My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2018 09 17
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2018 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2018 09 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:12:29 PM
Creation date
9/21/2018 10:04:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
8D6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2018 09 17
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
596
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 concern 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 internet 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 />47 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.