Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-23 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITYCOUNCILMEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU-FREQUENCY 90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 59-3 Minutes of October 26, 1987 59-3 Consent Calendar 59-3 Action 1. Rejection of Bids for Thermal Insulation 59-3 Installation Inspection 2. Resolution 1,656 Urging the California Legislature to Adopt an Amendment to the California beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act to Include Wine and Spirit Coolers and if no Action Occurs on or before September 1, 1988, to Advise. of Palo Alto.'s Intent to Pass a Local Ordinance Requiring a Five Cent Deposit for Wine and Spirit Coolers to Take Effect on January 1, 1989 59-3 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 59-4 3. Ordinance Amending Budget for Fiscal Year Year 1987-88 to Provide an Appropriation for a New Position to Assist in the Establishment and Management of a Storm Drainage Fund 5. Supplemental Agreement No. 2 in Conjunction with the. Landfill Gas Lease and Operating Agreement for Conversion Systems 59-4 59.9 59-1 11/23/87 ITEM PAGE 4. Analysis of Alternatives to Cable Televi- 5911 sion Pedestals Recess from 9:35 p.m. to 9;50 p.m. 59-22 6. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re Pedestrian 59-33 Crossing the Embarcadero Overpass at Bayshore Freeway 7. Council Members Emily Renzel and Jack Sut.orius re Resolution of Appreciation for Palo Altans for Civic Excellence 59-34 Adjournment at 11:10 p.m. 59-35 Regular Meeting Monday, November 23, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:33 p.m. •PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius ABSENT: Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, urged the City to respond to the question of greater public access to the San Francisco Bay especially in view of the destruction of the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. He urged a course of positive action and to consider a City dump which would not be avail- able for spoils disposal. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26t 1987 Council Member Renzel had the following correction: PaQ_e 58-382, third line from bottom, after the word "docu- mentation," add the word "however." MOTION: Council Member Renzel .roved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Minutes of October 26, 1987, as corrected. !OTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Meter Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar. 1. REJECTION OF BIDS FOR THERMAL INSULATION INSPECTION (CMR:532:7 (14 0. 01 2. RESOLUTION 6656 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO URGING THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CAL,.. FORNIA BEVERAGE CON- TAINER RECYCLING 3 D LITTER REDUCTION ACT TO INCLUDE WINE AND SPIRIT COOLERS WITHINTHE PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT AND_ ADVISING THE LEGISLATURE THAT IF IT DOES NOT PACT ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1,. 198.8, TO BRING WINE AND SPIRIT COOLERS UNDER THE ACT, THE CITY COUNCIL INTENDS TO PASS A LOCAL ORDINANCE RE(�UIRING A FIVE CENT DEPOSIT FOR WINE INSTALLATION AND SPIRIT COOLERS '1"O TAKE _ EFFECT ON JANUARY 1 0O1-04) 19$9 59-3 11/23/87 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley absent. AGENDA CHANGES/ ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Renzel, to bring forward Item 5, Supplemental Agreement re Landfill Gas Lease, ahead of Item 4, Analysis of Alternatives to Cable Television Pedestals._ MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley absent. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING BUDGET FOR FISCAL APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR A NEW POSITION TO ASSIST IN ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF AJ STORM DRAINAGE FUND (CMR:525:7) (701-03/1073) YEAR 1987-88 Director of Public Works Dave Adams said last spring Council considered various - options for financing infrastructure needs, and staff was instructed to establish a program to place the storm drain system on an enterprise fund basis. Council Member Renzel asked whether the Utility User's Tax would also apply to the storm drainage fund. City Manager Bill Zaner said n0.- The Utility User's Tax was specified to apply to water, gas, electric and telephone. Council Member Cobb asked whether the new position would remain a full time job even after the initial start-up. Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said yes because staff hoped to triple the Capital Improvement Program and there would be a need to administer consultant and construction contracts to do the capital work. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked for an overview of the pros and cores of having the initial work performed under a consul- tancy as opposed to adding a position to staff. Mr. Bagdon said. the staff position would need to be aug- mented by some consultant work. There would be a lot of coordination with other City departments and public outreach was important. It was necessary to have someone on board who could respond to questions on behalf of the City and be held accountable when the actual program was implemented. Vice Mayor Sutorius wondered if someone not identified with the full-time permanent position might make a more objective evaluation and recommendation. 59-4 11/23/87 Mr. Adams said the gross underfunding of the storm system in Palo Alto was already identified, so the basic need for _the storm drain program was well established. In addition, they were currently working with other agencies in the _County and the Water Quality Control Board on nonpoint source which would also be taken care of in the same pro- gram. The person would not be attempting to perpetuate or justify his own position. The work would include a program of tying in the annual maintenance throughout the City, , e.g. curb and gutter. Council Member Levy asked if the items for the budget amend- ment had gone before the Finance, and Public Works (F&PW) Committee. Mr. Adams said no. The basic subject went before the F&PW Committee, and staff then received instructions from the Council and were reporting back. Council Member Levy clarified the $36,000 was for the one position per se. Mr. Adams said yes, for half a year. Council Member Levy asked if there were any ancillary costs. Mrs Adams said those costs would be absorbed. The temporary work station would be adjusted with desks on hand, and other anticipated costs were aesociated with needed consultant support. Administrative support would be taken care of .with current assets. The consultant fee would be taken from the CIP for storm drainage. Bagdon clarified the CIP was defined ..to include the selection of the work of a consultant to assist the posi- tion. Council Member Levy asked the cost of the consultant. Mr. Bagdon said that cost was not yet available Council Member Levy referenced the timetable on page 21 of CMR:525 : 7, and asked if it would take from January to June, 1989, to develop the budget data. Mr. Adams said data to be entered by departments in their budget submittals needed to be available about one year from the present date. Concurrently, the person filling the position would be doing other tasks, such as preparing for the larger. CIP. 59-5 11/23/87 MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt staff recommendation authorizing the Mayor to approve: 1. Ordinance 3782 for $36,000 increasing the Public Works De partment/Engineering Division 1987/88 operating budget; and 2. The addition of one Senior Engineering position in the Public Works Department/Engineering Division 1987-88 operating budget. ORDINANCE 3782 entitled "ORDINANCE OF -THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION. FOR A NEW POSITION TO ASSIST IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF A STORM DRAINAGE FUND" Council Member Patitucci considered it a bad decision to add a permanent position to promote a speculative program. There- was nothing in the projections during discussions of infrastructure or at ' F&PW Committee about acquiring person- nel prior to approving the fund. The CIP was set up to\have consultants do the work, not to hire permanent staff. The Council should consider either referring the matter to F&PW Committee or voting "no." The full Council looked at the need for an infrastructure program and a financing mecha- nism, not the addition of staff. There was a problem if the program did not go ahead. If the storm sewer system was converted to a tee it was, in effect, a new tax on the pub- lic, and he believed there was a high probability they would postpone or even not go ahead with the program, and it would be jumping the gun to hire somebody to promote the .program. The approach was unfair to other City departments, and Public Works Department should stand up against the other departments in the budget process when it came to the addi- tion of permanent positions. He did not believe the program would be hurt by using consultants for a few months and con- sidering the position with the budget. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REF.FR: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to refer the item to the P&PW Committee. Council Member Levy seconded Council Member Patitucci's com- ments. In addition to being questionable policy to add a position outside of the budget process, the matter was com- plex, and he would feel more comfortable if it were directly the subject of a full hearing from the F&PW Committee. 59-6 11/23/87 Council Member Klein said that meeting was held in May, as indicated by the staff report (CMR:525:7). He would resist the effort to return the item to F&PW Committee. It was merely a delaying -tactic which would waste the Council's, F&PW Committee's, and stair's time. The'option was to vote "noW on the position4 He believed the staff recommendation made sense because it would save the City and the taxpayers more over the long run. They had approved, in concept, the idea of the infrastructure financing options for the storm drainage improvements, which the City desperately needed. The suggestion had been made many times that approving bud- get amendments other than through the actual.e budget process was wrong, if not downright immoral. He submitted that position was true but with obvious exceptions. The thought that a budget program approved in June of each year was absolutely sacrosanct for the remaining 12 months, ignored the reality that the world was fluid. They should do vir- tually all of their financial decisions in the budget -making process, but 100 percent represented a rigid and unwarranted decision. Staff made a good showing that to put the matter over to June meant a year's delay, which was uncalled for. It made sense for the program to go forward with somebody who would be there at the start and would not necessitate a relearning process. He intended to vote against the substi- tute motion and, if the substitute motion failed, to vote in favor of the main motion. Mr. Zaner urged the Council not to refer the item back to F&PW Committee. He did not believe staff would have new information. The costs of the program were anticipated to be paid by the tees. It was an identifiable service pro- vided to individuals where a fee could be levied in accor- dance with the Council's policy to attempt to collect fees. Should the program tail for some reason, it would be his intention to reduce the Public Works Engineering staff by one person by attrition. Council Member Bechtel agreed with Council Member Klein that the matter had been before the F&PW Committee, but they did not discuss the addition of a position. Council Member Patitucci made a good point. Council Member Renzel believed she would support the motion,, but she appreciated Council Member Patitucci's continuous. reminders of the amendments to the budget, particularly where they involved adding personnel. A major theme that ran through the -entire budget process was to- hold the line on personnel, and every department worked to pare down their budget. Additions -which -crept in mid -year were not com- pared with -the lull complement of tiie work force. 59-7 11/23/87 Council Member Klein said Council Member Renzei's point was well -taken, and he believed the F&PW Committee had watched out for that over the past year. They asked specifically during the budget process for the City Manager to bring forth in the spring the number of positions added during the year, and he believed the number tor the last fiscal year was one. Vice Mayor Sutorius did not subscribe to the belief there should not be appropriate alterations during the budget year. On the other hand, he asked what was to • preclude the the program being implemented at mid -year. A number of pro- grams did not start on the new budget year. Mr. Zaner said there was nothing sacred about starting at the beginning of the tiscal year but, in reverse, there was nothing wrong with starting the project at the present time and getting it moving. It was simpler to start projects at the new year when the City opened a new set of books, and it was easier- to do the billing when they started a new cycle. He understood there was about 15 to 18 months work, and waiting until next July would delay everything an additional six months. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Levy, Bechtel, Patitucci, voting l'aye, ° Woolley absent. Council Member Cobb clarified it was an enterprise fund and the new position would pay for itself because its cost was built into the cost of the program. Mr. Zaner said that was correct. Council Member Cobb said if the program did not work, then the position would no longer be justified. Mr. Zaner said that was correct. Council Member Cobb said if staff could show the Council at the next stage of reporting how the program would pay tor itself and, as it progressed, to show it was indeed doing that so the Council would know the position continued to be justified. Mr. Adams said the request was fair. Mr. Zaner said staff had a series of reports yet to go to the Council as the storm drainage was built. There were many steps to take before a utility was formed. 59-8 11/23/87 Council Member Cobb noted that his reason for supporting the motion was the position was designed to pay tor itself, and the Council would have ample opportunity to turn it off if not. Mr. Zaner made it very clear that it the program could not sustain itself, staffing in the department would return to its current level. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Levy, Patitucci, voting no," Woolley absent. 5. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 2 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LANDFILL GAS LEASE AND OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR CONVERSION SYSTEMS (CMR:534:7) (1113/1072-01) Council Member Renzel asked in the event an electrical gen- erator was built, would it be built inside the incinerator building, or would it be freestanding. It freestanding, she asked how big, where it would be, and whether it would go through site and design review_ Mr. Bagdon said the generator would go through site and design review, and staff would wait for the developer .to make a proposal. Currently, the developer was thinking of a free tandise :eui1ding, but they did not have a specific site; however,- it vas presently not next to the water quality -control plant. 1 Council Member Renzel asked if the generator would be in the middle of the park. Mr. Bagdon said no. Council Member Renzel meant on the parkland as opposed to the sewage treatment land. Mr. Bagdon said one possible site was close to the recycling area. Council Member Renzel said by L. nassirig the agreement, the Council was essentially committing to permitting some kind of a generator building to be built somewhere, . even if the" site and design was not satisfactory. Mr. Bagdon said in the agreement the developer needed to comply with all City regulations, which included going through a site and design process and all the permitting agencies involved. Council [Member Renzel asked if staff had any sense of the magnitude of a generating facility and how much noise it made, etc. 59-9 11/23/87 Director of Public Works Dave Adams could not define the magnitude but the proposal was not a new one for generating electricity. The full site and design process including noise ordinance compliance would be complied with. Council member Renzel understood as soon as the Palo Alto Landfill Gas Corporation (PALGC) -was reimbursed, the agree- ment would be terminated. It did not appear to necessarily terminate --it PALGC wanted to generate electricity, it could continue, Mr. Bagdon said it was a two-year option. The problem was the inability to determine the volume of gas off of the methane gas piping system. Once that occurred, staff would have a better understanding whether it was viable to proceed with electrical generation. In the meantime, PALGC wanted to be paid for the work done. Cinder the existing agreement if PALGC was paid for the work done, there was no opportu- nity to return, test the volume of gas, and determine whether it was economical to continue with electrical gen- eration. Council Member Renzel understood trying to encourage elec- trical generation but was concerned the City was "buying a pig in a poke" in terms of what the generator would be like and where it would be located. Essentially, the City was saying it would allow the electrical generation. If PALGC decided later shat it wanted to continue, the City would be presented with a proposal and Council would be told it made a contractual agreement. There would be heavy pressure on the Council to approve the proposal even if the generator looked terrible in the parkland. Mr. Bagdon said the "pig in the poke" was no different from the original agreement. There were no changes in terms of what regulatory commitments the developer had to make in order to get approval for an electrical generation station at the Landfill. Council Member Renzel asked what kinds of facilities were apt to be built for the methane gas. Mr. Adams said it would be similar to the facility in Menlo Park in terms of size but would be under the scrutiny of Palo Alto's site and design review process. The facility was essential -for the City of Palo Alto to gain control 'of the methane gas in order to continue complying with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) stringent requirements. The basis for the supplemental agreement was to keep the door open for future generation and be in com- pliance. 59-10 11/23/87 "-' 'ncil Member Renzel asked for a rough estimate of the Menlo Park facility. Mr. Adams described the facility as "a large garage," and said it was not a tall building. Vice Mayor Sutorius clarified if the option was not exer- cised, the City continued to have the option of determining how they valued the ga..s recovery potential and might deter- mine it was appropriate to site a facility in that location for the conversion of gas to electric, either directly or through a different party from the one whose option expired. Mr. Adams said that was correct;. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt staff recommendation authorizing the Mayor to execute the Supplemental Agreement No. 2 in conjunction with the Landfill Gas . Lease and Operating Agi eweizt for Conversion Systems. Council Member Renzel would support the ;motion but would be watching closely if and when such.e proposal carne before the Council, and she helped the Council -would not be told at that time that they made a commitment to build whatever came regardless of how it met the standards of site and design review in public park land. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley absent. 4. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES TO CABLE TELEVISION (CMR:528:7) (1141) PEDESTALS City Manager Bill Zaner said most of the additional cost data was provided by Pacific Bell after trying to determine how they would re -engineer the project should the City want to make changes. Three basic alternatives were listed in the staff report (CMR:528:7) , and staff's recommendation was to provide for a system which allowed the relocation of the pedestals to some location other than the front yard, public utility easement at the option of the homeowner. Council Member Cobb understood the devices were installed in a utility easement, which was possible because the Cable system was treated as a utility, He asked if the installers asked the hOreowrers for their preference within the ease- ment as to how and where the devices would be installed Cable Coordinator, Jeanne Moulton, did not believe the installers asked. 59-11 11/23/87 Council Member Cobb asked about vaulting the pedestals and putting them underground, and gathered there was difference of opinion in the industry as to whether that was reason- able. Mr. Zaner said technologically given enough money, time, and energy almost anything could be done. He introduced Les Page, the City's technical consultant on cable matters, who would respond as to the desirability of vaulting the. pedes tais. Mr. Page said there was a great.deal of reticence within the industry to underground electronic equipment, either taps or active electronics. It was done when the industry had little other choice, but he knew of no one who liked the idea. Mr. Zaner introduced Frank Riddle, Milton Knowland, and Chris Salkeld from Pacific Bell, and John Kelley of the Cable Co-op. Council Member Renzel asked if it was easier to locate the larger facilities in vaults than the smaller ones. Mr. Page said it would be easier if there was a large enclo- sure underground such as a manhole to enable work around the equipment, but it would be prohibitively expensive to build something that large. Council Member Klein asked if data was available from around the country with regard to undergrounding of the facilities in areas with underground utilities. Mr. Page said the percentage of underground areas using vaults as opposed to pedestals would be 10 percent at the most. Ninety percent of any underground systems used pedes- tals. Council Member Klein understood that it would be relatively easy and inexpensiveto put the tap pedestals in vaults. Mr. Page said yes. Council Member Klein asked why. Mr. Page said the easiest method was to obscure the tap pedestals with vegetation. Moving pedestals involved. -.cutting, splicing, and adding cable with subsequent increased signal deterioration, which was not the ..case .with -. the vault which went in place in the same location as the -pedestal. The industry average for the tap vault was about 59-12 11/23/87 $100 per site, but Pacific sell ' s figure might be higher because of labor rates, etc. There was concern about being able to promote the institutional network in the future because of system reliability concerns. Council Member Klein understood undergrounding the tap ped- estals would tot cause as many technical problems because they were not used so often. Mr. Page said yes, the tap was a passive device. There were no critical electronic parts in a tap as opposed to an amplifier or powered supply. :There were some increased maintenance problems because_ of the increased moisture of anything underground; however, when the residential tap was put into a vault underground, they would also be putting the institutional network tap underground. With high -cost critical police, fire, and radio circuits and critical finance information for banks, the potential users of the system had to be convinced they would received as good or better service from the service than the telephone company. When the system was more susceptible to deterioration and possible signal loss as,a result of being in the vaults, the typical user was not willing to take the chance. Council Member Klein asked why the underground telephone lines were not subject to the same problem. Mr. Page said the telephone company was a long, established industry. It might be argued that because the telephone company was involved in maintaining the system, that would apply to the cable as well. He believed the cable was just as reliable, but his experience in Portland, Oregon, was that it was next to impossible to convince users that was the case. In fact, a 1,000 -mile institutional network there was not being used, even for less -important circuits because of a few erroneous signals. Council Member Klein asked if Mr. Page had experienced other communities where there had been criticism of the above- ground pedestals Mr. Page said typically just about every community with an underground system was not happy with their pedestals. Council Member Klein asked what the usual result wasp Mr. Page said the City usually wrestled with the problem but decided the pedestals should stay. It was such a costly effort to respond to the few people who were concerned. 59-13 11/23/87 Council Member Cobb asked if the larger units could be underground but lifted out to be serviced. Mr. Page said low -profile vaults were partially underground and partially aboveground and were more accessible to work around. The rigidity of the cable used to connect the electronic units was such that it could not be lifted up and down; consequently, it was not practical for the -active electronics, i.e., the amplifiers and power supplies, to move them up and dawn for servicing. Council Member Cobb asked if coil could oe put in the cable so it could be moved up and down. Mr. Page clarified it was co -axial cable. Council Member Cobb believed it would be helpful to the Council to see what the low -profile pedestals looked: like compared to the larger units. He asked if there was any performance reason to avoid the low -profile units. Mr. Page opined the low -profile units were not low enough to take the objection away. They were a few inches lower but still stuck out of the ground about two-thirds of the larger unit. Council Member. Levy was concerned about the large amplifier and extender boxes. It was very expensive to put those underground and unless there was a large manhole, they needed to be aboveground. He asked about the flexibility in locating the larger boxes along a property line in the least intrusive place. Mr. Page said there were vaults big enough to handle the amplifiers since they were much smaller than the power supplies. The larger boxes could be moved. The average distance to move a tap to an obscure location was about 20 feet. The average amplifier and power supply move was about 40 feet, which included splicing in cable. The telephone company had not yet accepted the idea of splicing and it would be more expensive if all the cable leading up from the last amplifiers to the next amplifiers had to be replaced. Splicing was not the most desirable way to handle the situa- tion except it was probably the most economical. Council Member Levy clarified the only area presently cabled was the Leland Manor area. Everything else would be new cable. 59-14 11/23/87 Ms. Neff said that was correct. If Council decided to move the existing pedestals, PacBell would need to look at the total system to determine whether a system redesign was necessary to add additional line extenders and amplifiers depending on the total number of feet added into the sys- tem. Council Member Levy queried, excluding the Leland Manor sys- tem, if the City tried to work things out throughout the rest of the system so that the larger boxes were placed in the most hidden manner, whether there was enough "play" in the system to do so without incurring significant costs. Mr. Page said yes. There might be a couple of sites where it would cost as much as $1,].00 to put another line extender in at the end of the system to compensate for the additional cable link. PacBell was currently working with the Crescent Park residents to try to place the various taps and ampli- fiers in the most obscure location possible. Ms. Neff clarified the conduit was being pu71ed. No cable or tap pedestals had been set in the Crescent Park III area as requested, but because of undergrounding, the conduit needed to be laid for which the cable or the pedestal could be set. Council Member Bechtel said during the period where con- struction was halted in Palo Alto for the pedestal -type structure, it continued in Menlo Park. She asked about the response from neighboring communities. Mr.- Riddle said there were no official complaints and few individual complaints which could not be satisfied. He understood the build was completed in Menlo Park and Atherton and work continued in East Palo Alto and some parts of the San Mateo County. Council Member Bechtel asked why there were less complaints in the other areas. Mr. Riddle believed a more efficient system of notification was established including having some management personnel walk the area and receive input. The Leland Manor area was revisited and some pedestals were moved where possible with- out sacrificing the integrity of the system. There was also more vegetation in the Menlo Park .and Atherton public util- ity easements. Council Member Bechtel asked how many more pedestals needed to be placed in Palo Alto. 59-15 11/23/07 Ms. Neff estimated between 675 and 925 pedestals remained to be installed. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked how many more line extender and amplifier pedestals remained to be installed. Ms. Neff estimated that 40.line extender and amplifier ped- estals remained to be installed. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked whether the concern about degrada- tion or signal loss at an individual. subscriber location would generate a problem into the system beyond the circuit affected at the tap. Mr. Page said yes. Depending. on how the system was designed, once there was any interference with a signal, it would interfere with the signal throughout the system. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked about "air tight and water tight underground housing" referred to in the literature. PacBeli Project Manager Chris Salkeld was not a representa- tive of the channel corporation but referred to a system in Dallas, Texas, that used comparable water -tight enclosures where the taps had to he replaced because of deterioration on about five-year life span. If the soil and moisture intrusion were similar, the taps would need replacing two or three times in a 15 -year period. Vice Mayor Sutorius gave Mr. Kelley material out of the Cable Co-op proposal, Section 4, (on file in the City Clerk's office), recognizing the material was two years old and was submitted at a time when Heritage was going to also construct. The material included diagrams that depicted flush -mount vaults, and he asked if the City's system was considerably different from what might have been pictured in some industry material as opposed to specific design mate- rial. Council Member Klein asked for clarification of the answers to Council Member Bechtel's questions concerning the number of amplifiers and extenders. He assumed the amplifiers and extenders went on the poles in areas with the pole util- ities. Ms. Neff -said that was correct, the figures she gave were strictly for underground only. When ,,She mentioned the service area, she was including Menlo Park, Atherton, East Palo --Alto-, and :potions of San Mateo County, i.e., the. entire service area for the franchise. There was 100 to 120 miles miles of underground for the entire 'service area, of which Palo' Alto represented approximately 40 percent-, or 40 to 50 miles. Council Member Klein L'eferred to the differences between the line extenders and amplifiers and understood one would be much easier to put underground. Mr. Page said a line extender was an amplifier, and a power supply was electrical equipment providing electric power for the system from the power lines. The power supply was very dangerous to underground. The others were simply amplifiers and the boxes in the diagrams would house those. Council Member Klein clarified the amplifiers could be put underground with no problems. Mr. Page said the first problem with the power supply was more a personnel -risk problem. Electronic performance -wise, it was better to have the amplifiers in pedestals above than in vaults. He could not give a factor on how much better, but nobody in the industry liked to put active electronics, such as the amplifiers, as well as the power supplies, below the level of the ground. Council Member Klein clarified they were speaking to three types of pedestals. Mr. Page said four: A tap, a line extender, an amplifier, 'and ra-power supply. The power supply was usually located in the same space as the amplifier but in, two different hous- ings. Council Member Klein clarified the easiest to underground were the taps. Mr. Page said yes. Council Member Klein assumed for simplicity that the power supply and the amplifiers should be treated the same. Mr. Page said no, only as far as relocating them to make them obscure. Council Member Klein focused on the line extenders of which there were some 500 in neighborhoods with underground util- ities systemwide, and about 8 to 10 in Leland Manor. He asked the difficulty from a technical standpoint of putting those underground. Mr. Page clarified a line extender was an amplifier of -less size and capacity than a trunk amplifier, and they were treated the same. There was a reticence within the industry to put those underground becausE they were active.electron- ics. 59-17 11/23/87 Council Member Patitucci said the report talked in terms of the cost per unit as far as being able to move it or put it underground and seemed to imply that the cost might be paid by the adjoining property owner. He asked what it would cost system-widento place all tap pedestals in residential. areas in Palo Alto in flush mounted vaults. Ms. Neff estimated that to place a tap pedestal in a vault would cost approximately $275 per tap times 1,000 taps in the Palo Alto service area. There were certain unknowns such as the cost for discarding vaults already purchased and also the removal and replacement in the Leland Manor area where pedestals were already placed. Council Member Patitucci wanted Objective and unqualified answers. They were there to look at alternatives realist- ically and objectively, and he hoped Council was willing to face the fact they needed to correct the mistakes in the current system. He asked about the incremental additional installation costs over what was presently being done for undergrounding the tap pedestals in residential areas and the annual cost of maintenance. - Mr. Zaner deferred response to the contractor who was putting the system in. Mr. Salkeld believed the $275,000 installation figure refer- red to by Ms. Neff on a system -wide basis for Palo Alto was about as accurate as they could get at that point. The figure was based on the dollar figures put together for the Crescent Park and Leland Manor areas and they were now extrapolating that on a system -wide basis. The best estimate tor the ongoing maintenance costs might not be the answer being sought in that it was based on industry beliefs of two and one -halt times the cost of having an underground system as opposed to pedestals. If the two and one-half times was multiplied by the dollar amounts estimated by Pacific Bell for :maintenance of the 15 -year franchise, it was approxi- mately $40,000 per mile tor the entire 15 sears= Council Member Patitucci asked what percentage the $275,000 to $300,000 was of the total contract for the amount of work and the expense of the system being installed in Palo Alto. Mr. Salkeld believed $10 million was a ballpark figure and would stand for both the aerial and underground construction in Palo Alto. Council Member Patitucci clarified that Palo Alto would be about 40 . percent or a 5 to 6 . percent increase. He queried 59-18. 11/23/87. whether the increased costs for construction would translate into the cost of service. Cable Co -Op Representative John Kelley said with a $10 mil- lion capital cost for the franchise as a whole, and it Palo Alto was 40 percent of the franchise, it left $4 million for Palo Alto. If, on a system -wide average, 25 percent of the facilities were underground, it would cost approximately $1 million to construct the underground facilities in Palo Alto, and $275,000 would be approximately 28 percent of the capital budget. Council Member Patitucci said the entire City of Palo Alto might not want. pedestals in the future. Ninety years of undergrounding was coming forward and as areas were under - grounded, everyone would have to face the issue. • ln terms of the aesthetics of the community, it was a permanent decision. If the decision was not to have pedestals, he queried what the City wanted and what people ``sere willing to pay for. Mr. Kelley responded to Vice. Mayor Sutorius' question regarding underground flush -mounted vaults. Mr. Kelley referred to the proposal submitted several years ago and said there were two principal changes. The original proposal was for dual trunk, single feeder design. Based upon negotiations with PacBell, they built a dual trunk, dual feeder design and consequently the mileage for the second cable increased by a factor of about four. Probably the most important difference was that the second cable passed by every household in the service area. One of the differences between a cable and telephone system was that a cable system had a trunk design rather than a "star" design. As a result, a cable. system was somewhat like a sewer system in that when there,.were noisy inputs from multiple areas, they were com- bined and the noise level rose throughout the system at a rate which was probably geometrical to the number of noisy inputs. In a telephone :system, the noise would be isolated primarily on one line. As a result of building the .dual design, he did not believe the potential for the upstream noise ingress and also to some extent the downstream noise had increased considerably. He noted the construction manual included procedures, which would be followed, for the instal- lation of .vaults. The manual itself did not address the question of whether to construct vaults or pedestals. Sid Owen, 246 real ter Hays Drive, referred to the three cable pedestal alternatives outlined in the -staff report 59-19 11/23/87 (CMR:528:7), i.e., relocation out of sight, the use of less obtrusive boxes, and having cable underground in cement vaults. He believed the best compromise was to underground taps into_, cement Vaults and leave the larger boxes on top. The recommended option of relocating the boxes at homeowners' expense of $500 to $1,000 would not solve the problem because it was too expensive especially for the average homeowner who was already faced with $1,500 to ;5,00u for undergrounding utilities. It was also too expensive for owners of rental houses who were faced with the same costs and loss of income in the new tax laws. The chances of getting four owners served by each tap box to agree to contribute hundreds of dollars were not very good, and he was concerned about creating antagonism between the various owners. Hiding a few -of the boxes would not improve the appearance of City of Palo Alto streets. He believed the boxes could be undergrounded into cement vaults for the same amount of money it cost just to process easements before relocation was commenced. Regarding the possible loss of institutional business due to the reduced liability, if doing business depended on doing things right, the extra effort should be taken. He was advised by Scientific Atlanta that "rarely do the passive taps act up. It was okay to put them in flush vaults. They were the least likely to act up." He supported undergrounding. Kenneth Regenos, 1468 Edgewood Drive, believed there was no alternative but to underground. The vaults were the cheapest of the various alternatives, and he understood that $275 for four households included the cost of discarding the old vaults. To compensate for heat variations, etc., Mountain View's overhead lines contained a loop in their coaxial cable between every pole. He -lived .iii Crescent Park and was not aware of anyone in his area who had been contacted with regard to where they wanted pedestals. Leonard Ware, 1480 Edgewood Drive, was distressed by what was recommended by staff in response to the serious aesthetic intrusiveness upon the residential community. It was said to have been adequately demonstrated in other communities that flush -mounted concepts were available and usable. Palo Alto's contractor wanted to follow the path of least resist- ance where the costs were known and predictably profitable. The community looked to the Council for imaginative and crew- tive responses and they might need to go further than the staff report. It was a good opportunity for Council to pre- serve the residential quality of the co imunity and the tech- nology was available. 59-20 11/23/87 Floyd Kessler, 4272 Los Palos Avenue, agreed that pedestals were an eyesore. He lived in an area which was undergrounded. about 15 years ago. The sidewalk in front of his house was a vault which said "communication," and he was told the cable would be housed in that vault and that . he would not see it. He believed most of the people in Palo Alto wanted under- grounding. James Dobbie, 586 Center, was one of the five citizens invited to the advisory group meeting. Many of the same questions As were asked that evening were asked at the advi- sory group meeting and the information was unavailable in both instances. The citizens who participated i n the advi- sory group meeting were surprised by the lack of cost and service data available from the City, telephone company and the Cable Co -Op. He queried how much it post the City per homeowner to underground the utilities. The information was unavailable. When they talked about incremental underground costs, they needed to think of the money already spent hope- fully to improve the environment and visual impact on the City. He understood passive taps could be put underground - with virtually no deterioration in reliability but with some small impact in cost. The others could also be put under- ground with somewhat larger impacts in cost but also with little degradation. When discussing the institutional prob- lems, all of the emergency alert systems were 9-1-1 systems carried by underground telephone cables and irrespective of whether the amplifiers or taps were locatod aboveground, most of the communications were carried by underground wiring. He did not believe such arguments were valid. A process was needed to cross-examine some of the cost data being presented. Estimates from other companies indicated that $275 per installation per passive tap was very high and he recommended the City make a decision to flush -mount the pas- sive taps without any question, obtain better data on the active amplifier flush mounting; and have two more meetings of the citizens advisory group by which time he believed they could come up with a report which contained the necessary data to stand up to reasonable cross-examination. Jack Kelly, 1209 Dana Avenue, believed staff and Council were on the right track in terms of sensitivity and would presum- ably communicate with individual homeowners about whether taps should remain as they were or whether they should be placed further back. There was no reason not to underground the 1,000 tap pedestals. It was appropriate to more closely examine the more active electronics found in the line extenders and amplifiers. 59-21 11/23/87 Robert Hofstetter, 157 Lois Lane, asked about the maintenance schedule if pedestals were retained and all the paint flaked off in 5 or 10 years. He lived in the Erstwild district which had no underground cable. The residents were given the opportunity to underground at an expense of $1,000 to $5,000 per family but that area would not support underground util- ities at such an expense. Cable was strung along behind his back fence on a telephone pole. There would be no cost from the cable television standpoint but when it came to an adju- dication of what Council: would do for underground utilities in the Erstwild areas or other areas, there was a.hidden cost implication irrespective of the feelings of citizens like himself. Sue Dinwiddie, 543 Jackson Drive, said no one consulted with her in terms of placement_for the taps. She contacted many people in late August because of her concern about placement and several people responded to her by, passing her on to someone else. She was told there was little latitude in the placement of the boxes. She urged that the pedestal boxes be placed underground. Harry Sanders, 1456 Edgewood Drive, agreed with Mr. Hofstetter regarding the maintenance of the pedestals. He appreciated the comments by members of the Sounding Board. He was also told by the City that Pacl3ell an'd the Cable Co -Op were completely responsible for all answers. He urged that the job be cone right. s COUNCIL REC} $SED FROM 9:35 TO 9:50 p.m. Mr.; Zaner emphasized that the staff report (CMR:528:7) and its" recommendation was prepared with great concern for the problem facing the underground azea. The pedestal relocation alternative accomplished the same thing as undergrounding the pedestals in a vault in terms of aesthetics. Every dwelling unit in Palo Alto had an electric meter hanging on the side of the house, a gas meter with a large pressure valve next to it, a junction box where the telephone company went in, and, pressure valve facilities next to it. Such facilities toL service a home were not unusual and could be accomplished in Such a way as not to impact the aesthetics of the prop- erty. Once a vault was installed, it would still be neces- sary to trench from the vault through the property along the front or side lawn, lay the cable in the trench, go to the - side of the house and enter the house in some manner, i.e., drill a hole through the side of the house -and put the cable through, if one relocated the pedestal, it was only neces- sary to go from the street in the same trench in the front yard to a location somewhere on the property which was not objectionable to the property owner, terminate the cable at 59-22 11/23/87 that point in the pedestal where it was unseen, and pick the cable up again and continue on to the house and enter exactly the same way the other cable did. The advantage of moving the pedestals was not running the risk of difficulties with water seepage and moisture in an underground vault. He believed the relocation alternative was preferable to the contractor because the boxes were easier to service and it meant better,., integrity• for the system in the long run. The report recommended the costs be borne by the customer because the costs for other utilities from the property line to the property were also borne by the customer in Palo Alto. It was true that cable television had some different character- istics and some people might not want cable television where- as almost everyone wanted electricity, water and gas to their property. If the costs were assigned- to the consumer, they could either be paid by a flat cost or the contractor could figure out a way to include the cost into the rates so that the full cost of the system was borne by those using it. A third alternative was for the City to pay the costs but neither Palo Alto nor any other city did- that. He believed the recommendation was sound --it accomplished the aesthetic objective simply by moving the pedestals; -the system was not endangered "technically" because the moisture problem was eliminated, it was easier to do the maintenance work in the long run, and the integrity of the system was preserved. The question of whether Council wanted to cover some or all of the costs applied to either method. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to direct staff, the Cable Co-op and PacBell to: 1. Place the tap pedestals underground; 2. Staff to coordinate a report from the Cable Co-op and Pacific Bell to provide specific details and costs of undergrounding with respect to the amplifiers, power supplies and line extenders specifically answering the question how it would be done if it had to be done;. 3.. Study the question of who bears the additional costs of undergrounding the taps and possibly the other pedestals considering: a) increased user fees; b) absorption of the additional costs by PacBell and the Co-op; c) City contributions through accommodation of franchise fee; d) reduction or elimination of soave . of the features of the contract but in no event is an item for consideration of bearing the costs to be a charge to the homeowner on whose property. the pedestal in question is to be. located. In both cases the report shall be returned to the City Council in 60 days. 59-23 11/23/87 Council Member Klein believed it_was time Council recognized that having the tap pedestals aboveground was unacceptable. Aesthetics were not to be minimized because, to a significant degree, they were what Palo Alto was about. Letting things be ugly to serve a perceived need of technology seemed back- wards. To the extent possible, the comrunity should be aesthetically pleasing. He Baas_, persuaded by Mr. Page that the taps could be underground without sacrificing the integ- rity of the system. The only possible problem was the ques- tion of psychology which hardly seemed to be a reason to sacrifice _aesthetics. He heard no technical problem_ of having the taps underground. He did not believe the City Manager's comments were well taken. The taps were clearly and significantly different from any of the other utilities mentioned. It seemed that a person who had a tap placed on his or her lawn was "the winner" of a negative lottery. He preferred to see the amplifier, power supplies, and line extenders undergrounded but realized the technological prob- lems might be insurmountable, and Council should take one last look to see whether it was teasible. Even if the ampli- fier, power supplies, and line extenders could not be under - grounded, Council would have reduced the number of units aboveground by better than two-thirds which would be a signi- ficant accomplishment. The question -of who bole the addi- tional costs was difficult and he did not believe it. was addressed by the staff report. The costs needed to be spread more broadly than on a particular homeowner's property. The problem was real and the situation at Leland Manor was unacceptable. Council needed to move to a different system. Council Member Cobb supported the motion. He was struck by how ugly the Leland Manor installation was and confessed that if it occurred by his house, he would be upset. When Council tirst discussed the little green boxes, he did not connect with what the boxes would look like. It he had had a better picture at the time or seen it more clearly, he did not believe he would have'been as supportive. Basically, the issue _was whether Council should establish a new policy with respect to how to locate tap pedestals and the other items. The answer was "yes" with respect to the tap pedestals, and if possible, to put the other items below ground as well. Regarding who paid to fix those boxes which were already installed, he did not believe it was fair to make the people who were subjected to them pay, and the cost should be borne by someone other than the homeowners. With respect to the results of a new .policy to underground the tap pedestals and some portion of the rest of the equipment, his instinct was the ones who bought into the system ought to pay for it. He believed it was better to fix the system now rather than later. Regarding the institutional network users, it seemed. 59-24 11/23/87 a lot of the reluctance would be on the part of "bureaucrats" who would not want to risk their system. He could not resist the observation that Council was the boss of the "bureau-. crats" and should be able to make the decision. He believed the installation was insensitive and homeowners were not asked where the pedestals should he located. The job should be done right in the future. Council Member Fletcher supported the motion. She clarified the vault covers would be located in the easement by the sidewalk where the pedestals were presently located. She asked the diameter of the covers. Cable Coordinator Jeanne Moulton said the vault covers would be located in the same areas as where the pedestals presently were. The diameter of the covers would be 2 feet by 1 foot. Council Member Fletcher asked whether an attempt would be made to place the covers in More felted areas. Ms. Moulton said they would`. probably go exactly where the pedestals presently existed. The pedestal would go out and the vault would go in. Council Member Fletcher asked what the changes would do to the total installation schedule. Mr. Riddle said if they were talking about a 60 -day delay to figure out who would pay for what, the construction subcon- tractor had about one more week's work of undergrounding outside the City of Palo Alto, at which point they would expect the subcontractor to move back into Palo Alto to do the undergrounding. Any delay beyond next week or the week after, would cost standby time tor the contractor to get through the process or they would have t� dismiss the con- tractor and. recontract at a later date. A delay of _60 days would .probably require another 60 days at the end of the con- tract to complete the work. Council Member Fletcher asked whether the contractor -was also doing the overhead or just the underground. Mr. Riddle said the underground. The overhead work was a separate contract which was continuous in Palo Alto. One of the problems was that portions of the system beyond the undergrounding districts required finishing the underground district to connect it to the aerial portion. Council Member Fletcher asked whether the time for the report returning to Council could be shortened. 59-25 11/23/87 Ms. Moulton did not know what additional information might be expected from Pacific Bell. Mr. Zaner said staff would report back as fast as possible but he was unsure about the timing. The cost of delay was substantial and the question of who would pay the costs needed to be resolved. Council Member Fletcher said maybe the first part to under- ground the taps should be done. Regarding the amplifiers and line extenders, it did not look realistic to expect those to be undergrounded. She suggested the motion be divided so the installation could proceed with the taps and the full system in the undergrounding areas without holding it up for a report. Council Member Patitucci was previously skeptical about receiving realistic alternatives for underground vaults. He commended staff for the information provided in the report because he believed Council received a clear idea about what it would cost per vault. Even though the report might be inadequate in answering all of Council's questions, he appre- ciated the time put i n. on the report and it looked 'Ake Council was heading towards a decision to underground at least the taps. He hoped Pacific Bell -and the Cade Co-op could embrace the motion as a public decision and something which derived from citizens' responses to something they did not want. Council had to respond. He understood pedestals were easier to deal with and it was economically more desir- able out Council did not want them. It was important to somehow work toward a solution to the cost problem. Regard- ing the delay, if Council made the decision to put the taps underground, the only question in .the continuing process was whether the contractor could return and put in the under- ground vaults. It seemed to him the -vaults were an easier solution because they could be placed where they would not have to be moved around. The overall cosh of the system might be less. If the decision was already made, while -the the study of the other components was going ahead, the contractor could continue to work on undergroundingbasically with the idea that Council was just trying to figure out how to pay for it. He supported the entire motion Council Member Renzel said the issue took on a little more importance when contemplating it was a nonexclusive fran- chise. The City could potentially pee some proliferation of the facilities and it was important to address the problem early on and get on with trying to solve the problem. S9; .36 11/23/87 Council Member Levysupported the motion and said there was no question in his 'mind that the taps should be placed underground. It was cheaper, it looked better, and there did not appear to be significant technical problems. The ques- tion cf who should pay was where everyone should direct their concerns., If the taps were undergrounded, the costs seemed to be less than $75 per household which seemed to be a reasonable cost tor homeowners to pay in Palo Alto to ensure the aesthetics were maintained. The motion said to study the question of undergrounding amplifiers and extenders a little longer. He was willing to do so.even though he believed the answer was that they would stay aboveground. If they stayed aboveground, Council should not ignore that it might be a thornier problem than the tap pedestals because the ampli- fiers and line extenders were bigger and occurred on a random basis. Up to that point, the facilities seemed to have migrated to the homes with the most expansive lawns. He wanted two elements incorporated into the study: l) in rela- tion to amplifiers and extender:,- to -work closely with the homeowners if those boxes were aboveground so they could be on the least obtrusive part of the property; and 2) whether they could pay for added landscaping for those homeowners so that the larger facilities could be hidden. Council Member Bechtel shared Council Member Fletcher's con- cern about asking staff and members of Pacific Bell and the Cable Co-op to go through the process of jumping through hoops doing a study on an area where they already said it made no sense to put the power supply lines, power extenders and amplifiers underground. She did not believe it should be included in the motion. She requested that the motion be separated so she could Vote "no" on that portion. She refer- red to the three points concerning who bore the additional costs of the increased user fee; the possibility of the City doing something related to the franchise tee; and that in no case should the property owner who won the "negative lottery" of having the box on their property pay. The question was whether it was a fair mechanism, It might be that the costs would have to be passed on to everyone. Vice Mayor Sutorius was concerned about the motion because it appeared to be silent on the Area already covered. He took that to mean that Council was talking about the entire ser- vice area and he was bothered at the Palo Alto City Council making a decision than would be a blanket on the entire joint powers agreement (JPA).. He realized Palo Alto had the authority and that. it ;acted on behalf of the JPA but he knew of no Council Member who was contacted by any council col- league in any of the entities that were part of the JPA that there was a problem in. any of their communities. Pac8ell 59-27 11/23/87 .indicated- there were some individual customer complaints which to his knowledge were resolved. Staff had not indi- cated it received information regarding problems. He was told some areas did not _have cable television 'reception available to them of any particular quality, and they were getting undergrounding with pedestal television in nice areas, and they were happy. He did not want to see Council pass a moLion which was silent on the area because he believed procedurally it meant Palo Alto was speaking for the JPA. He also did not want to consider that a user fee was an appropriate way to offset the added costs if the user fee was spread either all over the area if they were dealing with the JPA nor was he inclined to spread it to the aerial -served subscribers in Palo Alto. The point was made that aesthetics were important and everyone benefited by improved aesthetics. Aerial service for electric, telephone and for cable televi- sion was not his idea of good .aesthetics and he did not -see that the aerial -served cable subscriber would be particularly responsive to finding out that cable television rates were increased in order that they would not have a pedestal but they would continue to have their poles-, wires and drops for the next 96 years. He- did not believe that was fair or right. He was also concerned about how good the numbers were. He queried whether the $275,000 was a number Council could use for..the cases which involved converting an existing tap pedestal to an underground vault or whether the number was a good one for that portion of undergrounding which had not yet occurred and they would go in with a new underground vault. Ms. Neff said the $275,000 was a cost to install where vaults currently did not exist; however, the. $275,000 was a good cost for the Leland Manor. There would be an additional cost for removing the existing pedestals and the discarding of the pedestals that were purchased. Mr. Kelley pointed out that the primary cost of the flush- mounts would not be in the installation out in the mainte- nance area and was estimated at about $40,000 per mile for the lift of the franchise for 40 to 50 miles. Vice Mayor Sutosius asked if the figure was an additional $40,000 per mile. Mr. Kelley believed that was an additional cost. Vice Mayor Sutorius understood underground already had a higher maintenance cost than aerial, and he asked the current estimated cost. 59-28 11/23/87 Mr. Salkeld did not have those figures but clarified the additional $40,000 for vaults would be over a i5 -year period. Vice Mayor Sutorius would not be able to support the motion. as it stood. He asked his colleagues to consider, if the motion was made tor a specific area, whether that was the way they really wanted it to be. MAKER AND SECONDER OF MOTION AGREED TO ADD LANGUAGE TO SECTION 2) OF THE MOTION THAT IF THE AMPLIFIERS, POWER SUPPLIES, AND LINE EXTENDERS ARE INSTALLED ABOVEGROUND, TO COME FORWARD WITH A PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOMEOWNERS FOR LOCATING THEM IN THE LEAST OBTRUSIVE PORTION OF THE EASE- MENT, EVEN IF IT MEANT VARYING THE LENGTH OF CABLE BETWEEN THE UNITS, AND TO CONSIDER METHODOLOGIES FOR HELPING THE AFFECTED LANDOWNER WITH ADDITIONAL SHRUBBERY Council Member Klein emphasized the motion was that the report return to the Council within 60 days, and an earlier return would not be objected to. In regard to the delay, the community would be living with the system for a long time, and the trade -oft seemed obvious and correct. Vice Mayor Sutorius's points were well -taken. He did. not have suffi- cient data to know if there was a problem in other communi- ties, and suggested it be`made clear the motion only applied to Palo Alto, but that staff be. asked to inquire from the neighboring communities in the JPA for their input on whether they had a problem and what they were doing about it. In regard to the user tee, he believed it would be fair in the sense the people who used the system would be benefiting to some degree at the expense of the remainder of the community. If the only way to get Cable service was by the placement of a large power supply which hampered somebody's property unless appropriately screened,- it was only fair and proper that the people using the system paid for that particular cost..' Many other things were not used equally by all people, e.g., not all users would take advantage of the government and public access to the system, but they would be paying for it in one way or another. The City offered many services that were not used by everybody, but it was . considered fair and appropriate for all to pay because they in turn used other services. The trade -oft worked because it made for a goad community. MAKER AND SECONDER OF MOTION AGREED TO ADD SECTION 4) THAT THE RECOMMENDATION APPLY TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ONLY. AND TO NOTIFY THE AFFECTED COMMUNITIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WISHED THE MOTION TO APPLY AS WELL Council Member Renzel agreed with the additions to the motion. She believed also with the long-term plan to under- ground more utilities, that it was not inequitable to spread the costs through the aboveground areas as well. In the long run, the aesthetics of Palo Alto would benefit.e She was also prepared to support another community if they chose to-do the same, Council Member Fletcher asked if the motion covered all resi- dential areas. She would like to limit the undergrounding,to not cover condominium projects like hers because two -feet tall pedestals could be placed in the shrubbery and would be unobtrusive. Vice Mayor Sutorius clarified the motion, as presently amended, applied to the entire service area of Palo Alto, whether residential or commercial. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED THE R-1 AREAS TUE. NOTION SHOULD ONLY APPLY TO Council Member Levy urged the maker and- seconder of the motion to reconsider the utility of making inquiries of other communities. If there were concerns in adjoining communities that affected Palo Alto, they would have surfaced to the Council. Council Mermber.Renzel believed that, rather than wait until other communities read that -those in charge of deciding upon the system had treated themselves dj fferently, Palo Alto should involve those communities in the same process up front if they wished to be included. Vice Mayor Sutorius concurred in a separation of the portion of the motion asking staff to coordinate a report to provide specific details and costs of undergrounding the amplifiers, power supplies, and line extenders. Council Member Bechtel was concerned that directing staff to explore ways of allocating costs and specifically directing that the homeowner could not be charged was inequitable related to the rest of the service area. She would like that instruction dropped from the motion in order for the pros and cons to be properly evaluated. Council Member Klein did not like the idea of a "negative lottery" and said it was not fair or appropriate that who bore the cost was purely by chance as to where one's house was on the map► particularly when that person might have no interest in having Cable TV. When speaking to user fees or franchise fees, he believed it was implicit in the motion he was speaking only to Palo Alto. 59-30 .11/23157 MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING RECOMMENDATION 12 OF THE MOTION RESTATED: To direct staff to coordinate a report from the Cable Co-op and Pacific Bell that addresses the following; a) to.,provide specific details and costs of undergrounding with respect to the amplifiers, power supplies, and line extenders specifically answering the question how it would be done if it had to be done; if the amplifiers, power supplies, and line extenders need to be aboveground, that latitude be provided that they might be located in conjunction with the homeowners in the least obtrusive portion of the property, even if it meant extending the length of the cable between the next adjacent line extender; and c) consider methodologies for helping the affected landowner with additional landscaping. RECOMMENDATION 12 PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Bechtel, Fletcher, Sutorius voting 'norm Woolley absent. RECOMMENDATIONS 1, 3, and 4 OF THE MOTION RESTATED: 1. To direct staff, the Cable Co-op and PacBell to place the tap pedestals underground in R -1 areas; 3. Determine who should bear the additional costs (to be discussed by the Co-op, PacBell, and the City) taking into consideration: a) increased user fees, b) absorp- tion by PacBell and the Co-op; c) City contributions through reduction ef franchise fees; d) reduction or elimination of some of the contract features, but in no event should there be a charge to the homeowner on whose property amplifiers, line extenders, or power supplies are to be located. The report to be returned to the City Council within 60 days. 4. That the recommendation apply to the City of Palo Alto only, and to notify the .affected communities to determine whether they wish the motion to apply as well. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved that to the extent that user fees were involved as a means of accounting for any of the additional costa, that a system of user fees be iden- tified which would apply to the underground subscribers and not to the aerial --served subscribers. 59-31 11/23/87 AN.ENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council. Member Fletcher urged the installers to work with the property owners as to the location of all aboveground instal- lations. Mr. Riddle assured the Council the installers would do that. Council Member Cobb was concerned that if the outcome of recommendation 12 was that the amplifiers, power supplies, and line extenders needed to be aboveground that the option was retained that they could be moved out of the easement into less -obtrusive places. Council Member Klein said that option was in the motion. Vice Mayor Sutorius said the material would return to the Council arid give them an opportunity to determine what was feesible and viable, _and in what way they would implement. He would support the motion so Cable Co-op and PacBell knew there was strong Council support for the primary concepts, not that he supported some of the details. RECOMMENDATIONS 1, 3, AND 4 OF THE MOTION PASSED unanimously, Wc.olley absent. Mr. Zaner wanted to ensure the City did not again commit the same error of not alerting people soon enough to the appear- ance and placement of the pedestals. He explained the vault was a plastic cover, 11 x 17 inches in size, and was green. In many cases since the pedestals were located in what appeared to be a person's .lawn--actually the utility easement --the vault would appear in the lawn. Staff would make every effort to get that information. to people so they knew what to expect. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked, for approximation purposes, if the vault was the same size and locatipn as the sewer access in the easement area. Mr. Zaner said it was in some cases. He was concerned people might believe that the .vault would appear in the same place as a number of other vaults. In some cases the electric and telephone vaults were in thesidewalk, but the subject vaults would be. in the lawn area as the pedestals were, 59-32 11/23/87 6. COUNCIL MEMBER ELLEN FLETCHER RE PEDESTRIANS,CROSSING THE EMBARCADERO OVERPASS AT BAYSHORE FREEWAY (1010) Council Member Fletcher said in 1968 the Palo Alto City Council passed an ordinance which prohibited pedestrians from going oh , the Embarcadero Overpass over the Bayshore Freeway. The ordinance was never observed and it was time to remove the prohibition. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance which -repeals Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.32.040, to legitimize walking on thc Embarcadero Overpass. Council Member Fletcher said there was no history of acci-- dents on either the Embarcadero Overpass or the San Antonio Overpass involving pedestrians, and the Police Department ,favored repealing the ordinance. Assistant City Manager dune Fleming said the Police Department saw no problems as the rules and regulations now existed; however, the regulations as they now existed pro- hibited walking so it was \not known what would happen if pedestrians were allowed on the overpass. She respectfully asked the Council to allow staff to do a further investiga- tion and report back. For example, staff would like a report on the reactions of the traffic engineers and Risk Manager. Council Member Fletcher said the Risk Manager was not in favor. He also believed that bicycles should not be on that or any other overpass, and he believed there was no sidewalk when there was. He had not found any accidents. She did not believe there would be any difference in the .pattern of pedestrians using the overpass, because she .did not believe many people knew there was an ordinance against it. There was no sign from the East Palo Alto side, and an low, un- obtrusive sigh from the Palo Alto side. Last year a pedestrian Was killed running across Freeway 101 at Embarcadero Road, and it was ridiculous to encourage people to run across the 'Lteewa i` because they could not walk on the overpass. She was not in favor _of asking staff to ,do any. investigation. She checked twice with the Police Department, most recently in . the last: week, and there wexe no accidents. There was no prohibition against pedestrians on the San Antonio overpass where there was a narrow sidewalk, and ne history ofaccidents there either. Peter Taskovich, 75.1 Gailen Avenue, believed the original ordinance was passed when the Oregon Avenue bicycle/ pedestrian overpass was built, but using that overpass was a time-consuming and impractical detour. He urged support of the motion. 59-33 11/23/87 Vice Mayor Sutorius did not believe it was appropriate to merely direct staff to prepare an ordinance, particularly when staff asked for the opportunity to include review and commentary. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to direct staff to report back on the effect of repealing the ordinance at the time the draft ordinance returns to the City Council. Council Member Bechtel proposed staff bring back additional information before preparing the draft ordinance. Vice Mayor Sutorius could accept the report and draft ordi- nance returning to the Council. He respected the staff input and would await it before deciding to vote on the ordinance. Council Member Fletcher did not know what other information could be forthcoming from staff. Vice Mayor Sutorius believed it appropriate that the City Manager and City Attorney have a.n opportunity to be aware of material concerned with repealing an ordinance, and to be satisfied that the bases were covered on the subject. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Fletcher voting no, n Woolley absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Woolley absent. 7. COUNCIL MEMBERS EMILY RENZEL AND JACK SUTORIUS RE RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR PALO ALTANS FOR CIVIC EXCELLENCE (705-S7-08) MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of appreciation to Palo &ltans for Civic Excellence (PACE) and agendized in recogni- tion of this outstanding voluntary civic effort. Vice Mayor Sutorius said the motion referred to the 14 founding members authorized by the Council to conduct and carry out the citizens committee for passage of Measure B and C. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 -Q-1, Mein "abstaining," Woolley absent. 59-34 11/23/87 ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned ,t 11;10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: