Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-11 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO 4LTOCITYCOUNCIL MEETINGS AR E BROADCAST LIVE VIA KM- FREDUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting January 11, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications 1. Resolution 6659 Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing 2, Resolution 6660 Determining Properties Electing to Pay Cost Over a Period of Years, Determining and Classifying Unpaid Assessments, and Funding Loans to Property Owners from the Electric System Improvement Reserve Ordinance 3788 Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1987-88 to Increase the Reserve for Underground Service Connec- tions in the Electric Utility PAGE 59-117 59-117 59-117 59-117 3. Policy and Procedures Committee Recorn- 59-118 mendation re the Intent to hwve City Council, Council Committee, and :'Tanning Commission Meeting8 Cablecast. 4. 2239 Wellesley Street �- Parcel Map and 59-118 Variance Findings Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 59-118 5. Analysis of Alternative Procedures for 59-118 Housing Electronic Components of the Underground Cable System: Part III Recess from 9:30 pm. to 9:47 p.m. 59-131 Items to be Considered after 11:00 p.m. 59-139 59-116 1/11/88 ITEM SA. (Old Item 8) Palo Alto. Yacht Harbor Restoration Study Recommendation 6. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of a Claim with Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transporta- tion Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1988-89 PAGE 59-147 59-163 7. Santa Clara County Regional Rail Projects 59-164 Adjournment at 1.27 a.m. 59-164 5C -116A 1/11/88 Regular Meeting Monday, January 11, 1988 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Sutorius announced the regular meeting of the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee scheduled for January 12, 1988, at 7:30 p.m., had been canceled. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Phebe Bush, 828 Northampton Drive, President of the Garden Club of Palo Alto, reported on the Gateway Project, and invited the Council to take special notice of the area at the Middlefield Road entrance to Palo Alto from Menlo Park. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Patitucci said he would not participate on Item 2 due to a conflict of interest. Council Members Bechtel and Levy asked to be recorded as voting "no" on Item 4, 2239 Wellesley Street. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Consent Calendar. 1. RESOLUTION 6659 entitled °RESOLUTION:OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING WEEDS TO BE A NUISANCE AND SETTING A BEARING" (CMR:108:8) (701-04/1250-01) 2. RESOLUTION 6660 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DETERMINING PROPERTIES ELECTING TO PAY COST OVER. A PERIOD OF YEARS, DETERMINING AND CLASSIFYING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS, AND FUNDING LOANS TO PROPERTY OWNERS FROM THE ELECTRIC SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT RESERVE" (CMR:112:8) (701-04/1130) ORDINANCE 3788 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OL' THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO INCRnAt iris xr5EiNvc FOR UNDERGROUND SERVICE CONNECTIONS IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY" (701.03) 59-117 1/11/88 CONSENT CALENDAR (CONT'D) 3. POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE INTENT TO HAVE CITY COUNCIL/ COUNCIL COMMITTEE, AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS CABLECAST. UPON APPROVAL, STAFF WILL ANALYZE THE VARIOUS TECHNICAL MEANS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED COSTS OF CABLECASTING COUNCIL_L COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL. STAFF WILL INCLUDE IN ITS ANALYSIS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CABLECAST OTHER BOARDS POLICY AND ;Pl THAT ANALYSIS AND COMM ISSIONS. STAFF WILL RETU RN TO COMMITTEE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF CABLECASTNG GUIDELINES WILL BE GUIDED BY THE FOLLOWING POLICIES: 1) CABLECASTING (CAMERA WORK AND LIGHTING) SHOULD NOT GET IN THE WAY OF THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT: 2) THE CITY SHOULD ENCOURAGE THE BROADEST POSSIBLE COVERAGE OF GOVERNMENT; 3) THE CITY'S POLICY SHOULD BE TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON CAMERA WORK ONLY TO THE DEGREE NECESSARY TO ASSURE ORDERLY MEETINGS AND DECISION MAKING (1141) 4, 2239 WELLESLEY STREET a PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCE FINDINGS (CMR:118:8) (300) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci °snot participating' on Item 2, Bechtel, Levy, voting no on Item 4. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to bring forward Item 8, Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Restoration Study Recommendations, to become Item 5A. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 5. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES FOR HOUSING ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS OF THE UNDERGROUND CABLE SYSTEM: PART III (CMR:106:8) (1141) Council Member Levy said the staff report (CMR:106:8) estimated the cost of maintenance for underground tap pedestals would be two and one-half times the cost for aboveground. He personally spoke to the chief engineers of several other cable systems and got lower figures. He asked how the two and one-half times number was arrived at. 59-118 1/11/88 City Manager Bill Zaner said the maintenance and operation costs were about two and one-half times the capital costs. Those figures were derived directly from material submitted to staff by the Cable Co-op and were largely developed by John Kelley. Mr. Kelley indicated in late December that those numbers were estimates, and there was a substantial amount of room for error. Staff did not have any other figures. He deferred to Mr. Kelley for further comments. Council Member Patitucci verified that Les Page, the con- sultant present at the November 23, 1987 meeting, said there was no particular problem inherent with flush -mounted vaults. Because they were underground, if they were improp- erly maintained, over time there would be a higher prob- ability of problems than if they were properly maintained. Properly installed and maintained, there should be little, if any, difference in the cost of using the flush -mounted vaults. Director, Information Resources, Dianah Neff said Mr. Page was unaware of dollar items. However, some cities had not experienced problems and nthers hmod T�^--- .... ifiiLG was 50 given conclusion in that area. Council Member Patitucci concluded that because the flush - mounted vaults were sold and used, there was no inherent problem in them: but if they were not maintained well enough, there was a better chance of moisture getting in than if they were aboveground. Mr. 2aner believed that was largely true. Mr. Page said the safest course of action from a technical point of view was not to put oneself in a position where one might have water intrusion, but that with careful maintenance and proper construction, those problems could be minimized. To the degree they failed to do that, the probability of some problem occurring in the system increased. Council Member Cobb asked if "maintenance of the system" referred to maintenance and response to a complaint of a problem, or about preventive maintenance. Mr. Zaner clarified staff was predominantly concerned where a complaint came in that the signal had been degraded, the picture ,.was no longer adequate, and someone had to go out to deal with the problem. In terms of a preventive mainte- nance, the system was checked periodically by the operator toensure the signal was adequate. The operator did not wait for problems to happen. The figures were based on estimates of the added costs for problems that would arise as a result of having the system underground. 59-119 1/11/88 Council Member Cobb asked staff to comment on any efforts to landscape the larger electronics pedestals. Mr. Zaner said at the December meeting the Council voted not to include the larger pedestals in the undergrounding con- sideration. Staff talked with the cable company and with Pacific Bell (PacBell), and while the pedestals could not be moved far, every effort would be made to move them to where they were less obtrusive. In some cases, that may not be possible. Landscaping might help in some cases and migt not have an effect in others. Mayor Sutorius asked for an explanation for a difference between a total of $832,000 in the December report, and $822,000 in the January report. Mr. Zaner believed the amount was not significant. Within the last few days, Mr. Kelley provided figures which were so close to the numbers before the Council that staff did not attempt to put an addendum in the report. Mayor Sutorius wanted PacBell or the Cable Co-op to address the question of whether the maintenance expectation would be reduced if 98 extender or amplifier units stayed above- ground, L. Ware, 1480 Edgewood, said the critical arguments and observations had been advanced at earlier meetings. He was concerned about the integrity of an underground system and queried how the City could build a capital project around figures its own advocates guessed at and estimated. The path of least resistance would be the approach suggested by PacBell. He hoped Council would take the bold approach they took earlier. Jinn !Dinkel,, 3380 Cork Oak Way, was on the Board of the Cable Co-op for three and one-half years, and used to be chief engineer of radio station WORN when they had to maintain buried coaxial cable. As a member of the engineering staff of Litton Industries, Applied Technology Division, they put radar -warning systems in aircraft which had to operate after coming out of rain clouds. They were being asked to put a high -frequency signal cable in the middle of somebody's yard where sprinkler systems would get to them. The telephone company was not geared to maintaining that kind of equip- ment. He requested the Council make a technological deci- sion. 59-120 1/11/88 1 Courtney Mitchell, 786 W. Greenwich Place, said if the residents in his circle were any indication of citizen action, it was possible that undergrounding might cost the City less in the long run. Because he had not taken any personal action, he had a house flanked on both sides by the pedestals. He urged the Council to listen to the people. George McKee, 1491 Edgewood Drive, believed the question was now a matter of who would pay and how much. He did not believe the Cable Co-op alternative was a serious proposal and, if accepted, the pedestals would never be under - grounded. He understood the Council represented the citi- zens, and citizens in the affected area did not want above- ground pedestals, nor a two-year experiment. Council erred; therefore, the City should pay at least part of the cost. Inquiries indicated there would be little opposition to an assessment of $100 per household in the underground area which would more than pay for the actual undergrounding. He urged Council stand by its vote of November 23, 1987, to underground tap pedestals and to take whatever steps were necessary to finance that decision. John Kelley, ,1868 Mark Twain, Cable Co-op, said the only issue raised in opposition to the pedestals was how they looked. He asked the Council to consider the Cable Co-op proposal. They asked a landscape architect to come up with proposals to mitigate the aesthetic impact of the pedestals. He distributed copies to the Council (on file in the City Clerk's. office). The vegetation was only an experiment Council should consider to see if it would correct people's outrage. Theadditional costs of conducting the experiment would be roughly $67,000, which Cable Co-op essentially offered to split with the City. The proposal was either to split the cost of the vegetation or absorb it entirely themselves. The Co-op would be willing, in the event the Council decided in future to underground the pedestals, to again share in the costs of the undergrounding in the amount previously indicated of $100,000. Council Member Bechtel asked how often a pedestal might have to be maintained and thereby disturb the landscaping. Mr. Kelley believed the landscaping would be installed such that it would be possible to do maintenance. Council Member Cobb said the sketches appeared to deal with the electronics pedestals, and irrespective of what was done with the tap pedestals, he queried whether the need to landscape to hide the larger pedestals was factored into their thinking. 59-121 1/1]/88 Mr. Kelley believed landscaping would help mitigate the appearance of the large pedestals. The proposal for vegeta- tion covered both the tap and larger pedestals. The costs allocated $150 per tap pedestal and $200 per larger pedestal. Council Member Patitucci said based on the engineer's esti- mates, Council decided in November 1987, not to force the issue of undergrounding the amplifiers, cable extenders, etc., and focused on the smaller tap pedestals of which there were many more. Council asked for estimates and alternative ways to finance the undergrounding. He clari- fied Council received a present value cost of $822,000 which represented estimates of all future costs of both PacBell and to the Cable Co-op for installation and long-term maintenance. He was frustrated there seemed to be no desire on the part of the Cable Co-op to develop or consider methodology for allocating to those who benefited in the areas which had undergrounding any kind of cost differential.. or surcharge to pay the differeece Mr. Kelley said the Cable Co-op was unwilling to have a surcharge for the subscribers in the underground areas. Such a surcharge would have to be in the area of $3 to $4 per month. He surveyed _many subscribers in the underground areas and since they were talking about a 20 to 25 percent rate increase, most subscribers indicated they would d;scone tinue the service. He believed it would stupid to have such a surcharge anc such a proposal was unacceptable. He believed the Cable Co-op spent a considerable amount of staff time trying to develop proposals that would not require cash outlays from the General Fund. Council Member Patitucci clarified Council only received a present value of all future maintenance service and marketing costs added on top of installation costs as a one-time number which Council was requested to figure out how to pay before the Co-op would be willing to put the pedestals underground. Mr. Kelley said the Co-op was willing to consider a method by which the City would pay for the undergrounding costs over time as they were incurred. He did not know PacBell's 'position. The Co-op was committed that the subscribers pay $100,000 worth of the costs. Council Member Patitucci clarified the Co-op was willing to spend $100,000 of subscribers' money on the landscaping and the new boxes which might not be quite as obnoxious as the ones already installed but the Co-op was unwilling to commit 59-122 1/11/88 to spending any money in two years if the City decided the experiment was not working. Mr. Kelley said the Co-op was willing to pay for the costs of vegetation in exchange for the concessions described in the staff report (CMR:106:8) . In the even. Council decided it wanted to put the pedestals back in vaults in two years, the Co-op would again contribute $100,000 towards that project. Council Member Levy spoke to several engineers of cable systems in California with undergrounded facilities. None were satisfied with undergrounding and all said if they had to do it over, they would not underground and were freeing some of their undergrounded facilities up out of the ground because of trouble they were having. Maintenance costs were stated as quite a bit less than what was projected. He understood maintenance costs were about 35 percent higher for vaulted tap pedestals than for above -ground tap pedestals. Another example said the increase was between 25 and 35 percent. Both figures were a long way from the 150 percent. He asked for comment. Mr. Kelley said the 150 percent figure was derived by PacBel1 based on consultation with other systems one of which he believed was in the Bay Area and one which was in the Los Angeles area. Regarding the engineers with whom Council Member Levy spoke, he queried the types of systems referred to. Palo Alto was building a bi-directional, "550" system which was more or less "state-of-the-art" in the cable industry. The entire system was very sensitive as was borne out during the construction process particuarly with the amount of time necessary to "teeek" the amplifiers to meet the signal standards set by the City for the system. PacBell already spent far in excess of what was originally projected to tune the amplifiers once the cable was installed. He believed the maintenance estimates were partly attributable to the fact it was a '550" system that was bi-directional. He did not see how the Cable Co-op could offer anything other than guesses and estimates until the system was built and its performance could be docu- mented. The maintenance factor could be much higher, lower or correctly projected but that would not be known until vaults were built and the experience was seen. Council Member Levy said when the City granted the fran- chise, it was with the tap pedestals to be built above- ground. It turned out to be a controversial decision but the Cable Co-op should not .be faulted per se because of that decision. 59-123 1/31/88 Betty Meltzer, 1241 Dana, said the decision to eventually install underground utilities in all of Palo Alto was intended to improve utility reliability and the look of the City's neighborhoods. The decision was a restatement of the importance of maintaining and improving the beauty of Palo Alto's neighborhoods. Because the utility plan was City- wide, the pedestal question would affect all Palo Alto neighborhoods not just Crescent Park or Leland Man -s. Providing "state-of-the-art" cable transmission also reflected the Council's long-range planning, but residents were being asked to give up an aesthetic priority for a technological one which many would not use. Residents did not believe the trade --off was desirable, or necesary, and it was unfair to have to put up with undesirable consequences. It was also unfair to test the endurance of peoples' con- cerns over time as was suggested by the Cable Co-op. The Co-op's plan to install aboveground pedestals for two years with a re-evalution of the need to underground at the end of that period was manipulative. Since `finances were a primary concern, it_.seemed logical that the financial obligation of the two -stage approach would be much greater. Palo Alto was recently chosen as the most desirable city to live in on the peninsula. Those who lived in Palo Alto knew the City was special and the people cared about perpetuating the special- ness. Council could vote to add to the aesthetic erosion or provide cable at no aesthetic cost by undergrounding the pestals. Sid Owen, 246 Walter Hayes Drive, said the Erstwild District considered any type of aboveground tap box to be an unacceptable answer particularly if the City lost the Supreme Court decision and ended up with multiple cable com- panies and multiple tin boxes. He suspected Council would find whatever solutions were necessary to underground all tap boxes.'- If not, the Erstwild District residents would opt out of underground altogether on the basis that if it could not be done right, it should not be done. He imagined other citizens in other parts of Palo Alto who were in line for undergrounding would follow suit. The proposed two-year experiment would not work because it was not being done Citywide. Those who did not presently have tap boxes would not like the idea any better in two years. When the power poles further deteriorated, the City would have to face the problem again and find solutions to replacing tap boxes. Dr. Stanley Eversol, 1485 Edgewood Drive, spoke to the City Council form of city government. He was uneasy that bureau- crats held positions for a number of years and ceased to be public servants and became masters. 53-124 1/11/88 Webster Jones, 1428 Hamilton Avenue, hypothetically sug- gested all tap pedestals be undergrounded and the larger ones be left alone. In that event, he queried the costs of additional capitalization for undergrounding all the tap pedestals only. He would then like to know the maintenance costs extended out over how ever many years for the particu- lar system. He would like .some relatively accurate figures for capitalization and maintenance. Al k artchner, 577 Patricia Lane, referred to the ad hoc com- mittee meeting and was surprised there had not been a second meeting. As far as he knew, City staff never took advantage of services offered by the highly qualified people. He believed there was an inherent problem in the connections to the "tap box." He had sample connections which were made from die-cast aluminum and pear-shaped. Such aluminum die- casting corroded easily when. subjected to moisture. He sug- gested they be put in sealed boxes made of plastics or that they be cast in plastic which would be abolutely impervious to moisture. They could have a hollow center, made in two sections with adequate seals to protect the materials on the inside indefinitely. He further suggested the boxes be sealed in an oxygen -free atmosphere for preservation. Harry Sanders, 1456 Edgewood Drive, said when he left Palo Alto for a trip in mid -December, Council had unanimouely voted to have all cable tap pedestals in R-1 neighborhoods installed underground in waterproof vaults. The vote fol- lowed months of meetings, discussions and staff reports. He could not believe Council was reconsidering its decisions. The minutes of the November 23, 1987, reflected Council Members comments. He was told that on December 21, 1987, Council received a totally different set of cost estimates much higher than the staff figures presented on November 23. Further, on December 21, Council heard a proposal that the tap pedestals be installed aboveground on a two-year trial basis with the proviso that they be undergrounded at the end of the trial period if the Council so requested. He believed it would be an unnecessary dual expenditure. He could think of nothing more "tacky" than aboveground pedestals on ever other property line throughout Palo Alto with the scattering of planting here and there. He referred to the winter weather and tho fact that the pedestals in Leland Manor were tilting, some were covered with mud, some damaged, and some subject to grafiti. The citizens of Palo Alto did not instigate the undergrounding project nor write the contract. The citizens also did not recommend the contract be signed. Citizens looked to its City Council to protect their interests and preserve the integrity of their homes, residential neighborhoods, and Palo Alto as a whole. 59-125 1/11/88 William Anderson, 890 Seale Avenue, said $800,000 sounded ridiculous to bury the pedestals. The problem was the City's. The City gave the Co-op the opportunity to put the pedestals aboveground and it turned out to be a mistake. It was unacceptable to assess those people already under - grounded as was a surcharge. If the cable price was raised, he would cancel. The City was to get approximately $1,000,000 out of the utility user's tax for streets and sidewalks. He suggested the City pull $200,000 and solve the problem of installation. The City spent approximately $1000,000 for the planning, design, contracting and litiga- tion of the cable system and the result was horrendous. He was concerned about the expertise in the City. George Galvin, 1445 Dana Avenue, cautioned Council not to be intimidated by companies who sought to have it reverse its position. The problem as defined by Mr. Kelley was a con- cern about underground corrosion, which was apparently resolved. He was bothered that Council made the decisions and the cable companies made the money but were not con- cerned about the aesthetics of Palo Alto. They were'talking about almost $1,000,000, and in the context of a major budgetary consideration for a city the size of Palo Alto, the figure was not quite so awesome particularly in the days of creative financing for municipalities. He believed some mutually agreeable formulaAn terms of a payback could be arranged between the City and the parties concerned. Palo Alto was a sophistocated, progressive community. It did not have to settle for a third-rate job in any area. They should not even consider scarring the landscape with the awful boxes. He urged the Council to remain consistent in its policy with respect to the problem. Council Member Levy said one member of the public indicated that an assessment to the homeowners in the range of $100 would be acceptable. Others said an assessment would be unacceptable. He asked Mr. Galvin to comment. Mr. Galvin said on his own behalf that a $100 assessment would be acceptable as long as it assured the work would be underground. Council Member Patitucci said it was a fortuitous coinci- dence that on the Consent Calendar Council approved the financing methodology and costs the individual homeowners would pay. The lowest cost to any one individual homeowner was in the $1500 to $1,800 range and it went up to $4,000 each for their share of the City's undergrounding. 59-126 1/11/88 Peter Shaw, 160 Forest Avenue, was the landscape architect the Cable Co-op consulted to do sketches and take pictures of the existing installations. The issue and size of the problem were phenomenal. He was asked to deal with each site individually. It would not just be some landscape method across the board. Each individual homeowner was allowed a one hour consultation for their particular prob- lem. The Co-op was concerned about the aesthetics of the City of Palo Alto. He believed if the sites were looked at individually and camouflage landscaping was done with plant material already existing on the property, it would work. If the boxes had to be aboveground, there needed to be sen- sitivity in concealing them and in placing them in the future. Guy Roberts, Davis, California, said the pedestals were questioned in every town. State-of--the-art was pedestals. The comparison was to take a, clock radio in the bathtub, fill it with water and expect it to work in the morning. It could not happen. Water tight enclosures in cement boxes were tried and they leaked. The same products being used in Palo Alto were tried. About 50 percent of the electronics in the test: areas were replaced. The City of Davis changed and went to the pedestals and in the last four years there was a less than five percent F=ailure rate. The service calls went down except in the areas which were underground. When the electronics were raised aboveground, the failure rate decreased substantially. Electronics did not work underground under any conditions. In terms of those people Who said they did not want cable, every home had to be passed with a pedestal because a neighbor might. move and the next person would want cable. It needed to"be done right. Council Member Woolley clarified that in the City of Davis taps were installed underground. Mr. Roberts said it was tried with the channel pedestal. It was supposed to be a water -tight pedestal but there was no way to keep water out of an underground location. Council Member Woolley asked how many pedestals were tried. Mr. Roberts said it was an area in the south part of town and there were probably 50 to 100 homes in the area. During the periodic checks water and condensation were found even in the summer when people turned on their sprinkler. Water would fill the boxes. Some boxes had six inches of water in the bottom of the pedestal. If the electronics were there, it had to be dealt with and the figures for such maintenance were astronomical. 59-127 1/11/88 Council Member Woolley asked whether the Davis system was comparable to Palo Alto's. Mr. Roberts said the City of Davis used the identical equip- ment at 450 megaherts and Palo Alto was building with 500 megaherts. The tap pedestal was about six inches around and about ten inches tall. It was not three feet tall and twelve or sixteen inches around. Davis staff members met with each homeowner who had a complaint, they tried to move each pedestal a couple of feet back and even allowed the people to buy.a plant or something to try and landscape the pedestal to their yards. Louise Beattie, 1445 Hamilton Avenue, was sorry that it would be so expensive to maintain the cable system but many people did not care if they had television. If the boxes were installed, she would campaign to have her neighbors not subscribe to cable. Jim Brody, Davis, California, said there was no technology available to keep water out of the tap locations under- ground. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, was a member of the board of the Cable Co-op, and referred to the September, 23, 1985 Council meeting when Mayor Ann Evans of Davis spoke to the pedestal issue and how hot an issue it would become. The system design was imposed by the City of Palo Alto by the Request for Proposal (RFP) which essentially required pedestals because of the nature of the signal requested. As a licensed metallurgist, he assured Council that with under- ground vaults especially in areas with a aigh water table, and everything east of Newell Road was originally swamp, water would eventually penetrate the vaults, there would be corrosion and spurious signals through the cable. It was not terribly important with a 300 or 350 megahertz system but with 500 megahertz any spurious signals created prob- lems. The Cable Co-op was concerned about equality and level of service. It was in the business of providing a high level of service. If the Co-op made any money, it _would be returned to the owners of the system, who were the sub- scribers. The Co-op had to provide a high level of service which would cost money if there were problems with the sig- nals. The system was designed to be a two-way system for data communications. Spurious signals in the data communi- cations leg of the system could cause subscribers to have the unfortunate experienc of having their checking account debited $100,000 instead of $100. The validity of the figures could not be predicted because it was not known how often people would water their lawns, how many earthquakes 59-128 1/11/88 there would be, or how much rainfall there would be. Under- ground vaults, even if sealed, were subject to earth motion. He lived directly across the street from Barron Creek and his foundations changed according to the seasons because of the pumping of the system. The cost of maintenance would be borne by the entire body of, the City. The number of people who had undergrounding of the system was relatively small but all would pay for it. He suggested the smaller tap pedestals be placed aboveground and landscaped as an experiment. Council Member Patitucci clarified Mr. Moss believed t:iat Council should opt for the boxes because if the Co-op saved money, it would go back to the subscribers when he also argued the City should use a co-op rather than a business to run the system so it would be more responsive to the com- munity. Mr. Moss believed the Co-op was responsive to the community. He referred to comments made by some speakers that the Co-op would be making money and that the only thing it was inter- ested in was money. He emphasized the Co-op was not interested only in money but in providing service. Council Member Patitucci asked whether the Co-op was .inter- ested in providing an aesthetically acceptable service. Mr. Moss said he would prefer to see a technically and aesthetically acceptable system. He believed a better job could be done with the smaller tap pedestals. He agreed that some of the siting of the pedestals was not well done. Some pedestals were done in such a way that they could not be seen unless one was standing next to them even the large ones and some stood out like a sore thumb. he believed the situation could be improved. Council Member Bechtel asked Mr. Moss if he knew of Mountain View's experience. It claimed to have a state-of-the-art system. In their undergrounded areas, it had the pedestals flush mounted in vaults, Mr. Moss said Mountain View's system was 450 megahertz as opposed to 550 megahertz, and its system was relatively new. Mountain View had a somewhat lower water table but he believed as its system aged, especially in the areas :loser to Bayshore, the water intrusion Palo Alto expected in Crescent Park in a relatively few years, would occur and Mountain View would start doing what other cities did, i.e., ripping out the underground vaults and putting in pedes- tals. 59-129 1/11/88 Council Member Bechtel clarified that to Mr. Moss' knowledge Mountain View had not yet had problems. Mr. Moss said the vaults were not taken out but he believed Mountain View had some serious problems. Bonnie Street, 569 Madison Way, queried whether a large pedestal could be placed next to her home where the existing landscaping was. She was also concerned about the safety of children riding bicycles because it seemed inevitable that a child would hit one of the pedestals. Tom Passell, 3825 Louis Road, Vice President of the Cable Co-op Board, spoke as an individual. He was persuaded the argument originated from those citizens with conspicuous cable pedestals in the middle of a flat lawn. He was con- vinced that proper shrubbery could camouflage the pedestals. He was not sure whether a reliable system could be placed underground but believed it was acceptable for shrubbery to hide the pedestals, Tom Anderson, 1468 Hamilton Avenue, supported undergrounding both boxes. The first Transatlantic cable was buried under- water in 1866, and he suggested technology had progressed in 120 years. Richard E. Armstrong, 1460 Hamilton Avenue, endorsed the comments of Mrs. Beatty, Mrs. Meltzer, Mr. Ware, the repre- sentative from the Erstwild District, and Mr. Sanders. He suggested the problems in Davis might be related to its soils conditions. He believed the amplifiers should also be undergrounded and the cable company should be more sensitive to the customers. Perhaps a sensitivity would produce an increase in the Co-op's revenue base and it could afford to do some of the modificatiorea required in order to make Palo Alto one of the more forward looking communities in terms of cable systems. David LJeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, said LI1S neighborhood was not undergrounded but they did not want to _ pay the cost of undergrounding. If the "Maximart" site wasexcluded from the amortization period, his neighborhood would forever be surrounded by the commercial/manufacturing zone, and his neighborhood, which would not have undergroundina, world be forever paying for the undergrounding of other neighbor- hoods. His neighborhood did not want to pay the cost through zonings of the undergrounding. 59-130 1/11/88 Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, supported David Jeong's comments. She was concerned about taking $800,000 from the General Fund without considering the needs of child care and senior services. She believed a few bushes could accomplish the aesthetic objective without spending the money. She referred to an alternative alluded in the December 17, 1987 staff report, which proposed to aid the Cable: Co-op financially to underground the pedestals by extending the amortization period on the "Maximart" property currently being leased by the Cable Co-op. If the amortization was extended, it would require a mandatory rezoning of the property which only three years ago was zoned for critically needed housing with Citywide citizen support. Jeopardizing the housing potential seemed like a high price to pay just to avoid planting a few bushes. She wanted staff to respond to whether the extension of the amortization period was being considered. She urged that it not be. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:30 p.m. TO 9:47 p.m. Al Hildebrand, 1555 Edgewood, knew there were technical solutions to any problem sustained by the higher RF fre- quency. They might be °..expensive but he believed Palo Alto residents should have the choice to pay for the solutions as individuals when necessary and not carte blanche for the entire population. Whether it be a technical or site placement solution, he wanted an opportunity to possibly avoid the unsightly boxes he saw between North California Avenue and Embarcadero. Council Member Cobb believed it was clear from the testimony that the tap pedestals should be placed underground. He did not believe the proposed two-year experiment would succeed because the public was steadfast in its views. The extenders and the electronics pedestals were larger than the tap pedestals and Council should ensure that future instal- lations ,were sensitive in terms of location and landscaping and that the existing pedestals were moved where possible and relandscaped to make the presently obtrusive boxes a little more compatible with the environment. It was some- what less clear in terms of how to deal with the costs. He believed everyone was somewhat at blame for what had hap- pened including Council since it did not really appreciate the magnitude of the problem represented by .the pedestals. He believed the retrofitting cost was something which should be borne one way or another by the City. The issue of the new pedestals was not as clear because the entire City would be undergrounded eventually and the costs would be spread over a much larger number of people than those presently undergrounded. He was concerned about future costs because 59-131 1/11/88 at some point Council needed to recognize that if an under- ground system was what Palo Alto wanted, it had to be a sys- tem cost and dealt with as such. The public attitude was so clear that not dealing with the issue of the tap pedestals would create a negative environment for the Cable Co-op as it attempted to market its system and it would create a negative environment for the City as it attempted to extend undergrounding of utilities throughout the City. If the undergrounding was dealt with then, Council could ascertain the costs. Maintenance costs as low as the 30 to 35 percent were mentioned by Council Member Levy and i t ,,was suggested they could be up in the 100 to 200 percent 'range in the worst case situation. If there -was a plus 200 percent main- tenance costs, the Council would have to rethink its deci- sion. However if the costs were in the 30 to 75 percent range, it might be worth it to have the amenities pre- served. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the staff recommendations to request Cable Co-op to proceed with the two-year experiment of using low - profile pedestals obscured with landscaping and vegetation and that the cost of the experiment be borne by Cable Co-op and the City (the City's share would be covered by delaying construction on upper Page Mill Road and reducing insurance requirements). Further, with the revision as follows: 1) an alternative means of handling the costs of under - grounding the upper Page Mill Road area be split with tiro -thirds paid by the City and one-third paid by Cable Co-op; and 2) The City's portion be handled by a surcharge into the underground district parcels, not to the cable sub- scribers. Council Member Fletcher said Union City was said to be an example ofa good underground system, but its cable operator was adamant that Union City would have a better system if it had aboveground pedestals. Because of the unreliability of the service and the higher costs to the subscribers, Union City had no institutional system and the cable operator was convinced that if they had aboveground pedestals, it would not be the case. She also spoke to the operator of the Mountain View system who also had a system in Newark. She called after it rained and was advisedof outages every- where. The pedestals sat in water and every time it rained the runoff got into the pedestals and they had a problem. She believed there was no way to make the pedestals air tight or seal them 100 percent. The City had little to lose 59-132 1/1.1/88 As corrected 2/08/88 by trying the smaller pedestals for two years because if it went underground and then had to pull it out because of unreliability, it would cost more in the end. The City of Alameda started with above -ground pedestals and went to undergrounding because of citizen discontent and now were pulling them up. She urged support of the motion in order to see if the smaller pedestals worked and to maintain a reliable cable system. Council Member Woolley said the system was not City -owned. It was to the Co-op's credit to even be talking with the City because the contract was completed. It was fortunate the City ended up with a cooperative because they were eager to please but at the same time the Co-op had to balance its finances which was the City's main concern and why it did not give more consideration to the green boxes when the con- tract was signed in the first place. The cable contract could not be canceled. Regarding delay, PacBell said it would cost them $35,000 per week if it did not have.a deci- sion within the next week about whether to put the taps in pedestals or in vaults. The City was under pressure to make a decision. Regarding charging subscribers, that decision was up to the Cable Co-op who decided it would not be advan- tageous to its marketing program to increase rates to sub- scribers located in the underground areas and not in other areas. She was absent from the November meeting where Council voted 8-0 to get rid of the pedestals, and she was not sure how she would have voted. However, the issue of who would pay was not considered. The problem was not the capital outlay of about $125,000 to change to underground vaults. That cost probably could be borne in a variety of ways. The problem was the differential cost from then on out. Although she realized the costs were estimates, PacBell had not calculated into the $700,000 the added cost of future underground districts so that cost could actually increase. In terms of the City paying that cost, she pointed out the "City" was the entire population. Person- ally, she was not willing at that point to have the General Fund used to pay the differential in the maintenance for the underground vaults for the underground districts at that time. She saw no other way to pay for the differential cost and was willing to support the motion and see if the "experiment" improved the visual problems. In the long run, she was afraid the problem would be quality of service and that Council would be back trying to figure out how to improve the service level even though the visual problems were solved. Council learned a lot from the experience in 59-133 1/11/88 As corrected 2/08/88 Leland Manor. It was a poor job in many respects and the same thing would not happen again. The field engineering could be vastly improved. She agreed with Council Member Fletcher the alternative was not throwing money away. If Council voted to go ahead with underground vaults and then discovered it was the wrong decision, it would be more costly to go from underground vaults to pedestals than it would to go in the other direction. Council Member Patitucci said his problem with the two-year experiment went back to the original discussion about the pedestal boxes when in response to how other communities dealt with the pedestals, the answer was they learned to live with it. It appeared that everyone who had a cable system knew they would have to go through a little fire storm and sooner or later they would get to the other side and the amount of public concern would diminish and people would learn to live with the aesthetics. He suggested Council look at a couple of years of having underground pedestals. He had confidence that PacE3ell and the Cable Co-op could make it work. If it turned out to be horrendously expensive, the system deteriorated and people were bailing out and not wanting the service, the case could' be made back to the Council that it made a mistake. He did n►ot see that the evidence was there yet. Council heard from conflicting engineers on whether it could be done. He did not support the motion. Council Member Levy believed the proper decision was to go ahead with undergrounding the tap pedestals. People were concerned about having the taps in front of their homes and there were the technical performance issues of under - grounding. It might well be that down the road the techni- cal performance would be unacceptable and the Chambers would be filled with people who were willing to accept some aesthetic deterioration in order to get the technical quality up to acceptable standards. Palo Alto worked a long time trying to underground utilities and do many other things to maintain aesthetic quality and improve it. He did not think at that stage Council should accept deterioration. There were steps Council could take and there were ways to pay for it. There were two elements to the question of costs. One was installation costs and the other was maintenance costs. He believed maintenance costs would be far less than $800,000. It was undoubtedly true maintenance costs would be higher, but he believed they would be more in. the range of $200,000 over a 15 -year period which was much more manageable. 59-134 1/11/88 SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Patitucci, that Council take the following action: 1. Reaffirm its commitment that all tap pedestals be underground in R- neighborhoods having underground utilities; 2. The City agrees to bear the incremental cost of undergrounding through the following means: a) a one-time assessment, not to exceed $75, will be levied against each property in R--1 neighborhoods where utilities have been undcrgrounded. In the future, an assessmentnot to exceed $75 in 1988 dollars will be levied at the time a new underground district is established; and if the $75 per household assessment does not cover all incremental costs, the remainder will come from the City's general funds; and 3. The cable franchise will determine the extent of extra maintenance costs due to undergrounding by establishing a control area elsewhere in the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) or through some other method acceptable to the City and the City agrees to use income from its share of the franchise fee as follows: a) to pay back legal and other costs incurred in con- nection with the cable franchise; and b) to pay for extra maintenance costs incurred through undergrounding of cable pedestals. MOTION TO POSTPONE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO A TIME CERTAIN: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to postpone substitute motion until after the the Main Motion. MOTION TO POSTPONE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO A TIME CERTAIN PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Levy voting "no." Vice Mayor Klein opposed the motion and believed they should move forward with an undergrounding program. He agreed with the remarks he made at the November City Council meeting. The boxes were a problem, and it was up to the`Council to solve the problem and to help Cable Co-op. If the Cable Co-op succeeded in the compromise suggested, it would ultimately turn out to their detriment because it would result in a lower level of subscribership throughout the City. The City should have alone it right the first time.. 59-135 1/11/88 In retrospect, the decision by `:he City several years ago was clearly flawed, and the placement of the pedestals in Leland Manor was a public relations' disaster which had to be laid at the doorstep of PacBell and Cable Co-op. However, there was no need to point fingers as they were still at an early enough stage to put the system on the right path. It was important to make that policy decision firmly and clearly and then move forward to the difficult task of allocating costs. Either way things could be charged in a few years, and either way it would cost money to the people who lived in Palo Alto, whether through the City or through the subscribers. He preferred to start with the vaults underground. It was difficult to believe that the technology was not available to have the vaults main- tained properly so the increased maintenance costs, if any, would be at a level they could all handle. Palo Alto prided itself on doing things right, and they should not give up so easily. To do otherwise was to have people in the community be the servants of technology, and technology was supposed to serve the people. For that reason, he opposed Council Member Fletcher' s motion. Mayor Sutorius said the means of financing in the motion provided that the City would defer the underground installa- tion along upper Page Mill Road and lower insurance coverage from $10 million to $5 million as a consideration for Cable Co-op's paying the cost of the experiment. He did not support either avenue. j AMENDMENT: Mayor Sutorius moved, an alternative means of handling the costs of undergrounding be split with two- thirds paid by the City and one-third by Cable Co-op, and that the City portion be handled by a surcharge into the underground district parcels, not to the cable subscribers. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE AMENDMENT INTO MAIN MOTION Mayor Sutorius believed whatever resulted; the costs should rot be borne by Cable Co-op in an exclusive fashion nor in a fashion that caused the City to penalize unaffected parties for deferring or delaying a job that was committed to b� done, including provision of the service elsewhere. By the earlier- financing proposed and other kinds of financing con- siderations, they were either assessing costs or giving up .expectations to people who were not affected in the decision now, i.e., the great body of subscribers to cable who would be served by aerial and might not have underground services for many years. It was not fair to increase -the costs to potential cable subscriber for the undergrounding if the 59-136 1/11/88 subscriber was not getting any of the benefit. It was appropriate that financing devices consider a "benefit assessment," perhaps similar to the kinds of recommendations couched in Council Member Levy's motion. In regard to whether to underground now or take the two-year experiment, he did not misunderstand the depth or breadth of expression conveyed. He was unable to articulate any differently and certainly no better than professionals, the strong concern for the degradation of service. He was confident the con- cerns raised were born of knowledge, experience, and were a caution that should be carefully understood. The degrada- tion had the potential of affecting service and the signal exchange for a large number of subscribers and for an extended period of time, and they should not subject the communication users to that risk. It was hat -ter to take the two-year period_ to improve the aesthetics and to look at what could be accomplished in regard to change or innova- tions, rather than in the opposite way. He would vote in favor of the motion. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Sutorius, Woolley. Fletcher voting "aye." MOTION: Council Member Levy moved. seconded by Patitucci, the previous wording of the Substitute Motion. Council Member Levy clarified the installation costs would be handled by an assessment which would be to all homes within an underground area, not merely the home that had a pedestal in front of it. The aesthetics covered the whole neighborhood and, therefore, should be borne by the whale neighborhood. The maintenance costs would be borne out of the funds available from the franchise fee after the legal and formation costs were paid off. If the franchise fee would not cover all the maintenance costs, he believed any additional maintenance costs would have to be absorbed by the franchisee. He was confident over the 15 -year franchise period, the franchise fee would more than cover the total extra costs for undergrounding. He left it up to staff to work together with the franchisee to develop an acceptable method for determining the excess maintenance costs. Obvi- ously, they would want an incentive to the franchisee to maintain the underground pedestals as efficiently as pos- sible, and staff should develop and return to the Council with a recommendation. Council Member Patitucci said the substitute motion started the discussion in the direction it should go, although he was not 100 percent in favor word for word. The main state- ment which was critical was that the Council reaffirm its commitment that all tap pedestals be underground in n-1 53-137 1/11/88 neighborhoods. They had not had sufficient energy and thinking going into implementing that decision. There were ways of accomplishing the objective which were not covered by parts 2 and 3 of the substitute motion. The issue was one of cost, and he could go along with the proposal to assess the beneficiaries; however, there might be other options that might be easier to handle than setting up an assessment district. There might be associated legal prob- lems. In regard to the ongoing costs, Cable Co-op had agreed to contribute in some manner already, and there night be ways they could pick up the first increment of mainte- nance costs and the City might back them up with a City commitment. If his colleagues believed the motion would move them in the right direction, he could support it but believed there was room for improvement. Council Member Cobb referenced the assessment of $75 and was concerned they were being so specific. He preferred to give staff direction to evaluate the one-time assessment and see at what level it should be both in terms of what was reason- able to ask people to pay and what things would really cost. He assumed the one-time assessment would also cover future installation costs. Council Member Levy said that was correct. Council Member Cobb said as the amount of undergrounding in the City grew, the requirement to do more undergrounding would also grow. The maintenance would either become a big problem or not a problem depending on whose numbers were right, and the formula on point 3 might not work longer term. He hoped it was only a small maintenance increment, and he asked for staff's comments on what direction would be helpful to them in terms of getting a formula that would also work for the problem they would have in a couple of years. SENT: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Rensel, to add; 4. a) the electronic and extender pedestals already installed, are to be relocated and/or landscaped as appropriate and feasible; and b) future installations of those pedestals are to include some consultation with the hose owners and appropriate landscaping to the greatest degree. fea- sible. 59-138 1/11/88 As corrected 2/08/88 Council Member Levy asked if there was any way of paying for the amendment. Council Member Cobb believed as the Council looked at the various costs, they should deal with the amendment cost as well. He reminded his colleagues of the pictures of the particularly unattractive installation of an electronics pedestal. As all the pedestals were installed, he under - s toed there was never any effort to ask the home owner for the location that would create the least problem. Fixing that mistake was part of "doing it right," and the cost con- siderations had to cover fixing the mistakes already made. The costs had to be part of the overall assessment. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AFTER 11:00 p.m. Mayor_ Sutorius said the Council would continue with the remainder of the agenda. Council Member. Renzel said the decision was not an easy one, and she had good constituents on both sides of the issue. The Council had to go with their own instincts and trust that people who elected them would understand they had to do what they believed was rigr►t. In her case, she looked at how she would feel if she were paying a substantial amount to underground utilities in her neighborhood and had the hardware plopped into h garden --in which she took a great deal of interest --whether or not she intended to subscribe to cable television. Between technology and aesthetics, her instincts and feelings were with the anesthetics. There was a great deal of -technological know-how in the community that would be volunteered if it was felt the existing technology was not adequate. She supported reaffirming the Council's commitment that all tap pedestals be underground in R-1 neighborhoods having underground utilities, suggested the motion be divided, and reserved judgment on the financial issues. As the motion stood, the item was optional and not essential, and the hardships related to the technological problem should not be borne by everyone. Vice Mayor Klein asked the City Attorney if the Council could pass the assessment by its own vote or whether they had to form an Assessment District and get the concurrent of a; majority of the residents of . that area. Ms. Northway replied the Council would fore a Benefit Assessment District and would have to allow a majority pro- test, but could override the protest t.y a two-thirds vote of the Council. It would not necessarily be an impediment to 59-139 1/11/88 the district if six members of the Council were willing to vote in favor of such a district. Vice Mayor Klein asked if that was thy: same procedure with regard to undergrounding of the utilities. Ms. Northway said yes. Vice Mayor Klein was troubled by Item 2 and supported Item 3, at least in concept. In regard to Item 2, he was con- cerned about districts where a majority of the citizens might object to the assessment. He did not know whether $75 was the right number and believed they were being too pre- cise at that point. Their role should be to set policy and let staff return with alternatives and suggestions on spe- cifics, and then for the Council to follow through as to whether those specifics were acceptable. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING NAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO REVISED MOTION WITH INCOR- PORATIONS 1. Reaffirm commitment that all tap pedestals be under- ground in R-1 neighborhoods having underground utilities; a) The electronics and extender pedestals already installed are to be relocated and/or landscaped as appropriate and feasible; and future installations of those pedestals are to include some consultation with the home owners and appropriate landscaping to the greatest degree pos- sible; 3. That the Council direct staff to determine the appropri- ate method to pay for implementing Items 1 and 2 above and to examine the following methods for accomplishing that objective: a) the City considers bearing the incremental cost of undergrounding through the following means: 1) a one-time assessment will be levied against each property in R-1 neighborhoods where util- ities have been undergrounded. In the future, an assessment not to exceed 1988 dollars will be levied at the time a new underground districtis estab1ishedt and 59.140 1/11/88 REVISED MOTION CONTINUED 2) if the per household assessment does not cover all incremental cost, the remainder will come from the City's general funds; and b) The cable franchisee will determine the extent of extra maintenance costs due to undergrounding by establishing a control area elsewhere in the Joint Powers Agreement (:,SPA) or through some other method acceptable to the City, and the City considers using income from its share of the franchise fee as fol- lows: 1) to pay back legal and other costs incurred in connection with the cable franchise; and 2) to pay for extra maintenance costs incurred through undergrounding of cable pedestals. Mr. Zaner directed the Council's attention to Item 3 and ociiu, ---aa having exaf pleb of ways vv i:, irS :. charges, it would be helpful to staff to know who should pay. Staff could provide alternatives as to how to pay if they knew who the parties were to be,-e.g., the City of Palo Alto General Fund, the persons residing in the underground district, or the total number of subscribers in the systei;. Mayor Sutorius said the motion as it stood identified the parties in Items 3a) and 3b) as being each property in the R-1 neighborhoods Vice Mayor Klein assumed staff was to consult with Cable Co-op in calculating any financing formula. He also assumed staff might consider such other alternatives as it seemed appropriate. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to include the deferral of the upper Page Mill Road under - grounding as an alternative. Vice Mayor Klein understood only 20 houses were affected. Mr. Zaner said about 20 or 25 houses. Vice Mayor Klein believed the greatest good for the commu- nity would be to use the money elsewhere. Indeed, they would still come out ahead if they bought each of the 20 houses a satellite dish. 59-141 1/11/88 Council Member Bechtel said the savings were approximately $250,000, which was a steep cost for 20 houses. Mayor Sutorius was sorry to see that type of linkage occur- ring, He harkened back to discussions during the review process when the Couincil made clear that a major considera- tion and concern was the manner in which the service area of the full IPA was accounted for in the final two proposals. A situation occurred that involved a change on the part of one of the bidders in order to conform with that responsi- bility. Specifically, it impacted on removal of a line extension charge philosophy that most notably affected another community outside Palo Alto but would also have affected Palo Alto. The service territory that was going to be served did not extend all the way to all Palo Alto, and it was made clear that should be incorporated. The result was two bids that said they were going to treat the area in the same fashion and the line extension charge was no longer a part of the proposal. He found it difficult to pull back on that consideration for inappropriate reasons and would vote "no" on the amendment. Council Member Levy also deplored the linkage, but since they were reviewing certain elements of cost in connection with providing service throughout the community, it seemed likely to be cheaper to offer similar service to the cable, as suggested by Vice Mayor Klein, without actually stringing the cable up there. The people should not become secondary citizens and the City should try to . provide them with ser- vice. However; if they could do it in a cheaper way, they should. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Cobb, Fletcher, Sutoriva, Woolley voting Kilo." AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct staff not to consider reducing the insurance among the financing considerations. Vice Mayor Klein believed that money belonged to the entire area and not just Palo Alto, compared to the upper Page Mill Road alternative which was entirely within Palo Alto. Council Member Renzel believed it was important to maintain the insurance for the entire service area. Using a reduc- tion in insurance to pay for a local improvement did not seem appropriate given the fact Palo Alto was the lead. agency for a much larger area than its own community. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. 59.142 1/11/88 Council Member Bechtel was concerned about the one-time assessment. Those who lived in areas that probably were not going to be undergrounded for a long time knew it cost more to provide service in undergrounded areas. They were all paying for taiat in other areas as well, and at the same time they were all benefiting. If, in fact, they got rid of the pedestals every four houses, the aesthetics of the community affected them all, no matter where they liven. She did not believe doing a special assessment of one section of town was equitable. She would not support the particular portion and asked that Item 3a) be divided from the remainder of the motion. Council Member Fletcher referenced the overall decision and believed it was a serious mistake to underground the pedes- tals carte blanche. The Council had not heard from nor about one cable operator or operation which was underground with the pedestals which was a successful system, especially one with the technological sophistication of the operation in question. In the so-called "successful" system in Union City which the consultant referred her to, she was told even there they could not underground where there was a high water table and much of Palo Alto had a high water table. They could not have the boxes sitting in the water. There was no steel that was so air and watertight that it would not leak. They would have a system which would be unreli- able, would probably not make use of the potential for the institution usage which the community wanted when they wanted when they went through the franchise hearings. They envisioned and were urged to have a cable system which was high tech, reliable, had a multiple of programming opportu- nities, but she believed they were getting themselves into a system which would be high -cost to the subscribers, meaning fewer subscribers, which translated less ,revenue to provide the programming the Council had hoped the community would get. Mr. Page, the consultant, agreed it would take extra maintenance and highly skilled technicians who would have to work more slowly and carefully than with aboveground systems because the underground system was more susceptible to outage:,. Another operator mentioned he had to hire an extra technician purely because of the undergrounding and the service calls were more numerous. She did not know how the timing would work because they were going to make a decision on an Assessment District, presumably, down the line whereas the construction had to go ahead within the next few weeks before it was all legalized. They were making the financial commitment without knowing if there would be an Assessment District approved, and they did nct even know the costs of what they were committing to. It was so inconsistent with the methodical method with which the Council usually made 59-143 1/11/88 decisions regarding finances. It was an unprofessional way to operate and a poor decision -making process. There was no way she could vote for the motion. Council Member Cobb asked if Vice Mayor Klein's item was formally incorporated into the motion, i.e., such other methods as staff would propose. Mr. Zaner believed so. He said the point raised by Council Member Bechtel was at variance of his understanding of Council Member Patitucci's original motion. He believed Item 3 simply alluded to some examples of things staff was to look at, including the Assessment District and others. He understood the motion was to examine methods for spreading the cost for Items 1 and 2 to include looking at the Assessment Districts; and staff exercising its judgment as to bringing back additional alternatives that might make sense. Mayor Sutorius said his understanding was the combination of that motion and Vice Mayor Klein's. Council Member Cobb wanted to ensure that was clear. In regard to the City Manager's comment that the Council should make -the policy decision as to "who will pay," he asked how specific that guidance needed to be. Mr. Zaner said it would be helpful, for example, if the Council's policy was that the costs for Items 1 and 2 were to be spread only to those persons in the R-3 areas, that was one set of payees. If, however, Council's policy included spreading some of those costs to all properties ire the City, that was another set of payees. Staff could devise various systems depending upon who the Council wished to include in the list of people who would pay. Council Member Cobb did not feel staff was getting that kind of guioance at present. Mayor Sutorius said staff had information that said a one-- time assessment would be levied against each property in the R-1 neighborhoods where utilities had been undergrounded. Other considerations were the deferral on the Page Mill, and staff was restricted from including the insurance reduction as a means of financing. Council Member Cobb asked about the degree to which the Council expected the cable company to contribute specific- ally to a solution. Cable Co-op spoke to various contribu- tions to their proposal, but he wondered if the language in. the motion covered what the Council expected of them in the subject approach. 59-144 1/11/88 Mayor Sutorius said there was a "hole" in the motion. He opined they had an opportunity at the minimum to consider that Cable Co-op indicated they would participate in the alternative they proposed up to $127,000, or alternatively they might consider another number. AMENDMENT: Council Member Cobb moved, to include partici- pation on the part of Gable Co-op in an amount corresponding to other proposals. !RARER AND SECONDER ACCEPTED LANGUAGE INCORPORATED INTO MAIN MOTION: PuLsue Participation of Cable Co-op in an amount corresponding to other proposals. AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to direct staff not to include the Maximart rezoning amortization in staff1s consideration of means of financing AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Sutorius voting "no.a Council Member Renzel inquired about the matter of other communities. They read that East Palo Alto was concerned about the boxes, and she asked if other communities in the JPA wished to deal with the matter, was it upto them to deal with the funding of that change. Mayor Sutorius clarified the action the Council took in December was to emphasis that they were dealing with Palo Alto only, and they would not in any way make commitments that applied, or incurred expenses or risks that would pass on to other portions of the JPA, but that the other JPA mem- bers would be notified by staff of the Council's actions. Mr. Zaner clarifiedno further action on the Council's part was necessary. Council Member Levy said the turn the overall nature of the motion had taken was that staff would return to the Council with some specific concepts for funding the cost, and the Council would deal with that at a subsequent meeting. was concerned there might be an open-endedness to the ques- tion of maintenance, which was a trap he did not want to get into down the road. The concept he originally had in mine was that the capital cost be funded through an Assessment District. The maintenance costs, which were more fuzzy, should be funded specifically out of the franchise fee or, more broadly, in .some mechanism by the City as a whole because the franchise fee would go back into the City 59.145 1/11/88 general treasury. However, by specifically linking it to the franchise fee, they closed off the total amount of money they would pay. He hoped when the item returned to the Council, they had some kind of closure so they did not com- mit themselves to an open-ended series of costs down the road connected to maintenance. Council Member Bechtel asked for clarification of what was included in Item 3. If it was the more general subject of referring the issue to the staff to explore various possi- bilities, including an Assessment District, she would con- sider voting for it. Mayor Sutorius understood that Item 3 had incorporated addi- tional language such that it was a serving of specific examples of things that could be considered and did not close the door on additional concepts, with the exception that the door was open on Page Mill, and closed on insurance and Maximart. Vice Mayor Klein was concerned they were getting bogged down in detail and hoped they would let staff sort things out and return to the Council. By his calculation;, they had over- funded the initial capital cost by a factor of two or three. In regard to Mr. Zaner's comments about the Council's setting up priorities as to who they wanted to pay, he was not ready to make that decision and looked to staff to help the Council focus more precisely on that. The question was a thorny one, and he would welcome staff's input, He was skeptical about the idea of an Assessment District, but was willing to have it studied. In regard to Council Member Fletcher's questions of the system's moving forward, there was a paragraph in the report (CMR:106:8) that said Cable Co-op and Pacific Bell were willing to resume construction of the underground sections while the City resolved the cost allocation issue. He accepted that at face value and believed no further action was necessary. Mr. Zaner said that was correct. Assuming the motion passed, staff would inform Cable Co-op and PacBell the next morning to begin once again installing, and the installa- tions in the R-1 underground area were to be flush -mounted and the City would deal with the costs under the motion. Council Member Woolley clarified the motion would be divided. She would join Council Member Fletcher in voting "no," on reaffirming the Council's commitment to under - grounding at the present time because she believed they were saying they would go ahead and figure out the cost alloca- tion later. PacBell was willing to go ahead on that basis, but she was not. She was concerned as to who would pay, 59-146 1/11/88 whether it would be the underground district, the entire City, or. Cable Co-op. She wholeheartedly supported Item 2. The larger amplifiers and line extenders were probably a greater problem than the taps in the long run in terms of appearance, and that was where the Council's attention needed to focus. She would vote against the item asking staff to determine various ways of paying for the project, not because she opposed all of it but because she would oppose some of it if staff were to return with those solu- tions, particularly the one to do with using the franchise fee. They did not even know if they were going to have a franchise fee for certain. Not only was the estimate as to the cost of maintenance "iffy," but that source of income was "iffy." Also, they did not know the amount of the fran- chise fee. It was not a tremendous amount of money. The cost the City already incurred was fairly substantial so there might.. not be enough money from that source to cover the maintenance. Mayor Sutorius associated by and large with the comments of Council Member Woolley. If the motion passed, .. he felt con- fident that staff would return with a sound recommendation for the Council's consideration. He was concerned they had taken action that would commit the City to dealing with a technical service problem in the long term that would nega- tively affect the provision of cable service, and they would have to find a way of rectifying that at a future time. While that was not something they would each experience simultaneously, and there could be no pred:'ctions that it would occur in the first years, the project would have a higher trouble incident rate and a broader reach of that trouble when it occurred, and he was sure that added to the cost of the service. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING. ITEM 1 PASSED by a vote of 6.3, Fletcher, Sutorius, Woolley voting "no." ITEM 2 PASSED unanimously ITEM 3 PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Sutorius, Woolley voting "no." 5A OLD ITEM 8) PALO ALTO YACHT HARBOR RESTORATION STUDY RECOMMENDATION (CMR:102:8) (1440-02) Assistant Director, Public letter from the. Sea Scouts office) was received after Works, George Bagdon said a (on file in the City Clerk's the Yacht Harbor Restoration 59-.14.7 1/11/88 Study was completed and was placed at Council Member and staff seats. Information in the letter dealt with the mem- bership of the Sea Scout program for Palo Alto in 1987. He referred to page 9 of the staff report (CMR:102:8), Recom- mendation 4, and clarified the permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) did not require the removal of the building, and the words "and building" should be removed from the recommendation. The permit required the removal of the dock and piles by the end of February 1988, and was the reason staff was asking for an extension of time. The Sea Scout building was referred to in the permit at the request of City staff because staff wanted toeget permission from the BCDC to remove the build- ing when and if the Council directed staff to do that. BCDC would be sending a clarifying letter which removed any reference to the Sea Scout building in the permit. If Council directed staff to remove the Sea Scout building, staff would need to either process an amendment to the existing permit or apply for a new permit to do that. Trudi Ryan, Project Manager from the consulting firm of Santina & Thompson, Inc., made a presentation to refresh the Council's memory of the two different reports: the techni- cal report which provided the data and technical recom►enda- tions of the individual consultants, and the summary report which synthesized the technical reports and supplemented those with additional analyses on environmental effects, costs, and consistency with the Baylands Master Plan. Mayor Sutorius said several Council Members commented the report was probably the most comprehensive and effective they could remember. Council Member Renze.l referred to page 25, 4b, of the Summary Report and asked if it was a proposal to both intro- duce tidal action and an additional source of fresh water, perhaps via the duck pond. There seemed to be a mix-up with respect to what kind of water would be in the lagoon. Ms. Ryan said the recommendation commented on providing additional water into the lagoon area, a portion of which was considered a brackish marsh. The recommendation would result in some alterations in the existing habitats in the area. Jim Buchholz, a biologist with Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., said the main point was the presently -existing small triangular marsh would be affected by changing the tidal flow within the lagoon area. Each situation would have to 9-148 1/11/88 be addressed specifically to see the impact. In their evaluation, they saw the brackish marsh as an important habitat to maintain. Council Member Renzel said staff's recommendations in the staff report (CMR:102:8) did not include many suggestions that were made within the consultant's report, and she asked whether it was staff's intent to bring those back as part of an overall Baylands Master Plan discussion. Mr. Bagdon said Recommendation 1d) indicated staff wanted to develop a conceptual plan and report on the harbor and lagoon area, and that included the duck pond. Council Member Renzel asked if the report would include rest room decisions, etc. Mr. Bagdon said no, the report recommended that permanent rest rooms not be included. Council Member Fletcher asked about the wetlands mitigation bank and what sensitive lands staff had in mind for develop- ment. Mr. Buchholz said the mitigation bank did not recognize any specific lands at the present point. It was one possibility for funding the restoration, but there were other possibi- lities as well. Council Member Fletcher said the statf report, page 6, said, "The program allows potential developers (of other wetland areas) to pay for the restoration of sites in exchange for permits to develop sensitive lands." Mr. Bagdon said, for instance, if a developer in Antioch was doing a development and a requirement of BCDC was to restore marsh and there was no marsh in that area to restore, they might be able to pay into the bank to have that clone , and satisfy that requirement. It could not be retroactive, and would not include Foothill: "or flatlands, but would be sites along the Bay and not necessarily exclusive to Palo Alto. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, was delighted that part of the marsh spoils area would be restored and congratulated Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., on a thorough examina- tion of the Baylands area. He queried the use of coyote bush to discourage physical access to the restored areas. The use also discouraged visual access. The Baylands were not only valuable to wildlife but were a valuable educa- tional resource, and the more people who learned about the Bay., the better chance they had of preserving what wetlands 59-149 1/11/88 they had left. He noted staff recommendation ld) regarding the wetlands mitigation bank, he agreed agreed with Council Member Fletcher that the problem was it was an interjuris- dictional matter. If they were deciding who was contrib- uting, he would not have a problem; however, there were a number of jurisdictions with whom he had serious quarrels over the kinds of decisions they made recently. The mitiga- tion bank might be a clever way to fund the restorations of the harbor spoils area, but he was not convinced it would produce a net increase in wetlands. He was also concerned the monetary contributions might not really compensate for loss of the land being developed. He suggested that ld) say, "Develop a proposal..." in the same area for the wet- lands mitigation bank. Richard Trainer, 3423 Cork Oak Way, pointed out the scope of work agreement with the consultant stated, "Evaluate alter- native locations in the outer harbor for a combined sailing station and berthing facility that would accommodate eight boats of a predetermined size and craft." The report evalu- ated only two cross -sections of the outer harbor, and he believed a feasible location could have been found. The excuse for not considering other locations was that access would use some of the marsh, but mitigation for other measures was mentioned throughout the report but not con- sidered for the item. They all believed in the restoration of the marsh, but just a little more added restoration would mitigate the access to a real sailing station. The item should be returned to the consultant for further study. The consultant recommendation for a sailing, station for only hand -carried boats was unrealistic because the only reason- able hand -carried boats were windsurfers and El Toro -type boats. El Toro boats would not be safe for young children in the outer harbor and were heavy and awkward to -carry. The consultant listened to suggestions of members of the centerboard sailing group which prevented him from making major misstatements in the report; however, his final findings sufferedfrom a lack of ideas and imagination that could have been provided by better experience. He hoped the City staff would be directed to design an option for pro- viding ,For centerboard boating and that they would be more creative. The consultant explained Away various options by glibly referring to statements attributed to regulatory agencies, such as BCDC. The .role of a consultant was usually to find ways to get things done, including ways to appeal to the agencies, for instance, moving the resting place of the Sea Scout boats from the inner harbor to the outer harbor which might not even be subject to agency reviews His recommendations were to redirect the consultant to consider alternative outer channel locations for marine facilities, begin design .for a centerboard boat sailing 59-150 1/11/88 facility, and provide immediate maintenance dredging of the ramp until a sailing facility was in operation. Rose Green, 344 Creekside Drive, said the consultants and staff did a fine job. She was not part of the boating pub- lic but part of a group that did environmental education at the Baylands. The recommendation for. the sailing launch was as far out as they could afford to put it. To locate it on the marsh would be a terrible injustice both visually and by destroying part of the marsh area. At the hearing she attended, the sailors seemed happy, were only going to sail, the small boats with the three --foot depth, and could not understand the fuss about bigger boats. She urged the Council to take the staff recommendations. Nora Browne, 82 Morton Street, was a member of the Girl Scout Mariners, and said there were 16 girls in her ship from Palo Alto and Gunn High Schools. They enjoyed the use of the harbor for canoeing, rowing, and small boat sailing. Their sailboat was only 14 feet, but they could not use it because they could not hand launch it or any other trailer boat. They urged the Council to find another solution. Barbara Fredrick, 868 Elbridge Way, was an assistant leader from the Girl Scout Mariner ship which was formed in 1953, although Mariners in Palo Alto went back to around 1940. The Mariners had a small boat program and, in addition, did land skills and service projects, and the girls developed leadership, planning skills, and appreciation of the oppor- tunities open to women. The Sea Scouts and Yacht Club members took therm cruising, and there were competitions among all the Mariners in California. For the past 15 years, they had been in the first or second place, so Palo Alto could be proud of the Mariners. The harbor was an important part of their program, and they were concerned because, if the staff recommendation was accepted, they would not be able to continue their sailing program. She urged the Council to accept a plan that had a launch ramp or hoist and, at the minimum, to find some way to continue use of the existing launch ramp and not to remove it without a substitute. Council Member Menzel asked if the Mariners' Lido was pres- ently launched at the ramp. Ms. Fredrick said yes, it was on a trailer. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, proposed that whatever the Council cage up with should be submitted to the City by means of a flier in their utility bills, and .it should include an argument by an opponent to the proposition, and 59-151 1/11/88 he would take the option if nobody else wanted it. Although the public could speak, there was no political arena. The media was "p _ky" about what it printed. Information with the utility bills would cost little and would give an excel- lent opportunity to get what the public wanted rather than what the Council wanted. The Council was essentially the same as in 1986, and he showed a document which stated that the passage of Proposition C would guarantee the wetlands would be covered with mud, which could not have been done. The document also contained fiscal falsehoods in regard to costs for keeping the harbor, and Council Member Renzel agreed during the campaign that the berthing fees at the harbor substantially paid for its upkeep. A point of con- tention was with regard to disposal of spoils. He recom- mended the proposition not be decided by the Council but should be exposed to the electorate of Palo Alto. Ptah, 524 Middlefield Road, said the Sea Scout building was an eyesore and flooded several times a year. The building should be raised above the tide level. The launch ramp was still usable, and he saw no reason to spend $25,000 to take it away, especially when it was the only free one on the whole Bay. Be questioned spending $300,000 to move 4.5 acres of spoils when the dump a mile away had to pay for dirt. The seagulls did not complain about the mud. He saw no reason to put up fences to keep people out. The Sea Scouts should be able to et access to their boats. He urged the Council to consider a launch ramp for trailers. Pamela Noyer, 298 Stanford Avenue, Menlo Park, leader of the Mariner ship Windward, said. the proposed plan would limit their program because of the size boats they could launch. A facility that would allow trailer boats would enable them to use the outer harbor and continue their sailing program. The report stressed the problem caused by the amount of tide time when boats could .launch, but one of the more important aspects of their program was the girls learned to work with the environment and had to consider the tides and weather. Eliminating access to the Bay caused the community to build more artificial water facilities which destroyed other natural communities. In regard to the cost of staffing a hoist at a sailing station, she suggested using the contract agency that presently did much of the patrolling. They had people available on an as -needed basis as opposed to a full- time staff person. Patricia Siddens, 804 Talisman Drive, spoke as the parent of two Sea Scouts on the ship Intrepid. They lived in Palo Alto because of the tremendous support the City gave its children. Her concern was the possible forcing out of the Sea Scouts from Palo Alto Harbor. She stressed the positive 59-152 1/11/88 influence the Sea Scouting program had on teenagers. She asked how they could close the harbor to the Sea Scouts in the name of preserving a salt marsh. In that evening's paper, Council Member Renzel was quoted as saying, "I think the symmetry shows that it doesn't make sense to have them there." "Them" were their children. She was also bothered by the quote that builders could contribute to the restora- tion of the wetlands in exchange for permission to build in other environmentally -sensitive areas. She believed their children.. were the most sensitive to their environmental areas. She understood the harbor was usable for another ten years, and she asked the City to support its children and let the Sea Scouts stay. Russell Breed, 1041 Shell Boulevard, #1, Foster City, Vice - Chairman of the Snail Boat Race Association in San Francisco Bay, applauded the fact the report recognized only a few locations in the Bay provided access to the South Bay waters and, therefore, it had a unique value. The current sailing platform served a safety purpose as a navigational aid and was also an observation deck that provided tor safety for running of small boat races. In respect to the launching facilities, hand launching might not be practical for several potential users. Even though they were sold as hand-launchable boats, often it took two people to launch them; therefore, a trailered facility was necessary for people who wanted to launch by thoaaeelves. He showed slides of many of the small boats that would use a launch facility. Maintenance of the ramp would conserve those users as well as facilitate the recommended maintenance of the sailing platform as a navigational aid. He suggested the Council direct staff to work with the small boaters to maintain the ramp and evaluate the success of the actions they took for considering demolition of that facility. James M. Early, 740 Center Drive., said. the wave structure of the waters north of Dumbarton Bridge was often uncomfortable and hazardous to boats of the size shown by Mr. Breed. He was interested in seeing small sail boat access for trailered boats at Palo Alto, and concurred with Mr. Trainer that they extend the report and examine the use of small boats. It was unfortunate that no person familiar with the use of small sail boats at Palo Alto or a comparable harbor was actively involved in the preparation of the consultant's report. He suggested in all such reports the issue of user involvement be closely considered. J. Douglas McConnell, 4174 Oak Hill Avenue, int '.°oduced rep- resentatives from Sea Scout Ship .Units Mowing . Star, Windward, Sea Eagle, Intrepid, and their Training Ship 15. He had been involved in the Stanford Area Council since 59-153 1/11/88 1969, for the last seven years as the Commodore of the Sea Scout program. The Sea Scout program had elected to limit their time to himself and three others. On behalf of the Sea Scouts, he proposed a solution that would keep an active, healthy Sea Scout program in the community ---the only Sea Scout program in all of Santa Clara County --would pro- vide additional community service as an activity at. the harbor for local citizens, would help the young people learn maritime, vocational, and evocational skills, and would not cost the City a cent. In the letter of December 21, 1987, (on file in the City Clerk's office), their program in 1987 had some 5,400 user days at the harbor. Their use of between one -quarter and one-third of an acre out of more than 2,000 acres of parkland, made it a relatively useful activity and good utilization of the resource. Their propo- sition was they would like the Council to permit the continuation of the. present program for as long as there was sufficient water in the harbor for viable Sea Scout opera- tions. Clearly, that would be much shorter for the larger boats, and might be many years for boats of smaller size, canoes, and row boats. However, in 1988, there would be 129 days with 6.0 tides or greater than would enable their big boats to fulfill their normal program. Secondly, they asked the City to retain the Sea Scout base and docks for as long as- .water levels were acceptable for Sea Scout use. They asked ; the City to provide the Boy Scouts of America and Stanford Area Council with a lease for thebase facilities. They asked that the Council direct staff to apply for an extension of the BCDC permit for the use of the docks for an indefinite period until the water levels preclude reasonable Sea Scout program activities, and the Sea Scouts would pro- vide public access to the facilities sufficient to meet the standards to permit continued existence of the base on dedi- cated parkland as a public facility. They would continue to maintain the building and docks at no additional cost to the City. They would also support the earlier speakers with regard to the need for a launch ramp. They were prepared to provide a course in small boat sailing and water safety each year that.would be open to everybody and would offer the course in conjunction with the City's Recreation Department. They understood a course of that nature would meet the test for public access. In any event, they would be happy to work with staff to plan acceptable public access. They asked that a 50 -year old program involving some 200 people, that.helped young people develop into clean -living, good citizens, be permitted to continue: to function in the harbor at its historic site for as long as it was reasonable to do so, at no cost to the City. 59-154 1/11/88 Linley J. Harvey, 13410 La Cresta Drive, Los Altos Hills, Skipper of The Intrepid in the Stanford Area Council, had been associated with the program for more than 26 years. The Palo Alto Elks Lodge sponsored the Sea Scouts units in the Stanford area as well as certain Scout troops, and he headed the Elks Scouting Committee. The more than 4,000 of the Elks in the Palo Alto area supported the continuance of the Sea Scout program. He urged the Council to permit the program to continue for as long as sufficient water existed in the harbor and channel for viable activities. They were not present to demolish the findings of the consultant's study, even though some were questionable. The study was based on assumptions, had taken arbitrary standards as its yardsticks, and looked into the future a good many years. Their major disagreement was with the study' -s conclusions and recommendations, and they disagreed with the recommenda- tions of staff with respect to the Sea Scout base and operations. The report took snapshots in time: One 15 years out and the second 30 years out, and based on those recommended closing out their activities almost immediately. They knew the water levels in 1988, 1989, and 1990 would be much greater than those projected for the year 2018.-- The Sea Scouts had difficulty also in accepting the study's standards for water depth and channel width necessary for safe operations and the conclusions based on those stan- dards. Those standards had not existed in the harbor or channel for more than 25 years except for a few months after each dredging. They lived with the realities and operated safely, so why use the arbitrary standards in the study and imply that all sorts of hazards and dangers would exist if the standards were not met. They also could not accept the study's conclusion concerning the likely stance of the regulatory agencies concerning berthing and docking. They believed if a City or County government was prepared to press its case concerning any issue where trade-offs were concerned, BCDC and the Corps of Engineers would compromise and accommodate reasonable needs of the people. Boats in almost every marina around the Bay rested on the bottom for portions of every day, and their own boats rested on the mud for a number of years with BCDC blessings. They could con- tinue to operate out of their present base at the harbor for a number of years, and they asked the Council to vote to allow them to do so. Council Member Renzel said two years ago the Council voted to negotiate a lease with the Sea Scouts and that did not come to fruition. Apparently the Sea Scouts would not sign the lease, and she asked what the objections were. 59-155 1/11/88 1 Mr. Harvey was not aware that the ball was in the Sea Scouts court at the time the lease was discussed. He was not even aware the City went to the Sea Scouts and offered to negoti- ate a lease. Ken Murray, 2091, Harvard, Skipper of Sea Scout Ship Sea Eagle, asked the Council to consider the proposals submitted by Dr. McConnell. Their best testimony was by Mrs. Siddens, and he had heard it repeated many times. In order to function, they needed the building. The future was now, and he asked that they be allowed to continue to provide a valu- able service to the community. Bruce Vernon, 835 Talisman Drive, spoke about the history of the Scouting program.. The Stanford Area Council served the communities of Palo Alto, Stanford, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and Mountain View. Overall 44 percent 'of the youth in the area were registered ine scouting. The Stanford Area Council would like to be able to report that one of its oldest and most valuable programs still had a future because of the wisdom, foresight, and support of the Palo Alto City Council. He strongly urged the Council to continue the close relationship that existed between the City and scouting for many years, and adopt the proposal submitted by the Sea Scouts. He believed government's legitimate role was to establish a minimum amount of regulation so that all society, minority and majority groups representing a broad diversity of values, could each pursue happiness in their own ways without fear of domination or suppression. Fabian Pease, 226 N. California Avenue, said he and his friends in Day Sailor Fleet 4 sailed and trained others to sail 1f -foot centerboard sailboats. They welcomed that the City committed resources to having the study made and also the recommendation that a small boat sailing station be built and that the navigational platform be maintained. He urged the possibility of maintaining the ramp in a usable. condition be seriously addressed. A much larger variety of' craft could be launched from the ramp than could be hand - carried. The Santina & Thompson, Inc., account of the use of the ramp at u regatta they held in September _was mis- leadingly negative. They urged the Council not to spend public money demolishing the public launch ramp. MOTION: Council M. tuber Renael. moved, to direct staff to: 1. Prepare'a phased CIP for the Palo Alto Harbor area including the following items: a) Construct a limited sailing station (no berths) that allows access to the channel for hand -carried craft, 59-156 1/11/88 MOTION CONTINUED b) Remove the existing boat launch after the new sail- ing station is constructed and operating and after it becomes unusable or presents safety. risks to the City, c) Restore 4.5 acres of wetland at Yacht Harbor Point, d) Develop a conceptual plan and report on the harbor and lagoon area for up to a 24 -acre wetland mitiga- tion bank, including replacement of existing lagoon culverts, and e) Restore and repair the Harbor Master's cottage for use as a City of Palo Alto park ranger station; 2. Prepare the appropriate documents for Council considera- tion of the amended Baylands Master Plan as reflected in Figure 11 of the Summary Report, except for the poten- tial community building site and incorporate changes noted in the January 1985 compilation of Knox & Associates (suggest referral to Planning Commission); 3. Maintain the existing navigational aid platform, located at the entrance to the Palo Alto harbor and obtain ade- quate protection from liability; 4. Negotiate a three-year lease with the Sea Scouts which at a minimum contains: a) a quitclaim to any right or title to the building that they believe they may have, an agreement that their docks will be used only for Sea Scout vessels and use by any other vessels con- stitutes a material breach, an agreement to carry adequate insurance to protect the City from liability (to be determined by our Risk Manager), d) an agreement to make the building available to the public in a manner consistent with park dedication, and e) an agreement to maintain the grounds immediately. surrounding the building in a safe and orderly man- ner consistent with the rest of the baylands park, including removal of the truck trailer and assorted derelict boats; and 59-157 1/11/88 MOTION CONTINUED 5. Request from San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop - went Commission a three-year extension of time for the demolition of the Sea Scout docks and piles. Council Member Renzel said most of the recommendations were contained in the staff report. The exceptions were that on the mitigation bank it would be ,up to 24 acres so it would be clear the Council would look at the environmental review and conceptual report to determine exactly which areas and priorities they might have; also, the continuation of the ramp for as long as it was usable; incorporating the change in the Knox and. Associates' report in revisions to the Baylands Master Plan; and a three-year lease with the Sea Scouts. Both the consultant's report and staff report indi- cated that the large Sea Scout boats currently were resting in mud longer than their proposed rest in mud out at the cross-section 2, which was where the new sailing facility would go. That was not a good condition and did not allow for a great deal of usability of those boats in the current location, and certainly less as time went on. It was clear t:.hat over time those boats should be berthed in an appropri- ate harbor and not,where they were resting on mud. They had a decision in place since 1980 that indicated there would not be any further dredging of the Yacht Harbor. That was questioned in 1985 and again ratified to do that, and so there had been time to consider where .the Sea Scout large ships could go, and three more years was a good and generous time period. Three years was an adequate time to get the sailing station under way, so that a new small boat launch facility would be available at that time. Also, the oppor- tunities that would probably be forthcoming as a result of the Utility Users tax would open up facilities for meeting sites within the three-year period, and the Interpretive Center continued to be available as a public meeting place. it was consistent with their long-term plan and whole idea of having the kind of sailing in the area that was appropri- ate for the nature of the harbor itself. She believed all Council. Members were surprised at the extent to which the harbor would silt in and that set new constraints on what could happen. Since the 1985 election, they had a staff report indicating that the Sea Scout building was in serious condition and, in addition to the flooding problems, it did not appear, worthy of renovation. She was hesitant to put a longer term lease on a building that might not be safe. Council Member Patitucci referenced the limitations on the proposed ramp, and asked if they wished to -accommodate 59-158 1/11/88 slightly larger boats or add more flexibility in the types of boats whether the recommendation would be to go to the hoist or try to maintain the boat launch ramp. Mr. Bagdon said the three issues involved with the hoist were the cost, getting approval from BCDC, and the lia- bility. In discussions with BCDC, they would be reluctant to give approval for a hoist. Risk Manager Don West spoke to taking a preliminary look at the station, etc., he spoke to four willing to insure the station was. would not give a quote if the whether operated by City staff or Council Member Patitucci asked if anywhere in the Bay. the liability issue. In insurance for the sailing markets and the only one Lloyds of London, and they station included a hoist a contract person. there were any such hoists Mr. West said some people might have assumed the risk them- selves. Council Member Patitucci asked if that meant the best way to accommodate slightly larger boats would be through the launch ramp. Senior Engineer, Public Works, Jim Harrington said the con- sultants looked into the subject it great detail and disoovered that any construction would be quickly superseded by siltation causing the building program to be repeated in about another ten years because the ramp would have silted over. It was not an economical thing to do. Council Member Patitucci clarified whenthe consultant said, "Optionally, a limited hoist facility could be added and accommodate somewhat larger vessels at additional cost assuming approval could be secured by regulatory agencies,* staff did not want to do that. Mr. Ba.gdon said staff did not recommend it. Council Member Woolley asked for clarification of Item 2b. She understood the launching ramp would be removed after the new sailing station was constructed and, in addition, was. also unusable. Both conditions would need to be met before the ramp would be removed. Council Member Renzel said yes, with the caveat that it it wa determined that the ramp was a liability risk to the City, that would be an alternative to it becoming unusable. There might be a point at which having the ramp might 59-159 1/11/88 encourage someone to go out and not be able to return because of such things as time constraints. Her intent was the ramp be maintained as usable as long as possible and as long as it did not put the City at undue risk. Cowes ii Member Woolley believed any ramp would present safety risks to the City. Council Member Renzel meant significantly more risk that presently existed. Mr. West believed "unacceptable safety risks" would be an adequate term to use. Council Member Woolley assumed the item would return to the Council,before any action was taken on the ramp; therefore, the definition of "unacceptable" would lay with the Council. She was concerned that Item 4b not conflict with Item 4d, because one possible way to make the building available to the public might be through some sort of instruction in small ao,ats. If the participants had a small boat, she would not want that to be in conflict with 4b which said no boats other than Sea Scout boats could be launched from the Sea Scout docks. Council Member Renzel said her particular concern was she felt the anchored -out boats currently there were being serviced out of the Sea Scouts docks. She did not want to see the City's lessee encouraging the anchor -outs which were all sitting on mud and a difficult problem. MAKER AND SECONDER OF MOTION AGREED TO INSERT °1OR PROGRAMS° AFTER "SEA SCOUT VESSELS' IN ITEM 4b AND "UNACCEPTABLE' BEFORE "SAFETY RISKS' IN ITEM lb AMENDMENT: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to amend Item 4 to allow for a five-year lease and Item 5 to allow for a five-year extension. Council Member Woolley believed the timing of the new facil- ities occurring within two or three years could be optimis- tic. Even if the larger boats were not able to be accommodated, the smaller boats within the Sea Scout program could be accommodated for five years at least. It was dif- ficult for the Sea Scouts to carry on their programonly considering the docks and not the building, -Their equipment was kept in the building, and it was not feasible for them to meet at another location. Council Member Fletcher opposed the amendment.. She believed. the three-year period was generous. Just because the City 59-160 1/11/88 could not work the projects into the CIP earlier did not mean it was appropriate for the use of the facilities. It seemed inequitable to allow the boats to be there sitting in mud about half the day and have required all the other harbor users to vacate. She asked if the Risk Manager had any problems with the use of the building for that long. Mr. West had not had the opportunity to look at that facil- ity. If the City was going to take ownership or have some obligation, he would request an inspection be made by Risk Management, the Building and Fire' Departments. He perceived several problems and believed it would take considerable time and money to put the building into the standards of other public buildings. Council Member Fletcher asked if the Risk Manager would return to the Council to make a recommendation if a motion passed that was unacceptable in terms of risk. Mr. West said certainly, if so directed. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that use of the building be contingent upon the approval of the Risk Manager. Mr. Zaner .was uncomfortable with staff's making the deter- mination as to whether the building should or should not remain in operation. He had no problem with reporting back to the Council as to the findings, and the Council could make its own determination. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Fletcher that three years was an adequate time period considering all other factors. AME it!N ,NT PASSED by a vote of 6--.3, Bechtel, Fletcher, Renzel, voting 'nog," AMZNDMEMT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that prior to eAbarking on the lease, the Risk Manager make an evaluation and report back to the Council on the condition of the building. Vice Mayor Klein asked if the Council took such action when the City took over the Winter Club. Mr. West said yes. 59-161 1/11/88. Vice Mayor Klein said since other portions of the motion required the Sea Scouts to assume basically all liability, what was the purpose of the inspection. Mr. West said initially the inspection would be to determine the amount of insurance. The City normally placed $1 mil- lion per similar issue, but it might need to be larger because of exposures, etc. Vice Mayor Klein did not want to see the clause used as a means of killing the lease. Mr. Zaner said in each case staff tried to make an honest evaluation of the risk that the City was exposed to, and then indicate the amount of insurance necessary to minimize that risk. The Council always had the option of deciding to assume some of the risk in any situation. The City was self -insured for the first $1 million and normally required the lessee to cover the City. If the risk was much greater, as Mr. West indicated, they would say to any tenant that they must protect the City. The City would not attempt to kill the lease with a proposal like that. Vice Mayor Klein assumed that Council Members Fletcher's and Renzel's intent was also the same, i.e., to determine the appropriate level of insurance and not to insist on lots of capital improvements, or otherwise impose such significant financial burden on the Sea Scouts that the project could not work. Council Member Fletcher said her motivation was the building did not look too sturdy when she visited it. Council Member Levy opposed the amendment because he believed Item 4c covered the issue. He was satisfied if there was an agreement to carry adequate insurance to pro- tect the City from liability, which would be studied by the Risk Manager before t►'re agreement was signed. Council Member Woolley agreed with Council Member Levy. AMENDMENT `FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Bechtel, Fletcher,. Klein, Rerzei voting "aye." AMENDMENT: Counc i l . Member Woolley moved, seconded by Patitucci, to direct staff to recommend to the Council the better way to provide for launching of small tr4ilered boats. Council Member Woolley believed there were only two possible alternatives mentioned in the staff report, but the two 59-162 1/11/88 alternatives were not compared and neither was recommended by staff. The Council did not have are answer as to whether the hoist or launching ramp would be preferable. Council Member Bechtel believed the consultant and staff both recommended against the option and urged her colleagues to vote against the amendment. Council Member Fenzel concurred with Council Member Bechtel. They just heard there was no wav to get insurance for the hoist, and the consultant's indicated that in order for the ramp to be usable, it would require a significant amount of dredging on an ongoing basis. A hoist would require a pump- out station with problems of manning the station. She urged her colleagues to vote against the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED by a notc Sutorius, Woolley voting "aye." laJ. Council Member Levy asked of there word "quitclaim" in Item 4a. Ms. Northway said no. 4�5, Levy, Patitucci, was a problem with the Council Member Levy asked for clarification of "material breach." Ms. Northway said a "material breach" was considered by the courts to be sufficient to terminate an agreement. Council Member Levy asked about the January, 1985, compila- tion of Knox and Associates. Mr. Zaner said the report by Naphtali Knox and Associates summarized all the actions the City Council had taken with regard to the Baylands. It brought the Baylands report up to date, and was the most comprehensive document on file of Baylands' actions. Council Member Levy asked if the issue would return to the Council. Mayor Sutorius clarified Item 2 was for staff to prepare the appropriate documents for Council consideration. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. 6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR i988-89 701-04/266) CLAIM WITH 59-163 1/11/88 SANTA CLARA COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL PROJECTS (116302) MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Fletcher, to continue Item 6y Resolution Authorizing the Fiing of a Claim with Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1988-89; and Item 7, Santa Clara County Regional Rail Projects, to the January 19, 1988, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 1:27 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 59-164 1/11/88