Manager

SUBJECT: City Council Strategic Planning Session - Background Memo

This memo (with attachments) is intended to provide some background to facilitate discussion of the topics listed on the Council agenda. Staff will be present and prepared to elaborate as needed.

This session is an opportunity for Councilmembers to describe their individual goals for the City and discuss those interests in the context of current City operations and available resources. Developing a strategy to achieve those goals may involve modifying the way our resources are allocated and/or finding ways to generate additional revenue to fund projects or solve specific problems.

Update of financial projections

When the budget is adopted in June, it includes estimated end-of-year revenues and expenditures. Once the fiscal year is closed those numbers are revised to reveal a more accurate ending fund balance, which of course becomes the beginning fund balance (or reserve) for the current fiscal year.

This year, construction permit revenue in May and June fell short of projections. The City also incurred costs when an employee was laid off at the end of the fiscal year. Together these events reduced the fund balance projected to be available July 1 by about $132,000.

In addition, the Council agreed in August to pay off the remaining pension Side Fund Liability, but then in September the City received word from the Tiburon Fire Protection District that our contribution in FYI 3/14 would be $89,000 less than estimated. Lastly, a long awaited payment of $20,000 from the owner of 35 West Shore Road was received after the budget was adopted. These adjustments and a few other minor ones are reflected in the revised "Projected Fund Balance" tables, Attachment 1.

The revenue projections for the next few years assume growth in property tax of 3% and a 2% increase in other taxes, permits and charges for service. Fines (primarily

Construction Time Limit fines) are not projected to increase, smce this line item 1s unpredictable and can vary wildly year to year.

On the expense side, the projections assume a 2% increase each year to salaries, supplies and contracts, and also account for the increased pension expense in FY 16/1 7 and 1 7 /18.

Council should note that the Reserve Status at the bottom of each page of Attachment 1 tracks the City's progress toward restoring the General Fund Reserve to the required 50% of operations. The Reserve will build more quickly if annual revenues exceed projections or will build more slowly if used to fund projects or programs.

Capital Projects. Unmet Needs, ADA Plan The adopted budget includes a 5-year Budget for Capital Improvement Projects that was reviewed with the Council when the budget was adopted (Attachment 2). Other capital projects and major expenditures for which funds could not be identified are shown on the Unmet Needs List (Attachment 3). Additional Unmet Needs might be suggested during the meeting by either staff or Council.

Note: Eucalyptus Lane is shown in the capital project budget projections with other funded projects. Staff is hopeful grant money will be available for this project, but because the grant is not yet secured, Eucalyptus Lane also shows on the Unmet Needs list.

Council will note that several projects on the Unmet Needs List improve access and smooth the "path of travel" to public facilities for people with disabilities. A question was raised recently regarding the City's obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in this regard. In general, the ADA broadly protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in employment, access to State and local government services, places of public accommodation, transportation, and other important areas of American life. The ADA also requires newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The law has been in effect since 1990.

In 2010, the City hired a consultant to draft an Accessibility Plan that identified each element of City owned infrastructure that fell short of full ADA compliance, and recommended improvements. For the Council's infmmation, I have attached the introduction to the report that describes the requirements, the approach and includes the first part of a list of suggested projects. The full report is available at City Hall. The Council should note that many of the recommended improvements have already been identified as necessary to meet the needs of all Belvedere residents, such as installing handrails on all the lanes.

Enforcement of the ADA is driven by individuals or groups that believe they have been "subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability by a public entity". In recent years, many cities in Marin and Marin County have been the subject of such claims. While this

2

is clearly not the primary reason for cities to comply with the law, it does provide an incentive to demonstrate progress where possible.

FEMA Project - cost and timing

Without going into additional detail here, I have attached a recent report prepared for the Planning Commission on various FEMA related issues and a timeline for the Levee Accreditation Project. Cost estimates are included on the Unmet Needs list.

Revenue Shortfall

The Unmet Needs List gives the Council a general idea of the projects and expenditures identified by staff as necessary, but are to date unfunded. The actual revenue shortfall, both short and long term, will depend on the priorities set by the Council and the way available resources are managed.

For example, the Council may wish to consider a policy for use of revenue generated by Construction Time Limit fines, historically an unpredictable source of funds. If CTL fines exceed what was budgeted for the fiscal year, that revenue could be earmarked for capital projects rather than simply added to the General Fund Reserve. Or, if some of the projects are viewed as urgent, funding those activities in the next few years might be viewed as a priority over restoring the Reserve to its previous level.

Overview of current staffing and other service providers

As we seek additional resources to address future unmet needs, a review of current spending is a good place to start.

Permanent Staff The Council spent a good deal of time this Spring reviewing staffing levels and hearing about the services and programs provided by each City department. Questions about employee compensation were raised, and staff is completing a comprehensive salary and benefit survey of Marin cities as requested. In response to a question about cost containment for employee pensions, a memo summarizing the pension plans, including discussion of the supplemental pension benefit the City offers, is attached.

A question was raised at a recent Council meeting about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and how that federal legislation might be utilized to save the City money on employee health care costs. The ACA requires all Americans to have health insurance and provides various incentives and mandates to employers and individuals to insure that happens. The City currently exceeds the federal mandate by virtue of the contribution it makes to employee health insurance. If the Council wishes to reduce those costs by shifting some of the expense to employees, the subject can be discussed in the Spring when the POA contract is up for renewal and other employees' salaries and benefits are reviewed. It's not yet clear how the plans offered through the Health Care Exchange will compare in

3

terms of cost and services to what the City currently provides, so it's premature to suggest how a change would affect coverage or cost.

Partnerships In addition to employees, the City has a number of partners with whom we work to leverage resources, improve services, avoid duplication of effort and minimize the City's direct cost for certain activities. But these partnerships are not without impact and should be evaluated as the Council sets priorities for use of City resources.

Town of Tiburon The City regularly partners with the Town of Tiburon on projects of mutual interest. Recent projects include Dairy Knoll Recreation Center, the Lyford Parking Lot and Landscaping, and the Emergency Alert System (sirens). There is a request pending from the Town seeking a contribution from the City for a project they hope to undertake to landscape the center median on Tiburon Blvd. near the Cove Shopping Center.

The historical cost allocation between the Town and City is 75%/25%. Population figures taken from the Ca. Dept. of Finance website indicate Tiburon's population to be 9,031 and Belvedere's 2,086 for a combined population of 11,117. Belvedere accounts for 18.8% of the total (2,086/11,117=.1876).

The Council may wish to modify the cost sharing ratio, or discuss any additional criteria by which future projects will be evaluated (i.e., serves a certain percentage of City residents, contributes to the health and safety of the community, etc.). Aiternatively, the Council can continue to evaluate the benefits of projects on a case by case basis.

Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency Since 2001, the City has provided financial management services to the Library. At that time, an agreement was struck to charge $35/hour and it was estimated that the Finance Officer would spend about four hours a week on Library business. The agreement has never been amended. Becky's current salary and benefits equate to $79/hour and she spends 18-20 hours/month on average handling the Library's accounts payable, payroll and bank reconciliation, preparing monthly reports for the Library Board, compiling information for the annual State Controllers Repo1i, preparing for the annual audit and answering questions from Library staff. Because it's cumbersome to track the time spent on each phone call or individual transaction, Becky rarely bills the Library for all the time she spends on Library business. This year, the budget assumes we will bill the Library $5,380. Twenty hours a month at Becky's true hourly rate would generate $18,960/year.

The Council may wish to propose a different arrangement with the Library to recoup more of the actual cost. If the hourly rate for Becky's services were to increase, the Library may find it can hire someone to meet their needs for less in which case the City would benefit from Becky's increased availability. Or the Council may want to continue the current arrangement, in which case the annual contribution to Library operations should be recognized in next year's budget.

4

Belvedere/Tiburon Joint Recreation (BTJR) The partnership with BTJR is longstanding and provides enormous benefit to Belvedere residents of all ages. Since 1988, the City has leased the Community Center to BTJR for a variety of programs and community events. The City absorbs both hard and soft costs to support BTJR including:

o Rent free space (2,880sf plus three bathrooms and kitchen) in Community Center paid for almost entirely by donations from Belvedere community

o Annual cost of janitorial service, all utilities, building maintenance (including such things as plumbing repairs, locksmithing as needed) and supplies

o Major repairs and improvements (refinishing of floors, carpet cleaning, partition repair, furnace replacement, painting building, resurfacing parking lot)

o Direct financial contributions to Labor Day Parade, Art Festival o Staff as needed for special events (providing barricades, traffic control, etc.) e Use of City electric vehicle during events as requested o Rent generated from outside users of the Community Center is retained by BTJR o $300,000 one-time contribution to Dairy Knoll project o Beginning FY13/14, $30,000 annual payment to Town of Tiburon for Dairy Knoll • Beginning FY13/14, $15,000 annual payment for utilities at Dairy Knoll • City Finance Officer provides financial management services to BTJR under an

arrangement similar to the one with the Library. City expects to bill $4,620 in FYI 3/14. Actual expense (per Becky's hourly rate) estimated at $18,221.

There is no question that the services provided by BTJR far exceed what the City could provide without this partnership. Assuming the Council is satisfied with the current arrangement, we should quantify the City's contribution and include it in the City's annual budget.

Belvedere Community Foundation The generosity of this organization cannot be overstated. The contribution BCF makes to the quality of life in Belvedere is significant and should be more clearly stated in the annual budget and communicated to residents. As a valued funding partner, they will be part of the discussion later in the agenda as Council explores options to generate additional revenue.

County Partnerships There is an alphabet soup of JPAs, agencies and organizations to which Belvedere belongs. As was recently demonstrated by the question about funding for Community Media Center of Marin (CMCM), these partnerships can be beneficial but can also limit the City's authority over their own resources.

We receive services from and pay fees to the following organizations: o Marin Telecommunications Authority (MTA) o Major Crimes Task Force • Marin General Services Agency (MGSA) o Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA)

5

o Marin Emergency Radio Authority (MERA) o Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste JPA o Marin County Storm Water Pollution Prevention Programs (MCSTOPPP) o Marin County Animal Control JP A o Marin Transportation Authority (MTA) • Marin Energy Authority (MEA)

Other Service Providers/Contractors "' The City's property/liability and workers compensation insurance is provided by

Ca. Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA), located in La Palma, California. Over the next few months, staff will be exploring the costs and benefits of moving the City's accounts to a local provider, each of which will offer slightly different terms and rates. The City currently has very comprehensive coverage and low (or no) deductibles. We will explore ways to reduce insurance costs for the City while stilladequately protecting the City's resources.

• The City contracts for IT services, landscape maintenance, engineering services and legal services. We also contract with a CPA firm to conduct the annual financial audit. We have used the same firm for audit services for more than a decade and will be soliciting proposals from qualified finns when their contract expires this year. The PW Manager is considering requesting proposals for landscape maintenance services as well, in hopes of improving service and reducing costs.

o Moe Engineering has served the City since 2011. His firm charges $110-$150/hour and is on site one day a week.

• The Building Dept. uses Code Source for building plan check services as needed and passes the cost along to the project applicant.

A mix of in-house and contract staff, augmented by partnerships throughout the County has proved to be a cost effective way to provide services to the community. If the Council has suggestions for other areas of City operations where outsourcing or partnering might be beneficial, staff will be available to discuss.

Options to Generate New Revenue

Benefit Assessment District The utility undergrounding projects in Belvedere have been financed by the formation of Benefit Assessment Districts and the same financing mechanism could be used to fund other projects, such as flood control measures. The district can include a subset of properties within the City, or could be a "citywide district". The mail-in ballot procedures used for the underground districts would apply. Once property owners vote to approve the assessment, the City can bond against that future revenue and proceed with the identified project(s).

Parcel Tax Belvedere had a parcel tax in place from 1994 until it was repealed in 2002. A parcel tax can be a flat per-parcel rate, or can vary based on size and use of parcel. When repealed,

6

the previous tax assessed properties $195/year on average and generated about $200,000 for identified capital projects. A parcel tax is considered a "special tax" and requires 2/3 voter approval to pass. Usually, tax measures may only be placed on a ballot concurrent with City Council elections.

Increase to Fire Tax Fire services are paid in part by a tax levied on each property in Belvedere, and partly from the City's General Fund. This year, the contribution from the General Fund is about $400,000. Increasing the Fire Tax (with 2/3 voter approval) would decrease the annual subsidy from the GF.

Grants As we get closer to formulating a plan for protecting the Lagoon and other properties in the Flood Zone, staff will be applying for grants as they become available. Ca. Department of Water Resources has indicated they will be soliciting applications in 2014 for grants to help communities assess levees, which is good timing for Belvedere. Additionally, FEMA has in the past made grant money available for improvement projects, although it's unknown at this time what criteria they may use for specific programs.

Belvedere Community Foundation BCF is often mentioned as a possible funding source for City projects. Perhaps it would be beneficial to prioritize those future projects for which the City will seek BCF support, to avoid overlapping requests. Or it may be best to continue to approach BCF project by project. Council may wish to discuss.

Long Term Debt The City prides itself on not having to borrow money to pay for City services and projects. If bon-owing ever becomes part of the City's funding strategy, the Council could bond against future tax revenue, either current property taxes or a new, voter approved assessment and proceed with desired projects to meet the needs of the community.

Attachments:

1. Revised Five Year Projections and Reserve Status 2. Adopted Budget Pages 113-117 - 5-Year Budget for Capital Improvement Projects 3. Unmet Needs List 4. 2010 ADA Implementation Plan, pages 1-25 5. July 2013 Report to Planning Commission on FEMA related matters 6. Pension Expense and Analysis Memo 7. Letter from Tiburon Mayor O'Donnell regarding median project

7

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Fund Balance 7/1/13

Estimated 13114 Revenue

Estimated 13/14 Expenditures (a)

General Fund Transfers (b)

Total Expenditures+ Transfers (a+b)

Surplus/Deficit

Estimated 6-30-14 Fund Balances

Required GF Reserve

Estimated GF Reserve 6/30/14

Over/(Under) Reserve Requirement

CITY OF BELVEDERE FY2013-14 Projected Fund Balances

General Fund

$2,439,717

5,412,414

(5,552,562)

(442,241)

(5,994,803)

(582,389)

$1 ,857,328

2,644,783

1,857,328

(787,455)

Fire Fund

$0

746,587

(1 , 126, 720)

380,133

(746,587)

0

$0

Capital Improvement

Fund

$145,271

202,981

(393,000)

45,000

(348,000)

(145,019)

$252

Equipment Road Impact · Replacement

Fees . Fund

$314,177 $125,000

175,000 680

(245,000) (15,000)

0 4,320

(245,000) {10,680)

(70,000) (10,000)

$244,177 $115,000

Insurance Reserve

Fund

$62,212

0

(25,000)

12,788

(12,212)

(12,212)

$50,000

Totals

$3,086,377

6,537,662

(7,357,282)

0

(7,357,282)

(819,620)

$2,266,757

•.·.· .,.·: ··

,,,, " •i ]:'. ... ,, ·.

Fund Balance 7/1/14

Estimated 14-15 Revenue

Estimated 14115 Expenditures (a)



Transfer in UAD

Surplus/Deficit

Estimated 6-30-15 Fund Balances

Required GF Reserve




$1 ,857,328 $0

5,547,676 783,916

(4,777,451) (1 ,264,224)

(510,258) 480,308

(5,287,709) (783,916)

259,967 0

$2, 117,295 $0

$2,628,880

$2, 117,295

($511 ,585)

$252

168,396

(159,500)

0

(159,500)

123,038

8,896

$132,186

$244,177

178,500

(200,000)

0

(200,000)

{21 ,500)

$222,677

T.Qta.ts:··· ···

$115,000 $50,000 $2,266,757

50 0 6 ,678,538

(15,000) (15,000) (6,431 , 175)

14,950 15,000 0

(50) 0 (6,431 , 175)

123,038

0 0 247,363

$11 5,000 $50,000 $2,637, 158


Fund Balance 7/1/15 $2,117,295 $0 $132,186 $244,177

Estimated 15116 Revenue 5,693,227 823,112 169,796 182,070

Estimated 15116 Expenditures (a) (4,891 ,788) (1,314,793) {272,500) (279,000)

General Fund Transfers (b) (596,295) 491 ,681 74,664 0

Total Expenditures+ Transfers (a+b) (5,488,083) (823, 112) {197,836) (279,000)

Surplus/Deficit 205, 144 0 (28,040) (96,930)

Estimated 6-30-16 $2,322,439 $0 $104, 146 $147,247

Fund Balances

Required GF Reserve 2,691 ,735

Estimated GF Reserve 6/30/16 2,322,439

Over/(Under) Reserve Requirement {369,296)

$115,000 $50,000 $2,658,658

50 0 6,868,256

{15,000) (15,000) (6,788,081)

14,950 15,000 0

(50) 0 (6,788,081)

0 0 80,175

$115,000 $50,000 $2, 738,833

:•~,::::~;~t: •: .· " /1;.:_··=-· :·-.;$: :.·::

> . ::. :::: . ·" ; .. <·:··· '.o.

:· .·:·: _:::'..· ,> .. ,,;:::::-:: -."·

Fund Balance 7/1/16

Estimated 16117 Revenue

Estimated 16117 Expenditures (a)



Surplus/Deficit

Estimated 6-30-17

Fund Balances

Required GF Reserve




enera ··;:·· l te . ::,.'·· ·:· ep~Qemeot ·:::\I:/

:.:·.;; ·.·.;-:. Fund · ·,Futid

mr:>fdveme~ .:£l;:,, ~P~~t ::· ' Fu rid · J~:e'es ... ?;; ' .. ·F!.:Jnd ,_:' .'

$2,322,439 $0 $104,146 $147,247 $115,000

5,842,899 864,268 371,225 185,711 50

(5,034,021) (1 ,367,385) (330,000) (85,000) (15,000)

(533,067) 503,117 0 0 14,950

(5,567,088} (864,268) (330,000) (85,000) (50)

275,811 0 41,225 100,711 0

$2,598,250 $0 $145,371 $247,958 $115,000

2,768,569

2,598,250

(170,319)

· .o-tnsu · "2 ... ~'19"1. R , ..... .. ... .. es~r\ict· ... :

·.·.·.·:-.··

_,·.·' J:..ilWa .... :- ,r.a1ai~L/:::r- ,_,

$50,000 $2,738,832

0 7,264,153

(15,000) (6,846,406)

15,000 0

0 (6,846,406)

0 417,747

$50,000 $3,156,580


• ;··:~\.v.::: . . . ., Gerforal

'. F~f:!d .?

Oapitab .=

lmpfo~ernent _,,·;,,_. fund .= :n :t. Fund

Fund Balance 7/1/17 $2,598,250 $0 $145,371

Estimated 17118 Revenue 5,996,810 907,481 172,682

Estimated 17118 Expenditures (a) (5,204,188) (1,422,080) (165,000)

General Fund Transfers (b) (544,549) 514,599 0

Total Expenditures+ Transfers (a+b) (5,748,737) (907,481) (165,000)

Surplus/Deficit 248,073 O 7,682

Estimated 6-30-18 $2,846,323 $0 $153,053

Fund Balances

Required GF Reserve 2,859,394

Estimated GF Reserve 6/30/17 2,846,323

Over/(Under) Reserve Requirement (13,071)

$247,958

189,426

(80,000)

0

(80,000)

109,426

$357,384

.. ~-: :·.

Equipment Replacement

Fung ·=-:;,: ,

$115,000

50

(15,000)

14,950

(50)

0

$115,000

. .. ftintt ·· .. ,,

$50,000 $3, 156,580

0 7,266,449

(15,000) (6,901 ,268)

15,000 0

0 (6,901 ,268)

0 365,180

$50,000 $3,521 ,760

ATTACHMENT 2


CITY of BELVEDERE 5 - YEAR BUDGET FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

BUDGET ITEM FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18

STREET IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway Guardrail Installation 25,000 25,000

Slurry Seal 75,000 75,000

Retaining Wall at 172 Beach Road 70,000

Pavement Conditon Survey 4,000

Replace Iron Guardrails - Bayview & Bella Vista Avenues 25,000 25,000

Replace Toyon Avenue Retaining Wall 10,000 65,000

Recoat Steel Railings - Corinthian & Beach Road 20,000 20,000

Spot Repairs 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000

Street Paving 75,000 50,000 25,000

Crack Sealing 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Traffic Marking 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Shoulder Berms 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Total Street Improvements $ 245,000 $ 200,000 $ 279,000 $ 85,000 $ 80,000

FY2014 Capital Improvements 5 yr 113



STORM DRAINAGE

Lagoon Road Silt Basin Weir Replacement 15,000

Drainage Repairs Below 49 Belvedere 50,000 75,000

Emergency Drainage Repairs 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Drainage Improvements-Laurel Avenue

Total Storm Drainage $ 10,000 $ 25,000 $ 60,000 $ 10,000 $ 75,000

LANES

Handrail Painting 10,000

Cedar Lane Stair Replacement 25,000

Handrail Installation-Various Lanes 20,000 20,000 20,000

Eucalyptus Lane 0 50,000 275,000

Total Lanes $ 20,000 $ $ 80,000 $ 300,000 $ 20,000



BUDGET ITEM CV.t? .tA CV.t A .t I! CV.t I! .tc CVAC .t"7 ~VA-¥ An 1- I I '1• I '1' r I 1'1'-Ii.1 r I I'-'• IU r 1 1u-11 r111-10

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

Community Park Well Rehabilitation 50,000

Alie of Trees at Tom Price Park 7,500

Total Parks & Open Space $ $ 50,000 $ 7,500 $ $

COMMUNITY BUILDINGS

City Hall Sprinkler Check Valve 25,000

City Hall Patio Drainage Mitigation 25,000

Selected Exterior Painting of City Hall 20,000 20,000

Community Center Furnace Replacement 7,500

City Hall Security Upgrade 15,000

Misc Exterior Painting - Corp Yard Building 15,000 20,000

Corporation Yard Generator Improvements 30,000

Total Community Buildings $ 50,000 $ 22,500 $ 65,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000




MISCELLANEOUS

Sidewalk Repair Program 35,000

Beach Road Seawall & Sidewalk Repairs 70,000

Lagoon Road Disaster Supply Trailer Storage Area

Traffic Engineering Study 12,000

Retaining Curbs 25,000

FEMA CTP Project 50,000

FEMA Levee Certification Evaluation

Survey Monuments 25,000 25,000

ADA Compliance Projects 10,000 25,000 25,000

San Rafael Avenue ADA Improvements

Community Center Parking Lot Resurfacing/Striping 5,000

Misc. Maintenance & Improvements 65,000

Total Miscellaneous $ 200,000 $ 62,000 $ 60,000 $ $ 50,000



BUDGET ITEM

UNDERGROUND UTILITY ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS

Lower Golden Gate Ave (Proposed)

Acacia I Laurel Avenue (Proposed)

FY13-14

113,000

FY14-15

1, 100,000

220,000

FY15-16

1,347,500

Total Undergrounding $ 113,000 $ 1,320,000 $ 1,347,500 $

FY16-17 FY17-18

$

TOTALS (INCLUDING UNDERGROUNDING PROJECTS) $ 638,000 $ 1,679,500 $ 1,899,000 $ 415,000 $ 245,000

TOTALS (EXCLUDING UNDERGROUNDING PROJECTS) $ 525,000 $ 359,500 $ 551,500 $ 415,000 $ 245,000


ATTACHMENT 3


Citywide Unmet Needs FY13/14

Item Estimated Cost Description

Operations

General Admin Citywide Fee Study $15,000 Time and materials analysis of certain city services; used to support fees and other charges for service.

Planning/Building Permit Tracking System $25,000 A Permit Tracking System would greatly improve department efficiency by providing a tool for staff as well as the community to use to

easily access information about the scope and status of projects.

Planning/Building Housing Element Update $10,000 City's Housing Element must be updated by end of 2014

Police Replacement Vehicle $35,000 Deaprtment's 2002 patrol vehicle is due for replacement

Public Works Replacement Vehicle $25,000 Department's 1998 Toyota Tacoma pick up truck is due for replacement

Total Operations $110,000

Capital

Lanes Eucalyptus Lane $325,000 Priority project to open historic Lane. Grant funding possible.

Drainage Laural Ave. Drainage

$265,000 Multi-year project to design and construct drainage improvements to prevent flooding of local streets Improvements

Parks Lyford Parking Lot Landscaping $50,000 City agreed to landscape area adjacent to Lyford Parking Lot to mitigate impact on neighbors. Design is funded in current budget.

Community Buildings City Hall Sidewalk/Parking

$75,000 Improve accessible parking space and path of travel in front of City Hall Main Entrance

Parks Community Park Restroom

Access $25,000 Improve accessibility of public restroom at Community Park

Community Buildings Accessible Parking Space City

$25,000 Improve grade and restripe Handicapped Accessible Parking Space in City Hall Parking Lot Hall Parking Lot

Streets Sidewalk from City Hall to

$30,000 Extend sidewalk from front of City Hall to Community Park Community Park

FEMA Levee Accreditation $168,000 Cost to perform geotechnical and coastal evaluation of the San Rafael Ave. and Beach Rd. levees

Flood Control Project - Analysis, review and

approval $200,000 Cost for preliminary design/cost estimate of levee modifications (that result from the studies noted above) and the cost to prepare and

process a Conditional Levee Accreditation Package for FEMA's review.

Total Capital $838,000

Flood Control FEMA Levee Accreditation

Unknown To be determined, based on Levee Accreditation requirements Project - Construction

Outside City Tiburon Blvd. Median Project Unknown Request from Tiburon Mayor for Belvedere participation in median beautification project

Community Buildings Police Facility Water Intrusion Unknown In wet weather, water collects on floor of Police Department, assumed to be a leak at the foundation.

Miscellanous ADA Accessibility Plan

Unknown Multi-year effort to implement ADA Accessibility Plan Implementation

ATTACHMENT 4


/ )

AMARGEN + AiU~ A s s 0 c I A T E s Di.rnbilily Policy c.~ Universal Design \.nns11lta11ts

614 Grand Avenue, Suite 321 Oakland, CA 94610 Phone: 510-444-3440 Fax: 510-444-3441 \WJW.margenassociates.com

ADA/Accessibility Plan

City of Belvedere Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/Accessibility Plan

January 2010

/ )

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. ADA Pl_an Requirements

Ill. Right-of-Way Accessibility

IV. Methodology

v. Plan Priorities

VI. Interim Actions

VII. Funding Opportunities

VIII. Legend

IX. Reports

ADA/Accessibility Plan 2

I

(

I. Introduction

The City of Belvedere is a small, primarily residential community located in the high density bay area environment. Belvedere is not unlike many smaller cities that share a desire to be ADA compliant but have limited staffing iesouices to effectively address the multi-faceted administrative requirements.

The City of Belvedere has contracted with Margen +Associates, specialists in disability policy and universal design, to complete a study and develop a plan to improve accessibility to city facilities for persons with disabilities. We believe this succinctly prepared plan that will set the city on course to ADA compliance.

II. ADA Plan Requirements

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is a comprehensive civil rights law that prohibits discrimination or exclusion of individuals with disabilities in pubic and private buildings, programs, services and employment. There are five titles of the ADA.

Title II of the ADA covers state and local governments. The implementing regulations for Title II are written by the Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) and are contained in [28 CFR Section 35.105(d)(2), US DOJ, 1994b]. The Title II regulations and their associated accessibility standards (The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS)) require accessibility features at newly constructed or altered facilities.

For existing facilities, local governments must meet the standards for Program Accessibility. Program Accessibility means that a program, activity and/or service are accessible when viewed in its entirety. The concept behind program accessibility is that under some circumstances alternative measures may be taken to achieve access besides strictly architectural modifications. An example of program accessibility is relocating a meeting from an inaccessible to an accessible facility or modifying policies concerning the placement of street furniture to make sure that sidewalks are accessible.


.( (

In most instances under the program accessibility standard, there will still be a requirement to remove barriers that are structural in nature. For example, a library is not accessible if the restroom is not accessible. Even if the covered entity relocates books or moves functions within the building, the restroom would still have to be made accessible in order for the program of using the library to be accessible. These structural changes are the items that must be contained in a Transition Plan.

Ill. Right-of-Way Accessibility

One of the primary functions of a city is to provide safe and inviting pedestrian ways. Pedestrian traffic encourages interaction between citizens, strengthens neighborhoods and contributes to the vitality of the community at large. In this time of rising energy costs and the associated environmental impact of vehicle use, safe and accessibl~ pedestrian ways become even more important. Likewise, people with disabilities depend on a safe and accessible pedestrian system to conduct their daily lives. However, many of the elements and conditions that go unnoticed by the non-disabled public pose significant impediments to disabled persons. Ambulatory pedestrians can simply walk around an obstruction in the sidewalk or step off a curb face without much notice, however for individuals who use wheelchairs that which is considered commonplace becomes a major impediment. A sighted person can duck under an overhanging tree limb, but to a blind person the presence of the limb is not readily apparent and may cause physical injury. People with disabilities are generally more reliant on pedestrian networks. A large portion of the disabled population does not drive and depend on self-mobility or public transportation to get around. These factors, coupled with an aging population (where disabling conditions increase dramatically) highlight the importance of pedestrian systems that will serve all populations within the community, both in the present and into the future.

ADA Title II regulations require public entities that have responsibility for or authority over streets, roads, sidewalks, and/or other areas meant for pedestrian use must also develop a plan in order to remove right-of-way barriers. In addition to the requirements for buildings and facilities, the transition plan must include an assessment of the existing sidewalks requiring access improvements and present a schedule for curb ramp installations where an existing pedestrian walkway crosses a curb or other barrier. The DOJ Title II regulations require state and local government entities to prioritize the installation of curb ramps on walkways serving:

1. State and local government offices and facilities 2. Transportation


(, __ _

3. Places of public accommodation (private-sector facilities covered by Title Ill) 4. Places of employment

Case law has held that the right-of-way Transition Plan requirements go beyond simply installing curb ramps. In Barden v. the City of Sacramento (federal) the court held that the use of sidewalks by pedestrians is a program or activity subject to the ADA. The settlement provides that for up to 30 years, the City of Sacramento will allocate 20% of its annual Transportation Fund to make the City's Pedestrian Rights of Way accessible to individuals with vision and/or mobility disabilities. This will include installation of compliant curb ramps at intersections, removal of barriers that obstruct the sidewalk, including narrow pathways, abrupt changes in level, excessive cross slopes, and overhanging obstructions, and improvements in crosswalk access. ·

IV. Methodology

The City of Belvedere has been proactive on accessibility, by making prior improvements to city facilities and constructing ramps and other elements as part of more recent development work. Although construction for accessibility has occurred, what is lacking is continuity in accessible paths of travel. This is typical for many jurisdictions that have constructed sidewalks and other right of way over broad expanses of time. Additionally, a number of the prior accessibility improvements were not constructed in accordance with the applicable standards and will need to be corrected as part of the this plan.

In 2008-09 the City of Belvedere authorized a limited fiscal allocation for accessibility planning purposes. Given the resources available, Margen + Associates (MA) worked with city staff to develop a scope of work that would concentrate on the areas that will have the greatest impact. MA worked with the Assistant City· Manager to identify the areas of the city to be included for detailed analysis.

Facilities were evaluated for conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), the 2007 California Building Code (CBC), and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).


( \_

The following is a complete list of the facilities examined:

• City Hall Building o Administration o Council Chambers o Community Center o Police Station o Parking

• Community Park (adjacent to City Hall) o Children's playground

• Tom Price Park (adjacent to Corp Yard) o Tennis Courts o Parking

• Centennial Park

Vista Benches (5)

• Corinthian Overlook • Mason Wells Open Space • Oak PL/Bella Vista Ave. • Beach Rd./San Rafael Ave. • Belvedere Cove (at stairway)

Public Beach (1)

• Belvedere Cove

Commercial Area • Beach Road (approx. 1 blk.)

Public Sidewalks • San Rafael Avenue

o Tiburon Blvd. to West Shore Rd. • sidewalk on one side • crushed granite path at seawall side


o West Shore Rd. to Laurel Ave. • Sidewalk both sides

o Laurel Ave. to Beach Rd. Sidewalk one side

o Beach Rd. o Sidewalk both sides to SFYC

• Cove Rd. o Sidewalk both sides

• Peninsula Rd. o Sidewalk both sides

• Community Rd. o Sidewalk both sides

• Leeward Rd. o Sidewalk both sides

Lagoon Rd. o Sidewalk one sides

• Maybridge Rd. o Sidewalk both sides

• Edgewater Rd. o Sidewalk both sides

• Windward Rd. o Sidewalk both sides

• West Shore Rd. o Sidewalk one sides

Public Lanes (Stairways)


:\ )

7

/ \ I .J

v. Plan Priorities

In an ideal world with unlimited funding and resources, architectural barriers should be removed immediately. When dealing with right-of-way issues and the fiscal realities faced by most local governments, immediate removal is usually not possible. Congress recognized this fact when drafting the transition plan requirement in the ADA. The ADA allows a threeyear window to implement a transition plan. The three-year time period assumed that most cities and counties had already completed substantial accessibility work under prior federal requirements (Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968) and the ADA work would be "cleanup" of past work.

On August 28, 2009, a meeting was held at Belvedere City Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit input from city staff regarding the ADA/Accessibility plan. Meeting attendees provided information fo MA concerning facility use and policy. The results of the surveys were discussed and priorities established for the plan.

The following ranking system was established to rate the severity of each architectural barrier identified in the surveys:

Priority 1: Priority 2:

Priority 3:

Life/safety or crucial to provide access Does not meet the technical standard, but does not prohibit access to the vast majority of people with disabilities. The issue can be addressed through an alternative method such as relocating an activity or program to an alternative location

Sometimes, a barrier is nominal or there may not be sufficient physical space to complete accessibility improvements. Where this occurs, the plan does not recommend a change to existing conditions.


In accordance with Title II of the ADA, the ADA/Accessibility Plan has been written allocating ~he work over a three-year period. Due to financial constraints it will likely not be possible to complete the work identified with that time frame. Therefore, the following priorities have been established in order to assist the City of Belvedere in scheduling the improvements.

Priority 1: Priority 2: Priority 3: ·

Highest priority Moderate priority Lowest priority

For work to the public right of way, we recommend the following priority projects:

Beach Rd between San Rafael and Tiburon Blvd - This is a commercial area and is frequently used by pedestrians.

San Rafael Avenue between Beach Rd and Lagoon - This is a central pedestrian corridor that connects both ends of the island and serves essential city facilities. A study should be performed to look at installing sidewalk where interrupted along the route of travel. San Rafael Avenue into Tiburon Blvd - The seawall trail does not currently connect into Tiburon Blvd. as part of an accessible route of travel.

San Rafael Avenue by City Hall - The slope of the developed sidewalk that connects to Community Rd. is too steep to be safely used by wheelchairs. A study should be performed to look at installing a switch back ramp at this location and correcting the cross slope in the crosswalk.

Community Rd. - This is a central pedestrian corridor near City Hall and Community Park.

Other Residential Streets - The remaining residential streets have been assigned a Priority 3 (with the exception of overhanging vegetation). The reason for this is that most of these streets have limited vehicular use and although not recommended, it is possible to wheel in the street where intermittent barriers occur. The other reason for a Priority 3 designation is that significant resources will be needed to address the Priority 1 & 2 items in the plan.

Overhanging vegetation - These have been assigned Priority 1 as they can be addressed quickly with limited resources.


)

Lanes - None of the lanes provide an accessible route for wheelchairs. In most instances access cannot be provided due to limited easements or other technical constraints. Improvements can be made however to the exiting lanes, such as installing contrast striping or handrails. These changes are identified in the plan.

Belvedere Cove - This beach is only accessible by a very steep metal staircase. It appears that access cannot be provided due to limited easements or other technical constraints. Recommend improvement to the stairs is the addition of contrast striping. ·

VI. Interim Actions

If implementing a transition plan will take more than one year, the ADA Title II regulations require that interim actions be established, where appropriate. Unfortunately, when dealing with right-of way accessibility issues, there are few options for interim actions beyond identifying key accessible routes that can be used until the transition work has been completed.

Some jurisdictions have successfully identified accessible interim routes and made this information available on the city's website or in mailings. We recommend that the City of Belvedere take the data from the accessibility surveys and input the information into the ArchGIS system. Once the information has been presented graphically, it may be possible to identify interim routes that may be used by people with disabilities.

VII. Funding Opportunities

The following is a list of potential funding resources available that public entities have used for accessibility-related improvements. The have been included as a resource for the City of Belvedere.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century <TEA-21) Federal funds with specific set asides for pedestrian related projects. Most of the major categories of funding in TEA-21 can be used to build or retrofit sidewalks, crosswalks, and other accessible pedestrian facilities such as trails. There are also specific targeted subcategories of projects. These funds are available through the federal Department of Transportation.


Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) CDBG funds are grants from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and are usually allocated at the county or city level. CDBG funds have been used for curb ramp construction by local jurisdictions for many years.

Gas Tax Revenues Gas tax revenues are administered by the State of California for transportation and pedestrian related improvement projects.

Safe Routes to Schools Program The Safe Routes to Schools Program are monies that can be used by local agencies to improve pedestrian routes to schools ·

Tribal Casino Revenues Some jurisdictions have uses casino revenues for pedestrian improvement programs.

Developer Impact Fees New developments place a strain on existing public facilities. Developer impact fees are paid by developers to help cover the costs resulting from new construction and can be used to fund pedestrian right-of-way improvement projects.

Local Sales Tax A percentage of local sales tax can be allocated for pedestrian improvement projects.

Local Ordinances Some jurisdictions have passed local ordinances that require sidewalk improvements or curb ramp construction when the dollar value of a remodel project on a building exceeds a certain amount.

Private Revenues Private revenue may come in m'3nv forms such as dedications, monetary contributions, corporate underwriting, etc. This can be made available to cities and counties through the use of tax-deductible donations to 501 (c) 3 non-profits "friends of' organizations.


r' \ _ _)

Property Liens Property owners are responsible for the sidewalks directly in front of their property. Although some cities are reluctant to force this issue, sidewalk conditions can be repaired and reimbursement can be obtained from the owner through the use of liens.

Local Bond Measures Some jurisdictions have successfully passed local bond measures for facility improvement. Bond measures require a twothirds majority to pass. The City of Belvedere may wish to consider a bond measure to improve pedestrian facilities and accessibility.

Public-Private Partnerships Larger employers are sometimes interested in partnering with cities on projects where the company can use the publicity for public relation purposes. We often see branding of sports facilities; however this concept could be extended to accessibility features, such as curb ramps that could be paid for with private funds. Also, technology companies are sometimes interested in sponsoring projects that benefit specific population groups such as orientation systems for blind individuals.

VIII. Legend

The following are the terms and abbreviations used in the plan:

Item No. Each element in the transition plan has been assigned a number for reference and tracking purposes.

Side of Street Refers to location: N = North S =South E =East W= West


\

X-Street/Location/Street Block Cross street and or the location of a place (name of business) and the specific block.

Corner Refers to location: NW= Northwest NE= Northeast SW = Southwest SE= Southeast

Photo ID The photo connected to the element being addressed.

Element The component where the accessibility barrier occurs.

Barrier The condition that limits or prohibits accessibility.

Recommendation Action to remove the identified barrier.

Barrier Ranking Priority 1: Life/safety or crucial to provide access Priority 2: Does not meet the technical standard, but does not prohibit access to the vast majority of people with

disabilities. Priority 3: The issue can be addressed through an alternative method such as relocating an activity or program to an

alternative location


( )

Proposed Schedule Priority 1: Highest priority Priority 2: Moderate priority Priority 3: Lowest priority

Typical Right of Way Barriers

CR - Top landing/width The California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines require a 48" deep level landing at" the top of the ramp.

CR - Top landing/slope% The California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines require a level max. 2% slope at the top landing.

CR - Top landinq/X slope% The California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines require a level max. 2% cross slope at the top landing.

CR - Ramp width This refers to the width of the main body of the ramp, not the slope of the flared sides of the ramp that are not considered to be part of the walking surface. The minimum width allowed for a curb ramp is 48".

CR- slope% This refers to the slope of the main body of the ramp, not the slope of the flared sides of the ramp that are not considered to be part of the walking surface. The maximum slope allowed for a curb ramp is 8.33%.

CR-X slooe% This refers to the cross slope of the main body of the ramp, not the slope of the flared sides of the ramp that are not considered to be part of the walking surface. The maximum cross slope allowed for a curb ramp is 2%.


CR - Right flare slope% (facing the curb ramp) This refers to the slope of the right flared side of the ramp that is not considered to be part of the walking surface. The maximum slope allowed for a flared side is 10%.

CR - Left flare slope% (facing the curb ramp) This refers to the slope of the left flared side of the ramp that is not considered to be part of the walking surface. The maximum slope allowed for a flared side is 10%.

CR - Flush Transition The transition from the curb ramp to the gutter shall be flush ahd free of abrupt changes. The federal government bases the flush transition requirement on studies that have shown that a %" high lip constitutes an obstacle for some wheelchair users. The idea here is that the OW material better serve the same function as the%" lip. The federal government has made it clear through policy and correspondence that a%" lip at curb ramps is unacceptable. As of the date of this report the %" lip is no longer allowed by the California Building Code.

CR - >1/2" Vertical Lip From 1982-2007, the California Building Code required a%" maximum high beveled lip at the base of curb ramps. The intent of the lip is to provide a tactile cue to visually impaired pedestrians that they are entering or exiting a vehicular area. This requirement however is in conflict with the federal accessibility standards (UFAS & AOAAG), which require a flush transition at the base of curb ramps. The federal government bases the flush transition requirement on studies that have shown that a%" high lip constitutes an obstacle for some wheelchair users. The idea here is that the OW material better serve the same function as the%" lip. The federal government has made it clear through policy and correspondence that a %" lip at curb ramps is unacceptable. As of the date of this report the%'' lip is no longer allowed by the California Building Code.

CR - Gutter Slope% This refers to the slope of the adjoining street where the street (usually the gutter) meets the base of the curb ramp. The maximum slope allo\."Jed by state and federal regulations is 5°/o.

CR - Grooved Border/Width This refers to the grooved border that is required at the top and sides of the curb ramp and it shall be 12" wide.


/ <_J

CR - Grooved Border/Slope% This refers to the grooved border that is required at the top and sides of the curb ramp and it shall be level max. 2% slope.

CR - OW Material OW is an abbreviation for Detectable Warning material. Detectable Warnings are a configuration of raised truncated domes that are placed on the surface of a ramp, which provide a tactile cue to visually impaired pedestrians that they are entering or exiting a vehicular area.

CR - Right 24" Curb Segment within CW (Crosswalk) If the curb ramp is diagonal and has flared sides, it shall also have at least a 24" long segment of straight curb located on each side of the curb ramp and within the marked crossing.

CR - Left 24" Curb Segment within CW (Crosswalk) If the curb ramp is diagonal and has flared sides, it shall also have at least a 24" long segment of straight curb located on each side of the curb ramp and within the marked crossing.

CR - Minimum 48" between CR (Curb Ramp) & CW (Crosswalk) If the curb ramp is diagonal and within a marked crossing, there shall be a minimum 48" clear space between the bottom of the curb ramp and the inside face of the marked crossing.

SW SW is an abbreviation for "Sidewalk"

Not Continuous This refers to gaps in the sidewalk where the concrete surface ends but starts up again at a further point.

Blended to Street This refers to curb returns that are blended into essentially the same elevatio'n as the street crossing. This type of flush transition from the sidewalk to the street poses a hazard to many visually impaired pedestrians who do not have tactile cue to help identify this condition. The typical solution for this condition is to install detectable warning material.


SW-Width This refers to the width of the sidewalk. The minimum width is 48".

Running Slope% This refers to the slope of the sidewalk in the direction of pedestrian traffic.

X Slope% This refers to the slope of the sidewalk perpendicular to the direction of pedestrian traffic. The maximum cross slope allowed by state and federal regulations is 2%.

Vertical Break >1/2"

/ '\ . )

This refers to shifting or breaks in the sidewalk that produces abrupt vertical edges along the pedestrian walking surface. The state and federal regulations allow a 'Xi" maximum vertical change in elevation with a maximum vertical difference if the edge is beveled at a 1 :2 slope. Grinding or patching with asphalt can often rectify this condition. Vertical breaks in excess of%" have to meet the requirements for a ramp (8.33% maximum slope) or be removed and replaced.

Vertical Break Distance This refers to length of the vertical break disruption.

Uneven POT This refers to sidewalks with an uneven path of travel (POT) that can cause excessive vibration or shaking when rolling over the surface in a wheelchair. This type of surface can also be difficult to negotiate for individuals who use walkers or crutches.

60" x 60" landing/200 ft. This refers to passing space at sidewalks. If a sidewalk is less than 60" in width a passing space shall be located at reasonable intervals not to exceed 200 ft. a T-intersection of two walkways is an acceptable passing space.


/ )

POT Obstruction · This refers to fixed obstructions in the sidewalk, or sidewalk widths that are less than allowed by state and federal

regulations. In California, the minimum width of a public sidewalk is 48", however with a determination of Unreasonable Hardship by the enforcing agency (In this case the Department of Public Works) this minimum width can be reduced to 36".

Obstruction- Signaqe at <80"

I

This refers to pole, hanging or wall-mounted signs (or other feature) that hangs or projects over the sidewalk. Hanging or projecting objects that are absent a cane detectable barrier underneath are a hazard for visually impaired pedestrians. 80" is the minimum height allowed by state and federal regulations.

Obstruction- Vegetation This refers to plants or tree limbs growing into the sidewalk area that either reduces the clear width to less that the required minimum of 48" or overhang at a height less than 80".

Obstruction- Guy Wire This refers to a wire used to support a utiiity poie that is strung in a manner where it is tied at an angie. 'vVhere a guy support is used parallel to a path of travel, including, but not limited to, sidewalks, a guy brace, sidewalk guy or similar device shall be used to prevent an overhanging obstruction.

SW Obstruction- Tree - Pit or Grate This refers to an open tree well located in the sidewalk were the soil line is >1/2" below the sidewalk, or where there are tree grates provided that have openings greater than %"wide or are not protected by some other means.

D\NY- Slope % This refers to conditions where the pedestrian route requires traversing a driveway apron that creates a cross slope condition at the sidewalk and no accessible route has been provided through or around the driveway.


Facility Report Abbreviations

ADAAG = AFF = CBC = CL = ow = ISA = ISHL = POT = PROW = TYY/TDD = 8.33% = 5.00% =

IX. Reports


Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines Above Finish Floor California Building Code Centerline Detectable Warnings (Raised Truncated Domes) International Symbol of Accessibility International Symbol of Hearing Loss Path of Travel Public Right of Way Telecommunication Device for the Deaf 1 :12 slope 1 :20 slope

/ "\ )

19

0 z

~ Element Barrier 2007 CBC

BELVEDERE CITY HALL

1.0 - Parking 1.1 Parking- There is no designated "Van 11290.3 #2

·van Accessible" parking space provided. Accessible"

1.2 !SA Signage- The ISA sign posted on the wall al the 11290.4 Height designated accessible parking space is

<36" AFF.

1.3 Sl9nage- There is no lnrormation regarding the 11298.4 "Minimum Fine· monelary fine for parking in an

accessible parking space.

1.4 Sfgnage- There is no ·row AWAY" sign posted 11298.4 ·ro~Away· at the designated accessible parking

space.

1.5 Parking. The designated accessible parking 11290.3 #4

Slope space has running slopes ranging from 1.0%-3.6%.

1.6 Parking - The designated accessible parking 11290.3 #3 Cross Slope space has cross slopes ranging from

3.2%-4.8%,

1.7 Access Aisle- The access aisle stripes are painted 11290.3 #1 Stripe Color the wrong color.


Margen + Associates

City of Belvedere ADA/Accessibility Plan

CBC Requirement AOAAG AOAAG Roqulromont

One (1) in every eight (8) accessible 4.1.2 One (1) in every eight (8} accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall (S)(b) spaces, but not less than one, shall

be served by an access aisle 96" be served by an access aisle 96" wide minimum place on the side W:de minimum place on the side

opposite the driver's side and shall be opposite the driver's side and shall be designated "Ven Accessible•. designated "Van Accessible".

Signs identifying accessible parking 4.6.4 Accessible parking spaces shall be spaces shall be located so they designated .as reserved by a sign cannot be obscured by a vehicle shov.ing the Symbol of Accessibility. parked in the space. Spaces complying Yt-ith van spaces

shall have an additional sign "Van Accessible" mounted below the Symbol or Accessibility.

An additional sign or language below NIA Not addressed, the symbol of accessfbility shall slate "Minimum Fine S250".

An additional sign shell also be NIA Not addressed. posted In a conspicuous piece at each entrance lo off-street parking facilities or immediately adjacent to and visible from each stall or space. The sign shall not be less than 17'" x 22" v.;1h min, 1" lellering which says:

"Unautorized vehicles parl<ed in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons 'Nith disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. To1Ned vehiches may be reclaimed at __ or by telephoning __ ."

Blank spaces are to be filled in Wth appropriate information as a permanent part or the sign.

Surface slopes of accessible parking 4.6.3 Parking spaces and access aisles spaces shall be the minimum possible shall be level 'Nith surface slopes not and shall not exceed (1:50) 2% in any exceeding 1:50 (2%) in all directions. direction.

This maximum cross slope In any 4.6.3 Parking spaces and access aisles direction of an accessible parking shall be level v.;1h surface slopes not space and adjacent access aisle shall exceeding 1 :SO (2%} in all directions. not exceed 2%.

The loading and unloading access NIA Not addressed. aisle shall be marked by a border painted blue. Within the blue border, hatched lines a max. 35• on center shall be p;:iinled a color contrasting with the parking surface, proforably blue or while.

"' -g ~

; .E ~ ~

~ 0 'D

55 a. m Responsible Rocommendatlons e -:i Interim Action Party 0.. "' a: 0.."'

1 Provide one (1) designated "Van 1 1 NIA CITY Accessible" parking spaces as per CBC/AOAAG requirements,

1 Post an ISA sign as per C0CIAOAAG 1 1 NIA CITY requircmenls.

1 Post a "Minimum Fine· sign as per 2 1 NIA CITY CBC requiremenls.

1 Provide "To~away" Slgnege et the 2 1 NIA CITY designated accessible par1<ing space or at the entrance to the perking lot .as per CBC requirements.

1 Regrade the area 10 provide a max. 1 1 NIA CITY 2% slope in all directions as per CBC/ADAAG requirements.

1 Regrade the area to provide a max. 1 1 NIA CITY 2% slope in all directions as per CBC/ADAAG requirements.

1.2 Restripe the access aisle as per CBC 2 1 NIA CITY requirements.

20

(

Margen + Associates

City of Belvedere A D A I A c c e s s i b i 1. i t y P I a n

0 .,, a

:;S : :; z ~

0.,, E 55 o. a Responsible ~ Elomont Barrier 2007 CBC CBC Roqulrement AOAAG ADAAG Roqulromont " Rocommendations e~ Interim Action Party 0. aJ a: 0. U)

1.8 Access Aisle- The access aisle has running slopes 11298.3 #4 Surface slopes of accessible parking 4.6.3 Parking spaces and access aisles 1-2 Regrade the area to provide a max. 1 , NIA CITY Slope ranging from 4.6%-8,9%. spaces shall be the minimum possible shall be level with surface slopes not 2% slope In all directions as per

and shall not exceed (1 :SO) 2% in any exceeding 1 :SO (2%) in all directions. CBC/AOAAG requirements, direclion.

1.9 Access Aisle- The access aisle has cross slopes 11298.3 #3 This maximum cross slope in any 4.6.3 Parking spaces and access aisles 1-2 Regrade the area to provide a max. 1 1 NIA CITY Cross Slope ranging from 4.1 %-4.6%. direction or an accessible parking shall be level -Mth surface slopes not 2% slope In all directions as per

space and adjacent access aisle shall exceeding 1 :SO (2%) in all directions. CBCIAOAAG requirements. not exceed 2%.

1.10 Access Aisle· The access aisle does not have the 11296.3#1 The words 'NO PARKING- shall be NIA Not addressed. 1 Paint the •No PARKING· signage on 2 1 NIA CITY Signage words 'NO PARKING' painted on the painted on the ground -Mthin each S. the access aisle as per CBC

surface. fool loading and unloading access requirements. aisle. This notice shall be painted in white letters no less than 12· high and localed so that ii Is visible to traffic enforcement officials,

Employee Parking

1.11 Parking. There are eight (8) parking spaces and 11298.1 01 - 25 • 1 parking space 4.1.2 01 - 25 • 1 parking space 3-4 Provide one (1) designated accessible 1 1 NIA CITY Accessible there is no accessible parking space Table 118-6 (5)(a) parking space as per C8CIADAAG Parking provided. requirements.

1.12 Parking~ There is no designated ·van 11298.3 #2 One (1) in every eight (8) accessible 4.1.2 One (1) in every eight (8) accessible 1 Provide one (1) designated ·van 1 1 NIA CITY ·van Ac~essibte• parking space provided. spaces, but not less than one, shall (5)(b) spaces, but not less than one. shall Accessible· parking space as per Accessible• be served by an access aisle 95· be served by an access aisle 95· CBC/AOAAG requirements.

Yt1de minimum place on the side Yiide minimum place on the side opposite the driver's side and shall be opposile the driver's side and shall be designaled "Van Accessible·. designated ·van Accessible·.

2.0 • Site Accessibility

2.1 Accessible There is no accessible route lo !he City 11148,1.2 Al least one accessible route -Mthin 4,3.2 (1) At least one accessible route within No Provide an accessible route (walkway , 1 NIA CITY Roule- Hall public entrance from the PROW the boundary of the site shall be !he boundary of the site shall be Photo and crosswalk) as par C6CIADAAG To PROW (The sidewalk ends at the west end of provided from public lranspor1ation provided from public lranspor1ation requirements.

City Hall on San Rafael Ave). stops, accessible parking and stops, accessible parking, and accessible passenger loading zones, accessible passenger loading zones, and public slreets or sidewalks. to the and public strools or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance they accessible building entrance they serve. serve.

2.2 Accessible There is no accessible route lo the City 11146.1.2 At least one accessible route iw;thln 4,3,2 (1) Al least one accessible route within 2 Provide en accessible route from the 1 1 NIA CITY Route- Hall public enlrance from the the boundary of the site shall be !he boundary of the site shall be designated accessible parking space To Parking designated accessible parking space. provided from public transportation provided from public transportation to the main building entrance as per

stops, accessible parking and stops, accessible parking, and CBCIADAAG requirements. accessible passenger loading zones, accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks, to !he end public streets or sidewalks lo the accessible building enlrance they accessible building entrance they serve. serve.

Exterior Stairway at Front Entranco 2.J Exterior Stairs- There are no handrails provided. 11338.4.1.1 Stairways shall have handrails on 4.9.4 Stairways shall have handrails at both 13 Provide handrails on both sides or the 1 1 NIA CITY

Handrails each side. sides or all stairs. slairway as per C8CIAOAAG requirements.

2.4 Exterior Stairs- The bottom or the stairway feeds into 11338.8.5 Ir a walk crosses or adjoins a 4.29.5 If a walk crosses or adjoins a 13 Provide detectable warning material 1 1 NIA CITY Deteclable vehicular traffic and there is no vehicular way, and the walking vehicular way, and the walking where the s1alrway encounters Waming detectable warnings provided. surfaces are not separated by curbs, surfaces are nol separated by curbs, vehicular traffic as per CBC/ADAAG

railings, other elements bel'N!!en railings, olher elements bet'Nl!en requirements. pedeslrian areas and vehicular areas, pedestrian areas and vehicular areas, !he boundory between !he oreos sholl the boundary betwaen the orcos shn11 be de lined by a continuous OW. Js· be defined by a continuous OW, 35· iMde, wide.


0 z

~ Element Barrier

Exterior Stairway to Community Park 2.5 Exterior Stairs· There is only one handrail provided.

Handrails

2.6 Exterior Stairs- There are no handrail extensions Handrail provided. Extensions

2.7 Exterior Stairs- There is no contrasting striping Contras! Striping provided.

Exterior Stairway to Polico Department 2.B Ex1erior Stairs- The handrails are not conlinuous.

Continuous Handrails

2.9 EX1erior Slairs- The handrail heighl is 31YJ' AFF, Handrail Height

2.10 Ex1erior Stairs- The bottom handrail extensions are not Handrail parallel (horizontal) lo the floor surface. Extensions

2.11 Exterior Stairs- The gap between the handrail and wall Handrail Gap ranges from 1-5/8" to 2-118" vJde.

3.0 - City Hall Building

3.1 Building Sill- The building sill lhal wraps around the Protruding building is 30Y.'"/33~' AFF and Object protrudes out 4Y.i'.

3.2 Telephone Box The red telephone box is protruding (at main out 7" al 40Y."152Y.' AFF. entrance}-Protruding Object


2007 CBC

1133B.4.1,1

11338.4.2.2

11338.4.4

11338.4.2.4

11338.4.2.1

11338.4.2.2

113384,2,5

11338,S,6

Margcn + Associates


CBC Requirement AOAAG ADAAG Roquiromont

Sleirways shall have handrails on 4.9.4 Stairways shall have handrails at both each side. sides of all stairs.

Handrails shall extend a minimum of 4,9,4(2) Top: min. 12· beyond the lop riser 12· beyond the top nosing and 12·, and parallel with the noor or ground plus the tread widlh, beyond the surface. Bollom: handrail to slope for botlom nosing. a distance or the width of one Ire ad

rrom the botlom riser, the remainder or the ex1ansion shall be horizontal (see Fig, 19(c) and (d)).

Exterior slairways, !he upper NIA Not addressed. approach and all !reads shall be marked by a strip of clearly contrasting color al least 2· ....;de placed pa~llel to and not more than 1 • from the nose of the step or landing to alert !he visually impaired.

\fv'here !he stairs are continuous from 4,9,4(1) Handrails shall be continuous along landing to landing, the inner rail shall both sides of stairs. The inside be continuous and need not ex1end handrail on siMtchback or dogleg out into the landing. stairs shall always be conliciuous {see

Fig. 19(a) and (b)).

The top of handrail gripping surface 4.9.4(5) The top of handrail gripping surface shall be mounted between 34'·38" shall be mounted between 34'-38" above the nosing of the !reeds. above the nosing of the !reads.

Handrails shall extend 12·. plus !he 4.9,4(2) Handrails shall ex1end 12·. plus the tread INidth, beyond the bollom tread yJdth. beyond the bollom nosing. The handrail shall continue to nosing. The handrail shall continue to slope tor a distance of the width of slope for a distance of the yJd!h of one tread from the bottom riser; the one tread from the bottom riser; the remainder of the ex1ension shall be remainder or !he extension shall be horizontal. See Fig. 118-35, 118-37 horizontal. (See Fig. 19(<) and (d))

Handrails projecling from a wall shall 4,9,4(3) The clear space between handrails have a space of 1 Y.i" between the wall and wan shall be n~·. and the handrail.

Objects projecting from walls 'Nith 4.4.1 4" maximum projection betwee~ 2r their leading edges between 27' and end so· AFF. so· AFF shall protrude no more lhan 4'" into walks, halls, corridors, passageways or aisles.

11338,S.6 Objects projecting from walls with 4.4.1 4" maximum projaclion between 2r their leading edges between 27" and and so· AFF. 80" AFF shall protn.1de no more than 4' Into walks, halls, corridors, passageways or aisles.

·~

')

,, .. "' ~ c : :;

c -E ~

c ,, c .... Responsible .c Recommendations .... e 11 Interim Action Porty .. "' a: .. U)

5-0 Provide handrails on both sides of the 1 1 NIA CITY stairway as per CSC/AOAAG requirements.

5-0 Provide handrails extensions as per 2 1 NIA CITY CBC/AOAAG requirements,

5-0 Provide contras! striping on all treads 1 1 NIA CITY as per CBC requirements.

7-S Provide continuous inner handrails as 1 1 NIA CITY per CBC/ADAAG requirements.

7-11 Raise handrails 34" lo 38" above the 1 1 NIA CITY nosing of the treads as per CBCIAOAAG requirements.

10,12 Provide handrails extensions as per 2 1 NIA CITY CBC/AOAAG requirements.

7-11 Relocate handrail 1 %'" bet\w!en the 1 1 NIA CITY wall and the handrail as per C8C/AOAAG requirements.

15 Shave oH y,· from sill or provide a solid 2 1 NIA CITY fixed barrier below ii as per CBC/ADAAG requirements.

15-16 Relocate telephone box or provide a 1 1 NIA CITY solid fixed barrier below it as per CBC/AOAAG requiremenls.

22

0 z E ~ Element Barrier 2007 CBC

3.3 Telephone Sox The red telephone box door hardware 11178.6 #4 {al main is recessed and ii is difficult to open entrance)- easily .....;th a hand rist. Door Operation

3,4 Main Entrance· The door requires 16 lbs. or force lo 11338.2.5 Door Fon:e open.

3.5 Main Entrance· At the end of the 3 second sweep the 11338.2.S. 1 3 Second door closes quickly causing a Sweep Time hazardous condition.

3.6 Door Bottom- The door stop at the bottom of the 11338.2.6 Smooth Surface door obstructs the bottom or the push

side of the door.

3.7 Main Entrance- The tactile exit signage is >60' AFF. 11178.5.7 Tactile Exit Signage Height

Lobby Area 3,8 Display Shelf· The display shelf is 41 '/1·143· AFF and 11338.8.6

Protruding protrudes out 11 ~·. Object

3.9 Drinking There is no higher drinking.fountain 11178.1 Fountain· provided. "Hi-Low Model

3.10 Drinking The drinking fountain is not in an 11178.1.2 (2) Fountain· alcove and there are no wing .....-ans or \\Ing Walls rails provided,


(

Margen + Associates


CBC Roquiromont ADAAG ADAAG Roqutromont

Controls and operating mechanisms 4.27.4 Controls and operating mechanisms shall be operable YJ\lh one hand and shall be operable v.;1h one hand and shall not require light grasping, shall not require light grasping, pinching or twisting or the wrist. The pinching or twisting or !he \Wist. force required lo activale conlrols shall be no greater than 5 lbs. of force.

Maximum effort to operate doors may 4,13.11 lnterioraS lbs no! exceed S·pounds) for exterior and Exterior-reserved interior doors.

Doors wilh closers may not close 4.13.10 If the door has a closer, is Iha closer faster than 3 second from an open adjusted so that from an open position of 70 degrees to a point 3· position of70 degrees, the door will from the latch. lake at least 3 seconds to move to a

point 3• from the latch (measured to !he leading edge or !he door)

The bottom' 1 a· of a door must be NIA Not addressed. free of interruptions that can snag a wheelchair's footrest as it pushed the door open.

Mounting height shall be 60' above 4.30.6 Mounting height shall be 60' above the finish floor lo the center line of the the finish floor lo the center line of the sign. Mounting location shall be sign. Mounting location shall be determined so that a person may determined so that e person may approach lh'ithin 3• of signage without approach within 3· of signage without encountering protruding objects or encountering protruding objects or standing INithin the slNing or a door. standing within the swing of a door.

Objects projecting from walls with 4.4.1 4' maximum projection between 2r their leading edges between 27• and and so· AFF. so· AFF shall prolrude no more than 4• into walks. halls, corridors, passageways or aisles.

VV'here only one drinking fountain 4.1.3 (10) l/vtiere only one drinking fountain area is provided on a ftoor, there shall area Is provided on a floor, there shall be a "hi-loYI drinking fountain or by be a 'hi-lo\I/ drinking fountain or by such other means as would achieve such other means as would achieve the required accessibility for each the required accessibility for each group on each noor. group on each floor.

Wing walls shall be provided on each NIA Not addressed. side or the water fountain. The wing walls shall project out from Iha supporting wall at least as far as the waler fountain to within s· of the surface of the path of travel. 32• min. clear bet~en the wing walls.

,, 0

:; .5 : :;

j 0,,

5~ a. a Responsible

Recommendations e 'll Interim Action Party .. Ill 0: .. "' 15-16 Provide a way to open the door that 1 1 NIA CITY

will nol require tight grasping, pinching ortwisting of the 1Mist as per CBC/ADMG requirements.

14 Replace or adjust the closer as per 1 1 NIA CITY CBC/ AOAAG requiremenls.

14 Replace or adjusl the closer as per 1 1 NIA CITY CBC/ AOAAG requirements.

18 Remove door stop to provide a mir:i. 2 1 NIA CITY 10· high smooth botlom surface as per CBC requirements.

21-22 Post tactile exit signage at 60' above 2 1 NIA CITY the finish ftoor to the center line of the sign each exit as per CBC/AOAAG requirements.

20 Provide a solid barrier element 1 1 NIA CITY underneath the display shelf as per CBC/AOAAG requirements.

19 Provide a 'H..,LoYI drinking fountain as 2 1 NIA CITY per CBC/AOAAG roquirements.

19 Provide wing walls on each side of !ho 2 1 NIA CITY drinking fountain as per CBC requirements.

23

( '-.

0 z

~ Element Barrier

3.11 Drinking The knee clearance under the front Founlain- apron ls 26" AFF, Knee Space

3.12 Drinking The noor underneath the drinking Fountain- fountain has a 6% cross slope. Floor Slope

3.13 Drinking There is a chair encroaching into the Fountain- clear floor space of the drinking Clear Floor fountain. Space

Council Chambers

3.14 Main Entrance- The landing at the pull side of the door Landing Slope has a 5.1% slope. (pull side)

3.15 Main Entrance- The door requires 10lbs. of force to Door Force open.

3.16 Main Entrance- The door stop at the bottom of !he Bottom-Smooth door obstructs the bottom of the push Surface side of the door.

3.17 Ramp- The ramp has a width of 32· wide due Widlh to !he encroachment of a bench.

3.18 Council The council member's desktop has a Members 26~t AFF knee space. DeskloJ>-Knee Space

J,i9 :::>ide Entrance- The iactiie exit signage is >60~ At-t-. Taclile Exit Signage Height


2007 CBC CBC Requirement

( \

Margen + Associates


ADAAG ADAAG Roquiromont

Fig. 118-3 Minimum 27" AFF. 4.15.5 Wall. end posl·mounted cantilevered Fig. 27 units shall have a clear knee space

(a)(b) between the bottom of the apron and lhe floor or ground al feasl 27' high, 30' v.;de, and 17' lo 19· deep.

NIA Nol addressed. NIA Not addressed.

11018.3 M:iinlenance of Accessible Features, zec.F.R. pl. 36, Maintenance of Accessible Features. A public accommodation shall 36.211 A public accommodation shall mainlain in operable 'H:lrking maintain in operable 'H:lricing condition those features of facilities condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be and equipment that are required to be accessible to and usable by persons accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. with disabilities.

11338.2.4.2 The floor or ground area within the Fig. 25 The level area must have a length in required clearances shall be level and the direction of door swing of at least clear. The level area must have a so· as measured at right angles to the lenglh in the direction or door swing plane of the door in its closed of at least so· as measured at right position. angles to the plane of the door in its closed position.

11338.2.5 Maximum effort lo operate doors may 4.13.11 lnterior-5 lbs not exceed S·pounds) for e>rterior and ExlerioMeserved interior doors.

11338.2.6 The bottom 1 o· of a door must be NIA Nol addressed. free of interruptions that can snag a Yvtiee!chair's foolrest as ii pushed !he door open.

11018.3 Maintenance of Accessible Features. 2BC.F.R. pl. 36, Maintenance of Accessible Features. A public accommodation shall 36.211 A public accommodation shall maintain in operable 'H:lrking maintain in operable working condilion those features of facililies condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be and equipment that are required to be accessible to and usable by persons accessible to and usable by persons Yoith disabilities. with disabilities.

11228.3 Knee Clearance. ff seating tor 4.32.3 Knee Clearance, If sealing for persons in wheelchairs is provided at persons In wheelchairs is provided at lixed tables or counters, knee spaces fixed tables or counters, knee spaces at least 21· high. 30· wide and 19· al leas! 27" high, 30" v.;de and 19" deep shall be provided (see Figure deep shall be provided {see Figure 118-13). 45).

; i i7B.5,7 Mounting height shaii be 50• above 4.J0.6 Mounling heigtll ~mall be 50· above the finish Ooor 10 the center line of the the finish noor to the center line of the sign. Mounting Jocalion shall be sign. Mounting location shall be determined so that a person may determined so that a person may approach within 3" of signage without approach y.;lhin 3· of signage wilhout encountering protruding objects or encountering protruding objects or standing within the s\'Jng or a door. standing y.ij\hln the s\'Jng or a door.

.,, .. ~ .5 : :;

~ D.,,

55 c. .. Responslble .c Recommendations e ii Interim Action Party 0. Ill 0: 0. Ill

19 Reise the drinking fountain a min. 27" 2 1 NIA CITY AFF to provide the required knee space clearance as per CBCIAOMG requirements.

19 Relocate drinking rountain or provide a 1 1 NIA CITY level clear floor space in front of !he drinking founlain.

19 Relocate chair lo provide the required 2 1 NIA CITY clear floor spaco for the drinking fountain.

No Provide a level landing at the pull side 1 1 NIA CITY Photo or the door or install an automatic door

opener as per CBCIADAAG requirements.

30 Replace or adjusl the closer as per 1 1 NIA CITY CBC/ ADAAG requirements.

30 Remove door stop lo provide a min, 2 1 NIA CITY 1 o· high smooth bottom surface as per CBC requirements,

31 Relocate bench lo provide full floor 2 1 NIA CITY space clearance at the bottom of the ramp.

32 Raise the council member's desktop to 2 1 NIA CITY provide the min. 21· AFF knee space clearance as per CBC/AOAAG requirements.

33 Post 1actiie exil signage at 50· above 2 1 NIA CITY the finish noor lo the cenler fine of the sign each exit as per CBCIADAAG requirements.

24

0 z E ~ Element Barrior

J,20 Side Entrance· Door Force

The door requires 9lbs. of force to open.

3.21 Side Entrance. The door stop at the bottom of the Bottom-Smooth door obstructs the bottom of the push Surface side of the door.

3.22 Side Entrance- The threshold Is 1 W high on bolh Threshold sides of the door, Heigh!

4.0 - Unisex Restroom 4.1 Entry Door.

Strike Side Clearance

4.2 Entry DoorOoor Force

4.J Entry Door. 3 Second 5.....-eep Time

4.4 ToilelClear Floor Space

4.5 Toilet Paper Dispenser. Location

There is a chair encroaching into the strike side clearance of the push side of the door.

The door requires 141bs. or force to open.

The door closes in less than 3 seconds.

There is 45• deep dear noor space in front of the toilet.

The far edge of lhe toilet paper dispenser is mounted 49• from the rear wall.

4.6 Side Grab Bar· The far edge of the side grab bar Location extends 53• from the rear wall.


( \

Margen + Associates


2007 CBC CBC Requirement

11338.2.5 Maximum effort lo operate doors may not exceed S.pounds) for ex1erior and interior doors.

11338.2.6 The bottom 10e of a door must be free or interruptions that can snag a wheelchair's footrest as it pushed the door open.

11338.2.4.1 The floor or landing may nol be more than W lower than the threshold of the doorway. Change in level between y.· and ~· must be beveled i.Mth a max. 1 :2 slope. Change In level greater than ~· must be accomplished by means of a ramp.

11019.3 Maintenance of Accessible Features, A public accommodation shall maintain ln operable mrking condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be accessible lo and usable by persons with disabilities.

11339.2.5 Maximum effort lo operate doors may not exceed S.pounds) for exterior and interior doors.

11338.2.5.1 Doors Yr'ith closers may no! close faster than 3 second from an open position or 70 degrees lo a point 3· from the latch.

11158.4.1 #2 A minimum 48" long clear space shall be provided in front of the toilet.

11158.8.4 Toilet tissue dispensers shall be located on the wall within 12· of the front edge of the toilet seat, mounted below lhe grab bar at a minimum height of 19" and 35· maximum to the far edge from the rear wall.

11158.4, 1 #3.1 The side grab bar shall be a minimum 42" long, located 12· maximum from the rear wall and extend 54· minimum from the rear wall with the front end positioned 24• minimum in front of the loilel.

0 a

ADAAG _ADAAG Roquirement-- -f~ ---Recommendations--~

4.13.11 lnlerior·S lbs 33 Replace or adjust the closer as per Ex1erior.reserved CBC/ ADAAG requiremenls.

NIA Not addressed. 33 Remove door stop to provide a min. 2 10· high smooth bottom surface as per CBC requirements.

4.13.8 Threshold• al doorways shall nol 34 Replace threshold as per CBCIADMG 1 exceed y.• in height for exterior requirements. sliding doors or Yi" for other types or door.;. Raised thresholds and noor level changes et accessible doorways shell be beveled with a slope no greater that 1 :2.

2BC.F.R. pl, 36, Maintenance of Accessible Features. 36.211 A public accommodation shall

maintain in operable working condition those features of facililies and equipment lhal are required lo be accessible lo and usable by persons with disabililies,

4.13. 11 lnterior-5 lbs Exterior-reserved

4.13.10 If the door has a closer, is the closer adjusted so that from an open position of 70 degrees, !he door will lake al least 3 seconds to move to a point 3" from the latch (measured to the leading edge of the do0r).

4.17.3 Standard toilet stalls Yr'ith a minimum Fig. 30 depth of 56" shall have wal~mounted

waler closets. If lhe deplh of a standard loilel slall is increased at least 3• (59") then a floor-mounted water closet may be used.

Fig, 30 Max. 36" from the outside edge of the toilet paper dispenser.

Fig. 29 & 30 A 42' minimum length grab bar is required to the side of the waler doset spaced 12· maximum from the back wall and extending a minimum of 54• from the back wall al a heigh! belwoen 33• and 3s·. Side grab bar sholl be a min, 54" from the rear wall.

26 Relocate chair lo provide the slrike side clearance of the push side of the door as per CBC/ ADMG require men ls.

26 Replace or adjust the closer as per CBC! ADAAG requirements.

26 Replace or adjust the closer as per CBC/ ADAAG requirements.

27 Renovate close! lo provide a min. 45· deep clear floor space in front of the loilel as per CBC/ ADMG requirements.

27 Relocate !he toilet paper dispenser far edge to a max. 35· from the rear wall as per CBC/AOAAG requirements.

27 Relocate !he far edge of the side grab bar lo a min. 54• from the rear wall as per CBC/AOAAG requirements.

2

1

'g .! ~ " 0.,, o. m e 'fi 0..,,

1

1

Interim Action

NIA

NIA

NIA

NIA

NIA

NIA

NIA

NIA

NIA

:~ j

Responsible Party

CITY

CITY

CITY

CITY

CITY

CITY

CITY

CITY

CITY

25

ATTACHMENT 5


CITY OF BELVEDERE Memorandum

July 11, 2013

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Mary Neilan, City Manager

SUBJECT: Update on FEMA/Flood Zone related issues

Background Since 1968, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has been available to communities enabling property owners to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. Communities who wish to participate in the NFIP must adopt and enforce a Floodplain Management Ordinance intended to reduce flood risk by controlling development in flood prone areas and applying more stringent building requirements when existing structures are improved. Belvedere adopted its Floodplain Management Ordinance in 1987, amended it in 2004 and again in 2011 (BMC Chapter 16.20). Flood insurance is required as a condition of federal or federally related financial assistance for acquisition of properties in flood hazard areas and is almost exclusively offered through the NFIP. Communities that are located in Flood Hazard Zones and do not participate in the NFIP may not be eligible for federal disaster assistance, should a catastrophic flood occur.

Through a process of data collection and analysis coupled with public input, FEMA produces Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that identify those properties in a community determined to be at significant risk of flooding and therefore 1) eligible to purchase flood insurance through NFIP and 2) subject to the regulations in the local Floodplain Management Ordinance. The maps include Base Flood Elevations (BFE) for the mapped areas and delineate Flood Hazard Zones as well as floodplain boundaries.

In 2009, FEMA revised the FIRM for Marin and as a result most properties in the Lagoon and on the north side of Beach Road were placed in the AE Flood Hazard Zone, while properties on West Shore Road, the south side of Beach Road and the west side of Corinthian Island were included in the VE Zone. Properties in both the AE and VE Zones are those determined to be subject to a 1 % annual chance flood event (the 100 year flood), with properties in the VE Zone subject to additional hazards due to storm induced wave action. All properties in AE and VE Zones are subject to the requirements of BMC Chapter 16.20.

Additionally, the Ca. Residential Building Code regulates construction in flood prone areas. Projects subject to the Floodplain Management Ordinance must also comply with the requirements of the Building Code.

For the last few years, Belvedere staff, consultants and the Citizens Flood Zone Committee have been working to understand and mitigate the impacts of the combined federal, state and local floodplain regulations on development activity in Belvedere. The City's Floodplain Management Ordinance requires that properties in both the AE and the VE Zone that undergo "substantial improvement" (improvements with a project cost that exceeds 50% of the market value of the home) meet certain standards of construction involving anchoring, construction materials and methods, and elevation and flood proofing.

The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) on the 2009 FEMA Flood Map is nine feet NA VD in both the AE and the VE Zones in Belvedere.1 The elevation requirements of BMC Chapter 16.20 mandate the addition of one foot of "free board" resulting in a Design Flood Elevation (DFE) of (9+ I=) 10 feet NAVD. In the AE zone the finish floor of nonparking/storage spaces must be at or above the DFE. In the VE zone the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member supporting non-parking/storage floors must be at or above the DFE.

Projects that do not exceed 50% of market value of the home are not subject to the requirements of the Ordinance, but must still meet current Building Code standards for properties in a Flood Zone.

AE Zone Concerns The elevation requirement in the AE Zone has been discussed at length with the Planning Commission and the Citizens Flood Zone Committee (CFZC). Given the existing building height maximum in the RIL Zone, raising the floor to 10 feet NAVD makes it nearly impossible to build a two story structure, limiting the options for a property owner who wishes to renovate or expand their home. Alternatively, allowing two story buildings that meet FEMA's elevation requirement would result in homes much taller than are now permitted, permanently altering the look and feel of the Lagoon. The CFZC has recommended that the Planning Commission consider changes to the Zoning Ordinance to address this problem and staff is preparing some options to be discussed at the August PC meeting.

VE Zone Concerns In addition to the elevation and other requirements that affect the AE Zone, new construction in the VE Zone is subject to a setback requirement that calls for any new structure to be built "landward of the mean high tide". On West Shore Road, Corinthian Island and Beach Road, many of the lots are located primarily over water, without sufficient space to locate a home on land. When they became aware of this regulation last year, property owners in those neighborhoods were understandably concerned that should their home be destroyed (by flood, earthquake or fire for example), their inability to meet

1 NA VD is a recognized reference standard for measuring elevation.

2

the setback requirement would preclude them from rebuilding. Consequently, the City has spent considerable effort attempting to get clarification from FEMA as to whether demolition and reconstruction of an existing structure constitutes new construction (which requires the setback) or substantial improvement (which does not), and what criteria should be used to decide. The latest information from FEMA seems to indicate that preservation of the existing foundation and/or pilings would be necessary for a project to avoid being classified as "new construction". While not the most practical approach, once confirmed this interpretation would at least provide some guidance to applicants who wish to expand and modernize their home, but are not able to locate the structure landward of the mean high tide.

The Ca. Residential Building Code also has a setback requirement in the VE Zone, which extends to substantial improvement of an existing building as well as new construction. The City Council, sitting as the Building Board of Appeals, recently made findings and approved a variance to the Building Code setback requirement for a demo and reconstruction project at 73 West Shore Road, but conditioned the approval to comply with any restrictions imposed by FEMA on this type of reconstruction project in the VE Zone. Staff and the applicant are waiting for policy guidance from FEMA before the project can proceed through Design Review.

Levee Accreditation Project in RlL Zone While zoning changes in the RIL Zone could provide some options for homeowners in the near term, the City has an interest in providing flood protection to satisfy FEMA and remove those properties from the Flood Zone altogether. As most Lagoon residents know, the levees along San Rafael Ave. and Beach Rd. provide significant protection for their properties. However, neither of those structures is recognized by FEMA as flood control devices. The 2009 FIRM did not take the levees into account in the analysis that determined the Base Flood Elevation. If it had, the BFE would be much lower and some (perhaps many) of the Lagoon properties might have remained outside the AE Zone. Levee accreditation is the means by which communities seek recognition from FEMA that these types of facilities exist and indeed provide protection during a flood event.

In order to receive accreditation, levee systems must be proven to be structurally sound, designed to provide sufficient protection and managed to guarantee their effectiveness over time. A successful accreditation process can take considerable time and resources.

Several years ago, a proposal to protect the Lagoon from any storm water infiltration by raising the seawall at San Rafael Ave. up to six feet was considered. Once story poles were erected along the wall, the community firmly rejected that project as having a significant negative impact on views and aesthetics. An alternative approach that would meet FEMA requirements was sought.

Last year, the City applied for and received a Cooperative Technical Partners (CTP) grant from FEMA to review and analyze the conditions that lead to the inclusion of Lagoon properties in the AE Zone and to investigate various means by which properties could be protected to meet FEMA's standards. The City hired Stetson Engineering (James Reilly,

3

principal) to conduct the study. James' approach was to analyze the Lagoon system (capacity, levees at San Rafael Ave. and Beach Rd., pumps, diversion) to determine if and how much the levees could be "overtopped" during a flood event and the system still provide enough protection to keep Lagoon properties from flooding. He finished his draft analysis in April and asked FEMA to conduct a peer review to confirm his approach was reasonable. They responded in May in the affirmative and he prepared a final report that was submitted to FEMA in June. That report concludes that some overtopping of the levees could occur in a 100 year flood event without jeopardizing the safety of Lagoon properties, given the Lagoon's capacity and the other components of the system. He is now in conversation with FEMA to address their comments and expects to have the report approved by them within 60 days.

Once James' report/analysis is approved FEMA, the City will be in a position to engage consultants to conduct geotechnical analysis and coastal engineering assessments of the levees to determine their structural integrity and stability over time. Results of those studies will lead to recommendations to improve the levee system to meet the standards for flood protection (and limit the amount of overtopping) suggested by James' overtopping analysis.

For example, the improvements might involve raising the levees 1-2 feet and installing more pumps in the Lagoon. Or the preferred approach might be to dredge the Lagoon and create capacity that way, allowing for more rainwater to intrude during a storm event without flooding adjacent homes.

A preliminary design of the proposed improvements would be prepared and reviewed by the City Council and community. That design would then be part of a Conditional Levee Accreditation Package to be submitted to FEMA for review and approval. If FEMA agreed that the improvements were appropriate and that the flood protection system would be managed competently and effectively, the plan would presumably be approved. The City could then implement the improvement project.

Once the improvements are complete (which may as noted above involve raising the floodwall, adding pumps and/or dredging the Lagoon), the City could apply to FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This is a request from a property owner or jurisdiction to remove certain properties from the Flood Zone, given changed conditions or new information. Once FEMA approves the LOMR, changes would be made to the BFE, lowering the elevation standard, or properties may be removed from the Flood Zone altogether.

Timeline and Funding As members of the Planning Commission might suspect, the Levee Accreditation Project will be both time consuming and costly. James Reilly estimates the geotechnical studies and coastal assessment will cost about $150,000. The preliminary design and cost estimate of the levee system improvements, and preparing/submitting the Conditional Levee Accreditation Package to FEMA could cost as much as $200,000. The improvement project itself will require environmental review, regulatory permitting, final

4

design and construction and will likely cost several million dollars. Funding for the Levee Accreditation Project has yet to be identified.

A preliminary project timeline is attached to this report. If funds are made available, the geotechnical and coastal engineering analysis can be completed this calendar year. A preliminary design and accreditation package could be submitted as soon as Fall of 2014, with FEMA approval anticipated by mid-2015. Environmental, regulatory and final design might be complete by the end of 2016 with construction starting in 2017. Subsequent to project completion, a LOMR would need to be prepared and submitted to FEMA. Approval of a LOMR and subsequent map revision can take up to a year.

New Flood Maps As described above, it could take until 2018 to complete the Levee Accreditation Project and revise the FIRM for Belvedere. In the meantime, FEMA has begun a project to update the flood and wave data used to create the FIRM for the San Francisco region. They recently released "working maps" reflecting this new data and analysis. James Reilly reviewed the analysis as it affects Flood Hazard Zones in Belvedere and prepared extensive comments that have been submitted to FEMA. He believes FEMA's new methodology has some flaws that lead to a proposed one-foot increase in Base Flood Elevation in the Lagoon (from 9ft to 1 Oft per computer modeling) that is not consistent with 150 years of data tracking water levels in the Bay. And in the VE Zone along West Shore Road, he believes the analysis incorrectly assumed the shoreline there was smooth (like a sandy beach), allowing more wave run-up than will actually occur given the rough topography and riprap-type barriers that many homeowners have in place. His comments argue that those BFEs are also overstated and that the mischaracterization of the shoreline as smooth may indicate the whole area should be designated AE, not VE.

This is the first round of comments for the new maps, not scheduled for final adoption until sometime in 2015.

Attachment: 1. Levee Accreditation Project Timeline

5

,,,---. I ' I

I 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Description 01 I 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 Draft overtopping analysis

hJ .• ~~~: [:.

(completed) ,·Y ·:.\

FEMA peer review of draft ·c.,.,, iF}

overtopping analysis .): ._,, .•.

(completed) ;,'. :1:

Final overtopping analysis ~~1:~ FEMA review/approval of ) final overtopping analysis Geotechnical, coastal '"''''· engineering assessment of levees ·.,

Complete CTP i .. ::·, \

deliverables; submit to \; , .. ,,.

FEMA """ '-';<' ... .; .. •

Preliminary design of '.

,;~1r~ levee modifications ,,., 1t

" "· Conditional levee

;ll~il accreditation package; submit to FEMA

FEMA review/conditional ,,~~~~II~ levee accreditation

Right-of-way acquisition ;[g;? Environmental review and • ;c:

..... ,.

regulatory permitting " 100% design levee ,,, . .,.

modifications ,.~

Construction (begin in 2017)

ATTACHMENT 6

ATTACllMENT.6 TO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Pension Expense and Analysis

All regular employees hired in Belvedere are enrolled in Cal PERS. Non-safety employees are covered under the 2%@55 Miscellaneous plan, safety employees under the 2%@50 Safety plan. The cost of the benefit is shared by the City and the employee. In FY13/14, the City will pay 10.81% of salary for non-safety employees (employees pay 7% of their salary) and 19.9% of salary for safety employees (safety employees pay 9% of their salary). These rates reflect the recent payoff of the two Side Fund Liabilities.

In Jan., 2013 the Ca. Legislature adopted comprehensive pension reform (PEPRA) that created new benefit formulas for employees hired after Jan. 1 who do not have prior (or recent) membership in CalPERS. These employees must be enrolled in less expensive pension plans: 2%@62 for Miscellaneous and 2.5%@57 for Safety. The cost of these plans must be shared equally by employer and employee. In FY13/14, both employer and employee will each pay 6.2% of sa lary for the Miscellaneous and 11.5% for Safety.

CalPERS refers to members who enroll in the pension system after Jan. 2013 as "New" and those who were members before then as "Classic".

New Misc Classic Miscellaneous

2%@62 2%@60 2%@55 2.5%@55 2.7%@55 3%@60

Minimum 1%@52 1.092%@50 1.426%@50 2%@50 2%@50 2%@50

retirement age/benefit Normal 2%@62 2%@60 2%@55 2.5%@55 2.7%@55 3%@60

retirement

age/benefit

Maximum 2.5%@67 2.418%@63 2.418@63 2.5%@55 2.7%@55 3%@60

benefit

New Safety Classic Safety (Maximum benefit = 90% of salary)

2.5%@57 2%@55 2%@50 3%@55 3%@50

Minimum 2%@50 1.462%@50 2%@50 2.4%@50 3%@50

retirement age/benefit

Normal 2.5%@57 2%@55 2.7%@55 3%@55 3%@50

retirement age/benefit

Maximum benefit 2.5%@57 2%@55 2.7%@55 3%@55 3%@50

Until Dec. 31, 2012, member agencies were able to amend their contracts with CalPERS to include alternative benefit formulas ("second tier") for newly hired Classic employees. That is no longer possible. Once pension reform became effective, CalPERS discontinued that practice.

PEPRA does allow member agencies to negotiate a contribution from employees beyond the established "employee rate", something the Council could consider in the future. And it is also possible to negotiate a change to the benefit formula for current employees. However, courts in California have determined that pension benefits are vested rights, meaning they cannot be taken away once earned. As a result, changing the benefit formula for current employees could only be done prospectively and the reduction to the annual pension payment would be minimal.

Terminating the pension plan altogether would require the City to pre-fund pension payments for prior and current employees. The last annual actuarial valuation estimated the "termination liability" for Belvedere at $12M for the Miscellaneous plan and $6.8M for the Safety plan.

The most significant savings to pension expense will occur overtime, as more employees are hired who are new to CalPERS, and are placed in the lower cost PEPRA plans.

City of Belvedere PARS Supplemental Retirement Plan

In July 1, 2006 the City entered into a contract with Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) to supplement the existing CalPERS retirement plan. The additional benefit adds a maximum of .5% to the Benefit Factor for Miscellaneous employees and adds .3% for Safety employees.

The requirements for benefit eligibility are the same for both Misc. and Safety plans:

o Must be at least 55 years of age;

o Must complete 15 years of continuous service with Belvedere

• Must retire from CalPERS from the City of Belvedere

Miscellaneous employees who have satisfied the eligibility requirements and retire from Belvedere will receive their maximum benefit (2.5% of salary times years of service) at age 55. Without the PARS benefit, employees who retire at 55 would receive 2% of salary times years of service and would reach their maximum benefit (2.418% of salary times years of service) at age 63. During the period of time that the Cal PERS benefit increases (age 55 until age 63), the PARS benefit decreases, until at age 63, the supplemental benefit from PARS is limited to the difference between 2.5% and the maximum CalPERS benefit factor of 2.418%.

Eligible Safety employees who choose to retire at age 55 will receive a pension equal to 3% of salary times years of service and the benefit will not increase beyond that rate. The maximum pension benefit for safety employees is 90% of salary. As the Cal PERS benefit increases, the

PARS benefit decreases and if the employee does not meet the eligibility requirements or chooses not to retire when eligible, the PARS benefit could decrease to zero.

The plan is not portable, so employees who terminate prior to retirement do not get any benefits from PARS. Employees hired after January 1, 2013 are not permitted to be added to the PARS plan because of the new PEPRA regulations.

As of September 1, 2013, there are 10 employees in the Miscellaneous plan and 7 employees in the Safety plan. One employee in each group has met the eligibility requirements for the plan. Five employees in the Miscellaneous plan have met the age requirement but have not attained 15 years of service. Two employees in the Safety plan have met the years of service, but are not yet 55 years old.

The cost of PARS is calculated as a percent of salary, similar to CalPERS rates. In FY13/14, the City will contribute $42,000 to PARS (2.93% of salary for covered employees). There is no employee contribution. Total assets on deposit with PARS equal $340,374, including interest earned.

Only one retiree is benefiting from PARS and has been receiving about $2,000 per year since September 2010. Based on the age of current Belvedere employees and what they have indicated about their retirement plans, only a few will qualify to receive the PARS benefit.

The City is required by California law to have an independent actuarial valuation of PARS completed every three years at a cost of $6, 750. PARS also charges an administrative fee of $1,800 per year.

The PARS benefit is structured to provide an incentive for qualified employees to maximize their pension benefit at a younger age or, in the case of Miscellaneous employees, improve their final benefit by .082%. This component of employees' compensation package should be reconsidered at the appropriate time.

ATTACHMENT 7


Town of1iburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard •Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438 • www.ci.riburon.ca.us

August 22, 2013

Mayor Thomas Cromwell City Council City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, California 94920

Dear Tom:

I write to ask for the opportunity to address the Belvedere City Council regarding the mutual issue of beautifying the entryway to both Belvedere and Tiburon.

As you know, Tiburon Boulevard is owned by the State of California and is managed by Caltrans. A significant portion of Tiburon Boulevard, from 101 almost to Greenwood Beach Road, lies in the unincorporated County.

Much of Tiburon Boulevard is a divided highway, and almost all of its many medians are planted. There is one stretch in the unincorporated portion, however, from Bay Vista to Cecilia Drive, which has concrete medians. This significant eyesore on our otherwise remarkably beautiful peninsula is a poor entryway for both of our communities. Consequently, Tiburon is seeking a partnership with a wide variety of groups and entities, particularly the City of Belvedere, to rectify this situation.

The plan? We have preliminarily engineered a project to remove the concrete from these medians and replace it with irrigated planted areas; we are advised the job will cost roughly $500,000-$600,000. The Town is prepared to pay for a significant p01iion of the project. Our current budget includes $65,000 to cover detailed design and engineering specifications and obtain Caltrans' encroachment permits; our Town Council has also identified an additional $235,000 for this purpose for consideration in its next budget cycle for a total of $300,000. We need funding partners, though, to cover the balance of the cost.

Toward this end we approached Supervisor Kate Sears about a County contribution. I am pleased to report that, with Supervisor Sears' support, the County of Marin has agreed to provide $25,000 for this undertaking. We have also asked both the Tiburon Peninsula Foundation and the Belvedere Community Foundation to sit down with us to consider helping bring this about, and we have started a dialogue with businesses at The Cove Shopping Center to bring them into this effo1t as well.

LETTEH TO MAYOR THOMAS CROMWELL, AUGUST 22, 2013 1 or2

Emmetii·O'.Donnell i<:¥aY:?f{ • >'• ',, •• :. , •

. ~;j~£~r~.Jt1ic~~ . VkeMayor

,,-;, --~·' ,.:.; •• .,,1

••. ;,:l{;_:;/:;(·~:.:-~ ';~,~- • • . Fp¥~:,D,~}ile

Councilmerriber

Jirii:;Fr:is~r c6t.iiiC:iime~ber

:-."",

'·.·. -;.-.": .. ;, . . . '.•; ....... '. '·~·. ~ ~- . . . Misi~;,ii;;

C6uJ1ciliri~irlber

We would appreciate having a discussion with the City to talk about what kind of a contribution it might make to this mutually beneficial endeavor.

We believe this change will permanently grace the peninsula and put a smile on the faces of thousands of peninsula residents every day. After all, are there · any of us who would not rather drive by a long stretch of beautiful flowering plants than a grey concrete (often weedy) divider? Just as we came to a meeting of the minds on peninsula safety with the siren project, we look forward to another great collaboration between Belvedere and Tiburon for the permanent benefit of our residents' quality of life.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Kind regards, ··

~ Emmett O'Donnell Mayor

cc: Tiburon Town Council

Tiburon Town Manager

LETTEH TO MA \'OR THOMAS CROMWELL, AUGUST 22, 2013 2 01'2

CITY OF BELVEDERE

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF BELVEDERE