Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, January 24, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.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 2019 – Joan Probala land use documents. 2020 – Ron Faul 2020 – Troy Rahmig Membership 2022 – Joy Lewis The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Vacant seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2022 – Bill Rinehart several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2022 – Lindsey Walsh 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, 2020 – AJ McGauley see IMC 18.03. 2020 – Vacant 2020 – Jason Voiss 2020 – Vacant

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of December 13, 2018 9 - 16 2019 Docket of Issaquah's a) Comprehensive Plan Amendments, (D)

Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Emily Arteche, Senior Planner · packet pp.5–8

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:11 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

could be brought back to PPC for more

Proposed Amendments to IMC 18.22 Wireless Communication Facilities, (D)

Keith Niven, Development Services Director · packet pp.17–38

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 23:54 Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

The proposed amendments to IMC 18.22 Wireless Communication Facilities are intended to comply with an order issued by the US Federal Communications Commission related to deployment of small cells and other wireless infrastructure within the City.

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Presentation - Issaquah Sign Code Update: Scope, Process and Public Outreach, (I)

Emily Arteche, Senior Planner · packet pp.39

Open packet at p.39 ↗

Staff report:

2015 United States Supreme Court case (Reed v. Town of Gilbert) provided direction to all cities, towns and counties regarding sign regulations, particularly for temporary signs, including content and freedom of speech. Issaquah is required to comply with the Supreme Court ruling and is undergoing a sign code update in 2019. While amending the code to comply with the Supreme Court case, this update will also consolidate the City’s various sign codes into one document for ease of use by the business community, the public and City staff. The consolidation includes sign regulations found in the Issaquah Municipal Code, Olde Town Design Standards and the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards.

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.41

▶ Watch from 1:44:05 Open packet at p.41 ↗

2240 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ okay good evening welcome to the policy

0:16 ↗ and planning commission meeting today

0:18 ↗ for January 24th 2019

0:22 ↗ today we have three agenda items who are

0:27 ↗ going to be public hearings with

0:29 ↗ recommendations and then the third is

0:31 ↗ going to be a proposal and those

0:34 ↗ subjects are the first one is going to

0:36 ↗ be the 2019 docket a proposed

0:39 ↗ comprehensive plans and amendments

0:43 ↗ second line item here is going to be

0:47 ↗ proposed amendments to the IMC 18 dot 22

0:51 ↗ wireless communications facilities and

0:54 ↗ then the third agenda item tonight is

0:56 ↗ going to be the sign code update project

0:59 ↗ and that is informational first order of

1:03 ↗ business today is to go ahead and

1:04 ↗ approve the meeting minutes from

1:07 ↗ December 13th 2018 I'd like to move to

1:11 ↗ approve the minutes from December 13th a

1:13 ↗ second second big all in favor aye

1:17 ↗ okay motion carries

1:20 ↗ or night motion carries minutes are

1:23 ↗ approved and we will go ahead and go to

1:25 ↗ our first agenda item and tris Happy New

1:31 ↗ Year it's the docket time again

1:36 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments I know you

1:38 ↗ think you just finished with last year's

1:41 ↗ and you did and now it's time for the

1:44 ↗ 2019 and so the processes you recommend

1:49 ↗ the established list to council they

1:51 ↗ establish the list and then we start

1:53 ↗ working on all the amendments and we

1:55 ↗ bring them to you at the end of the year

1:57 ↗ and you make a recommendation to Council

1:59 ↗ and then we start over next year so you

2:02 ↗ guys are good at this we do this every

2:04 ↗ year it's a smaller docket this year you

2:07 ↗ may have noticed because we have a lot

2:09 ↗ of other projects in the pipeline for

2:11 ↗ you all so we tried to scale back if

2:16 ↗ that's possible with you all four of

2:19 ↗ them are annual amendments the

2:21 ↗ Transportation

2:23 ↗ six year plan that you do every year the

2:26 ↗ population and household projections

2:29 ↗ update that we get from the state the

2:31 ↗ update to the job targets all those

2:33 ↗ annual pieces that we do and there's a

2:35 ↗ couple of new ones as you recall from

2:39 ↗ the parks strategic plan last year they

2:41 ↗ had on their work plan that they're

2:43 ↗ going to be updating the tree canopy and

2:45 ↗ when they get the information back from

2:47 ↗ their work on the tree canopy it will

2:50 ↗ come to you to see if we need any

2:51 ↗ different policies or different targets

2:54 ↗ for the comprehensive plan policies that

2:56 ↗ we have on the tree canopy that's going

2:58 ↗ to be a fun one

2:59 ↗ also the mountains to Sound Greenway we

3:02 ↗ have some real general policy direction

3:06 ↗ in that and we want to strengthen that a

3:08 ↗ little bit so it's it speaks more to our

3:10 ↗ support for that area so that's listed

3:13 ↗ it's also in the land-use element so far

3:17 ↗ we have one community facility parcel

3:21 ↗ that needs redesignate in this year but

3:23 ↗ so far we've only we only have one so

3:25 ↗ we'll keep you posted on that if we're

3:28 ↗ we have questions out to the Parks

3:30 ↗ Department public works engineering and

3:33 ↗ ops to see if they purchased any that

3:37 ↗ that we need to change the zoning for so

3:38 ↗ we'll keep you apprised of that the

3:42 ↗ centralized co-op plan you've probably

3:45 ↗ heard that we're updating we call it

3:47 ↗ overhaul title 18 which is the land use

3:50 ↗ code and if there's any pieces that fall

3:52 ↗ out of that that have to be cleaned up

3:54 ↗ in the central plan we're putting this

3:57 ↗ on as a placeholder just so we're able

3:58 ↗ to do that when we need to our work on

4:02 ↗ the water plan last year that you so

4:05 ↗ diligently looked at all the new

4:07 ↗ policies we're thinking of combining

4:09 ↗ part of the utilities and public

4:12 ↗ services plan element with the capital

4:15 ↗ facilities element of the comp plan

4:17 ↗ because there's a lot of overlap on how

4:19 ↗ they talk about provisions that the city

4:21 ↗ provides so we're thinking that the comp

4:24 ↗ plan could be more efficient if we

4:25 ↗ actually merge some of those sections

4:28 ↗ and only say them once in the plan so

4:30 ↗ we're gonna we're hoping to do that this

4:32 ↗ year we're going to talk about the

4:34 ↗ treasurer's you all had mentioned

4:36 ↗ you want to talk about the treasures

4:38 ↗ we're not sure exactly what that's gonna

4:40 ↗ look like so we're gonna have you help

4:42 ↗ us with that and then again the capital

4:45 ↗ facilities element update the level of

4:47 ↗ service which should be farther along

4:49 ↗ with the fire impact fees police general

4:52 ↗ government rate studies and maybe even

4:54 ↗ parks by the end of the year so we can

4:56 ↗ amend that element and the top nine

5:00 ↗ those are the ones the administration is

5:02 ↗ recommending we do yes sir the sort of

5:10 ↗ the treasures those aren't currently in

5:12 ↗ planters are currently and they've been

5:14 ↗ in since 1993 okay so what would the

5:18 ↗ update be just um we're gonna look at

5:20 ↗ them again and see do we still need the

5:21 ↗ treasures how do you feel about the

5:23 ↗ treasures how do you want to use the

5:24 ↗ treasures it's sort of it's gonna be

5:26 ↗ sort of a philosophical conversation

5:28 ↗ with you all first they are fabulous so

5:32 ↗ it's a fabulous list if you haven't

5:33 ↗ looked at him recently I've seen the

5:35 ↗ list but I was it says it said knew him

5:37 ↗ in there for a second I thought it was

5:39 ↗ because they weren't yeah we haven't

5:40 ↗ done we haven't touched him since 1993

5:43 ↗ what would be an example of a treasure

5:45 ↗ oh there's 35 of them the Salmon

5:48 ↗ Hatchery Pickering farm the mist in the

5:51 ↗ mountains they're natural and physical I

5:56 ↗ mean they're there they're a plethora of

5:58 ↗ items that the community felt in 1993

6:01 ↗ were valuable pieces of our community

6:04 ↗ that when we grew in 20 years it was the

6:07 ↗ first thing we did for growth management

6:09 ↗ they wanted to be sure we still had

6:12 ↗ those when we grew in 20 years so that

6:14 ↗ was sort of move on to see what made us

6:16 ↗ special so that was the first step makes

6:18 ↗ is the clock is a clock yeah it's pretty

6:21 ↗ fun less it puts the claw and it's a

6:23 ↗ claw it's the church I have a few

6:26 ↗ questions I know the green necklace plan

6:29 ↗ has some elements that would kind of fit

6:32 ↗ into the transportation element around

6:35 ↗ you know paths and things like that do

6:38 ↗ we need to call that out in proposed

6:41 ↗ amendment one transportation element or

6:43 ↗ I think we're thinking most of the green

6:46 ↗ necklace piece is going to be in the

6:48 ↗ land-use code update

6:49 ↗ because it'll be it'll probably be

6:51 ↗ Street standards trail segments we might

6:54 ↗ need a new trail segment or two new

6:56 ↗ trail segments but we're thinking all of

6:58 ↗ that is mostly implementation since the

7:01 ↗ the bulk of the policy direction went

7:04 ↗ into the strategic plan of parks when

7:06 ↗ you guys help with that

7:07 ↗ so we're thinking now we just need to

7:09 ↗ get it in code to implement it okay and

7:11 ↗ then I know we're going to talk about

7:13 ↗ sign code this year yeah that need to be

7:16 ↗ listed um that's not really a

7:19 ↗ comprehensive plan piece that's

7:20 ↗ certainly in the land use code then a

7:23 ↗ right perhaps a plan okay right got it

7:24 ↗ but yeah that's gonna be some fun to

7:26 ↗ have a question also yes for her point

7:29 ↗ what's the difference between

7:30 ↗ non-motorized routes route maps updated

7:34 ↗ reflective da's and other potential

7:36 ↗ citywide changes compared to the green

7:40 ↗ necklace because it isn't the green

7:42 ↗ necklace a non-motorized route

7:44 ↗ non-motorized routes generally are those

7:48 ↗ that you would use not as recreation you

7:51 ↗ could use them for recreation but

7:53 ↗ they're there to get from point A to

7:54 ↗ point B they're not necessarily

7:59 ↗ recreational and so this set of

8:01 ↗ improvements some of them are on

8:03 ↗ development agreement Maps now that

8:06 ↗ we've talked to the applicant that you

8:08 ↗ know the master builder and said you

8:10 ↗ know your community has to have this

8:11 ↗ this and this and then they connect back

8:13 ↗ out to the city plan so they have to

8:17 ↗ connect and so we want to be sure that

8:18 ↗ once we're like with talus and

8:21 ↗ Highland's those were switched last year

8:25 ↗ those were not route the apps that have

8:27 ↗ renewed we got rid of those two

8:29 ↗ development agreements and now we have

8:30 ↗ code we want to be sure that all the

8:32 ↗ development agreements and all those

8:34 ↗ non-motorized pieces that are in them

8:36 ↗ and fit to ours are actually all in the

8:39 ↗ Comprehensive Plan not just our part of

8:41 ↗ it so that anyone looking at our plan

8:43 ↗ could see the continuum of the non

8:46 ↗ motorized route that we're wanting some

8:48 ↗ of it would be our provision some would

8:50 ↗ be the applicants provision that makes

8:52 ↗ sense yeah thanks for the clarification

8:54 ↗ because right now they're in two places

8:55 ↗ and we would like it all in one any

9:00 ↗ other questions on the nine that we're

9:02 ↗ proposing

9:03 ↗ and there's just one the tenth one that

9:06 ↗ is sort of perennial e on there someday

9:08 ↗ we want to get back to the standards for

9:11 ↗ sustaining places but but not this year

9:15 ↗ tonight is your public hearing and

9:17 ↗ discussion on the nine all on the ten

9:19 ↗ and then if you're comfortable to make a

9:22 ↗ recommendation to council that would be

9:24 ↗ great any other questions so we're just

9:26 ↗ recommending that this is the stuff that

9:28 ↗ we should cover right because the state

9:30 ↗ only allows us to amend the comp plan

9:33 ↗ once a year so we established the list

9:35 ↗ so that let's say in July some one comes

9:38 ↗ up and says hey we got a comp plan

9:40 ↗ amendment we want you to do that would

9:42 ↗ have to go on next year's any other

9:46 ↗ questions before we open it up there you

9:51 ↗ are

9:51 ↗ did you want to

10:09 ↗ [Music]

10:15 ↗ okay I will close public hearing then

10:18 ↗ and then do we but uh let Mariupol you

10:23 ↗ speak what if you do you feel

10:25 ↗ comfortable that you can finish this one

10:26 ↗ or do you want to take a little break

10:28 ↗ from the docket and hear the mayor and

10:30 ↗ then go back to the docket it's up to

10:31 ↗ you gonna speak on the docket well maybe

10:41 ↗ we should just wrap with the docket

10:42 ↗ where well well Ron it's on it we'll

10:44 ↗ wrap up with the doctor okay good I

10:50 ↗ don't have any comments I think I think

10:52 ↗ yeah I think we I think we just peppered

10:53 ↗ you with our questions I would like to

11:04 ↗ move to approve the 2019 docket for the

11:07 ↗ proposed comprehensive plan amendment a

11:10 ↗ second second no sorry yeah sorry I did

11:16 ↗ think of one question can you briefly

11:18 ↗ speak to for item number one how does

11:21 ↗ how did sighs how does that relate to

11:23 ↗ the work that the new transportation I

11:26 ↗ call the Commission but that the

11:29 ↗ advisory board is the work they're gonna

11:31 ↗ do going to impact this iteration of the

11:35 ↗ tip or they more looking forward towards

11:37 ↗ next year I'm just curious by later I'm

11:40 ↗ not sure I know you're gonna be working

11:41 ↗ on the master mobility plan but I'm not

11:43 ↗ sure what other pieces you're going to

11:45 ↗ be working on I'll tell you the truth

11:46 ↗ all right okay I'm sure we've covered

11:50 ↗ whatever it is in the gonna plant piece

11:54 ↗ hopefully all rights a little backtrack

11:56 ↗ do I hear a second second Hey all in

12:00 ↗ favor aye

12:01 ↗ oh do we need to say just one through

12:05 ↗ nine or was that it would be helpful

12:07 ↗ just okay make it on the record I would

12:10 ↗ like to amend my motion to clarify

12:14 ↗ amendments one through nine will be

12:16 ↗ covered in 2019 does our second degree

12:20 ↗ what

12:22 ↗ all in favor aye

12:24 ↗ motion carries for the 2019 docket of

12:28 ↗ proposed comprehensive plan amendments

12:30 ↗ perfect I'd like to invite the mayor up

12:33 ↗ to to just say some wonderful things and

12:36 ↗ get out of the docket so it doesn't

12:42 ↗ Thank You Trish my name is Mary de Polly

12:45 ↗ I'm the mayor of the city of Issaquah

12:48 ↗ and I want to thank Trish for my

12:49 ↗ patience there are a lot of things going

12:51 ↗ on in town tonight there is some

12:53 ↗ strategic plan deep dive meetings going

12:56 ↗ on and I'm trying to run between the

12:58 ↗ different buildings so I apologize that

13:00 ↗ I'm late I just wanted to come tonight

13:02 ↗ and say thank you to all of you for

13:04 ↗ volunteering for the city and the

13:06 ↗ Planning Policy Commission I think we

13:08 ↗ don't come out often enough and face to

13:10 ↗ face to talk with you and say thank you

13:12 ↗ for the work that you do the Commission

13:14 ↗ is actually 35 years old this planning

13:18 ↗ policy advisory board it advises both

13:22 ↗ the mayor and the council providing

13:23 ↗ guidance and direction for Itzik West

13:25 ↗ future growth most of the work that you

13:27 ↗ do has to do deal with the city city's

13:30 ↗ comprehensive plan and any other rate

13:32 ↗ related land-use documents so you are a

13:36 ↗ bit of our research in fact-finding

13:38 ↗ group that helps us constantly think

13:40 ↗ about how we're growing if we're growing

13:43 ↗ in the right way and how we'd like to

13:44 ↗ change it and I'm not sure if the public

13:46 ↗ realizes that you are volunteers that

13:49 ↗ you are unpaid that you have given up

13:51 ↗ your private time your family time

13:53 ↗ social activities to spend evenings with

13:58 ↗ our staff listening to the information

14:00 ↗ and having thoughtful conversations

14:01 ↗ about how we want to grow how we want to

14:03 ↗ grow I think it's also probably not

14:07 ↗ apparent to many members of the public

14:08 ↗ that while you're sitting here and and

14:10 ↗ being thoughtful and having

14:11 ↗ conversations tonight you had to do your

14:13 ↗ homework beforehand and so one of the

14:15 ↗ things I really appreciate is the amount

14:17 ↗ of time that you spend in reading the

14:18 ↗ materials that staff prepares asking

14:21 ↗ follow-up questions and really being

14:22 ↗ ready when you come tonight to have a

14:24 ↗ great debate so on behalf of our

14:27 ↗ community I want to thank you for all of

14:29 ↗ your service and all that you do we have

14:32 ↗ in the past done

14:33 ↗ boarding commission hospitality events

14:35 ↗ and we're hoping to do one this year as

14:37 ↗ well it's really fun when we get members

14:39 ↗ from different boards and commissions

14:40 ↗ interacting because you just sort of

14:42 ↗ play off each other and the energy in

14:44 ↗ the room is absolutely astounding so I

14:46 ↗ don't have any details but we are hoping

14:48 ↗ to do that this year so thank you thank

14:50 ↗ you for volunteering and thank you for

14:52 ↗ all the hard work you do for our

14:53 ↗ community it's appreciated thank you

14:56 ↗ Mary Ellen polygon thank you

15:05 ↗ yeah next order of business is a public

15:09 ↗ hearing for proposed amendments to the

15:10 ↗ imc 1822 wireless communications

15:13 ↗ facility and take it away

15:27 ↗ excuse me I good evening commissioners

15:29 ↗ Keith Niven director of economic

15:31 ↗ development and development services so

15:34 ↗ I'm gonna start by just griping a little

15:38 ↗ bit so you know when we enact a new code

15:41 ↗ a new chapter for the city's land use

15:45 ↗ code my hope is that we don't have to

15:47 ↗ come back and change it within a year

15:49 ↗ but here we are so I had to get that off

15:52 ↗ my chest

15:54 ↗ the second thing is I I really take

15:58 ↗ pride in working hard to make sure that

15:59 ↗ what we bring you makes our community

16:01 ↗ better I'm not sure this is that but

16:05 ↗ what this is is basically us responding

16:09 ↗ to an order by the Federal

16:11 ↗ Communications Commission to facilitate

16:14 ↗ the implementation of 5g

16:16 ↗ telecommunications and in so doing there

16:21 ↗ was an order that localities do some

16:25 ↗ things with their codes to make sure

16:27 ↗ that happens and so the amendments that

16:32 ↗ are being proposed at this time are in

16:34 ↗ response to the FCC order I included

16:38 ↗ this in my presentation I'm not going to

16:40 ↗ read it you you're welcome to if you

16:42 ↗ want it's an op-ed from the mayor of San

16:44 ↗ Jose and it addresses why localities are

16:48 ↗ unhappy about what the FCC did because

16:52 ↗ it really takes away a lot of our local

16:53 ↗ authority and I think we're not super

16:57 ↗ excited about that so this was published

16:58 ↗ in The New York Times and I just thought

17:01 ↗ it was a good summary of what's going on

17:03 ↗ so so I'm gonna take a break for a

17:06 ↗ second and just say I think what the

17:09 ↗ administration is gonna recommend for

17:10 ↗ this evening is that you open the public

17:12 ↗ hearing

17:13 ↗ you take public testimony from anyone

17:15 ↗ who would like to give it but that we

17:17 ↗ leave it open and continue the public

17:19 ↗ hearing until February 14th because we

17:23 ↗ received a number of comments from the

17:26 ↗ wireless carriers late this afternoon as

17:29 ↗ late as 450 I believe was the latest one

17:32 ↗ we got so obviously staff haven't had

17:35 ↗ time to evaluate those and as you

17:38 ↗ remember hopefully from the last

17:39 ↗ we did this dance we really tried to

17:42 ↗ work through most of those language and

17:45 ↗ nuanced issues with the carriers so that

17:48 ↗ what ultimately came to the Commission

17:50 ↗ for recommendation there was as few

17:52 ↗ discrepant

17:54 ↗ parity as possible and I think we'd like

17:56 ↗ to take the same philosophic approach

17:59 ↗ this time and because we haven't had a

18:03 ↗ chance to really digest those comments

18:04 ↗ and and address them

18:06 ↗ my recommendation is I'm going to go

18:08 ↗ through a couple of the bigger changes

18:10 ↗ and then open the public hearing I'll

18:16 ↗ answer any questions you guys might have

18:18 ↗ tonight but I think we really should

18:20 ↗ continue this till the 14th so the major

18:23 ↗ changes one of the one of the biggest

18:26 ↗ changes coming from the FCC order was we

18:30 ↗ cannot prohibit the installation of

18:35 ↗ facilities to complete the networks that

18:38 ↗ they're trying to build and as you

18:41 ↗ remember what we did in our siting

18:42 ↗ criteria is we created encourage

18:45 ↗ locations discourage locations and then

18:48 ↗ prohibited locations and so and Daniel

18:52 ↗ Kenny from Ogden Murphy Wallace is here

18:53 ↗ too if we have any legal questions to

18:56 ↗ answer and so what we've done is we've

18:59 ↗ added a deviation section and what that

19:04 ↗ allows is so if if they need to install

19:08 ↗ a new facility and the encouraged

19:13 ↗ locations aren't won't work for them

19:16 ↗ from a technical reason and the

19:17 ↗ discouraged won't and the only place

19:20 ↗ that will is a prohibited location now

19:23 ↗ there's a process where they can go

19:25 ↗ through to say here's why we have to go

19:26 ↗ here an example would be if you remember

19:30 ↗ four new macro towers we prohibited them

19:33 ↗ in single-family zones if they came back

19:37 ↗ and said the only way we can provide

19:39 ↗ coverage is to place a new macro tower

19:42 ↗ in a single-family zone our new code

19:46 ↗ would allow that to potentially happen

19:51 ↗ the second piece is the sorry Keith um

19:54 ↗ yes sir so where's the where is the new

19:56 ↗ language that walks through that process

19:58 ↗ are you gonna walk I knew you were gonna

20:00 ↗ ask that it is section 90 I believe it's

20:05 ↗ so the deviation I think is 90 see doing

20:11 ↗ that from memory

20:13 ↗ my lawyers nodding it might get my

20:15 ↗ clothes Laura yeah you can wait look at

20:18 ↗ that so that's the news so there's

20:20 ↗ criteria and we're gonna and one of the

20:22 ↗ comments we got was to massage that

20:26 ↗ criteria language least intrusive which

20:29 ↗ you'll see under number two that's a

20:32 ↗ that's a phraseology that we can't use

20:35 ↗ it's because of litigation so so we've

20:40 ↗ working on a different way to say the

20:42 ↗ same thing so think about it this way

20:44 ↗ what we're trying to do is let's assume

20:46 ↗ let's assume that a carrier wants to put

20:51 ↗ a macro tower or even a small cell tower

20:54 ↗ or small wireless facility in a

20:57 ↗ residential area let's let's say it's a

20:59 ↗ private street so it's going to have

21:01 ↗ residential zoning and they say we need

21:05 ↗ to do it there because otherwise we

21:06 ↗ can't get coverage to those back Lots

21:08 ↗ okay great I would like to have a

21:10 ↗ conversation with the carrier about can

21:12 ↗ we put that pole like not right across

21:15 ↗ from the bedroom windows of the guy

21:17 ↗ across the street right so that he wakes

21:19 ↗ up everyday and looks at that thing if

21:21 ↗ we could move it ten feet to the north

21:22 ↗ maybe it's behind a tree and and that

21:25 ↗ would be a great thing to do so that

21:27 ↗ least intrusive thing in my mind gives

21:30 ↗ us still a little bit of a ability to

21:34 ↗ move it around on the property to try

21:37 ↗ and minimize the nuisance effect if it

21:40 ↗ goes in somewhere where we otherwise

21:42 ↗ thought it shouldn't go so we're working

21:45 ↗ on that language the second piece on

21:48 ↗ here three six four ten that's oh did I

21:51 ↗ not answer your question no what you did

21:53 ↗ but then I read it so then I have

21:54 ↗ another question so it's not allowed so

21:57 ↗ we

22:00 ↗ of course kidding the so then you so two

22:04 ↗ questions one do you think that the city

22:06 ↗ staff has or will have the necessary

22:09 ↗ resources to be able to have that

22:11 ↗ technical conversation can you speak to

22:12 ↗ that so so the code right now allows us

22:16 ↗ to hire a consultant so if so to get

22:20 ↗ through the first two pieces which is

22:22 ↗ they couldn't put it in the in the

22:25 ↗ encouraged location and they couldn't

22:27 ↗ put it in the discourage location the

22:29 ↗ carrier is gonna have to provide a

22:30 ↗ technical report okay and so I don't

22:34 ↗ know anything about radio frequencies

22:36 ↗ well I kind of do but not not to where I

22:38 ↗ could like read a report on it and

22:39 ↗ understand what it's saying so we're

22:41 ↗ gonna have to hire somebody to say look

22:42 ↗ is this legitimate and assuming the

22:44 ↗ answer is yes then we go down that next

22:48 ↗ rung on the ladder so so I think the

22:51 ↗ city will be able to access the

22:53 ↗ technical expertise we need to be smart

22:56 ↗ about implementation of the code and

22:57 ↗ then who pays for that reporting they

23:00 ↗ did well they pay for the report and

23:01 ↗ they pay for our review of the report

23:03 ↗ okay so there's okay so there's no

23:05 ↗ financial burden on the city we're gonna

23:07 ↗ get to that in so three six four oh one

23:09 ↗ o the second line so the next thing the

23:14 ↗ FCC said is so cities you can't extract

23:19 ↗ extract a huge permit fee for these

23:23 ↗ applications you know here's here's what

23:27 ↗ you should charge but what they also

23:29 ↗ said is you know I'm these are like the

23:33 ↗ standard fees unless you can demonstrate

23:35 ↗ it costs you something else and so what

23:40 ↗ we are and this and so we've already

23:42 ↗ been to Infrastructure Committee as an

23:44 ↗ informational conversation so I floated

23:46 ↗ this to them as well I think where the

23:48 ↗ council is pointing right now and this

23:50 ↗ is some fodder for you guys to think

23:52 ↗ about for our next discussion is the

23:55 ↗ administration right now has kind of

23:57 ↗ changed what we think we want to do

24:00 ↗ we're actually going to recommend going

24:02 ↗ to time and materials for these specific

24:04 ↗ applications so we will track our time

24:06 ↗ to make sure that the city recovers full

24:09 ↗ burdened cost of reviewing

24:11 ↗ these permits so they were gonna get to

24:14 ↗ sit in ones because for most this is

24:16 ↗ hopefully a relatively straightforward

24:17 ↗ but there's one where you do get into

24:19 ↗ some sort of technical dispute and all

24:22 ↗ of a sudden it requires hours of time to

24:25 ↗ move something ten feet that would be

24:27 ↗ covered the next one so these all feed

24:30 ↗ on each other the next one so we had

24:32 ↗ said in the initial code that they could

24:35 ↗ they could consolidate ten new

24:39 ↗ facilities in one permit right we

24:41 ↗ figured okay you know Street you can get

24:43 ↗ ten new antennas that can be one permit

24:45 ↗ and we'll review that for the fee that

24:47 ↗ we had in the code FCC said now they

24:52 ↗ could they could do the whole city in

24:54 ↗ one permit okay so now we're talking

24:58 ↗ about a lot more time to review that

25:00 ↗ permit because it just got a lot more

25:01 ↗ complicated right and so so a lot of it

25:04 ↗ has to do with how they choose to apply

25:07 ↗ for permits but the way that the FCC

25:11 ↗ order was written it kind of opens the

25:14 ↗ gates for it to be something that could

25:17 ↗ be really time-consuming from a city

25:19 ↗ standpoint so so what we're suggesting

25:22 ↗ in the new red line of the code which

25:27 ↗ you guys don't have yet would be to go

25:29 ↗ to time and materials where they would

25:31 ↗ basically post a two thousand dollar

25:33 ↗ deposit that we would then charge

25:36 ↗ against and it's clear that if we run

25:38 ↗ out they would have to then post another

25:40 ↗ deposit until we get the permit issued

25:43 ↗ is well there'll be a mechanism if they

25:46 ↗ do they've like a full city application

25:48 ↗ or they do all that and then we do the

25:50 ↗ analysis and there's maybe two or three

25:51 ↗ that we want to dispute but the rest are

25:54 ↗ just fine is there way to break that

25:55 ↗ apart or they if they handle the whole

25:57 ↗ permit all at once a super great

25:59 ↗ question i I'm not ready to answer that

26:03 ↗ question since it's dealing with

26:06 ↗ disputes there yeah we might want to

26:09 ↗ talk to my lawyer about that before I

26:10 ↗ provide answer TV but just because I

26:15 ↗ won't get that at the next meeting it'll

26:17 ↗ be good to do something is I can see how

26:19 ↗ neither could easily be one or two

26:21 ↗ antennas that

26:22 ↗ then become a sticking point right and

26:24 ↗ the rest are just fine and you don't

26:25 ↗ want to see be yeah it seems better to

26:28 ↗ be able to bifurcate those and then to

26:31 ↗ get in some sort of technical dispute

26:32 ↗ around one specific spot but then kind

26:34 ↗ of let the rest move forward with no

26:37 ↗ unnecessary delays my hope would be that

26:39 ↗ the applicant in the city could

26:41 ↗ negotiate that as an outcome right yeah

26:44 ↗ because I think it's that's in both best

26:46 ↗ interest but I don't I don't want to be

26:49 ↗ in a position where they're speaking out

26:53 ↗ of death so I I don't have a lawyer that

26:55 ↗ I can call is that is that I don't want

26:58 ↗ to be a musician where like they've got

26:59 ↗ weather oh we have a thousand antennas

27:01 ↗ and you're holding it up because of just

27:02 ↗ one right well no those are those are

27:04 ↗ different disc rights that we have the

27:06 ↗ permanent language that allows us to do

27:09 ↗ that I'll think about that as I rego

27:14 ↗ through this with their comments so the

27:17 ↗ next one is the shot clock so shot clock

27:20 ↗ is it's a term that was coined by the

27:24 ↗ FCC it's it relates to how long we get

27:28 ↗ to issue the permit and so the shot

27:31 ↗ clocks have been reduced as you can see

27:33 ↗ from the numbers that are up on the

27:37 ↗ screen and the shot clocks also kind of

27:41 ↗ start earlier so so you know worst case

27:44 ↗ scenario the permits got a lot more

27:47 ↗ complicated because now they're more

27:48 ↗ than 10 and our time that we have to

27:52 ↗ issue them has gotten shorter so you

27:55 ↗ know we'll we haven't had any

27:58 ↗ applications yet so you know we adopted

28:00 ↗ this code like 10 months ago or so and

28:04 ↗ not yet Verizon and AT&T just got

28:09 ↗ franchise agreements approved in the

28:11 ↗ city so the next step for them would be

28:14 ↗ to make applications for at the actual

28:19 ↗ antennas yes sir

28:20 ↗ do do we have an on-call contract or

28:22 ↗ anything that we're gonna have stood up

28:23 ↗ to do the technical work needed since

28:25 ↗ work might all of a sudden just show up

28:27 ↗ real quick not at the moment you know

28:30 ↗ any people that do like RF fruit

28:33 ↗ reviews.i I do not um that is something

28:36 ↗ we should start working on I'm gonna I'm

28:39 ↗ gonna ask Emily to take the lead on that

28:41 ↗ okay yeah I mean I don't wanna do you

28:45 ↗ guys this job but I know it's a good

28:46 ↗ it's a great suggest you don't want a

28:48 ↗ given given Tedder shot clock you don't

28:49 ↗ wanna burn half your clock just going

28:51 ↗ through procurement yeah absolutely

28:52 ↗ contract or whatever and then the last

28:57 ↗ item is remember we talked about all the

29:00 ↗ cabinetry and equipment that goes with

29:02 ↗ it that the size of what's allowed

29:05 ↗ increased from 17 cubic feet to 28 cubic

29:09 ↗ feet I have a question how let's just

29:18 ↗ take Old Town for an example yes there

29:20 ↗ how many of these small towers or small

29:23 ↗ cells do we expect to see we don't know

29:28 ↗ the answer to that and a lot of it and

29:31 ↗ maybe some of the carriers will want to

29:33 ↗ address that my understanding is it's a

29:36 ↗ capacity issue right so so they're gonna

29:39 ↗ put up antennas and the antennas are

29:42 ↗ intended to stream more data to users

29:45 ↗ right and so it's it's its demand driven

29:49 ↗ so if if let's say Old Town becomes a

29:53 ↗ hub for people streaming Netflix you

29:57 ↗ know you're gonna see a lot more

29:59 ↗ antennas per you know block than you

30:03 ↗ would in another part of town where

30:05 ↗ maybe people aren't on their wireless

30:08 ↗ devices or their mobile devices

30:10 ↗ streaming data it's it's it's demand

30:14 ↗ driven I think is my understanding so

30:16 ↗ let's assume everyone in Old Town likes

30:18 ↗ to stream prime and netflix at the same

30:21 ↗ time it's the worst case scenario we

30:26 ↗ based on how many carriers we have we

30:28 ↗ have t-mobile Sprint Verizon Wireless

30:30 ↗ and AT&T so for carriers there's and

30:32 ↗ Comcast in code yeah Comcast yeah and

30:39 ↗ they don't share you know right so they

30:42 ↗ don't share so we could be seen

30:44 ↗ potentially a

30:46 ↗ five boxes on every single telephone

30:51 ↗ pole in all town I mean a guide so we're

30:57 ↗ talking about some of these restrictions

30:58 ↗ and it's only like 12 in Old Town this

31:00 ↗ yeah be it's not such a big deal but if

31:02 ↗ we're seeing you know on every stone on

31:05 ↗ every telephone pole then all sudden

31:07 ↗ this is a really big deal that the

31:10 ↗ public has no clue about so so yes you

31:19 ↗ know we have put some design standards

31:22 ↗ in code now I think that you know when

31:28 ↗ we start to see the deployment it may

31:33 ↗ very well be that we want to come back

31:34 ↗ and redress the design pieces of the

31:38 ↗ boxes because the boxes are you know we

31:43 ↗ don't have the ability to say you can't

31:45 ↗ put that 28 qubit that three by three by

31:47 ↗ three cube you know out there at the

31:50 ↗ base of a light pole it's right here

31:55 ↗ twenty-eight cubic feet is kind of three

31:57 ↗ by three by three more or less a little

31:59 ↗ bit last but so but you know as we if

32:05 ↗ you remember from last time the carriers

32:08 ↗ need a certain amount of vertical

32:10 ↗ separation between antennas and so

32:13 ↗ you're not going to get five carriers on

32:16 ↗ one pole what's going to happen is

32:19 ↗ because we still have a certain maximum

32:22 ↗ that the pole can be above what's there

32:25 ↗ now so replacement pole can be 15

32:28 ↗ percent bigger than the one that's there

32:30 ↗ now right up to a certain height and so

32:32 ↗ you may end up with two carriers that

32:34 ↗ would be on one pole so that's two

32:36 ↗ antennas and two boxes to two beer

32:40 ↗ fridges down at the bottom you know but

32:43 ↗ then the third carrier who wants to go

32:46 ↗ there is either gonna have to be across

32:48 ↗ the street or they may have to put their

32:49 ↗ own pole in because there's not enough

32:52 ↗ vertical separation for them to also be

32:55 ↗ on that same pole so so to answer your

33:00 ↗ question if you're wanting to know what

33:02 ↗ this is gonna look like 10 years from

33:03 ↗ now I have no idea you know we can't use

33:08 ↗ last year and say well nothing's happen

33:09 ↗ so in ten years nothing's gonna be

33:11 ↗ changed there will be new facilities new

33:14 ↗ boxes new antennas I just don't know how

33:17 ↗ many I don't think anybody does I don't

33:18 ↗ think they can answer that question

33:19 ↗ either if you're if you want to pose it

33:21 ↗ to them when they come and speak I think

33:25 ↗ we're gonna have to kind of keep track

33:27 ↗ of this and as stuff gets put in if we

33:31 ↗ need to come back and revisit code then

33:33 ↗ that's what we'll do so a question here

33:37 ↗ is do we have the ability to say we want

33:41 ↗ to hold off on deployment or issuing

33:45 ↗ permits until we see samples from other

33:48 ↗ cities so that we don't make mistakes so

33:52 ↗ the FCC order went into effect this

33:54 ↗ month so so if if t-mobile came in then

34:02 ↗ correct me if I'm wrong but if t-mobile

34:03 ↗ came in tomorrow and wanted to deploy

34:06 ↗ and we said yeah now we're not ready or

34:09 ↗ no you got to comply with our code that

34:12 ↗ we enacted before the FCC rules they

34:15 ↗ would have grounds to litigate against I

34:20 ↗ assume against our non-compliance with

34:23 ↗ the FCC order so even during pending

34:26 ↗ litigation that the city is involved in

34:28 ↗ so a stay was not granted so the the

34:34 ↗ localities made a motion for a stay

34:37 ↗ which are like an injunction to hold off

34:40 ↗ on implementation of the order that was

34:43 ↗ denied by the 10th court but it got sent

34:46 ↗ to the 9th court do you want to do this

34:47 ↗ this is not my world do you want to talk

34:49 ↗ about the all right because I was just

34:54 ↗ making stuff up Daniel Kenny with Ogden

34:58 ↗ Murphy so our firms actually not

35:00 ↗ representing the city on that litigation

35:01 ↗ they joined a larger group so I am not

35:04 ↗ like totally versed on that but the stay

35:06 ↗ was requested both at the FCC and in

35:09 ↗ that piece of litigation and it was

35:10 ↗ denied so we have

35:13 ↗ the order is in place as of earlier this

35:15 ↗ month and the city needs to comply with

35:18 ↗ that and needs to address the code I

35:21 ↗ think maybe we're speaking more to kind

35:23 ↗ of like a moratorium which we cannot do

35:25 ↗ so I would say that for better or worse

35:29 ↗ industry has been slow to make a permit

35:33 ↗ application that's probably been good so

35:36 ↗ that everybody can work through the

35:37 ↗ FCC's order because that came out before

35:40 ↗ the new year but then also as Keith said

35:42 ↗ earlier tonight would have been nice to

35:44 ↗ get one to see how it all works right to

35:46 ↗ work through it to some extent that sets

35:50 ↗ the table for what can be done later for

35:52 ↗ competitive equity issues so like I said

35:55 ↗ it's kind of good and bad but should

35:57 ↗ they come in it would be processed

36:00 ↗ consistent with the FCC order and

36:02 ↗ consistent with code to the extent that

36:04 ↗ it can so on those ideas we're not

36:13 ↗ obviously not the only city that's going

36:15 ↗ to be dealing with this and we're

36:18 ↗ probably one of the later stages for

36:22 ↗ where they're gonna want to be like

36:24 ↗ they're gonna want to do this in Seattle

36:27 ↗ first because there's going to be more

36:28 ↗ people and more density do we have any

36:31 ↗ sense of whether or not those

36:33 ↗ applications have come in to other

36:35 ↗ cities whether there's a timetable

36:40 ↗ anything so small Wireless facilities

36:46 ↗ have been installed in other cities I

36:49 ↗ think a lot of the photos we shared with

36:52 ↗ you guys last time we're from the Bay

36:53 ↗ Area you know I think I think you know

37:00 ↗ the difficult thing is so are they

37:05 ↗ installing them in other cities locally

37:08 ↗ now I assume they are looking at my

37:11 ↗ friends out in the audience they're all

37:13 ↗ looking blank so you know I think I mean

37:16 ↗ I don't know where the questions going

37:18 ↗ Lindsey I think you know every cities

37:22 ↗ every cities codes a little

37:23 ↗ friend ours we spent a lot of time on

37:27 ↗ pole Heights and on whether or not you

37:32 ↗ can you can they can put their in their

37:34 ↗ facilities on municipally-owned poles we

37:37 ↗ are I can say pretty much an outlier in

37:41 ↗ how we responded to like that particular

37:44 ↗ issue most other cities yet put them on

37:46 ↗ city poles now a lot of it has to do

37:49 ↗ with the city and some cities see this

37:53 ↗ technology as a boost to their economic

37:56 ↗ development and so you you've got places

37:59 ↗ that you know would you know invite the

38:02 ↗ carrier's to you know deploy away

38:04 ↗ because we would love to have broadband

38:07 ↗ because we don't have it now like I'm

38:08 ↗ talking maybe places in the Midwest or

38:10 ↗ something where maybe they're less

38:12 ↗ technologically advanced than we are and

38:15 ↗ I don't mean that in a bad way that's

38:16 ↗ really came out bad so you know I'm not

38:19 ↗ judging so quietly quiet at some point

38:25 ↗ so I don't I don't know I mean I'm

38:28 ↗ surprised we didn't get any so Verizon

38:31 ↗ seemed really poised to and they did

38:34 ↗ actually put a small cell or a few up on

38:38 ↗ his Kuala Falls City Road so some of the

38:40 ↗ pse power poles going from here to

38:43 ↗ Sammamish on his Kuala Falls City Road

38:45 ↗ they did put some small cells on that

38:47 ↗ but it's been crickets since and I would

38:51 ↗ have expected we would have gotten

38:52 ↗ something else because it seemed like

38:54 ↗ the carriers were closer to wanting to

38:57 ↗ deploy than maybe they were

38:59 ↗ I was just wondering basically when

39:03 ↗ we're gonna see something host FCC

39:06 ↗ rolling particularly when we're looking

39:09 ↗ around like the equipment size yeah and

39:11 ↗ things like that so that was one of the

39:13 ↗ questions from infrastructure committee

39:16 ↗ they wanted some photos of you know can

39:20 ↗ we see some photos of 17 you know cubic

39:22 ↗ feet versus 28 cubic feet just to get a

39:24 ↗ sense for like what this is going to

39:26 ↗ look like not that we can do anything

39:28 ↗ about it because we have to live with

39:30 ↗ the 28 but there was that question asked

39:33 ↗ my friend on my left volunteered to try

39:36 ↗ and find some of those photo

39:37 ↗ so we are gonna try and hopefully get

39:40 ↗ some so that you guys can see these you

39:42 ↗ mobile someone shrouds they email oh I

39:49 ↗ didn't know I didn't deceive nning that

39:53 ↗ looks like yeah my ready to talk about

39:55 ↗ those tonight I'm really fearful of what

39:59 ↗ this is going to look like deployed into

40:03 ↗ our city and I'm sure that I'm speaking

40:06 ↗ on behalf of a lot of people because we

40:07 ↗ don't it's not that we're I thought it's

40:11 ↗ a risk it's that I'm fearful of what the

40:14 ↗ impact will be visually and then on the

40:18 ↗ other hand you have the health concerns

40:20 ↗ of what is all as Wireless magnetic

40:27 ↗ radio frequencies thank you it's going

40:31 ↗ to do our potential health because we're

40:33 ↗ gonna have these things but maybe in our

40:35 ↗ backyards so so I'm I hear all that and

40:40 ↗ and I want to try and ask the Commission

40:44 ↗ to focus the conversation that we're

40:48 ↗ gonna have on the proposed changes and

40:50 ↗ and to some extent Ron you know I I can

40:55 ↗ say well you know we said we were gonna

40:57 ↗ prohibit them in single-family and now

41:01 ↗ we can't do that so you're right it

41:03 ↗ could end up closer to your bedroom

41:04 ↗ window then it could prior but if there

41:09 ↗ are issues that the Commission want

41:11 ↗ staff to address as it relates to the

41:16 ↗ FCC responsiveness to the FCC order and

41:19 ↗ how we have to change our code so for

41:22 ↗ example if we need to relook at the

41:24 ↗ design piece of the code and see if we

41:27 ↗ thought we got it right now the problem

41:29 ↗ is as both Daniel and I said we haven't

41:32 ↗ had any go in so it's hard to know

41:35 ↗ whether the the parameters that we set

41:39 ↗ initially were set in the right space

41:43 ↗ but we can really look at that you know

41:46 ↗ at the end of the day we're gonna have

41:50 ↗ to see some of these deployed and see

41:54 ↗ how our code reacts to them before I

41:56 ↗ think we're gonna know whether we got it

41:57 ↗ right or not but I think we're willing

41:59 ↗ to look at if there's sections of code

42:01 ↗ that you want us to go back and look at

42:03 ↗ in terms of like the design piece of

42:06 ↗ this just let us know we'll do that I've

42:10 ↗ got a design question so we spoke a lot

42:12 ↗ about height and bulk and density is not

42:15 ↗ the right word but how close they are to

42:16 ↗ each other

42:17 ↗ come are we allowed to prescribe things

42:19 ↗ like color yeah we did okay can you can

42:24 ↗ sorry can you refresh me of what where

42:25 ↗ we landed on that there's a design

42:31 ↗ section it's coming through and I

42:33 ↗ couldn't I'm gonna say it's a hundred

42:35 ↗ again back to section 100 and it says

42:39 ↗ basically because so I'm in a refresh

42:41 ↗ your memory hopefully the problem is we

42:44 ↗ have a ton of different poles in the

42:46 ↗ city right we've got orange poles it

42:49 ↗ kind of orange downtown we've got green

42:52 ↗ poles in town in Highlands we've got

42:55 ↗ black poles in Dallas and so part of

42:58 ↗ when we were drafting the code what we

43:00 ↗ wanted to do was to say okay if you're

43:03 ↗ gonna put a new poll in we wanted to

43:05 ↗ kind of match the street furniture of

43:08 ↗ the area that you're gonna locate right

43:11 ↗ and so color I think was written to

43:15 ↗ match nearby like pole elements and then

43:20 ↗ so I guess my question is in those types

43:22 ↗ of prescriptions those aren't under

43:23 ↗ dispute with the order those are still

43:25 ↗ they are not so part of some thing about

43:26 ↗ it this way the what the order wanted to

43:29 ↗ do and Daniel if you want to add some

43:31 ↗ feel free to push me aside with the

43:34 ↗ order said is localities you can't

43:36 ↗ prohibit them and you can't make a

43:39 ↗ arbitrary set of guidelines for them to

43:43 ↗ follow you in other words you can't make

43:44 ↗ it so impossible to navigate the permit

43:47 ↗ process that they can't get permitted

43:49 ↗ and so we can be as long as we're

43:52 ↗ explicit in our requirements and they're

43:57 ↗ they have to be reasonable you can't say

43:58 ↗ you know they all have to be stainless

44:00 ↗ steel and that may

44:01 ↗ be reasonable I don't know but you have

44:03 ↗ to you have to have a reason and a

44:04 ↗ rationale and as long as it's clear I

44:06 ↗ think we're within our bounds now my

44:10 ↗ lawyer is going to talk yes so the

44:13 ↗ aesthetic standards have to be published

44:15 ↗ and made generally available that

44:18 ↗ doesn't necessarily need to be in the

44:20 ↗ code but we've put them in the code so

44:22 ↗ as long as those are out there and they

44:23 ↗ know kind of what the rules of the game

44:26 ↗ are those are fine and then the new

44:28 ↗ standard that was basically put out is a

44:31 ↗ materially inhibit effective prohibition

44:34 ↗ so when they're going to look at things

44:36 ↗ like the aesthetic standards or that

44:38 ↗ encouraged discouraged and prohibit the

44:42 ↗ argument that they're gonna make and

44:43 ↗ you'll see it in some of the comments is

44:45 ↗ that is something that if you put that

44:48 ↗ regulation upon us or that restriction

44:50 ↗ upon us it will materially inhibit our

44:52 ↗ ability to provide this service we would

44:57 ↗ likely disagree with some of those

45:00 ↗ assertions though if there's something

45:02 ↗ in here that does that we've tried to

45:05 ↗ change some of that and that's one of

45:07 ↗ the reasons why the deviation was put in

45:10 ↗ there so that you can never say that

45:12 ↗ you're materially inhibiting our

45:14 ↗ opportunity to provide service to 14

45:18 ↗ houses at the end of a private drive

45:19 ↗ because you now have an opportunity to

45:22 ↗ do that the language like Keith was

45:24 ↗ saying we're gonna fine tune that a

45:25 ↗ little bit to make sure that those

45:27 ↗ trigger words aren't in there but the

45:28 ↗ whole idea is we're not going to do that

45:31 ↗ now whether or not you know an aesthetic

45:33 ↗ standard that says that it should be

45:34 ↗ colored similar to the pole that it's

45:37 ↗ replacing or the poles in the area in my

45:40 ↗ view would never be materially

45:42 ↗ inhibiting their ability to provide

45:43 ↗ their service so really what's the

45:45 ↗ argument now if you said that it had to

45:47 ↗ be a certain type of paint that's ten

45:49 ↗ thousand dollars per gallon

45:50 ↗ they might say listen we can't do that

45:53 ↗ for all of our poles and that's

45:54 ↗ obviously on the absurd side if if we

45:57 ↗ get to a back and forth we've you know

46:01 ↗ both parties have made arguments and

46:03 ↗ then and we're in an impasse is this

46:05 ↗ handled at arbitration or could we can

46:07 ↗ we how do we can we how do we legally

46:11 ↗ move forward or continue to fight it so

46:13 ↗ so we can adopt we can adopt whatever

46:16 ↗ code we want right we have the local

46:18 ↗ authority to do that if there is a

46:22 ↗ legitimate conflict with the FCC order

46:25 ↗ obviously we're gonna be at risk for

46:27 ↗ future litigation and so obviously we're

46:31 ↗ not going to want to do that if at all

46:33 ↗ possible so so that's why my

46:35 ↗ recommendation was to open the hearing

46:37 ↗ take public comment and then let staff

46:40 ↗ and the providers try to work through as

46:42 ↗ many issues as we can it would be great

46:44 ↗ to only have a couple that were maybe

46:46 ↗ not on the same page over and then we'll

46:48 ↗ talk about what they want and what we

46:52 ↗ think is right and why maybe we didn't

46:54 ↗ agree on that issue

46:55 ↗ and then you guys get to ultimately make

46:57 ↗ a recommendation to the council you may

46:58 ↗ say you know what I think staff were not

47:00 ↗ right I think you should agree with the

47:03 ↗ providers on this one because it makes

47:04 ↗ sense or you might say no we agree with

47:06 ↗ staff and here's our recommendation

47:08 ↗ council and the council makes that

47:09 ↗ decision is every proposed amendment

47:12 ↗ here based on the FCC notification or or

47:17 ↗ their this new order yes

47:21 ↗ because we didn't again we didn't have

47:23 ↗ anything to to test the code with to say

47:26 ↗ oh and hey here's some other things we'd

47:28 ↗ like to fix because they didn't work

47:30 ↗ very well with the first application so

47:32 ↗ all of what's in red in red line is

47:37 ↗ based on the FCC order and NASA yes in

47:40 ↗ the other direction if there's stuff

47:42 ↗ that we landed on when we did this last

47:44 ↗ year and it's not being changed we

47:46 ↗ should feel confident that that's all

47:47 ↗ I'm good with the order from what we've

47:49 ↗ seen so far I'm relying on Ogden Murphy

47:53 ↗ to tell us if we had some other sections

47:55 ↗ that should have been addressed and I'm

47:56 ↗ sure the the carriers will let us know

47:59 ↗ if they think there's some areas that we

48:02 ↗ missed okay yeah well yeah and I think

48:04 ↗ you'll see in the comments

48:05 ↗ two things one an attempt to rehash old

48:09 ↗ conversations for the purposes of

48:11 ↗ changing the structure of how we did it

48:14 ↗ before and so I would encourage focusing

48:18 ↗ on the FCC related stuff and then also I

48:22 ↗ mean obviously industry is

48:23 ↗ have their own perspective and opinion

48:26 ↗ on what would materially inhibit their

48:28 ↗ service and there's gonna be a selection

48:31 ↗ of those that they're gonna make that

48:33 ↗ argument on and there's a few of those

48:36 ↗ that in theory could change every single

48:38 ↗ time they change the design of their

48:40 ↗ device so I mean in my opinion how do

48:43 ↗ you keep up with that from a city's

48:45 ↗ perspective if the box needs to look a

48:47 ↗ certain way and something about the

48:49 ↗ regulation changes so clearly they will

48:52 ↗ have their own opinions on what sections

48:55 ↗ in the code should be changed or need to

48:57 ↗ be changed for the FCC order we had ours

49:00 ↗ we'll talk about those and we'll hash

49:02 ↗ those out as best we can for the next

49:04 ↗ time it comes to you so that you have a

49:06 ↗ clearer understanding of really what you

49:09 ↗ need to be looking at and then of course

49:11 ↗ if the the ones that we've hashed out

49:12 ↗ you have opinions on then okay you know

49:14 ↗ any remaining gaps you'll just you'll

49:15 ↗ walk us through those yeah and and we'll

49:18 ↗ do you know what I can envision for next

49:20 ↗ time will be kind of like a matrix which

49:22 ↗ will be here's their comment and either

49:24 ↗ if we and either we agreed with it and

49:26 ↗ made the change and here's the change or

49:28 ↗ we disagreed with it and here's why we

49:31 ↗ disagree with it and that way that'll be

49:32 ↗ a good tool for you guys to use as a

49:34 ↗ conversation point for next time so it

49:37 ↗ was every proposed amendment where where

49:39 ↗ the city is agreed with the FCC ruling

49:42 ↗ well no no nobody said that we haven't

49:48 ↗ agreed with the FCC order we are we are

49:52 ↗ proposing to change our ordinance to

49:54 ↗ come in compliance with the FCC order

49:57 ↗ because we feel like that's our dutiful

50:00 ↗ responsibility now if ultimately the

50:02 ↗ localities win in their lawsuit and part

50:05 ↗ of the order gets reversed we would be

50:08 ↗ back to deal with this code again

50:09 ↗ probably because like I said at the

50:12 ↗ beginning I'm not sure these are

50:13 ↗ community benefiting changes these were

50:16 ↗ to come in compliance with the order to

50:18 ↗ reduce our exposure to litigation so

50:21 ↗ this is an intermediate solution until

50:22 ↗ the lawsuit is finalized if yeah if it

50:26 ↗ changes yes so Keith you said that our

50:30 ↗ city's approach was kind of an outlier

50:33 ↗ in regards to our focus on

50:36 ↗ away and city-owned poles and all of

50:38 ↗ that does that suggest that you've

50:40 ↗ looked at other cities code and is there

50:44 ↗ anything that we should learn from that

50:46 ↗ that we might also want to add in while

50:50 ↗ we're doing the FCC review so my

50:54 ↗ suggestion would be no because I think

50:55 ↗ we I think we did so think about it in

50:59 ↗ terms of a spectrum right on one end of

51:01 ↗ the spectrum is I think high design

51:06 ↗ aesthetic controls very regulated on the

51:11 ↗ other side of the spectrum is none of

51:13 ↗ that and there are cities that are over

51:15 ↗ here that you know the right away is is

51:17 ↗ is you know they don't care what color

51:19 ↗ their poles are they don't care if their

51:22 ↗ poles match you know they don't care if

51:24 ↗ there's a new macro tower you know going

51:26 ↗ in on the street corner that's not us

51:29 ↗ we're closer to this end of the spectrum

51:31 ↗ and I think we have probably a lot more

51:35 ↗ regulations if you remember we started

51:39 ↗ our code started as a bit of a mirror of

51:42 ↗ Redmond because after looking it I

51:45 ↗ probably looked at like three dozen

51:47 ↗ codes that was the one that resonated

51:49 ↗ the most with me so we started there and

51:52 ↗ then we it started to unpack from that

51:55 ↗ and you know Redmon's allows antennas on

51:59 ↗ municipal poles we don't because that

52:01 ↗ was a big deal for this community and

52:03 ↗ our public works operations department

52:05 ↗ so so ours is very different and you

52:09 ↗ know I think it's it's it's fairly tight

52:12 ↗ and you know I I think it's it was a

52:16 ↗ good code so pretty Keith I think when

52:21 ↗ we start rolling this thing out we're

52:23 ↗ gonna have a I don't know if we'd be a

52:26 ↗ public outcry but I think there's gonna

52:28 ↗ be a lot of very passionate concerns

52:31 ↗ about how we roll us out and what it

52:33 ↗ looks like because we are very we are

52:36 ↗ very protective of our visual

52:42 ↗ landscape yep and there's a city have a

52:48 ↗ program or a campaign that they're

52:50 ↗ thinking about engaging the public to

52:52 ↗ help inform some of these potential

52:55 ↗ changes that could be coming well so you

53:04 ↗ know I don't know and I just asked you

53:08 ↗ to put together a giant committee to

53:10 ↗ engage the public yes so you know that

53:13 ↗ part of it is again I don't know that

53:18 ↗ any of us have a good sense for what

53:20 ↗ this is gonna look like you know if if

53:22 ↗ if the first application came in where

53:26 ↗ their recommendation was to install 20

53:29 ↗ new polls on Gillman Boulevard because

53:31 ↗ the existing polls don't work and they

53:35 ↗ can't go on municipal polls that would

53:38 ↗ be a big deal the community would notice

53:40 ↗ that you know my guess is it's not gonna

53:43 ↗ unfold that way

53:45 ↗ now it could I could be completely wrong

53:47 ↗ my guess is there'll be some deployment

53:49 ↗ in little clusters maybe and then

53:52 ↗ they'll they'll add to that but I don't

53:55 ↗ know I don't know the answer to that so

53:57 ↗ I will think about that and maybe we can

54:00 ↗ talk about that again in a couple weeks

54:01 ↗ okay okay it's not just me but I think

54:10 ↗ ya know people coming in your front door

54:13 ↗ and they're gonna be really upset yeah I

54:15 ↗ could be definitely different

54:19 ↗ neighborhoods would react differently so

54:22 ↗ I'm gonna step aside and maybe we let in

54:25 ↗ this public public okay so we'll go

54:27 ↗ ahead and open this to public comment

54:29 ↗ and we have a sign-up sheet

54:36 ↗ are you just anyone anyone anyone signed

54:41 ↗ it okay so if we go ahead and come on up

54:48 ↗ and then let us know who you are thank

54:53 ↗ you for coming good evening my name is

54:56 ↗ Linda Adkins I'm an attorney with Davis

54:59 ↗ Wright Tremaine and I'm here tonight

55:00 ↗ representing t-mobile I wanted to call

55:03 ↗ your attention to a letter that I

55:05 ↗ submitted to the Planning Policy

55:07 ↗ Commission in which I think you're Trish

55:10 ↗ routed to all of you and in response to

55:14 ↗ some of the questions about what will he

55:16 ↗ look like when they're actually

55:18 ↗ constructed there is one picture in the

55:22 ↗ attachment to my letter of an

55:23 ↗ installation on a light pole in Las

55:26 ↗ Vegas so each each one of the providers

55:29 ↗ has a different different types of

55:33 ↗ equipment that are optimized for their

55:35 ↗ particular networks for t-mobile this

55:39 ↗ enclosure here so we we call this a

55:42 ↗ unified enclosure and in in that

55:47 ↗ enclosure the antennas and the radios

55:50 ↗ all of the equipment are concealed

55:52 ↗ inside that that box it's roughly three

55:55 ↗ cubic feet and in this light pole

55:58 ↗ installation all of the cabling is

56:00 ↗ inside the pole and t-mobile is working

56:06 ↗ to use this particular unified enclosure

56:08 ↗ pretty much uniformly as its rolling

56:11 ↗ facilities out so you know just in terms

56:15 ↗ of the t-mobile form factor you could

56:17 ↗ expect something similar to this my

56:22 ↗ letter really hits three points about

56:26 ↗ the ordinance that's in front of you

56:29 ↗ today and I guess I'd like to preface my

56:31 ↗ remarks by noting that when this your

56:37 ↗ amendments to your code your ordinance

56:39 ↗ that was designed to address small

56:41 ↗ Wyler's facilities so that was completed

56:44 ↗ in May

56:45 ↗ of 2018 so we didn't have this FCC order

56:49 ↗ at that time and some of the comments

56:53 ↗ that I'm making in my letter really

56:55 ↗ relate to decisions that the FCC made

57:00 ↗ when it issued its order and regulations

57:02 ↗ that it's adopted since May so that

57:05 ↗ would be one of the reasons why you'll

57:07 ↗ see me commenting in part that that I

57:10 ↗ think that there's at least one section

57:12 ↗ of what was adopted in May that probably

57:14 ↗ does need to be revisited it in order to

57:18 ↗ be in compliance with the order so to

57:21 ↗ just briefly call your attention to the

57:23 ↗ comments in my letter the first one is

57:26 ↗ it's more of a technical comment but it

57:29 ↗ does have a substantive component it has

57:31 ↗ to do with the antenna definition so the

57:36 ↗ one that's in this proposed amendment

57:38 ↗ the the first paragraph of that

57:40 ↗ definition is it's exactly tracking the

57:44 ↗ FCC regulations and that's what we as

57:47 ↗ t-mobile would recommend there are three

57:49 ↗ sub sections that have to do with

57:53 ↗ identifying some additional volumetric

57:56 ↗ standards for WIPP antennas and Omni

57:59 ↗ antennas and we would recommend that

58:01 ↗ those be deleted because they're a

58:04 ↗ little bit across purposes with the

58:06 ↗ definition of a small wireless facility

58:08 ↗ that the FCC adopted so the FCC's

58:12 ↗ definition of a small wireless facility

58:15 ↗ says that each antenna is limited to

58:20 ↗ three cubic feet in volume and then

58:23 ↗ there's a total 28 cubic feet which

58:26 ↗ applies to antennas and equipment and so

58:30 ↗ I mean I we think it's not necessary to

58:33 ↗ have these additional volumetric

58:35 ↗ standards and they're I think they're a

58:37 ↗ little bit at cross-purposes because

58:38 ↗ that 28 cubic feet is cumulative and it

58:41 ↗ gives the provider the flexibility to

58:45 ↗ design and deploy equipment that fits

58:48 ↗ within that total volumetric limitation

58:50 ↗ without having to deal with so many

58:54 ↗ individual limitations on different

58:57 ↗ pieces of the

58:58 ↗ and you know which sometimes can

59:01 ↗ complicate the facility design so my my

59:04 ↗ second comment relates to the definition

59:07 ↗ of a completely concealed facility in

59:11 ↗ this draft and the comment really is

59:15 ↗ just to ask that the Commission clarify

59:20 ↗ that definitions so that we don't have

59:23 ↗ any doubt that t-mobile's unified

59:26 ↗ enclosure would be considered to be a

59:29 ↗ concealed facility and my third comment

59:34 ↗ so this has to do with 18 2009 zero and

59:42 ↗ that's a section that establishes siting

59:46 ↗ criteria the first part is citing

59:48 ↗ criteria for macro facilities and then

59:51 ↗ the second part and subsection B is a

59:54 ↗ list of criteria citing criteria for

59:57 ↗ small wireless facilities and that the

1:00:00 ↗ issue here so the the FCC has said that

1:00:05 ↗ whatever regulations you adopt cannot

1:00:09 ↗ materially inhibit the provision of

1:00:13 ↗ wireless service and part of that is its

1:00:16 ↗ addressing the issue of establishing a

1:00:19 ↗ level playing field so that wireless

1:00:23 ↗ providers who are attempting to improve

1:00:26 ↗ the service that they provide to the

1:00:28 ↗ community are not being forced to comply

1:00:32 ↗ with a host of regulations that other

1:00:37 ↗ utility providers don't have to comply

1:00:39 ↗ with and and in particular so B

1:00:43 ↗ subsections 1 2 3 4 & 5 so this is like

1:00:47 ↗ a hierarchy that you you have to go

1:00:50 ↗ through for every every small cell node

1:00:54 ↗ so small cells typically are deployed in

1:00:57 ↗ a group called a polygon and that the

1:01:01 ↗ purpose of that group of small cells

1:01:04 ↗ they all communicate back to a macro

1:01:08 ↗ tower and they help to handle all the

1:01:11 ↗ data traffic

1:01:12 ↗ that is going to and from that macro

1:01:14 ↗ tower and when the engineers design and

1:01:18 ↗ layout these polygons they're looking at

1:01:21 ↗ how how to optimize the locations of the

1:01:25 ↗ individual nodes and the polygons so

1:01:27 ↗ that it most efficiently and effectively

1:01:30 ↗ handles that traffic and every every one

1:01:37 ↗ of the providers of course has their own

1:01:38 ↗ FCC license frequencies and all the

1:01:43 ↗ networks are they're designed

1:01:44 ↗ differently the if they're going to have

1:01:46 ↗ capacity issues they're going to be in

1:01:48 ↗ different areas so that's a partial

1:01:53 ↗ answer to the question that some of you

1:01:55 ↗ have about well are we going to see a

1:01:57 ↗ whole bunch of these boxes on the same

1:01:59 ↗ pole or a whole bunch of these boxes in

1:02:01 ↗ the same place you know each each

1:02:05 ↗ network is individually designed and

1:02:08 ↗ engineers that are operating that

1:02:10 ↗ network are looking to optimize their

1:02:13 ↗ particular network so you know there may

1:02:15 ↗ be some overlap but maybe not as much as

1:02:19 ↗ we might all be concerned about so that

1:02:23 ↗ the issue here is so we've got kind of a

1:02:26 ↗ complicated network design project when

1:02:30 ↗ the engineers are laying out these

1:02:32 ↗ polygons and to require a provider to

1:02:37 ↗ essentially analyze five different types

1:02:41 ↗ of locations within 150 feet of the

1:02:44 ↗ proposed location for each node and the

1:02:47 ↗ polygon so there might be you know

1:02:49 ↗ everywhere maybe between five and twenty

1:02:51 ↗ nodes in a polygon it is it becomes very

1:02:57 ↗ impracticable and and it it also you

1:03:03 ↗ know is imposing I think enough burden

1:03:09 ↗ that we have a concern that this may run

1:03:15 ↗ afoul of the materially inhibit

1:03:17 ↗ prohibition and I mean the last thing

1:03:20 ↗ that t-mobile or any other provider

1:03:22 ↗ wants to do is to get in some

1:03:24 ↗ of illegal argument with the city we

1:03:26 ↗ really don't want to do that what we're

1:03:28 ↗ trying to do is to improve the service

1:03:30 ↗ that we provide to the community and we

1:03:32 ↗ want to try to you know walk down that

1:03:37 ↗ path together with you and not be

1:03:39 ↗ arguing about it and so our request is

1:03:43 ↗ with respect to this this hierarchy

1:03:48 ↗ which was established before the FCC

1:03:52 ↗ order came out so none of us had the

1:03:55 ↗ benefit of that language that maybe we

1:03:57 ↗ revisit that together and see if there's

1:04:00 ↗ a way to fine-tune the design guidelines

1:04:03 ↗ in the ordinance so that it it's giving

1:04:07 ↗ you the comfort that you're seeking that

1:04:09 ↗ if we're asking to locate on a

1:04:12 ↗ particular type of pole or in a

1:04:14 ↗ particular area of the city that the

1:04:17 ↗ design guidelines that are appropriate

1:04:20 ↗ to that pole type or that area of the

1:04:22 ↗ city are tailored to give you the

1:04:25 ↗ comfort that you're seeking about

1:04:27 ↗ aesthetic effects I think that concludes

1:04:34 ↗ my comments and I really appreciate the

1:04:36 ↗ opportunity and I'm happy to take any

1:04:38 ↗ questions if you have them either now or

1:04:39 ↗ later thank you very much appreciate

1:04:42 ↗ that

1:05:01 ↗ good evening my name is Greg Busch I'm a

1:05:04 ↗ program manager a wireless policy group

1:05:06 ↗ and I'm here tonight on behalf of AT&T I

1:05:09 ↗ understand that our comments were

1:05:11 ↗ submitted fairly late and our red lines

1:05:13 ↗ were as well so what I did was I printed

1:05:15 ↗ out the letter that we emailed may not

1:05:18 ↗ have time to forward to everyone so who

1:05:20 ↗ would be the so to sum up what's in the

1:05:34 ↗ letter AT&T is concerns fall under two

1:05:37 ↗ categories first is that we still have

1:05:43 ↗ the same concerns from last year when

1:05:44 ↗ the code was adopted that with regards

1:05:48 ↗ to the prohibition of co-locating on

1:05:52 ↗ municipality own poles and decorative

1:05:54 ↗ poles and the prohibition of going in

1:05:59 ↗ the front Street right-of-way at all

1:06:01 ↗ that does make it more difficult to

1:06:03 ↗ adequately serve the area and it's also

1:06:05 ↗ a business decision of how difficult it

1:06:08 ↗ is to sites in Issaquah period as my

1:06:12 ↗ colleagues said it does become difficult

1:06:14 ↗ when the application requirements are

1:06:17 ↗ more burdensome than other jurisdictions

1:06:20 ↗ it becomes essentially more difficult

1:06:22 ↗ not only for AT&T but for our site

1:06:25 ↗ acquisition teams takes longer to get

1:06:27 ↗ approved we have to do a lot more

1:06:29 ↗ groundwork to evaluate alternatives so

1:06:32 ↗ that makes deployments slower as well

1:06:34 ↗ and the second concern we have is

1:06:37 ↗ compliance with the FCC order which is

1:06:41 ↗ in light of the more difficult nature of

1:06:48 ↗ essentially we have only ability to go

1:06:51 ↗ on utility poles or to try and place new

1:06:53 ↗ poles that makes it harder to comply

1:06:57 ↗ with the order and with the siting

1:07:03 ↗ criteria in the code there's a

1:07:06 ↗ deviations that allows us to say okay

1:07:09 ↗ staff we understand this doesn't fully

1:07:11 ↗ comply with the code but with the

1:07:13 ↗ deviations in section 18

1:07:15 ↗ 2290 see there are some criteria that

1:07:19 ↗ say okay here are some guidance for

1:07:20 ↗ staff and if we follow these we can fit

1:07:23 ↗ these sites in this location 18t

1:07:27 ↗ understands what staff and council are

1:07:30 ↗ going for with the criteria as in what

1:07:34 ↗ our red lines proposed was oh just

1:07:37 ↗ comply with the FCC order and use the

1:07:39 ↗ language in the order but to give

1:07:41 ↗ guidance to staff it's harder to prove a

1:07:47 ↗ negative than to say okay here are the

1:07:49 ↗ positive points like if you follow these

1:07:50 ↗ three things then that's okay to have a

1:07:53 ↗ deviation that we would like to work

1:07:56 ↗ with staff and council over the next few

1:07:58 ↗ weeks to have a few better points for

1:08:02 ↗ the deviation guidelines so to sum up

1:08:04 ↗ AT&T still has concerns over the

1:08:08 ↗ difficulty and prohibition of going on

1:08:11 ↗ Front Street and the inability to go on

1:08:15 ↗ municipality on poles and we'd like to

1:08:17 ↗ provide additional comments in the red

1:08:20 ↗ lines to ensure compliance with the FCC

1:08:24 ↗ order thank you thank you very much

1:08:29 ↗ appreciate

1:08:41 ↗ good evening my name is Devendra Maharaj

1:08:43 ↗ with Verizon Wireless Thank You

1:08:45 ↗ commissioners and city staff for the

1:08:47 ↗ opportunity to speak with you today

1:08:49 ↗ Mariah appreciates the city taking the

1:08:52 ↗ time to address the each of the

1:08:54 ↗ technical changes listed on our comment

1:08:56 ↗ letter which was sent to you earlier

1:08:57 ↗ today if we can just breeze through them

1:09:01 ↗ really quickly there's only six of them

1:09:03 ↗ and I will keep them very short the

1:09:07 ↗ first one is about the shot clock

1:09:10 ↗ restarting it's just to address that

1:09:12 ↗ that only applies to small wireless

1:09:14 ↗ facilities number two would be that

1:09:21 ↗ could be read to prohibit that small

1:09:23 ↗ wireless facilities in the right-of-way

1:09:25 ↗ from single-family residence we wanted

1:09:27 ↗ to just clarify that we are not placing

1:09:29 ↗ them on single-family residence but they

1:09:32 ↗ can be in the right-of-way in a

1:09:34 ↗ residential zone number three is just a

1:09:38 ↗ relief from standard for the deviation

1:09:44 ↗ standards and adjustment processes

1:09:46 ↗ number four addresses the 30-foot

1:09:50 ↗ language for a new poll where the FCC

1:09:54 ↗ calls out 50 given the topography of

1:09:58 ↗ Issaquah 30 feet for a new poll would be

1:10:01 ↗ quite restrictive for the technologies

1:10:04 ↗ we're trying to deploy to meet that

1:10:06 ↗ coverage demand number five refers to

1:10:10 ↗ the aesthetic requirements 5g will not

1:10:13 ↗ work under those design restrictions the

1:10:16 ↗ antennas need to be outside they can be

1:10:19 ↗ no more burdensome than the utility

1:10:21 ↗ poles that are currently out there

1:10:23 ↗ they're not currently held to those

1:10:25 ↗ standards those items are far bulkier

1:10:30 ↗ and more burdensome than what we are

1:10:32 ↗ proposing and the last one is us

1:10:35 ↗ addresses the substantial change it's

1:10:38 ↗ just a misstatement the code limits to

1:10:40 ↗ one CAD before it's substantial cabinet

1:10:44 ↗ excuse me for substantial change we're

1:10:46 ↗ sixty four nine that limit would be for

1:10:49 ↗ cabinets before it's considered

1:10:50 ↗ substantial change

1:10:52 ↗ and everything we've talked about today

1:10:53 ↗ is really just to align with the federal

1:10:55 ↗ law with that Verizon is also very

1:10:59 ↗ grateful for the opportunity to bring

1:11:01 ↗ small cell technology to the city of

1:11:04 ↗ Vista qua thank you thank you is there

1:11:09 ↗ anyone else from the public that would

1:11:11 ↗ like to speak Oh

1:11:14 ↗ going once going twice and we'll go

1:11:18 ↗ ahead and close public I'll leave it

1:11:20 ↗ open we're gonna leave it open well

1:11:23 ↗ we're gonna go ahead and continue public

1:11:26 ↗ comment until February 15 14 our next

1:11:32 ↗ meeting okay any other questions or

1:11:40 ↗ dialogue this evening I'd be more than

1:11:42 ↗ happy to sit down I just had a quick

1:11:44 ↗ question like as far as the technology

1:11:46 ↗ is it's going going

1:11:48 ↗ are these shrouds are these capabilities

1:11:51 ↗ getting smaller did any of you want to

1:11:56 ↗ answer that question

1:12:01 ↗ oh Linda does

1:12:08 ↗ I'll try to answer it I mean that the

1:12:12 ↗ the truth is that the technology is

1:12:15 ↗ still very much in the evolving stage

1:12:18 ↗ and a lot of the questions that you have

1:12:21 ↗ are questions that we as industry

1:12:24 ↗ representatives also have is the

1:12:27 ↗ equipment is the technology getting

1:12:30 ↗ smaller I guess part part of the answer

1:12:34 ↗ I can give is if you look at for example

1:12:36 ↗ t-mobile's design that certainly is much

1:12:40 ↗ smaller than you would see on your

1:12:43 ↗ typical macro tower with you know a

1:12:45 ↗ large panel antennas it's difficult to

1:12:51 ↗ answer the question completely because

1:12:54 ↗ we don't know exactly where the

1:12:57 ↗ technology is going in right now or

1:13:00 ↗ smoke more focused on rolling out small

1:13:03 ↗ cells there 5g is coming down the road

1:13:07 ↗ and the term 5g gets bandied about all

1:13:11 ↗ the time but I don't think that any of

1:13:14 ↗ us is that clear on exactly what it's

1:13:17 ↗ going to look like exactly what the

1:13:20 ↗ equipment that will power the Internet

1:13:22 ↗ of Things is going to look like it

1:13:26 ↗ that's not a great answer but it that's

1:13:28 ↗ all the information I have right now I

1:13:29 ↗ don't know if my colleagues have

1:13:31 ↗ anything better than that but

1:13:39 ↗ I just want to quickly chime in that I

1:13:41 ↗ appreciate Linda saying that because I

1:13:43 ↗ think that's an important thing to keep

1:13:45 ↗ in mind and I think we talked about this

1:13:46 ↗ before that there's the short term and

1:13:48 ↗ then there's the long term the short

1:13:50 ↗ term they're doing all of these rollouts

1:13:52 ↗ on existing technology and for their

1:13:56 ↗ existing networks and when all of this

1:13:58 ↗ switches over to spitting out 5g which

1:14:00 ↗ as you heard that that's not happening

1:14:02 ↗ right now these facilities could change

1:14:04 ↗ and could look different I think the

1:14:06 ↗ idea is that they're generally going to

1:14:07 ↗ still be these same types of things but

1:14:10 ↗ what that looks like they don't have

1:14:11 ↗ those there are some cities that they

1:14:13 ↗ say is we rolling out 5g and that term

1:14:16 ↗ is being used

1:14:17 ↗ I think AT&T s got like a 5g next or so

1:14:20 ↗ so there's some term I don't know if you

1:14:21 ↗ get yeah there's there something and

1:14:24 ↗ from the article I read it's not real 5g

1:14:27 ↗ but I guess my point is there's the

1:14:30 ↗ there's the what you're gonna see in the

1:14:31 ↗ next few years and you're what you're

1:14:33 ↗ gonna see down the line the franchise's

1:14:35 ↗ that are being authorized are gonna

1:14:37 ↗ cover probably both of those the codes

1:14:40 ↗ certainly will cover both of those so I

1:14:42 ↗ think that there's there's that unknown

1:14:45 ↗ that I think everybody can acknowledge

1:14:48 ↗ and appreciate we're working with as we

1:14:52 ↗ go

1:15:01 ↗ here's what I can't answer so you might

1:15:03 ↗ have been referring to 5g E which is 5g

1:15:07 ↗ evolution it's not true 5g it may

1:15:11 ↗ remember three G edge how all the

1:15:14 ↗ technologies different generations have

1:15:17 ↗ different rungs up the ladder before

1:15:19 ↗ they make the leap so we have four G and

1:15:21 ↗ then in between 4G and 5g there's five

1:15:25 ↗ GE v GE is a form of carrier aggregation

1:15:27 ↗ so it can only be deployed in a place

1:15:30 ↗ where there's four carriers already

1:15:32 ↗ there and they're on 4G so I don't know

1:15:35 ↗ the full details because this is a very

1:15:37 ↗ nice and cool program but when it does

1:15:41 ↗ get deployed we have speeds of if I

1:15:44 ↗ remember my training rights it's about

1:15:47 ↗ 200 to 400 megabits per second and that

1:15:52 ↗ was that was with v GE actual true 5g in

1:15:59 ↗ the lab they can get up to 8 gigabits

1:16:01 ↗ which is crazy that's faster than fiber

1:16:05 ↗ you have in your home but that's in a

1:16:08 ↗ lab and in the field we'll see what it

1:16:11 ↗ turns out to be so we're still rolling

1:16:14 ↗ this out and like I said or like

1:16:16 ↗ industry said this is we're still trying

1:16:19 ↗ to figure out what this is going to look

1:16:20 ↗ like and whenever I hear anyone say oh

1:16:23 ↗ 10 years from now who knows what it's

1:16:25 ↗ going to look like 10 years from now

1:16:26 ↗ where they're worried about what could

1:16:28 ↗ happen I say well I'm I'm confused as to

1:16:30 ↗ what's going to happen three years from

1:16:31 ↗ now things are moving so fast so

1:16:33 ↗ technology is changing extremely quickly

1:16:35 ↗ and it for me it's very difficult to

1:16:38 ↗ judge what's going to happen even five

1:16:39 ↗ years from now so so all of this

1:16:41 ↗ infrastructure you're putting in right

1:16:43 ↗ now these small cells this is all for

1:16:45 ↗ the 5g upcoming actually no this is

1:16:48 ↗ currently the small cells are for 4G LTE

1:16:52 ↗ equipments for five g 5g will actually

1:16:56 ↗ be rolled out for 1880s equipment I

1:16:57 ↗ can't speak for my colleagues but it'll

1:16:59 ↗ be rolled out first on the big macro

1:17:01 ↗ sites and the small cells for 5g

1:17:04 ↗ operates on a different spectrum a

1:17:05 ↗ higher

1:17:06 ↗ frequency sorry higher web higher

1:17:10 ↗ frequency and this is currently being

1:17:13 ↗ auctioned off by the FCC yeah this is

1:17:16 ↗ there are currently auctions going on to

1:17:18 ↗ use that frequency for the small cells

1:17:20 ↗ for 5g yeah it would be deployed on

1:17:24 ↗ existing frequencies that we already

1:17:25 ↗ have and it would be on the big towers

1:17:28 ↗ first

1:17:37 ↗ I think from a technology standpoint

1:17:40 ↗ we're all looking forward to the

1:17:42 ↗ benefits of 5g or make customer

1:17:48 ↗ experience standpoint we're different

1:17:51 ↗ than maybe South Seattle like what Keith

1:17:53 ↗ was saying where they want you guys to

1:17:57 ↗ come out and deploy and they don't

1:17:58 ↗ really care what the polls look like

1:18:00 ↗ here Ivor a much more picky customer and

1:18:03 ↗ so I think like delivering a better

1:18:07 ↗ customer experience to us to meets our

1:18:10 ↗ needs such as like design standards

1:18:12 ↗ would be a benefit to the carriers

1:18:16 ↗ because your customer base would be much

1:18:18 ↗ happier with you Oh

1:18:21 ↗ to be continued we continued yes all

1:18:25 ↗ right

1:18:25 ↗ so are we ready to move forward to the

1:18:28 ↗ next topic it's all right so let's go

1:18:34 ↗ ahead and we'll continue this on

1:18:38 ↗ everywhere a 14th and now we're gonna go

1:18:41 ↗ ahead and change over to the next thing

1:18:44 ↗ on the doctor which is sign code update

1:18:46 ↗ projects go ahead and if the public

1:18:48 ↗ wants to adjourn that's fine

1:18:54 ↗ and Emily is that the mic thank you

1:18:58 ↗ hello good evening commissioners my name

1:19:01 ↗ is Emily art at a Senior Planner with

1:19:03 ↗ development services here to present let

1:19:08 ↗ me just get the sign presentation going

1:19:11 ↗ with here

1:19:15 ↗ oh wait I am you can use the bottom

1:19:24 ↗ right bottom right slide show the slide

1:19:28 ↗ show on the top of spine Oh on the

1:19:31 ↗ bottom and keep going to the right okay

1:19:36 ↗ thanks yeah so my name is Emily are

1:19:39 ↗ today I'm senior planner with

1:19:40 ↗ development services and I'm here to

1:19:41 ↗ present a new project that we are

1:19:44 ↗ embarking on this year in 2019 it's the

1:19:47 ↗ sine code update and I'm also here with

1:19:51 ↗ a small team of our staff to assist me

1:19:54 ↗ in this project so we've got Lucy here

1:19:56 ↗ tonight and also Daniel Kenny from Ogden

1:19:59 ↗ Murphy who's been working with many

1:20:02 ↗ jurisdictions including ours on sine

1:20:04 ↗ code update this first slide is very

1:20:07 ↗ interesting I don't know if any of you

1:20:10 ↗ have tried this but if you type in to

1:20:12 ↗ Google pictures you get a lot of google

1:20:17 ↗ pictures it's a if you could type in

1:20:19 ↗ google pictures and then you type in the

1:20:22 ↗ phrase it's a qua this is what you get

1:20:25 ↗ you get a lot of really sine big signs

1:20:29 ↗ colorful signs of Issaquah so it said to

1:20:32 ↗ me that signs are a big thing people

1:20:33 ↗ have association with these particular

1:20:36 ↗ signs when they think of Issaquah and so

1:20:38 ↗ this is a it's a big deal anyway that's

1:20:43 ↗ why i put that sign up there the purpose

1:20:47 ↗ of this project is to legalise

1:20:49 ↗ streamline and simplify the city's sign

1:20:52 ↗ code and that's why we're here today

1:20:54 ↗ because there's several different layers

1:20:56 ↗ to work at it's somewhat complicated and

1:21:00 ↗ let me explain if you take a look at the

1:21:06 ↗ city sign code right now this is just a

1:21:07 ↗ funny pictorial but you may get a little

1:21:09 ↗ bit puzzled about how to try and

1:21:11 ↗ maneuver through the sign code there are

1:21:14 ↗ more than one there's more than one code

1:21:17 ↗ and when you look at it you really have

1:21:19 ↗ to know exactly where you're at and

1:21:22 ↗ what code to apply and then go figure it

1:21:25 ↗ out we do have lots of talented staff

1:21:28 ↗ and we've had a lot of sign permits

1:21:31 ↗ issued so it is moving along but it's

1:21:34 ↗ complicated and so part of the this

1:21:36 ↗ project would be to simplify this

1:21:37 ↗ process and make it more streamlined so

1:21:41 ↗ you didn't necessarily need to look

1:21:43 ↗ through three sign codes to find your

1:21:47 ↗ sign code permitting questions so that's

1:21:51 ↗ a big part of this project this slide

1:21:56 ↗ demonstrates just how many sign codes we

1:22:00 ↗ have we're working with the Issaquah

1:22:01 ↗ municipal code the old town design

1:22:04 ↗ standards and central Issaquah and so

1:22:07 ↗ the goal would be to merge those

1:22:09 ↗ together as best we can to come up with

1:22:12 ↗ one sign code another part of this

1:22:19 ↗ project is to legalize the sign code not

1:22:24 ↗ too recently back in 2015 there was a

1:22:27 ↗ Supreme Court decision that came down

1:22:30 ↗ with regards to regulating signs in

1:22:34 ↗ particular temporary signs this

1:22:37 ↗ particular case you may have heard of

1:22:38 ↗ its called Reed versus Gilbert and in

1:22:41 ↗ that the town of Gilbert Arizona was

1:22:47 ↗ basically put through to Supreme Court

1:22:50 ↗ on a decision of regarding this

1:22:52 ↗ particular sign from good news community

1:22:54 ↗ good news community didn't feel that it

1:22:56 ↗ was fair for their sign to be regulated

1:22:59 ↗ different than other stick signs

1:23:02 ↗ temporary signs that had more or greater

1:23:06 ↗ allowances and so what happened is that

1:23:09 ↗ a Supreme Court decision came down that

1:23:12 ↗ said hey you can't take a sign and

1:23:15 ↗ regulate it by trying to read what's on

1:23:19 ↗ the sign essentially if you have to read

1:23:22 ↗ the sign to know if your sign code if

1:23:25 ↗ you're that sign is in compliance with

1:23:27 ↗ your sign code then you're not you're

1:23:32 ↗ not compliant you're you're

1:23:35 ↗ you have to change your sign code I

1:23:37 ↗ guess that's the best way I can describe

1:23:39 ↗ it because of that this whole idea of

1:23:43 ↗ content-neutral evolved requiring cities

1:23:47 ↗ to go back and take a look at their sign

1:23:49 ↗ codes and determine where in their sign

1:23:51 ↗ codes you would need to make changes or

1:23:54 ↗ amendments in order to make the

1:23:57 ↗ standards content-neutral not regulating

1:24:03 ↗ what it says but regulating more on size

1:24:08 ↗ number location that kind of thing any

1:24:13 ↗ questions so far

1:24:20 ↗ what's going on here so this is a church

1:24:23 ↗ right and the church wanted a sign out

1:24:25 ↗ on the right away and so if your

1:24:28 ↗ jurisdiction says you can't have a sign

1:24:32 ↗ in the right away but you allow

1:24:36 ↗ political signs in the right away or

1:24:38 ↗ real estate signs in the right away

1:24:39 ↗ you're now allowing signs based on

1:24:43 ↗ content and you know First Amendment and

1:24:46 ↗ the Supreme Court said you can't

1:24:48 ↗ regulate based on what it says because

1:24:52 ↗ that's a freedom of speech issue and so

1:24:54 ↗ this is this is the crux of why we're

1:24:57 ↗ starting this but our of course because

1:25:00 ↗ we're complicated we have multiple

1:25:02 ↗ layers right I think the city is a long

1:25:06 ↗ dreamed to have one sign code and it

1:25:09 ↗ took I took a read Gilbert Supreme Court

1:25:12 ↗ decision to really lend the hand to

1:25:15 ↗ figure out you know the urgency of

1:25:17 ↗ taking a look at the sign code and I

1:25:19 ↗ think the city also didn't really have

1:25:21 ↗ enough many other projects were coming

1:25:24 ↗ up and extremely busy and low staff but

1:25:27 ↗ now that read Gilbert is here there's an

1:25:30 ↗ opportunity for us to take a look at all

1:25:32 ↗ the things that we've wanted to do and

1:25:34 ↗ haven't had to haven't had the time to

1:25:35 ↗ do but really we are now in a place

1:25:38 ↗ where we need to update the sign code

1:25:41 ↗ especially for read Gilbert so a

1:25:45 ↗ question on that then with that Supreme

1:25:47 ↗ Court rule

1:25:48 ↗ are we allowed to have different

1:25:52 ↗ different sets of code or different

1:25:55 ↗ stipulations for something that's a

1:25:57 ↗ temporary sign versus a permanent sign

1:25:59 ↗ yeah we'll get into a little bit more

1:26:02 ↗ detail but time place and manner

1:26:04 ↗ definitely and how we choose to define

1:26:08 ↗ these kinds of signs so currently for

1:26:10 ↗ example we would say you know there's

1:26:13 ↗ Garage Sale signs or political signs or

1:26:16 ↗ directional signs that all have

1:26:18 ↗ standards relate related to what you can

1:26:22 ↗ put on your sign you know and for how

1:26:24 ↗ long you can put it up so we're taking a

1:26:27 ↗ look at redefining what those signs

1:26:31 ↗ should be called and how to regulate

1:26:33 ↗ them perhaps we regulate them based on

1:26:35 ↗ the material they use something flimsy

1:26:37 ↗ something lightweight something that

1:26:39 ↗ could be stuck in the ground with a

1:26:41 ↗ sticker or a small piece of wood that

1:26:44 ↗ kind of thing we're getting creative but

1:26:45 ↗ we're not the first so thankfully lots

1:26:48 ↗ of other cities have gone through their

1:26:50 ↗ sign code update successfully and Ogden

1:26:53 ↗ Murphy has helped them and they've done

1:26:55 ↗ it in a way that they've the outcomes

1:26:57 ↗ been very pleasing so Ogden Murphy has

1:27:00 ↗ been dreaming of sign code I don't think

1:27:03 ↗ anybody dreams of sign codes and if you

1:27:05 ↗ are then I know comment but this is a

1:27:14 ↗ fun project for for the reasons of all

1:27:16 ↗ the complexities that it has not just

1:27:18 ↗ the read Gilbert so trying to keep it

1:27:21 ↗ interesting and I'm trying to keep

1:27:23 ↗ excited about it in lots of ways so just

1:27:28 ↗ keeping along with a little bit of humor

1:27:29 ↗ about time place and manner you know if

1:27:31 ↗ you've got Snoopy up there talking about

1:27:33 ↗ this you know the place is the night and

1:27:36 ↗ it's in its stormy outside we we can

1:27:39 ↗ regulate on time place and matter

1:27:42 ↗ we can't regulate on content so that's

1:27:45 ↗ it's going to be it's are going to

1:27:47 ↗ require a fine you know set of a lot of

1:27:51 ↗ refining of what we currently have to

1:27:53 ↗ get to time place and manner and get

1:27:55 ↗ away from content but I think we'll be

1:27:57 ↗ successful how do we define manner of

1:28:00 ↗ signs

1:28:01 ↗ I looked that word up that's a really

1:28:02 ↗ interesting question that you had it's

1:28:05 ↗ it's really quite broad it's often a

1:28:09 ↗ description you know or or mechanism it

1:28:13 ↗ could be both so it has a fairly vague

1:28:17 ↗ definition to it I didn't put it in my

1:28:20 ↗ slide presentation but maybe Lucy has an

1:28:22 ↗ explanation sneaked up here for a minute

1:28:25 ↗ so I think you know time could be a

1:28:29 ↗ permanent sign versus a temporary sign

1:28:31 ↗ place could be can it be on a building

1:28:34 ↗ can it be in the right-of-way can it be

1:28:37 ↗ on a window and and I'm going to

1:28:40 ↗ springboard off your broad point to say

1:28:44 ↗ that the manner you know its materials

1:28:47 ↗ its color its how it's attached its

1:28:54 ↗ broad broad its colors so I think it's

1:28:57 ↗ all those other sort of aesthetic and

1:29:00 ↗ design characteristics and content I

1:29:06 ↗ think the important thing about content

1:29:08 ↗ which I think Emily has really described

1:29:11 ↗ but just since we're kind of summarizing

1:29:13 ↗ here it's both we can't say we used to

1:29:17 ↗ say you can't have telephone numbers on

1:29:19 ↗ signs we don't say that anymore

1:29:22 ↗ and we can't say that anymore but the

1:29:24 ↗ other piece is that we can't know what

1:29:27 ↗ the regulations are for a sign based on

1:29:31 ↗ the type of sign it is so we can have a

1:29:35 ↗ primary sign we can have a window sign

1:29:37 ↗ we can have a secondary sign but it's

1:29:40 ↗ all those signs that Emily was listening

1:29:42 ↗ like garage sale for sale political

1:29:47 ↗ signs those are all based the

1:29:50 ↗ regulations are based on the type of

1:29:52 ↗ sign and and its content yeah the

1:29:58 ↗ simplest way to think about it is that

1:30:00 ↗ if you have to read the sign if you're

1:30:02 ↗ the code compliance officer and you had

1:30:04 ↗ to read the sign to determine the

1:30:07 ↗ applicable standards that the city is

1:30:09 ↗ adopted then then that's a no-no

1:30:12 ↗ that doesn't work and you haven't you

1:30:14 ↗ haven't been successful in getting to

1:30:17 ↗ content-neutral

1:30:19 ↗ we have so do we have codes in place

1:30:22 ↗ today that address content specifically

1:30:24 ↗ yes most of the sign code is

1:30:28 ↗ content-based such as can give me an

1:30:31 ↗ example

1:30:35 ↗ magenta listing your name and your phone

1:30:39 ↗ number you know the time the days those

1:30:43 ↗ kinds of things that you could you could

1:30:44 ↗ put you know you could put on your sign

1:30:47 ↗ so there's specific regulations for

1:30:51 ↗ garage sale signs and yard sell signs

1:30:53 ↗ about what you can put on there so in

1:30:57 ↗ other words what you're saying when you

1:30:58 ↗ say content neutral is you're basically

1:31:01 ↗ approving a blank sign you're approving

1:31:05 ↗ customer can put on anything they want

1:31:07 ↗ any kind of message right yeah and you

1:31:09 ↗ can't there's no control yeah you're

1:31:12 ↗ right we we laughed at that in my former

1:31:14 ↗ jurisdiction where there's a banner that

1:31:16 ↗ it goes across the street and we

1:31:20 ↗ wondered if someone was going to use the

1:31:23 ↗ read Gilbert decision to put something

1:31:25 ↗ up there that was profane so true we can

1:31:29 ↗ we objected in things against obscenity

1:31:33 ↗ is there at least I know I don't know

1:31:36 ↗ that's going down a hypothetical and we

1:31:41 ↗ could go down and evaluate all kinds of

1:31:43 ↗ options right now we just want to take a

1:31:44 ↗ look at what we have okay and convert

1:31:46 ↗ those into content neutral and deal with

1:31:48 ↗ whatever circumstances we need to at the

1:31:51 ↗ time we need to deal with them but not

1:31:52 ↗ before that yeah I think yeah I mean I

1:31:55 ↗ have a big concern with like hate speech

1:31:57 ↗ like I'm thinking it can't be the flavor

1:32:00 ↗ of this supreme Supreme Court ruling to

1:32:02 ↗ allow each speech on signs post around I

1:32:07 ↗ think we've got a comment here from our

1:32:08 ↗ lawyer like West Baptist Church yeah so

1:32:13 ↗ so there are limitations under the First

1:32:16 ↗ Amendment for what would be protected

1:32:18 ↗ under the First Amendment and I think

1:32:20 ↗ like you said you know we won't get into

1:32:22 ↗ the details of those

1:32:24 ↗ I would just encourage you to it's

1:32:28 ↗ probably farther away from what you're

1:32:31 ↗ comfortable with than you think it is so

1:32:34 ↗ it's it's not just our community doesn't

1:32:37 ↗ want that up there it's gonna have to

1:32:39 ↗ pass a pretty tough test under the First

1:32:41 ↗ Amendment

1:32:43 ↗ and that's why you see things in

1:32:45 ↗ protests at particular stores or

1:32:48 ↗ businesses or on the news that you you

1:32:51 ↗ may feel is uncomfortable or disgusting

1:32:54 ↗ or however you want to phrase it but is

1:32:56 ↗ allowed so I just wanted to caution that

1:33:00 ↗ yes you're gonna protect against hate

1:33:03 ↗ speech and profanity and inciting riots

1:33:05 ↗ things like that but it's not going to

1:33:08 ↗ be as easy as our community just doesn't

1:33:11 ↗ really feel that way oh I'd like to ask

1:33:14 ↗ how kind of a this is a hypothetical but

1:33:17 ↗ I think kind of addresses some of the

1:33:20 ↗ concerns that we were talking about here

1:33:23 ↗ let's say that we looking out maybe 10

1:33:26 ↗ years from now with this new sign policy

1:33:29 ↗ we have a vape shop that wants to

1:33:32 ↗ advertise smoking pot and date products

1:33:38 ↗ and they want to put it on these real

1:33:40 ↗ estate like signs they want to put them

1:33:43 ↗ in front of a school or put them in

1:33:45 ↗ right away is that something that we're

1:33:49 ↗ saying we have to allow because we can't

1:33:53 ↗ control the content just like a person

1:33:56 ↗ can put a real estate sign in a

1:33:57 ↗ neighborhood now we can have vape shops

1:34:00 ↗ or other merchants put signs in

1:34:03 ↗ different neighborhoods to advertise

1:34:05 ↗ their businesses that's a good question

1:34:09 ↗ I don't have a specific answer we do

1:34:11 ↗ have policies and procedures in place

1:34:14 ↗ right now for what we would call mobile

1:34:17 ↗ a-frame signs and permitting

1:34:19 ↗ requirements for them and place where

1:34:21 ↗ they can place them especially in

1:34:23 ↗ commercial zones but it may it may raise

1:34:27 ↗ a larger question about mobile a-frame

1:34:31 ↗ signs used previously used by real

1:34:35 ↗ estate agents for open houses and

1:34:37 ↗ what we would want to do with trying to

1:34:40 ↗ prevent I suppose or limit you know

1:34:44 ↗ someone else taking advantage of that

1:34:47 ↗ open spot if we don't call it an open

1:34:49 ↗ house sign with content-based

1:34:51 ↗ regulations yeah we definitely you can

1:34:57 ↗ if you can put a sign there you can

1:34:59 ↗ whatever you want to well so and maybe

1:35:01 ↗ this is a question I don't know the

1:35:02 ↗ answer and maybe Emily and Daniel do I

1:35:04 ↗ mean so right now an off premise sign is

1:35:08 ↗ not allowed for a business so that would

1:35:12 ↗ address your concern that the vape shop

1:35:14 ↗ or the pot shop the cannabis shop has a

1:35:18 ↗ sign in front of the school because

1:35:20 ↗ that's off premise the question is is

1:35:23 ↗ off premise for businesses a Content

1:35:27 ↗ issue is for something else

1:35:29 ↗ this isn't that the same thing as a real

1:35:32 ↗ estate site yeah no it's not I mean cuz

1:35:35 ↗ the real estate sign is not is not

1:35:38 ↗ advertising the Realtors office right

1:35:40 ↗ it's it's a property that's for sale I'm

1:35:42 ↗ gonna go sit down because I don't know

1:35:43 ↗ what I'm talking about I'm not I'm not

1:35:46 ↗ sure I know exactly but what you're

1:35:49 ↗ bringing up is the kinds of issues that

1:35:52 ↗ we're going to have to deal with so if

1:35:54 ↗ it if they tried to place it on the

1:35:56 ↗ school property they would the school

1:36:00 ↗ would have control over I'm sorry my

1:36:02 ↗ earrings have Tom my scarf and it's

1:36:04 ↗ driving me crazy

1:36:06 ↗ thank you I have my help yes so a piece

1:36:14 ↗ of property gets to control what is on

1:36:17 ↗ that property and so a school could say

1:36:21 ↗ we are not going to allow any signs from

1:36:25 ↗ someone else on that property the

1:36:29 ↗ right-of-way is going to be a big

1:36:30 ↗ question that we think we're gonna end

1:36:32 ↗ up talking about because if you you know

1:36:37 ↗ ownership and who we allow into the

1:36:42 ↗ right-of-way once we allow certain

1:36:44 ↗ things into the right-of-way then we

1:36:46 ↗ have to thank you allow everything into

1:36:49 ↗ the right-of-way

1:36:50 ↗ and so that you know I think that's why

1:36:53 ↗ we're trying to introduce this topic

1:36:55 ↗ tonight is to make sure that we know the

1:36:58 ↗ issues that that you guys are

1:37:00 ↗ particularly concerned about we don't

1:37:02 ↗ have the answers we are just starting

1:37:04 ↗ down this road and we're trying to test

1:37:09 ↗ some of these you know in help educate

1:37:11 ↗ you on the things that we're trying to

1:37:13 ↗ accomplish and that we see as challenges

1:37:16 ↗ get some initial feedback from you and

1:37:19 ↗ then we're going to go dig into these

1:37:21 ↗ because we know that for instance

1:37:23 ↗ opening up the right-of-way to everyone

1:37:25 ↗ being able to put any sign they want

1:37:28 ↗ anywhere would not be consistent with

1:37:30 ↗ the way the community is handled signs

1:37:32 ↗ and so we know that that's already one

1:37:38 ↗ area in which we're going to have to

1:37:40 ↗ invest some time okay the reason why I

1:37:43 ↗ brought that up I just envisioned guard

1:37:46 ↗ work signs tree trimming signs nail

1:37:51 ↗ salon signs and all of a sudden our

1:37:54 ↗ community is going to be sign infested

1:37:57 ↗ with really cheap chintzy signs and all

1:38:01 ↗ of a sudden we've got a dilemma because

1:38:04 ↗ a real estate sign is a legitimate sign

1:38:06 ↗ you're trying to sell someone's real

1:38:08 ↗ estate and that sign directs people to a

1:38:10 ↗ location but now we're saying that we

1:38:12 ↗ can't control the content so if we don't

1:38:16 ↗ allow the salon signs of the yard work

1:38:18 ↗ signs then we're gonna also eliminate

1:38:21 ↗ the real estate science which is going

1:38:23 ↗ to negatively impact rural state

1:38:26 ↗ companies and customers which would be

1:38:28 ↗ the homeowners yes I don't think we have

1:38:35 ↗ the answer yet yeah there's some risk

1:38:37 ↗ for sure and things will change and

1:38:40 ↗ other cities have survived so I would

1:38:44 ↗ ask you to refrain from doom and gloom

1:38:46 ↗ and know that we can be successful and

1:38:51 ↗ we're gonna have to open ourselves up to

1:38:53 ↗ more risk for sure and we will come back

1:38:57 ↗ with recommendations for you to review

1:39:00 ↗ as the year goes on when we address

1:39:03 ↗ these

1:39:03 ↗ is okay I have a different direction

1:39:08 ↗ question then when you say we can't

1:39:12 ↗ address content does that limit our

1:39:17 ↗ ability to basically the idea of a blank

1:39:21 ↗ sign does that limit our ability to

1:39:23 ↗ address designs such as color or the

1:39:27 ↗ lighting on the sign yeah yeah in fact

1:39:32 ↗ we've we've got some ideas about design

1:39:35 ↗ guidelines coming in and playing a more

1:39:38 ↗ significant role in the city's sign code

1:39:42 ↗ they they have a very minor role right

1:39:44 ↗ now with very they're more like

1:39:46 ↗ suggestions as opposed to guidelines

1:39:49 ↗ that we could adhere to so it's also an

1:39:53 ↗ opportunity to beef up our look in our

1:39:55 ↗ feel with something more concrete for

1:39:57 ↗ for planners to use as they administer

1:40:00 ↗ the code so if I understand this right -

1:40:03 ↗ we can still impose certain criteria

1:40:07 ↗ like denying something like the

1:40:09 ↗ right-of-way we just it just can't be on

1:40:11 ↗ content even if you were we could say

1:40:14 ↗ the right-of-way is not open for anybody

1:40:15 ↗ right we could if we wanted to he's

1:40:20 ↗ saying you know we can't do that I mean

1:40:22 ↗ I suppose you you could you could

1:40:24 ↗ regulate place let's just say that you

1:40:26 ↗ could regulate place but the

1:40:28 ↗ right-of-way has been the traditional

1:40:30 ↗ place for political signage and yard

1:40:33 ↗ sale signs and free speech and things

1:40:35 ↗ like that what kind of like to daniel's

1:40:37 ↗ point if you do it for one you do it for

1:40:39 ↗ all and it's like you said it's going to

1:40:42 ↗ be probably not in our comfort zone we

1:40:50 ↗ will figure it out we will figure it out

1:40:51 ↗ other places have been successful at a

1:40:53 ↗ legal question I don't know if this is

1:40:57 ↗ going to get me in hot water or not but

1:40:58 ↗ when it comes to enforcement can we

1:41:02 ↗ choose to enforce and if the problem

1:41:04 ↗ becomes in other words if we say it's

1:41:07 ↗ illegal to do this we just don't enforce

1:41:10 ↗ it because it hasn't been an

1:41:12 ↗ and all sudden it's an issue can we turn

1:41:14 ↗ on it and force it you can enforce it if

1:41:18 ↗ it's against the law you can enforce it

1:41:21 ↗ do you want to I'm not sure how you can

1:41:26 ↗ say that you should enforce your code

1:41:28 ↗ uniformly for everybody at all times

1:41:37 ↗ exercising their certain rights - so

1:41:40 ↗ what's the next step then oh let me get

1:41:45 ↗ through some other slides so just I

1:41:47 ↗ think we've talked about these a bit

1:41:49 ↗ more but you know we've talked about

1:41:50 ↗ lighting and and and not lighting these

1:41:53 ↗ are things that you can continue to

1:41:57 ↗ regulate you can create standards for

1:42:00 ↗ them so we've got a lot of room to work

1:42:04 ↗ with it's it's it's not all off the

1:42:08 ↗ table and we've talked about these -

1:42:11 ↗ some of the issues that we know are

1:42:13 ↗ going to be complicated

1:42:15 ↗ right off the bat or temporary signs you

1:42:18 ↗ know definitions redefining what

1:42:20 ↗ political sign really means now for

1:42:22 ↗ example and looking at our exceptions or

1:42:25 ↗ exemptions and and finding out how to

1:42:28 ↗ simplify those how to reword them making

1:42:32 ↗ sure they tie back in to the definitions

1:42:35 ↗ that we're reworking that there's good

1:42:37 ↗ there's good continuity but when it

1:42:42 ↗ comes right down to it we want to take

1:42:43 ↗ the maze and we want to have a straight

1:42:45 ↗ line through it so we get to easier

1:42:48 ↗ permitting easier applications and

1:42:50 ↗ standardized compliance public

1:42:55 ↗ involvement will be a big part of this

1:42:57 ↗ project we're gonna be leading off this

1:43:01 ↗ first quarter with some stakeholder

1:43:03 ↗ presentations designing a webpage which

1:43:06 ↗ is actually up right now

1:43:08 ↗ some comment forms for people to submit

1:43:10 ↗ online and at public meetings there's an

1:43:14 ↗ opportunity for using the notify me part

1:43:17 ↗ of the city's webpage where if they

1:43:19 ↗ wanted to get updates that get email

1:43:21 ↗ news flashes sent directly to their

1:43:23 ↗ emails

1:43:24 ↗ we're gonna have to work with the city's

1:43:26 ↗ council committees in particular Lyndon

1:43:29 ↗ Shore and then the City Council and then

1:43:33 ↗ the next steps project presentation and

1:43:36 ↗ discussion continued public meeting and

1:43:39 ↗ outreach continued meetings with you

1:43:42 ↗ Commission reviews and public hearings

1:43:44 ↗ committee review counselor decision and

1:43:46 ↗ implementation and there's the location

1:43:50 ↗ for the city's webpage on signs right

1:43:53 ↗ now at the bottom any other questions at

1:44:05 ↗ this moment I have one more announcement

1:44:12 ↗ for you all remember the parks

1:44:15 ↗ department is up redoing or updating or

1:44:19 ↗ we looking at reimagining the policies

1:44:22 ↗ in the strategic the parks strategic

1:44:24 ↗ plan that you asked them to do last year

1:44:27 ↗ they're forming an ad hoc committee to

1:44:30 ↗ look at these goals and policies and

1:44:32 ↗ they wanted to know if anyone from PPC

1:44:34 ↗ would want to join them in that endeavor

1:44:37 ↗ so I told Jen think that I would ask you

1:44:40 ↗ all tonight if you think about that and

1:44:42 ↗ you want to be involved let me know you

1:44:44 ↗ can email me and say I think I've got

1:44:47 ↗ the time to do this and I will let her

1:44:49 ↗ know do they have a proposed frequency

1:44:51 ↗ for meetings no I asked that she just

1:44:53 ↗ spoke to them I think their meeting was

1:44:55 ↗ this Monday so and I haven't seen her

1:44:58 ↗ since to see if they decided if they're

1:45:00 ↗ meeting once a month or if they're how

1:45:02 ↗ they're gonna do it they chosen today

1:45:04 ↗ you know I asked all these questions as

1:45:06 ↗ I said my folks are gonna want to know

1:45:08 ↗ like specifically it's Tuesday at

1:45:10 ↗ whenever but she didn't know yet but I

1:45:12 ↗ could ask her again and then send that

1:45:14 ↗ out to see if that would help anybody

1:45:15 ↗ make a decision and if they'd want to do

1:45:17 ↗ that it'd be great I can't do that do we

1:45:19 ↗ need to open this up for public comment

1:45:21 ↗ the sign code not was just a

1:45:24 ↗ presentation well thank you very much we

1:45:27 ↗ appreciate it awesome presentation we

1:45:29 ↗ had a lot of questions thank you we're

1:45:33 ↗ all set in the next meeting hopefully

1:45:35 ↗ are you for available for February 14th

1:45:37 ↗ yes

1:45:38 ↗ because it's getting now that AJ is on

1:45:40 ↗ the transportation committee it's going

1:45:41 ↗ to be harder to get a quorum

1:45:43 ↗ oh and what a day to choose to have yeah

1:45:48 ↗ do we what are we doing about the

1:45:51 ↗ vacancy on this commission do we have to

1:45:53 ↗ wait at some point to or yeah that'll

1:45:55 ↗ come when we when they advertised all

1:45:57 ↗ the open positions okay but that we

1:46:00 ↗ would fill that and 2019 we can't wait

1:46:03 ↗ we're knee we can't appoint something

1:46:05 ↗ early okay right we would do that in May

1:46:07 ↗ okay all right so I'm gonna go ahead and

1:46:13 ↗ call the meeting here at 8:16 and we are

1:46:17 ↗ adjourned thank you very much Ron

1:46:27 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (8)

Administration/Staff: Ron Faul

Trish Heinonen

Planning Policy Manager Bill Rinehart Emily Arteche

Senior Planner Lindsey Walsh Keith Niven

Development Svc. Director AJ McGauley

Alt. (Voting as Regular Member) Jason Voiss

Alt. (Voting as Regular Member) Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Joan Probala

Joy Lewis Troy Rahmig