Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2008-07-16o °~~x"s~~~ MINUTES ~. o SPECIAL MEETING c9lIFOR~l~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2008 2 Meeting Called to Order: 6:34 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Councilmen Addiego* and Mullin, Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto and Mayor Gonzalez. Absent: 3 Councilman Garbarino** * Councilman Addiego arrived at 6:35 p.m. ** Mayor Gonzalez noted that at Council's regular meeting on July 9, 2008, Councilman Garbarino announced he would be absent for the July 16, 2008 special meeting. Public Comments -comments were limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None. Prior to addressing the following agenda items, City Manager Nagel recommended that Council hear the item pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Donation Program before the Noise Study Report; and further, that the Noise Study Report agenda item be heard after 7:00 p.m. This recommendation was based on the i :00 p.m. meeting start time set forth in a courtesy notice sent by the Engineering Division to residents interested in the sound wall issue. Council accepted the recommendation. 4. Study Session -Discussion of Parks & Recreation Donation Program. Director of Parks and Recreation Ranals introduced a Private Sponsorship and Donation Program that Parks and Recreation staff had been working on with the consulting firm of Callander & Associates. Director Ranals explained the City maintained 189 acres of parks and additional median islands and green spots. Centennial Way would add another 16 acres. Over the past several years, staff stretched resources to maintain the parks and green spaces. Last year, staff retained Callander & Associates to assist with development of a donation program. The resulting proposal included a catalog of donor and volunteer opportunities. The program did not purport to guarantee that a donated item would be present in the City for perpetuity, but did anticipate reasonable replacement and maintenance of donated items. Due to the recent failure oi' Measure O, implementation of the program had become increasingly important. Director Ranals then introduced Brian Fletcher of Callander & Associates to review the proposed program catalog. Brian Fletcher of Callander & Associates presented the program as follows: The proposed catalog was intended to serve as a "donation menu" and provide staff a mechanism to match would-be donors with needs. To create the program, the Consultants considered donation opportunities within each individual park and created park-specific standards for fixtures such as benches and bike racks. The proposed donation amount for such items included initial installation costs plus an additiona120% for a plaque and maintenance. The proposed Centennial Donation Program would include larger donors in the range of $100,000.00 to $500,000.00. Although these represented relatively large amounts, Mr. Fletcher opined such donations were not out of the question. Within the Centennial Donation Program there was also opportunity for smaller donations, including such items as bricks for the plaza, which would cost $100.00 per brick and/or purchase of a Centennial Redwood Tree for planting along Centennial Way. Mr. Fletcher also described the Centennial Preservation Program which offered opportunities for groups to contribute to ongoing maintenance efforts. In other communities, similar donation programs, including the Virginia Corridor Donation Program in Modesto, CA, had been successful. Mr. Fletcher closed by noting the catalog would permit City staff to market the donation program. Mayor Gonzalez read the following statement submitted by Councilman Garbarino: V~Jith regard to the donation program suggested by Director Ranals and supported by the Parks and Recreation Commission, I fully support it. It is refreshing to see staff and the Commission thinking out of the box to improve our parks. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto observed that $6500.00 in contractual fees had been remitted to the Consulting Firm for development ol~the program. She questioned whether this investrnent could be recouped and whether staff had time to pursue aggressive marketing of the program. She further questioned who the program would be marketed to. Director Ranals advised that staff intended to market the program on an aggressive ba:>is. She noted that unsolicited and sizable donations had come in, which suggested that marketing might SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 16, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 2 increase the likelihood of such donations. Director Ranals further observed that on page 23 of the proposal, a program titled "Project Plant If' would be marketed to businesses. Councilman Mullin expressed support for the program and its innovative approach. He stressed the importance of tasteful incorporation of sponsor logos and plaques. He questioned whether the proposed program was primarily for new items or whether it was flexible enough to provide opportunities for maintenance related donations. Director Ranals responded the program proposed opportunities for new fixtures as well as maintenance and replacement where necessary. Councilman Addiego concurred with Councilman Mullin's comments regarding the importance of tasteful incorporation of sponsor rind donor commemoration plaques. He questioned whether the City had the authority to regulate the incorporation of logos. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto further questioned City Attorney Mattas as to whether the City could selectively bar certain logos. City Attorney Mattas responded that two (2) issues were in play. First, the City could :not engage in viewpoint discrimination pertaining to commercial speech. He noted, however, that. the City controls its facilities and could establish a nondiscriminatory set of standards that would impact all donors in the same manner. Accordingly, the City had a regulatory right to control the format of the advertising. Councilman Addiego suggested that such standards might include regulations establishing that color and/or logos would not be used on commemorative plaques and markers. City Attorney Mattas responded that: since the program was at its inception, the City had an opportunity to set neutral standards and controls. Councilman Addiego opined the prc-gram was creative and commented it was unfortunate that funding for park maintenance was picking. Councilman Mullin questioned whether the town of Modesto permitted colors in commemorative plaques and markers along Virginia Corridor. Mr. Fletcher responded the town of Modesto had not established an official set of standards. However, since bronze medallions were selected to commemorate donations, colors were not incorporated. Councilman Mullin stated he would. be uncomfortable with a blanket standard prohibiting the incorporation of colors, but might be more comfortable with a case by case adjudication of the issue. Mayor Gonzalez stated he would be; very cautious about the incorporation of logos. H:e questioned whether donated trees that died would be replaced. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 16, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 3 Director Ranals advised the Department could not guarantee that trees would be maintained in perpetuity, but the goal was to maintain and replace the trees. Mayor Gonzalez stated support for the proposed program. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto requested a yearly status report to Council to permit awareness of donations and donor recognition. 5. Study Session -Review of the draft Noise Study Report for Sister Cities Boulevard. Senior Civil Engineer Chuck presented the staff report recommending review of the draft noise Study Report. He advised that in the past 30 years, five (5) other noise study reports pf;rtaining to the area had been issued, the most recent one being dated 2003. He stated that traffic along the busy corridor resulted in noise and stated that noise in the area also came from the East: of 101 fly-over, aircraft and other sources unrelated to traffic on Sister Cities Blvd. He then introduced Principal Pablo Daroux of Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. to present the Noise Study Report. Mr. Daroux presented the Noise Study Report as follows: The purpose of the study was to: (1) determine present levels of noise; (2) determine future (2020) levels of noise; (3) compare with established criteria (4) determine the benefit to be derived from an extension of the present Sound Barrier Wall; and (5) study up to three (3) Sound Barrier Wall options. The Study Process included the following: Consultants contacted homeowners and sent out 33 Request to Enter Letters. The process also included long and short term surveys. Long term surveys consisted of over eight (8) days of continuous sampling at five (5) locations and the removal of contamination, including noise related to wind. Short term surveys were conducted at seven (7) locations for 30 minutes to one (1) hour pursuant to a simultaneous traffic count. Contamination was removed from short term surreys to control for local traffic, aircraft, etc. A computer noise model was created based upon FHWA TNM 2.5 and 14 representative receptors were evaluated. A calibrated noise model including short-term survey results (traffic + noise simultaneous measurements) was also created. Correction factors were applied to this model. A prediction of future traffic noise conditions was also developed based upon City-provided traffic studies and a 5% annual volume increase. Study results were then compared against two (2) criteria, including the Caltrans FHWA (67 LegPkHr), measuring the noise level equivalent to the continuing noise level variation in the peak hour, and the City of South San Francisco Noise Element (65 CNEL), measuring the community noise equivalent level, which is used in airport noise studies. These measures set the threshold at which mitigating noise from airports and other sources is required. A written report was prepared based upon these processes. Table 6.1 including long-term survey results was presented. Mr. Daroux stated that present levels of noise during peak hours in the morning and afternoon were lower than SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NL.Y 16, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 4 the noise assessment criteria :standard required for mitigation. Councilman Mullin questioned why the peak CNEL was lower than the 24 hour average. Mr. Daroux responded that because people are more sensitive to noise during evening hours, penalties of five (5) decibels must be added before calculating the CNEL average. Accordingly, the average ends up higher than the peak hour measurement. He then continued presenting the Noise Study Report as follows: A visual depiction of the proposed sound wall extension was displayed, as was a visual showing different locations at which the proposed extension might be terminated. A visual showing two measures of predicted future noise levels along and around Sister Cities Blvd. calculated with a computer model was also displayed. Mr. Daroux stated that the noise levels predicted for the future typically fell below mitigation standards with the exception of two calculations toward the left hand side of the visual. Accordingly, the study concluded that no mitigation was warranted from an acoustic perspective. It was further recommended that the study be repeated around the year 2020 to determine the need for mitigation at that time. Resident Kamala Silva Wolfe acknowledged Director of Parks and Recreation Ranals ,For her work on the donation program and thanked Director of Public Works White for work pursuant to the Improving Public Places Program in the Paradise Valley Neighborhood. She also thanked City Manager Nagel for acknowledging a mistake regarding the meeting time set forth in the courtesy notice sent by the Engineering Division. She further thanked Council and the City for pursuing the Noise Study. Ms. Silva Wolfe then explained that despite the report's conclusions, the noise residents experience from Sister Cities Blvd. is a constant swooshing sound inconsistent with white noise. She further described the noise as intrusive, unhealthy and distracting. She advised Councilman Mullin that she had a hard copy of a letter presented to the Council by the neighborhood last year prior to his term in office. She further observed that sound walls were present elsewhere in the City near the Lawndale Subdivision and on San Felipe. Mrs. Silva Wolfe opined the noise from Sister Cities Blvd. would get worse with the inception of the Ferry Service off of Oyster Point. She further opined the noise study should be funded. by Myers Development Company as opposed to the City. She also stated that it was not necessarily the decibel level of a sound that defines its intrusiveness, but rather, the way the sound cornes at you. She commented that residents in the Paradise Valley Neighborhood were asking for the same consideration shown to Councilmembers in accommodating acoustic/noise related concerns in the Council Chambers. She requested that Council reconsider extending the sound wall and thanked members for the opportunity to make her presentation. She then provided Council with two (2) anonymous letters from neighbors concerned about noise from Sister Cities Blvd. Resident Colleen Rudd advised she had lived on Drake Avenue for 33.5 years and had witnessed many changes in the area. She explained she had often felt her neighborhood was ignored. She thanked Council and City Staff for recent attention given to issues on Randolph Avenue, which was greatly appreciated by neighbors. Ms. Rudd reminded Council that residents of the Paradise Valley Neighborhood brought the sound wall issue before Council in June of 2007, afl:er 200 people had signed a petition in support of it. She advised that when she walks her dogs during SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 16, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 5 peak traffic hours, they become skittish and wired due to the constant noise from Sister Cities Blvd. She described the noise as jan°ing and likened it to the sound made by dragging fingernails down a chalk board, which she opinc;d was not necessarily the loudest noise, but definitely an intrusive one. She requested that quality of life in the neighborhood be brought back to what it was 33 years ago. Resident Mr. Saltel stated he could debunk the noise level conclusions set forth in the study. He advised that during a recent heat wave he had opened a small window in his home during the evening. He opined that doing so was a big mistake as the resultant noise prohibited him from getting to sleep until roughly 4:00 a.m. or 5:00 a.m. He resorted to taking a sleeping p ill to finally get to sleep. Mr. Saltel further advised that the intrusive nature of the noise made him feel as if he were living on a divider strip in the middle of Sister Cities Blvd. He further advised that his home on Drake Avenue was one (1) house down from Randolph Street, and thus hi s residence experienced a full dose of the noise from Sister Cities Blvd. Resident John Withers, the Pastor of~New Hope Community Church, advised he moved to Drake Avenue and remodeled his home. Since purchasing his home, he had encountered notlhing but a tremendous amount of noise, dust and dirt related to the traffic on Sister Cities Blvd. lde requested that Council do something once and for all to make the neighborhood whole and preserve it for future generations. Resident Dave Silva advised Council of Table 8.32.030 in the South San Francisco Municipal Code that established certain acceptable noise level ranges lower than the standards applied to determine the need for mitigation and used in the Noise Study Report. Councilman Mullin questioned the availability of studies measuring the existing sound wall's impact on noise. He further questioned whether staff or the Consultant could speak generally on a sound wall's ability to reduce average decibels. Senior Civil Engineer Chuck advised there were no studies measuring the existing sound wall's ability to dampen noise. Mr. Daroux referred to Tables 6-2 and 6-3 in the Noise Study Report, which represented expected benefits derived from sound walls six (6), eight (8) and 10 feet high. Councilman Mullin observed that based on the Tables, a sound wall would be expected to reduce the decibel level by anywhere from one (1) to 10 decibels. Mr. Daroux noted that residents nearest to the sound wall would derive the greatest benefit. He further noted that a reduction of three (3) decibels or less would be imperceptible to the human ear. A reduction of five (5) or more decibels would yield a noticeable difference and a reduction of 10 or more decibels would be perceived as halving the noise. He further explained that Caltrans expects a minimum reduction of five (5) decibels before entertaining installation of a sound wall. Councilman Addiego questioned whether the eight (8) times/second measurement dilutes the SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 16, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 6 impact of a single noise event. Mr. Daroux responded the measurement does not dilute the impact of a single noise event because the tracking is done carefully to compile an average. He stated, however, that an hourly average measurement would dilute a single noise event. He further advised the problern with using a single event criteria or metric is that one single event would not distract people as much as 50 such events within an hour. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned whether some of the more significant noise spikkes reflected in the Report's charts and tables could be attributed to truck related noise. She opined that limiting and/or prohibiting truck traffic on Sister Cities Blvd. during certain times :might reduce noise. Mr. Daroux responded that the spikes could be representative of truck related noise, but noted that noise related to airplanes would register similarly. Mayor Gonzalez opined the traffic related noise on Sister Cities Blvd. is worsened by the lack of stop signs. He opined that installing more stop signs along the Boulevard might mitigate noise. He questioned whether Mr. Daroux's firm had reviewed the five (5) previous noise studies of the area. Mr. Daroux responded that Wilson Ihrig had not reviewed the previous reports. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned whether the City had recourse to pursue funding for the study against Myers Development. City Attorney Mattas advised that since the initial sound wall had been constructed and accepted by the City, the developer was under no further obligation. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned whether the City Council and/or staff required sound wall installation related to the Lawndale and Promenade developments. Assistant City Manager VanDuyn responded he would verify how the sound walls related to the developments came to be. Councilman Addiego commented that although certain other neighborhoods had equal amounts of noise as Paradise Valley, the neighborhood was formerly one of the quieter neighborhoods in the City. Accordingly, residents who purchased homes in a quiet neighborhood now had freeway-type noise nearby. He further commented that the numbers developed in the :study were not far from what was required for mitigation. Councilman Mullin commented he .vas sympathetic to the concerns of Paradise Valley residents. He expressed concern that erecting a sound wall under circumstances where the numbers fell below the mitigation threshold might set precedent in terms of other neighborhoods' rf;quests. He further commented that a safety barrier on Sister Cities Blvd. may be appropriate given accidents he had observed in the area. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY I6, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 7 Mayor Gonzalez expressed interest iil finding alternative forms of noise mitigation and pursuing the study again in a couple of years. He then read a comment submitted by Councilman Garbarino which stated as follows: ~~fter having read both the staff report and draft noise study report prepared by the Consultant, he was of the opinion that a sound wall was not presently necessary. However, he supported measuring the noise level again in five (5) years rather than the 10 years suggested by the Consultant. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto concurred with Councilman Mullin's concern regarding precedent. She questioned the possibility of alternative mitigation measures such as reducing the speed limit on Hillside Blvd to 35 MPH and/or limiting truck traffic. She also questioned whether real estate transactions in the area could be required to include a disclosure statement pertaining to the noise. City Engineer Razavi responded to Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto's comments regarding reducing the speed limit. He advised Council of a state law establishing that a speed limit could only be enforced if 80% of the vehicles traveling on the road operated below it. He further advised he would review reducing the speed limit with the Police Department and look into the passibility of limiting and/or prohibiting truck traffic in the area. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto encouraged residents to work with the Police Department to develop a program whereby volunteers could be trained to help monitor speed in the area. Councilman Addiego stated support for a wall or other improvement that would increase traffic safety in the area. City Manager Nagel responded that staff would report on the costs and feasibility of installing a guardrail in the area. He further noted that staff would report back to Council on alternative noise mitigation measures, including reducing truck traffic and lowering the speed limit. Staff would also review and report on the circumstances leading to the erection of sound walls at the Lawndale and Promenade Developments. Resident Betty Wolfe questioned the cost of installing the sound wall at Sister Cities Blvd. She opined that much time had been wasted on the subject and Myers Development was obligated to provide the sound wall. She further opined that the sound wall would be a lot more expensive to build in five (5) years. Senior Civil Engineer Chuck advised that as a rough estimate an eight (8) foot wall would presently cost .5 million dollars to $700,000 to erect. Recess: 8:22 p.m. Open session resumed: 8:30 p.m. 6. Closed Session -Conference with Labor Negotiator (Pursuant to Government Code Section 5.4957.6). Employee Organization: Operating Engineers. Agency Representative: Kathy Mount/Barry Nagel. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 16, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 8 Time entered Closed Session:: 8:30 p.m. Open Session resumed: 9:15 p.m. Report out of Closed Session by Mayor Gonzalez: The City Council provided direction to staff regarding the anticipated litigation matter. Council voted 4-0 to authorize the City Manager to include the attached Appendix D to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Operating Engineers. 7. Closed Session -Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Pursuant to Gove~~nment Code Section 54956.8). Property: 201 Baden Avenue. Negotiating Parties: South San Francisco and San Francisco Ford. Under Negotiation: Lease terms and price. Time entered Closed Session: 8:30 p.m. Open Session resumed: 9:15 p.m. Report out of closed session by Mayor Gonzalez: By a 4-0 vote, Council provided direction regarding the terms of a month-to-month lease and also authorized the Assistant City Manager to enter into an interim agreement with San Francisco Ford to allow early occupancy of the site provided that San Francisco Ford provides all required insurance certificates and executes an interim agreement, approved as to farm by the City Attorney, that has San Francisco Ford indemnify and hold harmless the City from any claims that arise out of use of the property by San Francisco Ford and that provides adequate payment for the interim use. 8. Closed Session -Conference with Legal Counsel -Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (c)). Initiation of Litigation: One Case. Time entered Closed Sessior.~: 8:30 p.m. Open session resumecl: 9:15 p.m. Report out of Closed Session by Mayor Gonzalez: The City Council provided direction to staff regarding the anticipated litigation matter. 9. Adjournment. Being no further business, Mayor Gonzalez adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Sub ~tte y: roved: ~~ is arhnelli- son, iry erk Pec~IrGo Uonzalez, or ~ City o ~ i S Francisco City of South San Francisco SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 16, 2008 MINUTES PAGE 9 City of South San Francisco International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39 Page 36 Memorandum of Understanding Appendix "Me Too" Clause If during the life of this Memorandum of Understanding (January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008), the City agrees to more favorable terms regarding any overall across the board wage adjustment or medical and/or retirement improvement with any other non-safety bargaining emit, the City will grant those more favorable terms to all represented employees covered by this MOU.