Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure And Cultural Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARC asks EZ Fiber to return with detailed, street‑level monitoring plan for citywide fiber project
Summary
Committee members said the proposed monitoring plan for EZ Fiber’s multi‑phase city fiber build is too broad; they asked the company to provide detailed, polygon- or street-level maps and to coordinate with state preservation authorities before the ARC will approve a monitoring plan.
The Archaeological Review Committee told representatives of EZ Fiber and the Office of Economic Studies on March 27 that a draft monitoring plan for a large, multi‑phase city fiber‑optic installation is too generalized for ARC approval. Committee members requested far more granular mapping — street‑by‑street or polygon work‑area graphics that clearly show where proposed bores and trenches intersect known archaeological sites — before granting approval.
EZ Fiber and the applicant presented a draft monitoring plan covering several sections (identified in the plan as sections 6, 7 and 9). EZ Fiber’s representative said the company proposes to install miles of subsurface fiber and estimated roughly 90 construction days per section; staff described the project as potentially spanning years and encompassing many neighborhoods. ARC members said the plan’s maps and figures were presented at too-small a scale for the committee to determine whether proposed alignments cross recorded archaeological sites and what mitigation would be required.
Committee members repeatedly asked to see maps with the alignment overlaid on recorded archaeological site polygons, with street names and line-by-line lengths and depths called out. They asked applicants to identify where borings would cross known sites and how each intersection would be treated (avoidance, mechanical excavation permit, monitoring, or mitigation). Committee members also recommended discussing programmatic agreements — for example, a memorandum of agreement (MOA) or programmatic agreement (PA) with state or federal authorities — that could standardize treatment across many small impacts.
City staff recommended the applicant withdraw the current submission and return with a more detailed package. The applicant said it would work with the ARC and other jurisdictions and expected to supply zoomable GIS/KMZ files and more detailed work-area maps; staff and the applicant also agreed it would be efficient to present to state Historic Preservation Office representatives together with the ARC.
Ending: The ARC did not approve the draft monitoring plan. The committee invited EZ Fiber to submit a revised plan with higher-resolution maps, clearer alignments by work polygon or street, and an explicit strategy for handling intersections with known archaeological sites and for multi-jurisdictional coordination.
