HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-05 City Council Agenda Packet
1 05/05/08
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council
Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
May 05, 2008
6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION
1. Presentation on the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s
Early Implementation Flood Control Project Alternatives
2. Update on Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping
Center Expansion Projects
CMR: 235:08 ATTACHMENTS
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
3. Proclamation Commending the Outstanding Service of Cynthia
D’Agosta in Establishing and Directing the San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority
PROCLAMATION
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration or Oral Communications.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
4. Approval of a Utilities Public Benefit Program Contract with Eagle
Systems International, Inc. dba Synergy Companies in an Amount Not
05/05/08 2
to Exceed $570,000 for Continued Administration of a Low-Income
Residential Electric and Natural Gas Assistance Program
CMR: 218:08 ATTACHMENTS
5. Approval of a Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Pacific Gas &
Electric Company’s Learning Services Division in an Amount Not to
Exceed $450,000 for Electric and Gas Construction Training Services
for a Term of up to Three Years
CMR: 201:08 ATTACHMENTS
6. Approval of a Contract with Valley Slurry Seal Company in the Amount
of $739,897 for the 2008 Street Maintenance Program Phase 1 Capital
Improvement Program Project PE-86070
CMR: 226:08 ATTACHMENTS
7. Approval of a Contract with Alaniz Construction, Inc. in the Total
Amount of $291,130 for Concrete Pavement Repair Project – Capital
Improvement Program Projects: Street Maintenance PE-86070,
Sidewalk Replacement PO-89003, and Storm Drain Rehabilitation SD-
06101
CMR: 207:08 ATTACHMENTS
8. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Record of Land Use Action
to Allow Beer and Wine Service, and Late Night Business Activities for
the “Ramen Club” Restaurant at 3924 El Camino Real
CMR: 224:08 ATTACHMENTS
9. Adoption of a Resolution Opposing Proposition 98 and a Resolution
Supporting Proposition 99
CMR: 236:08 ATTACHMENTS
10. Approval of Ideal Candidate Profile for City Auditor
(Item continued from 04/28/2008)
RECRUITMENT FLYER
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members
of the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The
presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to less than five minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger
number of speakers.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
05/05/08 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing Underground Utility
District Number 45 (Palo Alto Avenue, Alma Street, High Street,
Lytton Avenue and Cambridge Avenue) by Amending Section
12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code
CMR:220:08 ATTACHMENTS
12. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution approving
the Proposed Fiscal Year 2008/09 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Funding Allocations and Draft Action Plan
CMR:223:08 ATTACHMENTS
13. Approval of Site and Design and Record of Land Use Action and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new 886 square-foot accessory
structure at 810 Los Trancos Road Zone District: Open Space (OS)
CMR:199:08 ATTACHMENTS
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
COUNCIL MATTERS
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
ADJOURNMENT
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
CMR: 235:08 Page1 of 7
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MAY 5, 2008 CMR: 235:08
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER (SUMC)
AND STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER (SCC) EXPANSION PROJECTS.
RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of the study session is to provide an update to the City Council (Council) regarding
the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Replacement and Renewal Project and the
Simon Properties – Stanford Shopping Center (SSC) Expansion Project, and to review proposed
Environmental Impact Report alternatives, including the Village Concept alternative.
BACKGROUND
Review for this project has been divided into two phases: Phase I (Information Sharing and
Preliminary Area Plan) from December 2006 through July 2007 and Phase II (EIR and
Entitlements), from July 2007 through the end of 2008, culminating with certification of the EIR
and the City’s decisions on the applications. A single EIR is being prepared for both the SUMC
and SSC projects.
Development applications were submitted in August 2007. There are five (5) main components
to the SUMC project:
1. Hoover medical office building reuse and expansion;
2. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH) expansion;
3. Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC) replacement and reconstruction;
4. Medical School building reconstruction; and
5. Redevelopment of existing hospital site.
On April 14, 2008, the SUMC project applicants submitted a revision to the August 2007
application. The project revisions include:
• The proposed Medical Office Building square footage at the Hoover Pavilion Site has
been reduced from 200,000 gross square feet (gsf) to 60,000 gross square feet. The
proposed square footage on the Main SUMC Site has been increased by 140,000
square feet (100,000 gsf increase in SHC Clinics and 40,000 gsf increase in LPCH
CMR: 235:08 Page2 of 7
Hospital). Overall, the total proposed project square footage remains the same.
• Changes in the proposed site plan, including the tower configurations of SHC.
A project fact sheet prepared by staff for the SUMC (Attachment A) will be updated with the
new application information and posted to the Stanford Projects pages on the City’s website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org.
Simon Properties is proposing to expand the Stanford Shopping Center by adding 240,000 square
feet of new retail stores and restaurants, a new 120-room hotel and parking for a net addition of
1,234 vehicles spaces. A project fact sheet prepared by staff for the SSC project is contained in
Attachment B.
Project entitlements will include adoption of an Area Plan, Zone Change and Comprehensive
Plan amendment, architectural review, adoption of design guidelines and Development
Agreements for both projects.
DISCUSSION
Stanford University Medical Center Land Use Area Plan
The preparation of an area plan for the SUMC responds to Program L-46 of the 1998 Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan:
Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center.
An area plan for the Medical Center should address building locations, floor area
ratios, height limits, and parking requirements. It should discuss the preservation
of historic and open space resources and the protection of views and view
corridors. The plan should describe improvements to the streetscape and
circulation pattern that will improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto
connections.
The first document in response to Program L-46 was the SUMC Land Use Area Analysis 2000,
prepared in June 2000 was completed and submitted by Stanford in conjunction with an
application for the City’s review of the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory
Care Pavilion and underground parking structure. The analysis helped guide the development
within the SUMC area boundaries.
The current SUMC project is located within the boundaries defined in the SUMC Land Use Area
Analysis 2000 document. As part of the Phase I activities, a revised Area Plan was developed to
address the proposed project and includes reference and key linkages to and between the
Stanford Shopping Center, the Palo Alto Transit Center, and downtown. The Area Plan is a City
document that will be finalized at the end of Phase II. The Area Plan establishes objectives for
the planning area and provides project guidance and context for the proposed applications.
The Area Plan is intended to achieve a number of different land use and planning goals and
objectives. Many of these are shared by Stanford and the City of Palo Alto and include the
following:
CMR: 235:08 Page3 of 7
• Provide a long-term view of land use for the area
• Establish a context of broader campus and community land use and infrastructure
• Identify adopted Comprehensive Plan policies to maintain and preserve the vitality of centers
and employment districts and enhance overall city structure
• Identify connections and linkages between the Medical Center Area and nearby land uses,
including the Transit Center and the Stanford Shopping Center
• Clarify the future site-specific planning and implementation process
Pursuant to Comprehensive Plan L-46, the Area Plan primarily focused on the Medical Center
project. However, the Area Plan recognized the importance of connections between the two
projects, as well as connections with other key areas of the City.
Environmental Impact Report and Fiscal Impact Study
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires California
agencies to analyze environmental impacts before acting on a project. An Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is required by CEQA when an agency determines that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment. An EIR evaluates a proposed project’s potential impacts
on the environment, and recommends mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or eliminate
those impacts.
The City has selected the environmental consulting firm of PBS&J (formerly EIP Associates) to
prepare the EIR for these two projects. In order to provide expertise in specific areas, PBS&J has
included the following sub-consultants to help prepare detailed studies for the EIR:
• Korve Engineering, a division of DMJM Harris (Korve): traffic and transportation
• Architectural Resources Group (ARG): cultural and historic resources
• Keyser Marston Associates (KMA): housing needs
• William Kanemoto & Associates (WKA): visual simulations.
This group of consultants is currently preparing the Draft EIR. Internal interdepartmental review
of draft information is on-going. A group of key City staff personnel, consultants and applicants
have formed an EIR Team that meets on a bi-weekly basis to discuss issues related to the
progress of the EIR. The Draft EIR is tentatively scheduled to be available in November 2008.
The City will also be conducting a peer review of the fiscal impact analysis and urban decay
study that are being prepared by CBRE Consulting under contract by Stanford University and
Simon Property Group. These studies will estimate the net fiscal impact of the projects on the
City’s General Fund as well as an estimate of the extent to which the planned expansion of
Stanford Shopping Center may or may not contribute to urban decay or deterioration of other
commercial centers in Palo Alto such as University Avenue and California Avenue. The City has
retained an independent consulting firm to review these analyses and provide recommendations
on the adequacy of the studies. The fiscal impact analysis and urban decay study are expected to
be released to the public with the DEIR document in November 2008.
In addition, the City has retained Marlene Berkhoff to perform a medical space planning peer
review and Bruce Fukuji to perform an urban design peer review.
CMR: 235:08 Page4 of 7
Project Alternatives
A set of alternatives will be identified and evaluated in the EIR to provide decision-makers with
an understanding of the key environmental tradeoffs between development options. The
discussion of alternatives should focus on those which: (1) reduce or avoid significant impacts of
the projects, (2) meet most of the basic project objectives, and (3) can be feasibly implemented.
The EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives, but need not discuss every alternative
to the project. Pursuant to these requirements, preliminary alternatives have been developed
with input from the SUMC and SSC teams. It should be noted that this preliminary list has been
made prior to completion of the environmental analyses for the projects, and thus the significant
impacts that would be avoided by each identified alternative is assumed and not verified.
CEQA requires a No Project alternative. In addition, it is anticipated that “reduced intensity”
alternatives for each project will be identified in order to address traffic impacts. Staff also
anticipates preparation of a Village Concept alternative to address some of the anticipated
impacts, such as traffic, in a more holistic approach. These alternatives are summarized below.
Staff may also identify other alternatives that could be included in the EIR once the impacts of
the projects are better defined.
1. No Project Alternative
CEQA requires a No Project alternative to be identified in an EIR. This alternative
allows decision makers to compare impacts if projects were approved versus those
impacts if the projects were not approved, and is not contingent on the projects’
objectives or their significant impacts.
• SUMC - Some of the structures at SHC do not comply with structural and non-
structural criteria that must be met by the 2013 and 2030 deadlines imposed by SB
1953 for retrofit or replacement of hospital facilities. Non-structural renovations also
would be required at LPCH in order to comply with the statutory deadlines. Subject
to determining their feasibility, the No Project alternative may include (a) seismic
retrofit work of noncompliant portions only, with no new structures; and (b)
replacement of SB 1953 noncompliant buildings with space of the same square
footage.
• SSC - The Shopping Center has been built to the maximum intensity allowed under
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As such, the No Project alternative for the Shopping
Center Project would be a no build alternative, under which no additional
construction or ground disturbance would occur.
2. Reduced Intensity Alternative
“Reduced Intensity” alternatives are intended to reduce identified impacts by limiting the
scope of the proposed projects.
• SUMC – Should it be determined that significant impacts related to traffic generation,
housing demand, utilities consumption, and/or public services demand would occur
from the SUMC Project, then a “Reduced Intensity” alternative(s) could be
considered to reduce or avoid these intensity and population-driven impacts. These
CMR: 235:08 Page5 of 7
alternatives are likely to include: (a) right-sizing the SHC and LPCH facilities without
adding new beds; and/or (b) right-sizing SHC and LPCH facilities plus adding square
footage and new beds in an amount less than the proposed project.
• SSC – During the review process, should it be determined that significant impacts
related to traffic generation, housing demand, utilities consumption, and/or public
service demand would occur from the Shopping Center Project, then a “Reduced
Intensity” alternative could be considered to reduce or avoid these intensity and
population-driven impacts. This alternative for the Shopping Center project would
likely include reduced retail floor area, along with a commensurate reduction in
parking. A variation of this alternative could include a larger hotel with the reduced
retail component.
3. Village Concept Alternative
The Village Concept alternative is intended to incorporate many of the key planning
objectives described in the Area Plan. The Village Concept alternative is intended to
allow for integration of medical, retail, and residential uses, open spaces, and a
transportation network in a way that produces a cohesive urban environment and
minimizes vehicle trips within the area. The Village Concept Alternative is expected to
primarily address and reduce potential impacts associated with housing demand, air
quality, and climate change, as well as potential direct impacts on open space, traffic and
parking. Staff recognizes that some of the elements of this alternative may be outside the
City’s or the applicants’ control to implement, but the alternative could form a basis for
longer term planning for the immediate area. The Village Concept alternative will focus
on the connectivity and linkages between the two Projects and the surrounding
community. The alternative is not meant to substantively change the proposed uses
within each of the applications, but would identify key opportunity areas for change and
assure that the projects do not preclude future opportunities to accommodate further
intensification or to provide for additional uses.
The area to be encompassed by the Village Concept alternative is undefined but should
include, at a minimum, both project sites, the intermodal transit station, El Camino Park,
existing housing along Sand Hill Road, nearby housing sites designated in the Stanford
General Use Permit, and related areas of the campus, El Camino Real businesses, and
downtown.
The Village Concept alternative is likely to consider the following components:
• Walkable, human-scale environment with local character and sense of identity;
• Attractive urban spaces that are visible and publicly accessible from streets and open
spaces;
• Strong bike/pedestrian/transit linkages to connect both projects together and linking them
to the transit center, downtown, adjacent existing and potential housing, and San
Francisquito Creek and El Camino Park open spaces;
CMR: 235:08 Page6 of 7
• Open spaces to include the creek, El Camino Park, and other existing adjacent open
spaces, the proposed plaza area in the Shopping Center, and at least one public plaza area
within the SUMC boundaries;
• Reduced parking through shared parking and parking reductions from proximity to
transit;
• Compact, higher density mixed-use and transit-oriented design and development;
• Identification of potential housing on the existing RM-40 zoned property at Pasteur/Sand
Hill/Welch, the GUP sites, and at the transit center (Red Cross site);
• Additional small retail/service uses within either project area and/or at areas in close
proximity; and
• A local shuttle system looping through the “village” with connection to the transit center.
The City’s urban design peer reviewer, Bruce Fukuji, has outlined the needs, definition,
performance measures and application of the Village Concept to the proposed projects
(Attachment C). He has been meeting with representatives from each project to identify
opportunity areas where these projects can have an influence on future development. No design
solutions have been formulated at this point but will be developed as the EIR is finalized.
COMMISSION REVIEW
On April 23, 2008, the Planning and Transportation Commission heard a discussion on the
progress the City and the project applicants have made in analyzing the Village Concept, as well
as an update on the status of the project and development of the EIR. The Commission provided
comments on the Village Concept and other aspects of the project. The minutes from the meeting
are contained in Attachment D.
NEXT STEPS
Work will continue on the EIR and development agreement negotiations, with periodic updates
to the Commission and Council. Study sessions and preliminary reviews with the Architectural
Review Board will be scheduled in May and June of 2008.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An EIR is under preparation for both projects. No discretionary action is requested at this time.
PREPARED BY: __________________________________
STEVEN TURNER
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD: __________________________________
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Interim Director of Community and Environment
CMR: 235:08 Page7 of 7
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE/KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers
ATTACHMENTS
A. SUMC Project Fact Sheet
B. SSC Project Fact Sheet
C. Village Concept Outline by Bruce Fukuji, Urban Design Peer Reviewer
D. Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes, April 23, 2008
COURTESY COPIES
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Dan Doporto, Special Counsel
F. Gale Connor, Special Counsel
William T. Phillips, Sr. Assoc. Vice President, Stanford University Land, Buildings & Real
Estate
Mark Tortorich, Director of Design and Building, Stanford Hospitals & Clinics /Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital
Jean McCown, Director of Community Relations, Office of Government and Community
Relations, Stanford University
Charles Carter, Director, Land Use and Environmental Planning, Stanford University
Catherine Palter, Associate Director, Land Use and Environmental Planning, Stanford University
Barbara Schussman, Bingham McCutchen
Art Spellmeyer, Exec. Vice president, Development, Simon Group
John Benvenuto, General Manager, Simon Group
Anna Shimko, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson, Kawakami
Bruce Fukuji, Fukuji Planning & Design
Trixie Martelino, PBS&J
CMR: 218:08 Page 1 of 4
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: MAY 5, 2008 CMR: 218:08
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A UTILITIES PUBLIC BENEFIT PROGRAM
CONTRACT WITH EAGLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. DBA
SYNERGY COMPANIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $570,000
FOR CONTINUED ADMINISTRATION OF A LOW-INCOME
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached contract with Synergy
Companies in the amount of $190,000 for continued administration of a program to
install electric and natural gas energy efficiency measures in local low-income
households for FY 2008-2009.
2. Authorize the City Manager or his/her designee to exercise the option to renew the
program for up to two more years: in FY 2009-2010 in the amount of $190,000 and in
FY 2010-2011 in the amount of $190,000, subject to available funds and program
performance.
DISCUSSION
Scope of Services Description
As part of the proposed FY 2008-2009 budget, utility rates are expected to increase in July 2008.
This increase in the cost of energy will cause additional hardship for the low-income residents of
Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) offers several key programs to help customers
in need. CPAU complements its existing rate reductions for low-income residents by offering
Residential Electric & Natural Gas Energy Assistance Program (REAP), which helps low-
income residents in lowering their gas and electric expenditures through energy efficiency
education, home weatherization, and other energy efficiency improvements. In addition, since
4
CMR: 218:08 Page 2 of 4
low-income customers often live in residences with the least efficient appliances and equipment,
replacing these items for affected residents will provide significant energy efficiency benefits for
those in the community who most need it.
The REAP provides a variety of services to low- income Palo Alto residents that meet the
Housing and Urban Development very low-income limits for the San Jose metropolitan area.
These services are for residents in single family and multi family homes and include: energy
efficiency education; home weatherization; diagnostic energy efficiency testing; minor plumbing
and electrical repairs; weather stripping, caulking, insulation and other energy efficiency
improvements. REAP also includes the purchase and installation of ENERGY STAR®
programmable thermostats, furnaces, refrigerators, water heaters, compact fluorescent lighting,
and high efficiency plumbing devices. See Attachment B for a complete scope of services.
Since its initial approval in July 2005 and its full implementation in January 2006, REAP has
assisted over 120 Palo Alto single-family residences at an average cost of about $2,750 per
home. This amount is more when the customer’s furnace and/or refrigerator need to be replaced
for safety reasons. For other customers, the cost of the energy assistance is typically about
$1,500 per home. The program to date has saved Palo Alto residents 216,515 kWh of electricity,
18,179 therms of gas and has eliminated 451,947 pounds of CO2 emissions.
In 2007, REAP received the California Municipal Utilities Association’s Community
Service/Resource Efficiency Award for a small utility. This award is only offered to one small
utility of less than 80,000 customers and one large utility of 80,000 or more customers each year.
The award recognized CPAU’s innovative and comprehensive approach in assisting the low-
income residents of Palo Alto through REAP.
REAP’s goal for the next three fiscal years is to assist at least 50 single family and 25 multi-
family residences per year, at a cost of no more than $190,000 per year. The energy savings will
be substantial and are anticipated to exceed current results, helping the City of Palo Alto achieve
its energy savings goals. In addition, the improvements to comfort and reductions in utility bills
for low-income customers will be even more important.
In addition to REAP, CPAU offers two other low-income programs: Rate Assistance Program
(RAP) and ProjectPLEDGE, to qualifying utilities customers. RAP provides energy discounts to
low-income residents who are unable to pay their utilities bills. RAP also provides assistance
when there is a need for more energy due to a medical condition. A 20% discount is available to
qualifying utilities users on a continuous basis until the medical need or economic hardship is
resolved.
ProjectPLEDGE allows ratepayers to voluntarily give an amount that is added to their utilities
bill charges each month. The contributions assist the elderly, disabled, and individuals or
families experiencing unusual hardships. ProjectPLEDGE is designed to operate at minimal cost
to CPAU by using utilities bills to collect contributions.
CMR: 218:08 Page 3 of 4
Summary of Solicitation Process
Proposal Description/Number Low-income Energy Efficiency Program Services, RFP
Number 125553
Proposed Length of Project 36 months
Number of Proposals Mailed 3
Total Days to Respond to Proposal 21
Pre-proposal Meeting Date January 23, 2008
Number of Company Attendees at
Pre-proposal Meeting
1
Number of Proposals Received: 1
Company Name Location (City, State) Selected for oral
interview?
1. American Synergy Corporation Hayward, CA Yes
Proposal Amount Submitted $190,000
An evaluation committee consisting of three utilities staff members reviewed the proposal. A
total of three companies were invited to bid on this program. Two companies chose not to
respond due to the broad scope of services and heavy workloads. The committee carefully
reviewed the firm’s qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP.
The committee evaluated the firm based on four main criteria consisting of: qualifications and
experience of contractor, overall expertise with low-income programs, cost effectiveness, and
response to Request for Proposal.
An outside contractor, Synergy Companies (SC), was chosen to implement this program because
of the multiple licensing requirements required to install equipment and appliances,
weatherization and appliance testing certifications, as well as the need for extra staffing and the
overall experience needed when working on low-income programs.
SC was selected based on its expertise with low-income energy efficiency programs, with over
20 years of prior experience. SC has audited, educated, and installed energy efficiency and water
measures for over 100,000 low-income dwelling units in California. SC is the current contractor
for REAP and has assisted over 120 Palo Alto low-income residents with a 98% approval rating.
SC is very familiar with the customer-first attitude of CPAU as well as the City’s high
expectations of quality service. SC has also done similar work with Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E) on its Energy Partners Low-Income Program, San Francisco Peak Energy Pilot Program
and with the cities of Fresno and Madera’s housing authority programs. SC also received
favorable marks from PG&E and San Diego Gas and Electric Company. SC is a licensed B
(General), C2 (insulation), C10 (Electrical), C17 (Glazing), C20 (HVAC), and ASB (Asbestos
Abatement) contractor.
SC will be receiving $10,000 for program design, administration, information systems and
reporting cost, the remaining $180,000 will be used for weatherization and energy efficiency
measures. SC will bill monthly based on measures replaced and labor costs per dwelling. The
cost per dwelling can range from $75 to a maximum of $2,000 depending on the weatherization
CMR: 218:08 Page 4 of 4
needs of each individual unit. Any costs that may potentially exceed the maximum allowed will
need pre-approval. Attachment C includes a complete cost breakdown per measure replaced.
RESOURCE IMPACT
REAP for FY 08-11 will be funded through adopted budgets for FY 08-09, FY 09-10 and FY 10-
11. Unspent funds will be returned to the Electric Fund Public Benefits Reserve or the
appropriate Rate Stabilization Reserve.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with the Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key
Strategy 6: “Provide targeted customer and environmental programs and service.”
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of this contract is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 15301 (repair, maintenance or
minor alteration of existing public or private structures), and Section 15307 (actions taken by
regulatory agencies for the protection of natural resources).
ATTACHMENTS
A. Contract
B. Scope of Services
C. Selection Criteria
D. Cost Sheet and Rates
PREPARED BY: VIC FARISATO
Utilities Account Representative
Utility Marketing Services
JOYCE KINNEAR
Manager, Utility Marketing Services
TOM AUZENNE
Assistant Director of Utilities, Customer Support Services
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ____________________________________
VALERIE FONG
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ______________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE/KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers
CMR: 201:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: MAY 5, 2008 CMR: 201:08
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A UTILITIES ENTERPRISE FUND CONTRACT WITH
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO’s LEARNING SERVICES DIVISION IN
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $450,000 FOR ELECTRIC AND GAS
CONSTRUCTION TRAINING SERVICES FOR A TERM OF UP TO
THREE YEARS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
contract with Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Learning Services Division in an amount not
to exceed $150,000 for the first year, and authorize the City Manager to extend the contract
annually for up to two additional years, subject to Council approval of sufficient funds and
subject to Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) being responsive to the City’s needs.
DISCUSSION
Contract Description
Currently the City of Palo Alto’s Utilities Electric Operations utilizes PG&E’s Learning Services
division in providing specific training for the City’s Lineperson Apprenticeship Program.
Training provided by PG&E is recognized by the State of California, Department of
Apprenticeship Standards.
The attached three-year contract provides the Utilities Operations Division with opportunities to
establish needed apprenticeships and Gas Operator qualification certifications. In order to
properly serve the City’s customers, Utilities must ensure that field staff are trained and all
certifications are in compliance with State and Federal regulations.
The contract will enable the implementation of a succession plan which anticipates upcoming
retirements of key personnel in the skilled workforce by preparing workers for next level
positions.
CMR: 201:08 Page 2 of 3
This contract will provide needed training in the following areas:
Gas Operations Operator-qualified certifications per Department of Transportation
guidelines, ensuring that staff receive the federally mandated
training and annual refresher training for the maintenance and
operation of the City’s gas distribution system.
Welding certifications per Department of Transportation
regulations, ensuring that staff receive proper initial instruction and
refresher training to perform welding activities on the City’s gas
distribution system.
Backhoe operation certifications ensuring that existing operators
and new trainees receive proper instruction and refresher training
in the procedures of digging around gas lines with heavy
equipment.
Electric Operations State-approved lineperson apprenticeship training including
apprenticeship training for substation electricians, SCADA
electricians, utility system operators, and electric meter
technicians.
Staff has reviewed training opportunities with other Southern California utilities and a privately
owned electric line college for electric utility workers. Staff recommends using PG&E’s
Learning Services Division as the training source because of its unique ability to provide both
electric and gas distribution construction and operations training and because it is the only local
provider for these services. PG&E’s Learning Services Division is located in Livermore, so the
travel costs will be much lower than costs for other schools. Additionally, the proximity of
PG&E’s training facilities to Palo Alto permits staff to return quickly should a business
emergency arise during the training day.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Annual cost of the program is $150,000 using existing Gas & Electric operations funding. Up to
this point in time, Utilities Operations has maintained separate contracts for gas and electric
distribution construction and operations training. However, creating a consolidated training
contract will permit more effective and efficient training.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key
Strategy A (reliability) and D (safety, retention and employee training).
CMR: 201:08 Page 3 of 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of this contract does not require review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) because it does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 21065.
ATTACHMENT
A: Contract
PREPARED BY: RUSSELL KAMIYAMA
Manager Electric Operations
JAVAD GHAFFARI
Manager WGW Operations
REVIEWED BY: _______________________________
PAUL DORNELL
Assistant Director Utility Operations
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ________________________________
VALERIE O. FONG
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:226:08 Page 1 of 4
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MAY 5, 2008 CMR:226:08
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH VALLEY SLURRY SEAL
COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $739,897 FOR THE 2008 STREET
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PHASE 1, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM PROJECT PE-86070
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
in the amount of $739,897 with Valley Slurry Seal Company (Attachment A) for the
2008 Street Maintenance Program, Phase 1 - Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Project PE-86070; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with Valley Slurry Seal Company for related, additional but
unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not
exceed $73,990.
BACKGROUND
Public Works Engineering manages the annual resurfacing and reconstruction of various City
streets. The candidate streets are surveyed and rated biannually by a computerized pavement
management system (PMMS), approved and certified by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC). This computerized software assists Public Works Engineering staff to
evaluate and prioritize the maintenance of the City of Palo Alto’s pavement infrastructure and
develop cost-effective treatment strategies and schedules. The PMMS is a successful planning
tool that ensures the City maximizes the current budget by utilizing cost effective methods of
preventive maintenance, while reconstructing older and deteriorated streets with new asphalt
overlays.
Staff implemented recommendations contained in the Audit of Street Maintenance (dated
March 2006) by increasing the volume of preventive maintenance. Staff has implemented a
multi-phased approach to avoid the typical 15% mark-up on concrete and preventative
maintenance work previously included in asphalt resurfacing contracts. The Street Maintenance
Program Project is funding $300,000 towards the Public Works Operations Sidewalk
CMR:226:06 Page 2 of 4
Replacement Project, Capital Improvement Program PO-89003 proposed to be awarded on May
5, 2008 to repair concrete streets, curb & gutter, and curb ramps in Crescent Park. This concrete
phase will prepare the roadway for the asphalt resurfacing phase this summer. This coordination
work previously included in the asphalt resurfacing contract results in cost savings to carry the
resurfacing dollars even further. In addition, staff has aggressively sought outside grant funding
to supplement the current budget. Staff is also continuing to coordinate with other
divisions/departments and private developments to reduce street degradation and maintain
structural integrity of City streets.
DISCUSSION
Scope of Work
The Phase I Street Maintenance project will slurry seal 10.6 lane miles and cape seal 6.3 lane
miles of City streets as a preventive maintenance treatment for the fifth consecutive year (see
Attachment B for a List of Streets). A cape seal includes a two-part process of a chip seal and a
slurry seal as a final coat. The road is open to traffic at reduced speeds within half an hour after
the chip seal application. A slurry seal is applied within 24 to 48 hours after the chip seal
application. This preventive maintenance project includes related work such as tree trimming,
pavement repairs, lane striping, crosswalk striping, and crack sealing.
Staff has included two additional add alternate bid items in the Phase I contract to address other
streets in need of preventative maintenance. Due to the favorable bids received, the following
roads will be also slurry sealed:
• Four blocks of Loma Verde Avenue from Maduxx Drive to Middlefield Road
• Four blocks of Ames Avenue from Ross Road to Middlefield Road
The annual street maintenance projects typically encompass approximately eight lane miles of
asphalt concrete paving and eight lane miles of slurry sealing, with a program budget of
approximately $2.1 million for all project phases. This year, the Phase I project will use funding
from State Proposition 1b passed by California Voters on November 7, 2006. This proposition
allocates funding on a per capita basis with Palo Alto’s share being $1,007,120. This additional
funding will allow staff to increase the annual funding to $3.1 million to address the backlog for
the planned Crescent Park Target Work Zone and the College Terrace Target Work Zone area
streets for summer 2008 and needed maintenance work on other priority streets.
Normally, the preventive maintenance project is awarded in July after the annual budget is
adopted by Council. This year due to the additional State Proposition 1b funding, this enables
staff to go out to bid early resulting in potential cost savings as historically, there are more
available contractors early in the year resulting in more competitive bidding.
Bid Process
A notice inviting formal bids for the 2008 Street Maintenance Program Phase 1 project was
posted at City Hall and sent to 10 builders' exchanges and 20 potential bidders on February 25,
2008. The bidding period was 29 days. Bids were received from five (5) qualified contractors
on March 25, 2008 as listed on the attached bid summary (Attachment C). Bids ranged from a
total low bid of $739,897 to a high of $1,225,022. The low bid is 5.2 percent below the
CMR:226:08 Page 3 of 4
engineer’s estimate of $780,438. The contractor’s Certification of Nondiscrimination is included
as Attachment D.
Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name/Number 2008 Street Maintenance Program Phase 1 / IFB #125968
Proposed Length of Project 100 calendar days
Number of Bids Mailed to
Contractors
20
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s
Exchanges
10
Total Days to Respond to Bid 29
Pre-Bid Meeting? No
Number of Company Attendees at
Pre-Bid Meeting
N/A
Number of Bids Received: 5
Bid Price Range (including all 2
alternates)
Low bid $739,897 to a high of $1,225,022
Staff recommends that base bid A and add alternates B & C in the total amount of $739,897
submitted by Valley Slurry Seal Company be accepted and that Valley Slurry Seal Company be
declared the lowest responsible bidder. The change order amount of $73,990 (which equals 10%
of the total contract) is requested to resolve unforeseen problems and/or conflicts that may arise
during the construction period. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous
work performed and found no significant complaints. Staff also checked with the Contractor's
State License Board and found that the contractor has an active license on file.
Project Coordination
Staff continues to meet monthly with the Utility and Transportation Departments to coordinate
projects citywide. Streets planned for resurfacing were either postponed due to utility projects or
accelerated as a result of obtaining federal/state funding. Staff has made it a priority to ensure
newly paved streets are not trenched unless there is private development project and/or
emergency work which could not be scheduled in advance of street paving.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Due to the size of this annual maintenance project, City staffing levels are not adequate to
accomplish the construction work in-house. In addition, the City does not own the type of
equipment required to perform this work and staff believes that it is cost effective to have the
work performed by outside contractors.
Funds for this project are available in Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070. The
City received $1,007,120 from State Proposition 1b which was included in the FY 2007-08
midyear budget amendment and adopted by Council in February 5, 2008 (CMR 132:08).
Sufficient Budget for the final phase resurfacing contract will be available in July 1, 2008 subject
to Council approval of the 2008-09 Capital Improvement Budget.
CMR:226:08 Page 4 of 4
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project has been determined to be categorically exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as repair and maintenance of existing streets and similar
facilities pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 (c).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract
Attachment B: List of Streets
Attachment C: Bid Summary
Attachment D: Certification of Nondiscrimination
PREPARED BY: ________________________________
HUNG NGUYEN
Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD: ________________________________
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE/KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers
CMR:207:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MAY 5, 2008 CMR:207:08
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH ALANIZ CONSTRUCTION, INC.
IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $291,130 FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT
REPAIR PROJECT – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECTS: STREET MAINTENANCE PE-86070, SIDEWALK
REPLACEMENT PO-89003, AND STORM DRAIN REHABILITATION
SD-06101
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
with Alaniz Construction, Inc. (Attachment A) in the amount of $291,130 for Concrete
Pavement Repair Project – Capital Improvement Programs PE-86070, PO-89003, and
SD-06101; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with Alaniz Construction, Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen
work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed
$29,000.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The work to be performed under this contract is for concrete pavement, sidewalk, driveway,
curb, valley gutter, and catch basin replacements; and concrete and asphalt recycling. The project
locations are shown on Location Map 1 (Attachment B). This contract also includes the
construction of six curb ramps with detectable warning surface and installation of eighteen
detectable warning surfaces on existing ramps in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). A detectable warning surface is a standardized surface feature built in
or applied to walking surfaces or other elements to warn visually impaired people or hazards on a
circulation path. Detectable warning surface is required on curb ramp by the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines and in accordance with the 2007 Public Works
Standard Drawings and Specifications. Detectable warnings consist of a surface of truncated
domes aligned in a square grid pattern and yellow in color.
CMR:207:08 Page 2 of 3
Bid Process
On February 21, 2008, a notice inviting formal bids for the Concrete Pavement Repair Project
was posted at City Hall, and sent to six builder’s exchanges and six contractors. The bidding
period was twenty-six calendar days. Bids were received from seven qualified contractors on
March 18, 2008 as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment C). The Contractor’s
Certification of Nondiscrimination is Attachment D.
Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name/Number Concrete Pavement Repair / IFB #125422
Proposed Length of Project 90 calendar days
Number of Bids Mailed to
Contractors
7
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s
Exchanges
6
Total Days to Respond to Bid 26
Pre-Bid Meeting? No
Number of Company Attendees at
Pre-Bid Meeting
NA
Number of Bids Received: 7
Bid Price Range From a low of $291,130 to a high of $472,920
Bids ranged from a high of $472,920 to a low bid of $291,130. Staff has reviewed all bids
submitted and recommends that the bid of $291,130 submitted by Alaniz Construction, Inc. be
accepted and that Alaniz Construction, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is
14 percent below the engineer's estimate of $340,410. The change order amount of $29,000,
which equals 10 percent of the total contract, is requested for related, additional but unforeseen
work which may develop during the project.
Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and found no
significant complaints. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and found
that the contractor has an active license on file and has no outstanding complaints.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for this project are included in the FY 2007-08 Capital Improvement Program Street
Maintenance Project, PE-86070, FY 2007-08 Capital Improvement Program Sidewalk
Replacement Project, PO-89003, and FY 2007-08 Capital Improvement Program Storm Drain
Rehabilitation Project, SD-06101. Any excess funds remaining will return to their respective
Capital Improvement Program budgets.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15301c of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of
the existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary.
CMR:207:08 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract
Attachment B: Location Map 1
Attachment C: Bid Summary
Attachment D: Certification of Nondiscrimination
PREPARED BY: _______________________________________
MATTHEW A. RASCHKE
Senior Engineer, Public Works/Operations
DEPARTMENT HEAD: _______________________________________
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: _______________________________________
KELLY MORARIU and STEVE EMSLIE
Deputy City Managers
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 224:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MAY 5, 2008 CMR: 224:08
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A RECORD OF
LAND USE ACTION TO ALLOW BEER AND WINE SERVICE, AND
LATE NIGHT BUSINESS ACTIVITIES FOR THE “RAMEN CLUB”
RESTAURANT AT 3924 EL CAMINO REAL
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City
Council (Council) approve the attached Record of Land Use Action approving the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) as modified to further restrict hours of beer and wine service and onsite
customer parking, based upon the findings and conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use
Action (RLUA).
BACKGROUND
The applicant, John Y Chen, applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow beer and wine
service and late night business activities for the “Ramen Club” Restaurant at 3924 El Camino
Real.
On February 26, 2008, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively
approved the CUP request, based on the required findings pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). Within the prescribed timeframe, on March 5, 2008, a
neighbor requested a hearing, which was scheduled for the P&TC.
The tentative approval of the CUP allowed the requested hours of operation until 2:00 AM,
including the ability to serve wine and beer as part of a new Japanese noodle house to be called
“The Ramen Club.” The restaurant would use the existing facilities, previously occupied by
Quizno’s, with minimal physical changes including interior decorations and the installation of a
hood in the kitchen area for cooking purposes. During staff’s meeting with neighbors prior to the
P&TC meeting, the applicant noted his willingness to explore solutions to neighbor concerns
including reducing hours of beer and wine service and limiting late night access through the
parking lot. Further discussion was held with the neighbors about broader issues in the area and
problems with adjacent businesses and the private alley that runs behind the subject property, all
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 224:08 Page 2 of 3
of which is summarized in the P&TC Staff Report (Attachment B) and P&TC minutes
(Attachment C). The proposed plan set is included as Attachment D, for Council only.
Section 18.77.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) provides for a Council “call up”
review of CUP applications that have been reviewed by the P&TC. Instead of the project
automatically being heard by Council, the recommendation of the P&TC is placed on the consent
calendar of the City Council within 30 days of the P&TC’s review. In the case of Conditional
Use applications, a minimum of three Council Member votes are required to remove the project
from the consent calendar and schedule it for a subsequent City Council meeting. Otherwise, the
recommendation of the P&TC stands and no hearing is held. If the Council votes to hear the
item, a hearing shall be scheduled as soon as practicable.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 9, 2008, the P&TC reviewed the project and unanimously recommended that the City
Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve the
application pursuant to PAMC Section 8.76.030, subject to additional conditions.
Five members of the public spoke on this item at the P&TC hearing. All spoke to existing noise,
illegal dumping, and other nuisances in the alley behind the property. The neighbors and the
applicant presented a compromise during the P&TC meeting that would limit business hours to
no later than 11:00 PM and would end alcohol and food service at the same time. Most spoke in
support of the compromise, as agreed to by the applicant. The P&TC included the limitations as
conditions of approval (Conditions 4 and 6 in the proposed RLUA). Correspondence received
prior to the P&TC meeting was attached to the P&TC staff report.
Additional changes recommended by the P&TC include:
1. A condition of approval (Condition 8) to require that the business operator post signage
inside and outside the building to instruct customers to respect the business’s location near
residences
2. A condition of approval (Condition 9) to limit the use of the dumpsters on the property to no
later than half an hour after closing.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The approval of the modified CUP by Council would not result in any cost and/or revenue
impacts to the City. All development review costs have been recovered through permit fees.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed use, as conditioned, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the business
will serve local residents as specified in the Neighborhood Commercial designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 224:08 Page 3 of 3
PREPARED BY: __________________________________
JENNIFER CUTLER
Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD: __________________________________
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE/KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers
ATTACHMENTS
A. Record of Land Use Action
B. Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report of April 9, 2008 (w/o attach)
C. Excerpt of the Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Minutes of April 9, 2008
D. Project Plans, received January 18, 2008
COURTESY COPIES
John Y Chen, Applicant
3924 El Camino Real, LLC, Owner
Bob Cool, Neighbor
Gloria Sikora, Neighbor
CMR: 236:08 Page 1 of 1
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER CMR: 236:08
DATE: MAY 5, 2008
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSITION 98
AND A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 99
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the Council adopt the attached Resolutions: (1) Resolution
Opposing Proposition 98 (Attachment B) and (2) Resolution Supporting Proposition 99
(Attachment C). Propositions 98 and 99 will appear on the June 2008 State ballot and relate to
the use of eminent domain by local agencies. A memo describing the two propositions in more
detail is attached (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A: Memo of April 8, 2008, Summary of State Propositions 98 and 99 Pertaining to Eminent
Domain and Regulatory Takings
B. Resolution Opposing Proposition 98
C. Resolution Supporting Proposition 99
PREPARED BY: ________________________________
DEBBIE LLOYD
Sr. Resource Planner
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ________________________________
VALERIE O. FONG
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE/KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers
9
CMR: 220:08 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE: MAY 5, 2008 CMR: 220:08
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.16.020 OF
CHAPTER 12.16 OF TITLE 12 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 45
(PALO ALTO AVENUE, ALMA STREET, HIGH STREET, LYTTON
AVENUE AND CAMBRIDGE AVENUE)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Ordinance to create Underground Utility
District No. 45 (UUD 45) and thereby amend Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
The Electric Utility’s undergrounding project areas are selected and recommended to AT&T and
Comcast based on the age and ability to maintain the existing overhead electric system. AT&T
and Comcast determine whether the recommended area meets the criteria for undergrounding
based on the guidelines established by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
UUD 45 meets the City’s and CPUC’s guidelines for undergrounding overhead utility lines. The
attached Exhibits “B” and “C” show the boundaries of UUD 45. The attached Exhibit “D”
provides additional background and history on undergrounding of electric utilities.
Cost-sharing of underground utility district projects has been determined by agreement between
the City, AT&T, and Comcast. The cost for joint trench bid items is determined using a
space/cost allocation formula, which divides the minimum trench area required for each trench
occupant individually by the sum of the minimum trench areas for all occupants.
At the March 10, 2008 meeting, Council passed Resolution of Intent No. 8802 to establish UUD
45. The May 5, 2008 Council meeting has been set as the date of the public hearing on the
matter. Notices announcing the meeting with a description of the project and a copy of the
Resolution were mailed to all property owners in the proposed district on April 4, 2008.
11
CMR: 220:08 Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
This underground project will result in the removal of 45 poles and provision of underground
service to 45 properties, of which a small percentage are residential properties. Completion of
this project will eliminate overhead distribution lines in an area bordered by existing
underground districts and will enhance reliability of the electric distribution system while
improving aesthetics.
If an underground district is created, the Utilities Department will prepare plans and
specifications and obtain bids for installation of the underground substructure. Underground
substructure construction consists of the installation of conduits, vaults, concrete pads and boxes.
The Utilities Department will install the electric distribution cables, transformers and switches
upon completion of the substructure installation. After the new underground system (cable,
transformers, switches, etc.) has been tested and energized, the property owners will be notified
that they have 60 days to connect to the new underground system. Upon completion of the new
connections, utility crews will remove the overhead power lines, and telephone crews will
complete the project by removing the remaining telephone and cable television facilities and
poles.
TIMELINE
Upon Council approval and completion of the public hearing, the following will occur as
proposed:
May 5, 2008* Introduction and first reading of Ordinance Establishing Project Area as
Underground Utility District No. 45
May19, 2008* Second reading and adoption of Ordinance.
November 2008* Award of construction contract and Joint Construction Agreement with
AT&T/Comcast.
January 2009 Substructure (conduits, vaults, etc.) installation by Contractor
March 2009* Resolution determining properties electing to pay service conversion cost
over a period of 10 years
May 2009 Installation of underground facilities (cable, switches, etc.)
through July 2009
July 2009 Service conversion work by property owners
through Sept 2009
October 2009 Pole removal and project completion
through Jan 2010
* Denotes Council Action
CMR: 220:08 Page 3 of 3
RESOURCE IMPACT
The total cost of the project is estimated at $2,350,000. The majority of the cost will be for the
substructure installation of underground facilities ($1,450,000). The remaining funds will be
utilized for engineering ($100,000), electric equipment & cables ($680,000), and removal of
overhead facilities ($120,000). AT&T and Comcast will reimburse approximately $700,000 to
the City for the installation of telephone and cable television conduits and boxes in accordance
with an agreement with the three parties. Construction and installation costs of this project have
been budgeted in the FY 2008-09 and 2009-10 Utilities Department Electric Capital
Improvement Program budget.
The cost of the required service conversions on private property is to be borne by the individual
owners in accordance with Utility Rule and Regulation No.17. The total cost for the property
owners requiring service conversions from overhead to underground has been estimated at
$200,000. The property owners have been offered the option of financing their service
conversions under Section 12.16.091 of Palo Alto Municipal Code which provides for City loans
to property owners to fund the service conversions. Property owners repay the loan and
administrative costs, which are added to their property tax bills, over a ten-year period, at an
interest rate approved by the Council.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan to invest in
utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service. The project furthers Program L-80 (the
continuation of Citywide undergrounding of utility wires) and L-81 (the use of compact and
well-designed utility elements) of the Comprehensive Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under
California Public Resources Code Section 15302(d) (conversion of overhead electric utility
distribution system facilities to underground).
ATTACHMENTS
A: Ordinance
B: Underground Utility District No. 45 Boundary Map – Palo Alto Avenue, Alma Street, High
Street and Lytton Avenue area
C: Underground Utility District No. 45 Boundary Map – Cambridge Avenue area
D: Background and History on Underground of Electric Utilities
PREPARED BY: JAMES BUJTOR
Sr. Electric Project Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD: ______________________________
VALERIE FONG
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ______________________________
STEVE EMSLIE/KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers
CMR: 223:08 Page 1 of 2
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MAY 5, 2008 CMR: 223:08
SUBJECT: FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT PROPOSED
FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AND DRAFT ACTION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance Committee and staff recommend to the City Council approval of the following:
1. Allocate CDBG funding as recommended by staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC) in the 2008/09 Action Plan.
2. Authorize staff to submit the 2008/09 Action Plan to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) by the May 15, 2008 deadline.
3. Authorize the City Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute the 2008/09 application and
Action Plan for CDBG funds and any other necessary documents concerning the
application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the application and
commitment of funds.
COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff and the CAC recommendations were presented to the Finance Committee on April 1,
2008. First, staff summarized the recommendations and then the CAC spokesperson gave a brief
overview of the CAC discussions regarding the recommendations. The Committee voted
unanimously to recommend to Council the staff and Citizens Advisory Committee
recommendations.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
All of the applications recommended for funding in fiscal year 2008/09 are consistent with the
priorities established in the City’s adopted Consolidated Plan for the period 2005 to 2010. They
are also consistent with the housing programs and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding of the proposed public services projects, capital improvement projects and fair housing
costs will not impact the City’s General Fund as the funds will be provided through the U.S.
CMR: 223:08 Page 2 of 2
Department of Housing and Urban Development grant. A portion of the staff salaries (as
outlined in the attached Finance Committee report) needed to administer the CDBG program is
subsidized by the City’s General Fund, while the rest comes from the HUD grant.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), budgeting in itself is not a project. HUD environmental
regulations for the CDBG program are contained in 24 CFR 58 “Environmental Review
Procedures for Title I Community Development Block Grant Programs.” The regulations
require that entitlement jurisdictions assume the responsibility for environmental review and
decision-making under NEPA. Prior to the commitment or release of funds for each of the
proposed projects, staff will carry out the required environmental reviews or assessments, and
certify that the review procedures under CEQA, and HUD and NEPA regulations have been
satisfied for each particular project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Funding Recommendation Chart
Attachment B: CDBG Funding Resolution for fiscal year 2008/09
Attachment C: CMR 185:08
Attachment D: Minutes of April 1, 2008 Finance Committee Meeting
Prepared by: _________________________________________
Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Planner-CDBG
Department Head: __________________________________
CURTIS WILLIAMS, Director
Planning and Community Environment
City Manager Approval: ___________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE and KELLY MORARIU
Deputy City Managers
Cc: CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee Members
2008/2009 CDBG Applicant Agencies
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 199:08 Page 1 of 4
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MAY 5, 2008 CMR: 199:08
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SITE AND DESIGN AND RECORD OF LAND USE
ACTION, AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
NEW 886 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 810 LOS
TRANCOS ROAD. ZONE DISTRICT: OPEN SPACE (OS).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City
Council approve the following:
1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the property located at 810 Los Trancos Road
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment C); and
2. A Record of Land Use Action approving a Site and Design Review application to allow
architectural and site plan revisions to the previously approved project, including the
construction of an 886 square foot accessory structure, with associated landscaping and
grading changes, subject to the findings and conditions of approval contained in the Record
of Land Use Action (Attachment B).
BACKGROUND
Site Information
The 9.5 acre project site is located in the Palo Alto foothills. The site was originally created in
1979 as part of a larger subdivision that created three lots totaling 29.6 acres. These lots, located
at 820 Los Trancos Road, 830 Los Trancos Road, and the subject site, 810 Los Trancos Road,
can be seen on the attached location map (Attachment A). The subdivision was approved by
City Council with exceptions allowing for the creation of the three lots that are all under the
minimum required lot size of 10 acres in the Open Space (OS) district, as well as exceptions
allowing for a shared private access road so that the 820 and 830 Los Trancos Road sites can
access Los Trancos Road.
Project Description
The proposed project includes the construction of a single-story, 886 square foot accessory
structure to the site, already occupied by a 14 year old home with total existing impervious
coverage (including building footprint, driveway, walkways and other areas) of 12,856 square
feet (see Attachment G, page A1.3). The accessory structure will consist of a living room, two
bedrooms, one bath and associated external patios and landscaping.
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 199:08 Page 2 of 4
Open Space Development Criteria
Section 18.28.070(o) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires that the Open Space
Development Criteria be used by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council
to evaluate the proposed project. These criteria and an analysis of each are set forth in
Attachment D and are reflected in the findings in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment
B).
Additional background information is included in the February 27, 2008 staff report to the
Commission (Attachment E).
Scope of Review
The Council may approve, modify or disapprove the proposed plans submitted as it may deem
necessary to accomplish the following objectives:
(a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly,
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
(b) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or
educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
(c) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be
observed.
(d) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 27, 2008, the Commission recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the Site and Design application. The staff report and meeting minutes for the
February 27, 2008 public hearing of the Commission are provided (Attachments E and F). These
attachments are also available on the City’s website and in City files for public review.
During the hearing, no members of the public spoke to the Commission on this project.
There were a few issues raised by the Commission during the hearing. The first issue was
related to the color chosen for the windows and trellis detail of the proposed structure. While
these colors were chosen to best match the existing single-family home, the majority of the
Commissioners felt that a more subdued color would be appropriate and added a condition of
approval that the final color for this detail come back for staff review prior to issuance of the
building permits.
A second issue addressed by the Commission related to the preservation of the landscaping in the
area of proposed work, as well as the logistics of the construction itself. There was concern that
given the site constraints with regards to access, the landscaping located between the site and the
shared driveway may become damaged during construction and that the construction itself may
hinder access to the two other sites using the shared drive. A condition of approval was added
requiring approval of a landscape preservation and maintenance plan as well as a construction
plan by the Planning Arborist prior to issuance of building permits.
Finally, the Commission addressed the issue of the site lighting, specifically the lighting of the
foot path connecting the proposed structure with the existing single-family home. A condition
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 199:08 Page 3 of 4
was added requiring staff to review and approve any pathway lighting prior to issuance of
building permits.
The Commission voted 5-2-0-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the revised Record
of Land Use Action (Attachment B) and adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Attachment C).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Comprehensive Plan designation is Open Space/Controlled Development. The proposed
project, which includes the addition of an 886 square foot accessory structure to a lot containing
an existing single-family home, is consistent with the land use designation. 810 Los Trancos is
in the Open Space District (OS), regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter
18.28. Single-family uses with accessory facilities and uses are permitted in this zone district
and the project would maintain the open space characteristics of the site. Compliance with the
Open Space criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning is outlined in the Record of Land Use
Action (Attachment B).
RESOURCE IMPACT
The addition of an 886 square foot accessory structure to an existing Open Space parcel
containing a single-family dwelling is not expected to have any measurable resource impacts on
the City. Staff time spent on the development review of this project is fully recoverable through
fees charged to the applicant.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Draft Initial Study, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and an Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
were posted and circulated for public review. The 20-day public review circulation period began
January 23, 2008 and ended February 15, 2008. A copy of the environmental document is
provided as Attachment C. Key mitigation measures include: the requirement for the structure to
have complete fire protection measures; for City review and approval of all proposed grading
and drainage of the site; and for mandatory tree protection measures for the important native oak
woodland surrounding the structure.
PREPARED BY:
PAUL MENNEGA
Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 199:08 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Record of Land Use Action
C. Mitigated Negative Declaration
D. Open Space Design Criteria
E. Commission Staff Report of February 27, 2008 (w/o attachments)
F. Commission Meeting Minutes, February 27, 2008 (Council only)
G. Project Plans (Council only)
COURTESY COPIES
Lori Bockholt, Applicant
Tim Brady & Kelly McGown, Property Owner