← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission – Special Meeting Auto captions

Thursday, February 1, 2018

6:30 PM · 1h 40m · Council Chambers, 135 East Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Proposed Amendments to Utilities and Public Services Element, Capital Facilities Element, (I) AB 7683 4/10
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.17–92
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 you know I'm gonna do my best
0:12 good evening and welcome to the February
0:15 first meeting of the Planning Policy
0:16 Commission tonight we're going to talk
0:19 about small cell wireless communications
0:22 facilities basically in Issaquah but
0:26 first we have to Innis minutes for the
0:33 meaning of January 10th and 11th to have
0:35 a fruit we're going to do individually
0:38 so can I have a motion to approve the
0:41 minutes for January 10th so moved second
0:46 any discussion all those in favor say
0:49 aye
0:50 hi the minutes of January 11th may I
0:54 have a motion so moved again
0:57 [Laughter]
0:59 discussion motion carries
1:02 so with that we're gonna open up to
1:05 Keith and see what we have on tap on
1:09 small-cell thank you madam chair so I so
1:17 when they say what state what happens in
1:20 Vegas stays in Vegas
1:21 not true I brought a cold back I'm gonna
1:26 whine about it all night so I'm gonna
1:29 try and I'm gonna try and be to the
1:31 point when I can be I am on cold
1:34 medicines I may not have brought my
1:36 a-game so again we're gonna kind of go
1:41 through the presentation we went through
1:43 last time so who you know we're dealing
1:48 with the major carriers the major four
1:51 carriers Comcast I think we threw into
1:53 the mix there may be others that come
1:55 they're all wanting to add small cell
1:59 antennas it's it's not a coverage issue
2:04 really so the coverage probably most of
2:08 you haven't remembered the last time
2:10 that you had a wireless call drop I
2:12 can't so they're all doing a great job
2:15 providing coverage through the metro
2:17 area this is more of a capacity issue so
2:21 now that we've all decided we want to
2:23 stream Netflix on our phones and do
2:26 things of that sort it's it's providing
2:31 more capacity for the system that's in
2:34 place right now and you know as we
2:37 increase population in our area you know
2:41 the the demand on the system is just
2:43 it's overwhelming the system so there
2:46 needs to be more infrastructure built
2:47 and we actually think that's a good
2:49 thing
2:50 so when really now we have had our first
2:56 application from Verizon get approved
3:00 prior to the code revisions being put in
3:02 place it's on is a koala fall city
3:05 Issaquah Pike Road they're gonna put
3:08 some small cell antennas on top of some
3:11 existing Puget Sound Energy power poles
3:14 and you know that the point is we need
3:19 to get this code this revised code
3:21 adopted before we get kind of an
3:24 avalanche of more applications in so the
3:28 original 18:07 505 was created for the
3:33 macro cells and those towers are located
3:37 throughout the city there's different
3:40 places water reservoirs there's a couple
3:43 in Central Park
3:45 but because of the way that they work
3:48 you know they're set up much higher than
3:52 the small cell and so their frequency of
3:55 infrastructure is the spacing can be
3:58 much farther apart but what we're
4:01 talking about with these new smaller
4:03 cells and it gave you a little sketch
4:05 here so you know we could be talking
4:07 about antennas on top of buildings or on
4:10 the sides of buildings we could be
4:13 talking about antennas within the right
4:15 away either on brand-new poles or on
4:18 existing light standards and then public
4:21 property
4:22 you know city parks other publicly owned
4:26 property so really these things could
4:28 locate anywhere as long as they have
4:33 they work primarily on like line of
4:35 sight
4:36 so part of it is you know they need to
4:38 kind of set up kind of a stream for them
4:41 to work off of
4:43 so these are some just images of
4:47 antennas these ones here are small cell
4:51 you know they come in kind of different
4:56 configurations
4:57 sometimes they're put in a housing at
5:00 the top of the the light standard and
5:03 then these boxes are and I shouldn't be
5:07 talking about this cuz I'm not an expert
5:11 those folks in the audience will be able
5:13 to explain way better than I can
5:15 those are kind of the the antenna goes
5:17 to like our other equipment that needs
5:20 to then kind of do whatever it does
5:23 alright I'm gonna go I'm gonna keep
5:26 moving so part of what we have in town
5:30 is and this is why every city's kind of
5:34 regulations are a little bit different I
5:37 was gonna leave the the names off and
5:39 let you guys guess where these are but
5:40 that might have taken all night so so
5:43 you know we have we have particular
5:45 light standards and talus and all the
5:47 powers underground and the Highlands
5:50 similar and so you know if you're gonna
5:52 put a small cell network in our villages
5:55 either you're gonna have to put an
5:58 extension on top of this pole or maybe
6:02 it can go down somewhere but these poles
6:06 aren't that tall and depending on the
6:09 height that they want their antenna most
6:11 of the time they put them on an
6:13 extension above now some of our some of
6:15 our light standards and this is old town
6:18 and this is squawk you know in my
6:21 opinion if and I said this last time if
6:23 you put an antenna up here on the top of
6:25 this wooden pole I'm not sure anybody's
6:27 even gonna notice you know it's not the
6:29 most aesthetic thing so putting
6:32 something on these I'm not sure would be
6:36 a major concern for us so right now if
6:39 these are owned by PSE they could go
6:42 ahead and put antennas on top of these
6:44 but these ones because they're
6:46 decorative poles
6:48 they could not that's the way the code
6:50 the draft code is written so what you
6:53 guys wanted to see I think for the most
6:54 part was this slide so this is we got
6:59 comments from from the carriers not
7:04 sprint I don't know they're not playing
7:05 with us yet but t-mobile Verizon and
7:09 AT&T and we went through and kind of
7:14 evaluated what they asked for and this
7:17 is a list of the things that we did
7:19 change in the draft code and these are
7:23 the things that we kind of held our
7:25 ground to and I can either stop here or
7:29 we can go through these and kind of I
7:34 can give you a brief explanation of why
7:38 we kind of did not agree with the
7:42 suggested change your choice either one
7:47 we can talk through the nose we can let
7:49 them talk we can talk amongst ourselves
7:53 whatever you want to do it would be nice
7:57 to get the city's okay so why don't we
8:00 just go down really short okay so number
8:05 one there's kind of two parts to number
8:07 one number one you know it would we
8:14 agree that that it would be a lot of
8:17 administrative work to do one permit for
8:19 every new antenna but then how many
8:22 antennas are too many and so it's trying
8:26 to figure out kind of how many makes
8:28 sense as a bundle and so we suggested
8:32 ten and given the fact that those poles
8:35 or every anywhere from like three
8:37 hundred to five hundred to what we found
8:41 in the last round of comments maybe a
8:43 thousand feet you know ten times a
8:46 thousand feet that's a mile and so you
8:50 know having an application that spans a
8:53 mile of street that's a long way and so
8:56 I'm not we held it at 10 as opposed to
9:00 increasing it to 20 or 25 because our
9:02 he's kind of a small city and there's
9:05 just a scale issue for me personally
9:07 that seems like you know these things
9:09 I get doing it in bundles but at some
9:12 point you have you can do all of Gilman
9:14 in one application that seems like that
9:16 might be too much we're just talking
9:20 about getting permits this is getting
9:22 permits right so I mean I carrier could
9:25 come back and ask for another yes so
9:28 maybe Gilman's to applications instead
9:30 of one so they can still it's not saying
9:32 they can't get the permits there it just
9:34 means they can't do it all as one
9:35 potentially now the issue and we were
9:38 talking about it before the meeting so
9:40 so what we try to do in the in the code
9:43 was say that you know you could have a
9:48 certain number of antennas up to ten but
9:52 it should be a contiguous application
9:54 they should they should be all connected
9:57 somehow and the problem was that
9:59 contiguous ended up being a vague word
10:02 and so we stuck a number on it which was
10:05 500 feet which the carrier's say at
10:08 least one carrier says we're trying to
10:10 actually have our spacing bigger than
10:15 500 feet to try and minimize the number
10:18 of new poles that we might potentially
10:19 have in your community I like that but
10:21 now I have a problem with my definition
10:23 of contiguous so so as we were talking
10:27 before and I'll leave this for you guys
10:29 to think about I don't think we have to
10:30 answer this right now we can let the
10:32 carrier's maybe think about it is you
10:35 know I I think what we could do is go
10:38 ahead and leave the bundle at ten but
10:40 then get rid of the contiguous so
10:43 worst-case scenario an applicant comes
10:47 in and they've got two poles on Maple
10:50 and three poles in Tallis and you know
10:54 another five poles in the Highlands you
10:58 know what if that's what they want to do
10:59 fine I mean you know I I guess I'm not
11:02 you know we'll still review them we'll
11:04 review them under the same criteria and
11:06 as long as you know the contiguous piece
11:09 again because our cities not that big
11:11 I'm not that worried if you guys want to
11:15 drop the contiguous
11:16 part of this I think we could do that I
11:18 would rather do that than increase from
11:20 10 to 25 which was suggested by one of
11:23 the applicants city assignable
11:27 colocation this is this is this is the
11:29 nut they hate all right so here's the
11:32 deal if they if they build a new poll in
11:37 the right away let's say we're on Park
11:40 Drive in the highlands and they can't be
11:42 on the decorative polls so they're gonna
11:43 put a new poll in what we've said is we
11:46 want that poll to be co-located but we
11:50 want to control we want the ability to
11:52 give that right for colocation to
11:55 another provider what the problem we're
11:58 trying to solve here is we don't want so
12:01 let's assume that Verizon builds a poll
12:03 it's it's co-locate able and t-mobile
12:07 comes in and wants to put an antenna on
12:09 it and Verizon tells t-mobile no you
12:12 know we think we're gonna expand we
12:14 don't want to give you the right to
12:15 co-locate on that pool the city has no
12:18 right or no ability to tell them they
12:21 have to unless it's in code and so this
12:25 is one where there's technical reasons
12:27 why they might not be able to cull okay
12:29 the city's not saying you have to
12:31 co-locate we just want the ability to
12:34 allow for a colocation if it's possible
12:37 technically and because we're putting
12:41 this in code it gives us the ability to
12:44 say hey Verizon t-mobile wants to go in
12:47 this general area
12:48 can they co-locate on pole number 12 and
12:51 it puts us in a good negotiating
12:54 position with Verizon as opposed to
12:57 telling t-mobile you know what you got
12:59 to go talk to Verizon and see if they'll
13:01 let you Co like locate on their Pole I
13:03 can guarantee you they're gonna come
13:05 back and say yeah they told us no so I'm
13:08 sorry I'm a pessimist but this gets us
13:11 in the kitchen and allows the city to be
13:13 part of the conversation and Keith
13:16 that's just four polls that are in the
13:18 right away where we're saying hey you're
13:20 taking our space so we want to make sure
13:22 that it's used to the
13:24 is public benefit right and one of the
13:27 providers suggested that that go into
13:29 the franchise agreement so for those of
13:32 you make sure you understand the
13:33 mechanics here if they're asking for a
13:37 facility and it's in public right away
13:39 they also have to get a franchise
13:41 agreement and so some of the
13:43 requirements can be in the franchise
13:44 agreement and that's a different section
13:46 of city code and some of it can be in
13:48 chapter 18 the conversation we were
13:51 having before the meeting was I liked it
13:53 in 18 because in 18 now it's codified
13:56 and it's clear if it's if it's the
13:59 franchise agreements although there's a
14:01 structure to it they all have to go
14:04 through City Council's separately and
14:07 there's opportunities for a negotiation
14:09 that may it just it leaves the
14:13 predictability I think less for me so I
14:17 like it in 18 if we can all come to
14:20 consensus on what it should say putting
14:22 in 18 and making it apply to everyone I
14:25 think it's great we have language in 18
14:29 that references the franchise agreement
14:31 and then in the franchise agreement I'll
14:34 make sure we have language that
14:35 references 18:07 505 but outside of
14:40 right away you know if it's a if it's a
14:43 public park let's say then there's a
14:47 lease so there's not a franchise
14:48 agreement but there's a lease because
14:49 it's our property so we would negotiate
14:51 that and that would be very different
14:55 than the franchise agreement and if its
14:57 private property then they go and
15:00 negotiate a lease agreement with the
15:02 private property owner if they're gonna
15:04 put it on the building or on the roof
15:05 okay
15:08 front street so we we still aren't
15:15 feeling it for front street so I did
15:18 move Gilman over I took it off the
15:22 prohibited list you know right now
15:25 Gilman we're going through a whole
15:27 visioning exercise for Gilman I don't
15:30 know what that that streetscape is going
15:32 to look like we may come back and edit
15:36 1807 505
15:38 after we know what Gilman looks like but
15:40 right now and especially given just the
15:44 variance in you in street light fixtures
15:48 that we have on Gilman Minh was harder
15:50 for me to really kind of stick with so I
15:53 was willing to give on Gilman but not on
15:57 Front Street what does that mean they
16:02 can't put any up on Front Street is that
16:04 what you're saying so right now Carl so
16:07 look so here's the light pole for Front
16:08 Street right and you know this is this
16:13 is about I think it's about 15 feet tall
16:15 okay so they're their antennas want to
16:18 be up here okay up here not down here
16:22 they want to be up here so so what what
16:25 we're saying is and because of the
16:29 character of Front Street you know
16:31 putting a bunch of new poles next to
16:34 these polls that have antennas on them
16:36 is gonna be a character issue for front
16:39 street so what we're saying is no new
16:44 polls in the right away it doesn't mean
16:47 that they can't put antennas along Front
16:49 Street but they'd have to be either
16:51 building mounted either on the side or
16:53 on the roofs and yes that limits that
16:58 limits what they can do but right now
17:02 what I ask them to do and they haven't
17:05 done it yet I think that they plan to
17:07 maybe do that at some point is to give
17:09 us a rendering of what it would look
17:11 like if you're gonna if you're gonna
17:12 turn this street lamp into something
17:16 that's maybe this tall and has an
17:18 antenna hidden inside it okay what's
17:24 that gonna look like is that gonna is
17:26 that gonna be funky is it you know how's
17:27 it gonna look with the other ones maybe
17:30 nobody's going to notice I don't know
17:32 the answer to that but rather than mess
17:33 up front street I think right now we're
17:35 just saying you can't put a new pool on
17:38 Front Street so but you can on a
17:42 building on the side of a building or on
17:44 a roof or yep so you're not precluding
17:46 them from putting antennas up on Front
17:48 Street no just on a new
17:50 all just not a new poll and right now if
17:53 they can convince Brad to be able to put
17:56 them on municipal polls you could put
18:00 them potentially on a street light like
18:03 at front and sunset you could
18:05 potentially put them maybe on top of the
18:08 pedestrian polls for the rapid flashing
18:13 beacons so you know there's I think
18:16 there's a choices there but they've
18:18 they've got to convince right now
18:20 Public Works operations has said they do
18:22 not want these things on their polls
18:24 they're worried about electrical issues
18:27 liability issues and so they're gonna
18:29 have separate conversations with Public
18:31 Works operations and see if they can
18:33 move that needle a little bit but for
18:36 right now they'd have to put them on
18:38 buildings if they're going to put them
18:39 on Front Street
18:43 so we we changed so number four we
18:51 changed for no single-family zones for
18:54 macro towers and one of the carrier's
18:57 cried foul and said but wait we can do
18:59 that now you know and yes they can I
19:05 think my question is should they you
19:08 know do you want your neighbor to put a
19:10 macro tower in their backyard and I
19:14 think you know it's one of those things
19:16 that has happened in other communities
19:18 and right now we're suggesting to remove
19:23 the allowance for the single-family zone
19:25 they could put in a multi-family zone
19:27 but not single-family so it does take a
19:30 bunch of the city out of out of service
19:33 in terms of new macro towers but we
19:36 think that at least at this point
19:38 there's not really a demand that is
19:41 unsatisfied and I don't know it just
19:45 seemed like the right thing to do but
19:47 this is new ground this is new territory
19:49 and I want to make sure you guys are
19:52 clear on that they can't put in a macro
19:55 but they can put in more cells in the
19:58 right away
20:00 and Keith I'm thinking single-family
20:03 homes
20:05 Marcel's home so right now I think so we
20:10 did not preclude it in single-family so
20:13 if you wanted to say put a small sell on
20:16 the site at somebody's house you could
20:18 do that I don't know that they'd want to
20:22 but you could well isn't it under
20:25 discouraged or am I reading it
20:27 incorrectly it's allowing for
20:29 residential use under discouraged gonna
20:33 make me look aren't you see so small
20:36 sell sorry for not knowing that off the
20:39 top of my head yeah okay
20:45 so yeah so it's under the discouraged
20:48 piece so they'd have to show us how they
20:52 couldn't make any of these work and then
20:55 yes we would allow that so Keith when
21:01 we're talking about single-family zones
21:03 I'm thinking up in the highlands how
21:05 we've got the water tower area next to
21:09 the school
21:10 how we've had some talks about putting
21:12 something there would that be then
21:16 precluded for the macro towers so the so
21:21 Central Park already has two macro
21:24 towers in it and it could still because
21:27 it's it's not zoned single-family it's
21:31 owned community facilities facilities
21:35 our favorite city zone all right keep
21:39 going so there was a and this isn't
21:43 really in your guy's wheelhouse number
21:45 five but I just did want to put it up
21:47 here so there was some concern over the
21:50 fees we talked about that a little bit
21:52 last time we already talked about no
21:55 city-owned poles they're gonna make a
21:57 run at Public Works operations on that
21:59 and I told them that's fine one of the
22:04 carriers AT&T asked for us to change the
22:07 definition for small cell
22:10 and referenced a different section of
22:13 city code and I don't know
22:16 I didn't didn't see the benefit to that
22:19 so I left it the way it was so now we're
22:22 down into some minutiae stuff there was
22:26 some other edits that 18t asked for in I
22:29 was 6 DC which didn't agree to those
22:33 either
22:34 I was putting my foot down conversation
22:38 about pre apps right now what we're
22:42 saying is you need to have a pre app and
22:48 one of the carrier's said well pre apps
22:51 are only required for level 2 in the IMC
22:54 and that's true but in central Issaquah
22:58 they're actually required period so
23:02 because this codes gonna be citywide we
23:06 figured we'd take the highest bar which
23:08 actually is central is upon not IMC it's
23:11 the confusion that we have like city
23:13 code that doesn't apply to certain parts
23:15 of the city so you know and really the
23:18 pre app isn't intended to be anything
23:21 other than an opportunity for staff and
23:24 the applicant to talk about the
23:25 application that's coming in so that we
23:27 can understand what they're proposing
23:29 and see if there's any quick things that
23:30 we can address so that maybe there when
23:34 they do bring their application in it
23:36 actually leads to more streamlined
23:39 processing on our part so we see it as
23:42 actually being positive number 10
23:47 t-mobile asked for us to add a
23:49 definition for unified camouflage it
23:53 seems to be a t-mobile specific term
23:57 which seemed like I didn't want to put
24:01 it in the definition section since it
24:02 was just relating to one carrier and
24:05 maybe I don't understand but it seemed
24:07 like that's there coined phrase so I did
24:11 not do that and then
24:15 the figure 1 there was concern over our
24:19 figure 1 which is the that kind of the
24:23 illustration of a pole that we would
24:25 accept and the intent is again it says
24:30 or is otherwise approved by the
24:31 designate official so it gives them one
24:34 example that they should know that they
24:36 should be able to get permitted but like
24:39 for example t-mobile says well our poles
24:42 look way better than that well great
24:44 then that shouldn't be a problem should
24:47 it you know so it's not it's not
24:49 intending to say it has to look like
24:51 that pole but it's saying that there's
24:53 at least one example that'll get you
24:55 through a permit but if you've got a
24:58 different pole that looks better than
25:00 that then I would hope you'd want to
25:02 bring it we're not trying to dumb down
25:05 the look of these things by any means
25:07 but it seemed like giving a visual
25:09 example it was a good choice so that's
25:13 you know there's some other little
25:14 things I went through all of their
25:17 second round of letters today I think I
25:22 captured most of it I did go into the
25:24 draft code and and did some of the edits
25:31 that were suggested but again they were
25:33 like there were definitional things they
25:35 were there were some suggestions on how
25:37 to make different paragraphs read better
25:40 so some of those things I did go ahead
25:43 and do and there that would be the
25:45 version of the code I'd want you guys to
25:48 approve if you get that far tonight so
25:51 that's that's that's my list of yeses
25:54 and noes I asked one clarification on
25:59 the front street so there is now the
26:02 wording new pole added to the issue that
26:07 one of the carrier's brought up last
26:10 time was because because we have a zero
26:15 setback on Front Street for buildings
26:17 right so if you put a an antenna on the
26:21 side of a building it's actually
26:23 overhanging the right away so the reason
26:27 why I put new
26:28 whole is to allow for that structure
26:32 mounted antennae to actually overhang
26:35 the right away which would be different
26:38 than somebody putting it on a new pole
26:40 so my my concern I guess about that is
26:44 that we have this example of these
26:46 decorative poles which we like to look
26:47 up in the example of extending that
26:49 which wouldn't be a new pole it would be
26:51 an extension so I would ask that that be
26:54 clarified that it's not only the new
26:57 poles but it's also the decorative poles
27:00 that are prohibited that's here new
27:10 poles municipal poles and decorative
27:13 poles so I you know I think let me think
27:20 about that a little bit Vikki just
27:22 ending is pole mounted rather than new
27:26 pole okay
27:45 I should being tracked changes I don't
27:47 know why that didn't work a show markup
27:53 well that looks a lot better all right
27:58 delete that
28:03 okay any other any other any other
28:09 things before you go to public comment
28:13 no we might want to come back to some of
28:17 this stuff yeah no absolutely absolutely
28:19 I'm not I'm not I'm here all night
28:26 I'll leave this one up just in case okay
28:30 so I thought I'm gonna open the public
28:32 hearing at 7 o'clock and the first thing
28:37 I want to do is add in to add into the
28:44 public hearing verbal comments received
28:47 on June January 24th from Richard Busch
28:55 in the white Atkins Matt Russo and Carol
28:59 got and again took me down to guy in
29:06 pretty cool and with that if amy who
29:12 AT&T would like to come up and speak
29:19 thank you for coming out tonight to hear
29:21 about this and thank you for all the
29:23 time I can tell you put into this to
29:25 educate everyone it is a new technology
29:30 so it takes a bit to get informed about
29:33 what's going on and how it impacts land
29:35 use in the city of Issaquah my name is
29:40 Amy Pellegrini and with the wireless
29:41 policy group representing AT&T we're
29:45 here tonight because 18t is responding
29:47 to the significant increase in the high
29:49 demand for the wireless services it
29:51 provides in the city of Issaquah I would
29:54 just like to highlight three main points
29:56 that we would like to see modified in
29:58 the proposed code changes we would
30:01 suggest that small cells are not
30:02 prohibited from any location listed in
30:04 the table in Subsection zero nine zero
30:07 point B and the draft that you have
30:11 tonight AT&T has gone through great
30:14 lengths to have several cell designs
30:16 blend into the existing environment so
30:19 that the Haida man can still benefit
30:21 service while preserving the character
30:23 of the existing environment we would
30:25 like the opportunity to work with staff
30:26 on design criteria and design reviews so
30:29 that we can meet the service demands in
30:30 all areas further as the owner of many
30:34 polls the city will be able to approve
30:36 designs before allowing any installation
30:38 with this in mind we would like to see
30:40 the small cell location table be
30:42 modified so that the prohibited column
30:45 is eliminated and/or merged into
30:49 discouraged secondly we would like to
30:52 address the category the elimination of
30:55 the macro cells as prohibited in Singh
30:58 single-family and duplex zones which is
31:00 a departure from the city's current code
31:03 as has been referenced tonight we do
31:07 think it is prudent to propose we don't
31:09 massage we do not everything is prudent
31:11 to propose any new changes to the
31:12 section which prohibits macro sites in
31:15 any zone as you mentioned before there's
31:18 different land types of uses in a
31:22 residential zone and sometimes it can be
31:24 more aesthetically pleasing to blend
31:28 into a church steeple or
31:31 something that's like on a water tower
31:33 I'm sure if they're all public
31:35 facilities and single-family zones yeah
31:39 we've had a site where the public the
31:42 water tank was right in between three
31:45 homes and that wasn't pleasant to look
31:47 at but someone's big huge backyard where
31:49 no one's gonna see it that went against
31:52 a freeway was where the actual residents
31:55 decided to put it so we just want to
31:59 make sure that you know with the macro
32:01 sights there's full design review and we
32:04 just wouldn't want to limit any options
32:06 there also with regards to small cell
32:11 siting and locations we would like to
32:13 see the alternative site analysis
32:15 evaluate existing polls within 100 feet
32:17 of the proposed new location the small
32:20 cell sites cover very targeted areas to
32:22 meet high demand for capacity in the
32:24 network and has limited availability to
32:27 relocate to alternative sites for
32:30 example an applicant for a new pool can
32:32 show that no existing pools within a
32:33 hundred feet or feasible options and we
32:40 just want to thank you for this
32:40 opportunity to share our comments and we
32:44 look forward to continue working with
32:45 you thank you
32:48 anybody else like to speak
32:58 good evening chair Pablo my name is Kim
33:01 Allen I'm with the wireless policy group
33:03 - but I'm here on behalf of Verizon
33:05 Wireless this evening thank you very
33:07 much for the opportunity to work with
33:09 your staff and to hear from us tonight
33:11 we do appreciate the collaborative
33:13 approach that's been taken to the code
33:14 to date and it is our goal to get a code
33:18 that is efficient for us and with but
33:22 which preserves and recognizes that the
33:23 community aesthetics here in the city of
33:25 Issaquah so that being said we have
33:30 looked at you know number of the shifts
33:32 that have gone on in the code and really
33:34 Verizon Verizon's just going to talk
33:38 about two of them I think tonight on the
33:40 residential piece though if we could
33:43 possibly have the opportunity to site
33:46 towers and non-residential uses such as
33:48 church properties and that sort of thing
33:50 we tend to that's where we drive our
33:54 sites anyway that would be the the site
33:57 of choice generally we would not site on
33:59 a single-family home in any way for a
34:03 variety of reasons not a tower and not a
34:05 small cell so but we do want to preserve
34:07 the opportunity to use non residential
34:09 uses that are present in residential
34:11 districts to to add another tower if
34:15 necessary as as I think your your
34:18 planning director said the population is
34:21 increasing the usage is increasing you
34:23 know our cell phones now which used to
34:26 be in the glove box in case you broke
34:28 down and needed to call somebody are now
34:30 the remote controls for our lives more
34:32 and more of the functions that we have
34:33 are being shifted to wireless from your
34:38 home heating to alarm systems to insulin
34:41 pumps that folks who are diabetic use
34:44 all of those things are making use of
34:46 our wireless network and that's why
34:48 we're coming in to add capacity
34:50 throughout really throughout the entire
34:52 region with respect to the code I think
34:55 that that Keith mentioned that one of
34:57 the things that was difficult for us was
34:59 in a batch of small cells and I think he
35:03 said 10 we did ask for 25 we can start
35:06 with 10
35:06 that's all right but to require that
35:10 they be within 500 feet of the next one
35:12 really defeats our purposes Verizon has
35:15 a two antenna configuration per pole and
35:18 two different sizes of radios the larger
35:21 radios go a longer distance and allow us
35:24 to use fewer poles in covering the area
35:28 that we need to cover and so to require
35:31 us to put them within 500 feet of each
35:33 other really minimizes the range that we
35:37 have we have range about between 500 and
35:40 1500 feet for some of these radios and
35:43 when we do that we can use for your
35:45 poles and put fewer things in the
35:46 right-of-way so that's our goal is to be
35:49 as aesthetically minimal as we possibly
35:53 can so I agree with the solution that's
35:55 being proposed that just removed the 500
35:59 foot contiguous requirement and leave it
36:01 at 10
36:02 I think Verizon would be fine with that
36:04 and we would also be able to deploy in
36:07 the manner that we've designed so that
36:09 we can minimize our impact on the right
36:11 away in Issaquah by using the strongest
36:13 radios we can to get the biggest bang
36:15 for our buck in our small cell network
36:19 as Keith said the other issue that's
36:23 really important to us is the to
36:27 eliminate the assignable right of
36:30 collocation to be held by the city these
36:32 poles that Verizon or any carrier would
36:35 place in the right-of-way
36:36 it's a city's choice that we would own
36:38 those poles you know some jurisdictions
36:40 require that you dedicate them to the
36:42 city and then they become there under
36:44 city ownership the city can decide what
36:46 to do with them these poles would
36:48 instead the ownership would be retained
36:50 by the carrier that builds it and what
36:54 we have proposed rather than have an
36:56 assignable right of colocation that the
36:58 city holds the city doesn't have the
37:01 ability or the expertise to determine
37:03 whether t-mobile's antennas and
37:07 equipment will be compatible with the
37:09 antennas and equipment that Verizon has
37:11 on the pole that they built that's just
37:13 beyond the scope of the city's expertise
37:15 and so to have the city choosing the
37:17 carrier that's going to go on the pole
37:19 without regard
37:20 to the scientific analysis that goes
37:22 into deciding whether colocation is
37:25 possible on a pole I think it I think
37:28 frankly exposes the city to some
37:30 liability potentially and creates a very
37:33 difficult problem for the carriers I
37:35 think that with macro sights we're also
37:38 required to to build it big enough to
37:40 co-locate on and the code says that you
37:43 should build it and you should allow
37:45 colocation and we would propose that
37:47 this code say the same thing that the
37:49 carriers either as a condition of the
37:51 lease agreement that we that we would
37:54 need to obtain to put a new pole in the
37:56 right-of-way or as part of the code that
37:58 it there'd be a condition of building a
38:00 new pole would be that you would build
38:02 it large enough for colocation and that
38:04 you would allow colocation if
38:05 technically feasible that's the language
38:07 that we're proposing that I think would
38:09 compel us to do the right thing although
38:12 I think we do it anyway
38:14 and because frankly a colocation offers
38:18 a revenue stream because that space that
38:20 you would that the second carrier would
38:22 occupy would be would be rental to the
38:25 carrier that built the pole so there is
38:27 an incentive to add a CO locator to your
38:29 Pole certainly but you want to make sure
38:31 it's not going to interfere with the
38:33 with the installation that you have for
38:36 your customers on that pole so that's
38:39 what we propose to just have an outright
38:41 requirement in the code that we
38:43 co-locate if technically feasible just
38:45 the same way we do for macro sites and
38:50 let me just check my notes and see if
38:52 there's anything else on Keith's list
38:55 one of the things that we that we are
38:58 going to going to try to talk to is the
39:03 municipal yawn poem poles we understand
39:05 public works is is not open to that at
39:08 this time we hope to change that and
39:11 just wanted to let you all know that in
39:13 other cities around the Puget Sound
39:15 region Verizon has been working hand in
39:18 glove with those cities to develop
39:20 designs in historic districts and
39:22 decorative areas of their cities where
39:25 they we design a pole that's acceptable
39:29 for them we have a pole that is that's
39:32 designed that
39:33 it's almost I think almost ready to go
39:35 in historic Spokane with their acorn top
39:40 lights with the swoopy arms that they're
39:43 on and we managed to design a pole that
39:45 that the city of Spokane thought was
39:47 compatible with that very distinct
39:50 historical design in the City of Seattle
39:53 Verizon has designed to pull for Pioneer
39:57 Square that passed muster for the
40:00 Seattle Historical Commission so we do
40:03 have some some great pole designers that
40:05 are working right now to try to give us
40:07 solutions in areas where cities have
40:10 spent an invested and visioned
40:13 particular look for a portion of their
40:15 city so what we're asking is that rather
40:18 than have it an outright prohibition if
40:21 we were to go on a municipal Eon Paul if
40:23 we were to ask that we would need to get
40:25 a lease from the city it's entirely
40:27 optional for the city to let us onto
40:30 municipally-owned pole or not or to
40:33 place a new pole in one of these
40:35 districts where where you have
40:38 decorative lights poles so I guess we
40:40 would we would ask that those be shifted
40:42 into the discouraged column rather than
40:44 outright prohibition to give us a chance
40:46 to show the city what we can do and if
40:49 the city says no that's just not good
40:50 enough that's fine but we would like the
40:53 chance to try as we have in other cities
40:55 so that we can bring small cell
40:58 technology and increase the data
41:00 capacity and the number of users that
41:03 can be on our network at one time in
41:05 areas historically where you have these
41:08 decorative poles they're areas where
41:09 there's pretty high traffic you have a
41:11 lot of people you have events that sort
41:13 of thing and it is a place where small
41:15 cells are needed so rather than an
41:17 outright prohibition we're asking you to
41:19 strongly discourage us unless we can
41:20 show you otherwise and give you an
41:23 acceptable design and with that again we
41:26 would like to thank you very very much
41:27 for taking up this technical topic and
41:31 helping us find a path forward in the
41:34 city of quoi to bring this new
41:36 technology and infrastructure to your
41:38 citizens and your businesses and your
41:40 visitors and with that I will be
41:43 available on that for questions if there
41:44 are any
41:45 and at the end of the meeting well thank
41:48 you would anybody else like to speak
42:01 Jennifer Taylor with Rekha consulting
42:04 I'm a site acquisition consultant for
42:06 Verizon and I'm actually the one working
42:08 on the East Ridge project which is the
42:10 ISO qua Pine Lake is Clough all-city
42:13 Road yeah sorry
42:17 so really the only item that I Kim did a
42:21 great job of running through everything
42:22 already but the only thing I wanted to
42:24 speak to you really was the the limit on
42:27 the 500 foot gap the East Ridge project
42:30 the first one that were we've just gone
42:32 through City Council for our franchise
42:34 the smallest gap between the seven nodes
42:36 we have there is five hundred and ninety
42:38 feet and the largest gap is about a
42:40 thousand feet and that simply due to the
42:43 placement of the existing poles and and
42:46 as Kim said the type of radios that
42:48 we're using that allow us to have that
42:49 that sort of distance so that project
42:52 alone would have to come in as several
42:54 seven separate applications with the 500
42:57 foot limit and I'm not sure that that's
42:59 a benefit to the city to seems to me it
43:02 would be nice to be able to review them
43:04 all sort of in a batch and not
43:06 necessarily have that separated just
43:07 because of the distance and and it also
43:15 sometimes the distance can come up if
43:18 we're trying to be selective about which
43:19 poles we're using we're trying to avoid
43:21 going right in front of windows or homes
43:24 sometimes we're looking for a little bit
43:26 more less invisible pole options and
43:29 it's nice to not have to be considering
43:32 is this gonna cause a delay in our
43:34 project because we're going to have
43:35 multiple applications that'll take
43:36 longer to get through it's just another
43:38 factor where it would be seems a little
43:41 bit simpler to treat it as one project
43:43 the way that we look we are looking at
43:48 with anybody else like to speak what
43:54 anybody else like to speak but that I
43:58 will close the public hearing at 7:15
44:01 and open it up for discussion do any of
44:07 you have additional questions I do and I
44:12 know address - I can go sit back down
44:15 the service providers and I don't
44:18 necessarily care why don't you find out
44:20 what the question is yeah before we
44:22 serve before you volunteer you mean I
44:24 want to step up my question deal that
44:32 the 500 feet seems to be a pretty
44:33 reasonable thing to eliminate my
44:37 question is how reasonable is 10 powers
44:41 if you're looking at a project - in
44:46 spand service what's the average number
44:51 that you look at is it 1 or is it 27 or
44:57 is it for the whole community and that's
45:00 what I don't know I'm not sure I
45:02 understand so if you're gonna do a we
45:04 talked about Gillman how long Gillman is
45:08 I know a couple miles at most if you
45:12 want to put a tower every 500 feet or
45:14 less than 500 feet would you be looking
45:16 at putting in a project that would be
45:20 just for that one neighborhood or would
45:22 it be for the whole downtown area I
45:25 don't understand what the mic you know
45:27 the numbers are sure and then Kim Ellen
45:31 from Verizon again just for the record
45:33 we would typically wouldn't when when
45:38 the RF engineers go and take a look at
45:40 what the need is in the capacity is they
45:42 they they kind of do it in a geographic
45:44 area they look at a neighborhood a
45:46 manageable chunk of a neighborhood and
45:49 then folks like Jenny go out and they
45:52 have a map of that area and they find
45:54 where the poles you know the RF
45:57 engineers give an idea of where they
45:59 need poles Jenny goes out and she finds
46:02 there pulls there that we can use takes
46:03 them back to the RF engineers who say
46:05 yes these will allow us to fill the gap
46:09 in capacity that we have in this in this
46:11 area
46:11 typically we what we have been seeing in
46:14 other cities that have been adopting
46:15 batching has been 20 to 25 or a lower
46:20 number with an option for the director
46:22 to approve up to 25 if it makes sense
46:26 sometimes we batch them by pull types if
46:30 we have a larger section that has two
46:33 types of polls one has light standards
46:35 and one has wood utility poles we might
46:38 batch the wood utility pulls all
46:39 together because they're all the same
46:40 and it makes it easy to review and in
46:43 that same larger geographic area then
46:45 batch the light standards because
46:47 they're all the same so there's a couple
46:49 of ways to slice this but typically the
46:52 cities that are adopting new wireless
46:53 ordinances now are settling right around
46:56 that 20 to 25 is the number that we're
46:58 seeing you could live with 10 if the 500
47:07 feet goes away I think we could at least
47:11 a start and you know codes can be
47:12 adjusted as this is a new technology and
47:16 a new process for everyone each city is
47:17 going to develop a process to do this
47:20 batch review and so we make it make me
47:24 makes more sense to say 10 and up to a
47:28 number with the at the discretion of the
47:31 Planning Department they may want to
47:32 build that in so you don't have to go
47:34 back for a code change but you can keep
47:36 it to tend to start to make it
47:37 manageable until you get your best
47:39 practices in place for this well I just
47:41 was curious if you had 10 and your
47:43 engineer comes and tells you we can
47:45 improve the system for let's talk let's
47:48 just pick all town as a location we can
47:52 improve it but we need to put in 17 yeah
47:56 with the city then mandate with this
47:58 proposal they'd have to do two sets of
48:01 permits yeah does that make sense
48:07 so I mean it does because you get double
48:10 fees but no so I think it does at the
48:16 beginning so part of it is there's gonna
48:18 be a huge learning curve for staff and I
48:21 think part of it for me 10 seems like a
48:24 manageable number to look at and look at
48:27 the impact on the street and you know
48:30 and especially if you're talking you
48:32 know if it's if it's 500 feet that's
48:35 that's almost a mile right that's almost
48:37 a mile of street frontage that you're
48:39 doing under one application and so I
48:41 think for for me that the ten number
48:44 seems like a good starting spot we may
48:47 very well get to a point where we all
48:50 think tens ridiculous and it should be
48:52 15 or 20 but I think that could be a
48:55 future iteration of the code once we
48:58 have more proficiency in doing the
49:00 permit review I think part of what I'm
49:02 worried about is because there's two
49:05 pieces to this one is you don't want to
49:08 create a bunch of bureaucracy and a
49:09 bunch of need for additional permits but
49:12 there's also this shot clock that I've
49:14 got still got to live with so as soon as
49:16 they bring an application and it's
49:17 ticking and we have to actually perform
49:21 and get it done by a certain amount of
49:23 time and so part of this you know is
49:26 we're gonna be slower at the beginning
49:28 as we learn you know planners are by
49:31 nature timid about making mistakes
49:35 because they tend to last for a long
49:37 time and so they're cautious they're
49:39 gonna be slow and so doing 10 seems like
49:43 a good scale for me and so I'm I would
49:48 advocate for leave it at 10 but I like I
49:51 said earlier I think the contiguous
49:53 piece it seems as we've talked about it
49:56 seems less relevant for me and
49:58 especially since our city is as small as
50:00 it is I have a couple of comments one I
50:06 I like 10 and I also like getting rid of
50:09 the contiguous 500 feet just or when we
50:12 get to that point the other one Keith
50:16 this was about the macro sites
50:19 and single family is there a there was a
50:23 request to include macro sights on
50:27 non-residential uses in single-family
50:29 zones is there a definition is there
50:31 already a definition anywhere and code
50:33 of non-residential use and what that
50:36 would be so creating a new no so right
50:42 now those single-family zones identify
50:45 you know obviously they allow
50:47 single-family houses right but they also
50:49 allow other things and depending on what
50:52 the zone is it will tell you what you
50:54 can and can't do there most of the
50:57 things that we have like water
51:00 reservoirs that would not be on a
51:02 single-family zone they would be on our
51:04 favorite community facility facility
51:06 zone but I'm gonna guess with you and
51:09 I'm looking I'm gonna phone a friend
51:11 I'm gonna guess with you most of those
51:13 single-family zones dual out churches so
51:16 you know if you know like a church
51:18 parking lot is somewhere that they would
51:21 want to put a macro tower and we think
51:24 that is the case we could go back into
51:28 the prohibited and put you know
51:31 single-family zones where single-family
51:33 is the existing land use so if it's a
51:36 non single-family use within a single
51:39 family zone and there are a handful that
51:40 are allowed in single-family that's not
51:43 residential that that that would that
51:48 could happen but you know it could be
51:50 like a bed-and-breakfast right we allow
51:51 bed-and-breakfast and single-family I'm
51:53 sorry I could actually pull up the code
51:55 and we could look at it so but there are
51:57 there are some things that are allowed
51:59 in single-family zones that are not
52:01 traditional single-family and so if we
52:04 do allow macro towers in non
52:08 single-family uses you know you could be
52:10 you know so you know okay your neighbor
52:12 now if you were next to a
52:13 bed-and-breakfast you know all of a
52:15 sudden it's like well there's there's
52:17 the macro tower there you know you know
52:20 but maybe that's worst-case scenario and
52:23 if you're next to a church maybe that's
52:24 fine but a church with a macro tower
52:26 maybe isn't as good so so maybe you know
52:31 I mean
52:31 I think we could we could probably if if
52:34 there's an inclination from PPC to allow
52:36 it in single family in non-residential
52:39 we can talk about what kind of
52:41 protection mechanisms we might want to
52:43 maybe add to that I was I was just
52:45 curious I didn't want to create
52:46 something that was overly complex but I
52:49 just I was I just had the question and I
52:51 may be curious I don't I I would be ok
52:53 with that and in non-resident juices
52:55 because it's allowed now trying to kind
52:57 of split the difference but I'd be
52:58 curious what the others have just think
53:00 about that the last thing I will say is
53:04 I'm a little nervous about the city
53:07 assignable colocation thing only because
53:10 they the carriers retain ownership of
53:12 the poles so it's so it's so ok to me
53:15 let me I'm not tracking on the concern
53:19 and so let me explain the way it is in
53:23 my head and maybe you guys will go oh
53:24 well then maybe that's not a big deal so
53:26 so I have a right right it doesn't mean
53:30 that I'm gonna make something happen
53:31 that doesn't want to happen it just
53:33 means that you know if if they have a
53:36 pole out there and whether it's t-mobile
53:40 or Sprint or Comcast or somebody comes
53:43 in and says you know what we want to put
53:45 a pole right across the street from that
53:47 I can say well have you looked at that
53:50 location and would that work for you and
53:52 then they might say yeah that would work
53:55 we'd have to put it here on the pole and
53:58 I'd say ok well they they have given us
54:02 an assignable right so I'm gonna I'm
54:04 gonna say you should you should talk to
54:06 them about leasing that space ok it's no
54:10 more than me connecting people together
54:13 right but at the end of the day if
54:15 there's a technical reason why it
54:17 doesn't work or a legal reason why it
54:18 doesn't work the city's not going to
54:20 mandate it you know it's just it gives
54:22 us the ability to say you should be able
54:25 to talk to them and you know they they
54:28 should let you there if you want to be
54:30 there that's that's a different thing
54:33 than putting it in code and saying you
54:35 know it should be co-located and they
54:37 should be able to talk to each other you
54:40 know it just it gives us more leverage
54:45 I have the question the lady from
54:48 Horizon raised the issue in regards to
54:52 difference between macro towers and
54:57 these small cells what a sign ability
55:02 are given to macro towers is it
55:05 different than what you're proposing a
55:07 small cell yes it's more of an
55:13 encouragement and not a requirement and
55:16 part of the reason why you know I'm
55:19 suggesting we dial this in a little
55:21 tighter is because of the number of
55:25 poles we're talking about and this is
55:26 again I don't know that any of us know
55:28 what this is going to ultimately look
55:30 like but if we have now four new sets of
55:34 poles every 500 feet marching down
55:37 Gilman because there's no colocation
55:42 that that's one potential outcome if I
55:46 can have that because now I've got two
55:49 providers on each pole is that better
55:51 the poles are bigger so this is a and
55:54 and Lindsey had sent a question in and I
55:56 think that you know it's a trade-off the
55:59 poles have to be bigger because you have
56:01 a vertical separation on antennas
56:02 they're probably gonna the diameter is
56:04 gonna be bigger to hold the additional
56:06 electrical and you know hardware up you
56:10 know and so but the problem is none of
56:13 us know what this is going to look like
56:15 and you know we don't have a crystal
56:17 ball so we're trying to make some
56:21 decisions to affect the outcome I think
56:25 in the community's favor and this is
56:28 this one's I think it's nobody has a
56:30 crystal ball that's completely debatable
56:32 you guys might say you know what we
56:34 should just take the smaller tower the
56:35 smaller poles you know maybe instead of
56:37 45 feet maybe they're 30 feet or 25 feet
56:40 now but I've got more of them maybe
56:44 that's better
56:45 it's a judgement thing and I don't know
56:49 that you know I don't know that any of
56:51 us know at the end of the day what this
56:55 is going to look like
56:56 until we get there so on that line of
57:00 thinking I do have concerns with the
57:02 idea of a 45 foot pole being added what
57:07 you've shown us there if you're looking
57:10 at the pictures of our poles are as you
57:13 said many of them are 15 or 20 feet to
57:16 be putting additional poles potentially
57:20 every 500 feet that are 45 feet tall
57:25 that's concerning to me you know so are
57:30 there any alternatives you know I think
57:39 what we know what we know is where
57:47 there's a situation now this guy on
57:49 Gilman I asked Lucy how did this go in
57:52 this thing's huge
57:53 so I believe that the new street lights
57:58 for Gilman when they do the streetscape
58:00 are gonna be are probably going to be
58:02 black shoe boxes but they're probably
58:04 gonna be down here around 15 to 18 feet
58:08 like most of our pedestrian scale
58:10 lighting this guy's this guy's a monster
58:12 you can put antennas on this thing and
58:15 not have to extend it but I don't think
58:18 that is where we're going in terms of
58:21 our future standards and so so your
58:24 question Lindsey so if this thing is
58:26 here and you have one of these guys down
58:29 the street here yes so this is you know
58:35 it's I think you you know I think we
58:39 have to take a step backwards and say
58:40 this is this is a piece of
58:43 infrastructure that our community wants
58:46 this is being this is demand driven I
58:49 think the carriers would tell you that
58:51 and so what we're trying to do is figure
58:54 out how do you put it in and try and
58:57 preserve the aesthetics to the best of
59:00 our ability you know if if you could get
59:07 colocation
59:09 and a poll this tall and get two
59:11 antennas on it and then the street
59:13 lights down here at half the size and
59:17 that happens every 500 feet one on each
59:23 side of the street two two carriers on
59:25 one side two carriers on the other you
59:28 know I don't know that we know yet I
59:32 mean I think the antennas need to be
59:35 where they need to be and they're either
59:37 going to be on a pole or they're going
59:38 to be on a building so my other concern
59:42 is with buildings there's a 15-foot
59:45 height allowed for the building mounted
59:48 small cell antenna when you're putting
59:51 it on roofs and things like that I would
59:54 love to see a picture of what that would
59:56 look like and what the requirements are
59:59 for kind of camouflaging that or any
1:00:03 requirements for coverage so so I
1:00:09 couldn't tell if your concern was that
1:00:10 15 was too tall or 15 was not going to
1:00:12 be taller at all okay so I think where
1:00:15 we're headed for like central Issaquah
1:00:17 is you know the height at which they're
1:00:22 gonna want to put their antennas are
1:00:24 probably not going to be roof mounted
1:00:26 they're probably gonna be sited building
1:00:29 because our hope is that most of our
1:00:33 buildings are gonna be you know five to
1:00:36 six to seven storeys tall I don't know
1:00:39 what's happening on Cleveland Street if
1:00:41 they're actually putting any on side
1:00:44 mounted building antennas if you want to
1:00:53 fair disclosure I just finished 11 years
1:00:56 on the Redmond City Council so I was
1:00:58 deeply involved in planning our downtown
1:01:01 renovation and renewal and when we went
1:01:03 when we the carriers went to the City of
1:01:05 Redmond they had an outright prohibition
1:01:07 on small cells in the Cleveland Redmond
1:01:11 white area where the big downtown park
1:01:13 is developing which didn't make sense
1:01:15 because that's where all the people are
1:01:16 and that's where all the people are
1:01:17 gonna go so the what we they have
1:01:20 decorative poles and actually some
1:01:23 decorative lighting that's in on the
1:01:24 Cleveland streetscape so we are
1:01:27 permitted to get attached to buildings
1:01:29 marquee signs we can attach to I think
1:01:32 Keith's reference the the the signs that
1:01:35 have the you know the flashing beacons
1:01:36 for walk we can integrate into those
1:01:39 really really well
1:01:41 in fact I'm going to send Keith a deck
1:01:42 of our ideas concept deck because we can
1:01:46 really integrate it into all of that and
1:01:48 then there are some blank pull options
1:01:51 decorative blank poles that don't have a
1:01:54 functionality like a light but that are
1:01:57 very decorative and very compatible with
1:01:59 just about any decorative theme that you
1:02:01 would have in the downtown so we're
1:02:04 looking at all those options we look at
1:02:05 parking lot lights as well that I think
1:02:09 the important thing is that we have a
1:02:10 path forward in these growing you know
1:02:13 cities where you're anticipating
1:02:15 significant redevelopment attaching to
1:02:18 the side of buildings is a little more
1:02:19 problematic first because a small cell
1:02:22 generally we want to get into those
1:02:24 buildings with coverage and if it's
1:02:26 mounted on the outside you lose a lot of
1:02:28 that and then you also lose the 360
1:02:32 piece of your directional antenna
1:02:34 because part of it is flushed up against
1:02:37 the building so it is not one of our
1:02:39 preferred locations the reason why the
1:02:41 pull option is so great is because you
1:02:42 can point them everywhere and you can
1:02:44 shoot them right where you know the
1:02:47 coverage needs are and the capacity
1:02:48 needs are but but I I know that the City
1:02:52 of Redmond rather than saying no way
1:02:54 said come to us we're going to do a
1:02:57 robust design review and ultimately it's
1:03:01 the city's call if they don't
1:03:03 if we haven't met their bar then we
1:03:05 won't be able to go there so Keith on
1:03:11 that idea sorry
1:03:13 I'd have to get up again regarding the
1:03:18 decorative poles or any of the areas on
1:03:22 Front Street or something like that what
1:03:26 what do you think would be the best way
1:03:29 to go forward on that if we feel like
1:03:32 they're gonna be able to show us
1:03:33 something that says they can probably
1:03:35 meet our standards to create a new pole
1:03:40 would you rather say yes it's gonna be
1:03:44 up to you know us you guys to do the
1:03:48 review or would you rather potentially
1:03:50 change the code later
1:03:52 so with front streets so Front Street
1:03:56 can be a little bit of a different
1:03:57 animal to some extent because we happen
1:04:02 to be updating that sub area plan and
1:04:05 it's gonna have some code amendments
1:04:07 later so we could so for me because we
1:04:13 haven't figured it out yet rather than
1:04:15 say yes you can do it and here's the
1:04:18 process I'd rather say no and come back
1:04:20 later and fix it because that's just a
1:04:22 code amendment you know what we could do
1:04:26 is we could put we you know if we if we
1:04:31 would rather not just have prohibited
1:04:33 next to Front Street we could put as
1:04:36 allowed by the old town sub area plan
1:04:40 because you know what's gonna happen
1:04:43 what we think is gonna happen is when
1:04:45 that old when the Old Town update gets
1:04:48 approved which we're hoping is this year
1:04:51 the next step will be to do additional
1:04:55 design code similar to what we did with
1:04:58 CIP and so we've talked about having a
1:05:02 consultant do that so if they were ready
1:05:04 at that time and that's hopefully like
1:05:07 no wood to actually knock on I'll wait
1:05:10 so you know my hope would be that maybe
1:05:14 eight months we might be ready to start
1:05:16 talking design guidelines for Old Town
1:05:18 and if they're ready to show us what
1:05:20 they think they can do on Front Street
1:05:21 we can always incorporate it into that
1:05:24 specifically so this code could
1:05:27 reference that code but that's just for
1:05:30 front street it happens to be for Old
1:05:32 Town because we've got that in process
1:05:35 that is a convenient way to deal with
1:05:36 that if you wanted to not just prohibit
1:05:38 it out right now and then just the last
1:05:44 thing I have listed here is someone
1:05:49 mentioned something about the legal risk
1:05:51 for the city for collocation is that
1:05:54 something that we've run past legal or
1:05:56 that we're going to pick through legals
1:05:59 in the room so if Daniel wants to talk
1:06:02 about that I'm more than happy to kind
1:06:06 of sit back down well my name is Daniel
1:06:17 Kenney I'm with Ogden Murphy so I work
1:06:19 with Jim Haney if you've worked with him
1:06:20 and so Ilana's on another attorney in my
1:06:23 office and myself I've been working with
1:06:24 Keith to do some review on this and I
1:06:28 think that the and I wanted to get the
1:06:31 jump to that section here real quick
1:06:32 I think colocation I don't want to get
1:06:39 into a legal analysis on the record here
1:06:42 there's more appropriate venue for that
1:06:43 we can provide you with resources and
1:06:45 responses to that I do think that we can
1:06:48 do some fine-tuning here definitely
1:06:50 understand and appreciate where keith is
1:06:52 coming from in terms of what the goals
1:06:54 are here and I think there's a way to
1:06:56 get there whether it's this language or
1:06:58 maybe a slight modification I would note
1:07:01 that on the small-cell the be the
1:07:05 section B it is encouraged to co-locate
1:07:07 so in order to get away from co-locating
1:07:10 they're going to have to show to the
1:07:12 designated person that they can't do
1:07:15 that colocation and one would presume
1:07:17 that that would be conversations with
1:07:20 that other poll owner and that poll with
1:07:24 the code that's written here would
1:07:26 to be co-located bold it has to be large
1:07:28 enough to so there's a spot that's there
1:07:32 because it's a new pole that has that
1:07:33 spot available on it and that person has
1:07:36 to go and talk to them in order to move
1:07:38 out of the encouraged to get their own
1:07:41 Pole so there are steps that Keith has
1:07:43 built in here that are going to make it
1:07:46 harder to not co-locate because of the
1:07:50 way it's structured but I do think that
1:07:52 there should be some language and the
1:07:54 way that Keith is doing this is to make
1:07:56 that as robust as we can do it but I do
1:08:01 think that there's some more
1:08:02 conversation to be out here
1:08:05 maybe I'm off-base but I think what
1:08:08 Lindsey is asking you in the way of
1:08:10 legal is if putting this small cell on a
1:08:13 pole that's owned by the city in the
1:08:17 right of that's already there is there a
1:08:20 legal problem with the city if there
1:08:22 something happens to that pole or that
1:08:24 oh I'm sorry
1:08:26 so maybe I misunderstood it wasn't what
1:08:27 I was saying but I think that's a valid
1:08:29 question so so yeah so the question that
1:08:33 you have is whether or not putting small
1:08:35 cell on a city-owned pole allowing it on
1:08:37 a city on pole house legal risk yeah
1:08:41 well everything is a little restraint it
1:08:44 already depends on how the lease is
1:08:45 written totally correct so so there will
1:08:50 be a lease in place for access to that
1:08:52 pole and we would write into that lease
1:08:56 everything that the city would want to
1:08:59 protect its interests
1:09:03 anything else I figured that I wanted I
1:09:08 get in there so I had a question that
1:09:14 was on the previous slide about the
1:09:18 Technical Review which was a change that
1:09:20 was made what what do they have to show
1:09:24 to demonstrate why they put a pole in a
1:09:28 certain place so if they wanted to put a
1:09:30 pole right in front of somebody's house
1:09:32 what what do they have to show to say
1:09:35 that that's a reasonable place and
1:09:37 that's the only place that they could
1:09:38 put that pole so I am this is definitely
1:09:43 not going to be my area of expertise so
1:09:46 we had drafted some language and you can
1:09:48 see it's all been struck through Daniel
1:09:51 has been working with at least one of
1:09:53 the carriers to come up with an
1:09:57 alternative so right now what it says is
1:09:59 network provider shall consider the
1:10:01 established preferences and shall
1:10:03 attempt to comply with as many encourage
1:10:05 criteria as possible discourage
1:10:08 locations may only be considered if the
1:10:10 network provider can demonstrate to the
1:10:12 satisfaction of a designated official
1:10:14 that each of the encouraged options have
1:10:16 been evaluated and eliminated so I
1:10:19 personally hate that because it puts
1:10:22 city staff at like this discretionary
1:10:25 spot of saying yeah that's they
1:10:28 convinced me right I mean this is just
1:10:30 this is that vague kind of language and
1:10:32 I'm not being I'm not being critical of
1:10:34 Daniel I think he was trying to
1:10:35 negotiate something with the carriers
1:10:37 but its staff you know this is one of
1:10:40 those you know give me boxes I can check
1:10:44 and I don't mean to say that word that
1:10:46 that blunt at the city but you know this
1:10:50 this puts the city in a place where I
1:10:53 can see us getting either contested by a
1:10:56 carrier because maybe what they brought
1:11:00 us we don't agree with but we don't
1:11:02 agree with it for maybe some kind of
1:11:05 like reasons you know and having to
1:11:08 having to try and I always think about
1:11:11 things in terms of applicants Appy
1:11:15 decisions right and so if if we've
1:11:18 denied something and they appeal that to
1:11:21 the Hearing Examiner I now have to go
1:11:23 defend why we denied it and this is the
1:11:27 only thing I'm going to point at and
1:11:28 this this doesn't feel really good for
1:11:30 me as someone who wants to not be
1:11:33 discretionary because I think when the
1:11:37 city is discretionary we put ourselves
1:11:38 in a bad spot so this is where it is
1:11:42 right now
1:11:43 Viki and you know if everybody says this
1:11:48 language is great if they say it's great
1:11:50 and our attorney says it's great then
1:11:52 this is probably what it'll be but I'll
1:11:54 just tell you my two senses this kind of
1:11:56 worries me a little bit so what's the
1:12:02 path forward there if we agree with you
1:12:05 and say we'd like more boxes that can be
1:12:09 checked in more detail in that so then
1:12:11 we asked our attorney to work on version
1:12:15 2.0 to get incorporated into the version
1:12:20 that goes to council that would be less
1:12:23 discretionary would that have to come
1:12:25 back to us after that or would it be
1:12:28 something where we would say we want
1:12:38 I mean if you give us clear direction on
1:12:43 what you want this where you want this
1:12:45 to go I don't I mean I would look to
1:12:48 Daniel to tell me if we have to have
1:12:49 another hearing if this changes I don't
1:12:52 know that it necessarily would have to
1:12:53 come back to PPC that hearing could
1:12:55 happen at the council there might be
1:12:57 some other changes that they make as it
1:12:59 goes through committee so I'll just
1:13:03 touch on that real quick I think that
1:13:05 the likelihood that there's gonna be a
1:13:07 change large enough to warrant another
1:13:10 hearing is that likely will happen at
1:13:13 some point in this process that's not a
1:13:16 given though so we'll just have to see
1:13:18 where the changes end up and whether a
1:13:20 hearing and whether that's gonna be in
1:13:21 front of Council on this language I
1:13:23 would say that generally speaking I
1:13:25 agree with Keith this is not ideal the
1:13:30 idea here was to get the city and the
1:13:34 proponent talking and to try to figure
1:13:37 out a solution go through everything and
1:13:41 encouraged and talk about why you can't
1:13:43 be there and likely at the end of it
1:13:46 they will have some sort of resolution
1:13:48 having something that you can have
1:13:50 definable boxes to check would be way
1:13:53 better particularly for the appeal
1:13:55 process because and I noted this when I
1:13:59 sent it over
1:13:59 if the designated official does say no
1:14:04 all the way till the end it could
1:14:07 somebody say that's been an arbitrary
1:14:09 decision and so like I totally get that
1:14:11 I would say that I have not heard of
1:14:14 another solution that really works and
1:14:18 that doesn't mean that we can't find one
1:14:19 and make one but if if we're looking for
1:14:23 check boxes you'd have to look at the
1:14:26 encouraged column and create a check box
1:14:28 for each one to say this is how you get
1:14:31 away from this element of encouraged and
1:14:34 I think we could do that I think you say
1:14:36 here are the four boxes one for each or
1:14:39 however many there are under encouraged
1:14:41 and if you're not going to do this you
1:14:44 need to show this I think that there is
1:14:48 probably some concern from industry that
1:14:51 there
1:14:51 things that make him come up that the
1:14:54 city wouldn't necessarily have the
1:14:55 expertise and so industry is just going
1:14:58 to say something and how would you know
1:15:01 and that's has enough no knock on city
1:15:04 staff at all they just may know better
1:15:07 whether or not those sites are going to
1:15:10 be feasible so so it this is a
1:15:13 challenging one and would certainly say
1:15:17 moving away from this is something
1:15:19 different is totally fine we're just
1:15:22 gonna need to brainstorm how that's
1:15:23 going to work for staff to make sure
1:15:25 it's workable and they understand it but
1:15:28 then also that it works in the long run
1:15:30 so okay well so why I why I brought it
1:15:35 up I think is similar to what Keith
1:15:37 expressed because but in the previous
1:15:39 version there was a technical evaluation
1:15:41 which I think to me means some more
1:15:45 specific boxes or some more specific
1:15:47 information to fill in and I think that
1:15:50 it would be good to be clear about what
1:15:53 they need to show to demonstrate why
1:15:55 they need to put this pole in front of
1:15:57 somebody's house for example and that
1:16:00 sort of thing so I think maybe in my
1:16:03 opinion going back towards the direction
1:16:05 of a technical evaluation would be what
1:16:10 I would be more comfortable with and
1:16:16 then I have a few other comments so on
1:16:19 Front Street the more I hear about these
1:16:23 small cells the more ideas come up like
1:16:25 the small cell on the blinking walk
1:16:29 towers and on different building
1:16:31 configurations and so I am in favor of
1:16:34 keeping the prohibit on Front Street
1:16:36 because I think that as the technology
1:16:38 develops there will be more and more
1:16:39 creative options and this is all about
1:16:42 polls and I I would like to see our
1:16:45 front street maintains the way it is and
1:16:49 its historic nature and I think that
1:16:51 there will be increasingly creative ways
1:16:53 to do that and so I would like to make
1:16:55 changes as that becomes more appropriate
1:16:58 and I appreciated that the promptly was
1:17:03 defined for safety
1:17:05 that was one concern I had I am however
1:17:08 not sure if 48 hours is a problem it is
1:17:12 prompt for a safety issue especially
1:17:14 because it says or secure the facilities
1:17:17 so I can understand that might take a
1:17:18 while to to remove it but especially to
1:17:21 secure it I think I would have hoped
1:17:24 that that they have a policy that if
1:17:28 there's a safety issue they send
1:17:30 somebody out as soon as they get the
1:17:31 call that would be my hope for safety
1:17:35 and I also appreciated the change that
1:17:38 it can be either the designated official
1:17:41 or the carrier that decides if something
1:17:43 is obsolete or damaged and then my last
1:17:50 comment is about the squawk Mountain
1:17:52 poles I think that they are a good
1:17:55 example probably of poles where if
1:17:57 somebody put some of these poles if
1:18:02 somebody put something on top I don't
1:18:05 know that anybody would notice but I
1:18:07 also in the very long term I sort of
1:18:09 have this vision of having under
1:18:13 grounded utilities and adding poles for
1:18:15 things is contrary to that and sticking
1:18:18 things on poles is also contrary to that
1:18:20 so I would just like to keep that in
1:18:22 mind and I think that that also speaks
1:18:24 to the colocation so that if we if we
1:18:27 have this if I have this ultimate dream
1:18:30 of undergrounding things than if we have
1:18:33 fewer poles to take stuff take equipment
1:18:37 off of that kind of would assist with
1:18:40 so I'm also in favor of the colocation
1:18:42 although perhaps with some modifications
1:18:45 as needed so Keith on that idea it those
1:18:51 poles on squawk are PSE m'd
1:18:54 right yes ok so if they decided to
1:18:57 underground it would be up to them to
1:18:59 negotiate with the carrier's
1:19:01 on something like that we don't have
1:19:02 anything where we would have carriers
1:19:06 coming on to a municipal Pole that we
1:19:09 would then want to
1:19:10 underground Joey so we've said no money
1:19:14 no municipal so so Vicky's brought up an
1:19:18 interesting you guys are are spooling on
1:19:21 an interesting thing that I hadn't
1:19:23 thought about so here we go we've got
1:19:25 these things and not all of them have a
1:19:28 street light on them
1:19:30 some of them are just power overhead
1:19:31 power poles right and so if they go in
1:19:35 let's say let's say there's no Cobra
1:19:38 head on this and it's just a power pole
1:19:39 and they go in and they put an antenna
1:19:41 up at the top if this property owner was
1:19:46 going to
1:19:48 let's just let's say that they're going
1:19:50 to now bulldoze their existing house and
1:19:53 put in a duplex with the city code would
1:19:56 say is you have to underground the power
1:19:58 along your street frontage all right so
1:20:00 now of a sudden you've got this antenna
1:20:04 up here and they're gonna now
1:20:07 underground the this from here and this
1:20:10 one's actually coming out of the ground
1:20:11 that's what that PVC is is it's coming
1:20:15 out from underground to this pole but it
1:20:18 would go then to the next pole
1:20:20 underground so you would at the end of
1:20:25 that project you would have all of your
1:20:28 you'd have your cable and your power
1:20:29 underground but they would have to
1:20:32 install a new pole for the antenna and
1:20:35 it would probably be I would assume at
1:20:38 the at the expense of the provider I
1:20:41 don't know I mean we're we're in a weird
1:20:43 place that I have really thought much
1:20:44 about but so what would happen is this
1:20:47 wooden pole goes away there's a new pole
1:20:49 that's probably about this tall that has
1:20:51 an antenna on top of it that's metal and
1:20:54 has like a box at the base okay so but
1:21:00 that's that's what would happen now on
1:21:04 this particular one so this one's a
1:21:06 little funky it's hard for me to tell
1:21:10 this one might have new it might be a
1:21:14 higher power overhead Pole
1:21:17 so we require under grounding of the
1:21:21 most basic electric but once it gets
1:21:24 above a certain point it gets kind of
1:21:27 cost prohibitive to put it on the ground
1:21:28 because you actually have to cool it so
1:21:32 so for this one with the streetlight it
1:21:36 would basically this thing would go away
1:21:39 and there just be a streetlight with an
1:21:41 antenna on top of it that's the outcome
1:21:43 if this guy ever redeveloped his
1:21:45 property so the owner of the pole can
1:21:49 make that decision that they want to put
1:21:52 in a smaller pole so the owner of the
1:21:55 pole so so right now there's so maybe it
1:21:59 was not clear so PSE likes their poles
1:22:02 so they they generally don't trade them
1:22:04 out but if this was a redevelopment
1:22:07 project it would go under grounded and
1:22:10 that would be a city requirement so the
1:22:12 replacement pole would be a in this
1:22:16 particular case because of the light
1:22:17 standard it would still be a PSE pole
1:22:20 with an antenna on top of it most likely
1:22:27 so if that property redeveloped PSE
1:22:31 would be required to put in a new pole
1:22:34 after the rest of the electric is under
1:22:38 grounded so the electric would go
1:22:40 underground because that's a requirement
1:22:41 of the city and then assuming we still
1:22:44 wanted a streetlight here maybe it's
1:22:47 serving a purpose there would be the
1:22:50 developer would pay PSE to put in a new
1:22:53 overhead streetlight pole to replace the
1:22:55 wooden one so it'd be a metal one and it
1:22:58 would likely not be that tall and then
1:23:02 they would put an antenna on top of it
1:23:04 oh and Daniel wants to say something
1:23:09 often times as well if there wasn't the
1:23:12 light on that pole and the primary
1:23:13 purpose of the pole was electrical and
1:23:15 that goes away a lot of times that pole
1:23:18 would go away and the franchise
1:23:19 agreement that the carrier has with the
1:23:22 city to go into the right-of-way would
1:23:24 say that if the primary purpose of that
1:23:25 pole no longer exists you have to leave
1:23:27 that Pole and then they would have to
1:23:29 find another location
1:23:30 sometimes it just depends on how that
1:23:32 languages but there is a franchise
1:23:34 agreement to be in the right-of-way that
1:23:36 would address likely this circumstance
1:23:43 anything else I had this long list of
1:23:47 questions which have already been
1:23:50 answered they're sweet it's easy there
1:23:54 were just two I appreciate the fact that
1:23:57 carriers and the city got together and
1:24:01 worked this out and it was negotiating
1:24:04 and and reasonable and I think it worked
1:24:08 out for both sides but I don't think
1:24:13 that putting it on paper you're going to
1:24:16 find every instance that it's going to
1:24:19 happen and so there's always going to be
1:24:22 as my neighbor here said a crystal ball
1:24:25 we don't we can't get in there and see
1:24:27 what problems are going to exist or
1:24:30 where they're going to come from or how
1:24:33 we like something or whatever so I know
1:24:36 there were there were a couple little
1:24:38 issues in the way of safety that I would
1:24:40 love to have it I in tuned a little bit
1:24:44 and there was we're not attorneys and so
1:24:51 I'm comfortable with the end result is
1:24:53 going to be the same it's just how the
1:24:54 attorney is going to be able to put it
1:24:56 into words and make sure it works was
1:24:59 there anything else that besides those
1:25:02 two issues that there was one some going
1:25:06 through my list I use my phone to take
1:25:08 notes tonight the single family for
1:25:13 macro and we kind of Troy kind of
1:25:16 brought up well what about you know if
1:25:18 it was a non single family use and I
1:25:22 guess the question for you all is right
1:25:25 now we have a prohibition for single
1:25:26 family we can you two leave that as is
1:25:29 or we can go back in and say you know
1:25:35 basically the single family use cannot
1:25:38 have a macro tower on it but a non
1:25:41 single family use in a single families
1:25:44 could its good might be I'm sure be more
1:25:47 out good elegant than that yeah I was
1:25:48 just cuz right now you can you can do
1:25:50 you can do macro in single-family you
1:25:53 can't now but so part of this is trying
1:25:56 to split the difference you know part of
1:25:57 this is when when when 505 was written
1:26:03 and this was so we're in the same place
1:26:06 we were with macros you know hey it's
1:26:08 common they're gonna you know who news
1:26:10 you know we didn't know how many macro
1:26:12 towers we were gonna have in our city
1:26:14 you know the worst case we were gonna
1:26:16 have like a hundred and it's like oh my
1:26:17 gosh you know and you know we just
1:26:19 didn't know and so what ended up
1:26:21 happening is you know right now I think
1:26:24 what we've heard from most of them and I
1:26:26 want to put words in their mouth is they
1:26:28 have coverage in our city this is about
1:26:29 capacity so the macro the addition of
1:26:32 macros you know will be to add both
1:26:36 coverage and capacity so new macro
1:26:38 facilities might be needed there is a
1:26:42 relationship between the small cell and
1:26:44 the macro cells and so you know so they
1:26:48 could need additional macro towers in
1:26:50 the city I don't think they know that
1:26:52 yet I have not heard them tell us that
1:26:55 they're planning more macro towers in
1:26:57 Issaquah right now and so and and
1:27:01 unfortunately we don't have something
1:27:03 like a conditional use process where you
1:27:05 could you could allow it via conditional
1:27:07 use which is an extra added you know
1:27:09 public notice and you make sure that
1:27:11 everybody gets a chance to say oh my
1:27:12 gosh this is horrible so it's kind of it
1:27:15 either either we allow it because it's
1:27:18 allowed now or we dial it back and say
1:27:20 you know what if they have to add some
1:27:21 more macro facilities you know maybe
1:27:24 when they know that they've got one and
1:27:26 it can't go anywhere but in a
1:27:28 single-family zone maybe at that point
1:27:30 we change the code I don't know I mean
1:27:32 you could go either direction it depends
1:27:34 on how how kind of restrictive you want
1:27:37 to be right now now we have to have a
1:27:42 motion tonight to to approve what the
1:27:46 city is presented with the changes and
1:27:48 the changes that we spoke about tonight
1:27:52 yeah and I understand that there's going
1:27:54 to be changes there's
1:27:55 any problems there's going to be
1:27:57 questions during the year can we put it
1:28:00 on the schedule so in a year 18 months
1:28:03 that it comes back to us so that we can
1:28:06 review it at that time sure I mean you
1:28:11 know I assume there's going to be some
1:28:13 things that are going on and it would be
1:28:15 I think it would be nice for the
1:28:20 carriers to know that we are in the
1:28:23 process of looking at it and we would
1:28:24 come back and discuss it and see if
1:28:27 there's any problems along those lines
1:28:30 do we have a group of permits sitting in
1:28:33 a basket someplace down waiting for this
1:28:36 decision to be made or is this is this
1:28:38 just for you know we're thinking this
1:28:41 might happen in the next six months
1:28:45 we're going to come to you guys with 10
1:28:49 so it might be a year from now when we
1:28:52 finally get all our design work done and
1:28:54 a reviewing this in a year might not be
1:28:58 worthwhile because nothing has happened
1:29:01 so I think we expect it will be there
1:29:04 will be permits in place in a year so
1:29:08 right now Verizon has their franchise
1:29:11 agreement for Issaquah Pine Lake
1:29:14 Issaquah Fall City so that's the first
1:29:16 application that got grandfathered in
1:29:18 because these weren't in place AT&T had
1:29:22 come in for kind of a pre pre pre app
1:29:26 and then they they kind of backed off I
1:29:29 don't know what's going on with them and
1:29:32 now I mean I had a bad way sorry did you
1:29:34 come up very good
1:29:35 cold medicines wearing off so that
1:29:38 they'll be back and Verizon has already
1:29:41 said their next deployment I believe I
1:29:44 want to put words in your mouth is East
1:29:45 Lake Sammamish East Lake Sammamish
1:29:48 Parkway
1:29:50 okay so they've got they've got a few
1:29:53 queued up and I haven't heard from
1:29:56 Sprint all hasn't come in yet I assume
1:30:01 they're coming in at some point too and
1:30:03 t-mobile I'm not sure where they are
1:30:07 in looking at Issaquah obviously they
1:30:10 participated in the last meeting but I
1:30:14 don't know yeah so I think I think in a
1:30:18 year from now I would expect we would
1:30:20 actually have gotten some mileage out of
1:30:22 this code okay okay
1:30:26 a my only concern with the whole thing
1:30:29 is to have six or seven different
1:30:32 carriers with six or seven different
1:30:34 different poles everywhere in the city
1:30:38 although I did drive down SR 900 next to
1:30:44 the fence at station and there are a lot
1:30:47 of poles on both sides and you know
1:30:49 after a while you don't even notice them
1:30:51 and they were you know they're
1:30:54 attractive they're nice they weren't
1:30:56 derogatory to the scenery so maybe
1:31:00 that's our future
1:31:01 so with that I need are you ready to
1:31:04 make the vote on this well we have said
1:31:07 we're gonna eliminate so we're gonna
1:31:09 eating that contiguous 502 gap and just
1:31:12 going with five every being that so what
1:31:15 I heard was you guys are gonna get rid
1:31:18 of the 500 feet for contiguous and you
1:31:21 also would like the city attorney to
1:31:24 continue to work on the technical
1:31:26 evaluation piece to have it be a little
1:31:29 bit more predictable less discretionary
1:31:31 for staff and safety I think 48 hours is
1:31:35 a little bit much if you could start
1:31:36 good you guys have a suggestion on
1:31:39 promptly if there's an emergency
1:31:41 technical issue something not to remove
1:31:44 it right to dial it down due to security
1:31:47 Nate that is it yes absolutely
1:31:52 I think it's normal Kim Allen for
1:31:58 Verizon each of the small cells has
1:32:01 a power disconnect on it where anyone if
1:32:05 there was a pole strike you can shut off
1:32:07 our equipment so our equipment is is is
1:32:10 not live or active in the event that you
1:32:13 have something like that happen
1:32:15 certainly we we know right away an alarm
1:32:18 goes off at Verizon if there's something
1:32:20 that happens to that equipment and we
1:32:22 would dispatch someone 24 hours if
1:32:25 possible that that sounds Jennifer oh
1:32:30 I'd have to go back to Verizon and see
1:32:32 if that's what's feasible and what's
1:32:35 possible I know we'd we'd head out there
1:32:37 as soon as we could yeah yeah I can I
1:32:51 can get you that information Keith if
1:32:53 it's if it's possible if whatever but I
1:32:55 think it is a concern so okay so the
1:32:58 third one would be we will look at
1:33:00 trying to narrow that window from 48
1:33:04 hours to something less but we'll make
1:33:07 sure that the carriers are okay with
1:33:09 where we're at okay my other concern is
1:33:13 still the 45 foot poles I don't know if
1:33:17 there's anything that we can do about
1:33:18 that but the idea of a lot of 45 foot
1:33:22 poles down Gilman Boulevard or anything
1:33:25 I I still have a little bit of a problem
1:33:27 with that so this so some of this is
1:33:30 gonna be and to John's point earlier I
1:33:34 mean in a way all of our Street scapes
1:33:38 are getting filled with things and right
1:33:40 now you know is a Klaus prided itself on
1:33:44 keeping our sign code really tight so
1:33:47 that we don't have a ton of signs I mean
1:33:49 you know I think one of the things
1:33:50 that's nice about this community is our
1:33:52 Street scapes are fairly uncluttered and
1:33:56 I hate to say that there might just need
1:33:59 to be a couple canaries before we decide
1:34:01 whether you know 45 feets the wrong
1:34:04 number I mean so if they end up going
1:34:07 down East Lake Sammamish and we see a
1:34:09 bunch of 45 foot tall new poles because
1:34:11 they can't convince the city to put them
1:34:13 on top
1:34:14 they're poles then maybe that either
1:34:16 changes the prohibition on municipal
1:34:19 polls or maybe we decide that you know
1:34:22 what what we'll roll the dice against
1:34:24 colocation and maximize the pull hide it
1:34:27 at 30 feet or 25 feet you know so I
1:34:30 think I mean I hate to say that we're
1:34:34 gonna might have to test it test drive
1:34:36 it a little bit which goes maybe back to
1:34:38 Jones suggestion earlier let's look at
1:34:40 this in a year let's look at take some
1:34:42 photos of the streetscape and see what
1:34:43 it actually looks like in the field and
1:34:45 then if we feel like we might have drawn
1:34:47 the line in the wrong space we can maybe
1:34:49 retool okay anybody else yeah that case
1:35:03 iMovie rate we recommend the City
1:35:05 Council approve the proposed code
1:35:06 amendments to IMC 18 point oh seven
1:35:10 point five oh five as presented this
1:35:12 evening and as we have talked about
1:35:14 amending with consideration of the
1:35:16 testimony provided both in writing and
1:35:18 before the ending policy commission a
1:35:25 second second
1:35:27 any more discussion all those in favor
1:35:31 say aye aye opposed motion carries
1:35:40 so anything else that you guys want to
1:35:44 talk about no next time on next Thursday
1:35:51 we're in the Eagle Room 10 pointing in
1:35:55 the right direction in the police
1:35:56 station some of us are in the Eagle run
1:35:58 some of us are not that's true some of
1:36:00 us are not in the Eagle room but this
1:36:02 group is in the Eagle room with the park
1:36:04 board and the task force talking about
1:36:06 the green necklace and the visions your
1:36:09 packet will be mailed out tomorrow
1:36:11 because we're just I know that we have
1:36:16 scheduled every Thursday for the month
1:36:18 of February I just hope that you all can
1:36:22 come because we want to finish this
1:36:25 vision process and hopefully we only
1:36:28 need one meeting with parks so that we
1:36:30 can spend the time we need on the vision
1:36:36 that I want to say is I hope you all
1:36:40 fill out your applications and on the
1:36:43 visions you guys don't care but on the
1:36:46 visions if you guys I would assume is
1:36:50 there a value to get them like earlier
1:36:54 than just the week before the next PPC
1:36:58 meeting for the 15th you mean yeah the
1:37:01 next one because we could probably get
1:37:03 them to you next week
1:37:04 so so my goal would be for the the
1:37:08 beginning of the story to not actually
1:37:10 talk about that anymore but to have you
1:37:12 guys just read line so now we're down to
1:37:14 like wordsmithing right and that would
1:37:16 be better for you guys to do and just
1:37:19 send me back scribbles and you know I
1:37:21 can incorporate those that's pretty easy
1:37:23 but to have a spend our times actually
1:37:26 on the neighborhood's
1:37:26 because that's really where we need to
1:37:28 get to so if that would be helpful for
1:37:31 us to get that to you so you can start
1:37:33 going through that and redlining earlier
1:37:37 we could probably get that to you this
1:37:39 week next week yeah this week's almost
1:37:43 over but yes sorry I'm a little dumb I'm
1:37:46 a little bit because that was 15th on
1:37:48 the 15th it's totally on the visions
1:37:50 again not the green necklace what's the
1:37:52 one next week
1:37:53 the green necklace with the park board
1:37:54 that's the eighth where the work on the
1:37:58 back I'm putting an agenda on because it
1:38:01 keeps changing so I'm trying to keep the
1:38:03 schedule up to date I would like to keep
1:38:05 the 28th do have a review of all of the
1:38:13 pieces that we've gone over not to
1:38:18 discuss them but just to make sure that
1:38:20 these are the high points and this is
1:38:22 how it fits into the vision do we need
1:38:26 so many parking spaces do we need
1:38:29 whatever to meet what we've created in
1:38:32 the vision so that is what I would like
1:38:36 on that that's the day that we're
1:38:40 supposed to sign off on the vision I
1:38:42 would like to make sure we have that ok
1:38:44 ok and I'll mention two parks that we're
1:38:47 hoping to either not have to meet with
1:38:51 the 22nd or meet very shortly with them
1:38:54 on the 22nd we're hoping to wrap
1:38:55 everything up with that with the park
1:38:57 board on the 8th basically all we need
1:38:59 is a the general better idea of where
1:39:03 the green network is going to go right
1:39:05 we don't have to know the implications
1:39:08 of the various neighborhoods or the
1:39:10 reason why it was put together because
1:39:13 it might change right but we just wanted
1:39:16 to have something more than the necklace
1:39:19 with green balls that was right in there
1:39:21 right we'll do our best to get the time
1:39:24 schedule okay with that
1:39:27 hearing nothing for the good of the
1:39:29 order I close the meeting at 8:11 thank