HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsider Approval of Appeal Referred by the Planning Commiss /9a93
;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
O 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
JOAN L. FLYNN
CITY CLERK
December 13, 2004
Verizon California, Inc.
7352 Slater Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
ATTN: Albert Aleman
Dear Mr. Aleman:
Please find enclosed the October 4, 2004 minutes of the regular meetings of the City of
Huntington Beach City Council/Redevelopment Agency at which there was action taken
regarding the following:
Approved Appeal Referred by the Planning Commission and Filed by Mayor Cathy
Green on Behalf of Applicant, Verizon California, Inc. of the Planning Director's Denial
of Design Review No. 04-18 (Fiber Optic Upgrade of Verizon's Telecommunications
System.
Sincerely,
9"
Joan L. Flynn
City Clerk
Enclosure
g:/followup/appeal/minute letter 2002.doc
(Telephone:714536-5227)
(9) i October 4, 2004-Council/Alcy Minutes - Page 9
Discussion ensued amongst Council and Staff relative to real estate documents and how they
address double frontage, Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs), height of retaining
walls and Planning Commission versus Zoning Administrator hearings.
Councilmember Coerper expressed concerns regarding safety and responsibility to one's
neighbors. He stated his.opposition to Staffs recommended action..
A motion was made by Coerper,'second Green to deny Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA)03-01
and Ordinance No. 3685 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Sections 203.06 and 230.88
thereof Relating to Definitions and Fencing and Yards."
There was further discussion amongst Council and Staff regarding the role of Council as policy-
maker, the Conditional Use Permit(CUP) process and Design Review Guidelines, involvement
of the Planning Commission, scheduled time of Zoning Administrator meetings, notification,
view fences, maintenance, and property rights issues.
Councilmember Coerper withdrew his motion.
A motion was made by Hardy,second Boardman to 1.)start the CUP process at the Planning
Commission, 2.) increase notification to 300 feet plus residents of the street facing the wall, 3)
change the definitions of primary and secondary frontages.
Mayor Green and Councilmember Cook expressed concerns about making a decision without
further information.
-Mayor Pro Tem Hardy.withdrew her motion and made anew motion;second Cook to:direct staff
to return:November.15, 2004.with,guidelines for wall design on through lots and addressing the
issues of: starting CUP at Planning Commission level,the notification process, and primary and
secondary frontage definitions.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Sullivan
The City Council recessed for 5 minutes.
(City Council) Public Hearing Opened and Continued Open to October 18, 2004 to
Consider Approval of Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA) No. 01-03.(Mobile Home Park.
Conversions) Amending Chapter234 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision..
Ordinance(HBZSO) Relating to Relocation Benefits—Ordinance No.3684 Not Read by
Title for Introduction—Direct City Attorney to Add to Proposed Ordinance the Windsor
Conversion Relocation Cost Language and Delete 234.08C - Direct Planning Staff to
Conduct Research of Further Modifications to Chapter 234 (450.20)
Mayor Green announced that this was the time noticed for a public hearing to consider the
following:
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
(10) • October 4, 2004 -Council/Agw Minutes - Page 10
Request: ZTA:To amend Chapter 234 Mobilehome Park Conversions of the Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance related to relocation benefits for mobilehome owners when a
mobilehome park is converted.
Location: Citywide.
Environmental Status: Notice is hereby.given that this agenda,item, Zoning Text Amendment No.
01=03'is categorically exempt from the-provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been published and posted.
City Attorney Jennifer McGrath presented an oral report. Council voiced concerns regarding fair
market value, 20 mile relocation radius, additional compensation, difficulty in moving mobile
homes, pro rated provision, property tax and defensibility of the ordinance.
Mayor Green declared the public hearing open.
Prior to announcing the public speakers, the City Clerk restated for the record the following Late
Communications which pertain to this public hearing:
Communication submitted by Keith R. Cunning dated October 1, 2004 (untitled) stating his
opposition to the adoption of the ordinance relating to mobile home relocation benefits.
Communication submitted by Vickie Talley, Executive Director of the Manufactured Housing
Educational Trust(MHET)dated October 1, 2004 and titled Mobile Home Park Conversion
Ordinance Modification October 4, 2004 Agenda Item D-2 stating opposition to the proposed
amendments to the city flll's obile.Home Park Conversion Ordinance Chapter 234.
Communication submitted by Steve Gullage from Maurice A.'Priest,Corporate'Counsel &
Legislative Advocate for Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL)
dated October 4, 2004 and titled Proposed Modifications to Mobile home Park Conversion
Ordinance Chapter 234, Comments on Proposed Wording of Proposed Changes No. 3684
urging the rejection of the proposed changes found in ordinance number 3684, and instead
adopt and affirm the changes to Ordinance Chapter 234 as of September 6, 2004.
Robert Lupo spoke regarding the proposed ordinance and the Mobile Home Advisory Board
(MHAB). Mr. Lupo asked the City Council to suspend any action to give the attorneys time to
review the proposed amended ordinance.
Vickie Talley, Executive Director of the Mobile Home Educational Trust(MHET) stated for the
record her strong opposition to the proposed ordinance. She spoke relative to state laws and
the measure of fair and reasonable. Ms. Talley further spoke abo_ ut.the best.use of land and the
park owners'decisions to pursue such:
Jim Hodson, owner of Pacific Mobile Home Park, spoke about fair compensation, reasonable
relocation radius, and property rights as protected in the constitution. Mr. Hodson stated in his
opinion that the proposed ordinance would place an undue burden on the mobile home park
property owners.
Steve Gullage, President of the Golden State Mobile Homeowners League (GSMOL)spoke
relative to reasonable costs of relocation. Mr. Gulllage asserted his opinion that the proposed
ordinance does not adequately address the various costs involved, and made suggestions to
remedy Section 234.08A.
October 4,2004-Council/Oncy Minutes -Page 11
Joey Racano spoke regarding the Cabrillo Mobile Home Park and best use of parklands. He
referred to what he defined as unmitigatible damage that can occur to the homeowners.
Mary Jo Baretich spoke in opposition to Chapter 234.09C1 of the proposed ordinance which
addresses a landowners application for exemption from relocation assistance obligations, and of
the need to update.the current.code.
There being no persons present to speak further on the matter and there being no further
protests filed, either written or oral, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussion ensued regarding the issues raised by the speakers, potential rent
increases, and timelines.
A motion was made by Boardman, second Cook to direct the City Attorney to add to the
proposed ordinance the Windsor conversion relocation cost language. The motion carried by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Boardman, Cook
NOES: Green
ABSENT: None
City Attorney Jennifer McGrath asked the Council for further clarification on Chapter 234.08.
A motion was made by Cook, second Boardman to delete language 234.08 section C—
additional"compensation from the-proposed ordinance.
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Sullivan made further inquiries relative to rent control and the City Charter, in
answer to which the City Attorney stated that she would further research state preemptions.
A motion was made by Cook, second Boardman to continue the item until the October 18, 2004
City Council meeting. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Boardman, Cook
NOES: Green
ABSENT: None.
A motion was made by Cook, second Sullivan to reopen the closed public hearing and continue
it open to the October 18, 2004 City Council meeting to consider approval of introduction of
Ordinance No. 3684 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 234 of
the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Pertaining to Mobilehome Park
Conversions,"and directed Planning staff to conduct additional research of further modifications
to Chapter 234. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(12) • October 4,2004-Council/Ag Minutes - Page 12
(City Council) Opened and Continued Open to 10118104-Public Hearing to Consider
Approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-02(City Wide Entitlement Permit
Streamlining Project-Phase II) by Amending 15 Chapters of the Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Code and Various Sections of the Downtown Specific Plan SP-5
—Approve Introduction of Ordinance Nos. 3668A or B and 3669 through 3682, Inclusive
{450.- 0Y.
Mayor Green announced that this was the time noticed for a public hearing to consider the
following:
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
Request: To amend 15 chapters of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance,
codify policies and clarify certain sections of existing codes and amend various sections of the
Downtown Specific Plan SP 5. The proposed amendments are intended to reduce the overall
number of discretionary entitlement applications by allowing the use by right or having a lower level
discretionary body review the entitlement.
Location: Citywide
Environmental Status: This Agenda Item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been published and posted.
A motion was.made by Hardy, second Cook to continue this item to;theOctober:18, 2004
meeting.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook
NOES: None
ABSENT: None (Sullivan out of the room)
Consent Calendar—Items Approved
On motion by Boardman, second Green, Council approved the following Consent Calendar items,
as recommended. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Coerper, Hardy.(abstained on August 23, 2004_minutes), Green, Boardman, Cook:
NOES: None
ABSENT: None (Sullivan out of the room)
(City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Minutes (120.65)-Approved and adopted the
minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Regular Meetings of August 16, 2004 and
Adjourned Meetings of August 23, 2004 as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Submitted by the City Clerk.
(13) • October 4, 2004-Councilbacy Minutes - Page 13
(City Council) Adopted Resolution No. 2004-83 Approving the Submittal to the Orange
County Transportation Authority(OCTA) of Two Landscape Enhancement Projects under
the Transportation Enhancement Activity(TEA) Program: (1.) Brookhurst Street
Frontage (Kamuela Drive to Cutty Sark Drive) and(2.) Main Street Median (Huntington
Street to Delaware Street) (340.70)—Adopted Resolution No.2004-83— "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing Application for Funds for the
Transportation Enhancement Activity(TEA) Program under the 1998 Transportation Equify Act
for the 21"'Century for Brookhurst Street Frontage Landscape Improvement Project and the
Main Street Median Landscape Improvement Project." Submitted by the Public Works Director.
Funding Source: Funding is not required for the resolution. Should the projects be awarded,
Measure M funds of approximately$182,500.00 are available and will be required to provide the
minimum 25% match. An incremental increase in General Fund annual maintenance costs
would be required to maintain these enhancements and will be identified by a Maintenance
Impact Statement Per Administrative Regulation (AR)310 prior to project construction.
(City Council) Approved Amendment No.9 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-95-975
between the City and the Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA)for Roadway
Improvements through the Combined Transportation Funding Program (CTFP) (600.25)—
Approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 9 to Cooperative
Agreement No. C-95-975 between the Orange County Transportation Authority and the City of
Huntington Beach. Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: None required.
Over the next five fiscal years, street improvement grants totaling up to$5.9 million have been
awarded to the City.
(City Council) Approved Arhendment'No.2:Authorizing Execution.of a.One-Year
Extension to the.Professional Services Contract between the City and The Ferguson.
Group, LLC to Assist in Acquisition of Federal Funding for Priority Projects within the
City and Related Legislative Issues (600.10)—Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute Amendment No. 2 to Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the
Ferguson Group LLC"for the purpose of assisting the City in the acquisition of Federal funds for
priority projects within the City. Submitted by the City Administrator. Funding Source: Funds
for the Contract have been budgeted in the 2004-05 fiscal year budget under General Fund
Intergovernmental Relations Professional Services Account#10030201.69365. The total cost
for this contract amendment is not to exceed $79,800.00 for the year. (At the City Council
meeting of September 7, 2004 the Council approved renewing the contract with The Ferguson
Group, LLC for an additional year. This action is simply to authorize the Mayor to execute the
contract.)
(City Council) Approved Amendment No. 2 Authorizing Execution of a One-Year
Extension of the Professional Services Contract between the City and Advocation, Inc.to.
Assist in Acquisition of State Funding for Priority Projects within the City and Related
Legislative Issues (600.10)—Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No.
2 to Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Advocation, Inc. for professional
services related to the acquisition of state funds for priority projects and related legislative
issues. Submitted by the City Administrator. Funding Source: Funds for the Contract have
been budgeted in the 2004-05 fiscal year budget under General Fund Intergovernmental
Relations Professional Services Account#10030201.69365. The total cost for this contract
amendment is not to exceed $64,000.00 for the year. (At the City Council meeting of
September 7, 2004 the Council approved renewing the contract with Advocation, Inc. for an
additional year.. This action is simply to authorize the Mayor to execute the contract.)
� � 1
71
°q'rY4$ ! FP `• i `#i}, ralF tH' ilife
sg }{
4 r
tf
a
R '
� F
a _
,".'. •^ T za yn f '""'v <." d '.". ,.Cw ,, « ..�, >_ ,g,_.*,rrmryM�ttc» -z+ :rya,
�3 r -eae�„ a�� x e,�r �,zei., - ,.t.�• ,r' 4^�., ', ,; „�'ie �#s°�a .r ��` � a �.. a�;. �.�.-, ._.
F �
�. ?(
77 r.
y �
v +'
4�
F �Y.
fg
ARM
LA
ok
HeE �{ � �- �-a"•F.=hex;,
s�<
r ;
s -
k s Y
lee ;i< ♦ �. �4 �. ram£ [p�^ ` �.» w e
� � r � may. � t + •� �`
� f^ i• u. r�a��� y S _.. Da i
ir,
Ya y f +ri - Y .� '� " i� '' `` ° aft +`�.� L � "° >�'•y"�`
. .,.-"-: - `-- row•• �.� �w
w
u°
a " ,
',• _ .'+.K. .,..�,..v ,�,a..��- ,ire A ri H,� -9w �s
r
,.^� Ga r� •.+meµ -:,^i aalr ��F.d + y3`t^c�'`
+h : °� -. � � � Y✓ r �p ° `+ems ��:�' � , ��" �� � ,�
BUS
02
" Wv " �_ r�
w�r
3 k Y
s • v
b:
r
AW
t � r
4 Tq bi 5
a 4kr12
r.T
jy
b f � xzQQ
.mom
y^ cgs
aqm
�-
a
mill
{ 8 t y 3
WAN A
� 05R
3• :. � � api.Z beak- not
Regular Minutes
City Council/Redevelopment Agency
City of Huntington Beach
Monday, October 4, 2004
5:30 P.M. - Room B-8
7:00 P.M: - Council Chambers
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
An audiotape of the 5:30 p.m. portion of this meeting
and a videotape of the 7:00 p.m. portion of this meeting
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
The'5:00 p.m. portion of the meeting was recessed by City Clerk Joan L. Flynn to 5:30 p.m. in
Room B-8 due to a lack of quorum.
Call to Order
Mayor Green called the regular meetings of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach to order at 5:30 p.m. in Room 13-8.
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Roll Call
Present: Sullivan; Coerper, Hardy, Green, Cook
Absent:.*, Boardman
Public Comments
Alise Clevely spoke regarding the proposed moratorium and how it could delay her current
construction. She urged Council to oppose Interim Ordinance No. 3683.
Richard Batistelli, President of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association (HHPOA)
spoke in support of the proposed moratorium.
Dave Stefanides spoke on behalf of the Orange County Association of Realtors in opposition to
the proposed moratorium. Mr. Stefanides informed Council of his concerns that the moratorium
would make current 3-story homes non-conforming and would reduce options for homeowners,
which would.effect property values.
The City Clerk Announced Late Communications
Pursuant to the Brown (Open Meetings)Act, City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced Late
Communications regarding agenda items that had been received by her office following
distribution of the agenda packet:
Communication submitted by the Planning Department of a PowerPoint presentation titled
History Of 3'd Stories.
(2) . October 4,2004-Council/Age*Minutes -Page 2
(City Council) Study Session Held—Presentation Made on Proposed Moratorium on
Construction of Single Family,Three-Story Homes and Additions (440.10)
Planning Director Howard Zelefsky gave a PowerPoint presentation titled History of 3'd Stories,
which was announced as a Late Communication, regarding a proposed moratorium on
construction of single family, three=story homes.
Director Zelefsky and Planning Manager Scott Hess responded to Council inquiries regarding
homes currently under construction, Downtown and other Specific Plans, building height, and
the proposed interim ordinance.
Motion to Recess to Closed Session—Approved
A motion was made by Sullivan, second Hardy to recess to Closed Session on the following items.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Cook
NOES: None
ABSENT: Boardman
(City Council) Closed Session—Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)to confer
with its City Attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which
the city is a party. The title of the litigation is Opp v. City of Huntington Beach, Court of Appeals,
Fourth Appellate District, Division 3, Case No.G025947 (Opp 1)and Opp v. City of Huntington
Beach,et alb al.; Orange-County Superior Court Case No.748927,•Court-.of Appeals_Case No.,
G030601 (Opp It). Subject- Opp v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. (Opp 1 and Opp 2)
(120.80)
(City Council) Closed Session—Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to meet with
its designated representative : Agency Negotiator: Penelope Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator
to consider personnel matters. Subject: Compensation of Chief of Police. (120.80)
Reconvened City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting—7:00 P.M. —Council
Chambers.
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Roll Call
Present: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman Cook
Absent: None
No Actions Taken Which Require a Reporting Pursuant to Government Code
§54957.1(a) (3) (B)).
Mayor Green asked City Attorney Jennifer McGrath if there were any actions taken by the City
Council or Redevelopment Agency in Closed Session that required a reporting. City Attorney
McGrath responded that there were no actions to report.
Pledge of Allegiance—Led by Mayor Cathy Green
Invocation—Led by Reverend Jon Waterson, Community United Methodist Church
I
(3) , October 4, 2004-CouncillAocy Minutes - Page 3
The City Clerk Announced Late Communications
Pursuant to the Brown (Open Meetings)Act, City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced Late
Communications regarding agenda items that had been received by her office following
distribution of the agenda packet:
Communication submitted:by Richard Batistelli,President of the Huntington Harbour Property
Owners Association (HHPOA)dated September 28, 2004 and titled Zoning Text Amendment
No. 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) stating their support for approval of Zoning
Text Amendment No. 03-01.
Communication submitted by Randolph Takasuka dated October 3, 2004 (untitled)stating his
support for the approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01.
Four communications submitted by: Jim Hume on behalf of his mother Mary Hume; Moms
Salem on behalf of the Salem Family; Cynthia Forsthoff, and an email from Thkiese(@.aol.com
all dated October 4, 2004 stating their opposition to the adoption of Zoning Text Amendment
No. 03-01.
Communication submitted by Keith R. Cunning dated October 1, 2004(untitled) stating his
opposition to the adoption of the ordinance relating to mobile home relocation benefits.
Communication submitted by Vickie Talley, Executive Director of the Manufactured Housing
Educational Trust(MHET)dated October 1, 2004 and titled Mobile Home Park Conversion
Ordinance Modification.October 4, 2004 Agenda Item D-2.stating opposition to the proposed
amendments to the city's Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance Chapter 234
Communication submitted by Steve-Gullage from Maurice A. Priest, Corporate Counsel &
Legislative Advocate for Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL)
dated October 4, 2004 and titled Proposed Modifications to Mobile home Park Conversion
Ordinance Chapter 234,Comments on Proposed Wording of Proposed Changes No. 3684
urging the rejection of the proposed changes found in ordinance number-3684, and instead
adopt and affirm the changes to Ordinance Chapter 234 as of September 6, 2004.
Communication submitted by John Craney dated September 30, 2004 and titled Huntington
Beach City Council Agenda for 1014104 requesting a delay in the public hearing for property
located at 8101 Ellis Avenue until after the 15u'of October 2004.
A Power Point Presentation submitted by Public Works Department.dated October 4, 2004 titled
Resolution of Necessity 8101 Ellis Avenue.
Communication submitted by David & Juliet Max-Muller dated October 4, 2004 and titled
Verizon FIOS power utility box in opposition to the placement&design of the Verizon concrete
pad and cabinet outside their residence.
The Following Additional Late Communications Were Submitted During the Meeting:
Communication submitted by Randy Fuhrman titled 17021 Wesport, 17031 Wesport,
17051117041 Wesport, which are copies of photographs of slopes and retaining walls.
(4) • October 4, 2004 -Council/Ag* Minutes -Page 4
Communication submitted by Randy Fuhrman, undated and untitled, which are photographs of
various retaining walls with and without greenery.
Communication submitted by Gail Stoter titled Somerset Lane, Gilbert Island—October 2004
and 16951 Concord Lane—March 2001.
Communication submitted:by Shirley de Heras.titled 17087 Westport Drive-.March 200.1.
Communication submitted by Bob Frishman, undated and untitled,which is a copy of a group of
four photographs of the plants and weeds growing on a slope.
Communication submitted by Ron Davis, undated and untitled, which is a PowerPoint slide
show of various utility cabinets in the City.
Public Comments
Chuck Scheid spoke regarding the Howard Jarvis tax refund process and future revenue
generating issues. Mr. Scheid asked citizens to contribute 10% or more of their refund to fund
future lawsuits by contacting him at 714-536-7077, and distributed a communication titled
PUBLIC COMMENTS, 4 October 2004, Illegal Taxes.
Councilmember Boardman replied to the previous speaker's comments.
Councilmember Sullivan thanked Mr. Scheid for his efforts.
Ron.Davis, Chair of the Planning Commission; spoke in opposition to the Venzon item on the .
agenda, urging the Council to support the denial of Design Review No. 04-18 and to enable citizens
to participate in the design of the boxes. Mr. Davis referred to a PowerPoint slide show, undated
and untitled, to illustrate his concerns.
Tim McCallion, President of Verizon-Pacific Region, spoke in support of approval of Design
Review No. 04-18, stating that the boxes are needed to connect the fiber optics and citing the
advantages of fiber optics.
Councilmember Boardman asked Mr. McCallion if he would be present at the meeting when this
item is to be discussed. Mr. McCallion replied in the affirmative.
Douglas Armstrong informed Council of the Union Pacific Railroad moving forward with remote
controlled operations in the city. He emphasized his concern for public safety.
Mayor Green asked Mr. Armstrong how this information became available to him, to which he
replied that he is a locomotive engineer for Union Pacific.
City Administrator Penelope Culbreth-Graft directed staff to obtain Mr. Armstrong's contact
information.
Mark Porter spoke in opposition to the Verizon boxes, stating his opinion that they could be placed
underground to minimize the negative impact.
(5) • October 4, 2004 -Councill*ncy Minutes -Page 5
Rex Ricks, candidate for City Council, informed Council of the Long Beach Airport plans,which
would-affect the quality of life for Huntington Beach residents. He suggested concerned citizens
visit Long Beach City Hall to express their concerns. Mr. Ricks stated his opinion regarding slate
mailers.
Peggy Price informed Council of the purpose of the Greater Huntington Beach..Interfaith Council.
Reverend Price invited community leaders and interested groups to attend the meetings,.wliich are,
held the last Tuesday of the month at 7:45 a.m. in City Hall.
Steve Stafford spoke regarding alleged health and safety issues in his neighborhood and
suggested placing the Verizon cabinets in underground vaults.
Dave Stefanides,Orange County Association of Realtors'member, spoke in opposition to the
proposed third story moratorium, stating that the city has a procedure in place that is adequate.
Randy Fuhrman spoke about the agenda item that addresses through lots and the related zoning
text amendment. Mr. Fuhrman distributed Late Communications consisting of copies of
photographs taken which illustrate vegetation encroaching on public walkways.
John Earl, candidate for City Council, spoke regarding the Coca-Cola Company and alleged
human rights abuses. Mr. Earl asked Council to schedule a study session in order to discuss the
company's Code of Conduct.
Joey Racano, candidate for City Council, spoke regarding the upcoming election, clean water and
wetlands.
(City Council) Closed Public Hearing Testimony Portion of this Continued Public Hearing
to Consider Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA) No. 03-01 (Through Lot Development
Standards) Amending Chapters 203, 210 and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Relating to Definitions and Fencing and Yards—
Ordinance No. 3685 Not Read by Title--Directed Staff to Return November I e with
Guidelines for Wall Design on Through Lots and Addressing the Issues of: Starting CUP
at Planning Commission Level, the Notification Process, and Primary and Secondary
Frontage Definitions. (450.20)
Mayor Green announced that this was the time noticed for a public hearing to consider the
following:
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach .
Request: To amend Chapters 203, (210 introduced in an alternative Ordinance-.see agenda._
packet)and 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO)to regulate
the placement of fencing, landscaping, and accessory structures within the rear and street side
yards of through-lots. A through lot is defined as having frontages on two parallel streets. The
proposed amendments are generally intended to prohibit fences and structures of any height on
slopes and rear portions of through lots, require the sloped portion of a through lot to be fully
landscaped and require fencing on a through lot to be located at top of grade, including fencing
within an exterior side yard.
Location: Citywide
(6) October 4, 2004-Council/Age&Minutes -Page 6
Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this Agenda Item is categorically exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been published and posted.
Councilmember Sullivan.recused himself since his property is a through lot
The following communications were included in the agenda packet: communications submitted
by Mike Palikan in support of Staffs recommendation of ZTA 03-01 and a petition addressed to
the Planning Commission dated July 15, 2004 from Gilbert Island Through Lot Property Owners;
communication submitted by Darrach G. Taylor in support of Staffs and Planning Commission's
recommendations; communication from Jack Croshwait to Council dated October 4, 2004
including a petition; communication submitted by Shawn Hollub and by the Salem Family,which
were included in the agenda packet.
Associate Planner Paul Da Veiga presented a PowerPoint slide report titled Zoning Text
Amendment No. 03-01 Through Lot Development Standards, which was included in the agenda
packet.
Planning Director Howard Zelefsky and Associate Planner Da Veiga responded to Council
inquiries regarding frontage and setbacks, notification ranges, the conditional use permit(CUP)
process, fence height, vegetation growing over sidewalks, and conditions of block walls.
Director Zelefsky encouraged citizens to report any property in disrepair to the City.
Mayor Green declared.the public heating open.
Prior to announcing the public speakers, City Cleric Flynn restated for the record the following
Late Communications which pertain to this.public hearing:
Communication submitted by Richard Batistelli, President of the Huntington Harbour Property
Owners Association (HHPOA)dated September 28, 2004 and titled Zoning Text Amendment
No. 03-01 (Through-Lot Development Standards) stating their support for the approval of Zoning
Text Amendment No. 03-01.
Communication submitted by Randolph Takasuka dated October 3, 2004 (untitled)stating his
support for the approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-01.
Four communications submitted by: Jim Hume on behalf of his mother Mary Hume; Morris
Salem on behalf of the Salem Family;Cynthia Forsthoff; and an email.from ThkieseO-aol.com
all dated October 4,:2004 stating their opposition to the adoption of Zoning Text Amendment
No. 03-01.
Nina Patten spoke in support of the proposed zoning text amendment stating that her main
concern is that the slopes and walls be well-maintained and safe.
Gail $toter spoke of the comparisons between Gilbert Island and Roundhill Drive and two-foot
sidewalks. Ms. Stoter stated her support for the proposed ordinance amendments and
distributed a Late Communication consisting of copies of photographs regarding Somerset Lane
and Concord Lane.
(7) • October 4, 2004-Councillp*cy Minutes - Page 7
Shirley de Heras identified herself as a through lot owner who supports the 2002 Beautification,
Landscape, and Trees (BLT)endorsement. Ms. de Heras stated her opinion that existing walls
should be covered with vines, and distributed a Late Communication consisting of copies of
photographs regarding 17087 Westport Drive, March 2001.
Ted Patten.spoke in.support of the proposed zoning text amendment and.related ordinance and
asked hat.existing walls be landscaped; not torn down.
Elfriede Geiger spoke regarding the negative impact of walls placed on.undeveloped slopes
and if landscaped, the necessary maintenance of vegetation.
Adrienne Parks spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning text amendment stating concerns
relative to property ownership rights and conditional use permit expenses. Ms. Parks asked the
City Council to address the issue of walls throughout the city rather than singling out certain
through lot residents.
Manfred Lengsfeld informed Council that some changes are being made to the code relating to
seismic design requirements of retaining walls.
Dora Kaikainahaole thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts and stated her
agreement with their report as well as staff recommendations.
Jean Nagy stated her opinion that the walls should be covered with Boston Ivy. She further
informed Council that building a wall on.the top of her slope would place it inches from her
-home,_not allowing her:to.have a.view.of her property on theslope. Ms. Nagy urged
councilmem6ers to`consider Gilbert Island properties separately.
Norma Gibbs spoke relative to walls and lost views from her home, and stated her support for
the Planning Commission's recommendations.
John Satterthwaite asked Council to deny the proposed zoning text amendment and stated his
concerns relative to erosion on the slopes.
Jackie Satterthwaite spoke against what she alleged is a special interest group trying to take
away property rights.
Scott Dowds spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning text amendment stating that the
current code is sufficient. Mr. Dowds informed Council that half of the through lots are on
Gilbert Island, and he stated in his opinion that Gilbert Island has no problems.
Jay Sheth asked the City Council not to change the current ordinance.
Jack Crosthwait referred to a petition on behalf of Gilbert Island homeowners and
recommended Council.accept the zoning text amendment as proposed by the Planning
Commission.
Councilmember Cook addressed Mr. Crosthwait asking his opinion of the walls on Roundhill
Drive and providing clarification on what the process would be for Gilbert Island homeowners
who want to build a wall.
(8) • October 4,2004-Council/Age0 Minutes - Page 8
Mike Palikan spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning text amendment citing property rights
concerns. He defined the burden placed on homeowners as a taking of property.
Heide Palikan alleged meetings were held with Roundhill Drive homeowners lending a look of
impropriety. Ms. Palikan asked the City Council to deny the proposed zoning text amendment
or at the very least to follow the staff recommendations..
Marlene Lopin spoke about landscaping of slopes and her concerns about erosion and
maintenance of walls. Ms. Lopin asked the Council to approve the Beautification, Landscape,
and Trees (BLT) recommendations.
Jacqueline McAniff spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning text amendment, as it is not
fairly applied to all properties, in her opinion.
Rick Taylor spoke relative to concerns for Gilbert Island residents. Mr. Taylor alleged that only
Roundhill Drive residents were informed of the meetings held in the last 2 years.
Bob Frishman informed Council of his opinion that the more serious problem is the
maintenance of the property, whether it be a wall or a slope. Mr. Frishman distributed a Late
Communication illustrating an unkept slope.
Randolph Takasuka stated his concerns about the notification process relative to the meetings
and asked councilmembers to disclose any political affiliations with residents of Roundhill Drive.
Randy Fuhrman spoke about the importance of notification. Mr. Fuhrman informed Council
.that, in his opinion, the current notification is.not adequate. :He voiced.his concern regarding the.
.. 3:00 p.m:Zoning Administrator meetings:aS the level of.approval for the Conditional Use Permit
Bryan Taylor spoke in support of the proposed zoning text amendment. Mr. Taylor referred to
the original plans for Huntington Harbour's design and asked Council to support the rights given
to the association in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Josh Rorem stated his opposition to the proposed amendment citing concerns for property
rights.
Richard Batistelli, President of the Huntington Harbour Property Owners Association
(HHPOA), informed Council of his opinion that over 100 through lot properties exist if you
include waterways as frontage and of his concerns about the walls.
Don Wolter spoke in support of the proposed zoning text amendment stating his opinion that .
walls have a negative impact.in the appearance of a neighborhood.
Donna Mance informed Council that one-third of her property is a slope and she is of the
opinion that property rights are more important than aesthetics. Ms. Mance asked Council to
deny the proposed amendment.
Carole Garrett spoke in support of the 2002 Beautification, Landscape, and Trees (BLT)
recommendations. Ms. Garrett alleged notification concerns and that prior recommendations
were not enforced.
There being no persons present to speak further on the matter and there being no further
protests filed, either written or oral, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed.
(14) • October 4,2004-Council/Age*Minutes-Page 14
(City Council)Approved Professional Services Contract Between the City and Renee
Mayne for Chief Negotiator Services for Labor Contract Negotiations— HBFA(Huntington
Beach Fire Association), HBMEA(Huntington Beach Municipal Employees' Association),
and HBPOA(Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association) (600.10)—Approved and
authorized the execution by the Mayor and City Clerk of the Professional Services Contract
Between the.City of Huntington Beach and Renee Mayne for Chief Negotiator Services for.
_ Labor Contract:Negofiations.: Submitted bytl e Administrative Services Director. :Funding
Source: Funding is available in the Human Resources Professional Service Account 10035303.
(City Council) Adopted Resolution of Necessity No. 2004-84 Approving the Acquisition
of a Portion of Certain Real Property Located at 8101 Ellis Avenue, Assessor's Parcel No.
157-343-18, by Eminent Domain to Acquire Right-of-Way for the Ellis Avenue Widening
Project; CC-891 (650.50)
Mayor Cathy Green announced the following:
1. This agenda is a specially noticed hearing held under Code of Civil Procedure Section
1245.235. Only those persons who have been specially noticed and have previously
requested to appear'and be heard, or their designees, under Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1245.235, shall be heard at this time.
2. The subject matter of this special hearing is limited to the following items:
A. Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project;
B.' Whether the:project is.planned:or located in the manner.that will be.most
compatible viiith the greatest public good and.the least.pnvate injury,
C. Whether the property described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary for
the proposed project;
D. Whether an offer of just compensation pursuant to Government Code Section
7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record.
3. The amount of compensation is not at issue during this public hearing. It will be decided
by the courts at a later date, should the Resolution of Necessity be adopted.
4. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures Section 1245.240, this Resolution of Necessity
requires a two-thirds vote of all Council members (which means 5 affirmative.votes)for
adoption.
.:Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office.by staff bad been mailed, published. and
posted
The City Council considered communication from the Administrative Director and the Public
Works Director transmitting the following Statement of Issue: This resolution will authorize the
City's use of its eminent domain power to acquire right-of-way for the Ellis Avenue Widening
Project; CC-891.
The City Council considered a communication submitted by John Craney dated,September 30,
2004 and titled Huntington Beach City Council Agenda for 1014104 requesting a delay in the
public hearing for property located at 8101 Ellis Avenue until after the 15t'of October 2004,
which was announced earlier as a Late Communication.
(15) • October 4, 2004-Council/*ncy Minutes - Page 15
Council discussion followed relative to notification, eminent domain and the effects of delaying
the project.
Councilmember Coerper asserted that he would not be supporting the resolution.
Mayor Green asked if the_property owners or anyone else wished to.heard.
City Engineer Dave Webb gave a Power Point report titled Resolution of Necessity 8161 Ellis
Avenue, which had been announced earlier as a Late Communication.
A motion was made by Boardman, second Sullivan to Adopt Resolution No. 2004-84— "A
Resolution of Necessity of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Approving
the Acquisition of a Portion of Certain Real Property Located at 8101 Ellis Avenue, Assessor's
Parcel No. 157-343-18, by Eminent Domain to Permit Street Widening."
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook
NOES: Coerper
ABSENT: None
(City Council) Approved Appeal Referred by the Planning Commission and Filed by
Mayor Cathy Green on Behalf of Applicant,Verizon California, Inc. of the Planning
Director's Denial of Design Review No. 04-18 (Fiber Optic Upgrade of Verizon's
�ellecommunlcatibns:system) (420.40
The City Council considered a communication from the Planning Director transmitting for
Council consideration the referral by the Planning Commission of an appeal by Mayor Green of
the Planning Director's denial of Design Review No. 04-18. The application represents a
request by Verizon California, Inc. to review the design, colors, and materials for the installation
of 235 pedestal mounted hubs to accommodate the fiber optic upgrade of Verzon's
telecommunication systems.
City Clerk Flynn restated the Late Communication, which had been announced earlier.
Planning Director Howard Zelefsky gave an oral report.
Council discussed with staff and Mr. Tim McCallion, Venzon representative, concerns regarding
the size and location of the boxes used to accommodate the fiber optic connections, future
upgrades of the.boxes based on improved technology, graffiti issues and the option of a no fee
license agreement.
Mr. McCallion informed Council that the size of the box is determined by the size of the location
being served. He also spoke regarding graffiti-resistant paint, maintenance, and the range of
choices the citizens would have for service.
Further discussion ensued relative to the value of the added service and the consequences of
delaying the project. Mr. McCallion informed Council of Verizon's critical time period.
Councilmember Cook stated her opposition to the appeal.
(16) • October 4,2004-Council/Ag*Minutes -Page 16
A motion was made by Coerper,second Green to approve Design Review No. 04-18 with
Findings and Suggested Conditions for Approval.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: . Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green .
NOES: Boardman, Cook
ABSENT: None
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18:
1. The proposed design and locations of the pedestal mounted hubs, as modified by the
suggested conditions of approval,will not have a negative visual impact on the public rights-
of-way of the City since the design is harmoniously integrated into the neighborhoods or
districts within the City of Huntington Beach. The installation of the proposed hubs has
considered the best design options or location to adequately screen or conceal the hubs.
The proposed project does conform to the General Plan by carrying out the following goals,
objectives, and policies:
Urban Design Element
Goal UD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach.
. .UD 1.3.1: Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design:character along the
community's condors that reflects,-the unique qualities of each district.' Ensure that
streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential corridors, and
primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while
promoting visual continuity throughout the City.
Land Use Element
Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and
reflects economic demands which maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current
and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances and establishes a distinct
identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers.
Utility Element. .
-U 2: Through the development or design review process, require or continue to require the
review of all proposed expansions, relocations, or new facilities for compliance with applicable
development standards and for potential impacts.
2. The design and locations of the proposed pedestal hubs have incorporated design solutions
to reduce their visual impact. The proposed pedestal mounted hubs are adequately
screened from view and or have proposed a size and design to reduce the potential
negative visual impact on the community.
3. The design and the locations of the proposed pedestal mounted hubs, as modified by the
suggested conditions of approval, will contribute to the visual quality of the City. The
(17) • October 4, 2004-Council/oncy Minutes - Page 17
proposed project with modifications has been designed in a manner to contribute to the
improved design theme of the City. The design, size, and locations of the utility hubs will
contribute to the improved design theme of the City and will improve the visual image of the
City by the use of alternative design solutions to reduce their overall size, use of
landscaping to screen them from view or by the possible undergrounding of the hubs.
4. The.design and locations, as modified by the.suggested conditions of approval, do achieve a
pattern of land uses that preserves,enhances and establishes a distinct identity for the
City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18:
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.611 the pedestal mounted hubs. In the
event the exterior condition of any.hub.passively deteriorates;whether due to fading or rusting
or any other condition, to the point that the city, in its exclusive judgment,determines the
particular hub to be aesthetically unattractive due to such condition,the city shall provide
Verizon with a 15 day written demand that Verizon restore the exterior of the hub to"like new"
condition, and in the event Verizon shall fail to restore the hub within 15 working days of
notification, the city is entitled to do so and any expenses incurred by the city shall be
immediately reimbursed by Verizon: In the event that the exterior condition of any hub is altered
due to the activities of any third party, whether by accident or otherwise, such as vandalism,
graffiti, the placement of signs, stickers or other material on the hub, the city is entitled to
provide Verizon with a 15 day written demand that Verizon immediately restore the hub to"like
new"condition, and in the event fails to do so within 15 working days of notification,the city
shall be entitled to make such repairs as in its judgment are necessary and Verizon shall
reimburse the city for the costs incurred. The Director of Public Works shall be responsible for
the maintenance determination and oversight of the hubs. -
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different
from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any
claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its
agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside,void or annul any approval of the City, including
but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design .
Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim,
action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof.
(18) October 4, 2004 -Council/Age&Minutes -Page 18
(City Council) Failed to Adopt Emergency Interim Ordinance No. 3683 Imposing a 45-Day
Moratorium on the Issuance of Building Permits for the Construction of Single Family,
Low Density Three-Story Homes—Directed Staff to Return to Council to a Date Uncertain
with a Review of What the City Has Currently and Direction it is Headed Regarding Height
Limits and Specific Plans (440.70)
TheCity.Council..considered a.communication from-the City Adomey_and the Planning Director-
transmitting that on September 7. 2004,the City Council requested the' staff to retumwith an
interim ordinance that would impose a 45-day moratorium on construction of three-story, single
family homes. In order to adopt the ordinance and impose the moratorium, the City Council
must find that the issuance of building permits for construction of three-story single family
homes or remodel of homes to add a third story presents a current and immediate threat to the
public health, safety, or welfare, and the approval of additional building permits for such homes
would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
Planning Director Howard Zelefsky gave an oral report.
A motion was made by Sullivan, second Hardy to adopt Ordinance No. 3683— "An Interim
Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Imposing a Moratorium on the Issuance of Building
Permits for Construction of Single Family, Low Density Three-Story Homes."
(Six affirmative votes are required for adoption of this Interim Ordinance per Government Code
Section 65858)
Councilmember Cook suggested amending the motion to exclude those individuals with
applications approved as of October 4, 2004. The maker..of the motion.and.the second agreed
to this amendment. The amended motion failed by,the following roll.call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Boardman, Cook
NOES: Green
ABSENT: None
A motion was made by Cook, second Hardy to direct staff to establish a specific plan area for
Southeast Huntington Beach.
Councilmember Sullivan stated his opposition to this motion stating his opinion that any rule
should address the entire city.
Councilmember Cook withdrew her motion and made a new motion, second Green,to direct
staff to review and report back to Council at a date uncertain what the City currently has in place
and the direction the City.is headed regarding height limits and specific plans. The motion
carried:by the following roll call vote
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(City Council) Continued from September 20, 2004-Selected a Procedure to Appoint
a City Council Member for the Unexpired Term—Accepting Applications with a Deadline
of Noon October 13, 2004 for Council Review at the October 18, 2004 Meeting (120.40)
The City Council considered communication from Mayor Cathy Green transmitting the following
Statement of Issue: City Council Member Pam Houchen has resigned, effective September 2,
2004. Since the next regular election for City Council Members will not be held until November
October 4, 2004-Council/ cy Minutes -Page 19
2, 2004, a process needs to be approved regarding the appointment of a new City Council
Member by the City Council to serve the remainder of the current unexpired term.
Council discussed the alternatives with staff.
A motion.was.made (results to follow) by-Coerper, second Green to conduct a short recruitment and
interview process;and.make a selection after interviewing several qualified candidates.
A substitute motion was made by Hardy, second Boardman to appoint Grace Winchell to the
vacancy. The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hardy, Boardman, Cook
NOES: Sullivan, Coerper, Green
ABSENT: None
Council discussion ensued regarding interviews, applications, candidates for election, and
perceptions of appointing a candidate.
The main motion failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Coerper, Green, Cook
NOES: Sullivan, Hardy, Boardman
ABSENT: None
A motion was made by Sullivan,second Coerper to:begin the application process, using the
Boards and Commissions application, to be submitted to,City Clerk's Office'by noon on October
13, 2004 for council review at the October 18, 2004 meeting. The motion carved by
following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman
NOES: Cook
ABSENT: None
Staff clarified that the application is available on the website and hard copies may be obtained in
the City Clerk's Office.
(City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Declined a Contribution of$1,000.00 from the
Downtown Business Association and Directed Staff Not to Proceed with the Replacement of
the Majestic.Beauty Trees with.Queen.Palm Trees in Downtown Main.Street Utilizing
Redevelopment Agency.Funds (410.20)
The City Council considered a communication from City Council/Redevelopment Agency Member
Gil Coerper transmitting the following Statement of Issue: On March 15, 2004, the City Council
concurred with a number of advisory bodies that Queen Palms should be the replacement tree for
the Majestic Beauty trees in the Downtown. As part of that action, rather than proceeding with the
replacement of all of the trees using $15,000 in available Redevelopment Agency funds, the
Council requested that the Downtown merchants provide a match of half of the amount or$7,500.
To date, only a few of the trees have been replaced.
(20) October 4, 2004-Council/Ag*Minutes -Page 20
ANALYSIS:
At the Downtown Issues Economic Development Committee meeting on September 24, 2004,
Steve Daniels reported that they had raised $1,000 of the funds needed but had not been able to
raise all of the funds given the focus on recent efforts to secure approval of the Downtown BID
(Business. Improvement District).
1 believe it is appropriate for the City Courrcil`to reconsider its`prior decision for a number of
reasons:
• The existing Majestic Beauty trees, because of their height and size, encroach into the
sidewalk area, creating my concern for safe passage of the numerous pedestrians in the downtown
area;
• Replacement of the trees using redevelopment funds will assist the newly formed BID in getting
started;
• The Council's action in forming the BID reduced the assessments from $500 per year to$250
for businesses occupying 1,000 or less square feet,which will deprive the BID of an estimated
$10,000 to $20,000 of revenue in its first year of operation, a portion of which could have been used
towards trees.
Economic Development/Deputy Executive Director David Biggs gave an oral report.
A motion was made by Coerper, second Green to accept a contribution of$1,000 from the
Downtown Business Association and direct staff to proceed with the replacement of the Majestic
Beauty trees:utilizing Redeveloprhent:Agencyfunds: Th motion,failed b-the following roll call
vote: .
AYES: Coerper, Green
NOES: Sullivan, Hardy, Boardman, Cook
ABSENT: None
Adjournment—City Council/Redevelopment Agency
Mayor Green adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach at 1:10 a.m. to Friday, October 15, 2004, at 2:00 p.m., in Room B-8 Civic
Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California.
City CI and ex-offs o C-rerR WlieUty
Counci f the City of HuntingtoW Beach
and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach, California
ATTEST:
City Clerk-Clerk Mayo - air
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
JOAN.L. FLYNN
October 7;2004
:CITY
..: _. CLERK
Verizon California, Inc.
7352 Slater Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
ATTN: Albert Aleman
Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
Dear Mr. Aleman:
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, September
20, 2004 took actipn on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Consider Approval of Appeal
Referred by the Planning Commission and Filed by Mayor Cathy Green on Behalf of
Applicant, Verizon California, Inc. of the Planning Director's Denial of Design Review No.
04-18 (Fiber Optic Upgrade of Verizon's Telecommunications System)
The City Council overtumed the Planning Commission decision of denial of Design Review
No. 04-18.
The .Action Agenda and. Findings and Conditions'of Approval are enclosed. The October 4,'
2004 minutes of the approval of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of
the minutes.
This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of
the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from October 4,
2004 to apply to the court for judicial review.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227.
Sincerely,
Joan L:: I nn.
City Clerk
Enclosure: Government Code 1094.6
Action Agenda Pages 15
cc: Penny Culbreth-Graft,City Administrator
Jennifer McGrath,City Attorney
Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director
Herb Fauland, Principal Planner
Scott Hess, Planning Manager
Rosemary Medel,Associate Planner
Cathy Green, Mayor-Appellant
g:/followup/appeal/90dayltr.doc
(Telephone:714-536.5227)
•
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18:
I. The proposed design. and .locations of.the.pedestal mounted hubs, as modified by
the suggested-conditions of approval, will not have a negative visual impact bn the
public rights-of-way of the City since the design is harmoniously integrated into the
neighborhoods or districts within the City of Huntington Beach. The installation of
the proposed hubs has considered the best design options or location to adequately
screen or conceal the hubs. The proposed project does conform to the General
Plan by carrying out the following goals, objectives, and policies:
Urban Design Element
Goal UD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach.
UD 1.3.1: Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character
along the community's corridors that reflects the unique qualities of each district.
Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential
corridors, and primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its
own identity while promoting visual continuity throughout the City.
LandUse Element .
Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability
and reflects economic demands which maintaining and improving the quality of life
for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances and establishes
a distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers.
Utility Element
1-U 2: Through the development or design review process, require or continue to
require the review 'of all proposed expansions,; relocations; or new facilities for
compliance with applicable development standards and for potential:impacts
2. The design and locations of the proposed pedestal hubs have incorporated design
solutions to reduce their visual impact. The proposed pedestal mounted hubs are
adequately screened from view and or have proposed a size and design to reduce
the potential negative visual impact on the community.
3. The design and the locations of the proposed pedestal mounted hubs, as modified.
by the suggested conditions of approval, will contribute to the visual quality of the
City. The proposed project with modifications has been designed in a manner to
contribute to the improved design theme of the City. The design, size, and locations
(04sr26 DR 04-18) Attachment 1.1
of the utility hubs will contribute to the improved design theme of the City and will
improve the visual image of the City by the use of alternative design solutions to
reduce their overall size, use of landscaping to screen them from view or by the
possible undergrounding of the hubs.
4. The design and. locations , as modified by the suggested conditions of approval, do
achieve a pattern .of land:,uses that preserves, enhances and_ establishes a distinct
Identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18:
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. In the event the exterior condition of any hub passively deteriorates, whether
due to fading or rusting or any other condition, to the point that the city, in its
exclusive judgment, determines the particular hub to be aesthetically unattractive
due to such condition, the city shall provide Verizon with a 15 day written demand
that Verizon restore the exterior of the hub to "like new" condition, and in the event
Verizon shall fail to restore the hub within 15 working days of notification, the city is
entitled to do so and any expenses incurred by the city shall be immediately
reimbursed by Verizon. In the event that the exterior condition of any hub is altered
due to the activities of any third party, whether by accident or otherwise, such as
vandalism, graffiti, the:placement.of signs, stickers or other_material on the hub_ , the
city is entitled_ to provide Verizon with.a 15 day written demand.that Verizon
immediately restore the hub to "like new"condition, and in the event fails to do so
within 15 working days of notification, the city shall be entitled to make such repairs
as in its judgment are necessary and Verizon shall reimburse the city for the costs
incurred. The Director of Public Works shall be responsible for the maintenance
determination and oversight of the hubs.
(04sr26 DR 04-18) Attachment 1.2
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if
different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall
defend,. indemnify and hold .-harmless the City.of Huntington Beach and its agents,
offcers, and..employees from;.any claim,..action or.proceedings, liability:cost, including
attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents; officers or employees; to attack;
set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not .limited to any
approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board
concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action
or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof.
(04sr26 DR 04-18) Attachment 1.3
WAIS Document Retrieval: • Page 1 of 2
1094.6. (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency,
other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in
Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board,
officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of .
this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such
section is filed within the time limits specified in this section.
(b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day
following. .the date .on..which the decis.ion.becomes .final. If .there is. .
no provision for reconsideration :of. the decision, or for-a written :
decision or written findings supporting the decision, in.-any
applicable provision of any statute, charter, or rule, for the
purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is
announced. If the decision is not announced at the close of the
hearing, the date, time, and place of the announcement of the
decision shall be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision
for reconsideration, the decision is final for purposes of this
section upon the expiration of the period during which such
reconsideration can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is
sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for the
purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is
rejected. If there is a provision for a written decision or written
findings, the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the
date it is mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, including a
copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing, to the party seeking
the writ. Subdivision (a) of Section 1013 does not apply to extend
the time, following deposit in the mail of the decision or findings,
within which a petition shall be filed.
(c) The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by
the .local agency..or Its commission, board, _officer., .or agent which
made the decision and shall be 'delivered .to. the .petitioner .within .190
days. aftei :he. has..filed a -written request.- therefor... - .The...lOcal.
agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for
transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall
include the transcript of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices
and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final
decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the
possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or
agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case.
(d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified
in subdivision (c) within 10 days after the date the decision becomes
final as provided in subdivision (b) , the time within which a
petition pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to
not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record
is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his
attorney of record, if he. has one.
(e) As used in..this. section, decision.means. a .decision subject• to
review pursuant to Section 1094.5, suspending, . demoting,- or,
.
dismissing an officer or employee, revoking, denying an application
for a permit, license, or other entitlement, imposing a civil or
administrative penalty, fine, charge, or cost, or denying an
application for any retirement benefit or allowance.
(f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e) , the
local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within
which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section.
As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or employee
who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit,
license, or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended, or whose
application for a permit, license, or other entitlement has been
denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or
allowance has been denied.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdoclD=l 875 6911953+0+0+0&WAISac... 10/7/2004
WAIS Document Retrieva$ • Page 2 of 2
(g) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in
any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter, unless
the conflicting provision is a state or federal law which provides a
shorter statute of limitations, in which case the shorter statute of
limitations shall apply.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=l 8756911953+0+0+0&WAISac... 10/7/2004
(15) October 4, 2004 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 15
Revised Page to add Item F-2
F. Administrative Items
(City Council) Adopt Resolution of Necessity No. 2004-84 Approving the
Five ' Acquisition of a Portion of Certain Real Property Located at 8101 Ellis`Avenue,
Affirmative Assessor's Parcel No. 157-343-18, by Eminent Domain to Acquire Right-of-Way for
Votes are the Ellis Avenue Widening Project; CC-891 (650.50)
Required Communication from the Administrative Director and the Public Works Director
for transmitting the following Statement of Issue: This resolution will authorize the City's
Adoption use of its eminent domain power to acquire right-of-way for the Ellis Avenue Widening
of this Project; CC-891.
Resolution Recommended Action: Motion to:
per CA Adopt Resolution No. 2004-84— "A Resolution of Necessity of the City Council of the
Civil Code City of Huntington Beach, California Approving the Acquisition of a Portion of Certain
§1245.240 Real Property Located at 8101 Ellis Avenue, Assessor's Parcel No. 157-343-18, by
Eminent Domain to Permit Street Widening."
City Engineer Dave Webb gave a Power Point presentation.
Adopted 5— 1 (Coerper—No)
F-2. (City Council) Consider Approval of Appeal Referred by the Planning Commission
and Filed by Mayor Cathy Green on Behalf of Applicant, Verizon California, Inc. of
the Planning.Director's Denial of Design Review No. 04-18 (Fiber Optic Uparade of
Verizon's Telecommunications System) (420.40).
- Communication from the Planning Director transmitting for Council consideration the
referral by the Planning Commission of an appeal by Mayor Green of the Planning
Director's denial of Design Review No. 04-18. The application represents a request by
Verizon California, Inc. to review the design, colors, and materials for the installation of
235 pedestal mounted hubs to accommodate the fiber optic upgrade of Verizon's
telecommunication systems.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Approve Design Review No. 04-18 with Findings and Suggested Conditions for Approval
(ATTACHMENT NO. 1).
Planning Director Howard Zelefsky gave oral report. Council discussed with staff
and Mr. Tim McCallion the Verizon representative, concerns regarding the size
and location of the boxes used to accommodate the Eber optic connections,
future upgrades of the boxes based on improved technology, graffiti issue and
option for.a no.fee license agreement
Approved 4— 2 (Boardman, Cook—No)
Council/Agency Meeting Held: JO
Deferred/Continued to:
Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied lbdtzilCi Cie k's igna r
Council Meeting Date: October 4, 2004 Department umber: PL04-23
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS L&-
SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CULBRETH-GRAFT, City Administrator
PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning/ �
SUBJECT: APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18 (VERIZON FIBER OPTICS)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is a referral by the Planning
Commission of an appeal by Mayor Green of the Planning Director's denial of Design
Review No. 04-18. The application represents a request by Verizon California, Inc. to review
the design, colors, and materials for the installation of 235 pedestal mounted hubs to
accommodate the fiber optic upgrade of Verizon's telecommunication systems.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project at a special meeting on September 30, 2004.
The Planning Commission took straw votes on the suggested conditions of approval and then
referred the application to the City Council for final consideration. Staff recommended
approval to the Planning Commission with suggested modifications. The appeal is based
primarily on the issues of economic loss to the City and timing to meet Verizon's contractual
obligations and building schedule. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's straw votes
and is recommending the City Council approve the application (Recommended Action).
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
"Approve Design Review No. 04-18 with findings and suggested conditions for approval
(ATTACHMENT NO. 1) c
o � _
i CD <
CD
p-1"
-U D
.-, D
f�—'
i
RUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL A�TION
MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-23
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2004:
THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE Si�W
VOTES TO AMEND THE SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO.
04-18 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: SCANDURA, DAVIS, STILTON, LIVENGOOD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: THOMAS, RAY, DINGWALL
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED
THE MOTION MADE BY DAVIS SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO REFER DESIGN REVIEW NO.
04-18 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: SCANDURA, DAVIS, STILTON, LIVENGOOD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: THOMAS, RAY, DINGWALL
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s):
1. "Deny Design Review No. 04-18 with findings for denial"
2. "Continue Design Review No. 04-18 and direct staff accordingly"
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report dated September 30, 2004,
for a detailed summary of the project proposal and Design Review Board action
(ATTACHMENT NO. 2).
B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION:
On September 30, 2004, the Planning Commission held a special meeting on the appeal of
DR No. 04-18. Staff made a presentation on the proposal and then David C. Biggs, Director
of Economic Development, provided background material outlining past City Council actions
to facilitate the citywide upgrade of the Verizon telecommunications system (ATTACHMENT
NO. 3). The majority of the Planning Commission discussion was based on the proposed
design of the hubs and any possible alternative designs to mitigate the potential visual and
PL04-23Verizon -2- 10/1/2004 1:17 PM
RLRUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL A41TION
MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-23
aesthetic impacts to the City. A representative of Verizon spoke in favor of their proposal
and outlined their program and design options. The Planning Commission after a lengthy
discussion took straw votes on the staffs suggested conditions of approval, limiting their
actions to the design issues, and then voted to refer the item to the City Council for final
design and policy consideration. The straw vote approved suggested conditions of approval
are 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. In the event the exterior condition of any hub passively deteriorates, whether
due to fading or rusting or any other condition, to the point that the city, in its
exclusive judgment, determines the particular hub to be aesthetically unattractive
due to such condition, the city shall provide Verizon with a 15 day written demand
that Verizon restore the exterior of the hub to "like new" condition, and in the event
Verizon shall fail to restore the hub within 15 working days of notification, the city is
entitled to do so and any expenses incurred by the city shall be immediately
reimbursed by Verizon. In the event that the exterior condition of any hub is altered
due to the activities of any third party, whether by accident or otherwise, such as
vandalism, graffiti, the placement of signs, stickers or other material on the hub, the
city is entitled to provide Verizon with a 15 day written demand that Verizon
immediately restore the hub to "like new" condition, and in the event fails to do so
within 15 working days of notification, the city shall be entitled to make such repairs
as in its judgment are necessary and Verizon shall reimburse the city for the costs
incurred. The Director of Public Works shall be responsible for the maintenance
determination and oversight of the hubs.
PL04-23Verizon -3- 10/1/20041:17 PM
RLNUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ASTION
MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL04-23
C. APPEAL:
On September 27, 2004, Mayor Green appealed the Planning Director's denial of Design
Review No. 04-18. The reasons for the appeal are based on the following:
❑ The City will benefit economically from the project
❑ Time is of the essence to maintain obligations and building schedule
D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report dated September 30, 2004,
for a detailed summary of the staff analysis and recommendation(ATTACHMENT NO. 2).
Staff concurs with the Planning Commission straw votes and recommends approval of
Design Review No. 04-18.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15302, Class 2,
Replacement or Reconstruction, of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
Page Number No. Description
1. Findings and Conditions of Approval — DR#04-18
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 30, 2004
3. Memo from David C. Biggs dated September 30, 2004
RCA Author: Herb Fauland/Rosemary Medel
PL04-23Verizon -4- 10/1/2004 1:17 PM
Wes;
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18:
1..-. The proposed design and locations'of the pedestal mounted hubs, as.modified..by .
the suggested-conditions of approval, will not have a negative visual impact on the
public rights-of-way of the City since the design is harmoniously integrated into the
neighborhoods or districts within the City of Huntington Beach. The installation of
the proposed hubs has considered the best design options or location to adequately
screen or conceal the hubs. The proposed project does conform to the General
Plan by carrying out the following goals, objectives, and policies:
Urban Design Element
Goal UD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach.
UD 1.3.1: Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character
along the community's corridors that reflects the unique qualities of each district.
Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential
corridors, and primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its
own identity while promoting visual continuity throughout the City.
Land Use Element .
Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability
and reflects economic demands which maintaining and improving the quality of life
for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Goal LU 8:Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances and establishes
a distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers.
Utility Element
W 2: Through the development or design review process, require or continue to
require. the review of all proposed`expansions, relocations, or new facilities for
compliance With applicable,development standards and for.potential impacts
2. The design and locations of the proposed pedestal hubs have incorporated design
solutions to reduce their visual impact. The proposed pedestal mounted hubs are
adequately screened from view and or have proposed a size and design to reduce
the potential negative visual impact on the community.
3. The design and the locations of the proposed pedestal mounted hubs, as modified
by the suggested conditions of approval, will contribute to the visual quality of the
City. The proposed project with modifications has been designed in a manner to
contribute to the improved design theme of the City. The design, size, and locations
(04sr26 DR 04-18) Attachment 1.1
of the utility hubs will contribute to the improved design theme of the City and will
improve the visual image of the City by the use of alternative design solutions to
reduce their overall size, use of landscaping to screen them from view or by the
possible undergrounding of the hubs.
.4. The design .and locations , as modified by the.suggested.conditions of approval, do
achieve.a. pattern of land uses.that.preserves; enhances. and.establishes.a distinct
identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18:
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. In the event the exterior condition of any hub passively deteriorates, whether
due to fading or rusting or any other condition, to the point that the city, in its
exclusive judgment, determines the particular hub to be aesthetically unattractive
due to such condition, the city shall provide Verizon with a 15 day written demand
that Verizon restore the exterior of the hub to "like new" condition, and in the event
Verizon shall fail to restore the hub within 15 working days of notification, the city is
entitled to do so and any expenses incurred by the city shall be immediately
reimbursed by Verizon. In the event that the exterior condition of any hub is altered
due to the activities of any third party, whether by accident or otherwise, such as
vandalism, graffiti, the placement of signs,.stickers or other.material on the hub, the
city is entitled to provide Verizon with a 15 day written demand that Verizon
immediately restore the hub t0"like new" condition; and in the event fails to do so
within 15 working days of notification, the city shall be entitled to make such repairs
as in its judgment are necessary and Verizon shall reimburse the city for the costs
incurred. The Director of Public Works shall be responsible for the maintenance
determination and oversight of the hubs.
(04sr26 DR 04-18) Attachment 1.2
I
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if
different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall
defend,, indemnify .and hold harmless-the City of Huntington Beach and its agents,
officers,:and .employees from`any;claim, action or proceedings; liability cost, including
attorneys fees and costs I.
against the`City or its agents, officers or employees,'to attack,
set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not _limited to any
approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board
concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action
or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof.
(04sr26 DR 04-18) Attachment 1.3
I
}
RFr'
� -u
A
City of Huntington Beach Planning:Depgrtment:
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning
BY: Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner
DATE: September 30, 2004
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18 (Verizon Fiber Optics).
APPLICANT: Albert Aleman, Verizon California, Inc.
7352 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
APPELLANT: Cathy Green, Mayor
PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach
LOCATION: Public Right of Ways - Citywide
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
• Design Review No. 04-18 request:
- To review the design, colors, and materials for the installation of 235 pedestal mounted
hubs to accommodate the fiber optic upgrade of Verizon's telecommunication system.
• Staffs Suggested Modifications:
Approve Design Review No. 04-18: based upon the following:
- Reduce the overall height and dimensions of the hubs by approximately 50% and,
- Use of colors and materials with landscaping to screen hubs from view, or
- Underground the hubs whenever possible
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Approve Design Review No. 04-18, with modifications, findings, and suggested conditions of
approval (Attachment No.1)."
s •
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as:
A. "Approve Design Review No. 04-18 with findings for approval." (Applicant's Request)
B. "Deny Design Review No. 04-18 with findings for denial." (Planning Director's Action)
C. "Continue Design Review No. 04-18 and direct staff accordingly."
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Design Review No. 04-18 represents a request for the following:
To review the design, colors, and materials for the installation of 235 pedestal-mounted hubs
located in the City's Public right-of-ways pursuant to Chapter 244, Design Review of the
..HBZSO.
Verizon is proposing to construct new substructure facilities to support a fiber-based network that
consists of an overlay of the existing copper network within the City of Huntington Beach. The
project includes approximately 762,000 trench feet of new conduit and approximately 350 total
Fiber Distribution(FDH)Hubs that are either pole or pedestal mounted. The applicant is
requesting the proposed installation of the hubs, which are fiber optic telecommunication
enclosures, to be strategically located in the public right of ways throughout the City. The fiber
distribution hubs support the new fiber network and involve the necessary duct to and from the
pad-mounted device. The hubs are proposed in three sizes as outlined in the attached project
narrative. Please See Attachment No. 2 for a detailed project description.
Design Review Board Action:
On May 13, 2004, the Design Review Board reviewed the initial proposal for the installation of
15 pole and 335 pedestal mounted hubs citywide. After reviewing the proposal,the DRB
recommended approval to the Planning Director of the installation of only 100 pedestal mounted
above ground enclosures ranging is size from 48"- 64"in height, 14"- 18" in depth, and 16"- 32"
in width. The Planning Director concurred with the recommendation based on the conditions of
approval and approved the request. Please see Attachment No. 3 for the Design Review Board's
Notice of Action and suggested conditions of approval. The DRB's recommendation limited the
number of hubs due to the potential negative visual impacts related to the design of both the pole
and pedestal mounted enclosures. The DRB conditioned that the applicant return for approval of
the remaining 235 hubs provided the hubs reflect a design change consistent with the DRB's
direction. As stated in the original project proposal(Attachment No. 2), Verizon indicated that
they would work with the manufacturer to pursue variations in design, allowing for alternative
shapes, sizes and colors. Various available sizes where mentioned in the proposal,however,the
applicant indicated that the medium size pedestal hub (46Hx24Wx16D) would be the
predominant hub size installed throughout the City.
PC Staff Report—9/30/04 -2- (04sr26 DR 04-18)
On September 23, 2004,the Design Review Board reviewed Verizon's revised proposal to install
the remaining 235 pedestal hubs based on the revised project description(Attachment No. 4).
Pursuant to the condition placed on the DRB's prior approval, Verizon was to return with a
modified design proposal for the additional hubs. The submitted proposal consists of a slightly
modified hub design,resulting in a reduction in only the large hub from 54 to 48 inches in height
(54Hx46Wxl9D). The medium size hub would remain at the same dimensions as initially
proposed. Staff recommended approval with modifications suggesting a further reduction in
overall height and size (approximately 50%), consideration of alternative designs and screening
with landscaping, and the possible undergrounding of the hubs. The DRB recommended denial
based on the lack of design alternatives, failure to consider the impacts of the location and
visibility of the hubs and not considering potential alternative design materials.
On September 27, 2004, the Planning Director reviewed the Design Review Board's
recommendation and the applicant's revised proposal and based on this review upheld the Design
Review Board's recommendation(Attachment No. 7).
Appeal:
On September 27, 2004, Mayor Cathy Green appealed the Planning Director's denial of Design
Review Board No. 04-18 (Attachment No. 8). The appeal was filed based on the following:
❑ City-wide economic benefits will be lost, as the applicant asserts design options available
industry wide for utility boxes are limited by manufactures and technological constraints.
❑ Time is of the essence and the applicants that release of encroachment permits is needed
immediately to maintain their obligations and building schedule.
ISSUES:
Subiect Property And Surrounding Land Use,Zoning And General Plan Designations:
The proposed installation of the hubs would be within the public right-of-ways at various
locations throughout the City.
General Plan Conformance:
The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the City's public right of ways is Right of Ways
and Bridges. The proposed project, with modifications, is consistent with this designation and
the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan based on the following:
Urban Design Element
Goal UD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach.
PC Staff Report—9/30/04 -3- (04sr26 DR 04-18)
UD 1.3.1: Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character along the
community's corridors that reflects the unique qualities of each district. Ensure that
streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors,the residential corridors, and
primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while
promoting visual continuity throughout the City.
Land Use Element
Goal L U 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and
reflects economic demands which maintaining and improving the quality of life for the
current and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances and establishes a distinct
identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers.
Utility Element
T--U 2: Through the development or design review process, require or continue to require the
review of all proposed expansions, relocations, or new facilities for compliance with
applicable development standards and for potential impacts.
Based on the suggested modifications discussed in the analysis section of this report, staff
believes that the project will be consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan.
Zoning Compliance: Not Applicable
Urban Design Guidelines Conformance:
The proposed project, as modified, is in substantial conformance with the Urban Design
Guidelines, Chapter 9, Streetscape Guidelines.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15302, Class 2,Replacement or
Reconstruction, of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Coastal Element: Not Applicable
Redevelopment Status: Not applicable
Subdivision Committee: Not applicable
PC Staff Report—9/30/04 -4- (04sr26 DR 04-18)
Other Departments Concerns and Requirements:
The other City departments have reviewed the proposed request and have no special or unique
suggested conditions of approval.
Public Notification:
The special meeting of the Planning Commission hearing was posted on Monday, September 27,
2004, in compliance with Chapter 248,Notices,Findings, Decisions and Appeals, of the HBZSO
and California Government Code Section 54956.
Application Processing Dates:
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
DR No. 04-18: April 29, 2004 May 29, 2004
The original project was heard on May 13, 2004 within the mandatory processing time. The
revised project was submitted pursuant to a previously approved condition of approval and
therefore is not subject to the mandatory processing times.
ANALYSIS:
Project Issues— Visual Impacts
To-date the applicant has received approval by the City for the installation of 100 pedestal-
mounted hubs. The approved hub enclosures consisted of painted metal cabinets with a color
palette of pale green,beige, or brown consistent with the previous approval. The final color of
each cabinet has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department based on the
appropriate color for the location.
On September 17, 2004,the applicant submitted their revised plans(Attachment No. 5) in an
effort to comply with the DRB's condition requiring a modified design for their remaining hub
enclosures. As stated previously in this report, the revised plans represented only a slight
modification to the larger of the two hub designs with no changes to the medium size pedestal
hub. Staff concurs with the DRB that Verizon's proposal did not represent an improvement in
the design. Staff has attached the plans and photographs of the proposed designs for review
(Attachment Nos. 5 & 6).
Staff believes that the lack of aesthetic appeal of the proposed enclosures, including the lack of
landscaping to screen the hubs and minimally altered hub dimensions create a negative visual
impact. Upon reviewing the applicant's revised request, staff believes that further design
solutions are available, which would satisfy both the City's design objectives and allow the
applicant to meet their operational needs. Staff s suggested modifications are to reduce the hubs
in height and dimension by approximately 50%, and use alternative colors,materials and
landscaping to screen the hubs, or to install the hubs below ground whenever possible.
PC Staff Report—9/30/04 -5- (04sr26 DR 04-18)
Implementing any one or a combination of the suggested modifications would improve the visual
aspect of the project.
Staff believes with the suggested modifications,the project would be consistent with the goals
and policies of the General Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Design Review No. 04-18 with the suggested modifications.
Basis of Appeal
Mayor Green has appealed the Planning Director's denial based primarily on citywide economic
benefits and time (See Attachment No. 8). Staff recognizes the importance of the proposed
project and the citywide economic benefits and has attempted to meet the timeline proposed by
the applicant. The one issue of concern consistently expressed by staff has been the aesthetic and
visual impacts to the city by placing the hubs either on poles or pedestals throughout the city.
While both concerns noted in the appeal are valid, staff has been working with the applicant on
the first phase of their project to meet their projected goals and timelines. Staff has also
continued to offer design alternatives to try and lessen the potential visual impacts to the city.
Staff believes that all the issues can be adequately addressed with the implementation of the
recommended design alternatives and therefore reduce the potential visual and aesthetic impacts
to the city.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval-DR No. 04-18
2. Scope of Work for Fiber to the Premise-FTTP dated April 29, 2004
3. Design Review Board Notice of Action dated May 14, 2004
4. Revised Project Narrative dated September 17, 2004
5. Hub Designs—Plans dated September 17, 2004
6. Photographs-Proposed Hubs
7. Design Review Board Notice of Action dated September 27, 2004
8. Appeal letter dated September 27, 2004
PC Staff Report—9/30/04 -6- (04sr26 DR 04-18)
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18:
1. The proposed design and locations of the pedestal mounted hubs, as modified by the
suggested conditions of approval, will not have a negative visual impact on the public rights-
of-way of the City since the design is harmoniously integrated into the neighborhoods or
districts within the City of Huntington Beach. The installation of the proposed hubs has
considered the best design options or location to adequately screen or conceal the hubs. The
proposed project does conform to the General Plan by carrying out the following goals,
objectives, and policies:
Urban Design Element
Goal UD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach.
UD L 3.1: Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character along the
community's corridors that reflects the unique qualities of each district. Ensure that
streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential corridors, and
primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while
promoting visual continuity throughout the City.
Land Use Element
Goal L U 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and
reflects economic demands which maintaining and improving the quality of life for the
current and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Goal L U 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances and establishes a distinct
identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers.
Utility Element
I-U 2: Through the development or design review process, require or continue to require the
review of all proposed expansions, relocations, or new facilities for compliance with
applicable development standards and for potential impacts.
2. The design and locations of the proposed pedestal hubs have incorporated design solutions to
reduce their visual impact. The proposed pedestal mounted hubs are adequately screened
from view and or have proposed a size and design to reduce the potential negative visual
impact on the community.
3. The design and the locations of the proposed pedestal mounted hubs, as modified by the
suggested conditions of approval, will contribute to the visual quality of the City. The
proposed project with modifications has been designed in a manner to contribute to the
(04sr26 DR 04-18) Attachment 1.1
improved design theme of the City. The design, size, and locations of the utility hubs will
contribute to the improved design theme of the City and will improve the visual image of the
City by the use of alternative design solutions to reduce their overall size, use of landscaping
to screen them from view or by the possible undergrounding of the hubs.
4. The design and locations , as modified by the suggested conditions of approval, do achieve a
pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances and establishes a distinct identity for the City's
neighborhoods, corridors, and centers
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18:
1. The plans received and dated September 17, 2004 shall be the conceptually approved design
with the following modifications:
a. The remaining 235 pedestal-mounted hubs shall be reduced in overall height and
dimension by approximately 50%and,
b. A landscape plan shall be incorporated into the hub locations to screen the pedestal-
mounted hubs to the greatest extent possible, or
c. The hubs shall be placed underground whenever possible.
2. Prior to the first installation of the remaining hubs,the revised project design shall be subject
to review and recommendation by the Design Review Board pursuant to the modifications of
Condition No 1.
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if
different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and
costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees,to attack, set aside,void or annul any
approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council,
Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly
notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense
thereof.
(04sr26 DR 04-18) Attachment 1.2
Scope of Work
For
Fiber to The Premise - FTTP
Huntington Beach
PROJECT SUMMARY
Verizon is proposing to overlay its existing copper based network with fiber optics. The overlay
will encompass Verizon's network within that portion of the city of Huntington Beach that falls
within selected Verizon wire centers (refer to the attached map.for the boundaries of the wire
centers). The proposed project will utilize Verizon's existing infrastructure where permissible,
in the public right-of-way and private easement. Where required new network elements will be
constricted in public right-of-way and private easement that will include the following:
■ Approximately 762,000 total trench feet of new conduit
(Approximately 209,137 trench feet of the above will be in the Coastal Zone)
■ A combination of conduit and sub-duct in new and existing.conduit
■ Approximately 350 Fiber Distribution (FDH)Hubs
(Approximately 49 of the above will be in the Coastal Zone)
Project Limits
Currently the project is limited to the northwest portion of the city bordered by the
following major streets:
Edinger Avenue to the North
Bolsa Chica Street to the East
Warner Avenue the South
Pacific Coast Hwy to the West
Project Timeframe
Start construction second quarter of 2004 with a scheduled completion by December of
2005 of which 80% is scheduled to complete in 2004. It is Verizon's intent to coordinate
a schedule with the City's Engineering Department that allows for completion within
Verizon's timelines and address scheduling issues for the various City Departments that
will be impacted by this project. Verizon will be available for regular meetings to discuss
progress, status and issues and take the necessary actions to keep the project on course
relative to impacts identified by both the City and Verizon.
aO ��..
DESCRIPTION OF WORK:
Overview
The installation of fiber optics within the City of Huntington Beach will utilize Verizon's
existing infrastructure, where permissible in the public right-of-way and private easement; and
will be accomplished utilizing the following process:
1. Existing Conduits — For areas in the City of Huntington Beach where Verizon's copper
wire cable has been installed in conduits, fiber optics will be installed utilizing these
existing conduits. This will consist of setting up at existing communication manholes,
inserting (pulling) sections of fiber optic cable from manhole to manhole, and connecting
the fiber optic cable to fiber distribution hubs. Refer to the section below for specifics
concerning fiber distribution hubs.
2. Existing Aerial Wiring - For areas in the City of Huntington Beach where Verizon's
copper wire cable has been installed aerially, fiber optics will be installed aerially
utilizing the existing aerial structures. This will consist of installing the fiber optics onto
the existing copper facility and connecting the fiber optic cable to fiber distribution hubs.
Refer to the section below for specifics concerning fiber distribution hubs.
3. New Conduits — Trenching - For areas in the City of Huntington Beach where Verizon's
existing copper wire cable is direct buried (conduits not utilized), fiber optics will be
installed below grade utilizing various trenching technologies. This will consist of
trenching, installing conduits, utility vaults and fiber distribution hubs. The fiber optic
cable will then be installed within the conduits by inserting (pulling) sections of fiber
optic cable from manhole to manhole, and connecting the fiber optic cable to fiber
distribution hubs. Refer to the sections below for specifics concerning trenching,
conduits, utility vaults and fiber distribution hubs.
Trenching
A combination of open trench and directional boring within the street right of way will be
employed. Typical installation will involve a 12" trench width and maintaining a depth of 24 to
30" below existing cover. Trench line will be along one side of the street with street crossings
strategically placed to allow network extensions to lots on the opposite side of the street. Note -
Traffic impacts to major streets for these activities should be minimal, due to that most of the
proposed substructure work is located within established tracts.
Verizon is engineering to utilize existing conduit wherever possible and continues to explore
alternatives to minimize the nature of the excavation. For example, where existing foreign
substructure allows, conduit placement may be proposed within the parkway area. Opportunities
for directional bore under sidewalks or varying the duct size and quantity to minimize street cuts
are also being explored and proposed. Verizon will work with the City's engineering staff on an
ongoing basis to review such opportunities on an individual case basis.
rVlr . i .
p.. .,t
Verizon will inspect placement of the above to Verizon's specifications and all local and state
building codes including OSHA requirements. As is with normal substructure projects Verizon's
sub-contractor will be responsible for contacting the City Street Inspector during the construction
process.
Conduit
Verizon is proposing the use of a combination of 4", 2" and / or sub-duct as required for the fiber
network with additional capacity to accommodate future maintenance activity normally
associated with the replacement of damaged or faulty plant.
Utility Vaults
Utility vaults will be required to house both splice points and terminals for the new network.
Verizon is proposing that they reside within the parkway area for ease of access and minimize
the use of larger structures normally associated with traffic rated vaults. Typical size will be 2'x
3'or smaller dependent on the network elements they support. Standard installation methods will
be utilized. Refer to attachment
Fiber Distribution (FDH) Hubs
Approximately 350 FDH's will be installed to support the new fiber network and installed
strategically to maximize the usage of the new network. Typical installation of an FDH involves
the necessary duct to and from a pad mounted device approximately 2' wide, 16"deep and 46"
high. FDH locations are being determined based on accessibility, network design standards,
aesthetic impact, safety and availability of space. In its typical design Verizon is relying heavily
on the medium sized cabinet to minimize use of the larger cabinets and reducing the total number
of FDH's if the smaller size were used. Verizon is working with the manufacturer pursuing
variations that may allow for alternative designs such as shape, size and color. As is typical in
these types of installations Verizon will work with City staff during the permitting process to
identify opportunities to address aesthetics for each FDH installed. Manufacturer information
and pictures of fiber distribution hubs are attached for reference.
Currently the following sizes are available:
Small 16" to 24" wide x 16" to 18" deep x 38" to 48" high
Medium 16" to 24" wide x 14" to 16" deep x 43" to 46" high
Large 24" to 32" wide x 14" to 17" deep x 44" to 64" high
P r1k ME' i _ .
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DESIGN REVIEW/ BOARD
Phone 536-5271
Fax 374-1540
374-1648
NOTICE OF ACTION
May 14, 2004
Verizon California, Inc.
Attn.: Albert Aleman
7352 Slater Avenue
..Huntington Beach, CA 92647
APPLICATION: DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18 (VERIZON FIBER OPTICS)'
APPLICANT: Albert Aleman
REQUEST: Review of design, colors, and materials for Citywide installation of
15 fiber optics pole mounted hubs and 335 pedestal-mounted hubs.
LOCATION: Citywide
DATE OF
ACTION: May 13, 2004
The Design Review Board of the City of Huntington Beach took action on your application on
May 13, 2004, and your application was recommended for approval to the Planning Department.
On May 13, 2004, the Planning Department approved your application. Attached to this letter
are the conditions of approval for your application.
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action
taken by the Planning Department becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person
desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the Secretary of the Plan-
ning Commission within ten calendar days of the date of the Planning Department's action. The
notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed,
and the grounds for the appeal. A filing fee shall also accompany the notice of appeal. The ap-
peal fee is $1,263 for a single-family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his/her
own property. The appeal fee is $1,540 for all other appeals. In your case, the last day for filing
an appeal and paying the filing fee is May 24,2004.
AITTACHMEd NO,
DR No. 04-18
May 14,2004
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18
1. The site plan, elevation, and sign details received April 29, 2004, shall be the conceptu-
ally approved layout.
a. The initial installation of the hubs shall be limited to only 100 of the total 335
pedestal hubs.
b. No pole hubs shall be installed at this time until further approval.
c. Not more the 100 pedestal hubs shall be installed until the modified pedestal and
pole-mounted hub design has been approved by the Design Review Board.
d. Hub colors shall be as approved by the Design Review Board(pale green, beige
and brown/see file for color samples).
e. Color of each hub shall be approved by the Public Works/Engineering Depart-
ment, which will be based on location.
f. Department of Public Works/Engineering shall monitor the installation of all hubs
and notify the Planning Department when the 100 approved hubs have been in-
stalled.
g. Verizon shall provide a written request to the Planning Department to return to
Design Review Board for review of the modified hub design prior to installation
of the remaining 235 pedestal and 15 pole-mounted hubs.
2. The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if
different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, offi-
cers, and employees from any claim,'action or proceedings, liability cost, including attor-
ney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, to attack, set
aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval
granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning
this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceed-
ing and should cooperate fully in defense thereof.
G:\DRB\NOA\04\051307.doc rp+y �FIEN"T
Albert Aleman veri p
Regional Manager
FTTP California
201 Flynn Road, CAM38FTP
Camarillo, CA 93012-8058
September 17, 2004 Phone 805.388.2219
Fax 805.388.2281
albert.aleman Mverizon.com
Mr. Herb Fauland
Principal Planner
City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning
2000 Main Street
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Fauland:
In response to the Notice of Action issued by the Design Review Board on May 13,
2004, Verizon is requesting that we schedule a return visit to the Design Review Board
for presentation of the modified Hub Design. The attached documents include the
specifications to the new design of the pedestal type hub. There has been no
modification to the aerial hub design and it is Verizon's intention to replace their use
with the pedestal type hub.
The modification for the pedestal type hub is a six inch reduction in height for the 432
capacity pedestal type hub. Based on feedback at our regular meetings with the City
Engineer and City Inspectors there have not been any complaints as to the size or color
of those hubs already placed. Additionally, Verizon has been quick to address concerns
from City Inspectors as to the location and in some cases adjusted specific locations to
accommodate future city projects or field conditions discovered during the course of
construction.
Verizon will continue to work with the Public Works Department as to the choice of color
for each individual hub as well as to the location. The color pallet remains the same.
Thank you for your cooperation. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional
information.
Very truly yours,
Albert Aleman
Regional Manager-FTTP
AA:aa
Attachments
�r ;•,}.'< .C.. 'r .. ..emu x ..,. ? "~.
i
MOVE. ffl�
1�4 ON
FONS
a �
�+•C O q P
Enclosure S 'ize & We 'ight
z
LU
Small ( 144) and Medium (216)
24 '.w
24
4K"11
6"11 o ►:
0
i.
f.
r 9z b
17 (1
17"d 1001b
Pole Mount Pedestal Mount
S'.
n
r
i.
8
d
f�
lizi
NMI
FONS
1
Enclosure Size & We "ightM-
�4
rt
Large 432f
tf
ti4 `ti'
64 It
5232
46"
11:51b .
17"d 191'd 121u
Pole Mount Pedestal Mount
i
{
'1
a �
�dd;
01-01
� t
i-�M 2
x
all
�``
t 9'+S� � - �_ "-''�m+3� Y� � �z x �S 'z� ;�.sr y '�",f•�s- '�i ,�,,x -;5��,�a2� � -�w�� R r '.
€ -.�'Gka:'!� i if. ~. ..�t �1 7 -ln �&%rt-''i•`��w = aY, C- �,t >_y��rx � f"�� - � --� £'� - F _ � aF we-� � �-:
-3
Cie"�:..�ta' -w..,.>�+..�F':e«f."..a3Ts", a-......q3.'°..:�..5,..-...r'�".-1---��'a:�.:e,��.�.•..._:+�..., . . a-....: --s.::. - :._�:, i._
- ->�. d�-•,£`_ , 6,�-.Ra "°` xY �.`�,�' - i _ _ ;NSF �,� �. � y�� -
'
` EMU- ;'firms Sa Yid.:
gR-
� � - y{ -�"vs..^• � it �` �
( �et:_4-€•� a-_`�€ efi'�+a L'�a_� sue- �7� � -- �*"
..
39 r
��i�z�.rr�a�z'R�wi•�t� ���s� -.�.�'4g�-.. v'� ram-`'L�r^s,�� y
Y t:
a I
,s r`•Y,4
Y n 11
T '
w�
u.���{�
7
II
�} ,���tA� •kit §y Lc a+x a�� na.�y�}t��. ;a�
e 'r
OM
M1% - �fi r4�.�va �rr zw,,� a m fi �' yt :qt t �� + •
+fyu;RC+'+ � t r'ff;Nf fi 9h
•'rsl
' .4��iid�+.M' .1�'k�,r� �' "r'" :"":.°p3r.af.��F'�Fd'',ft,•�",.atl������ �JC. '� � `
Y y
ry sd Fv�R ✓:-
:Y
�dis
P,u,a. ,d r. t•5 � �5+ggr�� ,i.a�?'9 •`9�x.,r-. '�r�`r�� r''Fp ?W e '�
EI.
c.
�j�y"' fi4 r " "' w,5 'Y L' e i�-..A
,yC'fy�,di�k
ros�'.T' d
�,�' J•}},�+ v)4 ' t�ti'a'tn �,,,r'u"`Y'`' Y^�,,y iXl'�`�.x✓�'m"YI� ra^`r lNixr
s9�•
f.
�'s+ybr� i'w,�
_...._.. 5,�
l t �_
AVT
yy qA N T
e,
` 1a
XS�hka
pp P
p'e� ash b „v�9a t ate,
MIAm
• S
RM
En 7Trs h f
� P',�
IRkIll
�rb{�t��4>t r.
a3 ,
W
4
Ikk���
ySr fir ark p
3sy A.
4.
s
pa fi e
f3 s��v t•
E
g Sze tV C" '
gaff-
M,1r,wti^ f R'I/t!i il, I•j /I/��/ r'
%� �s �r��j'��i�i4L`;;' �:�+ 1,J••�y�5. I� r1��'�-'����i
\.. y ti 1�r�� jf�,fiJyyii/rlF f�1'1 r�•� t 1•: y� ��Y t%� �'4�, .�r t .� /
s�\�Y��{ i}j r JJ �� , ,�k1 yvTI44l� � t i.J/�� I I j�(�ti' 1 i. �•,1 ,
,� ������� ,M I'�(�( �� f� if1�` w Ll �t � �4 �t� 111;, 1 %\�,�,•, '`�`' �� `�� ��
! —M+
�'•,t t I,�• - i ,3^ .�l �/, ,1,} ik'�><=.l�j�if`/:�jt�\ +� •,\ at% � ��,,(�f�`, �Jrl, �n
, Y r./' '���,Gw Y'.li` , �� �� 11i( � / ) Ire id�4 „I� '/ j'• '�'//" � ���� � ls��� ��� i�(� 'r� �� ��f
-} � � ,'� �\ �P.t 1�`' � r � �� l�grl' {•�i ` I� / �� j �{�ityl���� j�'I� I I rl' !.}p� .
�Y\`,yl,' �t I{ Y'Y '�?, ,!,1.% �}yt�.1 t .i' `:� Y! .',`\ ,�' f ir•���t� ''r il' -
� � {. I'�,I,r7 � � � /r � �.•�� � � - ' '� gyp. 1 � � ^> •'-. _.
f
...cam, + -••":..ts�' � A, ` 4�.
3
til4a (
r g •,� '�a 't�.t li'�r ,i{+. � file 1�I i ('� 1 G )F,��/,�� r."
® � • r`1' I :i` 'ili' /1 4s`` `!•, \ Y I ,�F�1y C 7if ,•� i/ �+
ii!�t ' t, fl M.1 •\{ ' 1!�i.,i �r.l+ ' i;�- r It
f ti♦, t '1 b � ,'t }r+��r �y�,� q V � ff �� �,�
� rl � ��. i`1'.' {� f,r e, �' �N�•� I r+ "� 1�J%� [i�i:�j� a 2' y
s •
Hz
I I ` TOE BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92548
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Phone 636-5271
Fax 374-1540
374-1648
NOTICE OF ACTION
September 27, 2004
Verizon California, Inc.
Attn.: Albert Aleman
7352 Slater Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
APPLICATION: DESIGN REVIEW NO.04-18 ( ERIZON FIBER OPTICS)
APPLICANT: Albert Aleman,Verizon California, Inc.
REOUEST: Review of design, colors, and materials for citywide installation of
the remaining 235 fiber optics pole mounted hubs and pedestal-
mounted hubs pursuant to DRB condition.
LOCATION: Citywide
DATE OF
ACTION: September 23, 2004
The Design Review Board of the City of Huntington Beach took action on your application on
September 23, 2004, and your application was recommended for approval to the Planning De-
partment. On September 27, 2004, the Planning Department denied our application with find-
ings. Attached to this letter are findings for denial for your application.
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action
taken by the Planning Department becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person
desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the Secretary of the Plan-
ning Commission within ten calendar days of the date of the Planning Department's action. The
notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant,the decision being appealed,
and the grounds for the appeal. A filing fee shall also accompany the notice of appeal. The ap-
peal fee is $1,263 for a single-family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his/her
own property. The appeal fee is $1,540 for all other appeals. In your case, the last day for filing
an appeal and paying the filing fee is October 4,2004.
DR No.04-18 • •
September 27,2004
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18
1. The proposed design and locations of the pole mounted and pedestal hubs will have a nega-
tive visual impact on the public rights-of-way of the City since the design is not harmoni-
ously integrated into the neighborhoods or districts within the City of Huntington Beach.
The installation of the proposed hubs has not considered the best design options or location
to adequately screen or conceal the hubs. The proposed project does not conform to the
General Plan or carry out the following goals,objectives, and policies:
a. Goal LTD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach.
b. UD 1.3.1: Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character along
the community's corridors that reflects the unique qualities of each district. Ensure
that streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors,the residential corri-
dors, and primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own
identity while promoting visual continuity throughout the City.
2. The design and locations of the proposed pole mounted and pedestal hubs have not incorpo-
rated design solutions to reduce their visual impact. The proposed pedestal and pole-
mounted hubs are located above ground, are not adequately screened from view, or have pro-
posed a size and design to reduce the potential negative visual impact on the community.
3. The design and the locations of the proposed pole mounted and pedestal hubs along the city's
corridors and public rights of ways contribute to the visual weakness of the City. The pro-
posed project has not been designed in a manner to contribute to the improved design theme
of the City. The design, size, and locations of the utility hubs do not contribute to the im-
proved design theme of the City and does not improve the visual image of the City.
GADRMNOM04\092302.doc
TTA3. S ENT NO.
21//er.J/ occ J
°� CITY OF UNTTNGT ON BEACx
City Council Communication
TO Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning
FROM Cathy Green',Mayor
DATE September 27, 2004 .
. SUBJECT APPEAL OF TIDE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DENL4,L OF DESIGN
1tEVIEERT NO, 04r' 8(VERIZON FIBER OPTICS).
I hereby appeal he Plannu g Director's denial of Design Review No. 04 18: On September 27,'
2004,the Planning Director:denied a request to approve the design; colors, and materials for city
wide installation of the remaining.235.fiber optics pedestal mounted above:ground.hubs. The
reasons for the appeal'are based on the following issues
o City-wide economic benefits will be lost, as the applicant asserts design options available`:
industry wide for utilityboxes are lirhited by manufacturers and technological constraints
o Time is of the essence and the applicant indicates that.release of encroachment permits is
needed immediately to maintain their contractual obligations and building chedule
c City Council
Planning:Commission
Scott Hess, Plammng'Manager
Mary Beth Broeren -Zonnng Administrator
Herb Fauland Principal Planner .
Rosemary Medel,Associate:Planner
W.
File
I
a
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
U1W Interoffice Communication p
ll Economic Development Department �?v
� V
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission Members
U
FROM: David C. Biggs, Economic Development Director
DATE: September 30, 2004
SUBJECT: COUNCIL ACTIONS RELATING TO VERIZON FIBER OPTIC
UPGRADE
Attached for your background and information are the minutes and staff reports from two
Council actions related to the on-going Verizon Fiber Optic Upgrade, an element of which is an
action item on your Agenda this evening. I will also be in attendance to answer any questions
you might have regarding the policy decisions made by the Council. I was the lead staff person
for an interdepartmental team which formulated the City's response to the Verizon proposal.
Attachments
(22) April 5, 2004-Council/Agency Minutes -Page 22
7. A motion was made by Coerper, second Hardy to: SUPPORT Workers' Compensation
Reform and authorize the Mayor to send a letter to our legislators encouraging them to adopt
reform measures. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8. A motion was made by Coerper, second Hardy to: SUPPORT -AB 496 (Correa) Santa Ana
River Conservancy (as amended 01102/04). The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. A motion was made by Coerper, second Hardy to: SUPPORT SCA 15 (McClintock) —
Contracting Out(as Introduced). The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Houchen
NOES: Boardman, Cook
ABSENT: None
10. A motion was made by Coerper, second Hardy to approve: Discussion—Request by the
Bolsa Chica Conservancy for a letter to the California Coastal Conservancy in support of a
grant application by the State Lands Commission for a grant of$10 Million for restoration of the
Bolsa Chica Wetlands. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(City Council)Approved for Introduction Ordinance No.3635 Amending Chapter 17.64 of
the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Undergrounding of Utilities for
Provider,Verizon (640.10)
After Assistant City Clerk Liz Ehring read by title, a motion was made by Cook, second Green to
approve for introduction Ordinance 3635— 'An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 17.64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Underground
Utilities." The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan,.Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen
NOES: Coerper
ABSENT: None
Council/Agency Meeting Held: L D
Deferred/Continued to: 0
�Appr ve O C nditionally Approved 0 Denied City C 's Si a ur
Council Meeting Date: April 5, 2004 Department I mber: E 004-07
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator' a
PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Director of Economic Development
ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Wok T'
HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning n
r J>
7111-4
SUBJECT: Adopt an Ordinance Modifying Requirements for Undergrounding
of Utilities
Statement of Issue;.Funding Source;Recommended Action,AltematiyeAction(s);Analysis;Environmental.Status;Attachment(s).
Statement of Issue: Should the City amend the existing undergrounding of utilities
Ordinance to facilitate a fiber-optic network by an existing utility provider?
Funding Source: N/A
Recommended Action: Approve Introduction of Ordinance Number 31935, amending
Chapter 17.64 of the Municipal Code regarding Undergrounding of Utilities to add an
additional exception to Section 17.64.130 and adding section 17.64.135 regarding
abandoned or otherwise no longer used lines, cables or wires. 9?r"W9CD '—�,,,,firv�l�s
-Alternative.Action(s):.. ;Modify the.text.of.the proposed amendment if desired.,,or reject.the
proposed amendment and' continue to: require ;undergrounding unless. one of the existing
exemptions applies.
Analysis: The City has been approached by Verizon, the designated telecommunications
carrier for the area, with a proposal to upgrade its existing service network to'a fully fiber-
optic system. The fiber optic upgrade is a key part of Vefton's future business plan
throughout the nation. The company has identified a number of key service territories in the
United States where it plans to rollout this new service program. Huntington Beach has been
identified as one of the first three areas in which the upgrade is to be implemented.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBERED 2004-07
After an initial review of the proposed project, the City determined that current requirements
for utility. undergrounding would. preclude the proposed.upgrade. to..fiber.optics. . ,The Cit.
current.ordinance requires that 80y service upgradesrigger:the undergrounding.requirement_
The ordinance does allow for the repair and maintenance; including replacement'of existing
on-pole lines. In addition, service upgrades in the past have been approved if one new
smaller line was replacing an existing line without the undergrounding requirement being
triggered. In areas in the City where utilities are not undergrounded, Verizon is not the only
user. The main user is Southern California Edison.
In order to approve the Verizon fiber optic project, staff is recommending an additional
exemption to the undergrounding requirements be added to the municipal code. This
exception would permit utilities with existing on-pole services, where the utility is not the sole
user of the pole, to replace one single wire, cable, or line, with another one of smaller size, or
alternatively, add an additional smaller wire, cable, or line, that is in effect a transitional
service, provided that utility will be placed underground at the time the other utilities utilizing
the poles places their services underground.
Verizon currently provides telecommunications services via a network of copper cable. As
the area's designated telecommunications provider, they will be required to offer the copper
based service on an.`onoing basis- :::In addition,.these: copper cables- are required ao be
available.for.lease to.other:telecomm* u'nications.providers under`Federal.regulations::*Verizon
_ anticipates that the copper based service will eventually be eliminated and that the system
would transition to exclusively fiber optic. As such, the need for two wires, cables, or lines
would be a transitional service. The ordinance is also being amended to require that the
utilities give notice to the City when an existing wire, cable or line is taken out of service, or
abandoned or is otherwise no longer used. This provision will require the utility to remove
the line, cable or wire from the pole within 6 months of the notice date.
Approximately 73% of Verizon's current system is already undergrounded. Another 1-2% is
above ground on poles where Verizon is the sole user, and as such, they would have to
underground these areas at the time that the fiber optic upgrade takes place.
Amendment of.the ..City municipal.:_code,:will facilitate:'the ..project proposed- by:=Verizon:,, .
However; Verizon will still have`to obtain projeot .levels.:approvals which will involve the--
submittal and review of detailed plans by a variety of City Departments. This process will .
result in the issuance of the appropriate permits with project-based conditions of approval.
Amendment of the municipal code is proposed since it would make no sense for Verizon to
prepare and submit plans until they know that the proposed project is legally permissible in
Huntington Beach.
Staff is recommending the addition of this exception in order to facilitate a citywide upgrade
to fiber optic. Both residents and the business community will benefit from the ability to have
( voice and data transmitted at much higher speeds. Huntington Beach, with its aging
infrastructure, needs to offer amenities to its residents and businesses which are competitive
with other world-class communities. While many new, Greenfield communities are being
D:\Documents and Settings\dapkusp\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK80\utilityundergrounding.doc -2-
March 23,20041:55 PM
• 0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:ED 2004-07
developed with this technology, older communities will rely upon their existing service
providers unless.4hey:can.incur the.expense of the upgrade.directly.
This proposed Ordinance amendment has been evaluated in the context 'of the'Utilities
Element of the City's General Plan. One of the main. goals of the undergrounding
requirements is to improve the visual character of the community by encouraging the
undergrounding of utilities. This requirement is counter-balanced by the Goal in the Utilities
Element to "maintain and expand service provision to City of Huntington Beach residences
and businesses." Clearly, the Utilities Element and its goals, objectives and policies
anticipated that the main driver of undergrounding would be electrical transmission lines.
The proposed additional exception is not expected to delay the undergrounding of electrical
transmission lines while still facilitating an immediate upgrade of telecommunications
services. In addition, the project level review will be evaluated in the context of the policies of
the Utilities Element. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Utilities Element and
the overall goal of undergrounding overhead utilities to improve the aesthetics of the City.
Environmental Status: The adoption of the ordinance is categorically exempt pursuant to
City Council Resolution No, 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental
Quality Act. The Vergon. upgrade. project.will be assessed in the future with the appropriate
level of environmental review, If any, undertaken at the project level:
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
• . . - Number No. Description
1 Ordinance No��% amending Chapter 17.64 of the Municipal
Code regarding Undergrounding of Utilities to add an additional
exception to Section 17.64A30 and adding section 17.64.135
regarding abandoned or otherwise no longer used lines, cables
or wires.
RCA Author; D. Biggs,ext.59.09
4. )
G:\David\RCAS\utilityundergrounding.doc .3- 3/9/2004 8:03 AM
ORDINANCE NO. -3635
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.64 OF THE HUNTINGTON.BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO.UNDERGROUNID UTII;ITIES :.
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 17.64.130 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
17.64.130 Exceptions to this chapter. The following shall be excluded from the
provisions of this chapter unless otherwise provided in the resolution designating the
underground utilities district:
(a) Poles or electroliers used exclusively for street lighting.
(b) Overhead wires(exclusive of supporting structures) crossing any portion of a district
within which overhead wires have been prohibited, or connecting to buildings on the
perimeter of a district,when such wires originate in an area from which poles,
overhead wires and associated overhead structures are not prohibited.
(c):Poles;.overhead wires and associated,overhead-structures.used.for.the.transmission.of.
electnc energy at'nominal voltages in excess of 34,500:vdlts:
(d) Any municipal facilities or equipment installed under the supervision and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(e) Overhead wires attached to the exterior surface of a building by means of a bracket or
other fixture and extending from one location on the building to another location on
the same building or to an adjacent building without crossing any public street.
(f) Antennas, associated equipment and supporting structures,:used by a utility for
furnishing communication services.
(g) Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities,such as surface-mounted
transformers,pedestal-mounted terminal boxes and water cabinets and concealed
ducts..
(h) Temporary poles,overhead wires and associated overhead structures'used'or to Abe
used in conjunction with construction projects.
(i) Utilities with existing on-pole'services as of the date of this.ordinance,where the
utility is not the sole user of the poles, and where the utility is replacing one single
wire,cable, or line with another or adding an additional smaller wire, cable or line,
provided that utility will be placed underground at the time the other utility utilizing
the poles places its service underground.
SECTION 2. Section 17.64.135 is hereby added to the Huntington Beach Municipal
Code, said section to read as follows:
04ord/chap 17-64/3/10/04 1
`' • Ord.•. 3635
17.64.135 Lines not in use—notice to City At anytime aline, cable or wire is taken out of
service, or abandoned or is otherwise no longer used, the utility shall give notice.of non-use to
the City. Within six(6)months of the time upon which the line, cable or wire ceases to be used
the notice date. the.utili shall remove the.line,cable.or wire from the poles.. . , ...
( ) tY
SECTION 3: This ordinance shal -become effective 30 days after its adoption.
I
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of April , 2004.
M'a*yer
ATTEST: /�J
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
c
City Attorney p
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
ITIA AND AP VED:
City A rnstrator.
j Duect r of Public Works
20
Director of Economic Develop ent
04ord/chap 17-64/3/10/04 2
d
r
Ord. No. 3635
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE- ): ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH }
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY,the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at
a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of April,2004, and was again read to said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of April,2004, and was
passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of
said City Council.
OYES: Sullivan,Coerper.Hardy, Greeri,Boardman, Cook,Houcheri
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
1,Connie Brockway,CITY CLERK of the City of
Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk ofthe:City
Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis'of this
ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach
Fountain Valley Independent on April 29,2004.
In accordance with the City Charter of said City
Connie Brockway,City Clerk City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
DeouV City Clerk of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
Ordinance Legislative Draft
ATTAC. HMENT. # 1 ,
g � _ aqu
ORDINANCE NO. �p 3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.64 OF.THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL.
CODE RELATING TO UNDERGROUND..UTILITIES`.. .: : ..
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 17.64.130 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
17.64.130 Exceptions to this chapter. The following shall be excluded from the
provisions of this chapter unless otherwise provided in the resolution designating the
underground utilities district:
(a) Poles or electroliers used exclusively for street lighting.
(b) Overhead wires(exclusive of supporting structures)crossing any portion of a district
within which overhead wires have been prohibited,or connecting to buildings on the
perimeter of a district,when such wires.originate in an area from which poles,
overhead wires and associated overhead structures are not prohibited.
(c) Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures used for the transmission.of .
electric.energy at nominal voltages in excess of 34,500-volts. �, }
(d) Any municipal facilities or equipment installed under the supervision and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(e) Overhead wires attached to the exterior surface of a building by means of a bracket or
other fixture and extending from one location on the building to another location on
the same building or to an adjacent building without crossing any public street.
(f) Antennas,associated equipment and supporting structures,used by a utility for
furnishing communication services.
(g) Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities, such as surface-mounted
transformers,pedestal-mounted terminal boxes and water cabinets and concealed
ducts.
(h) Temporary poles,overhead wires and associated overhead structures used or to be
used in conjunction with construction projects.
(i) Utilities with existing on-pole services as of the date of this ordinance,where the
utility is not-the sole user of the poles,and where the utility is replacing one single
wire,..cable,or line with another or adding an additional smaller wire,cable or line,
p that utility will
rovided l be placed underground at the time the other utility.utilizing
the poles places its se . underground:.
SECTION 2. Section 17.64.135 is hereby added to the Huntington Beach Municipal ( `j
Code;said section to read as follows*., �—'
S7 .
04ord/chap 17-64/3/10/04 1
17.64.135 Lines not in use—notice to.City-At anytime a line,cable or wire is taken out of
service, or abandoned or is otherwise no longer used,the utility shall give notice of non-use to
the City.Within six(6)months of the time upon which the line,cable or wire ceases to be.used
(the.notice date).the utility shall remove the line,cable or.wire from the poles.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after'its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of 22004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk -
c
City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
ITIA AND AP VED:
City A ministrator
irect r of Public Works
Dire mic.Develop ent
04ord/chap 17-64/3/10/04 2
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Chapter 17.6.4
UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES
(2222-12177.2382-7/79,2975-12/88)
Sections:
17.64.010. Definitions. ..: :.:.: .. ..
.17.64.020 Underground utilities coordinating corrimittee.established
17:64.030 Duties
17.64.040 Planning Commission review
17.64.050 Underground public utilities facilities
17.64.060 Overhead installation
17.64.070 Conversion of overhead facilities
17-64.080 Underground trenches
17.64.090 Public hearing.by Council
17.64.100 Council may designate underground utility districts by resolution
17.64.110 Unlawful to erect or maintain overhead utilities within district
17.64.120.Exceptions--Emergency or unusual circumstance declared exception
17.64.130 Exceptions to this chapter
17.64.135 Abandoned/non-use— notice to City
17.64.140 Community antenna television service
17.64.150 Director of Public Works--Authority of
17.64.160 Director of Community Development--Authority of
17.64.170 City Council--Appeal to
11.64.180 Notice to property owners and utility companies
17.64.190 Responsibility of utility companies
17.64.200 Responsibility of property owners
17.64.210. Responsibility of city
17.64.220 Extension of time
.17.64.010 Definitions. The following terms or phrases as used in this chapter shall,
unless the context indicates otherwise,have the respective meanings herein set forth:
(a) "Commission" shall mean the Public Utilities Commission of the state of California.
(b) "Underground utility district" or"district" shall mean that area in the city within
which poles,overhead wires and associated overhead structures are prohibited as such
area is described in a resolution adopted pursuant to the provision of section
17.64.110 of this chapter.
(c) "Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures; shall mean poles, towers,
supports,wires,conductors,guys,stubs,-platforms,crossarms,braces,transformers,- .
insulators,.cutouts,switches,communication-circuits, appliances, attachments and
appurtenances located aboveground within a district.and used;or usefiil;'in supplying
electric,communication or similar or associated service.
(d) "Utility" shall include all persons or entities supplying electric,communication or
similar or associated service by means of electrical materials or devices. (2222-1z77)
17.64:020 Underground utilities coordinating committee=-Established. There is hereby
established an underground utilities coordinating committee, appointed by the City
Council,which said committee shall consist of five(5)members as follows: (2222-12r77,
2382-7179.2975-12/88) r)
(a) Director of Public Works;
(b)_ Director of Community Development;
(c) One city employee appointed by the City Administrator;
1e-isdrR/mc 1764-LD/3/4/04 1 I
(d) District representative,:Southern California.Edison Company;..and
(e) Senior.engineer,Public Improvements, General Telephone.Company.
17.64.030 Duties, It shall be the duty of the committee to advise the City Council with
respect to all technical aspects.of the undergrounding of public utilities within the city of
Huntington Beach and in that regard the committee shall:
(a) Determine the location and priority of conversion work within the.city;
(b) Recommend specific projects and methods of financing;
(c) Recommend time limitation for completion of projects and extensions of time;
(d) Develop a long-range plan for establishing underground utilities districts;
(e) Perform such other duties as may be assigned to it by the City Council.
The Director:of Public Works shall be chairman of said committee. A majority of the.
members of the committee,or their authorized representatives,.present at any meeting
shall constitute a quorum. Said committee shall meet upon call of the.chairman. .
Members.of the committee shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council and without
compensation. (2222-u/77-)
17.64.040 Planning_Commission review. Prior to submitting reports to the City Council,
the committee shall submit all undergrounding plans to tbe,Planning Commission in
order to ascertain its recommendations with respect to comprehensive planning for the
city,and the effect of such proposed undergrounding plans thereon... (2222-12n7).
17.64.050 Underground public utilities.facilities.:All new public and private utility lines
and distribution facilities,including but not limited to electric;communications,.street
-lighting,and'- dble television lines; shall be installed underground,except that surface
mounted transformers,pedestal-mounted terminal boxes,meter cabinets,concealed ducts
in an underground system and other equipment appurtenant to underground facilities.need
not be installed underground,and provided further that cable television lines may be
installed on existing utility poles within subdivisions developed with overhead utility
lines.
This section shall not apply.to main feeder lines or transmission lines located within the
public right-of-way of an arterial highway as shown in the circulation element of the
general plan.
(2222-I VM
17.64.060 Overhead installation. Installation of overhead utility lines is permitted for.the
following:
(a) Relocation and/or the increase'of the size'of_serviIce on a lot when it does not
necessitate any increase in the number of existing overhead lines and/or utility poles;
(b) Any new service when utility poles exist-along abutting property lines prior to
February 15,1967,and which are not separated by any alley or public right-of-way
and no additional utility poles are required;
(c) Temporary use including directional signs,temporary,stands,construction poles,
water pumps, and similar uses;
(d) Oil well services. (2222-12MI)
IegisdrfUmc1764-LD/3/4/04 2
a �,
17.64.070 Conversion of overhead.utilities. Any new overhead service which is
permitted by these.provisions shall have installed a service panel to facilitate conversion
to underground utilities at a future date. (2222-urM
17.64.080 :Underground trenches.,All underground utility lines in residential
developments which are installed on private property shall be located along lot lines.
However,the trench for service lines may curve from the lot line to the building at the
nearest,most practical location.
This provision is intended to reduce conflicts which may-occur,in future construction -
because of e;isting underground utility lines. (2222-12rM '
17.64.090 Public hearing by Council. The Council may from time to time call public
hearings to ascertain whether the public necessity,health, safety or welfare requires the
removal of poles,overhead wires and associated overhead structures within designated
areas of the city and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying
electric,communication,or similar or associated service. Prior to holding such public
hearing,the City Engineer shall consult with all affected utilities and shall prepare a
report for submission at such hearing,containing,among other information,the extent of
such utilities participation and estimates of the total costs to the city and affected property
owners. Such report shall also contain an estimate of the time required to complete such
underground installation and removal of overhead facilities. The City Clerk shall notify
all affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and utilities
concerned by mail of the time and place of such hearings at least ten(10)days prior to the
date thereof. Each such hearing shall be open to the publie and may be continued from
time to time. At each such hearing all persons affected shall.be given an opportunity to
be heard. The decision of the Council shall be final and conclusive. (2222-12n)
17-64.100. Council.may designate underground utility districts by resolution. If,after any. .
such public.Bearing the Council-finds that'the public`necessity,health;safety or welfare f
requires such removal land such underground installation within a designated area,the
Council shall,by resolution adopted by affirmative vote of at least .five(5)members of
the City Council,declare such designated area an underground utility district and order
such removal and.underground installation. Such resolution shall include a description of
the area comprising such district,the reason for placing public utilities.underground(see
Public Utilities Commission Rule 20),and shall fix the time within which such affected
property owners must be ready to receive underground service. A reasonable time shall
be allowed for such removal and underground'installation,having due regard for the
availability of labor,materials and equipment necessary for such removal and for the
installation of such underground facilities as may be occasioned thereby. (2222-12m)
17.64.110 Unlawful to erect or maintain overhead utilities within district. Whenever the
Council creates an underground utility district and orders the removal of poles,overhead
wires and associated structures therein,as.provided in.section'l7.64.100 hereof,it shall _
be unlawful for any person or utility to erect,construct,place,keep,maintain,continue, .--
employ or operate poles;overhead wires and associated overhead structures in the district-
after the date when said overhead facilities are required to be removed by such resolution,
except as said overhead facilities may be required to furnish service to an owner or
occupant of property-prior to the pq fonmance by such owner or occupant of the
underground work necessary for such owner or occupant to continue to-receive utility
service as provided in section 17.64.200 hereof,and for such reasonable time as may be
required to remove said facilities after said work has been performed,and except as
otherwise provided in this chapter. (2222-lVM
17.64.120 Exceptions--Emergency or unusual circumstance declared..exception.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter,overhead facilities may be installed and
maintained for a period not to exceed ten(10)days without authority of the Council in
order to provide emergency service. In such case,the Director of Public Works shall be
notified in writing prior to the installation of the facilities. The Council may grant special
lesiidrft/m'�1164-LD/314/04 � ` ] /y � 3 13
permission on such terms.as:the.Council may deem appropriate in cases.of unusual
circumstances,.without discrimination.as to any person or utility,to elect,:construct,
install, maintain;use or operate poles overhead.wires and associated overhead structures.
^� (2222-12l77)
Y/) 17.64.130 Exceptions to this chanter. The following shall be excluded from the
provisions of this chapter unless otherwise provided in the resolution designating the
underground utilities district:
(a) Poles'or electroliers'used exclusively for street lighting.
(b) Overhead wires(exclusive of supporting structures)crossing any portion of a district
within which overhead wires have been prohibited,or connecting to buildings on the
perimeter of a district,when such wires originate in an area from which poles,
overhead wires and associated overhead structures are not prohibited.
(c) Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead.structures used for the transmission of
electric energy at nominal voltages in excess of 34,500 volts.
(d) Any municipal facilities or equipment installed under the supervision and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(e) Overhead wires attached to the exterior surface of a building by means of a bracket or
other fixture and extending from one location on the building to another location on
the same building or to an adjacent building without crossing any public street.
(f) Antennas,associated equipment and supporting structures,used by a utility for
furnishing communication services.
1 (g) Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities,such as surface-mounted
transformers;pedestal-mounted terminal boxes and water.cabinets and concealed
ducts.
(h) Temporary poles,overhead wires and associated overhead structures used or to be
used in conjunction with:construction projects. (2222-12fm
(i) Utilities with existing on-pole services as of the date of this
ordinance, where the utility is not the.sole user of the poles, and
where the.utility is replacing one single wire, cable, or line with
another or adding an additional.smaller wire, cable or line, provided
that utility will be placed underground.at the time the other utility.
utilizing the poles places its service underground.
.. 17.64.135. Lines.not in use—�notice.to City.At any time 'aline, cable or wire is. :.
taken out.of service,or abandoned or is.otherwise no longer used, the"utility
shall give notice of non-use to the City. Within six (6) months of the time upon
which the line; cable or wire ceases to be.used (the notice date) the utility shall
remove the line,,cable.or wire from the poles.
17.64.140 Community antenna television service. Distribution lines and individual
service lines for community antenna television(CAT )service shall be installed
underground in all new developments within the city. All new CATV installations in said
new developments shall be made in accordance with specifications adopted by City
Council resolution. Said improvements within the public right-of ucay,upon.completion,
shall be dedicated to the city of Huntington Beach. (2222-12M)
C2
! 0
le,gisdrfVmc1764-LD/3/10/04 4 / ��
17.64.150 Director of.public works--Authority of. The Director of Public Works shall
have the authorityto waive the requirements of section 17.64.1,40 with respect to
improvements within the public nght=of way when,in his judgment,it is determined to
be in the best interest of the city so to do,based upon the following criteria:
(a) Whenever engineering plans and specifications are not required.
(b) Where existing improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks,streets, etc.would
have to be removed:and replaced.
(c) The location of existing overhead facilities:
(d).The location of existing.structures.
(e) The condition of existing street improvements.
(f) The amount of lineal footage of CATV facilities involved. (2222-12n7)
17.64.160 Director of Community Development—Authority of. The Director of
Community Development shall have the authority to waive the on-site requirements, as
set out in section 17.64.140,when, in his judgment, it is determined to be in the best
interest of the city so to do,based upon the following criteria: (2975-12/88)
(a) Where existing improvements would have to be removed and replaced.
(b) The location of existing overhead facilities.
(c) The location of existing structures.
(d) The condition of existing improvements.
(e) The amount of lineal footage of CATV facilities involved.
(f) The interface of the new development to the existing development on the site.
(g) The interface to similar facilities required off site. (2222-12177)
17.64.170 CjbyCouncil--Appeal to. Any landowner or developer affected may appeal
the determination of the Director of Public Works or the director of Community
Development to the City.Council. (2222-12777)
17.64.180 Notice to property owners and utility companies. Within ten(10)days after
:ahe.effective date of a resolution adopted pursuant to section.17:64.1.10 hereof;the City
Clerk shall notify all.affected�utilities.and allperson.ownmg real p operty within.the
district created by said resolution',of the adoption thereof.-Said City Clerk shall further
notify such affected property owners of the necessity that'if they or any person occupying
such property desire to continue to.receive.electric,communication or similar or
associated service,they or such occupant.shall.provide all necessary facility changes on
their premises so as to receive such service from the lines of the supplying utility-or
utilities at a new location. (2222-121m
17.64.19.0 .Responsibility of utility companies.: If underground construction is necessary
to provide utility service within a district created by any resolution adopted.pursuarit to
section 17.64.110 hereof;the supplying utility shall furnish-that portion of the conduits,
conductors and-associated equipment required to be.f n-hished by it under its applicable.
rules,.regulaiions and tariffs on file with-the commission. (2222-12/77)
17.64.200 Responsibility of property owners.
legisdrft/mc1764-LD/3/4/04 w {f 5
(a) Every.person.owning;operating,leasing;occupying or renting a building.or structure
within.a district shall construct and provide that portion of the service.connection on
his property between the facilities referred to in section 17.64.19o; and the
termination facility on or within said building or structure being served. If the above
is not accomplished by any person within the time provided for in the resolution
enacted.pursuant to section 17.64.110 hereof,.the City Engineer shall give notice in
writing to the owner thereof as shown on.the last equalized assessment roll,to provide
the required underground facilities within thirty(30)days after receipt of such notice.._
(b)'The'notice.to provide the required underground facilities may be given either by
personal service or by mail. In case of service by mail on either of such persons,the
notice must be deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope with.postage
prepaid, addressed to the person in possession of such premises,and the notice must
be addressed to such owner's Iast known.address as the same appears on the last
equalized assessment roll,and when no address appears,to General Delivery,city of
Huntington Beach. If notice is given by mail,such notice shall be deemed.to have
been received by the person to whom it has been sent within forty-eight(48)hours
after the mailing thereof. If notice is given by mail to either the owner or occupant of
such premises,the City Engineer shall,within forty-eight(48)hours after the mailing
thereof,cause a copy thereof,printed on a card not less than 8" x 10"in size,to be
posted in a conspicuous place on said premises.
(c) The notice given by the City Engineer to provide the required under ground facilities
shall particularly specify what work is required to be done, and shall state that if said
work is not completed within thirty(30)days after receipt of such notice,the City
Engineer will provide such required underground facilities, in which case.the cost and
expense thereof will be assessed against the property benefited and become a lien
upon.such property.
(d) If upon the expiration of the thirty(30)days,the said required underground facilities '
have not been provided,the City Engineer shall forthwith proceed to do the work,
provided,however, if such premises are unoccupied and no electric or
communications services are being furnished thereto,the City Engineer shall in lieu
of providing the required undergrounding facilities,have the authority to order the
disconnection and removal of any and all overhead service wires and associated
facilities supplying utility service to said property. Upon completion of the work by
the City Engineer,he shall file a written report with the City Council setting forth the
fact that the required underground facilities have been provided and the cost thereof,
together with a Iegal description of the property against which such cost is to be
assessed. The Council shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing protests
against the assessment of the cost of such work upon such premises,which said time
shall not be less than ten(10) days thereafter.
(e) The City Clerk shall forthwith,-upon the time for hearing such protests having been
fixed,give a notice in writing to the person in possession of such premises,and a
notice in writing thereof to the owner thereof, in the manner hereinabove provided for
the giving of the notice to provide the required underground facilities,of the time and
place that the Council will pass upon such report and will hear protests against such
assessment. Such notice shall also set forth the.amount of the proposed assessment.
(f)'Upon the date and hour set for.the hearing of protests,the Council shall hear and
consider the report and all protests,if there be any, and then proceed to affirm,modify
or reject the assessment.
(g) If any assessment is not paid within fifteen(15)days after its confirmation by the
Council, the amount of the assessment shall become a lien upon the property against
which the assessment is made by the City Engineer,and the City Engineer is directed
to turn over to the assessor and tax collector a notice of lien on each of said properties 1
legisdrfl/mcl764-LD/3/4/04 6 Q�
on which the assessment has not been paid,and said assessor and tax collector shall.
add the amount of said assessmentto the next regular bill foraaxes levied.against the.
premises upon which said assessment was not paid. Said assessmentshall be due and
payable at the same time as said property tapes are due and payable,and if not paid
when due and payable, shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent per.annu .
(2222-12J M
17.64.210 Responsibility of city. City.shall remove at its own expense all city-owned
equipment from all poles required to be removed hereunder in ample time to enable the.
owner or user of such poles to remove the same within the time.specified in the resolution
enacted pursuant to section 17.64.116 hereof (2222-i 2lTn
17.64.220 Extension of time.In the event that any act required by this chapter or by a
resolution adopted:pursuant to section 17.64.110_hereof cannot be performed within the
time provided because of shortage of materials,war,restraint by public authorities,
strikes, labor disturbances, civil disobedience, or any other circumstances beyond the
control of the actor;then the time within which such act will be accomplished shall be
extended for a period equivalent to the time of such limitation: (2222-12/77)
. _ 13
legisdrR/mcl764-LD/3/4/04 7
`r
(12) :July 19, 2004 -Council/Agency Minutes - Page 12
(City Council) Appropriated Funds and Approved Agreement between the City and
Willdan for Development Processing Services Primarily Required to Process the Verizon
Fiber-Optic Installation and The Strand Development (600.10) .
Councilmember Coerper requested that this agenda item be removed from the consent
calendar to receive clarification on the funding source and the project's physical street impacts
such as Bushard Street. Public Works Director Robert F. Beardsley replied to these questions.
A motion was made by Coerper, second Sullivan to: 1. Appropriate funds in the amount of
$150,000 from the undesignated General Fund balance to Public Works Development Services;
and 2. Authorize the expenditure of an additional $270,000 for professional services from
Business Unit account; and 3. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Willdan for
Development Processing Services. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(City Council) Adopted Resolution of Intention No. 2004-56 to Establish the Huntington
Beach Downtown Business Improvement District, Levy an Annual Assessment for Fiscal
Year 2004-2005—Scheduled Public Hearing for August 16, 2004 (460.30)
Councilmember Boardman requested that this item be removed from the consent calendar to
receive clarification on the survey and the Public Hearing protest process including ballots and
Council's role in the decision to establish the BID (Business Improvement District). Other
councilmembers inquired about the frequency of proposed dues and what types of projects would
be funded by the dues. Economic Development Director David Biggs responded to these
questions.
A motion was made by Boardman, second Cook to adopt Resolution No. 2004-56— 'A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Declaring the City's Intention to
Create and Establish the "Huntington Beach Downtown Business Improvement District"for the
Benefit of all Businesses Located Within the Downtown Business District, and set a Public
Hearing Date of August 16, 2004 to Formally Establish said Business Improvement District and
Levy Assessments." The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(City Council) Approved Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District
(BID)2003-2004 Fiscal Year Annual Report-Adopted Resolution of Intention No. 2004-57
to Levy an Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2004-2005- Scheduled Public Hearing for
August 16, 2004 (460.30)
Mayor Pro Tern Hardy requested that this item be removed from the consent calendar.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
C �
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW 04-062 �y
Council/Agency Meeting Held: . =
Deferred/.Continued-to:
pproved ❑ Conditionally Approved 0 Denied Ci Cl rk' ignat r
Council Meeting Date: July 19, 2004 Departme Number: PW 04-062
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH a
REQUEST FOR ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE
_YAYOR AND CITY COYNCIL
r:
SUBMITTED BY: PEN ELOPE CULBRETH-GRAFT, CitiAdn-hillstrator
PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, PE, Director of Public Works /
SUBJECT: Appropriate Funds and Approve Agreement with Willdan for
..Development Processing
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Actiori,Aiternative Action(s),Analysis;Environmental Stafus,Attachments)
Statement of Issue: The Public Works Department requires contract staff support services
to perform development-processing functions. These services are primarily required to
process the Verizon fiber-optic installation and The Strand development. Willdan has been
selected to provide these services.
Funding Source: Funds in the amount of$150,000 will be appropriated from the General
Fund undesignated fund balance to Public Works Development Services, Professional
Services (10085251.69365). Fees and deposits received for development-processing
services will offset the expense. Additional funds in the amount of$120,000 will be
transferred from salary savings in;10085251 into.contract services:
Recommended Action: Motion to:
1. Appropriate funds in the amount of$150,000 from the undesignated General Fund
balance to Public Works Development Services;
2. Authorize the expenditure of an additional $270,000 for professional services from
Business Unit 10085251; and
3. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract between
the City of Huntington Beach and Wilidan.
G:\R C A\2004\July 19 04-062 Elliott(Appropriate Funds&Approve Wildan Contract).doc
716/2004 2:55 PM
1
REQUEST FOR ACTION.
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW 04-062
Altemative Action(s):
1 :Do not authorize the appropriation Jhis action will limit the ability of the: Public
Works Department to process development related items within established time
requirements.
2. Do not approve the contract and provide necessary development services with
existing staff. This will result in significant delays in both private development and
City construction projects. Delays in development processing may be in violation of
AB 3101, which prescribes maximum plan check turn-around times.
Analysis: Services required by the development community continue to exceed the Public
Works Department's ability to meet the demand. Increased development activity and more
time-intensive development issues hinder the ability to provide quality service in this area.
The objective of using consultants is to adjust contract staff as development activity slows.
The past several years have required the constant use of two to three full-time contract
engineers:to maintain processing schedules.
In addition to normal activity, two major projects will require supplemental Public Works
staffing, To meet the desired schedule for the.Verizon Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) project,
-a plah.checker and inspector dedicatedao the project are necessary Funding will be through.
the reimbursement agreement with Verizon. The Strand project will also require a substantial
staffing commitment. Funding for The Strand development processing effort has been
allocated in The Strand Community Facilities District (CFD). Expenditure budgets for both
projects are included in the proposed FY 2004/05 Budget. The requested appropriation of
$150,000 will provide funds through September 30, 2004.
Willdan has been selected through the professional services proposal process to furnish
plan checking and development processing services. This contract for outside staff
support will assist the Public Works Department to provide timely and accurate
development processing through next Fiscal Year.
Per.City Council..action, a new_General:Fund appropriation must meet one of the following
three criteria .,
1. It is an unanticipated emergency,
2. It is required to implement labor negotiations, or
3. It is a new expense that is offset by related new revenues.
This new appropriation meets criteria#3, a new expense that is offset by related new
revenues.
Additional contract services are also required to provide inspection services to new
development. Two firms that are currently under contract with the City will provide services.
Contract personnel are temporarily filling vacant inspector positions.
G:\R C A\2004\July 19 04-062 Elliott(Appropriate Funds&Approve Wildan Contract).doc
7/612004 3:06 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW 04-062
Public Works Commission Action: Not required.
Environmental Status:. .Not applicable:
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
Page Number No. Description
1 Fiscal Impact Statement
EE 1 2 Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and Willdan
RCA Author: Elliott/Dally:jg
G:\R C A\2004\July 19 04-062 Elliott(Appropriate Funds&Approve Wildan Contract).doc
7I6l2004 2:55 PM
3
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 04-18 VERIZON FIBER OPTICS
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 4, 2004
RCA ATTACHMf NT:S STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Attached
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS'
..
REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED
Administrative Staff
Assistant City Administrator Initial
City Administrator Initial
City Clerk
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM..
SpaceOnly)
RCA Author: HZ/HF/RM
• � Page 1 of 1
Jones, Dale c-.G1- Lu
'If ► EEIK
From: Bazant, Denise CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA:
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 2:34 PM
11
To: 'David Max-Muller' 1U04 OCT -LI P 2 4
Cc: Ehring, Liz; Flynn, Joan; Jones, Dale
Subject: RE: Verizon FIOS power utility box
Mr. Max-Muller:
I have received your e-mail to the City Council & City Administrator. Please be assured that your e-
mail has been forwarded to the City Clerk's office for distribution to the City Council.
Thanks you,
Denise Bazant
Administrative Assistant
City of Huntington Beach
714-536-5265
-----Original Message-----
From: David Max-Muller [mailto:dmaxmuller@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:20 PM
To: cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; CB4Council@aol.com; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org;
hbdac@hotmail.com; dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org
Cc: city.administrator@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Verizon FIOS power utility box
Mayor and Council Members:
Whilst my wife and I were away on vacation last week, a base and 4'6"high x 4'4" long and 1'7"deep Verizon Utility
cabinet was installed outside our house in the soft landscaping on the sidewalk on Acacia Street close to the corner with 9th
Street.. Prior to going away the base had been installed on the other side of the road to our house. The day after we
returned from vacation on Friday, contractors arrived to finish the installation adding more concrete around the unit base.
When asked why more concrete was required and why the unit had been moved from across the street, we were told by
the contractor that this change had been made by the City of Huntington Beach Inspector. This utility cabinet is huge and
together with the concrete base around it, is most unsightly. We understand that these installations have not yet been
approved by the City Council nor by the Design Review Board. Under these circumstances we are requesting the City
Administrator to ask the Department of Public Works to make immediate arrangements to have this removed and the soft
landscaping replaced to its previous condition. This cabinet adversely impacts the value of our house and was installed
without any notification being given to us, which should have been a mandatory requirement. I am sure that no council
member would be prepared to have this monstrosity located outside their house.
Please could the city administrator confirm receipt of this email and the action being taken to remedy this complaint?
David &Juliet Max-Muller
527 9th Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Tel: 714-374-4624
10/4/2004
a
o,
lot
'f
NA
'Wi
rc.
_ % U
11`"'c'" �r
t �
MIN
*T' ii ii Vim- `� L
"id VEREM9
• _s v _ _ ati ��
b
�st
F:
e.
'
ak
Il Ii}}ll a
N'� ' �a.,,,
�"4 a-s tt• a i r � ���� � i
• '��' r a:' � F� tea , �;,�,
4} r
tr
{
i
y
M1
z
}
rip
Im
n
Ir
Akz,�
M
a
w
} ai x
t
IN
i ow
•j
r
ty
.? � ,Po„y� � y �..r �, 1uu��r" � �� F u..� t �y� � a3�t i p�� x. mf- .e.♦��ffi ������ r�a � � �� ,�
t
.r a ��
..sr r a 4 s
je
ll
7i
�kv
Sky I
two, 1
To
. Ito,
t x fi its
'�3 'v
i
a,
To
C { (I h
U
„ s
�`" j6� r xF✓ry ,�".
r:'a't �� � ,�
��
p 4.:
cc
r �. �i. ��^r>`E s,�,'� �� ,,� �1 ra' #+t'`� �y�,G✓°...rz �'�� '� �-�*xr'. e-i"axe`� ,rx"•. iti - ,
iut_ a. F, ,.yam ' rv° '(,'+n,'.. kro,-.rv. l 2 f;,g..n'",l ':3v.?. <:.� E' �'�' .,�<�r ,�,,�,s;�.��..t�:w»�,....zx,_...,� ,.,?iFaryie:.�2"��»,F.rfr�'°��� §:'k�" ;<,�''���. o'- ,vy,zr«.>ak'E�,v �.« s�v�-;
yx, i
F^ t �.t �a�•� � 1 �
i
m
A t fj�(j
�� •� �b M f{+ � if#{f fit!!
f
y
y
No55 q
C
g �d tl s5 �s
yy �r
�i Y
IK. g _x
L
OCcc
&
ut
MMINMM
•Fx
� Y
} j t J
} #k
r e• n
s< ..
'3
ik't s"
3
z
o.
" t �
y � A �3 s etrrF'`w
1FiNka
< t t
.e �1 �- "fib 4"r.-{ � ` 'c �,'• � r � v �'-
'i Y>
•
� a
L
2z
z
• ram �' e 4 �} Q �tlt6vS;k`1..,
�� WV ♦'1 i�4-, e{i' r``• r. � F{b'rA + 1 ^.n� .j�'#'`^qwr c'.
6 �{t �.s 1 �1 � . • � 9"��Pg� FS •i�.n.a
[���:� 1.,d'� rx t �•{ P�' t' � 1.pf• .r T.r �'4�.° 3 ,Xt�`s'�~�
e E ^ rf
D
lTil
� �M�m �� !
� ASS � �.; Yt: f� � f,
_YSaa' t �vyw� :. try ^"*'ry Zt�. a M�>31 {
N � " i�i< � '•w.,k C �{t. AS `.(T '4"ffi.�1 ..tea,;d t}+ �- �' � F r�o
s,. � t� .,: (.. r:+s:Y V� •=a,°*'., -.r �(�114 �n �! �t�� +p.�..t� t s`..m d -�'�t s� 2 �:".� ,,�'."'S^s 'R='"gym....,
a a
AM!
arks
e Won
VOW
NSA
N
xr
t
K
aF �}
-♦ 4
15
jr
♦" �y u '94rW
A g
Palo
eel
r
r _
.k
v ,
P
.c-
e
r
k
w
,
i."Tr
5�.
r Su
r PAW,
t,