Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-24 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting April 24, 1995 1. Recognition of the YWCA...............................75-403 2. Presentation of Governor's Award to Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing by the State Department of Fair Employ-ment and Housing......................................75-403 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................75-403 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Z. Z. Liner, Inc., dba U-Liner West for Phase IV of the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project................................75-403 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dolan Concrete Construction for Storm Drainage Improvements..........75-404 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Sure Flow Inc., dba Roto-Rooter for Irrigation Backflow Modifica-tions at Twenty-One City Park Sites...................75-404 6. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation............................................75-404 6A. (Old Item 8). Planning Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission recommend to the City Council to certify the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Wastewater Reclamation Program and to adopt a new Reclamation Policy....................................75-404 6B. (Old Item 9). Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 To Provide an Additional Appro-priation for Capital Improvement Project No. 9506, "Municipal Services Center Bulk Material Bins"........75-415 6C. (Old Item 10). Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appro-priation for Capital Improvement Project No. 19212, "Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension"...........75-416 04/24/95 75-401 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee....................................75-423 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 10:10 p.m...........................75-431 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m.....75-431 04/24/95 75-402 04/24/95 75-403 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian ABSENT: Fazzino, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Recognition of the YWCA Council Member Schneider read the proclamation recognizing YWCA "Racial Justice Week," April 24-28, 1995. Keiko Hayashi, Co-President, and Kay Phillips, Executive Director, YWCA, accepted the proclamation. No action required. 2. Presentation of Governor's Award to Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing by the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing Jaime Reyes, District Administrator, State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, presented the Governor's Award to Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing. Beverly Lawrence, Executive Director, Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, thanked Mr. Reyes for the presentation of the award. No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Irvin Dawid, 3886 LaDonna Avenue, spoke regarding the Dream Team funding. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding City contractors. Sandy Eakins, 3493 Greer Road, spoke regarding the Oklahoma tragedy and suggested that Palo Alto's feelings be recognized. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 5. 04/24/95 75-404 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Z. Z. Liner, Inc., dba U-Liner West for Phase IV of the Sanitary Sewer Rehabili-tation Project; changes order not to exceed $133,286.38 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dolan Concrete Construction for Storm Drainage Improvements; change orders not to exceed $27,000 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Sure Flow Inc., dba Roto-Rooter for Irrigation Backflow Modifications at Twenty-One City Park Sites; change orders not to exceed $8,066 MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to bring Item Nos. 8, 9, and 10 forward to precede Item No. 7, and become Item Nos. 6A, 6B, and 6C, respectively. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 6. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation Subject: Potential initiation of litigation on two separate matters Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(c) Public Comment None. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 6A. (Old Item 8). Planning Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission recommend to the City Council to certify the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Wastewater Reclamation Program and to adopt a new Reclamation Policy. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the Wastewater Reclamation Program was a culmination of three years' worth of work on the part of staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). The City of Palo Alto already had a very successful water reclama-tion program of about 2 million gallons per day or about 10 percent of the City's discharge, which was the level that other agencies were beginning to study and implement. The study for the potential 04/24/95 75-405 expansion of the reclamation program was in response to a condition that was imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to study all feasible means of reducing wasteload to the San Francisco Bay. That condition came out of Palo Alto's current permit and the Cease and Desist Order associated with that permit. The past three years had been dedicated toward studying and developing a recommendation as to whether or not the reclamation program was an effective means of reducing wasteload to the Bay. Staff spent a year developing a conceptual design that showed how such a system might be implemented in Palo Alto, where the pipelines could run, and where the potential users would be. Staff spent another year on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the next year researching and dealing with all the policy issues and working very closely with the UAC. The comprehensive study of economics, environmental impacts, policy issues, and technical issues associated with water reclamation at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) had been a team effort by the Public Works, Utilities, Planning, and Finance Departments. The recommen-dation to Council was to not implement any further water reclama-tion projects at the present time because staff found it was not a cost-effective solution to reducing wasteload to the Bay. The issues stemmed from two facts: 1) the City's current permit requirements and 2) the life span of that permit. The current permit had two issues regulating wasteload to the Bay. One was a mass discharge limit of how many pounds of certain metals and pollutants per year could be discharged to the Bay. Second was a concentration limit of how much of that pollutant was in the water that was discharged in parts per billion (ppb) at any given time. The City was in compliance with the mass limit but not in compli-ance with the concentration limit. Water reclamation benefitted only the mass limit. As water was diverted from the discharge to the Bay and used on land for irrigation, the mass was reduced, but the concentration remained the same. Water reclamation would not benefit the current permit issues. The current permit had about another two and one-half years, and the City would be facing renewal of that permit in 1998. The limits to be set in that new permit were unknown, and it would be very difficult to justify any cost-effective basis for major capital expenditure in the millions of dollars based on a remaining two and one-half year certainty of the permit requirements. Staff believed that in the future, the permit limits would be changed. It was likely that the mass limit would be reduced and that water reclamation might at some future point benefit that requirement. Staff also saw preliminary indications that the concentration limit might be raised. If the two scenarios happened, water reclamation might be worthy of reconsideration. Staff's policy recommendation was structured with a number of trigger mechanisms so that if the permit limits moved the City in the direction that made reclamation beneficial, if the water supply became an issue in the future, and if any of the partner agencies at the RWQCP wanted to initiate reclamation for other purposes toward their own ends of supply in their own areas, the issue could be revisited. Staff believed the City had complied 04/24/95 75-406 in good faith with the requirement imposed by the RWQCB to study water reclamation and determine its effectiveness toward minimizing wasteload to the Bay. The policy recommendation would satisfy that concern and preserve options for the future. Utilities Advisory Commissioner Paul Johnston showed charts explaining in more depth some of the points Mr. Roberts made. The UAC had only been formally involved in the process for about half the time that the Public Works Department had been involved. Prior to that, the UAC looked at it from an informational standpoint until it was formally referred by the Council to the UAC for review. UAC had spent a substantial portion of its meetings reviewing the reclamation program. UAC started out with under-standing the regulatory requirements and looking at the history of the RWCQP optimization and source control. In history the RWCQP had in fact reduced the amounts of discharge to the Bay dramatical-ly over the years through a variety of sources. Then the UAC reviewed the various options, the planned projects, and the EIR. A substantial amount of work was done on cost analyses, financial studies, and possible effects on ratepayers for the water and the wastewater utilities. UAC looked at a marketing survey as to whether anybody wanted to buy the water if the City were to produce it and what the parameters would be surrounding that. UAC also looked at legal issues. There was a lawsuit by other South Bay dischargers to try to overturn the discharge requirements. There were two objectives in terms of why UAC became involved: 1) to reduce the discharge to the Bay and 2) to supplement the water supply. In the end UAC's policy recommendation reflected that at the present time neither goals could be appropriately achieved. The limit of 4.9 ppb on concentration was something that the City did not currently meet. Reclamation would have no impact on it. The City already met the mass limit requirement, and the full program, if implemented, would only have reduced the mass limit by about 9 percent. For a costly program, that was not effective in reducing the copper discharge to the Bay. The second area of supplementing the water supply had an issue of cost, although quality was an important aspect as a number of potential users had significant concerns about the quality of the reclaimed water. At the present time from a cost standpoint, the City received all of its water from Hetch Hetchy through the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). The current estimated cost of reclaimed water was high due to the fact that it was an intensive project which involved spending over $30 million on pipeline construction in the City. When the costs were factored in, the project was an expensive way to deliver water given there was already another lower cost supply from the SFWD. However, the picture could change. If in fact more water were sold, the capital cost would get distributed over a broader base, and the reclaimed water cost would be brought down substantially. There also might be future significant cost increases in water from the SFWD. The policy recommendation had been designed so that the City would not proceed with any wastewater projects at the present time. 04/24/95 75-407 Council Member Rosenbaum said one of the major actions before Council was to certify an EIR, which was typically done when anticipating to proceed with a project. Assuming the staff recommendation passed, there would be no project. If Council were to decide to do something in five to ten years, he questioned whether the EIR could still be used or whether a new one would be needed. He asked staff how much concern Council should have about some of the questions that the members of the public had raised about the documents before Council. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said that was both a legal and technical question. The legal standard did not have a specific shelf life for the document. The EIR, once certified, would be usable for consideration of any number of projects until there were changed circumstances such that either revisions or addenda to the original were necessary. He did not know how long the data would be useful. There might be related projects that the EIR was useful for. An example was the Citywide Traffic EIR which had been useful for other purposes. Having spent the money and effort on the EIR, it would be prudent to have it certified and usable for purposes that might not currently be envisioned. Mr. Roberts said the EIR was primarily a program level EIR. It was not intended to be project specific, with the exception of the "Foothill Main Project," which was originally thought to be the number one priority project. Supplemental EIRs would be needed for other projects to be implemented. For example, should some other project develop that triggered the mechanisms that were listed in the staff report (CMR:217:95), a supplemental EIR would be necessary. Council Member Huber referred to Item 1 under "Discussion" on page 7 of the staff report (CMR:217:95), which read "...The Regional Board has been directed by the State Board to reconsider limits..." He assumed it was in response to many complaints from those who could not meet the standards and asked if the RWQCB's direction was for tighter standards or some relaxation standards. Mr. Roberts said the State Board (the Board) recently had its plan for the Bay-Delta overturned by court action for improper process in preparing the plan. Namely, it did not do an EIR on the plan, and so the Board had been directed to redo the process and supplement that process with an EIR. The Board remanded all the plan and permit issues back to the RWQCB for the San Francisco Bay Area, to which the RWQCB said it would take the opportunity to review all of the standards at the same time. Environmental Compliance Manager Phil Bobel said in addition to what was happening at the state level, at the national level the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) saw that it was about to lose a lawsuit over the standards, and so EPA settled with the plain- 04/24/95 75-408 tiffs. Part of that settlement was the assurance that the standard would actually be raised. The lawsuit at the state level was on procedural grounds, so there was no indication of what the outcome would be. Staff believed that the standard would be raised slightly, but that was unknown. Council Member Huber clarified that was mass and concentration limits. Mr. Bobel said the concentration limit would increase, but the mass limit was based on the concentration limit, which indicated that the mass limit would go up as well. Many people believed that mass should not increase because there was bioaccumulation and accumula-tion in the sediment; therefore, even if the water column could withstand a bit of higher concentration, there really should not be allowance of more copper discharged because it would build up in the organisms and in the sediment. That was a strong feeling on the part of environmental groups. Council Member Huber clarified it was the concentration limit the City could not currently meet and the City was faced with a stricter standard. Mr. Bobel said that was correct. Mr. Roberts said staff believed the concentration limit might become somewhat more lenient and bring the City into closer conformance. Mr. Johnston believed the City had some breathing space, but the issue would not go away until the regulatory standards that had to be met were defined. Exactly when that would take place and what the precise definitions would be were unknown. Council Member Huber clarified that Council was being requested to defer the various projects, and should Council wish to do something with them in the future, they would come back through the UAC and the Council. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Council Member Huber asked if Council wanted to return to the Foothill project, what the timing from reviewing it through actually building it would be. Mr. Roberts said a major part would depend upon the timing of signing contracts for use of the water with those water retailers who would not actually take delivery of it, which might include the Utilities Department, Stanford University, and the City of Mountain View. After that process, it would be a two- to three-year window for design and construction of a project. 04/24/95 75-409 Council Member Andersen wanted to get a sense of how the other partner agencies felt about that particular approach. There was some indication of interest in exploring use of the water through the procedure, and he asked if that was counter to some of their expectations or hopes. Mr. Roberts said staff had worked very closely with all the partner agencies in the entire process. There were two perspectives that they brought to the process: 1) as a potential user of reclaimed water and 2) as a partner in the plant responsible for the financing and funding of plant activities. He believed the interest on the part of use was highly dependent upon price and was predicated on an assumption that there would be a subsidy for the reclaimed water. That subsidy would come from sewer rates, and the sewer rates would subsidize it in order to pay for compliance issues. Based upon the analysis and recommendation, once the price became cost, the interest diminished rapidly. Council Member Andersen said he was amazed by the significant amount of copper coming from the copper piping, which he understood was generally the product that was used. He asked whether the technology was improving with newer kinds of piping and whether additional increase might be seen that could make that dynamic even more of an issue. Mr. Roberts said in accordance with policy direction from the Council, staff continued to aggressively pursue other means of reducing wasteload to the Bay. Although staff was not recommending water reclamation, staff was still aggressively pursuing source control and plant optimization issues, and one of the source control issues was studying the effects of corrosion on copper piping. Mr. Bobel's staff released a draft study on that issue and was looking at some measures to deal with it. Mr. Bobel clarified that Council Member Andersen's question was whether staff saw in the future that there would be copper reductions from actually modifying the way buildings were con-structed. Council Member Andersen said yes. He also asked whether the City would continue to utilize copper, and as it became more extensive, whether there would be increases. Mr. Bobel said there might be increases as a percentage of the total if nothing was done because progress was continuing on the other segment. Corrosion could grow as a percentage of the total if nothing was done. Plastic pipe in residential construction was not allowed in California, which was different from other states. That restriction was a battle that had been raging for a decade and was not likely to change. Short of allowing plastic pipe to be used in residential construction, the consultant report Mr. Roberts referred to looked at other types of pipe that could legally be 04/24/95 75-410 used in California. Stainless steel and pre-oxidized copper pipes were used in Europe, which cost more to put in, but the buildings would last hundreds of years. Staff was studying those kinds of things, which were not likely to happen, but staff was also studying subtle practices that could be done in how buildings were constructed, such as low-cost, non-resource intensive ways. Best management practices could be employed in the way copper pipe was constructed to reduce corrosion; the number of times it was bent and the way it was soldered exacerbated corrosion. There could be education for plumbers. Another area that staff would be pursuing was the addition of a corrosion inhibitor to the water supply, which was a chemical added to make corrosion less. The inhibitor was not cheap and would not be uncontroversial. Staff would not be bringing back recommendation absent more clarification on the copper standard. Council Member Schneider asked, if the RWQCB came back and the UAC said the City had to make changes and $32 million had to be spent, what kinds of mitigations would be exacted against the City if the City chose not to comply or could not comply. Mr. Roberts said the RWQCB had the ability to impose sanctions and/or fines upon the City for noncompliance with permit require-ments. The sanctions could be monetary, up to $10,000 per day. They could be control-oriented, such as moratoriums on building construction. There was a spectrum of remedies and actions available to the RWQCB for noncompliance with permit conditions. He did not envision the City ever reaching that point. The approach the City had taken historically and continued to take was one of a conciliatory process that worked together to develop jointly acceptable standards and programs for compliance. The RWQCB was becoming even more accepting of local initiatives and collaborative efforts. Council Member McCown asked how much the concentration limit would have to change for a reclaimed water project ever to make any difference in the City's ability to meet it. Mr. Roberts said the City would need to reach a concentration standard of somewhere around 7 or 8 ppb in order for staff to feel comfortable recommending to Council a policy decision predicated around that standard. There were two elements to the future that might be seen, but only one had been discussed. The change in the federal level that might go above 4.9 ppb might wind up around 5.9 or 6 ppb, and that really would not help the City to the 7 or 8 ppb. However, staff was already pursuing working with the RWQCB on some local condition studies known as site-specific studies that would look at modifications of the new federal standard for conditions unique to the South Bay, and that two-pronged approach held some promise of getting the City to where it needed to be over the next couple of years. Staff would return to Council next month with a recommendation for consultant services to help staff 04/24/95 75-411 initiate local site-specific studies. A combination of those actions with the City's track record with the RWQCB of commitment and follow-through on minimization of the wasteload would serve the City well. Council Member McCown recognized the independent direction to try to influence potential adjustments to the standard, but given the magnitude of impact of a reclaimed water project on the standard, she clarified it would never be a significant contributor to the City's ability to meet the concentration limit as some of the other avenues that Mr. Bobel was talking about. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. The reclaimed water project would never benefit the City on the concentration limit side of the equation. That would have to be dealt with through other avenues. The only benefit that it had was on future compliance with the mass standard, as portions of the discharge were diverted away from the Bay. Toward that end, the revisiting of the mass limit that Mr. Bobel spoke about would probably see that limit dropped. In addition to that, the City had a contractual responsibility to the partner agencies of the RWQCP to provide for their future growth, even though Palo Alto did not foresee any significant growth or additional discharge to the RWQCP. The Cities of East Palo Alto and Mountain View, in particular, had growth plans that would take additional capacity at the RWQCP that the City was contractually obligated to provide for. As the future mass limit came down and as their discharges rose, it was possible that the mass limit would become an issue. Council Member Huber remembered that a number of ordinances had been passed dealing with copper to clean out sewer lines. He asked if the other communities that were served by the RWQCP had passed similar ordinances and followed Palo Alto's lead in trying to reduce those types of copper and other toxic materials. Mr. Bobel said yes. The agreement with the other communities said that they would adopt the same standards the City had, and they had done that. Council Member Rosenbaum said perhaps by coincidence, in the packet there was a report on the efforts the City was making to reduce pollution both from point and nonpoint sources into the Bay. There was some discussion about efforts to optimize the performance of the plant to reduce copper. He asked staff where that stood and whether there was hope for further improvement in that area. Water Quality Control Plant Manager Bill Miks said staff had been doing quite a bit of work in the RWQCP in such things as copper optimization. There was a CIP project to make some modification to the clarifiers to get a little more copper removal in that aspect. Staff was always looking at additional methods of removing copper through the RWQCP. 04/24/95 75-412 Mr. Roberts said over the past two years, Mr. Miks had fine-tuned the operating systems at the RWQCP. About two years prior, the RWQCP was at approximately 88 or 89 percent efficiency level of removing copper from the RWQCP. Mr. Miks had increased that by about 2 to 3 percent, so the City was currently at a 91 percent level. Mr. Miks was looking for another 1 percent or so. Originally, the RWQCP was not designed for removal of those kinds of pollutants but was designed for more typical sewage treatment and purity of the water. Therefore, the RWQCP was at the point of or beyond the state of the art, and Mr. Miks had been very successful in doing that. The RWQCP was at a level comparable to any plant of that type. Council Member Rosenbaum had the impression that the concentration of copper from the Sunnyvale and San Jose plants was somewhat lower than Palo Alto's, and he had not been sure whether that was because what went in had less copper or whether they were different type plants. He asked whether the other plants had certain design features that enabled them to be more effective than the City's in removing metals. Mr. Roberts said the concentration limits were different in both the San Jose and Sunnyvale plants, which were due to a couple of reasons. Different loadings came in to the plant, there were different land uses, and there was a different mix of land uses. They also had a slightly different process than Palo Alto's. The RWQCP was originally designed and selected to minimize the footprint of the RWQCP on the Bay and preserve the maximum amount of open space and marshland around, meaning the sludge was burned, the water was pressed out of the sludge, and the sludge was incinerated and the ash disposed of. The water was returned to the process, carrying copper and solution with it. Sunnyvale and San Jose chose to stockpile and landfill their sludge. They did not "de-water" as much and chose a different process for different reasons. Palo Alto's process had had many benefits sensitive to the environment in the siting and the footprint of the RWQCP itself. The one consequence was that there was a little bit more of those kinds of pollutants returned to the process stream. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether it was practical or desirable to change the City's processes so that they might be more in line with what Sunnyvale and San Jose did or whether the expense or adverse consequences would not make that a worthwhile step to take. Mr. Roberts said it was important to remember that the RWQCP and the other plants were the same in percentage removal. The differences in the concentration came from the differences in the inflow and the process. Changing the process to be the same as theirs was a fundamental design issue for the RWQCP that would have to see the City at least radically redesign and expand the current 04/24/95 75-413 plant or build a new one. He did not believe that would be a cost-effective decision for the City to make. Mr. Bobel said San Jose had had successes in the last three or four years in reducing concentration but was not sure which of the many changes it had made at its plant had caused that reduction. If the City were to try to rebuild the RWQCP to emulate San Jose's, staff would not know which part of the plant to rebuild. At the ppb level, close to the detection limit, San Jose was at 3 or 4 ppb, while Palo Alto was at 7 or 8 ppb. To analyze the reasons for that kind of difference went beyond the RWQCP's current capabilities. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, supported the Planning Commission and UAC recommendations, in particular, the recommendation not to spend millions of dollars trying to pipe reclaimed water throughout the City because there really was no market for it. In the 1995 first quarter self-monitoring report for 1501 Page Mill Road, the 7 extraction wells which were removing contaminated groundwater and treating it before discharging extracted approximately 1,392,000 gallons, and of that, less than 100,000 gallons were reused on site. Hewlett Packard (HP) had been offering it to other facilities in the Stanford Research Park essentially for the cost of putting piping in for irrigation or any other nonpotable purpose, but HP had no takers. Both the Barron Park Association Foundation, which monitored 1501 and 640 Page Mill Road, and the Barron Park Association, which monitored the Hillview-Porter site had had as their goals reuse of treated groundwater, and they had been pushing the responsible parties such as HP, Stanford, and others very hard to try to get a use for the water. The effort had been totally unsuccessful. The only facility that had been successful in reusing its water was 620 Page Mill Road. The reason for that was when the new building was built, it was intentionally designed so that the extracted and treated groundwater could be recycled through the building and used for toilet flushing, the air-conditioning system, and irrigation. In that case, they were able to use on site between 20 and 30 percent of the water. No other facility had come close to using more than between 5 and 10 percent of the water. In order to use the water for irrigating Stanford's fields, Stanford would have to build between three-fourths and one mile of piping. The water would essentially be free, but Stanford was not interested. For the City to try to spend millions of dollars on a piping system would be fruitless. Even if the actual cost of water were below the cost of the Hetch Hetchy water, by the time the capital investment was done, nobody would take it. It was unfortunate, and no one really wanted to see a million gallons of water pumped into the storm drains and sewage plant every quarter. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to: 1) Certify that the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that it reflects the independent judgment of the 04/24/95 75-414 Council; 2) Suspend implementation of any of the projects studied in the EIR and instead adopt a Reclamation Policy which includes continuation of the existing reclaimed water program and monitoring of the conditions that would trigger the future evaluation of the projects studied in the EIR; 3) Direct that at such time as staff believes that conditions exist which would trigger further evaluation of the projects, staff will submit such information to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) for its review and recommendations prior to submittal of the matter to the Council; and 4) Direct staff to inform the UAC and initiate the appropriate evaluations on any such triggered project and submit the evalua-tions for review by the UAC and Council. Council Member Rosenbaum was pleased with the staff recommendation. He had been skeptical of the reclamation project for a number of years in spite of its environmental cache and the fact that other cities were doing reclamation projects. The main difficulty in Palo Alto was that there was little demand for nonpotable water east of Highway 101, where the treatment plant was located. Aside from the Palo Alto Golf Course, the City neither had developed parks such as Shoreline in Mountain View nor had large industrial areas with lawns to water. If a significant pipeline had to be built to transport the water long distances, to do that became expensive. Nevertheless, staff had a remarkable dedication to the project. Council sent the project to the UAC, and the UAC did a remarkable job. The UAC spent a year on it in a very professional and persistent manner, questioning both the economic and technical rationale of the project, and the staff report (CMR:217:95) was the result of that effort. UAC provided a very important service to the City. Clearly, the Council never would have had the time to review it in the depth that the UAC had, and he thanked the UAC for that effort and hoped his colleagues would support the recommenda-tion. Council Member Andersen wanted to commend the UAC for its work and the staff for its tremendous effort in the progress the City had made with regard to getting the metals out of the water stream. He found the report to be very interesting with excellent material. The marginal level of compliance over a short period of time was a significant effort, and staff should be commended for that. The market for reclaimed water and the cost effectiveness were not there. The time might come when reclaimed water might be appropri-ate and cost effective, but at the current time he was happy to support the recommendation. Council Member Huber reviewed the UAC executive summary minutes, and it became clear that there was no market. The project was a great piece of work, but the City could not afford that kind of money. Should drought or other circumstances force the City to reconsider the project, it was available to use to make decisions in the future. He thanked the UAC and staff. 04/24/95 75-415 Mayor Simitian also thanked the UAC and staff, particularly Commis-sioners Vejtasa and Eyerly. He wanted to recognize the work of the UAC because he had been one of those who had expressed concern in the past that the work of the UAC had not been as helpful to him as it might have been in demystifying some of the technical jargon that went into the discussion of utilities issues. He believed on that particular issue the UAC was quite helpful in terms of focusing attention on some readily understandable policy issues and choices that drove the decision Council would make that evening. He also expressed appreciation. With all the discussion, however, about ppb and the technical side and notwithstanding the reference to environmental cache, he believed that it needed to be on the record and made very clear. Notwithstanding the action the Council would take that evening, the City had had a very strong commitment to doing everything it could to make sure what the City put into the Bay was consistent with a clean bay, and he did not believe anybody should think the City was taking a step back from that by virtue of what Council would do. All of the people who partici-pated in the discussion that evening understood that, but he believed that fact had become obscured in the nature of the discussion, which had been understandably and necessarily techni-cal. It was not too many months ago that the Council was in the same Chambers recognizing the outstanding work that staff had done with policy support from the Council at the RWQCP. It was the award winning project, and so it did not suggest that the City was in any way taking a step back from that. He did believe that the City needed to continue to press on other fronts to find ways that were substantially more cost effective and reduced the amount of heavy metals, copper in particular, in vastly greater quantities. With all the technical discussion, staff and the City had done a great job in the three and one-half years that he had been on the Council, and they ought to be congratulated on that. The City wanted to do more and was continuing to do more but needed to put time, effort, energy, and dollars into areas that would have significantly greater environmental impacts in terms of what was in the Bay. He believed that should be in the record, and the City should take pride in what it had already done. Council Member Kniss congratulated Council Member Rosenbaum for having driven it from the very beginning when he was less enthusi-astic than the rest of the Council about the future of reclaimed water. She remembered that Council Member Andersen was one of the first who said the City needed a utilities commission. It had made a big difference to have the five UAC members making excellent comments and being able to support Council as Council went ahead with decisions. She had listened with interest that evening, and she was more than pleased to have the interpretations provided. She thanked them for that particular effort because it made a difference. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING 04/24/95 75-416 RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. RECOMMENDATION NOS. 2 - 4 MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. ORDINANCES 6B. (Old Item 9). Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 To Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 9506, "Municipal Services Center Bulk Material Bins" Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said a capital program that was in the current project was to replace a series of bulk storage bins located at the Municipal Service Center (MSC). During the design phase, staff found after removing the materials from those bins that the foundations also required replacement. That increased the cost of the design and the construction in the bid. Therefore, staff was asking Council for a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $65,000 and an approval to award a construction contract to J.J.R. Construction, Inc. to construct those new foundations and bins. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to: 1) Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $65,000 from the Electric ($22,000), Water ($10,500), Gas ($22,000), and Wastewater ($10,500) Rate Stabilization Reserves for funding the construction of new bulk material storage bins and foundations at the Municipal Service Center (MSC) and to install landscaping behind the new bins; 2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with J.J.R. Construction, Inc. in the amount of $102,452.20 for the MSC Bulk Storage Bins Improvement Project; and 3) Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract to cover additional related but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. The value of the change orders shall not exceed $10,245. Ordinance 4271 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 To Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 9506, 'Municipal Services Center Bulk Material Bins'" Contract between the City of Palo Alto and J. J. R. Construc-tion, Inc., for Construction of Replacement Bulk Storage Bins at the Municipal Service Center MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. 04/24/95 75-417 6C. (Old Item 10). Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 19212, "Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension" Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the Council had previously approved the installation of a permanent traffic at the Bryant/Addison intersection, and staff had been proceeding with a design development work. The proposed circle design had the support of the residents, including design professionals who lived in the immediate vicinity. It also had been reviewed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and was generally acceptable to the City departments affected by its installation and its need for maintenance. The current estimated cost to construct the circle was $35,000, which matched the remaining balance of Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding available to the City for that project. The request before Council that evening in the form of a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) was to provide an additional $9,000 from the Street Improve-ment Fund to pay for the preparation of the final engineering plans and specifications for the project. Apart from the BAO, he needed to bring to Council's attention a separate but related issue that recently surfaced at the previous week's HRB and ARB meetings after the staff report (CMR:224:95) was prepared. It concerned the possible movement of a single storm drain manhole. He showed overhead projections that illustrated the point he described. Members of the HRB reviewed the project and expressed serious concerns about the adverse aesthetic effect of a niche that was created by the need to have the raised circular brick wall recessed to avoid an existing storm drain manhole. HRB's action was to recommend approval of the circle, but HRB included a strong recommendation that Council allocate funds to move the manhole out of the circle. In order to avoid crossing over that manhole, the recommendation was to try to move it. The ARB review had also approved the circle design, and ARB included a request for additional funding to move the manhole out of the circle. Staff reviewed the issue of possibly moving the manhole and identified the following considerations: 1) all other things being equal, the circle would look better without the niche than it would with the niche; 2) relocation of the manhole also involved relocation of two lateral pipes connecting the two existing catch basins. He showed an illustration of the utilities that were underground at that particular location and the size of the traffic circle that would be placed there. If the manhole were to be moved out of the circle, the lateral pipes to the catch basins would also have to be relocated; 3) The preliminary cost estimate for moving the manhole out of the circle was approximately $12,000, and there was a possible savings in wall-related costs of approximately $2,000 because that niche would not have to be built; a continuous circle would be built. Thus, the net cost of relocating the manhole was estimated to be about $10,000; 4) Due to the age and condition of the storm drain system in that area, the cost to complete the work 04/24/95 75-418 depending upon what was actually encountered could quickly escalate beyond the $10,000 estimate. The $10,000 assumed that it was relatively easy and there was no unexpected conditions found when working on the existing lines; 5) The design professional who developed the concept plan did not feel that the niche presented a serious aesthetic problem, primarily because the wall was only 14 inches high. The niche would be constructed of the same materials so that when looking at it, an indentation could be seen, but the materials would be similar around that indentation. Finally, at some point in the future when the storm drain would be replaced and portions of the circle would need to be removed and replaced, relocation of the manhole could be reconsidered at that time. Based on those considerations, staff concluded that while it might be desirable to relocate the manhole, it was problematic and not necessary; therefore, staff did not recommend further consideration of relocation of the manhole in conjunction with the current project. In summary the staff recommendation was to approve a BAO for $9,000 for preparation of engineering plans and specifications, but not to increase the $35,000 budget for the circle to include relocation of the manhole. Council Member Andersen asked whether or not consideration was given to simply replacing the old storm drain system underneath the circle before the project went ahead and what the cost would be. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said he did not know whether consideration of that specific question was given in the design process. The City was faced with a situation of building a new feature in an existing street on top of numerous existing utili-ties, and the design concept that was followed was to preserve those existing utilities. Replacement of existing storm drainage system would be a very expensive project. The City would have to go for a couple of blocks to replace segments and would spend far more replacing those two blocks or so of storm drain lines than what would be spent on the traffic circle itself. Council Member Andersen asked if staff had some sense as to what the life expectancy of that storm drain system was and when that might be replaced. Mr. Roberts said that particular section was a localized collection system and was not a piece of the system that was envisioned to ever be replaced or upgraded in the future. Staff did have plans for a storm drainage master plan, but that section would not be impacted by the future implementation of that master plan. It was about 70 years old, functioned well, and was currently serviceable. If it were to be excavated and a portion relocated, opening it up and disturbing the earth around it could cause problems with the line. There were other sections of storm drainage lines elsewhere in the City that were about 100 years old that still functioned quite well. There was no reason to replace the line on its own merits. 04/24/95 75-419 Council Member Andersen asked whether the section had 30 years. Mr. Roberts said it was functioning and should continue in the foreseeable future. Council Member Kniss said a considerable amount of time and discussion was spent by the HRB on the project. She questioned if time was spent in the neighborhood discussing it with that design. The amount of $10,000 was a fair amount and was almost 10 percent of the project. Mr. Overway said the design had gone through two stages of the final design and an initial conceptual design. Both designs had a niche in them. The issue was not a new one and had always been a concern. Staff had tried to keep the cost within the parameters of the budget. The initial conceptual design was $50,000 even with the niche, and that had been cut and scaled back to the $35,000. Everyone would rather not have the niche in there, but he believed there was reasonable acceptance of the fact that it would continue to be there. Council Member Kniss clarified it was accepted by the neighborhood. Mr. Overway said yes. Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel had worked more directly with the neighborhood residents. Council Member Kniss said there was not great enthusiasm by the HRB. Council Member Huber clarified that prior to the issue of the manhole, Council was being asked to approve additional design money. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Council Member Huber asked, since it was something that might be looked into in the future in other areas in the community, if there were other things that could be learned by way of design that would save the City money or would make it easier the next time around should Council choose to do that. Mr. Overway said the effort that had gone into trying to integrate the design of the circle into the character of the neighborhood was such that he did not believe there was any real transferability to it. It would be a lesson on how much such projects could actually cost and the next time something similar came up in a different neighborhood, it would be a different issue. Mayor Simitian asked how often the manhole was used. 04/24/95 75-420 Mr. Roberts said roughly once a year. The City cleaned its storm drain lines, and the manhole covers were pulled at that time as the catch basins were flushed out. Robert Steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, supported the additional money. As a resident of Professorville, he had been active in the process and had attended most of the meetings. The Transportation Department had worked hard to balance many different issues and deserved the community's gratitude. Many neighbors had also given time over the process, trying to represent something that would be a fair balance. The design currently before Council was not really what the neighborhood wanted; many compromises had been made. Lighting and fencing were eliminated, and signage was made an alternative. The neighbors had been told about the budget limit and had come to a compromise to balance fiscal responsibility with a historical neighborhood. He believed the current design was positive. He hoped for Council's support. To not get support for the $9,000 would be devastating because the whole process would start over, and it would not be good use of City staff time. He supported moving the manhole, which was a secondary issue, but Palo Alto should do it right the first time. Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said the manhole cover should not be moved, but the niche was a concern. He suggested a simulated brick insert that could be removed once a year, and the rest of the time it would complete the circle. Council Member Kniss originally supported Alternative 1 which would allow staff to proceed without a niche. However, after having sat through the HRB process, having heard Mr. Steinberg's plea, and knowing there had been determined and long-term effort from the neighborhood, she would support moving the manhole cover and eliminating the niche. Mr. Overway said when the staff report (CMR:224:95) was written, staff identified Alternatives 1 and 2, which was before moving the manhole became an issue. Alternative 1 would approve the BAO which provided $9,000 for the design. Council Member Kniss clarified the second part would need a separate motion. Mr. Overway said in the staff report (CMR:224:95), there was no reference to moving the manhole. City Manager June Fleming said staff would have to return with another BAO. Unless she heard objections, she would place that BAO on the Consent Calendar for a future City Council meeting. Council Member Kniss clarified that the BAO, because it had not been correctly included in the report, needed to come back at another time. 04/24/95 75-421 Mayor Simitian had two concerns. First, a BAO would require six votes of the Council. There were seven Council Members present with two absent. If and when the item would return, even on Consent Calendar, he was not sure there would be two Council Members that evening who would want to vote on a Consent Calendar item on a BAO that they would have no discussion on or opportunity to proceed. He asked staff what action Council might take that evening. Clearly, Council could take action on whether or not to approve the $9,000 that was identified in Alternative 1. The second concern was whether Council wanted to take action that evening to direct staff to return with a BAO on the additional funding for manhole replacement, but before taking that vote, how many votes it would take to do that had to be determined. He believed it did not take more than a majority of the seven who were there to direct them to return with a BAO, but getting four votes out of the body to come back with a BAO did not strike him as particularly auspicious. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the first problem was that TDA funds, not City funds, were being used. The requirement for the TDA funds was that the City had to have the work under contract by the end of June 1995. The urgency was to get the outside final design work under contract. The need that evening was for Council to authorize the $9,000 to hire the design engineer to prepare the final specifications and working drawings. The problem would be that if the Council wished to proceed without the niche, have a full circular traffic circle, and move the manhole, that would have to come back on a future agenda; but staff would need to proceed with the engineering work immedi-ately. Otherwise, it would be highly unlikely that the City would be able to use the $35,000 TDA funds. Mayor Simitian said the bottom line was staff needed to know whether or not there would be six votes from the seven Council Members to do the project without the niche and with a relocated manhole cover. The easiest way to determine that was by a single motion. If there were a single motion which involved the BAO for $9,000 and in that same motion directed the staff to return to the Council with a BAO for the additional funding for relocation, that motion might get six votes. If it did, staff would get a clear message that at least six people supported not only the $9,000 but also the additional funding to relocate the manhole cover. If it did not receive six votes, that motion would fail, and it would be time for a second motion. At that point someone might think that if there was no support for the manhole cover relocation, the original Alternative 1 would be moved to see if there would be six votes for the simple expenditure of the $9,000 in design fees without the relocation of the manhole cover. Mr. Schreiber emphasized that the $10,000 was an initial estimate on what it might take to do the work. As Public Works staff 04/24/95 75-422 stressed that evening, once the street was opened up and there were old lines, the work could cost significantly more. Staff would not know that until crews opened the street. Ms. Fleming assumed that the Council Members present that evening understood the ramifications and that if Council voted in support of it, Council would understand the possibilities and would be prepared for staff to deal with emergencies came up. She asked Council to think about that when it cast its votes. Staff would then proceed as voted. Council Member Andersen asked if Council proceeded with removing the niche, whether the additional shifting of the manhole cover would be covered with the General Fund or with the TDA funds. Mr. Overway said it would be Street Improvement Fund money, not TDA funds. Council Member Andersen clarified the only portion of the funds that would be covered was staff's initial recommendation as stated. Mr. Overway said there was only $35,000 left of TDA funds. Therefore, if an additional expenditure of $10,000 were anticipat-ed, TDA funds would not be available. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded Huber, to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance transferring a total of $9,000 from the City's Street Improvement Fund to CIP No. 19212 in order to provide sufficient funds to prepare the final engineering plans and specifications for the Bryant/Addison Traffic Circle and direct staff to return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance in an amount sufficient to accommodate the relocation of the manhole cover. Council Member McCown would not support the motion because she did not support the extra expense which was tantamount to a blank check of relocating the manhole cover. The City would be faced with the situation of the installation of traffic calming devices in particular situations that would not fit perfectly with what else was already in the street. She believed that to deal with those situations by potentially moving manholes into a different part of the sewer line was like Pandora's box and was not a good policy decision. She preferred the original staff recommendation. Council Member Schneider said there were several traffic studies currently going on, and the traffic circles were some of solutions looked at for those areas. She assumed that manhole covers existed in intersections. She suggested that the neighbors who wanted to move the manhole cover find a creative way of working with that niche. She would not support the motion. 04/24/95 75-423 Council Member Kniss said while she heard Council Member McCown's blank check argument, she said that the neighborhood had been unusually patient with the situation. They had worked very closely with the staff. She had heard from several of them. She also had heard the HRB argue very effectively on behalf of eliminating the niche, which might be a public nuisance and a place for people to sit. What persuaded her was that there was a real design problem. Mr. Wyman's suggestion that something could be put in the circle that was removable was an idea. However, she urged support of the neighborhood. Council Member Huber supported the motion. At the time, he did not know that there might be a problem with the manhole. In looking at the drawing that was presented and considering the costs, he believed Council should do the first traffic circle right in the community, particularly in an area that was part of a historic district that had had many traffic problems for a long time. It had been discussed with many of the groups that came to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee meetings with their traffic problems and a variety of different calming devices. He suspected that when other work was done throughout the community, the City occasionally had to move manhole covers. The City occasionally hit pipes and had to fix them. He did not consider costs in the $10,000, $12,000, or $15,000 dollar range to be significant. Council Member Kniss asked how many times the City moved other underground items not seen or how often the City encountered a company like Metropolitan Fiber Systems (MFS), which was moving around an entire neighborhood. City Manager June Fleming did not believe the City had ever moved a manhole cover. As she understood, the City might seem unprepared for it because the City went through the process of the traffic circle with the community and everybody was agreeable. Mr. Roberts was not familiar with any such relocations. His experience was that they were designed around or worked around. However, when they were relocated either by City project or by private party such as MFS, it became the cost of the project and was not borne by the storm or sanitary utility fund involved. There was very limited, if any, applications of that nature that he was aware of. Mayor Simitian said the obvious concern of Council Members was that there might be some additional work. He asked staff a "for instance" of what it was the City might find. He clarified whatever work that needed to be done was work that would not have been done if the City had not looked. Mr. Roberts said not really. The issue arose because of the disturbance that the construction activity caused. If the manhole and the lateral pipes from the catch basins on the side of the 04/24/95 75-424 street had to be relocated, the City would have to trench in, around, under, over, and through many existing utilities in that street such as sanitary sewer lines and water lines. The potential of disturbance by the trenching was what caused the unknown factor. No known problems existed, and if everything went perfectly with no disturbances, the $10,000 cost would represent an optimal figure. However, it was almost inevitable that when that type of work was done, something else would be found because of the work itself. Mayor Simitian clarified that based on what the City knew about what was out there, the potential to bump into something might not be a problem, but a problem could not be identified in terms of the drawings as to where to send the lines. Mr. Roberts said staff believed the work could be done and that it could physically fit within the space available. However, in fitting it within that space, experience from other projects told staff that there would be other issues presently unknown that would arise. Mayor Simitian said staff's comments indicated something could happen and usually did and that it was a waste of money to spend $10,000 on moving a manhole cover, which was a perfectly legitimate point of view for somebody to express. He wanted clarification on what the other unnamed potential problem was. Mr. Schreiber said there was a 70-year-old line, with a situation in which the existing structure of the manhole sat into that line. The line would have to be removed, repaired, and broken into farther down, with a new structure placed on top of it. The strength of that 70-year-old line was unknown. He believed Mr. Roberts' staff was warning Transportation and Planning staff that excavation, because of the age of the structure and the ramifications of digging, might cause severe damage. If that were the case, pipe would need to be replaced, which might not be an easy fit to put in. Ms. Fleming said if staff knew of something that would facilitate the process, it would certainly tell the Council. Mr. Roberts wanted to emphasize the reason that the issue had been brought to Council was full disclosure. He felt it was possible to move the manhole, but he wanted to provide full disclosure to the Council of the potential cost implications in case staff had to return to the Council in the future. Council Member Schneider had personally attempted to put in a simple drip irrigation system at her house, and by just trying to move a pipe, the entire irrigation system collapsed. MOTION FAILED 2-5, Kniss, Huber "yes," Fazzino, Wheeler absent. 04/24/95 75-425 MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance transferring a total of $9,000 from the City's Street Improvement Fund to CIP No. 19212 in order to provide sufficient funds to prepare the final engineering plans and specifications for the Bryant/Addison Traffic Circle. Ordinance 4272 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 19212, 'Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension'" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Council Member Andersen mentioned the poor surface condition of Addison Street from Addison/Bryant to Addison/Waverley. He hoped that the area would be looked at. Given that Council had just saved $10,000, he would rather see the money go in that direction. Council Member Kniss asked staff to consider Mr. Wyman's idea for protecting the niche as a possibility without the cost of $10,000. RECESS: 9:25 P.M. - 9:35 P.M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transpor-tation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direction for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update. (continued from April 10, 1995) Mayor Simitian announced that the City Council would continue its review of the Natural Environment (NE) Section of Phase III of the Draft Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Huber, to revise Goal NE.10 to read as follows: "To the greatest extent feasible use renewable, clean energy sources." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Council Member Huber said he noticed on page 24a that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) made a comment that Program NE-10.A1 probably should not reference only PG&E when it came to supplemen- 04/24/95 75-426 tal power, which made sense in the changing world. UAC said the City might look at other sources in the future. Council Member Rosenbaum wanted to make the same point. The UAC made specific references on page 24a. Mayor Simitian clarified staff was comfortable with referencing other providers as well. Council Member Schneider said changes should include UAC comments as recommended. Mayor Simitian asked staff the status of the UAC comments on page 24a. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said they were not included by the Planning Commission. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, to revise NE-10.A1, "Continually evaluate and revise electric power need forecasts and pursue adequate low-cost supplies by participat-ing in Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) and other power supply sources consistent with City policies. Retain ability to purchase supplemental power from PG&E. Remain open to securing new supplies of natural gas," to remove the reference to PG&E and insert "other potential providers," to add "...remain competitive in the marketplace," and to add "and transmission resources" following "power supply resources." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Mayor Simitian said Council had indicated that it would like to see the reference to PG&E expanded. With respect to staff comment regarding NE-10.A2, "Replace 'lifeline' with 'baseline,'" he asked if staff had a view on the impact of that and whether it was advis-able. Director of Utilities Ed Mrizek said staff agreed that the term "lifeline" be removed. Council Member McCown clarified that staff comments on page 24 included most of the UAC comments except for the one about PG&E. Mr. Mrizek said that was correct. Mayor Simitian clarified that staff comments on page 24 incorporat-ed all of the items that were on page 24a except for the expansion of PG&E to include other providers, which had been added. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to revise NE-10.A2, "Evaluate rate structures that will encourage conservation and reduce use, especially of electricity. Set rates 04/24/95 75-427 which reflect actual costs of serving each customer class while continuing to provide a lifeline rate structure," and replace "lifeline" with "baseline." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said in NE-10.B, the Planning Commission did not change the term "maximize." The UAC wanted to remove "maximize" and insert "encourage." Mayor Simitian referred to NE-10.B, "Maximize the conservation and efficient use of electricity and natural gas in new and existing residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto," and said the suggestion was "encourage." He asked if there was a weighty policy debate about the difference between maximize and encourage. Ms. Cassel said no. However, the other points were mentioned, and no one was objecting to the word "maximize." The Planning Commission dropped "NASA" from NE-10.B1 and NE-10.B2 and made it more general, for instance. Council Member Huber said actually there were three words: "maximize" originally, then "encourage" by the UAC, and then "optimize" by staff. "Optimize" seemed somewhere inbetween the two and looked reasonable. Dena Mossar, Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Natural Environment Subcommittee, said the intent of the subcommit-tee was "maximize," which meant to do everything that could possibly be done to achieve conservation and efficient use goals. The subcommittee was not looking to encourage it but was looking to maximize it. Mayor Simitian asked if maximize meant doing something to the greatest degree possible even if it had substantial cost implica-tions. If the policy said "maximize the conservation and efficient use of electricity and natural gas in new and existing residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto," he asked if the word "encourage" was substituted because "maximize" suggested going to the absolute maximum regardless of cost implications. Ms. Mossar said the subcommittee thought it was important to do things that had a reduction in cost to the community in general. Mayor Simitian said that was his expectation as to why the word "maximize" was in place. He wanted to understand why somebody thought it was important enough to make the single word change to "encourage." Mr. Mrizek said staff changed the word to "optimize" because with deregulation in the electric industry, the City had to be competi- 04/24/95 75-428 tive. Staff firmly believed in conservation, but the City had to be cost effective. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by McCown, to revise NE-10.B to read "Optimize the conservation and efficient use of electricity and natural gas in new and existing residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by McCown, to merge NE-10.B1, "Maintain a residential conservation program that will serve all utility users through activities such as informational programs, home energy audits, workshops, contractor installation, and low-cost loan programs," with NE-10.B2, "Maintain a conserva-tion program for commercial, industrial, and public users through activities such as informational programs and conservation audits." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Mayor Simitian referred to page 26, Goal NE-11, "Reduce Risks from Seismic Activity." He asked staff what the new "SAFETY" subheading meant. Mr. Schreiber said that was a heading that was inadvertently left out of the NE Section. State law required a safety element in the Comprehensive Plan, and NE-11 related to that item under state law. There was also material added, some by the Planning Commission on page 28 and a series of staff comments on page 28a on items that staff concluded needed to be addressed after reviewing state guidelines. Mayor Simitian clarified there was a "SAFETY" subheading being included because a safety section was required, and NE-11 was the closest to being a safety subsection. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member McCown agreed with staff and Planning Commission suggestion to broaden NE-11 wording to address other natural and manmade disasters. However, in NE-11.A2, NE-11.A3, and NE-11.A4 on page 27, Planning Commission recommended deletion, but staff recommended reinstating them in some form in light of some new recommendations following the Northridge Earthquake. She referred to the staff report (CMR:197:95) dated April 3, 1995, and asked what the difference was between NE-11.A2, which she understood was for the City to contract with an engineering geologist to review reports done for development, and NE-11.A4, which would initiate a geologic and geotechnical peer review program. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the first program was in the existing Comprehensive Plan which called for reports to be 04/24/95 75-429 prepared that assessed hazards. If the City had a site and design application for any single-family home in the foothills, for example, there would be a geotechnical report required. The reason for recommendation NE-11.A4 was that the City did not have a geotechnical person on staff to review that report independently to make sure it made sense. The only thing the City could do was to make sure the report addressed the site that it was about, and staff had found in the past some reports submitted did not have anything to do with the site. The peer review would require some type of independent public review of that report to make sure it met minimum standards essentially. Council Member McCown did not understand why that was not exactly stated in NE-11.A2, "Contract with an engineering geologist for review of geologic, soils and engineering reports; these reports should be prepared for development in all areas with high hazard levels. These services will be paid by application fees." She understood that meant the City would contract with an engineering geologist to review the reports by others in development where those types of reports were required. It seemed to her that NE-11.A4 was really the same idea. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said NE-11.A2 was very specific and talked about reviewing reports in high hazard areas such as landslide areas or liquefaction areas. NE-11.A4 was for every-where; if a report came in, a review of those reports would be required regardless of whether they were in high hazard areas or not. Council Member McCown clarified the difference was the type of geotechnical reports. Mr. Herman said yes. He saw NE-11.A2 as being much more limiting than NE-11.A4. NE-11.A4 was much broader. He strongly supported NE-11.A2. Council Member McCown supported reinstating NE-11.A2, NE-11.A3, and NE-11.A4 as staff requested because she believed the City was going to need to look at strengthening activities. Since it happened to be the area she practiced in as a lawyer representing private parties who did that type of work, there were many cost implica-tions for members of the community in adding local requirements in that whole field of practice. She believed the programs should be included for further pursuit and evaluation. She wanted to see what the cost implications were not only for the City to implement that kind of program but also for individual property owners who would be required to do more than what was required in the past. The details would be very significant in what actually would get adopted in the end. 04/24/95 75-430 Council Member Kniss clarified Council Member McCown wanted to leave the programs in for further evaluation to get some idea of the cost implications. Council Member McCown said yes. She believed the concepts of the programs should be included. The details of what exactly those programs looked like in the final iteration needed to be refined, and the cost implications of them needed to be part of that. Council Member Kniss said NE-11.A2 stated the services would be paid by application fees. That needed to be more clearly spelled out. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to reinstate NE-11.A2, "Contract with an engineering geologist for review of geologic, soils and engineering reports; these reports should be prepared for development in all areas with high hazard levels. These services will be paid by application fees;" NE-11.A3, "Retain a qualified Geotechnical Engineer to review and update City code requirements regarding excavation, grading and filling for conformance with currently accepted standards, with the cost to be recovered in grading permits;" and NE-11.A4, "Initiate a geologic and geotechnical peer review program to cover all geotechnical investigation," as text language which would be subject to further review. Mayor Simitian clarified that NE-11.A2 was in the existing Comprehensive Plan but the "C" designation indicated that it was proposed for elimination. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Ms. Cassel said the idea was initiated by staff on an incident-by-incident basis rather than having it in the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Council Member Kniss said the suggestion was that NE-11.B1 be merged with NE-11.B2, NE-11.B3, NE-11.B4 and would all become NE-11.B1. She asked about the "house-to-house" outreach. Fire Captain Mick McDonald said a number of years prior, the City talked to people in neighborhoods to try to organize them into various blocks throughout the City. Staff found that in doing that, it would take about three to five years to organize the whole City. Currently staff was looking at addressing neighborhood associations. Staff would identify what area an association covered and would handle some blocks that the association did not cover. Council Member Kniss clarified the idea of merging the programs was to simply rewrite them using that new type of outreach. 04/24/95 75-431 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Simitian, to merge NE-11.B1, "Conduct a 'house-to-house' outreach program which will encourage individual household disaster preparedness, with the goal for each household to be sufficient for 7-10 days," with NE-11.B2, "Hold annual combined disaster exercises by all departments and related agencies. Include a public participation report or critique session in each jurisdiction," with NE-11.B3, "Inform the public about the City's Emergency Plan and how to respond in case of a natural disaster. Shift emphasis to public education and individual family and neighborhood preparedness modeled after the Sunnyvale Preparedness Plan Implement," and with NE-11.B4, "Review disaster plans regularly to minimize potential earthquake-caused damage and disruption of service caused by earthquakes. Require annual coordinated citywide disaster drills for all City emergency response departments." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission wrote "merge," but at the very bottom of page 28, a new goal NE-12 was added. The Planning Commission tried not to get too involved in wording details because the Planning Commission was reminded that was going to get reworded later. She tried writing a whole goal on education in general. She said the Planning Commission was anticipating that some of it would be reworded in the next draft. Council Member Kniss clarified Ms. Cassel was suggesting that instead of it becoming NE-B, it would become a new goal. Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission looked at the general emphasis of the area, not throwing that out and then allowing the plan processes that went forward to try to word those into a more concise way. The Planning Commission was not expecting a door-to-door outreach. Council Member Kniss clarified Ms. Cassel said perhaps NE-B needed to be completely reworded and looked at again in terms of a disaster preparedness and coordinating that with the school, with the City, and with the outreach program. Ms. Cassel said that was correct. Council Member McCown was glad that Ms. Cassel gave the explanation of trying to capture some overall point about continual processes to educate the community on those issues. She wondered, however, whether that really should or should not be a separate goal. Her memory of the existing Comprehensive Plan was that there was introductory language which set the context, which might be what Ms. Cassel was attempting. 04/24/95 75-432 Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission tried to find a way to put the concept in and get it going. Council Member McCown said it was similar to the very broad vision statement for the NE Section. Some of the concepts in the City's commitment to education and encouragement of community participa-tion on those issues could be wrapped into the vision statement. NE-12 did not fit in where it was currently, but it seemed better incorporated into some of the basic context language for the vision statement. Council Member Huber said he was glad to hear what Ms. Cassel had to say because he thought it was an attempt at a sustainability type of goal. Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission had been saying through the process to educate, learn, and absorb from the City. The area was changing rapidly and dramatically. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, that the new goal NE-12, "The residents and business community will be educated concerning how to respect, manage and protect natural resources in a way that sustains the natural, built and economic environment while balancing human needs," be included in the Vision Statement. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Wheeler absent. Mayor Simitian referred to the staff comments on the bottom of pages 28 and 28a and clarified staff was commenting essentially that after all that good work, there were many technical issues to be dealt with in order for the City to have a comprehensive plan that complied with state law and that staff would do that between that evening and the time the document returned to Council. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Doing that would probably lead to some additional policies and programs that would have to go into the draft plan. Council Member Schneider asked if the talk of merging Palo Alto's Fire Department with Mountain View's changed anything, as the staff read issues regarding Foothills wildland and urban interface fire danger. Mr. McDonald said no. Council Member Andersen said there was reference to the fact that the City did not have emergency supplies or a cache of food stashed away and that the emergency plan was due for updating. He asked if the updated plan took into account alternatives when the City did not store away things or cache them off. He asked if the plan was for families to have their own 7-day supply or 14-day supply or 04/24/95 75-433 whether there were considerations being given to what could be done on a citywide basis if a major emergency occurred. He asked what City resources were available in the area. Mr. McDonald said the updated plan primarily addressed how the City functioned as a city providing an emergency operations center. For the public, staff had prepared a City booklet, "Living with Our Faults," which would be given to every citizen in Palo Alto within the next two or three weeks. The Boy Scouts were working with the Fire Department to distribute them. The City's plan had not been updated in a number of years, and there had been a number of changes over the past few years. Those changes would identify a new state program called Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS), which was the standard of how all the cities requested resources from the county, which in turn requested from a regional authority, and then the state. In the event of a large-scale earthquake, the City could request resources across the board to the operational area, and the City would be exactly like the other cities and counties, in which everyone would be speaking the same language. Council Member Andersen asked from a policy perspective if the City needed to be thinking about a stash. He asked if in the event of a major earthquake in Palo Alto in the middle of winter and 15,000 blankets were needed, whether there were immediate resources at regional, county, or state level or whether cities needed to be thinking about some kind of supply. Mr. McDonald said for the immediate need, the City needed to stash equipment, extra medical supplies, blankets, etc. However, staff was presently studying the type of materials that would be needed; e.g., how much equipment and the deterioration rate. Staff would make a recommendation in the future. Council Member Andersen asked if staff had some sense of when Council would receive a report on it. Mr. McDonald said approximately six months. Mayor Simitian understood from the staff comments on pages 28 and 28a that staff would have to develop all of that and return to Council with language and possibly some new policies, goals, and programs. He referred to page 29 that had the statement "The 'Natural Areas & Wildlife Habitats Map' is located in the Comp Plan Policies and Programs and Draft IV Maps Booklet." He clarified that meant Council would be looking at it when Council would look at all the maps together. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mayor Simitian asked staff to think about how the Council would make sense of the maps when reviewing them. 04/24/95 75-434 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 10:10 p.m. Mayor Simitian announced that the City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential initiation of litigation on two separate matters as described in Agenda Item No. 6. Mayor Simitian announced that City Council took no disclosable or reportable action regarding Agenda Item No. 6 during the Closed Session that evening. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 04/24/95 75-435