PC 022019 - Laserfiche WebLink

the City Manager not be available or an acting City Manager at the time, with an eye at meeting the shot clock. Commissioner Brown said there was a preference in the policy for arterials first, collectors next and local streets last. As an example, if an application was made for a local street, would it be within the Community Development Director's purview to deny that and propose a location for an arterial first. Mr. May said it would not be denied just because it was on a local street. The application requirements and policy states when the carrier submits and it is for something that is not the most preferred location, the carrier must show them that they did their homework and there are either no other preferred locations within the defined radius or there were, but those locations were not feasible for a reason. So, the analysis would be whether the carrier provided that analysis and is it believable. Commissioner Brown said the FAQ talked about the fact that if the RF analysis is certified, the City cannot question its validity. So, he asked if this would suffice for not considering another site. Mr. May said he thinks this more refers to propagation or feasibility of a particular location to cover an objective. When talking about an RF study that has been certified, they meet compliance with health and safety. We know the technologies are coming but do not know what they will do or look like. Therefore, at this time we can only plan for what is being deployed. He thought that having some flexibility in the document or the way the standards are drawn would be a good thing, and if the Commission wanted to facilitate 5G deployments now he thinks using pre-approved designs negotiated with carriers might be a better option than adjusting some of the standards. The Commission could place something like that in policy such that if the Community Development Director determined something was in the public's interest and was consistent with the standards, they could designate it as pre-approved to accommodate 5G. Commissioner Brown stated this would be his preference. Commissioner Balch said he does not believe the public comment period should ever be stricken from any process that is a government approval process. Many daycare centers had to be approved with people objecting, but they fall under State law. He voiced strong support for the public notice period being retained so notice would go out to the affected parties. Whether the public shows up would be up to them, and he found Mr. Williams' comments extremely repugnant relating to subjectivity and allowance for public comments. Regarding the time period and whether they should they slow down, Commissioner Balch said there does appear to be some time given the deadline is April 14, and he asked staff to elaborate on timing. Ms. Harryman said the quickest they could have City Council review would be at their March 11 meeting, which is a special meeting. That night the Council will be presented with two Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 February 20, 2019 ary 20, 2019 is. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 February 20, 2019 missioners to describe what parts of the review process have worked well. Commissioner Balch stated that staff has done a great job asking applicants to bring their project to the Planning Commission as a workshop before they invest heavily in a design. He Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 January 23, 2019