Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-30MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAUFORNIA 92648 7:00 P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER A P A P P P A ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO AMEND THE AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 BY HEARING ORAL COMMUNICATIONS DURING THE NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PORTION OF THE AGENDA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Davis, Stilton, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Thomas, Ray, Dingwall ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (See Non -Public Hearingitem No. D-1) B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — None. C. CONSENT CALENDAR'— None. D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO.04-18 (VERIZON FIBER OPTICS) Applicant: Verizon California Inc. Appellant: Cathy Green; Mayor Request: Review of design, colors, and materials for the city-wide installation of 235 fiber optics pole mounted and pedestal -mounted hubs_ Location: Citywide Proiect Planner. Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Design Review No. 04-18, with modifications, findings, and suggested conditions of approval." Chair Davis explained why the request for appeal made it necessary for the Commission to hold a special meeting, including project deadlines -and stock activity. He also explained how the Design Review Board (DRB) recommended denial to the Planning Director, and the Planning Director upheld the DRB's (04p=0930) PC Minutes September 30, 2004 Page 2 recommendation. He also stated that the meeting agenda was publicly noticed to comply with Brown Act guidelines. Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner, provided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Photos of existing and proposed hubs (hubs) were provided to the viewing audience depicting examples of hubs throughout the City that exist within the public right-of-way. The Commission made the followinq disclosures: Commissioner Scandura read the staff report and spoke with staff; Commissioner Stilton spoke with staff; Chair Davis served on the Design Review Board when the item was brought forth for entitlement, he spoke with Verizon's Western Regional President, Tim McCallum, Verizon's Area Construction Manager, Debra Shaw, Mayor Green, staff members Bill Workman and David Biggs, representatives from Time Warner and various Verizon representatives. Chair Davis stated that the item is a significant policy decision that should be forwarded to the City Council (CC) for full participation and final action. Staff explained how encroachment permits are processed through the Public Works Department, and identified late communication received from David Biggs, Director of Economic Development, requesting to provide an overview of the request. David Biggs discussed past CC action related to Verizon's request for a fiber optic upgrade. He explained that the CC took action on two significant issues. Ordinance No. 3635 was introduced, and on April 19, 2004, adopted by the CC modifying requirements for undergrounding of utilities and allowing transitional service from a copper network to fiber optic for high speed internet service. On July 19, 2004, the CC approved an agreement with Willdan for development processing services primarily required to process the Verizon fiber optic installation. Commissioner Scandura asked if the CC ordinance introduced on April 5, 2004 exempted Verizon from undergrounding. Staff replied that the ordinance was not specific to Verizon's request, and that the hubs were already exempt. Commissioner Scandura asked if staffs recommendation for undergrounding meant, "when possible." Commission Counsel described the request as an opportunity to install a design that -differs from the guidelines identified in the original ordinance. Commissioner Scandura asked Commission Counsel to explain or justify why Verizon can't underground cabling at certain locations. Commissioner Counsel stated that the request would depend on what is required and reasonable. Staff explained Willdan's role with the Verizon Fiber Optic project. Commissioner Livengood discussed page 14(i) of the late communication received from David Biggs that explains intent and exceptions, and also made reference to the pole mount diagram found on Attachment 5.2 of the staff report. (04ag0914) PC Minutes September 30, 2004 Page 3 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Tim McCallum, Verizon, provided comments on Non -Public Hearing Item No. D- 1, Appeal of the Planning Director's denial of Design Review No. 04-18 (Verizon Fiber Optics.) Responsible for operations of the Fiber to The Premise (FTTP), he called the project the most important advancement of technology and explained why Verizon chose Huntington Beach as the project location. He explained how the project would provide high speed Internet service and would eventually become active in other communities and states. He discussed industry standards for fiber distribution hubs (FDH), a misunderstanding in presentation of design to the Design Review Board, and the Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop designs and standards. He explained the FDH's size, relocation of existing FDH's, FDH mounting, color, size and maintenance. He introduced Debbie Shaw, Area Construction Manager, Inspectors Doug Reeser and George Cavallas, Albert Aleman, Regional Manager, and Mike Murray, External Affairs Manager, California_ Commissioner Scandura asked for Verizon's response to staffs recommended modifications. Mr. McCallum discussed the need for an aboveground facility, including activity within the hubs, engineering, architecture, fiber optic cabling, and number of connections. He stated that Verizon's engineers looked at hubs appropriate in size for particular neighborhoods and explained that hub size is controlled by manufacturers, and that the types of hubs that cross connect facilities have not decreased in size. Commissioner Scandura asked if the number of connections govem the size of the hub. Mr. McCallum replied that smaller hubs would result in an increased number of hubs within each particular neighborhood. Commissioner Scandura asked about landscaping screens and underground hubs. Mr. McCallum stated that landscaping screens are feasible if the location permits it, but explained that hubs are typically located on concrete or behind walls, and that they must be accessible for maintenance. Mr. McCallum also stated that underground hubs are not feasible because they are difficult to maintain and are subjected to moisture and underground varmints. Commissioner Livengood asked about using pole mounts. Mr. McCallum replied that Verizon prefers not to use pole mounts. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Livengood asked if plans dated September 17, 2004 were conceptually approved. Staff pointed out the approved design depicted on exhibits provided for public view and included on Attachments 5.1 and 5.2. Commissioner Stilton asked why hubs are typically placed in the pedestrian right- of-way, and asked if Verizon would consider an easement agreement to place hubs with landscaping in commercial locations. Staff explained that many hubs already exist, and that major utility lines off of arterial streets are typically placed within the sidewalk or parkway. Staff also explained that the hubs referred to with landscaping behind them are located on private property, and that most arterials don't have landscaping but if feasible, could be included. (04ag0914) PC Minutes September 30, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Stilton asked about easement agreements with private property owners. Staff explained the premise that utilities meeting state and federal requirements are entitled to exist within the public right-of-way. Commissioner Stilton asked if residents or businesses have the opportunity to provide input on hub locations. Staff said yes, explaining that when residents or businesses raise issues, the City addresses them. Commissioner Stilton asked why Verizon's original request primarily included medium size hubs, not the large hubs being discussed now. Mr. McCallum responded that he didn't recall a change in hub size, and explained that using larger hubs means fewer hubs. Commissioner Stilton asked and staff confirmed the number of hubs as 100 existing and 235 proposed, for a total of 335. Chair Davis asked about uniformity of standards relating to the interior of the hub. Mr. McCallum responded that the hub is designed around what it contains. Chair Davis asked that in addition to all interior needs being met, is it possible to direct manufactures to develop better design standards? Mr. McCallum discussed cost and time limitations. Chair Davis discussed past decisions made in the utility industry, and whether changes could be considered in the future that would provide a more aesthetically pleasing product. He discussed the number of hubs per square mile and stated that in terms of service, it would appear that Verizon's main focus is to compete more effectively for high-speed Internet services. Mr. McCallum stated that Verizon's main objective is to be the premier provider of Broad Band Internet services. Chair Davis mentioned T-1 or DSL service and asked whether these services would still be available to HB residents without hub replacements. Mr. McCallum discussed high costs associated with a 7-1 purchase or DSL service, and slower level of speed. Chair Davis asked if the threshold for level of speed is comparable to Roadrunner. Commissioner Livengood asked the Chair to limit his questioning of the applicant to the appeal of the design, stating that the discussion was beyond the design issue. Mr. McCallum discussed how the request benefits home -based businesses, and provides quick access when participating in interactive games online. Chair Davis asked if Verizon would receive exclusive rights for the fiber optics network. Mr. McCallum stated that if the fiber optics network is built, it will not be subject to unbundling rules and does not have to be sold at economic rates. Further, other companies that are part of Bell system have additional conditions, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will clarify rules related to other companies in certain states. (04ag0914) PC Minutes September 30, 2004 Page 5 Discussion ensued about exclusive rights for copper cabling, fiber optics and using other service providers for telephone use. Chair Davis spoke in support of a range of choices for our residents. Chair Davis discussed the Internet being considered a utility and the legal ramifications behind the request. Commission Counsel stated that voice and data systems are considered telecommunications. Commissioner Scandura asked about density with 12 hubs per square mile. Staff responded that hub placement is typically divided in quarter sections, but dense areas such as the downtown would require hubs placed every few blocks. Commissioner Scandura asked if request includes, abandoned hubs. Staff stated that they were not aware of any abandoned hubs, and with the wide range of shapes and sizes it would be unlikely that two different designs would work together. Commissioner Scandura asked about the system the City will utilize for condition of approval compliance. Staff stated that the Public Works Engineering Division would monitor maintenance, and that design alterations would return to DRB. Commissioner Stilton voiced concerns about the proposed conditions being too general, suggesting that an informative master plan be submitted that identifies 335 locations, presents small, medium and large hub designs and discusses the potential for landscaping. Chair Davis asked Mr. McCallum to confirm that Verizon is not in the position to consider redesign due to timeline constraints. Mr. McCallum referred to Wall Street commitments and stated that if required permits could not be obtained within a few days, Verizon would consider opportunities elsewhere. Chair Davis asked about the impact to HB residents if the request is denied. Mr. McCallum discussed the long time relationship with the City, economic benefits, convenience, downloadable videos, working more efficiently out of their homes, and leisure activities (games, etc.) Chair Davis voiced concerns about maintenance and legal obligation without a franchise agreement. Commissioner Livengood proposed a condition on maintenance naming Verizon as the responsible party for maintaining the exterior of the hubs and graffiti removal. Chair Davis voiced concerns about the City's involvement in the process of contacting Verizon when the need arises to move/repair/clean up hubs. Commissioner Livengood asked for the number of units shown on the location map. Staff described a generalized area showing wire centers that are reviewed by plan check: Staff also stated that Public Works is responsible for approving hub locations. Commissioner Stilton asked how hub colors were selected. Staff stated that the beige color is the most aesthetic, and is discretionary, to the walls, surrounding (04ag0914) PC Minutes September 30, 20N Page 6 buildings, landscaping and sidewalk. Commissioner Stilton suggested using darker colors. Chair Davis voiced concerns about Verizon profiting from a proposal that will use public right-of-way to place utility eyesores across the community. Commission Counsel stated that the ordinance was necessary for maintenance obligations, and that it may be -appropriate to forward the request to the CC without formal action by the Planning Commission. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA TO AMEND CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. la (INSTALLATION OF PEDESTAL - MOUNTED HUBS ONLY); 1b (INCORPORATE LANDSCAPING); 1c (HUB MAINTANANCE AND GRAFFITI REMOVAL); 1d (HUB LOCATION APPROVAL BY PUBLIC WORKS); AND, ELIMINATE CONDITION 2. WITH NO SECOND, THE MOTION FAILED. Discussion ensued on expanding language related to hub maintenance. Commissioner Livengood suggested that staff add as condition 3 language related to hub maintenance. He also suggested adding as condition 1.c. language related to hub colors, and as condition 2, language related to approval of hub locations. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS FOLLOWS: 1. The plans received and dated September 17, 2004 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The remaining 235 hubs shall be pedestal -mounted only. b. Landscaping shall be incorporated into the hub locations to screen the pedestal -mounted hubs to the greatest extent possible. c. The hub colors shall be pale green, beige, or brown previously approved by the Design Review Board on May 13, 2004. 2. The Public Works Department shall determine the final location of the pedestal -mounted hubs within the public right of ways. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of all the pedestal - mounted hubs. If the conception of the hubs deviates, Verizon shall be given written notice to restore the hub within 15 working days (staff to craft final language related to hub maintenance.) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Davis, Stilton, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Thomas, Ray, Dingwall ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED (04ag0914) PC Minutes September 30, 2004 Page 7 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO REFER THE ITEM TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH STRAW VOTE AMENDMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Davis, Stilton, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Thomas, Ray, Dingwall ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 8:45 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 12, 2004, Huntington Beach Civic Center. APPR ED BY: ward Zelefsky, Secretary Ron Davis, Chair (04ag0914)