Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2010-04-21MINUTE S SPECIAL MEETING ~°~~x"S~~~, CITY COUNCIL, a ~ ~ OF THE ° CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO c9LIFOR~l~ P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010 2 Call to Order 6:35 p.m. Roll Call. Present: Councilmembers Garbarino, Gonzalez, Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Mullin and Mayor Addiego Absent: None. 3 Agenda Review No changes. 4. Public Comments -comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None. 5. Discussion relating to East of 101 Ramp Improvements. City Engineer, Ray Razavi gave a brief history of the subject. City Council adopted the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF") in 2005 with an assumed build out horizon of 2020. Council subsequently adopted a revised TIF in 2007 which is currently still in effect. To date, the City has $8,868,495 available in TIF funds for the specified projects in the plan. Councilwoman Matsumoto questioned if traffic impact fees being charged to the developers would be or could be used as part of the funding. Engineer Razavi stated that particular source of monies was for an interchange study and the design and construction portion was not a part of the traffic improvements. Funding comes partially from City Redevelopment Agency ("RDA"). The Transit Authority ("TA"), which had been recently reduced it's funding to less than $17 million, had not committed their portion as of yet. Engineer Razavi introduced Cyrus Kianpor of CSG Consultants to further explain details of the plans. Of the plans approved five (5) are within the Caltrans jurisdictions and included: (1) Oyster Point 101 North Bound on/off ramp and Oyster Point Blvd. modifications, (2) Grand Ave/101 North Bound off ramp by addition of new exit lane, (3) Airport Blvd/101 North Bound off ramp, (4) Produce Ave/Utah Ave overcrossing/interchange at 101, and (5) Miller Ave/101 South Bound off ramp and restriction on truck traffic. A Request for Proposals was drafted in March 2009. On Apri129, 2009 proposals were received from five (5) firms and a panel consisting of engineering staff and a representative from C/CAG chose the firms T.Y. Lin International and URS Corporations to undertake these projects. Some suggestions from Council included adding a bike lane and shutting off Grand Avenue from Airport and using the others as one ways. Council also expressed concerns about people accessing the retail that is located in the area and finding a simpler route to the Conference Center from southbound 101. Mr. Kianpor noted the aspects of the projects that addressed Council's suggestions and concerns. He continued that some may ask, "Why now?" Basically, dedicated source of funds have been collected for this project, there was a favorable bidding climate and the projects identified are the most critical. Right now was a good time to economize and put out to bid in the next few years. Questions, feedback and direction from Council were requested. Councilwoman Matsumoto wanted to verify that the $1.2 million was coming out of the $8.8 million. Engineer Razavi explained the funding would have to be spread across each project. The good news was each project was capable of being kept well within its threshold. The process would be lengthy and time consuming. The $341,747 for the Airport Boulevard project is for consultants to go through all the process encounters, the smaller amounts for $90,000 and $77,000 is just for to study the alternatives and does not include plans and specs. Mayor Addiego asked if a project ranking was already determined. Engineer Razavi responded yes, as there was really only one way of doing it. He also wanted to make sure Council was aware of why the numbers were so high, as this was an extremely complicated and time consuming process. Councilwoman Matsumoto questioned the funding had to go through the State Transportation Improvement Program ("STIP"), being that it was TA money. She also asked why not wait to proceed. Engineer Razavi responded C/CAG is the coordinator, funding comes from the City with the exception of Produce Avenue. Produce Avenue is TA money. Mr. Kianpor stated the project study had information on costs. Proceeding would be beneficial to both east and west sides of the City because it would give more connections. An added benefit was that it could relieve congestion from the other three (3) crossings. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 21, 2010 MINUTES PAGE 2 Mayor Addiego felt it would be good economically and could open Produce and San Mateo Avenues. Councilman Garbarino sought clarification on the Grand Avenue exit configuration. He stated currently there were only two lanes, one in each direction. He also asked if any consideration was given to Lowes or Produce Terminal. Engineer Razavi stated there had been no coordination. at this time, and was merely an option for Council. Vice Mayor Mullin requested clarification as to the costs involved. He asked for a ball park figure on the Oyster Point project and wanted to verify the total cost of the entire project as $32.5 million. He was surprised to see most of the money was identified as local money, with the exception of Produce Avenue, as it allowed the City more flexibility and control. He also asked if any of the money could be used for other projects. Engineer Razavi stated the Oyster Point project was approximately $1.5 to 2 million. Design costs were so high because of encroachment process with Caltrans, roughly about 20% as opposed to the usual 8-10%. Total cost of all projects was verified at $39 million. Mayor Addiego felt if the right project was picked to start with, it could accelerate the collection fees. Mr. Kianpor explained fees would be used as development takes place. Approximately $39 million will have been collected. That money was required to be spent on previously identified projects and not able to be tapped for other transportation related improvements to the community. It was a well defined scope of work and use for the money. Vice Mayor Mullin noted that all of the improvements were aimed at building out the City's vehicle capacity. When looking out over a 20-30 year horizon there would be kinds of visionary projects, such as people movers. He wanted to know how flexible things would be for future Councils. Assistant Manager Van Duyn wanted to add fees were based on trips. If participants can demonstrate so many trips off of their demand, then costs are reduced. Improvements less important are pushed further out. The savings in costs are shifted towards the other modes, whether they are planes, trains or automobiles. Mayor Addiego questioned who would be participating. Assistant Manager Van Duyn stated it could be set up so there would be participation. It may only benefit the subdivision or the assessment district that is the catch basin of improvement values added. Mayor Addiego added "pie in the sky" visions previously mentioned by the Vice Mayor could more so be an eventuality. Assistant Manager Van Duyn stated there were many options, and noted there was a people SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 21, 2010 MINUTES PAGE 3 mover design long ago in conjunction with the airport. Councilwoman Matsumoto noted one of the City's biggest hang ups was Caltrans permits. Have they been put on notice that way we can go ahead once the money was received? Engineer Razavi stated we could proceed full force on the Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue projects. The others would look at different alternatives and coordinate locally and would not include any final design or encroachment permits. The larger amounts would be shovel-ready; however, those were currently funded by the traffic improvement fund. Mayor Addiego questioned why would we want to have studies for all five (5) when only enough funding for one (1). Why not focus on the one with most benefits Assistant Manager Van Duyn responded we needed to start ramping up to compete for funds or generate new funds for assessments. We needed to get ahead on Miller and Produce Avenue projects and any other options we have opportunity for. We needed to be competitive for Measure A funding and loans. We don't want to have the rug pulled out from under us, having a loan without matching monies. A Project study process takes at least two (2) to three (3) years. Engineer Razavi stated there was enough funding to do three (3) projects. Mayor Addiego requested round number figures for the remaining projects. Mr. Kianpor ran through the expected costs for the various projects: Miller Avenue, because of gas station hazmat investing was estimated at less than $2 million; Grand Avenue was estimated at $1.2 to 1.3 million; Produce Avenue was could be anywhere for $40 to 72 million. Engineer Razavi noted the last information given to the TA was $77 million before the market crash. Councilman Gonzalez questioned if it that was a flyover. He also requested a simulation of traffic flow the next time Council was presented with a report. Engineer Razavi responded yes it was a flyover and would impact the hotel down below near Utah. Councilwoman Matsumoto suggested bringing in Rich Napier and C/CAG from the onset, as it may make additional funding available. Engineer Razavi stated the final project(s) would be brought before Council at a future meeting for approval. At that time, they would come back with awards as well as the results of the alternative studies. 6. Study Session on Climate Change. Assistant City Manager Marty Van Duyn introduced Susan McHugh to provide Council with an update on climate change, it effects and the efforts of the State to respond. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 21, 2010 MINUTES PAGE 4 Ms. McHugh gave a brief presentation. Highlighted were the various ways the Bay Area could do its part through conservation, adopting a "Climate Action Plan," comprehensive zoning and planning. Information was also provided on AB32: The Global Warming Solutions Act, and SB 375 which uses the regional transportation planning process to help achieve reductions in green house gas ("GHG") emissions. Ms. McHugh noted South San Francisco had already built a solid foundation for achieving success through its work on hundreds of "green initiatives" and explained steps and strategies that could be taken next. Councilman Gonzalez agreed the City was doing very well and asked how Council could continue to work with the community in accepting these new efforts. Mayor Addiego felt a baseline emissions plan was needed. He opined it was time to move beyond window dressings, we need to know where we are at and where we want to go. Council requested to be provided with the study that had been presented a few years prior, detailing the "green initiatives" the City has set out to complete. She also asked for clarification of the "Green City Strategy." Assistant Manager Van Duyn stated he would provide Council with copies in their Friday packets. Answering the Councilwoman's second question he explained; (1) the City needed to situate itself in the creation of a "Green Division" that would search out "green" types of use as it related to seed monies and relationships, and (2) in areas of fuel advancement, there were two major companies giving significant amounts of grant money. Relationships with them over time may prove to be a benefit in terms of getting to the next level. Much of what is being talked about needs to be chased after. Councilwoman Matsumoto wanted to encourage staff to work with C/CAG, to whom we pay dues and who aggressively search out grants of this sort. Mayor Addiego questioned what the baseline emissions plan was going to look at. He added that some of the technology in the older homes throughout the community was really yesterday's technology; imagine if that could all be switched over to today's technology. Ms. McHugh responded that greenhouse gas emissions would be looked at within categories, detailing all sources of emissions. She noted the linkage between baseline inventory and the climate action plan. These are actions to be taken that could help the City reach its goals. Councilwoman Matsumoto questioned if the City has gone as far as to require a certain percentage of developments be "green." She referred to Portola Valley and Menlo Park as examples. Assistant Manager Van Duyn noted that new building code would mandate both residential and non residential to standards targeted at the AB goals. There may be more opportunities beyond that in the area of housing renovations. A lot of decisions about green options for renovation work will be required. He added the City should employ programs that fit our community. Vice Mayor Mullin noted the City was at the point where things could be made concrete and that the possibilities were stimulating. He questioned what made downtown a priority development SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 21, 2010 MINUTES PAGE 5 area ("PDA"), its proximity to Caltrain or its ripeness for dense development? Also, in regards to the RFP for the baseline inventory report, looking at the 2005 numbers, will this be a duplication of efforts or brand new. NIs. McHugh stated it was a combination of density and its linkage with transportation systems. Regarding the baseline inventory report, she stated there was a requirement for two (2) inventories; emissions from city owned operations followed by community-wide emissions. Vice Mayor Mullin added the City had potential to be a green tech hub and whether as an incubator or for operations that could large, the City was poised to take advantage. He would like to put forth real incentives to draw those businesses here. Councilman Garbarino noted. Solazyme, headquartered in South San Francisco, just received an award for it use of algae to make bio-products such as fuel. The company started in the founder's garage. 7. Resolution Approving An Agreement Between. the City of South San Francisco and the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. City Attorney Steve Mattas explained the agreement that staff had negotiated with Superior Court of San Mateo County. The agreement provided for the City to advance funds to allow reimbursement of citation fines in a more expeditious manner. Specifically, the City would advance the Court $1.5 million to refund fines paid by cited motorists. The court has dismissed all citations. Attorney Mattas noted a minor typo in the year; it is 2010 not 2009 as written in the staff report for dismissal. The Court will withhold any future revenues they receive so they can repay the City the entire $1.5 million advanced assumimg the court ultimately uses the entire $1.5 million. In addition, the City returns to the Court the portion of the fines that it has previously received related to the dismissed citations. This amount is $237,143. If approved money would be wired to the Court on Friday Apri123, 2010. City is responsible for actual and necessary administrative costs. An initial payment of $250,000 will be given to apply towards costs with. The Court will provide the City with an accounting report within the first 45 days and every month thereafter, if the full $250,000 is not used the difference will be refunded. The only change was and added clause to formally appropriate $1.5 million from undesignated reserve and when its paid back it goes into undesignated reserve so that fund remains whole. Councilwoman Matsumoto thought the out-of-pocket expenses were between $60-70,000. She also noted the presence of "tracking" items on the part of the City and questioned where that money would come from. Attorney Mattas stated the Court initially estimated cost up to $200,000 but later identified $250,000 as the initial payment to cover all of the costs. The City has offered to send staff to help, but the Court has declined. In regards to tracking costs, Attorney Mattas stated the release forms come from the police department and are then transferred to finance. Designated staff coordinated between the Police and Finance Departments, process the reimbursements. Individuals who receive refunds will get documentation and copy of check from County. Crosschecking measures with the County had been implemented. Mayor Addiego noted this information would be good for Council and the community to SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEF,TING APRIL 21, 2010 MINUTES PAGE 6 understand; results have been lost revenue, administrative costs to the Court, and a "not insubstantial" amount of manpower. Over 21,000 incidents generated 7000 tickets and no revenue. That number was needed at some point when it was ready. Councilman Gonzalez hoped it would work out and questioned when the new citations would begin. Attorney Mattas responded May 15. Councilwoman Matsumoto wanted to verify the agreement was correct and complete. Attorney Mattas confirmed that it was. Vice Mayor Mullin questioned if we could add something like a flow chart to show where the money went for transparency's sake. Motion -Vice Mayor Mullin/2"d -Councilman Gonzalez: to approve Resolution No. 35-2010. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 8. Adjournment. Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 8:24pm. an Francisco Approved: C...r ~~ Mayor,.City of outh San Franci co SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 2010 PAGE 7