HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-07 City Council (16)City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Utilities
AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1997 CMR:177:97
SUBJECT:Approval of a Standard Form Dark Fiber Use Contract
REQUEST
This report requests that Council approve a standard form contract to govern the use of
the City’s fiber optic network. Approval of this contract will allow staff to negotiate fiber
optic license agreements with telecommunications service providers to meet the Council’s
goals of promoting the formation of a competitive telecommunications marketplace in
Palo Alto while limiting the City’s exposure to financial risk.
On March 11, 1997, the Utilities Advisory Commission reviewed a summary of the major
provisions of this contract.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report recommends that the City Council:
1.Approve a standard form license agreement for the use of dark fiber;
2.Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute the license agreement; and
3.Authorize the City Manager to amend the contract as necessary.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
In approving of the standard terms and conditions of the contract governing the use of the
City’s dark fibers by third parties, the City Council is, informally, adopting the new policy
of allowing third parties to use, directly, the fiber optic backbone portion of the City’s
electric utility infrastructure under prescribed terms and conditions. The City Council has
CMR:177:97 Page 1 of 4
the right and power to adopt policies and promulgate laws which, subsequently, may
modify the standard terms and conditions of the contract. Staff anticipates that a
telecommunications ordinance and one or more policies addressing matters not covered in
the standard contract, including, but not limited to, universal service and the use of the
public right-of-way only, will be presented in the future.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 8, 1995, the City Council approved funding for a Telecommunications Strategy.
Study (CMR:240:95). The overall goal of the study was to identify the best City strategy
for accelerating the pace at which high quality, low cost, advanced telecommunications
services are delivered throughout Palo Alto while limiting any negative impacts on Palo
Alto’s physical environment. On August 5, 1996, Council approved staff’s
recommendation for achieving this goal by establishing a Telecommunications Program
as a subfund of the Electric Utility and funding a positioning strategy involving Electric
Utility development of a dark fiber optic ring around Palo Alto (CMR:361:96).
Staff have since performed the initial activities necessary to implement the commercial
dark fiber optic license program. Although the preliminary design involved a single 15-
mile fiber optic ring with two fiber optic cables installed in parallel, Electric Utility staff
have enhanced the design by incorporating feedback from prospective users into the
design process. Without increasing the total cost of the project, staff was able to modify
the design to cover a total route of 26.5 miles with one or more 144-strand, singlemode
fiber optic cables (see Figure 1).
The new City fiber optic network design is a custom-configurable network backbone
consisting of a series of seven fiber rings that can be used individually or combined to
form larger rings. Portions of rings can also be used for point-to-point connections. The
end result will be a flexible dark fiber optic network that can be tailored to meet the needs
of many parties.
The construction project has been divided into eight phases. Completion of the first two
phases is targeted for April 1997. Completion of Phases 3-7 is targeted for June 1997.
Phase 8 will be deferred so that it can be coordinated with the formation of a new
underground utility district along Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road that is
planned for FY 1998-1999.
As a part of Phase 1, staff have installed over 4 miles of fiber cable. For the remainder of
CMR: 177:97 Page 2 of 4
Deferred until
Municpal
Service Center
LEGEND
¯ --- 144-Strand Singlemode Fiber Optic Cable
/
Indoor Splice Bay
.,,~,.~:.),,\Electric Substation-Based Splice Cabinet
Outdoor Splice CabinetAerial or Underground Splice Enclosure (Tentative) ’:"
’~1,, 11
Figure r- Enhanced Design for the CitY’s Fiber Optic Backbone
Phases 1 and 2, installations will cover the Stanford Research Park. These portions of the
City’s network will be available for license as soon as a standard form dark fiber use
contract is approved by the City Council.
The standard form contract included as Attachment 1 was prepared by the.City Attorney’s
Office and is intended to govern the license of the City’s fibers by telecommunications
carriers that have been certified as Competitive Local Exchange Carriers by the California
Public Utilities Commission. The major provisions of this contract are summarized in
Attachment 2. Staff anticipates that at least one prospective customer will begin licensing
fiber immediately after a contract has been approved.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this standard form contract will have no direct fiscal impact; however, it will
enable the City to begin receiving revenues when it subsequently begins licensing dark
fiber to telecommunications carriers.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act, an environmental assessment
was prepared for the Electric Utility’s overall dark fiber infrastructure project resulting in
a mitigated negative declaration. This environmental assessment (EIA-96-35) is included
as Attachment 2. It was posted in the San Jose Mercury News on November 3, 1996 and
made available for public comment through November 24, 1996. After no comments
were received, the environmental assessment was approved by the City of Palo Alto’s
Director of the Department of Planning and Community Environment and filed with the
Santa Clara County Clerk’s Office.
ATTACHMENTS:
o
°
Standard Form License Agreement for the use of Dark Fiber
Summary of the Major Provisions of the Standard Form Dark Fiber Optic Use
Contract.
Environmental Assessment - Installation of Fiber Optic Infrastructure. City of
Palo Alto, 96-EIA-35. November 25, 1996.
March 11, 1997 Memorandum to the Utilities Advisory Commission.
Excerpt from the Minutes of the March 11, 1997 UAC meeting.
CMR:177:97 Page 3 of 4
PREPARED BY:Van Hiernke, Senior Resource Planner,
Utilities Department
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
)f Utilities
~jly Manager
CMR: 177:97 Page 4 of 4
Attachment 2
Summary of the Major Provisions of the
Standard Form Dark Fiber Use Contract
Term - The contract establishes an Initial Term with a maximum duration of 15 years,
with an allowance for an Extension Term not to exceed 15 years, subject to mutual
agreement.
Termination for Convenience - The contract may be terminated for convenience by
the Licensee, effective upon 24 months prior notice and payment of a termination
settlement charge in most cases. The City may also terminate for convenience on 24
months prior notice.
Access - Connections to the City’s telecommunications infrastructure will be made
available via City-owned and City-installed "Drop Cables". One end of a Drop Cable
is attached to the City’s telecommunications infrastructure by the City and the other
end is attached to the Licensee’s property by the Licensee. Direct access to the City’s
telecommunications infrastructure is prohibited.
Title - Title to the City’s telecommunications infrastructure, other than that jointly
owned by the City and other parties, is vested exclusively in the City. Title to the
Licensee’s Property is vested in the Licensee.
Compliance with City Standards - The Licensee must: (1.) obtain all necessary
permits and approvals for construction of facilities in Palo Alto, (2.) relocate aerial
facilities underground if the Licensee’s property is or will be located in an
underground utility district, and (3.) obtain and maintain membership in a regional
notification center (e.g., Underground Service Alert - Northern California) prior to
installing underground facilities in the public right of way.
Scheduled Maintenance - The City may schedule and perform periodic maintenance
activities and shall provide the Licensee with advance notice of the time, location, and
nature of any work to be done that presents a risk of damaging the Licensee’s property
or interrupting the telecommunications services provided by means of the Licensed
Fibers.
Non-Scheduled Maintenance - The City, at its sole cost and expense, will perform
all emergency and non-scheduled maintenance and repairs. If the maintenance or
repairs are made necessary through the fault of the Licensee, the Licensee shall
reimburse the City for the City’s activities.
Annual License Fees - The Licensee shall pay the City a License Fee, within a
specified price range, that is based upon the license term, the total number of fibers
licensed, complete buffer tubes (increments of 12 fibers) simultaneously requested,
the total number of fibers, the route distance involved with the license, and the use of
the available route-diverse rings. A discount based upon the extent to which the
Licensed Fibers are used to benefit the general public (e.g., through universal service)
may also apply. The license fees will be prorated to reflect partial contract years and
adjusted annually to escalate with the local Consumer Price Index. Payments shall be
made annually.
Annual Drop Cable Management Fees - The Licensee shall pay the City an annual
Drop Cable Management Fee for the privilege of using the Drop Cables. The Drop
Cable Management Fee shall be waived for all Drop Cables less than 100 feet in
length.
One-Time Fees - The Licensee shall also pay the City: (1.) An Advance Engineering
Fee for the customized design of each fiber optic pathway requested by the Licensee,
(2.) An Interconnection Fee chargeable to the cost of installing Drop Cables, splicing
the desired fiber optic pathways, and any other services required to establish an
interconnection, (3.) A Disconnection Fee, (4.) A Right of Way Fee chargeable to the
City by any third party for the City’s use of that party’s right of way, and (5) Other
fees as maybe adopted in the City’s Ordinances or Utililty Rates and Regulations.
Security Deposit - Under certain conditions, the City may require the Licensee to
provide a security deposit equal to a percentage of the annual License Fee.
Assignment Limitations - The Licensee shall not assign or transfer this contract or
the Licensed Fibers to any Person other than a related party without the prior written
consent of the City. The Licensee shall remain liable for the performance and non-
performance of an Affiliate to whom this contract is assigned.
Attachment 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3..Contact Person and Phone Number:
Installation of fiber optic infrastructure
City of Palo Alto Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Van Hiemke, Resource Planner
City of Palo Alto - Utilities Department
415-329-2275
4. Project Location:Citywide - See routing in Figure 1
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Utilities Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
6. General Plan Designation:Various
7. Zoning:Various
8. Description of the Project:
Infrastructure to be Installed by the Electric Utility.
The Palo Alto Electric Utility will install "dark" fiber optic cable around Palo Alto that will in turn be
leased to parties that will provide telecommunications services for businesses and!or residents in Palo Alto.
Additional fibers will be reserved for future use by the City. The fiber cable is called "dark" because it
consists only of strands of glass without any light transmitters, receivers, or associated electronics. In
order for the fiber cable to be used to transmit information, this electronic equipment will need to be
installed by users or lessees. The Electric Utility owns the conduit and poles necessary to construct the
proposed fiber optic infrastructure and thus avoids the need for boring underground to install new conduit.
The routing of the proposed fiber cable installation, as shown in Figure 1, is about 20 miles in length, with
roughly 60% of the cable to be installed underground and 40% to be installed overhead on existing poles.
The fiber optic cable to be installed will be less than one inch in diameter. The Electric Utility will also
need to install splice enclosures that would be used to protect connections between fiber strands in one
cable and fiber strands in another cable. A single splice enclosure will contain individual compartments
that isolate the many pairs of fibers that are spliced together. Largely, splice enclosures will be sited
96-EIA-35
CPA-MSC
H
/
Webster St.
o
Louis Rd.
Alma SL
Park Blvd.
fwy 101
Arboretum Rd.
Birch St.
Welch Rd.Hanover Hanscn Way
Street, Road, Highway, etc.
Fiber Cable Routing
Potential Splice Cabinet Site
Figure 1 - Proposed Palo Alto Electric Utility Fiber Optic Infrastructure
96-EIA-35
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
indoors, underground, within Electric Utility substations, or on the messenger cable supporting the fiber
cables in aerial installations.
However, the Electric Utility may require the installation of no more than five above-grade splice cabinets
for junctions involving a large number of splices that may require frequent reconfiguration (e.g., 10-20
reconfigurations per year). Cabinets are required because underground splice enclosures are not desirable
in such applications. The Utflity’s experience with underground boxes and vaults has demonstrated that,
over time, they naturally fill with water. While underground splice enclosures can be designed to be
waterproof, frequent reentry degrades their ability to maintain a protective, waterproof environment for
the splices.
Although a final cabinet design has not been selected, the typical dimensions are 5 I"H x 30"W x 22"D.
The sites for the five proposed cabinets are shown in Figure 1, four of which would be located on City-
owned property or adjacent to existing Utilities facilities. Each site has been carefully selected on the basis
of their surrounding environment and the ability to screen the cabinets by landscaping around them. The
Electric Utility will limit the aesthetic impact of these cabinets by working closely with the City’s CIP
design consultant and adhering to the guidelines specified in the April 1, 1996 revision to the Utilities
Department’s Pad-Mounted Equipment Policy (96-EIA-10). In so doing, the Electric Utility will conform
to all of the standards of the Palo Alto Planning Department, the requirements of Chapter 16.48 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code regarding architectural review, and Urban Design Element Policies 1 and 3 and
Program 12 within the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1985.
Future Infrastructure that may be Installed by Lessees
The companies that lease the Electric Utility’s fiber will need to develop additional cabling and electronic
equipment to use the fiber as the backbone of a fully functional network. The California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) has certified 40 companies as facilities-based Competitive Local Exchange Carriers
(CLECs). Another 8 companies have more recently filed petitions to become CLECs. These companies
include long-distance phone companies, cable television companies, cellular companies, two local
exchange carriers, and various other telecommunications providers. These 48 companies as well as others
are potential lessees of the Electric Utility’s fiber optic infrastructure; however, it is unlikely that more than
a few would actually seek to provide facilities-based telecommunications services in Palo Alto by leasing
fiber from the Electric Utility.
In December 1995, the CPUC adopted a f’mal mitigated Negative Declaration (Commission Decision 95-
12-057) for the projects associated with the initial 40 petitions to provide facilities-based service. A
similar proposed Negative Declaration for the most recent 8 petitioners has been distributed by the CPUC
for public comment. It is anticipated that projects implemented by lessees of the Electric Utility’s fiber
96-EIA-35
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
optic infrastructure will be similar to those covered by the original Negative Declaration adopted by the
CPUC.
To provide telecommunications services for businesses and/or residents in Palo Alto, lessees may install
their own fiber optic, twisted pair, coaxial cables and/or wireless transmitters and receivers to connect end
users to the leased fiber optic infrastructure. In addition to the proposed fiber optic cable installation, the
lessees and/or the Electric Utility will subsequently need to install additional network equipment. Much
of this equipment will likely be installed indoors, underground, or in Electric Utility substations. There
may be a need to site some of the equipment outdoors in above ground locations. All above-grade
installations will be reviewed for siting, aesthetics, and design in conformance with Chapter 16.48 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding architectural review. All agreements allowing use of the Electric
Utility’s fiber optic infrastructure will require compliance with Chapter 16.48 of Palo Alto’s Municipal
Code.
Potential Infrastructure to Serve Large. Businesses and Institutions
The first lessees of the Electric Utility’s fiber will likely be competitive local exchange companies
primarily interested in serving the 100-200 businesses and other institutions in Palo Alto with the greatest
demand for low cost and high quality telecommunications services. As was the case with previous
installations in Palo Alto by companies such as Metropolitan Fiber Systems and MCI Metro, and in other
cities by these and other similar companies, the network facilities developed to serve large organizations
typically do not involve any above-grade installations. This is possible because of the type and small
number of customers involved.
Unlike residences and small businesses, large businesses and institutions have ample space on which
competitive local exchange carriers can locate network equipment such as splice enclosures, electronic
equipment, and backup power supplies. Because only 100-200 end users are involved, the amount of
network equipment to be installed is limited. To avoid the difficulties of siting above grade network
equipment in urban areas, it is common industry practice for such carriers to site all their network
equipment indoors and/or underground in boxes or vaults. For this reason, the impact of such networks
is negligible.
Potential Infrastructure to Serve Residences, Small Businesses, and Others
The most likely near-term installation to serve residents and/or small businesses would be an upgrade of
CaNe Co-op’s coaxial cane infrastructure to a "hybrid fiber-coax" (HFC) network via fiber optic cable that
may be leased from the Electric Utility. To develop such a network, an estimated 20-200 HFC nodes
would need to be sited in Palo Alto. An HFC node converts optical signals carried over the fiber optic
cable to electrical signals carried over the coaxial cable, and vice versa. A variety of HFC node designs
96-EIA-35
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
currently exist, with many more under development. One typical design offered by a number of vendors
can be mounted on the overhead messenger cable to which existing coaxial cable is lashed. Figure 2
depicts a typical installation of one such design. The dimensions of the HFC node design shown in Figure
2 are 10"H x 12"W x 8"D. As one element of complying with City of Palo Alto standards, the Utilities
Department will ensure that the HFC nodes of lessees shall be no larger than 24" x 12" x 12". Any
agreement allowing the use of the Electric Utility’s fiber optic infrastructure will be contingent on the
lessee satisfying this requirement.
Although not necessary for operation, the reliability of an HFC network may be enhanced by feeding the
pole-mounted HFC nodes with pole-mounted batteries that provide a limited duration backup power
supply. A typical battery installation currently involves three batteries, each of which is roughly the size
of a car battery. To support a trend toward improved reliability, however, it is important to allow for the
installation of as many as six batteries should the lessee seek to provide this level of reliability. As one
element of complying with City of Palo Alto standards, the Utilities Department will ensure that, if
batteries are used to feed the HFC nodes of lessees, the group of batteries shall be pole-mounted and shall
have outside dimensions no larger than 38" x 26" x 16". All agreements allowing the use of the Electric
Utility’s fiber optic infrastructure will be contingent on the lessee satisfying this requirement.
Although unlikely, it is possible that a second company would seek to build a new network to deliver
services to residents and small businesses by leasing fiber from the Electric Utility and installing new fiber
optic cable, coaxial cable, or twisted pair cables to reach customer premises throughout Palo Alto. Because
the cost of the fiber backbone is a small fraction (less than 10%) of the overall cost of constructing such
a network, it is unlikely that the presence of the Electric Utility’s fiber backbone would significantly
influence such a business decision. In the event that a potential lessee sought to construct such a network,
the project would first be reviewed for siting, aesthetics, and design in conformance with Chapter 16.48
of the Palo Alto Municipal 12ode regarding architectural review. All agreements allowing use of the
Electric Utility’s fiber optic infrastructure will require compliance with Chapter 16.48 of Palo Alto’s
Municipal Code.
Summary. of Project,Impacts
In summary, on the basis of the discussion above, this project will not result in a significant environmental
impact because:
The above-grade infrastructure to be installed the Electric Utility as a part of the project described
above is limited to roughly 8 miles of fiber optic cable installed on poles with existing cables,
messenger cable-mounted splice enclosures, and no more than five above-grade splice cabinets. By
adhering to the April 1, 1996 revision to the Utilities Department’s Pad-Mounted Equipment Policy
96-EIA-35
HFC NODE
Figure 2 - Typical pole-mounted Hybrid Fiber-Coax (HFC) node
installation. Although not included in the scope of
the current project, such installations could
foreseeably be used to upgrade Cable Co-op’s existing
coaxial cable infrastructure.
96-EIA-35
EN VIR ONMEN TA L CHE CKL IS T F 0 RM
(96-EIA-10) and conforming to all of the standards of the Palo Alto Planning Department, the
requirements of Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding architectural review, and
Urban Design Element Policies 1 and 3 .and Program 12 within the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
1980-1985, the Electric Utility will ensure that any direct environmental impacts are reduced to less
than significant.
Additional infrastructure anticipated to be developed by lessees to reach the 100-200 businesses with
the most significant telecommunications demand will not involve any above-grade infrastructure.
Thus, such a follow-on project would not have significant environmental impacts.
The only likely additional near-term development by a lessee to reach residential and small business
customers would be an upgrade of Cable Co-op’s existing infrastructure, involving the installation
of 20-200 pole-mounted HFC nodes and possibly pole-mounted batteries. Any agreement for the use
of the Electric Utility’s fiber optic infrastructure for such a follow-on project will be contingent upon
subsequent infrastructure development for the follow-on project conforming to all of the standards
of the City of Palo Alto, including conformance with Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
regarding architectural review. As one element of conforming to these standards, the Utilities
Department will ensure that HFC nodes and batteries are pole-mounted and no larger than 24" x 12"
x 12" and 38" x 26" x 16", respectively. Due to the approvals required for such a follow-on project,
any potential impacts can be reduced to less than significant.
Any agreements for the use of the Electric Utility’s fiber optic infrastructure for any other follow-on
projects involving additional infrastructure development will also be contiagent upon the lessee
conforming to the requirements of Chapter 16.48 of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code regarding
architectural review. Given this design review process, any impacts of additional infrastructure can
be reduced to less than significant.
Therefore, although a project of this nature could lead to significant aesthetic impacts, this project will not
because of the design review and approval process to which the Electric Utility and all lessees of the
Electric Utility’s fiber optic infrastructure will be required to adhere.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
Citywide.
96-EIA-35
ENVIRONMENTAL CHE CKLIS T FORM
10.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement).
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Water Noise
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and
Circulation
Utilities and Service
Systems
X Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
:.
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.X
96-EIA-35
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Project Planner Date
Director of Planning & Community Environment Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except ’2qo Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information
sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-
specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe
the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
96-EIA-35
5)
6)
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed
in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.
genera! plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant pact ......
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils
or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major
infrastructure?
c)
a)
b)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
1
1,2
6(B-l)
6(B-l)
6(B-l)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?1
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fault rupture?3, 4, 5 X
Seismic ground shaking?3, 4, 5 X
3,4,5 X
3,4,5,X
6(B-6)
96-EIA-35
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant pact
Impact
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
3,4,5
3,4,5
3,4,5,
6(B-6)
X
X
X
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?.
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water supplies?
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or
projected air quality violation?
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any
change in climate?
a)5,X
6(B-7)
b)5,X
6(B-7)
c)5,X
6(B-7)
d)5, 6 X
e)5, 6 X
~5 x
g)
h)
i)
5
5
5
6(B-5)
7
7
X
X
o
b)
c)
X
X
X
X
96-EIA-35
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact INo
Impact
d)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Create objectionable odors?7
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?8, 9
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or 8, 16
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment))?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?8
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?8
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?8, 16
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 8, 9
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or
birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
6
(B-12)
6
(B-12)
6
(B-12)
6
(B-7)
6
(B-12)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?10 X
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 10 X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 10 X
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of
the State?
96-EIA-35
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b)
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
d)
e)
10.
a)
b)
I1.
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of
trees?
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
Increase in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
6
(B-8)
(B-9)
13
6
(B-8)
(B-9)
6
03-8)
(B-9)
13
6(8-4)
6(B-4)
X
X
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?13
b) Police protection?14
c) Schools?!5
d) Ma!ntenance of public facilities, including roads?2 X
e) Other governmental services?15
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?2, 12 X
b) Communications systems?12 X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?12, 15 X
d) Sewer or septic tanks?12, 15 X
96-EIA-35
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
e) Storm water drainage?
t) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
12, 15
12, 15
12, 15
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ~Vould the proposal:
6
(B-15),
11
11, 12,
16
11,12
X
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d)
e)
Have the potential to cause a physicai change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
(B-14)
(B-14)
(8-14)
(B-14)
(B-14)
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(B-11)
16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
96-EIA-35
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incoeporated
Less Than No
Significantlmpact
I Impact
a)17 X
b)
c)
d)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
17
17
17
X
X
X
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the
fol!owing items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts .adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or ref’med from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the
project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom
v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofffv. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
96-EIA-35
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995; Land Use Map (1981-1992), Land Use Element (1981), Urban Design Element
(I 981) and Environmental Resources Element (1981).
2 City of Palo Alto Utilities Rules and Regulations.
3 Required compliance with UBC Standards for seismic safety.
4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology and Seismic Technical Report; 1994.
5 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pages 65-72; 198 I.
6 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, Maps B-l, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9,
B-1 !, B-12, B-13, and B-14; 1994.
7 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Air Quality Technical Background Report, pages 15-30; 1994.
8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Transportation Element; 1981.
9 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study -- A Summary, City of Palo -Alto; 1990.
10 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element, pages 50-60; 1981.
11 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Urban Design Element, pages 42-49; 1981.
12 California Public Utilities Commission Decision 95-12-057 -, Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared on Behalf of
40 Petitioners to Become Facilities-Based Competitive Local Exchange Carriers; December 1995.
13 City of Palo Alto Fire Department
14 City of Palo Alto Police Department
15 Jim Gilliland, Assistant Chief Planning Official
16 Revision to Pad Mounted Equipment Policy, 96-EIA-10; April 1996.
17 Answer substantiated through the responses provided for items 1-16:
96-EIA-35
19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
l b Land Use and Planning
4c, 4f,
4g, and
4h
Setting
At present, the City of Palo Alto Utility Rules and Regulations discourage aerial installation of new utility cables. An
undergrounding schedule is being implemented by the Utilities Department with the goal of eventually placing a!l aerial
cables underground.
Roughly 40% of the proposed fiber optic cable infrastructure will involve aerial installation on existing poles. The other
60% of the fiber optic infrastructure will be installed underground in existing conduit. While the aerial installations are not
consistent with the City’s long-term goal of undergrounding all utilities, aerial installations will only occur in areas with
existing aerial facilities. The impact of an additional one or two cables is minimal. Any aerial fiber optic cables will be
undergrounded simultaneously with the other cables located on the same poles.
Mitigation
No mitigation is required.
Water
Setting
Palo Alto is located adjacent to the San Francisco Bay and the San Francisquito Creek. The groundwater below Palo Alto
is separated into a shallow region and a deep region. The groundwater in the deep region is used as an emergency supply
of potable water for Palo Alto.
Although the proposed project will not require directional boring, subsequent projects by lessees may require directional
boring to extend telecommunications facilities to or from the Electric Utility’s fiber optic infrastructure. Properly
implemented, directional boring has minimal impacts on the surface water and groundwater in the vicinity of the project.
Materials removed during the directional boring must be removed from the project site and disposed of properly.
Directional boring will not penetrate the deep groundwater region and thus will not impact the potable groundwater in that
region.
Mitigation Measures,
No mitigation is required.
96-EIA-35
6a and
6b
10a
lld
Transportation / Circulation
Setting
Palo Alto is an urban environment frequented by pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic. Underground vaults, manholes,
and other substructures are currently constructed to minimize tripping hazards and bicycle impediments. Pad mounted
equipment is currently reviewed on an individual basis, as pad mounted equipment is proposed and installed, to minimize
any impacts on transportation safety.
[m_m~acts
As with existing underground structures, any future substructures developed by the Electric Utility and/or lessees of the
Electric Utility’s fiber to access underground conduit and/or to house network equipment will be constructed such that the
top surface is flush with the ground so that it wi!l not be a tripping hazard or bicycle impediment. The pad mounted
equipment review process wil! ensure that when the five cabinets shown in Figure 1 are sited, the placement of those
cabinets will not cause any safety hazards associated with potential limitations of the sight distance for drivers as they enter
or exit the public right-of-way.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Noise
Setting and Impacts
Although the proposed project wilt not require directional boring, subsequent projects by lessees may require directional
boring to extend telecommunications facilities to or from the Electric Utility’s fiber optic infrastructure. Such directional
boring would temporarily increase existing noise levels. However, the impact is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Public Services
Setting
The Public Works Department currently has a policy requiring directional boring under sidewalks for the installation of
new telecommunications conduit in Palo Alto. This policy prevents the degradation of streets and sidewalks associated
¯ with trenching techniques.
Im_~pacts
The Electric Utility and/or lessees of the Electric Utility’s fiber may need to install new conduit for the purpose of
extending fiber optic or other cables from end user locations to the Electric Utility’s proposed fiber optic infrastructure.
Any such installations will conform to the directional boring policy established by the City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department. Before an entity (Electric Utility or lessee) performs such an installation, that entity will be required to secure
the necessary permits for the installation from the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department, which will involve
complying with al! Public Works policies and standards that are relevant for the installation.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
96-EIA-35
12b
13b
Utilities and Service Systems
Setting
One of the purposes for the Electric Utility proposing to install fiber optic infrastructure is t,o promote telecommunications
competition by encouraging new entrants to offer services in the Palo Alto telecommunications marketplace.
New telecommunications service providers will develop new telecommunications net~vork facilities and may need to
interconnect with existing telecommunications service providers. This may require reconfiguration of existing
communications systems; however, the Electric Utitity’s efforts should coordinate the activities of multiple service
providers, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation MEasures
No mitigation is required.
Aesthetics
S..e.tting and l.mpacts
While the majority of the proposed fiber optic cable installation will be underground, a portion will be overhead on existing
utility poles. The overhead fiber cables will be visible from the ground, but will not have a significant aesthetic impact.
Splice enclosures will also be installed by the Electric Utility and/or lessees to connect fiber strands between cables and to
allow interconnection with lessees’ fiber cables. To the extent possible, splice enclosures will be sited indoors,
underground, within Electric Utility substations, or on the messenger cable supporting the fiber cables in aerial
installations.
In some instances, however, the Electric Utility will submit a request to the Planning Department for a permit for above-
grade splice cabinets that are necessary for junctions involving a very large number of splices. For this project, permits will
be requested for no more than five such cabinets. The sites for the five proposed cabinets are shown in Figure 1. The
Electric Utility will limit the aesthetic impact of these cabinets by working closely with the City’s CIP design consultant
and adhering to the guidelines specified in the April 1, 1996 revision to the Utilities Department’s Pad-Mounted Equipment
Policy (96-EIA-10). In so doing, the Electric Utility will conform to all of the standards of the City of Palo Alto, the
requirements of Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding architectural review, and Urban Design Element
Policies I and 3 and Program 12 within the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1985.
In addition to the construction associated with the proposed project, the lessees and/or the Electric Utility will subsequently
need to install additional network equipment. To the extent that such equipment is installed indoors or in underground
locations, there will not be a negative aesthetic impact. As described above in the project description, any reasonably
foreseeable lessee requests for the installation of above-grade network equipment will constitute projects having a less than
significant environmental impact. To ensure that the impact is less than significant, all above-grade equipment in locations
other than Electric Utility substations will be reviewed for siting, aesthetics, and design in conformance with Chapter 16.48
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding architectural review. All agreements allowing use of the Electric Utility’s fiber
optic infrastructure will require compliance with Chapter 16.48 of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measures
Projects involving above-grade network equipment will require design review and approval as described above.
96-EIA-35
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DATED /~/~, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF
PROPERTY KNOWN AS C I TYbO I~g , PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA,
AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.
nature Date
96-EIA-35
ATTACH~IENT 4
6. b
MEMORANDUM
TO:Utilities Advisory Commission
FROM:Utilities Department
AGENDA DATE:March 11, 1997
SUBJECT:Update on the City’s Fiber Optic Network
REQUEST
This is an informational report intended to update the UAC on the progress of the City’s fiber
optic network project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are no recommendations and no UAC action is required.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This report requests no action at this time and, therefore, has no policy implications.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 8, 1995, the City Council approved funding for a Telecommunications Strategy Study
(CMR:240:95). The overall goal of the study was to identify the best City strategy for
accelerating the pace at which high quality, low cost, advanced telecommunications services are
delivered throughout Palo Alto while limiting any negative impacts on Palo Alto’s physical
environment. On August 5, 1996, Council approved staff’s recommendation for achieving this
goal by establishing a Telecommunications Program as a subfund of the Electric Utility and
funding a positioning strategy involving Electric Utility development of a dark fiber optic ring
around Palo Alto (CMR:361:96):
Staff have since performed the initial activities necessary to implement the commercial
telecommunications program as a dark fiber optic infrastructure license program. Although the
preliminary design involved a single 15-mile fiber optic ring with two fiber optic cables installed
in parallel, Electric Utility staff have enhanced the design by incorporating feedback from
prospective users into the design process. Without increasing the total cost of the project, staff
were able to modify the design as shown in Figure 1.
CMR:~:97 Page 1 of 4
Municpal
Service Center
AA
Deferred until FY1~)8-99
STANFO RD
\
----144-Strand Singlemode Fiber Optic Cable
Indoor Splice Bay
Electric Substation-Based Splice Cabinet
Outdoor Splice Cabinet
Aerial or Underground Splice Enclosure (Tentative)
Figure 1 - Enhanced "FiberNet" Backbone Design
This new "FiberNet" design is a custom-configurable network backbone consisting of a series of
seven fiber rings that can be used individually or combined to form larger rings. Portions of
rings can also be used for point-to-point connections. The end result will be a flexible dark fiber
optic network that can be tailored to meet the needs of many parties.
When completed, the FiberNet will traverse a total route of 26.5 miles. Each segment of the
backbone will consist of one or more 144-strand, singlemode fiber optic cables. Splice
enclosures located at junctions between segments of fiber cables will be the locations at which
one or more licensees will gain access to the FiberNet via separate "drop cables" installed by the
Electric Utility at the expense of the licensee(s). The Electric Utility wil! connect one end of a
drop cable to the FiberNet at a splice enclosure and extend the other end to a location specified
by a licensee. Splice enclosures located at junctions between three or more fiber cables will also
enable the Electric Utility to custom-configure fiber optic pathways on demand. As shown in
Figure 1, the Electric Utility’s electric substations will be used extensively as the sites for major
junctions on the FiberNet.
The construction project has been divided into 8 phases. Staffwill complete the first two phases
in-house and select a contractor to complete Phases 3-7. Completion of the first two phases is
targeted for April 1997. Completion of Phases 3-7 is targeted for June 1997. Phase 8,
connecting the Hopkins Substation (Junction BB) to the East Meadow Substation (Junction AD)
via Middlefield Road, will be deferred so that it can be coordinated with the formation of a new
underground utility district along Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road that is planned for
FY 1998-1999.
As a part of Phase 1, staff have installed over 4 miles of fiber cable, starting at the Digital
Equipment Corporation’s Internet Exchange located at 529 Bryant Street (Junction AX) and
extending south to the Alma Substation (Junction AT), the Park Boulevard substation (Junction
AN), and terminating near the intersection of Alma Street and San Antonio Road (Junction AF).
For the remainder of Phases 1 and 2, staff’s installations will also cover the Stanford Research
Park, including the Hansen Way Substation (Junction AL), the Hanover substation (Junction
AK), the Maybell Substation (Junction AG), and a connection to the East Meadow Substation
(Junction AD). These portions of the FiberNet will be available for license as soon as a standard
form dark fiber use contract is approved by the City Council.
Major Provisions,,,,of the Standard Form Dark Fiber Use Contract
Staffhave met with a number of parties that are interested in licensing fiber from the City. Staff
anticipates that at least one prospective customer will begin licensing fiber as soon as a contract
has been approved. The City Attomey’s Office is nearing completion of a standard form contract
intended to govern the license of fibers on the FiberNet by telecommunications carriers that have
been certified as Competitive Local Exchange Carriers by the California Public Utilities
Commission. The major provisions of this contract are summarized in Attachment 1. Staffwill
seek City Council approval of this contract as soon as it is completed.
CMR:m:97 Page 3 of 4
FISCAL IMPACT
Since no action is requested, there is no direct fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act, an environmental assessment was
prepared for the Electric Utility’s overall dark fiber infrastructure project resulting in a mitigated
negative declaration. This environmental assessment (EIA-96-35) is included as Attachment 2. It
was posted in the San Jose Mercury News on November 3, 1996 and made available for public
comment through November 24, 1996. After no comments were received, the environmental
assessment was approved by the City of Palo Alto’s Director of the Department of Planning and
Community Environment and filed with the Santa Clara County Clerk’s Office.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Major Provisions of the Draft Standard Form Contract for the Use of Dark Fibers by
Certified Telecommunications Carriers.
Environmental Assessment - Installation of Fiber Optic Infrastructure. City of Palo Alto,
96-EIA-35. November 25, 1996.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
Van Hiemke, Senior Resource Planner, Utilities Dept.
Tom Habashi, Assistant Director, Utilities Department
Edwar~f. Mrizek /~ (
Dire~or of Utilities
CMR:__:97 Page 4 of 4
STANDARD FORM
DARK FIBER USE CONTRACT
Summary of Major Provisions
ATTACHMENT 1
TERM AND TERMINATION
~ Term - The contract establishes an Initial Term of a duration that is negotiable by the parties,
with an allowance for two Extension Terms, subject to mutual agreement.
Termination for Convenience - The contract may be terminated for convenience by either
Party, effective upon 12 months prior notice. If terminated for convenience by the
LICENSEE, the LICENSEE must first pay a termination settlement charge.
CITY’S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE
~ Infrastructure Description - The fiber optic cables irdtially installed in the backbone consist
of 144 strands of singlemode fiber, assembled in 12 groups of 12 fibers, with each group
contained within a separate "buffer tube". Fiber cables are interconnected in splice
enclosures and!or patch panels located at junction sites. The CITY may modify the fiber
optic network from time to time. Connections to the CITY’s telecommunications
infrastructure will be made available via CITY-owned and CITY-installed "Drop Cables".
One end of such a Drop Cable is attached to the CITY’s telecommunications infrastructure
by the CITY and the other end of which is attached to the LICENSEE’s property by the
LICENSEE. Direct access to the CITY’s telecommurdcations infrastructure is prohibited
unless first authorized by the CITY.
Licensed Fibers - At any time, the LICENSEE may request the addition or removal of fibers
to its inventory of Licensed Fibers, subject to limitations on fiber availability at the time a
fiber addition request is made or payment of a termination payment for removal of Licensed
Fibers.
Coordination Among Users of the CITY’s Dark Fiber - If determined to be necessary by
the CITY, the LICENSEE shall coordinate its construction activities with other Persons
authorized to use any of the CITY’s other dark fibers.
Title - Title to the CITY’s telecommunications infrastructure, other than that jointly owned
by the City and other parties, is vested exclusively in the CITY. Title to the LICENSEE’s
Property is vested in the LICENSEE.
LICENSEE’S PROPERTY
I~ Location of Facilities - The LICENSEE shall obtain all required permits for locating its
property in the public right of way and shall not locate facilities in public utility easements or
the CITY’s licensed service properties. The LICENSEE’s property may be interconnected to
the CITY’s telecommunications infrastructure via Drop Cables.
ATTACHMENT 1
Relocation of Facilities - If the CITY must occupy the part of the public right of way in
which the LICENSEE’s property resides, the LICENSEE must relocate its property and
repair the public right of way in accordance with the CITY’s requirements following receipt
of the CITY’s notice.
USE AND LIMITATIONS ON USE
4’ Grant of License - The CITY grants to the LICENSEE the right to use the Licensed Fibers,
subject to the CITY’s prior and continuing rights in all easements, agreements, and claims of
title that may affect the CITY’s right to occupy the public right of way, its public utility
easements, or its licensed service properties.
Compliance with CITY Standards - The LICENSEE must: (1.) Obtain all necessary
permits and approvals for construction of facilities in Palo Alto, (2.) Relocate aerial facilities
underground if the LICENSEE’s property is or will be located in an underground utility
district, (3.) .Obtain and maintain membership in a regional notification center (e.g.,
Underground Service Alert - Northern California) prior to installing underground facilities in
the public right of way.
ALTERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIRS
4, Scheduled Maintenance - The CITY may schedule and perform periodic maintenance
activities. The CITY shall provide the LICENSEE with advance notice of the time, location,
and nature of any work to be done that presents a risk of damaging the LICENSEE’s property
or interrupting the telecommunications services provided by means of the Licensed Fibers.
Non-Scheduled Maintenance - The CITY, at its sole cost and expense, will perform all
emergency and non-scheduled maintenance and repairs. If the maintenance or repairs are
made necessary through the fault of the LICENSEE, the LICENSEE shall reimburse the
CITY for the CITY’s activities.
LICENSE FEES
¯ 4’ Annual License Fees - The LICENSEE shall pay the CITY a License Fee, within a specified
range, that is based upon the license term, number of complete buffer tubes (increments of 12
fibers) licensed, the route distance involved with the license, and the use of the available
route-diverse rings. A discount based upon the extent to which the Licensed Fibers are used
to benefit the general public (e.g., through universal service) may also apply. The license
fees will be prorated to reflect partial contract years and adjusted annually to escalate with the
local Consumer Price Index. Payments shall be made annually.
Annual Drop Cable Management Fees - The LICENSEE shall pay the CITY an annual
Drop Cable Management Fee for the privilege of using the Drop Cables. The Drop Cable
ATTACHMENT 1
Management Fee shall be waived for all Drop Cables less than 100 feet in length.
One-Time Fees - The LICENSEE shall also pay the CITY: (1 .) An Advance Engineering
Fee for the customized design of each fiber optic pathway requested by the LICENSEE, (2.)
An Interconnection Fee chargeable to the cost of installing Drop Cables, splicing the desired
fiber optic pathways, and any other services required to establish an interconnection, (3.) A
Disconnection Fee, and (4.) A Right of Way Fee chargeable to the CITY by any third party
for the CITY’s use of that party’s right of way.
SECURITY DEPOSIT
General - A security deposit equal to the annual License Fee shall be provided by the
LICENSEE in advance of the first service date. The security deposit may take the form of
cash, a certificate of deposit, or a letter of credit, and will be returned to the LICENSEE upon
the LICENSEE’s full and faithful performance of this contract.
UTILITIES AND OTHER SERVICES
Payment of Utilities Charges - The LICENSEE agrees to pay for all charges assessed by the
CITY for electricity or other utilities services, not including underground utility marking and
removal services.
Liability Waiver - The CITY shall not be liable for any claims of compensation resulting
from the CITY’s failure to deliver electricity or other utilities services.
ASSIGNMENT
Assignment Limitations - The LICENSEE shall not assign or transfer this contract or the
Licensed Fibers to any Person other than a related party with the prior written consent of the
CITY. The CITY is not required to grant any assignment or transfer, but in the event of an
assignment or transfer, the LICENSEE shall remain liable for the performance and non-
performance of an Affiliate to whom this contract is assigned.
OTHER PROVISIONS
The final contract will also contain provisions to address issues such as the LICENSEE’s
insurance requirements, indemnity, destruction of the CITY’s or LICENSEE’s property,
condemnation, conditions of default, remedies for payment, and limitation of liability.
3
ATTACHMENT
percent of that that is in water supply.
Chairman Johnston: If there is nothing else, I thank you very much.
Item 6. b. Update of City Fiber Optics Network
Van Hiemke: I have prepared a presentation to update you on the fiber
optic project. Since it has been about eight months since we were last
here talking about this project, I thought I would step back through the
history of what has gone on, where we are and where we are headed. It
was in May, 1995, almost two years ago, that we started the
telecommunications strategy study to identify the best
telecommunications strategy for the City of Palo Alto. Last August, the
City Council approved a strategy whereby the City, specifically the
electric utility, would install dark fiber optic facilities around Palo
Alto for the purpose of leasing the fiber out to multiple parties who
were interested in providing telecommunication services in Palo Alto.
In November, 1996, we completed an environmental assessment for that
project, and had that assessment approved. In January, 1997, we
completed the design of the fiber optic infrastructure, and we began
installing fiber optic cable. Right now, we are in a situation where we
have installed a little over four miles of fiber, and it is basically
ready to situation where we need to get a contract put in
place, a standard form contract put in place that we can use to govern
the use of the City’s fiber. We are looking at June, 1997 as the target
completion date for the fiber infrastructure we are installing.
We are calling the fiber optic infrastructure the fibernet. It is a
little shorter and rolls off the tongue a little better. It is a
passive network. It is essentially glass, very thin strands of glass.
We purchased 42 miles of fiber optic cable, 144 strands per cable. The
plan is to install it over a route that is roughly 26-1/2 miles in
length. It covers most of Palo Alto for the purpose of having a
back__ in place. It is not going to go to every address in Palo
Alto. That would require a lot more cable length, but it will go
through most regions of Palo Alto. It can be configured as a series of
seven fiber and associated laterals that can be
custom configured to the needs of many parties.
As you may recall, when I last made a presentation on this topic, we had
a design that looked something like this - a single fiber optic ring
that went around Palo Alto and was 15 miles in length. On the basis of
feedback that we received from numerous parties, mainly the traffic
licensees, we found that there was interest in covering a broader
footprint. In looking at the cost of the cable itself, which was lower
than we had anticipated it to be since we standardized on a single size
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 8
~and bought in very large quantities, we found that for the same cost,
we were able to expand the coverage of the network to look something
like this. As you can see, it stretches down Alma Street, Middlefield
Road, and instead of going for a single.ring, two fiber optic cables in
parallel, which was the original plan, we now have taken the two fiber
cables and fanned them out so that they took two different paths in
getting from one point on the original ring to another. In that way, we
were able to cover a greater area without dramatically increasing the
amount of fiber needed. We did that in several areas around the
infrastructure. With the lower cost of the fiber cable, we were able to
stay within the original budget.
This shows a number of splice points or access points. They are all
intended to be locations where others would be able to tie into this
infrastructure via separate drop cables which would need to be installed
and attached at a given point to provide a connection to the
infrastructure. The City would provide those connections, install them
and maintain them. We would splice the drop cables to the
infrastructure on our end, leave it in a position in a location where
the licensee would then have control over their end, splicing it into
their infrastructure or into their customer’s infrastructure.
We are using the electric utility substations extensively. Especially
as we began to get into the installation, it became very clear that
there were advantages in being able to locate facilities within the
substation both while preparing to do the installation and also while
doing the installation. So from the time that this drawing was prepared
on October 29th to the time the UAC packet was prepared, we added a
couple of more substations. This point here was rolled in, and instead
of its being an underground location, as it is shown here, it was moved
into the Maybell Substation, moving from a location here which is an
outdoor cabinet and into the Adobe Creek Substation. Another advantage
of this is that it is a protected environment and in this case, we did
have a cabinet located on the street but by moving it into the
substation, we were able to avoid any negative aesthetic impacts of
having the cabinet out on the street. We are trying to minimize the
number of cabinets we may need to the greatest extent possible. We work
very hard to minimize any environmental impacts associated with this
infrastructure.
The infrastructure is roughly 50% overhead and 50% underground.
Originally, we had contemplated it to be about 70% underground, but by
fanning out and covering a greater area using existing poles, we
modified that to be about 50/50.
As you will recall, this is dark fiber. It is entirely passive.
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 9
Customers will be able to license fibers and add their own electronics
and light transmitters and light receivers to activate the
fiber or set up a network where they are transmitting light over the
fiber and receiving it at the other end, controlling what is
transmitted, actually communicating information over the fiber. What we
are installing, in and of itself, will not communicate anything. It is
going, to be passive glass.As I mentioned earlier, the installed cost
remains under $2 million.
The design shown here has various windows to the world, so to speak.
What is shown here resides just within Palo Alto, but there are other
telecommunication providers in Palo Alto with connections that go beyond
Palo Alto. For instance, Pacific Bell has central offices in the
downtown area and near Park Boulevard and Lambert Street. Also, Cable
Co-Op is located here. Sprint has a. point of presence here, also MCI
has one. Digital Equipment Corporation has installed an Internet
exchange here. These are various facilities for communicating basically
outside of Palo Alto. We anticipate that in addition to these that are
here right now, there are others, mainly competitive local exchange
carriers that are coming into town much like MFS has, that will have
their own switching .facilities and will also communicate to the outside
world. They may not look at those facilities within Palo Alto, but they
may use the City’s fiber to get to the edge of Palo Alto, such as one of
the points along the borders, and then take the signal from there to
their own switching facilities outside of Palo Alto. So this is not an
internal-only network.
In terms of prospective customers, prospective fiber licensees, there
are several different categories. As I mentioned earlier, we have had
discussions with representatives of all of these categories. At the
City Council meeting in August, we had two competitive local exchange
carriers speak in favor of the project. They were Burke (?) Fiber
Communications and Teleport? Telecommunications Group. We have since
received letters from both of those parties, as well as the ICG Te!ecom
Group. We are in discussions with them right now. We have also met
with long distance carriers , also known as interexchange carriers, and
have had some brief discussions with internet service providers,
wireless service providers, and I have spoken with Cable Co-op, as well,
but as you know, their financial situation is unknown at this time, so
we are not certain whether we will be talking to Cable Co-op or a
successor. At some point, there is a belief that there will be an
interest in upgrading that network from an all coaxial cable to a hybrid
fiber coax network licensing.
Also some local businesses and other organizations such as the school
district have been in contact with us. We have incorporated feedback
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 10
from all of these parties, as well as other City departments, into the
design of the network. We feel we have set it up in such a way that it
will meet the needs of this broad array of potential customers.
These are the provisions of the contract. We have a draft contract that
we are working on as of today. We are still working on cleaning it up
and will get something to the City Council within a couple of weeks.
Some of the key provisions that are contained in the draft is that the
term of the contract is going to be negotiable up to a maximum of
fifteen years. As mentioned earlier, access will be provided via drop
cables which will be installed and connected at the access points that
were shown on the map. Any other access to the infrastructure will be
prohibited. We are going to maintain utilities control over its
conduits and poles and substations, etc. to maintain the integrity of
the network and to ensure that there is high reliability for all parties
involved.
In terms of operation and maintenance, the City will be responsible for
maintaining the facilities and will have sole responsibility for the
cost, with the exception of the case where one of the parties may do
damage to the infrastructure. In that case, they would be responsible
for those costs. The traffic signals group within the electric utility
has been trained to install and maintain fiber optic cable, and they are
now prepared to perform maintenance activities. There is anticipation
that there will also be a contract that will be entered into with a
repair contractor who will be on call in the event that we need to call
on someone in an emergency or if we just do not have the manpower to
¯It will be a 24-hour, seven days a week, 365 days a year
service just like we have today. It is an extension of our existing O&M
procedures.
Regarding annual fees, there will be two types of fees. There will be
annual license fees for licensing of the fiber in the back drop? That
will be a dollar per fiber per mile per year rate that will be charged.
So it will be the quantity of fiber that is licensed times the total
distance which will be multiplied by a rate. That will be charged on an
annual basis, and we will receive payments up front once per year from
the licensees. There will also be drop cable management fees for any
drop cables that are longer than I00 feet in length. For shorter than
i00 feet in length, we will cover the cost for that. We will maintain
them without a charge, although we will have a one-time fee associated
with the interconnection. That will be for any advance engineering work
that needs to be done to configure fiber optic on the network
and for any installation of conduit that may be necessary or boxes that
may be necessary for connection, and there would also be a disconnection
fee that would apply.
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 11
I would now like to point out some next steps regarding the direction in
which we are heading. Our very next step is to finalize the standard
form contract and get that before the City Council for their
consideration and complete approval. We will continue to market the
fibernet facilities. We have pulled the reins back a little bit on the
marketing efforts to make sure we have the contract in place before we
move too far along the path of marketing activities. The next step,
after we have the contract and have interested parties, is that we will
enter into contracts with them. This will all take
place while we are completing construction. So as phases of the
construction are completed, we will make those fibers available for
lease rather than waiting until everything is completed. It can be
broken into segments, and there are parties that are interested right
now in leasing fiber. That concludes my presentation and I will turn
this over for questions.
Commissioner Sahagian: I am pleased to see the rate at which this is
being implemented. I have three questions. First of all, the rate of
dollar per fiber per mile per year, how was that established, and to put
it into some type of context, what utilization factor would it take to
? I am trying to get a feel for first cost versus
utilization and payback. That is my first question.
The second one is about the standard contract you have. I was wondering
if you used a template to develop that, based on what fibernets use for
customers. My third question is, and I realize that these users are
more "industrial strength" or commercially oriented users than, say, a
residential utility customer typically is, but I was curious as to
whether there might be an advantage to consider taking it beyond the
drop point, maybe offering a service to actually connect the user to the
fiber ring, as opposed to saying they are responsible for all of the
permitting and interconnection to the infrastructure, and instead, maybe
provide a paid service to actually connect them up and take care of all
of the permitting and making it painless and attractive for users to
subscribe to the net. Those are my three questions.
Mr, Hiemke: Regarding the first question on pricing, we went through a
variety of analyses to come up with the pricing, as well as
negotiations. The prices are specifically to the annual
license fees. Those are value-based or market-based prices that we have
been developing, and those were developed by first looking at our costs,
making sure that we are going to be reasonably covered for our costs.
Then we looked at the value that would be offered to a customer. In
other words, we are looking at their alternatives. One alternative
would be constructing underground facilities. Another might be trying
to find someone from whom they could license fiber, although that is
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 12
really not an option today, or receiving services from Pacific Bell or
from . What we have tried to do is to come relatively close
to where the market is for the services we would be offering such that
we do not undercut ourselves and leave ourselves in a situation where we
are at risk for not recovering our costs. We are in the process of
negotiating those prices. What we have done is to establish a range, a
!ow and high end range, with the actua! value for a given set of
circumstances determined by what the customer is interested in. The
four factors we have looked at for making that determination are one,
the quantity of fiber, and specifically, we are trying to get complete
buffer tubes. That would be in increments of twelve fibers licensed, as
that is the way that fiber is configured. It is in bundles of twelve
fibers, making for much easier management on our end. So fiber quantity
or buffer tube quantity is one factor.
Another is the total distance that is covered, and a related one is
whether it is a complete ring or whether it is a point-to-point
connection. A big issue with this is, because we have installed this on
somewhat of a speculative basis, there is the potential risk of not
being able to recover some of the costs that we have incurred,
particularly if a customer just wants a small piece here, a small piece
there. That leaves us with what could be a continuous fiber in a
valuable ring, but the customer would have broken it up into smaller
pieces. It would leave us with a stranded asset or a nonrecoverable
cost. So those are two factors that discounts would apply for, a
distance and a complete . A third is the term. We
like to encourage longer terms. So right now, combining all of those
factors, we have developed a nondiscriminatory approach that can be
applied to all situations. We are still working on the numbers, trying
to find something that is the best fit for all of the customers we are
talking to.
Chairman .Johnston: I believe you are promoting some confusion, because
when you talked about it, you talked about working on a rate of a dollar
per fiber per year, and I don’t think you meant one .
Mr, Hi~mk~: No, I didn’t.
Chairman ...Johnston: You meant that that was the unit which you would
use. I think there was some confusion there.
CQmmission~r Sahagian: Yes.
trying to develop that rate.
Okay. That helps.So you are still
Mr, Hiemke: That’s right, and we are getting pretty close.
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 13
Commissioner Sahagian: In a qual±tative sense, I am curious. You
obviously must be projecting what youthink your subscription levels are
apt to be on the ring. What type of payback are you expecting? What
type fiber optic range? Is it five years, fifteen years, three years,
if you had to make an educated guess?
Mr. Hiemke: Initially, we put a range of three to five years for
payback, with the revenues in excess of a million dollars per
year thereafter. I don’t think that is unreasonable.. I think we are
still in line for that being a possibility. We will get a much clearer
picture over the course of the next three months when we really have
some fiber to offer. As of right now, it is somewhat in what the
software industry calls ~vaporware." We do not really have a real
product on the table, and we do not have a contract that someone could
sign onto. It has just been loose discussions up until now. I wil!
still stick to those projections unless we find out otherwise. What was
your second question
Commissioner Sahaqian: This is a memory test! My second question was
whether the standard contract you are advancing is one that you
developed from a template that had been used for other fiber rings or
whether it is a grass roots contract built from the ground up.
Mr. Hiemke: It is a bit of a combination. We did pull in input from
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. That is probably the
most expensive of the California municipal utilities. We used that as
a template, and we also used Alameda’s agreement as a template, and
Burbank has an agreement that we used as a template. We combined the
best of those three into a draft document that was then shared with the
City Attorney’s Office, along with the original agreements. Then the
City Attorney’s Office took that as input, reshaped it, added the things
that are unique for the Palo Alto situation, and what we have now is a
blend of a template with some grass roots clauses that we felt made a
lot of sense in our situation.
Commissioner SahagiaD: My third question was whether there had been any
consideration given to providing the interconnect services for any of
the users, as opposed to giving them what you called a drop cable and
then obligating them to do all of the permitting and intertie from their
facility to the fiber ring.
Mr. Hiemke: With the drop cable, we do allow for extensions that are
greater than 100 feet in length. Those are intended to include not only
a drop cable that goes to some outside facility where the user would
have to take it from there and get all of the permitting required to
connect it the rest of the way, but in addition to that, the drop cable
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 14
could be a connection that goes directly to the customer’s premises. We
are talking to the parties about that as an option. We are not
requiring it, but it is an option where we feel we can really add some
value.
Commissioner Eyerly: With the cities that you have talked to about the
contract, have you also gotten some idea about the pricing, etc. for
comparison with what you have developed?
Mr. Hiemke: Yes, we have, and there is a pretty broad range. I will
state these in dollars per fiber mile per month. The low end is about
$75 per fiber mile per month. On the high end I believe it is $175 or
$180 per fiber mile per month. There are some exceptions that are even
higher. Of the three parties that I mentioned in California, Burbank,
Los Angeles and Alameda, they fall within that range.
Commissioner Eyerly: I looked at your envirorunental check list form,
and it seemed like you do not have much in the way of problems. There
seems to be no impact except for the aesthetics of the boxes. That is
the only one I noted that there was some concern about. You have very
few boxes or splicing cabinets, about five or six in the City?
Mr. Hiemke: It is actually even less. When we went back to review the
design, we tried to utilize our electric substations to an even greater
extent. I would have to look at the map to see which cabinets were
included in the environmental assessment. We are going to utilize the
Adobe Creek Substation, so that is one that is going into the substation
and will not be a problem.
For this particular location outside the Pacific Bel! Central Office, we
are going to go underground, so that will not be a problem. That leaves
us with three cabinets. This one is outside of our Colorado Substation,
and this one is outside of our fire station near Alma Street and Everett
Avenue. This one is near Embarcadero and East Bayshore.
C~mmissioner Eyerly: It sounds to me like you are moving right along
and will be in business pretty quickly.
Mr, Hiemke: We would like to think so.
CommissiQner Eyerly:
goes.
We will be interested in seeing how the marketing
Chairman JQhns~on: I am very impressed with how it is moving along. It
looks good, and I am looking forward to your next report when you will
be reporting on the dollars. I have a couple of questions. One is that
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 15
you mentioned with regard to Cable Co-op and their financial situation
that there would be a limit as to what you would do there. Have you
been approached by any potential suitors for Cable Co-op in terms of
what facilities you have so that if they came in to do a deal with Cable
Co-op, they could see what would be available?
Mr. Hiemke: We did have a discussion with Cable Co-op and Sun Country
prior to the problems with the deal with the Carlyle Group. It was an
introduction to Dave McKinley of Sun country. I introduced him to what
it is that we are installing, and we talked about what was possible in
terms of integrating Cable Co-op’s infrastructure with what we are
installing. That has been the extent of our discussions with potential
suitors of Cable Co-op.
Chairman Johnston: Do you have any sense that if somebody came in to
reinforce Cable Co-op and they had adequate financial backing, how much
of the fiber you are installing they might be interested in? Do you
have a sense of what would be required?
Mr. Hiemke: A little bit. It depends a lot upon what they decide to
do. For instance, one key variable would be the number of homes per
hybrid fiber coax node. It could range anywhere from 24 or 48 fibers on
up to as much as 96 fibers. Another factor that comes in is the cost.
It is really an economic and design question that will ultimately need
to be answered. I think that is a decent range, 24 to 96 fibers.
Chairman ~Johnston: So it could be a pretty significant percentage.
Mr. Hiemke: That’s right. One of the things I would like to point out
is that in areas where we did install just 144 strands of fiber as
opposed to 288 strands, that is predominantly in areas where we can
expand, specifically, in overhead areas in most cases. Our thinking was
that if there was a deal with Cable Co-op or their successor, if we
needed to expand, we could. We didn’t feel that we needed to install
288 fibers on Day One when there was great uncertainty as to what is
going to happen with~Cable Co-op.
Chairman Johnston: I have another question for either Van or Ed. When
we set up this communications utility, we were looking at how best to
use the City’s assets and what we could do poles creating
all kinds of different potential services.One of the market
opportunities at the present time is an opportunity to provide sites for
wireless communications and cellular communications to potentially base
space on utilities property that is owned by the City. Also the City
could take advantage of opportunities with regard to the rooftop here,
and stations. From what I can tell, there does not seem to
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 16
be a City policy to go after that revenue. If anything, it is the other
way around,get turned away. What needs to be done in order to
change that?Or should it be changed?
Mr. Mrizek:I have looked into that a little bit. There are some
concerns. For this building, for instance, where we have an array of
antennas on the rooftop of the civic center and also at the municipal
service centers, we have an array of antennas. We have, I believe, two
utility frequencies and a public works frequency and a City frequency.
The concerns are, Number One, interference. The City only has limited
space in a facility such as this to install our internal communications.
The second thing is security and access to the properties in case there
is a problem. So although there has not been any written policy by the
City, the City has been approached on a number of occasions by outside
communications corporations to install antennas on City property, and
the response has been no, we need to reserve those areas for City use.
I understand that the City will be looking at this and will probably
make this a City policy, taking this information to the City Council,
along with the right-of-way policies that we plan to take to the council
on our conduits and poles to have certain policies on who can use them,
and what those issues would be. I know there may be a revenue stream
that we could perhaps pursue, but on the other end, we want to protect
our facilities for our own use. Who knows what our needs may be
tomorrow? Security is a major issue. For some of the companies that
have approached us, our response back to them is, would they lease us
space on their facilities? I don’t think they would, but they are
looking for space in our area. Currently, that has been our policy in
the City, and unless we see a change, that is what we intend to follow.
Chairman Johnston:
council.
You said there might be something coming before the
Mr, Mrizek: Along with the fiber optics project, there are policy
issues on who can use the rights-of-way in the City and what are the
policy issues in using these rights-of-way. Can they utilize spare
conduit that we, the electric utility, have installed years ago and are
not utilizing at this time? If another fiber company came along and
said, since you are not using this, can we lease it from you? We need
policies on the utilization of those rights-of-way. TheCity Attorney is
working on this. I do not have a date to give you on when we will be
bringing that to the council.
Mr, Hi~mke: It will not be for awhile.
is our first priority.
Getting the contract together
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 17
Mr. Mrize.~: Yes, getting the contract is our first priority, and then
pulling something forward later on this right-of-way issue.
Mr. Habashi: We have been talking about it for some time, trying to
figure out at least establishing three policies to begin with. One is,
what do we do to provide universal service? Two, what do we do when
somebody wants to use our facilities to put in fiber optics or attach to
some part of the fiber optic cable, or use some wireless communication
attach to the poles. The third, obviously, is the public
right-of-way. So somehow we need to deal with those three issues.
These need to be dealt with on a policy level. We had it in mind to do
something by March or April, but we have spent a lot of time trying to
finalize the contract, and we have not had sufficient time to look at
these policy issues. If you look at the staff report, it says somewhere
in the next steps that we will be looking at these issues next. We hope
that somewhere within six to nine months, we will be able to address
them all.
Chairman Johnston: Time is somewhat of the essence, because if you look
at the PCS licenses that are being given out, there have been a handful
of licenses that have already been given out, and as far as I know,
there are two license holders within Palo Alto. They are pretty much in
the process . They will all get
fairly soon.
It seems as though theCity’s utility provides two things, basically.
One is that it provides a source of revenue for the City, and the other
is that it provides a useful utility at a reasonable cost to the
residents. It seems to me to be contrary to both of those aspects not
to cooperate with wireless communication utilities that want to locate
within the City. The City owns a lot of property where there would be
some good locations if someone wanted to come in and build a network, to
get access to that property. The City would get rent for it. The City
would promote the services within the
City so it. seems like it is all positive. The security
issues are extremely easily dealt with, frankly. It is just a matter of
not getting access unless they call one of the utility people who would
be on a 24-hour call, and they would go out with them. All of these
companies would accept . So the objections I have heard
being put up are not really hurdles, so I do not quite understand what
the philosophy is there. This is a little bit off of what we have been
talking about tonight, but the issue came up in light of the
communications utility, so I would be very interested if you are going
to cancel . I would like to participate in that.
Mr~ Hab~hi: Our intention is not only to bring it to the UAC before
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 18
taking it to the council.We were hoping to take it to the
(tek?)these are very important policy
issues. We need to look at them very carefully The idea of
anybody coming in and using our facilities needs and the
needs are somewhat not that close. Obviously, if we want to change that
policy, we will study it very carefully. The intent is to bring it here
and
Commissioner Eyerly:
building a tower or
buildings?
Are you naming sites where you are thinking of
are you thinking of building sites on top of
Chairman Johnston: I am thinking of buildings. For example, the City
has been approached specifically with regard to leasing wireless
communication facilities at the municipal services center on Highway
I01. That would probably sit on top of the building and be some kind of
a monopod. The City has been approached on some of these, and in
essence, is turning people away. I am questioning that.It does not
seem like it is in the interest of the City of Palo Alto.
Commissioner Eyerly: I had a feeling from what Ed was saying that it
seems like the primary sites are being preserved for City use. If you
figure higher building or ideal sites, there probably are a lot of other
sites that we can control, or poles or towers. With the little
experience I have had at i01 Alma Street, the income is based on their
market. They give you a guarantee, but if you take in much income from
it, they have to be successful marketers of wireless facilities. So
there can be quite a bit of income involved, as Paul is saying, or they
wouldn’t be going into it.
Mr, Habashi: Those are some of the things we need to look into. We
need to look at potential revenue and intrusion
among facilities, making sure that the revenue is high and the
is low. That combination can .
Commissioner Ey~rly: Isn’t the City now getting quite afew
applications for construction of towers, like at the Elks Club,for
wireless communications?
Mr. Mrizek: I am not aware of it. I do not know how many.
Chairman.......John~on: Twelve sites have been approved.
Commissioner Eyerly: It might be a service to the community not to have
them scattered all over the residential areas if we had better sites
that might be available.
Minutes UAC:970311MI
Final Page 19
Chairman Johnston :
this?
What is the time estimate for getting back to us on
Mr. Habashi: We hope to get somewhere between six to nine months.
Mr. Mrizek: It is really in the hands of the City Attorney right now.
Mr. Hiemke: We have retained attorneys from Washington, D.C. who are
helping us to ensure that everything we are doing is in sync with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and all of the interpretations and rule
making that are coming forward as we move out. This is one of the areas
where they are planning on preparing a white policy paper that will
address a number of issues and a telecommunications ordinance. I am not
sure of the status on either of those. I believe we have a draft of the
white paper, but I am not sure about the ordinance.
Mr.Habashi:potential revenue not likely.
It is going to come to us to look at it, and hopefully, it will take
somewhere between four to six months after the attorneys look at it to
bring something back to you.
Mr. Mrizek: We are encouraging the attorneys to keep moving on this.
Chairman Johnston: It does not sound very encouraging. At the rate
this is going, half the market is already going past you. It is a shame
to see it. It seems like such a natural fit, and there are other
utilities that are doing this. We would not be the first utility to do
it. I do understand that the paperwork is not stuck in your office
currently. That completes this item.