you know I'm gonna do my best
good evening and welcome to the February
first meeting of the Planning Policy
Commission tonight we're going to talk
about small cell wireless communications
facilities basically in Issaquah but
first we have to Innis minutes for the
meaning of January 10th and 11th to have
a fruit we're going to do individually
so can I have a motion to approve the
minutes for January 10th so moved second
any discussion all those in favor say
aye
hi the minutes of January 11th may I
have a motion so moved again
[Laughter]
discussion motion carries
so with that we're gonna open up to
Keith and see what we have on tap on
small-cell thank you madam chair so I so
when they say what state what happens in
Vegas stays in Vegas
not true I brought a cold back I'm gonna
whine about it all night so I'm gonna
try and I'm gonna try and be to the
point when I can be I am on cold
medicines I may not have brought my
a-game so again we're gonna kind of go
through the presentation we went through
last time so who you know we're dealing
with the major carriers the major four
carriers Comcast I think we threw into
the mix there may be others that come
they're all wanting to add small cell
antennas it's it's not a coverage issue
really so the coverage probably most of
you haven't remembered the last time
that you had a wireless call drop I
can't so they're all doing a great job
providing coverage through the metro
area this is more of a capacity issue so
now that we've all decided we want to
stream Netflix on our phones and do
things of that sort it's it's providing
more capacity for the system that's in
place right now and you know as we
increase population in our area you know
the the demand on the system is just
it's overwhelming the system so there
needs to be more infrastructure built
and we actually think that's a good
thing
so when really now we have had our first
application from Verizon get approved
prior to the code revisions being put in
place it's on is a koala fall city
Issaquah Pike Road they're gonna put
some small cell antennas on top of some
existing Puget Sound Energy power poles
and you know that the point is we need
to get this code this revised code
adopted before we get kind of an
avalanche of more applications in so the
original 18:07 505 was created for the
macro cells and those towers are located
throughout the city there's different
places water reservoirs there's a couple
in Central Park
but because of the way that they work
you know they're set up much higher than
the small cell and so their frequency of
infrastructure is the spacing can be
much farther apart but what we're
talking about with these new smaller
cells and it gave you a little sketch
here so you know we could be talking
about antennas on top of buildings or on
the sides of buildings we could be
talking about antennas within the right
away either on brand-new poles or on
existing light standards and then public
property
you know city parks other publicly owned
property so really these things could
locate anywhere as long as they have
they work primarily on like line of
sight
so part of it is you know they need to
kind of set up kind of a stream for them
to work off of
so these are some just images of
antennas these ones here are small cell
you know they come in kind of different
configurations
sometimes they're put in a housing at
the top of the the light standard and
then these boxes are and I shouldn't be
talking about this cuz I'm not an expert
those folks in the audience will be able
to explain way better than I can
those are kind of the the antenna goes
to like our other equipment that needs
to then kind of do whatever it does
alright I'm gonna go I'm gonna keep
moving so part of what we have in town
is and this is why every city's kind of
regulations are a little bit different I
was gonna leave the the names off and
let you guys guess where these are but
that might have taken all night so so
you know we have we have particular
light standards and talus and all the
powers underground and the Highlands
similar and so you know if you're gonna
put a small cell network in our villages
either you're gonna have to put an
extension on top of this pole or maybe
it can go down somewhere but these poles
aren't that tall and depending on the
height that they want their antenna most
of the time they put them on an
extension above now some of our some of
our light standards and this is old town
and this is squawk you know in my
opinion if and I said this last time if
you put an antenna up here on the top of
this wooden pole I'm not sure anybody's
even gonna notice you know it's not the
most aesthetic thing so putting
something on these I'm not sure would be
a major concern for us so right now if
these are owned by PSE they could go
ahead and put antennas on top of these
but these ones because they're
decorative poles
they could not that's the way the code
the draft code is written so what you
guys wanted to see I think for the most
part was this slide so this is we got
comments from from the carriers not
sprint I don't know they're not playing
with us yet but t-mobile Verizon and
AT&T and we went through and kind of
evaluated what they asked for and this
is a list of the things that we did
change in the draft code and these are
the things that we kind of held our
ground to and I can either stop here or
we can go through these and kind of I
can give you a brief explanation of why
we kind of did not agree with the
suggested change your choice either one
we can talk through the nose we can let
them talk we can talk amongst ourselves
whatever you want to do it would be nice
to get the city's okay so why don't we
just go down really short okay so number
one there's kind of two parts to number
one number one you know it would we
agree that that it would be a lot of
administrative work to do one permit for
every new antenna but then how many
antennas are too many and so it's trying
to figure out kind of how many makes
sense as a bundle and so we suggested
ten and given the fact that those poles
or every anywhere from like three
hundred to five hundred to what we found
in the last round of comments maybe a
thousand feet you know ten times a
thousand feet that's a mile and so you
know having an application that spans a
mile of street that's a long way and so
I'm not we held it at 10 as opposed to
increasing it to 20 or 25 because our
he's kind of a small city and there's
just a scale issue for me personally
that seems like you know these things
I get doing it in bundles but at some
point you have you can do all of Gilman
in one application that seems like that
might be too much we're just talking
about getting permits this is getting
permits right so I mean I carrier could
come back and ask for another yes so
maybe Gilman's to applications instead
of one so they can still it's not saying
they can't get the permits there it just
means they can't do it all as one
potentially now the issue and we were
talking about it before the meeting so
so what we try to do in the in the code
was say that you know you could have a
certain number of antennas up to ten but
it should be a contiguous application
they should they should be all connected
somehow and the problem was that
contiguous ended up being a vague word
and so we stuck a number on it which was
500 feet which the carrier's say at
least one carrier says we're trying to
actually have our spacing bigger than
500 feet to try and minimize the number
of new poles that we might potentially
have in your community I like that but
now I have a problem with my definition
of contiguous so so as we were talking
before and I'll leave this for you guys
to think about I don't think we have to
answer this right now we can let the
carrier's maybe think about it is you
know I I think what we could do is go
ahead and leave the bundle at ten but
then get rid of the contiguous so
worst-case scenario an applicant comes
in and they've got two poles on Maple
and three poles in Tallis and you know
another five poles in the Highlands you
know what if that's what they want to do
fine I mean you know I I guess I'm not
you know we'll still review them we'll
review them under the same criteria and
as long as you know the contiguous piece
again because our cities not that big
I'm not that worried if you guys want to
drop the contiguous
part of this I think we could do that I
would rather do that than increase from
10 to 25 which was suggested by one of
the applicants city assignable
colocation this is this is this is the
nut they hate all right so here's the
deal if they if they build a new poll in
the right away let's say we're on Park
Drive in the highlands and they can't be
on the decorative polls so they're gonna
put a new poll in what we've said is we
want that poll to be co-located but we
want to control we want the ability to
give that right for colocation to
another provider what the problem we're
trying to solve here is we don't want so
let's assume that Verizon builds a poll
it's it's co-locate able and t-mobile
comes in and wants to put an antenna on
it and Verizon tells t-mobile no you
know we think we're gonna expand we
don't want to give you the right to
co-locate on that pool the city has no
right or no ability to tell them they
have to unless it's in code and so this
is one where there's technical reasons
why they might not be able to cull okay
the city's not saying you have to
co-locate we just want the ability to
allow for a colocation if it's possible
technically and because we're putting
this in code it gives us the ability to
say hey Verizon t-mobile wants to go in
this general area
can they co-locate on pole number 12 and
it puts us in a good negotiating
position with Verizon as opposed to
telling t-mobile you know what you got
to go talk to Verizon and see if they'll
let you Co like locate on their Pole I
can guarantee you they're gonna come
back and say yeah they told us no so I'm
sorry I'm a pessimist but this gets us
in the kitchen and allows the city to be
part of the conversation and Keith
that's just four polls that are in the
right away where we're saying hey you're
taking our space so we want to make sure
that it's used to the
is public benefit right and one of the
providers suggested that that go into
the franchise agreement so for those of
you make sure you understand the
mechanics here if they're asking for a
facility and it's in public right away
they also have to get a franchise
agreement and so some of the
requirements can be in the franchise
agreement and that's a different section
of city code and some of it can be in
chapter 18 the conversation we were
having before the meeting was I liked it
in 18 because in 18 now it's codified
and it's clear if it's if it's the
franchise agreements although there's a
structure to it they all have to go
through City Council's separately and
there's opportunities for a negotiation
that may it just it leaves the
predictability I think less for me so I
like it in 18 if we can all come to
consensus on what it should say putting
in 18 and making it apply to everyone I
think it's great we have language in 18
that references the franchise agreement
and then in the franchise agreement I'll
make sure we have language that
references 18:07 505 but outside of
right away you know if it's a if it's a
public park let's say then there's a
lease so there's not a franchise
agreement but there's a lease because
it's our property so we would negotiate
that and that would be very different
than the franchise agreement and if its
private property then they go and
negotiate a lease agreement with the
private property owner if they're gonna
put it on the building or on the roof
okay
front street so we we still aren't
feeling it for front street so I did
move Gilman over I took it off the
prohibited list you know right now
Gilman we're going through a whole
visioning exercise for Gilman I don't
know what that that streetscape is going
to look like we may come back and edit
1807 505
after we know what Gilman looks like but
right now and especially given just the
variance in you in street light fixtures
that we have on Gilman Minh was harder
for me to really kind of stick with so I
was willing to give on Gilman but not on
Front Street what does that mean they
can't put any up on Front Street is that
what you're saying so right now Carl so
look so here's the light pole for Front
Street right and you know this is this
is about I think it's about 15 feet tall
okay so they're their antennas want to
be up here okay up here not down here
they want to be up here so so what what
we're saying is and because of the
character of Front Street you know
putting a bunch of new poles next to
these polls that have antennas on them
is gonna be a character issue for front
street so what we're saying is no new
polls in the right away it doesn't mean
that they can't put antennas along Front
Street but they'd have to be either
building mounted either on the side or
on the roofs and yes that limits that
limits what they can do but right now
what I ask them to do and they haven't
done it yet I think that they plan to
maybe do that at some point is to give
us a rendering of what it would look
like if you're gonna if you're gonna
turn this street lamp into something
that's maybe this tall and has an
antenna hidden inside it okay what's
that gonna look like is that gonna is
that gonna be funky is it you know how's
it gonna look with the other ones maybe
nobody's going to notice I don't know
the answer to that but rather than mess
up front street I think right now we're
just saying you can't put a new pool on
Front Street so but you can on a
building on the side of a building or on
a roof or yep so you're not precluding
them from putting antennas up on Front
Street no just on a new
all just not a new poll and right now if
they can convince Brad to be able to put
them on municipal polls you could put
them potentially on a street light like
at front and sunset you could
potentially put them maybe on top of the
pedestrian polls for the rapid flashing
beacons so you know there's I think
there's a choices there but they've
they've got to convince right now
Public Works operations has said they do
not want these things on their polls
they're worried about electrical issues
liability issues and so they're gonna
have separate conversations with Public
Works operations and see if they can
move that needle a little bit but for
right now they'd have to put them on
buildings if they're going to put them
on Front Street
so we we changed so number four we
changed for no single-family zones for
macro towers and one of the carrier's
cried foul and said but wait we can do
that now you know and yes they can I
think my question is should they you
know do you want your neighbor to put a
macro tower in their backyard and I
think you know it's one of those things
that has happened in other communities
and right now we're suggesting to remove
the allowance for the single-family zone
they could put in a multi-family zone
but not single-family so it does take a
bunch of the city out of out of service
in terms of new macro towers but we
think that at least at this point
there's not really a demand that is
unsatisfied and I don't know it just
seemed like the right thing to do but
this is new ground this is new territory
and I want to make sure you guys are
clear on that they can't put in a macro
but they can put in more cells in the
right away
and Keith I'm thinking single-family
homes
Marcel's home so right now I think so we
did not preclude it in single-family so
if you wanted to say put a small sell on
the site at somebody's house you could
do that I don't know that they'd want to
but you could well isn't it under
discouraged or am I reading it
incorrectly it's allowing for
residential use under discouraged gonna
make me look aren't you see so small
sell sorry for not knowing that off the
top of my head yeah okay
so yeah so it's under the discouraged
piece so they'd have to show us how they
couldn't make any of these work and then
yes we would allow that so Keith when
we're talking about single-family zones
I'm thinking up in the highlands how
we've got the water tower area next to
the school
how we've had some talks about putting
something there would that be then
precluded for the macro towers so the so
Central Park already has two macro
towers in it and it could still because
it's it's not zoned single-family it's
owned community facilities facilities
our favorite city zone all right keep
going so there was a and this isn't
really in your guy's wheelhouse number
five but I just did want to put it up
here so there was some concern over the
fees we talked about that a little bit
last time we already talked about no
city-owned poles they're gonna make a
run at Public Works operations on that
and I told them that's fine one of the
carriers AT&T asked for us to change the
definition for small cell
and referenced a different section of
city code and I don't know
I didn't didn't see the benefit to that
so I left it the way it was so now we're
down into some minutiae stuff there was
some other edits that 18t asked for in I
was 6 DC which didn't agree to those
either
I was putting my foot down conversation
about pre apps right now what we're
saying is you need to have a pre app and
one of the carrier's said well pre apps
are only required for level 2 in the IMC
and that's true but in central Issaquah
they're actually required period so
because this codes gonna be citywide we
figured we'd take the highest bar which
actually is central is upon not IMC it's
the confusion that we have like city
code that doesn't apply to certain parts
of the city so you know and really the
pre app isn't intended to be anything
other than an opportunity for staff and
the applicant to talk about the
application that's coming in so that we
can understand what they're proposing
and see if there's any quick things that
we can address so that maybe there when
they do bring their application in it
actually leads to more streamlined
processing on our part so we see it as
actually being positive number 10
t-mobile asked for us to add a
definition for unified camouflage it
seems to be a t-mobile specific term
which seemed like I didn't want to put
it in the definition section since it
was just relating to one carrier and
maybe I don't understand but it seemed
like that's there coined phrase so I did
not do that and then
the figure 1 there was concern over our
figure 1 which is the that kind of the
illustration of a pole that we would
accept and the intent is again it says
or is otherwise approved by the
designate official so it gives them one
example that they should know that they
should be able to get permitted but like
for example t-mobile says well our poles
look way better than that well great
then that shouldn't be a problem should
it you know so it's not it's not
intending to say it has to look like
that pole but it's saying that there's
at least one example that'll get you
through a permit but if you've got a
different pole that looks better than
that then I would hope you'd want to
bring it we're not trying to dumb down
the look of these things by any means
but it seemed like giving a visual
example it was a good choice so that's
you know there's some other little
things I went through all of their
second round of letters today I think I
captured most of it I did go into the
draft code and and did some of the edits
that were suggested but again they were
like there were definitional things they
were there were some suggestions on how
to make different paragraphs read better
so some of those things I did go ahead
and do and there that would be the
version of the code I'd want you guys to
approve if you get that far tonight so
that's that's that's my list of yeses
and noes I asked one clarification on
the front street so there is now the
wording new pole added to the issue that
one of the carrier's brought up last
time was because because we have a zero
setback on Front Street for buildings
right so if you put a an antenna on the
side of a building it's actually
overhanging the right away so the reason
why I put new
whole is to allow for that structure
mounted antennae to actually overhang
the right away which would be different
than somebody putting it on a new pole
so my my concern I guess about that is
that we have this example of these
decorative poles which we like to look
up in the example of extending that
which wouldn't be a new pole it would be
an extension so I would ask that that be
clarified that it's not only the new
poles but it's also the decorative poles
that are prohibited that's here new
poles municipal poles and decorative
poles so I you know I think let me think
about that a little bit Vikki just
ending is pole mounted rather than new
pole okay
Oh
I should being tracked changes I don't
know why that didn't work a show markup
well that looks a lot better all right
delete that
okay any other any other any other
things before you go to public comment
no we might want to come back to some of
this stuff yeah no absolutely absolutely
I'm not I'm not I'm here all night
I'll leave this one up just in case okay
so I thought I'm gonna open the public
hearing at 7 o'clock and the first thing
I want to do is add in to add into the
public hearing verbal comments received
on June January 24th from Richard Busch
in the white Atkins Matt Russo and Carol
got and again took me down to guy in
pretty cool and with that if amy who
AT&T would like to come up and speak
thank you for coming out tonight to hear
about this and thank you for all the
time I can tell you put into this to
educate everyone it is a new technology
so it takes a bit to get informed about
what's going on and how it impacts land
use in the city of Issaquah my name is
Amy Pellegrini and with the wireless
policy group representing AT&T we're
here tonight because 18t is responding
to the significant increase in the high
demand for the wireless services it
provides in the city of Issaquah I would
just like to highlight three main points
that we would like to see modified in
the proposed code changes we would
suggest that small cells are not
prohibited from any location listed in
the table in Subsection zero nine zero
point B and the draft that you have
tonight AT&T has gone through great
lengths to have several cell designs
blend into the existing environment so
that the Haida man can still benefit
service while preserving the character
of the existing environment we would
like the opportunity to work with staff
on design criteria and design reviews so
that we can meet the service demands in
all areas further as the owner of many
polls the city will be able to approve
designs before allowing any installation
with this in mind we would like to see
the small cell location table be
modified so that the prohibited column
is eliminated and/or merged into
discouraged secondly we would like to
address the category the elimination of
the macro cells as prohibited in Singh
single-family and duplex zones which is
a departure from the city's current code
as has been referenced tonight we do
think it is prudent to propose we don't
massage we do not everything is prudent
to propose any new changes to the
section which prohibits macro sites in
any zone as you mentioned before there's
different land types of uses in a
residential zone and sometimes it can be
more aesthetically pleasing to blend
into a church steeple or
something that's like on a water tower
I'm sure if they're all public
facilities and single-family zones yeah
we've had a site where the public the
water tank was right in between three
homes and that wasn't pleasant to look
at but someone's big huge backyard where
no one's gonna see it that went against
a freeway was where the actual residents
decided to put it so we just want to
make sure that you know with the macro
sights there's full design review and we
just wouldn't want to limit any options
there also with regards to small cell
siting and locations we would like to
see the alternative site analysis
evaluate existing polls within 100 feet
of the proposed new location the small
cell sites cover very targeted areas to
meet high demand for capacity in the
network and has limited availability to
relocate to alternative sites for
example an applicant for a new pool can
show that no existing pools within a
hundred feet or feasible options and we
just want to thank you for this
opportunity to share our comments and we
look forward to continue working with
you thank you
anybody else like to speak
good evening chair Pablo my name is Kim
Allen I'm with the wireless policy group
- but I'm here on behalf of Verizon
Wireless this evening thank you very
much for the opportunity to work with
your staff and to hear from us tonight
we do appreciate the collaborative
approach that's been taken to the code
to date and it is our goal to get a code
that is efficient for us and with but
which preserves and recognizes that the
community aesthetics here in the city of
Issaquah so that being said we have
looked at you know number of the shifts
that have gone on in the code and really
Verizon Verizon's just going to talk
about two of them I think tonight on the
residential piece though if we could
possibly have the opportunity to site
towers and non-residential uses such as
church properties and that sort of thing
we tend to that's where we drive our
sites anyway that would be the the site
of choice generally we would not site on
a single-family home in any way for a
variety of reasons not a tower and not a
small cell so but we do want to preserve
the opportunity to use non residential
uses that are present in residential
districts to to add another tower if
necessary as as I think your your
planning director said the population is
increasing the usage is increasing you
know our cell phones now which used to
be in the glove box in case you broke
down and needed to call somebody are now
the remote controls for our lives more
and more of the functions that we have
are being shifted to wireless from your
home heating to alarm systems to insulin
pumps that folks who are diabetic use
all of those things are making use of
our wireless network and that's why
we're coming in to add capacity
throughout really throughout the entire
region with respect to the code I think
that that Keith mentioned that one of
the things that was difficult for us was
in a batch of small cells and I think he
said 10 we did ask for 25 we can start
with 10
that's all right but to require that
they be within 500 feet of the next one
really defeats our purposes Verizon has
a two antenna configuration per pole and
two different sizes of radios the larger
radios go a longer distance and allow us
to use fewer poles in covering the area
that we need to cover and so to require
us to put them within 500 feet of each
other really minimizes the range that we
have we have range about between 500 and
1500 feet for some of these radios and
when we do that we can use for your
poles and put fewer things in the
right-of-way so that's our goal is to be
as aesthetically minimal as we possibly
can so I agree with the solution that's
being proposed that just removed the 500
foot contiguous requirement and leave it
at 10
I think Verizon would be fine with that
and we would also be able to deploy in
the manner that we've designed so that
we can minimize our impact on the right
away in Issaquah by using the strongest
radios we can to get the biggest bang
for our buck in our small cell network
as Keith said the other issue that's
really important to us is the to
eliminate the assignable right of
collocation to be held by the city these
poles that Verizon or any carrier would
place in the right-of-way
it's a city's choice that we would own
those poles you know some jurisdictions
require that you dedicate them to the
city and then they become there under
city ownership the city can decide what
to do with them these poles would
instead the ownership would be retained
by the carrier that builds it and what
we have proposed rather than have an
assignable right of colocation that the
city holds the city doesn't have the
ability or the expertise to determine
whether t-mobile's antennas and
equipment will be compatible with the
antennas and equipment that Verizon has
on the pole that they built that's just
beyond the scope of the city's expertise
and so to have the city choosing the
carrier that's going to go on the pole
without regard
to the scientific analysis that goes
into deciding whether colocation is
possible on a pole I think it I think
frankly exposes the city to some
liability potentially and creates a very
difficult problem for the carriers I
think that with macro sights we're also
required to to build it big enough to
co-locate on and the code says that you
should build it and you should allow
colocation and we would propose that
this code say the same thing that the
carriers either as a condition of the
lease agreement that we that we would
need to obtain to put a new pole in the
right-of-way or as part of the code that
it there'd be a condition of building a
new pole would be that you would build
it large enough for colocation and that
you would allow colocation if
technically feasible that's the language
that we're proposing that I think would
compel us to do the right thing although
I think we do it anyway
and because frankly a colocation offers
a revenue stream because that space that
you would that the second carrier would
occupy would be would be rental to the
carrier that built the pole so there is
an incentive to add a CO locator to your
Pole certainly but you want to make sure
it's not going to interfere with the
with the installation that you have for
your customers on that pole so that's
what we propose to just have an outright
requirement in the code that we
co-locate if technically feasible just
the same way we do for macro sites and
let me just check my notes and see if
there's anything else on Keith's list
one of the things that we that we are
going to going to try to talk to is the
municipal yawn poem poles we understand
public works is is not open to that at
this time we hope to change that and
just wanted to let you all know that in
other cities around the Puget Sound
region Verizon has been working hand in
glove with those cities to develop
designs in historic districts and
decorative areas of their cities where
they we design a pole that's acceptable
for them we have a pole that is that's
designed that
it's almost I think almost ready to go
in historic Spokane with their acorn top
lights with the swoopy arms that they're
on and we managed to design a pole that
that the city of Spokane thought was
compatible with that very distinct
historical design in the City of Seattle
Verizon has designed to pull for Pioneer
Square that passed muster for the
Seattle Historical Commission so we do
have some some great pole designers that
are working right now to try to give us
solutions in areas where cities have
spent an invested and visioned
particular look for a portion of their
city so what we're asking is that rather
than have it an outright prohibition if
we were to go on a municipal Eon Paul if
we were to ask that we would need to get
a lease from the city it's entirely
optional for the city to let us onto
municipally-owned pole or not or to
place a new pole in one of these
districts where where you have
decorative lights poles so I guess we
would we would ask that those be shifted
into the discouraged column rather than
outright prohibition to give us a chance
to show the city what we can do and if
the city says no that's just not good
enough that's fine but we would like the
chance to try as we have in other cities
so that we can bring small cell
technology and increase the data
capacity and the number of users that
can be on our network at one time in
areas historically where you have these
decorative poles they're areas where
there's pretty high traffic you have a
lot of people you have events that sort
of thing and it is a place where small
cells are needed so rather than an
outright prohibition we're asking you to
strongly discourage us unless we can
show you otherwise and give you an
acceptable design and with that again we
would like to thank you very very much
for taking up this technical topic and
helping us find a path forward in the
city of quoi to bring this new
technology and infrastructure to your
citizens and your businesses and your
visitors and with that I will be
available on that for questions if there
are any
and at the end of the meeting well thank
you would anybody else like to speak
Jennifer Taylor with Rekha consulting
I'm a site acquisition consultant for
Verizon and I'm actually the one working
on the East Ridge project which is the
ISO qua Pine Lake is Clough all-city
Road yeah sorry
so really the only item that I Kim did a
great job of running through everything
already but the only thing I wanted to
speak to you really was the the limit on
the 500 foot gap the East Ridge project
the first one that were we've just gone
through City Council for our franchise
the smallest gap between the seven nodes
we have there is five hundred and ninety
feet and the largest gap is about a
thousand feet and that simply due to the
placement of the existing poles and and
as Kim said the type of radios that
we're using that allow us to have that
that sort of distance so that project
alone would have to come in as several
seven separate applications with the 500
foot limit and I'm not sure that that's
a benefit to the city to seems to me it
would be nice to be able to review them
all sort of in a batch and not
necessarily have that separated just
because of the distance and and it also
sometimes the distance can come up if
we're trying to be selective about which
poles we're using we're trying to avoid
going right in front of windows or homes
sometimes we're looking for a little bit
more less invisible pole options and
it's nice to not have to be considering
is this gonna cause a delay in our
project because we're going to have
multiple applications that'll take
longer to get through it's just another
factor where it would be seems a little
bit simpler to treat it as one project
the way that we look we are looking at
it
with anybody else like to speak what
anybody else like to speak but that I
will close the public hearing at 7:15
and open it up for discussion do any of
you have additional questions I do and I
know address - I can go sit back down
the service providers and I don't
necessarily care why don't you find out
what the question is yeah before we
serve before you volunteer you mean I
want to step up my question deal that
the 500 feet seems to be a pretty
reasonable thing to eliminate my
question is how reasonable is 10 powers
if you're looking at a project - in
spand service what's the average number
that you look at is it 1 or is it 27 or
is it for the whole community and that's
what I don't know I'm not sure I
understand so if you're gonna do a we
talked about Gillman how long Gillman is
I know a couple miles at most if you
want to put a tower every 500 feet or
less than 500 feet would you be looking
at putting in a project that would be
just for that one neighborhood or would
it be for the whole downtown area I
don't understand what the mic you know
the numbers are sure and then Kim Ellen
from Verizon again just for the record
we would typically wouldn't when when
the RF engineers go and take a look at
what the need is in the capacity is they
they they kind of do it in a geographic
area they look at a neighborhood a
manageable chunk of a neighborhood and
then folks like Jenny go out and they
have a map of that area and they find
where the poles you know the RF
engineers give an idea of where they
need poles Jenny goes out and she finds
there pulls there that we can use takes
them back to the RF engineers who say
yes these will allow us to fill the gap
in capacity that we have in this in this
area
typically we what we have been seeing in
other cities that have been adopting
batching has been 20 to 25 or a lower
number with an option for the director
to approve up to 25 if it makes sense
sometimes we batch them by pull types if
we have a larger section that has two
types of polls one has light standards
and one has wood utility poles we might
batch the wood utility pulls all
together because they're all the same
and it makes it easy to review and in
that same larger geographic area then
batch the light standards because
they're all the same so there's a couple
of ways to slice this but typically the
cities that are adopting new wireless
ordinances now are settling right around
that 20 to 25 is the number that we're
seeing you could live with 10 if the 500
feet goes away I think we could at least
a start and you know codes can be
adjusted as this is a new technology and
a new process for everyone each city is
going to develop a process to do this
batch review and so we make it make me
makes more sense to say 10 and up to a
number with the at the discretion of the
Planning Department they may want to
build that in so you don't have to go
back for a code change but you can keep
it to tend to start to make it
manageable until you get your best
practices in place for this well I just
was curious if you had 10 and your
engineer comes and tells you we can
improve the system for let's talk let's
just pick all town as a location we can
improve it but we need to put in 17 yeah
with the city then mandate with this
proposal they'd have to do two sets of
permits yeah does that make sense
so I mean it does because you get double
fees but no so I think it does at the
beginning so part of it is there's gonna
be a huge learning curve for staff and I
think part of it for me 10 seems like a
manageable number to look at and look at
the impact on the street and you know
and especially if you're talking you
know if it's if it's 500 feet that's
that's almost a mile right that's almost
a mile of street frontage that you're
doing under one application and so I
think for for me that the ten number
seems like a good starting spot we may
very well get to a point where we all
think tens ridiculous and it should be
15 or 20 but I think that could be a
future iteration of the code once we
have more proficiency in doing the
permit review I think part of what I'm
worried about is because there's two
pieces to this one is you don't want to
create a bunch of bureaucracy and a
bunch of need for additional permits but
there's also this shot clock that I've
got still got to live with so as soon as
they bring an application and it's
ticking and we have to actually perform
and get it done by a certain amount of
time and so part of this you know is
we're gonna be slower at the beginning
as we learn you know planners are by
nature timid about making mistakes
because they tend to last for a long
time and so they're cautious they're
gonna be slow and so doing 10 seems like
a good scale for me and so I'm I would
advocate for leave it at 10 but I like I
said earlier I think the contiguous
piece it seems as we've talked about it
seems less relevant for me and
especially since our city is as small as
it is I have a couple of comments one I
I like 10 and I also like getting rid of
the contiguous 500 feet just or when we
get to that point the other one Keith
this was about the macro sites
and single family is there a there was a
request to include macro sights on
non-residential uses in single-family
zones is there a definition is there
already a definition anywhere and code
of non-residential use and what that
would be so creating a new no so right
now those single-family zones identify
you know obviously they allow
single-family houses right but they also
allow other things and depending on what
the zone is it will tell you what you
can and can't do there most of the
things that we have like water
reservoirs that would not be on a
single-family zone they would be on our
favorite community facility facility
zone but I'm gonna guess with you and
I'm looking I'm gonna phone a friend
I'm gonna guess with you most of those
single-family zones dual out churches so
you know if you know like a church
parking lot is somewhere that they would
want to put a macro tower and we think
that is the case we could go back into
the prohibited and put you know
single-family zones where single-family
is the existing land use so if it's a
non single-family use within a single
family zone and there are a handful that
are allowed in single-family that's not
residential that that that would that
could happen but you know it could be
like a bed-and-breakfast right we allow
bed-and-breakfast and single-family I'm
sorry I could actually pull up the code
and we could look at it so but there are
there are some things that are allowed
in single-family zones that are not
traditional single-family and so if we
do allow macro towers in non
single-family uses you know you could be
you know so you know okay your neighbor
now if you were next to a
bed-and-breakfast you know all of a
sudden it's like well there's there's
the macro tower there you know you know
but maybe that's worst-case scenario and
if you're next to a church maybe that's
fine but a church with a macro tower
maybe isn't as good so so maybe you know
I mean
I think we could we could probably if if
there's an inclination from PPC to allow
it in single family in non-residential
we can talk about what kind of
protection mechanisms we might want to
maybe add to that I was I was just
curious I didn't want to create
something that was overly complex but I
just I was I just had the question and I
may be curious I don't I I would be ok
with that and in non-resident juices
because it's allowed now trying to kind
of split the difference but I'd be
curious what the others have just think
about that the last thing I will say is
I'm a little nervous about the city
assignable colocation thing only because
they the carriers retain ownership of
the poles so it's so it's so ok to me
let me I'm not tracking on the concern
and so let me explain the way it is in
my head and maybe you guys will go oh
well then maybe that's not a big deal so
so I have a right right it doesn't mean
that I'm gonna make something happen
that doesn't want to happen it just
means that you know if if they have a
pole out there and whether it's t-mobile
or Sprint or Comcast or somebody comes
in and says you know what we want to put
a pole right across the street from that
I can say well have you looked at that
location and would that work for you and
then they might say yeah that would work
we'd have to put it here on the pole and
I'd say ok well they they have given us
an assignable right so I'm gonna I'm
gonna say you should you should talk to
them about leasing that space ok it's no
more than me connecting people together
right but at the end of the day if
there's a technical reason why it
doesn't work or a legal reason why it
doesn't work the city's not going to
mandate it you know it's just it gives
us the ability to say you should be able
to talk to them and you know they they
should let you there if you want to be
there that's that's a different thing
than putting it in code and saying you
know it should be co-located and they
should be able to talk to each other you
know it just it gives us more leverage
Oh
I have the question the lady from
Horizon raised the issue in regards to
difference between macro towers and
these small cells what a sign ability
are given to macro towers is it
different than what you're proposing a
small cell yes it's more of an
encouragement and not a requirement and
part of the reason why you know I'm
suggesting we dial this in a little
tighter is because of the number of
poles we're talking about and this is
again I don't know that any of us know
what this is going to ultimately look
like but if we have now four new sets of
poles every 500 feet marching down
Gilman because there's no colocation
that that's one potential outcome if I
can have that because now I've got two
providers on each pole is that better
the poles are bigger so this is a and
and Lindsey had sent a question in and I
think that you know it's a trade-off the
poles have to be bigger because you have
a vertical separation on antennas
they're probably gonna the diameter is
gonna be bigger to hold the additional
electrical and you know hardware up you
know and so but the problem is none of
us know what this is going to look like
and you know we don't have a crystal
ball so we're trying to make some
decisions to affect the outcome I think
in the community's favor and this is
this one's I think it's nobody has a
crystal ball that's completely debatable
you guys might say you know what we
should just take the smaller tower the
smaller poles you know maybe instead of
45 feet maybe they're 30 feet or 25 feet
now but I've got more of them maybe
that's better
it's a judgement thing and I don't know
that you know I don't know that any of
us know at the end of the day what this
is going to look like
until we get there so on that line of
thinking I do have concerns with the
idea of a 45 foot pole being added what
you've shown us there if you're looking
at the pictures of our poles are as you
said many of them are 15 or 20 feet to
be putting additional poles potentially
every 500 feet that are 45 feet tall
that's concerning to me you know so are
there any alternatives you know I think
what we know what we know is where
there's a situation now this guy on
Gilman I asked Lucy how did this go in
this thing's huge
so I believe that the new street lights
for Gilman when they do the streetscape
are gonna be are probably going to be
black shoe boxes but they're probably
gonna be down here around 15 to 18 feet
like most of our pedestrian scale
lighting this guy's this guy's a monster
you can put antennas on this thing and
not have to extend it but I don't think
that is where we're going in terms of
our future standards and so so your
question Lindsey so if this thing is
here and you have one of these guys down
the street here yes so this is you know
it's I think you you know I think we
have to take a step backwards and say
this is this is a piece of
infrastructure that our community wants
this is being this is demand driven I
think the carriers would tell you that
and so what we're trying to do is figure
out how do you put it in and try and
preserve the aesthetics to the best of
our ability you know if if you could get
colocation
and a poll this tall and get two
antennas on it and then the street
lights down here at half the size and
that happens every 500 feet one on each
side of the street two two carriers on
one side two carriers on the other you
know I don't know that we know yet I
mean I think the antennas need to be
where they need to be and they're either
going to be on a pole or they're going
to be on a building so my other concern
is with buildings there's a 15-foot
height allowed for the building mounted
small cell antenna when you're putting
it on roofs and things like that I would
love to see a picture of what that would
look like and what the requirements are
for kind of camouflaging that or any
requirements for coverage so so I
couldn't tell if your concern was that
15 was too tall or 15 was not going to
be taller at all okay so I think where
we're headed for like central Issaquah
is you know the height at which they're
gonna want to put their antennas are
probably not going to be roof mounted
they're probably gonna be sited building
because our hope is that most of our
buildings are gonna be you know five to
six to seven storeys tall I don't know
what's happening on Cleveland Street if
they're actually putting any on side
mounted building antennas if you want to
sure
fair disclosure I just finished 11 years
on the Redmond City Council so I was
deeply involved in planning our downtown
renovation and renewal and when we went
when we the carriers went to the City of
Redmond they had an outright prohibition
on small cells in the Cleveland Redmond
white area where the big downtown park
is developing which didn't make sense
because that's where all the people are
and that's where all the people are
gonna go so the what we they have
decorative poles and actually some
decorative lighting that's in on the
Cleveland streetscape so we are
permitted to get attached to buildings
marquee signs we can attach to I think
Keith's reference the the the signs that
have the you know the flashing beacons
for walk we can integrate into those
really really well
in fact I'm going to send Keith a deck
of our ideas concept deck because we can
really integrate it into all of that and
then there are some blank pull options
decorative blank poles that don't have a
functionality like a light but that are
very decorative and very compatible with
just about any decorative theme that you
would have in the downtown so we're
looking at all those options we look at
parking lot lights as well that I think
the important thing is that we have a
path forward in these growing you know
cities where you're anticipating
significant redevelopment attaching to
the side of buildings is a little more
problematic first because a small cell
generally we want to get into those
buildings with coverage and if it's
mounted on the outside you lose a lot of
that and then you also lose the 360
piece of your directional antenna
because part of it is flushed up against
the building so it is not one of our
preferred locations the reason why the
pull option is so great is because you
can point them everywhere and you can
shoot them right where you know the
coverage needs are and the capacity
needs are but but I I know that the City
of Redmond rather than saying no way
said come to us we're going to do a
robust design review and ultimately it's
the city's call if they don't
if we haven't met their bar then we
won't be able to go there so Keith on
that idea sorry
I'd have to get up again regarding the
decorative poles or any of the areas on
Front Street or something like that what
what do you think would be the best way
to go forward on that if we feel like
they're gonna be able to show us
something that says they can probably
meet our standards to create a new pole
would you rather say yes it's gonna be
up to you know us you guys to do the
review or would you rather potentially
change the code later
so with front streets so Front Street
can be a little bit of a different
animal to some extent because we happen
to be updating that sub area plan and
it's gonna have some code amendments
later so we could so for me because we
haven't figured it out yet rather than
say yes you can do it and here's the
process I'd rather say no and come back
later and fix it because that's just a
code amendment you know what we could do
is we could put we you know if we if we
would rather not just have prohibited
next to Front Street we could put as
allowed by the old town sub area plan
because you know what's gonna happen
what we think is gonna happen is when
that old when the Old Town update gets
approved which we're hoping is this year
the next step will be to do additional
design code similar to what we did with
CIP and so we've talked about having a
consultant do that so if they were ready
at that time and that's hopefully like
no wood to actually knock on I'll wait
so you know my hope would be that maybe
in
eight months we might be ready to start
talking design guidelines for Old Town
and if they're ready to show us what
they think they can do on Front Street
we can always incorporate it into that
specifically so this code could
reference that code but that's just for
front street it happens to be for Old
Town because we've got that in process
that is a convenient way to deal with
that if you wanted to not just prohibit
it out right now and then just the last
thing I have listed here is someone
mentioned something about the legal risk
for the city for collocation is that
something that we've run past legal or
that we're going to pick through legals
in the room so if Daniel wants to talk
about that I'm more than happy to kind
of sit back down well my name is Daniel
Kenney I'm with Ogden Murphy so I work
with Jim Haney if you've worked with him
and so Ilana's on another attorney in my
office and myself I've been working with
Keith to do some review on this and I
think that the and I wanted to get the
jump to that section here real quick
I think colocation I don't want to get
into a legal analysis on the record here
there's more appropriate venue for that
we can provide you with resources and
responses to that I do think that we can
do some fine-tuning here definitely
understand and appreciate where keith is
coming from in terms of what the goals
are here and I think there's a way to
get there whether it's this language or
maybe a slight modification I would note
that on the small-cell the be the
section B it is encouraged to co-locate
so in order to get away from co-locating
they're going to have to show to the
designated person that they can't do
that colocation and one would presume
that that would be conversations with
that other poll owner and that poll with
the code that's written here would
to be co-located bold it has to be large
enough to so there's a spot that's there
because it's a new pole that has that
spot available on it and that person has
to go and talk to them in order to move
out of the encouraged to get their own
Pole so there are steps that Keith has
built in here that are going to make it
harder to not co-locate because of the
way it's structured but I do think that
there should be some language and the
way that Keith is doing this is to make
that as robust as we can do it but I do
think that there's some more
conversation to be out here
maybe I'm off-base but I think what
Lindsey is asking you in the way of
legal is if putting this small cell on a
pole that's owned by the city in the
right of that's already there is there a
legal problem with the city if there
something happens to that pole or that
oh I'm sorry
so maybe I misunderstood it wasn't what
I was saying but I think that's a valid
question so so yeah so the question that
you have is whether or not putting small
cell on a city-owned pole allowing it on
a city on pole house legal risk yeah
well everything is a little restraint it
already depends on how the lease is
written totally correct so so there will
be a lease in place for access to that
pole and we would write into that lease
everything that the city would want to
protect its interests
anything else I figured that I wanted I
get in there so I had a question that
was on the previous slide about the
Technical Review which was a change that
was made what what do they have to show
to demonstrate why they put a pole in a
certain place so if they wanted to put a
pole right in front of somebody's house
what what do they have to show to say
that that's a reasonable place and
that's the only place that they could
put that pole so I am this is definitely
not going to be my area of expertise so
we had drafted some language and you can
see it's all been struck through Daniel
has been working with at least one of
the carriers to come up with an
alternative so right now what it says is
network provider shall consider the
established preferences and shall
attempt to comply with as many encourage
criteria as possible discourage
locations may only be considered if the
network provider can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of a designated official
that each of the encouraged options have
been evaluated and eliminated so I
personally hate that because it puts
city staff at like this discretionary
spot of saying yeah that's they
convinced me right I mean this is just
this is that vague kind of language and
I'm not being I'm not being critical of
Daniel I think he was trying to
negotiate something with the carriers
but its staff you know this is one of
those you know give me boxes I can check
and I don't mean to say that word that
that blunt at the city but you know this
this puts the city in a place where I
can see us getting either contested by a
carrier because maybe what they brought
us we don't agree with but we don't
agree with it for maybe some kind of
like reasons you know and having to
having to try and I always think about
things in terms of applicants Appy
decisions right and so if if we've
denied something and they appeal that to
the Hearing Examiner I now have to go
defend why we denied it and this is the
only thing I'm going to point at and
this this doesn't feel really good for
me as someone who wants to not be
discretionary because I think when the
city is discretionary we put ourselves
in a bad spot so this is where it is
right now
Viki and you know if everybody says this
language is great if they say it's great
and our attorney says it's great then
this is probably what it'll be but I'll
just tell you my two senses this kind of
worries me a little bit so what's the
path forward there if we agree with you
and say we'd like more boxes that can be
checked in more detail in that so then
we asked our attorney to work on version
2.0 to get incorporated into the version
that goes to council that would be less
discretionary would that have to come
back to us after that or would it be
something where we would say we want
this
I mean if you give us clear direction on
what you want this where you want this
to go I don't I mean I would look to
Daniel to tell me if we have to have
another hearing if this changes I don't
know that it necessarily would have to
come back to PPC that hearing could
happen at the council there might be
some other changes that they make as it
goes through committee so I'll just
touch on that real quick I think that
the likelihood that there's gonna be a
change large enough to warrant another
hearing is that likely will happen at
some point in this process that's not a
given though so we'll just have to see
where the changes end up and whether a
hearing and whether that's gonna be in
front of Council on this language I
would say that generally speaking I
agree with Keith this is not ideal the
idea here was to get the city and the
proponent talking and to try to figure
out a solution go through everything and
encouraged and talk about why you can't
be there and likely at the end of it
they will have some sort of resolution
having something that you can have
definable boxes to check would be way
better particularly for the appeal
process because and I noted this when I
sent it over
if the designated official does say no
all the way till the end it could
somebody say that's been an arbitrary
decision and so like I totally get that
I would say that I have not heard of
another solution that really works and
that doesn't mean that we can't find one
and make one but if if we're looking for
check boxes you'd have to look at the
encouraged column and create a check box
for each one to say this is how you get
away from this element of encouraged and
I think we could do that I think you say
here are the four boxes one for each or
however many there are under encouraged
and if you're not going to do this you
need to show this I think that there is
probably some concern from industry that
there
things that make him come up that the
city wouldn't necessarily have the
expertise and so industry is just going
to say something and how would you know
and that's has enough no knock on city
staff at all they just may know better
whether or not those sites are going to
be feasible so so it this is a
challenging one and would certainly say
moving away from this is something
different is totally fine we're just
gonna need to brainstorm how that's
going to work for staff to make sure
it's workable and they understand it but
then also that it works in the long run
so okay well so why I why I brought it
up I think is similar to what Keith
expressed because but in the previous
version there was a technical evaluation
which I think to me means some more
specific boxes or some more specific
information to fill in and I think that
it would be good to be clear about what
they need to show to demonstrate why
they need to put this pole in front of
somebody's house for example and that
sort of thing so I think maybe in my
opinion going back towards the direction
of a technical evaluation would be what
I would be more comfortable with and
then I have a few other comments so on
Front Street the more I hear about these
small cells the more ideas come up like
the small cell on the blinking walk
towers and on different building
configurations and so I am in favor of
keeping the prohibit on Front Street
because I think that as the technology
develops there will be more and more
creative options and this is all about
polls and I I would like to see our
front street maintains the way it is and
its historic nature and I think that
there will be increasingly creative ways
to do that and so I would like to make
changes as that becomes more appropriate
and I appreciated that the promptly was
defined for safety
that was one concern I had I am however
not sure if 48 hours is a problem it is
prompt for a safety issue especially
because it says or secure the facilities
so I can understand that might take a
while to to remove it but especially to
secure it I think I would have hoped
that that they have a policy that if
there's a safety issue they send
somebody out as soon as they get the
call that would be my hope for safety
and I also appreciated the change that
it can be either the designated official
or the carrier that decides if something
is obsolete or damaged and then my last
comment is about the squawk Mountain
poles I think that they are a good
example probably of poles where if
somebody put some of these poles if
somebody put something on top I don't
know that anybody would notice but I
also in the very long term I sort of
have this vision of having under
grounded utilities and adding poles for
things is contrary to that and sticking
things on poles is also contrary to that
so I would just like to keep that in
mind and I think that that also speaks
to the colocation so that if we if we
have this if I have this ultimate dream
of undergrounding things than if we have
fewer poles to take stuff take equipment
off of that kind of would assist with
that
so I'm also in favor of the colocation
although perhaps with some modifications
as needed so Keith on that idea it those
poles on squawk are PSE m'd
right yes ok so if they decided to
underground it would be up to them to
negotiate with the carrier's
on something like that we don't have
anything where we would have carriers
coming on to a municipal Pole that we
would then want to
underground Joey so we've said no money
no municipal so so Vicky's brought up an
interesting you guys are are spooling on
an interesting thing that I hadn't
thought about so here we go we've got
these things and not all of them have a
street light on them
some of them are just power overhead
power poles right and so if they go in
let's say let's say there's no Cobra
head on this and it's just a power pole
and they go in and they put an antenna
up at the top if this property owner was
going to
let's just let's say that they're going
to now bulldoze their existing house and
put in a duplex with the city code would
say is you have to underground the power
along your street frontage all right so
now of a sudden you've got this antenna
up here and they're gonna now
underground the this from here and this
one's actually coming out of the ground
that's what that PVC is is it's coming
out from underground to this pole but it
would go then to the next pole
underground so you would at the end of
that project you would have all of your
you'd have your cable and your power
underground but they would have to
install a new pole for the antenna and
it would probably be I would assume at
the at the expense of the provider I
don't know I mean we're we're in a weird
place that I have really thought much
about but so what would happen is this
wooden pole goes away there's a new pole
that's probably about this tall that has
an antenna on top of it that's metal and
has like a box at the base okay so but
that's that's what would happen now on
this particular one so this one's a
little funky it's hard for me to tell
this one might have new it might be a
higher power overhead Pole
so we require under grounding of the
most basic electric but once it gets
above a certain point it gets kind of
cost prohibitive to put it on the ground
because you actually have to cool it so
so for this one with the streetlight it
would basically this thing would go away
and there just be a streetlight with an
antenna on top of it that's the outcome
if this guy ever redeveloped his
property so the owner of the pole can
make that decision that they want to put
in a smaller pole so the owner of the
pole so so right now there's so maybe it
was not clear so PSE likes their poles
so they they generally don't trade them
out but if this was a redevelopment
project it would go under grounded and
that would be a city requirement so the
replacement pole would be a in this
particular case because of the light
standard it would still be a PSE pole
with an antenna on top of it most likely
so if that property redeveloped PSE
would be required to put in a new pole
after the rest of the electric is under
grounded so the electric would go
underground because that's a requirement
of the city and then assuming we still
wanted a streetlight here maybe it's
serving a purpose there would be the
developer would pay PSE to put in a new
overhead streetlight pole to replace the
wooden one so it'd be a metal one and it
would likely not be that tall and then
they would put an antenna on top of it
oh and Daniel wants to say something
often times as well if there wasn't the
light on that pole and the primary
purpose of the pole was electrical and
that goes away a lot of times that pole
would go away and the franchise
agreement that the carrier has with the
city to go into the right-of-way would
say that if the primary purpose of that
pole no longer exists you have to leave
that Pole and then they would have to
find another location
sometimes it just depends on how that
languages but there is a franchise
agreement to be in the right-of-way that
would address likely this circumstance
anything else I had this long list of
questions which have already been
answered they're sweet it's easy there
were just two I appreciate the fact that
carriers and the city got together and
worked this out and it was negotiating
and and reasonable and I think it worked
out for both sides but I don't think
that putting it on paper you're going to
find every instance that it's going to
happen and so there's always going to be
as my neighbor here said a crystal ball
we don't we can't get in there and see
what problems are going to exist or
where they're going to come from or how
we like something or whatever so I know
there were there were a couple little
issues in the way of safety that I would
love to have it I in tuned a little bit
and there was we're not attorneys and so
I'm comfortable with the end result is
going to be the same it's just how the
attorney is going to be able to put it
into words and make sure it works was
there anything else that besides those
two issues that there was one some going
through my list I use my phone to take
notes tonight the single family for
macro and we kind of Troy kind of
brought up well what about you know if
it was a non single family use and I
guess the question for you all is right
now we have a prohibition for single
family we can you two leave that as is
or we can go back in and say you know
basically the single family use cannot
have a macro tower on it but a non
single family use in a single families
could its good might be I'm sure be more
out good elegant than that yeah I was
just cuz right now you can you can do
you can do macro in single-family you
can't now but so part of this is trying
to split the difference you know part of
this is when when when 505 was written
and this was so we're in the same place
we were with macros you know hey it's
common they're gonna you know who news
you know we didn't know how many macro
towers we were gonna have in our city
you know the worst case we were gonna
have like a hundred and it's like oh my
gosh you know and you know we just
didn't know and so what ended up
happening is you know right now I think
what we've heard from most of them and I
want to put words in their mouth is they
have coverage in our city this is about
capacity so the macro the addition of
macros you know will be to add both
coverage and capacity so new macro
facilities might be needed there is a
relationship between the small cell and
the macro cells and so you know so they
could need additional macro towers in
the city I don't think they know that
yet I have not heard them tell us that
they're planning more macro towers in
Issaquah right now and so and and
unfortunately we don't have something
like a conditional use process where you
could you could allow it via conditional
use which is an extra added you know
public notice and you make sure that
everybody gets a chance to say oh my
gosh this is horrible so it's kind of it
either either we allow it because it's
allowed now or we dial it back and say
you know what if they have to add some
more macro facilities you know maybe
when they know that they've got one and
it can't go anywhere but in a
single-family zone maybe at that point
we change the code I don't know I mean
you could go either direction it depends
on how how kind of restrictive you want
to be right now now we have to have a
motion tonight to to approve what the
city is presented with the changes and
the changes that we spoke about tonight
yeah and I understand that there's going
to be changes there's
any problems there's going to be
questions during the year can we put it
on the schedule so in a year 18 months
that it comes back to us so that we can
review it at that time sure I mean you
know I assume there's going to be some
things that are going on and it would be
I think it would be nice for the
carriers to know that we are in the
process of looking at it and we would
come back and discuss it and see if
there's any problems along those lines
do we have a group of permits sitting in
a basket someplace down waiting for this
decision to be made or is this is this
just for you know we're thinking this
might happen in the next six months
we're going to come to you guys with 10
so it might be a year from now when we
finally get all our design work done and
a reviewing this in a year might not be
worthwhile because nothing has happened
so I think we expect it will be there
will be permits in place in a year so
right now Verizon has their franchise
agreement for Issaquah Pine Lake
Issaquah Fall City so that's the first
application that got grandfathered in
because these weren't in place AT&T had
come in for kind of a pre pre pre app
and then they they kind of backed off I
don't know what's going on with them and
now I mean I had a bad way sorry did you
come up very good
cold medicines wearing off so that
they'll be back and Verizon has already
said their next deployment I believe I
want to put words in your mouth is East
Lake Sammamish East Lake Sammamish
Parkway
okay so they've got they've got a few
queued up and I haven't heard from
Sprint all hasn't come in yet I assume
they're coming in at some point too and
t-mobile I'm not sure where they are
in looking at Issaquah obviously they
participated in the last meeting but I
don't know yeah so I think I think in a
year from now I would expect we would
actually have gotten some mileage out of
this code okay okay
a my only concern with the whole thing
is to have six or seven different
carriers with six or seven different
different poles everywhere in the city
although I did drive down SR 900 next to
the fence at station and there are a lot
of poles on both sides and you know
after a while you don't even notice them
and they were you know they're
attractive they're nice they weren't
derogatory to the scenery so maybe
that's our future
so with that I need are you ready to
make the vote on this well we have said
we're gonna eliminate so we're gonna
eating that contiguous 502 gap and just
going with five every being that so what
I heard was you guys are gonna get rid
of the 500 feet for contiguous and you
also would like the city attorney to
continue to work on the technical
evaluation piece to have it be a little
bit more predictable less discretionary
for staff and safety I think 48 hours is
a little bit much if you could start
good you guys have a suggestion on
promptly if there's an emergency
technical issue something not to remove
it right to dial it down due to security
Nate that is it yes absolutely
I think it's normal Kim Allen for
Verizon each of the small cells has
a power disconnect on it where anyone if
there was a pole strike you can shut off
our equipment so our equipment is is is
not live or active in the event that you
have something like that happen
certainly we we know right away an alarm
goes off at Verizon if there's something
that happens to that equipment and we
would dispatch someone 24 hours if
possible that that sounds Jennifer oh
I'd have to go back to Verizon and see
if that's what's feasible and what's
possible I know we'd we'd head out there
as soon as we could yeah yeah I can I
can get you that information Keith if
it's if it's possible if whatever but I
think it is a concern so okay so the
third one would be we will look at
trying to narrow that window from 48
hours to something less but we'll make
sure that the carriers are okay with
where we're at okay my other concern is
still the 45 foot poles I don't know if
there's anything that we can do about
that but the idea of a lot of 45 foot
poles down Gilman Boulevard or anything
I I still have a little bit of a problem
with that so this so some of this is
gonna be and to John's point earlier I
mean in a way all of our Street scapes
are getting filled with things and right
now you know is a Klaus prided itself on
keeping our sign code really tight so
that we don't have a ton of signs I mean
you know I think one of the things
that's nice about this community is our
Street scapes are fairly uncluttered and
I hate to say that there might just need
to be a couple canaries before we decide
whether you know 45 feets the wrong
number I mean so if they end up going
down East Lake Sammamish and we see a
bunch of 45 foot tall new poles because
they can't convince the city to put them
on top
they're poles then maybe that either
changes the prohibition on municipal
polls or maybe we decide that you know
what what we'll roll the dice against
colocation and maximize the pull hide it
at 30 feet or 25 feet you know so I
think I mean I hate to say that we're
gonna might have to test it test drive
it a little bit which goes maybe back to
Jones suggestion earlier let's look at
this in a year let's look at take some
photos of the streetscape and see what
it actually looks like in the field and
then if we feel like we might have drawn
the line in the wrong space we can maybe
retool okay anybody else yeah that case
iMovie rate we recommend the City
Council approve the proposed code
amendments to IMC 18 point oh seven
point five oh five as presented this
evening and as we have talked about
amending with consideration of the
testimony provided both in writing and
before the ending policy commission a
second second
any more discussion all those in favor
say aye aye opposed motion carries
so anything else that you guys want to
talk about no next time on next Thursday
we're in the Eagle Room 10 pointing in
the right direction in the police
station some of us are in the Eagle run
some of us are not that's true some of
us are not in the Eagle room but this
group is in the Eagle room with the park
board and the task force talking about
the green necklace and the visions your
packet will be mailed out tomorrow
because we're just I know that we have
scheduled every Thursday for the month
of February I just hope that you all can
come because we want to finish this
vision process and hopefully we only
need one meeting with parks so that we
can spend the time we need on the vision
that I want to say is I hope you all
fill out your applications and on the
visions you guys don't care but on the
visions if you guys I would assume is
there a value to get them like earlier
than just the week before the next PPC
meeting for the 15th you mean yeah the
next one because we could probably get
them to you next week
so so my goal would be for the the
beginning of the story to not actually
talk about that anymore but to have you
guys just read line so now we're down to
like wordsmithing right and that would
be better for you guys to do and just
send me back scribbles and you know I
can incorporate those that's pretty easy
but to have a spend our times actually
on the neighborhood's
because that's really where we need to
get to so if that would be helpful for
us to get that to you so you can start
going through that and redlining earlier
we could probably get that to you this
week next week yeah this week's almost
over but yes sorry I'm a little dumb I'm
a little bit because that was 15th on
the 15th it's totally on the visions
again not the green necklace what's the
one next week
the green necklace with the park board
that's the eighth where the work on the
back I'm putting an agenda on because it
keeps changing so I'm trying to keep the
schedule up to date I would like to keep
the 28th do have a review of all of the
pieces that we've gone over not to
discuss them but just to make sure that
these are the high points and this is
how it fits into the vision do we need
so many parking spaces do we need
whatever to meet what we've created in
the vision so that is what I would like
on that that's the day that we're
supposed to sign off on the vision I
would like to make sure we have that ok
ok and I'll mention two parks that we're
hoping to either not have to meet with
the 22nd or meet very shortly with them
on the 22nd we're hoping to wrap
everything up with that with the park
board on the 8th basically all we need
is a the general better idea of where
the green network is going to go right
we don't have to know the implications
of the various neighborhoods or the
reason why it was put together because
it might change right but we just wanted
to have something more than the necklace
with green balls that was right in there
right we'll do our best to get the time
schedule okay with that
hearing nothing for the good of the
order I close the meeting at 8:11 thank
you
you
you