Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-01 City CouncilCity City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER 6 DEPARTMENT: UTILITIE, AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 1, 1997 CMR:458:97 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PREPARE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE PROVISION OF UNIVERSAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE RECOMMENDATION" This report recommends that the Council: 1.) Authorize staff to solicit proposals from entities interested in accelerating the provision of advanced telecommunications services to every address in Palo Alto (universal service) through the expanded use of the City’s existing assets, including the fiber optic backbone, and 2.) Appoint one Finance Committee member and one Policy and Services Committee member to participate in a reactivated Telecommunications Advisory Panel that will provide feedback to staff during the proposed Request for Proposals process. BACKGROUND On May 8, 1995, the City Council approved funding for a Telecommunications Strategy Study (CMR:240:95). Staff established the Telecommunications Advisory Panel (TAP) to provide feedback to staff as the study was being completed. At the reconamendation of staff, the City Council appointed Council Members Ron Andersen and Joe Huber to be members of the TAP. 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 CMR:458:97 Page I of 6 throughout Palo Alto, while limiting any negative impacts on Palo Alto’s physical environment. Specifically, the City Council adopted the following set of telecommunications objectives: 1.Accelerated deployment of a broad range of advanced broadband telecommunications services to all of the-citizens and businesses in Palo Alto. Decreased costs for both conventional and advanced telecommunications services (as compared to the costs for similar services if provided without City involvement). 3. High quality for both conventional and advanced telecommunications services. Enhanced competition among telecommunications service providers and increased telecommunications choices for consumers (who are currently limited to monopoly service providers for telephone and cable television service). 5. Limited or no financial risk exposure to the City. As a part of the Telecommunications Strategy Study, a broad range of strategies were evaluated, with one emerging as the strategy that best achieves these objectives. On August 5, 1996, Council established a commercial telecommunications program as a subfund of the Electric Utility and authorized staff to develop dark fiber optic infrastructure and make it available for license to interested parties such as telecommunications service providers (CMR:361:96). While initially limited, this was described in the report as a positioning strategy that could be readily expanded if deemed appropriate at a later date. DISCUSSION Although fiber backbone construction has not yet been fully completed, staff has ..completed the initial activities necessary to implement the commercial telecommunications program as a dark fiber optic infrastructure license program. Fiber license agreements have been signed with two customers and agreements are nearing completion with six others. Based upon staff’s experience to date, only those commercial customers with the highest demand for telecommunications services are expected to derive near-term benefits from the fiber backbone unless the City takes additional steps to accelerate the rate at which benefits are extended throughout the community. CMR:458:97 Page 2 of 6 At this time, staff believes it is appropriate to solicit proposals from entities that may be interested in assuming some or all of the financial risk associated with adding the additional infrastructure necessary to provide universal service. In this context, universal service means the availability of affordable high speed data transport and Internet access for every address in Palo Alto. Ideally, this high speed Internet access would also be provided in conjunction with other voice, data, and/or video services. The goal of the recommended Request for Proposals (RFP) process is to extend the benefits throughout the community by attracting one or more private companies to utilize the City’s fiber backbone as a part of a network designed to provide universal service. To encourage entities to respond to the RFP, the City could consider offering discounted fiber, providing discounted access to other Utilities infrastructure such as poles and conduits, and/or sharing some of the costs in exchange for a share of future revenues. These considerations will be addressed during the RFP process. Other California cities are now moving forward with developing such systems. For example, in February 1997, the City of Anaheim entered into a public-private partnership with SpectraNet International. Under the terms of the agreement, the City will lease SpectraNet a portion of its fiber optic backbone, while SpectraNet will invest $60-80 million in private capital to develop the first phase of the system which will serve commercial, industrial, and government uses in concentrated commercial areas of Anaheim. Pending the results of a feasibility study to be completed by January 2000, subsequent phases would serve the remaining portion of Anaheim, including residential areas, at an estimated SpectraNet investment of $175 million. The City of Anaheim will receive a share of the system’s revenues and lease payments for the fiber optic backbone. SpectraNet will support Anaheim’s presence on the World Wide Web, a Community Bulletin Board, and a Community Access and Utilization Fund to ensure use of the system at strategic locations within the City. Anaheim will also receive numerous in-kind services at reduced or no cost, including use of the system among City facilities and access on the system to provide energy management and other services to its Utility customers. City facilities and schools will receive a governmental rate for all their telecommunications services. As another examplel the City of San Bruno is in the process of replacing their existing municipally-owned cable television system with one capable of providing advanced residential telecommunications services. At a budgeted cost of $6.2 million, the City will remove its existing all coaxial cable system and replace it with a "hybrid fiber-coax" system consisting of a high-capacity fiber optic backbone with new coaxial cable drops CMR:458:97 Page 3 of 6 for all 12,000 customers. The network will initially be used for video and high speed data services, but the City may consider seeking a parmer to offer telephone service at some point in the future. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City could choose not to proceed with concept and allow the’ market to respond when it is ready. However, by issuing the RFP, the City would take proactive steps to achieve what is clearly in the community’s interest. Another alternative would be. for the City to assume the financial risk by constructing and operating its own telecommunications network to provide universal service. However, staff believes that the financial risks may be too great to guarantee-the success of this approach. This is discussed further below. RESOURCE IMPACT Coordinating the RFP process Will require approximately 0.25 FTE staff hours plus consultant and legal support at an estimated cost of $30,000. Although staff availability is limited, staff expects to be able to coordinate the RFP process within the time line specified below. Although issuing an RFP does not require the City to make any further investment of resources, it is important to understand the costs that could be involved for the project participants if the City pursues one or more of the proposals. The cost of constructing a universal service telecommunications network ranges from $500-$3,000 per address, depending upon the capabilities designed into the network. With roughly 26,000 addresses, a universal service network for Palo Alto would cost the project, participants $13 million to $78 million. Additional staff would likely be needed for implementation; however, until we have ¯ received proposals, the number and type of staff needed is unknown. Space needs for additional staff would also need to be addressed. For perspective, Palo Alto’s telecommunications total market demand for voice, video, and data services was estimated to be nearly $60 million per year in 1995, and projected to grow to more than $80 million per year by the year 2002, with demand split evenly between the residential, small business (<100 employees), and large business (>100 employees) market segments. Although this is the total market potential, it is unlikely that any one service provider would earn all of these revenues. CMR:458:97 Page 4 of 6 POLICY IMPLICATIONS While directing staff to solicit proposals does not have any direct policy implications, subsequent actions could have significant policy implications. For example, since Cable Co-op already has a coaxial cable system throughout Palo Alto and surrounding communities, it is a likely respondent to such an RFP. However, given Cable Co-op’s financial projections, it is likely that it would require a different partnership arrangement than other private entities would. This could have significant implications with respect to Cable Co-op’s franchise agreement. Such policy implications will be addressed in future reports. TIME LINE To broaden community involvement in the decision making process, staff will reactivate the Telecommunications Advisory Panel (TAP) to provide feedback to staff during this process. Staff also plans to work with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), the Policy and Services Committee (P&SC), and the Finance Committee (FC) during the RFP preparation and selection process. The time line for this review process is as follows: January 1998 - Meet with the TAP to gather input prior to drafting the RFP. March 1998 -Meet with the TAP to gather feedback on the draft RFP. April 1998 -Make presentations to the UAC, P&SC, and FC. Staff anticipates issuing the RFP by May 1998. Staff will review the resulting proposals and return to Council in mid-1998 to report on the proposals received. At this time, if staff believes that one or more of the proposals merits further consideration, staff will seek approval to proceed with. negotiations with the successful candidate(s). The proposed agreement(s) will then be presented to the TAP, UAC, P&SC, and FC for review before being presented to Council for approval. Staff hopes to have the final agreement(s) in place by early 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared finding that the project will not have significant environmental impacts provided that mitigation measures are included in the project. Any project undertaken as a result of the RFP will be required to adopt the mitigation measures identified in the environmental assessment that was completed prior to the consm:~ction of the fiber backbone. CMR:458:97 Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENTS 1.Environmental Assessment - Installation of Fiber Optic Infrastructure. Alto, 96-EIA-35. November 25, 1996. City of Palo PREPARED BY: Van Hiemke, Telecommunications Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD: !s CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: :ITY CMR:458:97 Page 6 of 6 ’ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Installation of fiber optic infrastructure City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 3. Contact Person and Phone Number:Van Hiemke, Resource Planner City of Palo Alto - Utilities Departme .nt 415-329-2275 4. Project Location: 5, Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: Citywide - See routing in Figure 1 City of Palo Alto - Utilities Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 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 \Vcbslcr St Forest Ave. Homer Ave. A rlx~rctum Louis Alma SL Park Bh’d. Birch St. wy 101 Welch Rd.Hanover Hansen 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 Utility’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 ~vaterproof, 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 51 "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 Departmer~t’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 final 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 F OR3I 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 competiti.ve 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. equ!pment 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, SmalI..Businesses, and Others The most likely near-term installation to serve residents and/or small businesses would be an upgrade of Cable Co-op’s coaxial cable 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 CHE CKL IS T 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 ensurethat, 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 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. Summar3_’ 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 E N VIR O NME N TA L CHE CKL IS T F 0 R M (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 bedeveloped 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 additiona! 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 contiugent 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 ENVIR ON3IENTAL CHE CKL IS 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 Biological Resources Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Resources Geological Problems Hazards Water .Noise Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation 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: 1 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//O/c’~(~/~ 6 Director of Planning & Community Environment Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No 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. general 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 INm°pnct 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) e) b) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1 1,2 6(B-l) 6(B-I) 6(B-I) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c) Displace existing housing, especially ~ffordable housing? 1 1 1 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 3,4,5 3,4,5 ~,4,5 3,4,5, 6(B-6) X X X X X X X 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) 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in ~ibsorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and 5,X amount of surface runoff?.6(B-7) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as 5,X flooding.’?6(B-7) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water 5,X quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity.?6(B-7) d)5, 6 X e)5, 6 X 0 5 x g) h) i) 5o b) c) 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: 5 5 5 X X 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? 6(B-5) 7 7 X X X X x 4 96-EIA-35 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentiall~ Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant pact Impact 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?8, 9 X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or 8, t6 X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))’?. c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby Uses?8 X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?8 X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?8, 16 X f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 8, 9 X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?8 X 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 6 X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or (B-12) birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?6 X (B-12) c) Locally designated’natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal 6 X habitat, etc.)?(B-12) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?6 X (B-7) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?6 (B-12) 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 10 b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 10 manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 10 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 Polentially .,,!~znifica nt ! ~less ~ ~itigation h~corporated Significant pact 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)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 6 (B-S) (B-9) 13 6 (B-8) (B-9) 6 ¯(B-S) (B-9) 13 6(B-4) I 6(B-4) 11. 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? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? 13 15 2 15 X X X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or 2,12 12 12, 15 12, 15 X substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? X X X X X X X 96-EIA-35 Issues and Supporting Information Som-ces Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant I. nlcss Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact f) Solid waste disposal?t2, 15 g) Local or regional water supplies?12, 15 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?6 X ] (B-15), b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?11, 12,X 16 c) Create light or glare?11, 12 X [ 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. gVould the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources?6,X (B-14) b) Disturb archaeological resources?6,X (B-14) c) Affe.ct historical resources?6,X (B-14) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would 6,X affect unique ethnic cultural values?(B-14) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential 6,X impact area?(B- 14) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or otherb) Affect recreationalexisting facilitieS?recreational opportunities?(B-I 1)(B’16’6’ 1 ) [,.~ [ 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 96-EIA-35 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact a)17 X c) 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 prehistor?/? 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 tile effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17 t7 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 adiscussion should identify the following 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 refined 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. CounO, of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 0988); Leonofffv. Monter~, Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 96-EIA-35 18. SOURCE REFERENCES Palo AIto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995; Land Use Map (1981-1992), Land Use Element ( 1981 ), Urban Design Element ( 1981 ) and Environmental Resources Element (! 981). 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; 1981. 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-11, 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. I0 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 G illiland, 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. EXPLANATIO~ FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES lb 4c, 4f, 4g. and 4h Land Use and Planning Sertin~ At present, the Ci~" of Palo Alto Utili~ Rules and Regulations discourage aerial installation of new utility cables. An undergrounding schedule is being implemented by the Utilities Department with the goal of eventuall.v placing all 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 ofundergrounding 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 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. Im_~.pacts 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. Direction.al 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 lOa lid 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. As with existing underground str.uctures, 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 will not be a tripping hazard or bicycle impediment. The pad mounted equipment review process will ensure that when the five cabinets shown in Figure 1 are sited, the plabement 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 SettinR and Impacts 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. Such directional boring would temporarily increase existing noise levels. However, the impact is less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Public Services Settin_g 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. 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 all 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 One of the purposes for the Electric Utility proposing to install fiber optic infrastructure is to promote telecommunicatio6s competition by encouraging new entrants to offer services in the Palo Alto telecommunications marketplace. Im_~.pacts New telecommunications service providers will develop new telecommunications network facilities and may need to interconnect with existing t~lecommunications service providers. This may require reconfiguration of existing communications systems; however, the Electric Utility’s efforts should coordinate the activities of multiple service providers, resulting in a less than significant impact. Mitiga..tion Measu..res No mitigation is required. Aesthetics Setting and Impacts 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 ins.tallations. 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 1 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 Mea.sures 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 REVIE’WED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED /,"/,~, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNO’~,’N AS C I 7" ~’b0 I~, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Date 9~EIA.35