Loading...
TICC 09-24-20 (Special)TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Special Meeting September 24, 2020 4:00 p.m. Teleconference Meeting without a Location APPROVED MINUTES CALL MEETING TO ORDER Vice Chair Soundararajan called the meeting to order at 4:06 pm ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Naidu Bollineni, Mukesh Garg, Rajaram Soundararajan, Eliza Du, Ph. D. Commissioners Tardy: Prabir Mohanty Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present Bill Mitchell, Staff Liaison Speakers: Andrew Afflerbach, Ph.D., P.E., CEO & CTO, Columbia Telecommunications Shawn Thompson, Vice President for Analytics, Columbia Telecommunications ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes a person. In most cases, state law will prohibit the commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. A. None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. None NEW BUSINESS 1. Receive Fiber Optic Master Plan and Wireless presentation from Columbia Telecommunications Andrew Afflerbach, CEO, and Shawn Thompson, Vice President for Analytics, presented the attached PowerPoint. TICC SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES September 24, 2020 Andrew and John addressed the following bullet points in the Presentation: • Assessment of existing Infrastructure o And other significant infrastructure such as:  Emergency Operation Center  ARKnet Wireless emergency Internet  Smart City pilot (FY21 Work program)  Public Wi-Fi  Traffic Operations Center  Conduit and Handholes • Fiber Needs Assessment: Needs assessment reflects wide range of Inputs: o City Project Staff o Representative of City departments o Cupertino Communications Risk Report o Maps of Infrastructure and Facilities o Cupertino Citizen Corps/ARKnet o Traffic Operations Center • Potential fiber use cases: o 1. Expand Fiber and Wi-Fi Network for City and Public Facing services o 2. Create resilient Fiber & Wi-Fi network for City and public-facing services in Emergencies o 3. Expand Fiber for City use and Lease excess fiber to wireless providers and large businesses • Fiber design and cost estimates • Potential business models: Analysis of three business models identified by the City o The City owns and operates the Fiber network o The City outsources operation and Management of the Network, with City or third-party ownership – a “commercial Approach” o A Hybrid Approach • Dig once policy recommendations o Reduce pavement cuts o Preserve limited area within the public right of way o Capitalize on fiber builds by wireless providers or other excavators TICC SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES September 24, 2020 o Reduce high cost or fiber construction to add new sites o Request in-kind contributions of fiber in agreements with Wireless providers or in exchange for construction in the right-of-way o City might also pay only the incremental cost for adding fiber strands during other entities’ fiber construction Wireless Sitting Processed and Standards • Baseline for analysis (existing guidelines) o Wireless Facilities Master Plan o Guidelines for City owned Poles o Small Wireless Facility design standards Licensed agreements with service and infrastructure providers • City’s achievements • Changes in Wireless technology and carrier industry o Need to accommodate processes and designs for all applicants o Need to review and approve requested modifications to already installed Small Wireless Facilities in the City • Recommendations The Commission and Mr. Mitchell thanked Mr. Afflerbach for the informative Presentation. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Soundararajan adjourned the meeting at 5:43 pm. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: /s/ Marilyn Monreal /s/ Rajaram Soundararajan __________________________________ ________________________________ Marilyn Monreal, Recording Secretary Rajaram Soundararajan, Vice Chair Attachment A: Fiber Optic Master Plan PowerPoint CTC Technology & Energy August 2020 City of CupertinoFiber Optic Master Plan &Wireless Siting Processes & Standards Fiber Optic Master Plan 2 Overview 3 Assessment of existing infrastructure Identification of needs for fiber Potential fiber use cases Fiber design & cost estimates Potential business models Dig Once policy recommendations Existing Infrastructure Existing City-owned fiber 5 12.7-mile network interconnects government buildings & traffic system Construction leveraged State & federal funds Built with Santa Clara County in 2008: Silicon Valley Intelligent Transportation System (SV-ITS) project The City has successfully owned & operated its fiber network for more than 10 years The network has created real value for the City Has offset the cost of leased circuits Provides more capacity, at a higher level of reliability and transparency, than commercial services Appears to be in good condition, with many years of useful life Can scale to higher speeds by upgrading equipment; has flexibility & capacity to add new locations 6 Other significant infrastructure Emergency Operations Center ARKnet wireless emergency internet Smart City pilot (planned 2021) Public Wi-Fi Traffic communications center Conduit & handholes 7 Fiber Needs Assessment Needs assessment reflects wide range of inputs City project staff Representatives of City departments Cupertino Communications Risk Report Maps of infrastructure & facilities Cupertino Citizen Corps/ ARKnet Traffic Operations Center 9 Key fiber need: Replace leased services Five City facilities •Blackberry Farms Golf Course •Blackberry Farms •McClellan Ranch •Monta Vista Recreation Center •Human Resources Department 10 Key fiber need: Construct redundant fiber paths to City network’s two core sites City Hall & the Service Center •Reduce risk of outages on the City’s network •Ensure that a single fiber break or loss of a single site will not cut off the City’s fiber network •Critical for City IT operations 11 Key fiber need: Connect 14 intersections Support traffic operations & enable future Smart City applications •North Wolfe Road (multiple) •Perimeter Road & Vallco Parkway •Miller Avenue & Calle De Barcelona •Miller Avenue & Phil Lane •Rainbow Drive at Stelling Road •Bubb Road & McClellan Road •Bubb Road & Results Way •Stelling Road & Greenleaf Drive •Homestead Road & Heron Avenue •Foothill Boulevard & Voss Avenue 12 Key fiber need: Connect 13 parks & three downtown locations Enable free public Wi-Fi •Creekside Park •Franco Park •Hoover Park •Jollyman Park •Linda Vista Park •Memorial Park •Monta Vista Park •Portal Park •Somerset Square Park •Sterling Barnhart Park •Three Oaks Park •Varian Park •Wilson Park 13 Key fiber need: Construct fiber to sites used by Cupertino Citizen Corps (CCC) Support emergency personnel & free public Wi-Fi during emergencies •ARKs •Fire stations •Senior Center •Other sites used by CARES, CERT, & MRC 14 Key fiber need: Construct new fiber segments Increase City network’s redundancy •Eliminate single points of failure •Improve resilience 15 Use Cases Use cases for fiber & wireless networking Address the City’s identified needs Maximize the use & benefit of the City’s existing fiber Build incrementally on each other Informed by use cases in other cities 17 Use case 1: Expand fiber & Wi-Fi network for City & public-facing services 18 Connect buildings & traffic infrastructure Enable public-facing Wi-Fi Enable future City monitoring & functionality Use case 2: Create resilient fiber & Wi-Fi network for City & public-facing services in emergencies 19 New, resilient fiber routes & power sources Deliver communications to City staff, Santa Clara County first-responders, & the public Enable communications during extended power outages, quarantines, post-earthquake recovery periods, etc. Use case 3: Expand fiber for City use & lease excess fiber to wireless providers & large businesses 20 Add a revenue-generating element to other use cases Enable wireless providers to more quickly deploy advanced services Fiber Design & Cost Estimate Cost estimate for expanding the City’s fiber (use cases 1 & 2): $4.8M -$9.2M 22 Phase Use Case Miles of New Construction Low Estimate High Estimate Connect City Facilities/ Create Redundancy to Core Sites 1 3.3 $900,000 $1.7 million Connect Major Traffic Intersections 1 3.3 $880,000 $1.8 million Connect City Parks & Downtown Wi-Fi 1 6.2 $1.7 million $3.1 million Use Case 1 Subtotal 12.8 $3.5 million $6.6 million Add Redundancy to the City’s Fiber Network 2 2.4 $640,000 $1.3 million Connect CCC Emergency Sites 2 2.5 $700,000 $1.3 million Use Case 2 Subtotal 4.9 $1.3 million $2.6 million Total 17.7 $4.8 million $9.2 million Alternative to fiber construction: Lease dark fiber Issue an RFI to fiber providers May not save money Analysis indicates providers would need to construct fiber Might be good strategic approach for connecting individual facilities 23 Phase 1: Connect City facilities & create redundancy to core sites 24 Construct 3.3 miles of fiber to connect five City facilities & create redundancy for City Hall & the Service Center $900,000 to $1.7 million Phase 2: Connect major traffic intersections 25 Construct 3.3 miles of fiber to connect 14 intersections $880,000 to $1.8 million Phase 3: Connect parks & downtown Wi-Fi 26 Construct 6.2 miles of fiber to connect parks & downtown $1.7 million to $3.1 million Phase 4: Expand network redundancy 27 Construct 2.4 miles of fiber Could mostly be accomplished without earlier fiber construction to parks $640,000 to $1.3 million Phase 5: Connect CCC emergency sites 28 Construct 2.5 miles of fiber, independent of other fiber expansion $700,000 to $1.3 million Potential Business Models Analysis of three business models identified by the City The City owns & operates the fiber network The City outsources operation & management of the network, with City or third-party ownership—a “commercial approach” A hybrid approach 30 Analysis of City-owned & operated network The City has successfully owned & operated its fiber network for more than 10 years—& has created real value for the City The City used best practices in funding & obtaining value from the network The network would be more valuable & reliable if the City had a contract for fiber outside plant repairs The City may wish to consider leasing or trading its limited excess fiber capacity The high cost of fiber construction in the City means connecting new facilities may not be cost- effective 31 Analysis of full commercial approach It is not clear that a fully commercial approach would address the City’s challenges or open new opportunities The City could seek to sell its fiber or provide a long-term lease to an entity to maintain the fiber & sell & operate the unused fiber The City may obtain revenue or a one-time windfall of less than $2M in transferring the asset This would be technically challenging & would likely produce relatively little value to the City 32 Analysis of hybrid approach The City can realize some advantages of commercializing the fiber by adopting a mixed approach Trade excess fiber for strands the City wants, & offer fiber for lease if the City believes it does not need the excess capacity on a route & is technically able to commit to commercial performance standards Develop a Dig Once policy to cost-effectively expand fiber if new opportunities come from new construction—either by the City or by other communications providers & utilities Incorporate fiber build cost in City capital projects such as new buildings—so that fiber location becomes a factor in facilities’ locations 33 Recommendation: Hybrid approach City maintains ownership of fiber City contracts with on- call repair company Repairs occur within a specified time City considers leasing fiber strands instead of building fiber to new locations Fiber construction decisions guided by comparison of total cost of operations (City vs. provider) 34 Dig Once Recommendation Dig Once could deliver a range of benefits Reduce high cost of fiber construction to add new sites Capitalize on fiber builds by wireless providers or other excavators Reduce pavement cuts Preserve limited area within the public right-of-way Request in-kind contributions of fiber in agreements with wireless providers or in exchange for construction in the right-of- way City might also pay only the incremental cost for adding fiber strands during other entities’ fiber construction 36 Wireless Siting Processes & Standards 37 Overview 38 Baseline for analysis (existing guidelines) City’s achievements Changes in wireless technology & carrier industry Recommendations Existing standards & guidelines analyzed Wireless Facilities Master Plan Guidelines for City- owned poles FAQs for wireless facilities on wooden utility poles & streetlight poles Small Wireless Facility design standards License agreements with service & infrastructure providers Also benchmarked against City of Palo Alto’s processes 39 Achievements in wireless siting The City has accomplished significant gains since the adoption of its previous Wireless Facilities Master Plan City developed Small Wireless Facility design standards that outline requirements to potential applicants City staff maintain ongoing, informal communications channels with applicants & share long-term plans to mutual benefit City has approved permits for wireless facility siting in locations agreeable both to applicants & the City No unresolved issues relating to damage to the City’s rights-of-way or private property 40 City’s current process for wireless facility siting application review & approval City has transparent process •Ensures that members of the public are aware of applications & related radio frequency (RF) emissions assessments •Ensures applications are reviewed in a reasonable amount of time (in light of FCC requirements)41 Changes in wireless technology & the carrier industry will require the City’s processes & standards to evolve Need to accommodate processes & designs of all applicants Need to accommodate providers’ interest in placing infrastructure in neighborhoods Need to accommodate a greater volume of applications within the 10- day requirement for determining each application’s completeness Need to review & approve requested modifications to already-installed Small Wireless Facilities in the City 42 Recommendations Develop application forms that request all necessary information Modify the City’s exiting application review process to increase efficiency Adopt clear technical & aesthetic standards for wireless facility siting Conduct a cost analysis to justify the City’s application fees & yearly fees 43 Elements presented to support recommendations General definitions related to Small Wireless Facilities, applications, review processes, & standards Detailed descriptions of application type & requirements Detailed descriptions of separate application review processes, including a process flowchart & modified personnel roles Detailed aesthetic & technical standards for wireless facilities Draft standard pre- approved designs Draft fields for expanded applications A site completion checklist Lists of tasks by process 44 Wireless siting review process Standard streetlight designs and conduit typical