Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-08 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTOCITYCOUNCILM'.ETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KM- FRE0UENCY90.S ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications Approval of Minutes of January 11, 1987 PAGE 59-209 59.212 1. Request for Additional Funding for Capital 59-212 Improvement Projects - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee 2. City of Palo Alto Health Plan Review Refer to Finance and Public Works Commit- tee 3. Contract with Paul Singer Floor Covering for Installation of Floor Coverings on the Fifth Floor of the Civic Center 4. Contact with Munkdale Brothers, Inc., for Construction of Evergreen Park Traffic Improvements 5. Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Cer- tain Properties by Extending the (P) Pedestrian Shopping Combining District and Applying the District's Regulations in Combination with Existing Zoning Regula- tions to those Properties. Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.47 of Title 18 (The Zoning Code) to Clarify the Appli- cation of the P District Regulations and to Enable .their Combination with the CD District Regulations 59-212 59-212 59-212 59-233 59-213 59-207 `/08/88 ITEM PAGE 7. Ordinance Amending Chapter 1.08 of the 59-213 Palo Alto Municipal Code to Increase the Maximum Fines for Misdemeanors or Infrac- tions Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 59-213 7A. (Old Item 6) Ordinance Amending Title 17 59-213 (Hazardous Materials Storage) 8. Payment Schedule for Cable Television 59-216 Pedestals Recess 59-228 9. Vice Mayor Larry Klein re Golden Triangle 59-248 Adjournment at 12:10 a.m. 59-248 59-208 2/08/88 Regular Meeting Monday, February 8, 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.)► Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Cobb ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Richard B. Bowden, 255 N. California Avenue, requested the aid of the City Council concerning the adjoining property at 2225 Ramona Street and the application for Building Permit No. 87-3470 requesting a maximum second - floor addition. He requested that an immediate morato- rium be granted on that type of building; that the subject be reviewed by the Council and staff with some sense of urgency; and that the present rules be changed by the Council or by initiative for the benefit of all the citizens of Palo Alto. 2. Jim Chamberlain, 121 Byron Street, heard a rumor that the City might consider a residential building morato- rium. He was in the process of adding onto his house and asked that the Council be sensitive to residents in his position who planned according to the rules. 3.. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke to usage of Palo Alto Harbor and the meaning of "public access." 4. Ptah► 524 Middlefield Road, hoped the Council would con- sider giving free space to people to practice their art. 5. Helen A. Low, 1230 Emerson, addressed the subject of a moratorium. She sympathized with Mr. Bowden but believed things were getting out of hand, and she asked the Council not to overreact. 6. Judy Peterson, 228 Fulton, spoke regarding a moratorium and said many houses on her block had additions and second stories, and the block was one of the most charming in Palo Alto. She was concerned property rights would be taken away. 59-209 2/08/88 7. Glen Dodds, 588 Bryson Avenue, sympathized with Mr. Bowden and believed the problem was bulk, but he dis- agreed that a moratorium was needed. MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Klein, to allowremaining members of the public two and one- half minutes to address the Council or to wait until the end of the agenda to speak for five minutes. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. Mayor Sutorius indicated a Citizen Committee was charged with evaluating the single-family (R-1) home subject in Palo Alto. They had been in operation since last fall. The Committee was expected to provide a report and recommenda- tions to the Council between March 1 and early April, 1988. He met with the Committee that morning to get a benchmark as to their progress and when they might schedule a workstudy session with the full Council. Tentatively, he anticipated the Council would have a workstudy session with the Citizen Committee on April 4, 1988. Because of the keen public interest, that type of a session would probably be conducted in the Council Chambers. A workstudy session was not a decision -making session by the Council, and there would be an opportunity for members of the public to offer their observations and concerns at the conclusion of the session. Vice Mayor Klein emphasized the Council could not take any action on an issue until it was placed on the agenda, public notice was given, and the only way an item got on the agenda was to be placed there either by, the City Manager or a mem- ber of the City Council. 8. Nancy Caldwell, 575 Washington, said much of her concern had been assuaged. She requested there be as much com- munication to the public as possible. 9. Martin Bernstein, 617 High Street, was shocked to heal* there might be the possibility of a moratorium and was concerned about the future of Palo Alto. 10. Heather Silverman, 806 B. Greenwich Place, said a mora- torium would be self-destructive and selfish. Council Member Patitucci was totally surprised by what.. was going on and asked if the Mayor was aware of any Council proposal or any proposal or the part of any committees or staff members of the City of Palo Alto that had recommended or even hinted at a moratorium on ; building improvements in the past two months. Mayor Sutorius said he personally was not aware of any such proposal. Council Member Woolley said she had a conversation with Mr.. Bowden the previous day, discussed the large house going up next door to him, and suggested he speak under Oral Communi- cations that evening. The Ad Hoc Committee had conveyed its concern about oversized buildings in the R-1 area. It was important the Committee return to the Council with a report as soon as possible. Council Member Renzel also remained concerned about over- building in R-1 zones and would be favorable toward some sort of a moratorium such as enacted by Cupertino which allowed reasonable building to go on, but she emphasized it would not be an outright moratorium. 11. Robert Herriot, 2066 Byron, spoke to the moratorium rumor. He wanted to be assured that the study would proceed and be examined carefully, and there would not be a sudden change of the rules midstream. 12. John Moussouris, 253 Fulton Street, hoped people with large lots would try to put themselves in the shoes of people with small lots who needed to build additions to their houses in order to continue living in Palo Alto. He believed there were many people in the same situa- tion. 13. Wayne Horiuchi, 1821 Fulton Street, hoped Mr. Bowden would be able to resolve his , problems and asked the Council to consider the Committee's recommendations with care. Mayor Sutorius said procedurally there was a committee appointed by the Mayor the previous fall, and its work was nearing conclusion. The Council anticipated receiving report of their work and recommendations, and that report and dialogue about it with the Committee was tentatively schedule to occur on Monday, April 4, 1988. In the interim, staff or a Council Member might supply an agenda item. To.. his knowledge, staff had absolutely no work in progress, no proposals, and no intention of placing an item on the agenda of the nature described. Individual Council Members could do as they elected to do. Generally,. when a Council Member wished to place an item on the agenda, he or she would seek the support of at least a second Council Member. That was not mandatory but merely a guideline they had agreed to among themselves. Such an item would appear as a •scheduled agenda item, and any substantiating materials would be included in the Council packet in advance of the Council 59-211 2/08/88 meeting. Additionally, beyond the packet availability at the public libraries, the agenda of Council meetings for the forthcoming week was published in the Palo Alto Times Tribune. He assured the public that if such an item were advanced for the agenda, Council Members individually and, collectively would take special pains to have as broad an awareness as possible. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 11 1988 Corrections were submitted corrections to pages 59-132, 59-133, and 59-138. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Minutes of January 11, 1988, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Sutorus removed Item 6, Ordinance Amending Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage) . Council Member Patitucci, Mayor Sutorius, and Council Member Woolley asked to be recorded as voting "no" on Item 4, Contract with Munkdale Brothers, Inc., for Construction of Evergreen Park Traffic Improvements. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral 1. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS - REFER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE (CMR:142:8) (810-02/810) FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 2. CITY OF PALO ALTO HEALTH PLAN REVIEW - REFER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE CMR:1 : ( 1 Action 3. CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,128 WITH PAUL SINGER FLOOR COVERING FOR INSTALLATION OF FLOOR COVERINGS ON THE FIFTH FLOOR OF THE CIVIC CENTER (CMR:138:8) (810.02) 4. CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $129 61.85 WITH MU KDALE BROTHERS NC I. . FOR CONSTRUCTION OF EVERGREEN PARK TR IMP.R vEMENTS I CMR:I43: 8) (1041-701-01) 59-212 2/08/88 5. ORDINANCE 3791 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES BY EXTENDING THE (P) PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING COMBINING DISTRICT AND APPLYING THE DISTRICT'S REGULATIONS IN COMBINATION WITH EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS TO THOSE PROPERTIES' (1st Reading 1/19/88, PASSED 27-1, Levy "no," Klein absent) (701-03/ 237) ORDINANCE 3792, entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 18.47 OF TITLE 18 (THE ZONING CODE) TO CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE P DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND TO ENABLE THEIR COMBINATION WITH THE CD DISTRICT REGULATIONS" (1st Reading 1/19/88, PASSED 7-1, Levy "no," Klein absent) (701-03) 7. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO_ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 1.08 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE IMUM FINES FOR MISDEMEANORS OR INFRACTIONS" (-701-01) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley voting "no," on Item 4, Contract with Munkdale Brothers, Inc., for Construction of Evergreen Park Traffic Improve- ments, Cobb absent. AGENDA CHANGES/ ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zaner said Item 6, Ordinance Amending Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage), would become Item 7A. 7A. (OLD ITEM 6) ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17 (HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE) (701-03) Mayor Sutorius removed the item from the Consent Calendar because there was 'additional correspondence which brought into question the subject of the applicability of the ordi- nance vis a vis whether an environmental f indino needed to be made, and whether the ordinance came under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan said the City Attorney's office examined the letter from : Mr. Carpenter of Alza Corporation and his attorney (on file in the City Clerk's office) and their conclusion was still the same, that the adoption of the ordinance was not a project under CEQA. There was a specific exemption for policy and proce- dure making of an administrative nature, and that was how the City Attorney's office saw the ordinance. Basically. 59-213. 2/08/88 the ordinance set forth how the City would comply with State law, so they were not creating a new law but taking a State procedure and integrating it with an existing Title 17. One point the letter made was that there was environmental review and negative declaration when Title 17 was adopted; however, more analagous to the situation was that when Title 11 of the Municipal Code was adopted, that. was the title that explained that the City would comply with CEQA and set forth their local procedures for doing so. When that ordi- nance was adopted, it was deemed not a project, and that was how the City Attorney's office saw what they were doing that evening, if the Council proceeded. She pointed out there was nothing stopping the Council from doing an environmental review if they wished. They could direct the Planning Department to conduct an environmental review if they wanted it done despite the interpretation. Colin Mick, 2130 Hanover Street, spoke on behalf of Mr. Carpenter's request for a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City. One of the key problems was that it was difficult to get information to evaluate hazardous waste storage plants in context. Bob Moss, 1040 Orme Street, spoke on behalf of a friend and neighbor who requested the item be continued for a week so he could be present to address the issue of a programmatic EIR, which he believed was appropriate. He asked that the Council either adopt the concept or postpone the second reading of the ordinance. Council Member Woolley was also concerned about the program- matic EIR. MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the Ordinance. ORDINANCE 3793, Entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 17 (HAZ- ARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE) TO ADD CHAPTER 17.34 (ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW) , AMEND CHAPTER 17.32 (APPLICATION FOR PERMIT) AND REPEAL CHAPTER 17.36 (DENIAL)" (1st Reading 1/19/88, PASSED 8-0, Klein absent.) Council Member Fletcher said the ordinance set a process in motion whereby individual applicants would be providing EIRs. She asked if that would conflict with any program- matic EIR if the Council was to vote to do that. Ms. Sloan said whether or not the Council passed the: ordi- nance, the City was stilly legally bound to apply CEQA and require environmental review of individual permit applica- tions. The Council couldstill proceed with a programmatic EIR while that was going on. Council Member Renzel believed the ordinance did improve public knowledge of chemical permits and was a valuable ordinance in and of itself whether or not the Council pro- ceeded with a programmatic EIR. A relatively small number of people would be affected should they change and add a programmatic EIR in the near future. The Council should approve the ordinance in its present forma for second reading so it would be in effect. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. MOTION: Councli1 Member Woolley moved, seconded by Patituccf, to direct staff to return to the City Council with a prioritized list and time frame for outstanding assignments re Hazardous Materials; and a recommendation regarding undertaking a programmatic EIR. Council Member. Woolley said they were aware that the field of hazardous materials had grown within the City organiza- tion tremendously within the last few years. She knew the City Manager had tried hard not to add staff but had Moved staff around to take care of the new demands of the field. However, it reminded her of her experience in the early days of historic preservation when the technique they usually had to employ was "lying down in front of the bulldozer." She remembered putting in a whole year of extra time in order to raise the $90,000 to save the Squire House. Then they finally got smart and instead of saving one building at a time, they were able to commit the City to do an inventory and eventually an historic ordinance, and now had a frame- work and controls within which they could work. She agreed they certainly had a lot of framework and controls in place, but she believed looking at the total amount of hazardous materials in the City and handling it as a hazardous mate- rials' inventory was the last step in the overall framework. It would allow them to handle mitigations in a more reason- able fashion. Since they had seen people from both the residential and business sides who advocated the matter, they should give it serious consideration. She realized there were many assignments in the area for staff to carry out and, therefore, her motion was to ask staff to let the Council know their priorities and to make a recommendation to the City Council. Vice Mayor Klein suggested the motion also ask staff to estimate the cost of doing the EIR, and whether they would. recommend staff do it or consultants, and where the funds would come from to pay the cost of the EIR. 59-215 2/08/88 MAKER AND SECONDER OF MOTION AGREED ,TO 111CLUDE LANGUAGE "IAicLCIDIwa THE COST ESTIMATES MW SOURCES.' Council Member Woolley believed those paints could certainly be included. They also had an offer from Alza to be involved, and that kind of consideration should be part of the thinking. Council Member Patitucct believed the motion was a good idea and, if it could be worked into the Council's priorities and maybe get the costs paid for by industry, they would all benefit. He was concerned they were still groping for appropriate types of regulation and control, and with the current ordinance, everypermit was a project under CEQA, and that could result in a lot of bureaucratic procedures and legal entanglements. If a programmatic EIR established some baselines, and the Council then focused on the real program areas when proposals were made and permits applied for, they would all benefit. In general, he supported the motion and ultimately what resulted therefrom. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. 8. PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR CABLE TELEVISION (CMR:146:8) (1141) PEDESTALS City Manager Bill Zaner said the staff report (CMR:146:8) attempted to lay out a financing plan to deal with the undergrounding issue in R--1 areas. At the last meeting, the Council gave staff a series of criteria for use in devising such an arrangement, but did not limit staff to those nor require they use them all. Staff met . with Pacific Bell (PacBell) and Cable Co-op and tried to fashion a compromise solution which staff felt would be easy to administer and would provide for the funds necessary to allow the project to move forward without any undue delay. There' were recom- mendations within the report that were subject to changing at the Council's direction, especially with regard to the Assessment District. Staff selected a two-year period in the Assessment District, and there was nothing special about that time period which could be one year or stretched out to a longer period. The number of dollars to be raised by the Assessment District was also subject to change. It was not totally arbitrary but was a judgment call as to how much money the district, or subsequent districts, should raise. Representatives of pacBell and the Cable Co-op were prusent_ to answer questions. Mayor Sutorius asked the source of the number of 1,750 pro- perties in the R-1 undergrounded area. 59-216. 2/08/88 Mr. Zaner said in previous discussions, staff estimated the number of homes they believed were in R-1 areas that were undergrounded on the • basis of some percentage figures. To make the figures more accurate, staff did a field count of the homes and 1,750 was the number of single-family homes in R --•I underground areas at the present time. Council Member Renzel asked if the Assessment District recommendation meant that all installations in underground areas would be forestalled until an Assessment District was enacted, or would the Council proceed and then form an Assessment District. Mr. Zaner said the Council would recall, at one point, PacBell's concern was that there be some assurance on the part of the Council that the costs of the installation would be covered and, if they received those assurances, they were prepared to move ahead and do the work. If the Council were to give that assurance, it would make no difference when an Assessment District was finally completed except, of course, if an Assessment District were protested out, the Council would have to cover the cost from some other place; to wit, the General Fund. The Assessment District did take times, probably several months at least, and if they were to tell PacBell to proceed on the theory they would be paid in any evert, If the Assessment District was not successful, PacBe11 or Co-op would look to the City to make the costs from some other source. Mayor Sutorius asked for further clarification. Cable Co-op was the franchisee and PacBell had a contract with Cable Co-op. There was no contract between the City. of Palo Alto and PacBell. Mr. Zaner said that was correct. Mayor Sutorius cla..tified PacBell from a contraceural relat- ionship looked to Cable Co-op for payment and assurances of payment. Mr.. Zaner said that was correct. Mayor Sutorius said if that were not the case, he would have a conflict of interest. Council Member Woolley asked about future underground districts between now and the end of the 15 -year period of the franchise, and how the installation differential between the • pedestalsversus the underground vaults and the addi- tional maintenance cost would be handled in future under- ground districts. 59-217 2/08/88 Mr. Zaner said the future costs for the Co-op for future undergrounding districts were already built into the figures presented. The Co-op was prepared to assume all the future costs of underground districts in the figures given to the Council. That was not true for PacBell. Those costs had not been included, and staff would have to determine those costs, and then they would be spread through an Assessment District over whatever period of time the Council deter- mined, assuming a District was approved by the Council. Council Member Woolley asked if Palo Alto was to have an Assessment District to pay for the maintenance costs, would the present undergrounded areas also be paying for the cost for the future underground areas. City Attorney Diane Northway injected a legal constraint; that each district, whether it was a capital or maintenance district, had to pay its own way. For instance, if they were forming the first district where they currently had aboveground pedestals, and that was going to be established as a maintenance district, then whatever the cost of that district would have to be assessed to the homes in that district and not into other future districts, and vice versa. The maintenance costs would not be fungible; each district`. would have to stand on its own and be separate. Mr. Zaner said at that point they would have to back out the costs that Co-op had included for future undergrounding districts and then assess the balance to the current under - grounding district=. Council Member Woolley asked for a ballpark figure of the cost for satellite dishes. She was trying to compare the alternative cost for the homes on Page Mill. Director, Information Resources, Dianah Neff, said staff had not investigated costs of satellite dishes. Co-op might have that information. Mr. Zaner said the figure he received from the Cable Co-op was about $3,000 per installation. Council Member Patitucci referenced the cost estimates, On Page 2 of the staff report (CMR:146:8 ) a series of •sic items totaled $821,000. He asked for clarification ofthe items. He understood the replacement cost of $120,000 was a real, one-time item that had been estimated to replace .the pedes- tals that either were presently installed or tap pedestals which would be installed for the areas currently underground to convert them to vaults. 59.218 2/08/88. Mr. Zaner said that was correct; it was a one-time capital cost Council Member Patitucci said the last item was $15,000 proposed as the cost;,of providing vegetation to surround the larger pedestals, i.e., the amplifiers, line extenders, power supplies, etc. The maintenance cost of $262,000; the Cable Co-op service and marketing costs of $384,000 and $40,000 respectively, were estimates of future costs based on knowledge of what the incremental increase in cost would be for maintenance of the system for the City's proposed undergrounding areas. Mr. Zaner said that was correct, with the exception that. included in those costs were future costs for maintenance as far as Co-op was concerned. Council Member Patitucci asked if that was future costs that Co-op would have if the entire system was placed under- ground over a phased -in period, and what period they were speaking to. Mr. Zaner said those were future costs for undergrounding in all the areas where the City would go underground with their electric system over the next 15 years. Council Member Patitucci said those costs were estimated at a present value of 15 years worth of future costs. Mr. Zaner said that was correct. Council Member Patitucci said it was confusing that they had also been told that, even though those costs were the pres- ent value of the best estimates they could comae up with, there really was no reliable way on an ongoing basis to determine if the figures were right or wrong. Therefore, in the future, they would not have the data to show whether the costs were correct or not. Mr. Zaner said that was accurate; staff could estimate but had not found a method they could rely on to be sure they were giving the Councilcompletely accurate actual costs as time went on for undergrounding. Council Member Patitucci had.a problem of accepting actual estimates of costs they could not actually ever verify.. Mr. Zaner responded that the estimates were .based on the experience of other jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions had been in business for a. while and did not give a precise 59-219 2/08/88 number but gave eotimates on the cost of undergrounding, and that estimate was the best staff had been able to get at that point. Council Member Patitucci asked if there was any methodology from the jurisdictions as to how they came up with and veri- fied those numbers on an ongoing basis so - they knew that, in fact, an underground system cost them more by a precise per- centage. Mr. Zaner did not know that detail and believed the answer should come from Cable Co-op or PacBell. Council Member Fletcher referenced the future undergrounding areas and asked if the installation costs of the vaults would exceed what was budgeted for the aboveground pedes- tals. Mr. Zaner deferred response to PacBell. Council Member Fletcher also wanted to know where the added cost would be borne, if there was one. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, spoke as a home owner in an under- ground area. His was a corner lot and would be getting cable service from aerial. He vigorously opposed being accessed for putting tap pedestals underground. Each under- ground area had to stand on its own; therefore, if the City went with an Assessment District, he urged each residential underground district be asked tc vote separately on whether they wished to be assessed and have the pedestals put under- ground, and only those who voted to participate would do so. His street was unique because the City did not own an ease- ment.and did not have a spot to put pedestals unless they putthem on the edge of the pavement. They granted an ease- ment to the City for a lamppost in front of their house, but it was not big enough to accept a pedestal. They would resent being treated the same as other undergrounded districts in the City. Council Member Renzel said if Mr. Moss' neighborhood did not offer up any easements for either pedestals or vaults, and the City had to put them in the street right-of-way, was he making a recommendation in favor of pedestals in any case. Mr. Moss said the City would have to deal with individual property owners. Based on the fact everybody granted ease- ments for the light poles, he believed people would also grant easements for pedestals. There were many places on the street where the pedestals could be easily concealed and would not be obtrusive. The landscaping allowance offered 59-220 2/08/88 by Cable Co-op would more than cover the pedestals. He believer, people would be more amenable to having the pedes- tals landscaped on their easements than paying $240 to have them put underground. Mayor Sutorius asked the City Attorney to refresh everyone on the process associated with indicating one's agreement oz• disinclination to participate in an Assessment District. Ms. Northway said the method that the assessment law pro- vided was one known as "Majority Protest." After property owners in the district received notice that the Council was considering forming a district.for a particular geographic area, they would have to affirmatively file a written prot- est with the City Clerk prior to five o'clock of the evening of the hearing. It was not a vote in the sense of going to the ballot box and actually voting, but was something a pro- perty owner would do rather than a registered voter. Katherine Barnett, 451 Alger Drive, voiced her opposition to the placing of cable TV boxes underground. She believed a number of Council Members had doubts regarding the issue and perhaps had allowed aesthetic considerations to take prece- dence. She asked why the word "image" seemed to be crowding out the Council's usual good judgment and fiscal responsi- bility to the community. She understood Menlo Park, Atherton, and Stanford had turned down the idea of under- ground boxes, and Redwood City reported they would have a lot of maintenance problems if the system were used for data transmission. She was interested in knowing the process of funding. If problems occurred with an underground vault, she asked if they would also adversely affect those custom- ers with aboveground service and, if so, who would pay. What bothered her was the feeling of a loss regarding their priorities as they related to the quality of life in Palo Alto. She had difficulty with voting that amount of money from the General Fund when recently she was asked to donate her State tax refund to local educational needs. She urged the Council to reconsider the idea of placing cable boxes underground, and to reexamine the City's budgetary prior- ities. Chris Salkeld, Project Manager : for the cable TV system for Pacific Bell, said since September 1987 a tremendous amount of time and research had been put forth on the issue, and he applauded. the efforts of all those involved toward a final resolution. He stated at the Council meeting on December 21, 1987, that Pacific Bell had work scheduled through January 15, 1988, and could continue through that time without delay in construction. It was now three weeks 59-221 2/08/88 past that date, and to avoid a delay in the completion of the project as well as any additional costs associated with such a delay, they must again start construction work in Palo Alto. During that same meeting, he was asked by the Council.if it was a possibility for Pacific Bell to continue the underground work while a solution was worked out with regard to how payment would be made for the additional work required to place the taps in belowground vaults, and he responded Pacific Bell wanted to do whatever they could to put the issue to rest and complete the construction of the system. He believed the Council had the appropriate resources to close on the issue. There was still a sizable amount of construction work to be done, and the scheduled date of early June was only four months away. He requested the Council consider the staff's recommendation for a solu- tion to the issue of payment as closure on the item would allow for continuance of construction. As discussed earlier, Pacific Bell did not have a contract with the City and was subcontracted by the Cable Co-op. At that time, Pacific Bell had no assurance or guarantee of payment from either the City or the Co-op and was concerned about the outcome of that evening's proceedings. Mayor',Sutorius referenced maintenance estimates and costs, and said he found it difficult to understand how Cable Co-op or PacBell would operate a communication system without a good trouble -reporting, trouble -analysis, trouble -clearing process that included identifying information that allowed for both ventures to know what caused service to go out, the location and nature of the cause, and the things a good business would want to know in order to ensure the best quality service on a continued basis at the lowest operating cost. He started with PacBell in 1950 and there was spe- cific identification as to where the trouble occurred and the accumulation of outage time. That data was used in many ways and introduced many changes into the industry to improve service and control cost. He asked why cable tele- vision was so uniquely different that an appropriate trouble reporting and analysis process was not a critical part of the business. Mr. Salkeld did not believe PacBell said such a process would not be a critical part of their business. The system was being built with a sophisticated status monitoring sys- tem that allowed PacBe11 to search out and repair those areas of trouble in a very high-tech means. PacBell's con- cern was with relation to tracking the maintenance visits for the system. There was a question raised as to whether a test area could be set up somewhere outside of the R-1' areas and compare that area to those areas placed in belowground vaults. PacBell contended it would be difficult in the case 59-222 2/08/88 of trouble in an underground area to state what percentage of the deterioration logged was attributable to the facility being placed underground. Their biggest dilemma was how the trouble was coded. Was it coded to a trouble report that was specifically related to the tap being underground or to maintenance caused due to the nature of the rest of the business. Pacl3ell had put into place and would continue the periodic status reports that they were requested to provide to the City. Their maintenance system was such that they would be able to tell when there were troubles in the franchise area on a soon -as -possible" basis. Mayor Sutorius said trouble analysis with respect to every- day telephone service became the most significant assist in scheduling limited, capital programming of converting from aerial to underground because the data showed the trouble rate, frequency, and outage time would all be improved. It was ironic that the present situation was reversed, where going underground apparently induced trouble. It seemed certain that there was, in fact, a potential accommodation between the City of Palo Alto, Cable Co-op, and PacBell for trouble analysis information that would allow for a sub- stantiation of the maintenance experience such that they were not dealing with merely historical estimates, if the project went forward. Mr. Salkeld had a conflict of opinion with Mayor Sutorius' statement as far as taking facilities that were aerial and placing them underground .and receiving a much better mainte- nance benefit. He was first hired by PacBell in the 1970s as an engineer designing cable plant that was to be placed in rural tract home subdivisions it Southern California. One of his first tasks was to spend two years on a mainte- nance program that was a rehabilitation program in replace- ment of cable that was placed underground in the raid -1970s. Millions of dollars were spent in Southern California alone to replace the facilities that deteriorated in less than half the time for which they had been put on the books. He was not certain that placing facilities underground was as safe as placing them in pedestals or in theair. Vice Mayor Klein assumed the report reflected the thinking of PacBell and Cable Co-op, and it seemed they were all sayingthey had more faith in estimates than actual costs. Mr. Salkeld said that was not correct. He believed. PacBe11 told the staff that PacBell was willing to go forward based on the estimates they had to date. Those estimates were based on the studies put together by PacBell in searching out the information requested by the Council. They would 59-223 2/08/88 like to see the issue put to rest to allow construction to go forward and had been willing to take the upside risk that in the future the costs would be more expensive. Vice Mayor Klein still believed his statement was what PacBell was advocating. Mr. Salkeld spoke earlier to the difficulty of comparing one aboveground district with another underground district and about the difficulty in having the field person fill out the right code, but he asked if that was necessary and why they could not take the gross figures on maintenance for an R-1 neighborhood under- ground and one a few blocks away for an R-1 aboveground. Mr. Salkeld said the question would be different if the Council was willing to assume the added cost of the tracking mechanism. Vice Mayor Klein understood the system was already in place. Mr. Salkeld said, there was presently no system in place to separate a trouble report based on whether the facility was in a pedestal or whether the deterioration was due to the facility being placed underground. Vice Mayor Klein asked if under the present system, PacBell and Cable Co-op were not going to know the cost of mainte- nance in a particular neighborhood. Mr. Salkeld said he was not saying that. Vice Mayor Klein asked why a comparison could not be made if PacBell would know what the maintenance was in a particular neighborhood. Mr. Salkeld did not have the entire pro forma in front of him that would tell him the steps necessary to compare spe- cific neighborhoods with the franchise area. They would be going forward with the maintenance reports requested by the franchise. In discussion with the maintenance personnel with PacBell, they understood it would be difficult to put that type of information together. Vice Mayor Klein asked whether PacBell was creating a system that would enable Coe -op to know what its maintenance costs were. Mr. Salkeld replied PacBell would not put a system together that let Co-op knew what its maintenance costs would: be. PacBell was keeping its maintenance costs totally separate from the Cable Co-op's. 59-224 2/08/88 Vice Mayor Klein asked if the system would enable PacBell to know its maintenance costs. Mr. Salkeld said the system would allow PacBell to know what its trouble report contained. Council Member Fletcher asked if it was not easy to compare the maintenance costs of the aerial versus the costs purely attributable to the vaults because there would not be an R-1 neighborhood with pedestals. Mr. Salkeld said no, there would be R-1 areas with pedestals within the franchise. For comparison purposes, there would be areas within Palo Alto with belowground vaults that would be similar in design and number of households to areas out- side Palo Alto with pedestals. He believed it was the previous questions of the Council and staff that those two areas be calculated against one another. Council. Member Fletcher clarified the aboveground pedestal area would be in another jurisdiction. Mr. Salkeld said yes; per the current understanding, there would be no R-1 areas with pedestals in Palo Alto. Council Member Fletcher asked if the process of comparing the maintenance costs in the jurisdiction with aboveground pedestals versus the vaults was so complex or was it expen- sive. Mr. Salkeld said there were five trunk legs in the system. A trunk leg might include not only underground residential areas in R-1 with flush -mounted vaults, but also aerial facilities and possibly industrial or business properties in pedestals. The difficult process that would involve addi- tional labor hours would be the delineation of separating specific areas within one trunk leg. Council Member Fletcher asked if it was difficult to locate the specific attributable cause of the trouble spot because of the wider area covered. Mr. Salkeld believed they were assuming that if a facility was in an R-1 area in Palo Alto and was underground, every source of trouble in that area was attributed directly to the vault being placed underground and, therefore, was dif- ferent from an aboveground pedestal area Council Member. Fletcher asked if the cost of undergrounding the future undergrounded areas would be more expensive than had been anticipated for pedestals. 59-225 2/08/88 Mr. Salkeld said yes; the capital cost to build something beyond the initial construction would be more expensive because of the basic economy of scale. PacBell had subcon- tracted to be done based on a 465 -mile cable system inclusive of both the aerial and underground facilities. In the future, when an Assessment District was formed, they would not have the same contractor. Inflation would take its toll on the rising of costs, and the economy of scale of building perhaps only five miles rather than 120 miles would add to the increasing costs. Council Member Fletcher said the increasing costs must have been anticipated in PacBe11's original projected plan of putting the pedestals in. She wondered where the money would come from to pay for the difference between the plan- ned pedestals and the underground vaults in future under - grounded areas. Mr. Salkeld replied it was PacBell's understanding that the difference would come from the same location as the current costs, as the result of an action by the City Council. Council Member Fletcher understood the home assessments were only for the maintenance and marketing costs and not for the capital costs. Mr. Zaner said in the future an Assessment District would have to cover both capital and maintenance costs. Council Member Woolley asked about timing. Mr. Salkeld said PacBell was ready to start putting in either the underground vaults or the pedestals in the underground districts in Palo Alto. Mr. Salkeld believed PacBell in good faith started construc- tion in Palo Alto that afternoon. Ms. Neff said that was correct; street permits were approved, the style of underground vaults was approved, and PacBell began construction that day in the Colorado area. Council Member Woolley had a problem with that. If the Council had not yet set up the Assessment Districts, noti- fied the property owners within the Assessment Districts, and given them the opportunity for input, they were jumping the gun. They had not taken that action yet. Mr. Salkeld said PacBell understood the Council had not yet made final resolution on how the costs would be associated for the payment of the issue. They had taken the good -faith effort that the Council would resolve that evening how that 59-226 2/08/88 would take effect. It was a cause of concern that PacBell did not have a guarantee they would be compensated for the work. Mayor Sutorius referenced Mr. Salkeld's remarks that PacBell aicepted the upside risk that in experience maintenance costs might turn out to be higher, and he asked about the flip side if costs turned out to be lower. Mr. Salkeld said if the costs turned out to be lower, PacBe11 would not need to go through the process of the increased computations to determine what those costs were. They were not planning on going forward in calculating those costs. Council Member Levy asked where PacBell got the figure for maintenance. Mr. Salkeld said the figure was based on PacBell's contact throughout the industry of additional cable systems that currently had in place taps underground or had taps under- ground in the past and converted them back to pedestal facilities. Council Member Levy clarified they took the gross mainte- nance costs while the system was underground versus the gross maintenance costs for pedestals, and the difference was PacBell's judgment as to the cost of maintenance. Mr. Salkeld said one of the difficult things for PacBell to assimilate was specific data that gave absolute numbers in "1l¢rs and cents. The two and one-half figure recommended by PacBell to the Council was a conclusion of all the industry sources. Council Member Levy asked if the range was wide. Mr. Salkeld said the range was anywhere from three-quarters times up to three or three and one-half times. Council Member Levy understood staff did some independent checking of the maintenance estimate. Ms. Neff said that was correct. Staff could not arrive at a conclusive range because the estimates varied from 35 perc- ent increase in certain cities to ten times in other cities where they had to rebuild cable due to underground vaults. Even cities that had nominal problems with underground were rebui?ding. Staff's judgment was the two and one-half times figure was as good as any to use. 59-227 2/08/88 Allan Berman, 4032 Orme Street, said the 22 houses on his street had no curbs, no easements, and no places to put boxes. Both the electrical and telephone systems had improved since they went underground, but it had only been for two years. If pedestals were put in, the City would need to renegotiate to get easements. The key note was flexibility. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:45 p.m. to'9:55 p.m. Council Member Patitucci said one issue was, ,the cost esti- mates versus the real cost experience they would have in Palo Alto. The problem was the costs they had been given were the present value of estimated future costs with no mechanism for determining what the real costs would be as time went on. If the Council was to accept the proposal, it would be paying up front the estimated costs which could be too low, in which case PacBell or somebody else would lose which might cause them to cut back on service in the future, or they could be too high in which case there would be a windfall. They knew the cost of converting the current pedestals to vaults and the cost of landscaping. All other costs were present -value future estimates. The second prob- lem was there was not a clear differentiation between the capital costs and the ongoing operating costs, which could be addressed differently because of the nature. The pro- posed special Assessment Districts would mix operating and capital costs so the people would be paying over two years not only the capital costs of installing but also the present value estimate of their future maintenance costs which were unknown. A third problem was the difference between the process of converting the pedestals that would be installed at present in the areas which had been under- ground, and the problem of what to do about future undergrounding. One of the concerns when the Council voted to place the pedestals underground was not to discourage the future underground program. The fourth issue was the allo- cation of costs in terms of fairness. Homeowners, sub- scribers, Cable Co-op, and the City were all candidates. The last question concerned choice. The Council was asked by residents to give them a choice and, if there was an associated cost, to tell them what that cost would be. If the residents chose to paythe cost, then they would choose to have the benefit and, if not, then they could have the system as proposed. MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Klein, to direct City staff to work with Cable Co-op and. PacBell to develop a financings program for underground vaults that meets the following guidelines: 59-228 2/08/88 MOTION CONTINUED 1 Capital costs of installing the initial vaults (approximately 500 vaults, estimated. coat, $120, 000) will be paid through the elimination of various requirements of the franchise (e.g. Upper Page Mill access, insurance coverage, etc.); 2. The City will postpone for five years the requirements to provide cable service to Upper .Page Mill Road (estimated at a savings to Cable Co-ap..of $245,000). The City to determine if service to this area is neces- sary after five years and, if so, if there.. is a less expensive alternative to laying cable. 3,. Future capital costs for the undergrounding of service taps in new underground utility areas willbe paid from: (a) concessions from the City (if cumulative concessions exceed the capital costs to that date), (b) reduction in the City's franchise fes, or (c) cash contribution by the City; 4. A.n Assessment District will be established in each area that has undergrounding currently, or will have underg- rounding in the future: a) property owners in the area (all properties, not just subscribers) will be assessed ...the .actual addi- tional Maintenance and service costs incurred by Cable Co-op and PacBe1I associated with underground vaults; b) assessment for the maintenance and service account will be collected based on estimated costs and reconciled to actual costs every three years; and c) when voting on an assessment district, the neighbor- hood affected will be voting to either pay the ongoing additional maintenance costs of under - grounding . vaults or to accept; the pedestals, and if there is a majority protest to the formation of an assessment district then the Council will construe that to mean that . residents will accept pedestals rather than undergrounding; 59-229 2/08/88 MOTION CONTINUED 5. Cable Co-op's contribution to. the . uadergz oun,ding effort ($100,000) should be paid in theform of: a) absorbing the estimates of, future, marketing costs and other costs; and b) the upfront costs of landscaping of the amplifier, line extenders, and power supply _.pedestals. Council Member Patitucci said the key points, of the motion were the upfront costs would be paid through a process of concessions or City contributions, and the assessments would be paid on a real -cost, pay -as -you --go basis for the mainte- nance part. Given the dollars PacBell had estimated, he guessed they were speaking to between $1.50 and $3 per month per property if they wanted to pay for the additional main- tenance. A system would have to be developed to pass the costs along. The City Attorney said the City. could only have Assessment Districts that related to real costs. He had full confidence that PacBei.l and Cable Co-op could comfs up with a system that would give costs that the City Attorney could certify as reasonable. The proposal sepa- rated capital and operating costs and tried to allocate res- ponsibility; and it assessed every home owner in an Assessment District as a beneficiary, not just a.subscriber, assuming everybody in the district benefited in terms of property values and aesthetics from not having the pedes- tals. Vice Mayor Klein said Cable Co-op had offered $100,000 and indicated it would absorb rb $21,000 of marketing. costs. That was in excess of the allocation in the motion, and he believed they needed to account for that money, . Cable Co-op was offering $121,000 against the $55,000 in costs they would incur, so they had a surplus of $66,000. He suggested it be used to defray the cost of developing the cost - accounting system that was being suggested. Tothe extent that did not use up the $66,000, the money would be spread against the Assessment District to defray the costs of main- tenance. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Klein. moved, seconded by Patitucci: to amend <paragraph 5) to say the Cable Co -Op' s ._cuntcibution to the .undergro€ ding effort ($121,000) .should . be paid in the for of: a) absorbing marketing and the cost . accounting attributable to tracking of the expenses for the. Assessment Districts; b) landscaping of . the amplifier, line. -extender, 59-230 2/08/88 AMENDMENT CONTINUED and power supply pedestals; and c) tba.remainder, if any, to be spread among the original Asseamment_,Diatricts...to defray their maintenance costs. MAKER MW SECONDER OF MOTION AGREED TO INCORPORATE AMEND- MENT INTO MAIN MOTION. Council Member Levy wanted to be sure of the difference between Council Member Patitucci's motion and the recommen- dations made in the staff report (CMR:.146:8) . The first difference of critical importance was that part of the motion would be based on actual costs for maintenance and service while staff's was the present value of the estimate. Secondly, staff recommended a City cash payment of $56,000, and he gathered the motion did not do that. Council Member Patitucci said no; the City's potential cash payment came in if, through concessions, they were unable to compensate for the capital costs of installation. The City would then contribute and that would probably be in some later district if the City had not been able to grant con- cessions that would cover the capital costs. Council Member Levy clarified the capital cost of under -- grounding all future districts would come out of the $245,000 in savings from deferring Upper Page Mill. Assuming .there were no other savings, the motion suggested the $245,000 be the total amount available for capital coats. Council Member Patitucci said right. He felt in the future those capital costs should be small. The undergrounding process would require they go underground from the poles anyway; therefore, it was basically just the cost of the pedestal boxes. After paying $120,000, the City would have an account of about $125,000 which could earn interest and, at some point, that would be allocated toward the incre- mental capital costs in the next district until the account ran out. Council Member Levy clarified the heart of the recommenda- tion was that staff was saying the Assessment District should be $10 a month for 24 months, and the motion said the Assessment District should be an amount of money that would be revised every 3 years for 15 years and would be based the actual costs as determined by the cost accounting system. In addition, the system in the motion would pay for the cost accounting. He asked if Council Member Patitucci felt his 59-231 2/08/88 system would provide a savings over staff's proposal, or was the basis for his recommendation that it would be fairer because the system would be based on actual costs. Council Member Patitucci said the purpose was primarily to try' -to be fairer in who paid the costs and. how those costs were determined. Also, in talking to the City Attorney about the process set in motion by the recommendation, he was not certain the Council actually could have an Assessment District in which they were gambling that PacBell's costs would be higher or lower than 'some number the Council chose to pay them. He believed they would have to calculate actuals at some point. If his calculations were correct, allocated over 30 years, the cost was only about $2 per month per household, and that would be more acceptable and fairer to households than $10 for 24 months. Council Member Levy asked if the City Attorney believed the staff recommendation was supportable .as far as the Assessment District was concerned. Ms. Northway believed it would have to be clarified in order for her to believe that they could support an Assessment District on the basis of the staff recommendation. She believed that actual costs, i.e., not incremental actual costs because of an underground district but all actual costs, could be part of the maintenance district. She believed the City Manager felt since the costs that the City would be assessing would be less than that, that was suffi- cient, but they still had to establish that the formula used for those costs was based in some sense on actual costs. To the extent the staff report did not address that, she had difficulty saying that satisified the requirements for an Assessment District. Mr. ._Zaner believed the City could receive from Pacsell and Cable Co-op the total cost of maintenance for the operation, with no differentiati between aboveground and underground. Once the City received those numbers, there was nothing to keep the City Council from charging an Assessment District less than the .,total cost, and the Council could determine a formula upon which it wished to base that and, as long as the formula was equitable across the district, he believed they could support it. Council Member Patitucci's motion essentially allowed each Assessment District area to select whether it wished to have underground or not. That was not an instantaneous process. At best, it would take staff several months to go through the requirements of the Code for an Assessment District. Paceel1 had indicated that evening they were prepared to move ahead, and delay to them had a .significant dollar value. 59-232 2/08/88 Council Member Patitucci said staff's proposal was for an Assessment District that would raise $420,000. He presumed PacBell would have liked to have known whether that money was available. The Assessment District with his proposal versus one with the City's proposal was no different Mr. Zaner clarified the Assessment District under the pro- posal he gave to the Council assumed that if the Assessment District was not successful, those costs would be paid some- how. The Council made a policy decision several weeks ago that said everything would go underground. Having made that policy decision, the only question was who would pay for it. Now the Council was making a different policy decision. They were saying maybe some areas would go underground and maybe some would not, depending upon what the districts decided they wanted to do. If people turned down the Assessment District, they would not go underground but would go aboveground and those costs would not have to be covered by the City. Council Member Patitucci asked if the Council asked people to approve the Assessment District recommended in the staff report --$10 a month, $240 per home, 24 months, and an up- front amount of money of $420,000 --what happened when people decided to protest that and the Council did not come up with the $420,000. There seemed .a higher probability they would not end up with that than the probability they would end up with something that would be based on actual costs and would be easier to sell as fair and reasonable. People lived with PacBell for years and knew it would be a reasonable cost allocated over the life they would enjoy their TV. He did not understand where the risk was between staff's proposal and the motion. Mr. Zaner clarified staff's proposal simply guaranteed that the costs would be paid, and if the Assessment District failed to do it, some other party had to pick those costs up. There were only two parties left:., the City of Palo Alto and Cable Co-op, and he did not believe Cable Co-op would pick up the additional amount. If the Council wished to retain its policy of going underground, the only party left was the City of Palo Alto. Under Council Member Patitucci's proposal, there was a change in the policy in that people would have a choice. He was interested in hearing from PacBell t boui the costs of a delay if the City delayed for a long period of time, had assessment districts and some of them were protested out, and Council elected not to pay for the costs. Council Member Patitucci said at $35,000 per week, ten weeks of delay ended up being equal to the total cost being dis- cussed on a present value basis over 15 years. 59-233 2/08/88 As corrected 3/14/88 Council Member Levy said it appeared that under both pro- posals the existing underground areas had to be under - grounded, and the City could give the residents of future underground areas a choice. In terms of PacBell and the costs of delay, the City had to move ahead and underground the existing proposed areas and figure out how to pay for it. It seemed to him the fundamental differences between the two proposals were staff proposed an assessment of $10 per month for two years and Council Member Patitucci pro- posed $2 month for 15 years; staff was willing to accept the estimated costs, figure out the present value of the esti- mated costs and go with it. Council Member Patitucei wanted to get the exact costs and was willing to pay, the additional incremental moneys to set up some kind of an accounting com- parison procedure. He assumed the figures would be audited every three years and that every three years the figures would be adjusted and then billed to the people in the assessment districts. If those were the fundamental dif- ferences, he queried whether it was better to charge people $10 per month for 24 months and get it over with, or whether the assessment district should last for the whole 15 years. The total cost would be more because the $240 represented the present value of a figure that would probably be closer to $400 over the life of the 15 -year time frame. Over 15 years, the figure might be between $2 and $4 per month for 15 years. Council Member Renzel referred to item 3(b) and the tradeoff of the reduction in the franchise tee. She understood that under the presently existing ruling, there could be some changes in the terms under which a second franchisee might operate in Palo M .to. Under Palo Alto's agreement with the Co-op, the City was obliged to negotiate the same terms with them. There was ra dependable fixed amount at that time to apply under item 3(b). Ms. tlorthway believed it could be assumed there would be a franchise fee and the City might end up with two franchise fees. Council Member Renzel asked whether the terms of assessment districts could have automatic adjustments or whether new hearings had to be held whenever ther=e was an adjustment. Ms. Northway believed it depended on the formula and how the district was set up. If the district was set up such that changes could be made and there could be a reserve fund, the same assessment did not have to be made every year.. 59-234 2/08/88 Council Member Renzel said the changing assessment would relate to the reconciled actual costs, and if the actual costs were less, refund: or credits wog?ld be in order. If actual cost: were more, the assessment would be raised. As long as such terms were built into the initial district as a formula under which people could protest, there was no prob- lem doing so without additional hearings. People did not ordinarily vote on assessment districts but rather received notice and appeared before the Council and protested if they desired but it was still Council's decision whether to over- ride any protest. Ms. Northway said that was correct, and it would require a two-thirds vote to overrule the protests. Council Member Renzel clarified that in Council Member Patitucci's proposal if the majority of the neighborhood protested, the presumption was that the neighborh000d favored pedestals over vaults. Council. Member Bechtel said Council Member Levy did an excellent job of clarifying some differences between Council Member Patitucci's proposal and the City Manager's. She heard discussion as to the differences in the formation of the assessment. district, Item 4c, and understood they were willing to modify the proposal to say that areas which were already undergrounded, i.e., the 1750 homes, would not have a choice but would be undergrounded for the vaults, but as assessment districts were formed, the future areas would be able to make a distinction. Council Member Patitucci clarified if the Council set-up an assessment district, promulgated the formula, gave people the costs, and they strongly protested, the Council could read that protest as saying the residents would prefer pedestals and could cancel the assessment district and install pedestals. In the first scenario, they were saying that if PacBell was installing the vaults, the Council did not have that choice and should be prepared to impose the assessment districts without taking into account the fact the residents had a choice. Council Member } echtel understood PacBell's schedule was to be completed with all undergrounded areas by June, 1988. It might take between the present and June to get the assess- ment districts formed; however, all the construction for cable would have been completed prior to formation of the assessment districts. Therefore, Council Member Patitucci was .agreeing with the City Manarer's proposal which was if the assessment districts failed or there was a majority protest which the Council did not override by a two-thirds. vote, the City would absorb the costs. 59-235 2/08/88 Council Member Patitucci believed it was easier to impose an actual cost system over the life of the system than it was to impose a $10 front-end cost. Council Member Bechtel agreed with the proposal for $2 versus $10 a month for two years. The real question was, would the cost of calculating the actual costs for mainte- nance be worth the information obtained, or would the City Attorney require that in any case to be able to form the assessment districts in a reasonably accurate manner. Ms. Northway opined, based on the cases she researched in the limited time available, the only thing the Council could assess for was actual costs, and they had to be able to sup- port those in a reasonable manner. That was her concern. She did not believed .the staff proposal really addressed that point. Estimates were fine for an initial start-up, but at some point the estimates had to be reconciled with actual costs, which Council Member Patitucci's proposal attempted to do. Vice Mayor Klein believed Council Member Levy elucidated the differences between the motion on the floor and the staff proposal. In regard to Item 4c and the vote required, he believed if the Council followed the staff proposal, home owners who followed the matter would feel they had nothing to lose by protesting. If they could persuade four Council Members, the cost wouldbe transfered to the general public. On the other hand, Council Members would feel they had to overrule the protest, and it became a strange vote in that regard. He believed the idea of giving the people a choice was a good one.. It was different from what the Council passed previously, but he liked the idea of people being able to vote in that way. Council Member Bechtel pointed out the process became moot because the votes would not get through an assessment process prior to June. He suggested sending out material within the next few weeks telling the people in the 1750 homes in question what their choice would be. Council Member Woolley agreed it was an unusual way to go about setting up an assessment district. Her original oppo- sition to the proposal was based on the fact she was not willing to support the underground until she knew who would pay for it. When she spoke to Council Member Patitucci that afternoon, she was supportive of his proposal because it allowed a choice and made good sense. The people whowould benefit could decide whether or not they would pay. How- ever, if the City was going to absorb the costs if the voters voted down the assessment district, they were back to taking the funds out of the General Fund and having 59-236 2/08/88 everybody in the City pay the costs, and she could not sup- port that. The straw vote might be a good idea, but it was still up to the final decision of the way each property owner reacted to the proposal and the way the Council ulti- mately voted. The proposal was. still too iffy" in terms of who would pay. Mayor Sutorius noted the capital costs were $120,000 in the actual "vaulting" and $15,000 in vegetation for a total of $135,000. The balance totaling $821,000 was maintenance and servicing expenses. He preferred to address the capital costs and see the processes develop an assessment district to deal with the $125,000. He noted 1,750 properties worked out to $77 per property. He believed people would respond to such an assessment regardless of whether they intended to subscribe to the service. They could then deal with a long- term cushion to handle maintenance costs, i.e., the deferral with a value of $245,000, the Cable Co-op contribution of $100,000 which meant there was at least $385,000 that could be pre -identified to offset maintenance costs for a pro- longed period of time. Maintenance and servicing costs on a present value basis were about $38,000 and, therefore, $385,000, even accounting for inflation, had to be approxi- mately an eight -year cushion. That would then allow for the data availability and calculations to substantiate by a formula what the appropriate assessment charge should be for maintenance. He believed . that was clearer and more under- standable. Council Member Fletcher was opposed to the procedure both on the technical grounds and on the financing: grounds even more so. The procedures assumed approval of the assessment district which she believed was highly questionable. For one thing, only one .house in four was faced with a pedestal on their front lawns. Based on the comments she heard, Council seemed to be plotting to override any majority pro- tests which might be received which was unacceptable. The City was committing itself to make cash contributions -if costs ran .higher and itdid not know what the .costs would be. The maintenance costs would be lower in the first couple of years and would probably escalate after years three to five. From what she heard about other systems, the entire system might have to be replaced in fiveyears espe- cially since Palo Alto's system was so sophisticated and sensitive to damage. Council .had not even considered who would pay the costs of bringing all the equipment back above ground in the future years, as the other cities were gradually doing, because of unacceptable cable reception. She believed Palo Alto was getting itself deeper into a moms. The compromise offered was reasonable. The citizens who protested the pedestals were barely aware of the 54.237 2/08/88 alternative offered and it was never really addressed. It was not too late to go back to it. She believed Council should get out of the morass and was asking for trouble if it went forward with either the staff recommended mechanisms or the Patitucci motion. Council Member Levy referred to the Patitucci motion and queried what the estimated costs, assuming they were the real costs, would translate to on a per month assessment over a 15 -year period, adding to it whatever staff's best judgment was for the cost accounting system. Council Member Woolley clarified staff said the Cable Co-op had included the costs for future underground districts, which figure needed to be backed out of the Cable Co-op's service figure before Council Member Levy's question could be answered. Council Member Levy was interested in a ballpark figure because if they were talking about $10 per month for 24 months versus $5 per month for 15 years, the level of magni- tude was important. Regarding Vice Mayor Klein's concept of a straw vote, the concept was if the straw vote went against the Council, i.e., a significant number of people were unwilling to pay a reasonable assessment figure, then the City could stop the undergrounding, reverse its concept, and put everything into the above -ground pedestals. He queried whether Vice Mayor Klein's proposal for a straw vote was possible. Mr. Zaner said a straw vote was possible. The City's expe- rience with sending outsurveys to people was that an over- whelming response was not received. There was some delay built in but a straw poll could be taken. Council Member Levy queried whether it could be done fast enough. Mr. 7aner .said a straw poll could be sent out quickly, but he could not guarantee how fast responses would return. Staff could probably deliver the surveys door-to-door. Council Member Le. -pry supported .the straw vote concept. If people were willing to make the payments, he was comfortable with either the staff proposal or the Patitucci proposal with the addition of the vote for the assessment district being based on the straw vote proposal. He believed Mayor Sutorius' proposal was too cumbersome. Vice Mayor Klein believed another major difference between Council Member Patitucci's motion and the staff proposal;: was 59-238 2/08/88 whether Council wanted to go with the cost estimate figures presently before Council in the staff report (CMR:146:8). The advantage was the figures were absolutely fixed and people would know with certainty that it was all they would ever have to pay. The weakness to the approach was he believed the n_ umbers were . based on soft data to start with and ranged all the way from a 35 percent increase to a 1,000 percent increase and there was no way of verifying them. Council Member Patitucci's motion went for certainty and the extra costs would be figured out within a reasonable range but we did not know the cap. Regarding the PacBell and the Co-op proposal, the City did not know whether the numbers were fair. If he understood the PacBell representative cor- rectly, they would never know because they would not figure it out. PacBell could end up pocketing some money under it. He personally preferred Council Member Patitucei's motion. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, that staff be directed to take & straw vote of, the. 1,750 homes to find out whether the residents wished to pay the extra costs of undergrounding or otherwise preferred the above -ground pedestals in their neighborhoods. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. John Kelly, 1868 mark Twain, said as be understood the amendment, Council decided to again defer the decision for a period of several weeks. The result might be that Pacific Bell would stop construction which would add about $140,000 to the entire project. Instead of talking about an $821,000 figure, it would be close to $1,000,000. Pacific Bell undertook the commencement of construction in good faith based upon an understanding that Council would likely take action that evening and. would at least clarify who the ulti- mately responsible party would be. He tried to make reason- able calculations about keeping track of the Co-op's service technicians' and customer service representatives' time, i°)resenting it in a form that was intelligible to an accoun- tant and getting professional'assistance presented either to City staff or the Council. He estimated it would cost. the Co-op between $154,000 and $204,000, which was a net present value figure, over 13 years and three months. He did not know how much it would cost PacBell to keep track of similar time. The question was raised by Mayor Sutorius about why it was necessary to have some additional costs. He believed that based upon the current operations, the only way to generate an actual marginal coat of maintenance for the vaults would be essentially to record everyone's time. His estimates were based upon the timekeeper's spending only five to ten minutes per day to do so. Sampling depended 59-239 2/08/88 upon whether one wanted actual costs. There were two prob- lems associated with sampling. The problems would not make themselves apparent until a period of three to five years, and the sampling approach was essentially half way between the actual and the estimated costs. He suggested a more expedient way to end up there was for the Coop to set a top and a bottom figure for some of the costs and say the City would guarantee a certain amount and would pay up to a maxi- mum amount. He believed that would be more economical. Vice Mayor Klein said there was no inference that Council was delaying action. Mr. Kelly stood corrected. Council Members Fletcher said the staff report (CMR:146:8) indicated the cable subscriber rates would be raised mini- mally and she queried the amount of the extra costs to the subscriber to defray most of the service and maintenance costs, Mr. Zaner clarified the assessment charge would represent a small fixed amount --it would not be an amount charged by the Co-op. The assessment amount he recommended was $10 per month. Council Member Fletcher believed the language referred to subscribers. The assessments would be based on home owner- ship and not on subscribers. She assumed it meant an extra fee to subscribers. Mr. Zaner said he tried to look at the average amount the subscriber paid and the Cable Co-op said it was about $30 per month He wanted to find some amount of money that the subscriber would not feel was exhorbitant when they looked at their total bill which would be $30 plus the assessment levied by the City. Council Member . Fletcher clarified it was unrelated to sub- scribers. Council Member Levy believed Council did delay action for three weeks because final decision would be delayed pending the results of the straw vote. If the straw vote was not definitely in favor of undergrounding, Council was going to rescind its decision. Vice Mayor Klein expected Council would take the results of the straw vote and not do anything with them. 59-240 2/08/88 Council Member Levy preferred to go ahead based upon the public input already received which was overwhelmingly in favor of undergrounding, but he shared the concern that when it got down to how much it would cost a person, they might change their mind. Mr. Kelly said a three-week delay would cost ap rc imateiy $100,000. Mr. Kelly deferred response in terms of the actual figure to PacBell. PacBell said previously it needed to begin con- struction immediately in order to not get out of contract with their,subcontractor. The cost of keeping their con- struction company on contract was $36,000 per week. He was confused about what Council wanted. Vice Mayor Klein maintained that Council was setting its policy .and was not requesting PacBell to stop. Palo Alto said it was going to go forward and find the funding and he did not believe that had changed. Council Member Woolley was appalled by the games she heard Council playing that evening. Council Member Fletcher was correct that Council was getting itself deeper into an incredible morass. Council would end up ultimately charging the General Fund and all of the people of Palo Alto the cost of solving the problem. Council should back out immedi- ately. Council Member Patitucci said Council was back to where it started. The reason Council was going through the detailed process was because two months ago Council did not get spe- cifics about how to deal with the costs when it wanted a plan. The Council went through two cycles and had not gotten cooperation or proposals that were in any way posi- tive about how to measure costs, how to calculate them, or how to set up an assessment district so Council was doing it themselves at the Council level. He was appalled Council had to do it but he believed it needed to be done in order to act responsibly. Council heard repeatedly from a wide range of the community that it wanted to have the pedestals underground. Council never went ahead with an assessment district with the intent of overturning an assessment dis- trict because of protests. It was done because Council believed it was appropriate public policy. Council should eliminate the straw vote and move ahead with the plan as he proposed and allow PacBell to continue and to have Cable Co-op develop a reasonable system for estimating costs. Council Member Renzel was willing to commit t to paying the incremental part of the system placed in vaults between then and the time Council acted on the straw vote if it turned out Council determined there was no support for the assess- ment district mechanism. She remembered Vice Mayor Klein 59-241 2/08/88 specifically telling the residents _ who attended the Council meeting that they should not have to pay for the under- grounding. Council was now looking at a system where not only the people with the pedestals but their neighbors as Well would have to pay for the undergrounding. Council needed to know whether the people were willing to pay before it went too far with the system. Council Member Fletcher said people's perception was they either pay the assessment or they were stuck with the present boxes, which was rot the choices she believed they had. She was concerned people would not be given all the information. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley, that the straw poll include that the choices were between paying an assessment or having the present pedestals removed and less obtrusive installed with landscaping. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-6: Woolley, Fletcher voting 0aye," Cobb absent. Mr. Kelly said the Cable Co-op needed to know what Council wanted to do about upper Page Mill Road. He was still at a loss about whether to continue with construction and if so, with the underground vaults. Mr. Salkeld wanted to be able to instruct PacBell's con- struction crews tomorrow to either continue with the place- ment of underground vaults as was suggested in two previous meetings or whether to stop construction tomorrow pending some type of straw poll that would state whether at some future time PacBell would place pedestals aboveground as was originally approved when the construction process first began. Council Member Bechtel did not believe Council made any motions contradicting its previous motion which was to pro- ceed with undergrounding. Until such a motion was made, she presumed PacBell and the Cable Co-op would proceed. Council clearly said three weeks ago that the upper Page Mill Road area should be deferred. Council. Member Levy said if Council wanted further under - grounding deferred pending the results of the straw poll, he queried whether PacBell could productively use its crews in the interim three-week period. Mr. Salkeld would be willing to find out from PacBell's con- struction manager whether there was additional polishing work which could be done elsewhere. He understood last week 59-242 2/08/8U As corredted 3/14/88 that there was no major additional work to be done and he needed to start work in Palo Alto which was done that after- noon. Vice Mayor Klein said the City's policy was not what PacBell and the Cable Co-op wanted. He was giving up the straw vote poll because he clearly recalled PacBell said it would go forward with the construction. NOTION TO RECONSIDER: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Patitucci to reconsider the vote of the amendment re straw vote. MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Renzel voting "no,' Cobb absent. Council Member Fletcher asked about a contingency plan to cover the costs of undergrounding if no assessment district was formulated. Mr. 2aner said if the assessment district failed, Council could either override the. protests and assess the persons in the districts, or pay the costs out of the General Fund or by some other means. Mayor Sutorius said the construction work began that after- noon and would proceed for whatever period of time it took to conduct a straw poll. In the construction process, if work was suspended, the contractor was paid to do nothing. If the contractor was relieved from the contract, a new con- tract had to be negotiated at some future time. Council Member Renzel believed the straw poll would help determine whether people were willing to tollow their aes- thetic convictions with their pocketbooks. The straw poll would ask the three of the four people in an underground neighborhood not aggrieved whether they were willing to pay to have the boxes out of their neighborhoods. She was willing to pay the costs incurred for construction during the interim period. She personally would support the under - grounding regardless of whether she had a box in her yard but was not sure everyone would support. Council Member Woolley concurred with Council Member Renzel that the straw poll appeared to offer an opportunity for the City to cover its losses. The City would have to honor the. work done by PacBell to that point but four weeks as opposed to a couple of months would be a big difference in the amount of undergrounding to have to deal with. She hoped PacBeli was working in the areas where the City had the most input, i.e., the Crescent Park III area as opposed to the Gunn High School area where the City heard from almost no one. 59-243 2/08/88 As corrected 3/14/88 Council Member Patitucci believed a straw vote might have been useful eight or twelve weeks ago for the range of ques- tions being asked, including alternate pedestals. Council made a decision and had to take the steps necessary to implement it. In terms of a straw poll, there was a big difference between an opinion and something one had to own up to. There was not the time necessary to conduct a proper polling process. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Fletcher, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley voting 'aye,' Cobb absent. SUBSTITUTE MOTION; Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley, to direct staff to develop an implementation plan with the following elements; 1. Assessment district(s) formations with initial monetary asses, ents limited to defrAaiig undergrounding the tap pedestals, i.e., approximately $120,000 plus vegeta- tion; 2. Upper Page Mill Road deferral, value of $245,000 and Cable Co-op contribution of $100,000 reserved for ser- vice and marketing, including acceptable cost accounting tracking method and periodic reconciliation; 3. When reserve funds were expended in approximately eight to nine years, maintenance and servicing would be assigned into the appropriate assessment district; Mayor Sutorius said the motion identified the specific capi- tal costs at $135,000, and the assessment would work out to approximately $77 per R-1 property. It allowed other identified values to be assigned to main --.trance which was still the disputed area where Council was relying on esti- mates. In approximately eight to nine years the values would have potentially been expended and there would be a record that could more reliably be incorporated into an assessment process that would be assigned to the property owners for perhaps a period of about three and one-half to four remaining years of the franchise period. He believed that was a more credible way to assign costs if Council wanted to go ahead with the undergrounding. Council Member Levy believed the motion provided for.._a low level assessment district at that point, and the initial years of maintenance would be taken care of by the costs related to the ending of the upper Page Mill Road area build. out. Beginning in years 10 through 15, Council would have to set up a new assessment district and develop costs at that time which would be higher because of inflation. In 59-244 2/08/88 eight or ten years people would wonder what was going on since they would have had cable television for 10 years and then an assessment was made. All of the history which went back to the present Council would have been forgotten. Mayor Sutorius said the costs being dealt with then were a present value basis of $38,000 per year projected in order to arrive at the total. Inflation would be calculated in either case. Council was probably closer to a four-year period it would be dealing with in terms of costs. Present value was approximately $160,000, which he did not believe was significant because if $135,000 in capital costs equated to $77 total, something in the vicinity of $160,000 to $200,000 would not be a sizable total figure. In the assessment district process people still had the choice to make a lump sum payment, which might amount to $120, and alternatives were available. It was not a process of set- ting up a new assessment district. The assessment district was set up and the initial assessment was $77. There would be several years of zero assessment but the district did not go away. When there was something to assess, that was when the assessment was levied. He believed the values being applied to maintenance at that time would cover a great period of time because in the initial years of construction there would not be the high trouble rate. The bulk of the dollars would be available for the middle and tail end of the period. He also expected there would be service improvements. He believed the total assessment to the prop- erty owner was reasonable and fair. Council Member Renzel was concerned that as maintenance occurred, PacBell and the Cable Co-op would have to pay for it and there would be a lag before the money was raised to pay them. Mayor Sutorius clarified maintenance would be paid by the $345,000, which would be available to draw on to pay added maintenance costs on a going forward basis. When the $345,000 was exhausted, Council could establish the assess- ment using more soundly based data than anything presently available. Vice Mayor Klein assumed the account with the $245,000 ear- marked for undergrounding the Page Mill area and the $100,000 from the Co-op would earn interest to the extent it was not used in the earlier years. Vice Mayor Klein said the motion was similar to Council Member Patitucci e s but more refined. . He wo ;? d support the substitute motion. 59-245 2/08/88 Mr. Kelly believed the substitute motion made sense. It had the effects of incurring the additional costs of keeping track of the time which was a large percentage of the costs Council was trying to estimate. He believed it was on the order of 48 percent of the cost. Even if Council was right about the actual costs being less than 2.5 percent, he estimated about $15,000 per year to keep track of the Cable Co-op's time. Mayor Sutorius said the sequence was Council had values based on a decision on Page Mill and a decision on the part of the Cable Co-op which was being accepted. The reference to an "acceptable cost accounting, tracking method and periodic reconciliation," meant the City would have the time and mutual ingenuity to make an appropriate level of payment for the added maintenance costs on an estimated basis while the reserve fund or value fund was the source of that pay- ment., By the time the City was into several years, the ability to provide an "acceptable cost accounting method" would have experience. He did not envision that what was transferred into an assessment district process would have the kinds of costs Mr. Kelly was alerting the City to. Mr. Kelly said apportionment of the $100,000 was never dis- cussed. Mayor Sutorius understood that the Cable Co-op made a deci- sion to absorb $21,000 of what was previously a $61,000 cost element and to contribute $100,000. He distinguished that one was identified as contribution and the other was identi- fied as an absorption. Mr. Kelly said the Cable Co-op never offered to put $100,000 in the bank. It anticipated future costs and agreed, in effect, not to charge the City for some of those future costs. They were happy to discuss the allocation of future costs but the Cable Co-op did not have $100,000 to put into a bank account. 'The Co-op, in effect, assumed the costs would be spread out over time. Mayor Sutorius believed if the funds were applied to added maintenance costs, it would spread out over time. Council Member Patitucci referred to the upper. Page Mil/ portion of $245,000. It might not end up being a $245,000 savings after five years. He asked whether that was inher- ent in the ' substitute motion. Mayor Sutorius said yes. Council Member Patitucci clarified the amount the Cable Co-op had in the reserve accounts wouldcover maintenance 59-246 2/08/88 in all areas undergrounded until depleted. Once depleted, then all of the areas would be assessed. Mayor Sutorius said yes. If three areas were undergrounded at year three and four areas in year six, whatever dollars were available, the values of those dollars would go against maintenance costs which would then trigger when a mainte- nance assessment kicked in. Council Member Patitucci clarified each assessment district would be established; there would be an initial $77 assess- ment; and at some point in the future, the actual mainte- nance costs would be picked up after there was a system in place which provided accurate numbers, and after all of the credits were depleted for all of the different districts. Council Member Renzel referred to the majority protest as a presumption that people did not want to pay for the vaults and, therefore, would be agreeable to boxes. AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Renzel, to include that for future areas to be under - grounded, in the event of a majority protest, Council would assume that the neighborhood preferred the pedestals to the, cost of undergrounding. Council Member Renzel asked whether the costs included capital and maintenance. Council Member Patitucci said under Mayor Sutorius' pro- posal, it would be both capital and maintenance. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. Council Member Levy clarifiedCouncilwas postponing assess- ments for a number of years at which time those assessments could be significant. Council would be assessing people who had not been subject to an assessment for eight or ten years or even aware that they were in an assessment district. He did not believe it was a responsible action for the City Council. Council Member Patitucci said the ultimate judgment was what was more palatable, fair and reasonable to those who would have to vote on the assessment districts --it seemed to him a little cleaner and easier to explain to someone he would ask to support the assessment that they would be paying the additional maintenance costs which started immediately. The substitute motion was good . but he was bothered by the date at which the other payments would begin, the amount of the payments, and having to deal with the down time in between paying the capital costs. He would not support the substi- tute motion. 59-247 2/08/8.8 SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Klein, Sutorius voting °aye,1° . Cobb absent. Council Member Renzel said while she was concerned about the little pedestal boxes in R-1 neighborhoods, she hoped we would also be equally concerned about the really big, over- sized boxes being built in R-1 neighborhoods. Mr. Zaner asked whether the Cable Co-op figure should read $100,000 or $121,000. Mayor Sutorius said $100,000. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Fletcher, Sutorius, Woolley voting "no, °E Cobb absent. Vice Mayor Klein was concerned about whether the Cable Co-op construed Council's actions that upper Page Mill was not included. Mr. Kelly was unclear that the $245,000 was the present estimate of the cost savings of not building upper Page mill in perpetuity. The staff recommendation was clear that if there was a decision at a later date to build upper Page Mill, the City would bear the costs. If that was the sense of the action taken, he understood. Vice Mayor Klein said that was the sense of the motion. Mr. Kelly also clarified that in the event the assessments districts were rejected in the future, the City would pay for the additional future costs. In 1. some sense, the General Fund was behind the City. 9. VICE MAYOR KLEIN RE GOLDEN TRIANGLE (NPG) MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to continue the item. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:10 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 59-248 2/08/88 As corrected 3/14/88