HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2010-01-27~o~~ x SAN ~
'
~
- 1~/I INU ~' ~~ S
~
=-
~
9
~q -_
>` *~-
-- ' ~
~IT~~ CQUN~'Il~
~~"'~'~
~'ry~
r`~' CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
ixo~
REGULAR MEETI:I~TG
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BIJILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
33 ARROYO DRIViE
WEDNESDAY, JAr?UAR_Y 27, 2010
CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL: Present: Cowlc~ilmen Garbarino and
Gon;~a]~ez and Councilwoman
Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Mullin,
and Mayor Addiego.
Absent: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Mayor Addiego.
PRESENTATIONS
Acceptance of $2200 donation from Our Redeemer's Lutheran Church to the
Department of Parks and Recreation.
Barbara Irli, a member of the Congregation of our Redeemer's Lutheran Church presented
the South San Francisco Adult Day Care Center with a check in the amount of $2200.00 on
behalf of the Church.
Recreation and Community Services Supervisor Hunziker expressed gratitude to the
Church and its members.
• Red Light Photo Enforcement.
Chief of Police Massoni provided a presentation on the Red. Light Photo Enforcement
Program, which started in August 2009. From August 2009 through November 2009, there
had been 12,000 events. An ``event" was defined as any time the camera is activated. Of
the 12,000 events, 3,000 resulted in tickets. Each event triggers review of the video by
ATS. ATS determines whether there is a violation, a clear viE;w of the driver and
identification of the license plate. Once this determination is made, ATS sends the
information back. to the Police Department and part time emp]~oyees review the videos and
make an attempt to compare drivers' license photos with the driver in the video. If this can
be accomplished, a citation is processed.
Chief Massoni then showed video clips of circumstances in which tickets were and were
not issued.
Vice Mayor Mullin questioned the amount of funds accruing to the City as a result of red
light camera citations.
Chief Massoni advised $130,000 in revenue had accrued to the City as a result of violations
captured during August through the end of November 2009. A, portion of the fine goes to
the state and a portion goes to ATS. The chief added than the cost of a red light ticket is the
same everywhere in the County irrespective if whether the citation is the result of a red
light camera incident or issued by a patrol officer. He further explained the City planned to
use the revenue to fund the Every 15 Minutes Program. He :noted Council had until the
middle of June 2010 to make a f nal decision on the Contract after a 10 month test phase.
He recommended that Council take action to ratify the contract with ATS as presented on
the Consent Calendar later in the meeting.
Mayor Addiego questioned the City's net intake on citations a;~ of December 2009.
Chief Massoni stated the program was roughly $42,000 ahead of expenditures.
Vice Mayor 1`~Zullin stated he noticed the cameras flashing when a violation wasn't
technically occurring.
Chief Massoni advised some flashes were generated by recalibration of the cameras.
Councilman Gonzalez questioned how long the state has taken a portion of red light ticket
fines.
Chief Massoni advised the state has taken a portion of citations for red light violations prior
to the establishment of red light cameras.
Resident Dell Schembari stated he appreciated the Red Light (~amera Program as he had
almost been clipped by violators several times at the Westborough Intersection.
Resident Ray Yoschak questioned the percentage of the ticket that accrues to the vendor.
Chief Massoni advised ATS received $31,000/month under the contract.
Mr. Yoschak further noted several cities in the state and on ~thf; Peninsula had expressed
regret over installing red light cameras. He directed Council to a website titled
www•1~~i~hwa~ber.~ for additional information.
Resident Candace Gianni stated the flashes on the red light cameras blinded her eyes when
she drives through the intersection. She described seeing spots before her eyes and noted
the cameras were very distracting. She questioned whether th~~ intersection was selected
due to a large number of accidents.
Chief Massoni advised the proposal for the program was redui_red to be justified against
accident numbers.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2010
MINUTES - 2 -
Resident Ginny Tilton stated that while she had not received a ticket as a result of the red
light cameras, she found them to be intimidating. Because she believed it would be a
matter of time before she received such a ticket, she was avoiding the intersection. She
questioned whether t?~.ere was a specific amount of time motorists should stop before
making a right turn on red.
Chief Massoni stated that motorists coming to a complete stop would not receive a ticket.
Councilwoman Matsumoto stated she drives through the intersection at Westborough at
least once a day. She expressed concern for pedestrians on the corners when illegal right
turns are made.
Local business owner Basil Cavalierri of South San Francisco Car Wash advised that the
red light cameras cause traffic to back up because persons going North at the intersection
of El Camino and Chestnut have started to avoid making even legal turns on a red light.
Chief Massoni noted that signage, indicating a right turn was permitted after a stop on a red
light, had recently been installed at the intersection
Art Mosqueda questioned whether the lights could ever becc-me so effective at stopping
illegal red light runners, that the cameras would become a liability as opposed to a revenue
generator.
Chief Massoni stated that although it was difficult to speculate, it was possible the cameras
would accomplish their objective and cost more to operate than the amount of revem~e they
would bring in.
Vice Mayor Mullin requested clarification on the prccess at issue. He stated the Council
would ratify the existing agreement and staff would come back to Council in spring with a
recommendation to extend or terminate it.
Chief Massoni so confirmed and added that staff and Council would have a few months of
data upon which to base a decision on extension in May.
Art Mosqueda questioned whether the cameras caught cell phone violators.
Chief Massoni responded that the state does not currently permit photo enforcement of the
cell phone law.
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Nagel recommended removing items 9 and 10 from the Agenda. He further
recommended reserving items 5 and 6 for discussion at the end of the meeting.
Council agreed.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2010
MINUTES - 3 -
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bill Collins with the Local Chapter of the Sierra Club addressed Council and provided
information regarding a v~~luntary measure by which merchants assume some responsibility
for the distribution of bags. The proposal would require ce;-tain r~~erchants to charge at
least a dime for providing bags to customers as opposed to giving them away for free. It
was hoped that ibis would encourage customers to bring their own bags when shopping.
Councilwoman Matsumoto stated the City Attorney was ]hooking at proposals aimed at
conservation efforts with respect to bags. The proposals would be presented at the next
Council meeting.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
• Announcements.
• Committee Reports.
• Census DVD: "It's in Our Hands."
Due to the number of items on the Agenda, Council determined to forego announcements
and committee reports for the evening and postponed viewing of the Census DVD until the
next regular Council meeting.
Councilman Garbarino requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Evelyn
Casagrande and Jack Healy.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion to approve the minutes of September 16, 2009 as approved by the Planning
Commission, December 16, 2009 and January 13, 2010.
2. Motion to confirm the expense claims of January 27, 2010.
3. Waive Reading and adopt an Ordinance No. 1421-2010 amending Chapter 6.72 of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code related to the regulation of Taxicabs.
4. Resolution No. 10-2010 awarding a Consulting Services Agreement to Gates +
Associates for the Westborough Parks Improvements project in an amount not to
exceed $176,526.
S. Resolution No. 11-2010 approving the Memorandum of Understanding for the South
San Francisco Police Association Unit dated January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011.
Item heard after Item No 12.
6. Resolution No. 12-2010 approving the Memorandum of Understanding for American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Unit, Local 829, dated July 1,
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2010
MINUTES - 4 -
2008 through June 30, 201 1.
Item .heard after Item No. 12.
7. Resolution 13-2010 Re-Authorizing an Agreement with 1:he County of San Mateo for
Communications Services provided to tr~e South San Francisco Fire Department and
approving an amendment to the Fire Department's Operai~ing Budget.
8. Resolution 14-2010 ratifying a contract with American '~Craffic Solutions, Inc. (ATS)
for Red Light Photo Enforcement.
Motion- Councilman Gonzalez/Second- Councilman Garbarino: to approve Consent
Calendar Items Nos. 1-4 and 7. Unanimously approved by voice vote.
Item No. 8: Councilwoman Matsumoto spoke in favor of ratifying the contract. She
requested ticket cost mitigation information when the contract comes before Council again.
Motion- Councilwoman Matsumoto/Second- Couneilmari Gonzalez. Unanimously
approved by voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
9. Resolution implementing the changes in wages, hours, .and terms and conditions of
employment for the employees represented by the International Fire Fighters
Association, Local 1 X07, effective 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2009 or as otherwise stated
below.
Item removed from Agenda and not heard.
10. Resolution implementing the changes in wages, hours, and terms and conditions of
employment for the employees represented by the .American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, Local 829, effective 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2009 or
as otherwise stated below.
Item removed from Agenda and not heard.
11. AP09-0005: P09-0048, UP09-0012 & DR09-0029 Galbriella Barr -Applicant SSF
Unified School District -Owner 2525 WEXFORD AVE. APN - 091082990 Appeal
of Planning Commission approval of Use Permit and. Design Review allowing a
wireless communication facility consisting of a tree foram monopole with a height of
70 feet with 9 panel antennas, a 4 foot diameter microwave dish, a 240 SF one-story
equipment shelter containing appurtenant equipment <~nd an emergency generator
located within a 1,470 square foot landscaped walled. enclosure, situated at 2525
Wexford Avenue (former Foxridge Elementary Schoo) (APN091-082-990), in the
(S) School lone District, in accordance with SSFMC 20.49, 20.81, 20.85 & 20.105
Senior Planner Steve Carlson presented the staff report explaining the Planning
Commission had approved the project in October after a prior neighborhood meeting. 750
notice letters were mailed by the applicant and three people attended the neighborhood
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2010
MINUTES - 5 -
meeting. The Notice was distributed to residents within a gl•eater vicinity of the project
than legally required. The Appellants had attended the meeting and spoke in opposition
citing concerns over potential adverse health effects and tlhe condition of existing trees.
They further expressed concern over noise associated with the generator. Senior Planner
Carlson explained the generator was tested only during weekday daylight hours to
minimize interruption to neighbors.
The appellant submitted the appeal to the City Clerk on October 26, 2009. The appeal cited
different concerns, including, but not limited to that the appli.ca~nt had not demonstrated that
the site was the only suitable one in the area. They also cited concerns over the generator,
which Planner Carlson described as meeting City standards. Regarding the proposed
location, Planner Carlson explained it complied with federal regulations and addressed a
coverage gap that was depicted on a map. He further noted that with increased use of
cellular/mobile devices applications were expected to increase within the City. He closed
by noting the proposed facility complied with City development requirements and federal
regulations and would not have adverse health effects. Further., the City's ordinance did not
require the identification of alternative sites. Accordingly, staff recommended upholding
the Planning Commission's decision.
Public Hearing opened: 7:48p.m.
Appellants Michael Allen, Eric Snyder ar~d Andy Au-Yeung addressed Council.
Michael Allen stated his primary concern was protecting hi_s children and. his principle
assets, being his home and community. He expressed opposition to the project as proposed
and objected to its scale and its proximity to homes and a children's play area. He noted
That school sites have few limitations under the Zoning Code and felt it was unfair to site a
commercial facility at such a location. He opined that if the facility was not proposed on
the school site, it would otherwise conflict with the City's code regarding placement of
antennas near residential structures. He stated permitting the facility set a dangerous
precedent. He further took issue with the lack of public notice: on the project and suggested
residents should be included and informed earlier in the pe:rrr.~it process. He urged Council
not to overturn the Planning Commission's determination.
Andy Au-Yeung presented Council with the notice mailer that was sent by the applicant
prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project. He noted it was sent by On Air
LLC 465 First Street in Sonoma. He described it as looking like a piece of junk mail that
he almost threw away and noted many neighbors probably did throw it away.
Mr. Au-Yeung noted that although only three people attended the meeting, he and his co-
appellants received a 99% response to the forms they sent out to neighbors soliciting
objections. The appellants presented the packet of objections to Council and noted a list of
reasons to oppose the project was stated therein. He advisf;d Appellants had received a 60
page packet from the applicant's attorneys over the weekend, and could not possibly
respond to the packet in its entirety within 3 days. He noted that page 24 of the packet
from Verizon included a letter from an attorney addressing the perceived health risk issue.
He described the letter as misrepresenting health risk information. He further noted the
neighborhood had a history of opposing commercial structures. He also argued there was
no information as to how the proposed tower would withstand. an earthquake.,
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2010
MINUTES - 6 -
Appellant Eric Snyder stated his home was the 3rd or 4th closest home to the antenna. He
identified himself as a scientist by trade who had worked for a radio frequency company
for 7 years. He opined Verizon chose the site because it offered the most open air view of
surrounding terrain, but stated it v~°as too close to residences,. He stated this pl~obiem would
be exacerbated by the fact that City policies encourage collocation of antennas. He opined
wind in the area might be problematic and stated a tornado had rolled through the
neighborhood in recent years. He further opined the tower might not he able to withstand
thunderstorms and other weather issues. He stated permitting the antenna at the school site
would create a precedent in which residents would have litl:le opportunity to weigh in the
on the process.
Various residents appeared to address Council and express opposition to the project,
including: Dr. Braham, Karen Tomczak, Beverly Boblitt, Candace Gianni and Haresh
Givani. The following points were raised in opposition to the project by one or more of the
speakers: 1) the proposed tower was too close to residences; 2) neighbors did riot have
enough input on the project prior to Planning Commission approval; 3) research shows that
antennas and cell. phone towers may increase the risk of childhood cancers and other
ailments and also may be harmful to animals; 4) the proposed tower should iiot be located
on a school site near where children play; and 5) the tree design was unattractive and would
depreciate home values in the area.
Felipe Aleman, an employee of a Local Verizon store, advised Council that customers
complain of recurring coverage problems in the area.
Gabriella Barr, representing the applicant Verizon Wireless, noted the Verizon understood
Plaintiff's concerns. She then proceeded to address severa:~ of the points made by the
appellant. She stated the mailer was sent to nearly 700 residents and only three showed up.
She further stated the pole was placed at the Westborough location due to valid concerns
over coverage gaps in the area. She then directed Council's attention to a sample board
that demonstrated the quality of the materials Verizon proposed to acco~nplisr~ the
stealthing. Ms. Barr next provided a power point presentation depicting several slides of
the area and the proposed tree pole. She opined it fit in niice;ly with the surrounding area
and was within the Zoning Code as it was placed on the school site. She also showed
slides depicting the coverage gap and explained why the eight (8) other sites considered by
Verizon would not work.
Bill Hemet representing Verizon explained he was with an ]~F'E firm that was hired to look
at radio frequency exposure considerations. He stated than the highest exposure to radio
frequencies was 50% below the standard adopted by the FCC in 1996.
Russ Benson representing Verizon explained the proposed location was selected because it
involved an area of concern where most dropped calls were experienced.
Ron Little, an Associate Superintendant with the School Di~~strict, addressed Council and
explained the District had worked closely with Verizon on the design and had held three
separate public hearings on the design and concept before ap~~roval of the lease in April of
2009.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2010
MINUTES - 7 -
Vice Mayor Mullin questioned the amount of revenue the lease would generate for the
District.
Associate Superintendar~t Little explained the lease would generate $24,OOC?/year for the
District.
Recess: 8:50 p.m.
Meeting resumed: 8:55 p.m.
Appellant Mike Allen addressed Council and opined Verizon did ilot add any information
since presenting to the Planning Commission. He noted the children at the school site were
not using phones and would not beneFt from the proposed placement of the tower. He
stated the residents were at the location first and under the Zoning Code, the antenna would
not be permit±ed except for the School zone loophole. He closed by noting there were no
conclusive studies regarding the effects of electromagnetic :radiation on tissue and wanted
to protect his family and others in the neighborhood from such exposure.
Public Hearing Closed: 8:58 p.m.
Vice Mayor Mullin advised he met with Gabriella Barr. ~~e expressed concern over the
impact of the proposed antenna ors the neighborhood. He observed t11.e pole was slated to
be installed against the tree line and questioned whether other areas on the school site -
further from homes- had been considered.
Ms. Barr explained the selected site was zoned S for School and sat on a large 8 acre
parcel. The specific placement of the antenna was selected hecause it could be stealthed
within the property.
Councilman Garbarino disclosed he had met with Ms. Barr. He commented about the
height of the proposed antenna, and expressed concern that only four (4) residents showed
up in response to the public notice. He commented this vas either due to apathy or the
quality of the notice.
Councilman Garbarino requested that City Attorney Mattas clarify the grounds for denying
the application and overturning the Planning Commission's determination.
City Attorney Mattas responded that if Council was considering a denial, he would
recommend that it direct staff to come back with finding.
Vice Mayor Mullin questioned the portions of the Muni Code appellants were referring to.
City Attorney Mattas explained the Municipal Code provides a number of different
requirements relating to antennas, including setbacks and other figures.
Councilwoman Matsumoto disclosed she met with Ms. Barr. She thanked Verizon for
stealthing the tower but expressed concern over its proximity to homes for health reasons.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2010
MINUTES - 8 -
City Attorney Mattas advised the Council could not base a decision to deny the application
on perceived health risk, because federal law dictates that as long as the proposal is within
FCC standards, the determination would be preempted.
Councilwoman Matsumoto next expressed concern over the setback ~or~~ the residences as
against the Zoning Code.
City Attorney Mattas responded that because the tower was being placed in an area zoned
for schools it would subvert the normal setback restrictions set forth for antennas in the
Zoning Code.
Vice Mayor Mullin questioned whether staff had looked at other locations on the school
site and whether this particular location had been selected to create optimal stealthing. He
queried whether another location on the site might be more consistent with the Muni Code
requirements for antennae in residential areas.
Planner Carlson advised the questions would be best answered by the School District.
Associate Superintendent Little advised the plans had been taken to the School Board and
would have to be reconsidered if an alternative location an the site was desired.
Resident Joseph Chu advised he was a Verizon user and di.dn't experience dropped calls.
In addition, he didn't believe health should be compromised for stealth aspects.
Resident Mr. Street raised concerns over the proximity of the tower to PG&E power lines.
Public Hearing closed: 9:34 p.m.
Councilman Gonzalez advised he met with Gabriella Barr. He noted that in the future he
would like applicants to look for site locations that were not near residential
neighborhoods.
Councilman Garbarino expressed concern that if the proposed facility were not located on a
school site, it would not be permitted as close to the homes as :proposed.
Vice Mayor Mullin expressed concern over the proximity of the tree to PG&.E power lines
and questioned the validity of the concern given the locatio~z of power lines in the area and
the power outages routinely experienced in the Westborough Area.
Planner Carlson showed a map depicting the location of the~~ tree and estimated the location
of certain power lines.
Mayor Addiego expressed discomfort with the project being that it was proposed in a
residential as opposed to commercial area. He noted (:ouncilmembers seemed to be
expressing discomfort with the proposed application.
Ms. Barr approached Council and stated the applicant was requesting a continuance in
order to work out a compromise plan.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2010
MINUTES - 9 -
City Attorney Mattas clarified that the proposed continuance. should be to a date certain.
Motion- Councilman Garbarino/Second -Councilwoman Matsumoto to continue the
public hearing to the regular meeting of April 14, 2010. Unanimously approved by voice
vote.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSII~TESS
12. Review of Actuarial Study of Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB), and options
for funding those obligations.
Finance Director Steele presented Council with a study and recommendation concerning
Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB). He explained than; like many other cities, the
City funds insurance premiums for current retirees not current employees. Accounting rules
changed, however, and now the City would need to start reporting the cost of funding
retirement for current employees. There was no requirement 1;hat the City fund OPEB for
current employees, however. Due to the new reporting requirements and their potential
impact on credit ratings and the bond rating process, the City pursued an actuarial analysis
and worked with Bartel and Associates. Based on the results of the analysis, staff
recommended Council direct that the City continue its current :hybrid practice of pay as go,
and internally set aside dollars as they are available in good financial years.
Councilwoman Matsumoto questioned the impact of a City bankruptcy on pensions.
City Attorney Mattas explained the question was difficult to answer based upon the
reorganization of debt obligations that occurs in bankruptcy. Due to this fact, it would be
difficult to project out what could happen.
Councilman Gonzalez questioned where the funds would be de-posited.
Director Steele advised the OPEB reserve was part of the Large City investment portfolio,
which earned interest along with others.
Council agreed with Director Steele's recommendation to confirm the pay as you go
practice while continuing to set aside dollars as available..
City Attorney Mattas advised this would be formally approved by Council as part of the
budgetary process allocation.
5. Resolution No. 11-2010 approving the Memorandum ~of Understanding for the South
San Francisco Police Association Unit dated January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011.
Director of Human Resources Mount explained a couple o~f minor changes were made to
the MOU, including, extending the date for devising an RHS plan, including travel time in
the sick leave payment schedule and matters relating to the disciplinary appeal process.
Motion - Councilman Gonzalez/Second- Councilwoman Matsumoto to approve
Resolution No. 11-2010. Unanimously approved by voice vote.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2010
MINUTES - 10 -
6. Resolution No. 12-2010 approving the Memorandum oiE Understanding for American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Unit, Local 829, dated July 1,
2008 through June 30, 2011.
1irector of Human Resources Mount explained there had been Late notice that AFSCME
had voted to accept the last, best and final offer. With that agreement in mind, they
prepared the draft MOU. As Director Mount anticipated relatively minor changes would
be made before a signed copy was obtained, she recommended Cc~ancil authorize the City
Ma.~ager to make minor changes not inconsistent with the deal points.
Motion- Councilman Garbarino/Second- Councilwoman Matsumoto: to approve
Resolution No. 12-2010 and authorize the City Mana,~ger to make minor changes not
inconsistent with tree deal points. Unanimously approved by voice vote.
COMMUNITY FORUM
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no fur±her business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m. in honor of
Evelyn Casagrande and Jack Healy.
Sr~riitted. by:
..
~ ;-
{, to f .w'~ ._._. ......- d~
-.--Arista Ma -arson, City Clerk
City of Sou ._~~.~~~nci
Approved: ~
G~ G:vc ~ .. ~.~-
M~~rk N. A diego, Mayor
Ci1:y of South San Francisco
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES - 11 -
JANUARY 27, 2010