← Back to City Council Digest

Meeting concluded — minutes pending. The agenda below is what the City posted; minutes haven't been published yet. Issaquah approves Council minutes at the next meeting and ships them embedded in that next meeting's packet, so they typically land here 1–3 weeks after the meeting. Transcript and recording will appear once the City posts the YouTube video and our pipeline catches it.
Planning Policy Commission – Special Meeting Auto captions

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

6:30 PM · 1h 29m · Council Chambers, 135 E.
Topic tracked across meetings:
Proposed Amendments to Utilities and Public Services Element, Capital Facilities Element, (I) AB 7683 3/10
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.3
Staff report:
Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2018 – Joy Lewis land use documents. 2018 – Jon Stob 2018 – Carl Swedberg Membership 2018 – Lindsey Walsh The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2019 – Joan Probala seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2020 – Ron Faul several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2020 – Troy Rahmig members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire Alternate Members April 30 of the year listed. For more information, 2018 – Victoria Hunt see IMC 18.03. 2018 – AJ McGauley 2018 – Althea Saldanha 2018 – Vacant
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of January 10, 2018
packet pp.5–10
Staff report:
CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING—MINUTES
2b
Minutes of January 11, 2018
packet pp.11–15
Staff report:
CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3a
Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code 18.07.505 Wireless Communication Facilities, (R)
Keith Niven, Development Services Director · packet pp.17–39
Staff report:
A. What is Small Cell? Put simply, a small cell is smaller than the macro cell tower facilities which serve as the backbone of the wireless industry. It contains radios and antennas (often multiple) as well as requires power and fiber in order to transmit cellular phone and data signals. Typically, small cells are attached to utility poles or light/traffic poles within the rights-of-way. The purpose of the small cells is to augment capacity for data traffic in dense areas (primarily downtown cores and residential neighborhoods), and they are typically 25-45 feet in height, rather than tall macro towers that extend beyond 75 feet. For more information, see Seattle Times January 14, 2018 article at this link. (previously sent to PPC)
0:08 to tell the audience once we're on
0:11 camera about the
0:13 we are on camera right now though I want
0:17 to welcome you all to the January 24th
0:20 meeting the Planning Policy Commission I
0:23 apologize that there's not more people
0:26 up here we are expecting one more I
0:30 don't want you to feel slighted because
0:33 you're going to get your information out
0:36 there and we'll be able to discuss it
0:39 and the people that aren't here are
0:41 going to have to to listen to your
0:43 explanations so we're going to come to a
0:46 conclusion this is one of those things
0:48 that is better to get it right before it
0:52 goes into code then getting it done
0:55 tomorrow so you know it's going to be
0:58 there on public television for the
1:02 community to hear and for us to debate
1:05 after a while so please don't feel like
1:07 we're you know that because there's only
1:11 two people up here right now that for
1:13 some reason that's not enough to give
1:16 you and your ideas
1:18 a balance from what the city wants to do
1:21 so what we're going to do tonight is
1:23 talk about codes from wireless
1:27 communication and first up is our
1:30 illustrious leader Keith Niven so if you
1:32 want to please give us some updates
1:37 thank you madam chair so good evening
1:40 Keith Niven director of development
1:42 services and economic development
1:44 departments so this evening as you
1:47 mentioned we do not have a quorum so
1:50 tonight we're going to open the public
1:52 hearing and we're gonna leave it open
1:54 and continue it to potentially February
1:58 first subject to getting a commission
2:01 quorum on that evening
2:16 so I'm not going to spend too much time
2:20 going through this because frankly I'm
2:23 not the subject matter expert those are
2:25 those folks in the audience I'm going to
2:27 give you a quick introduction to what
2:30 we're doing tell you why and then I
2:36 figured we would allow public comment
2:38 and then afterwards we would start to
2:41 talk through some of the policy
2:42 questions that are associated with this
2:44 proposed code amendment how does that
2:45 sound ok so wireless communication
2:51 facilities small cell so I figured let's
2:55 go through the five W's right you know
2:58 who's who are we talking about we're
3:01 really talking about all of the carriers
3:02 and if I've left somebody out my
3:06 apologies wasn't done intentionally so
3:08 Verizon t-mobile AT&T Sprint Comcast and
3:12 there may be others coming along so what
3:15 is this small cell it's also called
3:20 distributed antenna systems and for the
3:23 most part in a in an area that already
3:26 has coverage and that I think is our
3:30 city I can't remember the last time I
3:31 had a call drop it's really about adding
3:34 capacity and so this is a much finer
3:38 grain antenna network that provides more
3:42 capacity to the carriers because of the
3:45 increasing demand that we are all
3:48 putting on them and because our original
3:52 section of city code 18:07 505 was
3:57 written for the first wave of wireless
4:01 communication facilities which were all
4:03 macro towers we needed to go back in and
4:07 redo and so what is being considered
4:12 this evening is a replacement set of
4:15 regulations so we're basically
4:17 suggesting taking out the existing 505
4:20 and replacing it with a new 505 which
4:24 addresses both small cell and Mac
4:27 towers when this is a this is a hard one
4:32 so the this kind of this wave that's
4:37 coming our direction really kind of
4:40 what's on the horizon a few years ago
4:42 and and as it has built up momentum
4:46 there are applications that are there's
4:51 one that is being issued without these
4:56 codes in place to Verizon for is Clough
5:00 Fall City Road is qwop ein Lake Road
5:02 it's their first deployment ask it will
5:05 be followed by additional deployment
5:07 asks the other carriers AT&T had
5:10 approached for a permit my understanding
5:13 is that has been withdrawn is being
5:15 reconsidered but we'll come back to my
5:19 knowledge we have not heard from Sprint
5:21 or t-mobile yet but that will come so
5:24 it's it's coming and like any other
5:27 thing that's coming if you get in before
5:30 the regulations are in place you have to
5:33 comply with the regulations that are on
5:35 the books at that time so there's a
5:38 little bit of sense of urgency because
5:41 if we get these done before the
5:44 applications come in and are vested then
5:46 they will apply to those applications
5:49 when they come in so that's just for you
5:53 to keep in the back your mind
5:54 so why as I mentioned earlier 505 was
5:59 created for macrocell facilities and
6:01 small cell because they have a different
6:06 level of frequency and a different
6:09 height level that those antennas want to
6:12 be at than the macro antennas they just
6:16 have different requirements they can fit
6:19 into a lot of different places whereas
6:21 the big towers they had very few
6:24 locations that they actually could go
6:25 and so so where where will they apply so
6:30 so this code applied citywide and really
6:34 what we're talking about is there's
6:36 really kind of three different areas
6:37 there's the public right away
6:39 so that's basically but
6:41 you know that's sidewalks streets
6:43 planter strips up to building edges
6:46 where we have no setbacks private
6:49 property so you could end up with
6:51 antennas being mounted to the sides of
6:54 buildings or put on rooftops of
6:57 buildings and then there's public
6:59 property and public property could be in
7:01 a park it could be on the side of a
7:04 water reservoir or something like that
7:06 so really we're talking about all of
7:08 this and these facilities really could
7:11 go in any of those places depending on
7:14 what your code allows so what are these
7:19 things they look like this they come in
7:23 different shapes and sizes so these down
7:28 here these were poles as far as I can
7:31 tell that we're just erected for
7:33 small-cell they don't seem like they
7:35 have anything else going on other than
7:36 the antenna here's kind of your typical
7:40 cobrahead light fixture with an antenna
7:44 up on them and so the and here's an
7:47 extension so in this case the antenna
7:50 wanted to be taller than the top of the
7:53 pole so it's up here in an extension so
7:57 they're the the facilities are kind of a
8:02 combination of the antenna and some
8:06 electrical equipment that goes with it
8:08 sometimes that electrical equipment is
8:10 pole mounted and sometimes it's ground
8:13 mounted and we have some different
8:17 application requirements depending on if
8:20 it's on the pole or if it's on the
8:21 ground
8:23 and part of the conversation that we're
8:27 gonna have later when we start talking
8:28 about the policies is you know where can
8:32 they go and as you can see we have a lot
8:36 of different light standards in town I
8:39 actually wasn't going to put the labels
8:41 on to see if you guys could guess where
8:43 they all work but then I thought that
8:44 could take all night so I went ahead and
8:46 label them so you know we have
8:48 everything from you know custom fixtures
8:50 in Old Town
8:51 Highlands and talus and Gilman to which
8:55 you'd consider a more rustic approach so
8:58 this is squawk you know it's a
9:01 combination light fixture and power pole
9:06 you know as is this in Old Town and
9:10 these poles are owned by PSE and so at
9:16 some point we're going to talk about
9:17 city-owned poles these are not
9:19 city-owned poles these are actually not
9:22 city-owned poles either the decorative
9:24 ones in the villages are owned by either
9:28 PSE or by the community associations so
9:34 so we'll talk about all that that's
9:36 probably some of the biggest
9:38 conversation points we're gonna have is
9:39 about whether or not we think putting
9:43 antennas on our decorative poles or on
9:46 city-owned poles is the right thing to
9:48 do or not those are some of the things
9:50 we can address specifically in the
9:51 regulations and then I got one more
9:56 slide and it's really to kind of start
9:58 to talk about the policies and we can
10:03 really either start on this now or we
10:06 can defer this open it up for public
10:09 testimony and then come back to the
10:12 policy conversation after your choice
10:17 madam chair I think we're going to open
10:19 up the public comment but I have a
10:21 question for you before we start the
10:25 what was presented to us for the city's
10:28 possible language or the new codes I
10:33 understand that every city is developing
10:35 some of this stuff did you collaborate
10:39 with any other cities or was this your
10:42 own process behind it I'm not that smart
10:48 Joan so what I would tell you is I
10:54 looked at a number of so Ogden Murphy
10:58 Wallace is the city attorney they
11:00 provided us some legal direction but
11:03 they also provided us some
11:05 sample codes from some of the other
11:07 cities that they work for but what I
11:11 found was actually some of the codes I
11:14 liked better were from Texas so art code
11:18 is actually if you were trying to find
11:20 cousins Redmond and San Antonio are kind
11:25 of the main codes that I that resonated
11:28 with me personally so that's that's how
11:32 I would answer that question is this is
11:34 from other places so I looked at San
11:36 Antonio and El Paso and San Francisco
11:38 and Berkeley and Redmond and Renton and
11:41 pulls Bo and and and and and so this is
11:46 what I would consider the most
11:48 applicable to Issaquah so part of it is
11:51 you know every city has different
11:53 preferences for aesthetics and process
11:58 and notification and everything else and
12:00 so what I did was looking at all those
12:02 other codes then bring in the pieces
12:05 that I thought made the most sense for
12:07 our community well know that I I
12:09 appreciate that I think that's why you
12:11 should go for all these other cities
12:13 have they already accept voted on
12:16 accepted their codes or are they still
12:19 in the process of making it up so I'm I
12:25 will answer one way but I will
12:27 definitely invite the audience to
12:29 provide maybe a better answer my take on
12:32 it based on what I saw from kind of
12:35 looking through other codes is Pacific
12:38 Northwest seems to be semi behind so
12:41 Texas Pennsylvania California all those
12:45 codes are folder and have been adopted
12:47 and been in place the codes in cities in
12:53 Washington are either seemed to be in
12:56 process now or recently adopted so ours
13:00 seem to be much newer and later and
13:03 maybe that's just a function of being in
13:05 the corner of the country I don't know
13:06 well this is we're preparing for the
13:09 future so old codes
13:12 not necessarily
13:13 what we need for the future so we're
13:15 going to hear some tonight and what
13:17 other what their process are what they
13:20 need and how they would change the city
13:25 established possibility for codes so
13:28 with that I'm going to open up the
13:30 public hearing it's 649 and ask if
13:36 there's anybody else anybody in the
13:38 audience that would like to make a
13:40 statement or we can go to Linda Adkins
13:49 your name is on here you have to go
13:54 she's assigned her rights I guess good
13:57 evening my name is Richard Busch from
13:59 the wireless policy grew up here talking
14:01 on behalf of Verizon tonight we did
14:03 supply a letter earlier today that
14:05 believe has been distributed thank you
14:07 very much first like to address this
14:10 slide that's on the screen if the city
14:13 is starting from the expectation that
14:15 small cell and desks are the same
14:17 that's probably exhibit number one for
14:19 why we need to talk small cell and
14:21 deaths are not the same if the city
14:23 starts with that presumption that small
14:25 cell and deaths infrastructure is the
14:26 same we need to clarify the difference
14:29 between the two and it does have an
14:31 impact on the size of the facilities the
14:33 location of where their facilities go in
14:35 the amount of additional network
14:37 equipment that needs to be installed
14:38 around town okay so thank you for
14:41 leaving this up and give you example
14:44 which one was it if you go in the upper
14:46 left the second slide to the right the
14:48 first land landscapes slide to the top
14:52 you see a rather large white box that
14:54 has wires going up to the top of the
14:57 pole and three large antennas mounted
14:59 standing off of the pole probably six to
15:02 eight inches ten inches off the pole
15:04 just looking at the size of the
15:06 equipment that looks more like a macro
15:08 sight or perhaps a - a piece of -
15:12 equipment but the small cell equipment
15:15 is smaller than that and if we had time
15:17 to prepare exhibits to show you what is
15:19 being considered for installation here
15:22 we would have brought that to show what
15:23 the profile looks like these days you
15:25 can have
15:26 strand mounted small cells strand
15:29 mounted small cells are boxes that hang
15:31 on these copper or the fiber strand
15:34 overhead and they look exactly like the
15:37 Spice boxes that you see today on the
15:40 telephone cables or the cable TV cables
15:43 that you see around town today you have
15:45 equipment boxes that are twelve inches
15:48 wide four feet tall seven inches deep
15:51 fits the profile of his existing utility
15:54 pole and then the antennas that go at
15:57 the top or on the side of the pole or
15:58 inside of the pole are approximately ten
16:00 to twelve inches wide two feet tall and
16:03 six to eight inches deep they need to be
16:06 mounted to the pole if it's external
16:07 they could be put inside the pulse
16:08 internal and if you look at the this
16:13 picture below the one I just talked
16:16 about that's a good example of what's
16:18 likely a small cell the antennas are
16:20 encased inside of that slightly larger
16:22 shroud at the top of the pole above the
16:24 lumière so that's a good example of a
16:27 small cell so why are we here talking
16:29 about this first we totally agree with
16:31 the city it's the time that this is the
16:33 right time to revise the code in order
16:35 to accommodate the becoming small cells
16:38 that Verizon is bringing as well as
16:41 others but we caution you against
16:44 rushing to a conclusion just to beat a
16:46 schedule without getting input from the
16:47 industry we received the draft ordinance
16:50 late last week and we had a chance to
16:52 comment it on to get letters in earlier
16:53 earlier this week or today and what we
16:56 really appreciate is when we can have a
16:58 dialogue with staff and a dialogue with
17:00 the Planning Commission in order to come
17:02 up with language that works for
17:03 everybody the concern we have is that
17:06 the growth in the usage of wireless
17:08 facilities is is increasing
17:10 astronomically it's coming from
17:13 everybody using it not only for phone
17:15 calls but accessing the Internet traffic
17:17 and so on what's happening is because of
17:20 all of the taller towers that are in
17:22 town the macro sites that you referred
17:23 to they are serving all of the users
17:26 increased data usage as well as the
17:28 traffic Verizon came in and applied for
17:31 some of the small cells up on the
17:33 savanna plateau at the top when you get
17:34 up to the intersection of Highland and
17:36 as well fall City Road is what Pine Lake
17:38 Road
17:38 if you've ever been up there anytime
17:41 between 4 & 7 at night where I live it's
17:44 gridlock and the existing macro cells
17:48 cannot accommodate the demand of the
17:51 residential users out there as well as a
17:53 commuting public so what happens is the
17:55 small cells are not designed to put
17:57 coverage where none exists today small
17:59 cells are primarily designed to provide
18:00 additional capacity to the people who
18:03 are very close to the small cell and
18:06 offload the taller towers to accommodate
18:08 the people who are further away there's
18:10 a finite amount of radio frequency
18:12 available to each carrier and as soon as
18:14 you load up as many frequencies you can
18:16 to the macro sites they're out of
18:18 capacity they can provide no additional
18:21 service without another macro cell and
18:23 if it's too close it doesn't work very
18:24 well or now they have the small cells
18:26 that are much lower elevation like on
18:28 traffic pulse treat lights so the
18:31 difference between daffs which is
18:33 intended to cover a larger geographic
18:35 area in a small cell which is intended
18:37 to cover a smaller geographic area is
18:39 how far does this radio need to
18:41 propagate in order to serve the people
18:42 if you look at the the Verizon drawings
18:46 I don't know that that was made
18:47 available to the planning folks the the
18:50 Verizon application for the franchise
18:51 they identified some roads as some
18:54 locations along this co-op Pine Lake and
18:57 it's called Fall City Road there are
19:00 probably 12 within three blocks of that
19:04 intersection at the top of the hill
19:06 that's high density meaning you don't
19:08 have one per mile or two you have one
19:11 every two blocks one every one block and
19:13 it's designed to accommodate the people
19:15 who are relatively close as a result the
19:18 antennas are smaller the equipment boxes
19:19 are smaller there's fewer radios the
19:22 power output is smaller so that's why
19:25 when you take a look at the top of the
19:28 landscape pictures those antennas are
19:30 larger higher power designed to cover
19:31 bigger geographic area so when we start
19:35 talking about putting these small cells
19:37 on Gillman on Front Street they won't
19:39 look anything like this they will be
19:41 designed this custom for that fits
19:44 within the area that they're intended to
19:46 serve and it also fits within the design
19:48 for the community so when you take a
19:50 look at the draft code
19:51 it prohibits any small cells or macro
19:54 cells for that matter from Gilman in
19:55 front but guess what that's where you
19:57 needed the most usually how traffic is
20:01 very heavy on Front Street we all know
20:03 that it's been a problem for years I've
20:05 been here since 1986
20:07 and the traffic on Front Street is a
20:09 long-standing problem yeoman is less
20:12 dense the traffic backup is less there
20:15 but the demand is still high if there's
20:17 no facilities allowed on front or Gilman
20:19 to offload that traffic the quality of
20:21 service will be poor I don't know if you
20:24 are aware but with a new iPhone
20:26 operating system there's a new feature
20:28 and it's not only Facebook it's not
20:30 people using it for traffic I can push
20:32 and hold two buttons right now and my
20:34 phone will emit a siren and if I don't
20:36 silence it within five seconds it will
20:38 call the police and tell them where I am
20:40 in order to have that kind of
20:42 functionality available to people in the
20:43 community you can't rely solely on the
20:46 macro sites that are maxed out by
20:47 traffic that's backed up you have to
20:49 have offload capacity on the res on
20:52 these streets in order to receive that
20:55 signal and transmit to whomever needs to
20:57 get it so what we look forward to is
20:59 working with staff to come up with
21:01 something that works for everybody
21:02 taking into consideration the design
21:04 considerations that you must take into
21:06 consideration and work with us we can
21:08 come up with designs that are acceptable
21:11 the challenge with small cells not being
21:16 allowed in front and Gilman you can't
21:18 put them on the next street over and
21:20 expect them to work because the way
21:22 radio frequencies behave in these bands
21:24 it they transmit straight and they don't
21:29 penetrate through several walls of
21:31 buildings so if we wanted to put them in
21:33 a park or in the in the parking area
21:36 behind the restaurants along Front
21:39 Street and expect them to propagate
21:41 through to get the traffic on Front
21:43 Street that's not going to happen the
21:44 signals would be blocked by the
21:46 buildings on Front Street same thing if
21:47 you go behind on the other side toward
21:50 the river or the the this quad Creek the
21:53 signals will be blocked by the buildings
21:54 coming back toward Front Street so if
21:58 the expectation of the city is that we
22:00 can just put them onto another Street
22:01 and they will get to the the traffic
22:03 that's backed up on Front Street
22:04 it's not going to happen so if we adopt
22:07 the code as it exists today basically
22:09 we're saying that we're not going to
22:10 have acceptable quality of service to
22:12 Front Street or Gilman for the
22:14 foreseeable future so that's of a
22:16 concern to us so we are asking for a
22:20 variety of things in the letter that we
22:22 sent on behalf of Verizon we do want to
22:24 have the ability to put in replacement
22:26 poles that are designed in an
22:27 aesthetically pleasing way they fit
22:29 within the community that that is not in
22:31 the code today the city is requiring us
22:34 to prove that a variety of antenna or
22:36 sight installations don't would do or do
22:39 not work that's primitive by federal law
22:41 we've provided a citation to the case on
22:43 that and to answer the question about
22:45 Redmond and we look at my colleagues I
22:47 believe Redmond is not final they're
22:48 still going through the process in
22:50 Redmond that's not that hasn't been
22:52 adopted yet so we're glad to answer any
22:55 questions that you may have at this
22:56 point in time but our request is that
22:59 you're not rushing to adopt something
23:00 because of a sense of urgency to get
23:03 something about that it needs to be done
23:04 right the first time so what how many
23:11 boxes do you expect to put from yeomen
23:18 count down the length of Gilman I don't
23:22 think is I don't think it's been
23:23 designed yet but based upon what we say
23:25 let's just go based upon what we've seen
23:26 with what we seen on the plateau they
23:28 will put a node every two blocks let's
23:33 say plus or minus and the node will
23:36 consist of small antennas at the top of
23:38 a pole in a small box with the on the
23:40 pole at the base the designs can vary
23:42 thinking like you say they can't go
23:44 underground they can't go in the bay
23:45 they can go on to the surface they can
23:46 go underground but there's problems with
23:48 water and electronics around here they
23:51 can be built into the base of a pole so
23:54 you don't even see the equipment it
23:57 looks like it's a decorative pole with a
23:58 slightly larger base than the other pole
24:00 I understand that I'm just trying to get
24:02 it I'd like to say we - Bobby - roughly
24:04 every two blocks but it'll vary by
24:07 carrier and they were vary by design I
24:10 have a question please
24:12 so one thing you said was that they
24:17 there would not be this technology for
24:19 the foreseeable future my understanding
24:21 is that this would be a small scale
24:23 deployment but then I think this is a
24:27 fast changing technology and there will
24:29 be opportunities in the future so I'm
24:31 I'm wondering why if we start with a
24:34 certain plan in certain locations why
24:36 you're saying that for the foreseeable
24:39 future we wouldn't be able to add more
24:41 it seems like over time there will be
24:43 new technology probably smaller smaller
24:46 small styles and these sorts of things
24:48 and I would think that over time you
24:50 might expand but I was just curious
24:53 about why you made that I'd like to
24:55 clarify what I said I didn't say the
24:58 technology wouldn't be available if the
25:00 technology is prohibited from Front
25:01 Street
25:02 then the service will not be available
25:05 in a high quality fashion because the
25:08 intent is small cell antennas will would
25:10 need to be installed elsewhere and if
25:13 they're behind a building or like if
25:15 they're over by city hall trying to get
25:17 over to Front Street the signals will
25:19 not penetrate all of the buildings
25:21 Jack's the the pizza place over here the
25:24 signals just will not reach front street
25:26 and if the code doesn't change it's not
25:28 that the technology won't change the
25:29 technology will change is the scientific
25:31 behavioral characteristics of radio
25:33 frequencies in these frequency bands 700
25:36 800 1900 2100 they won't penetrate those
25:39 buildings and get over there that's not
25:40 going to change so if the code doesn't
25:42 change prohibiting small cells on Front
25:45 Street the technology the the frequency
25:47 behavior is not going to change as a
25:49 scientific fact it doesn't bounce off
25:50 the clouds and come back down
25:52 it doesn't curve around corners doesn't
25:53 curve over the roof it gets blocked so
25:56 there wouldn't be the improved coverage
25:57 there thank you thank you
26:07 Matt oh go for I'm Linda Adkins I'm an
26:19 attorney with Davis right Jermaine and
26:20 I'm appearing tonight on behalf of
26:22 t-mobile my colleague Matt Russo has
26:25 some photographs that he would like to
26:26 pass out to the councilmembers if that's
26:28 acceptable sure so I I let my colleague
26:36 in the wireless industry rich Bush go
26:38 first because I knew he would give a
26:40 really good overview of the issue and
26:44 the general technological issues that
26:47 are driving the need for improved
26:50 coverage in all communities and small
26:52 cells specifically every every carrier
26:56 every wireless carrier has their own
26:58 licensed frequencies and those
27:01 frequencies Drive network designs so
27:05 each carrier has a very uniquely
27:07 individually designed network and each
27:10 one of the carriers is going to have
27:12 their own types of equipment that
27:16 they're going to use as the small cell
27:19 technology to deliver the services and I
27:22 wanted to make you familiar with the
27:25 type of small cell t-mobile is planning
27:29 to deploy in this area I just passed
27:33 those pictures out so you can see that
27:35 it's a compact box it's it's a little
27:41 bit irregular so it's if you if you
27:44 measured just strictly around the
27:46 outside it would be very very slightly
27:48 larger than three cubic feet but it has
27:50 some indentations in it so it's it's a
27:54 small compact box and it incorporates
27:57 the antennas and the equipment and if
28:00 you look at the the two pictures of the
28:03 small cell mounted on the the light
28:05 standard with the cobra head the all of
28:09 the fiber cabling and other cables and
28:13 wires that would be associated with the
28:14 site are internal to that pole so
28:17 they're coming out of the middle
28:19 the back of that box and going into the
28:22 poll so we anticipate that there would
28:25 be very little other appurtenances to
28:28 the poll and one of the reasons with
28:30 going for going with this design is
28:32 because it it's it can be painted to
28:35 match any type of poll that you put it
28:37 on it can be placed at different heights
28:40 on the poll it could potentially be
28:43 placed behind a banner there's a lot of
28:45 different ways that you can deploy this
28:48 type of small cell on a support
28:51 structure and t-mobile has done that
28:54 because it it really wants to maximize
28:57 its ability to deploy its facilities in
29:02 an aesthetically acceptable manner on a
29:04 full range of opportunities so as mr.
29:11 Bush has already started talking to you
29:14 one of the biggest concerns that we have
29:16 about the current draft is the
29:19 restrictions on the types of polls that
29:22 could be used for small cell deployments
29:24 and the locations where those facilities
29:27 could be deployed and I need to speak a
29:30 little bit to macro facilities as well
29:32 since this draft is proposed to replace
29:36 your code entirely and it is important
29:39 to know that the need for macro
29:42 facilities is not going to completely go
29:44 away because of small cells because the
29:46 the two types of facilities work
29:49 together to provide good network service
29:52 to customers so the the macro facility
29:56 provides coverage over a broader
30:01 geographical area and the small cell
30:04 works to help balance the traffic that
30:07 is going to and from the the macro
30:10 facility so there there will still be
30:13 potentially a need for some additional
30:16 macro facilities in the city of Issaquah
30:20 one of the areas I wanted to draw your
30:23 attention to in the ordinance so this
30:25 would be if you have the comments that
30:29 t-mobile submitted in advance of the
30:30 meetings the
30:31 page 8 of our comments so there's a
30:34 chart on page 8 that has to do with
30:38 citing criteria for macro facilities and
30:41 the next page is the chart that has to
30:44 do with criteria for small cell
30:46 locations and in both cases as we've
30:50 emphasized in our red line of the
30:52 ordinance and our comment letter these
30:56 [Music]
30:57 particularly the prohibited locations
31:00 are going to make it extremely difficult
31:01 to provide the city of Issaquah with the
31:05 kind of service that your citizens are
31:07 going to expect there there does need to
31:11 be the ability on major streets to have
31:15 the small cells because the whole point
31:18 of a small cell is to make sure that the
31:21 needs of a lot of people in a dense area
31:25 for high quality data are met and if we
31:29 can't put small cells on those two major
31:32 streets
31:33 you're basically zoning the technology
31:35 out of the exact areas where it's most
31:38 needed so I would call your attention to
31:42 the comments that we've submitted
31:44 specifically on those code sections and
31:48 the I guess the other the other issue
31:51 that I wanted to address in the code has
31:55 to do with access to municipal polls
31:58 right now the the code is allowing small
32:01 cells to be attached to utility poles so
32:05 those would be poles operated by PSE and
32:08 I understand from the staff presentation
32:11 that perhaps there are some private
32:13 decorative poles in some of the
32:14 neighborhoods perhaps those could be
32:16 opportunities but we will still need to
32:20 have the ability to cite a small cell
32:23 potentially on a municipal streetlight
32:25 and particularly that's going to be the
32:27 case if we're in an area where powers
32:29 been under grounded and there are no PSE
32:32 utility poles there would only be
32:34 streetlights and most other communities
32:36 that are dealing with this issue right
32:38 now are
32:41 going with codes that allow the ability
32:45 to attach a small cell to a municipal
32:47 poll subject to a set of design criteria
32:49 that are designed to control the
32:53 aesthetic impacts and make sure that the
32:58 you know the overall look of a community
33:01 is preserved particularly where the city
33:03 has invested time and effort in perhaps
33:05 a uniform decorative look for its street
33:08 polls and and we don't want to interfere
33:10 with that we want to be able to to
33:13 attach our technology in a way that's
33:16 compatible with those types of
33:17 facilities and then our the last kind of
33:21 major topic that we've addressed in our
33:24 comments has to do with the process and
33:27 the costs for applying for small cell
33:30 permits so the the the best way to craft
33:38 a code to address these facilities is to
33:41 recognize that they they are going to be
33:45 deployed in in groups within an area and
33:50 those group of nodes will typically be
33:53 pretty uniform in terms of the types of
33:56 structures that we want to attach them
33:58 to and the way that they're going to
34:00 look and they they're really well suited
34:03 to a streamlined process so for example
34:08 other cities are adopting design
34:10 criteria in their code so that they
34:12 could actually make an application that
34:17 meets those design criteria can't be a
34:19 permitted use so it doesn't require a
34:23 lot of staff time or a lot of other
34:26 types of process to get those permits
34:30 issued and that that not only saves the
34:33 staff a lot of time and effort but it
34:35 ensures that as carriers we are able to
34:38 get this technology rolled out to your
34:40 citizens as soon as possible because
34:41 this is this is the technology that's
34:43 going to enable the Internet of Things
34:46 if you you know or want your your
34:49 appliances or your Alexa whatever your
34:51 other devices to work this technology is
34:53 going to help
34:54 make that possible it's going to enable
34:56 self-driving cars that's going to do a
34:58 whole bunch of stuff that we were only
35:01 dreaming about when I was a kid watching
35:04 Star Trek so I would I guess encourage
35:09 you to examine ways within the draft
35:13 that you might be able to further
35:15 streamline the process and then my last
35:19 topic has to do with the fees so the the
35:23 fee schedule in the draft is those fees
35:26 are quite high and you have to think
35:29 about it in terms of so what what is the
35:32 burden going to be on staff time for
35:34 processing and and we want to be
35:36 sensitive to the need of a city to make
35:38 sure that it's it's not incurring
35:41 additional costs that aren't covered by
35:43 the fees we're totally on board with
35:45 that but the point I would make is that
35:47 this fee schedule may be higher than it
35:50 needs to be and if the fees are too high
35:53 that in itself is going to act as a
35:56 disincentive to prioritizing your
36:00 community when it comes time for
36:01 t-mobile to roll out this technology we
36:04 don't we don't have a build schedule for
36:07 the Pacific Northwest yet but it's
36:10 coming very soon and in terms of you
36:13 know prioritizing the technology we of
36:17 course would first look at where the
36:18 areas of highest demand but if we're
36:22 looking between two areas of high demand
36:24 and one has a more reasonable fee
36:26 schedule and the other has a very high
36:28 fee schedule it's just you know it's
36:32 business common sense we're going to
36:33 probably go to the community with the
36:35 lower fee schedule first so that that's
36:37 another topic that that I would
36:39 encourage you and the staff to to look a
36:41 little more closely at and I would echo
36:45 mr. Bush's comment that we want to work
36:48 with you and we we want to collaborate
36:51 with you to make sure that you when you
36:53 finish this process you have an
36:55 ordinance that that is going to work for
36:58 at least the next few years you don't
37:00 want to be back here in six months with
37:02 us saying okay we need a code amendment
37:04 because we just can't
37:05 do what we need to do so I thank you
37:09 very much for listening to our comments
37:11 on either I or my colleague Matt Russo
37:15 are able to try to able to answer your
37:18 questions so everybody was connectivity
37:21 so I know we all understand that
37:24 something has to be done but you talked
37:26 about each one of the suppliers as their
37:30 own needs so are we talking about
37:36 putting her Verizon and AT&T on separate
37:41 poles or are they can we combine them
37:46 they they depending on the structural
37:50 capacity of the pole they could
37:52 potentially be combined for example like
37:54 on a wood utility pole there are
37:57 instances now where wireless facilities
38:00 are co-located on those types of poles
38:02 it's you know it right now honestly I
38:08 think we're all struggling a little bit
38:10 to answer these types of detailed
38:11 questions because the the technology is
38:15 is coming and we know it's coming but we
38:17 don't we don't know all of these details
38:21 my my guess is that because each of the
38:26 carriers has their own unique Network so
38:28 right now if Verizon has a macro site on
38:32 a monopole in a particular location that
38:35 may or may not be a location that
38:38 t-mobile could use if we're looking to
38:40 build a macro facility and Verizon's
38:43 pole is something that we can use to
38:45 fill the gap in our network we
38:47 absolutely will want to go and co-locate
38:49 on that pole
38:50 so I you know I think that it the the
38:54 exact locations and the number of small
38:58 cells that are required are going to be
39:00 very network driven yeah and I think for
39:04 a community the you know the the ways
39:07 that you can think about addressing
39:10 concerns about clutter or proliferation
39:14 proliferation excuse me our you know
39:17 through the design standards
39:18 making sure that you've made a range of
39:22 opportunities available for attachment
39:24 so going back again to your charts
39:28 prohibiting locating the facilities on
39:33 municipal polls will reduce the number
39:35 of opportunities and could wind up
39:38 actually making a more cluttered City
39:40 than if you made those structures
39:42 available like the same with respect to
39:45 being able to attach to a building so in
39:47 a in a dense downtown area being able to
39:49 attach a small cell to a building is a
39:52 potentially really good solution and one
39:55 that typically is very aesthetically
39:57 pleasing so I probably haven't 100%
40:00 answered your question but that's about
40:02 the best answer I can give it at this
40:04 this time fifty percent that's pretty
40:06 good thank you
40:20 hi I'm Matt Russo my work in the site
40:23 development for t-mobile and I just kind
40:26 of want to echo what Linda was saying
40:28 about small cells and kind of go through
40:30 the future of the technology and why we
40:33 would want to deploy small cells in the
40:37 in the downtown cores of the various
40:40 jurisdictions around the area so if you
40:43 think about small cells what the
40:45 carriers are trying to do is in the
40:48 future when they roll out 5g and we're
40:51 talking super high speeds that we don't
40:54 currently get on our phones now so if
40:56 you think about your phone now it's
40:57 about 30 to 40 megabytes per second
41:01 which is pretty fast right that's that's
41:03 what you're getting at home and and
41:06 we're able to deliver that on our cell
41:07 phone but when we're talking about super
41:11 increased speeds so you're talking about
41:12 one gigabyte and that's instantaneous
41:15 updates on your phone that requires a
41:18 lot more capacity in our network so this
41:22 is why we kind of want to roll out these
41:23 small cells kind of in a staggered pace
41:28 because we want to prepare for that
41:30 capacity those capacity needs for the
41:33 future of technology and when you think
41:35 about it in the future we might not even
41:38 have wired Internet access
41:41 coming to a building with a router it
41:44 might all it might all be Wireless it
41:47 could be delivered by the major four
41:49 carriers and so small cells will be a
41:51 vital technology piece of that puzzle to
41:55 deliver these super high speeds so by
41:58 restricting small cells to areas where
42:02 if we're not able to deliver the service
42:05 on Front Street for instance because
42:08 small cells deliver service to such
42:10 small areas so a couple blocks for
42:13 example that was mentioned earlier
42:14 you're not going to be able to deliver
42:16 the technological advancements to this
42:20 city that you would if you opened it up
42:23 to better access for small cells on
42:27 poles downtown not just in this city but
42:30 any city in this area
42:32 so it's kind of wanted to expand on that
42:35 Thanks now I'm asking somebody a
42:39 question every time so yeah when you do
42:43 go to 5g yeah
42:44 are you going to have to redo the box
42:48 itself or I think not initially it will
42:56 depend again on how the technology
42:59 advances I would suspect it'll get
43:01 smaller but as you you might know with
43:04 macro sights so the ones that are on the
43:06 towers the antennas it's been you know
43:10 years now since we've deployed them and
43:12 the antennas haven't really gotten too
43:13 much smaller we are going to small cells
43:16 though so it really depends on the
43:20 distance you're looking to cover and
43:22 what frequency that that small cell is
43:25 operating on but it's tough to say it
43:28 will get smaller or not I don't know
43:30 okay I wasn't concerned that it got
43:32 smaller I just thought maybe you would
43:34 have to redo the inside of the box on
43:36 how to add it's possible yeah but since
43:41 it's concealed I don't know how much the
43:44 public would notice you know thank you
43:49 yeah thanks so I have a question about
43:59 these photos that is this one design or
44:05 is this the is this one of several
44:07 designs or is this exactly what you
44:09 would get if this would be this is
44:11 t-mobile's pole-mounted design so I
44:14 think was mentioned we do have strand
44:15 mount designs but that would be separate
44:18 from the poll okay so this and this
44:21 design would that both of the polls that
44:23 are shown in the photograph seem very
44:25 tall would that be the same design used
44:28 on any poll even if it was a decorative
44:30 shorter pole if it depends I hate to say
44:37 that but if there's definitely there'd
44:41 be room for negotiation if we had to
44:42 design a small cell site that had to put
44:46 aesthetically pleasing on a pole I think
44:48 it definitely could be done okay and
44:53 then I also had a question about so with
44:56 the this gets back to I think one of the
45:00 earlier discussions but the distributed
45:03 antenna system is that is the difference
45:07 with that that multiple carriers can use
45:09 the same equipment or is it is that also
45:12 that each equipment is specific to one
45:15 carrier each each period would have
45:18 their own bass system deployed the Dass
45:21 is dass's utilized more for in building
45:25 solutions some more like a like a router
45:28 in your house small cell is more for
45:31 outdoor just a smaller site than a macro
45:35 set on a tower and are there any are
45:38 there any existing solutions that allow
45:39 for multiple carriers to use the same
45:41 equipment rather than co-locating on the
45:43 same it'd be tough because each carrier
45:47 operates on their own license and so
45:49 when you're talking about different
45:50 frequencies in the technology it's you
45:54 can't you can't operate within the same
45:56 equipment based on the frequencies okay
45:58 thank you yeah thanks
46:04 I'm assuming this is Carol I'm Carol hi
46:09 good evening I'm Carol - gyein I'm
46:11 director of External Affairs with AT&T
46:13 I work in Redmond I live in Woodinville
46:16 so can you can hear me okay right
46:19 I try not to repeat too much so since
46:21 you've had these experts also speaking
46:24 on our behalf but a few points that I
46:27 wanted to bring up like I agree that
46:31 this is a great time for you to relook
46:33 at your code and we're very pleased to
46:35 participate in this process and
46:36 appreciate the work that you all are
46:39 going to put into this and and that
46:40 staff is going to put into it
46:43 as you know wireless technology is very
46:46 much ingrained in our consumer behavior
46:50 these days for Washington State because
46:54 you didn't know almost 50% of households
46:56 are wireless only and over nearly 70% of
47:02 all 911 from wireless service even so
47:07 that's why it's really important that we
47:08 have a good cellular coverage in in all
47:12 the areas where people try to use their
47:14 phones homes office down to everywhere
47:17 since 2007 AT&T has experienced a
47:22 250,000 %
47:24 250,000 percent increase in data usage
47:28 on the AT&T network and that's basically
47:31 since the advent of the iPhone and all
47:35 the many applications and OS service and
47:38 Android all these things happened in
47:40 2007 so since then we have this just
47:43 this huge increase and I think someone
47:47 asked earlier well is the equipment
47:48 getting smaller well some parts of the
47:50 equipment have definitely gotten smaller
47:52 and more efficient but we still need
47:55 more of it just because of the more data
47:59 usage that's going on so even though
48:01 components are getting smaller we need
48:03 more of it to address all the capacity
48:06 needs we continue to always upgrade
48:09 small cells are one part of that upgrade
48:13 that we're talking about
48:15 and it it actually will work to densify
48:19 the network so small cells connect back
48:21 to an existing existing macro cell site
48:24 most of the time on our network they
48:27 connect back to a macro cell they
48:29 actually repressing kn'l on the mac on
48:33 the macro site they reap repeat it so it
48:36 actually bolsters the capability of that
48:39 existing site for capacity so there's
48:41 already coverage anyway it just improves
48:44 capacity which helps people with their
48:47 download speeds but also helps them have
48:49 improved voice coverage as well as the
48:55 other carriers did we took a look of the
48:58 proposed code we have submitted a letter
49:00 as well and I'll just outline a few of
49:05 our comments and concerns I and I'm
49:08 definitely here to answer any questions
49:10 we agree with the concern about about
49:14 prohibiting equipment on certain streets
49:16 I am familiar with the Redman code and
49:20 they did propose prohibitions on some of
49:23 their downsize downtown streets but they
49:26 haven't passed it yet and we have been
49:27 working with them to come up with design
49:30 solutions and criteria that would allow
49:34 us on certain streets to make sure that
49:36 we keep the integrity of the look of the
49:41 downtown area so we we would love the
49:44 opportunity to work with the Issaquah on
49:47 on that type of solution or and we have
49:50 other options I mean we would be happy
49:52 to offer some options we did notice
49:56 because this is replacing the wireless
49:59 code it looks like there is a new
50:02 prohibition on macrocell sites and
50:05 neighborhoods our residential zones not
50:08 that we're building a lot of new sites
50:10 but as I mentioned earlier more people
50:14 are relying on their wireless phones
50:16 huh so we do want to make sure that
50:19 there are some options I mean like maybe
50:21 rooftops or you know some acceptable
50:24 options for those zones another item we
50:29 noticed was about replacement poles we
50:33 seem to see some missing language there
50:36 sometimes we do need to replace poles
50:39 for various reasons including the owner
50:41 asked us to and that's there may be
50:43 structural issues well we want to make
50:45 sure that we have that language in there
50:48 there's some analysis language that we
50:52 have concerns with we don't mind
50:55 providing analysis as long as it's
50:58 something we can do and that's helpful
51:01 so we would like to give some input on
51:05 you know when we need when we agree that
51:08 we need to prove something versus when
51:11 you know when it can't really prove we
51:13 need capacity for example so we'd like
51:16 to give some input there and and then
51:19 there's some procedural requirements
51:21 that seem a little extra or what we're
51:24 describing is more like extraordinary
51:27 and maybe put some expectations on staff
51:31 to understand some things about network
51:34 that that they might not be able to
51:36 understand so we'd like to work on that
51:38 language make sure that those
51:41 requirements are are things that we you
51:44 know that the staff has capability to
51:47 have information on to process so I
51:50 think there was also some mention about
51:56 some of the other cities there are some
51:59 other cities that we have worked with
52:00 recently we'd be happy to help you with
52:04 that but Kirkland mocha T Oh possible
52:06 can are some examples of codes that have
52:09 passed and I think I have covered
52:13 everything that's on my list so I'm
52:15 happy to answer questions and I thank
52:18 you again
52:19 very very much AT&T wants to participate
52:22 in this process with you
52:24 yes when you were talking about the data
52:30 requirements is that the level to review
52:32 is that what you're referring to it it's
52:37 it's about yes some of the read we just
52:48 wanted to apply to new polls and not to
52:51 existing that was part of our concern
52:54 there okay but okay
52:57 so it would be the new technology on an
52:59 existing poll your request is that it
53:02 not code needs to go through a review no
53:06 I mean no this was about providing this
53:12 was about on a colocation situation it
53:15 said that the city would decide about
53:18 colocation and I think Linda was trying
53:21 to explain how it is hard to determine
53:23 when colocation works because of network
53:26 requirements and that was our concern
53:28 about the colocation requirement right
53:31 okay I thought that that was a different
53:33 concern so when you were saying that
53:35 there were data requirements where where
53:38 does that appear yes
53:40 there's a requirement for alternative
53:44 and analysis and it was about I think
53:51 about there was something about
53:54 alternative analysis to prove that we
53:57 need a site in a certain location and
54:00 it's real it's hard to prove to
54:03 eliminate all possibilities because when
54:05 you look at the possibilities for siting
54:07 it could be rooftop side of buildings
54:09 other polls you know so we just want to
54:12 make sure that we don't have to do that
54:15 on existing polls that are already there
54:17 anyway we wouldn't mind doing it if
54:20 we're asking to put in a new poll and
54:22 proving that there's no alternative but
54:25 if the polls already there we we didn't
54:28 want to have to prove that the building
54:30 next door couldn't work in the poll this
54:31 way and that way it's just a lot of
54:33 analysis
54:44 and I had one other question with the
54:46 replacement poles is that's something
54:48 that if you do you said one reason that
54:50 would be replaced is that the owners
54:52 request so is that something then that
54:54 the company we have for that pants okay
54:58 we do okay so when we you're looking at
55:01 adding equipment to a pole you have to
55:03 go back some of the poles are older
55:05 might not be structurally you know but
55:08 like look is structurally strength and
55:10 if it's necessary to replace it we we do
55:12 that and we cover the cost
55:14 ok thank you thank you thank you
55:18 we're gonna continue does anybody else
55:22 want to make a comment yes you have to
55:31 come you have to come to the microphone
55:33 them
55:43 so just very briefly in response to MS
55:47 hunts question about the analysis so in
55:53 the macro facility siting criteria
55:58 there's a requirement that the provider
56:03 makes some demonstrations about
56:07 alternative sites and the need for the
56:10 facility and that that's a fairly
56:13 standard requirement for a macro
56:15 facility I think that the biggest issue
56:18 is having a requirement for that same
56:22 type of alternatives analysis for a
56:25 small cell it doesn't make sense because
56:28 the small cells are deployed in in
56:32 groups and they're designed to cover you
56:35 know at most a block or two and in
56:40 selecting a particular poll the the
56:43 things that are going to drive selecting
56:44 a particular poll or are not going to be
56:47 the typical questions of you know a gap
56:52 in coverage or is is there no other
56:55 available location it's going to be more
56:59 where can we best fit this into the
57:02 landscape so it has the least impact I
57:05 think is probably going to be the
57:06 driving factor and so I wouldn't
57:08 encourage moving away from the sort of
57:12 macro site alternatives analysis
57:15 information requirement for small cells
57:17 because it it just doesn't it doesn't
57:19 fit what we're trying to do okay is
57:24 there a is there a different sort of
57:25 analysis that you would usually provide
57:28 then because it seems that some sort of
57:31 information about how you're making the
57:33 decision is would be useful maybe not
57:37 exactly the same way as for a macro cell
57:40 so I'm wondering if there is another
57:42 another way to demonstrate I might point
57:45 you to the communities that are
57:50 establishing design criteria so
57:54 because again I think the what's going
57:57 to drive the decision about location is
58:00 going to be you know it is there is it
58:04 in the right location and and is it does
58:06 it fit the the node pattern that we need
58:11 to achieve is the structure that we want
58:16 to put it on is it going to be able to
58:19 either as it stands be structurally
58:21 sufficient or when we replace it in you
58:24 know the same ways will it be
58:26 structurally sufficient and then again
58:28 is it is it amenable to incorporating
58:35 the equipment in a way that minimizes
58:36 aesthetic impact so if you were looking
58:39 for criteria those are the ones that I
58:41 would focus on rather than you know
58:44 asking about coverage gaps okay okay did
58:52 you have any other questions I can
58:53 answer
58:53 well some of the other presentations did
58:55 talk about for example the coverage gaps
58:57 that we would have on Front Street so I
59:00 was just you know thinking that there
59:02 are 30 that is an aspect of the yes I
59:07 mean I think I think all of us have
59:09 emphasized that the the purpose of a
59:12 small cell it is for capacity and so
59:16 capacity means the ability of the
59:18 network to handle data so the macro site
59:22 provides the primary coverage for a
59:26 geographic area and the the small cell
59:30 communicates back to the macro facility
59:33 to help manage and handle the amount of
59:37 data demand that's flowing through that
59:41 macro site so you know when if we're
59:44 asked to approve a coverage need for a
59:47 macro site what we typically do is we
59:49 will have drive test Maps or propagation
59:52 maps that show you know where in the
59:55 network we actually have a hole in
59:56 coverage we don't have coverage there we
59:59 can't achieve in building coverage in a
1:00:01 particular place and we can show that
1:00:02 with colors on maps or drive test data
1:00:05 and that that's because the the small
1:00:09 cell is is for this data capacity
1:00:13 transfer handling function it's it's not
1:00:17 really designed to provide primary
1:00:20 coverage so much as it is to help that
1:00:23 one macro site function better so by
1:00:26 allowing small cells using small cells
1:00:29 you're going to increase the ability of
1:00:32 the existing macro sites to handle the
1:00:34 network traffic okay thank you so much
1:00:36 well festered like I think Victoria only
1:00:39 her her comment was the macro has a
1:00:45 major you know you have to do major work
1:00:48 and prove and do all your things to get
1:00:50 a macro in but there should be some kind
1:00:53 of an agenda some kind of system to
1:01:03 provide for a small cell it you know it
1:01:07 should be in there that this is the
1:01:09 process that you have to go through
1:01:10 which could be minor but since you have
1:01:14 one for the macro I think it's I think
1:01:16 Victoria was concerned that there was
1:01:18 you're just going to go and put it up
1:01:20 anywhere and not have to do anything and
1:01:22 so there has to be some kind of at least
1:01:26 a minimum requirement of how it's how it
1:01:30 should be is going to be what you're you
1:01:33 know you go in and you ask for a permit
1:01:35 but what do you have to bring with the
1:01:37 permit what do you have to well you know
1:01:39 in some of the other communities are
1:01:40 looking at this this issue what they're
1:01:43 asking for in an application packet are
1:01:46 depictions of the type of the facility
1:01:50 that design of the facility and drawings
1:01:52 and other information that shows how it
1:01:55 will be integrated into the the support
1:01:58 structure you know they want to know how
1:02:01 many how many individual small cells
1:02:04 will there be in a particular node
1:02:07 information like that that that goes to
1:02:10 again those design criteria aesthetic
1:02:16 compatibility
1:02:17 so I'm I don't if I'm not asking you to
1:02:22 give me the requirements I'm just saying
1:02:24 that in the code we should have the
1:02:28 steps that you have to go through would
1:02:31 be you know minor it's just that if you
1:02:34 have something there to say hey you know
1:02:36 if you follow this then you're good
1:02:38 that's all that makes sense and I assume
1:02:43 that we're going to have a backup come
1:02:45 in here yes thank you Richard Busch
1:02:49 again to answer the two questions that I
1:02:51 think you're appending at the end here
1:02:53 first some jurisdictions locally are
1:02:56 asking for carriers to consider
1:03:01 different polls that are within a
1:03:03 reasonable distance from the proposed
1:03:06 poll because these are small cells and
1:03:08 they only intended to cover one or two
1:03:11 blocks you can move it a little bit but
1:03:14 if you move it three blocks it defeats
1:03:17 the coverage objective you can't provide
1:03:19 the capacity I'll clarify that you can't
1:03:22 provide the capacity where you're needed
1:03:24 so in Mercer Island there's a franchise
1:03:27 agreement where the applicant is
1:03:29 required to consider alternate polls
1:03:32 within 100 feet of the proposed poll and
1:03:34 pick the one that's the least intrusive
1:03:35 on the community so in the things that
1:03:38 we look at now are is this poll in front
1:03:41 of someone's living room window kitchen
1:03:44 window or something like that or is it
1:03:46 at a property line where it's not in
1:03:48 anybody's direct line of sight so those
1:03:51 are the things that we do take into
1:03:52 consideration and the folks who are
1:03:54 designing the networks now have enough
1:03:55 experience to say to take the time and
1:03:58 look yeah this is a nice poll but they
1:04:00 turn around and say oh it sits directly
1:04:02 in somebody's living window there's
1:04:04 another poll seventy-five feet down the
1:04:06 street whatever the number is and it's
1:04:08 not as obtrusive so they'll shut they
1:04:10 should take the other poll so in that
1:04:14 franchise agreement there is a request
1:04:15 that you consider alternate polls that
1:04:19 are within X number of feet Denver's
1:04:21 around is 100 feet and choose the one
1:04:23 that's the least intrusive and then the
1:04:25 safety valve is if anyone expresses
1:04:27 concern about that particular location
1:04:28 to staff
1:04:30 then we have a dialogue about it and get
1:04:32 it resolved okay so that's one I think
1:04:35 that's what you're looking for some way
1:04:37 to provide information to staff to to
1:04:39 feel comfortable of the limited options
1:04:41 there may be for small cells this is the
1:04:43 most reasonable one to choose yeah and
1:04:46 that's a dialogue we want to have with
1:04:47 staff and then to answer your question
1:04:49 about there being no coverage at all on
1:04:50 Front Street that's not what important
1:04:52 that we're on the same page the macro
1:04:54 sites will provide coverage today what
1:04:56 we're looking to do is like Linda said
1:04:57 provide capacity and I'm sure you've
1:05:00 been in a situation where you're trying
1:05:01 to update the traffic map to see how
1:05:03 things are going you have five bars of
1:05:05 coverage four bars of coverage but the
1:05:07 wheel I'm sorry the wheel just keeps
1:05:08 spinning and you don't get a data update
1:05:10 that's the that's the problem we're
1:05:12 trying to solve where you have coverage
1:05:13 but there's just no throughput excuse me
1:05:16 because everyone's trying to get through
1:05:17 at the same time so that's why we will
1:05:20 have coverage on Front Street but we're
1:05:21 looking to add capacity thank you
1:05:25 is there anybody else that wants to make
1:05:28 a comment
1:05:31 hearing none I'm going to continue they
1:05:34 public hearing until hopefully February
1:05:38 the 1st and with that since I'm not
1:05:41 going to close it we're just going to go
1:05:43 into discussion with with Keith and some
1:05:48 questions that I think we both have so
1:05:50 sure so do you want to lead or do you
1:05:54 want me to start you know I read what
1:05:58 the city wrote and I've read all of the
1:06:01 the comments that the carriers wrote and
1:06:06 to me they're they're reasonable but
1:06:09 what I want from you is are they
1:06:12 reasonable for the city and do they go
1:06:14 along with it and which ones are you
1:06:20 know a value and which ones can't the
1:06:23 abide with sure so you know why don't I
1:06:28 just start by going through some of the
1:06:31 concerns raised this evening and can
1:06:34 talk about those and I don't think we
1:06:35 have to talk them into the ground we can
1:06:37 dial up a conversation and then there
1:06:39 can be potentially a week of
1:06:42 could forth between staff and the
1:06:44 providers so I'm gonna start with I'm
1:06:48 gonna start with Front Street we had a
1:06:52 lot of conversation about Front Street
1:06:54 being a dead zone and you know so here's
1:07:00 the deal
1:07:01 and it's it's I'm dialing it up simply
1:07:05 as a conversation so here's the lamppost
1:07:07 on Front Street so the street light
1:07:09 right and this thing is I haven't
1:07:12 measured it I'm gonna say it's between
1:07:14 15 and 18 feet tall what you didn't hear
1:07:17 from them is most of them know the
1:07:19 vertical spacing that they want their
1:07:22 small cells and they're generally and
1:07:24 you can we can have a dialogue about
1:07:26 this later if I'm wrong but I believe
1:07:28 they're generally between like 30 and 45
1:07:30 feet and so part of that is okay so
1:07:35 think about it I've got 18 30 to 45 so
1:07:39 they're either gonna want to put an
1:07:41 extension on top of this pole or they're
1:07:43 gonna change this pole for one that's
1:07:45 giant okay so this poles at a certain
1:07:48 height because it's pedestrian oriented
1:07:49 and trying to and one of the reasons why
1:07:52 we precluded or suggested at this point
1:07:56 prohibiting using the right away for
1:08:01 Front Street is because you can't use
1:08:03 these poles and because our streetscape
1:08:07 on Front Street is already being used
1:08:10 for either trees or outdoor seating or
1:08:15 walkways having the additional poles in
1:08:18 front Street did not seem like it was
1:08:20 something we wanted now does that mean
1:08:22 there cannot be antennas on on Front
1:08:24 Street no they can be
1:08:26 structure mounted or roof mounted so it
1:08:29 takes a huge landscape away from the
1:08:32 carrier's they cannot work with the city
1:08:34 they have to work with the property
1:08:36 owners to get those mounted on those
1:08:39 buildings and you know I'm that's a
1:08:43 different that's that's harder right and
1:08:45 so I understand why they don't want that
1:08:47 but that's harder but it's about it's a
1:08:51 character issue for us as a community
1:08:54 and you know having a bunch of antennas
1:08:56 on Front Street seems like that's not in
1:09:00 keeping with the vision we have for our
1:09:02 old town Gilman's a little harder so
1:09:05 that's that I think there's more room
1:09:07 for conversation on Gilman so here's
1:09:09 here's a lamp post on Gilman obviously
1:09:13 this one's tall I don't know if this one
1:09:15 went in with Atlas but it's pretty tall
1:09:18 so you know there could be there could
1:09:21 be an antenna maybe on that pole maybe
1:09:24 there's even room for two I don't know
1:09:27 so why not Gilman so as we talked about
1:09:33 those two streets those two streets are
1:09:36 I think what we consider our signature
1:09:39 streets in town front Gilman so
1:09:43 generally the proliferation of antenna
1:09:47 on Gilman did not seem like that was an
1:09:49 image that most folks had when we had
1:09:51 this conversation so you know I think
1:09:55 they're I think even though we probably
1:09:57 suggested prohibiting both for me this
1:10:01 one's really hard I can I'm having a
1:10:03 real hard time seeing a bunch of
1:10:05 antennas on Front Street
1:10:07 this one this one there's probably a
1:10:10 little bit more room for some
1:10:11 conversation the city-owned poles you
1:10:17 know I'm just going to go ahead and and
1:10:18 be candid our public works operations
1:10:21 department said no they said they do not
1:10:24 want private antenna and electrical
1:10:30 equipment on something they have to
1:10:32 service so what does that mean that
1:10:36 means that if it's a PSE Pole which
1:10:39 these guys are you know they can go
1:10:42 ahead and they can put their antenna up
1:10:43 on top and one of the things and this is
1:10:46 all another policy piece for you guys I
1:10:48 think this is ugly some people maybe the
1:10:51 person who lives on squawk loves this
1:10:52 wooden pole with the Cobra head scabbed
1:10:54 onto the side of it I mean if you put an
1:10:57 antenna up here I'm not sure
1:10:59 aesthetically that makes a big
1:11:01 difference for being now Vicky you live
1:11:03 on squawk you might say yes that that's
1:11:05 a beautiful pole I'm putting an antenna
1:11:07 on top we really need to talk about
1:11:08 aesthetics of that this is why we're
1:11:10 gonna have this conversation I would say
1:11:12 for that poll you know let him put it up
1:11:15 there and generally make it match the
1:11:17 color but I don't know that we want to
1:11:19 put a whole lot of design requirements I
1:11:21 don't think we're trying to do this code
1:11:23 to penalize them I think we're trying to
1:11:25 figure out what's really important to us
1:11:27 let the rest of it go
1:11:30 because I don't want to make more work
1:11:32 for myself that I do and my staff than I
1:11:34 otherwise need to but you know there's a
1:11:37 big difference for me on the aesthetic
1:11:40 of these things which I think are more
1:11:42 County remnants than they are
1:11:44 necessarily something we chose versus
1:11:46 some things like this this and this you
1:11:51 know what we don't know is how many
1:11:54 polls I mean you guys kind of started to
1:11:56 get to that you know there's depending
1:12:00 on what you're reading there's there's
1:12:03 some variance in literature on it's
1:12:05 every 300 feet it's every 500 feet
1:12:09 gentlemen talk about blocks well block
1:12:12 dimensions change blocks in Portland or
1:12:14 like 260 feet blocks and is required
1:12:17 much bigger than that you know so
1:12:20 there's there is a certain horizontal
1:12:24 spacing that these will come to and as
1:12:28 best as I can tell it's somewhere
1:12:29 between three and five hundred feet and
1:12:33 what we've written in here about
1:12:35 collocation is you know part of this is
1:12:38 if you you know if you if you drink the
1:12:42 kool-aid and go along with the program
1:12:43 what we're saying is we don't want your
1:12:46 antennas on our pools so those pools
1:12:48 that go in the right away will be owned
1:12:51 by a carrier and what we're saying is
1:12:54 that we want to have a conversation
1:12:56 about colocation and if it's possible
1:13:00 we're wanting that pool to be
1:13:02 constructed so it could be co-located
1:13:04 but we're saying we want them to assign
1:13:07 that colocation right to the city so
1:13:10 that let's say it's a Verizon Pole and
1:13:12 AT&T comes in and and they've got a
1:13:14 desire to put an antenna in a similar
1:13:16 location we don't want the situation to
1:13:19 be that Verizon tells
1:13:21 tu can't be on our poll so if we have
1:13:24 the right then we can give that right or
1:13:26 assign that right to AT&T to ensure that
1:13:29 colocation happens in those locations so
1:13:33 but that's a trade off if you colle okay
1:13:36 those polls are taller than they are if
1:13:38 they're single user because there's a
1:13:40 certain vertical separation as far as I
1:13:43 understand that those antennas require
1:13:45 and so it's there's some trade-offs here
1:13:48 for us in terms of the number of polls
1:13:51 the height of the polls you know
1:13:54 generally my take is and the reason why
1:13:57 there is one figure that's in the
1:14:00 proposed code is you know I think that
1:14:04 if we are building new polls or if new
1:14:07 polls are being built in the right away
1:14:08 they should be as unobtrusive as
1:14:11 possible so this is just a very standard
1:14:15 poll and I think mr. Bush was talking
1:14:18 about the equipment can be put on the
1:14:19 base so that base there would
1:14:21 potentially house the electrical box
1:14:23 that would go with it but in other cases
1:14:26 those boxes could be in different places
1:14:28 so I don't know I mean so what else
1:14:37 questions do you have
1:14:39 replacement poles you know I'll we look
1:14:42 at the code and see what it says about
1:14:44 the replacement poles I I think there's
1:14:47 absolutely should be an ability to
1:14:49 replace a pole that needs replacing
1:14:51 without sending it through a process I
1:14:53 actually think we called it a level zero
1:14:55 but I'd go back and I'll check that you
1:14:59 know in terms of fees that's not your
1:15:03 purview we did include it here so that
1:15:05 they could talk about that that would be
1:15:07 a conversation with the council when it
1:15:09 comes through our department is intended
1:15:12 to be 100 percent cost recovery and so
1:15:15 because we don't know how much time
1:15:17 these permits are going to take this is
1:15:20 the best guess at this point and the
1:15:22 best thing I can offer you guys is that
1:15:24 when we figure out how long it actually
1:15:27 takes staff to do this if we need to
1:15:29 process a fee adjustment we will do
1:15:31 that as quickly as as possible
1:15:36 Viki did you have a question or comment
1:15:39 maybe I was a sweet and tell you until I
1:15:41 just run out of steam that's soon
1:15:44 actually so from a policy standpoint you
1:15:50 know there's there's these are kind of
1:15:54 like the big things for me that I
1:15:56 thought you guys might want to talk
1:15:58 about
1:15:58 so the encouraged discouraged in
1:16:01 prohibited boxes so Joan you asked
1:16:04 earlier did we look at some other codes
1:16:06 yes we did so this is we're a little bit
1:16:09 different in that a lot of the other
1:16:12 cities chose a hierarchal scheme in
1:16:17 other words like this is what we really
1:16:19 want if you can't do this then you can
1:16:22 do this and if you can't do this then do
1:16:24 this and when you know as I thought
1:16:26 about that and thought about well gee
1:16:28 what do I put first and does first in
1:16:31 Old Town equal first in Issaquah
1:16:33 Highlands and it seemed like for me that
1:16:36 was a precarious way for us to go since
1:16:39 our neighborhoods have very different
1:16:41 characters and so rather than create
1:16:44 these hierarchies of preferred locations
1:16:49 you know it seemed easier just to create
1:16:52 an encouraged box in a discouraged box
1:16:54 in a prohibited box and as long as you
1:16:56 were somewhere in that box one isn't
1:17:00 more important than the other so even
1:17:02 though the draft has numbers those
1:17:04 aren't intended to suggest hierarchy and
1:17:09 one of the red lines I have already made
1:17:12 is to just get rid of the numbers so so
1:17:15 you know but that's something we can
1:17:17 talk about if you wanted if the
1:17:20 Commission felt like that was not where
1:17:23 we wanted to go and we wanted to
1:17:24 actually create a hierarchy that's a
1:17:27 level of complexity that we could do it
1:17:31 seems like that would take quite a bit
1:17:33 of public conversation which if you felt
1:17:36 strongly about we could do as I
1:17:39 mentioned earlier
1:17:41 so small-cell max poll height 45 feet I
1:17:47 do believe that could accommodate two
1:17:49 antennas vertically if you decided
1:17:53 that's too tall then you know we can
1:17:57 reduce the height but then we probably
1:17:59 can't get two antennas on it and then
1:18:02 the macro towers at 85 feet then there's
1:18:05 a whole section on ground equipment
1:18:08 screening so if you know so mostly
1:18:11 because as you heard they're really
1:18:14 trying to deal with mobile users which
1:18:17 are on our in our right away that's the
1:18:19 preferred location putting a bunch of
1:18:23 boxes so if they're on the pole that's
1:18:25 that's okay but there's an aesthetic
1:18:27 issue to putting them on the pole and so
1:18:31 if you run them down to the ground now
1:18:33 you have a bunch of things on the ground
1:18:34 and if you have two antennas potentially
1:18:38 on the same pole you've got two boxes
1:18:41 that you have to site on ground you know
1:18:45 there's there's advantages to putting
1:18:47 them in vaults you know as you heard
1:18:50 there's disadvantages to the carriers to
1:18:51 put them involves you can make them look
1:18:55 like benches you can make them look like
1:18:57 kiosks but you know do you want to have
1:19:00 four benches on the same place you know
1:19:03 so all of these things are things we
1:19:05 need to talk about you know but they're
1:19:08 all part of this infrastructure that is
1:19:11 coming and that we want in our community
1:19:14 and it's a trade-off and the question is
1:19:16 is you know how do you how do you allow
1:19:18 it in but yet retain some of the
1:19:22 aesthetics that I think our community is
1:19:25 known for I mean you know you can talk
1:19:28 about sign codes and is akua's sign code
1:19:32 is regionally known as one of the most
1:19:35 stringent sign codes and we have super
1:19:39 small signs and part of it is because
1:19:42 our community has said we want the right
1:19:44 away to be uncluttered we want you know
1:19:47 those those vistas down the street scape
1:19:50 to be things of beauty and not full of
1:19:53 things like
1:19:55 signs and potentially antennas so so
1:19:57 this is this is all important stuff in
1:20:01 terms of aesthetics for our community
1:20:03 and with that I'm going to stop now
1:20:06 so I'm just trying to see if we've
1:20:12 covered most of the comments so and and
1:20:17 just so that I can let you know how
1:20:20 we'll handle the letters we got today I
1:20:23 think they all came in today I don't
1:20:25 know life's too blur so what we'll do is
1:20:28 we'll read through those comments and we
1:20:31 will provide responses back to the
1:20:34 carriers and unfortunately I'm going to
1:20:36 be in Las Vegas starting Saturday so
1:20:39 we're gonna have to do that through
1:20:41 email I'm not sure we're gonna get any
1:20:42 face time before the next Commission
1:20:44 meeting if it's the first but it doesn't
1:20:48 mean I won't have the ability to
1:20:49 correspond back and forth so hopefully
1:20:51 and y'all know Ogden Murphy Wallace so
1:20:54 they're handling a lot of the kind of
1:20:57 translation for us and in terms of yeah
1:21:03 I'm gonna blame something on them but I
1:21:05 won't so so I think so we will do some
1:21:09 of that to try and get ourselves on the
1:21:12 same page before we come back next time
1:21:14 but then you guys will get copies of
1:21:17 kind of that back and forth so you can
1:21:20 see where where those conversations are
1:21:22 going not being a wireless expert when I
1:21:28 read things they seem reasonable and
1:21:30 then when I mobile and Verizon gave the
1:21:35 comments you know they seem reasonable
1:21:37 too and I like the fact that the city's
1:21:42 input exactly why you know oh it's great
1:21:46 let's put it on Front Street but then
1:21:48 then I don't I like the post we have
1:21:51 there it's going to be very difficult to
1:21:53 incorporate them into that so so you
1:21:55 look at this as a on a different light
1:21:58 and so I was going to suggest that you
1:22:02 do exactly what you just did
1:22:04 and I know that I can go back now and
1:22:08 compare them a little bit more
1:22:12 reasonably and I did before so I think I
1:22:18 will be prepared on the first so I'm
1:22:20 going to make sure that the other seven
1:22:22 members of this commission are updated
1:22:26 also and I think we've learned a lot
1:22:29 through the presentations here tonight
1:22:31 and it does come down to the fact that
1:22:35 we all want to be connected we all want
1:22:38 you know immediate responses on our
1:22:41 phone and to get that we're gonna have
1:22:44 to give up some we're gonna have to put
1:22:48 some polls in we're going to have to
1:22:50 provide that communication so we know
1:22:52 that and I'm I appreciate the several
1:22:55 comments that you made that you wanted
1:22:58 to work together with the city and
1:23:01 that's the first step in anything is to
1:23:04 to know that you're on the same path and
1:23:06 we'll see what we can do and hopefully
1:23:09 we can find a way to at small sell-off
1:23:15 in on Front Street in that area and
1:23:19 Gilman I can see non Gilman but I like
1:23:22 you I'm having a hard time on Front
1:23:24 Street when you look at what we as a
1:23:26 city really want and that's our part of
1:23:30 our town and that's kind of what we
1:23:32 won't want it so I don't have anything
1:23:35 else to say to you
1:23:37 Victoria well I think that I also
1:23:40 appreciated the presentations and the
1:23:42 information that was presented and I've
1:23:45 learned a lot I think it's complicated
1:23:48 because these are fast evolving
1:23:51 technology and the equipment will look
1:23:54 different in a few years and
1:23:55 additionally the devices that will be
1:23:58 connected by the equipment will look
1:23:59 different you know 10 20 years from now
1:24:01 I know that the more automated vehicles
1:24:05 as was mentioned that will be using this
1:24:07 technology and that's kind of a ways out
1:24:09 but I think it's it's interesting to
1:24:12 think about all of that and I
1:24:14 think that when hey we have a quorum oh
1:24:17 wait no we don't so I think that one
1:24:22 thing that is important to take into
1:24:25 consideration is that probably this
1:24:27 technology will look different I I think
1:24:29 that you mentioned about putting this
1:24:31 technology in benches so maybe down the
1:24:34 line there will be a more aesthetically
1:24:36 pleasing option that could fit more into
1:24:38 the character of some of these places
1:24:39 but I also have a hard time imagining
1:24:43 anything on the light posts on Front
1:24:46 Street because it's so iconic and a
1:24:48 historic district and so I think that's
1:24:50 sort of forward thinking that at this
1:24:51 point we can't imagine this technology
1:24:54 on on those particular light posts so I
1:24:58 would agree with that I noticed that in
1:25:00 the in some of the letters there was
1:25:03 concern about the complications of
1:25:06 putting co-op co-locating that that it's
1:25:10 complicated where you can collate
1:25:12 different technologies on the poll and
1:25:15 that and so I guess that's just
1:25:18 something that it seems very technical
1:25:20 but it's a consideration and let's see
1:25:25 oh and then I also had one really minor
1:25:28 but I think important comments on the
1:25:33 code about obsolescence and removal so
1:25:36 this is a fast-paced field and I imagine
1:25:38 that things will become obsolete quickly
1:25:40 and will have to be removed and so I had
1:25:43 some questions on that about who decides
1:25:46 when it's obsolete who decides when it
1:25:48 needs to be updated and and not only the
1:25:53 poll but the the technology that's on
1:25:55 the poll and then there's also this if
1:25:59 there's a danger to public safety that
1:26:01 the network provider shall promptly
1:26:03 remove and everywhere else it says you
1:26:05 know if there's graffiti it will be 14
1:26:07 calendar days it's very specific and I
1:26:09 noticed that that was promptly so I
1:26:11 thought I thought that that may be one
1:26:14 thing to consider is to make that
1:26:15 specific like the other bullet points
1:26:18 because if it's a danger to public
1:26:20 safety definitely we want to define
1:26:23 promptly you know immediately and
1:26:26 that means thank you so in essence don't
1:26:33 take this wrong but I think we have to
1:26:34 think out of the box
1:26:36 a welcome to the life planning policy
1:26:45 Commission we've gone through the public
1:26:50 hearing and the presentation from the
1:26:52 city and I don't think we're going to
1:26:54 start all over again but is there any
1:26:58 earning question that you have that that
1:27:02 you don't think would have been covered
1:27:04 by the city that is explanation of this
1:27:10 okay so run obviously we don't have a
1:27:14 quorum so the idea is we're keeping the
1:27:16 public hearing open and we're gonna
1:27:18 continue it to next week I'm gonna fly
1:27:21 back from wherever I am and be here for
1:27:26 the continuation on the first assuming
1:27:29 we can get a quorum on the first and
1:27:31 that's the only unknown at this point
1:27:33 so you it's all been taped so you can
1:27:36 watch the testimony from the providers
1:27:39 and if you have any questions
1:27:42 I already got we already got some
1:27:44 questions from AJ so if any of you have
1:27:47 questions feel free and either any of
1:27:49 the other commission members that might
1:27:50 watch this on tape
1:27:51 feel free to email before the first that
1:27:56 would be helpful we can definitely have
1:27:57 some you know at least provide some
1:27:59 clarity for the presentation next time
1:28:02 based on your questions
1:28:03 I think that's positive I think that's
1:28:07 what we're gonna do anything else you
1:28:10 want to contribute we'll see you
1:28:13 tomorrow for transit-oriented
1:28:16 development and district visions part 26
1:28:22 hopefully we will have a yes there's
1:28:25 lots more coming tomorrow night because
1:28:27 it's Thursday unless you have anything
1:28:30 else I want to thank you all for being
1:28:33 here and
1:28:34 I learned a lot and I hope we can work
1:28:37 together to make our city connected so
1:28:42 with that I'm going to close the public
1:28:44 I'm going to close the meeting at the
Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.