to tell the audience once we're on
camera about the
we are on camera right now though I want
to welcome you all to the January 24th
meeting the Planning Policy Commission I
apologize that there's not more people
up here we are expecting one more I
don't want you to feel slighted because
you're going to get your information out
there and we'll be able to discuss it
and the people that aren't here are
going to have to to listen to your
explanations so we're going to come to a
conclusion this is one of those things
that is better to get it right before it
goes into code then getting it done
tomorrow so you know it's going to be
there on public television for the
community to hear and for us to debate
after a while so please don't feel like
we're you know that because there's only
two people up here right now that for
some reason that's not enough to give
you and your ideas
a balance from what the city wants to do
so what we're going to do tonight is
talk about codes from wireless
communication and first up is our
illustrious leader Keith Niven so if you
want to please give us some updates
thank you madam chair so good evening
Keith Niven director of development
services and economic development
departments so this evening as you
mentioned we do not have a quorum so
tonight we're going to open the public
hearing and we're gonna leave it open
and continue it to potentially February
first subject to getting a commission
quorum on that evening
so I'm not going to spend too much time
going through this because frankly I'm
not the subject matter expert those are
those folks in the audience I'm going to
give you a quick introduction to what
we're doing tell you why and then I
figured we would allow public comment
and then afterwards we would start to
talk through some of the policy
questions that are associated with this
proposed code amendment how does that
sound ok so wireless communication
facilities small cell so I figured let's
go through the five W's right you know
who's who are we talking about we're
really talking about all of the carriers
and if I've left somebody out my
apologies wasn't done intentionally so
Verizon t-mobile AT&T Sprint Comcast and
there may be others coming along so what
is this small cell it's also called
distributed antenna systems and for the
most part in a in an area that already
has coverage and that I think is our
city I can't remember the last time I
had a call drop it's really about adding
capacity and so this is a much finer
grain antenna network that provides more
capacity to the carriers because of the
increasing demand that we are all
putting on them and because our original
section of city code 18:07 505 was
written for the first wave of wireless
communication facilities which were all
macro towers we needed to go back in and
redo and so what is being considered
this evening is a replacement set of
regulations so we're basically
suggesting taking out the existing 505
and replacing it with a new 505 which
addresses both small cell and Mac
towers when this is a this is a hard one
so the this kind of this wave that's
coming our direction really kind of
what's on the horizon a few years ago
and and as it has built up momentum
there are applications that are there's
one that is being issued without these
codes in place to Verizon for is Clough
Fall City Road is qwop ein Lake Road
it's their first deployment ask it will
be followed by additional deployment
asks the other carriers AT&T had
approached for a permit my understanding
is that has been withdrawn is being
reconsidered but we'll come back to my
knowledge we have not heard from Sprint
or t-mobile yet but that will come so
it's it's coming and like any other
thing that's coming if you get in before
the regulations are in place you have to
comply with the regulations that are on
the books at that time so there's a
little bit of sense of urgency because
if we get these done before the
applications come in and are vested then
they will apply to those applications
when they come in so that's just for you
to keep in the back your mind
so why as I mentioned earlier 505 was
created for macrocell facilities and
small cell because they have a different
level of frequency and a different
height level that those antennas want to
be at than the macro antennas they just
have different requirements they can fit
into a lot of different places whereas
the big towers they had very few
locations that they actually could go
and so so where where will they apply so
so this code applied citywide and really
what we're talking about is there's
really kind of three different areas
there's the public right away
so that's basically but
you know that's sidewalks streets
planter strips up to building edges
where we have no setbacks private
property so you could end up with
antennas being mounted to the sides of
buildings or put on rooftops of
buildings and then there's public
property and public property could be in
a park it could be on the side of a
water reservoir or something like that
so really we're talking about all of
this and these facilities really could
go in any of those places depending on
what your code allows so what are these
things they look like this they come in
different shapes and sizes so these down
here these were poles as far as I can
tell that we're just erected for
small-cell they don't seem like they
have anything else going on other than
the antenna here's kind of your typical
cobrahead light fixture with an antenna
up on them and so the and here's an
extension so in this case the antenna
wanted to be taller than the top of the
pole so it's up here in an extension so
they're the the facilities are kind of a
combination of the antenna and some
electrical equipment that goes with it
sometimes that electrical equipment is
pole mounted and sometimes it's ground
mounted and we have some different
application requirements depending on if
it's on the pole or if it's on the
ground
and part of the conversation that we're
gonna have later when we start talking
about the policies is you know where can
they go and as you can see we have a lot
of different light standards in town I
actually wasn't going to put the labels
on to see if you guys could guess where
they all work but then I thought that
could take all night so I went ahead and
label them so you know we have
everything from you know custom fixtures
in Old Town
Highlands and talus and Gilman to which
you'd consider a more rustic approach so
this is squawk you know it's a
combination light fixture and power pole
you know as is this in Old Town and
these poles are owned by PSE and so at
some point we're going to talk about
city-owned poles these are not
city-owned poles these are actually not
city-owned poles either the decorative
ones in the villages are owned by either
PSE or by the community associations so
so we'll talk about all that that's
probably some of the biggest
conversation points we're gonna have is
about whether or not we think putting
antennas on our decorative poles or on
city-owned poles is the right thing to
do or not those are some of the things
we can address specifically in the
regulations and then I got one more
slide and it's really to kind of start
to talk about the policies and we can
really either start on this now or we
can defer this open it up for public
testimony and then come back to the
policy conversation after your choice
madam chair I think we're going to open
up the public comment but I have a
question for you before we start the
what was presented to us for the city's
possible language or the new codes I
understand that every city is developing
some of this stuff did you collaborate
with any other cities or was this your
own process behind it I'm not that smart
Joan so what I would tell you is I
looked at a number of so Ogden Murphy
Wallace is the city attorney they
provided us some legal direction but
they also provided us some
sample codes from some of the other
cities that they work for but what I
found was actually some of the codes I
liked better were from Texas so art code
is actually if you were trying to find
cousins Redmond and San Antonio are kind
of the main codes that I that resonated
with me personally so that's that's how
I would answer that question is this is
from other places so I looked at San
Antonio and El Paso and San Francisco
and Berkeley and Redmond and Renton and
pulls Bo and and and and and so this is
what I would consider the most
applicable to Issaquah so part of it is
you know every city has different
preferences for aesthetics and process
and notification and everything else and
so what I did was looking at all those
other codes then bring in the pieces
that I thought made the most sense for
our community well know that I I
appreciate that I think that's why you
should go for all these other cities
have they already accept voted on
accepted their codes or are they still
in the process of making it up so I'm I
will answer one way but I will
definitely invite the audience to
provide maybe a better answer my take on
it based on what I saw from kind of
looking through other codes is Pacific
Northwest seems to be semi behind so
Texas Pennsylvania California all those
codes are folder and have been adopted
and been in place the codes in cities in
Washington are either seemed to be in
process now or recently adopted so ours
seem to be much newer and later and
maybe that's just a function of being in
the corner of the country I don't know
well this is we're preparing for the
future so old codes
not necessarily
what we need for the future so we're
going to hear some tonight and what
other what their process are what they
need and how they would change the city
established possibility for codes so
with that I'm going to open up the
public hearing it's 649 and ask if
there's anybody else anybody in the
audience that would like to make a
statement or we can go to Linda Adkins
your name is on here you have to go
she's assigned her rights I guess good
evening my name is Richard Busch from
the wireless policy grew up here talking
on behalf of Verizon tonight we did
supply a letter earlier today that
believe has been distributed thank you
very much first like to address this
slide that's on the screen if the city
is starting from the expectation that
small cell and desks are the same
that's probably exhibit number one for
why we need to talk small cell and
deaths are not the same if the city
starts with that presumption that small
cell and deaths infrastructure is the
same we need to clarify the difference
between the two and it does have an
impact on the size of the facilities the
location of where their facilities go in
the amount of additional network
equipment that needs to be installed
around town okay so thank you for
leaving this up and give you example
which one was it if you go in the upper
left the second slide to the right the
first land landscapes slide to the top
you see a rather large white box that
has wires going up to the top of the
pole and three large antennas mounted
standing off of the pole probably six to
eight inches ten inches off the pole
just looking at the size of the
equipment that looks more like a macro
sight or perhaps a - a piece of -
equipment but the small cell equipment
is smaller than that and if we had time
to prepare exhibits to show you what is
being considered for installation here
we would have brought that to show what
the profile looks like these days you
can have
strand mounted small cells strand
mounted small cells are boxes that hang
on these copper or the fiber strand
overhead and they look exactly like the
Spice boxes that you see today on the
telephone cables or the cable TV cables
that you see around town today you have
equipment boxes that are twelve inches
wide four feet tall seven inches deep
fits the profile of his existing utility
pole and then the antennas that go at
the top or on the side of the pole or
inside of the pole are approximately ten
to twelve inches wide two feet tall and
six to eight inches deep they need to be
mounted to the pole if it's external
they could be put inside the pulse
internal and if you look at the this
picture below the one I just talked
about that's a good example of what's
likely a small cell the antennas are
encased inside of that slightly larger
shroud at the top of the pole above the
lumière so that's a good example of a
small cell so why are we here talking
about this first we totally agree with
the city it's the time that this is the
right time to revise the code in order
to accommodate the becoming small cells
that Verizon is bringing as well as
others but we caution you against
rushing to a conclusion just to beat a
schedule without getting input from the
industry we received the draft ordinance
late last week and we had a chance to
comment it on to get letters in earlier
earlier this week or today and what we
really appreciate is when we can have a
dialogue with staff and a dialogue with
the Planning Commission in order to come
up with language that works for
everybody the concern we have is that
the growth in the usage of wireless
facilities is is increasing
astronomically it's coming from
everybody using it not only for phone
calls but accessing the Internet traffic
and so on what's happening is because of
all of the taller towers that are in
town the macro sites that you referred
to they are serving all of the users
increased data usage as well as the
traffic Verizon came in and applied for
some of the small cells up on the
savanna plateau at the top when you get
up to the intersection of Highland and
as well fall City Road is what Pine Lake
Road
if you've ever been up there anytime
between 4 & 7 at night where I live it's
gridlock and the existing macro cells
cannot accommodate the demand of the
residential users out there as well as a
commuting public so what happens is the
small cells are not designed to put
coverage where none exists today small
cells are primarily designed to provide
additional capacity to the people who
are very close to the small cell and
offload the taller towers to accommodate
the people who are further away there's
a finite amount of radio frequency
available to each carrier and as soon as
you load up as many frequencies you can
to the macro sites they're out of
capacity they can provide no additional
service without another macro cell and
if it's too close it doesn't work very
well or now they have the small cells
that are much lower elevation like on
traffic pulse treat lights so the
difference between daffs which is
intended to cover a larger geographic
area in a small cell which is intended
to cover a smaller geographic area is
how far does this radio need to
propagate in order to serve the people
if you look at the the Verizon drawings
I don't know that that was made
available to the planning folks the the
Verizon application for the franchise
they identified some roads as some
locations along this co-op Pine Lake and
it's called Fall City Road there are
probably 12 within three blocks of that
intersection at the top of the hill
that's high density meaning you don't
have one per mile or two you have one
every two blocks one every one block and
it's designed to accommodate the people
who are relatively close as a result the
antennas are smaller the equipment boxes
are smaller there's fewer radios the
power output is smaller so that's why
when you take a look at the top of the
landscape pictures those antennas are
larger higher power designed to cover
bigger geographic area so when we start
talking about putting these small cells
on Gillman on Front Street they won't
look anything like this they will be
designed this custom for that fits
within the area that they're intended to
serve and it also fits within the design
for the community so when you take a
look at the draft code
it prohibits any small cells or macro
cells for that matter from Gilman in
front but guess what that's where you
needed the most usually how traffic is
very heavy on Front Street we all know
that it's been a problem for years I've
been here since 1986
and the traffic on Front Street is a
long-standing problem yeoman is less
dense the traffic backup is less there
but the demand is still high if there's
no facilities allowed on front or Gilman
to offload that traffic the quality of
service will be poor I don't know if you
are aware but with a new iPhone
operating system there's a new feature
and it's not only Facebook it's not
people using it for traffic I can push
and hold two buttons right now and my
phone will emit a siren and if I don't
silence it within five seconds it will
call the police and tell them where I am
in order to have that kind of
functionality available to people in the
community you can't rely solely on the
macro sites that are maxed out by
traffic that's backed up you have to
have offload capacity on the res on
these streets in order to receive that
signal and transmit to whomever needs to
get it so what we look forward to is
working with staff to come up with
something that works for everybody
taking into consideration the design
considerations that you must take into
consideration and work with us we can
come up with designs that are acceptable
the challenge with small cells not being
allowed in front and Gilman you can't
put them on the next street over and
expect them to work because the way
radio frequencies behave in these bands
it they transmit straight and they don't
penetrate through several walls of
buildings so if we wanted to put them in
a park or in the in the parking area
behind the restaurants along Front
Street and expect them to propagate
through to get the traffic on Front
Street that's not going to happen the
signals would be blocked by the
buildings on Front Street same thing if
you go behind on the other side toward
the river or the the this quad Creek the
signals will be blocked by the buildings
coming back toward Front Street so if
the expectation of the city is that we
can just put them onto another Street
and they will get to the the traffic
that's backed up on Front Street
it's not going to happen so if we adopt
the code as it exists today basically
we're saying that we're not going to
have acceptable quality of service to
Front Street or Gilman for the
foreseeable future so that's of a
concern to us so we are asking for a
variety of things in the letter that we
sent on behalf of Verizon we do want to
have the ability to put in replacement
poles that are designed in an
aesthetically pleasing way they fit
within the community that that is not in
the code today the city is requiring us
to prove that a variety of antenna or
sight installations don't would do or do
not work that's primitive by federal law
we've provided a citation to the case on
that and to answer the question about
Redmond and we look at my colleagues I
believe Redmond is not final they're
still going through the process in
Redmond that's not that hasn't been
adopted yet so we're glad to answer any
questions that you may have at this
point in time but our request is that
you're not rushing to adopt something
because of a sense of urgency to get
something about that it needs to be done
right the first time so what how many
boxes do you expect to put from yeomen
count down the length of Gilman I don't
think is I don't think it's been
designed yet but based upon what we say
let's just go based upon what we've seen
with what we seen on the plateau they
will put a node every two blocks let's
say plus or minus and the node will
consist of small antennas at the top of
a pole in a small box with the on the
pole at the base the designs can vary
thinking like you say they can't go
underground they can't go in the bay
they can go on to the surface they can
go underground but there's problems with
water and electronics around here they
can be built into the base of a pole so
you don't even see the equipment it
looks like it's a decorative pole with a
slightly larger base than the other pole
I understand that I'm just trying to get
it I'd like to say we - Bobby - roughly
every two blocks but it'll vary by
carrier and they were vary by design I
have a question please
so one thing you said was that they
there would not be this technology for
the foreseeable future my understanding
is that this would be a small scale
deployment but then I think this is a
fast changing technology and there will
be opportunities in the future so I'm
I'm wondering why if we start with a
certain plan in certain locations why
you're saying that for the foreseeable
future we wouldn't be able to add more
it seems like over time there will be
new technology probably smaller smaller
small styles and these sorts of things
and I would think that over time you
might expand but I was just curious
about why you made that I'd like to
clarify what I said I didn't say the
technology wouldn't be available if the
technology is prohibited from Front
Street
then the service will not be available
in a high quality fashion because the
intent is small cell antennas will would
need to be installed elsewhere and if
they're behind a building or like if
they're over by city hall trying to get
over to Front Street the signals will
not penetrate all of the buildings
Jack's the the pizza place over here the
signals just will not reach front street
and if the code doesn't change it's not
that the technology won't change the
technology will change is the scientific
behavioral characteristics of radio
frequencies in these frequency bands 700
800 1900 2100 they won't penetrate those
buildings and get over there that's not
going to change so if the code doesn't
change prohibiting small cells on Front
Street the technology the the frequency
behavior is not going to change as a
scientific fact it doesn't bounce off
the clouds and come back down
it doesn't curve around corners doesn't
curve over the roof it gets blocked so
there wouldn't be the improved coverage
there thank you thank you
Matt oh go for I'm Linda Adkins I'm an
attorney with Davis right Jermaine and
I'm appearing tonight on behalf of
t-mobile my colleague Matt Russo has
some photographs that he would like to
pass out to the councilmembers if that's
acceptable sure so I I let my colleague
in the wireless industry rich Bush go
first because I knew he would give a
really good overview of the issue and
the general technological issues that
are driving the need for improved
coverage in all communities and small
cells specifically every every carrier
every wireless carrier has their own
licensed frequencies and those
frequencies Drive network designs so
each carrier has a very uniquely
individually designed network and each
one of the carriers is going to have
their own types of equipment that
they're going to use as the small cell
technology to deliver the services and I
wanted to make you familiar with the
type of small cell t-mobile is planning
to deploy in this area I just passed
those pictures out so you can see that
it's a compact box it's it's a little
bit irregular so it's if you if you
measured just strictly around the
outside it would be very very slightly
larger than three cubic feet but it has
some indentations in it so it's it's a
small compact box and it incorporates
the antennas and the equipment and if
you look at the the two pictures of the
small cell mounted on the the light
standard with the cobra head the all of
the fiber cabling and other cables and
wires that would be associated with the
site are internal to that pole so
they're coming out of the middle
the back of that box and going into the
poll so we anticipate that there would
be very little other appurtenances to
the poll and one of the reasons with
going for going with this design is
because it it's it can be painted to
match any type of poll that you put it
on it can be placed at different heights
on the poll it could potentially be
placed behind a banner there's a lot of
different ways that you can deploy this
type of small cell on a support
structure and t-mobile has done that
because it it really wants to maximize
its ability to deploy its facilities in
an aesthetically acceptable manner on a
full range of opportunities so as mr.
Bush has already started talking to you
one of the biggest concerns that we have
about the current draft is the
restrictions on the types of polls that
could be used for small cell deployments
and the locations where those facilities
could be deployed and I need to speak a
little bit to macro facilities as well
since this draft is proposed to replace
your code entirely and it is important
to know that the need for macro
facilities is not going to completely go
away because of small cells because the
the two types of facilities work
together to provide good network service
to customers so the the macro facility
provides coverage over a broader
geographical area and the small cell
works to help balance the traffic that
is going to and from the the macro
facility so there there will still be
potentially a need for some additional
macro facilities in the city of Issaquah
one of the areas I wanted to draw your
attention to in the ordinance so this
would be if you have the comments that
t-mobile submitted in advance of the
meetings the
page 8 of our comments so there's a
chart on page 8 that has to do with
citing criteria for macro facilities and
the next page is the chart that has to
do with criteria for small cell
locations and in both cases as we've
emphasized in our red line of the
ordinance and our comment letter these
[Music]
particularly the prohibited locations
are going to make it extremely difficult
to provide the city of Issaquah with the
kind of service that your citizens are
going to expect there there does need to
be the ability on major streets to have
the small cells because the whole point
of a small cell is to make sure that the
needs of a lot of people in a dense area
for high quality data are met and if we
can't put small cells on those two major
streets
you're basically zoning the technology
out of the exact areas where it's most
needed so I would call your attention to
the comments that we've submitted
specifically on those code sections and
the I guess the other the other issue
that I wanted to address in the code has
to do with access to municipal polls
right now the the code is allowing small
cells to be attached to utility poles so
those would be poles operated by PSE and
I understand from the staff presentation
that perhaps there are some private
decorative poles in some of the
neighborhoods perhaps those could be
opportunities but we will still need to
have the ability to cite a small cell
potentially on a municipal streetlight
and particularly that's going to be the
case if we're in an area where powers
been under grounded and there are no PSE
utility poles there would only be
streetlights and most other communities
that are dealing with this issue right
now are
going with codes that allow the ability
to attach a small cell to a municipal
poll subject to a set of design criteria
that are designed to control the
aesthetic impacts and make sure that the
you know the overall look of a community
is preserved particularly where the city
has invested time and effort in perhaps
a uniform decorative look for its street
polls and and we don't want to interfere
with that we want to be able to to
attach our technology in a way that's
compatible with those types of
facilities and then our the last kind of
major topic that we've addressed in our
comments has to do with the process and
the costs for applying for small cell
permits so the the the best way to craft
a code to address these facilities is to
recognize that they they are going to be
deployed in in groups within an area and
those group of nodes will typically be
pretty uniform in terms of the types of
structures that we want to attach them
to and the way that they're going to
look and they they're really well suited
to a streamlined process so for example
other cities are adopting design
criteria in their code so that they
could actually make an application that
meets those design criteria can't be a
permitted use so it doesn't require a
lot of staff time or a lot of other
types of process to get those permits
issued and that that not only saves the
staff a lot of time and effort but it
ensures that as carriers we are able to
get this technology rolled out to your
citizens as soon as possible because
this is this is the technology that's
going to enable the Internet of Things
if you you know or want your your
appliances or your Alexa whatever your
other devices to work this technology is
going to help
make that possible it's going to enable
self-driving cars that's going to do a
whole bunch of stuff that we were only
dreaming about when I was a kid watching
Star Trek so I would I guess encourage
you to examine ways within the draft
that you might be able to further
streamline the process and then my last
topic has to do with the fees so the the
fee schedule in the draft is those fees
are quite high and you have to think
about it in terms of so what what is the
burden going to be on staff time for
processing and and we want to be
sensitive to the need of a city to make
sure that it's it's not incurring
additional costs that aren't covered by
the fees we're totally on board with
that but the point I would make is that
this fee schedule may be higher than it
needs to be and if the fees are too high
that in itself is going to act as a
disincentive to prioritizing your
community when it comes time for
t-mobile to roll out this technology we
don't we don't have a build schedule for
the Pacific Northwest yet but it's
coming very soon and in terms of you
know prioritizing the technology we of
course would first look at where the
areas of highest demand but if we're
looking between two areas of high demand
and one has a more reasonable fee
schedule and the other has a very high
fee schedule it's just you know it's
business common sense we're going to
probably go to the community with the
lower fee schedule first so that that's
another topic that that I would
encourage you and the staff to to look a
little more closely at and I would echo
mr. Bush's comment that we want to work
with you and we we want to collaborate
with you to make sure that you when you
finish this process you have an
ordinance that that is going to work for
at least the next few years you don't
want to be back here in six months with
us saying okay we need a code amendment
because we just can't
do what we need to do so I thank you
very much for listening to our comments
on either I or my colleague Matt Russo
are able to try to able to answer your
questions so everybody was connectivity
so I know we all understand that
something has to be done but you talked
about each one of the suppliers as their
own needs so are we talking about
putting her Verizon and AT&T on separate
poles or are they can we combine them
they they depending on the structural
capacity of the pole they could
potentially be combined for example like
on a wood utility pole there are
instances now where wireless facilities
are co-located on those types of poles
it's you know it right now honestly I
think we're all struggling a little bit
to answer these types of detailed
questions because the the technology is
is coming and we know it's coming but we
don't we don't know all of these details
my my guess is that because each of the
carriers has their own unique Network so
right now if Verizon has a macro site on
a monopole in a particular location that
may or may not be a location that
t-mobile could use if we're looking to
build a macro facility and Verizon's
pole is something that we can use to
fill the gap in our network we
absolutely will want to go and co-locate
on that pole
so I you know I think that it the the
exact locations and the number of small
cells that are required are going to be
very network driven yeah and I think for
a community the you know the the ways
that you can think about addressing
concerns about clutter or proliferation
proliferation excuse me our you know
through the design standards
making sure that you've made a range of
opportunities available for attachment
so going back again to your charts
prohibiting locating the facilities on
municipal polls will reduce the number
of opportunities and could wind up
actually making a more cluttered City
than if you made those structures
available like the same with respect to
being able to attach to a building so in
a in a dense downtown area being able to
attach a small cell to a building is a
potentially really good solution and one
that typically is very aesthetically
pleasing so I probably haven't 100%
answered your question but that's about
the best answer I can give it at this
this time fifty percent that's pretty
good thank you
hi I'm Matt Russo my work in the site
development for t-mobile and I just kind
of want to echo what Linda was saying
about small cells and kind of go through
the future of the technology and why we
would want to deploy small cells in the
in the downtown cores of the various
jurisdictions around the area so if you
think about small cells what the
carriers are trying to do is in the
future when they roll out 5g and we're
talking super high speeds that we don't
currently get on our phones now so if
you think about your phone now it's
about 30 to 40 megabytes per second
which is pretty fast right that's that's
what you're getting at home and and
we're able to deliver that on our cell
phone but when we're talking about super
increased speeds so you're talking about
one gigabyte and that's instantaneous
updates on your phone that requires a
lot more capacity in our network so this
is why we kind of want to roll out these
small cells kind of in a staggered pace
because we want to prepare for that
capacity those capacity needs for the
future of technology and when you think
about it in the future we might not even
have wired Internet access
coming to a building with a router it
might all it might all be Wireless it
could be delivered by the major four
carriers and so small cells will be a
vital technology piece of that puzzle to
deliver these super high speeds so by
restricting small cells to areas where
if we're not able to deliver the service
on Front Street for instance because
small cells deliver service to such
small areas so a couple blocks for
example that was mentioned earlier
you're not going to be able to deliver
the technological advancements to this
city that you would if you opened it up
to better access for small cells on
poles downtown not just in this city but
any city in this area
so it's kind of wanted to expand on that
Thanks now I'm asking somebody a
question every time so yeah when you do
go to 5g yeah
are you going to have to redo the box
itself or I think not initially it will
depend again on how the technology
advances I would suspect it'll get
smaller but as you you might know with
macro sights so the ones that are on the
towers the antennas it's been you know
years now since we've deployed them and
the antennas haven't really gotten too
much smaller we are going to small cells
though so it really depends on the
distance you're looking to cover and
what frequency that that small cell is
operating on but it's tough to say it
will get smaller or not I don't know
okay I wasn't concerned that it got
smaller I just thought maybe you would
have to redo the inside of the box on
how to add it's possible yeah but since
it's concealed I don't know how much the
public would notice you know thank you
yeah thanks so I have a question about
these photos that is this one design or
is this the is this one of several
designs or is this exactly what you
would get if this would be this is
t-mobile's pole-mounted design so I
think was mentioned we do have strand
mount designs but that would be separate
from the poll okay so this and this
design would that both of the polls that
are shown in the photograph seem very
tall would that be the same design used
on any poll even if it was a decorative
shorter pole if it depends I hate to say
that but if there's definitely there'd
be room for negotiation if we had to
design a small cell site that had to put
aesthetically pleasing on a pole I think
it definitely could be done okay and
then I also had a question about so with
the this gets back to I think one of the
earlier discussions but the distributed
antenna system is that is the difference
with that that multiple carriers can use
the same equipment or is it is that also
that each equipment is specific to one
carrier each each period would have
their own bass system deployed the Dass
is dass's utilized more for in building
solutions some more like a like a router
in your house small cell is more for
outdoor just a smaller site than a macro
set on a tower and are there any are
there any existing solutions that allow
for multiple carriers to use the same
equipment rather than co-locating on the
same it'd be tough because each carrier
operates on their own license and so
when you're talking about different
frequencies in the technology it's you
can't you can't operate within the same
equipment based on the frequencies okay
thank you yeah thanks
I'm assuming this is Carol I'm Carol hi
good evening I'm Carol - gyein I'm
director of External Affairs with AT&T
I work in Redmond I live in Woodinville
so can you can hear me okay right
I try not to repeat too much so since
you've had these experts also speaking
on our behalf but a few points that I
wanted to bring up like I agree that
this is a great time for you to relook
at your code and we're very pleased to
participate in this process and
appreciate the work that you all are
going to put into this and and that
staff is going to put into it
as you know wireless technology is very
much ingrained in our consumer behavior
these days for Washington State because
you didn't know almost 50% of households
are wireless only and over nearly 70% of
all 911 from wireless service even so
that's why it's really important that we
have a good cellular coverage in in all
the areas where people try to use their
phones homes office down to everywhere
since 2007 AT&T has experienced a
250,000 %
250,000 percent increase in data usage
on the AT&T network and that's basically
since the advent of the iPhone and all
the many applications and OS service and
Android all these things happened in
2007 so since then we have this just
this huge increase and I think someone
asked earlier well is the equipment
getting smaller well some parts of the
equipment have definitely gotten smaller
and more efficient but we still need
more of it just because of the more data
usage that's going on so even though
components are getting smaller we need
more of it to address all the capacity
needs we continue to always upgrade
small cells are one part of that upgrade
that we're talking about
and it it actually will work to densify
the network so small cells connect back
to an existing existing macro cell site
most of the time on our network they
connect back to a macro cell they
actually repressing kn'l on the mac on
the macro site they reap repeat it so it
actually bolsters the capability of that
existing site for capacity so there's
already coverage anyway it just improves
capacity which helps people with their
download speeds but also helps them have
improved voice coverage as well as the
other carriers did we took a look of the
proposed code we have submitted a letter
as well and I'll just outline a few of
our comments and concerns I and I'm
definitely here to answer any questions
we agree with the concern about about
prohibiting equipment on certain streets
I am familiar with the Redman code and
they did propose prohibitions on some of
their downsize downtown streets but they
haven't passed it yet and we have been
working with them to come up with design
solutions and criteria that would allow
us on certain streets to make sure that
we keep the integrity of the look of the
downtown area so we we would love the
opportunity to work with the Issaquah on
on that type of solution or and we have
other options I mean we would be happy
to offer some options we did notice
because this is replacing the wireless
code it looks like there is a new
prohibition on macrocell sites and
neighborhoods our residential zones not
that we're building a lot of new sites
but as I mentioned earlier more people
are relying on their wireless phones
huh so we do want to make sure that
there are some options I mean like maybe
rooftops or you know some acceptable
options for those zones another item we
noticed was about replacement poles we
seem to see some missing language there
sometimes we do need to replace poles
for various reasons including the owner
asked us to and that's there may be
structural issues well we want to make
sure that we have that language in there
there's some analysis language that we
have concerns with we don't mind
providing analysis as long as it's
something we can do and that's helpful
so we would like to give some input on
you know when we need when we agree that
we need to prove something versus when
you know when it can't really prove we
need capacity for example so we'd like
to give some input there and and then
there's some procedural requirements
that seem a little extra or what we're
describing is more like extraordinary
and maybe put some expectations on staff
to understand some things about network
that that they might not be able to
understand so we'd like to work on that
language make sure that those
requirements are are things that we you
know that the staff has capability to
have information on to process so I
think there was also some mention about
some of the other cities there are some
other cities that we have worked with
recently we'd be happy to help you with
that but Kirkland mocha T Oh possible
can are some examples of codes that have
passed and I think I have covered
everything that's on my list so I'm
happy to answer questions and I thank
you again
very very much AT&T wants to participate
in this process with you
yes when you were talking about the data
requirements is that the level to review
is that what you're referring to it it's
it's about yes some of the read we just
wanted to apply to new polls and not to
existing that was part of our concern
there okay but okay
so it would be the new technology on an
existing poll your request is that it
not code needs to go through a review no
I mean no this was about providing this
was about on a colocation situation it
said that the city would decide about
colocation and I think Linda was trying
to explain how it is hard to determine
when colocation works because of network
requirements and that was our concern
about the colocation requirement right
okay I thought that that was a different
concern so when you were saying that
there were data requirements where where
does that appear yes
there's a requirement for alternative
and analysis and it was about I think
about there was something about
alternative analysis to prove that we
need a site in a certain location and
it's real it's hard to prove to
eliminate all possibilities because when
you look at the possibilities for siting
it could be rooftop side of buildings
other polls you know so we just want to
make sure that we don't have to do that
on existing polls that are already there
anyway we wouldn't mind doing it if
we're asking to put in a new poll and
proving that there's no alternative but
if the polls already there we we didn't
want to have to prove that the building
next door couldn't work in the poll this
way and that way it's just a lot of
analysis
and I had one other question with the
replacement poles is that's something
that if you do you said one reason that
would be replaced is that the owners
request so is that something then that
the company we have for that pants okay
we do okay so when we you're looking at
adding equipment to a pole you have to
go back some of the poles are older
might not be structurally you know but
like look is structurally strength and
if it's necessary to replace it we we do
that and we cover the cost
ok thank you thank you thank you
we're gonna continue does anybody else
want to make a comment yes you have to
come you have to come to the microphone
them
so just very briefly in response to MS
hunts question about the analysis so in
the macro facility siting criteria
there's a requirement that the provider
makes some demonstrations about
alternative sites and the need for the
facility and that that's a fairly
standard requirement for a macro
facility I think that the biggest issue
is having a requirement for that same
type of alternatives analysis for a
small cell it doesn't make sense because
the small cells are deployed in in
groups and they're designed to cover you
know at most a block or two and in
selecting a particular poll the the
things that are going to drive selecting
a particular poll or are not going to be
the typical questions of you know a gap
in coverage or is is there no other
available location it's going to be more
where can we best fit this into the
landscape so it has the least impact I
think is probably going to be the
driving factor and so I wouldn't
encourage moving away from the sort of
macro site alternatives analysis
information requirement for small cells
because it it just doesn't it doesn't
fit what we're trying to do okay is
there a is there a different sort of
analysis that you would usually provide
then because it seems that some sort of
information about how you're making the
decision is would be useful maybe not
exactly the same way as for a macro cell
so I'm wondering if there is another
another way to demonstrate I might point
you to the communities that are
establishing design criteria so
because again I think the what's going
to drive the decision about location is
going to be you know it is there is it
in the right location and and is it does
it fit the the node pattern that we need
to achieve is the structure that we want
to put it on is it going to be able to
either as it stands be structurally
sufficient or when we replace it in you
know the same ways will it be
structurally sufficient and then again
is it is it amenable to incorporating
the equipment in a way that minimizes
aesthetic impact so if you were looking
for criteria those are the ones that I
would focus on rather than you know
asking about coverage gaps okay okay did
you have any other questions I can
answer
well some of the other presentations did
talk about for example the coverage gaps
that we would have on Front Street so I
was just you know thinking that there
are 30 that is an aspect of the yes I
mean I think I think all of us have
emphasized that the the purpose of a
small cell it is for capacity and so
capacity means the ability of the
network to handle data so the macro site
provides the primary coverage for a
geographic area and the the small cell
communicates back to the macro facility
to help manage and handle the amount of
data demand that's flowing through that
macro site so you know when if we're
asked to approve a coverage need for a
macro site what we typically do is we
will have drive test Maps or propagation
maps that show you know where in the
network we actually have a hole in
coverage we don't have coverage there we
can't achieve in building coverage in a
particular place and we can show that
with colors on maps or drive test data
and that that's because the the small
cell is is for this data capacity
transfer handling function it's it's not
really designed to provide primary
coverage so much as it is to help that
one macro site function better so by
allowing small cells using small cells
you're going to increase the ability of
the existing macro sites to handle the
network traffic okay thank you so much
well festered like I think Victoria only
her her comment was the macro has a
major you know you have to do major work
and prove and do all your things to get
a macro in but there should be some kind
of an agenda some kind of system to
provide for a small cell it you know it
should be in there that this is the
process that you have to go through
which could be minor but since you have
one for the macro I think it's I think
Victoria was concerned that there was
you're just going to go and put it up
anywhere and not have to do anything and
so there has to be some kind of at least
a minimum requirement of how it's how it
should be is going to be what you're you
know you go in and you ask for a permit
but what do you have to bring with the
permit what do you have to well you know
in some of the other communities are
looking at this this issue what they're
asking for in an application packet are
depictions of the type of the facility
that design of the facility and drawings
and other information that shows how it
will be integrated into the the support
structure you know they want to know how
many how many individual small cells
will there be in a particular node
information like that that that goes to
again those design criteria aesthetic
compatibility
so I'm I don't if I'm not asking you to
give me the requirements I'm just saying
that in the code we should have the
steps that you have to go through would
be you know minor it's just that if you
have something there to say hey you know
if you follow this then you're good
that's all that makes sense and I assume
that we're going to have a backup come
in here yes thank you Richard Busch
again to answer the two questions that I
think you're appending at the end here
first some jurisdictions locally are
asking for carriers to consider
different polls that are within a
reasonable distance from the proposed
poll because these are small cells and
they only intended to cover one or two
blocks you can move it a little bit but
if you move it three blocks it defeats
the coverage objective you can't provide
the capacity I'll clarify that you can't
provide the capacity where you're needed
so in Mercer Island there's a franchise
agreement where the applicant is
required to consider alternate polls
within 100 feet of the proposed poll and
pick the one that's the least intrusive
on the community so in the things that
we look at now are is this poll in front
of someone's living room window kitchen
window or something like that or is it
at a property line where it's not in
anybody's direct line of sight so those
are the things that we do take into
consideration and the folks who are
designing the networks now have enough
experience to say to take the time and
look yeah this is a nice poll but they
turn around and say oh it sits directly
in somebody's living window there's
another poll seventy-five feet down the
street whatever the number is and it's
not as obtrusive so they'll shut they
should take the other poll so in that
franchise agreement there is a request
that you consider alternate polls that
are within X number of feet Denver's
around is 100 feet and choose the one
that's the least intrusive and then the
safety valve is if anyone expresses
concern about that particular location
to staff
then we have a dialogue about it and get
it resolved okay so that's one I think
that's what you're looking for some way
to provide information to staff to to
feel comfortable of the limited options
there may be for small cells this is the
most reasonable one to choose yeah and
that's a dialogue we want to have with
staff and then to answer your question
about there being no coverage at all on
Front Street that's not what important
that we're on the same page the macro
sites will provide coverage today what
we're looking to do is like Linda said
provide capacity and I'm sure you've
been in a situation where you're trying
to update the traffic map to see how
things are going you have five bars of
coverage four bars of coverage but the
wheel I'm sorry the wheel just keeps
spinning and you don't get a data update
that's the that's the problem we're
trying to solve where you have coverage
but there's just no throughput excuse me
because everyone's trying to get through
at the same time so that's why we will
have coverage on Front Street but we're
looking to add capacity thank you
is there anybody else that wants to make
a comment
hearing none I'm going to continue they
public hearing until hopefully February
the 1st and with that since I'm not
going to close it we're just going to go
into discussion with with Keith and some
questions that I think we both have so
sure so do you want to lead or do you
want me to start you know I read what
the city wrote and I've read all of the
the comments that the carriers wrote and
to me they're they're reasonable but
what I want from you is are they
reasonable for the city and do they go
along with it and which ones are you
know a value and which ones can't the
city
abide with sure so you know why don't I
just start by going through some of the
concerns raised this evening and can
talk about those and I don't think we
have to talk them into the ground we can
dial up a conversation and then there
can be potentially a week of
could forth between staff and the
providers so I'm gonna start with I'm
gonna start with Front Street we had a
lot of conversation about Front Street
being a dead zone and you know so here's
the deal
and it's it's I'm dialing it up simply
as a conversation so here's the lamppost
on Front Street so the street light
right and this thing is I haven't
measured it I'm gonna say it's between
15 and 18 feet tall what you didn't hear
from them is most of them know the
vertical spacing that they want their
small cells and they're generally and
you can we can have a dialogue about
this later if I'm wrong but I believe
they're generally between like 30 and 45
feet and so part of that is okay so
think about it I've got 18 30 to 45 so
they're either gonna want to put an
extension on top of this pole or they're
gonna change this pole for one that's
giant okay so this poles at a certain
height because it's pedestrian oriented
and trying to and one of the reasons why
we precluded or suggested at this point
prohibiting using the right away for
Front Street is because you can't use
these poles and because our streetscape
on Front Street is already being used
for either trees or outdoor seating or
walkways having the additional poles in
front Street did not seem like it was
something we wanted now does that mean
there cannot be antennas on on Front
Street no they can be
structure mounted or roof mounted so it
takes a huge landscape away from the
carrier's they cannot work with the city
they have to work with the property
owners to get those mounted on those
buildings and you know I'm that's a
different that's that's harder right and
so I understand why they don't want that
but that's harder but it's about it's a
character issue for us as a community
and you know having a bunch of antennas
on Front Street seems like that's not in
keeping with the vision we have for our
old town Gilman's a little harder so
that's that I think there's more room
for conversation on Gilman so here's
here's a lamp post on Gilman obviously
this one's tall I don't know if this one
went in with Atlas but it's pretty tall
so you know there could be there could
be an antenna maybe on that pole maybe
there's even room for two I don't know
so why not Gilman so as we talked about
those two streets those two streets are
I think what we consider our signature
streets in town front Gilman so
generally the proliferation of antenna
on Gilman did not seem like that was an
image that most folks had when we had
this conversation so you know I think
they're I think even though we probably
suggested prohibiting both for me this
one's really hard I can I'm having a
real hard time seeing a bunch of
antennas on Front Street
this one this one there's probably a
little bit more room for some
conversation the city-owned poles you
know I'm just going to go ahead and and
be candid our public works operations
department said no they said they do not
want private antenna and electrical
equipment on something they have to
service so what does that mean that
means that if it's a PSE Pole which
these guys are you know they can go
ahead and they can put their antenna up
on top and one of the things and this is
all another policy piece for you guys I
think this is ugly some people maybe the
person who lives on squawk loves this
wooden pole with the Cobra head scabbed
onto the side of it I mean if you put an
antenna up here I'm not sure
aesthetically that makes a big
difference for being now Vicky you live
on squawk you might say yes that that's
a beautiful pole I'm putting an antenna
on top we really need to talk about
aesthetics of that this is why we're
gonna have this conversation I would say
for that poll you know let him put it up
there and generally make it match the
color but I don't know that we want to
put a whole lot of design requirements I
don't think we're trying to do this code
to penalize them I think we're trying to
figure out what's really important to us
let the rest of it go
because I don't want to make more work
for myself that I do and my staff than I
otherwise need to but you know there's a
big difference for me on the aesthetic
of these things which I think are more
County remnants than they are
necessarily something we chose versus
some things like this this and this you
know what we don't know is how many
polls I mean you guys kind of started to
get to that you know there's depending
on what you're reading there's there's
some variance in literature on it's
every 300 feet it's every 500 feet
gentlemen talk about blocks well block
dimensions change blocks in Portland or
like 260 feet blocks and is required
much bigger than that you know so
there's there is a certain horizontal
spacing that these will come to and as
best as I can tell it's somewhere
between three and five hundred feet and
what we've written in here about
collocation is you know part of this is
if you you know if you if you drink the
kool-aid and go along with the program
what we're saying is we don't want your
antennas on our pools so those pools
that go in the right away will be owned
by a carrier and what we're saying is
that we want to have a conversation
about colocation and if it's possible
we're wanting that pool to be
constructed so it could be co-located
but we're saying we want them to assign
that colocation right to the city so
that let's say it's a Verizon Pole and
AT&T comes in and and they've got a
desire to put an antenna in a similar
location we don't want the situation to
be that Verizon tells
tu can't be on our poll so if we have
the right then we can give that right or
assign that right to AT&T to ensure that
colocation happens in those locations so
but that's a trade off if you colle okay
those polls are taller than they are if
they're single user because there's a
certain vertical separation as far as I
understand that those antennas require
and so it's there's some trade-offs here
for us in terms of the number of polls
the height of the polls you know
generally my take is and the reason why
there is one figure that's in the
proposed code is you know I think that
if we are building new polls or if new
polls are being built in the right away
they should be as unobtrusive as
possible so this is just a very standard
poll and I think mr. Bush was talking
about the equipment can be put on the
base so that base there would
potentially house the electrical box
that would go with it but in other cases
those boxes could be in different places
so I don't know I mean so what else
questions do you have
replacement poles you know I'll we look
at the code and see what it says about
the replacement poles I I think there's
absolutely should be an ability to
replace a pole that needs replacing
without sending it through a process I
actually think we called it a level zero
but I'd go back and I'll check that you
know in terms of fees that's not your
purview we did include it here so that
they could talk about that that would be
a conversation with the council when it
comes through our department is intended
to be 100 percent cost recovery and so
because we don't know how much time
these permits are going to take this is
the best guess at this point and the
best thing I can offer you guys is that
when we figure out how long it actually
takes staff to do this if we need to
process a fee adjustment we will do
that as quickly as as possible
Viki did you have a question or comment
maybe I was a sweet and tell you until I
just run out of steam that's soon
actually so from a policy standpoint you
know there's there's these are kind of
like the big things for me that I
thought you guys might want to talk
about
so the encouraged discouraged in
prohibited boxes so Joan you asked
earlier did we look at some other codes
yes we did so this is we're a little bit
different in that a lot of the other
cities chose a hierarchal scheme in
other words like this is what we really
want if you can't do this then you can
do this and if you can't do this then do
this and when you know as I thought
about that and thought about well gee
what do I put first and does first in
Old Town equal first in Issaquah
Highlands and it seemed like for me that
was a precarious way for us to go since
our neighborhoods have very different
characters and so rather than create
these hierarchies of preferred locations
you know it seemed easier just to create
an encouraged box in a discouraged box
in a prohibited box and as long as you
were somewhere in that box one isn't
more important than the other so even
though the draft has numbers those
aren't intended to suggest hierarchy and
one of the red lines I have already made
is to just get rid of the numbers so so
you know but that's something we can
talk about if you wanted if the
Commission felt like that was not where
we wanted to go and we wanted to
actually create a hierarchy that's a
level of complexity that we could do it
seems like that would take quite a bit
of public conversation which if you felt
strongly about we could do as I
mentioned earlier
so small-cell max poll height 45 feet I
do believe that could accommodate two
antennas vertically if you decided
that's too tall then you know we can
reduce the height but then we probably
can't get two antennas on it and then
the macro towers at 85 feet then there's
a whole section on ground equipment
screening so if you know so mostly
because as you heard they're really
trying to deal with mobile users which
are on our in our right away that's the
preferred location putting a bunch of
boxes so if they're on the pole that's
that's okay but there's an aesthetic
issue to putting them on the pole and so
if you run them down to the ground now
you have a bunch of things on the ground
and if you have two antennas potentially
on the same pole you've got two boxes
that you have to site on ground you know
there's there's advantages to putting
them in vaults you know as you heard
there's disadvantages to the carriers to
put them involves you can make them look
like benches you can make them look like
kiosks but you know do you want to have
four benches on the same place you know
so all of these things are things we
need to talk about you know but they're
all part of this infrastructure that is
coming and that we want in our community
and it's a trade-off and the question is
is you know how do you how do you allow
it in but yet retain some of the
aesthetics that I think our community is
known for I mean you know you can talk
about sign codes and is akua's sign code
is regionally known as one of the most
stringent sign codes and we have super
small signs and part of it is because
our community has said we want the right
away to be uncluttered we want you know
those those vistas down the street scape
to be things of beauty and not full of
things like
signs and potentially antennas so so
this is this is all important stuff in
terms of aesthetics for our community
and with that I'm going to stop now
so I'm just trying to see if we've
covered most of the comments so and and
just so that I can let you know how
we'll handle the letters we got today I
think they all came in today I don't
know life's too blur so what we'll do is
we'll read through those comments and we
will provide responses back to the
carriers and unfortunately I'm going to
be in Las Vegas starting Saturday so
we're gonna have to do that through
email I'm not sure we're gonna get any
face time before the next Commission
meeting if it's the first but it doesn't
mean I won't have the ability to
correspond back and forth so hopefully
and y'all know Ogden Murphy Wallace so
they're handling a lot of the kind of
translation for us and in terms of yeah
I'm gonna blame something on them but I
won't so so I think so we will do some
of that to try and get ourselves on the
same page before we come back next time
but then you guys will get copies of
kind of that back and forth so you can
see where where those conversations are
going not being a wireless expert when I
read things they seem reasonable and
then when I mobile and Verizon gave the
comments you know they seem reasonable
too and I like the fact that the city's
input exactly why you know oh it's great
let's put it on Front Street but then
then I don't I like the post we have
there it's going to be very difficult to
incorporate them into that so so you
look at this as a on a different light
and so I was going to suggest that you
do exactly what you just did
and I know that I can go back now and
compare them a little bit more
reasonably and I did before so I think I
will be prepared on the first so I'm
going to make sure that the other seven
members of this commission are updated
also and I think we've learned a lot
through the presentations here tonight
and it does come down to the fact that
we all want to be connected we all want
you know immediate responses on our
phone and to get that we're gonna have
to give up some we're gonna have to put
some polls in we're going to have to
provide that communication so we know
that and I'm I appreciate the several
comments that you made that you wanted
to work together with the city and
that's the first step in anything is to
to know that you're on the same path and
we'll see what we can do and hopefully
we can find a way to at small sell-off
in on Front Street in that area and
Gilman I can see non Gilman but I like
you I'm having a hard time on Front
Street when you look at what we as a
city really want and that's our part of
our town and that's kind of what we
won't want it so I don't have anything
else to say to you
Victoria well I think that I also
appreciated the presentations and the
information that was presented and I've
learned a lot I think it's complicated
because these are fast evolving
technology and the equipment will look
different in a few years and
additionally the devices that will be
connected by the equipment will look
different you know 10 20 years from now
I know that the more automated vehicles
as was mentioned that will be using this
technology and that's kind of a ways out
but I think it's it's interesting to
think about all of that and I
think that when hey we have a quorum oh
wait no we don't so I think that one
thing that is important to take into
consideration is that probably this
technology will look different I I think
that you mentioned about putting this
technology in benches so maybe down the
line there will be a more aesthetically
pleasing option that could fit more into
the character of some of these places
but I also have a hard time imagining
anything on the light posts on Front
Street because it's so iconic and a
historic district and so I think that's
sort of forward thinking that at this
point we can't imagine this technology
on on those particular light posts so I
would agree with that I noticed that in
the in some of the letters there was
concern about the complications of
putting co-op co-locating that that it's
complicated where you can collate
different technologies on the poll and
that and so I guess that's just
something that it seems very technical
but it's a consideration and let's see
oh and then I also had one really minor
but I think important comments on the
code about obsolescence and removal so
this is a fast-paced field and I imagine
that things will become obsolete quickly
and will have to be removed and so I had
some questions on that about who decides
when it's obsolete who decides when it
needs to be updated and and not only the
poll but the the technology that's on
the poll and then there's also this if
there's a danger to public safety that
the network provider shall promptly
remove and everywhere else it says you
know if there's graffiti it will be 14
calendar days it's very specific and I
noticed that that was promptly so I
thought I thought that that may be one
thing to consider is to make that
specific like the other bullet points
because if it's a danger to public
safety definitely we want to define
promptly you know immediately and
that means thank you so in essence don't
take this wrong but I think we have to
think out of the box
a welcome to the life planning policy
Commission we've gone through the public
hearing and the presentation from the
city and I don't think we're going to
start all over again but is there any
earning question that you have that that
you don't think would have been covered
by the city that is explanation of this
okay so run obviously we don't have a
quorum so the idea is we're keeping the
public hearing open and we're gonna
continue it to next week I'm gonna fly
back from wherever I am and be here for
the continuation on the first assuming
we can get a quorum on the first and
that's the only unknown at this point
so you it's all been taped so you can
watch the testimony from the providers
and if you have any questions
I already got we already got some
questions from AJ so if any of you have
questions feel free and either any of
the other commission members that might
watch this on tape
feel free to email before the first that
would be helpful we can definitely have
some you know at least provide some
clarity for the presentation next time
based on your questions
I think that's positive I think that's
what we're gonna do anything else you
want to contribute we'll see you
tomorrow for transit-oriented
development and district visions part 26
hopefully we will have a yes there's
lots more coming tomorrow night because
it's Thursday unless you have anything
else I want to thank you all for being
here and
I learned a lot and I hope we can work
together to make our city connected so
with that I'm going to close the public
I'm going to close the meeting at the
8:05
you