My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2018 09 04
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2018 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2018 09 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:14:35 PM
Creation date
9/19/2018 12:42:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2018 09 04
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 4, 2018 <br />Page 9 of 14 <br />for fewer poles to get coverage. Residential areas are where the need is greatest; these <br />small cell facilities allow us to service those areas. <br />Councilmember Maloney asked Regan what is the density looking at for 5G antennae; <br />how many blocks apart. Regan stated they can bring back something that can show <br />where it might go, but it is hard to say exactly. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton asked if the residential pole example is what we can expect. <br />Regan noted attachments to light poles would be likely depending on the infrastructure <br />in a residential area. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton asked if the 36' would be allowed in what was originally <br />presented. Ritchie stated that was 30'. Mayor Pro Tem Lipton asked if nonresidential <br />was 46'; Ritchie stated 40' was suggested. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated tonight focused a lot on height but service is also a <br />big concem and that needs to be balanced. The City would like improved service from <br />all the carriers. When talking about replacing light poles it would be good to coordinate <br />where it is optimal: Communication is important for our residents. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton agreed with Councilmember Stolzmann this is important for our <br />residents and how to provide competition for high speed intemet services and stimulate <br />competition. He asked if we can require carriers to co -locate on poles under current <br />rules, is there a risk of being overrun with poles. <br />Ritchie stated there are separation requirements and carriers have to demonstrate <br />technical need to have them closer together. However, we don't know how they will <br />deploy and how fast. Ritchie noted maybe there can be varying heights based on the <br />type of street arterial or residential. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton said carriers might have more interest in co -locating if there are <br />taller poles. <br />Councilmember Keany stated he is concerned if there is co -location how to control the <br />appearance. Director Zuccaro stated the design requirement is what we do have control <br />over so it is critical to do it right. <br />Mayor Muckle agreed with the need for good aesthetics, but also wants better service. <br />He supported a continuance to October 2. <br />Mayor Muckle moved to continue Ordinance No. 1763, Series 2018 to October 2, 2018; <br />Councilmember Keany seconded. Vote: All in Favor. <br />ORDINANCE NO. 1764, SERIES 2018 — AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING BY <br />REFERENCE THE 2018 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.