Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2013 - Study SessionCity Council Minutes Study Session September 10, 2013 — 4:30 p.m. I. ROLL CALL - 4:30 p.m. Present: Council Member Gardner, Council Member Petros, Mayor Pro Tem Hill, Mayor Curry, Council Member Selich, Council Member Henn, Council Member Daigle IL CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR -None 2. FORMATION OF RULE 20A UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT - BALBOA BOULEVARD Mayor Pro Tent Hill reeused himself since he owns property adjacent to the proposed utility undergrounding district. Public Works Director Webb provided a brief history, reported that Rule 20A funds are provided by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) through Southern California Edison (SCE), and addressed utilization of funds and goals related to the formation of the District. Additionally, he addressed residential and business service connections, boundary options and challenges, and provided examples of the various areas in the District. Public Works Director Webb presented details of the design basis and a cost analysis related to the project. He reported on the costs related to paying all or a majority of the District using Rule 20A funds, and discussed the option of having property owners pay for their a portion of the District. He stated that the area along Balboa Boulevard being considered for undergrounding is the same area where a streetscape improvement project is pending. He addressed recommendations to approve formation of the District, based on Boundary Option i and noted next steps. Discussion ensued regarding the annual SCE payments, future public hearings, and the recommended timeline. In response to Council Member Henn's questions, Public Works Director Webb reported that the City would pick up the cost of repaving, but not the utility trench. He added that sewer and lateral work would be done at the same time. He noted that, if alleys are in poor shape, other funds could be used to supplement the work. Council Member Henn encouraged staff to review the matter further. Public Works Director Webb addressed other undergrounding projects within the City where homeowners were required to cover the costs of lateral connections. He added that, in connection with Rule 20B, homeowners are required to pay for the main line and their home service connections. Council Member Henn believed that Option 1 would be preferable with the caveat to expand as much as possible using Rule 20A money. Volume 61,- Page 261 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session September 10, 2013 Council Member Petros referenced the area covered by Option 2 and questioned why the alley east of 32nd Street was not included. Public Works Director Webb explained that most residents along Seashore Drive have already undergrounded and that this is an area where homeowners have not implemented a Rule 20B project. He believed there would be an equity issue in doing the area using Rule 20A funds. Discussion followed regarding opportunities for other grant funding, narrow alleys in the area, and encouraging residents to take on Rule 20B projects. Public Works Director Webb provided a brief update on the landscape improvements scheduled for Balboa Boulevard and reported that, even though staff is waiting for a permit from Caltrans, they are ready to move forward with the project. In response to Council Member Selich's question, City Attorney Harp reported that there is a provision in the Newport Beach Municipal Code that, once a utility district is established, homeowners are required to pay for connections. However, if they do not, it would be a judicial issue where the City would make the installation and alien would be set against the specific property. Council Member Gardner commented on the difference between options and wondered regarding the timing and the possibility of having the homeowners of the area take out a Rule 20B in order to expand the District and take advantage of economies. Public Works Director Webb indicated that it is possible to do this, but the matter is complex and will add to the timeline since homeowners would need to vote on the issue. He suggested moving forward with establishing a Rule 20A District, but continue to encourage homeowners to begin forming Rule 20B Districts on their own since there is no size limit. It was the consensus of the City Council to proceed with Option 1, have homeowners pay for their portion, and bring the item to Council for formal action. In response to Council Member Petros' question, Public Works Director Webb reported that the matter will be properly noticed, including potential costs. George Schroeder thanked staff for bringing the matter forward and agreed with moving forward with Option 1, He added that this is the only section on Balboa Boulevard that still has utility poles. He believed that residents have paid connection fees but businesses on Newport Boulevard did not have to pay their share, Jim Mosher wondered how wiring is transitioned in areas where homeowners choose not to participate and how far off, in the future, approval of the next Utility District might occur. 3. AT &T U -VERSE PRESENTATION Council Member Daigle reported that she does not receive income from AT &T, but does receive income from Verizon Wireless and, therefore, recused herself. Mayor Curry reported that he is a stockholder in AT &T and, therefore, recused himself. Deputy Public Works Director Thomas discussed the possible installation of 80 to 100 utility cabinet boxes above ground to support the proposed system and introduced AT &T Volume 61,- Page 262 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session September 10, 2013 Director of External Affairs, John Heffernan. Mr. Heffernan reported that AT &T has upgraded its fiber network and addressed what the upgrade in infrastructure would provide residents. He discussed features, additional controls and personalization, and integration of digital devices. He presented details of the U -Verse Voice product and stated that there would be total integration of televisions, internet, and voice applications. He reported on areas already using the service and features included in the system, as well as the difference between the AT &T system and cable service. He addressed installation and taking advantage of existing cabinet facilities for minimal trenching. He added that the company is open to discussing screening options, if needed. In response to Council Member Petros' inquiry, Mr. Heffernan reported that Newport Beach is part of AT &T's wire line footprint, their network is connected to every residence in the City for dial tone, and that upon ordering the service, a connection would be made to the street -side cabinet. He added that implementation would depend on space or technological limitations where an existing cabinet may not make the list of upgradable options. Mr. Heffernan addressed communicating with neighborhoods and noted that 5% of gross revenues of video franchise fees would go to the City and that 1% would go to support the City's Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) channel. Deputy Public Works Director Thomas reported that the Newport Beach Municipal Code limits the use of above - ground facilities in as many cases as possible unless it is deemed that they are the only feasible option, and addressed the proposed cabinets and potential locations for them. He added that the intent is to locate them in proximity to existing Service Area Interfaces (SAI) cabinets. Discussion ensued regarding options for screening the cabinets and it was noted that screening would be assessed on a ease -by -case basis. In response to Council Member Selich's question regarding screening, AT &T representatives reported that the cabinets would be green, if located in a landscaped area, and addressed the need to maintain access in order to service the equipment, so screening would only occur on one side. Further, screening would depend on the location of the cabinet. Discussion followed regarding the size of the cabinets compared to traffic signal cabinets, specifications of the proposed cabinets, available colors, existing service area interfaces, and coverage area. Mr. Hefferman reported that there is an undergrounding option, but it would involve a controlled environmental vault that would necessitate an above - ground computer for maintenance and access. He stated that the vault would typically be 16' x 80', they are 80% underground, and that the above - ground equipment would be larger than the proposed aboveground cabinets. He noted that, where there are existing vaults, AT &T places underground equipment in them. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Hill's questions, Mr. Heffernan reported that installation of the system would not interfere with existing services until the service is requested. He added that the various options available are all separate products. He reported that there is a degradation of service by transferring from copper to fiber: however, users would find increased internet speed and service. Additionally, it was noted that AT &T provides this service to areas of Costa Mesa and that, if the service cannot be provided within a certain Volume 61 - Page 263 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session. September 10, 2013 distance, there would not be a high- quality service since quality of service is based on the distance of the nodes to homes. In response to Council Member Gardner's question, Deputy Public Works Director Thomas reported that the ordinance allows for above - ground service if it is deemed that undergrounding is not feasible. Deputy Public Works Director Thomas requested that Council determine whether the cabinets should be screened and what the screening requirements should be. He also requested that Council consider how the installation will be deployed. Mayor Pro Tem Hill questioned how this would interface with the asphalt moratorium. Deputy Public Works Director Thomas reported that, in many cases, the facilities could be installed without the need to install additional conduits; however, the moratorium would still be honored in streets that have been paved. Council Member Henn noted that undergrounding is not feasible and stated that he would prefer requiring a maximum amount of screening wherever it is deemed appropriate. Deputy Public Works Director Thomas stated that screening would be required in addition to locating the cabinets in the least visually impactful location. Mayor Pro Tern Hill indicated that the cabinets should be sleek and clean in design. Council Member Petros agreed with Council Member Henn's comments, noting that screening does not necessarily have to be landscaping and that the matter should be left at the sole discretion of the City. In response to his question, it was noted that the cabinets have cooling fans, but complies with the City's noise ordinance. Council Member Gardner indicated that the issue of noise needs to be evaluated. Mayor Pro Tom Hill inquired about other vendors and believed that they should be treated on an equal basis. City Attorney Harp noted that universal service is not required by law. City Manager Kiff noted other areas in the City that have no cable. Council Member Selich commented on the need for screening and developing an architectural solution in addition to landscape. In terms of service, he believed that it should be implemented as broadly as possible to provide maximum choices for the residents. Council Member Gardner asked about the location selection and notification processes. Public Works Director Thomas reported that new cabinets need to be within 150' of existing SAls and listed other considerations in choosing the location for the cabinets. He also added that permits will be issued on an individual basis so that staff will have the opportunity to make appropriate determinations for each site. In terms of future actions, City Attorney Harp reported that Council may consider amending the Municipal Code regarding undergrounding and screening. George Schroeder stated that residents want another option for internet access and commented positively on the matter. Mr. Heffernan addressed cable speeds versus the proposed system. Deputy Public Works Director Thomas reported that AT &T would pay permit fees and all associated costs with no costs being borne by the City and noted that the City would obtain revenue through the Volume 61- Page 264 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session September 10, 2013 III. franchise fees. Discussion ensued regarding availability of references, data related to service satisfaction, and the benefits of providing the service. Mr. Heffernan reported that AT&T received awards from J.D. Powers and Associates for residential television service. He added that television, internet, and telephone service can be obtained independently. Jim Mosher addressed miniaturization of electronics and expressed concern that the design of the cabinets have not been as well thought out and believed that there should be a commitment that the size of the cabinets will be reduced when feasible. Regarding the Closed Session agenda, Jim Mosher requested assurance that the City is not using taxpayer money for its involvement in the Banning Ranch lawsuit. Additionally, he addressed the job performance of the City Attorney, questioned what the performance goals were, and questioned whether they have been met. He believed that the public should be involved in, at least, part of the matter, and referenced a report discussed by the Mayor at prior meeting and asked if the public can have access to it. He commented on the size of the City Attorney's Office and discussed Charter provisions. Mr. Mosher also suggested that public records requests be posted on the website in order to avoid duplication and provide more transparency. He expressed hope that the matter will be placed on a future agenda for direction to staff. IV. ADJOURNMENT -5.55 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on September 5, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. on the City's website; on September 5, 2013, at 4 :30 p.m. on the City Hall Electronic Bulletin Board located in the entrance of the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive; and on September 5, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. in the Meeting Agenda Binder located in the entrance of the City Council Chambers at 1.00 Civic Center Drive, City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 61- Page 265