Los Gatos Weekly-Times

Opponents upset by Council's decision to delay hearing on PG&E Substation

Council wants alternate-site neighbors noticed of meeting

Matter comes back April 6

By Jeff Kearns

Opponents who demanded that councilmembers take a stand on PG&E's Vasona substation at its March 16 meeting went home disappointed last week, after the council decided to delay taking any action until April 6, in order to ensure that all potentially affected residents would be notified of the hearing before any action is taken.

Several angry opponents, led by Newell Avenue residents Bill and Ann Burns, accused the council of not doing its job and insisted that by not voting to endorse an alternate site before a California Public Utilities Commission hearing on March 23, the council would effectively be telling the commission that the current site at Lark and Winchester avenues is acceptable to the town.

"We need to come together as a town and come together on this issue so that we can go into the [PUC] hearings with a united front," Ann Burns told the council. "I'd like to see you step up to the plate."

The PUC last year asked PG&E to prepare a study on alternative sites in the area, after the Burnses filed complaints alleging that the utility did not consider alternatives before filing an application to build a substation at the Vasona site. The study, released in December, looked at 16 possible sites on the north end of town and deemed six of those to be feasible. But PG&E stood by its original site.

Councilmembers agreed on Jan. 26 to look into endorsing an alternate site and directed the staff to prepare a report on the matter; that report was presented at last week's meeting.

Any recommendation the Town Council makes would be strictly advisory because the decision as to where to locate the substation is made solely by the PUC, but input from municipalities and residents is considered by commissioners as part of the decision-making process. The council may also make no recommendation at all.

Councilmembers have been wary of picking any sites at all because of a myriad of variables involved in considering each one. The currently proposed Vasona site is located in a 230kv transmission corridor, but using other sites may mean moving wires and towers, building lines through different neighborhoods, undergrounding the lines and purchasing a parcel of land big enough for the substation.

Some councilmembers also said that it might be helpful to make their decision after hearing the testimony at the PUC hearing.

With alternate sites scattered around different neighborhoods, the council last week wanted to be sure that homeowners in the vicinity of the alternate sites are given adequate notice of a public hearing on the matter.

"We've been accused of not noticing enough," Councilmember Joanne Benjamin said.

The PUC hearing on March 23 will be for the purpose of gathering community input on PG&E's plans, and a separate evidentiary hearing has been rescheduled for April 13 in San Francisco. A PUC administrative law judge will preside over the evidentiary hearing, and expert witnesses would give sworn testimony.

While some opponents angrily insisted that the March 23 public hearing will be the last opportunity, testimony may be submitted to the PUC any time before April 13.

Mayor Linda Lubeck said that she would speak at the March 23 meeting and indicate to the presiding PUC commissioner that the council intends to look into the matter at its April 6 public hearing and report its decision in a subsequent letter to the PUC.

Planning Director Lee Bowman said that it would be possible to get notices to residents before the March 16 hearing, but it would mean pulling the entire planning department staff off of their current projects for up to a week. "It would be extremely difficult," he said.

PG&E's current application to build the substation applies only to the present site at Lark and Winchester. The PUC will make a ruling only on the acceptability of that site. If the PUC denies the application, PG&E may choose to apply to build on another site, but the PUC cannot recommend one of the alternatives.

In addition to PG&E's six acceptable sites, councilmember Steve Blanton asked that the council also take a second look at a site at the southwest corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Highway 85. PG&E's report deemed the site too small for a substation.

The site would be attractive, Blanton told the Los Gatos Weekly-Times, because few people live near it, and the site's proximity to the freeway would keep open the possibility of undergrounding the lines.

The council also discussed forming an assessment district, which Town Attorney Orry Korb said would take at least six months to a year. Forming a district would put the financial burden of undergrounding or moving transmission lines on the shoulders of residents in the area who would benefit from the improvement. But just determining exactly who benefits and who doesn't could become an incredibly complex task.

PG&E attorney Chuck Lewis said that it would also take the same amount of time for engineers to prepare a report on the logistical aspects of undergrounding lines.

Ann Burns said that PG&E ratepayers should shoulder the expense.

The PUC normally does not allow utilities to pass on the cost of improvements to ratepayers. Undergrounding transmission lines costs approximately $8 million per mile.

Bill Burns asked the council to consider voting for an alternate site and moving the lines to run along the freeway, but Caltrans isn't likely to allow PG&E to have a right-of-way on its property.

The PUC hearing will take place March 23 at 7 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers.

[ Back to Contents Page | Los Gatos Weekly-Times Home Page | Archives ]