PC 071404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Karen Caldwell, 3806 Muirwood Drive, echoed the comments made by Mr. Wolfe and noted that she did not have good cellular coverage at her home. She inquired whether the technology was fully understood. She believed that people would want good cell coverage at schools to provide great safety in the event of an emergency. She did not believe the ordinance had worked well and believed that it should be reviewed in the future. Rebecca Hunter, Nextel Communications, noted that it was difficult to provide complete coverage to their customers. She expressed concern that the Planning Commission or the staff may consider the wireless group to be a representative sample of the City. She noted that very few people attended the meetings, that they had participated in the first ordinance, and that they generally had grievances with respect to this issue. Regarding the stated consensus among providers, she first received the ordinance the previous day and that only the non-substantive changes were included at the meetings. She supported all the changes with the exception of the elimination of the set time for ordinance review. She advised that her e-mail referenced by Commissioner Sullivan contained a typographical error and that she had intended to write, "fully stealth." She noted that while it was good to reduce the park buffers from 300 to 50 feet, she believed that an exception to the residential buffer should be available if there were an appropriate commercial zone for fully stealth antenna. She noted that they still had to comply with the ordinance and the design review and that that type of site may be submitted on its merits. She noted that they wanted to partner with the City and to provide service to their customers. Ms. Hunter noted that the staff report erroneously states that their equipment was larger in size than Metrocom's and that no request for that information was made. She would like to meet the same standards that Metrocom must meet. Commissioner Kameny noted that Chapter 18.110.300 stated that if new technology were proposed in the City, the Planning Director may have a review of this ordinance. He stated that there was no specific timeframe. Ms. Hunter advised that she would like a specific timeframe to avoid delays caused by staff time pressures. Commissioner Kameny believed that the company should be able to approach City staff if there were new technology and that they may approach City Council if they were not able to avoid a staff delay. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny whether they would be able to collocate the facilities with their competitors, Ms. Hunter replied that they collocated as often as possible. She noted that they would not be able to share antennas because of differences in frequencies, technologies, and other standards. Commissioner Maas expressed concern about Ms. Hunter's apparent disregard toward Mr. Iserson's comment about school buffers. Ms. Hunter stated that there was a common understanding of why the facilities are prohibited in certain zones and that the issue was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2004 Page 14 of 24