HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9415 (Pacific Railroad Mainline Easements)CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
RESOLUTION NO. 9415
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SETTLING
LITIGATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, SAN RAFAEL
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, COUNTY OF MARIN, MARIN COUNTY TRANSIT
DISTRICT AND GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE DISTRICT AND PROVIDING FOR
EASEMENTS RELATED TO THE FORMER NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD MAINLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL
FINDINGS AND PURPOSES:
The City Council of the City of San Rafael, Marin County,
California, does hereby declare, find and determine that:
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael ("City") the San Rafael
Redevelopment Agency ("Agency"), the County of Marin ("County"),
the Marin County Transit District ("Transit District") and the
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District ("Bridge
District") have been engaged in litigation involving the City and
Agency's claims to rights to an easement over the mainline right-
of-way of the :former Northwestern Pacific Railroad ("NWP") for
the construction of the extension of Andersen Drive in San Rafael
and involving the Bridge District, County and Transit District's
claims to the .right to use the former NWP mainline right-of-way
along a portion of Tamalpais Avenue between Mission and Fourth
Streets in San Rafael for transportation purposes;
WHEREAS, an agreement to settle the above-mentioned
litigation (rhe "Settlement Agreement") has been previously
presented and approved in principal by the City Council and the
Agency Board in closed session, and that agreement has also
been approved by the County, the Transit District and the Bridge
District;
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement provides for the City to
have an easement over the former NWP mainline right-of-way for
the Andersen Drive extension and for the County, Transit District
and Bridge District to have an easement to use the former NWP
mainline right-of-way between Mission and Fourth Streets for
transportation purposes subject to the City's rights to object on
environmental or other grounds to the particular transportation
system then being proposed;
141 OMP50
X14/14/95 1
ORIGINAL
WHEREAS, execution and implementation of the Settlement
Agreement will benefit the City and the Agency and assist in
implementation of the Redevelopment Plan for the Central San
Rafael Redevelopment Project by providing a portion of the
necessary right-of-way for the Andersen Drive extension, an
important element for relieving traffic congestion in central San
Rafael.
THEREFORE, City Council of the City of San Rafael resolves
as follows:
1. The City Council hereby confirms its approval of the
Settlement Agreement among the City, the San Rafael Redevelopment
Agency, the County of Marin, the Marin County Transit District
and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
submitted to the City Council in connection with consideration of
this resolution and hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute
the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the City, subject to such
minor changes which the City Manager or counsel to the City deem
necessary or appropriate.
2. The City Manager or her designees are authorized to
take such actions as are contemplated by or necessary to
implement the Settlement Agreement including dismissal of the
litigation pending among the parties to the Settlement Agreement,
execution and implementation of the easement agreements provided
for in the Settlement Agreement, and acceptance of the easement
for the Andersen Drive extension on behalf of the City.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of San Rafael on July 17, 1995.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Phillips and Vice -Mayor Cohen
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
DLSQUALLFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Zappetini and Mayor Boro (.due to Conflict
of Interest)
JeanA!=onc '4i C y ler c
1410CLP50
00/14/95 2
SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -20 -
MOVED BY: MEMBER PFTT.T.TP9 SECONDED BY: MEMBgg HF'T.T.F.R
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SETTLING
LITIGATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, SAN RAFAEL
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, COUNTY OF MARIN, MARIN COUNTY TRANSIT
DISTRICT AND GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE DISTRICT AND PROVIDING FOR
EASEMENTS RELATED TO THE FORMER NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD MAINLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL
FINDINGS AND PURPOSES:.
The San Raiael Reaeveiopmcnt Agancy, Marin County,
California, does hereby declare, find and determine that:
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael ("City") the San Rafael
Redevelopment Agency ("Agency"), the County of Marin ("County"),
the Marin County Transit District ("Transit District") and the
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District ("Bridge
District") have been engaged in litigation involving the City and
Agency's claims to rights to an easement over the mainline right-
of-way of the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad ("NWP") for
the construction of the extension of Andersen Drive in San Rafael
and involving the Bridge District, County and Transit District's
claims to the right to use the former NWP mainline right-of-way
along a portion of Tamalpais Avenue between Mission and Fourth
Streets in San Rafael for transportation purposes; and
WHEREAS, an agreement to settle the above-mentioned
litigation (the "Settlement Agreement") has been previously
presented and approved in principal by the City Council and the
Agency Board in closed session, and that agreement has also
been approved by the County, the Transit District and the Bridge
District; and
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement provides for the City to
have an easement over the former NWP mainline right-of-way for
the Andersen Drive extension and for the County, Transit District
and Bridge District to have an easement to use the former NWP
mainline right-of-way between Mission and Fourth Streets for
transportation purposes, subject to the City's rights to object
on environmental or other grounds to the particular
transportation system then being proposed; and
1410CS.P50
06/14/95
COSY
9o°
WHEREAS, execution and implementation of the Settlement
Agreement will benefit the City and the Agency and assist in
implementation of the Redevelopment Plan for the Central San
Rafael Redevelopment Project by providing a portion of the
necessary right-of-way for the Andersen Drive extension, an
important element for relieving traffic congestion in central San
Rafael.
NOW THEREFORE, the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency resolves as
follows:
1. The Agency hereby confirms its approval of the
Settlement Agreement among the Agency, the City of San Rafael,
the County of Marin, the Marin County Transit District and the
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District submitted
to the Agency in connection with consideration of this resolution
and hereby authorizes the Executive Director to exec -.it,- the
Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Agency, subject to such
minor changes which the Executive Director or counsel to the
Agency deem necessary or appropriate.
2. ' The Executive Director or her designees are authorized
to take such actions as are contemplated by or necessary to
implement the Settlement Agreement including dismissal of the
litigation pending among the parties to the Settlement Agreement.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of San Rafael on July 17, 1995.
AYES: AGENCYMEMBERS: Heller, Phillips and Vice -Chairman Cohen
NOES: AGENCYMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCYMEMBERS: None
DISQUALIFIED: AGENCYMEMBERS: Zappe.tinj and Chairman Boro Cdue to
Conflict of Interestl
Jea a i,eonc i, gency Secretary
1410CS.P50
06/14/95
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into as of this 17th day of
JULY , 1995 in the County of Marin by and between
the City of San Rafael ("City"), the City Council of the City of
San Rafael ("Council"), the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency
("Agency"), the County of Marin ("County"), the Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway and Transportation District ("District"), and the
Marin County Transit District ("MCTD") on the following covenants
and conditions:
RECITALS
A. The County is a political subdivision organized and
existing under the constitution and laws of the State of
California. The District and MCTD are public agencies organized
and existing under the constitution and laws of the SLdte of
California. The County, the District and MCTD are parties to a
Cooperative Agreement dated October 12, 1982, and certain addenda
thereto, pursuant to which they have agreed to work cooperatively
to acquire public ownership of Northwestern Pacific Railroad
Company's ("Northwestern") entire right-of-way in Marin County.
At that time, Northwestern's right-of-way ran from Paradise Drive
in Corte Madera to Highway 37 in the City of Novato.
On or about June 29, 1990, the District, in furtherance of
the Cooperative Agreement and on behalf of the County and MCTD,
acquired from Northwestern 11.25 miles of right-of-way and
improvements located between Bellam Boulevard in San Rafael and
Novato Creek in Novato. The District additionally acquired from
Northwestern certain franchise rights to use certain city streets
along said right-of-way within the City for railroad purposes
(the "Franchise Rights"). The Franchise Rights were initially
granted by the City to Northwestern's predecessor in interest,
the San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad Company, pursuant to
City Ordinance Nos. 114, 145 and 362 (the "Franchise
Ordinances").
B. The City is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the constitution and laws of the State of
California. The Council is the legislative body which controls
the municipal affairs of the City. On July 6, 1993, the Council
adopted Resolution 8980, which declared a forfeiture of the
District's Franchise Rights pursuant to the terms of the
Franchise Ordinances. Resolution 8980 further declared that the
District had "abandoned" the right to maintain and operate a
railroad system in and on the streets of San Rafael on the ground
that there had been no service on the line for the period of five
years prior to the adoption of the resolution.
C. On February 10, 1994, the County and the District filed
their "Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for
220450.1 -1-
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Breach of Franchise
Agreement" (Marin County Superior Court Action No. 159486)
against both the Council and the City (the "Petition"). The
Petition sought in part to have the Council's action voided on
the ground that it effectuated an illegal forfeiture of the
Franchise Rights. On or about March 9, 1994, the Council and the
City filed an Answer to the Petition in which they affirmatively
alleged among other defenses that their actions were based on
statutory authority, were within their jurisdiction and were not
reviewable by traditional mandamus because there was no abuse of
discretion.
D. On April 22, 1994, the Court granted the County's and
the District's Petition for Writ of Mandate and voided Resolution
No. 8980. Specifically, the Court found that the Council's
actions in enacting Resolution No. 8980 were arbitrary,
capricious and entirely lacking in eviden::iary support. Judgment
has not yet been entered for the County and the District on the
Petition. If judgment were to be entered, the City could appeal
the judgment.
E. On or about March 9, 1994, the City and the Agency (a
public agency organized and existing under the constitution and
laws of the State of California) filed a "Cross -Complaint for
Specific Performance and Damages" against the County, the
District and the MCTD (the "Cross -Complaint"). The Cross -
Complaint sought in part to specifically enforce against the
District a provision in an agreement between the City and the
Agency on the one hand, and Northwestern on the other hand, dated
June 26, 1978 (the "Agreement"). This provision purportedly
called for Northwestern to grant to the City a roadway easement
and crossing over Northwestern's main line right-of-way at the
location of Northwestern's B Street Line, upon the City's
submission of a crossing application to the Public Utilities
Commission. On April 13, 1994, the County and the District
demurred to the Cross -Complaint on the grounds that: (a) the
provision was expressly limited to bind only Northwestern and not
the District as its successor in interest; (b) the provision was
a personal covenant and did not "run with the land;" and (c) the
provision was part of the contract to convey the B Street Line
and could not be specifically enforced as a separate "sale" of
property.
F. The demurrer by the County and the District to the
Cross -Complaint was continued by the Court from its initially
scheduled date of May 27, 1994 pursuant to the parties'
stipulation, so as to allow them time to pursue settlement of all
claims asserted in both the Petition and the Cross -Complaint.
G. The parties to the litigation now wish to enter into an
agreement to settle their disputes and dismiss the above
litigation without any party admitting liability for any of the
220450.1 -2 -
acts, conduct, or allegations contained in the
Petition/ Complaint, Cross -Complaint and Answer on file therein,
and therefore agree to the following terms and conditions of
settlement.
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Rescission of Resolution.
The Council, concurrent with the approval of this Agreement
will, by a resolution generally adhering to the form of the
resolution attached hereto as Exhibit A, rescind Resolution No.
8980 and declare that it shall be of no further force or effect.
2. Grant of Easement
The Council agrees that the City will ext --cute an easement
agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B ("the Downtown
Easement Agreement"). The Downtown Easement Agreement will
confirm the Franchise Rights acquired by the District and grant
to the District, its successors and assigns a permanent easement
for railroad, transportation and communication purposes over
those portions of Tamalpais Avenue, Third Street, Fourth Street,
Fifth Avenue and Mission Avenue in the City which are described
and depicted in the exhibits attached to said agreement.
3. Andersen Drive Easement.
Upon the City's adoption of the resolution described in
Section 1 and the City's execution and delivery to District of
the Downtown Easement Agreement described in Section 2, the
District will execute an easement agreement in the form attached
hereto as Exhibit C (the "Andersen Drive Easement Agreement") and
deliver same to City. The Andersen Drive Easement Agreement will
grant to the City an easement for street purposes over a portion
of the former Northwestern Pacific Railway mainline right-of-way
(the "Mainline ROW") and will allow the City to construct the
Andersen Drive Extension across the Mainline ROW. Attached
hereto and incorporated in this Agreement as Exhibit D is a map
showing the Mainline ROW in San Rafael and the general planned
alignment of the Andersen Drive Extension. By execution of this
Settlement Agreement, the Agency, County, and MCTD agree and
consent to execution of the Andersen Drive Easement Agreement by
the District and the City.
The City shall apply to the Public Utilities Commission for
permission to cross the Mainline ROW at the location of the
Anderson Drive Extension (the "Application"). By approving this
Agreement, the Council hereby agrees that the City will state the
following in its Application: (a) that the District has granted
the City an easement which allows the City to construct and use
the Anders n Drive Extension across the Mainline ROW; (b) that
220450.1 -3 -
the County, the District and MCTD currently use the Mainline ROW
for maintenance purposes and have plans to use the Mainline ROW
for mass transit uses, either by themselves or in cooperation
with others including, but not limited to, other entities or
joint powers authorities which currently exist or may be created
in the future; (c) that should these entities (or any of them) go
forward with development of the Mainline ROW for mass transit
use, a grade separation at the intersection of the Mainline ROW
and the Andersen Drive Extension may be necessary; (d) that the
parties are attempting to obtain state, federal or other funding
for said grade separation; that in consideration for the
District's grant of the aforementioned easement, the City has
further agreed that if efforts to obtain such funding are
unsuccessful or fail to fully fund the separation, the City will
share the additional costs of the grade separation, subject to
the ability of the City to finance its- share of costs from
sources other than its general fund.
4. Andersen Drive Extension/Mainline ROW Grade Separation.
The County, the District and MCTD intend to use the Mainline
ROW for mass transit uses either by themselves or in cooperation
with others including, but not limited to, other entities or
joint powers authorities which currently exist or may be created
in the future. In seeking to develop the Mainline ROW for mass
transit uses, the County, the District and MCTD as well as the
City and Agency, and their respective successors and assigns,
will cooperate and use good faith and diligent efforts to obtain
state, federal or other funding for a grade separation at the
intersection of the Andersen Drive Extension and the Mainline ROW
as part of the funding of the project for development of the
Mainline ROW for mass transit uses. The Council hereby agrees
that should the District apply to the Marin County Congestion
Management Agency ("CMA") for funding for said grade separation
project, then the City shall, at the District's request: (a)
designate said grade separation project as its highest priority
project in its submission of its project listing to the CMA; and
(b) join with the District and/or County in petitioning the CMA
to designate said grade separation project as the County's
highest priority project, for so long as is necessary to fully
fund said project.
By approving this Agreement, the Council hereby agrees that
if efforts to obtain state, federal or other funding for such a
grade separation are unsuccessful or fail to fully fund the
separation, and if the County, the District and MCTD (or any of
them) are still going forward with development of the Mainline
ROW for mass transit use, then the parties to this Agreement will
share the additional costs of a grade separation at the
intersection of the Andersen Drive Extension and the Mainline
ROW. The City's obligation to fund its share of grade separation
costs pursuant to this Paragraph 4 shall be subject to the
220450.1 -4-
ability of the City to finance its share of costs from sources
other than its general fund. The parties anticipate that,
subject to the agreement of the County, a source of possible
revenue to fund grade separation costs would be the proceeds of
future tax increment bonds issued by the Agency.
If the parties cannot agree to an allocation of said costs
on an equitable basis, the controversy will be settled by
arbitration conducted in compliance with the provisions of the
California Arbitration Act commencing with Section 1280 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure. The arbitration shall be
conducted by a panel of three (3) arbitrators. One arbitrator
shall be appointed by the City, one arbitrator shall be appointed
by the County and District jointly, and the third arbitrator, who
shall be the chairperson of the panel, shall be appointed by the
other two arbitrators. If the other two arbitrators are unable
to a9z ee upon arl appointment, the third arbitrator shall be
appointed by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in Marin
County. The third arbitrator of the arbitration panel shall be
an attorney licensed to practice within the courts of the State
of California. No member of the panel shall be an officer,
employee, agent, affiliate or attorney of any of the parties to
this Agreement. The arbitration award may be judicially
enforced, shall be final, binding, and conclusive upon the
parties and shall not be subject to judicial review or vacation
except on grounds set forth in Sections 1286.2 and 1286.6 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Mass Transit Crossinas at Mission. Fifth. Fourth. Third
and Second Streets.
The County, the District and MCTD as well as the City and
the Agency will cooperate and use good faith and diligent efforts
to obtain state, federal or other funding for grade separations
at the intersections of the Mainline ROW and Mission Street,
Fifth Avenue, Fourth Street, Third Street and Second Street in
downtown San Rafael as part of the funding of the project for
development of the Mainline ROW for mass transit uses. By
approving this Agreement, the Council hereby agrees that if
efforts to obtain state, federal or other funding for those grade
crossings are unsuccessful, then the County, the District and
MCTD (or any of them) may go forward with development of the
Mainline ROW for mass transit uses with crossings of Mission
Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Fourth Street and Third Street and Second
Street at grade. However, the City and Agency reserve the right
to raise objections during the environmental review, project
approval and project funding process, based upon the impacts and
effects of the particular mass transit system that is then being
proposed.
If there are to be grade crossings of Mission Avenue, Fifth
Avenue, Fourth Street, Third Street or Second Street, the County,
220450.1 -5-
the District and MCTD will utilize their best faith efforts to
insure that the mass transit use interferes to the least extent
practicable with vehicular traffic on those streets that will
have grade crossings.
6. Dismissal of Liticzation.
Following: (a) execution of this Settlement Agreement; (b)
the City's adoption of the resolution described in Section 1; (c)
the City's execution and delivery to District of the Downtown
Easement Agreement described in Section 2; and (d) the District's
execution and delivery of the Andersen Drive Easement Agreement
described in Section 3, the County and the District shall dismiss
the Petition with prejudice and the City and Agency shall dismiss
the Cross -Complaint with prejudice. Each party to this
Settlement Agreement shall bear its own costs and attorneys fees
with respect �o the litigation of i.ile Complaint and the Crr os --
Complaint.
7. Release of Claims.
In consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained
and other good and valuable consideration, the City, the Council
and the Agency, and each of them, hereby forever release,
discharge and acquit the County, the District and MCTD, and each
of them, and the County, the District and MCTD, and each of them,
hereby forever release, discharge and acquit the City, the
Council and the Agency, and each of them, from any and all
claims, actions, causes of action, liabilities, costs and
obligations of every kind, known and unknown, matured and
unmatured, of any kind or nature whatsoever, now existing or
arising in the future out of any and all claims, demands,
actions, causes of action, liabilities, costs and obligations
asserted in, arising out of, or in any way relating to the
Petition/Complaint, Cross -Complaint and Answer on file in the
litigation referenced in the recitals herein.
8. Waiver of Section 1542 Riahts.
It is further understood and agreed that the releases
contained herein extend to all claims of every nature and kind
asserted in, arising out of, or in any way relating to the
litigation referenced in the recitals herein, known and unknown,
and there is expressly hereby released with regard to such claims
all rights under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which
provides as follows:
"A general release does not
which the creditor does not
to exist in his favor at the
executing the release, which
220450.1 -6-
extend to claims
know or suspect
time of
if known by him
must have materially affected his settlement
with the debtor."
The foregoing waiver of the provisions of Section 1542 of
the California Civil Code was separately bargained for, and the
parties hereto expressly agree that the releases contained herein
shall be given full force and effect in accordance with each and
all of their express terms and provisions relating to unknown and
unsuspected claims, demands and causes of action, if any. Each
party hereto acknowledges that it may have sustained damages,
expenses and losses which are presently unknown or not suspected,
and that such damages, expenses, and losses, if any, may give
rise to additional claims for damages, expenses, and losses in
the future, which are not now anticipated by such party.
Nevertheless, each party hereto acknowledges that this Settlement
Agreement has been negotiated and agreed upon in light of this
realization and, being fully aware of Lhi5 situation, hereby
expressly waives all rights that each party may have under
California Civil Code Section 1542, as well as under any other
state or federal statute or common law principle of similar
effect.
9. Assumption of Risk.
Each party hereto understands that if any fact with respect
to any matter covered by this Settlement Agreement is found to be
other than, or different from, the facts now believed by such
party to be true, each party expressly accepts and assumes the
risk of such possible difference in facts and agrees that this
Settlement Agreement shall be, and remain, in full force and
effect notwithstanding such difference in fact.
10. No Admission of Liabilitv.
The parties hereto understand and agree that the giving or
acceptance of this release and the agreements contained herein
shall not constitute or be construed as an admission of any
liability whatsoever by the parties hereto, or the admission of
the validity of any claims made by or against any party hereto,
or any of them, it being the purpose of this Agreement to settle
disputed claims and not to admit liability.
11. Bindincr Upon Successors.
The parties hereto further agree that this release shall be
binding upon their successors, and assigns, and shall inure to
the benefit of the servants, agents, employees, officers,
directors, and personal representatives of the past or present of
the parties hereto.
220450.1 -7'
12. Attornevs' Fees.
If any action is commenced to enforce any claim, demand,
action, cause of action, liability, cost, or obligation released
hereby, or if any action is commenced to enforce any of the
provisions of this Settlement Agreement, the prevailing party in
such action shall be entitled, in addition to any other remedies,
to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
13. Hold Harmless.
The parties hereto, and each of them, represent and warrant
that they have the sole right and exclusive authority to execute
this Settlement Agreement, that they are not restricted in doing
so, that they have not _made or suffered any assignment, transfer,
conveyance, encumbrance, hypothecation, or other disposition,
voluntary or involuntary, of any claim or demand relating to aiiy
matter covered by this Settlement Agreement. The City, the
Council and the Agency, and each of them, agree to indemnify the
County, the District and MCTD, and each of them, and hold them
harmless, and the County, the District and MCTD, and each of
them, agree to indemnify the City, the Council and the Agency,
and each of them, and hold them harmless, from any and all
claims, demands, loss, damage, liability, and expense, including
costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting from any
breach of the representations or warranties contained in this
paragraph.
14. Execution of Documents.
The undersigned further agree, and authorize their
respective attorneys, to execute any and all documents and to
undertake any and all actions reasonably necessary to carry out
the terms of this Agreement.
15. Consultation With Counsel.
The parties hereto hereby acknowledge that they have
consulted with and obtained the advice of counsel prior to
entering into this Settlement Agreement, and said counsel have
approved the form and content hereof.
16. Entire Aareement of the Parties.
This Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement of
the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter herein
contained. There are no restrictions, promises, warranties,
covenants, undertakings, or representations other than those
expressly set forth herein or contained in separate written
documents delivered or to be delivered pursuant hereto, and each
party hereby expressly acknowledges that he or it has not relied
upon any restrictions, promises, warranties, covenants,
220450.1 -8-
undertakings, or representations whatsoever by any party hereto
other than those expressly contained herein. This Settlement
Agreement may be amended only by written instrument executed by
all of the parties hereto.
17. Invalidity of Certain Provision(s) Has No Effect on
Validitv of Remaining Provisions.
Should any paragraph, clause or provision of this Settlement
Agreement be found invalid or unenforceable, such decision shall
affect only the paragraph, clause or provision so construed or
interpreted, and all remaining paragraphs, clauses and provisions
shall remain valid and enforceable.
18. Governed By California Law.
This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of
California applicable to contracts executed and wholly performed
therein.
ATTEST:
By: ilk 2
aeanne M. Uoncini,
Agency Secretary
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
Byrry�City
.(�
Pam Nico a,ager
ATTEST:
By:�J,e,a--nne M. Le cini, Lit u1erk
SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT
"AGENCY
Pam Nicolai,� {2
Executive Director
COUNTY OF MARIN
By:
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
By:
MARIN COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
By:
220450.1 -9 -
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF MARIN
By:
THOMAS HENDRICKS
Attorneys for COUNTY OF MARIN and
MARIN COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HANSON, BRIDGETT, MARCUS, VLAHOS & RUDY
By:
KEVIN O'DONNELL
Attorneys for GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE,
HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
GOLDFARB AND LIPMAN
By:
LEE C. ROSENTHAL
Attorneys for CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL and SAN RAFAEL
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
220450.1 -10-