HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 21,1992
I
I
OffrJ.~ 0
t) 701.19,;)
C< 34: 0214
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
CLERK
ROLL CALL
SOUNDWALLS
(210 Fwy.)
O~o-(.,O
M I NUT E S
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
STUDY SESSION
(FREEWAY SOUNDWALLS)
JULY 21, 1992
The Arcadia City Council met in a Study Session at 6:00 p.m.
Tuesday, July 21, 1992, in the conference room of the City Hall
Council Chambers to discuss the construction of soundwalls
along the Foothill Freeway (210) through the City of Arcadia.
PRESENT:
Councilmen Ciraulo, Harbicht, Loj eski, Margett
and Fasching
None
ABSENT:
Before the discussion began, the City Engineer, Joseph Lopez,
reported on the current status of the soundwall project, and
alternative financing programs available to. the City and
residents to pay for the construction of the soundwalls. On
the north side of the freeway two areas, which are on
Caltrans' priority list, have qualified for construction and
have been officially designated as such; Don Pablo to Baldwin
Avenue and Second Avenue to the easterly City limits at Fifth
Avenue. Those are the only two areas that qualified for
soundwalls, according to the Caltrans' formula. There are two
other walls to be constructed which are not on the priority
list, one section is under construction at the present time;
Michillinda Avenue to Baldwin, south side. The north side,
Michillinda to Baldwin, will be constructed when funding is
available and will include the area of Don Pablo to Baldwin.
The south side wall, now under construction, is being built
because of Federal requirements that if the freeway is widened
to accommodate the enforcement area for the High Occupancy
Vehicle lane, the soundwall would be constructed
simultaneously.
Mr. Lopez briefly described the various soundwa1l financing
alternatives set forth in the July 15, 1992 report prepared
by James Dale, Finance Director. Attached to the report was
a hypothetical assessment diagram (sketch) of an area which
could be considered an assessment district. Fifteen (15)
tiers were indicated beginning with Tier No. I, those
properties immediately adj acent to the freeway, and progressed
to Tier No. 15, those properties at a greater distance from
the freeway. The cost of assessment per lot ranges from
$4,500 for those lots in Tier 1, to $300 for Tier 15. A total
of approximately 381 parcels were within the hypothetical
district. Each tier was assigned a relative value depending
on their distance from the freeway. Mr. Lopez noted that, of
those properties within an assessment district, 60% of the
property owners within a given district would have to agree
to this plan to enable the assessment district to go forward.
If there was a majority protest, the assessment district would
then require either a 4/5 affirmative vote for the City
Council to override the protest or postpone the matter for a
year, at which time it could be heard by the Council again.
Referring to the Finance Director's report, the Assistant
7/21/92
1
34:0215
Finance Director, Gerald Parker, explained that the Finance
Department specifically considered the assessment district.
Alternative soundwall financing could be considered, such as,
the City could finance the total construction, or a portion
of the project; or the City could participate with an
assessment district. To that end, the City could issue bonds
to fund the project; or issue bonds to reimburse the City and
the bonds then paid off by assessment; or the City could
construct the walls and then collect the assessment directly
from the individual properties benefited. Further, as far as
interest on the funds, the 1911 Bond Act by the Public Works
Code specifies a maximum 12% interest could be charged. The
current rate for assessment bonds is 7 to 7 1/2%. The Finance
Director used 7% for his calculations as a reasonable figure
for installment payments over a 24-year period. Councilman
Margett noted that other costs have to be considered in the I
total cost of the project, such as, overhead and other costs
associated with the issuance of bonds. The Assistant Director
of Finance explained the process of repayment to the City for
street lighting projects. A similar system could be utilized
for the soundwall project if the City were to fund the project
and then have each parcel assessed on the property tax roll
each year. In this case bonds would not have to be issued.
In reference to a previous meeting with the affected property
owners, Councilman Harbicht noted that the residents were
almost unanimously opposed to an assessment district as a
vehicle to pay for the soundwalls. If so, and there is no
interest in this plan, then other means of financing should
be considered. Mr. Lopez commented that at that meeting,
although it was not unanimous, it was the consensus of the
group that an assessment district was not a viable way of
financing the walls if the property owners had to pick up the
entire cost. If the City would bear most of the cost ... then
the residents would be interested. At this point, Mayor
Fasching asked for comments from the audience.
Bob Caldwell, 326 Joyce Avenue, addressed the City Council and
the audience as follows: "For the last nine years I have been
involved in the pursuit of soundwalls for Arcadia, a resident
for 11 years before the construction of the 210 freeway in
1968. In 1976 my neighbors presented to the City Council a
petition of 168 signatures of their plea for relief of the
noise onslaught increasing from the freeway. That City
Council heard and acted by including $300,000 in its 1977-78
budget toward soundwalls. This was a generous gesture by the
members of that Council. Unfortunately, Caltrans has two
requirements to be eligible for soundwalls. First, an area
must exceed a noise decibel reading of 67 decibels. The
second Caltrans requirement is the cost of construction is
divided by the number of units that would benefit by the noise
reduction. After meeting those requirements, Caltrans puts
the eligible area on a priority list, index list. Inasmuch
as Caltrans has 200, projects waiting for funding, the
possibility of receiving a soundwall could be 10 to 20 years
in the future. At that time of presenting the petition, the
neighborhood from Second to Fifth did not qualify for
soundwalls. Later Councils rescinded the $300,000 support.
When it was published that Monrovia would receive a soundwall,
I formed a steering committee with 11 neighbors and we
organized and distributed flyers at all the homes, inviting
all to come to a neighborhood ' meeting. Then Dennis Lojeski
was Mayor and came and spoke to 75 neighbors in a garage
adjacent to the freeway. We next presented a petition to the
Council asking for help for soundwalls, which was signed by
355 residents. As time passed, I joined forces with "Citizens
for Soundwalls", composed of residents who live south of the
Foothill Freeway. After nine years of meetings, researching,
Council appearances, and the City-called joint meeting with
I
7/21/92
2
,
34:0216
I
Caltrans' top officials, those friends will be recipients of
the soundwall running past their homes. The walls on the
south side, and eventually the north side, from Michillinda
to Baldwin will have an HOV, high-occupancy vehicle, lane by
restriping the present lanes. From Michillinda to Baldwin the
freeway will widen to accommodate the California Highway
Patrol, to be able to pullover traffic violators. The HOV
lane will start from the Ventura Freeway and go to Sunflower
Avenue in Glendora. CHP lanes will be every so many miles.
In August 1990, Caltrans took another noise decibel reading
at Fourth and Joyce Avenue. Ed Zareh, Co-Chairman of the
"Arcadia Soundwall Committee", and I met the sound technicians
as they set up the equipment, and then we were joined by Bill
Minter, Caltrans' soundwall project engineer. After the
technicians completed their tests, Bill Minter turned and
said, "You qualify". I felt like I had hit the lottery. With
the permission of the City, we invited Bill Minter to this
meeting and he is available to answer any technical questions.
With Caltrans qualifying Second to Fifth, I passed on the
information to my immediate neighbors, but was perplexed in
how to inform the rest of the residents and to bring this new
information to the City's attention. A solution evolved. The
"Arcadia Soundwall Committee" decided to call another
neighborhood meeting and invite the four candidates aspiring
to fill the two vacancies on the City Council. All four
candidates accepted, but Mr. Margett did have a previous
engagement and wasn't definite if he could attend. The
meeting was held in a back yard adjacent to the freeway. I
gave a soundwall update on meeting Caltrans' rules. Each
candidate spoke on his qualifications for offtce, and a video
was made of the event, and Robert Margett asked to take it
with him on a'brief vacation after the election. He, too,
agreed it is a noisy living area. Next, the City Council
directed Joe Lopez, Director of Public Works, to meet with
neighborhood residents on June 12 to have input from those ten
res idents attending. He submitted his report to the Ci ty
Council. The City Council next called for this study meeting
with all Arcadia residents concerned with the intrusion of the
freeway noise in their lives."
I
Bill Minter, California Department of Transportation, a
resident of Pasadena, 633 E. California Boulevard. In
response to a question from Mayor Fasching, Mr. Minter
explained the inclusion of Insulock block in freeway soundwall
construction. Insulock is a polyurethane block the same size
as concrete block and is part of Caltrans' program. Caltrans
is searching for less expensive walls and are also examining
other materials other than lnsulock. They feel this process
will develop a cheaper wall, however, they are not ready to
issue a definitive statement about Insulock block. A lower
cost wall is a high item on the California Transportation
Commission because more soundwalls could be built if costs
were reduced. In reference to current cost per lineal foot,
Mr. Minter noted, there are many kinds of walls; they are
different, in length and height; built under different
conditions of difficulty and soil conditions. He uses $350
a lineal foot for estimating the cost of a wall built on the
prism of a freeway fill. If built on the right-of-way line,
$300 a lineal foot is used as a budgeting figure. If Insulock
block were used to construct a wall on the prism of a freeway
fill, he could not say at this time what the cost savings
would be ... although it may not be too long before the
lnsulock Company provides an estimate to Caltrans, though the
material is now available and the process to use it has been
established. Caltrans, Mr. Minter reported, is looking into
many kinds of block walls, such as a sandwich style and a pre-
stressed type of concrete. In January of this year twelve
(12) different presentations were given to Caltrans, and they
are going to be building pilot projects around the state of
7/21/92
3
34:0217
different types of walls. Caltrans is attempting to get some
experience of the costs involved. However, they expect the
cost to be lower than past costs. In reference to current
construction methods, other than the pilot projects, Mr.
Minter stated that the biggest construction change locally is
the decision to abandon the use of split-face block for walls.
This because of the high cost of such block and the difficulty
in removing graffiti.
Councilman Harbicht commented, in part, that while Caltrans
is considering alternative products, they have not had enough
experience with these materials to know what they will cost,
or the advantages or disadvantages, and if there may be
problems with durability and so forth. They do not have these
answers. Council should not just assume that the lower cost
block will come on line, and mislead the public. Mr. Minter I
responded that, "the department just completed a committee
report of six months of activity and we presented a finding
to the Commission. We've named several processes and things
that we wish to do. No, we do not have some costs, but we
expect to reduce them".
Councilman Margett stated in part, that he does not feel the
new block will substantially decrease the cost of the walls.
If costs were reduced by 10% Caltrans would have accomplished
something, because labor costs will be the same; and concrete
footings; trucks and equipment are not going to change in
cost; profit and overhead costs will be there ... so the
change will be in the material and that cost has not as yet
been determined. Therefore, there may not b~ an extravagant
savings. In response to Councilman Margett' s question of
possible savings, Mr. Minter responded that from his position
he would not be surprised to see a savings of 30% or more.
He would hope for a 50% savings, but he doubts it will be that
much.
In response to Mayor Fasching of the probable cost per lineal
foot to construct all the soundwalls other than those to be
constructed by Caltrans from Michillinda to Baldwin Avenue,
north and south sides, as well as the one area qualified under
Cal trans' formula. Don Pablo to Baldwin Avenue, Mr. Lopez
responded that, including the area Second to Fifth Avenue, the
entire stretch of freeway at $415 a lineal foot would probably
amount to $9,500,000. If the north and south s ides of the
freeway, Michillinda to Baldwin were excluded, the cost could
possibly be lowered to $6,700,000. If the area Second Avenue
to Fifth were excluded, it could then be down to $6,000,000
A discussion ensued around the assessment district approach
to financing the walls and Mr. Lopez reiterated that the
consensus of the residents in attendance at the June 12th
meeting indicated they would be willing to consider
participation, if the City contributed the majority of the
cost.
In further discussion Councilman Harbicht stated, in reference I
to Mr. Lopez' statement of possible cost for the walls after
removing the sections to be constructed by Caltrans, that the
highest priority in terms of need should be given to the area
of Second Avenue to Fifth which may not be built by Caltrans
for 25 years when funds become available. If the City does
anything on soundwalls, that area should be at the very
highest priority...
Other persons in the audience then came forward to address the
City Council.
Miriam Moehner. 311 North Fourth Avenue, stated in part that
she represents many residents who are not willing to pay one
cent for a wall. They are taking a loss on their property
7/21/92
4
34:0218
even if a wall were to be constructed. All Arcadia property
owners should be assessed equally because everyone uses the
freeway and the City itself is benefitting.
Pat Carroll, 620 Hampton Road, stated in part that he lives
near the Baldwin offramp, and the freeway has brought crime
to his neighborhood... graffiti is spreading along the 210
freeway also. He cannot sleep past 6:00 a. m. because of
freeway noise. Air pollution is increasing daily. The City
Council should go after Caltrans and say, "We want something
done for the City of Arcadia". The City of Alhambra did that
for Mark Keppel High School and got some very high walls built
for the school. The City of Arcadia has the same obligation.
I
Irma Doliveira, 310 North Fourth Avenue, stated in part that
her home is directly adjacent to the freeway. She has been
involved in the petition process and the meetings since 1975.
She believes the majority of the property owners who will be
affected by the assessment plan were the owners of those
properties before the freeway went in. Most of these people
are senior citizens. If their properties are in an assessment
district, the assessment will be on for 25-30 years. The new
buyers will automatically be paying a higher property tax
without an additional assessment... "Do you think we will
ever be able to sell our properties? No!".
I
Ed Zareh, 1051 Catalpa Road, stated in part that he is one of
two people present who were on the original soundwall
committee. For 20 years he has been listening to the same
story at different Council groups. The same. problem exists
... only worse. Mr. Zareh lives in an area that is getting
a soundwall. It is up to the City to do something about the
soundwalls for the rest of the areas. An earlier Council was
very naive when construction on the freeway first began. That
Council wanted berms. The City Manager at that time thought
that Caltrans would do right by Arcadia, and recommended that
they go right on through the City. Many residents bought
their properties before the freeway route was ever
established. Every Council candidate says that they want to
keep the quality of life in Arcadia as it is ... on high
standards... now they have no quality of life in his area.
He is with the residents of the other areas that do not have
soundwalls. He is going to work for them... the City has to
put up the money someway, somehow, and get the walls up for
them. The City let Caltrans go through Arcadia without any
restrictions. He understands it costs $1.06 million a mile
to construct the wall depending on the terrain; different
footings and heights Mr. Zareh proceeded through
calculations to arrive at an approximate final cost to
construct walls on the rest of the freeway, and arrived at a
figure of $4,000,000. Part of the freeway runs through an
industrial area on the south side near Fifth Avenue... so
maybe there are several hundred feet there that do not need
a soundwall. The City of Arcadia has to someway figure this
all out, and fund it, and do it.
Mayor Fasching commented that he does not think the soundwall
situation is necessarily just the responsibility of the people
who live next to the freeway. He tends to agree that this is
a City problem, not a specialized or select problem. If the
City were to try and form an assessment district of the entire
City and make a major improvement in the City of this, which
would then require an assessment to everyone in the City,
would Mr. Zareh be willing to go along with that now that he
has a soundwall going up in his area? After further
discussion along these lines, and considering additional cuts
in Arcadia's receipts from the State due to the budget crisis
at the State level... the cost to each homeowner might be
$200, using Mr. Zareh's figures ...
7/21/92
5
Councilman Harbicht commented that, using Mr. Minter's figure
of $350 per lineal foot, the cost per mile is about $1,800,000
. .' rather than $1,000,000 per mile that Mr. Zareh used in his
calculations.
In response to Mayor Fasching's previous question, Mr. Zareh
stated that he would be willing to take his share of an
overall City expense to get the soundwalls built... yes, he
would be willing to pay the $200. The Mayor noted that they
would have to go to the people for approval on these things
..' Council alone can't do it. Mr. Zareh commented that it
really bothered him that the City built a community center for
$4,500,000 for the use of 1,000 people, and thousands of
people are affected by the noise of the freeway. Further,
although previous Councils sympathized with the noise problem
of those that live near the freeway, there was never really
a will to do anything about it.
Mapeline Silcox, 619 Hampton Road, stated in part that the
audience would like to know why the City Council isn't going
to Caltrans. Caltrans deemed it necessary to widen the 210
by two lanes because there is so much traffic, and yet they
are not willing to put in a soundwall. Councilman Harbicht
responded that, in fact Caltrans is putting in a soundwall,
and in fact the City Council has brought every bit of pressure
it can against Caltrans. The City has gotten on Caltrans'
list for soundwalls as a result of Council's efforts. He lives
one block from Ms. Silcox ... near the freeway. The audience
should realize that every city in the state th~t has a freeway
running through it has exactly the same desire as the citizens
of Arcadia. .. they want soundwalls, too. And so Caltrans has
set up a system for prioritizing soundwalls. Every city in
the state is trying to go in the back door and bring political
pressure to get themselves higher up on the list than Caltrans
has placed them. Ms. Silcox went on to say that she would
like to find out how the people who are involved with the race
trllck were able to get the freeway widened just where the
trllffic gets off the freeway for the race track, and the
residents cannot get a soundwall...
Mr. Lopez added for clarification, the soundwalls on the north
and south sides between Michillinda and Baldwin Avenue are
being built specifically because the freeway is being widened
in that area for an enforcement lane for the California
Highway Patrol to be able to enforce the diamond lane, two-
people-in-a-car requirement. Other sections of the freeway
are being restriped to narrow the lanes and provide an HOV
lane.
34:0219
I
John Saunders, 841 San Simeon... which is several tiers back
from the freeway. Mr. Saunders stated in part that Arcadia
had a City Council some years ago, and we had some trusty
souls on that Council, that let the residents down. At the
tiIlle the freeway was being established, the City had the I
opportunity to hold up the whole thing unless Caltrans built
walls ... But it still is a fact that we could have had it
done had we had a City Council really address the problem.
He believes that the Council has to keep addressing it;
because he does not see how, when looking at the tier costs
... there is no way that the people living next to the freeway
can afford the numbers that are in those tiers. Property
values have depreciated by the freeway and if we're going to
have what we claim to be a City of fine homes, let's keep them
that way by keeping the dirt and the noise out. "And we
address it to you to bring some kind of a program to us. I
will be willing to kick in my share. I think we all should
kick in. But I think you have to kick in something, too,
7/21/92
6
34:0220
because the whole thing was your predecessors that let this
thing go in without a wall."
"
Bob Caldwell, "I' d like to bring you some ideas I had on
funding. That seems to be the main point here, where the
money is. In researching possibilities of funding soundwalls,
I checked into the federal government grants, and the only
possibility was if the 210 was one of the certain highways
that would be part of the defense plan for the nation in case
of war. Due to the gas tax Proposition Ill, passed in 1990
as a State referendum, which will double the State gas tax to
18 cents per gallon 'over five years, the first of this year
over a billion dollars has been allotted in construction
contracts. I believe that includes $150,000,000 for
soundwalls. That's correct, Mr. Minter says. In 1984, a
representative of Arcadia addressed this need of soundwalls
to the members of the Los Angeles County Transportation
Commission. No neighborhoods qualified for walls then, but
now two areas fulfill the qualifications - - Don Pablo to
Baldwin and Second to Fifth. If it hasn't been done, I
suggest LACTC be notified so we can be included in the State
Transportation Improvement Program for possible payback of
projected funds. The City of Arcadia, in order to start some
discussion, has put forth different methods of funding
soundwalls. In the report compiled by James Dale, Finance
Director, he begins by listing general obligation bonds,
revenue bonds, special assessment, or a direct cash
contribution from the City, and I'm sure all residents would
vote for the last. The population of Arcadia is 48,290 and
those living by the freeway compose, as, '" guess, 3,000
persons. Because we are so small a segment of the total
population, I question the feasibility of funding with general
obligation bonds, inasmuch as it would require a 2/3 vote of
all City residents. Special benefit assessment financing is
the next alternative, which requires a mortgage lien on your
home. Your location to the freeway determines the cost of
assessment, using the hypothetical figures of the assessment
district from Second to Fifth north of the freeway, based on
those who suffer the most pay the most. Each homeowner would
pay $390 plus 7% annually, or you could pay cash of $4,500.
Over a 24-year period, the cost would be approximately $9,600,
almost' double, by payment. The further away you lived, the
cost decreased. My objection to the special assessment
district is that 33% of the annual payment goes to assessment
district incidental costs, which are engineering, legal, and
administrative services costs. In Tier 1, annual payment is
$390 plus 7%, which makes it a total of $417.30. And 33% of
the $390 means $128.70 applies to the special assessment
incidental costs. In principal, it would be only $261. 30.
In my mind, the last two paragraphs of the report finalizes
my thinking on the route we should take. Though assessment
finance is the most logical method to finance the construction
of soundwalls, the cost to the property owners may be more
than any future appreciation of property values resulting from
such improvements. Finally, the City could subsidize the cost
to construct soundwalls or pay the entire amount. It's
possible that the City could be reimbursed for actual
construction costs at some future date. However, any
reimbursement could be 10 to 20 years away and interest costs
would not be included.
I
I
"What I am suggesting as another alternative was discussed
with Jim Dale, Finance Director, and Jerry Parker, and they
concluded it was feasible. With the City receiving soundwalls
north and south being paid by the State, the City gains by not
paying for those walls costing approximately $3,000,000.
Second to Fifth Avenue construction costs would be $657,360,
and from Don Pablo to Baldwin it's $954,500, using the figures
from the Director of Public Works. The total is $1,611,860.
7/21/92
7
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST:
Alford,
34: 0221
Areas that do not qualify but should be, as Second to Santa
Anita, would be $761,110. And if you projected across for
north of the freeway from Michillinda to Baldwin, by Arcadia's
cost it would be $2,191,200. Caltrans' figures are not there,
but I'll go by those figures, and the total of that would be
$2,952,310 ... a combined total of $4,564,170. I am aware
that considerable reserve funds are allocated for various City
needs and are invested wisely, drawing interest. But I would
suggest that the City invest some of the reserves for
soundwalls, and if necessary -- and I'm going against my own
neighbors here -- that the residents consider the interest on
those reserves. That reserve money would be losing at least
6%, which would be considerably less than the cost of the
special assessment district. I am sure that the City could
work this plan without resorting to special assessment
financing, and the City would agree to pay all costs except
as discussed, as its participation. Thank you."
I
Mr. Parker, Assistant Finance Director, clarified that the
plan is to repay the lost interest to the City and 6% is a
fair rate. The Finance Department was concerned of whether
or not the City would finally get paid by Caltrans. There is
nothing that Caltrans has formally agreed to, so consequently,
if this procedure was started, it may go in perpetuity.
Mayor Fasching expressed the Council's appreciation to the
residents for coming to this meeting and for their comments.
Further, he stated that Council now has a fairly good idea of
what the residents would like the Council to do, and he wanted
them to know that the Council is as concerned about this
improvement to the City, with a soundwall, hopefully, the
entire length of the freeway within the City.
At 7:07 p.m. the Study Session ADJOURNED to 7:15 p. m. for the
Adjourned Regular meeting in the conference room this date.
AD
I
7/'21/92
8