Nov 19, 2024 City Council

>> SECOND BY TAMMY. ON FAVOR?

>> THAT PASSES 5-0. THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.

[LEGISLATIVE AGENDA]

THESE ITEMS MAY LEGALLY REQUIRE COUNCIL ACTION, BUT COUNCIL POLICY SHOULD BE THE CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSIBILITY.

THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA CAN BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION.

THE CONCURRENCE OF TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS IS REQUIRED TO MOVE ANY ITEM FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION.

COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY VOTE NAY ON ANY SINGLE ITEM WITHOUT COMMENT, MAY SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS AS PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD.

WE HAVE ONE ITEM, ITEM 31.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 31.

>> SECOND BY TAMMY. ON FAVOR?

THAT MOVES TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

>> THAT PASSES 5-0.

[Public Hearing: A request to consider possible amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Subsection 3.02.01, Conditional Development Standards, Subsection 6.19, Appeals and the Appeal Process, and Subsection 7.01, Terms and Words Defined, to adopt revised development standards for Antennas, and to consider to direct Staff to prepare an Ordinance of the same. Zoning Case No. ZA24-0003. Applicant: City of Frisco. (Development Services/JH)]

ITEM 32 IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

A REQUEST TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBSECTION 3.02.01, CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SUBSECTION 6.19, APPEALS AND THE APPEAL PROCESS AND SUBSECTION 7.01, TERMS AND WORDS DEFINED TO ADOPT REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ANTENNAS, AND TO CONSIDER TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAME.

ZONING CASE NUMBER ZA 24-0003, APPLICANT CITY OF FRISCO.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. COUNCIL, JONATHAN HUBBARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THE STANDARDS THIS EVENING OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT, I WANT TO SPEND JUST A FEW MINUTES GOING OVER THE TIMELINE THAT GOT US TO WHERE WE ARE THIS EVENING.

BACK IN SUMMER OF 2023, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TOOK THIS PROJECT OVER.

WE THEN SPENT SUMMER 2023 AND FALL 2023 MEETING WITH MAJOR CARRIERS AND THIRD-PARTY GROUPS IN THE INDUSTRY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE, THEIR NEEDS, AREAS IN FRISCO THAT ARE LACKING COVERAGE, ETC.

WE MET WITH EACH OF THOSE GROUPS INDIVIDUALLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE CARRIERS.

WE THEN TOOK ALL OF THAT INFORMATION THAT WE HAD LEARNED, MET WITH CITY COUNCIL DURING A WORK SESSION DURING NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

THERE ARE REALLY FOUR TOPICS THAT WE FOCUSED ON IN THAT WORK SESSION; POLE HEIGHT, PLACEMENT, AESTHETICS, AND PROCESS.

POLE HEIGHT; SHORTER POLES VERSUS TALLER POLES, PLACEMENT, AND HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR RESIDENTIAL AREAS? AESTHETICS; DO WE WANT TO LEAN MORE TOWARDS STEALTH ANTENNAS OR MONOPOLES APPROPRIATE?

[00:55:05]

OUR NON-STEALTH ANTENNA [NOISE] HAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE APPROACH.

THEN PROCESS.

SHOULD THIS INFRASTRUCTURE BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT THROUGH AN SUP PROCESS, MORE ROBUST CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS? WE GOT DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL.

STAFF TOOK ABOUT THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, NOVEMBER 23 THROUGH MAY 2024 TO TAKE ALL THAT INFORMATION AND DRAFT A PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

WE TOOK THE DRAFT BACK IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, GOT DIRECTION TO PROCEED, BUT STAFF ASKED THAT WE SHARE THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH THE CARRIERS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THEIR FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT.

STAFF DID THAT TWO DAYS LATER ON MAY 9TH.

WE GOT RESPONSES FROM SEVEN GROUPS, GAVE THEM TWO WEEKS TO RESPOND.

BY MAY 24TH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AGAIN, HAD RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM SEVEN DIFFERENT GROUPS.

I KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF WORDS ON THIS PAGE, BUT ALL OF THESE WORDS ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL.

BUT JUST A FEW ITEMS TO HIGHLIGHT, THE FIRST THREE.

SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW THIS USE, A REQUEST TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS, SPECIFICALLY IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEN THE PRIMARY LAND USE IS SINGLE-FAMILY.

IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY, IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, UNDER BOTH SITUATIONS, STEALTH ANTENNAS WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEN THE PRIMARY USE IS A CHURCH, SCHOOL, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ATHLETIC STADIUM OR FIELD, OR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITY STRUCTURE.

NOT WHEN THE PRIMARY USE IS SINGLE-FAMILY., MEANING YOU COULD NOT PUT A COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNA IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, ON AN AMENITY CENTER LOT, ON AN HOA LOT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SECOND, THE REQUEST TO REMOVE OR LESSEN THE INCREASED SETBACK TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OR PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY, COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS, AS I REFERENCED, ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN AREAS, BUT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY BECAUSE THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS NOT CLEAR.

THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WANT TO DO A COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNA IN RETAIL.

YES, YOU CAN DO THAT.

HOWEVER, IT'S CAPPED AT 40 FEET.

WELL, THAT DOES NOT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE FOR THE CARRIERS.

UNDER THE DRAFT THAT IS BEFORE YOU ALL THIS EVENING, WE ARE PROPOSING TO ALLOW THIS TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PRESCRIBED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT.

HOWEVER, TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, YOU NEED TO HAVE INCREASED SETBACKS.

THAT'S A TWO-TO-ONE.

WHERE IS THE TWO-TO-ONE COMING FROM? THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER AREAS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOW INCREASED HEIGHT.

THEN, LASTLY, ONE ADDITIONAL THING TO POINT OUT IS THE REQUEST TO ALLOW GROUND-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT BE PLACED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TOWER WITH NO ATTEMPT TO INCORPORATE OR SCREEN THE EQUIPMENT.

I KNOW WE'VE ALL SEEN IMAGES IN THE PAST, AND I'LL SHARE SOME MORE IMAGES THIS EVENING WHERE THE STEALTH ANTENNA MAY BE VERY WELL DESIGNED.

HOWEVER, WHEN A LOT OF THOSE GENERATORS AND DIFFERENT GROUND MOUNT EQUIPMENT ARE JUST PLACED AT THE BOTTOM, IT STILL SCREAMS I AM A STEALTH ANTENNA.

AGAIN, ALL OF THESE THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY GO OVER FURTHER WERE INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR YOUR REVIEW, AS WELL AS PRESENTED IN FRONT OF COUNCIL DURING A WORK SESSION IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR.

AT THAT WORK SESSION, CITY COUNCIL DID DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSAL AS IS WITH TWO CHANGES MADE, THAT BEING ALLOW COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS BY SUP ON PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED MULTIFAMILY 15, MULTIFAMILY 19, OR ON PROPERTY THAT IS DEVELOPED AS URBAN LIVING RESIDENTIAL, AND THE SECOND BEING TO ALLOW ROOFTOP MOUNTED ANTENNAS TO EXCEED 10 FEET.

HOWEVER, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE SCREENED AT 0.6 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL AT THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH AGAIN, IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER AREAS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

BOTH OF THESE CHANGES ARE MADE AND REFLECTED IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU ALL THIS EVENING.

[01:00:05]

MOVING TO THE ACTUAL DRAFT THAT IS BEFORE YOU FOR CONSIDERATION, THERE'S PROBABLY THREE AREAS THAT WE COULD REALLY BREAK IT DOWN TO.

ONE COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS, NON-STEALTH, THAT BEING SIMILAR TO THE PICTURE YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU.

THAT WOULD BE THAT THOSE REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

THOSE ANTENNAS REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TODAY, SO NO CHANGE.

THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, AND WE'RE PROPOSING NO CHANGES.

MONOPOLES TODAY ARE CONSIDERED STEALTH UNDER OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE.

STAFF IS PROPOSING TO RECLASSIFY THOSE AS COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS NON-STEALTH, MEANING THESE TWO WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

THEN LASTLY, COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, JUST PROPOSING MORE ROBUST CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAN WHAT IS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TODAY.

IN MAKING IT EASIER, IF AN APPLICANT IS ABLE TO MEET THOSE CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO STRAIGHT TO SITE PLAN AND AVOID THE SUP PROCESS.

BRIEFLY, GOING OVER THOSE MORE ROBUST CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

AS I MENTIONED A SECOND AGO, PERMITTING THEM BY RIGHT IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEN THE PRIMARY USE IS A CHURCH, SCHOOL, ATHLETIC STADIUM, OR FIELD OR UTILITY STRUCTURE.

THIS TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT SETBACKS.

HOWEVER, IF THEY CHOSE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PRESCRIBED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT, THEY WOULD HAVE INCREASED BUILDING SETBACKS WHEN ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL OR PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AT A TWO-TO-ONE RATIO.

AGAIN, ADDRESSING GROUND-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT, ITS PLACEMENT AND SCREENING IT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSISTENT, AGAIN, WITH OTHER AREAS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF SCREENING THIS EQUIPMENT, UPDATED DEFINITIONS REGARDING AESTHETICS, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATION OF THESE PICTURES YOU SEE HERE, AND THEN LASTLY, THE INTRODUCTION OF AN APPEAL PROCESS.

IF THE APPLICANT DISAGREES WITH THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEIR PROPOSAL IS STEALTH, WE ARE PROPOSING AN APPEAL PROCESS.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID HEAR THIS REQUEST AND HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY 4-3, THAT BEING THE DRAFT THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.

BUT SINCE THE PACKET WAS PUBLISHED, STAFF HAS MET WITH A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH YOU.

BUT JUST TO GO OVER WHAT THOSE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ARE.

THERE WAS A CONCERN IN THE DEFINITION ITSELF THAT IT USED LANGUAGE THAT THESE ANTENNAS BE DESIGNED TO BE NON-OBTRUSIVE OR VIRTUALLY TRANSPARENT OR INVISIBLE, UNDERSTANDING THE CONCERN THAT BEING INVISIBLE IS IMPOSSIBLE.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO STRIKE THE WORD INVISIBLE.

ALSO, ANTENNAS ON PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES, SUCH AS WATER TOWERS OR HIGH TRANSMISSION LINE SUPPORT TOWERS, UNDER THE ORDINANCE TODAY, AND UNDER THE ORIGINAL DRAFT, THOSE ARE NOT TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE.

SAME THING FOR ANTENNAS THAT ARE LOCATED ON LIGHTING, FOR EXAMPLE, AT HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO STRIKE THEY DO NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE AND DO NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE LIGHT POLE.

IN THOSE INSTANCES, IF YOU WERE TO INSTALL EQUIPMENT ANYWHERE ON A TRANSMISSION LINE, ANYWHERE ON STADIUM LIGHTING, IT WOULD BE STEALTH REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT WAS PLACED.

AGAIN, THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THIS EVENING, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

JUST TO PUT MAYBE A SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE THAT COUNCIL GAVE STAFF TO TRY TO FIND THE INTERSECTION OF,

[01:05:04]

WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY IN A FAST-GROWING COMMUNITY LIKE FRISCO, VERY TECH-ENABLED COMMUNITY, EVERYONE HAS THEIR DEVICES ON AT ALL TIMES.

I KNOW EVERYONE GETS FRUSTRATED WHEN YOU FIND THOSE POCKETS OF TOWN WHERE YOU DROP A CALL OR YOU DON'T HAVE GREAT COVERAGE, AND SO COUNCIL IS LOOKING AT HOW TO BALANCE PROVIDING GREAT COVERAGE TO THE CITY OF FRISCO, WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING THE AESTHETICS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT PEOPLE LOVE HERE IN OUR CITY.

WE BECOME KNOWN FOR BEING VERY TOUGH WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE PROUD OF.

THAT'S SOMETHING THIS COMMUNITY HAS BOUGHT INTO, THAT WE WANT WORLD-CLASS DEVELOPMENTS, WE WANT THEM DONE RIGHT.

WE WANT GREAT AESTHETICS, WE WANT OPEN SPACE, WE WANT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF STANDARD PUT INTO OUR CITY, AND THAT IS NO DIFFERENT WITH OUR EXPECTATIONS OF OUR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDERS, CERTAINLY.

IT'S FINDING THAT BALANCE OF SPEED TO EXECUTION.

IF YOU ASK THE CARRIERS, THEIR PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE, AS LITTLE COST AS POSSIBLE, AND THEY COULD DEPLOY THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE QUICKLY AT THE LOWEST AVAILABLE COST WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

I WOULD SAY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, CERTAINLY, WE WANT GREAT AESTHETICS, AND SO WHERE IS THE BALANCE? COUNCIL GAVE THE CHARGE TO SAY, FIND THE SCENARIOS WHERE THESE WOULD BE APPROVED BY RIGHT, MEANING THAT IF A CARRIER WAS GOING TO MEET A SPECIFIC STANDARD THAT WE AGREED IN ADVANCE THROUGH ORDINANCE, WAS AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD, ESSENTIALLY, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME ASK FOR PERMISSION TO DEPLOY THAT, AND THAT WOULD GIVE THE CARRIERS THE ABILITY TO DEPLOY UNDER KNOWN COST STRUCTURES IN A QUICKER MANNER.

THEN IDENTIFY THOSE SCENARIOS WHERE WE DID WANT TO TAKE A SECOND LOOK.

THAT'S THE CASES THAT YOU SEE THAT REQUIRE AN SUP.

THAT PROCESS CAN TAKE LONGER.

NOT ALL CARRIERS MAY WANT TO DO THAT, BUT IF THEY WANTED TO DEPLOY THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT PROCESS WAS AVAILABLE.

IT IS A TOUGH INTERSECTION TO FIND.

IT WAS A TOUGH TASK TO CERTAINLY GIVE CITY STAFF TO COME UP WITH AND CERTAINLY, AS A CONVERSATION WITH THE PROVIDERS AND GETTING INPUT, WITH THE END GOAL IS TO PROVIDE QUALITY SERVICE ACROSS ALL FOUR CORNERS OF THE CITY IN AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING MANNER.

IT IS PROBABLY AS SIMPLE AS I CAN STATE IT.

I KNOW WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, COUNCIL, SO I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOVED.

>> MOTION BY TAMMY.

>> SECOND BY ANGELIA. ON FAVOR?

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

>> THAT PASSES 5-0.

>> WE HAVE TWO WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

WE'LL HAVE JULIE SMITH AND THEN JEREMY CRANDALL.

>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU.

I AM JULIE SMITH, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS FOR VERIZON IN THE SOUTHERN UNITED STATES, HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET A NUMBER OF YOU WHEN YOU CAME TO ATLANTA, AND IT'S GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

JUST A QUICK POINT OF PRIVILEGE WHEN I SAW YOU RECOGNIZING THE PURPLE HEART VETERAN AND MENTIONING MICHAELS AND CERTAINLY AMAZON.

I HAVE TO SAY VERIZON ACTUALLY EMPLOYS 6,000 VETERANS OURSELVES, AND SO IF FOLKS ARE INTERESTED, VERIZON.COM\MILITARYCAREERS IS OUR SPECIAL SITE WHERE WE PROVIDE RECRUITING SERVICES FOR OUR MILITARY VETERANS, AS WELL AS MILITARY SPOUSES, SO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PROMOTE THAT.

NOW, I'M COMING BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO EXPRESS OUR DESIRE TO PARTNER WITH FRISCO TO SERVE YOUR RESIDENTS.

BASED ON OUR PRIOR DISCUSSIONS, I KNOW THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF HOW UNHAPPY PEOPLE IN FRISCO ARE CURRENTLY WITH THEIR WIRELESS CONNECTIVITY SERVICES THROUGH THE CELLULAR PROVIDERS.

WE RECEIVE THESE CALLS EVERY DAY, AND I THINK YOU DO TOO.

FRISCO IS A WORLD-CLASS CITY AND DESERVES WORLD-CLASS CELLULAR SERVICE AS WELL FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY HERE.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT FRISCO IS AN UNBELIEVABLY SUCCESSFUL CITY AND HAS EXPERIENCED AND SUSTAINED UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES.

THE CHALLENGES WITH THAT GROWTH IS ALWAYS KEEPING UP WITH IT.

EVERY TIME I VISIT FRISCO, I SEE NEW ROADS OR MORE INFRASTRUCTURE BEING BUILT AND I'M GUESSING THERE IS JUST AS MUCH, IF NOT MORE, INFRASTRUCTURE GOING ON UNDERGROUND.

>> BUT OF COURSE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S ABOVE GROUND AND ABOVE YOUR EYESIGHT.

I'M HERE TO FOCUS ON THAT.

WE NEED TO ADD VERIZON NEEDS TO ADD MORE THAN A DOZEN NEW CELL SITES,

[01:10:01]

KNOWN AS MACRO TOWERS TO ENSURE FIRST RESPONDERS, RESIDENTS, VISITORS, AND BUSINESSES HAVE SEAMLESS, FAST CELLULAR CONNECTIVITY IN EVERY CORNER OF FRISCO, INCLUDING INSIDE YOUR RESIDENTS HOMES.

WE WANT TO HELP YOU KEEP UP WITH ALL THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND.

THE REVISIONS BEFORE YOU FOR CONSIDERATION DO NOT PROVIDE WORKABLE POLICIES FOR VERIZON TO DEPLOY IN A PREDICTABLE, EXPEDIENT WAY TO SERVE OUR CUSTOMERS FROM A COVERAGE AND A CAPACITY PERSPECTIVE.

SAID VERY PLAINLY, THE POLICIES BEING CONSIDERED WILL NOT ENABLE US TO DEPLOY AND FRISCO TO MEET TODAY'S DEMAND, NOT TO MENTION THE INCREASED DEMAND IN THE FUTURE.

IN SOME INSTANCES, THE PROVISIONS INCLUDED AREN'T EVEN TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE FOR THE INDUSTRY.

OUR REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING THIS LANGUAGE ARE NOT JUST COST RELATED.

WE ABSOLUTELY EXPECT AND WANT TO HAVE YOU PROVIDE US OBJECTIVE GUIDELINES AND PROVISIONS GOVERNING THIS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE ARE ASKING FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TOGETHER WITH COUNSEL IN A WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDUSTRY WHILE ALSO CARING FOR THE CONCERNS AND DESIRES OF THE CITY OF FRISCO.

WE ARE WILLING TO BRING OUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS TO THE TABLE TO ASSIST IN DRAFTING THE RIGHT POLICIES THAT WILL ALLOW FRISCO RESIDENTS TO HAVE THE CONNECTIVITY THEY DEMAND AND THE TYPE OF CONNECTIVITY EXPERIENCED IN OTHER AREAS OF DFW AND THE COUNTRY.

WHILE, WE'D BE HAPPY TO GET INTO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS TONIGHT, INSTEAD, I'M REQUESTING THAT WE COME TOGETHER IN A WORK SESSION TO DEVELOP OUR PLAN SO WE CAN BETTER PARTNER TO SERVE OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, FRISCO RESIDENTS, YOUR VISITORS, AND YOUR BUSINESSES WITH OUR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CONSIDERING OUR REQUEST.

AGAIN, OUR GOAL IS TO ENSURE OUR CUSTOMERS AND YOUR RESIDENTS HAVE THE MOST RELIABLE WIRELESS CONNECTIVITY NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE.

THIS IS NOT ONLY IMPORTANT FOR HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSPECTIVE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND I KNOW WE CAN GET THIS DONE TOGETHER.

>> THANK YOU. JULIE, MAY I ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION?

>> YES, SIR.

>> DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW MANY TOWERS YOU CURRENTLY HAVE IN FRISCO?

>> I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND. I'M SORRY.

>> EVEN BALLPARK?

>> I DON'T. NOT ENOUGH? [LAUGHTER] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NEXT, WE HAVE JEREMY CRANDALL.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR CHENEY AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS JEREMY CRANDALL.

I'M HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF CTIA.

WE ARE THE TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE TO SPEAK ON THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, EXCUSE ME, TO THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE.

FOR BACKGROUND, CTIA, WE REPRESENT AT&T, VERIZON, T MOBIL, AND A RANGE OF OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WITHIN THE WIRELESS COMMUNITY.

BUT SPECIFIC TO THOSE CARRIERS, ALL THREE OF THEM HAVE CUSTOMERS AND BUSINESSES, FOLKS THAT LIVE AND WORK HERE IN THE CITY OF FRISCO.

I WILL JUST SAY A CLOSE RELATIVE OF MINE LIVES NEXT DOOR IN PLANO, SO IT IS AN HONOR TO BE HERE WITH YOU TONIGHT FROM OUT OF STATE.

BUT BEFORE I TOUCH ON SEVERAL OF THE SPECIFICS RELATED TO THE AMENDMENTS THEMSELVES, I WANT TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT OF A GLOBAL PICTURE FROM THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE.

SO EACH YEAR, CTIA SURVEYS OUR MEMBERS TO GAIN A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF CONSUMER DEMAND FOR WIRELESS SERVICES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GATHER IS WHERE ARE WE RIGHT NOW, AND THEN WHERE ARE WE GOING AS IT RELATES TO THE DEMAND FOR WIRELESS SERVICES NOW AND INTO THE FUTURE.

I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER A FEW OF THE FOLLOWING DATA POINTS.

IN 2023 ALONE, WIRELESS USERS IN AMERICA.

THIS IS SMALL BUSINESSES, LARGE CORPORATIONS, STATE GOVERNMENTS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, EVEN COLLEGE STUDENTS ON THEIR IPHONES USED MORE THAN 100 TRILLION MEGABYTES OF DATA IN 2023 ALONE.

THAT'S THE LARGEST SINGLE YEAR INCREASE IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY EVER IN THE WIRELESS SPACE.

THAT'S DOUBLE THAT OF TWO YEARS AGO, AND IT'S MORE THAN WAS USED FROM 2010-2018 COMBINED.

THERE WERE 2.1 TRILLION TEXT MESSAGES SENT IN 2023 ALONE.

THEN FINALLY, THAT YEAR SAW 558 MILLION WIRELESS DEVICES CONNECTED.

NOW, IF YOU DO THE MATH, THAT'S NEARLY TWO DEVICES FOR EVERY PERSON LIVING IN THIS NATION FROM AGE 0-100, AND I HAVE A 4-YEAR-OLD.

SHE CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE A WIRELESS DEVICE.

IT'S A LOT OF DEVICES AND A LOT OF TRAFFIC.

BUT I SHARE THOSE NUMBERS FOR THIS REASON.

THE AMOUNT OF WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IT TAKES TO SUPPORT THAT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC TO MEET THAT DEMAND FROM CONSUMERS IS STAGGERING.

[01:15:03]

IT GETS AT THAT NUMBER THAT JULIE JUST SHARED ABOUT CELL TOWERS, AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE INTO THE FUTURE.

THE CHALLENGE AND THE REASON I'M SPEAKING BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS OUR MEMBERS DO NEED BOTH POLICIES THAT CAN ENABLE US TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT ALSO STRONG PARTNERSHIPS WITH YOU AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AS WELL FOR A BOOMING CITY LIKE FRISCO.

I WILL SAY, ACHIEVING THAT BALANCE, MAYOR CHENEY, THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT.

I DO WANT TO TOUCH ON A LITTLE BIT FROM THAT GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, FROM WHAT WE AT CTIA ARE ABLE TO GLEAN FROM ORDINANCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THIS ONE.

AS YOU KNOW, IT DOES FOCUS HEAVILY ON STEALTH CONCEALMENT OF WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE.

THIS IS A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES.

I PERSONALLY UNDERSTAND THAT AS A HOMEOWNER AND A RESIDENT MYSELF.

THE CHALLENGE BECOMES WHEN A LOCAL ORDINANCE IS NOT CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THAT STEALTH OR THAT CONCEALMENT ACTUALLY MEANS.

IT BECOMES EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR OUR INDUSTRY TO KNOW WHAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE APPROVED BY YOU ALL AS POLICYMAKERS.

AND THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY IS CONSTANTLY EVOLVING.

IT'S ACHIEVING THAT DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN FLEXIBILITY BUT ALSO PREDICTABILITY.

SECOND IS LOCATION, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT AT ITS CORE, WIRELESS IS BOTH A LINE OF SIGHT, BUT ALSO A PROXIMITY TECHNOLOGY.

THERE'S A REASON WHY WHEN AT&T STADIUM HOSTS THE SUPER BOWL, THEY BRING IN TEMPORARY CELL SITES FOR AN EVENT LIKE THAT.

THAT'S BECAUSE ALL OF THAT WIRELESS TRAFFIC OF THE PEOPLE IN THAT STADIUM DEMANDS INFRASTRUCTURE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO IT.

HOWEVER, THIS PROPOSAL WOULD SEVERELY LIMIT THE ABILITY TO DEPLOY NEW INFRASTRUCTURE IN THOSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PRECISELY WHERE THAT DEMAND IS SKYROCKETING.

I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS PART AS IT RELATES TO OUR TECHNOLOGY IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE CONSIDERABLE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE, INCLUDING FOR THINGS LIKE ROOFTOP ANTENNA DEPLOYMENT, IT GETS AT THE PROBLEM WHERE OUR TECHNOLOGY IS BOTH SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO IMPROVE COVERAGE FOR AN AREA, BUT ALSO MINIMIZE THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THAT COMMUNITY, AS WELL AND THAT'S WHERE THAT FLEXIBILITY IS SO IMPORTANT.

LET ME JUST END WITH, IN MY EXPERIENCE, SPEAKING TO YOU ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IS THAT OUR MEMBERS ARE EAGER TO WORK WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY, BUT ALSO MINIMIZE COMMUNITY IMPACT, AS WELL, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR MEMBERS CUSTOMERS.

TO SECOND WHAT JULIE SAID, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST FROM OUR INDUSTRY TO WORK WITH YOU ALL TO DESIGN AN ORDINANCE THAT ACHIEVES THAT BALANCE THAT WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT, AND I'LL STOP THERE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE ONLY SPEAKERS WE HAVE? YEAH. OKAY.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?

>> SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION BY BILL. SECOND. SECOND, BY TAMMY IN FAVOR. HI.

>> THAT PASSES 5:0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

JUMP AND DO YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

DO WE HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY IDEA JUST CARRY OR WIDE, LIKE HOW MANY CELL TOWERS WE HAVE? I DID. HUNDREDS. IS IT THOUSANDS?

>> WHEN IT'S NOT THOUSANDS WE'RE MORE IN THE HUNDREDS WHEN YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS, NON STEALTH, COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS, SMALL CELL NODES, EVERYTHING, BUT I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THOSE EXACT NUMBERS BROKEN DOWN. TONIGHT.

>> CORRECT ME IF I MISUNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TONIGHT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY MAKING IT EASIER THAN OUR EXISTING ORDINANCES TO DEPLOY THESE CELL TOWERS.

IT GIVES MORE OPTIONS.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THAT IS CORRECT? SO TO BREAK THAT DOWN, IF AN APPLICANT WERE INTERESTED IN A NON STEALTH DEPLOYMENT, SUCH AS WHAT YOU SEE HERE, NO CHANGE FROM WHAT OUR ORDINANCE IS TODAY.

SOMEONE WANTED TO COME IN AND PROPOSE A MONOPLE LIKE YOU SEE HERE, REQUIREMENTS NOT CHANGED OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SUP PROCESS.

IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY STILL SOME APPROPRIATE PLACES THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE THIS MAY BE APPROPRIATE, IT'S JUST IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT THOSE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, THUS THE SUP REQUIREMENT.

HOW MANY OF THOSE MONOPOLES DO WE HAVE?

>> THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN, UNFORTUNATELY, I DO NOT HAVE THOSE NUMBERS.

>> THIS IS THE ONLY CLASSIFICATION THAT IS MAYBE AN EXTRA STEP IN THE PROCESS.

> THAT IS CORRECT. BECAUSE IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY, YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE TWO CATEGORIES.

YOU YOU HAVE NON STEALTH,

[01:20:02]

AND YOU HAVE STEALTH, AND MONOPOLES ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT, BUT IN WORKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE WAY OUR CURRENT LANGUAGE IS, THESE HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO FIT UNDER THE STEALTH CATEGORY AS THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN TODAY.

WE ARE SPECIFICALLY CALLING MONOPOLES OUT, LIKE YOU SEE HERE AS NON STEALTH, MEANING THEY REQUIRE AN SUP.

IN TERMS OF MAKING DEVELOPMENT EASIER, YES, I WOULD CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE THE CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHILE THEY DO EXIST TODAY IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS, THEY ARE VERY LIMITED.

FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE I SAID, A SECOND AGO, APPLICANT FINDS A PROPERTY AND LIKE, THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE I WANT TO GO.

WE NEED TO DO A 100 FOOT TOWER HERE.

WHILE I SAY, YES, THE USE IS ALLOWED.

YES, YOU CAN DO A COMMERCIAL ANTENNA, IT CANNOT EXCEED 40 FEET.

THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST BURDENS THAT I HAVE FOUND WORKING WITH CARRIERS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS IS, THEY CALL AND SAY, HEY, CAN I DO THIS? YES, YOU CAN DO THAT.

AND THEN WHEN WE START GETTING INTO THE SPECIFICS OF IT, NO, YOU CANNOT DO THAT BECAUSE OF HEIGHT, YOU CANNOT DO IT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE SETBACKS.

SETTING AESTHETICS ASIDE THE ORDINANCE IS CERTAINLY MAKING A LOT OF THAT EASIER.

AS YOU HEARD AS I HAD ON THE SLIDE EARLIER AS I AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE AUGUST 6TH WORK SESSION, AND CERTAINLY RESPECTING THE INDIVIDUALS THAT SPOKE THIS EVENING.

I MET MANY OF THEM OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR, WORKING WITH THEM ON THIS AND LEARNING A LOT THAT I DID NOT KNOW.

THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK.

THIS IS NEVER GOING TO WORK.

YET, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE TALK TO ANOTHER CARRIER, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TOLD CAN'T WORK.

SO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF TAKE THAT YOU KNOW THEN, KIND OF THE STEALTH ANTENNA, CURRENTLY, THAT'S AN SUP PROCESS.

NO. IT'S ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN NON RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS WHEN THE PRIMARY USE IS THE CHURCH, SCHOOL, PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE, OR ATHLETIC STADIUM OR FIELD.

HOWEVER, AGAIN, WHEN THEY GO TO DO THAT BY WRITE, NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN, THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY ABLE TO MAKE IT WORK BECAUSE THEY NEED 100 FEET, AND I SAY, IT'S CAPPED AT 40 FEET.

OR THEY'VE WORKED A DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO GET AN EASEMENT ON THE CORNER, AND I COME BACK AND SAY, SORRY, YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE BUILDING SETBACKS, YOU KNOW, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, WHERE THIS ORDINANCE, DOES ADDRESS THAT.

>> UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR THE CARRIERS TO EXECUTE THESE STEALTH ORDINANCES TA.

HEALTH ANTENNAS, YES.

YOU KNOW, I'M READING THROUGH HERE ALL THE EXAMPLES YOU'VE GIVEN AND PICTURES AND IDEAS, AND I GUESS.

MY POINT TO MAYBE SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED IS WE'VE HAD HUNDREDS OF DEPLOYMENTS OF ANTENNAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF FRISCO.

MAYBE WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THE NUMBER. IT'S A BIG NUMBER.

UNDER AN ORDINANCE THAT IS CURRENTLY MORE CHALLENGING.

GET AN ANTENNA APPROVED, AND WE'RE PROPOSING AN EASIER ALTERNATIVE WITH MORE OPTIONS.

SO I GUESS THAT DOESN'T CONSTRUE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT THIS POLICY IS WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DEPLOY ANTENNAS.

WE'VE ALREADY DEPLOYED ANTENNAS UNDER A MORE DIFFICULT ORDINANCE, BUT WITH THAT, I'LL TURN TO COUNSEL FOR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THEY HAVE.

>> JONATHAN, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OUTSIDE OF THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT THE MAYOR HAS, BUT I MAY NOTE OF TWO POINTS THAT WERE QUOTED BY THE SPEAKERS EARLIER.

ON INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF CLARITY IN THE ORDINANCE.

I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANT AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, THE OTHER ONE THAT WAS REALLY CONCERNING IS THAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD LIMIT THE ABILITY TO EMPLOY MORE CELL STRUCTURE.

I GUESS I'M LIKE THE MAYOR AT AN IMPASSE IN TERMS OF HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD FROM HERE.

[01:25:02]

OUR CELLULAR INFRASTRUCTURE IS EMBARRASSING THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF FRISCO, A CITY THAT IS SEEKING TO ATTRACT FORTUNE 50 FORTUNE 100 COMPANIES, AND, YOU HAVE TO DRIVE TO CERTAIN POINTS IN THE CITY TO EVEN GET REAL STRONG COVERAGE.

I THINK IT'S INCONGRUENT WITH WHO WE SAY WE WANT TO BE AS A CITY SO WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

I GUESS I'M AT AN IMPASSE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE CARRIERS THAT ARE SAYING, WE CAN'T DO THIS.

WE'RE AT AN IMPASSE.

THERE'S NO ABILITY TO ADD MORE SELF STRUCTURE UNDER THIS NEW ORDINANCE, AND YOU SAYING, HEY, IT SHOULD BE EASIER.

WHY ARE WE AT SUCH A COMPLETELY COUNTER POSITION WHEN IT COMES TO THIS CONTENT? SURE. ONE THING TO POINT OUT IS THAT I THINK SOME OF THE CONCERN IS WHEN IT COMES TO THE DEFINITION ITSELF AND WHAT COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNA IS.

I THINK THE LANGUAGE, NON OBTRUSIVE, VIRTUALLY TRANSPARENT OR INVISIBLE AS IT WAS IN THE AGENDA, WE HEARD, YOU IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE SOMETHING INVISIBLE.

>> I THINK THAT WAS VERY CONCERNING TO SOME OF THE CARRIERS.

SO IT IS HOPEFUL THAT BY STRIKING THE WORD INVISIBLE, THAT THAT ALONE WOULD HELP SOME OF THAT CONCERN.

BUT THAT REALLY GOES BACK TO THE DEFINITION, JUST THE DEFINITION.

AND THEN YOU HAVE TO GET INTO THE STANDARDS THEMSELVES TO UNDERSTAND HOW DO WE DO THAT.

SO PLACEMENT ON THE PROPERTY, MEETING THE SETBACKS, PULLING THEM AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, USING SIMILAR BUILDING MATERIALS, USING SIMILAR COLORS AS THE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT IS ALL WITHIN THE STANDARDS THEMSELVES.

EARLY ON, THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE, LIKE INVISIBLE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITHIN ACTUAL STANDARDS, AND HEARING FROM SOME OF THE CARRIERS THAT THAT LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED.

BUT I WOULD ALSO GO OUT ON A LIMB AND SAY, IT IS ALSO VERY TELLING THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF GROUPS THIS EVENING, BUT THERE ARE ALSO SEVERAL GROUPS WHO ARE NOT HERE SHARING, THE ROOM IS NOT FULL WITH EVERY SINGLE CARRIER SAYING WE CANNOT DO THIS.

I HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CARRIERS JUST WAITING FOR THIS ORDINANCE TO BE PUT INTO PLACE BECAUSE IT WILL ACCOMMODATE WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO.

>> SO THAT'S NEW INFORMATION.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A COMPREHENSIVE CARRIER ISSUE, THIS IS A SPECIFIC CARRIER ISSUE.

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, YES.

>> CAN YOU MAYBE SPEAK TO I MEAN, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR WELL OVER YEARS, MAYBE THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS THAT STAFF HAD WITH CARRIERS IN THIS PROCESS AS WE TRIED TO FORMULATE THIS.

AND THEN ALSO DID WE FOLLOW ANY OTHER BEST PRACTICES THAT OTHER CITIES FOLLOWED OR IS THERE OTHERS THAT HAVE DONE SOME OF THIS BEFORE?

>> SO I MEAN, AS I SAID EARLIER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TOOK ON THIS PROJECT IN SUMMER OF 2023.

SO IN SUMMER OF 2023 AND FALL OF 2023, THAT'S WHEN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REALLY HAD INITIAL ENGAGEMENTS WITH MAJOR CARRIERS AND SOME OF THE THIRD PARTY GROUPS IN THE INDUSTRY, JUST TO HEAR FROM THEM AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT THEY NEEDED OUT OF THE ORDINANCE.

WHERE WERE THEIR HOLES IN COVERAGE ACROSS IN THE CITY, WHERE WERE THEIR HOLES IN OUR ORDINANCE? SO THAT WAS KIND OF THAT INITIAL PUSH EARLY ON WHEN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GOT INVOLVED.

AND THEN WE DID SHARE THE ORDINANCE AFTER MEETING WITH COUNSEL BACK IN MAY.

AND THEN I HAVE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH CARRIERS AND THIRD PARTY GROUPS ON AND OFF OVER THE LAST YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF KEEPING THEM IN THE LOOP AS TO THE DIRECTION OF WHERE THIS ORDINANCE IS GOING, WHAT WE HEARD FROM COUNSEL AT THE LAST WORK SESSION EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

SO THEY WERE AWARE THAT THERE WERE WORK SESSIONS OCCURRING, WHAT THOSE DATES WERE.

[01:30:02]

THEY WERE OPEN MEETINGS, THEY COULD HAVE ATTENDED THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AGAIN, WAS AN OPEN MEETING THEY WERE MORE THAN WELCOME TO ATTEND AND TONIGHT AS WELL.

>> AND THEN AS FAR AS ANY OTHER CITIES HAVE ORDINANCES.

>> YES. CORRECT. SO WE DID LOOK AT SOME OF OUR SURROUNDING CITIES AND I WILL SAY, EVEN WHEN I MET WITH VERIZON AFTER THE ORDINANCE HAD GONE BACK, EVEN HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND THEY HAD PROVIDED SOME FEEDBACK OF SOME ORDINANCES FROM SURROUNDING CITIES.

ONE THING THAT I WILL POINT OUT IS I'LL USE THE OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE AS A GOOD EXAMPLE.

SO I WAS IN TWO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES BEFORE COMING TO FRISCO.

BOTH OF THOSE MUNICIPALITIES HAD OPEN SPACE ORDINANCES, BUT IT WAS YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE, AND OPEN SPACE IS ESSENTIALLY ANYTHING THAT'S NOT BUILDING, ANYTHING THAT IS NOT PARKING.

SO WHAT FRISCO DID IN 2017 WITH THE OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE WAS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT? IT TOOK APPLICANTS DEVELOPERS CONSULTANTS TIME TO FIGURE OUT, SEE HOW IT WORKS AND YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE WONDERFUL OPEN SPACE AREAS THAT ARE ACROSS THE CITY TODAY.

SO THIS ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU ALL THIS EVENING, ARE THERE OTHER CITIES WHO PROBABLY HAVE THE IMAGERY THAT STAFF IS PROPOSING? NO. ARE CARRIERS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK? ABSOLUTELY.

>> JONATHAN, I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR ALL THE TIME AND EFFORT YOU GUYS HAVE PUT INTO THIS.

AND I KNOW WE AS COUNSEL HAVE TASKED YOU AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY UP HERE.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS THAT WORKS IN THIS INDUSTRY.

SO PERHAPS WE SPEAK TO IT WITH BEST INTENTIONS, BUT MAYBE WE DON'T REACH THE POSITIVE OR DESIRED OUTCOMES THAT WE WANT WHEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE CERTAINLY WANT CONNECTIVITY.

WE SPEAK TO CONNECTIVITY IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.

WE WANT WALKABILITY, WE WANT WAY FINDING, WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE IN A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND BE ABLE TO HAVE FEWER TRIPS IN THEIR CAR AND BE ABLE TO REACH FOR THEIR DEVICE AND STAY CONNECTED TO THEIR WORK, THEIR FRIENDS, FAMILY, TO AMAZON, TO EMAIL, TO TEXTING, PHONE CALLS, ALL THE THINGS.

I'M TRYING TO THINK OF HOW TO APPROACH THIS AND FORMULATE A QUESTION.

AND I THINK IF I JUST STEPPED BACK AND LOOKED AT THIS VERY SIMPLY AS ANY PIECE OF ORDINANCE AND SAID, WELL, WHO AM I TRYING TO PROTECT? WHAT AM I REALLY TRYING TO DO? AND AS COUNCIL WOMAN ANGELIA SAID TO PARAPHRASE, WE'RE OPEN FOR BUSINESS HERE IN FRISCO.

WE HAVE A CERTAIN MESSAGE THAT WE PROJECT OUR PROGRESS IN MOTION AND YET, WE SEEM TO BE STUCK IN A PLACE WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THE CONNECTIVITY THAT WE WANT, WE DON'T HAVE THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT THAT WE WANT.

I THINK A BIT OF HUMOR ANECDOTALLY, I SUPPOSE IS SOMEBODY SAID IF OUR GOAL WAS TO NOT HAVE CELL PHONE TOWERS, THEN MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

WE HAVE A SHORTAGE, AND NO ONE CAN REALLY DEFINITIVELY SAY HOW MANY WE HAVE OR HOW MANY WE NEED.

BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING THAT IT'S CLEARLY NOT WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

THE MAYOR IS AN EARLY ADOPTER FIRST ADOPTER, TECH MINDED FORWARD THINKING, FORWARD LEANING GREAT LEADERSHIP AND REMINDS US THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY HAS AN EXPIRATION DATE AND BE CAREFUL PUTTING UP ANY KIND OF NEW TECHNICAL THING, WHETHER IT'S THESE TOWERS OR POLES OR WHATEVER IT IS, THAT IT'S GOING TO BE OUTDATED SOON.

AND THEN WHAT DO WE DO? WHO BECOMES A CUSTODIAN TO THIS THING? WHO TAKES THEM DOWN? HOW ARE THEY DISPOSED OF? WHAT CLEANUP IS REQUIRED AFTERWARDS? SO THAT'S A SIDEBAR CONVERSATION.

BUT AGAIN, I COME BACK TO IS THIS SIMPLY CITIZEN SAYING, WELL, I WANT CELL PHONE CONNECTIVITY, BUT I DON'T WANT TO PULL IN MY BACKYARD.

IS THIS THE FAMOUS, NIMBI NOT IN MY BACKYARD SAYING, WE TRYING TO PROTECT THAT PERSON,

[01:35:01]

THE VERY SAME PERSON WHO'S TEXTING ME IRONICALLY OR CALLING ME OR EMAILING ME OVER THIS SYSTEM, SAYING, HEY, I NEED MORE CONNECTIVITY? IT'S NOT WORKING. I DROPPED ANOTHER CALL.

I HAVE TO LEAVE MY HOUSE TO MAKE A CALL.

I HAVE TO PAY EXTRA FOR INTERNET SERVICE.

I CAN'T STREAM ON MY TV AS WE MOVE AWAY FROM AN OUTDATED SYSTEM THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING LIKE A SATELLITE DISH THAT USED TO BE EVERYWHERE AND NOW THEY'RE ALMOST GONE? SO I'VE BEEN AN ADVOCATE FOR DATA CENTERS, BEEN AN ADVOCATE FOR VARYING POWER LINES.

NOBODY WANTS TO SEE UNSIGHTLY TELEPHONE POLES, POWER POLES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT I THINK AT SOME POINT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ACCEPT A HARD TRUTH THAT THERE IS, 4G, 5G AS THESE THINGS MOVE FORWARD.

AS THEY REQUIRE A LINE OF SIGHT, IT'S JUST NOT AS SIMPLE AS PUTTING THESE NODES ALL OVER THE SIDES OF BUILDINGS OR ON LIGHT POLES THAT LINE THE STREETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT THAT APPARENTLY IS ALSO BEING DONE, BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE A GAP.

THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING MISSING HERE AND I'M WONDERING WE'VE GOT TO FIND THAT BALANCE.

AND I DO APPRECIATE, ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE LEARNED IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM A DEVELOPER PUT THEIR PROJECT ON AN AGENDA AND YOUR PHONE WILL RING.

AND I THINK TO YOUR POINT, YOU'VE PUT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT INTO THIS.

YOU'VE HELD WORK SESSIONS THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

YOU'VE HAD LIMITED PARTICIPATION.

SO I WOULD SAY TO THOSE CELL PHONE CARRIERS THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT OR ANY OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OR ANY THAT ARE WATCHING OR LISTENING TO THIS, I WOULD SAY THAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET YOUR OWN PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET YOUR OWN WORK SESSION.

IF WE WERE TO, FOR EXAMPLE, TABLE THIS ITEM OR EVEN VOTE IT DOWN AND TRY TO REVISIT THIS LATER THAT WE DON'T HAVE A WORK SESSION FOR EACH PERSON OR FOR EACH CARRIER, THAT WE'LL HAVE ONE AND WE WILL HAVE EVERYBODY THERE.

AND THAT IS YOUR TIME AND TO BRING YOUR VOICE AND MAKE IT HEARD, WHETHER YOU'RE A CITIZEN OR A CARRIER THAT HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THIS THAT WE TRULY DO NEED TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM? THERE'S FOLKS IN NEWMAN VILLAGE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ARE BEGGING FOR A CELL PHONE TOWER.

AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, WHERE DOES IT GO? AND THEN WE HAD COBB HILL THAT IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM UNIVERSAL AND WE THOUGHT, WELL THESE POOR FOLKS, WE CAN'T NOW IMPOSE A CELL PHONE TOWER UPON THEM.

AND IT WAS LIKE, YES, WE'VE HAD ENOUGH INTRUSIVE THINGS IN OUR LINE OF SIGHT.

SO IT'S HOW DO WE FIND THE BALANCE HERE? HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE PUN INTENDED, EFFECTIVELY TO OUR CITIZENS WHO SEEM TO BE AWARE OF THE NEED, BUT ALSO STRUGGLE WITH HAVING A POLE THAT IF YOU STEP BACK AND THINK ABOUT IT, THESE THINGS DON'T EMIT LIGHT, THEY DON'T EMIT SOUND, THEY DON'T MOVE.

IN SOME DEGREE, THEY FALL AT THE BACK OF YOUR MIND.

YOU STOP SEEING THEM, SO TO SPEAK.

THEY BECOME INVISIBLE ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT US TRYING OR TRYING TO MAKE IT INTO AN ORDINANCE.

OTHER THINGS LESS SO.

TRYING TO PUT TOO MUCH LIPSTICK ON IT, MAKING THEM LIGHT UP OR TURNING THEM INTO FLAG POLES OR MAKING THEM LOOK LIKE SOMETHING BECOMES EXPENSIVE FOR THE CARRIER.

THOSE COSTS ARE INVARIABLY PASSED ONTO THE CONSUMER.

SO, AGAIN, WE HAVE THIS CYCLE OF WHO ARE WE TRYING TO PROTECT? AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, ARE WE REALLY HELPING THE CONSUMER? ARE WE PUTTING THEM INTO A CORNER HERE WHERE THEIR COSTS ARE GOING UP, THE SERVICE, THE RELIABILITY IS GOING DOWN.

AND THEN THERE'S THIS TIPPING POINT ON WHERE DO THESE GO? HOW MANY DO WE NEED? HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE THEM TO PUT THEM UP? HOW MUCH BUREAUCRACY DO WE NEED IN PLACE? AND AGAIN, I END WITH THE QUESTION I'VE ASKED A COUPLE OF TIMES IS, HERE, WHO ARE WE REALLY TRYING TO PROTECT? AND I UNDERSTAND, WE DO HAVE SOME ORDINANCES PLACE WHERE IT'S AN ORDINANCE ON TOP OF AN ORDINANCE SUCH AS GREEN SPACE.

AND THEN NOW WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIT AN ORDINANCE INTO.

BUT IF WE WERE TO JUST STEP BACK AND GO, WHAT AM I REALLY TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE? WHO AM I TRYING TO SERVE AND WHO AM I TRYING TO PROTECT? I THINK WE DO NEED A BIT MORE WORK ON THIS.

AGAIN, I APPLAUD THE EFFORT THAT YOU PUT INTO IT.

AND I LOVE THAT HOW RESPONSIVE STAFF WAS TODAY IN TAKING THE FEEDBACK FROM CARRIERS FROM COUNSEL, FROM CITIZENS AND MAKING LINE ITEM CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT.

THAT WAS INCREDIBLE, SHORT TIME TURNAROUND, AND YOU DELIVERED IT.

I THINK WE'RE LIKE THIS CLOSE.

I WOULD HATE TO VOTE THIS DOWN, GIVEN THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT WENT INTO IT.

I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME PASSING IT, AND I THINK I WOULD MOVE TOWARDS PERHAPS TABLING IT.

AND I'LL END THERE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, JOHN. I THINK FOR ME, WHAT I'M SEEING, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YES,

[01:40:01]

THANK YOU FOR TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP JUST RECENTLY.

AND I THINK FOR THE CARRIERS, WE ARE DOING SOMETHING IN FRISCO THAT'S DIFFERENT.

WE ALWAYS STRIVE TO HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD WITH EVEN LIKE YOU SAID, THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SO IT CREATES THINGS THAT WE NEVER DREAMED OF.

SO THAT CAN BE VERY GOOD.

WHAT CAUSES ME TO PAUSE ON THIS A BIT ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT ELEMENTS.

SO I THINK THE MAIN THING IS JUST WHETHER OR NOT WE VIEW, COUNCIL VIEWS THIS SALE SERVICE AS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK AT LIKE ROADS, WHERE WE NEED TO HAVE TOLL WAYS AND PAVED ROADS SO THAT OUR 230,000 PEOPLE UP TO 350,000 PEOPLE CAN TRAVEL SMOOTHLY AND NOT HAVE A LOG JAM.

AND SELL INFRASTRUCTURE.

WHAT WE'RE CREATING HERE, IS THIS SOMETHING WE BELIEVE IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL? SO DOES IT NEED TO LOOK LIKE A STAINED GLASS TOWER OR A MONOPOLE, DO WE JUST NEED TO HAVE IT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ON A DIGITAL ONE LANE DIRT ROAD.

SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE FINDING THE BALANCE.

AND I'M SEEING THE COMMUNICATION ISSUE.

WE'RE RECEIVING COMMUNICATION FROM OUR CARRIERS, AND ALSO WHAT I NOTICED ON THE PNZ MEETING WAS THERE WAS CONCERN ON THE MEETING AS WELL FROM A FEW FOLKS AND THEY WERE ASKING FOR A LITTLE MORE TIME TO DIGEST THIS.

SOME CITIZENS I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE ALL GIVEN IT THOUGHT, BUT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE REACHED OUT, HAVE SAID THINGS LIKE THEY'RE AFRAID TO HAVE A HEART ATTACK IN A CERTAIN ROOM OF THEIR HOUSE BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE ANY COVERAGE THERE.

SO THAT'S CONCERNING. WE DO NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET MORE TOWERS IN THE NEAR THE RESIDENTIAL, BUT NOT HURT OUR RESIDENTIAL.

SO THE CLARITY IN THE DEFINITION, I THINK FOR SURE, THE INVISIBLE BEING STRUCK FROM THE ORDINANCE WAS VERY HELPFUL.

I DO THINK WE PROBABLY NEED A LITTLE MORE CLARITY AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GETTING CLOSER AND THAT'S A GOOD THING, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE ALL AGREED ON WHAT THAT CLARITY IS YET.

SCREENING, IF THERE'S A MONOPOLE THAT WANTS TO GO IN A WASTEWATER TREATMENT AREA, DOES THAT NEED TO BE SCREENED? ARE THERE AREAS WHERE MAYBE WE CAN DEFINE THE PROCESS DIFFERENTLY FOR SCREENING OR REQUIREMENTS.

ONE THING THAT CONCERNED ME WAS THE PHRASE NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE.

SO I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS, IS IT REALLY NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, AND IF IT IS, THEN WHAT CAN WE MAKE SURE TO DO THAT DOES MAKE IT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE? I KNOW THAT THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE FOLKS HERE THAT ARE REPRESENTING CARRIERS, BUT WE DO HAVE SOMEONE THAT'S WITH A LARGER ASSOCIATION.

SO I KNOW THAT YOU'RE REPRESENTING MORE THAN JUST ONE.

SO I THINK WITH ALL OF THAT IN MIND, I WOULD AGREE WITH COUNCIL MAN KEATING THAT PERHAPS HAVING A WORK SESSION TOGETHER WHERE WE EXPLORE THE DEFINITIONS AND COME UP WITH MORE CLARITY ON EACH OF THOSE AREAS WITH OUR CARRIERS PRESENT, WE'D HAVE ONE MORE TRY TO GET THIS CLEAR AND THAT WAY, WE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD MORE OF THE DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE QUICKLY BECAUSE THE GOAL IS WE DO WANT TO GET THINGS UP AND RUNNING AND WE NEED PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SERVICE QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY.

SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON THIS ONE.

>> JONATHAN, HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS, THEN JUST SOME COMMENTS.

>> THE ORDINANCE AS IT STANDS, THE EQUIPMENT FOR THESE POLES CAN STILL BE ON THE GROUND.

THEY JUST HAVE TO BE SCREENED IN SOME FORM OR FASHION.

COULD BE BLOCK WALLS, LIKE WE SEE THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER MANNER, BUT THE EQUIPMENT CAN STILL BE ON THE GROUND.

THAT'S JUST A QUESTION I'D HAD THAT I DIDN'T HEAR ANSWER YET.

THE SETBACKS THAT WE TALK ABOUT THAT WE FOCUSED A LOT ON THAT, THAT'S RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

A CARRIER WANTED TO PUT A POLE IN A COMMERCIAL AREA, SURROUNDED BY OTHER COMMERCIAL AREAS, SETBACKS ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT IN THOSE CASES, AND PROBABLY A LOT MORE LENIENT THAN WHAT IT WOULD BE UP AGAINST A RESIDENTIAL AREA. CORRECT?

>> UNDER THE DRAFT, IF YOU'RE IN A COMMERCIAL AREA, YOU JUST MEET THE SETBACKS AS THEY ARE, JUST AS IF YOU'RE BUILDING AN OFFICE BUILDING.

THE INCREASED SETBACKS APPLY WHEN YOU'RE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR

[01:45:02]

PROPERTY THAT'S IDENTIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

>> THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I HAVE ARE JUST COMMENTS AND WHERE I'M AT ON THIS.

I'M ACTUALLY READY TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT.

THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A-YEAR-AND-A-HALF.

THE CARRIERS HAVE ALL HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT TO OUR STAFF, TO PROVIDE INPUT TO US.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO OUR STAFF OVER A-YEAR-AND-A-HALF.

WE'VE ALREADY HAD PUBLIC WORK SESSIONS WHERE THEY CHOSE NOT TO SHOW UP.

THEY COULD HAVE PROVIDED INPUT IN THOSE TIMES.

FOR WHATEVER REASON, NONE OF THEM CHOSE TO DO SO.

WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I LOOK AT OUR JOB IS, WE SHOULD BE SETTING THE VISION OF WHAT WE WANT.

WHAT I HEAR IS, RESIDENTS WANT CONNECTIVITY, AND THEY WANT IT TO BE UNOBTRUSIVE IS EFFECTIVELY WHAT IT IS.

I THINK IF WE SPEND MULTIPLE ADDITIONAL WORK SESSIONS, BECAUSE INEVITABLY IT WON'T BE JUST ONE, IT'LL BE TWO OR THREE OR MORE, THEN AT THAT POINT, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS ON MULTIPLE DIFFERENT WHAT IFS AND SITUATIONS, AND WHAT ABOUT THIS AREA OR THAT AREA? DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

THAT'S WHAT THE SUP PROCESS IS FOR.

IF WE WANT TO DO THAT, JUST LEAVE EVERYTHING AS AN SUP, AND WE CAN EVALUATE EVERY POLE ON ITS INDIVIDUAL MERITS IN EVERY CASE.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

WE WANT TO TRY TO MAKE THIS EASIER.

THAT'S WHAT I SEE THIS ORDINANCE AS DOING.

IS WE'VE SAID, HIDE THE ANTENNAS, MAKE THEM LOOK UNOBTRUSIVE, AND OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICE STAFF HAS THE ABILITY TO SIGN OFF ON THAT.

THE ONLY GROUP THAT I HEAR THAT'S NOT IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT IS A GROUP THAT TOLD ME THAT THEY WANT THREE OR FOUR OPTIONS TO PICK FROM, SO THEY'D LIKELY PICK JUST THE CHEAPEST OPTION EVERY TIME.

THAT COMPANY MADE $3 BILLION LAST YEAR IN NET PROFIT.

I THINK THEY CAN AFFORD TO SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME TO GET CREATIVE AND FIND WAYS TO MAKE THE STEALTH ANTENNAS.

I KNOW I DON'T NEED ANY MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT THIS.

I THINK WE'RE JUST SPINNING OUR WHEELS GETTING FAR TOO INTO THE WEEDS AS TO WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

I LIKE JONATHAN'S STATEMENTS.

IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO OUR OPEN SPACE.

IT WASN'T EASY FOR THE DEVELOPERS, AND I'VE SEEN THAT OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED TOO.

EVERY TIME WE COME UP WITH AN ORDINANCE TO SAY, THIS IS THE FRISCO WAY, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO, IT'S HARD AT FIRST.

BUT, BY GOLLY, PEOPLE FIGURED IT OUT, AND WE END UP WITH A BETTER COMMUNITY FOR IT.

ANYWAY, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

I'M READY TO MOVE FORWARD ON IT RIGHT NOW.

ASIDE FROM THAT, JEFF, I THINK YOUR QUESTION ABOUT MONOPOLES, THERE'S FOUR THAT I CAN THINK OF IN TOWN.

>> I HATE THIS ONE. THIS IS OUTSIDE COBLE MIDDLE SCHOOL.

I WISH THIS ORDINANCE WAS IN EFFECT BEFORE THAT ONE WAS DONE.

I WISH WE COULD GO TEAR THAT ONE DOWN. ANYTHING?

>> YES. I'VE GOT SOME FINAL COMMENTS.

JONATHAN, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT SOME OF THE DETAILS THAT YOU GUYS SENT EARLIER FOR YOUR PROPOSALS.

I LIKE THE STRUCTURE OF WHAT YOU'VE PUT IN HERE FOR STRIKING SOME OF THESE THREE THINGS THAT HAVE CAUSED SOME QUESTIONS AND SOME CONCERNS.

I THINK THE TWO MAJOR STRIKING THINGS OF NOT EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT STRUCTURE ALLOWS FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY.

THE ONE QUESTION THAT I DID HAVE ON THE EMAIL THAT WE GOT TODAY WAS, WOULD A REGULAR STREET LIGHT POLE FALL INTO THIS WHERE THEY COULD PUT SOMETHING ON TOP OF A REGULAR STREET LIGHT POLE?

>> BASED ON THE HEIGHT OF REGULAR THOSE STREET POLES, MOST OF THOSE ARE GOING TO FALL INTO THE SMALL CELL NODE CATEGORY, WHICH IS ORDINANCES THAT THE CITY ALREADY HAS IN PLACE THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS, WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

> THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ADD A LARGER THING ON TOP.

>> IN THOSE INSTANCES, YOU THINK OF THE HEIGHT OF A STREET POLE IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE HEIGHT OF STADIUM LIGHTS OR HIGH TRANSMISSION POWER LINES.

THAT'S THIS ORDINANCE.

IF THEY'RE GOING TO GO ON STREET LIGHTS AND OUR RIGHT AWAY, THAT'S GOING TO BE THROUGH THE OTHER ORDINANCE, NOT WHAT WE'RE ACTING ON TONIGHT.

>> GOT IT. THANK YOU. THEN, MY FINAL QUESTION IS, BECAUSE I SPOKE TO A COUPLE OF THE CARRIERS, AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD SURROUNDING WAS AROUND THE SUP PROCESS.

I EVEN HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH THEM.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU CARTE BLANCHE TO DO GO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO, AND THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT.

I THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THE NEED FOR THE SUP PROCESS.

I THINK WE ALL DO. UNDER THE FACT THAT WE ARE A DEVELOPED CITY, AND NOT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO WORK PERFECTLY IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE.

[01:50:01]

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO HELP PROVIDE THEM BETTER GUIDANCE IN THE SUP PROCESS TO HELP SPEED IT UP?

>> I WILL TELL YOU SUPS FOR ANTENNAS, JUST LIKE AN SUP FOR A DAYCARE OR AN AUTOMOBILE USE OR ANY OTHER USE THAT REQUIRES AN SUP, OUR STAFF IS GOING TO REVIEW THAT BASED ON A COMPLETE SUBMISSION, AND ALL OF THE FACTORS THAT GO INTO IT.

WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? WHERE IS IT LOCATED? WHAT ARE THE ADJACENT USES? SO THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO SAY, OH, YOU DO X, Y AND Z.

IT'S A GUARANTEE APPROVAL OR ANYTHING FOR YOUR SUP.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I CAN SAY.

WHAT I CAN SAY IS WHAT WE TELL PEOPLE OFTEN IS A LOT OF TIMES WITH SUPS AND ZONING CASES.

A LOT OF TIMING COMES BACK TO QUALITY CONTROL AND MAKING SURE THAT CONSULTANTS ARE ADDRESSING CITY COMMENTS, RETURNING PLANS ON TIME, BEING RESPONSIVE.

IF THERE ARE CERTAIN SPECIAL SCENARIOS, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN, BUT WE HAVE TO THINK WITH SUPS, THERE ARE ZONING SIGN REQUIREMENTS, THERE ARE PROPERTY OWNER NOTICES, THERE ARE NEWSPAPER NOTICES, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO MEET AS A CITY TO PROCESS THOSE CASES, AND IT DOES TAKE TIME.

I THINK IT'S JUST VERY IMPORTANT THAT WHEN THESE CARRIERS OR THEIR CONSULTANTS ARE SUBMITTING FOR AN APPLICATION THAT THEY ENSURE FROM THE GET GO, THAT THAT IS A COMPLETE APPLICATION, AND WE HAVE CHECKLIST ONLINE, AND THEY ARE HITTING ALL THE POINTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE COULD CONSIDER TO POTENTIALLY HELP THEM, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE TRYING TO GET CAUGHT UP IN CERTAIN AREAS, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE COULD, AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR COMPLETED SUBMISSIONS.

I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE TO DEAL WITH A LOT IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PULLING ALL THE DIFFERENT PROJECTS TOGETHER.

I'M WONDERING IF THIS TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF HAND HOLDING, WHERE WE HAVE A NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND WE HAVE SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE KNOW ARE VERY MUCH OUT OF THE NORM.

IT'S NEW TO ALL OF US. YOU GUYS ONLY HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR A YEAR AND A HALF.

IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO POTENTIALLY WORK WITH THE CARRIERS A LITTLE BIT MORE UPFRONT UNTIL THEY GET USED TO THE FRISCO WAY OF TRYING TO GET SOME OF THESE ANTENNAS UP AND DONE A LITTLE BIT MORE UPFRONT VERSUS WAITING FOR A COMPLETED DESIGN BEFORE WE TAKE A LOOK AT IT?

>> SURE. NOT TO JUST SOUND GOOD TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY MY HOPE THAT OUR STAFF IS DOING THAT IN ALL INSTANCES.

WE DO HAVE FORMAL PRE-SUBMISSION MEETINGS WHERE SOMEONE CAN SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

THEY SCHEDULE THE MEETING, AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT EVERYTHING PRIOR TO SUBMISSION.

BUT JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS INFRASTRUCTURE ALONE, THERE'S ONE THIRD PARTY GROUP THAT I JOKE WITH THAT I SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE A STANDING WEEKLY MEETING WITH THEM BECAUSE I TALK TO THEM SO OFTEN.

IT'S AN APPROVED SITE PLAN, SO I CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT IT THIS EVENING.

BUT WORKING WITH THE ANTHEM NET GROUP TO DO WHAT THE BELL TOWER TYPE FACILITY THAT THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING IN THE OPEN SPACE AT GENESIS METRO, THAT WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH WORK BETWEEN STAFF AND THE, AND I THINK ULTIMATELY, WHEN THAT IS DONE, THAT IS REALLY GOING TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT THE NEW ORDINANCE IS.

NOW, GRANTED, WE WERE ABLE TO FIND SOME WORK AROUNDS AND GET THAT ONE GOING UNDER OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE.

BUT THAT PROJECT REALLY WAS A PARTNERSHIP.

THEY SUBMITTED PLANS, AND I WAS LIKE, I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO WORK FOR THE CHURCH, AND A MUCH AS HAS JUST BUILT THIS FACILITY, AND FOR YOU TO GO AND CONSTRUCT THAT, ROT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR OPEN SPACE.

[01:55:01]

I DON'T THINK THE CHURCH STAFF IS GOING TO BE PLEASED, I DON'T THINK THEIR MEMBERS ARE GOING TO BE PLEASED, AND YOU DO HAVE RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING THAT.

THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE HEAR YOU. WHAT COULD WE DO? BACK AND FORTH AND ULTIMATELY, THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING A FACILITY, A TOWER THAT IS MADE OF THE SAME MATERIALS THAT THE CHURCH IS CONSTRUCTED OF.

THEY'RE ALSO TAKING THEIR GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT INSTEAD OF PLACING IT DIRECTLY AT THE BOTTOM.

IT'S IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHERE THERE WAS ALREADY SOME LANDSCAPE SCREENING, SO YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE ABLE TO WALK RIGHT UP TO THIS BELL TOWER TYPE FEATURE AS IF WEREN'T AN ANTENNA.

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO TELL YOU, OH, YES, WE CAN BUILD IN AN EXTRA PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS MY HOPE THAT OUR STAFF IS ALREADY DOING THAT, NOT ONLY WITH THIS, BUT ANYTHING THAT COMES BEFORE US.

>> TO ADD TO THAT, STAFF GETS A LOT WHERE THEY ONLY WANT TO PROVIDE THE BARE MINIMUM, AND IT IS COACHING THEM UP TO DO A NICER PROJECT.

BESIDES GETTING THE APPLICATION RIGHT, AS JONATHAN MENTIONED, THERE'S A CHECKLIST.

LOT OF PEOPLE JUST CHECK IT, BUT IT'S MEANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.

I'M NOT BEING FACETIOUS ON THAT, BUT SECOND IS GETTING IT TO A POINT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, AND THAT'S NEGOTIATIONS THAT GOES BACK AND FORTH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT, IS THAT UNUSUAL FOR ALL THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT, OR ARE THOSE NEGOTIATIONS COMMON IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINGS THAT YOU WORK ON?

>> YES.

>> WOULD THIS ORDINANCE HAVE MADE IN YOUR EXAMPLE OF GENESIS METRO CHURCH EASIER TO WORK THROUGH IF WE HAD THIS ORDINANCE IN PLACE, TO THAT MIGHT HAVE GONE EVEN FASTER THAN WHAT IT DID?

>> SIGNIFICANTLY. THANK YOU.

>> JONATHAN, IF WE DECIDED TO TABLE THIS TONIGHT, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD TAKE GOING FORWARD TO HOPEFULLY GET GREATER ALIGNMENT WITH THE CARRIERS ON THIS? I'M NOT COMFORTABLE VOTING TONIGHT, AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE YOUR HOMEWORK, BECAUSE I REALLY THINK YOU HAVE.

I THINK THAT YOU'VE GOT ON ONE HAND, US WANTING TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE GET AN APPROVED ORDINANCE, AND WE DON'T GET BETTER CELL RECEPTION.

TO ME, IT'S ABOUT THE BIGGER PICTURE.

I WOULD LOVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD IN A MANNER THAT AT LEAST THERE IS A GREATER DEGREE OF ALIGNMENT WITH THE CARRIER MOVING FORWARD THAN WE CLEARLY HAVE TODAY.

I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IF WE VOTED TO TABLE THIS TONIGHT, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEPS, AND WHAT WOULD BE THE TIMING TO HOPEFULLY GET US CLOSER IN ALIGNMENT?

>> SURE. I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT, AS COUNCILMAN WOODARD SAID, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THIS ROUTE, THAT IT'S NOT 1, 2, 03, 4, WORK SESSIONS, AND IT'S NEXT THANKSGIVING, AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN.

I THINK, FIRST THINGS FIRST, IT WOULD BE STAFF SITTING DOWN WITH EACH ONE OF THESE CARRIERS AGAIN, HEARING FROM THEM, TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM JUST TO SEE WHAT WE CAN MAYBE COME UP WITH.

MAYBE IT'S NOT AS, I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID THIS EVENING.

I THINK WE ARE VERY CLOSE, IF YOU ALL DISAGREE THAT WE'RE NOT ALREADY THERE.

THEN BRINGING THAT FEEDBACK BACK IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL IN THE FORM OF A WORK SESSION, ENCOURAGING ALL OF THE CARRIERS, JUST VERY MUCH.

ENCOURAGING THEM TO ATTEND AND THEN BRINGING IT FORWARD.

I UNDERSTAND AS WE ARE GETTING INTO THE HOLIDAYS THAT WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT JANUARY AT THE ABSOLUTE EARLIEST FOR A WORK SESSION.

>> WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK.

WHAT OUR SCHEDULE LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT ANNUAL WORK SESSION AND HOLIDAYS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

>> I DON'T RECOMMEND THAT WE HAVE A WORK SESSION PERSONALLY, SPECIFICALLY WITH THE CARRIERS.

IF I'M PREPARED TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT.

I KNOW SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE UNCERTAINTY.

IF WE NEED TO TABLE IT FOR OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO

[02:00:01]

GET MORE CERTAINTY, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

THE CARRIERS ARE FREE TO REACH OUT TO COUNCIL MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY.

THEY'RE FREE TO COMMUNICATE WITH STAFF.

THEY'VE HAD THAT RIGHT FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS, SO THERE HAS BEEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT.

AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, YOU HAVE A LOT OF CARRIERS THAT ARE WAITING FOR US TO PASS ON THIS TO GET TO WORK.

TO START PUTTING TOWERS UP.

DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY?

>> YOU DID.

>> I'D LIKE TO MEET WITH THOSE CARRIERS.

PERSONALLY, IF WE VOTE TO TABLE IT, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE CARRIERS THAT WE HAVE WAITING IN LINE WHO'S SAYING, WE CAN GET BETTER CELL RECEPTION.

>> I DON'T, FOR A SECOND, BELIEVE THAT THESE CARRIERS WON'T MEET MARKET DEMANDS.

OBVIOUSLY, BILL IS SEASONED BEING ON P&Z.

WE'VE SEEN THE STORY 1,000 TIMES.

TO USE WORDS LIKE WE CANNOT DEPLOY WHEN WE'VE GOT HUNDREDS OF TOWERS ALREADY.

WE'RE MAKING THE ORDINANCE EASIER, WE'RE GIVING THEM MORE OPTIONS.

I PERSONALLY JUST DON'T BUY ANY OF THAT, AND IF A CARRIER IS GOING TO CHOOSE DO NOT MEET THE MARKET DEMAND, THERE'S GOING TO BE OTHER CARRIERS THAT DO, AND I WOULD SWITCH MY SELF SERVICE IF MY CARRIER DID NOT MEET THE MARKET DEMAND THROUGH FRISCO, AND ANOTHER ONE DID, AND THE MARKET WILL SPEAK TO THAT.

WE'VE MADE STANDARDS IN THE PAST.

YOU HAD A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THE OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE, WHERE WE HEARD THE COMPLAINTS, AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

BUILDINGS GOING TO STOP IN FRISCO AND GUESS WHAT? NOW WE'RE RECOGNIZED AS HAVING THE BEST DEVELOPMENTS BECAUSE WE SET THE STANDARD, AND NOW OTHER PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CATCH UP.

THE DEVELOPMENT QUALITY OF THIS CITY IS NOT AN OVERNIGHT SUCCESS.

IT'S BEEN A 25-YEAR, VERY PLANNED AND EXECUTED STRATEGY.

I'M SURE WHEN WE PASSED THE GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE IN 2002 OR '3, I WASN'T ON COUNCIL THEN, BUT I'M SURE WE HEARD IT.

OH, YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO MEET THE MARKET.

IT IS THE SAME TIRED STORY, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM OUR PARTNERS.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THESE 18 MONTHS, AND I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYTHING FROM ANYBODY.

I'M READY TO MOVE FORWARD.

I THINK THESE ARE REALLY REASONABLE APPROACHES. I WOULD SAY THIS.

I DID WANT TO JUMP ON LAURA RUMMEL'S COMMENTS, WHICH IS ONCE WE FINALIZE AN ORDINANCE AND DEPLOY THIS, AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I HONESTLY DON'T WANT TO SEE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE AGAIN, AND I DOUBT PLANNING AND ZONING DOES EITHER.

I KNOW IT MAY HAVE TO COME THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET TO A POINT THAT THE STANDARD IS KNOWN AND STAFF FEELS LIKE THEY HAVE ENOUGH DIRECTION WHERE IF A CARRIER COMES TO YOU AND SAYS, I'VE GOT TO DEPLOY 12 TOWERS TO MEET MY MARKET'S DEMAND, IT'S ON THEM.

IT'S NOT ON STAFFS.

IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO HELP THEM FIGURE IT OUT, BUT THEY KNOW THEY'VE GOT A PROCESS THAT SAYS, OUR PERSON WHO'S REPRESENTATIVE AT VERIZON OR AT&T, WE GOT TO DEPLOY 12 TOWERS.

CAN YOU MAKE TWO HOURS? I'M GOING TO BRING 12 DESIGNS TO YOU.

CAN YOU HELP ME GIVE DIRECTION? YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY THAT IF YOU MEET THIS STANDARD, YOU WILL GET THE SUPPORT OF PLANNING AND ZONING AND COUNCIL.

DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE'RE ANYWHERE NEAR THAT POINT WITH THIS? IF WE PASSED THIS TONIGHT, DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE THE CARRIERS DIRECTION, WHERE VERY CLEARLY THAT HEY, IF YOU COME SIT IN MY OFFICE FOR TWO HOURS ON A THURSDAY AFTERNOON, I CAN HELP YOU FIGURE OUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT SITES?

>> JOHN MAY WANT TO PROVIDE HIS ANSWER AS WELL.

BUT I WILL SAY AFTER WORKING WITH THE CARRIERS OVER THE LAST 18 MONTHS, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STEALTH, ABSOLUTELY FEELING VERY COMFORTABLE.

BUT AS I SAID EARLIER ON IN THIS PRESENTATION, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE REQUIRING THE SUP PROCESS, I THINK THERE ARE SOME PROPERTIES AND SOME SITUATIONS WHERE A MONOPOLE WOULD BE VERY APPROPRIATE, AND I WOULD BE VERY COMFORTABLE SHARING THAT WITH THE CARRIERS AND GOING DOWN THAT ROUTE, AND WHEN TIME CAME TO PRESENT THAT REQUEST IN FRONT OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL, WE WOULD HAVE A VERY SOLID ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THAT IS THE CASE, AND I BELIEVE P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

>> HOW WOULD YOU THINK YOU WOULD EXECUTE THIS? WOULD IT BE ONE STAFF MEMBER THAT IS JUST THE ANTENNA EXPERT, AND WE GO TO SPEAK TO JONATHAN OR JOHN, WHATEVER, AND I'M THE EXPERT, AND SO ONCE YOU HAVE MY BLESSING, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO? OR IS IT EVERY SINGLE STAFF IS GOING TO,

[02:05:03]

AND THEY MAY HAVE THEIR OWN OPINION OF WHAT THEY THINK WORKS AND DOESN'T.

>> I ALWAYS LIKE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO STAFF MEMBERS TO DO IT IN CASE SOMEONE'S OUT ON VACATION OR WHATEVER.

BUT YES, IF SOMEBODY CAME IN AND SAYS, I HAVE 12 SITES.

I WANT TO SIT DOWN AND GO OVER THAT.

SURE. WE WILL MEET WITH THEM AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

WE WOULD ASK THAT CARRIER WOULD HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY PEOPLE AT THAT MEETING SO THEY CAN MAKE DECISIONS, BECAUSE ANYTIME THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AND GET A DECISION BY SOMEBODY ELSE THAT'S NOT IN THAT MEETING, THAT DELAYS THE PROCESS.

ONE THING I WANT TO COMPLIMENT JONATHAN ON.

HE'S SPENT A WEALTH OF TIME ON THIS.

LIKE THE PICTURES UP THERE ABOUT BEING STEALTH, WE GOT THOSE FROM MICHELLE NORRIS, AND WE WERE LOOKING FOR EXAMPLES AND THE CARRIERS.

THEY PROVIDED, I THINK, MAYBE ONE EXAMPLE THAT WAS ON THE LAME SIDE, AND SO TRYING TO ELEVATE.

YES, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, AND THEY WERE CALLING THAT ART, AND WE DISAGREE WITH THAT.

BUT THE REASON WE'RE JUST INCLUDING SOME EXAMPLES BECAUSE THERE MAY BE OTHERS THAT THEY PROPOSE THAT WE HAVE NOT THOUGHT OF, SO WE WANT TO KEEP THAT FLEXIBILITY.

THEY DO COME UP WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT, OR SOMETHING THAT'S UNIQUE IN A CERTAIN PART OF FRISCO THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE.

WE WANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND OF ANY SITE THAT THEY'RE SELECTING IS PLAY OFF THE HERITAGE IF THERE'S ANY TO PLAY OFF OF.

>> WELL, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD, WES?

>> I DO, BUT I DON'T WANT TO STEP ON ANY COUNSEL'S TOES TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

I WOULD SAY IF THE COUNCIL IS INCLINED TO TABLE THIS, I DO NOT RECOMMEND HAVING A SPECIAL WORK SESSION WITH THE CARRIERS.

I THINK THEY'VE PROVEN BY THEIR WORDS AND ACTIONS THAT THEY'RE QUITE CAPABLE OF SENDING THINGS IN WRITING, SO THEY SHOULD JUST SEND TO STAFF IN WRITING WHAT THEY THINK THEY WANT OR NEED, AND WE CAN COMMUNICATE ABOUT THAT IN PERSON AFTER THEY'VE SENT WHAT THEY SENT IN WRITING.

BUT TO HAVE THIS AS A MEETING WITH THE COUNCIL JUST TO TALK THROUGH AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY, THAT'S NOT THE PROCESS WE FOLLOW ON ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT TYPE OF THING, AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THIS AS WELL.

>> GREAT.

>> ONE OTHER THING I WOULD WANT TO ADD, AND JUST LIKE WHEN THE OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE CAME UP, AND THERE WAS SOMEONE ON COUNCIL THAT WAS OPPOSED TO IT.

I HAVE A THREE YEAR RULE.

FIRST YEAR, PEOPLE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NEW.

SECOND YEAR, THEY STARTED ADJUSTING TO IT.

AFTER THAT THIRD YEAR, YOU'RE FINDING OUT WHAT'S WORKING AND NOT WORKING, AND IN MOST CASES, MOST OF THE ORDINANCES ARE GOOD, BUT IF SOMETHING IS PASSED TONIGHT, THERE'S ALWAYS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND REVISE.

>> TO THAT POINT, JOHN, THIS ORDINANCE, Y'ALL TOOK OVER WORKING ON THE CHANGES A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WHEN JASON LEFT, BUT THIS ORDINANCE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2019 OR EVEN POSSIBLY A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THAT, AND IT'S SINCE 2019, NOW WE'RE AT THE POINT OF MAKING THOSE REVISIONS, BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVE FOUND OUT WHAT'S WORKED OR NOT.

WE'VE HIT YOUR THREE YEARS AND THEN SOME, AND NOW WE'RE MAKING THOSE CHANGES TO MAKE IT BETTER.

>> I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE GO AHEAD AND TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, AND TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION IS REALLY FOR US TO RECEIVE INPUT.

YOU'VE ALREADY PUSHED AND SENT EXPECTATIONS, BUT YOU HAVE HEARD FROM COUNSEL THE CONCERN ABOUT DEPLOYMENT, BECAUSE THERE IS CERTAINLY A DESIRE BY ALL OF US TO IMPROVE THE SERVICE.

PERHAPS BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, IT MAY NOT BE A CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN EDUCATE US THE PLANS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD MAYBE GIVE US SOME MORE COMFORT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE STAFF STRATEGIES IN PLACE WHEN A CARRIER NEEDS TO PUT 12 TOWERS UP OR THE OTHER ONE NEEDS TO PUT 15 UP.

OH, MY GOSH, HOW AM I GOING TO DO THAT? HOW YOU'RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH IT TO MAKE IT EASY IN A PROCESS THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH IT A REASONABLE TIME PERIOD? IT MAY BE YOU HAVE TO GO ONE BY ONE, DEPENDING ON EACH SITE.

>> MAYOR, I'M SORRY. JUST REAL QUICK.

FROM THAT TIME STANDPOINT, JUST REALIZED THAT THANKSGIVING IS COMING UP BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, AND SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A WEEK OF PROBABLY INEFFECTIVE WORK TIME FOR MANY REGARDS.

IF IT IS FOR THE THIRD, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT IT MAY BE A STRETCH FOR THE THIRD,

[02:10:03]

DEPENDING ON BEING ABLE TO CONNECT WITH EVERYBODY, AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO DO, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER FOR MAYBE THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY.

>> IS THAT GOING TO BE TOO LONG? I KNOW YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE WAITING.

>> THAT'D BE JANUARY 7TH UNLESS WE CHANGED IT.

>> IT IS SCHEDULED FOR THE 7TH.

>> 7TH?

>> YES, JONATHAN, I WAS JUST TALKING.

IF IT'S JUST A MATTER OF JUST PULLING SOME INFORMATION TOGETHER AND THE THIRD IS POSSIBLE.

LET'S SAY IF THE THIRD DOESN'T WORK OUT TO ONE SATISFACTION, THAT CAN BE TABLED AGAIN.

>> I THINK COUNCIL SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE PREPARED FOR THE THIRD.

>> IF THE COUNCIL'S INTENT IS TO TABLE IT, THE QUESTION COMES, DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR JUST TABLE THE ITEMS? IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> YES, WE DID.

>> OH, DID. THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO REOPEN IT AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE DECEMBER 3RD MEETING, IF THAT'S YOUR INTENT.

>> WOULD THAT BE NECESSARY? WE COULD STILL HAVE PEOPLE SPEAK WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING?

>> NOW, YOU'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I WOULD RECOMMEND CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING, THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO POST AGAIN ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> THAT'S WHY WE'VE DONE THAT ON OTHER CASES.

WE'RE BEING CONSISTENT WITH THAT AT P&Z AND COUNCIL.

>> COUNSEL, ANYTHING ELSE? WELL, LOOK FOR A MOTION.

>> I LIKE TO PROPOSE WE REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS ITEM.

I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE UNTIL JANUARY 7TH.

>> GOT TO DO ONE AT A TIME.

>> WELL, LET'S MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN FOR ITEM 32.

>> MOTION BY JOHN.

THEN A QUESTION ON THE TYPING, JONATHAN, YOU SAID YOU HAVE SOME CARRIERS THAT ARE WAITING.

>> THAT IS 4-1.

ARE THEY LOOKING TO DEPLOY?

>> WE HAVE SOME CARRIERS WAITING.

EVERY MONTH, THEY ASKED THE STATUS OF WHAT THIS IS.

WITH THE HOLIDAYS, IF THIS IS APPROVED TONIGHT, ARE THEY GOING TO SUBMIT PLANS TOMORROW? IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THAT IS THE CASE.

I WILL SAY THAT IF WE CHOOSE TO TABLE IT TO JANUARY 7TH, WE CAN STILL HAVE THE ORDINANCE ON THAT VERY NEXT MEETING TO PICK UP SOME TIME, SO WE'RE NOT PUSHING INTO TO FEBRUARY, IF IT IS.

>> MY RECOMMENDATION IS WE TABLE IT TO DECEMBER 3RD.

IF COUNCIL'S NOT PREPARED ON DECEMBER 3RD, THEN WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION TO TABLE IT TO JANUARY FROM THERE.

>> MY INTENTION JUST TO BE CLEAR, MAYOR, IS TO INCLUDE THE PUBLIC AND THE CARRIERS AND TO GIVE COUNCIL AN OPPORTUNITY.

JONATHAN, I DO, AGAIN, APPLAUD THE WORK, AND I DO NOT WANT TO IMPLY THAT THERE'S ANYTHING THAT Y'ALL NEED TO DO.

THIS LAND IS ON THE CARRIERS AND THE CITIZENS TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE, AND COME, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO SAY JANUARY 7TH, UNLESS THERE'S A COMPELLING REASON NOT TO.

>> BUT WHY WOULD YOU [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON EVERY SINGLE MEETING.

>> THEY'VE HAD A YEAR AND A HALF ALREADY.

WHY CAN'T THEY GET IT BACK TO US IN TWO WEEKS?

>> WE TABLED TO DECEMBER, AND IF IT'S NOT DONE, THEN WE CAN TABLE IT TO JANUARY, AND IF IT'S NOT DONE IN JANUARY, YOU CAN TABLE IT TO FEBRUARY, AND IF IT'S NOT DONE IN FEBRUARY, YOU CAN TABLE IT TO MARCH.

>> I'LL DEFER TO YOUR WISDOM ON THIS, MAYOR, AND MOVE TO TABLE TO DECEMBER 3RD, WITH THE IDEA THAT I WILL BE PREPARED ON DECEMBER 3RD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM AS IT IS WRITTEN TODAY, UNLESS THERE'S COMPELLING REASON FROM THE CARRIERS AND FROM OUR CITIZENS TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR THAT I'M NOT PUSHING BACK ON WHAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED.

AGAIN, I APPLAUD THE EFFORT THAT YOU'VE MADE TODAY TO RESPOND TO COUNSEL AND TO CARRIERS AND TO CITIZENS AND TO MAKE LINE ITEM CHANGES ON THE MOVE TODAY AND DELIVER THAT TO COUNCIL.

IN THE SPIRIT OF THAT QUICK ACTION, I WILL, AND UNDER THE MAYOR'S URGINGS, MOVE TO DECEMBER 3RD FOR TABLING.

AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE DID THAT, RIGHT?

>> NO, YOU OPEN IT NOW, YOU GOT TO INTENT TO CONTINUE IT.

>> TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MOTION BY JOHN.

>> THAT PASSES 4-1. THANK YOU.

>> OPPOSED?

>> NAY.

>> THANK YOU. THAT WILL TAKE US TO ITEM 33,

[Public Hearing: A request to rescind a Specific Use Permit (S-283) for a Church on 15.6± acres on the southeast corner of Carroll Circle and Main Street and to consider to direct Staff to prepare an Ordinance of the same. Zoned Planned Development-197-Original Town Commercial, and Single Family-7 with a Specific Use Permit (S-283) for a Church. Neighborhood #20. Specific Use Permit Case No. SUP24-0015. Applicant: First Baptist Church of Frisco. (Development Services/JH)]

[02:15:03]

WHICH IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING, A REQUEST TO RESEND A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT S283 FOR A CHURCH ON 15.6 ACRES ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CARROLL'S CIRCLE AND MAIN STREET, AND TO CONSIDER TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAME.

THE ZONE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 197, ORIGINAL TOWN COMMERCIAL, SINGLE FAMILY-7 WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH, NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER 20, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT CASE NUMBER SUP4-0015.

APPLICANT, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF FRISCO.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH ON THIS PROPERTY IN 2005, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED THAT IN 2019.

HOWEVER, CITY COUNCIL ALSO ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE IN MARCH OF 2022, REMOVING THE SUP REQUIREMENT FOR CHURCHES AND REPLACING THAT WITH CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THEREFORE, THIS SUP IS NO LONGER REQUIRED.

YOU DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> COUNSEL, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> PASS WITH 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

>> AYE

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. MOVE TO CLOSE.

>> PASSES 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM, AND COUNSEL, LOOK FOR MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 33.

>> SECOND MY TAMMY. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> PASSES 5-0. ITEM 34, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON APPROVAL OF A FACADE PLAN FOR A HOTEL,

[Consider and act upon approval of a Façade Plan for a hotel (Midtown East, Block A, Lot 1 - Universal Kids) on the northeast corner of Dallas Parkway and Panther Creek Parkway. Zoned Planned Development-280. Neighborhood #53. Façade Plan Case No. FACP24-0132. Applicant: Gensler. TABLED 11/5/2024. (Development Services/JH)]

MIDTOWN EAST, BLOCK A, LOT 1 UNIVERSAL KIDS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DALLAS PARKWAY AND PANTHER CREEK PARKWAY, ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 280, NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER 53, FACADE PLAN CASE NUMBER FACP 24-0123.

APPLICANT GENSLER.

THIS ITEM WAS TABLED NOVEMBER 5TH, AND WE NEED TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE?

>> THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT YES, IF YOU WOULD REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE.

>> I MOVE TO REMOVE FROM THE TABLE.

>> MOTION MY BILL.

>> SECOND MY TAMMY. ALL IN FAVOR?