HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-16; City Council; 11743; REQUEST TO ADDRESS ISSUES RELATED TO DANIELS CABLEVISION SYSTEM UPGRADESk
a
d a
w *rl
VJ 2
2
b a, 4J c,
a, .c H
N .. 2 0
4
m
\ Q 4
\ Q 6 s
8
z 3
uw BILL 1 <J Y ur wmmww - nuc~ -
AB#- Tm REQUEST TO ADDRESS ISSUES RELATED DEPT. H
MTG. 611 6/92 TO DANIELS CABLEVISION SYSTEM UPGRADES CITY AT
CITY MC DEPT.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RES
Receive presentation from Mr. Don Friedlander regarding Daniels Cablevision system
upgrades.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Mr. Don Friedlander has contacted staff several times about his concerns with the current
Daniels Cablevision upgrading of its system. The upgrading has required the
replacement of some existing service equipment with larger units. In this case, an 8"~8~
by 3' vertical box replaced an existing 4"x4" by 3' vertical box in the public right-of-way
next to an SDG&E transformer. Mr. Friedlander questioned the right of the company to
do this based on his reading of the Municipal Code. See attached exhibits for further
details.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None other than staff time.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Letter to Research Manager from Don Friedlander Dated March 31, 1992.
Letter to Mayor from Don Friedlander dated May 16, 1992.
Letter to Don Friedlander from Research Manager dated May 22, 1992.
Letter to City Manager from Don Friedlander dated May 27, 1992.
t
I
I e a f
2245 Nab L-111 Qriv9
Ca-lsbad. CA 92008
March 31. 1992
Mr. James Hagaman, Researcn Mqr.
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Crive
Carl sbad, CR 92008
Dear Mr. Hagaman:
This letter refers to the matter of the installation of the
enlarged cable TV box in front of our home, specifically, and
to the installation of above ground electrical, telephone.
and cable service boxes in areas where underground wiring is
employed, generally.
First let me state my appreciation for your taking the time
to discuss this matter in your office this afternoon. Thank
you for your interest and show of concern. It occurred to me
after talking with you that it would be appropriate, however,
to formally outline my concerns and I am taking this opportu-
nity to do so.
With respect to the particular installation at the corner of
our property:
The large electrical power box, already in place, was added
to by the adjacent installatian of a significantly larger
box for "improved" cable TU service -- which we do not use.
What was an inherently unattractive installation became,
thereby, greatly aggravated. Any such installation,
whether on public right-of-way or private property, is
obviously detrimental ta property value.
The attitude expressed by personnel of -- and contractors for -- Daniels Cablevision, Inc., to whom I spoke when the
new box appeared, does not seem to reflect recognition
of the Section 5.28.2001e) Municipal Code requirement that
"Grantee. *. .shall mat install any new, different or
additional poles conduits or other facilities....until
first securing the written approval of the city manager".
Whether such prior approval was obtained for this particu-
lar installation is, therefore, questionable. Both on this
count and on the following basis, I would like to see its
remova 1.
With respect to the geceral question of the need and aporo-
priateness of above ground service boxes:
As I indicated ir? our conversation, 1 had noted that in the
dcwntown area sf che city where undergraund wrrsng 15 used,
whlle there a;-? Zsne eiecirlca! z-er-d'ize k~r5 abcve ;r~una,
1 r m *
~hese are prcocrticnatel'~ far fewer iZ ni(m2er than thcse in
residentzal areas. More signziicantly, much of the
eiectricai Dower, teiephone, and evev cable T?, service is
located CZ:mUletel*/ und9rqround With aczess DrGvid2d thru
clearly marked covers in the pu'ol~~ sidewalks. There is no
question that such installations are mcre costly but there
can also be no doubt that this significantly benefits the ' appearance of the downtown commercial area.
The policy that dictated that the downtown district be more
rigorously controlled with respect to underground service
should be -- and should have been -- applied to the city's
residential areas. I do not know what provisions of the
Municipal Code apply to other utilities. But, with regard
to the Daniels franchise, the applicable section of the
code appears quite specific. Section 5.28.200(9) states:
"In those areas of the city where.. . .services are
underground, the grantee likewise shall construct,
operate and maintain all of his transmission and
distribution facilities underground."
". . . .upon obtaining the written approval of the city
manager.. . .equipment needed for two-way communication may
. be placed in appropriate housings upon the surface of the
ground. I'
I believe my extract from the code is correct and that none
of the words omitted change the meaning or intent. Further,
there is nothing in the code which removes the italicized
limitation. It is my feeling that Daniels Cablevision has
grossly ignored this limitation, based upon lax enfarcement
of the code.
The use of above ground service boxes, as opposed to under-
ground facilities, is based purely on monetary considerations
not on technical necessity. It is my feeling that responsible
city management would better serve the residents of this
community by seeing that, when modifications are made, they
be made in such a manner as to enhance the community rather
than permitting intrusive features which adversely impact it.
It is my hope that this letter will help in your evaluation
and that appropriate action will be taken to reverse the
current situation.
!
Respectfully ,
Don Frisdlander
I r a 0
9'7 (I G AI. ./ NGi2 Hrli Cr;vc
Car:sbad. CA 92o'S.c,
pia\., 16, 1992
REFERRED To cffy MAMAER Claude A. Lewis, Marcr TOR RESPONSE
City of Carlsbad Date: sh 9 f~a 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
. currently engag in what they term an
This activity
red by underground
utilities, the installation of grossly larger above
service boxes in s --- -.. ._ d et rzi men t a
d residential areas in general -- are -not being -made in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal
:.Code. *
63 reading of Chapter 5.28 of the code, which establishes the
requirements under which the television franchise is granted,
makes it clear that the originators of the ordinance intended
that the number of above ground installations be kept to a
minimum, so as ta reduce the impact of this utility on the
community. Specifically, in areas where underground
utilities exist, Section 5.28.200(g) limits and places clear
restrictions on conditions under which such installations
"may be placed upon the surface of the ground". Further,
these exceptions require the "written approval of the city
manager". If, as I believe, you were a member of the City
Council at the time this ordinance was created and the
Cablevision contract negotiated, I assume you can confirm the
intent of this section of the code.
Unfortunately, neither the spirit nor the letter of the law
appears to have been adhered to. It is my understanding, .
.- following conversations with Mr.-James Hagamen, representing
'the City'-Manager's office;and Mr. Lluyd Hubbs, City
:Engineer, that .the requirement-for specific City
-approval of above ground installations, in those
cases defined -by the code, has been effectively waived and
that engineering review and approval does not take any note
of this code requirement.
I have discussed this matter with Mr. Haqamen several times
in the past two months. I am enclosing a letter, written to
him following my visit to his office cn March 31, whrch
';urnmar~zes my concsrns as ar: affected Carlsbad hcmecwner.
- --
P r e a
In a follow UP telephone conversation with Mr. iiaqamen on
May 11, I was give? tc understand that the recent Cablevlsion
installations were all made in accordancs with the code and
were 5ut;Jected to Engineering Degartment review and approval.
1 was further informed that the review ~roces~. fcr renewal of
the Cablevision charter would begin in November 1993, that my
concerns were a matter of record, and I could make my input
ubsequen tFconve rsatj,pn. wi
the provision qu-ipm+nt--%re not
ft is my conclusion, therefore, that the question of above
of the community.
Respectfully, oh- oJ$ k2
Don Friedlander
Enclosure: Letter, dated March 31, 1992.
t f
May 22, 1992
Don Friedlander
2245 Nob Hill Drive
Cartsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Friedlander:
I have been asked to respond to your letter to Mayor Lewis dated May 16, 1992.
To appear before the City Council to express your views, you need to write a request to R:
Patchett, City Manager, asking to be placed on a City Council agenda. The City Manager
responsible for creating each City Council meeting agenda and will proceed accordingly.
The matter you outlined in your letter to Mayor Lewis has previously been discussed in detail wii
City staff. Your reference to Code Section 5.28.200 (9) speaks to the initial construction of tt
cable system in Carlsbad which took place when the franchise was granted in 1977. The currei
operative section of the City Code is 5.28.030 (e) which authorizes the grantee to engage in tt
business of operating and providing a cable television system in the City. Additionally,
identifies the actions necessary to meet this requirement such as installing, maintaining ar
reconstructing necessary appurtances to meet their obligation to provide a cable televisic
system in the City of Carlsbad.
The Engineering Department issues permits to work within the public right-of-way to a cab
company as they do for any person working in the public right-of-way to avoid potential damas
to any underground facilities which may be located in the right-of-way.
I hope this helps to clarify your questions. Please call us again if you wish to discuss this matt
further.
JAMESC. G AN rL+ Research Man ger
JCG:tlg
C: Mayor
City Manager
Assistant to the City Manager
4 I cdC ,-3p Car:soac ‘/iila5e .Zrrve = Cartscac ‘Caliicrriia 32508-: 989 9 (6;s) 334-284
4 I 0 0
2245 Ncb Hill Crive
Carlsbad, CA 9200E
May 27, 1Y92
Mr. Raymond Patchett, City Mgr.
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Car1s;Sad. CA 92008
Dear Mr. Patchett:
I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. James Hagamen. dated
May 22rid, in res;ponre to my letter to Flayor Lewis regarding
recent installations by Daniels Cablevision, Inc.
In accordance with that letter, this is a formal request to
have the matter placed on the aqenda for discussion before
the City Ccunsel during the June 9, 1592 session.
Very truly yours,
Q* @A$ &
Dcn Friedlander,
L/3 $- 3 5-a L
u
I e 0 3
Fate 0 L A Nl bcs (L ‘hs rbe w CG
QrDCWaL= 6autCL 0v)qLCg
DbWdTQWM CAcLLSaAgs
ClcjLt ~~&V\WOW d~url i
U-h-mr - E PI
L
-
b
I
I
1
i i
k I
!
1
/ -- --
~~~ __
,, 4
4 - -
1
L IN
i t
i I f
1 i
I
i
I 1
i i I
i
8 1
i
.. I .I
i 1’1
I
I
1 i 4
6 c i /
I i 1 I t
,
I
1 1 i
Fa \c n c 4bJ Bt: CL &L€S tbe Y CE
1 I
3-¶a.-.\ - c
QraewaLr. CaueQ bVCzk
troud~ow~ CAQASBA~
Cht3LlE TELF;V\S$Oh\ \I&&-r ;
i
M rhr err-& A,, 1.p u It c
FR ttz b L 4Lvd BE R &5s Rne h4 cE
i
aT3ew&Ltb.
chsbc TELEV\8\mih& VAULT i
~~~QWho $‘&J2AW%BA$4
WAbQSaU I?leWEhL\Pk
M*gTH sF &@--=4@% ?dRck,A&C $1