HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-22 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting April 22, 1996 1. Interviews for Public Art Commission...................79-95 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................79-96 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7 AND 12, 1996..............79-96
1. Resolution 7579 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Records Retention Schedules for the Police, Planning and Community Environment, Public Works, and Utilities Departments, and Amending Records Retention Schedules for the Offices of the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Clerk and City Manager, Administrative Services, Community Services, Fire and Human Resources Departments, and Repealing Resolutions No. 6644 and 7544"...............79-96
2. Ordinance 4344 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department in Recognition of Receipt of Funds from the Public
Library Fund of the State Library≅ .....................79-97
3. Ordinance 4345 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Recognize Receipt of a Grant from the Library Services and Construction Act and Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Library Automation Services Capital Improvement Project, Number 19418"..........................................79-97 4. The Finance Committee recommends approval of the two-year
contract re External Auditor=s Contract for audit services with the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche LLP at a cost not to exceed $108,586 for fiscal year 1995-96 and $111,301 for fiscal year 1996-97................................79-97 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS....................79-97 7. Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Utilities Advisory Commission re Revision of Pad Mounted Equipment Policy for the City of Palo Alto.......................79-97 8. Golf Course Improvement Project.......................79-111
04/22/96 79-93
9. Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Project Draft Environmental Impact Report - City of Palo Alto Response............79-113 10. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing Corporation Concerning the Acquisition and Operation of a Four-Unit Apartment Building at 330 Emerson Street Property79-119 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.............79-120
04/22/96 79-94
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:46 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived 5:50 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived 5:50 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Simitian SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Public Art Commission ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
04/22/96 79-95
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The City of Palo Alto=s Black & White Ball spokeperson extended an invitation to the City Council to attend the Palo Alto Black & White Ball to be held May 4, 1996. Glenna M. Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, spoke regarding homelessness.
Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding Palo Alto=s Matrix Program. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding fair play (letter
on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Cathy Jensen, 150 Waverley Street, spoke regarding a Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) fund-raising event to benefit all the PAUSD schools. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding Earth Day. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7 AND 12, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the Minutes of February 7, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the Minutes of February 12, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4.
1. Resolution 7579 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Records Retention Schedules for the Police, Planning and Community Environment, Public Works, and Utilities Departments, and Amending Records Retention Schedules for the Offices of the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Clerk and City Manager, Administrative Services, Community Services, Fire and Human Resources Departments, and Repealing Resolutions No. 6644 and 7544"
04/22/96 79-96
2. Ordinance 4344 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department in Recognition of Receipt of Funds from the Public
Library Fund of the State Library≅
3. Ordinance 4345 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Recognize Receipt of a Grant from the Library Services and Construction Act and Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Library Automation Services Capital Improvement Project, Number 19418" 4. The Finance Committee recommends approval of the two-year
contract re External Auditor=s Contract for audit services with the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche LLP at a cost not to exceed $108,586 for fiscal year 1995-96 and $111,301 for fiscal year 1996-97 MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Items 1-4. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 5, Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.16 [Boards and Commissions] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.16.040 to Prohibit Board and Commission Members From Being Financially Interested in Contracts With the City (1st Reading 4/8/96, PASSED 9-0); and Item No. 6, Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation, had been removed by staff. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 7. Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Utilities Advisory Commission re Revision of Pad Mounted Equipment Policy for the City of Palo Alto Director of Utilities Ed Mrizek said staff recommended the Council
approve one of the highest needs of the City=s electric customers, which was reliability. Staff recognized the total underground system provided a minimal visual impact; therefore, a lot of time was spent working and meeting with the Utility Advisory Commission (UAC), the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Board (ARB), from which very important input was received with regard to the visual impact of pad mounted equipment (PME). From that input, staff developed a number of mitigation plans and solutions as outlined in the staff report (CMR:182:96). Utilities Advisory Commissioner Paul Grimsrud said not only reliability, but also long-term operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of the equipment was a consideration. As the City went into competition, that would become more of an issue.
04/22/96 79-97
The UAC had concerns about aesthetics and balance. The UAC tried to make modifications to the original proposal to allow for some of that consideration, but as long as there was concern, the UAC felt that from a reliability and cost standpoint, it was the right way to go. Planning Commissioner Kathy Schmidt said the Planning Commission had a detailed discussion regarding the aesthetics of PME and appreciated all of the work the Utilities Department had done in order to improve the aesthetics. There were two recommendations: 1) the University P District still accommodated retail vitality so in certain circumstances the PME might not be appropriate which could then be worked out with the Utilities Department, and 2) the staff report (CMR:182:96) stated the second recommendation was to sponsor design competition for the PME and staff had disagreed with the suggestion because it was not appropriate to design special equipment for Palo Alto. The intent of the recommendation was not to have equipment designed specifically for Palo Alto; PME was used throughout the United States. The idea would be to have a competition involving local industrial designers, other utility departments, Pacific Gas & Electric, and other cities to try and be a leader in alternative designs that could be manufactured for use anywhere in the United States and would not look like an old file cabinet. Architectural Review Board Member David Ross said the ARB had a mixed reaction to the proposal. It was a very good presentation and the ARB understood clearly the compelling engineering needs driving the requested policy shift and the needs of reliability, durability which was tied to maintenance problems, and
serviceability, so when someone=s service went out it could be restored quickly which at times was difficult with underground
transformers. The ARB=s charge was to protect or help minimize the visual impact of those types of policies and the ARB felt that greater flexibility rather than less flexibility was critical for some of the commercial areas around town. Many residential areas had shared transformer installations that could be well screened in public rights-of-way, and careful thought was given by the Utilities Department as to how that could be done. There were many more challenging situations, particularly in the Downtown area, where buildings were built out to their footprints in the conversion or redevelopment process there would be some severe challenges to place individual PME on those property sites. Currently, the ARB heard comments from applicants because it was quite difficult for an applicant to negotiate through that process when redeveloping a building that needed electrical service. The ARB was concerned that with less flexibility or greater policy strength, there would be less incentive for the Utilities
Department to help solve those types of problems. The ARB=s comments were not a reflection of the Utilities Department staff but a different point of view as to what the priorities were.
04/22/96 79-98
Council Member McCown said there had been some discussion between the ARB and staff that there was a perception that the Utilities Department did not have a great track record with respect to flexibility. She asked with regard to the issue of flexibility and discretion, what process the Utilities Department was going to follow when faced with the kinds of issues that the ARB had raised. Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering/Operations Larry Starr said the Utilities Department felt it had changed and was currently more inclined to work with people. Staff had currently rented
equipment so the transformers could be put anywhere on someone=s property as opposed to what had been done in the past which was to put the transformer where it could be reached with the equipment available. Instead of telling a person where a transformer would be located, staff presently asked where the person wanted it put and explained that the City would take care of putting it there if the space were available. For the people that were built out to the footprint, staff would work with them to see if a location inside the building might work. Staff was very willing to work with people and do what was necessary to put the equipment on their property in a place where it would have the least impact. Mr. Mrizek said in the commercial areas there was still a policy that a vault could be installed underground as a final measure if it were absolutely necessary. Council Member McCown referred to the situation at 330 Emerson Street which had been mentioned by both the Planning Commission and the ARB, where the transformer was placed at the front of the property. She asked how that situation would be dealt with in the future where there was a physical location for a transformer but aesthetically it was a disaster. Mr. Mrizek said as mentioned in the new mitigation plans, staff did not want to locate a transformer in front of a property but would try to hide it behind a fence, inside the building, or paint it the same color as a fence so it would blend in with the architecture of a building. Staff would work with each developer early in the process so the placement of the transformer would not take away from the design. Council Member McCown said in the mitigation plans, the involvement of the Town Architect was mentioned. She asked whether any consideration had been given to the Utilities Department working with the ARB and Planning Commission to develop a common set of design guidelines or criteria that citizen representatives would have some input into. Mr. Mrizek said there was no current plan to do so, but staff could work with the ARB or Planning Commission on various proposals. City Manager June Fleming said if that were the direction the Council wanted to take, staff could develop a process that would
04/22/96 79-99
involve a combination of Council Member McCown=s comments and the
Town Architect=s with additional input from the ARB and Planning Commission. Once that was completed and in place, staff could return to the Council with an information report. Council Member McCown would return to that issue. There was a list in the staff report (CMR:182:96) of Mitigation Plans and Solutions which included eight different items. She asked how those items were integrated with the Resolution since it did not include any of the content. Mr. Mrizek said the Mitigation Plans and Solutions would be department policies established for installing transformers in the future. It was an internal procedure that would be established. Council Member McCown would return to that issue as well because there were some important items included that might not belong in the Resolution. She would have a greater comfort level if they were included. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council could make it a policy direction to the City Manager and it would be a mandatory direction to staff. Vice Mayor Huber agreed with Council Member McCown because the regulation in its current form did not include mitigations. He believed that in the future someone would not be able to find it. He asked how many PME devices were done in a year. Mr. Starr said it depended on the size of the underground district. If it were a residential area, it could be as many as 10 to 15 small transformers or if it were a larger commercial area, it could be 10 large transformers which would serve a number of customers. Vice Mayor Huber confirmed the City was extended out in terms of districts, so staff knew what it would be doing five years in the future. Mr. Starr said five districts were planned. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether most of the districts were going to have 10 to 15 transformers in residential areas, where most of the complaints came from. Mr. Starr replied the size of the district depended on how many transformers would be located there. On a street block, one transformer served 15 to 20 homes on both sides of the block. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether it was mandatory for the equipment contained therein to use the ugly boxes. He asked whether someone could have some other design or was it mandatory.
04/22/96 79-100
Mr. Mrizek said it was a standard design. The box was green in color and designed with interlocking front doors for safety, and with appropriate isolation of the transformer from the outer walls. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the interior required that design. Mr. Mrizek said that was correct. The windings of the transformers were basically the size of the transformer. The larger the transformer, the larger the core of the transformer and the larger the green box.
Vice Mayor Huber asked, following along with Ms. Schmidt=s comment with regard to design competition, if something could be designed that looked better. Mr. Mrizek said the City bought so few that even if something were designed that went out to bid, he felt it would not be bid or built. Vice Mayor Huber said that was not what he meant, he was referring to the interior. Mr. Mrizek said the interior was a standard size and the interior or insulation could not be reduced. Vice Mayor Huber said by using PME versus submersible, the cost and installation would be a $5,000 or $6,000 savings to the utility. If the City only purchased 15 to 20 per year and there was some way of spending another $1,000 on each one to get something that looked good, it seemed it would be worth doing. He asked whether that was possible. Mr. Starr said the transformers were either a square or a rectangle in a cubic shape and standard throughout the world. Even if the City bought them in Europe, they would look the same; some had radiator fins, some were larger boxes, and that was all the City could purchase. The City did not have the influence to request that the transformer look different. The manufacturer had agreed to paint the transformer any color requested if that could be done at the time of purchase, otherwise they would be green. There was no interest by the manufacturers to change the design of the transformers.
Ms. Fleming said she had interpreted the Planning Commission=s
clarification to be in a different direction than staff=s response. She understood no one else was interested in a new design but staff had asked the manufacturers. The response could be as simple as
writing to the various manufacturers to voice the City=s interest in a new more aesthetic design which might be shared by others. Staff would follow through and advise the Council of the response. Mayor Wheeler said her interpretation of the staff report (CMR:182:96) and the various boards and commissions that reviewed
04/22/96 79-101
it was that there was considerable attention paid to the question of retrofitting those areas which had already been undergrounded and had the vaults below ground. She believed it was clear that those areas would not be retrofitted. She did not see any mention in the staff report or in the board and commission discussions regarding areas in town where previously the utilities were undergrounded but where old style transformer boxes had been located aboveground and in locations where no attention had been given to concealing such installations. She asked whether there had been any internal discussions regarding the old installations and how would staff feel about having some internal discussions. Mr. Mrizek said most of the PME equipment was located in residential, commercial, and industrial areas and residential areas were completely submersible underground. Staff would look at PME equipment in areas of the City that needed attention and work with the landscape architect to try to improve the appearance of any area that required improvement. Council Member Andersen asked whether any of the companies that provided the transformer boxes had given staff an indication of the degree of flexibility in terms of the way in which the cubic feet were arranged. From an engineering prospective, there was a potential for designing something that would not necessarily require the same box. Mr. Starr replied there was not a lot of flexibility. The box and the shape were based on the configuration of the core and coils which was a fairly tall rectangle inside even though it was three cylinders. Not much could be done unless it was made larger or the shape was changed. Council Member Andersen said there had been some discussion at the ARB level about one of the mitigations providing credit for exempt commercial areas used for PME in buildings to count against the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). He asked how the discussion at the staff level went with regard to that suggestion. He asked whether someone who was willing to put a PME on their property could get an additional FAR credit. Mr. Starr said the Planning Division staff had said that under the current policy, it could be done immediately. Staff would be willing to make it a permanent change in the future. Council Member Andersen clarified currently it was not suggested. He asked how staff could have that flexibility if there were no policy direction. Mr. Starr said it was addressed on page 5 of 6 of the staff report (CMR:182:96), Item 5 under Mitigation Plans and Solutions. Council Member Andersen said Item 5 referred to the credit. He recalled a discussion with regard to motivating people to put a PME
04/22/96 79-102
onto their property that might serve others as well. He asked whether people could get an additional FAR credit in addition to not being penalized. Mr. Starr said that did not pertain to residential. Residential property owners were offered money. The City would purchase an easement and work with the property owner to do a conversion at the
City=s cost as an incentive to allow the City to put the PME on his/her property. Council Member Andersen clarified with regard to commercial property, the City would not count it against their FAR but they would not get a bonus for putting it on their property. Mr. Starr said there was not a bonus but it would not count against their area. If it were given up, they would gain it somewhere else. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, had expressed concern at a UAC meeting that the PME was extraordinarily ugly and a detriment to neighborhoods. She was opposed to the PME until she read the staff
report (CMR:182:96) and the Capital Improvement Program=s (CIP) for the current year with regard to what it cost the City for undergrounding and replacement of the old boxes. The cost was extremely high and one district had to be postponed in order to redo boxes that had been done 30 years prior. Some districts would have to be done two or three times before repairs started in the last district in Palo Alto. On Old Trace Road, the PME had been nicely done the previous year, with a nice dark green color, landscaping on three sides, and would not be seen easily. Further, up the road, the old boxes in the areas that had not been redone looked awful. The City had to go to PME but would spend the $2.5 million that should have gone into the underground district just to redo older areas. She supported PME, but the Council needed to look at Items 6 and 7 on page 5 of 6 in the staff report (CMR:182:96) which stated that when all of the districts were redone, the City would not put PME in those districts. She felt the City needed PME in all areas of town because if only South Palo Alto got PME and old Palo Alto had submersible equipment, the Council was going to hear complaints. El Camino Real was going to be $1 million for Phase 1 and Foothill Park would be $1 million. She felt that in five years the City would have to stop doing one district to do another $2.5 million of repairs to three-year old districts, and every 5 or 7 years, the City was going to be redoing what had not already been redone. The submersible equipment had a life of 10 to 15 years which required a lot of repairing in the next 80 to 90 years. The cost per year was enormous compared to a pole or PME. She figured that PME averaged $50 per year versus submersible equipment at $1,000 per year. She asked the Council to seriously look at the mitigation and consider going to PME. She felt the Utilities staff doing a good job, and she hoped there would be a chance for public input.
04/22/96 79-103
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron, received a contradictory message from staff with regard to the choice between PME and under- grounding the same equipment. Section 1 of the Resolution clearly said it was only for new equipment and the intent was to apply only to new underground districts. Also recommended was for staff to analyze the Southgate installation before proceeding. He believed it should be a Council decision and that the recommendation be amended to return to the Council for a decision with respect to what the effects of the Southgate installation were. He believed that instead of accepting the staff recommendation to separate old and new districts, that all districts should be treated the same. He referred to a transparency and said the message was contradictory that the underground equipment was unreliable. The current underground districts which included the Stanford Research Park, Stanford Shopping Center, and the Downtown Commercial which were areas that should have the most reliability. Yet, the policy the Council was being asked to adopt allowed those areas to continue to have underground equipment. The public would end up with the ugly PME and through the utility charges pay extra money to maintain the relatively unreliable equipment in the other areas. If the Council moved forward on that rule and regulation, it would still be possible during the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects to make a reasonable condition to have PME in exchange for the entitlements. It appeared that Crescent Park was currently undergrounded and might be due for replacement. There might be better landscaping mitigation if the area ended up with PME. If it were okay to continue to put the PME underground in the areas that needed the most reliable service, then the City should be able to put PME
underground for everyone. In regard to the Planning staff=s recommendation on the conservation section of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), he felt that in order for the Council to exclude the PME from the FAR calculation, it should be done by Ordinance. If it were a reasonable policy, considering it would be delayed even if the staff recommendation were adopted, there would be enough time for the public noticing required to amend the PAMC to include the section under the FAR calculations. He was also concerned that the schedule for the prior year for underground districts had been delayed a year because of the need to repair and replace equipment in the underground districts including the PME. He urged the Council to treat all areas of the City the same and to reserve the right to decide what to do after analysis of the Southgate PME. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme supported the staff recommendation. He reminded the Council that when the franchise was awarded for cable, there was a lot of discussion as to whether the equipment should be underground or aboveground and aboveground finally prevailed. On a technical basis, the PME was more functional and economical. The issue of aesthetics really needed to be addressed and the staff report (CMR:182:96) did not go far enough. There was no reason why the boxes needed to be big and ugly; a lot of things could be done and at the same time the reliability could be an effective service.
04/22/96 79-104
Council Member McCown referred to Guidelines for Electrical Equipment Siting attached to an August 1995 memo from Mike Beanland to Larry Starr which stated that designs prepared by the Planning and Utilities Departments were submitted to the ARB in July 1993, and she asked whether they were reviewed and commented on by the ARB. Mr. Starr said it meant the current process was that the ARB reviewed it. It was a report put together by the Town Architect for the Utilities Department with regard to some things that could be done. Council Member McCown asked whether the ARB had reviewed the guidelines. Mr. David Ross said the first project he recalled was the proposed siting of PME in the Southgate neighborhood of which some of those materials might have been incorporated into the current presentation specific to that installation. Council Member McCown referred to page 2 of the Guidelines for
Electrical Equipment Siting which stated, ΑThe following guidelines are based on discussions with staff on aesthetic issues associated with current transformer locations; the existing ARB Review guidelines for above ground equipment installation, adopted in Summer of 1993; and on the P.G. & E. guidelines for Pad-Mounted
Transformers.≅ She asked whether there was a set of ARB guidelines for ground equipment installation. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle replied yes. The ARB worked with the Utilities Department staff to develop some verbal criteria which was incorporated into the attachment. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to: (1) approve a Pad Mounted Equipment Policy and adopt the Resolution revising Rule and Regulation No. 1-3, (B), (3) & (4) to incorporate it in the Utilities Rules and Regulations; (2) to direct staff to assess the Southgate Underground District on the use of pad mounted equipment prior to using the design in a future residential underground district; and (3) direct the City Attorney to revise the policy language to incorporate the Mitigation Plans and Solutions outlined in Item Nos. 1-8 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report (CMR:182:96).
Resolution 7580 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Revision to Utilities Rule and Regulation Pertaining to Pad Mounted Equipment for New
Underground Electric Facilities≅ Council Member McCown supported the appropriate focus of the Utilities Department and moving forward on the policy of PME. The aesthetic issues were a challenge. She was concerned about flexibility and noted that discretion should be executed when
04/22/96 79-105
working out the tough issues. If it did not work out well, the Council would hear about it, so she encouraged staff, with their experience, to elaborate on guidelines for good design. She believed there should be a process of updating the Guidelines for Electrical Equipment Siting and staff should work with the ARB to obtain its input for a constant evolvement of good approaches and installations. She encouraged the Planning Commission, through the City Manager, to pursue the idea of an industry survey or literature to determine whether there was any flexibility on the part of manufacturers. Finally, she encouraged staff in certain situations to take advantage of the creative instincts of the Public Art Commission (PAC).
Council Member Rosenbaum asked staff to respond to Mr. Borock=s comment regarding when it came to retrofitting in residential areas, whether it was preferred to do it with PME and then worry about the political reaction.
Mr. Mrizek said no. Currently, staff=s major concern with replacements was for the underground infrastructure that was originally installed in the underground districts. The first two or three underground districts, Old Trace, Green Acres II, etc., were designed with direct buried cable, and the City had not started using conduit to pull cable in for the first couple of years of undergrounding. Those cables had deteriorated to a point where they had to be dug up and replaced with new conduits and cable. That was why Old Trace had been done and why the higher expenses would be found in the CIP. All new underground was put into conduit so if there were a cable failure, only that section would be pulled out and the entire cable would not have to be replaced which would reduce the cost as the additional areas were maintained. With regard to the underground transformers, if a good location could be found in residential or commercial areas at the time of the transformer replacement, that would be looked at as a possibility. For instance, staff did not expect all of the transformers in Crescent Park to fail at the same time; but as they did fail, staff could investigate possible locations of PME. That
was not staff=s priority and thus was not mentioned in the report as a need. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether it would be less expensive over a 50-year period when something had to be done to an underground vault, to replace it with a PME rather than going through the underground vault problem every 10 or 15 years. Mr. Starr replied in the long run, it would be less expensive in a 50-year period because the PME had a much longer life; but the difficulty was going back in some of those areas where the vaults were already designed and the substructures were already located for the vaults which would be costly and extremely unpopular. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that it might be more expensive to retrofit with PME than to continue with the underground vault.
04/22/96 79-106
Mr. Starr said it would depend on whether there was a location for a PME. If it could be located on top of the existing vault, it would be less expensive; but if it had to be relocated, the substructure, etc., would have to be redone and it became very costly. Mr. Mrizek said it was unlikely that it could be relocated where the existing vault was. A new location would have to be found and a system extension would have to be put in. It would be more costly to put in a PME to replace the underground transformer rather than putting a new transformer in the existing vault. Council Member Rosenbaum asked Mr. Mrizek if he would be receptive
to take another look at Mitigation No. 6, ΑThe Electric Utilities does not plan to retrofit existing residential underground districts to PME, even when the underground cables, connectors and
transformers need to be replaced,≅ to determine whether or not it made sense to use PME for replacement. Mr. Mrizek said yes. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to revise
the language in Mitigation No. 6 to read: ΑThe Electric Utilities, would, when cost effective, plan to retrofit existing residential underground districts to pad mounted equipment when replacement was
necessary.≅ Council Member Simitian asked what impact the incorporated language would have on what would or would not happen in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Starr said when those facilities were going to be replaced, it would allow the Utilities Department to make a judgment as to whether or not a PME could be put in effectively. There would then be the question of whether or not the neighbor would be willing to accept an easement. Once it was determined from a cost benefit basis in terms of where the easement location was and if that were acceptable to the particular neighbor to locate the PME in that area or put it where they wanted it on their property, it would give the Utilities Department the flexibility to put in PME. Council Member Simitian referred to Mitigation 6 on page 5 of the staff report (CMR:182:96), and clarified with the maker and seconder that the original motion would have let the recommendation stand to retrofit existing residential underground districts to PME, even when the underground cables, connectors and transformers need to be replaced. Council Member McCown said yes. She understood Council Member
Andersen=s intent to be that if there were a need for replacement, then the Utilities Department would be given policy direction to pursue a PME if it were economically desirable, assuming it could
04/22/96 79-107
be accomplished. She believed the intention was not to start retrofitting underground vaults until there was a replacement required and at that point a cost benefit analysis would be done as to whether a PME was a better solution. Council Member Simitian said the only thing that the Palo Alto community reacted more negatively to than an unattractive physical intrusion in the neighborhood was unanticipated change. Council Member McCown did not believe that to be the intention. She reiterated that her understanding was that if there were an existing underground vault where the transformer needed to be replaced, staff would then, assuming it would be cost effective, as a policy matter pursue a new PME location. If that were unacceptable with regard to not getting an easement, etc., staff would have the option to go ahead with the underground vault. The original language stated that changing an underground situation to PME would never be pursued. Council Member Simitian asked where an existing underground vault was located in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Mrizek said generally the vault would be located in the sidewalk or street area, one per block. Council Member Simitian asked who owned the property. Mr. Mrizek said the City owned the property. Council Member Simitian said the issue was if it went to PME and involved relocation or if it went to PME in the current location. Mr. Mrizek said staff would approach a resident in the area where the PME could be located and try to negotiate an easement from that resident. Council Member Simitian asked what would happen if one resident agreed to the PME but an entire neighborhood found it aesthetically unappealing. Mr. Mrizek said the entire block of neighbors were advised of the
City=s intent, so that the City would get some input back from the neighbors. Council Member Simitian did not argue the engineering but believed it was an unnecessary invitation for neighborhood by neighborhood difficulties over an existing system. Mayor Wheeler took a field trip over the weekend and to see some of the newer installations in other nearby communities because she had concluded that new housing subdivisions would have the latest installations. Her first trip was to the Chester Circle area in Los Altos which was a lovely housing development but an atrocious
04/22/96 79-108
job had been done on the location of their utilities, PME boxes, etc., which gave her even more faith in staff. She then proceeded into Mountain View to The Crossings development where her faith was shaken because there were very few PME boxes in evidence and if the boxes could be seen, even though the landscaping was new and not yet filled out, were carefully located and well landscaped. The overall impression was that there was hardly any intrusion. Upon returning to Palo Alto, she drove up Alma Street where some of the
City=s ugliest PME was located, and then she went into the Southgate area and was encouraged to see that the location job was similar to that of The Crossings in terms of new location and sensitivity that staff had shown. The landscaping needed to be done and the new installations were much more aesthetically sensitive than the former installations. Finally, her last trip was down Middlefield Road where in some of the older underground areas where PME had been replaced it was very unattractive. In looking at some of the older areas, some of the boxes were irretrievable and others, with a little effort, could be retrofitted in such a way to mitigate the obtrusiveness. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to direct staff to work with the Town Architect on mitigating or retrofitting in those areas of the City where utilities have been undergrounded and pad mounted transformers used and to utilize such methods as landscaping, painting, replacement, relocation of transformer boxes, etc., and to report back to Council. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 8. Golf Course Improvement Project Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the staff recommendation was a team effort with a multi-department approach including Public Works, Administrative Services, Parks and Golf,
and the City Attorney=s Office. Vice Mayor Huber asked if the dollar figure of $458,000 for the consultant had been anticipated when the process had been initiated. Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said yes. It represented about 10 percent of the construction cost which was within the normal range for a project of its size. Vice Mayor Huber asked with regard to the Revised Exhibit A Golf Course Project Schedule in the staff report (CMR:233:96), whether it was generally where the City was when the project started or had
it fallen behind. He was referring to March - June 1999 ΑOpen new
greens, tees and fairways.≅
04/22/96 79-109
Mr. Roberts said the schedule shown reflected the current schedule. With regard to the history of the project, there had been a number of revisions to the schedule over time as the Master Plan was prepared and financing options evaluated. Director of Parks and Golf Course Division Paul Dias said the schedule before the Council was the latest schedule and 1999 would be a good estimate for reopening at present. Vice Mayor Huber asked when the project was first started and when had staff hoped to complete the project and reopen. Mr. Dias said it was probably three years behind schedule. Council Member Schneider referred to page 2 of 4 of the staff report (CMR:233:96), and asked what the difference was between the
Αpreparation of the schematic design documents≅ in the second
paragraph under No. 1 of the Executive Summary, and Αprepare a
schematic design≅ found in the last paragraph, prepare a schematic design. She asked whether both were the same document. Mr. Bagdon said yes. Council Member Schneider asked what effect interest rates had on the cost of the project. Assistant Director of Administrative Service Melissa Cavallo said Administrative Services was in the process of hiring a financial advisor for the project and at that time, the financing plan would be looked at in detail and the total project funding the City could absorb given the constraints of golf course fees. Council Member McCown clarified the funds for the Budget Amendment Ordinance would come out of the reserves to be repaid by the bond proceeds. She asked when the City would receive the funds from the bond proceeds to replenish the reserves. Mr. Roberts replied sometime between Fall 1996 and Spring 1997 depending upon the schedule the Administrative Services Department worked out in order to sell the bonds at the time to achieve the most favorable rate but prior to the awarding of the construction contract. Council Member McCown clarified that within the next fiscal year, the funds would be put back into the reserves. Council Member Rosenbaum said that when the project was started, he believed there was some confidence that increased green fees would pay for the entire project and he had heard some recent talk that that might not be the case and some General Fund money might be required. He asked what the current status was.
04/22/96 79-110
Mr. Dias said there would be no General Fund monies required, the project would be scaled towards the available revenues based on the market green fees. As specified in the staff report (CMR:233:96), certain components of the project were deferred five to seven years when the cash flow could support the balance of the project.
Council Member Simitian referred to Council Member Schneider=s comment regarding the impact of interest rates and said he recalled from a discussion four years prior that if interest rates went up dramatically, it would mean the City would not be in a position to finance the substantial project. He asked if that were a fair recollection. Mr. Roberts said the Finance Committee had done some preliminary estimates of interest rates, revenues, and potential bonding capacity based on where staff felt the market might be and the project was scoped around that. Should there be some unforeseen major changes in the market and interest rates shot up dramatically, the situation might need to be reevaluated. Staff had done some informal proformas already. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to (1) adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $458,000 to fund the Golf Course Improvement Project, CIP 19624; (2) amend the Consultant Agreement with Amphion Environmental, Inc., to include an additional $415,950 for schematic and final design services for Golf Course Improvements in accordance with the Golf Course Master Plan; (3) authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the consultant agreement with Amphion Environmental, Inc., the total amount of which change orders shall not exceed $42,000; (4) adopt the Resolution stating
the City=s intent to issue debt in the future to finance the Golf Course Improvements; and (5) approve and authorize execution of the Agreement for Legal Services with the law firm of Jones, Hall, Hill & White for bond counsel services in connection with the financing.
Ordinance 4346 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Create and Fund a New Capital Improvement Project, `Golf
Course Improvements=≅ Amendment No. 3 to Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Amphion Environmental, Inc. for Consultant Design Services
Resolution 7581 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Intention to Reimburse Expenditures From the Proceeds of Obligations to be Issued by the City or the City of Palo Alto Golf Course Corporation and
Directing Certain Actions≅
04/22/96 79-111
Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Jones, Hall, Hill & White for Bond Counsel Legal Services MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 9. Reid-Hillview Airport Closure Project Draft Environmental Impact Report - City of Palo Alto Response Assistant to City Manager Vicci Rudin said because of Palo Alto
Airport=s relationship to the Reid-Hillview Airport by virtue of joint administration by Santa Clara County (the County), it was appropriate that the Palo Alto City Council review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding the proposed closure of the Reid-Hillview Airport. Staff had reviewed the DEIR and found it generally responsive to the issues that were raised at the time the Notice of Preparation was circulated. However, it did not fully address the economic impacts of the ability of the County to operate the two remaining airports without short changing Palo Alto Airport, and that point was made in the letter that staff had
drafted for the Mayor to send to the County. Staff=s recommendation was that the Council endorse Alternative C, identified in the DEIR, as the preferable alternative which would mean that the airport would not be closed and to direct the Mayor to send the letter. Council Member Andersen asked for clarification on the capacity of the Reid-Hillview Airport and the amount that was currently being used. He understood the capacity that was currently being harbored was 373 and the total capacity was almost twice that. Ms. Rudin said that was correct. The capacity was actually 900 and over the past couple of years while the debate as to whether Reid- Hillview should be closed. Pilots had been discouraged because the County had not been actively seeking new pilots to base planes there. However, the San Jose International Airport was working toward implementing its Master Plan which would remove the vast majority of general aviation planes that were based in San Jose. If those planes were to move to Reid-Hillview Airport, the capacity would be quickly used up. Reid-Hillview Airport was designated as the reliever airport for San Jose International Airport with the assumption that general aviation would move there if it were discouraged from being at San Jose. Council Member Andersen was not clear on whether there were assumptions made in the DEIR based on the capacity use of the Reid-Hillview Airport or on the current usage. Ms. Rudin replied they were based on capacity use. Council Member Simitian had questions with regard to the recommended support for Alternative C and were not directly related
04/22/96 79-112
to the central conclusion that staff recommended that: 1) Council support Reid-Hillview Airport staying open, and 2) there was inadequate reference in the document to the potential economic impact. He said if Council wanted to get into the business of choosing one of the alternatives based on the information received, he needed more information by way of background before he was prepared make a decision. Alternative C included relocation of one particular business, the World Savings bank, and the realignment of Tully Road. In reviewing the document, there was some general discussion regarding mitigation for business displacement impacts, and he asked what that displacement involved. He referred to the World Savings Bank building that would be displaced under Alternative C. He said presumably someone owned the property, the World Savings Bank, the Tully Road right-of-way, the area by the mall that would be the relocated right-of-way, and he asked whether staff knew what power or authority was being used to take the property. He asked what would happen if Alternative C were chosen. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the County would have to condemn the property. It was important to keep in mind that the alternative might not be real projects. Experience had shown that oftentimes alternatives in a DEIR were there for comparison and contrast of the environmental effects rather than what was actually being proposed. There was no legal requirement that the City support any one of the alternatives. Alternative C was identified as the environmental superior alternative. Council Member Simitian surmised that if Alternative C were seriously considered and acted upon, the action that would take place was that the County as the operator of the airport would have to condemn the World Savings Bank property and absorb whatever costs associated with that, go through the process of relocating Tully Road, acquire right-of-way for purposes of relocation which appeared to be part of the mall, and absorb the cost of the actual reconstruction and relocation of Tully Road. As he looked at the draft letter prepared for the Mayor, he did not see any difficulty in the Council making its two central points that: 1) Reid-Hillview Airport remain open; and 2) the economic impact analysis had been short changed but still excluded reference to Alternative C. Ms. Rudin replied it was a decision for the Council. When
Alternative C was compared with the Αno project≅ alternative which would keep the airport as it was, there were advantages to selecting Alternative C in that it would probably reduce much of the controversy surrounding the airport. In terms of the correctness of the letter the Council would be sending to the County, the objectives of responding could be accomplished by stating that the DEIR was adequate in terms of the issues which the Council wished to address. Council Member Simitian said with regard to avoiding some of the controversy, it was hard to ascertain from the DEIR which on the
04/22/96 79-113
one hand stated there was not really a problem, that the accident rate was half of what was typically expected, but on the other
hand, stated rather than the Αdo nothing≅ alternative, to go with Alternative C. He could not ascertain from the document whether the drafters of the document thought there was some cost benefit calculation that suggested Alternative C was the prudent way to go or if politically it were better to suggest something rather than nothing, even though the numbers suggested the former rather than the latter. Ms. Rudin said in terms of the use of the airport area as currently configured, she believed the airport would be safer if the threshold of the runway were moved further south, which could be accomplished by Alternative C. The greatest hazard of the operation of general aviation was during the first few hundred feet of flight and by moving the threshold back, it would lengthen the distance at the normal end of the runway which was the more common direction for take offs. Council Member Simitian understood the DEIR language to indicate that safety was the first priority if any change were to be made, but the part which puzzled him was that the DEIR document stated that in spite of the fact that the current situation existed, in the 30-year history of the Reid-Hillview facility, it had a safety record that compared favorably to other airports around the nation, notwithstanding that existing condition. His query was
whether it was something deemed necessary to have a Αsafe airport≅ based on experience in other parts of the country or just to offer something to achieve some compromise. He asked whether it was a planning recommendation or a political recommendation. Ms. Rudin replied it was probably the latter. The Reid-Hillview Airport was documented as being a very safe airport compared to most other airports. Council Member Schneider clarified that actual capacity at Reid-Hillview Airport included both tie downs and hangers and asked whether those phases existed currently or had to be built. She asked the number of tie downs versus hangers. Ms. Rudin said yes. It was existing capacity. She was not sure what the current vacancies were in relation to tie downs versus shelters but it was probably in both. Council Member Schneider clarified that if 330 were an increase of
56 percent over the airport=s capacity, then Palo Alto Airport must have a capacity of around 300.
Ms. Rudin replied Palo Alto Airport=s capacity of 510 or 590 was dependent upon what was offered by the Fixed Base Operators (FBO) versus what the County offered. The numbers did not reach that capacity currently at Palo Alto Airport either, there were outside tie downs available and much of that was due to a number of
04/22/96 79-114
factors. First, a few years prior the County levied an assessment on pilots based at Palo Alto Airport which caused a number of the aircrafts to move to airports in San Mateo County or across the Bay to avoid the assessment. Second, there had been complaints about the lack of security at the airport and many pilots were hesitant about basing their planes there because of concerns regarding lack of fencing, night lighting, security guards, etc. Third, there was no sheltered space or hanger space available for planes and many pilots preferred not to tie down their planes outside when it was so close to the Bay and a corrosive environment. However, if Reid-Hillview Airport were to close and pilots sought space in the County and the San Jose Master Plan was to be implemented, Palo Alto Airport would become far more desirable and some of the deficiencies would be overlooked. In the next year, the County would implement a grant received from the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) which would enable the installation of the security fencing, night lighting, and resurfacing of the taxiways and runways. Council Member Schneider understood the current waiting time was for a hanger at the Palo Alto Airport, it was many years. Ms. Rudin replied that was correct. Council Member Schneider stated as a former general aviation pilot who learned to fly out of Palo Alto Airport, the amount of crowding in the sky 10 or 15 years prior was extraordinary. Palo Alto Airport encompassed three or four different aviation crossovers such as San Jose, San Francisco, Palo Alto, San Carlos, etc., so traffic patterns were pretty harried already and to increase the traffic by closing Reid-Hillview Airport would have a significant impact. Currently, the waiting was quite long for take offs, landings, and refueling, and she felt it was critical that the Council accept Alternative C and not put any further impact on the Palo Alto Airport. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to: (1) endorse Alternative C, which would keep Reid-Hillview Airport open and remove all incompatible land uses within Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety zones; and (2) direct the Mayor or her designee to send a letter to the County of Santa Clara expressing
the Council=s position. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to eliminate any reference to a particular alternative in the letter by deleting the endorsement of Alternative C and indicate the Council opposed the closure of Reid-Hillview Airport. Council Member Andersen felt the issue was not whether or not Reid-Hillview Airport would be closed but rather an issue of safety. The Council had an interest in keeping the airport open from a perspective that it made it easier on the Palo Alto Airport and also less pressure to accept additional planes. He agreed with Council Member Schneider, but he had a problem with keeping the
04/22/96 79-115
airport open and not taking care of any of the mitigations, because what the Council was in effect saying was that there was no credibility to the safety issues raised. The DEIR stated that there had been a good safety record at the Reid-Hillview Airport, but there were reasons for the current standards based on the accident rates that airports had and those standard did not comply. Alternative C simply took the minimal safety recommendations offered in the DEIR to keep the facility as it was and stated that it could be modified to a certain degree by making some safety recommendations that statistically reduced somewhat the chances for an accident. He was reluctantly prepared to support Alternative C but could not support moving ahead without indicating the
Council=s willingness to see some of the mitigations take place.
He opposed Council Member Simitian=s new language. Council Member Simitian said there was nothing in the new language that said not to worry or that the Council did not think any of the mitigations were appropriate. What it did say was that it
might be that the Αno project≅ alternative, which meant no changes at all, was acceptable or that Alternative C was acceptable or even some of the more dramatic scaling back of land uses in the area, Alternatives A and B, were appropriate. It left open the nature and extent of mitigations. His reason for offering the new language was because he felt the document did not have anything in it to indicate the basis for Alternative C. The DEIR indicated the safety rate was good, and he asked what the relative comparison was between the Reid-Hillview and Palo Alto airports. Ms. Rudin said according to the data in the DEIR, Palo Alto
Airport=s accident rate, while also a very safe airport, was incrementally greater than that of Reid-Hillview Airport. Council Member Simitian asked what the basis was for a decision to move half a dozen different facilities. He said it might be the right place to get to, but was it the right level based on the information he had and given the fact that it was safer than the Palo Alto Airport and there were some political issues as well. He
would rather be silent on the issue and he felt the Council=s silence on what mitigation was appropriate did not suggest that the Council supported or opposed Alternative C. It simply kept the Council on the fundamental point which was to keep Reid-Hillview Airport open and the issue of economic analysis that staff had suggested. He wanted to be very clear that in offering the language offered, which had been incorporated, did not mean he had a view one way or the other on Alternative C and nothing should be read into the motion along those lines. Council Member Andersen said some terrible land use decisions had been made and as a result of those decisions, there were some issues that went beyond political and were truly safety issues. Currently, the track record was fine but it would only take one plane, one time which the DEIR suggested was going to happen. He felt the Council should not make a recommendation that the Reid-
04/22/96 79-116
Hillview Airport should not be closed without some indication of support for making the County take care of some of the mitigations, and Alternative C was the minimal one. He would support Alternative C but opposed the new incorporated language. Council Member McCown requested the motion be separated for purposes of voting.
Mayor Wheeler explained that a Αyes≅ vote meant no mention of Alternative C in the letter. MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING 1st PART OF MOTION to eliminate any reference to a particular alternative in the letter by deleting the endorsement of Alternative C and indicate the Council opposed the closure of Reid-Hillview Airport. MOTION PASSED 6-3, Andersen, McCown, Wheeler Αno.≅ 2nd PART OF MOTION to direct the Mayor or her designee to send a
letter to the County of Santa Clara expressing the Council=s position. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Andersen Αno.≅ 10. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing Corporation Concerning the Acquisition and Operation of a Four-Unit Apartment Building at 330 Emerson Street Property MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to: (1) approve the agreement with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation in
order to regulate rents and occupancy and to secure the City=s interest in the value of the Below Market Rate contribution for the purpose of preserving the property at 330 Emerson Street Property as affordable low- and very low-income rental housing for 40 years; (2) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement in substantially similar form; and (3) authorize the City Manager to execute any other documents necessary to permit the parties to close the transaction acquiring 330 Emerson Street including, but not limited to, a subordination agreement, and direct the City Manager to administer the provisions of the agreement. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
04/22/96 79-117
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.
04/22/96 79-118