| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Unknown | 7th. Alright, thank you city clerk. And welcome everyone back to the special city council meeting for Friday, March 7th, 2025. We just completed our, well, I'll first of all take roll. Thank you. |
| 00:00:19.84 | Walfred Solorzano | Mayor Cox? Here. Vice Mayor Woodside? Here. Council Member Blossom? Here. Council Member Hoffman? Here. Council Member Sobias? |
| 00:00:27.81 | Unknown | Okay, we will move to the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. OK, we held a closed session. There are no closed session announcements. I will open it up for public comment on closed session items. |
| 00:00:59.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:59.04 | Unknown | not |
| 00:00:59.55 | Walfred Solorzano | you |
| 00:00:59.77 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:00:59.78 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:59.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:59.82 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:00:59.92 | Unknown | Join us and ask him to move against him. All right, then I'll move on to approval of the agenda. May I have a motion? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. That motion carries 5-0. We will move on to our public hearing, which is noticed for on or after 4 p.m. this afternoon to adopt the resolution to form a utility undergrounding district on Bridgeway Boulevard between Napa and Easterby streets, as shown in Exhibit A. And I will welcome our... Public Works Director Kevin McGowan. |
| 00:01:31.61 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you. I'm sorry, Mayor. Yes, I do have a disclosure to announce before we start. Sure. I have discussed this with our city attorney. Having examined the relevant FPPC opinions, this project falls within 1,000 feet, but not within 500 feet of my home. and having conferred with our city attorney, there appear to be no instances where the FBPC have applied the specific facts of my property that I own to this particular circumstance. However, it does not appear that the project would provide any form of new or improved services to my parcel that I have an interest in, requiring my recusal under 18702.2 A6. The project would not underground any utilities on East B Street, where I am property, and should result in no changes to my electrical utility service. Additionally, recusal under the same code but subsection 8 does not seem to be required. This is because a project would not alter the development potential of the property, nor the highest and best use allowed under relevant land use policies and zoning. Further, it seems highly unlikely that the project would alter the property's income, producing potential market value or character by substantially altering traffic levels, intensity use, parking view, privacy, noise levels, or air quality. For those reasons, I'm not going to recuse. However, there is a disclaimer that I did not request a prior ruling from the FPPC on this. I'm merely basing my decisionECISION ON OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S EVALUATION OF THIS ON WHICH I AM RELYING AND THAT IS ALSO MY DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION RULES MISSIONS AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO REQUIRE THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER HOFFMAN |
| 00:01:32.62 | Unknown | Oh, yes. |
| 00:03:28.72 | Unknown | Alright, with that I'll turn it over to Mr. Dowren for a staff report. |
| 00:03:33.57 | Kevin McGowan | Thank you very much. I'm hoping that somebody can allow me to share my screen. There might be something to click on one of the screens to allow me to do that. |
| 00:03:43.90 | Unknown | Yeah. Right click on his. There you go. and I hope Not yet. |
| 00:03:50.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:03:50.34 | Kevin McGowan | Yeah. |
| 00:03:50.71 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. And can you right click on his name? not click the thing to not the ellipse, just right click on his name in the participant. |
| 00:04:00.97 | Walfred Solorzano | I made him a co-host. He should have the ability to share. |
| 00:04:06.62 | Kevin McGowan | There we go. That seems to work. |
| 00:04:08.94 | Steven Woodside | as well as |
| 00:04:19.60 | Kevin McGowan | No, hold on a sec. All right. Can you see my screen in front of me? It should have something that says Bridgeway at Napa Street Undergrounding District. Thank you. |
| 00:04:32.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:32.87 | Kevin McGowan | Let's see if I can get everything else off. There we go. |
| 00:04:32.88 | Unknown | and see if I See you. |
| 00:04:36.55 | Kevin McGowan | All right. |
| 00:04:37.10 | Unknown | Thank you. And we are ready for a brief report from you. |
| 00:04:40.48 | Kevin McGowan | Understood. I'll move it along. So the item this afternoon is associated with initiating a small undergrounding district on Bridgeway Boulevard at Napa Street. In 1967, the California Public Utilities Commission established a tariff rules for what is now called a Rule 20A undergrounding program. The intent of the program was to underground main overhead utilities on arterials and collector roads. To be considered, a project has to be 600 feet in length on a main arterial or collector. Funds for undergrounding were collected from ratepayers. For small communities such as Sausalito, the accumulation of sufficient credits to underground would take many years to develop. In 2019, the CPUC, California Public Utility Commission, passed Resolution E-4971, which eliminates the full collection of work credits and also allows PG&E to reallocate unused credits to other communities with 28 projects that are in need of additional funding. Sausalito currently has 1.38 million credits. On January 15, 2025, the city received a notification from PG&E that on March 10, 2025, they will be requesting that the CPUC reallocate all unused work credits throughout the state, thus eliminating our current 20A allocations. The city of Sausalito has proceeded with many projects over the years to underground overhead utilities. Bridgeway Boulevard's utilities are undergrounded from Napa Street to the southern border of Sausalito, its jurisdictional boundary. In addition, utilities are undergrounded from Gate 6 to Ebtide along Bridgeway. Since 20A allocations should be utilized primarily on City's main arterials, which is Bridgeway Boulevard, the next logical location to utilize 20A allocations would be where previous undergrounding projects ended, which would be at Napa Street or at Ebb Tide. The red area shown on this slide represents the areas along Bridgeway where overhead utilities and electrical and cable lines currently exist. The yellow sections are those areas that have been undergrounded. There are other areas in town where electrical lines have been underground, but staff concentrated on the main arterials, which is on Bridgeway, which is in compliance with the 20A program. So a couple quick pictures for you. This is at Napa Street. The picture on the right is looking south where you don't see any utilities. The picture on the left is looking north and where you do see utilities. Similarly, along the section of Bridgeway heading towards Easterby, we do have overhead lines. Staff identified a short 800-foot section of Bridgeway in which the electrical and cable systems could be undergrounded. Since there are very limited funds for this work, staff did not examine the whole reach to Easterby. Now, Ebb Tide is very similar as well. The picture on the right-hand side is looking north, where you don't see any overhead lines, while the picture on the lower left is looking south, where you do see electrical lines on the right-hand side of the roadway. As part of the 20 process, the city is required to develop a map of proposed undergrounding areas. We initially reviewed the intersection of Ebtide and Bridgeway and found that several lines outside of the proposed district would need to also be undergrounded. Staff developed a rough estimate for the cost of undergrounding based on the cost provided by PG&E of approximately $1,500 a linear foot or 1,500 credits per linear foot. In this case, we estimated the project cost of underground and just over 800 feet of overhead line would equate to about 2.84 million work credits in present cost. We also performed the same analysis for a system on Napa Street at Bridgeway, which equated to a cost of about 2.3 million work credits. Keep in mind that the full analysis of these systems has not been developed by PG&E and cost changes should be anticipated. City staff is met with the utility companies represented to review the proposed undergrounding at Napa. PG&E noted that this site does meet the minimum qualifications for a 20A project. However, there are some complexities with this area in which I'll address in the next few slides. PG&E has noted that the city And PJ has noted to the city that they have a backlog of Rule 20 projects and the earliest they can address this small project is in year 2036, which is 13 years from now. As noted earlier, no additional 20A funding will be added to the city's current 1.38 million credits, and this amount will not increase over time. Considering inflation of 4% over 13 years, the cost of undergrounding at Napa Street would increase to $3.9 million in 2036. At that time, the city would be responsible for the difference in the cost from the allocated 20A funding. This is estimated to have a cost implication of about $2.5 million at that point in time. PG&E has verbally notified the city. that it may choose, that the city may choose not to move forward with the project in the future. For example, PG&A may design the system and obtain a more precise estimate at which time the city may choose to not participate in the cost. The Napa Street site is a bit unique in that most of the adjacent properties are serviced by underground electrical systems already. However, several adjacent properties have overhead cable services from Bridgeway, which would need to be undergrounded. In addition, preliminarily, PG&E has noted that the pole at the corner of Napa and Caledonia may need to be moved to accommodate a guy wire system to support the overhead lines that will remain in place. The city will be working with the utilities to determine which properties need to be in the district. And if they do, we will return to council to amend the map, which is appropriate as well with PG&E. All right. In the past, Sausalito has addressed undergrounding of utilities many ways. Separate assessment districts were developed in years past to underground longer structures of utilities. Areas that are not on the main arterial roadways utilize another program called the 20B program in which property owners are assessed themselves for undergrounding utilities. Based on PG&E's tight timeline of March 10th to secure all 20A funds, staff has made an effort to identify two qualifying areas on Bridgeway in which our allocation of 20A funds can be used. Unfortunately, the present allocation of $1.3 million will not be sufficient to address the cost of the work such that additional allocations of funds will be needed eventually in 2036. And since PG&E is backlogged, we anticipate that that cost will increase due to inflation. Luckily, PG&E has stated that the city can choose to not participate at a future time, probably after the design has been developed and the estimate has been refined. So that concludes my presentation, and thank you very much for coming in today. |
| 00:13:22.96 | Unknown | Thank you, Kevin. Any questions of Kevin? Yes, Ian. |
| 00:13:27.06 | Steven Woodside | 800 times 1,500 is 1.2 million. So why is the estimate 2.4 million of grads? |
| 00:13:34.12 | Kevin McGowan | That's a very good question. You have to take into account that there are multiple lines going to different properties. In addition, some of those lines have to have a connection to each one of the houses. That's called a panel conversion. So a panel conversion and some of those are included in that, not just Just the linear footage of the cable that needs to be underground. |
| 00:13:56.93 | Steven Woodside | And 800 feet is the minimum light that you were saying in your presentation, I think you said that. |
| 00:14:02.25 | Kevin McGowan | I think 600 feet is PG&E's minimum, but in this particular case, we would still have to go to 800 feet in order to get to each of the poles. |
| 00:14:14.63 | Unknown | for questions. |
| 00:14:16.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:16.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:14:16.22 | Unknown | Yes, sir. You mentioned, Kevin, that PG&E has told you that we could get out of it, out of this agreement. Is that in the resolution? |
| 00:14:26.34 | Kevin McGowan | I don't believe it is, but they have told me verbally that if we don't have the money to participate, they can't make us participate in the future. |
| 00:14:35.27 | Steven Woodside | with me. The resolution says that I'm just going to read it, the portion that I think is relevant. The city is absolutely validly responsible, financially responsible for anyone, at all costs, not till it is. by the grounds. |
| 00:14:50.76 | Unknown | So Kevin, your staff report said that if we, if upon the preparation of more detailed plans and specifications, it became infeasible for us to proceed, that we would be able to cease further participation. I think we should add a whereas clause to the resolution consistent with that. Yeah, we just have a common and less financially feasible for the city. Well, but the condition was that it's, so right now we have a concept Um, But it's it's so the city may proceed with initial phases of work and depending upon a more detailed estimate may choose not to proceed with the project so it would be. But may withdraw from the project upon receipt of a more detailed estimate or something. |
| 00:15:51.73 | Steven Woodside | something in which case those credits would go back. |
| 00:15:54.02 | Unknown | In which case those credits would go back to PG. Yeah. Is that so- Are you comfortable with us inserting that language of reservation in the resolution? |
| 00:16:11.66 | Kevin McGowan | Yes, if we get pushback from PG&E, we'll know. I'll send it out to them before the end of the day. |
| 00:16:18.05 | Unknown | Great. Okay. |
| 00:16:19.62 | Steven Woodside | So- Is there a threat Well, the deadline |
| 00:16:23.59 | Unknown | Well, the deadline is Monday. |
| 00:16:25.50 | Steven Woodside | That's what I see. |
| 00:16:26.81 | Sergio Rudin | Mayor Mrakas, MNC, Council if you decided at a later point not to move forward with this project, you would likely repeal the resolution forming this underground in district for the purpose of the project. |
| 00:16:37.31 | Steven Woodside | that we're going to be able to do. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:16:40.09 | Unknown | City Attorney if you're comfortable with the fact that we can simply repeal this resolution with no financial penalty for holding on to the G&E's credits for whatever period of time elapses between now and such repeal and that's fine. Is that your opinion? |
| 00:16:58.94 | Sergio Rudin | I believe that is the case. I also don't see that there's any reason in light of the verbal discussions by PG&E and the fact It requires significant additional monetary commitment, and the project is |
| 00:17:09.49 | Kevin McGowan | commitment. |
| 00:17:11.73 | Sergio Rudin | almost a decade down the line that uh, I find it highly unlikely that there will be any sort of concern by PG&E or by CPUC. with respect to inclusion of some language in the resolution, indicating that the project still requires further evaluation of financial commitment by the city at a later date. |
| 00:17:30.89 | Unknown | Thank you. Any other questions? Stop. Okay, I'll open it up for public comment. |
| 00:17:37.84 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. See you. |
| 00:17:39.58 | Unknown | you Okay, I'll close public comment and bring it back to us for discussion or a resolution or a motion. In fact, I'll go ahead. Okay, I move we adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Anita forming a utility undergrounding district on Bridgeway Boulevard between Napa Street and Easterby Street as shown on exhibit A of the resolution. |
| 00:17:51.42 | Unknown | I'll go. |
| 00:18:06.04 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. Aye. That motion carries five zero. That concludes our business for this afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. |
| 00:18:07.09 | Steven Woodside | Aye. |
| 00:18:15.52 | Unknown | um and then may i have a motion to adjourn Thank you. Second. All in favor? Aye. This meeting is adjourned at 421 PM. on March 7, 2025. Thank you all so much. |