HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-22 City CouncilTO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
APRIL 22, 1996
7
DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
CMR:182:96
REVISION OF PAD MOUNTED EQUIPMENT POLICY FOR THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO
REQUEST
This report requests that Council adopt a Resolution revising Utilities Rule and
Regulation # 1-3, (B), (3) & (4) mandating the use of Pad Mounted Equipment
(PME) for all new Underground Electric Facilities installed in Palo Alto. The Utilities
Advisory Commission (UAC) unanimously recommended the pad mounted
equipment policy, with the requirement that staff assess residential districts in
which pad mounted equipment is used currently, prior to proceeding with the
conversion of the next residential underground district. Staff will return to the
Council at a later date with a report on an assessment of the Southgate
Underground District, which was converted utilizing pad mounted equipment. This
information will be provided prior to proceeding with any future residential
neighborhood-wide underground project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Council:
1. Approve a Pad Mounted Equipment Policy and adopt a Resolution revising Rule
and Regulation # 1-3, (B), (3) & (4) to incorporate this in the Utilities Rules and
Regulations.
2. Direct staff to assess the Southgate Underground District on the use of pad
mounted equipment prior to using this design in a future residential underground
district.
CMR:182:96 Page 1 of 6
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This revision to Utilities Rule and Regulation # 1-3, (B) (3) & (4) will prohibit the
use of Submersible Electric Equipment installed in vaults in new underground
electric systems except as authorized by the Director of Utilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
General Discussion
The City of Palo Alto has been converting its overhead electric facilities to
underground facilities since 1965. Since property has always been at a premium
and aesthetics are extremely important in Palo Alto, most of the facilities have
been installed in underground vaults in the public right of way. Because of the
decreased longevity and reliability of equipment placed below the surface of the
ground, the trend in the electric equipment industry over the last 15 years has
been to locate the electrical equipment above ground level and the cables and
conduits below ground level.
Despite the best efforts of the Electric Utility, the surface electric equipment placed
below ground level has suffered from shortened life and reduced reliability, the
same problems that have plagued the industry around the country. As time
passes, the electric system with this design has become more and more unreliable.
Despite the fact that the below ground equipment takes less space and has
minimal visual impact, it has proven to be far less reliable, has high maintenance
costs, and is difficult and time-consuming to repair. The equipment is extremely
susceptible to corrosion, and the connectors have a shorter life span when placed
in vaults subject to contamination and water contact. It is because of these
shortcomings that the industry has changed almost exclusively to the manufacture
of PME. Not many manufacturers still produce submersible equipment today. On
the other hand, the pad mounted equipment that the City currently has in place has
performed exceedingly well with virtually no outages due to equipment or
connector failure. The equipment is an industry standard and many companies
provide the products.
The totally underground electric system has provided a minimal visual impact in
Palo Alto, but the reliability issue is a major concern to the Electric Utility. As more
industries move into high-tech manufacturing and 24 hour a day processes,
reliability of the electric system is extremely important to them. Even residential
customers with home computers, sophisticated offices, and a plethora of digital
devices are less and less tolerant of power outages. The use of PME will reduce to
a minimum reliability problems, but at some cost of valuable space and aesthetics.
CMR:182:96 Page 2 of 6
Staff feels that the growing importance of reliability outweighs some of the space
and visual problems, since a majority of these issues can be mitigated. Some of
these mitigation measures have already been included in Utilities’ Engineering
Standards and others will be adopted with the approval of the proposed rule
change.
Comments from Boards and Commissions
Staff presented the proposed rule change to the UAC for comments and approval.
Staff also met with and requested comments from the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) and the Planning Commission.
The UAC approved staff’s recommendation for all new construction with the
exception that no new residential, neighborhood-wide undergrounding projects be
done on a Pad Mounted basis, until they have had an opportunity to assess the
current experience in Underground District #35 (Southgate). The next residential
underground district is proposed for construction in FY 1997-98. Staff concurs
with the UAC and have included the UAC’s recommended exception in this
report’s request. Installation of the PME in the Southgate area, along with
landscaping, will be completed by June 1996. In 1997, staff will assess with the
neighborhood the PME installation and provide this information to the UAC and
Council, prior to proceeding with the conversion of the next residential district.
The ARB had a number of concerns, which were primarily aesthetics, and they felt
the policy change was not the answer. They suggested more maintenance dollars
be spent on the current underground system. They also suggested that in
commercial areas, the space used for PME in buildings not be counted against the
floor area ratio (FAR). Staff recognizes the importance of aesthetics, but believes
that continuing the current program and increasing the maintenance budget will not
appreciably improve reliability. Staff concurs with the suggestion of exempting the
space used for PME from FAR, in accordance with Section (8.04.030 (65)
B(111 )a. of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission concerns were similar to the ARB, but they passed a
motion to approve the staff recommendation with two conditions. One is that in
the University Avenue P district, criteria be included to accommodate retail vitality,
including underground vaults, as necessary. Also, that the Utility Department
sponsor a design competition for the PME design. Staff agrees that commercial
areas require special attention. This can be covered on a plan by plan review with
developers. The policy provides for the use of vaults as authorized by the Director
of Utilities, and this option can be used in locations where PME cannot be
accommodated. Staff does not agree with the Planning Commission’s proposal to
sponsor a design competition for PME design. The quantity of PME purchased by
CMR:182:96 Page 3 of 6
Paio Alto from manufacturers is minuscule. A special design for Palo Alto’s PME
may not be bid by manufacturers who supply standard shape and size units.
Visible features such as size and door access for safe operation are standardized
by the industry. The other options of color and landscaping have been considered
and are discussed in the Mitigation Plan and Solutions section of this report.
Staff also met with several commercial developers for input on the proposed rule
change. Their concerns were that aesthetics and construction space are at a
premium in commercial areas, especially where property line to property line
construction is allowed. They concurred that the space used for PME should not be
counted against the FAR. They also recognized the importance of the utilities staff
working closely with developers early in the planning process on the location of
utilities facilities, especially in the downtown areas.
Mitigation Plans and Solutions
As the Electric Utility Industry moves towards deregulation and homes and
businesses become more reliant on high tech electronic devices, reliability and
costs will be important parts of what Palo Alto can offer its new and existing
customers to be their utility of choice.
Staff recognizes the concerns of reduced aesthetics due to "green boxes visible" in
underground areas, but it is also imperative that the best system possible be
installed, from both a cost and reliability point. To make PME construction more
palatable to the citizens and customers, staff has revised equipment and
installation specifications and worked with the Zoning Administrator and Town
Architect to minimize the visual impact. Specific actions include:
1. Utilities Engineering has revised the specifications for Pad-Mounted transformers
that require the smallest possible size for the electric load to be served.
2. In the past, Electric utilities has placed PME only in locations where City
installation equipment could reach. This has limited the placement of PME to a
maximum of 25 feet from a driveway or the street. Utilities has now contracted
with a local crane company to provide 24 hour a day service to install and/or
replace PME in a variety of locations on a property. Staff will work with customers
to place PME in almost any location that can be reasonably used, not just
dependent on the reach of City equipment.
3. Staff has worked with and will continue to work with the Town Architect to
provide landscaping for PME. Alternatives will be developed to provide options to a
customer.
CMR:182:96 Page 4 of 6
4. Several years ago, staff reviewed with, and received approval from, the ARB the
green color currently used for PME. This color has worked well for most
installations; however, there may be times when a developer will.desire a different
color tohave the PME blend with a wall or fence. Staff will now paint PME a
different color if this is the desire of the customer.
5. Utilities staff worked with the Zoning Administrator on the suggestion to
exempt commercial areas used for PME in buildings.from counting against the FAR.
According to the Zoning Administrator, the Municipal Code, Section
18.04.030(65)B(iii)a~ exempts areas designated for resource conservation, which
criteria Pad-Mounted transformers meet.
6. The 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.
7. The Electric Utility does not plan to retrofit existing commercial/industrial
underground districts to PME as underground equipment needs replacement, unless
this can be negotiated with the property owner and the aesthetic guidelines
(landscaping and location) are incorporated in the new design.
8. Staff will continue to minimize the number of Pad Mounted devices used in
Residential UG Districts. The Southgate District required 9 Pad Mounted
transformers, each serving 15 to 20 customers, requiring a maximum of one
transformer per block, serving both sides of the street.
FISCAL IMPACT
Utilizing PME will reduce equipment installation costs, since excavation and the use
of large vaults will be minimized. This lower cost will be offset by the slightly
higher cost of the equipment itself. Current funding for underground facilities is
sufficient to cover the change to utilizing PME. Maintenance and
repair/replacement costs will be significantly decreased due to the extended life of
equipment.
ATTACHMENTS
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Photos of Underground Electrical Equipment
Resolution to revise Utility Rule and Regulation # 1-3, (b) (3) & (4)
"Padmounting of Electrical Equipment" report.
Proposed Revision to Rule and Regulation #1
Minutes from UAC meeting regarding "Pad Mounted Equipment Policy"
Minutes from ARB meeting regarding "Pad Mounted Equipment Policy"
CMR:182:96 Page 5 of 6
7)
8)
Minutes from Planning Commission regarding "Pad Mounted Equipment
Policy"
Environmental Impact Assessment
PREPARED BY: Larry Starr
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
EDW.~RD J. IV~IZ~K
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
JI
C ;]er
CC:Utility Advisory Commission
Architectural Review Board
Planning Commission
CMR:182:96 Page 6 of 6
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAL0 ALTO
APPROVING REVISION TO UTILITIES RULE AND
REGULATION 1 PERTAINING TO PAD MOUNTED EQUIPMENT
FOR NEWUNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the trend in the electric industry over the past
fifteen years has been to locate electric equipment above ground
level and electric cables and conduits below ground level, because
equipment which is placed below ground level is highly susceptible
to corrosion and deterioration when it is exposed to, among other
items, contamination and pollution; and
WHEREAS,~ the location of electric equipment above ground
will facilitate electric equipment maintenance work in an
expeditious and cost effective manner with minimal adverse visual
and other aesthetic impact to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Utilities Advisory Commission has recommended
that all new construction be subject to the requirements for the
above ground location of electric equipment, provided, however, the
location of above-ground pad mounted equipment in new residential
neighborhood-wide underground districts should not commence unti!
the Commission and the Council have had an opportunity to assess
the location of pad mounted equipment in the Southgate Underground
District;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION I. The City Council hereby approves a revision to
the Utilities Rule and Regulation number i, which will require the
above-ground location of pad mounted equipment for new underground
electric facilities.
SECTIQN 2. The Council hereby approves the mitigated
negative declaration, dated April I, 1996, which was prepared for
the proposed project, and which found that, although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect on the environment, because
mitigation measures have been added to the project.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
ABSTENTIONS:
960415 syn 0070920
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior,Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Utilities
Deputy City Manager,
Administrative Services
960415 syn 0070920
2
7. b
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Utilities Advisory Commission
Utilities Department
October 4, 1995
Padmounted Equipment Policy for the City of Palo Alto
REQUEST
This report requests that the UAC approve and recommend that the City Council
adopt a Resolution to place into effect a revision to Utilities Rule and Regulation #
1, mandating the use of PADMOUNTED EQUIPMENT ONLY for all new
Underground Electric Facilities installed in Palo Alto.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the UAC approve the PADMOUNTED EQUIPMENT ONLY
POLICY and direct staff to proceed with Council adoption of the Resolution.revising
Rule and Regulation # 1, to incorporate this policy change.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This revision to Utilities Rule and Regulation # 1 will deny the use of submersible
transformers and other Electric System facilities installed in vaults except as
authorized by the Director of Utilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto has been steadily converting its overhead electric facilities to
underground facilities for the last 30 years. Originally, all facilities were placed
underground. The trend in the industry over the last 15 years has been to locate
all the electrical equipment above ground, while leaving the cables and conduits
below ground. This compromise has been necessitated due to the poor longevity
and reliability of equipment placed below the surface of the ground and submersed
under water. Since property has always been at a premium in Palo Alto, past
underground designs have placed the majority of the equipment underground in
vaults in the public right of way.
Despite the best efforts of the Utility, the equipment has not lasted as long as it
should and has become more and more unreliable as the system ages. Compared
to a modern underground electric system with all electrical equipment located
above ground (Padmounted Equipment), the City has an inferior system because of
all its below ground equipment: The Padmounted equipment that the City currently
has in place has performed exceedingly wel!, with virtually no outages due to
equipment failure or connector failure. Despite the fact that the below ground
equipment takes less space and has minimal visual impact, it is proving to be less
reliable, have high maintenance costs, and be difficult to repair. The equipment is
extremely susceptible to corrosion and the connectors have a shorter life span
when placed in an alternately wet and dry environment. Because of these
shortcomings, the industry has changed almost exclusively to the manufacture of
Padmounted Equipment rather that submersible equipment, with very few
manufacturers still producing submersible equipment.
Based on the experience of Palo Alto’s Electric Utility with submersible electric
equipment and the current industry trend, staff recommends that the City adopt a
Policy that will only allow the use of Padmounted Equipment for all new
Underground construction. With the amount of money and resources that Palo
Alto spends on Undergrounding each year, it is imperative that the best system
possible be installed, from both a cost and reliability point. As the Electric Utility
Industry moves towards deregulation, reliability will be an important part of what
Palo Alto can offer its customers to be their Utility of Choice.
FISCAL IMPACT
The impact of utilizing padmounted equipment will be to reduce equipment
installation costs, such that they easily offset the slightly higher cost of the
equipment itself. Current funding for Undergrounding facilities is sufficient to cover
the.change to utilizing Padmounted equipment exclusively.
ATTACHMENTS
1)"Padmounting of Electrical Equipment" report.
2)Proposed Revision to Rule and Regulation #1
PREPARED BY: Patrick Valath, Mike Beanland, and Larry Starr
APPROVED BY: ~. ." £
EE)~R/~~ ~
Dir~(::tor of L/tili~es -
MEMORANDUM
TO :LARRY STARR
FROM:MIKE BEANLAND
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Aug.. st 7, 1995
Padmo~ulting of Electrical Equipment
SUMMARY
In the public’s mind, "undergrounding" of electrical facilities
implies placing them entirely below ground where they are no
longer visible. When undergrounding began in earnest in the mid-
!960’s, completely below-grade siting of equipment was the goal.
However, operating experience related to the longevity of
equipment and operator and public safety has led utilities to
conclude that the optimal mix is to !ocate cables and wires be!ow
grade but to place equipment and connections, such as
transformers and switches, above grade. In this way a balance
between aesthetics (moving wires below ground and removing poles)
is balanced with safety (operators do not have to enter vaults)
and economics (equipment lasts longer and is more reliable.)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Utilities Advisory Commission encourage
the electric utility to adopt a "padmount only" policy as the
standard practice for all new construction and rebuilding of
existing facilities in Palo Alto.
BACKGROUND
In the 1960’s the availability of new plastics and increased
concern about aesthetics met synergistically in the idea of
undergrounding of electric facilities. For years, utilities had
used paper and lead or rubber insulated cables underground.
Howeverl these insulations had many drawbacks. They were
sensitive to water, splicing was labor intensive, and they were
expensive and offered somewhat limited capability for moving
large amounts of power. Lead had health and environmental
concerns. With the advent of newer plastics, it was believed
that cables and electric equipment could be placed below ground.
A certain "faith" in unproven technology existed at this time.
In early installations, plastic insulated cables .were buried
directly in the ground. Though not done in Palo Alto,’
transformers were sometimes placed in wooden crates and the
crates buried. However, after a few years, the cable was found
to be damaged by moisture and the crates deteriorated.
Pave i Pa~ounting Elecurlcal Equipment c: \~rk\pa~soun~
When the cable failed, replacement was expensive and time
consuming. Transformers were found to develop rust holes, even a
small nick during handling would .lead to failure of the steel
tank, within a few years, ks more recent concerns about ground-
water contamination arose, cleanup of the spilled oil in the
ground added to the expenses.
Recent experience in Palo Alto has shown that after many years of
being in wet (sometimes submerged) locations, the connectors
(elbows) are failing. The failures are unpredictable but seem to
be a combination of age, environmental conditions, and
installation practices. Age seems to be playing an important
part. Much of the underground system in Palo Alto is over 20
years old. The failures are.occurring in those areas. Utilities
is investigating the need for an aggressive electric
infrastructure replacement program to replace aging subsurface
equipment and to move them above-ground before they fail.
SAFETY
0SHA requirements have not traditionally impacted electric
utility operations other than construction activities. However,
new 0SHA regulations are targeted at improving operator safety
during, the normal operation and maintenance of high-voltage
electrical systems. Requirements for proper ventilation and
t~sting of the air in underground vaults have been in place for
years. New regulations focus on proper maintenance of tools,
increased "lock out - tag out" procedures to prevent the
inadvertent energizing of electrical equipment, and safety
clothing. Some of these rules have been promulgated as the
result of explosions and fires of equipment in underground
vaults, some of which have killed or injured utility workers and
passers-by. Because of the large number of underground sw~tches
and transformers in the Palo Alto system, the new procedures
impose delays .on the entry and working on electrical equipment
during outages. Our ability to rapidly restore power to
customers during outages is inhibited by having equipment located
underground. In many cases water, sometimes over i000 gallons,
must be pumped out of vaults in order to get to our equipment
before services can be restored.
SOLUTIONS
The failures of direct buried cables led to .improved plastics and
processes. Conductors were filled with water-proofing compounds
to prevent water from travelling along the strands of the wire in
the cable. Purer plastics and better manufacturing processes
were found to reduce "treeing" where water degrades the
insulating ability of the plastics. Placing conductors in
conduit, adopted early by Palo Alto, helped keep cables dry and
eased the replacement or addition of new cables. Stainless stee!
was adopted for use in underground switches.
Transformers installed in underground vaults often fail after it
to 15 years. The most common cause is for moisture to seep into
~he transformer. In comparison, transformers installed on poles,
usually last 30 or more years. Some pole-mounted transformers in
Palo Alto are in service after 60 years. Padmount transformers
provide the benefits of undergrounded cables and the benefits of
pole-mounted transformers. They also increase safety because
they are accessible at ground level and do not require climbing
poles.
The following table shows the comparison in features and costs
for a typical smal! multi-family residential electrical service
of about 50 KVA. Transformer and installation costs for larger
electrical services are proportional.
Equipment
Life
Transformer
Cost
Physical
Size
Installation
Costs
Safety
Annual
Maintenance
Costs
Time to
Restore
Service
Availability
of
Trans former
Overhead
30-50 Years
$I, 200
30"Dia. x 48"H
Existing
Moderate
None
2-4 hours
Several
national
sources
Submersed
10-15 Years
$2,200
60"W X 80"L X 80"D
(vault)
$6,0oo
Poor
$200
( cleaning &
i..ns.pectiOn)
6-8 Hours
0nly two sources,
one Canadian
Padmount
30-50 Years
$2,900
30"H x 32"W x 22"D
$660
Good
$5O
(inspectisn
2-4 hours
Several
national
sources
TODAY
Common practice today and considered the "state of the art" is
for cables to be installed underground and transformers and
switches to be installed in padmounted enclosures. Many
utilities, including PG&E, the City of Alameda and the City of
Santa Clara, have adopted a "padmount only" policy. In these
areas, except for a few heavily built up areas where there is no
physical space for padmounting of equipment, all equipment is
padmounted.
In heavily built-up areas, equipment located in vaults is
permitted. In Palo Alto, the heavily built-up areas in both the
downtown area near University Avenue and the area along
California Avenue somewhat limit the use of padmounted equipment.
MITIGATION OF VISUAL IMPACTS
Recognizing that padmount equipment is visible in that it is not
located high in the air nor below ground, the Electric UtiliTy
has taken many steps to minimize the visual impact~of the
equipment. Padmount equipment is painted a dark green to make it
blend in wel! with landscaping and become "unnoticed." Labels
and signs on the outside of the equipment are now kept to a
minimum. Where possible, padmount equipment is located behind
buildings, away from streets.
Where conditions require locating equipment in visible locations,
the Electric Utility works with property owners to plant
landscaping around the equipment to "soften" its impact.
Landscape designs are developed by landscape designers and are
reviewed by the "town architect." Typical landscape concepts are
shown on the attached Exhibits. Berms, retaining walls and
fences are used where appropriate.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 - Pacific Gas & Electric Drawing 063422, Landscape
Screen for Padmounted Transformers
Exhibit 2 - Guidelines for Electrical Equipment Siting, Royston,
Hanamoto, Alley & Abey
i
NOTES-
p..urpose :
1. This drawing provides a variety of landscape design ideas that may be used by the applicant to screen
pad-mounted transformers.
2.While any landscaping, retaining walls, decorative walls, etc. is installed, owned, and maintained by
the applicant, landscape screening is encouraged as it helps to improve the overall appearance and
acceptance of pad-mounted transformers, which are much less costly to install and maintain than sub-
surface transformers.
General:
3.This drawing is intended to illustrate a variety of design concepts. They may be modified to fit a particular
need or site condition.
4.These are illustrative designs and are not intended to be construction or working drawings. Materials,
quantities and construction methods will have to be determined by the installer to meet the requirements
of the particular site.
5.The addition of suitable plants to these basic designs will enhance the overall screening elfect.
6.The designs illustrate screening single-phase transformers, but the same concepts may also be applied
to screening three-phase pad-mounted transformers.
7.The decorative walls, fences etc. depicted in this drawing are not substitutes for any required barrier posts,
fire walls etc. that may be required by Dwg. 051122.
Plant Matrices:
8.There is a plant matrix for each region that identifies plant species suitable for screening transformers
within the different climatic areas of each region.
Clearances:
9. A. clear, level working space of 8 feet is required in front of the transformer.
10.Clearance of 2 feet is required from the transformer pad to walls, fences, etc. as depicted in this drawing.
This may be reduced to 1 loot if the height of the wall does not exceed 2 (eet and if the wall thickness
does not exceed 1 foot.
11.Gates and doors may be placed with minimal clearance in front of transformers if the required 8 ft.
clearance is available with the doors or gates open._. . ., =;-.. .-... .
References:
Location, clearances and mechanical protection details for pad-mounted and
subsurface equipment see Electrical Engineering Dwg. 051122.
NOTES
fill-2"88 1,4oDr~"’ved /’or Con~trucf/on
R,,EV.l DATE ! ’ ":"," , D,,ESCRIP’I:ION
APPROVED BY!
;/.~~ i GM ,,LpWN. CHKO.ISUPV. APVD.~GM
SUPV. I~. ~,RAIr
DSGt~. N. O~A¢
CHKD. N. ~r
DATE. SCALE
ENGINEERING STANDARD
LANDSC;APE SCREEN FOR
PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER8
ELECTRIC OPERATIONS
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
SAN ,FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DWG. LIST
SUPSDS
SUPSD BY
SHEET NO I O’F 12 SH"EETS
BEV.
065422 2
LOW EVERGREEN
SHRUBS (TYP.)
"FIELD STONE’"
12"’H x 12"W x 24"’L
CONCRETE
PAD
( 4" DEEP
MATERIALS LIST:
¯4 " SONOMA FIELD STONES "
¯10 - 12 LOW E{/ERGREEN SHRUBS
( 5 GALLON SIZE )
¯1/’2 CU. YD - CONCRETE
[ 4" DEEP / BROOM FINISH )
1,’2 CU. YD - GRAVEL SUB BASE ¯
( 4" DEEP )
EXCLUDING TRANSFORMER
PAD
"FIELD STOt~E
18"H x 1E}"W x 24"L
8o.LEVEL
CLEAR SPACE
E’FIELD STONE"
12"H x 12"W x 24"L
PLAN VIEW
"FIELD STONE"---.-~I
TRANSFORMER~
LOW GROWING EVERGREEN
SHRUBS WITH FLOWERS
LD STONE"
PERSPECTIVE -RESIDENT’S VIEW
NTS
PLANTER WALL SCREEN
L 0" L LO~, SPREADING "------T L.2’. 0
: CONCRETE 18’ LEVEL~DEEP~,PAD [4_"; .CLEAR
~----- Who6 GATE
2x 12 ROUGH RWD
wt. ~’x4~ R AM-E,
MATERIALS LIST:
e 6 - 2 x 12 ROUGH RWD
( 12 FT. LONG )
2 X 12 ROUGH RWD
FT. LONG )
e 3- 2 X6 ROUGH RWD
( 12 FT. LONG )
5 - 4 X 4 ROUGH RWD.
( 8 FT. LONG )
1/’2 CU. YD. CONCRE’rE
( BROOM FINISH )
1/2 CU. YD. GRAVEL
SUB BASE ( 4" DEEP
e 10 LOW EVERGREEN
SHRUBS ( 5 GAL. SIZE )
2 X 4 ROUGH RWD.
FT. LONG )
¯1 - 2 X 6 ROUGH RWD.
( 8 FT. LONG )
A EXCLUDING TRANSFORMER
PAD
SEE NOTE 9 ON PAGE 1
~~~~PG&E
;06 342 2
/ ~~
WALL FOR SCREENING
POURED
CONCRETEPAD
ROW OF USED B~ICK -"]
CONCRETE "¯
WALL __ t2’-0" ]’RANS F0 RI~ E Rj,~_’-12~ ,,
9"4’’+--
I 8’ LEVEL
PLAN VIEW
.~REBA R TYP.
MATERIALS LIST;
= 80 USED BRICK
MORTAR
52 CONCRETE BLOCKS
(8"WXS"HX 16"L)
1/2 CU. YD CONCRETE ,t,
( 4" DEEP ) - BROOM FINISH
1/2 CU. YD GRAVEL SUB BASE
( 4" DEEP )
1/2" X 2’- 0" REBAR FOR
CELLS AT BLOCK CORNERS
AND EDGES MINIMUM
OF 8 PIECES
GROUT FILL FOR BLOCK
CORNERS AND EDGES
EXCLUDING TRANSFORMER
PAD
PERSPECTIVE = E~~8 VIEW
NT8
-X-SEE NOTE 9 ON PAGI~ 1
RETAINING WALL
~---E VERGREEN SHRUBS
12"-18" !-rIG H
CONCRETE.-- ’ 7~; 6"E. j,,
[ TRANSFO~i~ I ~ t.’
"POLYMER"
CONCRETE WALL
.L
~ 8’ LEVEL
~CLEAR SPACE
MATERIALS LIST:
12- 14 LOW. EVERGREEN
SHRUBS ( 5 GAL. SIZE )
19 L.F. 2 F’r." POLYMER"
CONCRETE WALL
1/2 CU. YD CONCRETE ~
( 4" DEEP - BROOM FINISH )
I/2 CU.YD OF GRAVEL &
SUB BASE (4"DEEP)
EXCLUDING TRANSFORMER
PAD
ENGINEERING DRAWING
~:05112 FOR RETAINING -=,,J’
WALL CONSTRUCTION’~"-"’1 -;’POLYMER"DETAILS,"L-.- CONCRETE WALL
PF-FI~3P’E~3TIV~- ~I3~NT’8 VIEW
NTS
-X-SEE NOTE 9 ON PAGE
POLE AND LANDSCAPE SCREEN
LODGEPOLES OR
LOW, EVERGREEN PINE B.ARK
SHRUBS W/THORNS PO LES,10-12"I
OR BARBS
2CON~kET~-:
’PAD (4" DEEP
]i~"L EAR
MATERIALS LIST:
7 - 10" DIA. LODGEPOLES
(3’- 6" LONG )
3- 10" DIA. LODGEPOLES
(3’-10" LONG)
1/2 cu. YD CONCRETE ¯
( BROOM FINISH ) - 4" DEEP
14 LOW EVERGREEN
SHRUBS (5 GAL SIZE )
1/2 CU. YD. GRAVEL ¯
SUB BASE ( 4’: DEEP )
EXCLUDING TRANSFORMER
PAD
:~ LODGEIOLE
CONCRETE
LODGEPOLES
tl~." DIA..SECTt( I
NTS
PLANT MATRIX
SAN JOAQUlN VALLEY REGION
(PLANTS FOR SCREENING TRANSFORMERS)
CLIMATIC .ZONES
PLANTS
I
I
Arctostaphylos "Hookeri"
(Monterey Manzamtal
Arctostaphylos’=E meraJ d Carp=-"
(Manzanita)
Ar.ctostaphylos"Uva Ursi.~
(Bearberry)
Cea.nothus G. :l-l,"Yankee Point~
(Yankee Point Ceanothus)
Nandin_a .D._o .mestica ¯
{Heavenly Bamboo}
Agal~nthus OfientalLt
"(Lily-of-the-Nile’E
Santolina Chamae.czEarissus
(Laver~r ~t~n)
Cistus Hybridus
~ White Rockrose)
Cistus. Purgureu~.
(Purple Rockrose)
Raphiolepis if’Coates Crimson*
([nci;=n Hawthorn)
Raphiolepis l’.’Enchan{ress-
"( I~dl=n Hawthorn)
E r i~l:~,|~ C~fertiflorum
(Yellow- Ya}row~
Juniperus Qonferte
~ ~hore
Rosern~rinus Officinalu~
"(Creeping Rosemary)
E~
¯
~ E
NOTES :
AI~ sfirubs are evergreen plants not over 5 ft.~t maturity.
All shrubs shoeld be 1=4~nted at a mlRimum 5.gallon size.
Refer to the climate zone map in S~nset New Western Garden Book for the climate zone for ye~lr area.
I PG&ECO.
I DRAWN3 hI-MEB 1RSv.
PLANT MATRIX
GOLDEN GATE REGION.
(PL.4.NTS FOR SCREENING TRANSFORMERS)
’PLANTS:
~enecio C~nera~.ill.,
(Dust~ M ~lleH-,
A.rctostaph.yIos "Hookl(Monterey M~nz~ta
Ceanothus G.H. Yankee Point
(Yankee Point Ceanothus)
Cistus ~ybridu=
(White. Rockrose,~
Cistus ur~reus(PurPl~ ~ockros~ :
~ntol~ ~M~aecypmmi==~
Ra~iole~is I:’Coates Crimson"
Ra~hiele~il I. "EnchantS"
(i~dia~Ha~om)
Pinus M~ Mug, s
(Dwarf
Eriophyllu~’Confe~tflerum
~w Y~rrow]
Junip¢rus
~se~j[inus Officinalus
(C~eeping Rosemary}
~toneaster ~rizontal~.
~R~c~ C~{~neas~er~
Nand~ Domestici(Heavenly Bamb~)
Agapanthus Orilnt=il=
(Lily-of-the-Nile)
¯
0
¯
¯
¯
¯
0
CLIMATIC ZONES
¯l
0
0
¯l
¯¯
¯¯
¯¯
l
O
o
O
¯
0
O
O
O
NOTES :
i A~II.~.~ are evergreen plants not over 5 ft.at maturity.AIl~ru~ =ho~ii~ be IIIlnted at a mlitnum 5 ~llllt~n liza~
~Refer to 1;he climate zone map in ~;unsat New’Western G~lrden Book for the climite zone for ~.~ liral.
PLANT MATRIX
¯ MISSION TRAIL REGIOn"
(PLANTS~FOR SCREENING TRANSFORMERS)
I~LANTS
Arctostaphylo$ "Hookt~i"
(Monterey Manzanita)
Ar ct ot.t a_ ph_ylos"E me r a Id ca rl~-~
(Manzenita)
~hite Rockrose)
Cistm Pu~pu~us.
(Pu~pl~ Rockmse)
(Lavender Co~on~
Raphiole~ I."~tes Cr~n*
(Iodian~Hawthorn)
Pinus Mu~ Mugho=
Eri~yllum ~nfeRiflerum
Juniperus Go-lena .
Ros~inu$
(Creeping Rosemary),
Cotoneaster Horizonta)~
( Rock C0toneas(lr)
Nandinm Oomestica
(Heavenly Bam~)
Agapanthus Ori~t~lis
I-
"1
CLIMATIC
"!
¯ [ ¯
ZONES
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
0
0
¯
¯
0
0
¯
¯
I"
NOTES:
All shrul~ are evergree_O.n plants not over 5 f~,.at .n~turity.
".~I~ sho~la be p..-~t~d "~t a l~ildeftum 5 ~Lgl~n I~e-’
Re er to the chmate zone tampon Sunset Nmvt~testern ~arden Book for the climate zone for your area.
P G&ECO. DRAW~ ~ ~.
PLANT MATRIX
SACRAMENTO VALLEY REGION
(PLANTS FOR SCREENING .TRANSFORMERS)
I
PLANTS
0
O
I
t"
CLIMATIC ZONES
¯¯
¯¯
O
" :1 O
O
0
O"¯
¯¯
¯¯
NOTES
= Akl shut,be are evergreen plants not over 5 ft.at.maturity.
Rl~r to’he climate zone map in ~me~ We~r~ Glrden Book for the cli~te zone f~
PLANT MATRIX
EAST BAY REGION
(~LANT$ FOR SCREENING TRANSFORMERS)
I p LANTS
o
¯
o
0
0
CLIMATIC ZONES
¯
0
¯
NOTES :
,~11 shrub~ are eve~r~ .pl.~n_ts not oyer 5 ~..~ ~atu~ity.
~ j~ll~-~Jbs’shod~d be ~’~n~ed at a m~um 5 gabon ilze~
= ~.l~r’to ~h~’cl~ate ~o~’ma~ ~t ~ Western Garden Book for ~he climate ~ ~r~r’~.
REDWOOD REGION
~NTS FOR SCREENING TRANSFORMERS)
PLANT MATRIX
CLIMATIC ZONES
P LANTS
Sene;io(Dusty Miller)
~rctost"aphylos ~:’Ho~ k’;"r[’"’
" (Mon{erey Manza.ni=te,)Arctostaphylqs"Emerald "C~rl:~t ~
(Manzanital okee Pant°
(Yankee Pt. Ceanothus)
_ (De,err!Daisy)
Junipe;’us Conferte
’ ~Sh’or~ Juniper)
Sa.ntolina C-.h a m a.e.c¥ pa r is~u’~ ’ .........
( ~avender. Cotton)
Ci~t~. l"l~b rid us ..
’(White Rock~ose)
¯ Ci~tu~ .Purl;)ureus ......-(PurpTe.Rockrose)
M_ah. o0a ..A~lu~fohum Compact=,(Oregon Grape)
_Baphi, ole_D!s I."Coates Crimso’n"
(’indian Hawthorn)
Pinus Mugo Mughos( Mugo Pine}
NOTES :
¯¯
¯o ¯
¯¯¯
¯¯¯
¯¯¯
o ¯
¯
o ".All shrubs are evergreen plants not over 5 ~t.at maturity,
e All shrubs should be l=lanted at e minimum 5 gallon siz.e.
o Refer to the climate zone map in Sunset New Western Garden Book for the climate zone for ~l’m.~" area,
Guidelines for
Electrical Equipment Siting
!. INTRODUCTION
The following paper establishes design guidelines for electrical transformer siting,
for consistency of goals and review requirements.
Current procedure for approva] of transformer installations includes review by the
Architectural Review Board of each proposed equipment location. Approvals are
based ondesign guidelines prepared by the Planning and Utilities Departments,
submitted to the Architectural Review Board in .July of 1 993 (See attached). In
addition the Utility Department meets with individual property owners affected by
the proposed installation to determine their preferences for equipment location.
These guidelines illustrate a variety of concepts for installing pad-mounted
equipment within the City of Palo Alto.
GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are based on discussions with staff on aesthetic issues
associated with current transformer locations; the existing ARB Review C;uidelines
for above ground equipment installation, adopted in Summer of 1993; and on the
PC; & E. Guidelines for Pad-Mounted Transformers.
Placement
Individual sites vary greatly in their existing conditions and in constraints to
equipment location. In general, equipment should be placed at the periphery of
activity areas, and away from entries, major focal points or any highly visible areas.
Existing landscaping and features should be disturbed as little as possible.
¯ Equipment should be placed where it can be screened.
Equipment should be set back from streets wherever possible. In particular,
equipment should not be located at street corners, intersections or at the end of
view corridors, such as cul-de-sacs, due to the high visibility of these locations. At
least one street tree planting well should be located between the equipment and
the street corner.
Example of Poor Placement and Color
Equipment should be orderly clustered and aligned wi-th adjacent features such as
curbs, fences or buildings. Random placement at odd angles is not acceptable.
Color
In order to minimize the Visual impact, equipment should be painted to blend with
the environment. In natural or landscaped settings, the color should be a ’pad-
mount green’ which is a dark gray green. Dark colors, such as pad mount green,
absorb light and therefore blend with plant materials. Light colors such as yellow
or pale green, due to their reflective qualities, are highly visible and should not be
used.
Example of Increased Visibility due to Light Color
However, if equipment is located adjacent to a structure and can not be screened,
equipment should be painted to match the adjacent structures.
Screening
Type of screening appropriate for electrical equipment will vary according to
location. In natural or landscaped settings, equipment can be screened with plant
material or with landforms. Architectural treatment or artistic embellishment may
be more appropriate in other settings.
Landscaping
Plants should be massed to blend with the surrounding landscape, with higher
plants adjacent to the equipment, and lower material in front. Rigid hedge
plantings should be avoided in most situations, as this form draws attention to the
space. Electrical switches can be screened through the use of .vines.
Plant species should match with the surrounding landscape, but should be of
sufficient height and density to adequately screen equipment. Plant material
selection should comply with the City of Palo Alto Water Efficiency Ordinance.
Earthforms
If equipment is located on a site with rolling topography, berming can be used for
screening. On large sites, overlapping of berms can be used to screen equipment.
On smaller sites, a combination of berms and retaining walls can be used to screen
equipment. Retaining walls should match other structures or materials on site.
Architectural Integration
If located next to a structure, equipment can be screened by enclosing the
equipment with fences or walls that are styled to match or blend with the adjacent
structure. Transformers can be built into architectural elements, such as kiosks and
newspaper racks.
Architectural details of the building such as wall treatments or textures and colors
should be integrated into the enclosure’s design.
Artistic Embellishment
In highly visible locations where screening is not possible, equipment could be
treated as a piece of art. Possible painting styles include a ’trompe l’oeil’ treatment
to match the surrounding area, the addition of realistic human figures such as those
by Greg Brown, that now appear in the downtown area, or the use of equipment
boxes as community bulletin boards.
Custom painting requires the use of an anti-81raffiti coating, such as "Armaglaze
which is available at Sherwin-Williams Paint Company.
RULE AND REGULATION # 1 PROPOSED REVISION
RULE AND REGULATION # 1
3.GENERAL LOAD LIMITATIONS
(A)
(B)
(1)
(2)
(3)~!!!!!i~q:ransformers(s) and fac ....... required to provide
f~=~ese service will, ..... ,~., ,, ,=,,""~ be padmounted and the applicant,
when requested by the Utility, will provide adequate space for
.f~~ ...............,~, within theinstallation of such .."~":"’~~’ ~: " ....~ .....
boundaries of the property ~ *~ .......such .....
(4)
.......... by~,,~ ~,~y. Where an existing underground service
must be upgraded~.~-r.~,,-. ~" ......4 -~=r~..... ,...,w~^, the customer shall be
required to provide adequate space, for installation of the
padmount transformer. In the event the customer is unable to
provide adequate space for the padmount transformer, then the
customer shall make arrangements at his expense to receive
service at primary voltage.
RULE AND REGULATION # 1-3 PROPOSED REVISION
RULE AND REGULATION # 1-3
3. GENERAL LOAD LIMITATIONS
(A)
(B)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
~!!iiii~-]:ransformers(s) ~iiii~!!iii~i~ required to provide -hfee-
~ service will ~ be padmounted and the applicant,
when requested by the Utility, will provide adequate space for
installation of such ~i!~i~ ~ffttef~ within the
boundaries of the property. In "~’^L,,~ event o,,,.,~, space is ,not
3e;’ViCe maximum
eXCeSS u, , vv
policy decisions that were made by CoLtncil and are well on the way towards
implementation.
Chairman Johnston: In bringing this up, it was certainly my intent that
we should not, in a~y way, go back and review the decisions that you and
the Council had already made. It was clearly to review a decision that the
Council had deferred because it was difficult.
Mr. Roberts: Understood. Given that, the good ne~s is exactly what
CounciLmember Rosenbatun just said, that is, that we have time. Given that
Categories A and B are in process, we have our workload cut out for us for
the next three years. We have ~a financing plan and an implementation plan
to deal with, so these Category C projects are on the mid-range horizon,
and clearly, there is time to study it at whatever level of detail you
wish, from the general to the specific.
The time lines and deadlines we are working under now are self-imposed, by
and large. They are ones that are being discussed in the Finance
Committee, and we are getting direction from the Finance Committee, but
they were largely self-imposed. I think there would be room to revisit
those time lines in order to allow for this process, from a staff
perspective.
There is a terminus and background and history on this issue. There is
five years of history, starting back to the approval level by Council
developing a storm drain master plan, and~bringing that forward. At some
point, I think the first step is to provide some of that background and
history to the UAC. I would, suggest we could begin to do that over the
next few months while the salvage process is under way. We can provide an
informational packet at first. You might want to agendize the item to see
how much discussion, if any, that you want about the background history.
Secondly, sometime after the first of the year, after we have gotten some
results from our outreach program and public input data, I would think we
might want to come back to you and discuss it at that point. It is
uncertain as to when that might happen, but I assume it is to happen.
Beyond that, it is a matter of what level one chooses, what
kind of direction from Council, ..
Chairman Johnston: ! have a question for Councilmember Rosenbaum. If we
were to have a motion today that said something to the effect that the UAC
is willing to and would encourage the Council to refer this matter to us
for some level of review, do you think it is appropriate that we need to
ask the Council, or is it something we should not ask the Council about,
and June just might keep us updated? Or do you think we should ask the
Council, and leave it up to them to decide on what level of review, or just
give.us a general guideline on the level of review? How do you think we
ought to handle this?
Councilman Rosenbaum: As June mentioned, the subject is clearly not within
your purview. It would certainly be better for everyone if it were brought
before the Council, and let them decide if they want to assign it to you.
There might well be some discussion at the Council level as to whether they
Minutes UAC: 10/4/95
FINAL Page. 15
expect you to spend two months on it or a year and the level of detail that
they would want you to go into. I am not sure what that response might be.
Chairman Johnston: I would like to get some guidance and then, from that
guidance, that could be worked out with Glenn. June, do you have a comment
on this?
Ms. Fleminq: If Councilmember Rosenbatun thinks that is the best thing to
do, that is fine. (inaudible) It really is not
official in the record. That would be going out of the
purview of the commission. I will support it
Chairman Johnston: I think it would be helpful to do that. The Council,
by giving some indication of the level review, will prevent us from coming
back to them with the wrong level of review so that they would say, why did
you spend so much time on this? Or the alternative -- there are a bunch
of issues here that you did not look at. So some guidance as to the level
of review Council wants should be worked out.
MOTION: Commissioner EyerlT: I move your motion, Paul, that is, to ask
the Council to refer the storm drain program to the UAC for review and to
give some idea as to the depth they want to enter into.
SECOND: By Grimsrud.
MOTION PASSED 5-0.
7.b. Padmounted Equipment Policy
Larr~ Starr: Palo Alto has been in the underground business for a little
over 25 years. To date, we have tried to minimize the initial impact of
the underground equipment. We have placed it in vaults. We have
¯so for the most part¯ it has been out of sight. Probably
for at least the last ten years, we have noticed that the industry trend
is not to put the equipment in vaults. The reason we see a trend such as
that is that it is what other utilities are doing. It is getting harder
and harder to purchase equipment that is rated to be put in vaults. Our
underground transformers are now down to two manufacturers. For single
phase residential transformers, there is only one manufacturer, and that
company is in Canada. So there will be fewer players in the market in this
field.
This last year, we-had the unfortunate experience of seeing a large number
of undergrotuld outages. That is what I will show on this chart. This
shows the number of outages. We should have two to three outages per
month, or less. We are certainly not in that category right now. The ones
we have had the most trouble with are on the far right side. Those are
underground, and tend to be some sort of equipment failure, cable failure
or connector failure. The ones that are not shaded are the overhead
problems. There we have outside influences such as tree branches falling
on lines or squirrels getting into transformers. Sometimes our customers
do not want poles. For the most part¯ the equipment itself has not failed.
~linutes UAC: 10/4/95
FINAL Page 16
!n the undergroutnd system, we should have excellent reliability. It should
be very minimal outages, and that is not~what we are seeing. So in a
study, we looked at a lot of things last year, especially in the last six
months, to try and determine where they are. !t appears that in the
underground districts that are 20 years or older, we are really starting
to see the failure of connectors. This is a map of the city, where we are
trying to see if there is a pattern. Obviously there is a pattern in a lot
of the pink areas, which are the older underground districts. The pink
pins.indicate where we have had outages and the red pins indicate where we
have had connector failures. You can see we have had a lot in these
underground districts.
These are the kind of connectors I am talking about. We call them elbows
because they are a 90° device. The one on the left is one that I pulled
out of a failure box to show you what an old one looks like. The one on
the right is a brand new one out of the package. These are the kinds of
connectors that go on the ends of our underground cables ~nd attach to the
What I wanted to show you tonight is one ~of the reasons why we believe
these connectors do not last very long. I have a number of slides that
show what the connectors look like in the service envi~cnmento All of
these are in vaults. You can see how they accumulate dirt. It has been
a long time since it has rained in the city, so it is dry now, but in the
wintertime in the rainy season, the vaults fill up with water and you have
dirty water and all kinds of contaminants in here. It ~!owly erodes the
connectors and also gets into the connections themselves.
These particular transformers you see were replaced (inaudible).This is
a switch in the vault at Kinko’s. You can see how dirty it is.
Commissioner Chandler: Excuse me, but what do you mean "at Kinko’s"?
Mr. Starr: Kinko’s is a commercial customer here in town.
Commissioner Chandler:
of "at Kinko’s"?
I use them all the time, but what is the meaning
Mr. Start: It is a vault immediately behind Kinko’s store. That is how
we locate the vaults -- by what they are next to. We will refer to some
stores tonight. This is a vault behind Ross Stores. Street sweepers come
’along and sweep the streets. They also sweep leaves and trash into our
vaults. We have to have slotted lids on the vaults so that the transform-
ers can breathe. This is a fairly large transformer you see. i had to lie
on my stomach to get my camera down in this hole. (Shows more transformers
at various locations). These are transformers in the alley straight across
from us at 250 Hamilton Avenue. This was recently cleaned out because the
adjacent restaurant in the alley complained about a stench that came out
of it. This was steam cleaned and the water was vacuumed out of it. It
was .then soap-and-water cleaned. It is less than a year old, and it is
dirty once again.
This is out on Embarcadero Road. it locks like the black hole of Calcutta,
and actually, it is just another one of our vaults. The water level there
is just slightly below the top of this switch. !t comes and goes in
Minut~UAC:10/4/95
FINAL Page 17
wintertime. You can see the slimy residue of leaves on top of the switch.
You can imagine trying to work on this, replacing those connectors with the
vaults full of water.
These are some devices that have failed that were brought back into the
yard. I wanted to show you what the elements do to them. These are
switches that do not last very long. They do not have the 30-year life we
had hoped for. It is very corrosive there. It is not just plain water.
This, on the other hand, is a padmounted switch also out on Embarcadero
Road. Although those connectors look brand new, they have been out there
for five years. They literally do not age in padmounted equipment. They
never reside in water, and get very little dirt in there.
Commissioner Sahaqian:
like that?
chain link fence or something
Mr. Start: This is another transformer, and again, it is about five years
old, and you can see how clean the connectors are. This is a new switch
we just installed out on Churchill Avenue as part of our Southgate
underground district.
This is our solution to Kinko’s. We do not have this connected yet, but
after the outage there, we got authorization to go ahead and install a
padmounted switch and replace those transformers down in the vault. What
happened here was that about 8 o’clock in the morning, one of the
transformers in the vault failed. The vault had water in it; the
transformer expelled some oil into it, so we had oily water. We had to
carefully pump out the oil and water, get a sample of it, make sure there~
were~no PCVs in it, get the vault dried out, get the transformer pulled out
and a new one put in, and install it. We did not get it back in service
until about 4 p.m. Our experience says that had a padmounted transformer
been there initially, (I) they probably would not have had an outage to
start with, or (2) if they had had one, we simply would have brought a new
padmounted transformer in, unplugged the connectors and set another one on
there, having them back in service by i0 o’clock.. That is one of the
advantages of padmounted equipment.
There are different places where you can put them so that they do not look
so intrusive. This one is on Park Boulevard in the California district.
This is on Sheridan just off of Park Boulevard. Something we could do, if
anyone is interested, is that we can always paint them any color that
people would like. This one could be painted to match the wall.
This is the one at 250 Hamilton Avenue, the new building at the corner
here. There is a padmounted transformer inside the building behind these
doors, along with the dumpsters. The last few slides indicate how we can
get customers to be a little innovative in helping us to put transformers
in places where they are not so obvious.
This is one of our new small residential padmounts. It is out in the Old
Trace neighborhood.
These are the ones we are using. You can see their size, compared to what
goes on the pole. They are not monsters. This shows our underground
Minutes UAC: 10/4/95
FINAL Page 18
superintendent standing next to one, to give you some perspective of their
size.
i have wanted to show you that we can put padmounted equipment out there
and it will fit into the neighborhood. There are a lot more things we can
do, as well. We can plant shrubs around them; we can put them in little
enclosures. There is a new guideline just developed with the town
architect for ways of making this more palatable for the customers. The
bottom line is, it is our experience that we have paid a lot of money in
the past for an underground system, probably top dollar, and we do not have
the reliability to go with it. This is in the era now where we are trying
to become the utility of choice for a lot of our customers. One of the
things we need to provide them with is outstanding reliability. This last
summer, I am sure that one of our industrial customers on San Antonio Way
would have chosen another utility if they had had the opportttnity. It is
our desire to be able to provide the highest reliability we can. We do not
believe we could do that unless we get our equipment and our connectors up
out of the ground and up out of that dirty, wet environment that I showed
you. Those are the places where we have had all of our failures. I could
say we have had almost no connector failures with any of our padmounted
equipment. Literally none of the padmounted transformers or switches have
failed. They have extremely high reliability. They do not rust; they just
do not have any problems. Since they are out in the air, we can actually
use a smaller transformer than the ones we put down in the vault. We
actually had to buy larger transformers for the vault because they have
such poor air circulation.
I understand that the public does not care to look at these. They are
typically described as "ugly green boxes." Somewhere there needs to be
some compromise. If we want to provide high reliability at a reasonable
cost to our customers, in staff’s opinion, we need to adopt the padmounted
equipment policy, as a number of other cities are now doing. That
completes my presentation.
Commissioners Eyer!y.: What you have told them, Larry, as far as the
location of the pads, will be used to hide the landscaping and the green
box. Do you have a program to work with the i~unediately adjacent
neighborhood?
Mr. Start: We are willing to work with everybody in trying to locate these
where they are the least obtrusive. We are working with the town
architect, and she has helped us quite a bit in proposing things we can do.
Some of the newer installations will get some shrubbery. We just have not
had a chance to get out there and do it.
Commissioner ETerlT: Do you tell the neighborhood or the neighbor or the
adjacent store that you will do all of that when you install it?
Mr. Starr: Yes, we work with them and te!l them we will do what we can.
Sometimes there is no room to put something around it.
Mr. Mrizek: It was aesthetic submersible
transfol-mers.As Larry pointed out, the Southgate district, which is going
to town architect has worked with the customers.
Minutes UAC:10/4495
FINAL Page 19
(Projector gets turned off -- much clearer nowl) They have selected
property line sites and landscaping around these particular pads. We had
one customer just recently in another location who was building a very nice
home and was very concerned about the green box that would have to be
provided for this very lovely home. They worked out a location where this
transformer will not be right in the middle of the front yard, but off to
the side where it will be hidden. So we will be working with our customers
on the location of every one of these transformers. As Larry said, we
cannot provide the reliability that you would provide in this service to
our customers ~n the competitive market we are in today.
Commissioner Sahaqian: What percent of the transformers have been
converted to padmoumted above ground? And at the rate you are going, how
long will it take for you to complete conversion of the whole system?
Mr. Start: It is not our pl~n to try and go back and convert everything.
We think that may be too difficult. What we are asking for is that all new
construction be padmounted. Where we can get a padmounted switch for a
transformer such as I showed you, especially in the Stamford Research Park
where they have a little more room~ as we replace switches, we will try to
put them above ground. But it is not our intention to force that issue on
people. We have about 30 ttnderground districts that have been replaced.
We probably have more than twice that many to go. We are talking about 80
years to finish completing the city.
Commissioner Chandler: How many of these boxes are required for a typical
block that has ten houses on 60-foot-wide lots? If you wanted to
underground a residential neighborhood like that, how many would you need
on each block? How many are we putting in Southgate in each block?
Mr. Start: That is a 50 kva transformer. I think that the 50 will
probably serve 25 homes. The load here electrically is not very high. It
is not like we have electric heat in town.
Mr. Mrizek: You are not going to find them on every property.
going to be dispersed -- only a few per block°
They are
Commissioner Grimsrud: From an engineering point of view, there is no
doubt that padmounting looks better. If I had one sitting in my front
yard, however, I might not feel that way about it. I think it is good to
do a mid-program assessment of this undergrounding program. That
assessment might include ways we could improve maintenance or reduce the
problems of our vaults. Obviously, we ought to talk to Public Works about
raking leaves into vaults, things like that.
Mr. Mrizek: It is not just the leaves, however. The water rises every
year, and the vaults are flooded. The closer you get to the bay, the more
brackish the water iSo These connectors are supposed to be designed for
full underground use, but they are not.
Commissioner Grimsrud: I am just trying to make a general statement.
Maybe, for instance, a study of where the vaults get flooded every year,
maybe we ought to do a conversion because you are going to get into real
problems very quickly. I think that would be worthwhile. Really what we
have is not an undergrounding program but a semi-undergrounding program
Minutes UAC: 10/4/95
FINAL Page 20
now. I am wondering how that fits with the Council policy that was set in
1967.
Mr. Mrizek: In the view of the utility, the padmount is an underground
device. I do not believe that there is a utility today that is fully
undergrounded other than Palo Alto. All of PG&E converted to padmounts
years ago. They have no totally submersible padmounts in residential
areas. In areas like downtown San Francisco, yes, there are because they
have no room to put in padmottnts.
Commissioner Grimsrud: So this is someone’s definition of undergrounding,
even though it is above ground. I have talked about undergrounding a
number of times. This is a program, in an era of competition, that I
really question. After almost 30 years into it, we are not going into a
basic Council level review of policy. Maybe this is what CPAC has done.
I am not sure. Later we will be talking about Demand-Side Management and
some very-minor amottnts of money that will go to DSM for environmental
purposes, and we will be reviewing that on a regular basis. I a~ concerned
that we are not paying enough attention to this as a policy. Should we be
undergrounding the whole city? Is it worthwhile from a reliability
standpoint? From an aesthetics standpoint? A competitive standpoint? The
whole works. This is something more for Dick Rosenbaum than for this
discussion we are having right now. My feeling is that we need to look at
the mount of expenditure and see whether, in the future competitive world,
this is something we can afford. Can we afford 100%? Or maybe we should
look at a different kind of program, and underground certain parts of the
city.
Mr. Mrizek: When we established the underground priorities under the ru!es
adopted by the Council, we established the high-maintenance cost areas.
That was one of the priorities we set. Also deteriorating poles, high tree
trimming areas. Don’t get us wrong. Undergrounding is a very reliable
system if you do it right. But what we are saying, when you put the entire
transformer totally underground, you lose some of that reliability. If you
put them on pads, the aesthetics are better than poles and wires. We would
have a very highly reliable system.
Commissioner Grimsrud: That is fine and I understand it. But given that
we now have new information that it is going to be boxes above ground, are
the citizens going to be satisfied with that as a tradeoff against the
investment we are going to pay? Those are the things I am interested in.
Ms. Fleminq: Let me share something from the perspective I have. We get
numerous requests from people asking, "When are you going to underground
my area? You are too slow. You are not moving fast enough." That is
because they like to see the wide open vistas. When we tell them we are
going to install padmounts, they object. They want everything. They want
the wires gone, and they want reliability, but they don’t want these boxes.
So you really have a dilemma on your hands. I would not say that everyday
we get a call asking when is their neighborhood going to be undergrounded,
but we get a-significant number. On the other’hand, you are accurate. We
have not stopped and done an analysis recently to say, here is the cost,
and here is what we are saving, and do you want to revisit that. ! can
tell you that there are a number of neighborhoods just waiting to get
undergrounded.
Minutes UAC: 10/4/95
FINAL Page 21
Commissioner Grimsrud: But we have also heard from staff that for those
that are chosen, it is certainly not overwhelming that people want to pay
for the hookup cost for undergrounding. It is more like maybe 55% of those
who are really enthusiastic. So it is not an overwhelming kind of feeling.
Ms. Fleminq: I think there is enough, to validate the continuation of the
progra~n. When you do it area by area, I don’t think Council would approve
an area if there was overwhelming opposition. Having said all of that, I
think you should look at the issues and make a decision about it. With
these padmounts, we are really going to have to be very careful about a
study. I agree with staff. I support the fact that it is how to get rid
of eyesores, but we just cannot take those green boxes and put them in
communities. That will not work.
Chairman Johnston:
this issue.
We have a member of the public who wishes to speak on
Richard Gruen, P.O. Box 2351, Palo Alto: I would make two comments here.
The first is that there seems to have been a change made in the policy
itself, according to the last page of the handout. Whereas we used to be
talking about 750 kva or better, now we are talking about 50 kvao You have
said, we are talking about neighborhoods now, not the parking lot behind
Kinko’s. I share with Paul that he would like to have something cleaner,
but not put a big ugly green box on my lawn. Since we are now making this
a residential policy, rather than just a commercial policy, I think you
should take into account how people feel about this.
! think the policy will go out better if you include as part of the policy
all of the things you have been saying this evening, like we will talk to
you about what color it is going to be. It does not have to be green.
Obviously it can be white or some other color, and it comes with shrubbery.
That is the normal state of it. We budget for the shrubbery.
!t is like Chevron’s plan where any capital project has one percent added
to its budget to do something good for the community in the process and
another one percent to advertise ito So there could be something like that
included in your policy which says, "We are going to have a couple percent
available for landscaping, and we are going to talk to the people nearby
to see what kind of landscaping they would like to see." That would go a
long way towards having people believe that they are getting reliability
and are also getting a causal sort of envirornnental approach to it. So
when you next show pictures, the pictures will show greenery around it
rather than just this green thumb sticking out.
I think you should also be more explicit on what your DSM program calls
"Replace on burnout." That says, when you find one of these transformers
in its own swimming pool, and you decide it is time to replace it with a
padmounted unit, that ought to be part of your policy or not a part of your
policy also. From a reliability standpoint, the reliability
highway, that sounds like what you would want to do. It would be easier
to sell if your picture said, here is a case of what it could look like six
months after we put it in, since there will be shrubbery as well. Thank
you.
5~inutes UAC: 10/4/95
FINAL Page 22
Commissioner Chandler: I feel that Mr. Gruen has hit the nail on the head,
as far as I am concerned. Staff made a very compelling presentation about
the engineering appropriateness of a padmounting policy. Regarding the
terms of adopting that policy for all commercial and industrial and denser
multiple-family residential zones, I feel very comfortable with that. I
remember a decade ago the amount of discomfort that the little cable
television boxes caused the community when they appeared.
In terms of single-family residential neighborhoods, I would be uncomfort-
able with- recommending this policy until the Southgate installation is
completed and we get some feedback from that neighborhood. In particular,
the comments regarding the budgeting for shrubbery and including that up
front would need to be part of any proposal such as this. It is either
ironic or fitting that your responses to Mr. ’s letters about
the landscaping and utility facilities were in tonight’s packet, along with
this issue.
I would think that before we go further and say that in any given
neighborhood, before going ahead with the undergrounding project, that
there is a very large outreach effort made to ensure that people are aware
of what is going to happen. I certainly want the wires and poles to go
away~ but I definitely do not want a transformer box in the front yard.
In fact, I am not sure I would want the tradeoff. So I can support this
policy in some areas of the city, but in others, I think we need to wait
and see.
Mr. Mrizek: We are finishing up the Southgate area° The next underground
~tr--~ct~s a commercial/industrial area that we have gotten authenticated,
but it is not a residential area, so it will be at least two years before
we go back to a residential area again. By then, we should be able to have
collected some comments from the Southgate area. However, we would like
to pursue, on an individual basis, as we have new customers coming in and
building a new house, that we put in a single padmount transformer here or
there in residential areas. We do not want to stay fully submersible on
our transformers, but we could follow that policy and get some input before
going to a totally new residential district. We would like to pursue
having the policy in place for individual construction and start using pads
at this time. I would like to suggest that and still bring those comments
back to the commission.
Commissioner Chandler: Why does the construction of a new single-family
residential have the need for a padmounted transformer? That was my reason
for asking how many homes are served by one transformer.
Mr. Mrizek: There are times when, for instance, the one house i mentioned
was a very large house with air conditioning. So they needed a separate
transformer, and we did position that padmount on their property.
Commissioner Chandler: Was that a large property?
Mr. Mrizek: Yes, it was quite a large property. There are times when
several houses are built, and all new construction in the city is required
to go underground. If you have a pole line going right past your house,
you have to underground your service. If that pole line is across the
street and the transformer is several spans away on the pole line, we may
51inures UAC: 10/4/95
FINAL Page 23
have to locate another transformer near that new house to serve that vacant
lot. We may then ask the property owner to put a pad on that property
line. That transformer will then serve that new house being built and
other houses in the area as they underground.
Commissioner Chandler: I can only say that I strongly recommend that some
efforts be made in Southgate to landscape. I will be happy to ride my bike
around there in six months and see what I think of it.
Mr. Mrizek: Larry, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Start: I am sorry I do not have a completed landscaping pad mounted
plan to show you tonight. What I ca~ say is that all of the sites are
negotiated. We do not go out there and say, you get one and you get one.
There is quite a bit of flexibility as to where they go, so we try to
negotiate with the neighbors and see w~o has an area that would not be too
objectionable.
Commissioner Chandler: What do you offer?
effectively, on the property?
Do you pay for an easement,
Mr. Starr:That is correct.It is worth it to avoid having to put in _
Ms. Fleminq: The last project we took to the Council, which was the Times
Tribune site, they were called various things that were not very complimen-
tary. Council was very clear to us that they did not want those ugly
visible green boxes. You are on the right track, Mark. We get that same
kind of input from the ARB, the Visual Arts people, the Planning Commis-
sion. So you are really on the right track. They want to underground
them, but they do not want the boxes. We are learning. We are really
learning. The same kind of comments were made about the back roads (?)
You will notice that they now have streams and roses and things growing on
them. So you are absolutely right, we need to include them in the cost of
the project. They are unsightly. This is a new area for utilities, and
you are making every effort.
Commissioner EyerlT: In your guidelines for~electrical equipment siting,
it says here in the handout that the current procedure for approval of
transformer installation includes review by the ARB. In a neighborhood,
would that still hold true, like Mark is talking about?
Mr. Start: We could do that if they wanted to.
Commissioner EyerlT: It says here that you are doing it. Is that a
misstatement? It seems to me that it is a good idea to negotiate with
people. It will spread out into the neighborhood, and if you notice it,
there will be a review by the ARB, and you would get a feeling in general
of what is acceptable, rather than just talking to one or two houses, is
that the way it works now?
Mr. Mrizek: We have gone to the ARB in the past on padmount locations.
We have gone to the ARB on the color that we use to paint the padmounts,
as well. In fact, we are trying to discuss this report with the ARB to get
their input before going on to Council with it.
Minutes UAC:10/4/95
FINAL Page24
Commissioner Grimsrud: I was just jokingly thinking that perhaps we ought
to work with the Public Art Commission to see if we can work this into
sculpture. I suppose not in the residential districts, but perhaps in
certain commercial districts.
Mr. Mrizek: You want to be competitive, also!
Mr. Start: I have one comment in talking about whether we want to be in
the undergrounding business or not. I think one of the compelling things
in the past,.and Ed, correct me if I am wrong, but the CPUC requires the
investor-owned utilities to spend approximately 3 percent of their gross
income on undergrottnding every year. We are not under any such require-
ment, but I think the city chose to do that so that our citizens couldn’t
say, well, if we were in Brand X’s service territory, we would get
undergrounding, but since we live in Palo Alto, they have no plan. So we
have literally matched that, and we spend approximately 3 percent of our
gross sales every year, and that is where the undergrounding conversion
program has come from. Since we do not have a lot of new construction, we
are doing conversion projects.
Commissioner Chandler: I would suggest that we agendize for another
occasion a discussion of the undergrounding program in general. ! hear
what you are saying to me, but that is not necessarily a compelling reason
to deal with it. I don’t think there are that many people who move out of
town to go tO another town that is undergrounding their utilities. Maybe
we need to think about how we pay for it and how we can do that in a way
that does not affect the overall competitiveness of the utility, particu-
larly as we look at where the competitive threat lies and which customers
are likely to be susceptible to it, at least for the next decade or so.
if you think that is a good idea, you might add it to the schedule for a
future meeting.
Mr. Mrizek: We can put something together on our underground program and
on the amount of money we are spending, how we selected the areas, and also
the city policy, and bring that back here as an informational discussion.
Chairman Johnston: That would be appropriate.
Mr. Mrizek: I would be happy to do that.
Chairman Johnston: Ed, I believe you are looking for a motion here.
MOTION: Commissioner Eyerly: I move that we approve the staff recommenda-
tion for the padmounted equipment policy, contingent on the staff having
a program of cooperation with the area in which they need to install
transformers.
SECOND:By Commissioner Grimsrud.
Chairman Johnston: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Chandler: I would not support this with~ the inclusion of
residentia! neighborhoods at this time. I really want to see how it works
out in Southgate and what people think about it. There is not another
neighborhood that is coming up for two years. The one question in my mind
51inures UAC: 10/4/95
FINAL Page 25
is how to deal with this issue of replacement of existing, currently
undergrounded residential neighborhoods. I hear what is being said, and
! would like to propose an amendment to the motion, suggesting that it be
limited to commercial, industrial and RM-30 or denser residential zones,
having it also apply to existing single-family neighborhoods, for
replacements where there is this program of cooperation where all of the
adjoining homeowners have assented to it.
Chairman Johnston: I am unclear as to your amendment. Are you saying it
is okay, before another new residential district goes forward, to have it
reviewed? (Yes) You do not want your motion to include that. But with
regard to the situation where there is new construction and they currently
require a padmount transformer to support that new construction, I am
unclear as to whether you are saying that is okay to have it padmounted,
or it is not okay.
Commissioner Chandler: With the concurrence of the property owner that it
is on and the immediately adjoining properties, i would say that will
the process to have appropriate shrubbery, then I would say, fin~.
Otherwise I would (wouldn’t) want to see continuation of the existing
policy. We have had this policy, and I do not want to force the padmount
in residential neighborhoods until I see how it plays out, but I certainly
want to suggest some flexibility where replacements are required.
Commissioner Sahaqian: I have a question I would like to pose regarding
this point. Do you ever run into a situation in a new neighborhood where
you have unable to successfully negotiate with the homeowner to get one of
the homeowners’ support to install a pad?
Mr. Mrizek: Not to my knowledge. This is a relatively new policy forus
in residential areas, and we are using our landscape architect and working
with the property owner in situating the transformer in an area where there
is room for shrubbery, etc. We have been able to site some of these
padmounted transformers, but as I said, this is a relatively new process
in residential areas. In the Old Trace area, where we are redoing the
undergrounding, we have sited all of the new transformers to padmount at
this time, and we have had no problems that I know of.
Commissioner Sahaqian: You have always been able to find a property owner
who is cooperative?
Mr. Mrizek: Yes, or an area where we could locate them.
Chairman Johnston: Of course, that is an area that is quite different from
the rest of town. !t is a minimtun zoning area of 20,000 square feet.Mr.
Mrizek: Where a house is built and we put apadmount in a residential
area, it is very few. There are not many.
Commissioner Eyerly: I really feel that when a new home is built, we
really ought to go to padmounting. We need to get there eventually. I
don’t like that part of your amendment. I accept the part of the motion
the idea of having a review of what has happened in Southgate before going
into a general neighborhood and do another neighborhood, making sure we are
on track. But we need to get along with this just because of the economy
Minutes UAC:10/4/95
FINAL Page 26
and reliability, etc. I don’t think we should offer that new homeowner a
choice.
Chairman Johnston: If you offer a new homeowner a choice, it seems to me
that every time, he is going to choose that overhead cable because it is
going to be cheaper for him. Ultimately, he will get undergrounded when
all of the neighbors do. It is defeating the current policy, which is to
try and get a head start on padmounting. So I would not support that
amendment at this time. That certainly could be reconsidered at the same
time that we consider the overall undergrounding policy. But as long as
we currently have anundergrounding policy, I think new construction should
be working on the basis that we
for undergrounding.
Maybe we should restate the motion as we have so many changes.
Commissioner Eyerly: Do you want to go with the amendment or take it out?
Commissioner Chandler: Having just been through the process a few years
ago myself, I am putting myself in the position of how I would feel if I
were told that I had to accommodate this padmounted box in my front yard
in a neighborhood that had overhead wiring currently, and how my neighbors
would have felt about that, as well. I am uncomfortable with those
implications. I can just see some people being very unhappy being told
that this is a m~ndatory city requirement. So ! still have some real
misgivings about forcing this on people in an existing neighborhood that
does not have any.
Commissioner Sahaqian: I have a little problem with it because if I
understand it correctly, if you were to take an area that was all overhead
wired, and you were to go underground, then you would have roughly one
transformer for every 25 homes. So ostensibly, you would go in and
negotiate until you found someone who was prepared to give you an easement
and a site on which to put the transformer. That would serve 25 homes.
In the area where I live, every year there are three or four or five homes
that are knocked down and rebuilt. If we adopted this policy for
transformers, that would mean that those people who happened to renovate
their homes now in an overhead area would be forced to accept a padmount,
wouldn’t they?
Mr. Mrizek: No, not necessarily. It depends on the load that the house
needs. For example, building a very large home requires a large electrical
load, and the overhead transformers we have in the neighborhood may not be
able to handle that load. We may not be able to put a larger overhead
transformer on the pole to support your new home. Then at that time, we
would ask for a padmount location. The majority of the homes that are
being built, we can support, even though you may have to put in a new
underground cable to your house, but we can still support that with an
overhead transformer on the pole.
Commissioner Chandler: How big a house are we talking about?
Mr. Mrizek: It depends more on the load than on the size of the house.
Minutes UAC: 10/4/95
FINAL Page 27
Commissioner Chandler: In my neighborhood, there are a lot of 3,500- or
4,000-square-foot houses being built now.
Mr. Mrizek: We can handle that.
Commissioner Chandler: And 6,000 square feet is the biggest we allow in
the city in a single-family neighborhood. There is one of those being
built in my neighborhood right now.
Mr. Mrizek: If you include air conditioning in a home, and you start
putting in specialized equipment requiring heavy service, then the pole is
not going to support the large transformer.
Commissioner Chandler: !f you get four or five of those things in the
neighborhood where Jim and I live now --
Commissioner Sahaqian: It is happening.now.
Mr. Mrizek: If they are scattered, the transformer on the pole is still
going to provide service. But if they are bunched together and we have a
heavy load concentration, we are going to have to ask for a location for
either an underground transformer or a pad. The utility is saying "pad"
because of reliability, cost and life of the equipment.
Commissioner Sahaqian: I am h~uncing back and forth on this issue because
i have mixed feelings, but generally speaking, the houses that would be in
the category you are speaking to, those that would be bumping up the load
in an area, they are going to be sited on pretty large lots. They could
probably find some spot in the corner to put one of these aesthetically
reconstituted, above-grade transformers.
Commissioner Chandler: I accept Jim’s analysis and will take out the
portion of my amendment that deals with the placement in existing
neighborhoods, but with advice to be very careful.
Chairman Johnston: Can we have a restatement of the motion?
MOTION: Commissioner Chandler: My understanding of the motion, approved
by Commissioner Eyerly and seconded by s Grimsrud, is that we approve the
mandatory padmounting policy, with the exception that no new residential,
neighborhood-wide undergrounding projects be done on a padmounted basis
until we have had an opportunity to assess the current experience.
MOTION PASSED 5-0.
7.c. Informational Report: Demand-Side Manaqement Proqram.
Chairman Johnston: This is your topic, Tom.
Mr. Habashi: Thank you. Last month, we brought to you a strategic plan.
In the second section of that plan, we highlighted four things we felt we
must do in order to respond to the changes that are taking place in the
industry. One was that we thought we needed to be more active on the
Legislative side. We need to engage our Legislators so that things that
are happening in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. will include our views.
Minutes UAC: 10/4/95
FINAL Page 28
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXCERPT MINUTES
Utilities Padmount Transformers
November 2, 1995
Mrs. Maser: We have Larry Starr present to make a presentation.
Mr. Starr: This is basically a sales pitch because I would like to elicit your support for what we
are trying to do. It is important to us and it is important to Utilities. The people in the
community have an interest in this, and it will have an impact on what the community will look
like in the future.
This pertains to the undergrounding of our electric utilities. We have been in the undergrounding
business for about 30 years. We have been slowly undergrounding a portion of our electric
utilities ever year and are spending around $2 million to do this. This last year we have come to
realize that the material and equipment we have been using really has not lasted as long as we
had hoped for. We saw a number of large outages this past year. The connectors and actual
equipment itself that we have been placing in vaults in the underground system have not lasted
the 30 years that they should have. We are getting a little more than 20 years out of some of
them, but there has been a rash of outages in the San Antonio area and have had some of our
important industrial customers out of service for quite a long time. So we have looked at what
we have been doing here, and basically, what we have been doing is to try and put our facilities
out of sight. Nobody objects to that. Unfortunately, in the electric utility business, it has been
discovered over the last 15 to 20 years that this really does not work very well, and we have
come to that conclusion here, as well. So the industry has moved towards putting the equipment
and the majority of the connectors above ground, i.e., padmounted equipment. So you have a
cable and a conduit system that is underground, but the equipment and connectors are above
ground. It is our opinion that in order to have a reliable system, we need to do what the rest of
the industry is doing, and try to move in that direction.
We have been paying top dollar for the system we have been installing, and we are not getting
high reliability or high length of service for the equipment and facilities we are putting in the
ground. So we are paying a lot of money, and we are not getting our money’s worth out of it. So
we are proposing that the city adopt a policy that all new construction will be required to install
padmounted equipment.
I wanted to share with you some of the things we have been faced with and what we have seen to
give you a little better feel for this problem. (Slides are shown) This is a graph that shows the
outages. These are all due to equipment or connector failures. The electric utility is moving
toward deregulation, and one of the big items that people are interested in from their electric
utility is high reliability. Here we are in the heart of Silicon Valley with a lot of very
sophisticated companies that work around the clock seven days a week. They need high
reliability, and we are not ableto provide that right now. Companies that move into the area will
call and ask, what is your reliability history? How many outages do you have? That is part of
their choice as to whether they want to locate here or not. So it has a real impact on business.
We have been tracking where the outages have been, and this shows where they have been. They
are literally all over the city, and especially on San Antonio Way. That is what we experienced
this last summer.
This shows elbow connectors, a new one and a failed one. You can see it is quite damaged.
This shows a transformer in California Avenue. You can see what the equipment and connectors
look like in that environment. This is at Kinko’s. The outage occurred about 8 a.m. and it took us
all day to repair it. We started service about 4 in the afternoon. The vault was full of water that
had to be pumped out. We had to lift the lid off with a crane. We then had to disconnect
everything, remove the units, put them back in, which all takes a lot of time. So not only did we
have an outage based on transformer failure due to corrosion in this vault, but it also takes a long
time to get service restored. Had this facility been served by a padmounted transformer, we
could have driven out there with a new transformer and had them back in service in about two
hours. We have since then received an easement and we have installed a padmounted
transformer. We are going to remove these and connect them up to the new transformer.
This is a switch also in the vault. You can see the contaminants that go down in there are hard to
live with, very hard on the equipment.
The street sweeper keeps the streets clean but it also sweeps all of the little pieces into our vaults,
since we must have holes in the lids for ventilation of the equipment.
This is behind Ross Stores.
This was cleaned fairly recently. This is in the vault in the alley behind 250 University Avenue
where we had the problem with wastewater allegedly from a restaurant that caused a tremendous
odor in the alley. It was steam cleaned and flushed out earlier this year, and you can see it is
dirty once again.
Mr. Ross: Who cleans that out?
Mr. Start: We ask our wastewater people to come out with a flush truck and we steam clean it.
They suck all of the water out of the vault for us. So it is a joint effort.
11/02/95
-2-
This is a vault out on Embarcadero Way across from the golf course. It looks like the dark hole
of Calcutta. The water is below the top of the switch right now, but in the winter, it rises above
it. So if you had to get down in there and replace a connector, you can imagine what would be
involved.
These are some transformers that I photographed out in the yard that have failed. You can see
the corrosion on the cables where they fasten onto the connectors, also a switch that came out of
a vault. Two other switches we have removed. It is a very corrosive atmosphere.
On the other hand, this is a padmounted switch that has been in service for approximately five
years. You can see that the connectors still look brand new. This is another padmounted
transformer that has been in service for five years. Quite a difference from what we just saw
down in the vaults. This is a new switch that we just installed on Churchill as part of the
Southgate underground district there. This was prior to putting in some shrubbery around it.
Sometimes we just don’t get lucky. The oleanders belong to the school district, and we are
providing some screening. We had the landscaper come along and but the time he got out there
the school district had trimmed their oleanders - so it sticks out like a sore thumb. Eventually
this will all be screened.
Mrs. Maser: Are all the transformers painted "padmount green"?
Mr. Starr: Yes, that is the way we purchase them. They come painted "padmount green", but we
have the ability to paint them any color we like. If there is an interest in doing that, we could
certainly paint them to match a wall that might be behind it, so it’s not so obvious.
This is at 250 University Avenue, and our padmounted transformer goes indoors along with the
dumpsters.
This is a small transformer out in the Los Trancos area. It serves the residential customers, and
we have landscaping installed so that it is unobtrusive.
Mr. Peterson: May I ask you a question about the possibility of integrating it into a building?
We find that the Utilities people resist this.
Mr. Starr: We need to be able to get it out, and it needs to have ventilation around it. You
cannot have it squeezed into a little room where it barely fits. If we can get to it and it has some
ventilation around it, then that is acceptable. It takes a fairly large piece of equipment to move
some of these. We have a truck with a crane that has a lifting radius which can only reach so far.
But we are much more flexible than we used to be regarding requirements. It is interesting that I
have seen quite a change in our engineering group and operations people who finally realize that
we need to be padmounted, and we are willing to do what it takes to be accepted by the
community. We will do a lot more things to accommodate people if they will provide us with
the space for a padmounted transformer and a switch.
11/02/95
This is another location in Los Trancos showing the small transformers, and also one in
Southgate.
These are the small transformers that go in a residential area. Compared to the pole-mounted
transformers, they are not that large. That completes my presentation. I just wanted to share
with you some of the problems we face. They are technical in nature, but we need to be doing
something different.
One of the problems with trying to even purchase the equipment from the manufacturers today is
that for a single phase, residential transformer to go into avault, there is only one manufacturer
that builds those anymore, and it is in Canada. So we are stuck with one supplier. We are being
squeezed by limited manufacturing. As you have seen, they do not last as long being submerged
in water. We are paying a lot of money for this and are not getting our money’s worth. We
certainly are not getting reliability out of it. So I would like to elicit your support when we go to
the city council to change our policy for padmounted equipment. There is a caveat in it that says,
at the discretion of the utility director, we can install submersible equipment or put it in a vault.
That is in there in case there is no way of putting in a padmounted transformer. If there is
literally no room anywhere, we will do what we have to do. Those will be rare cases handed on a
case-by-case basis. We would have to convince Ed Mfizek that there was no other way to serve
the customer.
Mrs. Maser: Why do you find it necessary to make this a written policy? What about going with
the way it’s been handled before on a project-by-project basis?
Mr. Starr: I really have not authority to force this on people right now. I cannot do that. They
can simply say they do not want a padmounted transformer, and we will not do it.
Mr. Ross: You’re talking about conversion of existing buildings?
Mr. Starr: Yes, there is a policy in place already that says that all new construction has to be
underground. But in the past, we have put the equipment that goes along with that in vaults in
the ground. So we would like to modify that policy to state that it can be underground, but the
equipment will be padmounted.
Mrs. Maser: What happens in the case where there is an accessible garage where applicants want
to put it in an accessible locker. We had such a requestby the owner of Courthouse Plaza a few
months ago. It met with the resistance by the Utilities Department. If it were acceptable in such
a location you wouldn’t have any objection -- would you?
If it were acceptable in that location, you would not have any objection to it, would you?
11/02/95
-4-
Mr. Starr: Not really. As you saw at 250 University Avenue. The customer does not want to put
it someplace where we cannot get to it, because they could be out of service for 24 hours or more
as we try to move these by hand. That is very time consuming. It is in their best interest for us
to be able to get to these transformers.
Mr. McFall: I have a comment about an applicant, about putting me in a garage. They were told
by Utilities that the crane to remove that would need to be leased and it would take two weeks to
accomplish. Obviously the building could not be shut down that long. Certainly we’d like to
have them in garages where possible, but the applicant is not going to do that if he is shut down
for long periods because of lack of equipment to remove it. Are you familiar with that situation?
Mr. Starr: No, I’m not.
Mr. Ross: You might just not that address...245 Lytton. It’s a new three-story building, two
levels of underground parking. The new transformers are being stuck in the middle of a formal
garden. People on this Board and the applicant would much rather see it in the garage. But, it
came down to a low-head rig not being available. Perhaps many will become available for the
type of equipment needed.to service transformers in underground garages. If the resistance in the
Utilities Department can be overcome for whatever reasons exist it would be helpful. A lot of
applicants do want to mitigate the appearance as much as possible, but it has been a real
challenge to work these out with the Utilities Department.
Mr. Starr: We can certainly take that into consideration.
Mrs. Maser: Maybe all the funds that are being spent to promote this new policy could instead be
used to obtain a new rig.
Mr. Starr: Our experience has been that nobody wants a padmounted transformer on their
property. Nobody wants to volunteer for it.
Mrs. Maser: Especially if there is another location that is reasonable, that puts it out of sight.
Mr. Peterson: We can make a recommendation that the space used in buildings for this
equipment not be counted against the floor area ration, that it be a credit.
Mrs. Maser: That’s a great idea.
Mr. Ross: I think there is a good case for this. I have a few questions: What percentage of the
equipment overall is underground? The percentage of outages -- let’s call it 90%, were
underground equipment. Are 90% of the city’s current transformers underground now or is it
really the case that the underground has a much .higher case of outages? Does that make sense?
11/02/95
Mr. Starr: The underground outages we get are all due to failure of some kind of equipment --
connector failure, switch failure. On the overhead system, failures come from customers running
into poles, a squirrel gets inside the transformer and gets fried, a windstorm throws a branch onto
the wires. But there are very, very few equipment failures. They are all caused by some outside
source. In regard to the quantity, we do not have half of the city converted to underground. We
have a much larger exposure of overhead system out there. There are a lot more overhead
transformers than underground. You can see that we have had a number of overhead outages,
which are due to outside influences. But very rarely is the underground system affected by
outside influences. People do not drive into our padmounted transformers or switches. They do
not fail on their own. We have excellent reliability with padmounted equipment. The connectors
are in a very clean environment. There is no water collection. The stuff is all advertised as being
submersible, but it does not last 25 or 30 years, and in this business, the equipment should. It
may last 10 years, but after that, it is not so.
Mr. McFall: Can they be drained into the storm system?
Mr. Starr: No, we do not do that. We cannot drain into the storm system from a sump. We have
to pump into the sanitary system. We have had a few sump pumps and they have extremely high
maintenance and are not very reliable. It costs thousands of dollars to clean the vaults. They had
a program a few years ago of trying to seal the vaults, but nothing ever lasts. You can keep the
water out for a few years, but the seal eventually fails. It is a losing proposition.
Mr. Ross: How do you retrofit a maximum footprint building?
Mr. Starr: That is why I have the caveat in there that we might have to do something. If there is
no other solution, we will have to put it in a vault in the alley or in the public fight-of-way.
Mr. McFall: You mentioned Kinko’s. What was the solution there?
Mr. Starr: We put a padmounted transformer out there at the rear. It is on city property. We
have gotten an easement. In fact, it is sitting out there fight now. We have not gotten it hooked
up yet.
Mrs. Piha: Is one of the issues a lack of funds for proper maintenance?
Mr. Starr: No.
Mr. Ross: The Utilities Department is well funded. It does really well fmancially. I understand
your arguments about spending top dollar and not getting top performance.
Ms. Piha: It looked like the condition with some of the vaults that you illustrated could have been
improved by increased maintenance.
11/02/95
-6-
Mr. Starr: They can get into that condition in six months to a year. So all of our vaults would
have to be out there on a very regular basis. We had a contractor come in and clean some of our
vaults. They cost $300 each. As you can see with the one in the alley, they tend to get dirty very
quickly. We have been doing it for around five years.
Ms. Piha: That is the real issue. If they were maintained on a more frequent basis, they would
not get into that condition. I know there is a cost associated with it, but I hate to see this policy
put in place. Palo Alto is a community that respects the environment. I see this as a really
negative approach to a solution. It comes down to a maintenance situation.
Mr. McFall: You cannot get the water out every time it rains.
Ms. Piha: They should be able to be submersible. I think it is corrosive water. It’s a
maintenance issue.
Mr. Starr: It is brackish water that gets in there. Your viewpoint is correct. These pictures were
taken in September when it has not rained for a long time. That is why they looked as good as
they did. But when you are out there in February or March, you will fmd that those vaults are
full of water, so now, all the dirt and grime and things that have accumulated during the summer
have mixed with the water, making it corrosive. So unless you are out there trying to pump these
all the time, it is eating away at the equipment. That is what I am trying to say. The industry is
saying that they cannot make equipment that will last in that environment. That is why they have
quit making it.
Ms. Piha: What do the equipment manufacturer’s recommend re maintenance schedules?
Mr. Starr: San Francisco has a lot of large vaults. You have to keep them dry. That is how to
make it work.
Ms. Weiss: How do they do it?
Mr. Starr: They are large and they do have pump systems on them. They maintain them all the
time.
Ms. Piha: That is what I would like to see here. Not an easy solution or policy that puts
transformers above-ground everywhere in this City.
Mr. McFall: How many vaults do you estimate there are in this City?
Mr. Starr: More than 200. We have a large number of them.
The water comes through the joints. The vaults are made up in sections. They put in gaskets,
but they do not hold out the water that well.
11/02/95
-7-
Mr. Ross: In the undergrounding process in dealing with existing buildings we’ve seen a bunch
of unfortunate connections to the buildings. We get a four-inch steel conduit strapped to the base
of the building and routed around. We were asking ourselves the question, is there some way as
these things get replaced through the undergrounding process that the city goes through, is there
some way of incorporating that as an issue in the planning process so that the relationship of
transformer locations makes it more amenable to cleaner connections; that idea be included as a
consideration when deciding where to locate transformers. What kind of guidelines to give new
building owners, for example.
Mr. Starr: Yes, we were asked to look at that. I think that there has been a policy change since
then that says you cannot put the service runs on the front of the building anymore. You have to
go on the side, at least. But when the transformer goes in a vault, and it is outside your building,
and you come up on the sides, and that part of the conversion process is paid for by the property
owner. So they are interested in getting to their service point in as short a distance as possible to
keep the cost down.
Mr. Ross:: The service box underground transformers 100-foot run to get to their panel. If the
undergrounding had been done in the alleyway, just as an example, it would not have been
necessary to put the conduits on the face of the building .I understand the issues...where Utilities
decides to put the transformer whether underground or padmounted...has a great deal to do with
how expensive, difficult and aesthetic it will be.
Mr. Starr: That is correct.
Mr. McFa!l: I live in Southgate, and have been exposed to the undergrounding there. The
utilities department has gone to great lengths to attempt to locate the padmount transformers in as
unobtrusive locations as possible. In fact, the slide with the oleanders I believe is on Churchill. I
think they are getting more attuned to visibility and those kinds of issues. I hope that will
continue.
Mrs. Maser: What action on this are we to take?
Ms. Grote: The board does not need to take action in this review. You can endorse the policy or
not endorse the policy at this time...but pass along your comments to the Council. It’s up to you.
Mr. Peterson: I am persuaded that this is a major utility problem. But for us and most
applicants, some of the areas are not a problem at all...if you have enough area, if you have a
large industrial building, if you have a lot of property, a padmounted transformer is not a big
problem. You can find a place and you can landscape it. But the ones that are a real problem are
those in the urban areas. It seems to me that rather than just endorsing this policy, there ought to
be coupled with that incentives that encourage people to do what you want them to do. That is
why I suggested giving credit for FAR. There ought to be incentives and encouragement to
allow people to paint these things any way they want, and that includes the numbering system.
11/02/95
-8-
Even if you paint them, you have a big yellow number up there. It needs to be discreet. The
utility people need to be sensitive to that.
The other thing that concerns me about this policy is that if it becomes a policy, my experience is
that they are not flexible. I will pick on PG&E. When they have a policy, they are not flexible.
They have the policy, and that’s it. My concern about a policy like this going in is that the utility
will have all of the strength, and everyone else is left out.
Mr. Starr: One of the advantages of being a municipal utility like this is that if we took that sort
of stance at the utility, it takes about five minutes for the homeowner to call the mayor or city
manager and express their displeasure with what we are doing. So our hope is that with this
policy, it would at least make the people work with us so that we could reach a compromise. We
currently pay for the easement in the urban areas. You are correct. That is probably the most
difficult item in the downtown area. There is very little space, so we pay for the right to put
transformers there. That takes some of the sting out of it. We are willing to go around and talk
to a number of people, because one transformer will serve at least 20 homes, and we have quite a
bit of flexibility in the exact location. It is not like we go in and say, "You are the lucky one.
You get the transformer." Perhaps in the future we could allow them to have free underground
conversion for their home in order to place a transformer there. It is not something that
somebody wants in their yard, but if they are willing to work with us, there are some things
available to mitigate it.
Mr. Ross: For the most part we are concerned about the commercial buildings since we don’t
review homes. There was a project that felt like a bad mix of the two at 330 Emerson Street. It’s
a very small building with the transformer in front of small multiple-family units like duplexes.
The thought of this being multiplied is chilling. The transformer is about six feet tall and has a
big hedge around it. It takes up a lot of space.
Mr. Start: One of the things we are trying to do is, in the past, they purchased standard size
transformers. We have gone back and looked at our specifications. We are willing to buy the
smallest transformers made. They may not be the lowest cost unit, but we can write our
specifications to specify size as being important in part of the selection criteria, as opposed to
simply price. We are willing to pay a little more to get a smaller unit so that we do not have
something like you just described. If it is a small load, there is no point in having a unit that fits
all of the transformer sizes. The little ones you saw in the pictures do not have that large box on
them. We can get larger ones that do not have the large cabinet on the front either. So that is
something else we are doing to try and help the situation.
Mr. Ross: The ones you showed being installed in Southgate are smaller than the one serving this
4-unit apartment.
Mr. Starr: It makes a difference whether it is a single phase transformer or a 3-phase
transformer, based on the load.
11/02/95
-9-
~..McFall: Are the ones in Southgate single-phased?
Mr. Starr: Yes, those are single phase.
Mrs. Maser: I have some resistance in endorsing this policy. I can identify a lot with both of
.your comments on this. We hope that this Board and our applicants could work on a
case-by-case basis with you in a closer relationship to come up with creative solutions that can
really work for the community visually and for the Utilities Department in terms of gaining
access. But just to endorse a blanket policy that all transformers be padmounted from this day
forward is not providing us with the flexibility the community may want in coming up with some
other solutions. I personally would not feel comfortable in endorsing that.
Mr. Start: It is our intent that with the policy written the way it is, the applicants understand that
they have to work with us. It is not totally our way. That is why it has the disclaimer in there
that if they want to make their pitch to the utility director, and there is some reason why a
padmounted transformer does not work on their property, they can make their case.
Mrs. Maser: I’m coming from the standpoint that if an underground transformer can work in
certain situations this Board would consider that preferable. At 330 Emerson we hoped it could
be put on the back side of the property, and for some reason, utilities does not want to use the
driveway to service it. An underground installation should be considered in cases other than
desperation cases, on occasion. I don’t know how the other Board members feel, but I think there
is some reluctance to embrace this policy because of our natural interest in aesthetics, particularly
in the urban portion of the community. I agree, in open areas you can successfully screen the
transformers and they get lost -- but we are faced with some difficult situations where we think
we have a viable solution to offer, only to have difficulty working it out with Utilities. As time
goes on, hopefully the equipment will be smaller and the trucks to maintain the equipment will
also improve. There may be some possibility of working things out in the future in a creative
way...one that does not fit the mold of this particular policy proposal.
Mr. Starr: I understand. I guess our viewpoint is that every time we put submersible equipment
out there now, it is degrading the reliability of everyone’s service in that area.
Ms. Piha: I would strongly disagree. I think that if there is a different maintenance plan put in
place, it is not being degraded. I would really like to see that explored.
Mr. Start: It is not possible to do that, within reason. The other way we are being squeezed is
Wing to keep our costs down. Maintenance is one of them. As the industry moves toward
deregulation, people are interested in high reliability and low cost. They are not going to have to
buy their power from our utility. The more customers we lose here because they do not like our
utility is going to be reflected in charges to the rest of the customers. So yes, maybe we could
spend unlimited funds on Wing to maintain a vault system, but we will have high maintenance
costs, and we will not be competitive in the future. So from an engineering standpoint, I need to
11/02/95
-10-
tell you that when you put them in the ground, they are going to be less reliable, and it really
does not matter how often you maintain the small vaults. They will not last as long; they will
have more outages, and it will take longer to repair the outages simply by the nature of the
equipment. It takes time to get out there and do that.
I understand that that has nothing to do with how they look. We are concemed about what we
are seeing, and I am here to tell you that we have learned this the hard way. Yes, we can increase
our maintenance out there, but I do not feel it is going to have that big a difference for the kind of
vaults we have. When I described the vaults in San Francisco, these are the kinds that people can
walk aroundit. They are large, like this room. They are much easier to maintain. That is not
what we have. You saw the vaults we have. They are very difficult to get down into and hard to
keep them clean. We can spend a lot of money on them, but we cannot keep the water out. So
they are still going to be unreliable.
Mr. Peterson: My suggestion is that there are incentives and encouragements to make
padmounted or non-underground equipment possible. I think it would behoove us to try and
pursue that.
Mrs. Maser: I’m reminded as you speak of Just Desserts and what a shock it was to most of us to
see that transformer plastered on the back of the building in the courtyard. It’s a huge eyesore in
a space that was supposed to be used for outdoor dining. Bob, your suggestion is good. If they
had provided for the transformer as part of the building and had integrated it as part of the design
-- that transformer would have disappeared.
Mr. Peterson: It does mean that the utility needs to be flexible enough. You usually know more
of the possibilities than the tenants. Rather than saying, "You cannot have that because we
cannot get a crane in there," it would be helpful if you said, "Well, we could do this or that."
That is what we are looking for.
Mr. Starr: We accommodated a customer on Waverley Street who is building a large residence.
They required a large, padmounted transformer. They fmally agreed that we would install it back
near the air conditioning condensers on their property. We informed them that we could not
reach it with our equipment from the street, so if the transformer fails, it is going to take quite a
bit of time and effort to get it out of there.
Mr. Ross: That’s not quite as big an issue with padmount transformers. The reason for the
change suggested is that it will be more reliable.
Mr. Starr: That is correct. We do not expect it to fail, but nothing is 1 O0 percent foolproof. So
we have informed the property owner that we will go along with it, as we are more convinced
that we need to padmount than we need the access. If the customer understands that if it does
fail, the outage will be for a considerable amount of time if it is installed at the back.
11/02/95
-11-
Mrs. Maser: On that basis, would you be willing to reconsider the 330 Emerson project. It’s a
similar situation. It is the kind of thing that we would really love to be able to work with you on,
and Council was also pushing for that particular installation to be put in the back rather right out
front. You might see if that is a possibility. This illustrates our desire to avoid a big broad
policy in favor of the ability to have an exchange with you on a case-by-case basis, and to say
"look there are more possibilities."
Mr. McFall: I noticed regarding crane access in this morning’s Mercury some people lifted a 44-
foot boat out of their backyard. The same situation might apply here. Obviously, a large crane is
more expensive than a small unit. That would allow the issue of access to be addressed. I don’t
know if the city owns equipment like that or not, but that could hopefully open up oppommities
for other places
Mr. Starr: We probably do not have the funds for something of that size. We would have to rent
a crane like that. That is why they are telling people that it takes time. You cannot just call up
Biggie Crane or whoever makes them and say, we need one of your hundred tonners down here
in the next two hours. We do that for some of our big cranes. You are at the mercy of the rental
places. It is too big for us to own; it would sit in the yard 360 days of the year. So there are
some compromises we need to work out, but we are the experts in this area and can certainly
work out some improvements.
Mr. Ross: I understand reason for this change. I can support a move towards padmount
transformers. I am also troubled by the fairly strong policy shift. It sounds like you and we
come from different places about Utilities problems right now. We have heard about the
problems, but it has been m3~ experience that people do not get their way with utilities. Despite
the fact that there may not be a policy requirement right now, with the exception of the Hohbach
property, where they are able to re-use the vault in their existing garage, we have never seen an
applicant prevail. We are not talking about residential properties. We are talking about
commercial projects. But the troubling thing for me is that it appears to be fairly easy to make a
good case for the decisions to be made along engineering lines but difficult to make decisions
considering aesthetics. Whether before the council or the ARB. In the final analysis, the
decision makers have to go along with it, and that is the typical outcome. To have the additional
weight of more policy behind that, I would be concerned about more loss of flexibility. More
than flexibility, real problem-solving help rather than "sorry, take it away, bring it back whether
you like it or not". I am particularly troubled by Rule #3.b. that would say, "Where an existing
underground service must be upgraded, the customer shall be required to provide adequate space
for installation of the padmount transformer. In the event the customer is unable to provide
adequate space for the padmount transformer, then the customer shall make arrangements at his
expense to receive service at primary voltage." That may work for Varian, but I don’t think it
will work for Edgewood Cleaners or a small property owner that does not even understand what
primary voltage means.
11/02/95
-12-
Mr. ... Starr: That is the point. They would not need that. Their load is not large enough. It only
applies to the big industrial customers.
Mr. Rossi It used to have a limitation of 750 kva. That’s being deleted from here. In other
words, every single upgrade of every existing upgrade of every existing underground service, no
matter of what size, is going to require the property owner to provide adequate space to receive
primary voltage. So I am troubled by the deletion of that lower threshold because it is now
including the cleaner and anyone else requiring that service.
Mr. Starr: What we could do is to simply eliminate that second paragraph altogether. The ftrst
paragraph really covers that. We are going to be in the padmounted business or we are not. So
we are asking that we do that. I can take care of that.
Mr. Ross: I would not want this to become the piece of artillery pointed at the small business.
Mr. Starr: We have no interest in trying to serve our residential customers at primary voltage,
nor the small businesses either.
Mr. Ross: So the approach that incorporates, if possible, even more of a concern for problem
solving and flexibility but shifting towards padmounted transformers would not bother me. I
have a problem with additional policy tools that allow the Utilities Department to be less flexible
with applicants.
Mr. Starr: It has been interesting, during this past year, in seeing our problems and seeing some
of the changes in our staff. I need to work with them more in the customer service area. We
fmally are realizing that if we are going to be padmounted, we will have to do something
different than we have in the past, because nobody wants to have one. I am here trying to pitch
something to you that nobody wants. Nobody wants a padmounted transformer on their
property. Even our large industrial customers would prefer not to have to look at them.
On the other hand, I had to write a letter back to one of high tech industrial customers who had
written a letter to the mayor saying, "Here we are in Palo Alto in 1995. Why are we having to
put up with all of these outages on the electric system? Why don’t we have a modern, up-to-date,
underground electric system?" I had to respond to that. That was due to the problems we had
with our connectors out on San Antonio Road. They are all of the same vintage, and all started
failing at about the same time. We ended up working out there a lot of overtime on Saturday
nights, weekend after weekend, eventually replacing all of the connectors out there.
Mr. McFall: That was underground?
Mr. Starr: Yes, that is all underground.
11/02/95
-13-
Mrs. Maser: A healthier maintenance program might have circumvented most of that. As Cheryl
has pointed out. In the ARB’s perfect world, we would see non of this equipment -- and in your
perfect world they would be right at curbside...somehow we need to come to terms with this and
meet halfway. This tool you suggest is not the answer.
Mr. Peterson: I am wondering if there is some way we can provide you with some wording in
this policy to accommodate the kind of flexible issues we are interested in. I would like to see
that in the policy.
Mr. McFall: My experience is that they point to a rule and there is no discussion or dialogue.
That is the engineering approach, that there is an answer there, and something else is not the
answer. We are suggesting that it is not black and white, and requires discussion and dialogue.
Mr. Ross: Think about what the Planning Department does, so many different judgement calls to
make. I happen to support an additional staffperson to solve customer type issues; I would be in
favor of that. The Council will get verbatim minutes.
Mrs. Maser: I’d like to see Bob’s idea stated clearly...the one about floor area ratio. How can we
get that moving?
Ms. Grote: I can take a look at that with current zoning since it is not an employee-generating
space. Let me double check on that.
Mr. Peterson: The way to really make these things work is to say, you get 1-1/2 credits. Then
you don’t have to have a policy! Everyone will want to enclose their transformers in the building
envelope!
Mrs. Maser: I think we all recognize the problems. There needs to be attention paid to
individual projects rather than this broad inundate which allows little flexibility.
Thank you for making the presentation.
11/02/95
-14-
PLANNING COMMISSION EXCERPT MINUTES
Meeting of November 8,1995
AGENDA ITEM 2 UTILITY DEPARTMENT PADMOUNT EQUIPMENT
pOLICY: Planning Commission review of proposed policy
change to disallow undergrounding and require all future
installation of transformers in the City of Palo Alto to be
padmounted.
Chairman Beecham: This is the item wherein the Utility Department wishes to get away from
underground transformers. They are working out how to make padmounted transformers and
equipment more acceptable and aesthetically pleasing to the city.
Ms. Lytle: I would like to introduce Larry Starr, Assistant Director of Utilities for Engineering
and Operations.
Chairman Beecham: Do you have any comments for us tonight?
~. Starr: Yes, I have some comments and a slide presentation to make. The utility has been in
the underground business now for about 30 years. This summer, we probably had some of the
most trouble we have had since we have been installing underground. It appears that history has
finally caught up with us. What was thought to be a very modem, state-of-the-art system has
turned out to be, in reality, a very high cost system that is very expensive to maintain and
provides us with extremely low reliability. So in terms of current state-of-the-art underground
systems, what we have here in Palo Alto is an inferior system to what other utilities are now
installing.
We did an extensive study this summer, trying to figure out what we could do to improve the
reliability and get longer life out of our equipment. One of the things we wanted to do is to try
and at least stop doing what we have done in the past, which was mainly trying to put all of our
equipment below ground in vaults. It works very well to get the equipment out of sight, and of
course, property here in Palo Alto is at a premium, so it allowed the equipment to be put out in
the public right-of-way or in the sidewalks, not on people’s property, and they did not have to
look at it. What our experience has told us, and has shown us is that what they call submersible
may work for 10 or 15 or 20 years, but we expected to get at least 30 years out of this equipment
to get our money’s worth out of it. That has not been the case with the equipment that we put
into vaults.
We have tried over the years to make our vaults waterproof. That only lasts about a year or two,
and it is a very expensive process which has not worked out. The connectors that are used on the
cables to connect the equipment that we put down there does not have a very good life
expectancy. Although the cable that we use has been holding up very well, the connectors to the
equipment have not. We had some very serious problems last summer, especially on
San Antonio Road. We ended up working a large number of overtime hours on weekends and
Saturday ~fights to accommodate the businesses out there and to try and correct the problems.
We eventually ended up replacing all of the connectors on the circuit that served those people so
that we could bring a halt to the outages. They had something like six or seven unanticipated
outages.
The other side of the coin is that today, we need to have a modem and very reliable system
because the businesses here in Palo Alto use electricity around the clock, seven days a week, 24
hours a day. They are very sensitive to electric service, and they need high reliability. Even our
homeowners nowadays know exactly when you have an outage because you have to reset
everything. It appears that everything you buy, from the microwave to the TV to the clock radio,
has a digital timer on it, so they are all sitting there flashing 12 o’clock when you come home. So
everybody knows when we have an outage, and everybody expects good service. Here in Palo
Alto, we are having difficulty providing that. With a city this size and the number of customers
we have, we should probably see maybe anywhere from zero to two or three outages a month in
bad times. I can show you a graph in the slides where we have had 10 or 12 outages a month.
So it is really not acceptable.
One of the things we can do is to try and at least stop designing the system the way we have in
the past. The utility business we have seen in the last 15 years has made the same determination.
They have simply quit making the equipment that goes in vaults and is called "submersible." We
are now down to two suppliers of transformers from whom we can buy, and if it is for residential
or the smaller, single phase transformer, there is now only one manufacturer, and they are in
Canada. So we are running out of suppliers, and we are paying quite a bit of money for what is
out on the market today.
I wanted to come tonight and share with you the same presentation I will be taking to the city
council in late December or early January. I have already spoken to the Utility Advisory
Commission, and last week, I spoke to the ARB, asking for their support also. We are proposing
here to change the city’s policy to require padmounted equipment for all new construction. That
would require that the applicants coming in for new electrical service would have to come up
with a location on their property where we can install a padmounted transformer. I understand
that we are trying to push off on people something that nobody wants. I cannot seem to get these
labeled as public art. They probably will not show up in any traffic circles. People do not like
them in their front yards, and they do not like them out in front of their properties.
We have the ability to paint them different colors to match the background where they stand. We
have had to rethink what we are doing. In talking to the ARB, they made some suggestions, and
I have taken those to heart. In the past, we have put people under the limitation that we would
set it in their front yard as long as we could reach it with the equipment that we have. If we want
to be in the padmounted business and want people to accept what we are doing, we will have to
do better than that. So we are making arrangements now with some of the local crane companies
so that on short notice, we can have them come in and set up a padmounted transformer probably
anywhere on somebody’s property. So we are not restricted to just the front yard.
It has been interesting to note that we have worked so hard and have had so many problems with
our submersible stuff that now, the staff and operations people are understanding that we have to
do business differently. We need to be in the padmounted business, and to do that, we must
make concessions to the property owners and the people who are out there being stuck with this
equipment on their property. So we want to be as helpfifl as we can and work with the public to
locate these as unobtrusively as we possibly can. Let me now show you the slides which display
some of the problems we have had, so you can see what we are up against.
This is the graph that shows the outages. We have at least two-thirds of the city still on the
overhead system. In reviewing our outages, we find that the overhead outages are caused by
branches that fall onto the lines during windstorms, also squirrels running around and getting into
the transformers. They are usually caused by outside influences that you have little control over.
We spend over $400,000 a year trimming trees. Occasionally, branches do fall onto the lines.
But the underground outages are all caused by equipment failure. We either have a connector
failure, or the equipment itself fails due to corrosion, or oil leaks out of it, etc.
Our outages in this city should be as you see on the left side, way down in the two or three range.
We certainly are not meeting that criterion. This is a map of the city showing colored areas
where undergrounding has been done. The little pins indicate the outages experienced in the last
¯ three years. The green areas are future, proposed underground areas. The area with all of the
pins on the fight is San Antonio Road.
I talked about connectors and elbows. This shows a failure next to a brand new one right out of
the package. You can see what the environment does to these down in the vaults. This shows
what you see in the vaults. This is a vault behind Ross Stores in the parking lot. You can see
how dirty it is. We have been through a long, dry spell, so at least, it is dry. In wintertime, in all
likelihood, this vault will also be full of water.
This is a transformer we replaced recently behind Kinko’s in the California Avenue district.
Again, the equipment in the vaults is very hard to repair and replace. We had an outage occur
there when the transformer failed about 8 o’clock in the morning. We did not get them back in
service until 4:30 in the afternoon. That makes quite an impact on somebody like Kinko’s which
operates 24 hours a day every day. The reason is that this is in a vault, and we must get out
there, remove the vault lid and get a truck out there to pump out the water. The transformer had
a hole in it, so it leaked oil into the water. So now, the water has to be contained and tested to
ensure it does not contain PCBs. This all takes a considerable amount of time. If this had been
served by a padmounted transformer, in all likelihood we would never have had a problem. Our
people tell me that in the last 18 years, which is the longest employee we have had, we have not
had a padmounted transformer fail. So we have excellent reliability with them. I cannot say that
for vault equipment.
Here are some more connectors on a switch. You can see how dirty they get down there. We
keep the streets clean around here, but the street sweeper also sweeps little pieces of leaves and
things into the vaults through the covers. We have to have air holes in the covers to allow air to
circulate. These devices generate heat, so the heat comes out and the trash goes in. Again, try to
visualize this covered with water and trying to find the problem here at night.
This is the vault behind 250 University Avenue, where we had the problem recently in the paper
where it appeared that some unknown establishment was dumping fish water into the vault. It
caused a terrible smell, so this was recently steam cleaned and pumped out so that the other
restaurant people in the alley could tolerate the smell. It is still not very clean in that vault.
This looks like the black hole of Calcutta. This is a switch out on Embarcadero Road. Right
now, the water is below the top of the switch, but in winter, it will be above that. If we have a
problem with this, we wi!l have to go out and pump the water down to handle it before
performing any operations on it. These are some pictures of items we have taken out of service
and are currently sitting in our yard which have failed. You can see the high corrosion on the
cable and connectors. This is a stainless steel switch. You can see that even those do not last
that well.
Here are some more switches taken out of service. They were totally inoperable. They are called
submersible, but they just do not last when they are submerged. Here is our solution for Kinko’s.
After they had the long outage there, we were able to obtain an easement in this parking lot right
behind them. We have installed a padmounted transformer, and are in the process of getting it
connected. You can recall what those connectors looked like in the vaults. This is what they
look like in a padmounted transformer. This is a unit that has been in service for the last five
years. It looks like it was installed yesterday. There is a very good environment in there for our
connectors. They remain this way for years and years. There are no maintenance problems. All
we have to do is to ensure that the device does not lose its paint and start to rust.
This is a similar switch to the one in the black hole of Calcutta. Much easier to maintain and
operate. This is the same switch with the doors closed, on Embarcadero Way. This is a new
switch that we installed on Churchill for our Southgate underground district. After this was
done, we still had some landscaping to add. We placed oleanders around it. Eventually they will
screen the switch.
This is a padmounted transformer that is fairly unobtrusive on Park Boulevard and another on
Sherman off of Park Boulevard. In the future, we could paint these to match the wall so that it
does not contrast with it, if someone wanted that. When you work with developers, they come
up with ways to put the equipment out of sight. This is behind the Ross store. We got excellent
4
cooperation from the people at 250 University Avenue. The padmounted transformer is located
behind these doors, along with the garbage dumpsters inside. So there are things that can be
done to mitigate the visual impact of these devices.
This is out at Old Trace Road. We upgraded the underground system out there this year. These
are little padmounted transformers to serve the residential neighborhood. This shows our
landscaping that we added. Thi~ is in Southgate where we have not yet installed our
transformers, but as you can see, we can fred places to set them back off the sidewalk. We will
have shrubs around this one so that it will not stand out.
This shows the size of the units we are not putting in the residential areas. Those are the
overhead transformers, and are about three feet square. That concludes my presentation. We are
trying to change the system design and get away from what we have been doing in the past. We
understand that what we want to do is unpopular from a visual standpoint. Nobody wants one of
these on their property, but there are some very valid reasons for why we need to do this. We
want to provide reliable service. What we are doing now is that we are spending a lot of money
and are not getting high reliability. As the electric utility industry moves toward deregulation,
the customers are going to have more choices, and we want to be the utility of choice, especially
with our industrial customers. If we cannot provide the high reliability that they need, they will
either move out of the area or choose some other utility to serve them. That is another reason
why we want to make our system as reliable as we can with what we can buy today.
Chairman Beecham: Seeing no speakers present tonight, I will open and close the public
heating. Are there questions for staff?.
.Commissioner Ojakian: Larry, if I remember correctly, several months ago we had a site come
before us at 330 Emerson Street. The planning commission got into a long discussion on the
padmounted transformer for that site, and so did the council. I happened to be at that meeting.
At our previous meeting, somebody said that we needed a padmounted transformer for every
three residential units. Is that correct?
Mr. Starr: Not residential. It would be for commercial units. One of those little padmounted
units that I showed you will serve approximately 20 to 25 homes.
.Commissioner Ojakian: So for every 25 homes, we end up with one of these transformers.
Mr. Starr: That is correct. There is not one on every block or one in front of every three homes.
They serve quite a few homes out there. The calculation is that the electrical demand for a home
here is about 3 kv. That is a 75 kv transformer, so three into 75 is about 20 to 25 homes.
.Chairman Beecham: To help us understand the location Vic just referred to, we were told that a
transformer was required to go in front of a three or four-unit housing complex. Is that normal?
Mr. Starr: Well, it depends on what kind of a load they have.
Chairman Beecham: It was for small housing units.
Mr. Starr: No elevator? (No) The ARB asked the same question. They asked whether, in light
of our new flexibility on this, if we would go back and look at that. I had staff pull that out to see
if there was some other location we could come up with for the padmounted transformer, only to
find out that they are under construction, so there isn’t anything we can do for them, but in the
future, there may be some alternatives we can fred for alternative locations.
Chairman Beecham: In relation to location, I am still wondering about quantity and how often
they show up. Again, we were told that it was required to put a transformer in front of this
four-trait building with small units and no elevator.
Mr. Starr: I do not have the details on the load there, so I cannot comment.
Commissioner Ojakian: I do not want to get too focused on a particular address, but some of us
gained some knowledge from that prior discussion. In looking at this, if it is one for every 25
units, then we should assume that we need at least 1,000 units for the city as a whole for the
residential area. Is that correct? (Yes) And for the commercial area, how many additional?
Mr. Start: That depends upon the load. We have different sizes. You can serve a number of
customers off of one if they do not have a high electrical load. If they do, you may need a larger
one. It all depends on the size of the load. We have a new residence going in on Waverley street
where the single residence requires its own padmounted transformer. It is bigger than the ones I
showed you tonight.
Commissioner Ojakian: I am trying to get a feel for what we are talking about in terms of
numbers of these transformers and where the cost ends up. It looks like you are saying that there
is a three-to-one life expectancy between padmounting versus submerging them. Then we have
X amount of units. I wanted to get at the cost breakout.
Mr. Starr: The cost that we are seeing is not only the life expectancy but also the high
maintenance. And how does one put a price on reliability? We have a lot of outages, and people
are unhappy.
Commissioner Carrasco: It seemed to me from your slides that most of your problems occurred
due to moisture and water damage. Is that the case?
Mr. Starr: That is a large part of it.
Commissioner Carrasco: What is the other part of it? In what proportion? Is water 98 percent
of the problem?
Mr..Starr: It probably is. Just the dirt settling on the equipment does not do that. It gets wet and
then dries out. Some of them are wet all of the time. Over the years, it is the water and the
contaminart.ts that are in the dirt, and the water that gets in there slowly erodes the rubber
connectors. That is what is happening.
Commissioner Carrasco: The reason why I ask that question is that we did a project in Los
Altos. The transformer needed to be up on the surface. We eventually worked out a design with
PG&E where it stood up over the ground surface by about a foot-and-a-half with a grill on it so
that dust and debris did not get into it. It could be accessed from an underground garage from the
outside. It had a substantial drain, and they suggested connecting it to the garage sump pump. Is
there a way to design these transformers so that you could put them underground but solve the
water problem? It seemed like PG&E was willing to accept that arrangement.
Mr. Starr: We can do some of those, if that is viable, such as in a garage or in an area like that.
If it is going to sit out on your property, you are still going to have the view of it, even if it only
sticks up a foot-and-a-half. You will still have the space blanked out. But again, if you can get
the connectors up above ground, that helps.
Commissioner Carrasco: Would your regulations be somewhat flexible to allow that kind of
design if someone came in and proposed something like that? Would your generic specifications
show that alternative as being a viable alternative, one that had a drain and kept the water out?
Mr. Starr: Drain systems like that where you have to pump it again are high maintenance. In
Palo Alto, you cannot just pump the water into the storm system anymore. It has to be pumped
into the sanitary sewer system. So that is a consideration. We may have to buy custom
transformers to do something like that. We really want to get out of buying from these high cost,
single source suppliers of submersible type transformers. Even if we did what you are talking
about, that is still the same type of equipment you are installing.
Commissioner Carrasco: What is the cost difference between the submersible and
nonsubmersible?
Mr. Starr: The price of the equipment itself is about the same. Generally, for larger ones, you
end up having to buy a little larger transformer than you really need when you put it in a vault
because they get very poor air circulation down there. So you have heat problems and you have
to buy a little larger unit. But basically, the costs are about equivalent. Where you save the
money is not having to put in an expensive vault or dig a hole. You also do not have the
maintenance costs of trying to keep the equipment cleaned up and the water out of it.
Commissioner Carrasco: Is the cost somewhere between $10,000 and $12,000 per transformer?
Mr. Starr: Those vary, depending upon size. They go from $1,000 up to $30,000.
Commissioner Carrasco: What about the average transformer of about 70 kv installed in a vault?
The one I am referring to came to about $12,000. I wondered if you do not make that kind of
tradeoff all of the time with visual design aspects through the architectural design review
process. You think this will last 20. years instead of 30 years, and you discount it by $5,000 and
you make it look better for 30 years than this thing that sticks up and does not look as good as if
it were underground. What I am getting at is that the cost does not seem to be as high as other
kinds oftradeoffs that we do with normal ARB projects or planning commission projects where
we are not reluctant to add another $5,000 to make things look better in the public sector. In
other words, can you not spend that extra $5,000? The private sector does it all the time.
Mr. Starr: If we are going to spend the money, what are we going to get? I do not think we have
a problem paying top dollar if we are going to get high reliability and a low maintenance system.
If that is what that is, we could certainly consider that.
Commissioner Carrasco: Could the guidelines allow that alternative, if you were convinced that
it was a high reliability, low maintenance system?
Mr. Starr: I would have to look at that and see if I believe.that would be the case. I want to see
what kind of equipment they are using and how they are installing it.
Ms. Case: I was just looking at the proposed regulations. It does allow some deviations with the
authority of the utilities director. So it apparently does seem to envision that on some occasions,
if you can convince them that what you are planning is much better, these proposed new
regulations would give that authority.
Commissioner Schink: Where is that indicated?
Mr. Starr: That is in the first paragraph of the rules. I added the caveat that at the direction of
the utility director, we could do something different. Obviously, there are going to be some
places where there is just no room for a padmounted transformer. It is on the last page of the
report.
Commissioner Eakins: That green one that we keep referring to as the 75 kv, what are the
dimensions, approximately?
Mr. Starr: I am estimating that they look like they are about two-and-a-half feet square to three
feet.
Commissioner Eakins: Something like a large screen television set?
Mr. Starr: Well, they are deeper than that, but yes.
Commissioner Eakins: It is of a size and shape that is hard to relate to. That is a problem for me
in grappling with this change and how it affects people about having them sitting on their
property.
A couple of years ago, when CPAC was going through all of the technical advisory committee
meetings, I heard that there were very few manufacturers left for submersible equipment. The
city had fewer and fewer choices to turn to and harder and harder to get replacement parts.
Mr. Start: That is correct for those devices..
Commissioner Cassel: It seems to me that you are shifting from using public property to using
private property to mount these. Is that correct?
Mr. Start: Yes, that is correct.
Commissioner Cassel: How do you do that? Do you use an easement? How do you decide
which families have to give up their property to that easement?
Mr....Start: In Southgate, we went out and negotiated with the people to see where we could get
someone to provide us with property. We would pay for the easement. On a commercial
property, we would ask the applicant to provide us with space somewhere on their property. If
the unit serves only that property, we do not need an easement. If the unit might serve something
else, we would have to have an easement. We would ask for that up front.
Commissioner Schmidt: Are you proposing also to systematically go through the city and
replace all the submersible transformers gradually over a certain period if time? I know you are
requiring it for new projects.
Mr. Starr: No, we were not going to do that. It would be too large a burden on everyone. It
would be too costly. In some of the business areas on large, commercial properties, we may
negotiate with those people and see if they would be willing to give us a site for some
padmounted equipment to enhance their own reliability, such as out in the Stanford Research
Park. We have been successful in some of those cases. We were successful in the one I showed
you in the California Avenue district.
Commissioner Schmidt: So you are not proposing to go through Palo Alto, block by block, and
where there are, say, 25 homes in two blocks, designate some piece of property to hold one of
these transformers?
Mr. Starr: No, we are not going to do that. We want to stop doing what we have been doing.
We will live with that, but do new installations from here on out.
Commissioner Schmidt: In Rule and Regulation #1, Rule #3.b. states, "Where an existing
underground service must be upgraded, the customer shall be required to provide adequate space
for installation of the padmount transformer. In the event the customer is unable to provide
adequate space for the padmounted transformer, the the customer shall make arrangements at his
expense to receive service at primary voltage."
Mr. Starr: We are going to eliminate that. The ARB brought up the same point. When I go
before the council, we will eliminate that entire paragraph from the proposal. We do not really
need that.
Chairman Beecham: What happens when a customer cannot make space?
Mr. Start: Then we will have to continue doing what we have been doing. If they can convince
the utility director that there is no possible way to have a padmounted transformer out there, we
will have to consider other alternatives. What we hope the rule will give us is that the new
homeowners in our underground district or the applicants for new service will have to at least
negotiate with us instead of just saying, Sorry, No way. Then we can hopefully work out some
acceptable location between us.
Chairman Beecham: Is it likely a homeowner will be involved in this, or is it normally
businesses and commercial locations?
Mr. Starr: For new properties and rebuilds, it will be commercial and industrial folks. But for
our underground conversion districts, such as Southgate, we will have to go out there, fred these
locations, and talk to the homeowners, one on one, until we can get enough locations.
Commissioner Schink: I can imagine a piece of retail store front property on University Avenue
that needs all glass across the front where you just are not going to be able to put a padmounted
transformer there.
Mr. Starr: You are not going to see a padmounted transformer on University Avenue.
Commissioner Schink: It does not seem like the language here is sufficient to make me
comfortable with that. I still see the language that says to the person coming in, with you saying
to them, Sorry, No Way.
Mr. Start: All you have to do is call up our utility director and say, Hey, I don’t have the space
for it. We are on University Avenue, and we just do not have an area for it. If he agrees with
you, then we will just have to do something else. It is hard to write the regulations so that you
get what you want, but you have an out, because not every place will permit its installation, and
we understand that.
10
Commissioner Schink: That is part of why we are having this dialogue. People can look back on
it and say, they talked about it and said it could not go on University Avenue.
My second question is that you mentioned a new property on Waverley Street. It would require
its own transformerl If there is overhead service, and there are poles in a neighborhood now, and
a new house has to have underground service, would you put in a padmounted transformer or
would you put a transformer up on the pole?
Mr.....Starr: If it was practical to put one on the pole, we would do that. Or if we could serve him
from the existing transformers in the area, we would do that. But for the size of the home and the
size of the air conditioning that they want, we could not serve them from what we had in the
area. So we had to install new facilities.
Commissioner Schink: Your standard practice is to use the pole transformers whenever
possible?
Mr......Starr: Yes, we use the service in the area. They need to be underground. That is according
to the existing ordinance. Service has to be underground to a new installation.
Commissioner Schink: But if you have to upgrade and add a transformer, would you ever add
transformers to existing poles, or are all new additions in existing neighborhoods padmounted?
Mr. Starr: If it was an easy installation on a wood pole, we could do that. But if it is a big load,
we would want a padmounted transformer.
CommissiQner Cassel: I have a question on safety. These boxes are going to be up for 20 or 30
years. You have them locked and tagged at the present time. How easy is it to break those locks
and tags, because if someone gets in and touches those connections, that’s it.
Mr. Starr: We have a dual lock on them. We have them padlocked. In addition to that, there is
also a bolt that you have to unscrew. We use what is called a penta-head bolt. It has five sides,
and you cannot buy a five-sided wrench.
Commissioner Cassel: How do you get them open?
Mr. Starr: We have a special tool.
Commissioner Cassel: Do you check these once a year?
Mr. Starr: On the padmounted transformers, we may go around and look at them once every
three years. They are not high maintenance, and we are the only ones who get into them. So
unless somebody cuts our lock off and has that special wrench, you cannot get into them.
11
Chairman..Beecham: I would like to verify, following up on Jon’s comment, that the director will
use not only consideration of true physical space limitations, but also aesthetics, in saying it is
not appropriate here.
Mr. Starr: I am sure he would. I will speak for him in that instance.
Commissioner Carrasco: The present director has a good understanding of aesthetics, but if there
is a director who does not, is there an appeal process? Does the ARB intervene? How would we
go about appealing a decision of an unreasonable director?
Mr. Starr: You can always appeal to the city council or to the city manager, since he works for
them, if you don’t like the decision. As far as a formal appeal process, I don’t think there is one,
but you have that course of action. That is what people do now.
Commissioner Cassel: It was not clear to me as to who is paying for the landscaping around
these, and who does the maintenance?
Mr. Starr: We install and pay for the installation of the landscaping. We work with the town
architect to help us out, or else our architectural consultant for landscaping. We try to put in
plants that do not require a lot of maintenance, such as an irrigation system.
Commissioner Cassel: To whom do you report those that have not had that done? I have seen
them right in the middle of a neighborhood. There is this padmounted transformer sitting there
with nothing around it. Somebody needs to report it, because obviously, it got missed.
Mr. Starr: Is it one that has been there for awhile?
Commissioner Cassel: About two years old.
Mr. Starr: You can call me and give me the location.
Commissioner Cassel: The pad that this is on is two feet wide all around it.
Mr. Starr: They are about six inches bigger than the size of-the unit that sits on it. Just big
enough to hold the transformer.
Commissioner Cassel: That is not the way it was presented to us in the literature. It indicated
that it had to be two feet on all sides. There has to be clearance to open the door, also.
12
Mr. Start: That is if you enclose it with a little wall. It needs air space around it, because they
generate heat. You need about eight feet in front of them, because the way they put those
connectors on them or remove them, they use what they call a hot stick. It is an eight-foot-long,
two-inch diameter, fibreglas rod to grab the ends and pull them off. So we need space in front of
them to be able to open the door and stand there and take the connectors on and off. But on the
sides, you could plant shrubs fairly close to it.
Commissioner Cassel: I can picture kids having a wonderful time with these units, hiding
around them, crawling over them, especially if they have two feet around them on which to run.
Commissioner Ojaki~: There are two or three issues that come to mind in dealing with these
transformers. One of the key ones is, of course, the aesthetics. Is there some other way of
approaching these while still keeping the guts of them above ground? They are just very
unattractive looking. Even with some of the landscaping, I imagine you are going to have to set
that up in a way that you still have access to them, obviously. Is there some other approach to
the problem? Have other communities tried to encase them in ways that are different from these
square suitcase-looking boxes?
Mr. Starr: Not that I have seen. I think the project Tony is talking about is a custom design.
That is about the only choice. That is what the market sells, and that is all we can buy. We have
two choices. You can buy a submersible transformer, or you can buy a padmounted transformer.
In the past, they sometimes put these things in large culverts and put an overhead transformer
down there with a little lid on the top. We have removed those due to their being a safety hazard.
There are not a lot of choices.
Commissioner Ojakian: What makes it a little galling is the fact that we are going through this
transformation, taking down poles and undergrounding the wiring, done for safety reasons,
among others, and obviously, it adds to the aesthetics of the community. Now, in its place, we
are putting in these green boxes. I think it makes it more difficult in looking at these
transformers.
Mr, Starr: All we have to offer is landscaping and painting. We will rent the crane and set the
transformer as far away from the front and in as unobtrusive a spot as we can.
Commissioner Ojakian: I am happy to hear you say that, because that was one of the issues we
got into with 330 Emerson Street, that the box was going to be out in front. It did not leave any
of us terribly happy about it. One of the things that came out of that was that there would be an
effort made to put it in the back of the lot somewhere out of the way, and~or landscaped in a way
that it would not be seen. ! feel that is critical in the case of these things. I also understand your
need for access, too.
13
Commissioner Schink: I applaud your concem for reliability. My wife used to own a business
downtown, and we had reliability problems. I can tell you that when the power goes off at
5 o’clock and you have 150 reservations for dinner, it does not go over too well.
I also would applaud what I think is a really unique and cooperative spirit that you have adopted,
such as the idea of renting the cranes and trying to get these transformers in less visible locations.
I think that is wonderful. I must say that I am still a little cynical, as we have been fighting this
battle for quite awhile. I have some reluctance about saying, when it comes to placing
transformers along University Avenue or in some of our key retail areas such as California
Avenue, we are at the mercy of the utility director. He might be a nice guy now, but who knows
what is going to happen in the future when it becomes more competitive. So I would hope that
when we pass this recommendation on to the city council, that we include some language which
strengthens the position that there will not be any visibly padmounted transformers in our retail
districts. Other than that, I applaud the efforts you are making. I feel we are definitely going in
the right direction.
Commissioner Carrasco: I, too, am very happy that the Utilities Department is thinking about
these issues. Like Jon, I agree that it is very commendable that your present utilities director is
very sensitive to visual issues. ! am worried about down the road if something changes. Then
what. I am mainly concerned about the commercial areas of Palo Alto. If we have these
padmounted transformers that are visible and disrupt retail continuity, it would not be visually
pleasing. Other than that, I applaud your bringing this to the commission.
Mr. Starr: I might be able to see if we could get Ms. Case to work with us and come up with
some language that would give the public another avenue if they did not like what Utilities told
them. My only concern is that you need to balance that. I am having to put something out to the
public that nobody wants. So if we give them an out, I can envision where every time we want to
put in a padmounted transformer, everybody appeals it through the appeal process. I would not
gain anything there, so maybe somewhere there is some middle ground. I am an engineer and
wrote those words. Maybe I need to go to our attorneys for some better language.
Ms. Case: We are always happy totry and come up with some accommodating language. I do
not feel I can do that tonight, because the utility regulations are in a large binder. There are
people who know what they are, but I am not one of them.
Commissioner Cassel: I have been concerned about safety issues, as you heard tonight. I am
concerned that over time, these are not going to last 30 years either. I am concerned about what
happens over that period of time. Part of the reason you see me concerned is that you are not the
only ones who are producing these green mushrooms in town. Every department in town has
decided they are not going to go underground, and they are going to bring these up to street level.
We are having trouble getting down the sidewalks in some areas of town. There are green
mushrooms everywhere. So you are not facing this alone. You just happen to be here tonight.
14
Mr. Starr: Well, actually, except for the telephone company, all the rest of the stuff is mine.
.Commissioner Cassel: So it is not just these things. It is everything, and they are everywhere.
The hope was to get them off the poles, because no one wanted the poles, so we went
underground. Now underground does not work for you, so they are coming up on the sidewalk.
! know that you need these to be of a certain size because of the heat dissipation. If you go up on
a pole, you can make it smaller because no one can touch it and it is air cooled. If it is a little
warm, it doesn’t make any difference, because people are not generally climbing a pole. If you
go underground, they are even larger, since you need more space to cool them.
It is also my understanding that transformers of any kind are hard to get in the United States, not
just underground ones. There are not a lot of companies making them.
Mr. Starr: There are not as many as there used to be, but there is no shortage of suppliers for
buying overhead and padmounted transformer equipment.
Commissioner Casse!: My main concerns, as with everyone else, I imagine, is about how many
are coming up, how they can be combined, how they can take up less space and how they .can be
kept out of the way of people trying to move around. We are trying to make neighborhoods
more friendly. We are trying to makeour houses speak to the street. We are asking people to
put porches on their houses, and then on a 25-foot lot, we put in one of these pads. That is where
we are coming from.
Commissioner Ojakian: I see the main issues as being those that Phyllis sees. On the pragmatic
side of the ledger, we have talked about costs. I defer to your expertise there. We have talked
about safety and reliability, ease of maintenance, and a little about positioning these
transformers. We are all happy to hear that there is some flexibility there. We have talked a little
about people having some choice as to where these transformers will go. It sounds like
something can be worked out that will be suitable for all the parties concerned. The one issue
that is the toughest is the aesthetics issue. We have heard some solutions tonight, and we have
grappled with that. It would be nice for people to think about this a little more between now and
the time that the council gets it to be a little more creative about it, looking around at other
communities and seeing what they are doing. That is the key issue.
Ms. L.~le: Everyone is grappling.with this. It is not an issue that is unique to Palo Alto.
Commissioner Ojakian: Everyone recognizes it as being a problem. Somewhere, it would be
nice if we could come up with a solution.
.Chairman Beecham: Sandy, do you have a solution for us?
15
Commissioner Eakins: The shape is just so bad. It is like having an old car partly submerged in
your front yard. It is this big, lumpy shape. If we are going to brainstorm about solutions,
perhaps they could be elongated. Could they substitute for property line fences? Maybe there is
something we could take to the manufacturers. My oldest son works for a telephone switch
manufacturer, and I asked him why those boxes are so ugly. He said there are industry standards
and there are regulations, on and on. Then you see the pictures that Ken Alsman showed us of
boxes in Europe, and they have some ornamentation, and they are in slightly more agreeable
shapes. The dimensions are not just these big hippopotami without heads. They are more
agreeable to have around. So if we want to come up with something, how about telling the
manufac .tagers to make them in better shapes.
Mr. Starr: We have made one change in our specifications. In the past, we have been working
on a standard transformer spec and let the different manufacturers bid on it. We take the one that
meets our specifications and is at a low price. I have gone back to staff and said, what we need
to focus on is, who is making the smallest unit? We may pay a little more for those, but size is
very important here. So we want to be small, as opposed to the least costly. That is one little
thing we do. Another one is that one of my staff members gave me the name and phone number
of our local artist who paints the murals. I am wondering if anyone would be interested if we had
murals painted on the boxes.
Commissioner Eakins: Greg Brown is putting two kids through college, so this may be an
opportunity for him! Regarding the shape, in the computer industry, it is referred to as the "form
factor." Then I always say, "You mean shape." There is an element of elegance in certain forms
that make the inevitable beige box on your desk less obnoxious.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would like to suggest recommending to the American Institute of
Architects or to the landscape design professionals to have a competition, since this is a national
problem. Get some of the product designers, the IDOs, the various well known designers that we
have locally, to come up with some good product design. It certainly is of national interest to
keep one’s community pleasing looking. I believe we could interest others in trying to promote
something like that.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I move the staff recommendation, with two additional
points. The first is that in the University Avenue P district, transformers will be placed to
accommodate retail vitality, including the option of underground vaults. The second point would
be that the Utilities Department will sponsor a design competition to look at improving the form,
texture and overall appearance of the transformer case box.
SECOND: By Commissioner Ojakian.
Commissioner Carrasco: I think the idea of sponsoring a design competition is a good one, but I
am a little uncomfortable that we are limiting it only to a design competition. There could be
other ways to get design input than just a competition.
16
Commissioner Cassel: There may be some other kinds of design considerations that we have not
thought about, some other ways such as lining the equipment up differently so that it comes out
smaller or breaks it down in different steps, things they have not thought about.
Commissioner Schink: I would be happy to amend my motion if you have some ideas on how to
make this competition broader based. But I also have confidence in the Utilities Department in
coming up with the proper criteria for deferring a competition that provides them with some
useful information.
Ms. Lytle: I would like to suggest that you may want to appoint some folks to assist them in
identi~ing some organizations that they might think about involving. If the council approves
this motion, it might be helpful to have some of your ideas, as expressed in your testimony
tonight, about involving architectural organizations or product manufacturing designers, contacts
that you might know of that they are unfamiliar with. I am sure they know the industry and can
make those contacts, but it is the design community that they might have less exposure to.
Commissioner Carrasco: I just didn’t want to limit it to a competition, but leave it open to saying
"design input" rather than a design competition, allowing the Utility Department to decide how
they go out and fred that design input. I could support that more easily.
Chairman Beecham: I think the Utility Department is hearing what you are saying. Does the
maker of the motion wish to change his motion?
Commissioner Schink: Actually, I rather like the idea of a design competition. We have a little
tradition for that in Palo Alto. In years past when the ARB and Virgil Carter would get some
competition started, we ended up with some very exciting results. I would prefer to see an event
made out of this where everyone finds out what the results are. I would prefer to leave.it the way
it is.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? We
have a motion and second to approve the staff recommendation to recommend to the city council
that they approve the proposed policy change, with two conditions. One is that in the University
Avenue P district, criteria be included to accommodate ret~l vitality, including underground
vaults, as necessary. Also, that the Utility Department sponsor a design competition for the vault
design. All those in favor, say Aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
Commissioner Schmidt: I am sure we would volunteer help to the Utilities Department to
suggest who to talk to about the design competition, as per Nancy’s suggestion.
Chairman Beecham: I assume it is Kathy and Jon who are volunteering?
Commissioner Schrnidt: Or Kathy and Jon and Tony.
Commissioner Schink: Or Kathy and Tony!
Chairman Beecham: With that we are finished with Item 2. Thank you for staying with us,
Larry. We appreciate it.
17
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Revision to Pad Mounted Equipment Policy
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Larry Starr,
Assistant Director of Utilities
and Engineering Operations
City of Palo Alto
(41 5) 496-6981
4. Project Location:N.A.; Citywide policy change
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
6. General Plan Designation: N.A.; Citywide policy change
7. Zoning:N.A.; Citywide policy change
8. Description of the Project:
The project proposes a revision to the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rule and Regulation #
1-3, (B), (3) & (4). The policy revision would mandate the use of Pad Mounted
Equipment (PME) for all new underground electrical facilities installed in Palo Alto. The
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
policy amendment is being proposed to eliminate use of Submersible Electrical Equipment
(underground vaults), which have proven to be less reliable, have higher maintenance
costs and require greater resources and time for repair. The policy amendment would
not change the current methods of installing underground utility lines (cables and
conduits). Cable and conduit lines would continue to be installed underground and
would continue to be invisible.
The policy amendment has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Advisory Commission
(UAC). UAC unanimously recommended the pad mounted equipment policy with the
requirement that staff assess previous residential districts with pad mounted equipment
prior to proceeding with the next residential underground district. Staff will be preparing
a report to the City Council which provides an assessment of the Southgate
Underground District, a residential area utilizing pad mounted equipment.
The policy amendment was also reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
the Planning Commission. The ARB had a number of concerns suggesting that in
commercial areas, the space used for PMEs in buildings not be counted against the
permitted floor area ratio. The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff
recommendations with two conditions: a) that in the University Avenue P District,
criteria be established to consider retail vitality, including the use underground vaults,
if necessary and b) that the Utility Department sponsor a design competition for the PME
design.
The following is a summary of the recommendations of the City’s UAC, ARB and
Planning Commission and tasks that have been or will be completed by the Utilities
Department:
a.Utilities Engineering has revised the specifications for pad mounted transformers
requiring the smallest possible physical size for the transformer/switch rating utilized.
Historically, installation of pad mounted equipment has been limited to placement
within 25 feet from a driveway or street. Staff has contracted with a local crane
company to provide 24-hour service to install and/or replace this equipment on a
variety of locations on a specific property. Therefore, opportunities are available to
work with customers to place/relocate this equipment in a location that can be less
visible yet reasonably accessed.
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96] 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Staff will continue to work with the CIP Design Consultant to provide landscaping
for pad mounted equipment. This work will include the identification of acceptable
landscaping alternatives for customers to consider.
d.Color options for the equipment will be permitted so that pad mounted equipment
blends with property improvements such as buildings, walls and fences.
e.Options considered for mitigation of potential visual impacts will include the
sponsoring of a design competition for an appropriate and attractive PME design.
fo No plans are proposed by the Utilities Department to retrofit existing residential
underground districts, even when the underground cables, connectors and
transformers need to be replaced. Furthermore, there are no plans to retrofit existing
commercial/industrial underground districts unless this can be negotiated with the
property owner and the aesthetic guidelines can be incorporated into the new design.
go Staff will continue to minimize the number of pad mounted devices used in
Residential UG Districts. The Southgate District required nine pad mounted
transformers, each servicing 15-20 customers, requiring a maximum of one
transformer per block.
No new residential, neighborhood-wide undergrounding projects will be done on a
pad mounted basis until an assessment has been completed of Underground District
#35 (Southgate). Installation of the pad mounted equipment in the Southgate area
along with landscaping shall be completed by June 1996. An assessment of this
completed project will be made with a report to the UAC and City Council, prior to
proceeding with the next residential district.
The ARB recommended that in commercial areas, the space used for PMEs in
buildings not be counted toward the maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR). The
Planning Commission concurred and further recommended that in the "P’ Districts of
University Avenue, criteria be included to accommodate retail vitality, including
underground vaults, as necessary. Above ground vaults to be recommended by the
Director of Utilities and individually approved by the ARB.
Surrounding Land uses and Setting: N.A.; Citywide policy change
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]3
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
10.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning
Population and
Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation and
Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service
Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96] 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
X
Paul A. Jense~, Contract Planner
Director of Planning &nity Environment
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?1 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 1,2 X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?1,X
6(B-1)
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
6(B-1)
6(B-1)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
3,4,
6(B6)
&12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96] 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
i)Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER, Would the proposal result in:
a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
c)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
f)Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
6(B-7)
&12
6(B-7)
6(B-7)
5,6
5,6
&12
5
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 6(B-5)X
exiting or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 7 X
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 7 X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?7 X
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significsnt
Impact
Impact
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
8,9
8
&12
8
&12
8
8
&12
8,9
&12
8
X
X
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 6
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,(B-1
animals or birds)?& 1
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?6
(B-1
&l
c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
2)
2
2)
2
6
(B-1 2)
&12
6
(B-7)
&12
6
(B-12)
&12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?10 X
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 10 X
inefficient manner?
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96] 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soul’ces Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
c)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
10
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
6
(B-8)
(B-9)
X
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan 13 X
-or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 6 X
hazard?(B-8)
(B-9)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 6 X
health hazards?(B-8)
(B-9)
e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,13 X
grass of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?6 X
(B-4)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?6 X
(B-4)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
13
14
15
2
15
X
X
X
X
X
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Powerornaturalgas?2 X I I
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96] 9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant act
Impact
b) Communications systems?15 X
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution 1 5 X
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?1 5 X
e) Storm water drainage?15 X
f) Solid waste disposal?15 X
g) Local or regional water supplies?1 5 X
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
6
(B-15)
11,12
16,17
11,12
11,12
16,17
X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
6
(B-14)
&12
6
(B-14)
&12
6
(B-13)
&12
6
(B-14)
&12
6
(B-14)
&12
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
X
X
X
X
X
X
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
6
(B-11)
6
(B-11)
16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples, of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
18
18
18
18
X
X
X
X
X
X
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant act
Impact
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions of the project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995; Land Use Map (1981-1992), Land Use Element (1981 ), Urban
Design Element (1981) and Environmental Resources Element (1981 ).
2 City of Palo Alto Utilities Rules and Regulations
3 Required compliance with UBC Standards for seismic safety
4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology and Seismic Technical Report; 1994.
5 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pages 65-72; 1981.
6 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, Maps B-l, B-4, B-6, B-7,
B-8, B-9, B-11, B-12, B-13 and B:14; 1994.
7 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Air Quality Technical Background Report, pages 15-30; 1994.
8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Transportation Element; 1981.
9 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study- A Summary, City of Palo Alto; 1990.
10 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pages 50-60; 1981.
11 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Urban Design Element, pages 42-49; 1981.
12 Independent assessment of site-specific issues will be prepared at the time of individual pad mounted
equipment siting and construction.
13 City of Palo Alto Fire Department
14 City of Palo Alto Police Department
15 Jim Gilliland, Assistant Chief Planning Official
16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes, November 2, 1995
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]12
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
17 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1995
18 Answer substantiated through the responses provided for items 1-17.
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]13
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant act
Impact
19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
Land Use and Planninq.la&
lb
6b &
6e
Setting:
At present, the City of Palo Alto Utility Rules and Regulations encourage the installation and use of
Submersible Electrical Equipment (underground vaults) as part of the standard specifications for
undergrounding utilities. Typically, these underground vaults are located within the public right-of-way.
Given the decreased longevity and reliability of underground vaults, the trend in the electrical equipment
industry in the past 1 5 years has been to locate the transformer equipment above ground, with the cables
and conduits still below the ground.
Impacts:
The proposed change in policy would result in the increased installation and use of pad mounted
equipment. Unlike underground vaults, pad mounted equipment is typically located outside the street or
sidewalk public right-of-way and on private property (with the appropriate public easements). Location of
this equipment on private property could impact usable land area for development. Furthermore, it could
impact land values, if the land coverage for pad mounted equipment is included in calculating permitted
floor area ratios. However, as part of the analysis of this proposal, the Utility Department, in conjunction "
with the Planning Department, has determined that Section 18.04.030(65)B(iii)a. of the PAMC exempts
areas designated for resource conservation; pad mounted equipment meets the criteria for this exemption.
Therefore, installation of this equipment would not be counted toward the maximum permitted floor area
ratio for commercial development. The policy also permits continued use of underground vaults, as
determined by the Director of Utilities. This policy applies specifically in the downtown area, where there
may not be adequate land area to accommodate pad mounted equipment.
Miti.qation Measures:
No mitigation is required.
Transportation/Circulation.
Setting:
Pad mounted equipment is typically installed at the edge of private property and adjacent to the public
right-of-way for ease of access and maintenance.
Impacts:
The proposed policy would promote the continued installation and use of pad mounted equipment. This
equipment could have an impact on private property vehicle access and sight distance for drivers that are
entering or exiting the public right-of-way. Safety to pedestrians and bicyclists could be impacted. This
impact is not perceived to be significant in that site conditions will be reviewed on an individual basis, as
pad mounted equipment is proposed and installed. This review will ensure that the equipment is cited to
minimize potential sight distance and safety hazards.
Miti.qation Measures:
No mitigation is required.
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]14
11d&
12a
Public Services & Utilities and Service Systems.
The City of Palo Alto has been converting its overhead electric facilities to underground since 1965. Most
of the facilities have been installed in Submersible Electrical Equipment (underground vaults) located within
the public right-of-way. Although these underground vaults take up limited space and have minimal visual
impact, they have proven to be far less reliable than the above ground pad mounted equipment boxes.
The underground vaults are more costly to maintain and repair than pad mounted equipment. Given the
decrease in longevity and reliability of the underground vaults, the trend in the electrical equipment
industry is to locate this equipment above ground.
The policy amendment would promote the continued installation and use of pad mounted equipment. This
policy amendment would result in a positive impact to the public utility service and systems in that
maintenance costs would be reduced, reliability would be enhanced and access for repair would be
improved.
Mitiqation:
No mitigation is required.
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA,PME [3/96]1 5
1 3b Aesthetics.
Settinq and Impacts:
Since 1965, the City has been converting its overhead electrical facilities to underground. The use of
underground vaults has resulted in minimal visual impacts along local streets. In recent years, the trend for
use of pad mounted electrical equipment has increased, given the longevity of above ground, improved
access and reduced maintenance costs. The increased installation and use of pad mounted equipment, in-
lieu of underground vaults, would result in significant localized and Citywide visual impacts, unless
appropriately mitigated. The proposed policy amendment has been reviewed for consistency with the
Urban Design Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Increased use and installation of pad mounted
equipment could be in conflict with Policy #3, Program #12 and Program #14 of the Urban Design
Element, which read as follows:
*Policy #3: Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas, and removal of visual
disruptive elements on major streets.
Response: Potentially inconsistent. Location of PMEs on major streets could be considered a "disruptive
element" and could impact existing street trees as well as potentially reducing area for
landscaping and new street tree planting.
*Program #12: Continue the program of placing utilities underground.
Response: Partially consistent. Utility lines and cables would continue to be placed underground.
However, PMEs would replace the use of underground vaults, which have minimal visual
impacts.
*Program #14:Encourage the use of street trees and planting in the space between the street and
sidewalk rather than unrelieved concrete paving.
Response:Partially inconsistent. PMEs, if located between the street and sidewalk would eliminate land
area available for street trees and planting.
The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure the installation and use of PMEs are
consistent with the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and to reduced potential
visual impacts to a level of insignificance.
Miti.qation:
13.1 Prior to completing any new neighborhood-wide undergrounding projects utilizing pad mounted
equipment, an assessment of Underground District #35 (Southgate) shall be completed. The
assessment of this completed project shall include a review of transformer size, color and location,
as well as a review of landscaping for screening. The conclusions of this assessment, with
recommendations, shall be forwarded to the UAC and City Council.
continued on next page
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]16
1 3b Mitiqation (continued):
1 3.2. The Utilities Department shall study and implement measures to improve the appearance and reduce
visibility of PMEs. The following are several ways of complying with this measure:
The Utilities Department, in conjunction with the CIP Design Consultant shall establish specific
guidelines and requirements for landscaping around pad mounted equipment. The landscaping
guidelines shall take into consideration the need for continued and unobtrusive access to the
equipment in addition to providing maximum screening. The guidelines shall include acceptable
landscaping options shall be included in the guidelines so that customers have alternatives.
bo The Utilities Department, in conjunction with the CIP Design Consultant shall establish an acceptable
surface color palette for use on all pad mounted equipment. The palette shall consider color tones
that blend with existing landscaping and potential landscape screening. The palette shall also
include acceptable color tones that can be selected for compatibility to customer improvements.
c.Further evaluate utilizing a competitive design process for developing an attractive utility box, which
can be used as a Citywide standard.
13.3 The Utilities Department shall continue to require the installation of the smallest possible size of pad
mounted equipment for the specified application.
13.4 The Utilities Department shall continue to encourage the installation of pad mounted equipment in
areas that are least visible, yet accessible for maintenance through crane installation.
13.5 Specific criteria shall be established for the California Avenue and University Avenue ’P’ District,
which would address and accommodate retail vitality. The criteria shall permit the continued use of
underground vaults, as necessary and where approved by the Director of Utilities. Above ground
locations to be approved by the ARB.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DATED ~r! 1/9 t~, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF
PROPERTY KNOWN AS Vt~I&IOt_,S /~.,,i.T’~l.4.~t.O~., PALO ALTO. CALIFORNIA,
AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.
Applicant s Signature Date
96-EIA-10
P:\EIA\EIA.PME [3/96]1 7