Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, February 14, 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 – Vacant 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 – Vacant see IMC 18.03. 2020 – Vacant 2020 – Jason Voiss 2020 – Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 24, 2019 11 - 44 Proposed Amendments to IMC 18.22 a) Wireless Communication Facilities, (D)

Keith Niven, Economic & Development Services Director · packet pp.5–10

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:38 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-24-19 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000]

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Discussion - Issaquah Treasures

Information · Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager · packet pp.45–67

Open packet at p.45 ↗

Staff report:

. . RESOLUTION NO. 93 -- /,.- REGULAR BUSINESS a)

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.69

2634 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ February 14th Valentine's a program of

0:17 ↗ the planning policy commission before we

0:20 ↗ start I want to make a couple comments I

0:22 ↗ wasn't here last week and I know that

0:25 ↗ the mayor came and said some really nice

0:26 ↗ words and I want to make sure that I

0:29 ↗ have the opportunity to thank her

0:31 ↗ because I think we really appreciate

0:33 ↗ having her come in and understanding

0:35 ↗ that we do spend a lot of time going

0:37 ↗ over this and and try our best to help

0:39 ↗ the city on their road of reeked of I

0:45 ↗ don't know and I want to send a

0:50 ↗ congratulations out to our former member

0:57 ↗ who is now a member of the City Council

1:00 ↗ so I'm really pleased that she is on the

1:05 ↗ City Council she did a great job on here

1:07 ↗ and I'm sure she will in the City

1:08 ↗ Council and the last thing is Ajay is

1:12 ↗ not with us anymore because he is now on

1:14 ↗ the Transportation Committee and he did

1:17 ↗ love us but his passion is

1:20 ↗ transportation so I hope he does well

1:24 ↗ and is happy in his new surroundings so

1:27 ↗ with that I need a motion for approval

1:35 ↗ of the minutes for January 24th I'd like

1:38 ↗ to make a motion to approve the minutes

1:42 ↗ of January 24th 2019 second what's a

1:46 ↗ second any discussion all those in favor

1:51 ↗ say aye all right toast motion carries

1:55 ↗ since Keith is standing at the podium I

1:59 ↗ assume that we're going to get an update

2:00 ↗ before we continue with the public

2:05 ↗ comments public hearing I'm sure just a

2:10 ↗ brief one thank you madam chair Keith

2:14 ↗ Niven director of economic development

2:16 ↗ and development services for the city so

2:19 ↗ in your packet tonight

2:22 ↗ we did a number of things one of the

2:27 ↗ things was basically a memorandum and I

2:31 ↗ assume at some point we'll probably be

2:33 ↗ spending most of our time here and and

2:36 ↗ what I did was to provide the comments

2:42 ↗ that we got in comment we got comment

2:44 ↗ letters if you remember the the day of

2:46 ↗ the hearing last time and so what I did

2:49 ↗ was I just basically clipped all those

2:52 ↗ comments in under the provider so

2:55 ↗ there's a section for Verizon a section

2:56 ↗ for t-mobile and a section for AT&T and

3:00 ↗ then a column for how the city responded

3:03 ↗ to that comment and then if there was

3:06 ↗ proposed code change what that would

3:08 ↗ look like so I assumed probably most of

3:12 ↗ what we'll do tonight is go through this

3:14 ↗ and probably land on those things where

3:18 ↗ the city didn't agree with the comments

3:20 ↗ that were provided by the provider and

3:22 ↗ talk through those and see if you guys

3:23 ↗ have any questions for why we didn't

3:26 ↗ agree with the proposed changes that

3:29 ↗ came in through public comment and then

3:30 ↗ I assume and we can do that either

3:34 ↗ before the continuation of the hearing

3:36 ↗ or we can hear if there's any other

3:38 ↗ comments and then go through the memo

3:40 ↗ it's your choice kind of like to get

3:45 ↗ your comments first okay so I'm gonna go

3:50 ↗ through this

3:51 ↗ ainst achingly line by line since

3:54 ↗ apparently nobody wanted to do anything

3:56 ↗ else on Valentine's Day than be here so

3:58 ↗ for the next three hours we'll be going

4:02 ↗ through this memo I'm just kidding

4:04 ↗ won't be that long well have a question

4:05 ↗ will be no all right so starting with

4:10 ↗ excuse me

4:11 ↗ starting with Verizon and for no reason

4:14 ↗ other than I think we got their letter

4:18 ↗ first

4:20 ↗ so first item number one they had a

4:25 ↗ comment about clarifying the shot clocks

4:29 ↗ we agreed with that comment and so we

4:33 ↗ provided

4:35 ↗ some additional language into the

4:36 ↗ proposed code amendment to address it

4:40 ↗ the second one 1820 209 DB 3 in table C

4:46 ↗ could be read to prohibit small wireless

4:48 ↗ facilities in the right away from

4:51 ↗ single-family residential zones so we

4:54 ↗ did modify the language to show that

4:58 ↗ property use a single-family residential

4:59 ↗ cannot be used for small cell but also

5:03 ↗ the city's zoning map and we used to

5:07 ↗ have one in this room so if you look at

5:12 ↗ the city zoning map city zoning maps a

5:14 ↗ very beautiful map with a bunch of

5:16 ↗ colors on it the colors are reflective

5:18 ↗ of the different zones in the city and

5:21 ↗ what you what you see when you look at

5:23 ↗ that map is all the public right-of-ways

5:25 ↗ are white so they are they actually

5:28 ↗ don't carry a particular zone with them

5:31 ↗ so the concern that I asked either

5:36 ↗ discouraging or prohibiting in a

5:38 ↗ single-family zone would affect the

5:40 ↗ right away it does not because the

5:42 ↗ right-of-way is not does not carry the

5:44 ↗ zone as the adjacent property unless

5:47 ↗ it's a private street no private street

5:49 ↗ is not public right away and so the

5:51 ↗ language so we did some edits to allow

5:53 ↗ for public or for private streets in

5:57 ↗ residential areas to basically not count

6:00 ↗ in terms of the prohibition so that if

6:04 ↗ there was a private Street let's assume

6:06 ↗ you had a cul-de-sac and it wasn't a

6:09 ↗ public street it was a private street

6:11 ↗ and a provider needed to put a antenna

6:14 ↗ on a light pole in the private street

6:17 ↗ they could do that right rollin down to

6:26 ↗ number 3 1822 0 90 and 100 at a

6:33 ↗ subsection in each to allow for relief

6:34 ↗ from standards if the denial would

6:37 ↗ amount to a prohibition and what we did

6:40 ↗ is we we added a section in 90 which is

6:47 ↗ citing criteria so we created a

6:49 ↗ deviation section in the citing criteria

6:52 ↗ which basically remember the way we

6:56 ↗ draft our code there was an encouraged

6:57 ↗ area there was a discouraged area and

7:01 ↗ there was a prohibited area right like

7:03 ↗ new poles on Front Street we said we

7:05 ↗ didn't want those so we prohibited them

7:07 ↗ if a provider needs to put an antenna on

7:13 ↗ Front Street on a pole that's the only

7:16 ↗ way they can make their system work and

7:18 ↗ they provide us with the information

7:20 ↗ that supports that the daeviation

7:23 ↗ section would say they could go ahead

7:24 ↗ and do that ok section 100 is the design

7:29 ↗ section all right and and what the asked

7:32 ↗ was is that we should also allow for

7:34 ↗ deviations in design and my sense is no

7:39 ↗ I don't think so if we ask you to color

7:42 ↗ at brown paint at Brown don't think

7:45 ↗ there's a reason why that would prohibit

7:47 ↗ you from putting that antenna there

7:49 ↗ because it's brown right I mean if you

7:51 ↗ know so so I couldn't come up with and

7:54 ↗ and Daniel Kenny from Ogden murphy

7:57 ↗ Wallace and I talked through that one I

7:59 ↗ don't think we could find a design

8:02 ↗ situation that would lead to a

8:04 ↗ prohibition and so we did not add the

8:07 ↗ deviation section to the design piece we

8:10 ↗ left it in just citing number for 1822

8:19 ↗ 102 B limits the height of a new pole to

8:22 ↗ 30 feet which is inconsistent with the

8:24 ↗ FCC definition of small Wireless the red

8:28 ↗ line change to limit to 50 feet okay so

8:32 ↗ our response was the city has an

8:35 ↗ interest in keeping Sesa Vleet all poles

8:38 ↗ out of the community where possible and

8:40 ↗ we talked about that extensively when we

8:42 ↗ adopted the code in the first place so

8:45 ↗ we revised

8:47 ↗ start with 30 foot poles and allow

8:50 ↗ higher when necessary with a maximum of

8:52 ↗ 50 so we did add the language to be what

8:55 ↗ we thought consistent with the FCC order

8:58 ↗ so they can they could ultimately do a

9:01 ↗ 50-foot pole that the code says we

9:05 ↗ really wanted at 30 and if you have to

9:08 ↗ go higher than 30 you're gonna have to

9:10 ↗ help us understand why it needs to be

9:11 ↗ higher than 30 all right 1820 to 102 D

9:18 ↗ requires a form factor for small

9:21 ↗ wireless facility only poles that would

9:25 ↗ be unworkable for Verizon small Wireless

9:28 ↗ design and it's incompatible with 5g

9:30 ↗ which requires exterior panel antennas

9:33 ↗ the FCC order requires that aesthetic

9:35 ↗ requirements for small wireless

9:37 ↗ facilities be no more burdensome than

9:39 ↗ those for similar infrastructure in the

9:42 ↗ right away that's right so our response

9:46 ↗ was Verizon participated in the input

9:49 ↗ process when the code was a additionally

9:51 ↗ drafted so so if you remember and I can

9:54 ↗ flip to that really quickly remember we

9:57 ↗ talked about you know the wonky thing

10:00 ↗ about Issaquah well we have a lot of

10:01 ↗ wonky things so when we talk about

10:02 ↗ treasurers later tonight one of the

10:07 ↗ things that's a little funky about our

10:09 ↗ community is we have a lot of different

10:10 ↗ poles you know we have kind of rust

10:13 ↗ colored poles on Front Street that are

10:15 ↗ semi old oldie fashioned we have green

10:19 ↗ poles up in the highlands we have black

10:21 ↗ poles and Talas that are kind of like a

10:26 ↗ erener theme we've got shoe boxes on

10:30 ↗ Gilman that are black so we have all

10:32 ↗ these different kind of poles right and

10:34 ↗ so we debated how do we write code

10:37 ↗ language which would allow the city to

10:39 ↗ ask the providers to put a pole that

10:43 ↗ would be complimentary to the location

10:45 ↗ where they were going to put it right

10:46 ↗ and so we put a generic pole hitting

10:53 ↗ there sorry

10:56 ↗ for cool dough so it's worth the wait

10:58 ↗ look at that so so we said hey here's an

11:03 ↗ example of a pole that you can put in so

11:05 ↗ there is predictability they can put

11:07 ↗ that pole in if they wanted to or it

11:09 ↗ says if you read up above it in

11:12 ↗ subsection D or as approved by the

11:15 ↗ designate official right so so let's

11:18 ↗ assume that Verizon says that pole

11:20 ↗ doesn't work for us we our poll looks

11:24 ↗ different and I'm not gonna show you

11:26 ↗ that unless you need to see it then what

11:30 ↗ we would do would be we'd work through

11:31 ↗ that with them you know it gives us the

11:34 ↗ ability to work more on an application

11:37 ↗ by application basis to get a poll that

11:39 ↗ works for them without trying to somehow

11:43 ↗ populate our code with all the different

11:46 ↗ options of poles that we have in our

11:48 ↗ city this just seemed like a better

11:50 ↗ approach and and that hasn't changed so

11:52 ↗ so you know part of what we tried to

11:57 ↗ limit ourselves to was let's suggest

11:59 ↗ edits to the code based on the FCC order

12:02 ↗ this poll issue that Verizon is bringing

12:06 ↗ up and this particular item really isn't

12:09 ↗ different than it was when we adopted

12:11 ↗ the initial code so our response was was

12:16 ↗ good enough the first time it's gonna be

12:17 ↗ good enough now yes ma'am

12:22 ↗ aren't there requirements that are

12:27 ↗ imposed on utility poles and in the rest

12:32 ↗ of this yes so and you weren't here last

12:40 ↗ time no I wasn't but you're catching up

12:42 ↗ sorry tune okay so so thing about it in

12:48 ↗ an abstract way we went through this

12:51 ↗ less than a year ago and we came up with

12:54 ↗ the code that we thought was the

12:55 ↗ appropriate code for our community and

12:57 ↗ it's a box about this size what the FCC

13:00 ↗ said is you got to make the Box bigger

13:03 ↗ okay and so what the edits are that are

13:07 ↗ in the

13:09 ↗ red line of the ordinance respond to the

13:14 ↗ FCC order and what we tried to do was

13:18 ↗ limit the edits during this round to

13:21 ↗ just those requirements that were coming

13:24 ↗ from the FCC so there are still

13:26 ↗ requirements but some of the

13:29 ↗ requirements like for example the volume

13:32 ↗ of the equipment went from I'm gonna

13:37 ↗ make up numbers went from like 17 cubic

13:40 ↗ feet to 28 cubic feet so so the numbers

13:43 ↗ in that particular instance got bigger

13:47 ↗ and we are changing our code to be

13:52 ↗ compliant with that I understand that

13:54 ↗ but there are requirements for each of

13:57 ↗ these other things I mean it's not like

13:59 ↗ they can put in whatever they want I'm

14:02 ↗ just trying to basically understand that

14:07 ↗ sentence because there are requirements

14:10 ↗ there are requirements you want to say

14:14 ↗ something you apparently my lawyer wants

14:18 ↗ to say something I'm gonna step aside

14:26 ↗ and I think one way to look at that at

14:29 ↗ least from our perspective is this is

14:31 ↗ not a wireline infrastructure deployment

14:37 ↗ like a cable or a powerline really

14:42 ↗ there's nothing in the right-of-way that

14:44 ↗ is a facilities such as a 28 cubic foot

14:48 ↗ box on a pole with antennas on top of a

14:50 ↗ pole that would need to be similarly

14:52 ↗ situated to this they feel like maybe

14:54 ↗ they should be treated the same as a

14:57 ↗ power pole that simply has a line but

15:00 ↗ this isn't a wire line I think when they

15:02 ↗ use that that sentence that you read

15:04 ↗ about being similarly situated and being

15:06 ↗ treated the same as other deployments

15:08 ↗ there really isn't anything to look at

15:10 ↗ in our view that is like a small assault

15:12 ↗ deployment way more than I want it I

15:16 ↗ just wanted the understanding that yes

15:19 ↗ indeed putting in those types of poles

15:25 ↗ utility poles cable ones that they still

15:28 ↗ had requirements associated with it so

15:30 ↗ it's not unusual to have within reason

15:34 ↗ an FCC approval that these poles would

15:37 ↗ have requirements on it that's all I

15:39 ↗ wanted okay okay and then last comment

15:45 ↗ from Verizon 1820 to 110 succeed

15:50 ↗ addressing how many cabinets constitute

15:54 ↗ a substantial change for posed of an

15:58 ↗ eligible facility request is more

16:00 ↗ limiting than the actual language in

16:03 ↗ Section 64 oh nine a of the middle-class

16:07 ↗ tax relief and Job Creation Act of 2012

16:11 ↗ modified under 47 USC Section 1455 a the

16:17 ↗ red line inserts the language from the

16:19 ↗ federal act so we agreed and we revised

16:22 ↗ the language accordingly now we're down

16:26 ↗ to t-mobile ot Mobile's first comment

16:30 ↗ the proposed amendments include a

16:32 ↗ definition of antenna at 18 22 o 40 that

16:37 ↗ is inconsistent with the definition of

16:39 ↗ the same term found in 47 CFR section

16:43 ↗ one point six zero two the proposed

16:46 ↗ Issaquah antenna definition adds

16:48 ↗ volumetric limitations to the federal

16:51 ↗ definition that may be in conflict with

16:53 ↗ the FCC definition of small wireless

16:55 ↗ facility which is incorporated into the

16:58 ↗ draft amendments eMobile recommends that

17:01 ↗ subsections one through three of the

17:04 ↗ proposed antenna definition be deleted

17:06 ↗ and that Issaquah dot the federal

17:09 ↗ definitions of these terms in order to

17:11 ↗ avoid potential confusion

17:13 ↗ our response was the FCC definition is

17:18 ↗ actual act accurately captured in the

17:21 ↗ first portion of the code definition we

17:23 ↗ propose removing

17:25 ↗ the additional exemplar x' and then we

17:28 ↗ revised it accordingly so I think we

17:31 ↗ think that we responded to this comment

17:36 ↗ that was raised by t-mobile

17:39 ↗ in the edits that we did number-2

17:43 ↗ t-mobile's small cell design kiss

17:45 ↗ consists of an integrated antenna and

17:47 ↗ equipment unified enclosure that mounts

17:52 ↗ to the exterior of a pole and is painted

17:55 ↗ to match the pole okay most

17:58 ↗ jurisdictions in Puget Sound region are

18:00 ↗ adopting design standards that expressly

18:02 ↗ allow this type of design eMobile

18:05 ↗ recommends that the definition of a

18:08 ↗ completely concealed facility be amended

18:10 ↗ to add the following sentence at the end

18:13 ↗ of the definition a small wireless

18:15 ↗ facility providing concealment of

18:17 ↗ antennas and equipment within a single

18:19 ↗ enclosure and otherwise meeting the

18:21 ↗ foregoing provisions of this definition

18:24 ↗ is allowable as a completely concealed

18:26 ↗ facility our comment was the proposed

18:29 ↗ changes alter the intent of the

18:31 ↗ definition t-mobile does not need this

18:34 ↗ definition change to deploy its design

18:36 ↗ of facilities and they actually raised

18:39 ↗ this when we adopted the code the first

18:41 ↗ time and we said no we thought it what

18:44 ↗ we had would allow for their current

18:47 ↗ design to work so we're not suggesting

18:49 ↗ any revisions to this one number three I

18:53 ↗ am C 1818 2209 TB includes subsections

18:59 ↗ one through five that require a provider

19:01 ↗ seeking to install a small cell to

19:04 ↗ examine and justify why five different

19:06 ↗ types of structures within a 150 foot

19:09 ↗ radius of the proposed small cell

19:11 ↗ location are not available or feasible

19:14 ↗ before a proposed location can be

19:16 ↗ approved this is an excessively

19:18 ↗ stringent preferred hierarchy that is

19:21 ↗ applied so this gets back to kind of our

19:25 ↗ whole concept of they can't look at a

19:27 ↗ discouraged location until they've

19:30 ↗ exhausted all the preferred locations

19:32 ↗ within the area they didn't like it the

19:36 ↗ first time they still don't like it

19:38 ↗ they're trying to make the argument that

19:40 ↗ this is onerous for them and you know if

19:46 ↗ all of their facilities end up in the

19:49 ↗ prohibited column then yes this is

19:52 ↗ probably pretty onerous because you have

19:53 ↗ to show that the encouraged locations

19:55 ↗ didn't work

19:56 ↗ the discouraged locations didn't work

19:58 ↗ and you had to land in the prohibited

20:01 ↗ locations and so I mean if if there if

20:04 ↗ if they choose preferred locations they

20:08 ↗ don't have to do any of these studies

20:09 ↗ right so it all depends on where they

20:13 ↗ end up wanting to put their facilities

20:14 ↗ and we felt like with the original code

20:18 ↗ language there were enough options that

20:20 ↗ most the carriers should be able to

20:23 ↗ accommodate their deployments in

20:24 ↗ preferred locations so we did not make

20:28 ↗ any changes before a hierarchy site

20:34 ↗ search requirement is of questionable

20:36 ↗ viability under the FCC's may not

20:39 ↗ materially limit or inhibit standard

20:42 ↗ articulated in standard inhibit standard

20:46 ↗ articulated in the September order and

20:48 ↗ in the October regulations the process

20:52 ↗ of elimination that would be required

20:54 ↗ under this proposed section of the

20:55 ↗ amendment likely will be time-consuming

20:56 ↗ and counterproductive same argument and

21:00 ↗ we didn't feel like we needed to make a

21:03 ↗ revision a tnt's first comment AT&T has

21:08 ↗ significant concerns with the codes

21:10 ↗ extensive prohibitions and limitations

21:13 ↗ including prohibitions of small wireless

21:15 ↗ facilities on municipal poles non

21:18 ↗ municipal decorative poles and front

21:21 ↗ street right away as well as burdensome

21:23 ↗ alternative analyses and design

21:25 ↗ standards note on 18 22 oh 91 that small

21:30 ↗ wireless facilities cannot feasibly

21:32 ↗ locate with an existing wireless

21:36 ↗ communication facility brings up

21:37 ↗ alternatives analysis note on table C

21:40 ↗ okay so our response was with the

21:44 ↗ inclusion of a deviation process the

21:46 ↗ prohibited column is no longer strictly

21:49 ↗ off-limits

21:50 ↗ so we've addressed the

21:52 ↗ that we had a prohibited column through

21:54 ↗ a deviation process and we feel like

21:56 ↗ that meets the requirements of the FCC

21:59 ↗ order 1820 209 tb1 this requirement

22:04 ↗ ensures that if and when small wireless

22:08 ↗ facilities can be located on a pole with

22:10 ↗ another they do so tech is evolving and

22:14 ↗ it is unclear this will be impossible in

22:16 ↗ perpetuity so so we've heard from all

22:19 ↗ the providers that they can't local

22:20 ↗ can't co-locate with another wireless

22:23 ↗ facility because of interference of

22:27 ↗ signals you know what we said is maybe

22:32 ↗ true now but as technology changes that

22:36 ↗ may not be true in the future and our

22:39 ↗ preference would be if you can co-locate

22:41 ↗ antennas on the same structure that we

22:44 ↗ would prefer that so we left that

22:47 ↗ language in tables see revision to add

22:51 ↗ clarification that single-family

22:52 ↗ residential is exclusive of the public

22:54 ↗ right away this was the city's intent

22:57 ↗ and is clarified so again this gets back

22:59 ↗ to that issue that I mentioned earlier

23:02 ↗ about the fact that public right away

23:04 ↗ does not carry his own and so even

23:06 ↗ though we've listed single-family

23:08 ↗ residential is either discouraged or

23:12 ↗ prohibited the right of ways within

23:15 ↗ those neighborhoods would not be comment

23:22 ↗ number two the criteria of the deviation

23:24 ↗ section are not consistent with the new

23:26 ↗ legal standards as they are described in

23:28 ↗ the FCC order our response the city has

23:32 ↗ reviewed the design standards and

23:34 ↗ believes no provision amounts to an

23:36 ↗ effective prohibition or would

23:37 ↗ materially inhibit the provision of

23:40 ↗ services so we made some minor revisions

23:43 ↗ but we left it pretty much the same

23:46 ↗ again we feel like the design section

23:48 ↗ that we talked about would not prohibit

23:52 ↗ the installation of a new wireless

23:54 ↗ facility number three

23:58 ↗ language is needed at the end of 1820

24:00 ↗ 209 ta three to reorganize that a

24:04 ↗ building or structure

24:06 ↗ may not be feasible regardless of owner

24:09 ↗ agreements suggest making this section

24:11 ↗ parallel to a one if the request was

24:14 ↗ granted but the network provider

24:16 ↗ believes it still cannot locate at the

24:19 ↗ location for other reasons the network

24:21 ↗ provider must provide the designated

24:22 ↗ official with a detailed explanation of

24:24 ↗ those reasons we agree with the proposed

24:27 ↗ revision and we revised it consistent

24:30 ↗ with similar language okay number three

24:33 ↗ deviation section is limited to the code

24:35 ↗ citing criteria when such a relief

24:38 ↗ that's oh nine t when such relief is

24:40 ↗ also required what a design standard and

24:42 ↗ that's the same comment that came in

24:44 ↗ under Verizon where they wanted the

24:46 ↗ deviation section in both oh nine t and

24:48 ↗ in 100 and again we don't believe that

24:52 ↗ there's anything in the design section

24:54 ↗ that would preclude or prohibit a

24:57 ↗ provider from installing a new facility

25:00 ↗ or the deviation section so we got a

25:03 ↗ letter from AT&T today yesterday

25:11 ↗ sometimes recently I don't think I

25:13 ↗ brought it so they had they had a

25:16 ↗ suggested edit to the deviation section

25:20 ↗ oh and I apologize this is PI not very

25:23 ↗ clear

25:24 ↗ so our deviation section is as added

25:28 ↗ basically says deviations the city's

25:30 ↗ designated official they approve the

25:34 ↗ sighting of a wireless communication

25:35 ↗ facility in a prohibited location only

25:38 ↗ if the following criteria are met all

25:41 ↗ right so we initially had under one the

25:45 ↗ applicant provides sufficient technical

25:48 ↗ information and that their suggestion

25:51 ↗ was technical or other related

25:54 ↗ information so there may be some reason

25:57 ↗ other than technical that a prohibited

26:01 ↗ location is the only choice for them

26:03 ↗ we agreed with that so we're gonna go

26:06 ↗ ahead and add the or other related

26:08 ↗ information under c1 what do we believe

26:12 ↗ would fall under or other reason its

26:15 ↗ technology

26:17 ↗ it's curious I don't I don't know the

26:23 ↗ answer to your question I think it's a

26:25 ↗ good question why do we admire you to

26:26 ↗ add it if we don't know what it means so

26:29 ↗ right now this is this is the exception

26:33 ↗ section of the code right so if

26:35 ↗ something something were to be a valid

26:39 ↗ reason

26:41 ↗ there's no variance process there's no

26:44 ↗ you know so what this is consider this

26:48 ↗ may be an escape valve I actually don't

26:50 ↗ like it let's go behind candid I don't

26:52 ↗ like it because it's ambiguous for me

26:54 ↗ right it was the door for anything right

26:56 ↗ well it so it has to be it has to be

27:01 ↗ relevant

27:01 ↗ I guess because that's what it says so

27:05 ↗ my legal counsel and if he wants to

27:08 ↗ speak to it himself he may his his his

27:13 ↗ comment was if there is a non-technical

27:19 ↗ reason that's valid the code doesn't

27:23 ↗ there's no escape clause there's no way

27:25 ↗ there's no way for us to allow it we

27:28 ↗ can't do an adjustment of standards we

27:29 ↗ can deviate this is the deviation

27:31 ↗ section so so this this language would

27:36 ↗ allow anything it you're right it would

27:38 ↗ allow anything so so why do we put it in

27:43 ↗ I'm gonna I mean one line allows

27:46 ↗ deviations across the entire document

27:54 ↗ where we determine prohibited areas so

27:59 ↗ just because they provide it does it

28:01 ↗ doesn't mean that it'll be approved I

28:03 ↗ mean it's it has to be sufficient and it

28:06 ↗ has to be relevant and then there's also

28:07 ↗ other criteria as well but if you look

28:10 ↗ at the criteria to move from encouraged

28:13 ↗ to discouraged is non-technical

28:16 ↗ information that is being provided to

28:18 ↗ make that move it is contacting those

28:21 ↗ locations and confirming whether or not

28:24 ↗ they can go there and then there's the

28:26 ↗ opportunity and we added some language

28:28 ↗ there too

28:30 ↗ you even move beyond that so what this

28:34 ↗ says here is demonstrating that there

28:37 ↗ are no encouraged or discouraged sites

28:39 ↗ available and to demonstrate no

28:41 ↗ encouraged is already a submission of

28:44 ↗ non-technical information so it is

28:48 ↗ embracing this language here in the

28:50 ↗ deviations is embracing that that

28:52 ↗ information has already become relevant

28:54 ↗ to the discussion through the code and

28:58 ↗ and if and if you look and I can show

29:00 ↗ you so if you look back at like be one

29:04 ↗ in the siting criteria that is going to

29:08 ↗ different locations

29:10 ↗ that's co-locating or existing or

29:11 ↗ replacement poles to and going to the

29:14 ↗ owner of each existing pole within 150

29:16 ↗ feet and being denied access to that

29:19 ↗ pole that is a non-technical reason why

29:23 ↗ an encouraged location wouldn't work and

29:25 ↗ so that same type of thing both for

29:28 ↗ encouraged and discouraged could be

29:31 ↗ relevant to the moving to prohibited you

29:34 ↗ repeat that one more time I'm having a

29:36 ↗ hard time processing that

29:46 ↗ which section

29:57 ↗ so the the deviation criteria not not

30:02 ↗ what's on the screen but the deviation

30:03 ↗ criteria for C 1 says the applicant

30:05 ↗ provides sufficient technical or other

30:08 ↗ relevant information that demonstrates

30:10 ↗ that no encouraged or discouraged sites

30:12 ↗ are available in order to do that

30:15 ↗ to show that the encouraged are not

30:18 ↗ available in the deviation assessment

30:21 ↗ this is what they have to show is this

30:24 ↗ is already in the code to move beyond

30:26 ↗ encouraged and doing that if you just

30:28 ↗ look at number two they're going to

30:31 ↗ owners of existing poles within 150 feet

30:35 ↗ and showing the city that they can't go

30:38 ↗ on those poles they're not being allowed

30:40 ↗ that is a non-technical piece of

30:43 ↗ information that the city needs in the

30:45 ↗ deviation discussion to show that the

30:48 ↗ encouraged location of an existing a

30:51 ↗ replacement pole isn't gonna work so if

30:54 ↗ we limited it to just technical

30:56 ↗ information by its nature we're

30:58 ↗ eliminating this review and if you look

31:02 ↗ at

31:07 ↗ so this is the table for small wireless

31:10 ↗ communications facilities the prohibited

31:13 ↗ so for example non municipal decorative

31:20 ↗ poles

31:21 ↗ well I'm sorry in the in the discouraged

31:24 ↗ so property allowing for residential use

31:26 ↗ so that's different than the property

31:29 ↗ used as single-family if if they go to

31:31 ↗ those locations and save sure I you know

31:34 ↗ will try to go there but they're not

31:36 ↗ allowed on those uses similar to what we

31:39 ↗ just looked at above and B to that is

31:42 ↗ gonna be a non technical but relevant

31:44 ↗ information where they say we would go

31:47 ↗ and discouraged we went to all of those

31:48 ↗ locations and we simply can't get on

31:51 ↗ them they won't allow us to so it's not

31:53 ↗ a technical thing where that doesn't

31:55 ↗ work for our systems

31:57 ↗ it's a those people just won't let us so

32:00 ↗ though there should be some ability for

32:04 ↗ Keith and his team to look at more than

32:06 ↗ just technical to understand whether or

32:08 ↗ not we're moving to print right and and

32:11 ↗ so thanks thanks for that all the

32:13 ↗ examples you gave were access to

32:16 ↗ property or poles that they're not

32:18 ↗ allowed to have but that's the only

32:20 ↗ reason and we put that language in there

32:22 ↗ that says if the deviation is that they

32:25 ↗ don't have access to the location or

32:27 ↗ technical reasons because by leaving it

32:30 ↗ all other reasons or non-technical it

32:33 ↗ opens it up can we be more specific as

32:37 ↗ what I'm asking on that yeah maybe I

32:42 ↗ mean I think I think the relevant is

32:44 ↗ trying to narrow not knowing what

32:48 ↗ information may be relevant I don't know

32:51 ↗ if I could write out specific things

32:55 ↗ that are other than technical not

32:58 ↗ knowing what they're going to claim

33:05 ↗ yeah thank you

33:10 ↗ big Keith Keith yes sir hang on for one

33:14 ↗ second before you ask your question so

33:17 ↗ just a procedural issue for adding

33:20 ↗ policy commission you guys can recommend

33:22 ↗ what you want our lawyer will address

33:26 ↗ that if your proposal on the deviation

33:31 ↗ section under c1 is that other relevant

33:36 ↗ information is is too broad and that

33:40 ↗ your suggestion is to tighten it down

33:43 ↗ you will be able to respond to that when

33:46 ↗ this goes to council right so if you

33:48 ↗ feel passionate about that just put a

33:53 ↗ mental note here and when we talk about

33:55 ↗ your recommendation at the end of the

33:57 ↗ night you can recommend something

33:59 ↗ different than what's being proposed for

34:02 ↗ c1 and to make sure we get to the right

34:06 ↗ c1 that would be here so what we

34:13 ↗ suggested was to agree with the proposed

34:16 ↗ edit from AT&T that would be sufficient

34:20 ↗ technical or other relevant information

34:22 ↗ so if that's feeling a little bit too

34:26 ↗ far to the left or to the right you can

34:29 ↗ recommend something different and at the

34:32 ↗ end of the day just you heard concern

34:35 ↗ from the city attorney about that

34:38 ↗ doesn't stop you from making a

34:39 ↗ recommendation you would have to then

34:41 ↗ address that with the council because

34:43 ↗ your recommendation will be part of the

34:45 ↗ conversation we have a council committee

34:47 ↗ next week

34:48 ↗ Ronde used to have a question yeah so

34:52 ↗ this actually is I think in line with

34:54 ↗ bills call-out

34:58 ↗ if we were to go with that language we

35:03 ↗ also include Landon shores oversight in

35:06 ↗ those decisions No so the council right

35:12 ↗ now the permitting process is

35:14 ↗ administrative even if it's a level 2

35:18 ↗ which would be a new poll install

35:23 ↗ you making it a council decision to

35:29 ↗ permit new wireless facilities is you

35:34 ↗ could recommend that the administration

35:36 ↗ wouldn't support that recommendation

35:39 ↗ because for one thing I don't think we

35:43 ↗ could achieve it under the shot clocks

35:45 ↗ that we have to actually be able to

35:48 ↗ respond to because if you think about it

35:50 ↗ council committee meets once a month

35:51 ↗ that could be a 29 day delay and I've

35:56 ↗ only got like 90 days to do the whole

35:59 ↗ permit review and in potential issue and

36:02 ↗ so so uh so you're welcome to suggest an

36:07 ↗ on administrative process here I don't

36:09 ↗ think this warrants a council touch

36:14 ↗ what about Development Commission so

36:18 ↗ Development Commission again that's a

36:20 ↗ level three and you know back to what I

36:25 ↗ said earlier we try to only make edits

36:28 ↗ based on the FCC order because we

36:31 ↗ thought the rest of the code was right

36:32 ↗ now the FCC order makes the Box a little

36:36 ↗ bigger if now you believe it needs to go

36:39 ↗ to Development Commission to issue to

36:42 ↗ install a new structure right now we

36:47 ↗ have that as an administrative decision

36:49 ↗ with public notice which is probably

36:51 ↗ still more onerous than most of our pure

36:53 ↗ jurisdictions we have a little bit of a

36:56 ↗ same issue with Development Commission

36:58 ↗ in that it's gonna add at least two

37:01 ↗ weeks to the process and I'm already

37:06 ↗ concerned about time so so I don't know

37:09 ↗ again I don't know what what you're

37:12 ↗ trying to address Ron with your

37:13 ↗ suggestions these are the outlyer

37:16 ↗ situations where we need to actually

37:18 ↗ have a non-technical reason for putting

37:22 ↗ in a cell tower or a small soil site

37:27 ↗ instead of just having leaving it up to

37:30 ↗ city staff but bringing it into a public

37:34 ↗ discussion using either Landon Shore or

37:38 ↗ the Development Commission a subject

37:41 ↗ matter experts to debate whether or not

37:43 ↗ this is in the community's best interest

37:46 ↗ so all right so let's assume let's

37:55 ↗ assume that a rationale that a provider

37:58 ↗ gives is that a couldn't afford any of

38:05 ↗ the properties within 150 feet in other

38:07 ↗ words let's assume that there's for

38:09 ↗ property owners around where they need

38:10 ↗ to put a new facility and let's assume

38:13 ↗ that each of those property owners said

38:15 ↗ if you're gonna put a poll here I want

38:16 ↗ $10,000 okay it could say that that's

38:21 ↗ cost prohibitive and therefore they need

38:24 ↗ to be in a different place

38:26 ↗ which might be prohibited by our code

38:28 ↗ it's a development Commission gonna do

38:30 ↗ with that conversation and and why would

38:34 ↗ you want to push it there so so at the

38:37 ↗ end of the day there's a process you

38:42 ↗ know if the Commission is concerned

38:44 ↗ about the expanse of this language

38:49 ↗ definitely put that in the record and if

38:51 ↗ you want to suggest something else you

38:53 ↗ can I'm not sure the right outcome is

38:56 ↗ send it to a public conversation

38:59 ↗ personally I was thinking about checks

39:05 ↗ and balances right so if we sent it to

39:07 ↗ city staff I know that city staff will

39:09 ↗ do that do their best bring it to a

39:14 ↗ public forum or discussion if in fact we

39:19 ↗ have property owners and say they want X

39:23 ↗ number of dollars and the utility

39:24 ↗ company says it's cost prohibitive we

39:27 ↗ want to put it in this location and this

39:29 ↗ location happens to be a very sensitive

39:31 ↗ or visual visually sensitive area and

39:34 ↗ people don't want it there then it would

39:37 ↗ be in the public's best interest to have

39:39 ↗ that

39:39 ↗ conversation and debate whether or not

39:41 ↗ we want to have that facility there and

39:46 ↗ in which case if we choose not to then

39:49 ↗ it can't be built there right so so so

39:57 ↗ the the bar has been said that we can't

40:01 ↗ prohibit the deployment of their system

40:04 ↗ okay we're not actually so then your

40:08 ↗ opinion we're not in their opinion we

40:10 ↗ might be right

40:11 ↗ I think though so now all I'm saying is

40:15 ↗ at where that ends is either they agree

40:20 ↗ with us or they they appeal the decision

40:24 ↗ right and I think that again

40:34 ↗ you're welcome to recommend what you'd

40:36 ↗ like I'm not sure the administration

40:39 ↗ would support those two choices and

40:42 ↗ that's I'm just gonna leave it at that

40:43 ↗ it seems like what you're looking for is

40:45 ↗ to make it tighter like bill was saying

40:48 ↗ make the actual language tighter around

40:50 ↗ that and not making a cumbersome process

40:52 ↗ where depending on the application

40:54 ↗ something comes in opening up to a

40:56 ↗ public but actually leaving arm already

40:59 ↗ or code or language to have things come

41:02 ↗ in in a normal review process with the

41:03 ↗ administration seems a little tighter so

41:06 ↗ again I think the idea is if we address

41:09 ↗ it with that language that you're

41:11 ↗ talking about bill that should kind of

41:13 ↗ ideally take care of it I get the fear

41:18 ↗ of opening something up to that to the

41:20 ↗ public I mean I could drag on forever

41:22 ↗ and again if you're already short on

41:24 ↗ time all right I'm gonna so just think

41:31 ↗ about your issue Ron let's let's not try

41:33 ↗ and solve it at this moment let's get

41:35 ↗ through the rest of this because like

41:36 ↗ we're home stretch right this is the end

41:38 ↗ and then and then we can hear public

41:40 ↗ comment and then if you want to debate

41:42 ↗ that part a little bit further we can do

41:43 ↗ that during Commission deliberation

41:46 ↗ so the second item

41:51 ↗ there was concern over the proposed

41:54 ↗ language it used to say the proposed

41:56 ↗ sighting will create the least and the

42:06 ↗ suggestion was to change it to minimize

42:08 ↗ I like that way better actually so it

42:12 ↗ used to say create the least visual and

42:14 ↗ noise impacts and right now we've

42:18 ↗ changed it to minimize you know I don't

42:22 ↗ want to be debating whether whether what

42:27 ↗ was proposed is the least because that

42:31 ↗ may not be it may be impossible to prove

42:34 ↗ what is the least I think the it's clear

42:38 ↗ here the expectation is to minimize the

42:42 ↗ visual and noise impact so so the the

42:44 ↗ example we gave last time so that you

42:47 ↗ remember is let's assume that we're in a

42:50 ↗ single-family subdivision and there's a

42:53 ↗ streetlight out front and it's across

42:56 ↗ the street and that's where the provider

42:59 ↗ wants to put their facility okay that

43:03 ↗ can be done a couple different ways one

43:05 ↗ is you put it there and you put the box

43:08 ↗ on the front so that I get to look out

43:11 ↗ my bedroom window at it every day or you

43:13 ↗ put the box on the back side where maybe

43:15 ↗ it's behind a tree and it's kind of a

43:18 ↗ little bit more screened and out of view

43:20 ↗ so it gives the city the ability to do a

43:23 ↗ little bit of adjustment within a

43:26 ↗ certain location so that it hopefully

43:28 ↗ minimizes the impact to the adjacent

43:32 ↗ property owners and especially if it's

43:33 ↗ residential is the concern and then we

43:38 ↗ had something about we had language in

43:41 ↗ here that said and is the safest option

43:46 ↗ again I don't want to debate the safest

43:50 ↗ option you know it has to be safe you

43:53 ↗ can't you know we have other

43:55 ↗ requirements for example our street

43:58 ↗ standards have site visibility lines

44:01 ↗ that are created so that at driveways or

44:03 ↗ intersections

44:05 ↗ you can't put a pole up that would block

44:07 ↗ somebody's sight that would potentially

44:08 ↗ cause an accident

44:11 ↗ likewise if somebody wanted to put a

44:13 ↗ macro tower in a park it's gonna have to

44:17 ↗ meet all structural requirements so that

44:19 ↗ it doesn't fall over and kill a bunch of

44:20 ↗ kids so I think we already have code

44:23 ↗ provision that allows it to be safe I

44:25 ↗ think this language here just created

44:27 ↗ another weird argument point and I think

44:32 ↗ cutting it out is a cleaner option the

44:36 ↗ last suggestion that was made by AT&T

44:38 ↗ was that we delete the third section and

44:41 ↗ what we had in here was that if you

44:44 ↗ choose or are granted the ability to put

44:48 ↗ it in a prohibited location that the

44:51 ↗ city wanted the carrier to sign an

44:54 ↗ indemnification and hold harmless on

44:58 ↗ that decision so if somebody came back

45:00 ↗ and sued later we would be a little bit

45:03 ↗ more protected that's something that we

45:07 ↗ do now for example if if we allow

45:11 ↗ somebody to build a subdivision on a

45:13 ↗ steep slope for example there's notice

45:17 ↗ on title it's clear and indemnifies the

45:20 ↗ city for those permits that were issued

45:22 ↗ so this is not an uncommon thing we

45:25 ↗ don't think it's an onerous thing and so

45:28 ↗ our suggestion is to leave c3 in and

45:33 ↗ then the last one

45:40 ↗ teetee I'm not sure why I put that one

45:42 ↗ up there not them

45:43 ↗ oh section 100 was me I did this one

45:48 ↗ right so section 100 B to a is citing

45:54 ↗ criteria that should properly live

45:56 ↗ within section 90 be so so what used to

46:00 ↗ be and I can go to that because that

46:03 ↗ might be helpful at this point 100 B 2

46:15 ↗ so what we used to have so this section

46:18 ↗ 100 is the design section and this this

46:25 ↗ to a used to say that new polls not be

46:28 ↗ located in any setback area on private

46:31 ↗ and public property it's not a design

46:33 ↗ issue

46:34 ↗ really it's a siting issue and so you

46:37 ↗ know and part of the carrier's wanting

46:40 ↗ the deviation section in 100 when I

46:43 ↗ looked through 100 this was the only

46:45 ↗ thing that really didn't belong in 100

46:47 ↗ it belongs in 90 so which is citing so I

46:50 ↗ move this it's still in the code I just

46:52 ↗ moved it from 100 up to 90 which is I

46:55 ↗ think where it should have been in the

46:55 ↗ first place and I know I said I wasn't

46:58 ↗ gonna do any code amendments that

46:59 ↗ weren't related to the FCC order but

47:02 ↗ that one was a clean up so I apologize

47:05 ↗ for that and that's the end of the

47:09 ↗ comments that we received from the

47:12 ↗ providers so if you have questions or

47:18 ↗ want to have more conversation now I

47:20 ↗ will stick around if you would rather

47:25 ↗ open up the public hearing and get some

47:28 ↗ more public comment on what the city has

47:30 ↗ agreed to and not that might be a good

47:32 ↗ choice but a minor question once all

47:37 ↗ these guys come in and try to get their

47:41 ↗ permits and put up the wireless boxes

47:46 ↗ and there is 60 and 90 day window that

47:54 ↗ you have to go into is the city have

47:58 ↗ enough manpower to be able to meet those

48:00 ↗ requirements I don't know so so the code

48:07 ↗ another part of the FCC order so we had

48:10 ↗ originally said that they could kind of

48:13 ↗ take down parts of the city at once and

48:15 ↗ and and basically that they could

48:17 ↗ consolidate like ten new facilities in

48:21 ↗ one application and one of the things

48:24 ↗ that the FCC order said was they could

48:26 ↗ potentially now come

48:28 ↗ and do one application for the whole

48:31 ↗ city and that kind of blows my mind

48:34 ↗ because that would be a really hard

48:37 ↗ permit to review because it could

48:39 ↗ potentially be an awful lot of new polls

48:41 ↗ so we are going to have to it's going to

48:45 ↗ be a priority for us to meet the shot

48:49 ↗ clocks that were dictated by the FCC

48:52 ↗ order but that's just what we're gonna

48:55 ↗ have to do so you know I think to answer

49:00 ↗ your question is we'll figure it out we

49:03 ↗ have gotten no applications I mean we

49:05 ↗ adopted this original code Lincoln was

49:08 ↗ one of the em on so it was either March

49:10 ↗ or May

49:11 ↗ we haven't gotten any applications in

49:14 ↗ since then when we talked about when the

49:19 ↗ providers were providing comment last

49:21 ↗ time there was some questions about when

49:24 ↗ they saw applications potentially coming

49:26 ↗ in

49:27 ↗ nobody had a clear horizon for when that

49:31 ↗ might be so I don't know the answer cuz

49:34 ↗ it may be years or they may all come in

49:37 ↗ at once I don't know you know if they've

49:40 ↗ already been receiving applications for

49:42 ↗ other jurisdictions Sammamish redmond so

49:47 ↗ i know i'll what I can tell you is and

49:50 ↗ and you can and maybe they'll answer

49:52 ↗ that when they come up I know that there

49:55 ↗ has been I'm a believer has been

49:58 ↗ deployment in Bellevue because I live in

50:00 ↗ Bellevue and I'm pretty sure I've seen a

50:02 ↗ bunch of white signs related to

50:04 ↗ deployment so I'm I'm guessing there has

50:08 ↗ been some in Bellevue but I don't know

50:10 ↗ to the extent of the deployment so far I

50:13 ↗ just think it has to be on the on your

50:16 ↗ radar that eventually it's gonna have to

50:18 ↗ have to do it you're gonna get a little

50:22 ↗ you know even the permitting process for

50:24 ↗ houses is it takes a long process and a

50:27 ↗ lot of time and and this is might be a

50:30 ↗ huge project so it'd be

50:34 ↗ so with that I'm going to continue from

50:42 ↗ January 24th the public hearing in

50:45 ↗ regard to the siting of wireless

50:48 ↗ communication facilities and ask if

50:51 ↗ there's anybody that would like to make

50:53 ↗ a public comment

50:55 ↗ did you nobody signed up did you anybody

50:59 ↗ sign up it doesn't look like we can get

51:01 ↗ tempted pony

51:13 ↗ good evening my name is Greg Busch and

51:15 ↗ worth wireless policy group we're

51:16 ↗ consultants for AT&T so first I'm gonna

51:19 ↗ be as brief as I possibly can I grew up

51:20 ↗ doing a kid staged last thing I want to

51:21 ↗ do is get in the way of this quad

51:22 ↗ treasures so please alright so thank

51:26 ↗ Commission for considering our comments

51:28 ↗ a second time and thank staff for

51:29 ↗ working to update the code and keep the

51:33 ↗ process going as quickly as it has been

51:34 ↗ we're really appreciative so previously

51:37 ↗ AT&T suggested changes that would bring

51:39 ↗ the code in line with recent FCC order

51:41 ↗ we understand the city's goal is to

51:42 ↗ provide something that's workable

51:43 ↗ practically and makes sense to staff to

51:45 ↗ allow them to actually interpret the

51:47 ↗ code so we're on board assets with that

51:49 ↗ in mind we do suggest we are we agree

51:52 ↗ with staff and that's with the language

51:55 ↗ changes for section 1822 zero nine zero

51:58 ↗ C with a and B with the language with

52:03 ↗ minimizing and safety AT&T is committed

52:07 ↗ to safety and minimizing impacts on the

52:09 ↗ local community with regard to the

52:14 ↗ situations with technical information

52:17 ↗ being provided

52:18 ↗ we support the staff edits mainly

52:21 ↗ because if you limits the information

52:24 ↗ that we could provide to staff to

52:26 ↗ technical information only that limits

52:27 ↗ it to RF analysis that limits to if we

52:30 ↗ can physically put a pole there but the

52:31 ↗ reality of the situation is when you're

52:33 ↗ drafting something like this it's

52:34 ↗ impossible to see into the future

52:36 ↗ because the real world you can come up

52:38 ↗ with a great long list of things that

52:40 ↗ could potentially put a site out of

52:42 ↗ commission whether its neighbors

52:43 ↗ neighbors asking ten grand or a neighbor

52:45 ↗ saying maybe if you come back in three

52:48 ↗ months I might have a deal for you and

52:50 ↗ then the city could say okay wait three

52:52 ↗ months that's something like that

52:54 ↗ situations that keep changing and moving

52:57 ↗ the goal posts it's so so hard to draft

53:00 ↗ that and a real feel really feel for

53:01 ↗ council on this one so practically there

53:05 ↗ are so many reasons that you don't want

53:06 ↗ to have a specific list of situations

53:08 ↗ and trusting city staff to just consider

53:11 ↗ it when you put the situation to

53:13 ↗ technically and other relevant info

53:16 ↗ that's not opening the floodgates that's

53:18 ↗ just allowing them to be considered that

53:22 ↗ doesn't mean you have to consider it

53:23 ↗ doesn't mean you have to accept them it

53:25 ↗ just means you're even allowed to put

53:26 ↗ the

53:26 ↗ on the table in the first place and

53:28 ↗ these could be valid reasons one of the

53:30 ↗ criterias they have to be a relevant

53:31 ↗ reason so we just asked that the

53:34 ↗ language be put in there so that the

53:36 ↗ reasons can be considered otherwise

53:38 ↗ that's a rejection and the only

53:40 ↗ available option is for the industry to

53:42 ↗ challenges' seconds okay we're good

53:52 ↗ we think the indemnification section in

53:55 ↗ 0 9 3 Serie C 3 is a little odd because

53:59 ↗ this is a siting decision AT&T would

54:01 ↗ also like to have the deviations section

54:04 ↗ to be put in the design but here it's

54:07 ↗ just inciting so the deviations can only

54:09 ↗ apply to where we actually physically

54:10 ↗ put the site we view this is more of a

54:14 ↗ decision on where the site is and how

54:17 ↗ we're going to build the sites so when

54:19 ↗ you put an indemnification provision

54:20 ↗ that's related to safety the example

54:22 ↗ staff gave was house is sliding down

54:23 ↗ hills this is I thought the staff

54:26 ↗ removed that ok this is the

54:34 ↗ indemnification thing so let me back up

54:36 ↗ a bit

54:37 ↗ AT&T suggests removing the

54:39 ↗ indemnification thing because this is

54:41 ↗ not a house that's could potentially

54:43 ↗ slide down a hill and caused massive

54:45 ↗ amounts of damage this is an aesthetic

54:47 ↗ decision in a sighting location this is

54:50 ↗ not going to slide down a hill this is a

54:52 ↗ pole that is still subject to all the

54:54 ↗ rigorous safety requirements that we

54:56 ↗ have elsewhere in this proposed code

54:58 ↗ change so indemnification seems odd to

55:00 ↗ put here what it for what is essentially

55:02 ↗ an aesthetic decision and let's see just

55:07 ↗ to be clear you just want whatever is

55:10 ↗ written in another section you're not

55:14 ↗ opposed to what it says

55:16 ↗ I'd like to be 18 18 recommends removing

55:19 ↗ the indemnification section it's odd to

55:21 ↗ put it there this is the section

55:24 ↗ determining where we can put a sites and

55:25 ↗ saying oh if we put the site in the

55:27 ↗ wrong location

55:28 ↗ there could be grievous harm we don't

55:30 ↗ think that's we don't think that a

55:33 ↗ 30-foot tall hole is equivalent to house

55:36 ↗ is sliding down a hill and let's see I

55:43 ↗ think that is about it and if you have

55:48 ↗ any questions for me I'm happy to thank

55:51 ↗ you

56:05 ↗ good evening my name is the vendor

56:07 ↗ Maharaj with Verizon Wireless first

56:10 ↗ thank you for the opportunity to speak

56:12 ↗ tonight

56:12 ↗ Verizon thanks you for the changes you

56:14 ↗ made to the request previously submitted

56:17 ↗ to the city

56:18 ↗ Verizon also supports 18 T's request in

56:21 ↗ 1822 0 9 0 SC 3 regarding the removal of

56:25 ↗ the language and lastly Verizon is

56:28 ↗ looking forward to working with the city

56:30 ↗ thank you very much thank you would

56:41 ↗ anybody else like to make a comment

56:45 ↗ please do David capital or 255 southeast

56:54 ↗ and Rose Street I've stepped into this

56:56 ↗ one before but volume how many cubic

57:00 ↗ feet of stuff can be hung up in the air

57:03 ↗ in somebody's potential view or just

57:05 ↗ along our streets and I hope that an

57:08 ↗ issue is addressed before it was 14 15

57:11 ↗ now or 20 20 cubic feet is almost almost

57:17 ↗ 35 gallon buckets okay how much do you

57:20 ↗ want to put up in the air are we dealing

57:22 ↗ with the visual of stuff up high of

57:25 ↗ course if you have it all down by the

57:26 ↗ ground you got a lot more places for

57:28 ↗ graffiti and stuff but I'd rather take

57:31 ↗ my chance in the ground and putting a

57:32 ↗ lot of material up in the air the one

57:35 ↗ tower we saw here looked you know very

57:39 ↗ skinny not much on top that's one thing

57:41 ↗ but how much extra stuff you put up at

57:43 ↗ the top is a question

57:55 ↗ would anybody else like to make a

57:57 ↗ comment hearing seeing no other anybody

58:05 ↗ else willing to do that I will close the

58:07 ↗ public hearing at 799 and ask Keith if

58:15 ↗ there's anything else you'd like to add

58:17 ↗ I don't think so I think we talked about

58:20 ↗ so indemnification language that we

58:24 ↗ included in the deviation you know again

58:31 ↗ I don't I don't see it as being that big

58:35 ↗ of an issue for the providers really all

58:40 ↗ it's doing is is kind of providing a

58:44 ↗ little bit of something extra for being

58:47 ↗ allowed to go in an area that we had

58:49 ↗ identified as being prohibited I I'm not

58:54 ↗ super passionate about this if it if the

58:57 ↗ Commission felt like that identification

58:59 ↗ was strange as was described you know

59:07 ↗ I'm not sure it substantively affects

59:09 ↗ the code so and that was that's really

59:13 ↗ what I heard I'm fine for leaving it in

59:21 ↗ its protection for the city if the

59:24 ↗ equipment doesn't pose a hazard then it

59:25 ↗ should be a non-issue I think that says

59:29 ↗ like that or in just about every and the

59:40 ↗ only other thing so I do want to thank

59:43 ↗ Devendra for providing us with a photo

59:46 ↗ sim so we asked for what this would look

59:48 ↗ like what the 28 cubic feet would look

59:50 ↗ like you guys want to see a example

59:54 ↗ again I appreciate that Verizon did this

1:00:00 ↗ for us they did not have to do that so

1:00:04 ↗ here is what this could look like

1:00:09 ↗ it's his on and this would be on

1:00:11 ↗ obviously an existing power pole so this

1:00:15 ↗ would be a situation where they would

1:00:20 ↗ either have to put in a replacement pole

1:00:23 ↗ that would be a taller height or there

1:00:25 ↗ would be an extension on top of the

1:00:28 ↗ existing pool the small cell antennas

1:00:32 ↗ would go at the top and that would be

1:00:35 ↗ about at 50 feet and then here's the 28

1:00:40 ↗ cubic foot cabinet right here so it's

1:00:48 ↗ kind of what it could look like and

1:00:51 ↗ again each this is this is utilizing an

1:00:55 ↗ existing power and light pole if this

1:01:01 ↗ was a new installation obviously there'd

1:01:04 ↗ be less clutter on the pole but this is

1:01:09 ↗ likely I think what you would see old

1:01:12 ↗ town squawk or we have wooden poles well

1:01:19 ↗ to David's point why would we put the

1:01:21 ↗ cabinet in I view like that instead of

1:01:25 ↗ on the ground where it could be

1:01:26 ↗ camouflaged with vegetation so right now

1:01:33 ↗ I believe we I look at that thing and I

1:01:39 ↗ appreciate Verizon doing that baby and

1:01:41 ↗ I've been looking on the Internet these

1:01:43 ↗ things are really ugly when they're

1:01:44 ↗ actually installed and if it's on the

1:01:49 ↗ bottom it's not so ugly

1:01:58 ↗ right now what we have is and therefore

1:02:03 ↗ so I mean section 100 which is the

1:02:05 ↗ design section if you look at 4 which

1:02:08 ↗ says pole mounted equipment all matted

1:02:11 ↗ equipment shall be located on the least

1:02:13 ↗ visible side of the pole and as high up

1:02:16 ↗ on the pole as is feasible so what our

1:02:19 ↗ code said was if you're gonna stick it

1:02:22 ↗ on the pole try and stick it up as high

1:02:24 ↗ as possible to get it above that line of

1:02:27 ↗ sight that most of us kind of walk

1:02:30 ↗ around with unless you have your head

1:02:33 ↗ down and it would be on the ground that

1:02:36 ↗ cane is City wayfinding signs may be

1:02:37 ↗ required by Disney official to reduce

1:02:39 ↗ the visual impact of the pole mounted

1:02:41 ↗ equipment boxes oh and if you re ground

1:02:47 ↗ equipment so number one it is the city's

1:02:51 ↗ preference to not have above ground

1:02:54 ↗ equipment in the right away so we kind

1:02:57 ↗ of if it's on the ground there's a

1:03:04 ↗ section on screening we actually would

1:03:08 ↗ love it to be in a vault because then

1:03:11 ↗ you just have a lid but right now the

1:03:15 ↗ code would allow it to be all mounted I

1:03:20 ↗ think these are decisions that the

1:03:23 ↗ community needs to participate in and

1:03:27 ↗ contribute to they're gonna have to look

1:03:29 ↗ at these things so I can say I think

1:03:33 ↗ it's better on the ground and other

1:03:34 ↗ people may say they think it's fine

1:03:37 ↗ being up in the air or down on the

1:03:40 ↗ ground and the vault but I think if we

1:03:44 ↗ need public comment on these initiatives

1:03:48 ↗ and the public needs to be pulled in

1:03:50 ↗ because these are going to be very

1:03:51 ↗ impactful to the community

1:03:57 ↗ so what do you propose we've had this is

1:04:01 ↗ a second community or second public

1:04:04 ↗ meeting we've had two public comments in

1:04:06 ↗ the last two meetings I think well if

1:04:08 ↗ you ask the community they have no idea

1:04:10 ↗ we're talking about these things so I

1:04:13 ↗ think we need the city should open this

1:04:15 ↗ up or public advertise it to the public

1:04:20 ↗ and say we're having these conversations

1:04:21 ↗ show a model of what they may actually

1:04:26 ↗ be in for if we don't do it I think

1:04:31 ↗ you're gonna have a lot of outcry a lot

1:04:34 ↗ of very angry people because these

1:04:36 ↗ things are very site fully ugly I mean

1:04:42 ↗ that in a very nice way but I mean no

1:04:46 ↗ offense I want 5g here but we have this

1:04:52 ↗ isn't just a small utility box like a

1:04:54 ↗ gal like a cable box or a telephone box

1:04:57 ↗ in front of someone's house these things

1:04:59 ↗ are ginormous and they're visually

1:05:01 ↗ impactful and they're very negative

1:05:03 ↗ looking and I've done a lot of research

1:05:07 ↗ on this and I've looked at what other

1:05:09 ↗ communities are having to deal with and

1:05:12 ↗ here I pulled an article written in

1:05:15 ↗ November 21st 2018 where Bakersfield is

1:05:18 ↗ having an emergency hearing community

1:05:20 ↗ hearing because they their requirements

1:05:25 ↗ were too light and they've got junk on

1:05:29 ↗ towers that are really really bad

1:05:31 ↗ looking and I sent you a picture of the

1:05:42 ↗ our drive we're under City Council

1:05:45 ↗ presentations way up at the top it's

1:05:50 ↗ under clerk's

1:05:52 ↗ and so we're talking about real-world

1:05:54 ↗ situations and I see what has been

1:05:58 ↗ deployed no it's it's not good so so so

1:06:05 ↗ Ron you can make a recommendation that

1:06:07 ↗ all new facilities go through a level-3

1:06:10 ↗ process and you can see if you have a

1:06:14 ↗ second to that motion well I'm not

1:06:16 ↗ saying that type of approval for this oh

1:06:20 ↗ I'm saying is the community needs to

1:06:22 ↗ help determine whether or not they want

1:06:25 ↗ boxes on the ground boxes in the middle

1:06:28 ↗ of the air or boxes in a vault I

1:06:30 ↗ understand what you're saying and and

1:06:33 ↗ the way to get that is because we've all

1:06:37 ↗ I think shared an opinion that every

1:06:40 ↗ location is different right and so

1:06:43 ↗ there's not going to be one answer for

1:06:45 ↗ that's gonna work for everywhere and so

1:06:48 ↗ if you believe that each application

1:06:51 ↗ should have a public review process to

1:06:54 ↗ decide whether whether the equipment is

1:07:02 ↗ pole mounted or ground mounted you can

1:07:05 ↗ make that recommendation and see if you

1:07:07 ↗ have support on the commission for that

1:07:11 ↗ motion that's not a recommendation that

1:07:14 ↗ the administration is supporting well

1:07:17 ↗ you're already making a recommendation

1:07:18 ↗ that the equipment be mid-mounted

1:07:21 ↗ somewhere on the pole that's existing

1:07:24 ↗ code right so that already went through

1:07:26 ↗ a process got adopted

1:07:27 ↗ so that part is not changing so what's

1:07:30 ↗ your what you're saying is the expansion

1:07:33 ↗ of the volume of the box has led you to

1:07:37 ↗ a position where you now want to

1:07:41 ↗ re-examine the code and the section

1:07:45 ↗ about pull mounted equipment it's not

1:07:48 ↗ the volume it's where it's located

1:07:51 ↗ that concerns me so where it's located

1:07:54 ↗ was go back to the pictures here hey

1:08:06 ↗ oh if you look in the on the far right

1:08:10 ↗ there

1:08:10 ↗ this one right okay so that is two

1:08:14 ↗ utility companies sharing the same poll

1:08:16 ↗ and if you look at that I don't want

1:08:19 ↗ that in my community and that's

1:08:21 ↗ basically what your code is saying we

1:08:24 ↗ would be in for now if you go to the

1:08:25 ↗ left that is a vault mounted equipment

1:08:30 ↗ and at the top of that is a is the

1:08:33 ↗ antenna and to me that's acceptable

1:08:37 ↗ right so I think before we actually go

1:08:40 ↗ forward with this and we allow the

1:08:42 ↗ deployment the public needs to see what

1:08:44 ↗ they're in for

1:08:46 ↗ or I can tell you a lot of people in

1:08:49 ↗ downtown or an old town are not going to

1:08:51 ↗ want what's on the right and that's what

1:08:53 ↗ our recommendation is right now based on

1:08:56 ↗ what you said is is in the code if you

1:09:00 ↗ look at that it says without

1:09:02 ↗ collaborative city input on the right

1:09:06 ↗ I think we're getting collaborative city

1:09:09 ↗ input by having the codes written the

1:09:11 ↗ way they are I think it needs to go to

1:09:16 ↗ the public so if we have a maximum of 28

1:09:22 ↗ cubic feet is that per provider or per

1:09:26 ↗ Pole that's so right now it's gonna be

1:09:31 ↗ purple because what they've said is they

1:09:33 ↗ will not co-locate so AT&T and t-mobile

1:09:38 ↗ or AT&T and Verizon or the other two

1:09:42 ↗ would not be on the same pole so you

1:09:43 ↗ wouldn't have two boxes on the same pole

1:09:45 ↗ but in theory we would be on almost

1:09:48 ↗ every pole in downtown because they

1:09:51 ↗ can't be on the same pole but you would

1:09:54 ↗ have those boxes on every pole in

1:09:57 ↗ downtown yes

1:10:01 ↗ that's I I think that's you need to have

1:10:05 ↗ the public involved in this before we

1:10:07 ↗ say we're going to put this in code and

1:10:10 ↗ say you know the city's preference is to

1:10:12 ↗ have a it's already in code again if you

1:10:17 ↗ don't think this issue that you're

1:10:19 ↗ having is based on the volumetric change

1:10:21 ↗ which is the only thing that's changing

1:10:24 ↗ code is the code and if you're

1:10:27 ↗ recommending a change to the code

1:10:28 ↗ because you don't like what was adopted

1:10:31 ↗ by the council already you can make a

1:10:34 ↗ recommendation and see if you have three

1:10:36 ↗ commission members or at least one that

1:10:38 ↗ will that will second that

1:10:39 ↗ recommendation we'll see where it goes

1:10:40 ↗ okay you're being clear I understand

1:10:44 ↗ where you want to go you need to get one

1:10:45 ↗ of your three peers to support that as

1:10:47 ↗ well if we're gonna potentially unpack

1:10:50 ↗ that any further

1:10:58 ↗ what's the clear motion of the request

1:11:02 ↗ to reopen the conversation about the

1:11:18 ↗ I think the only thing that's changed

1:11:19 ↗ from the public support is just that

1:11:21 ↗ like Keith was saying the actual volume

1:11:23 ↗ of the cabinet but to go back and

1:11:25 ↗ actually yeah the motion would be to go

1:11:28 ↗ in and actually reevaluate the code that

1:11:30 ↗ has already been approved because of the

1:11:34 ↗ packet because of this I don't think it

1:11:37 ↗ was fully address or may not have been

1:11:40 ↗ fully grasped the impact of this and

1:11:43 ↗ once it's deployed its we're done but if

1:11:47 ↗ it's not deployed yet now's the time to

1:11:49 ↗ make a change before we move forward I

1:11:53 ↗ have a question to one of the gentlemen

1:11:56 ↗ that spoke how difficult or how more

1:12:00 ↗ expensive and more difficult is it to do

1:12:04 ↗ what my Commissioner to the right is

1:12:06 ↗ we're just putting it in a box putting

1:12:10 ↗ on the ground is it more expensive more

1:12:12 ↗ time-consuming more something

1:12:20 ↗ or an evolved

1:12:26 ↗ even a Greg Bush again I don't have the

1:12:29 ↗ exact numbers it's more of a design

1:12:31 ↗ preference the vaults versus mid-mounted

1:12:36 ↗ utility poles right now were prohibited

1:12:41 ↗ from using city poles and the preference

1:12:44 ↗ would be to go on utility poles

1:12:45 ↗ ultimately it comes down to what the

1:12:47 ↗ industry is allowed to do in the code so

1:12:50 ↗ if we're talking expenses like I said I

1:12:55 ↗ can't give numbers but what the industry

1:12:57 ↗ ends up using is really what we're

1:13:00 ↗ allowed to do and what best matches our

1:13:03 ↗ coverage criteria so if we different

1:13:06 ↗ carriers have different macro sites the

1:13:08 ↗ bigger sites so one carrier may have a

1:13:12 ↗ macro site closer to downtown and may

1:13:15 ↗ not need as many small cells and another

1:13:17 ↗ may have a further out one and it'll

1:13:21 ↗ depend on the local character so if we

1:13:23 ↗ end up using a vault versus a utility

1:13:25 ↗ pole block over it depends on what will

1:13:27 ↗ fit with the community aesthetic and

1:13:29 ↗ what the local code says thank you

1:13:47 ↗ question four Keith

1:13:52 ↗ would it would it be value-added to I

1:13:59 ↗ guess word the code in a way where it's

1:14:02 ↗ advantageous to use vaults over poles

1:14:04 ↗ well mounted equipment and thus

1:14:08 ↗ increasing the number of encouraged

1:14:11 ↗ locations so the providers though bolts

1:14:15 ↗ so right now right now if it's ground

1:14:19 ↗ mounted you have a preference that says

1:14:21 ↗ we want it we'd rather have it in a

1:14:23 ↗ vault and above ground right

1:14:27 ↗ what and the reason why I think there's

1:14:32 ↗ not a preference to ground mounted over

1:14:35 ↗ pole mounted is in some cases the ground

1:14:40 ↗ is where the poles are is basically used

1:14:46 ↗ space for something else and what I

1:14:49 ↗ would tell you is for example you know

1:14:51 ↗ if you think about like in the Highlands

1:14:53 ↗ you know around Grand rich Plaza you

1:14:57 ↗ know all of that is hardscape right and

1:14:58 ↗ you've got the poles that come up out of

1:15:00 ↗ the concrete and it's got concrete

1:15:02 ↗ around it and people are walking around

1:15:04 ↗ there and you know if you've got now a

1:15:08 ↗ box it's on the ground and that box you

1:15:13 ↗ know we've got stuff where maybe you can

1:15:15 ↗ turn into a bench maybe it's just a box

1:15:18 ↗ it's painted some nice color I'm

1:15:20 ↗ thinking I'm sorry I'm thinking more

1:15:22 ↗ towards vault than then ground getting

1:15:24 ↗ into the ground where it simply has a

1:15:26 ↗ lid and so we already say that if it's

1:15:29 ↗ on the ground our preference is a vault

1:15:31 ↗ that's number one the problem is you may

1:15:34 ↗ not be able to vault it because there

1:15:36 ↗ might be dry utilities under that

1:15:39 ↗ sidewalk in that location anyway you

1:15:41 ↗ might have cable fiber gas electric so

1:15:46 ↗ we have a lot of things buried in our

1:15:48 ↗ right away and so there's a lot of cases

1:15:52 ↗ where you wouldn't be able to do that

1:15:54 ↗ it's ok to list it as a preference but

1:15:56 ↗ it's ok but we need to understand that

1:15:58 ↗ there's going to be situations where we

1:16:00 ↗ can't achieve that preference

1:16:03 ↗ but to Braun's point right now and just

1:16:07 ↗ be clear does not say we prefer

1:16:09 ↗ pole-mounted it just says if it's pole

1:16:11 ↗ mounted we want it pushed up as far as

1:16:14 ↗ possible you know your photo that's the

1:16:16 ↗ horrible photo from Oakland I mean it

1:16:18 ↗ looks like it's just barely above like

1:16:20 ↗ head level and maybe that's as high up

1:16:23 ↗ as they could put it given the pole size

1:16:25 ↗ in that location you know but to Dave's

1:16:28 ↗ point so it's it's I mean we have no

1:16:31 ↗ examples right this is you know if we

1:16:34 ↗ had like five or six out there and we

1:16:35 ↗ could sit there and debate you know how

1:16:37 ↗ did this turn out that'd be great right

1:16:40 ↗ right now we've got zero examples you

1:16:42 ↗ know Dave's concern is we push the box

1:16:44 ↗ up as high as possible well maybe that's

1:16:46 ↗ on axis with a view of Cougar Mountain

1:16:49 ↗ or Mount Rainier hey well yeah that's

1:16:51 ↗ that'd be bad and the neck he said

1:16:53 ↗ wanted as low as possible if it's gonna

1:16:55 ↗ be pull mounted so this is the hard

1:16:57 ↗ thing is I don't I don't think it's

1:17:00 ↗ homogeneous I don't you know we don't

1:17:02 ↗ have any examples to point to in town to

1:17:05 ↗ see how did this code work in its

1:17:07 ↗ existing form and so it might hesitant

1:17:12 ↗ to do a bunch of tinkering to pieces

1:17:14 ↗ it's given that it's less than a year

1:17:17 ↗ old yes I don't I don't know that I

1:17:22 ↗ don't know that it is better to put it

1:17:24 ↗ on the ground if you if you knew that

1:17:27 ↗ putting it on the ground would being

1:17:28 ↗ evolved that's great

1:17:29 ↗ then all the equipment's out of sight my

1:17:33 ↗ concern as we push it on the ground and

1:17:34 ↗ then you can't get it in a vault now you

1:17:36 ↗ got a big box on the ground okay where

1:17:40 ↗ kids get tripped on I don't know so I'm

1:17:43 ↗ just saying it's I don't think it's is I

1:17:45 ↗ don't think there's a necessarily a

1:17:47 ↗ clean right answer to a question for you

1:17:52 ↗ Keith is is when they're going through

1:17:54 ↗ this permit application you or the

1:17:56 ↗ person that's walking them through that

1:17:58 ↗ you guys look at each individual pole

1:18:00 ↗ and you say okay this one blocks a

1:18:02 ↗ right-of-way of Mount Rainier or this

1:18:04 ↗ one is you know can't go under vault so

1:18:06 ↗ someone's there you guys are making

1:18:08 ↗ these decisions together it's not

1:18:09 ↗ Verizon dictating where the cabinet's

1:18:12 ↗ going on each individual Pole so the one

1:18:15 ↗ thing I was waiting for Gregg to say and

1:18:16 ↗ he didn't

1:18:17 ↗ just make sure cuz is there a technical

1:18:21 ↗ reason that the box needs to be a

1:18:23 ↗ certain distance from the antenna yes

1:18:38 ↗ so the closer the boxes to the antenna

1:18:41 ↗ the better performances but vault

1:18:44 ↗ mounted doesn't get in the way of proper

1:18:47 ↗ functionality the only real limitation

1:18:49 ↗ is that the antenna can't go underground

1:18:52 ↗ and underground in the equipment's is

1:18:55 ↗ bad in general because then we have to

1:18:57 ↗ assume it's waterproof and extra

1:19:01 ↗ maintenance so it's really really really

1:19:04 ↗ hard and in fact I don't think of any

1:19:07 ↗ market I know of we have successfully

1:19:09 ↗ underground equipment so it had to be

1:19:10 ↗ ground mounted but there's no reason to

1:19:14 ↗ not put the equipment's on the ground

1:19:16 ↗ into vaults I mean technically yeah we

1:19:20 ↗ could do that and half of my front yard

1:19:28 ↗ is taken up by two big utility boxes and

1:19:31 ↗ I hate it I would much rather have it on

1:19:35 ↗ a pole and then in my heart or in front

1:19:38 ↗ of my house or on the ground you can see

1:19:43 ↗ it every day I mean the hope the reason

1:19:45 ↗ why we drafted the code the way we did

1:19:46 ↗ was again if you're not looking up to a

1:19:50 ↗ Vista Point having it you know we talked

1:19:54 ↗ about 50 foot poles you know and and if

1:19:57 ↗ the existing utility lines and we had

1:19:59 ↗ some data last time and it seemed like

1:20:01 ↗ you know most of those were somewhere

1:20:03 ↗ around 22 to 30 feet if it was an

1:20:07 ↗ existing power pole you know so right

1:20:10 ↗ now potentially you could put that box

1:20:13 ↗ it at 15 feet up in the air most people

1:20:19 ↗ I hate to say probably wouldn't see it

1:20:21 ↗ they wouldn't notice it it's part of the

1:20:24 ↗ infrastructure you know there everybody

1:20:27 ↗ is a different design aesthetic some

1:20:29 ↗ people notice everything and some people

1:20:32 ↗ you know look at things like this and

1:20:36 ↗ that's just part of their normal

1:20:38 ↗ infrastructure so I you know it's your

1:20:44 ↗ guys's you guys were looking for a

1:20:46 ↗ recommendation from you guys and at the

1:20:50 ↗ end of the day

1:20:52 ↗ there's at least two pieces that you

1:20:53 ↗ guys are kind of struggling with one is

1:20:55 ↗ the daeviation language about the

1:20:58 ↗ related information and whether you guys

1:21:00 ↗ want to make a change to that and the

1:21:02 ↗ other is do you want to open up the

1:21:06 ↗ permitting process to a more public

1:21:09 ↗ dialogue see I'm okay without having

1:21:12 ↗ that I think I can only speak for myself

1:21:15 ↗ but even to Ron's other point is I have

1:21:18 ↗ no problem trusting the city staff to

1:21:19 ↗ make the best decisions on behalf of the

1:21:21 ↗ city my only concern is when they are

1:21:24 ↗ placing those cabinets on poles is there

1:21:26 ↗ city staff making those decisions along

1:21:28 ↗ with the providers weaves I know you

1:21:30 ↗ guys will be sitting there obviously

1:21:32 ↗ what's going ok this would be better for

1:21:33 ↗ this neighborhood this would so that

1:21:36 ↗ part makes me feel just fine

1:21:38 ↗ I just want to make sure that Verizon

1:21:40 ↗ and AT&T aren't the ones placing their

1:21:42 ↗ cabinets so I think what we heard was

1:21:46 ↗ there there's some technical reason why

1:21:49 ↗ the Box wants to be close to the antenna

1:21:51 ↗ but that's theirs we also heard that it

1:21:56 ↗ could be involved and still work so I

1:22:00 ↗ think what that views is a piece that we

1:22:04 ↗ can work with the providers on to try

1:22:08 ↗ and again minimize the visual impact of

1:22:12 ↗ the infrastructure that's going to come

1:22:17 ↗ my thoughts are the future is here and

1:22:21 ↗ even though I don't want anything to

1:22:25 ↗ ruin my view I know that people will

1:22:30 ↗ want the added and with the added speed

1:22:36 ↗ the added whatever it comes with it

1:22:38 ↗ they're gonna want it and they're gonna

1:22:40 ↗ need it and they're gonna say if I have

1:22:43 ↗ to put a box on my my Pole to get what I

1:22:46 ↗ need on my computer or my television I'm

1:22:50 ↗ gonna do it that's fine with me and I

1:22:53 ↗ would hope that in the process of the

1:22:57 ↗ future of designing these boxes that

1:23:02 ↗ they eventually get smaller more nicer

1:23:08 ↗ and so I don't have any problems right

1:23:13 ↗ now with leaving the language in and

1:23:17 ↗ because I know they're going to be

1:23:19 ↗ situations where things are going to

1:23:20 ↗ develop and I don't think it should list

1:23:23 ↗ every single thing and if you have 200

1:23:26 ↗ things down there there's going to be

1:23:27 ↗ 201 and you're going to say well it's

1:23:29 ↗ not on the list and I don't have a

1:23:34 ↗ problem with boxes on the poles I've got

1:23:38 ↗ kind of myself I'm kind of with Joan and

1:23:40 ↗ Keith in the sense that I I don't

1:23:42 ↗ necessarily think having a public

1:23:44 ↗ discourse is going to help because these

1:23:46 ↗ cabinets these poles are going on and

1:23:49 ↗ because they can't be co-located

1:23:51 ↗ together they're going to be on almost

1:23:54 ↗ every pole and as long as the city's

1:23:56 ↗ obviously looking out in the city's best

1:23:58 ↗ interest it's gonna be what its gonna be

1:24:00 ↗ and I don't know if opening it up to

1:24:01 ↗ public discourse is going to be helpful

1:24:03 ↗ at this point well I think part of the

1:24:06 ↗ opening up to the public is also getting

1:24:08 ↗ public buy-in so if if the public

1:24:13 ↗ decides they want amid Paul box and they

1:24:17 ↗ voice their opinion to say this is what

1:24:19 ↗ we want I mean it's the technology's

1:24:21 ↗ coming so we have three options right so

1:24:24 ↗ what option do we want as an average

1:24:28 ↗ installation and if they have the buy-in

1:24:30 ↗ then they would feel like they're more

1:24:32 ↗ they're part of the discussion so when

1:24:34 ↗ they do come in it's not shock and awe

1:24:36 ↗ like there's a blue Atlas sitting on

1:24:39 ↗ Gilman so just to remind the commission

1:24:43 ↗ of a couple nuances so on an existing

1:24:48 ↗ poll the cabinet has to be on the

1:24:51 ↗ outside is it's wouldn't right not

1:24:56 ↗ hollow last I checked the reason why we

1:25:00 ↗ showed our typical poll

1:25:03 ↗ in our code the way we did so this

1:25:06 ↗ particular pole and some tells me it

1:25:10 ↗ passed it sorry about that

1:25:15 ↗ yep so this particular pole the

1:25:20 ↗ equipment's in the base so this is this

1:25:22 ↗ is a new pole so if you're if you're

1:25:24 ↗ putting in a new metal pole there's the

1:25:27 ↗ ability and and back to the comment we

1:25:31 ↗ got from t-mobile they have their own

1:25:33 ↗ kind of internal equipment design which

1:25:39 ↗ was one of the requests to specifically

1:25:41 ↗ add that it's allowed but it would be

1:25:43 ↗ allowed based on what we've got here so

1:25:46 ↗ the idea is if it's a new pole you can

1:25:49 ↗ hide a lot of the stuff the cabling and

1:25:53 ↗ the equipment in the pole design itself

1:25:57 ↗ the problem is and we know we have these

1:26:01 ↗ the problem is when you're when you're

1:26:03 ↗ retrofitting a wooden pole you can't put

1:26:07 ↗ it inside so it either goes on the pole

1:26:09 ↗ or on the ground I think I would say for

1:26:13 ↗ Jones reasons I would agree in some

1:26:15 ↗ situations the grounds actually worse

1:26:17 ↗ you know you've already got this big

1:26:18 ↗ canister that sits up here the pse put

1:26:22 ↗ in right and it's kind of masked a

1:26:25 ↗ little bit by photo simulation but you

1:26:27 ↗ know this pole already has a lot of

1:26:28 ↗ stuff on it and it doesn't mean that

1:26:31 ↗ that's not relevant that there were

1:26:33 ↗ putting potentially putting more stuff

1:26:34 ↗ on it but at some point it's a pole with

1:26:37 ↗ a bunch of equipment on it so I hear

1:26:40 ↗ what you're saying Ron I don't

1:26:42 ↗ necessarily disagree I don't know that I

1:26:45 ↗ agree though with what you're wanting to

1:26:48 ↗ take it okay well I'm gonna go with my

1:26:51 ↗ commissioner so my commissioners are

1:26:53 ↗ saying no but I think I appreciate

1:26:59 ↗ having the healthy conversation about it

1:27:01 ↗ I have reservations that the public's

1:27:04 ↗ gonna there's gonna be a big public

1:27:06 ↗ outcry this

1:27:09 ↗ that's any rate I guess we'll just pass

1:27:12 ↗ so the hard thing is its demand based in

1:27:16 ↗ infrastructure right I mean they won't

1:27:18 ↗ put it up unless there is demand from

1:27:21 ↗ the community and we heard that last

1:27:23 ↗ time from the providers is you know at

1:27:27 ↗ some point we do want this technology as

1:27:33 ↗ part of our community it will become

1:27:36 ↗ commonplace at some point so well I'm

1:27:41 ↗ not arguing I've just the execution of

1:27:43 ↗ the deployment of how we get there the

1:27:45 ↗ visual impact the community is what I'm

1:27:49 ↗ debating about but sure all right we'll

1:27:51 ↗ move on so what about what about c1 what

1:27:56 ↗ do you guys want to do with that I'd

1:27:57 ↗ like to propose we remove other relevant

1:27:59 ↗ information but I instead of just

1:28:01 ↗ removing it I'd like to give the city a

1:28:04 ↗ chance to go back and maybe add better

1:28:06 ↗ definition I agree there's going to be

1:28:10 ↗ non technical reasons to move from

1:28:13 ↗ encourage to discourage prohibited but I

1:28:16 ↗ I want a better defined I think it opens

1:28:19 ↗ it up too wide okay is there support on

1:28:24 ↗ the commission for that I would at some

1:28:29 ↗ point at some point I guess particular

1:28:32 ↗ yes so I'd like to make a motion section

1:28:36 ↗ 18 to 22 0 9 0 c1 the reference to other

1:28:42 ↗ relevant information be removed I'm in

1:28:46 ↗ exchange for a better definition I would

1:28:48 ↗ second know my my training that I

1:28:54 ↗ received from city staff told me that

1:28:56 ↗ code is supposed to be nice and tight so

1:28:58 ↗ I agree with fellow commissioners

1:29:07 ↗ motion carries ok so my suggestion will

1:29:16 ↗ be that we will try and work with the

1:29:18 ↗ providers on alternative language before

1:29:20 ↗ next week which is the council

1:29:22 ↗ infrastructure committee I don't think

1:29:25 ↗ it needs 14 different things it just

1:29:28 ↗ make it tighter that's all I think we

1:29:31 ↗ got the intent okay thank you we have to

1:29:41 ↗ make a motion on the holding now I need

1:29:46 ↗ a motion to accept I'll make a motion

1:30:00 ↗ I'll make a motion to accept what the

1:30:04 ↗ city's presented and send it to council

1:30:06 ↗ with the revision made this evening pipe

1:30:10 ↗ with the revisions made this evening

1:30:12 ↗ Thank You queue a second I carry so I

1:30:24 ↗ want to thank the carriers that have

1:30:26 ↗ come and put I hope that you know the

1:30:29 ↗ city and all of the carriers can work

1:30:31 ↗ together and it's a benefit for both of

1:30:35 ↗ you

1:30:35 ↗ thank you so with that the next thing

1:30:42 ↗ the most exciting thing on our agenda is

1:30:45 ↗ a discussion on the city treasures yeah

1:30:49 ↗ I'm not sure fresh are you going to I

1:30:53 ↗ can start it but Keith has it unless you

1:30:56 ↗ want to start it cuz you're right there

1:30:57 ↗ but I'm here you know sure I've been

1:31:01 ↗ talking for a while let's keep going and

1:31:03 ↗ feel free to jump into it so before we

1:31:07 ↗ get into the is aquatic treasures

1:31:08 ↗ can we put small cell towers as in

1:31:12 ↗ Issaquah treasure one on the ground so

1:31:22 ↗ one of the things that we try to do is

1:31:28 ↗ to try and make sure we're all pointed

1:31:30 ↗ in the same direction before we do a

1:31:31 ↗ bunch of work and with treasures so

1:31:35 ↗ treasures came up the treasures list is

1:31:37 ↗ a little bit antiquated it was put

1:31:41 ↗ together in 93 I believe there are 35

1:31:45 ↗ things listed on it and it lives in the

1:31:50 ↗ Comprehensive Plan in the land-use

1:31:52 ↗ section in Appendix B or two to volume

1:31:57 ↗ two Thank You Trish the right words so

1:31:59 ↗ so what what I think we wanted to do

1:32:02 ↗ this evening before we say hey here's a

1:32:06 ↗ new list or let's put together a new

1:32:08 ↗ list there's there's all sorts of things

1:32:10 ↗ that we need to talk about as it relates

1:32:12 ↗ to the treasures you know one is right

1:32:16 ↗ now the treasures are an aspirational

1:32:19 ↗ list of things that kind of equate to

1:32:22 ↗ the soul of the city in my mind that's

1:32:25 ↗ my description I don't know that it's

1:32:26 ↗ anywhere else and they're not things

1:32:30 ↗ that we have regulated so there's no

1:32:34 ↗ code that says that you can't

1:32:36 ↗ was a treasure and I think what we

1:32:41 ↗ wanted to do was just start a

1:32:43 ↗ conversation about is is this list

1:32:47 ↗ important if we're gonna update it

1:32:50 ↗ should it be aspirational items should

1:32:53 ↗ it be things that we can regulate and

1:32:55 ↗ make sure they don't disappear should it

1:32:58 ↗ be a combination of those two is this a

1:33:01 ↗ list that's gonna sit in the land use

1:33:04 ↗ volume two til the end of time or should

1:33:09 ↗ it go somewhere else is this something

1:33:13 ↗ that should have an annual would you

1:33:16 ↗ know amendment process should could

1:33:18 ↗ somebody be able to add a treasure next

1:33:20 ↗ year if they wanted to is you know is

1:33:22 ↗ our nomination process and an approval

1:33:24 ↗ process you know so there's a lot of

1:33:26 ↗ things I think to talk about and before

1:33:29 ↗ we kind of started marching down a path

1:33:32 ↗ I think we wanted to have just a broad

1:33:34 ↗ conversation about what are the

1:33:37 ↗ treasures what should they be if we're

1:33:39 ↗ going to renew a list what are we gonna

1:33:43 ↗ use that list what's its purpose you

1:33:47 ↗ know where does it want to live how does

1:33:51 ↗ it get changed there's not a lot of

1:33:53 ↗ there not a lot of edges to the

1:33:56 ↗ treasures list from 1993 and I think if

1:33:59 ↗ we're gonna move it forward part of this

1:34:02 ↗ would be to put a little bit more

1:34:05 ↗ structure around it or not I kind of

1:34:10 ↗ like to start with I I don't think the

1:34:14 ↗ three my cohorts here have a history of

1:34:17 ↗ how they came to be and why they were on

1:34:21 ↗ there and so I see somebody in the

1:34:24 ↗ audience that had her fingers in the

1:34:27 ↗ creation of all this I was wondering if

1:34:30 ↗ Robin would you give us a little bit of

1:34:32 ↗ a history of how the treasures came to

1:34:35 ↗ be that's you Robin and by that while

1:34:40 ↗ Robin makes her way to the microphone

1:34:43 ↗ we invited everybody that we could find

1:34:45 ↗ emails for that either own a treasure

1:34:47 ↗ are affiliated with a treasure would be

1:34:49 ↗ interested in the treasures

1:34:50 ↗ that's why you see this great group of

1:34:52 ↗ folks here it's because they have either

1:34:53 ↗ something to do with the treasures

1:34:55 ↗ that's why they're here thank you for

1:34:57 ↗ coming by the way well we understood

1:34:59 ↗ there was a Valentine dinner connected

1:35:04 ↗ Thank You Robin kill when this was

1:35:08 ↗ created I worked at the Chamber of

1:35:10 ↗ Commerce and so I was a part of the

1:35:13 ↗ process not organizing it the

1:35:15 ↗ pomegranate foundation did the

1:35:17 ↗ organization of it but we met at the

1:35:19 ↗ depot and they invited the public to

1:35:21 ↗ come and it was really an open-ended I

1:35:25 ↗ mean just like the list is we have this

1:35:27 ↗ list that doesn't have teeth

1:35:30 ↗ I've heard people revert to it over the

1:35:32 ↗ years of what the community valued you

1:35:36 ↗ just to kind of give it some scope but

1:35:40 ↗ we weren't doing anything with it as far

1:35:42 ↗ as saying you can't you can't change

1:35:45 ↗ this and obviously some of the elements

1:35:47 ↗ have changed we couldn't change the

1:35:49 ↗ meadow up off of the Issaquah fall city

1:35:51 ↗ road you know it's not a meadow any

1:35:53 ↗ longer so I think there there needs to

1:35:56 ↗ be discussion of really what the point

1:35:59 ↗ is

1:35:59 ↗ I think it's been nice to have it though

1:36:02 ↗ to refer to so that when people said why

1:36:05 ↗ is that important we could say because

1:36:08 ↗ the community came together there were a

1:36:10 ↗ lot of people that took the time to come

1:36:12 ↗ down and there were display boards up

1:36:14 ↗ and a lot of the community came and

1:36:17 ↗ looked and talked and said what's

1:36:19 ↗ important to me what what makes this

1:36:21 ↗ feel like a special community

1:36:24 ↗ what makes this be Issaquah so I know

1:36:27 ↗ when you look at it and somebody I

1:36:29 ↗ shared it with someone in my office who

1:36:32 ↗ lives in Seattle but works here just to

1:36:34 ↗ see how she felt about it reading it and

1:36:36 ↗ she said clouds you they valued clouds

1:36:40 ↗ but I clearly remember the discussion

1:36:43 ↗ the people saying I love that it's a

1:36:46 ↗ cause in this valley and the foothills

1:36:48 ↗ around it and how the mist and the

1:36:50 ↗ clouds hang and how they're around the

1:36:53 ↗ mountains and what that feels like

1:36:56 ↗ as a citizen walking on the street and

1:36:59 ↗ that's what we see and so they are

1:37:02 ↗ unusual

1:37:04 ↗ tributes if you will they're not

1:37:06 ↗ necessarily brick-and-mortar or a

1:37:07 ↗ specific thing in every case sometimes

1:37:12 ↗ they are and sometimes people felt

1:37:13 ↗ really strongly about the ginkgo tree

1:37:16 ↗ that we want that to be there it's

1:37:18 ↗ really unique and we valued these things

1:37:21 ↗ so it was one of the first times I'd

1:37:23 ↗ seen our community come together like

1:37:26 ↗ that and really have that open dialogue

1:37:28 ↗ about what was important and that it was

1:37:31 ↗ family friendly you know how do you wrap

1:37:33 ↗ your arms around that but it was how it

1:37:35 ↗ felt to people and they were trying to

1:37:38 ↗ say that and have this be a narrative of

1:37:42 ↗ iconic things but also if you were here

1:37:46 ↗ if you were a part of this community

1:37:48 ↗ this community represents this you know

1:37:51 ↗ these feelings and they like the vistas

1:37:54 ↗ and there weren't cell towers then

1:37:58 ↗ interesting to see I can tell you from

1:38:01 ↗ those people in those comments they

1:38:04 ↗ would absolutely believe that that

1:38:07 ↗ harmed the vistas it harmed the feel

1:38:10 ↗ that harmed the look because there was a

1:38:11 ↗ lot of that emotion connected to the

1:38:16 ↗ discussions I mean they really were

1:38:18 ↗ talking a lot about it being a

1:38:20 ↗ warm-and-fuzzy and I know that's not

1:38:22 ↗ necessarily easy to to manipulate or

1:38:26 ↗ enforce or regulate but it was a lot

1:38:29 ↗ about the feelings the feelings of how

1:38:32 ↗ they felt living here the feelings of

1:38:33 ↗ how they felt walking around the

1:38:35 ↗ community the feelings they felt about

1:38:37 ↗ their neighborhoods and the people that

1:38:40 ↗ they met and worked with and went to

1:38:43 ↗ dinner with and so it is a broad

1:38:47 ↗ different unique list and when I

1:38:49 ↗ revisited it also having been a part of

1:38:52 ↗ it it really took me back to how engaged

1:38:54 ↗ people were at this different time many

1:38:57 ↗ years ago but they came together it was

1:38:59 ↗ important they took the time out to come

1:39:01 ↗ and gather in this focus group of sorts

1:39:05 ↗ but that was unusual and people weren't

1:39:07 ↗ really doing that and many people came

1:39:09 ↗ together and talked and and worked

1:39:12 ↗ through what they really felt was

1:39:14 ↗ important to try to create this list and

1:39:16 ↗ lots of things didn't

1:39:17 ↗ make the list because it they weren't

1:39:19 ↗ elevated to a level that the majority of

1:39:22 ↗ the people participating valued them in

1:39:27 ↗ some additional context Robyn that was

1:39:29 ↗ great is when growth management came to

1:39:32 ↗ all of us and said your community has to

1:39:34 ↗ take this many housing units and people

1:39:37 ↗ in 20 years that's when we came together

1:39:39 ↗ and said how will we know that we're

1:39:42 ↗ still us in 20 years what do we still

1:39:45 ↗ need to have when we grow so much what's

1:39:48 ↗ important to us to be able to sort of

1:39:49 ↗ monitor did we lose it did we grow the

1:39:52 ↗ wrong way and so we all got together and

1:39:54 ↗ said what do we like now that we want to

1:39:56 ↗ have still in 20 and the fact that we've

1:39:58 ↗ only lost one we've lost the meadow two

1:40:01 ↗ apartment complex I think we did pretty

1:40:03 ↗ well do we get Lake Sammamish or does

1:40:05 ↗ samanage get leeks ma'am well it's still

1:40:07 ↗ there right and the mist remember the

1:40:14 ↗ mist is our ancestors that's the part I

1:40:17 ↗ love about that but they're still there

1:40:19 ↗ hanging you know hanging with us which I

1:40:21 ↗ just thought was wow that one always

1:40:24 ↗ just whenever I see the mist I think

1:40:26 ↗ yeah we're doing okay it's still there

1:40:28 ↗ so yeah

1:40:29 ↗ so it was a really fun time it was it

1:40:31 ↗ was an amazing community event mm-hmm it

1:40:34 ↗ was and it really did give us something

1:40:37 ↗ to say these these are the things that

1:40:39 ↗ people feel really strongly about and

1:40:42 ↗ not that we could have stopped anything

1:40:45 ↗ you know if if it had come to that there

1:40:47 ↗ were no teeth to it and it was never

1:40:49 ↗ alluded to that that was this point it

1:40:53 ↗ was just it was just an opportunity for

1:40:55 ↗ everyone to say this is really important

1:40:58 ↗ to me right this is what I love about

1:41:00 ↗ living here this is what I want to see

1:41:03 ↗ and this is what I hope we can keep so

1:41:06 ↗ 26 years ago it's a completely

1:41:08 ↗ aspirational and that's the kind of the

1:41:10 ↗ question a night is do we want to mix

1:41:12 ↗ aspirational its regulatory things like

1:41:17 ↗ that

1:41:27 ↗ I want you all to have a chat what do

1:41:33 ↗ you you know as all the things that

1:41:35 ↗ Keith mentioned there is so so this is

1:41:42 ↗ this is on our work plan for this year

1:41:44 ↗ right to update the treasures and I

1:41:48 ↗ think we want to just talk to you guys

1:41:50 ↗ about ad before we spend a bunch of

1:41:55 ↗ staff hours doing something and bring it

1:41:59 ↗ to you and you go what did you do um you

1:42:03 ↗ know cuz this this this can take a lot

1:42:06 ↗ of different forms right we could you

1:42:08 ↗ could say you know what let's let's go

1:42:10 ↗ have a public meeting or let's go have a

1:42:12 ↗ bunch of town hall meetings and see what

1:42:14 ↗ the community says you know at some

1:42:17 ↗ point you know going through the 35

1:42:20 ↗ items or if there's only 34 now you know

1:42:25 ↗ there'll be a conversation there were

1:42:28 ↗ parts of the city that weren't in the

1:42:30 ↗ city

1:42:31 ↗ in 1993 Issaquah islands didn't exist it

1:42:35 ↗ was in the county

1:42:36 ↗ is there anything in Issaquah Highlands

1:42:38 ↗ that is a treasure that the people who

1:42:41 ↗ live in the highlands or or in talus or

1:42:45 ↗ in South Cove

1:42:46 ↗ I mean we've annexed a lot of land

1:42:49 ↗ geographically we've changed our city

1:42:51 ↗ quite a bit there was a lot of

1:42:52 ↗ conversation about Providence Heights

1:42:56 ↗ and that it should have been a treasure

1:42:57 ↗ well it wasn't in the city when the

1:43:00 ↗ treasures list was put together so so

1:43:03 ↗ there's there's a whole conversation

1:43:05 ↗ that wants to happen about things that

1:43:08 ↗ aren't on the list that should be on the

1:43:10 ↗ list and my guess is we have a whole new

1:43:13 ↗ community of interested folks that would

1:43:16 ↗ like to participate in that dialogue but

1:43:20 ↗ we also have to say okay is this list

1:43:22 ↗ and you heard from Robin this list was

1:43:25 ↗ put together as a kind of this is what

1:43:27 ↗ we believe our city is but it it does

1:43:30 ↗ not have teeth and you know if the

1:43:34 ↗ community feels

1:43:35 ↗ like you know we shouldn't lose a ginkgo

1:43:39 ↗ tree well is there anything we can do

1:43:41 ↗ about that I don't know you know but

1:43:43 ↗ this is this is part of that

1:43:45 ↗ conversation of do we leave it an

1:43:48 ↗ aspirational list and and is is our

1:43:51 ↗ compose our work task really to update

1:43:54 ↗ it make it more relevant for 2019 and

1:43:57 ↗ beyond you know the interesting thing in

1:43:59 ↗ 93 Trish mentioned growth management so

1:44:02 ↗ you know growth management kind of works

1:44:04 ↗ in these 20-year like blogs right so

1:44:07 ↗ that you know the first 20 years was

1:44:09 ↗ Issaquah Highlands and talus and you

1:44:12 ↗ know we've done that and it's you know

1:44:13 ↗ pretty much done there's still some

1:44:14 ↗ development that's gonna happen in both

1:44:16 ↗ of those but we're now on the next 20

1:44:18 ↗ years in the next 20 years is the valley

1:44:20 ↗ floor in central Issaquah and you know

1:44:24 ↗ as we look at that 20 year cycle

1:44:27 ↗ you know maybe what's important down on

1:44:29 ↗ the valley floor that we want to try and

1:44:32 ↗ keep you know I again I'm not I'm not

1:44:37 ↗ trying to staff his is here to just

1:44:41 ↗ start your guys up process in in you

1:44:46 ↗ know this whole thing you know and and

1:44:48 ↗ maybe and I don't know that we need to

1:44:50 ↗ conclude there's a lot of people here

1:44:52 ↗ that might want to also talk about the

1:44:54 ↗ treasurer's list but part of it might be

1:44:57 ↗ just you know we just start to seed a

1:45:01 ↗ conversation tonight maybe the next

1:45:03 ↗ meeting we say okay now that it's set in

1:45:05 ↗ for a couple weeks

1:45:06 ↗ let's talk about this a little bit more

1:45:08 ↗ and you know at some point we're gonna

1:45:12 ↗ have to do some work set up some public

1:45:15 ↗ conversations figure out you know are we

1:45:17 ↗ going out to neighborhood meetings to

1:45:19 ↗ talk about it with them or we you know

1:45:21 ↗ doing something on our webpage are we

1:45:23 ↗ doing something on our webpage yeah

1:45:24 ↗ tonight's the first so so part of this

1:45:27 ↗ is is talking about the work product

1:45:30 ↗ that that makes sense if we're gonna

1:45:33 ↗ update this list are we going to leave

1:45:36 ↗ it all aspirational do we want to try

1:45:38 ↗ and create tiers TI ers so you know I

1:45:45 ↗ think I think it's an open landscape and

1:45:47 ↗ and

1:45:48 ↗ you know I think what we wanted to do

1:45:49 ↗ was hear from you guys and any

1:45:51 ↗ interested community members before we

1:45:55 ↗ start running down the field because you

1:45:58 ↗ know it would be nice if this thing

1:46:01 ↗ moves in a way and and we end up with a

1:46:03 ↗ product that community says great now we

1:46:07 ↗ have an updated treasurer's list and

1:46:08 ↗ this is what we're gonna use it for I'll

1:46:12 ↗ be good

1:46:13 ↗ I would like to make sure that updated

1:46:20 ↗ but whatever is on the list stays on the

1:46:24 ↗ list I don't want it

1:46:25 ↗ update it every two years or three years

1:46:29 ↗ new things can be added to it but if

1:46:32 ↗ there are treasures they're always going

1:46:34 ↗ to be our treasures so I don't see going

1:46:37 ↗ in and out and taking things off so when

1:46:40 ↗ you end up with a group that everybody

1:46:46 ↗ feels is really important they have to

1:46:49 ↗ stay on there and there has to be some

1:46:51 ↗ mechanism in the city to protect them

1:46:55 ↗ and if there's no protection then they

1:46:59 ↗ could go away and I don't want that to

1:47:02 ↗ happen so those are the two things that

1:47:04 ↗ that concern me some of the aspirational

1:47:09 ↗ things are not things that I would have

1:47:14 ↗ even thought of but they're in there but

1:47:18 ↗ it would be nice to go through the list

1:47:20 ↗ and kind of debate debate yes/no

1:47:24 ↗ whatever they were on there before they

1:47:27 ↗ should stay on there but that's the list

1:47:29 ↗ this is our treasures we hold them near

1:47:32 ↗ and dear to our hearts actually I think

1:47:35 ↗ this thing's really exciting and to

1:47:36 ↗ John's point hey once they're on here I

1:47:38 ↗ think they should stay on here I think

1:47:41 ↗ would be really cool to have a volunteer

1:47:46 ↗ committee of sorts to discuss what we

1:47:51 ↗ would want to add to this list and how

1:47:53 ↗ we would want to protect items that are

1:47:56 ↗ on this list and I would be happy to

1:47:59 ↗ work with that volunteer committee

1:48:01 ↗ necessarily be up to staff to have to

1:48:04 ↗ drive this it would be up to the

1:48:05 ↗ volunteers to kind of put something

1:48:07 ↗ together because your workloads are

1:48:08 ↗ already really I'm sure

1:48:11 ↗ Keith you're like floored the last thing

1:48:14 ↗ you want to do but I think it'd be

1:48:16 ↗ really cool to bring the community

1:48:17 ↗ together and I think would be an

1:48:19 ↗ exciting project oh I would sign up for

1:48:23 ↗ it I don't want to start from scratch I

1:48:26 ↗ want to keep the things that are on

1:48:27 ↗ there on there well yeah we wouldn't

1:48:30 ↗ yeah this is kind of like the archive

1:48:33 ↗ right so we wouldn't change it but we

1:48:35 ↗ might discuss how we would protect it

1:48:37 ↗ what agree that might be the rule

1:48:41 ↗ everything that's ever added to this

1:48:43 ↗ thing will always have to stay on it so

1:48:46 ↗ we can have a big sign back here that

1:48:48 ↗ says these are our treasures we thought

1:48:50 ↗ we'd turn it over the Arts Commission

1:48:52 ↗ and they could use it for so many of

1:48:54 ↗ their the work that they do absolutely

1:48:56 ↗ because that's the other question is

1:48:58 ↗ what would you use the list for then

1:49:00 ↗ also and you know there's a million good

1:49:02 ↗ be on our website it should be this is

1:49:04 ↗ this is what makes this a quad great

1:49:06 ↗ it'd be great on that wall because we

1:49:08 ↗ don't have a mapped or anything you know

1:49:11 ↗ they may have taken that map down just

1:49:12 ↗ for this treasure

1:49:17 ↗ with that in mind does that give you

1:49:20 ↗ some direction of where you should go

1:49:22 ↗ with this or where we'd like to go with

1:49:24 ↗ this I wholeheartedly agree when Robin

1:49:30 ↗ and I were helping the Arts Commission

1:49:31 ↗ on the new mural and Front Street

1:49:34 ↗ we actually referenced the the treasures

1:49:36 ↗ list to bring elements to the mural and

1:49:40 ↗ you know we had people on that on that

1:49:42 ↗ committee that had never heard of it

1:49:43 ↗ before so they loved to learn about it I

1:49:45 ↗ think a great committee community

1:49:47 ↗ building event I think it's well overdue

1:49:50 ↗ to bring everybody in the community back

1:49:52 ↗ together and OH to add more things to it

1:49:55 ↗ hopefully I know there's plenty of

1:49:56 ↗ things out there that I'd love to see in

1:49:58 ↗ the list so having a volunteer-driven

1:50:01 ↗ would be a something that could add to

1:50:04 ↗ the treasures because volunteers are

1:50:05 ↗ part of the treasure they're not on here

1:50:07 ↗ right there you go there could be an ad

1:50:10 ↗ hoc committee just for the treasures

1:50:13 ↗ list which i think is fine too

1:50:15 ↗ I don't know if it's necessarily

1:50:17 ↗ something that needs to happen every

1:50:18 ↗ year it kind of makes it less measurable

1:50:23 ↗ but maybe there's something every five

1:50:25 ↗ years and I do agree it it should be

1:50:27 ↗ more than aspirational if all this hard

1:50:30 ↗ work is gonna go and some of these

1:50:31 ↗ should be protected I mean obviously the

1:50:35 ↗ hatchery other things like that I mean -

1:50:37 ↗ we can't be some type of regulatory

1:50:41 ↗ bones can we don't want to see that

1:50:45 ↗ place leave but obviously the list

1:50:48 ↗ should be updated there's a couple

1:50:49 ↗ things on here that I saw that again I

1:50:52 ↗ think Robin alluded to Meadows point if

1:50:55 ↗ I got that right yeah The Meadows now an

1:50:57 ↗ apartment complex it's correct so that's

1:50:59 ↗ no longer a treasure so so no I think I

1:51:08 ↗ think it's a great idea I think it

1:51:09 ↗ should be more than aspirational and I

1:51:11 ↗ don't think it's something that we

1:51:12 ↗ should have to revisit every year but

1:51:15 ↗ maybe have an amendment so people could

1:51:17 ↗ possibly there's like a one meeting

1:51:20 ↗ debate you know people can bring in a

1:51:23 ↗ list of treasures but again what's one

1:51:26 ↗ person's treasure is and other person's

1:51:28 ↗ so I think that would be good every 20

1:51:32 ↗ years really does make it a treasure

1:51:34 ↗ because you have to really debate it and

1:51:36 ↗ discuss it and then it's it's archived I

1:51:40 ↗ know if you have it every year it loses

1:51:42 ↗ its magic yeah more more often than

1:51:50 ↗ every 26 years for sure but but maybe

1:51:53 ↗ yeah maybe every five to ten years is

1:51:55 ↗ you can go back and actually go into

1:51:57 ↗ amending it but I can't if somebody

1:51:59 ↗ wants to toss out a treasure you know

1:52:01 ↗ they haven't happened you to do it every

1:52:02 ↗ year I don't know on ten years then you

1:52:10 ↗ can take the ones that have been

1:52:11 ↗ recommended during the ten years before

1:52:14 ↗ that so only on that ten-year date can

1:52:17 ↗ you make a change to the actually get

1:52:20 ↗ some community involvement

1:52:26 ↗ okay guys have given us a lot of odds

1:52:31 ↗ and assume we're gonna take public

1:52:35 ↗ comment on this one yes I'm going to

1:52:36 ↗ okay if you were still standing there

1:52:39 ↗ I'm gonna go sit down

1:52:40 ↗ would anybody this isn't a public

1:52:43 ↗ hearing but if anybody would like to

1:52:44 ↗ come up and please take the microphone

1:52:48 ↗ and give us your thoughts about my name

1:52:57 ↗ is Tyson garbage hook one of the owners

1:52:59 ↗ of poems candies

1:53:01 ↗ this is all new I recently discovered in

1:53:04 ↗ the last few years about the treasures

1:53:06 ↗ classifications so I'm learning a lot

1:53:08 ↗ about this tonight actually

1:53:10 ↗ bones is proud to be in existence over

1:53:14 ↗ 76 years and I believe it's 1956 in

1:53:19 ↗ Issaquah the last time we made a major

1:53:22 ↗ change was 1991 when we expanded our

1:53:25 ↗ facility and as they learn from other

1:53:29 ↗ meetings in the changes with what can be

1:53:32 ↗ built in Issaquah and where we are in

1:53:35 ↗ Issaquah we are slowly discovering well

1:53:39 ↗ how can we remain viable and existent in

1:53:43 ↗ the business climate that aqua has

1:53:46 ↗ versus when we started obviously before

1:53:49 ↗ even i-90 existed we are exploring

1:53:54 ↗ different ways that we can stay there

1:53:57 ↗ we're proud to be an issue qua treasure

1:53:59 ↗ as being a private business we also have

1:54:02 ↗ to do what's best for us and our

1:54:03 ↗ employees and I guess still processing

1:54:08 ↗ all this we don't want to have a lot of

1:54:11 ↗ restrictions that are put upon us as we

1:54:14 ↗ try to navigate the next five to ten

1:54:18 ↗ years of how we can be a viable business

1:54:19 ↗ because we have many many obstacles we

1:54:24 ↗ have obstacles that we're dealing with

1:54:26 ↗ one major one is employment we have a

1:54:31 ↗ hard time getting employees even the

1:54:32 ↗ high school kids when I grew up in this

1:54:34 ↗ a qua

1:54:37 ↗ 25 years ago and I was in in high school

1:54:40 ↗ we had a lot of high school kids now we

1:54:43 ↗ have a very big population with more

1:54:46 ↗ high schools and more students but we we

1:54:48 ↗ can't even staff our storefront so that

1:54:50 ↗ that is one obstacle that we're dealing

1:54:52 ↗ with

1:54:53 ↗ obviously property taxes and just the

1:54:55 ↗ other changing things that are in

1:54:57 ↗ Issaquah that as much as we like being a

1:54:59 ↗ treasurer and we're proud to be a

1:55:01 ↗ treasurer we don't want to have

1:55:02 ↗ restrictions on what we need to do we

1:55:06 ↗ exist into the future as a business so I

1:55:10 ↗ love the thought of the aspirations and

1:55:15 ↗ and there are many things that I

1:55:17 ↗ remember growing up pretty much my whole

1:55:18 ↗ life in Issaquah and being a resident

1:55:20 ↗ again the last year is moving back to so

1:55:24 ↗ qua that I'm happy about and that I

1:55:27 ↗ think about that I remember when I was a

1:55:29 ↗ kid from Water Works Park to rot even

1:55:34 ↗ Rocky's pizza all these great little

1:55:35 ↗ things that I remember when his score

1:55:36 ↗ was truly a small town when McDonald's

1:55:38 ↗ came to town in the early 80s but you

1:55:42 ↗ know as far as being a private business

1:55:43 ↗ I we feel a lot of love from the city

1:55:46 ↗ and the residents and we're proud to be

1:55:48 ↗ here and but we would like to remain a

1:55:53 ↗ treasure but I just don't want there to

1:55:55 ↗ be restrictions on what we can do

1:55:56 ↗ because we want to be part of the city

1:55:59 ↗ but also how we we can operate and and

1:56:04 ↗ the changes that we may have to make to

1:56:06 ↗ to stay relevant and viable so thank you

1:56:09 ↗ thank you thank you brought up a good

1:56:12 ↗ point I don't think any of us thought

1:56:14 ↗ about changing putting more restrictions

1:56:20 ↗ on it as long as you make the chocolate

1:56:22 ↗ we're fine as long as you keep making

1:56:25 ↗ the best chocolate

1:56:29 ↗ it certainly wasn't our intention or my

1:56:33 ↗ intention to to make it any more

1:56:34 ↗ difficult for for any anything no it's a

1:56:39 ↗ great point though most things you think

1:56:44 ↗ are so great and then

1:56:46 ↗ you don't look at the other side

1:56:50 ↗ sometimes it kind of just a little bit

1:56:52 ↗ off to the other side that well maybe

1:56:54 ↗ it's good but you have to look at this -

1:56:57 ↗ thank you

1:56:58 ↗ I miss the microphone so I came back so

1:57:04 ↗ - Tyson's point I mean so one of the

1:57:07 ↗ things so part of the value of the

1:57:09 ↗ public conversation as it gets us all

1:57:11 ↗ thinking about what we want to do at the

1:57:14 ↗ end of the day and that's why that's why

1:57:15 ↗ we don't want to start with what the

1:57:17 ↗ outcome is right now because I think we

1:57:19 ↗ need to have some more conversations

1:57:20 ↗ before we know where this thing's gonna

1:57:21 ↗ land you know for the treasures that are

1:57:24 ↗ private businesses you know I don't

1:57:27 ↗ think we're talking regulations but

1:57:29 ↗ could we talk incentives right I mean if

1:57:32 ↗ they're important to us you know is

1:57:33 ↗ there a way that we could potentially

1:57:35 ↗ give them a break on their B&O tax right

1:57:38 ↗ if we want them to stay here as the

1:57:40 ↗ business in this community right you

1:57:42 ↗ know so all I'm saying is is there's

1:57:44 ↗ there's sticks and carrots right and you

1:57:47 ↗ know whenever you want something to stay

1:57:49 ↗ you can say okay I know get out a big

1:57:51 ↗ club or I can get out of something to

1:57:53 ↗ incent them to stay so that'll be a

1:57:56 ↗ whole conversation we have down the road

1:57:58 ↗ as it relates to some of the private

1:58:00 ↗ properties that are on the treasurer's

1:58:02 ↗ list potentially so again just kind of

1:58:05 ↗ keep

1:58:20 ↗ David Kepler again I don't think we've

1:58:22 ↗ ever used it's something being a

1:58:25 ↗ treasure as part of an argument that

1:58:28 ↗ something shouldn't happen to that site

1:58:30 ↗ or that kind of thing it has definitely

1:58:33 ↗ been something to celebrate and there's

1:58:34 ↗ more things to celebrate sure that

1:58:37 ↗ should be on the list but I I don't

1:58:39 ↗ think it has been talked about them the

1:58:43 ↗ tree the one tree on the list but I

1:58:46 ↗ think and that's that whole thing is

1:58:55 ↗ there and we have tree ordinances and

1:58:58 ↗ we've talked about you know tree

1:58:59 ↗ preservation and important that canopy

1:59:01 ↗ in the city and all of that but we

1:59:03 ↗ haven't said you know tried to say

1:59:05 ↗ certain trees just have to stay or

1:59:07 ↗ whatever or or penalized to people

1:59:10 ↗ penalized what they could do in

1:59:11 ↗ development because of a something on on

1:59:14 ↗ that list so it's been a

1:59:16 ↗ non-controversial list and something to

1:59:19 ↗ celebrate because it hasn't been you as

1:59:22 ↗ punitive lee anybody else

1:59:37 ↗ hey my name is Sasha Hendricks I'm the

1:59:40 ↗ education curator over the Cougar

1:59:41 ↗ Mountain Zoo I've actually lived within

1:59:43 ↗ his call area since 1987 so it's been

1:59:45 ↗ fun to watch everything develop and grow

1:59:48 ↗ up as I have so we are very proud to be

1:59:52 ↗ on the treasure list even though it's

1:59:55 ↗ now updated to Cougar Mountain Zoo from

1:59:57 ↗ what I believe her other name was

1:59:59 ↗ therefore my name but it is something

2:00:02 ↗ you know being part of this city we are

2:00:03 ↗ very proud of

2:00:04 ↗ I believe it's cause one of three cities

2:00:07 ↗ that actually has a zoo on grounds per

2:00:09 ↗ se so for us being on that list it is

2:00:12 ↗ something that's actually in our history

2:00:14 ↗ in our information education that we do

2:00:16 ↗ put out to the public and we get about a

2:00:18 ↗ hundred thousand visitors a year so it's

2:00:20 ↗ something when they do come through our

2:00:21 ↗ gates they come down into a squat as

2:00:23 ↗ well so um

2:00:24 ↗ same deal understanding you know

2:00:26 ↗ restrictions yeah probably wouldn't be

2:00:28 ↗ ideal we have to go buy our own

2:00:29 ↗ regulations especially for animal care

2:00:31 ↗ welfare and visitors but to make it

2:00:33 ↗ something that's more prosperous we

2:00:35 ↗ would definitely be on board for that so

2:00:37 ↗ we're very proud and we like to stand by

2:00:38 ↗ that I'm Frank still working I'm the

2:00:49 ↗ director of development at Village

2:00:50 ↗ Theatre I'm here in Rob's stead he's in

2:00:54 ↗ Tabo I feel really really bad for him

2:00:57 ↗ but you know I guess the snow just got

2:01:00 ↗ to him so were extremely proud to be on

2:01:04 ↗ the treasurer's list and in 1993 we were

2:01:06 ↗ just a small community theater on Front

2:01:10 ↗ Street and that theater that we occupied

2:01:13 ↗ at that time doesn't exist though we

2:01:16 ↗ rebuilt it in its likeness eight years

2:01:18 ↗ ago it's still first stage theater but

2:01:21 ↗ we now have the French estate Gaudet

2:01:24 ↗ theater which opened in 1994 we had the

2:01:27 ↗ tech studios on First Avenue Northwest

2:01:31 ↗ we just purchased what we call the

2:01:33 ↗ Anderson house which is not the historic

2:01:36 ↗ Anderson house but the dan and Portia

2:01:38 ↗ Anderson family artists residents that

2:01:41 ↗ we purchased a four-plex on dogwood and

2:01:45 ↗ just opened

2:01:46 ↗ in December and we are building a

2:01:49 ↗ another facility next to our tech

2:01:53 ↗ studios so in 23 years we have grown

2:01:56 ↗ from probably operation that was about a

2:01:59 ↗ hundred and fifty thousand dollar a year

2:02:01 ↗ to a fourteen million dollar a year

2:02:05 ↗ operating budget so we're proud to be in

2:02:10 ↗ Issaquah were far more than the

2:02:12 ↗ community theater that we were were the

2:02:13 ↗ largest the region's largest

2:02:14 ↗ professional theater and just to

2:02:17 ↗ reiterate that was sort of our consumer

2:02:19 ↗ like so being a treasurer already now

2:02:21 ↗ the restrictions would be something that

2:02:23 ↗ we would we don't be a no tax doesn't

2:02:29 ↗ you know we're nonprofit so it's a

2:02:31 ↗ little different so we could look at

2:02:33 ↗ other but thanks for the opportunity and

2:02:38 ↗ we're proud and I you know we're

2:02:40 ↗ celebrating our 40th anniversary this

2:02:43 ↗ year

2:02:43 ↗ so the celebrating you know or anymore

2:02:48 ↗ and on our 80th anniversary and what

2:02:53 ↗ would that be 2040 something so thank

2:02:59 ↗ you I you had the old theater it was it

2:03:10 ↗ I thought I that was to me was the most

2:03:12 ↗ awesome it was just so old it was so it

2:03:17 ↗ was just it was so cool when you thought

2:03:20 ↗ you'd sit there and you'd be like you

2:03:23 ↗ knew everybody around you because you

2:03:24 ↗ were like sitting on their lap was just

2:03:30 ↗ you know down-home I came from a very

2:03:33 ↗ small town I grew up a very very small

2:03:36 ↗ town and that just kind of set the stage

2:03:39 ↗ for me so no pun intended

2:03:41 ↗ obviously the old theater still in use

2:03:43 ↗ correct I see children all the time

2:04:51 ↗ which is awesome now if you could only

2:04:53 ↗ bring Hamilton to the big theater I

2:04:56 ↗ would be really thrilled I reflected on

2:05:14 ↗ the treasures so I'd like to come to

2:05:17 ↗ just my process and I went to the old

2:05:20 ↗ theater when it was a movie theater so

2:05:23 ↗ way back in the day but not 1913 but as

2:05:28 ↗ I looked at the things that were listed

2:05:30 ↗ on the original list and I thought about

2:05:33 ↗ Issaquah today because I'm lucky enough

2:05:35 ↗ to still live and work here and I

2:05:37 ↗ thought you know there are so many

2:05:39 ↗ exciting things and I think that you're

2:05:42 ↗ coming about not revisiting it too often

2:05:45 ↗ is really important because it takes

2:05:48 ↗ time for you to reflect back and value

2:05:52 ↗ something often so I think 10 or 20

2:05:54 ↗ years is plenty of time to be able to

2:05:57 ↗ have something instilled in your

2:05:59 ↗ community so I started thinking about

2:06:01 ↗ the new things that we have that maybe

2:06:03 ↗ would come up the next time we revisited

2:06:05 ↗ it so confluence park the skateboard

2:06:08 ↗ park the Iroquois Highlands because they

2:06:11 ↗ weren't there and nothing was there and

2:06:12 ↗ there might be think something that's

2:06:14 ↗ iconic that we would name their public

2:06:17 ↗ art we have statues and sculptures

2:06:19 ↗ throughout town

2:06:21 ↗ we have murals Andheri gold the alehouse

2:06:24 ↗ the Salmon Hatchery and the new one

2:06:27 ↗ that's on the side of Japan ginger we

2:06:29 ↗ have wraps on electrical boxes all

2:06:33 ↗ through town that are all based on

2:06:34 ↗ artwork we have the mosaic mural at the

2:06:37 ↗ Salmon Hatchery and we have the blue

2:06:39 ↗ door by City Hall all public work public

2:06:42 ↗ art that wasn't there when people were

2:06:45 ↗ creating that first list we have the

2:06:47 ↗ renovated Shell station and feed store

2:06:50 ↗ we have all of the walking trail system

2:06:53 ↗ now that it's amazing to see our

2:06:56 ↗ citizens out and about utilizing those

2:06:59 ↗ constantly so those were all the new ads

2:07:02 ↗ that

2:07:02 ↗ to me just quickly looking at that list

2:07:05 ↗ and I thought how wonderful it is that

2:07:07 ↗ we really have very few that are gone

2:07:10 ↗ and so just the revisions are the

2:07:12 ↗ village theatres having the new theater

2:07:14 ↗ and the old theater and in naming the

2:07:18 ↗ Issaquah alps naming Cukor mountain

2:07:21 ↗ tiger mountain and squawk mountain

2:07:22 ↗ because I know this cougar mountain

2:07:24 ↗ wasn't there and yet there was a great

2:07:26 ↗ effort to just preserve some of that

2:07:28 ↗ land so you know we we'd want to reflect

2:07:32 ↗ that somehow I think Lake Sammamish

2:07:34 ↗ State Park with the all accessible

2:07:37 ↗ playground which is an attribute that's

2:07:39 ↗ very unique to us the Senior Center now

2:07:43 ↗ because the person in my office who read

2:07:45 ↗ it said I don't know how they're putting

2:07:48 ↗ the library and Memorial Park together

2:07:50 ↗ that does why do they have him connected

2:07:52 ↗ I'm online

2:07:53 ↗ I said well in 1993 that was the library

2:07:58 ↗ next to it

2:07:59 ↗ Pickering farm and barn ok so the firm's

2:08:03 ↗ gone but we've got the barn still Cougar

2:08:06 ↗ Mountain Zoo because of the name change

2:08:08 ↗ and the open meadow was literally the

2:08:10 ↗ only thing that we had to take off and I

2:08:13 ↗ thought oh my gosh

2:08:14 ↗ here we value them as citizens and look

2:08:17 ↗ at how lucky we've been that they are

2:08:19 ↗ preserved and they're still a part of

2:08:21 ↗ what we enjoy and now we have these new

2:08:24 ↗ things that we can start identifying and

2:08:26 ↗ treasure the same way so thanks

2:08:40 ↗ so we are will have more discussion on

2:08:45 ↗ that yes

2:08:46 ↗ and then our upcoming schedule if you

2:08:51 ↗ want to say some some very exciting new

2:08:55 ↗ meetings got added to your schedule now

2:08:57 ↗ that we have a transportation advisory

2:08:59 ↗ board you all are on the list for at

2:09:02 ↗ least two of their meetings on that

2:09:04 ↗ mobility master plan and those are on

2:09:06 ↗ that your calendar on the last page of

2:09:07 ↗ your yes one is in April and one is in

2:09:13 ↗ November but they're not PPC nights

2:09:16 ↗ they're different Monday nights

2:09:19 ↗ they're Monday nights and we don't know

2:09:20 ↗ what room they're gonna have yet but I

2:09:22 ↗ just wanted them on your schedule so you

2:09:25 ↗ and AJ can be reunited when he tells you

2:09:27 ↗ all about the semester mobility master

2:09:30 ↗ plan but other than that knowing that we

2:09:32 ↗ have quorum issues that it's real hard

2:09:34 ↗ now that we're down another person's

2:09:36 ↗ because Lindsay's gone we're trying

2:09:38 ↗ maybe to not meet as often the next one

2:09:42 ↗ you have is the 28th which is two weeks

2:09:44 ↗ the package should go out soon because

2:09:47 ↗ we've already were sending out letters

2:09:49 ↗ to over 3,000 people in town that are

2:09:52 ↗ either zoned yes to come and be with us

2:09:55 ↗ on the 28th of February and they are

2:09:58 ↗ zone either zone single-family suburban

2:10:00 ↗ or they're within 300 feet of a parcel

2:10:03 ↗ zone single-family suburban and the

2:10:06 ↗ proposed amendment is to not allow new

2:10:10 ↗ duplexes in those areas and not allow

2:10:13 ↗ cluster housing because those areas are

2:10:16 ↗ not in the central core and so putting a

2:10:19 ↗ little bit of additional density there

2:10:21 ↗ is inconsistent with the central plan so

2:10:24 ↗ we're trying to clean up little pieces

2:10:25 ↗ like that that are inconsistent with our

2:10:28 ↗ new our direction since central and that

2:10:30 ↗ was something that came that we were

2:10:32 ↗ made of where of is that you could do

2:10:35 ↗ duplexes now in single-family suburban

2:10:37 ↗ and it doesn't it doesn't make sense to

2:10:39 ↗ put additional density there but you get

2:10:41 ↗ to talk about that with 3,000 of our

2:10:44 ↗ closest friends on the 28th of February

2:10:46 ↗ and the website's already up for people

2:10:48 ↗ when they call us or they want more

2:10:50 ↗ information that they can go

2:10:51 ↗ the website to see that but but that's

2:10:53 ↗ are you all available the 28th since

2:10:55 ↗ you're sort of my core between you and

2:10:57 ↗ joy and Troy okay good

2:11:00 ↗ we're also I think there's something on

2:11:01 ↗ the front page of the website that we're

2:11:03 ↗ taking applications now for new members

2:11:06 ↗ of boards and commissions so if you know

2:11:07 ↗ any folks that are just like you

2:11:09 ↗ you know hard-working thoughtful can put

2:11:13 ↗ the time in we would love to have them

2:11:14 ↗ apply and anyone out there in the world

2:11:16 ↗ we would love to have them apply to be

2:11:18 ↗ on planning policy commission because

2:11:20 ↗ we've lost a lot of members recently so

2:11:22 ↗ that would be really great I don't know

2:11:24 ↗ when the interviews will be they're

2:11:28 ↗ usually in April ish because then

2:11:31 ↗ they're appointed and their first

2:11:32 ↗ meeting would be May so we're gonna be a

2:11:35 ↗ little short-handed till May so we get

2:11:36 ↗ new members but I know you guys will

2:11:38 ↗ carry the day and we'll be able to be

2:11:41 ↗ here on those so everybody knows that

2:11:44 ↗ we're short-handed not because they got

2:11:47 ↗ bored or no to the City Council to

2:11:52 ↗ another right right we're a nice

2:11:55 ↗ stepping stone for for some folks it's a

2:11:58 ↗ good training for City can supersize

2:12:00 ↗ everybody has aspiration right but

2:12:03 ↗ that's all I have is just mark your

2:12:05 ↗ calendars for February 28th for the

2:12:07 ↗ public hearing on single-family suburban

2:12:14 ↗ not I'm gonna close the meeting at 8:43

2:12:19 ↗ excellent thank you all

2:12:30 ↗ 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 (7)

Administration/Staff: Joan Probala

Trish Heinonen

Planning Policy Manager Ron Faul

Keith Niven

Development Svc. Director Bill Rinehart Jason Voiss

Alt. (Voting as Regular Member) Others Present: Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Daniel Kenny

Ogden Murphy Wallace Joy Lewis Troy Rahmig