[00:00:05]
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE DECEMBER 6TH, 2023, MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.
[CALL TO ORDER]
PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED THIS EVENING BY COMMISSIONER MEENES.MS. VIGELAND, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? CALL]. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. SO, THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT WE HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS HERE, THREE ABSENT.
NOW WE'LL DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN.
WE'LL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.
AND BEFORE WE DO, I JUST FIRST OFF, WANT TO JUST TAKE A QUICK MOMENT AND WELCOME THE PUBLIC.
WE HAVE A GOOD TURNOUT TONIGHT. WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO SEE A GOOD TURNOUT FROM THE PUBLIC.
AND JUST THIS MAY BE YOUR FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WE HAVE SOME VERY EXACT PROCEDURES ON HOW WE RUN THE MEETING.
SO PLEASE DIRECT YOUR TO THE SCREEN AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS.
SO, A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL ITEMS. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED IN TO THE CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.
ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
AND I THINK MOST FOLKS ARE HERE FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE.
SO, IF YOU HAVEN'T, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND HAVEN'T TURNED IN A SPEAKER SLIP, PLEASE GRAB ONE AND GET ONE TO MS. VIGELAND BEFORE THAT ITEM COMMENCES.
SO, THE PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS.
FOR EACH ITEM WE, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE OPENED.
THEN THE STAFF WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEN ASKS QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
THE APPLICANT MAY MAKE A PRESENTATION.
AND AT THAT POINT, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FINAL BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AN APPEAL MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AT CITY HALL WITHIN TEN CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION.
THE COST OF FILING AN APPEAL IS $900 FOR ALL MATTERS.
IF ANYONE WISHES TO QUESTION A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, THEY MAY CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DIVISION AT 1635 FARADAY AVENUE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 730 AND 530 MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, AND 8 TO 5 ON FRIDAY.
A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOWED TO EACH SPEAKER.
OH, BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE AGENDA ITEMS, THE COMMISSION SETS ASIDE THIS TIME UP TO 15 MINUTES TO ACCEPT COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA THAT WAS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MS. VIGELAND. HAS ANYONE FILED A REQUEST? SPEAKER. ON NON AGENDA ITEMS? NO, HE IS NOT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY SO SEEING NONE WE'LL BEGIN TONIGHT'S HEARING.
THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE ITEMS. WE EXPECT THE FIRST TWO TO GO FAIRLY QUICKLY.
AND I BELIEVE ALL OF YOU MOST OF YOU HERE IF NOT ALL, ARE HERE FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE.
SO, WITH THAT, WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.
[1. (CDP2021-0062) 4874 PARK DR. 92008 RESIDENCE]
BEFORE WE DO THAT THOUGH, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE DISCLOSURES ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER MEENES YES, I DROVE BY THE SITE.I ALSO I ALSO VISITED THE SITE AND LOOKED AT IT.
OKAY. SO OKAY, SO MR. LY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM? SURE, ABSOLUTELY.
THIS ITEM IS A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THEY MUST BE A PUBLIC HEARING, SO THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO GO ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR BUT TREAT THEM ABBREVIATED AND NOT HAVE A FULL PRESENTATION AND JUST BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PREPARED TO DO TODAY.
AS WE'RE ALSO DOING THAT, I COULD JUST NOTE THAT WE DID RECEIVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND IF MS.
[00:05:04]
VIGELAND CAN READ THAT ONE INTO THE RECORD.THE SPEAKER DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? YES, I HAVE. YES.
COMMISSIONER MEENES, REALLY QUICK, WOULD YOU CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD IN REGARD TO THE DEMOLITION OR THE PAST DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES? ONE THE HOUSE. I THINK THERE'S STILL A GARAGE THERE, I THINK AT THIS TIME.
SO, WOULD YOU CLARIFY FOR ME THE DEMOLITION PROCESS THERE? YES. THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER MEENES. IN 2021, THE CITY RESPONDED TO A COMPLAINT ABOUT ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIVE ACTIVITY.
THE PROPERTY OWNER RECEIVED A STOP WORK NOTICE AND AT THAT POINT, TO CURE THE VIOLATION, THE PROPERTY OWNER OR APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE CITY, INCLUDING A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
IF THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN COMMENCE THE WORK AND ULTIMATELY BUILD THE NEW RESIDENCE.
SO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE THERE'S THE GARAGE STRUCTURE AND THEN A SLAB.
SO, ALL THAT'S ALL PART OF THE DEMO.
CORRECT. YES. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD.
OKAY. WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT.
OKAY. GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. SEEING NONE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MEENES.
A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER STINE.
OKAY, WE MIGHT HAVE TO REVOTE ON THIS ONE. OH, NO.
I SAW IT. I SAW IT FOR A MOMENT THERE.
YEAH, IT CAME UP ON THE SCREEN.
SO, DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT WENT AWAY? SO THAT MEANS IT'S REAL, RIGHT? YOU SAW IT. YOU CAN READ IT, I SAW IT, YEAH.
OKAY, SO NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
[2. AMEND 2019-0005 CDP2019/0021 (DEV2019-0152) ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY FACILITIES BUILDING]
BEFORE WE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX-PARTE DISCLOSURES ON THIS ONE? COMMISSIONER MEENES YEAH, I WALKED THE SITE.COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.
YEAH. COMMISSIONER STINE YES, I'VE BEEN TO THE SITE IN THE PAST, BUT NOT RECENTLY.
YEAH, OKAY. AND I ALSO I VISITED THE SITE ALSO.
SO. YES. SO, MR. LAI, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO? SURE. HERE, GIVING THE STAFF PRESENTATION FOR THE ARMY NAVY ACADEMY FACILITIES BUILDING IS SENIOR PLANNER GOUGH.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. GOOD EVENING.
THE SUBJECT OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION IS REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW FACILITIES MAINTENANCE BUILDING, PROPOSED ON A ONE-AND-A-HALF-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2476 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS FLANKED PRIMARILY BY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST, CONSISTING OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND TO THE EAST BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH PARKING LOTS, SMALL STORAGE SHEDS, TENNIS COURTS, AN OUTDOOR SPORTS COURT, ROLLER HOCKEY RINK, ARCHERY RANGE, LANDSCAPING AND WALKING PATHS.
[00:10:01]
THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE AND IS APPEALABLE TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION.THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING INTENDS TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB BENEATH THE SPORTS COURT ROLLER HOCKEY RINK AS ITS FLOOR AND IS PROPOSING MINIMAL DEMOLITION. THE INTERIOR OF THE NEW BUILDING CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF THREE ROOMS TO BE USED FOR GENERAL CAMPUS STORAGE, AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE OF A SMALL FLEET OF CAMPUS GOLF CARTS.
ALSO INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA ARE TWO MEZZANINE AREAS, CONSISTING OF 694 AND 856FT².
DECORATIVE COLUMNS, ROUNDED ARCHES, INSET WINDOWS AND ARCHED PARAPET FEATURES HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE EXTERIOR TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE EXHIBITED IN MANY OF THE OTHER CAMPUS BUILDINGS.
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED, OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE EXISTING PRIVATE SCHOOL USE INVOLVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ACCESSORY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE BUILDING IN PLACE OF THE EXISTING OUTDOOR SPORTS COURT.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND THEIR GUIDELINES, THE CITY PLANNER HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT QUALIFIED FOR AN EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15332, INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND SECTION 15305.
MINOR ALTERATIONS IN LAND USE LIMITATIONS.
ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 2023, A NOTICE OF INTENDED DECISION REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION WAS ADVERTISED AND POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, AND AN EMAIL WAS DISTRIBUTED TO ALL INDIVIDUALS REQUESTED NO COMMENT.
IN CONCLUSION, THE PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND ALL REQUIRED CITY CODES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
AS SUCH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.
THIS DOCUMENT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBIT ONE.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION TONIGHT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE? DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER. STINE.
HAS THE STAFF RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS PRO OR CON WITH REGARD TO THIS APPLICATION? NO, WE HAVE NOT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? IF THEY'RE HERE TONIGHT.
THAT'S FINE. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN.
OKAY, WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE? WELL, WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT PART.
SO, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS ON THE SIDE? NO, THEY'RE NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU.
OKAY. SO NOW SEEING NONE, WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THIS ITEM OKAY.
OKAY. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF? YES. COMMISSIONER MEENES, I HAVE ONE QUESTION IN REGARD TO THE FOUNDATION OF THE OF THE NEW STRUCTURE BEING BUILT.
COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT? YEAH, IT'S. CLINT, THE APPLICANT.
IS OUR ARCHITECT HERE? WE'LL HAVE THE ARCHITECT FOR, JUST FOR AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION REGARDING UTILIZATION OF THE EXISTING FOUNDATION OF THE COURT.
THE PROJECT WAS REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING DIVISION AS WELL AS THE FIRE FOR CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES.
IT WILL ALSO BE REVIEWED AT THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION STAGE.
AND, SIR, IF YOU COULD GO UP TO THE PODIUM.
[00:15:07]
ACTUALLY, THE PODIUM RIGHT OVER THERE.YEAH. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS CLEARLY SO WE CAN GET INTO THE RECORD.
SURE. MY NAME IS DOUG PATTERSON.
MY ADDRESS IS 4675 TORREY CIRCLE, SAN DIEGO, 92130.
AND QUESTION AND YES, YOU HEARD MY QUESTION I DID.
OKAY. SO, THE EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB FOR THE HOCKEY RINK WILL STAY IN PLACE.
BUT WE WILL NEED TO REMOVE A LITTLE BIT OF ITS PERIMETER TO DIG DOWN FOR THE NEW CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS FOR THE EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE BUILDING. OKAY.
AND THEN THERE ARE SOME INTERIOR COLUMNS THAT WILL REQUIRE THE SAME APPROACH.
THAT'S INTERESTING. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER IN ALL OUR YEARS I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT DONE.
BUT I GUESS IT'S INTERESTING THAT, I MEAN, I'M GLAD THEY'RE ABLE TO DO IT AND SAVE THE MONEY.
I JUST DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN THAT BEFORE.
YEAH, IT'S JUST AN INTERESTING POINT.
SO. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM FROM COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER STINE. YEAH, THIS IS AN EASY YES FOR ME.
I, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TWO PERMITS HERE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
I DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS GOING TO CREATE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.
HENCE, WE RECEIVED NO COMMENTS ON THAT.
SO, WITH THAT IN MIND, I WILL MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU. I THINK COMMISSIONER SABELLICO DID HAVE A COMMENT BEFORE.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STINE.
OKAY. DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT, TOO, COMMISSIONER? NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT.
OH YEAH. NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION I ALSO SABELLICO.
DID YOU MAKE A SECOND? HE DID. HE DID NOT.
I'LL MAKE I'LL GO WITH A SECOND.
AND JUST BEFORE WE DO, I ALSO SUPPORT THE PROJECT ITSELF.
IT'S A VERY NICE PROJECT, TOO.
OKAY. SO, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STINE.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MEENES.
PLEASE VOTE AND WAIT UNTIL THE BUTTONS TURN GREEN.
IT WAS THERE. IT WAS THERE, BUT IT WENT AWAY.
SO, THE RECORDS SHOW IT PASSES 4 TO 0 WITH THREE ABSENT MEMBERS.
COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN, LAFFERTY AND HUBINGER.
SO, WE NOW WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.
AND WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE THAT SAYS I'M WRONG.
[3. CUP 2022-2023 /CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) POINTSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T)]
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. GOOD.ALL RIGHT. SO NOW BEFORE WE INTRODUCE ITEM TWO DOING THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE AN EX-PARTE DISCLOSURE.
COMMISSIONER MEENES? YEAH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AS WELL AS VISITED THE SITE.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER, I VISITED THE SITE.
WELL, I ACTUALLY WALKED TO THE EXACT AREA WHERE THE CELL TOWERS PROPOSED.
YEAH, SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.
I'VE PLAYED TENNIS AND BROUGHT MY DOG TO THE DOG PARK.
AT THE PARK, I VISITED THE SITE SPECIFICALLY TO SEE THE LIGHT POLE ON SUNDAY.
I ALSO HAD EX PARTE DISCUSSIONS WITH A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, MR. FRANK SUNG, AND AT THE TIME THAT MR. SUNG REACHED OUT TO ME, I HE REACHED OUT VIA PHONE.
I CALLED HIM BACK AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT I WAS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, AND THEY DON'T RELY ON THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSIONERS, BUT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE VESTED TO THE APPLICANT.
AT THE TIME OF THEIR APPLICATION.
[00:20:07]
AWARD THE PERMIT BY LAW.AND THE COUNCIL POLICY THAT WE'VE BEEN WRITTEN TO ABOUT COUNCIL POLICY 64 LISTS PARKS AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AS DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS, WHICH WE WILL GET INTO IN THE PROJECT.
HE ASKED ME WHY STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING THE WHY IT RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT, GIVEN THAT IT WAS IN A PARK NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I DIRECTED HIM TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
MR. LARDY AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAD A MEETING THERE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THE FARADAY CENTER, AND I'M TOLD THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOLD MR. SUNG AND SOME OTHER RESIDENTS WITH HIM WHY THEY WERE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AND THERE ARE DISAGREEMENTS ON THAT, AND THAT WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF TONIGHT'S MEETING.
WAS THAT GOOD? IT'S EXCELLENT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU I APPRECIATE THAT.
OKAY. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU TALKED ABOUT.
THAT'S GOOD. THERE MAY BE SOME.
AND THEN THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, FOR TAKING THE TIME AND ENERGY TO GIVE SUCH A DETAILED.
SO, I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I ALSO VISITED THE SITE DURING THE BRIEFING THAT WE HAD.
SO, PART OF OUR MEETINGS, WE ALSO HAVE WHERE WE SPLIT UP INTO GROUPS.
WE HAVE BRIEFINGS FOR THE ARMY ON THE ARMY NAVY SITE.
INTERESTINGLY, THERE IS A VERY SIMILAR TOWER THAT CAME UP AS A PHOTO.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE COMMENTS WE GOT.
I WENT SAILED RIGHT OVER MY HEAD.
MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU NOW INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? SURE, ABSOLUTELY. AND THEN ONE THING, JUST BECAUSE WE ARE RECORDED ON THE RECORD WHILE I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MR. SUNG, IT WAS ACTUALLY A MEETING WITH JEFF MURPHY AND MR. SUNG AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.
I WASN'T THERE. SO HERE TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER KYLE VAN LOON.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. LARDY.
AND GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
YES. THE PROJECT FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE TONIGHT IS THE POINSETTIA PARK WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY, WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
THE PROJECT LOCATION IS THE POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK.
THE INDIVIDUAL PARCEL IS 30 ACRES OF THE 42-ACRE PARK.
THE SPECIFIC SITE OF THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE.
THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROJECT DO INCLUDE A NEW 78-FOOT-TALL LIGHT POLE.
THIS WOULD REPLACE AN EXISTING 78-FOOT-TALL LIGHT POLE.
ALL OF THAT EQUIPMENT WOULD BE ENCLOSED IN A FOUR-FOOT RADIUS, SHROUD OR RADOME.
THERE IS ALSO GROUND LEVEL EQUIPMENT.
STAFF WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER KIND OF SET THE TABLE FOR WHAT IS AND IS NOT PART OF THE REVIEW TONIGHT.
THE CITY CAN ALSO SET CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS.
THOSE MUST BE REASONABLE, WHICH TYPICALLY MEANS OBJECTIVE.
THEY MUST APPLY TO ALL COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE EQUALLY, AND THOSE STANDARDS, GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS MUST BE PUBLISHED IN ADVANCE SO THAT IT CAN BE UNDERSTAND AND REVIEWED BY THE APPLICANT AHEAD OF TIME.
[00:25:02]
UH, SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS NOT SUBJECT OF THE REVIEW DUE TO STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES IS THAT RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS PROJECT CANNOT BE DENIED BECAUSE OF PERCEIVED RADIO FREQUENCY HEALTH HAZARDS.IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE MUST HAVE THOSE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES PUBLISHED AHEAD OF TIME FOR THE CITY, THAT IS CITY COUNCIL POLICY 64, AND WE SET CERTAIN REVIEW GUIDELINES WITHIN THAT POLICY.
FIRST, THE POLICY LISTS PREFERRED LOCATIONS IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE.
IT IDENTIFIES DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS.
IT SPECIFIES DESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR A STEALTH TYPE OF DESIGN.
SO, THIS PROJECT DOES PROPOSE TO INSTALL A NEW POLE JUST ADJACENT TO THE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXISTING PARKING LOT, AND THE TRASH ENCLOSURE WOULD BE REPLACED WITH AN EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH A METAL LATTICE ON TOP OF IT THAT WOULD MATCH THE METAL ROOF OF THE BUILDING NEXT TO IT.
AND HERE'S AN ELEVATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT OF THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION.
HERE IS A RENDERING PROVIDED OF PHOTO SIMULATION OF THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION.
I WILL NOTE THAT THIS IS AN OLDER PHOTO SIMULATION, SO THE TRASH ENCLOSURE DOES NOT HAVE THE LATTICE COVER ON TOP OF IT, SO THAT BUILDING ACTUALLY LOOKS A LITTLE NICER AS PROPOSED NOW. THIS PROJECT WAS SUBJECT TO THE EARLY PUBLIC NOTIFICATION POLICY AND PROCEDURES.
THE RF EXPOSURE CREATED FROM WIRELESS FACILITIES.
CONCERNS ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES AND IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
IN RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS AND WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO MEET REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES OF POLICY, POLICY 64, THE PROJECT WAS TWICE REDESIGNED TO ADDRESS THOSE ESTHETIC AND STEALTHING CONCERNS AND REQUIREMENTS.
SO, THE PICTURE HERE SHOWS THE EXISTING POLE.
THE FIRST DESIGN, WHICH ACTUALLY PROPOSED 15 PANELS ABOVE THE EXISTING LIGHT, WHICH WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE APPLY OUR STEALTHING REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES.
THEY DID RETURN WITH AN EIGHT-FOOT CYLINDER SHROUD SOME MONTHS LATER AS A REDESIGN.
THEY DID RETURN AFTER THAT WITH A FOUR-FOOT RADOME CYLINDER, AND THAT'S THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT.
THIS ALSO DID REQUIRE THEM TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT AND ALSO THE NUMBER OF ANTENNAS PROPOSED.
ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT PART OF WHAT WE TYPICALLY LOOK AT.
SO, WE DO WANT TO COVER THE OTHER CONSISTENCIES AGAIN.
THE APPLICATION DOES EXHIBIT STEALTH DESIGN.
IT'S A LIGHT POLE WITHIN A RADOME.
IT IS ON THE PREFERRED LOCATIONS LIST.
PIKES PEAK SITES ARE PREFERRED LOCATIONS PER POLICY 64 THE APPLICANT PROVIDED EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS THAT NO ALTERNATIVE LOCATION EXISTS TO MEET THEIR OBJECTIVES FOR COVERAGE, AND THE APPLICANT ANALYZED 7 OR 8 OTHER POTENTIAL SITES AND ZONES.
WE WOULD LIKE ALSO TO COVER POLICY 64 IN TERMS OF THE LOCATION GUIDE, SO HIGHLIGHTED HERE AS AN H.
IT DOES STATE THAT PARKS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES ARE A PREFERRED LOCATION FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES.
IT HAS BEEN RAISED THAT OPEN SPACE IS LISTED UNDER THE DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT OPEN SPACE AND LOTS ARE DISCOURAGED, EXCEPT AS NOTED IN GUIDELINES A.1, AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH PAST PRECEDENT AS WELL.
[00:30:09]
LIMITS, AND THEY ARE THE REGULATING AUTHORITY FOR RF EXPOSURE.CITY CANNOT SET THEIR OWN RF EXPOSURE LIMITS.
IN THE 1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT ESTABLISHED THAT CITIES CANNOT EVALUATE OR DENY A PROJECT BASED ON PERCEIVED RF HEALTH HAZARDS SO LONG AS THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH EXPOSURE LIMITS, AND TO THAT EXTENT, AN RF EXPOSURE STUDY DEMONSTRATING THE FACILITY WILL BE BELOW THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE HAS BEEN PROVIDED. STAFF DID ALSO LOOK TO THEIR APPLICANTS' ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS, WHICH THE COVERAGE MAP HAS SHOWN TO THE RIGHT.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A LARGE AREA IN THE MIDDLE WHERE THERE IS LOW OR NO COVERAGE.
STAFF LOOKED TO SEE WHAT OTHER LOCATIONS MIGHT BE AVAILABLE.
THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS THE LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP.
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION DIRECTLY CORRELATES WITH ZONING.
THE P IN THE MIDDLE IS THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
IT IS OF NOTE THAT THE NEARBY COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE OR INDUSTRIAL ZONES THAT YOU SEE CLOSEST.
MOST OF THOSE ARE A DROP IN ELEVATION OF ABOUT 70 TO 80FT LOWER IN ELEVATION.
WORTHWHILE BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT OF THOSE LOCATIONS.
THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT REFLECTED IN WHERE THEIR COVERAGE COMES FROM.
RIGHT WHERE THE COVERAGE DROPS OFF IS WHERE THE INCREASE IN ELEVATION HAPPENS.
STAFF ALSO LOOKS TO PAST PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVALS TO IN REVIEW OF A PROJECT.
THREE EXAMPLES THAT WILL BRING UP AT THIS POINT IN THE PRESENTATION ARE.
THIS IS A CUP IN AN OPEN SPACE ZONE.
IT IS THE FUTURE SITE OF THE ROBERTSON RANCH PARK.
SO AGAIN, A PARK SITE AND AN OPEN SPACE ZONE.
ALSO IN 2016, THE VERIZON ARMY AND NAVY ATHLETIC FIELD WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY, WHICH IS AN 81FT LIGHT POLE WITH SIX PANEL ANTENNAS AND A FOUR-FOOT RADIUS RADOME. SO, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THIS PROJECT, JUST A LITTLE BIT TALLER.
IT HAS NO ADDITIONAL STEALTHING.
I BELIEVE THERE'S 12 TO 15 ANTENNAS ON THAT POLE.
HERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF THOSE INSTALLATIONS.
THE TWO FAUX EUCALYPTUS TREES ON THE LEFT.
SO, OVERALL STAFF LOOKED AND HAS FOUND THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL PLAN, OPEN SPACE AND ZONING FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR AN OPEN SPACE ZONE, AS CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS NEEDED TO BE MADE FOR THE MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH ALSO ARE FINDINGS RELATED TO CONSISTENCY WITH POLICY 64.
THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS.
SO THERE ARE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT AS WELL.
AND THE CITY PLANNER HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM SEQUA.
GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. VAN LOON. ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER STINE. YES.
THANK YOU. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.
[00:35:02]
I WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS, PLEASE.IT'S RIGHT IN BETWEEN TWO BASEBALL FIELDS, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, WE MAYBE GET THE PICTURE UP THERE.
YES. RIGHT. RIGHT IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO FIELDS.
ONE LEFT FIELD. IT'S RIGHT KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE THERE, ISN'T IT? CORRECT. OKAY.
AND THAT LIGHT POLE IS 78FT, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.
AND THAT LIGHT POLE WILL BE TAKEN DOWN IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED.
AND A SIMILAR 78-FOOT POLE, SAME HEIGHT, IT'S PROPOSED TO BE THE SAME HEIGHT.
AND IT WILL HAVE IF YOU GET BACK TO THE PICTURE AGAIN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, PLEASE.
OKAY, SO IT WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE LIGHTS ON THE TOP.
IN OTHER WORDS, AT THE 78-FOOT LEVEL.
RIGHT. CORRECT. AND THE PROPOSED WI-FI.
EXCUSE ME? THE PROPOSED CELLULAR SYSTEM.
WHAT IS HOW MANY FEET? I CAN'T READ IT. IS IT TEN FEET BELOW THE TOP OR WHERE DOES IT START? THAT'S FIVE FEET. FIVE FEET.
LIGHTS. SO THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER FOUR FEET.
IT'S PROBABLY NINE FEET BELOW THE TOP OF THE POLE.
8 TO 9FT IS WHERE THE SHROUD STARTS.
SO, IT DOESN'T BLOCK ANY VIEWS FROM THE VERY TOP BECAUSE IT'S NOT AT THE TOP.
AND WE HAVE LIGHT POLES THERE NOW.
RIGHT. CORRECT. OKAY I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A NEW POLE.
IT'S A STRONGER POLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE FACILITY.
CORRECT? YES. THE POLE WOULD BE STRONGER.
USUALLY, IT'S A SLIGHTLY LARGER IN DIAMETER POLE, AT LEAST UP TO WHERE THE EQUIPMENT IS INSTALLED.
AND THAT'S TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT.
THANK YOU. AND YOU MADE A POINT ABOUT THAT.
IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO MAKE A DECISION BASED UPON THE RF FREQUENCY, PROVIDED THAT IT SATISFIES THE FEDERAL STANDARDS.
OKAY. DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT THE MAXIMUM FREQUENCY OR THE EMISSIONS FROM THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY WOULD BE IN LIGHT OF WHAT THE FEDERAL MAXIMUM IS? DO YOU HAVE THOSE NUMBERS FOR US? NO, I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS.
THERE IS THE RADIO FREQUENCY STUDY THAT'S PART OF YOUR PACKET, WHICH DOES INCLUDE A GRAPHIC OF. THAT WOULD BE PAGE, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBERS KIND OF OVERLAP.
GIVE ME A SECOND HERE. I CAN ASK THE APPLICANT.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE PROBABLY BETTER SUITED TO FIX THAT.
BUT AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THAT RF EXPOSURE LIMIT SO THAT WE CAN VERIFY THAT AND YOU CONFIRM THAT IT WOULD BE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARDS.
I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFICS, BECAUSE I KNOW BASED UPON A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, THERE IS CONCERN BY A NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, PARTICULARLY PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREA, ABOUT POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS FROM THESE EMISSIONS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS HAVE THAT ISSUE ADDRESSED.
SO PERHAPS WE CAN PUT THAT ISSUE TO REST, BUT I'LL SAVE THAT FOR THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YEAH. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, WOULD YOU PLEASE PULL UP THE SLIDE WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH COUNCIL POLICY? 64 I KNOW THIS IS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
HERE IN, YOU KNOW, PAGE 16 OF COUNCIL POLICY 64.
IT LISTS PREFERRED LOCATIONS AND DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS.
AND ON THE PREFERRED LOCATIONS IT LISTS.
IT'S NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, ALPHABETICAL OR IN RANDOM ORDER, RIGHT? CORRECT. THE ORDER. THE ORDERING IS IN PREFERENCE.
OKAY, SO I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT ALL OF THESE ZONES A THROUGH G WOULD BE BETTER? YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO COUNCIL POLICY 64 THEN PARKS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
THEY WERE HIGHER ON THE PREFERENCE LIST.
[00:40:01]
THERE WAS ONE THAT'S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, SO THAT WOULDN'T BE A SPECIFIC ZONE.BUT YES, OVERALL THOSE ARE LOCATIONS THAT ARE BY COUNCIL SET HIGHER PREFERRED.
OKAY. AND I'M ALSO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
THIS, THIS, THIS DOCUMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY.
BECAUSE ON THE LIST OF DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS UP AT THE VERY TOP OF THE DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS, AND IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME IF THE ORDER OF THE DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS MATTERS LIKE IT DOES IN THE PREFERRED LOCATIONS.
SO PERHAPS YOU COULD SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT.
BUT ALSO IT LISTS OPEN SPACE AND LOTS, EXCEPT THOSE LISTED IN A.1 AS DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS, THE TOP OF THE LIST OF DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS AND I JUST. IT'S TELLING ME THAT THEY'RE PREFERRED, BUT ALSO THEY'RE DISCOURAGED OR THEY'RE DISCOURAGED UNLESS THEY'RE PREFERRED.
IT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IF.
IF I COULD RESPOND TO THIS ONE.
SO WHAT MOST JURISDICTIONS HAVE DONE IS ESTABLISH THESE SORTS OF PREFERRED NON PREFERRED USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANGUAGE ON SETTING IT ON A SCALE OF PRIORITIES, BECAUSE WE CAN'T DEPRIVE COVERAGE IN A COMMUNITY.
BUT THE INTENT FOR THIS WAS SHOWING THAT PARKS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE A PREFERRED LOCATION OVER THE DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS, AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS SET UP TO HAVE SORT OF THIS DUAL COMBINATION FOR AT LEAST A SITE LIKE THIS, WHERE IT IS A PARK IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, ALTHOUGH IT'S AN OPEN SPACE ZONE, IT IS REFERRING BACK TO A ONE, WHICH WOULD BE THE PRIORITY IN THIS CASE.
I STILL DO NOT COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND COUNCIL POLICY AND HOW HOW HOW IT IS THAT WE ARE EXPECTED AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO APPLY THIS POLICY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT ON THE RECORD HERE AND AND ASK.
WHY IS WHY IS THIS PREFERRED? WHY IS THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION YOU CONSIDER A PREFERRED LOCATION RATHER THAN A DISCOURAGED LOCATION? IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT A THROUGH G.
AND YOU ALSO LOOK AT THE RULE THAT SAYS WE CAN'T PREVENT THE COMPLETION OF A NETWORK.
THESE SITES HAVE ONLY A CERTAIN RANGE THAT THEY CAN GO.
SO YOU GO THROUGH THAT LIST UNTIL YOU GET TO PARKS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES.
PARKS ARE GENERALLY GOING TO HAVE MAYBE A LIGHT STANDARD OR SOME OTHER WAY TO, FROM AN ESTHETIC POINT OF VIEW, CAMOUFLAGE, BECAUSE THAT'S ONE WAY WE CAN REGULATE THESE IS THROUGH ESTHETICS.
HERE IT CAN BE CAMOUFLAGED SOMEWHAT.
BUT THE MAIN FACTOR ON THERE IS AS YOU GO THROUGH THE PREFERRED LOCATIONS, KEEPING IN MIND WE CANNOT PREVENT THE COMPLETION OF A NETWORK, THE SITE BECOMES MORE PREFERRED BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ALLOW THE COMPLETION OF THE NETWORK.
SO, IT'S MAYBE THE BEST OF BAD CHOICES, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.
AND I MEAN POINSETTIA PARK IS A RATHER LARGE PARK.
I MEAN, DO WE KNOW PRECISELY WHAT LIKE THE.
THE ACREAGE OF IT, OR TWO ACRES, 42 ACRES.
[00:45:05]
SO THE. HEY, HEY, WE NEED TO KEEP THIS MEETING IN CONTROL SO THERE WILL BE A TIME FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.SO, PLEASE HOLD YOUR COMMENTS UNTIL WE DO THAT POINT.
SO IN THIS CASE, THE 78 FOOT LIGHT POLE REQUIRES A 78 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE.
THIS PROJECT PROPOSES A 176 FOOT SETBACK.
SO IT IS WITH CLEARLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS SET BY COUNCIL PER POLICY 64.
THIS POLICY WAS MOST RECENTLY REVIEWED IN 2000.
I'M SORRY, 2021, AND THAT SETBACK REQUIREMENT REMAINED THE SAME AT THAT TIME.
OKAY, SO WITH WITHIN POINSETTIA PARK AND WITHIN THE ENTIRETY OF THIS.
THIS AREA. I'LL SAY JUST AREA, NOT ZONE.
THIS AREA. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS PROPOSED SITE IS LOCATED AS CLOSE AS IT.
ALMOST AS CLOSE AS IT CAN BE, GIVEN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES WHEN AND WHEN POINSETTIA PARK IS 42 ACRES.
I MEAN, DOESN'T DOESN'T IT COME INTO PLAY THAT.
IT IS SORT OF THIS LIKE DISCOURAGED SLASH PREFERRED LOCATION THAT WE, WE LOOK AT LIKE, WHAT IS THE LEAST DISCOURAGED AND MOST PREFERRED LOCATION WITHIN THAT LIKE BROADER LOCATION? I MEAN, SHOULDN'T THAT BE LIKE A.
A FACTOR THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OUGHT TO CONSIDER.
WELL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER MANY THINGS.
THAT'S FOR YOU TO DECIDE WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING.
YEAH. IN TERMS OF STAFF'S REVIEW.
AND THEY PROPOSED A SETBACK OF 176FT.
SO THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH THAT STANDARD.
THE ONLY REASON THAT STAFF WOULD HAVE SUGGESTED OR REQUIRED MORE NOT SAY REQUIRED, BUT SUGGESTED MORE WOULD BE IF FOR SOME REASON A SEPARATE POLE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR ESTHETICS REASONS, WHICH, SINCE THIS IS A POLE AS ANY OF THE OTHER POLES ARE IN THE PARK, WOULD LOOK THE SAME WITH THIS INSTALLATION, WE DID HAVE REASON FOR ESTHETICS TO SUGGEST THAT A DIFFERENT LOCATION BE LOOKED AT, BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND ONE THING I'LL JUST ADD IS OUR ROLE HERE IS LOOKING AT THE LAND USE REGULATION COMPLIANCE OF THIS PROJECT WITH PLANNING.
WE DO NOT LOOK AT THE PARK AS A CITY FACILITY OR THE LEAST RELATED TO THAT.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT IT JUST WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE REGULATIONS.
AND THAT'S WHAT KYLE WAS ALLUDING TO.
DID MEET THAT. I THINK IT'S ALSO A QUESTION YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT OF.
DID THEY CONSIDER OTHER SITES WHEN THEY PROPOSED LOCATING ON THIS POLE? RIGHT. WHICH MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME FOR ME TO JUMP IN WITH THE DUAL ROLE THE CITY PLAYS IN THIS.
THE CITY HAS TWO ROLES IN HERE.
ONE IS A REGULATOR ROLE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING TONIGHT.
YOU HAVE A POLICY THAT WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, AND WHEN YOU REVIEW A PROJECT, YOU APPLY THE RULES THAT ARE THERE THAT THE APPLICANT RELIES ON THOSE RULES AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC.
SO AS MR. KYLE, MR. VAN LOON HAS STATED IT WAS WITHIN THE POLICY AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TEETH TO SAY GO IN A DIFFERENT PLACE BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE THE LOCATION BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE SETBACK OR DOUBLE THE SETBACK.
SO THE CITY COUNCIL WILL EVENTUALLY GET A LEASE FOR THIS.
BECAUSE THE CITY OWNS THE PARK, THE CITY WILL HAVE TO SIGN A LEASE WITH AT&T FOR THE PARK, AND AT THAT POINT, THE CITY COUNCIL WON'T BE BOUND BY POLICY 64. AS A LANDLORD, THE CITY COUNCIL COULD SAY WE WANT IT IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, THE VARIOUS FACTORS THAT GOES BEFORE THEM.
SO AS A REGULATOR, YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT AS NOT REALLY CARING WHO OWNS IT.
IT'S A PROJECT THAT'S COME TO YOU THAT STAFF HAS SAID TO YOU IT MEETS POLICY 64 PLANNING COMMISSION.
[00:50:07]
DO YOU AGREE? AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION, YOU SHOULD BE ASKING AT&T POTENTIALLY. AND I THINK THEY'VE SUBMITTED EVIDENCE, BUT YOU CAN ASK THEM THAT THIS LOCATION IS WHAT HELPS THEM BEST TO COMPLETE THEIR NETWORK.THANK YOU AND I TRULY APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR ANSWERS, MR. VINLUAN. YOU'VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL AND CANDID IN THIS EXCHANGE.
I ALSO HAVE SORT OF A LITTLE BIT OF A SILLIER QUESTION TO ASK, BUT IT CAME UP TO ME.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A FOUL BALL WERE TO STRIKE THE FACILITY? THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST ANSWERED BY THE APPLICANT.
VERY WELL. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'D HAVE TO BE A HOME RUN, ACTUALLY.
IT'S A GOOD HIT. IT'S A GOOD HIT.
IT WOULD BE A HOME RUN AND IT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE.
I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS ALSO, TOO.
AND MAYBE, MR. KEMP, YOU COULD EXPAND ON THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE.
IT SEEMS LIKE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR EXPLANATION, THAT JUST A LITTLE FURTHER ELABORATION ON THAT IS SO WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE RULES TO MEET THE STANDARD.
BUT IF SHOULD THIS PASS IN THE NEXT STEP IS ACTUAL LEASE DOCUMENT THAT THEN HAS TO BE DETERMINED AND DRAFTED BY THE CITY ALSO FOR APPROVAL. AND ALSO IF THERE'S A I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, SAY THERE WAS A CHANGE OF LOCATION THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT ALSO BE ADDRESSED IN THE LEASE DOCUMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I'M GOING TO ANSWER A QUESTION YOU DIDN'T ASK.
BUT I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT BE ASKING ME IS IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION, WOULD THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? AND I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE YES.
THEY WOULD. OKAY. INTERESTING.
AND SO THE ONLY REASON THIS PROJECT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS BECAUSE IT'S IN THE COASTAL ZONE, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES COASTAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT'S ATTACHED TO THIS.
I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MINOR CUP AND WE SHOULD BECAUSE YOU ARE APPROVING THAT PERMIT.
SO SAY THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN A SIMILAR SITUATION.
IT'S A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO IT WOULDN'T EVEN COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CORRECT.
UNLESS IT WAS IN A DISCOURAGED LOCATION.
YEAH, THERE'S AN OR WHAT'S? OR LACK STEALTH.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT MAP A LITTLE BIT MORE? IT'S JUST THAT ONE WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT HARD TO FOLLOW.
SO THIS IS THEIR COVERAGE MAP.
IT ACTUALLY DOES ALSO SHOW THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING THEIR EXISTING FACILITY.
SO THAT WOULD BE HERE AND HERE.
AND THESE LINES ARE JUST I ADDED THOSE TWO.
SO THAT BETTER EXEMPLIFY WHERE THE DIRECTION OF THE SIGNALS ARE COMING FROM OKAY.
AND SO AS THOSE SIGNALS TRAVEL YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ACTUALLY THE TOPOGRAPHY REFLECTED IN THE COLOR CHANGE AND WHERE THE COVERAGE STOPS, BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE ELEVATION CHANGE HAPPENS. SO I'M SORRY.
SO THE THE GRAY AREA IS WHERE THERE'S A HOLE IN THE COVERAGE.
YELLOW A LITTLE BETTER THAN GREEN.
GOOD. THAT'S CORRECT OKAY OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT.
SO WE'VE DONE SOME THINGS ALONG AVENUE AND SINCERE.
RIGHT. SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY FURTHER LOWERED.
IS THAT OR IS THAT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? THAT WOULD BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
WHAT I WAS HIGHLIGHTING HERE IS THAT STAFF DOES SCRUTINIZE THEIR ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS REPORT TO SEE IF, YOU KNOW, COULD I FIND A SPOT THAT WAS CLEARLY CLOSE TO THE PARK THAT WOULD WORK BETTER.
[00:55:10]
IF IF I FOUND THAT TO BE.NOT SAY RECREATED, BUT CONFIRMED THROUGH MY REVIEW.
AND IT WAS LOOKING AT THE MAP LIKE THIS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THEN I THINK THE ONE THING THAT CAME KIND OF CAME UP IN THE BRIEFING.
IT CAME UP BRIEFLY TONIGHT TOO.
IS THAT SO? YOU'VE GOT THE APPLICANT HAS A RIGHT TO SET UP A NETWORK.
COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT, PLEASE? SO THIS MAP SHOWS WHERE THE COVERAGE IS.
AND AS WE SAW IN THE ZONING, IT'S PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL.
THERE'S ANOTHER TYPE OF CELL TOWER, THIS ONE WE EVENTUALLY WOULD CALL A MACRO CELL TOWER.
THERE'S ALSO A NEWER TYPE, A NEWER TECHNOLOGY CALLED SMALL CELL WIRELESS.
THE MOST COMMON ONES THAT YOU SEE AROUND TOWN ARE ON TRAFFIC SIGNALS OR STREETLIGHTS.
AND SO THE REGULATIONS THAT WERE CHANGED IN 2021 SET FORWARD.
WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS TO PUT THEM ON STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND WHAT WOULD BE THE PERMIT PROCESS FOR THAT? WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT DEPLOYED AS WIDELY IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ALSO AN OPTION.
AND THAT WAS I THINK IT'S THE THE ONE RIGHT BELOW THIS ONE ON THE PREFERRED LOCATION.
IT'S I, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
SO THAT IS ANOTHER POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS IN THIS AREA IN FRONT OF US AT THIS TIME FOR THAT TECHNOLOGY.
OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
YEAH, I WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR. AND SO, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
ANYONE'S QUESTIONS OR STAFF GET ANSWERED.
SO WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? THE APPLICANT OR AT&T REPRESENTATIVE MD7 THEIR REPRESENTATIVE.
HAROLD THOMAS IS HERE FOR WITH THE PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS CLEARLY SO WE CAN GET INTO THE RECORD.
YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE THERE AND THEN YOU HAVE 15 MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU SIR. MY NAME IS HAROLD THOMAS.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MD7 AND AT&T.
BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSIONERS FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I WANT TO ALSO MAKE SURE IT'S KNOWN THAT I DID TAKE THE TIME TO READ SEVERAL OF THE EMAILS SEVERAL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AS THEY WERE COMING IN, SO I MADE SURE TO READ EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS, LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAID.
THANK YOU SO MUCH THAT I DID TAKE THE TIME TO READ YOUR CONCERNS.
A LOT OF THIS KYLE HAD WENT OVER, BUT I'LL JUST KEEP IT VERY BRIEF.
OF COURSE, THIS WAS GOING TO BE PROVIDING COVERAGE TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD AREA, WITH NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES BEING OUR COVERAGE OBJECTIVES, AND PACIFIC RIM SCHOOL AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORING PRESCHOOL.
IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE AS WELL AS ONE BACKUP EMERGENCY GENERATOR.
AS SHOWN IN THE COLLEGE PRESENTATION, WHICH I WANT TO THANK HIM FOR PROVIDING.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AS WELL.
SO WHAT FIRST NET IS, IS THAT IT'S A DEDICATED FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, FIRST RESPONDERS WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH EACH OTHER.
THAT WAY, THEY CAN DEDICATE AND ALLOCATE RESOURCES TO THE RIGHT AREAS IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY.
[01:00:08]
TO NOT ONLY THE FIRST RESPONDERS, BUT ALSO TO THE RESIDENCES THAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.AND THESE FOLLOWING SLIDES IS JUST GOING TO BE THE PHOTO SIMULATIONS OF JUST HOW IT'S GOING TO LOOK.
AS KYLE HAS STATED, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THE THE TOWER ITSELF, IT WAS PRETTY TALL.
IT WAS 90FT. IT HAD 15 ANTENNAS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DURATION.
WE WERE REDESIGNING, MAKING SURE TO MEET THE OBJECTIVES.
WE EVEN HAD A CALL EARLY ON IN THIS YEAR BACK IN FEBRUARY, WHERE WE DISCUSSED WITH KYLE AS WELL AS A FEW OF THE OTHER PLANNERS, NOT ONLY THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT AS WELL AS CONCERNS WITH THE THE STRUCTURE ITSELF AND THE ANTENNAS, WHICH I ALSO NOTICED IN THE EMAILS FROM THE COMMUNITY. A LOT OF IT COMING FROM THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT AS WELL AS THE DESIGN.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DID TAKE TIME TO DO.
THIS AGAIN IS JUST SOME MORE SIMULATIONS.
IT TOOK US A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO GET HERE.
WE TRIED TO MODEL IT AFTER SOME OF THE APPROVED SITES.
THAT WAY WE SHOW THAT WE'RE TAKING ACTIVE STEPS NOT ONLY TO MEET THE CONCERNS AND THE ADDRESSES OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO WHAT STAFF HAS APPROVED AND SEEN AS BEING ACCEPTABLE DESIGNS.
AGAIN, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PROVIDED BY RF ENGINEERS WHEN THEY RAN THEIR STUDY.
AS KYLE ALLUDED, GREEN IS AREAS WITH EXCELLENT COVERAGE.
RED IS AREAS WITH POOR COVERAGE.
AND THEN JUST THOSE CLEAR IS JUST AREAS WITH LITTLE TO NO COVERAGE.
JUST OUR ENTIRE COVERAGE MAPS.
SO JUST IN SUMMARY, I DO KNOW THAT ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WAS RAISED, OF COURSE, BY THE MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS MEMBERS ON THE COMMISSIONERS, IS WHY DO WE CHOOSE THIS SITE? I WANT TO SHARE THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN OUR FEBRUARY MEETING WITH THE CITY, WHERE THEY HAD ASKED US TO GO LINE BY LINE AND EXPLAIN WHY I HAVE MY ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, WHICH I PROVIDED WITH THE CITY, DETAILING WHY THOSE RANGE FROM ISSUES WITH ELEVATION.
SOME OF IT RANGE WITH SOME OF THOSE SITES NOT BEING LOCATED WITHIN OUR TARGET AREA, AND THEN OTHERS IS JUST NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET NOT NOT BEING ABLE TO COME INTO AGREEMENT WITH LANDLORDS.
SO I WANT TO REITERATE THAT NOT ONLY TO THE COMMISSIONERS, BUT ALSO TO THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT WHEN WE WHEN WE GO OUT TO SEEK SITES, WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE LOOK FOR PREFERRED ZONES.
AND THEN IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO LOOK FOR PREFERRED ZONES, OUR NEXT BEST OPTION IS TO FIND IS TO FIND A SUITABLE LOCATION AND TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE NOT ONLY PLANNING, BUT TO EVERYBODY HERE ON THE COMMISSION BOARD.
REASONS WHY THAT'S NOT WHY WE CHOSE WHERE WE DID SO.
THIS WAS NOT JUST CHOSEN HAPHAZARDLY.
THERE WAS A LOT OF CONSIDERATION THAT WAS DONE.
AND AGAIN, WITH THESE REDESIGNS, I SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING WITH THE TEAM, MAKING SURE TO SHARE WHAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE SAID, MAKING SURE THAT WE CAN AT LEAST GET SOME DESIGN THAT LOOKS A LOT BETTER THAN WHAT IT WAS BEFORE.
I DEFINITELY AGREE IT LOOKS A LOT BETTER, BUT JUST CONTINUING TO WORK TO TRY TO GET THE BEST PRODUCT THAT NOT ONLY SERVES THE COMMUNITY'S NEEDS, WHICH IS FIRST AND FOREMOST, BUT ALSO TO BE ABLE TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT RESPECTS WHAT PLANNING WOULD WANT, WHAT THE CITY WOULD WANT, AND THEN ULTIMATELY JUST AT&T ITSELF.
SO, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? GREAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? YEAH. COMMISSIONER MEENES? YES. IF YOU COULD CLARIFY, PROBABLY MORE FOR THE AUDIENCE AND PUBLIC THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
SO IN YOUR ANALYSIS, IN DECIDING ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE WITHIN THE PARK, COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR TO THE TO THE AUDIENCE AS TO WHY THAT PARTICULAR SITE VERSUS SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE PARK? I THINK IT WAS ALLUDED TO AND MENTIONED, BUT MAYBE YOU COULD CLARIFY A LITTLE FURTHER.
SURE THING. SO WITH THIS LOCATION, BEFORE WE HAD EVEN CHOSEN THIS LOCATION ITSELF, WHERE IT'S AT IN THE PARK, WE HAD OUR TEAM WALK WITH THEM, ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, EARLY ON IN THE YEAR DURING THAT DESIGN VISIT, WHICH IS VERY ROUTINE, WE JUST WALK THE
[01:05:08]
SITE, WE TAKE A LOOK TO SEE AREAS THAT COULD WORK ON.DURING THE WALK, THEY CAME ACROSS THIS AREA AND THEY THOUGHT THAT NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF ITS ACCESS TO THE PARKING LOT, WHICH WOULD MAKE CONSTRUCTION A LOT EASIER WHEN IT'S TIME TO COME OUT, BUILD THE SITE COMPARED TO GOING DEEP INWARD INTO THE PARK ITSELF, CHOOSING AT THIS LOCATION WOULD MAKE IT A LOT MORE ACCESSIBLE, AS WELL AS THAT DURING THE WALK WITH THE.
PARKS. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAD FOUND AS SUITABLE AS WELL.
SO TAKING THOSE TWO INTO CONSIDERATION, THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE THIS PLACE.
MR. THOMAS, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
IS YOUR INDICATION THAT THIS WILL ASSIST FIRST RESPONDERS OR ARE WE TALKING PARAMEDICS, POLICE, FIRE, THAT TYPE OF THING? YES, SIR. HOW SO? CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT, PLEASE? SO THIS IS WITH THE FIRSTNET NETWORK.
IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AT&T WILL BE ABLE TO GO TO THE THE FIRST RESPONDERS.
I BELIEVE THAT CARLSBAD'S FIRE STATION FIVE IS ABOUT A MILE, 1.1 MILES AWAY FROM THE SITE.
WE PROVIDE THEM WITH THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY WOULD NEED.
I BELIEVE THEY DO THAT FREE OF CHARGE.
AND I KNOW THAT AND I APOLOGIZE.
I DO KNOW THAT THIS IS BEING USED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
I BELIEVE THAT IT'S ALSO BEING USED IN PARTS OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.
THIS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, THIS STATE OF THE ART, IF YOU WILL.
RIGHT. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
THANK YOU. AND YOU ALSO SAID IT WILL PROVE IT FOR RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.
CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THAT, SIR? SURE. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, IF I MAY GO BACK.
THE REASON WHY WE THINK THAT? WELL, NOT THINK, BUT THE REASON WHY WE BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT THIS WILL BENEFIT MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY IS BASED ON THE COVERAGE MAP.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT AREA RIGHT NOW, EVEN IN THAT SMALL BOX, IS COMPRISED OF RED AND CLEAR, WHICH IS POOR AND VERY LOW AMOUNTS OF COVERAGE. THE REASON WHY WE BELIEVE THAT'S BENEFICIAL FOR THE RESIDENTS IS, IS THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, GIVEN THAT THE ENTIRE AREA ITSELF IS HIGHLY RESIDENTIAL, IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A PHONE CALL, I BELIEVE I WOULD, I WOULD I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE LAST THING THAT A RESIDENT WOULD WANT TO WORRY ABOUT IS BEING ABLE TO GET IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE FIRST RESPONDER.
THEY'RE ALREADY IN A HIGH STRESSFUL SITUATION AS IT IS.
SO THE LAST THING THAT THEY WOULD REALLY LIKE OR EVEN WANT TO CONSIDER IS THE DIFFICULTY IN BEING ABLE TO DIFFICULTY IN BEING ABLE TO CONTACT THE FIRST RESPONDER.
AND IF I MAY ADD, ONE OF THE ONE OF THE EMAILS THAT I DID READ FROM ONE OF THE RESIDENTS, HE DID MENTION THAT HE HE ALSO HAS. HE ALSO FACES SOME DIFFICULTY IN SERVICE, AND HE SHARED IN HIS EMAIL, WHICH I TOOK THE TIME TO READ SEVERAL TIMES.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS SOMEWHAT OF A TECHNICAL ISSUE.
AND IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER, PERHAPS YOU HAVE SOMEBODY IN YOUR TEAM THAT COULD.
AS YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT POTENTIAL HEALTH IMPACTS, ADVERSE IMPACTS FROM THE EMISSIONS AND WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME AT LEAST, AND PERHAPS FOR SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE, WOULD BE TO KNOW WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM EMISSIONS FROM THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY IF IT'S APPROVED AND THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE LEASE COMPARED TO WHAT THE FEDERAL STANDARDS ARE THAT SET THE MINIMUMS, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? OR PERHAPS YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT CAN ANSWER THAT TECHNICAL QUESTION.
UNFORTUNATELY, I DO NOT HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS ABLE TO BE THERE.
BE HERE FOR ME ON THAT QUESTION, BUT I WILL PROVIDE THE BEST THAT I HAVE.
[01:10:05]
HALF OF HALF OF A PERCENT, NOT HALF A PERCENT, I'M SORRY, HALF OF THE ALLOWED RANGE MANDATED BY THE FCC, BUT OUT OF I DO NOT WANT TO LIE TO YOU AND TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE NUMBER IS, BUT ACCORDING TO THE EME AND WHAT I HAVE READ IS OPERATING AT ABOUT HALF OF THAT, SIR, ABOUT HALF OF 50% OF WHAT THE FEDERAL RANGE IS.YES, SIR. I SEE, I SEE, OKAY, AND BUT YOU DON'T HAVE MORE SPECIFICS THAN THAT.
OKAY. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE ANY MEETINGS YOU HAD WITH NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS WITH REGARD TO THEIR CONCERNS? OKAY, SURE. SO WITH THIS ONE, WE DID WHEN WHEN IT COMES TO ADDRESSING NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS, WE HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN DO THAT.
WE CAN EITHER SET UP A MEETING ITSELF WITH AN HOA ON THIS ONE.
I BELIEVE I MADE THAT WEBSITE BACK IN JUNE.
I BELIEVE IT'S POINSETTIA PARK 1850 AT WEEBLY.
I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING THE URL EXACTLY, EXACTLY THAT WAY, BUT I DID PROVIDE THAT, AND WHAT I WANT TO ADD TO THAT, THOUGH, IS THAT IN THAT IN THAT WEBSITE THAT I DID PROVIDE, I HAD MADE SURE TO OUTLINE EVERYTHING THAT WAY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO VIEW IT, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW IT, BUT ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I DID ADD ON, THERE WAS A FORUM THAT WAY THAT IF THEY DID HAVE A QUESTION.
I MADE SURE TO TEST IT SEVERAL TIMES THAT WAY.
I MADE SURE TO DO THAT. I TESTED IT OUT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THOUGH, I DID NOT GET ANY...
SO NOT THROUGH THE INTERNET, THROUGHOUT THE WEBSITE, YOU RECEIVED NO FEEDBACK, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR? NO, SIR. OKAY. BEYOND THAT, DID YOU HAVE PHONE CALLS? DID YOU HAVE MEETINGS WITH PEOPLE? DID YOU HAVE DIRECT EMAIL EXCHANGES SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE WEBSITE? THAT PART, NO, SIR.
NO. YOU HAVEN'T DIDN'T HAVE ANY.
ANYBODY, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC REQUEST TO HAVE A MEETING WITH YOU TO DISCUSS THEIR CONCERNS FROM THE FROM THE FROM THE FROM THE EMAILS THAT I HAD READ AND I DID NOT SEE ANY.
IT WAS JUST A MAJORITY, ALL OF THE, EXCEPT FOR MAYBE A FEW WHICH WERE IN SUPPORT.
ALL OF IT WAS JUST SAYING THAT THEY WERE NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE STRUCTURE.
SIR. THEY WERE NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE STRUCTURE.
YES, SIR. DID YOU FIND SOME THAT SAID THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE STRUCTURE? YES, SIR. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY? I FOUND AT LEAST ONE.
I FOUND AT LEAST ONE AND POSSIBLY TWO THAT WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE STRUCTURE.
AGAIN, AS I'VE SEEN BY MANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THEM WERE NOT IN SUPPORT, BUT I DID FIND A FEW THAT FOUND TWO THAT AT LEAST DID. GOOD, THANK YOU SIR.
COMMISSIONER STINE EXPANDED TO WHAT I WAS GOING TO EXPAND TO.
YEAH, I JUST HAD A FEW. YEAH THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, THOUGHT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAME UP WAS, YOU KNOW, OTHER SITES AND SUGGESTING OTHER SITES COULD, COULD YOU EXPAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ON WHY, IN YOUR OPINION, YOU THOUGHT THOSE OTHER SITES WERE SUGGESTED, OR IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT LISTED SEVERAL THINGS WHY THOSE DID NOT WORK ? ON THOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, SORRY, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING ALTERNATE LOCATIONS.
I DID NOT GET THE CHANCE TO READ THAT ONE AND I DO APOLOGIZE.
HOWEVER, AGAIN, I DID MAKE SURE TO PROVIDE THE CITY AND WORKED ON IT ADEQUATELY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, WHERE I WENT THROUGH EIGHT SITES AND DESCENDING FROM MOST PREFERRED TO LEAST PREFERRED IN ORDER RANGING ON WHY SITES WEREN'T CHOSEN.
FOR ANOTHER ONE COMMERCIAL, WE SAW ONE AT 901 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, BUT THIS COULD NOT BE FEASIBLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ROOM ON THE ON THE PARCEL TO PLACE THE SITE.
WE EVEN CONSIDERED DOING A ROOFTOP BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT'S THE SECOND ONE.
[01:15:03]
WE WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.SO WE THOUGHT ABOUT DOING A ROOFTOP.
UNFORTUNATELY, WITH THAT ONE, WE COULD NOT DO IT BECAUSE THERE IS A LOWER ELEVATION OF ABOUT 73FT.
SO THROUGHOUT THE THROUGHOUT THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS THAT I DID PROVIDE, I MADE SURE TO ADD ADDRESSES.
RIGHT, AND SO IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE, YOU KNOW, AND JUST FROM MY WORK IN INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE IN THE AREA, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THOSE SITES ARE DOWN LIKE ALONG THE FREEWAY, WHICH IS ABOUT 70 OR 80FT LOWER.
SO WOULD IT BE SAFE TO SAY THAT THE MAIN KIND OF OVERARCHING CONCERN WAS THE ELEVATION, ELEVATION, BUT IT WAS ALSO JUST THE DIFFICULTY IN SOME OF THEM FINDING LOCATIONS, AND THEN IT'S NOT JUST ONLY ELEVATION AND FINDING LOCATIONS, BUT IT'S ALSO BEING ABLE TO FIND A WILLING LANDLORD.
SOMETIMES JUST WE TRY TO FIND A LANDLORD.
WE ENTER INTO AGREEMENT A NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEM, BUT THEY JUST DON'T ALWAYS END UP TO BE FRUITFUL.
SO WE DEFINITELY MAKE SURE TO I KNOW FOR MYSELF ESPECIALLY, I MAKE SURE TO HAVE A BETTER ANSWER THAN JUST ELEVATION, BECAUSE AGAIN, PLANNING DESERVES TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING AND KNOW THAT WE'RE THOROUGH, BUT NOT ONLY PLANNING.
YES, SIR, AND I DON'T MIND, AND I'M NOT GETTING DOWN HERE, BUT JUST REMEMBER, JUST FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, AS THE MEETINGS RUN AND BEING A VERY KIND OF LIKE KIND OF A RULES KIND OF STRUCTURE TYPE OF GUY, YOU'RE ACTUALLY ADDRESSING US.
YOURS AS WELL. NO PROBLEM, NO PROBLEM OKAY.
YEAH BUT OKAY, BUT IT WOULD BE SAFE THOUGH.
MOST OF THOSE SITES ARE THE ALTERNATIVE SITES ARE AT LOWER ELEVATIONS.
YES SIR, AND SO ELEVATION WAS A BIG ISSUE.
THE OTHER THOUGHT THEN, AND I KNOW NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO ANSWER KIND OF THE SCALE OF 1 TO 10 QUESTION.
RIGHT. YOU KNOW ON THE RF THING, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU JUST WEREN'T REALLY PREPARED ONLY LOOKING AT THE EF OR THE RF FREQUENCY OR THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE, WHATEVER SCALE 1 TO 10. WHERE THIS THING FITS IS THAT YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO OR ARE YOU'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO COMMENT ON WHAT THAT IS.
WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SCALE HERE, RIGHT, NOT BEING TECHNICAL PEOPLE.
YEAH I UNDERSTAND AND ON THAT ONE UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T I'M NOT.
ON THOSE ONES. I HAVE TO ADMIT I'M NOT TOO SURE, BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ABIDING BY FCC GUIDELINES THAT DON'T HAVE A TECHNICAL SPECIALIST TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE DETAILS ON THAT, SIR.
OKAY. I JUST THOUGHT I'D TRY ONE MORE TIME TO SEE IF I SEE MR. STRONG COMING TO THE CHAIR, AND I'M NOT A TECHNICAL EXPERT EITHER, BUT I CAN READ.
YEAH, OKAY, GREAT, AND AS THE CUSTODIAN OF THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THIS ITEM, I WANT TO REFER TO THE STAFF REPORT, AND BEFORE I DO, I KNOW THAT THE STAFF REPORT AND THE STAFF PRESENTATION GAVE CONSIDERABLE CARE TO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE CAN'T REGULATE BASED ON RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS.
I UNDERSTAND, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET A JUST A SCALE UNDERSTANDING.
THE FCC LIMIT FOR THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMIT IS 1MW/CM³, AND THAT'S FOR WHAT THEY CALL GENERAL PUBLIC CONTROLLED SPACES.
SO THAT WOULD BE A MATTER OF THE PUBLIC.
I THINK IT WAS RIGHT NEAR THE BASE OF THE.
IT WAS VERY CLOSE TO THE BALL FIELD OR CLOSE TO 148 OF 219, BUT THE 51 PERCENTILE THAT WAS MEASURED AT THE HEIGHT OF THE ANTENNA, WHERE NO PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY BE ACCESSING IT'S 70FT IN THE AIR WHEN TAKING THAT MEASUREMENT AT THE LOCATION OF THE NEAREST PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY, WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE WALKING AT SIX FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, THAT WAS REDUCED TO 8%.
SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE PROPAGATION.
DID YOU SAY EIGHT? EIGHT PERCENT. SO THE PROPAGATION IS A LINE OF SIGHT WHICH YOU SEE WITH THE EXHIBIT IF THERE'S IT DISSIPATES OVER SPACE.
RIGHT. SO THE SAME WITH THE MPE THE RADIOFREQUENCY.
[01:20:04]
BY AN EMISSIONS SPECIALIST.SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SCALE.
SO TO CONFIRM THAT THERE WAS 8%.
SO THERE'S A MAXIMUM, AND THE WALKWAY CLOSEST TO IT WAS AT 8% OF THAT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE.
I DO NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THAT.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
YOU CAN, AND SO NOW WE WILL GO OPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PORTION OF OUR MEETING.
MR. CHAIR, MAY WE TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE START? BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
YEAH, I'M FINE WITH A TEN MINUTE BREAK.
LET'S GO. FIVE. YEAH, BECAUSE FIVE HAS A WAY OF DRIFTING INTO TEN.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
BREAK'S OVER. IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE FIND THEIR SEAT, WE'LL GET THE MEETING GOING AGAIN.
SO WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PORTION OF OUR MEETING TONIGHT.
HOW MANY SPEAKER SLIPS DO WE HAVE? 11 OKAY. GREAT.
LET'S SEE. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.
AS OUR FIRST SPEAKER APPROACHES THE PODIUM, THE COMMISSION LET'S GO OVER THE COMMISSION PROCEDURES.
EACH SPEAKER HAS THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT.
THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHTED TIMER.
YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE REMAINING, AND BLINKING RED LIGHT MEANS YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED.
PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO THE STAFF, THE APPLICANT OR THE PUBLIC.
PLEASE SPEAK TO THE MIC CLEARLY.
STATE AND SPELL YOUR LAST, YOUR YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME AND GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
OKAY. WOULD WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE FIRST SPEAKER? THE FIRST SPEAKER IS FRANK SUNG.
HE'S REPRESENTING A GROUP OF FOUR PEOPLE.
ALL FOUR PEOPLE MUST BE PRESENT, AND PLEASE STAND TO SHOW YOUR PRESENT WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME.
OKAY, MR. SUNG, I'LL START YOUR TIMER.
GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS, I AM FRANK SUNG.
I'M ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE MARINERS POINT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 186 HOMES WERE ON RECORD OF HAVING SENT A LETTER TO OUR CITY MANAGER, SCOTT CHADWICK, SAYING THAT WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT.
IF WE CAN SHOW THE FIRST SLIDE, THE NEXT ONE, PLEASE.
YEAH I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS SO.
SO THIS IS IN YOUR PACKAGE AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS IS A VERY MATURE PARK.
YOU SEE THE LOCATION OF THE AT&T PROPOSED LOCATION ON THE LOWER LEFT.
YOU SEE THE VERIZON ONE THAT'S A LITTLE HIGHER UP.
THEY'RE ON HOLD AT THE MOMENT.
THE PL SIMPLY MEANS HOW MANY FEET IT IS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE OF THE PARK.
SO ON THE LEFT OF THE PARK, WHICH IS THE WEST OF THE PARK, IT'S PROTECTED OPEN SPACE.
CARLSBAD CITY PEOPLE HAVE TOLD US THAT WE BELIEVE THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER NESTS IN THAT AREA. THEY DON'T NEST IN THE PARK, BUT IT IS RIGHT THERE.
IT'S A VERY SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AREA.
MATURE PARK RESIDENTS, THE HOMES ALL AROUND IT ARE AT LEAST 25, 27 YEARS, AND SO THAT'S THE SETTING, AND THEN THERE'S A NATURAL VALLEY THAT THE PARK SITS IN, HENCE THE HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE PARK AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF IT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THAT SETTING IN A VALLEY, MATURE HOMES ALL AROUND SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AREA TO THE LEFT OF IT.
SO IN ORDER TO DO A SANITY CHECK, I ASKED THREE QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS ARE IS THERE A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CELLULAR COVERAGE IN THIS AREA? IS IT WISE TO PLACE THE CELLULAR FACILITY SO CLOSE TO HOMES? NUMBER THREE, WHY IS THE WIRELESS CELLULAR FACILITY IN THIS PARK OR ANY OF OUR PARKS? SO THE FIRST ONE, IS THERE A NEED? THIS AREA IS WELL SERVED MATURE NEIGHBORHOOD.
[01:25:08]
WATER TOWERS SOUTHEAST.WE HAVE VERY GOOD COVERAGE IN THIS VERY MATURE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL NEED FOR CELLULAR COVERAGE.
I'VE LIVED IN THIS AREA FOR 21 YEARS.
I'VE HAD SERVICE WITH AT&T, T-MOBILE, AND VERIZON, AND I HAVE ADEQUATE SERVICE FROM ALL THREE OF THEM, AND THE ONLY REASON I'VE CHANGED IS I'M KIND OF A BUNDLE GUY, YOU KNOW? SO WHEN THERE'S A VALUE PROPOSITION AND YOU GET HOME INTERNET AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
SO THAT'S WHY I'VE CHANGED AROUND.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S NOT A NEED.
NUMBER TWO, IS IT WISE TO PLACE THE EQUIPMENT SO CLOSE TO HOMES? THE ANSWER IS EMPHATICALLY NO.
JUST BECAUSE OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER ANY HEALTH CONCERNS FROM RADIOFREQUENCY EMISSIONS, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE THROW OUT COMMON SENSE. A PARK IS A GATHERING PLACE.
PEOPLE SIT AND HAVE PICNICS FOR THE WHOLE AFTERNOON, OR THEY COME TO A JAZZ IN THE PARK CONCERT FOR 2 TO 3 YEARS, AND IT'S A GATHERING PLACE, AND WHEN YOU PUT CELLULAR FACILITIES RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARK, YOU'RE DOING JUST THE OPPOSITE.
YOU'RE SCATTERING PEOPLE, REAL OR PERCEIVED, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT, WHETHER WE'RE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER IT OR NOT.
PEOPLE THAT LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO THE PARK.
THEY ENJOY LIVING RIGHT NEXT TO THE PARK.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY, BUT MY GOSH, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IS THIS RIGHT? AND YOU KNOW, LONG TERM HEALTH STUDIES TAKE A LONG TIME TO, TO COME UP WITH, AND WE CAN ALL REMEMBER IN OUR LIFETIME WHEN WE WERE TOLD BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT SECOND HAND SMOKE WAS JUST FINE.
THAT SUCK IT IN EMISSIONS FROM LEADED GAS ENGINES.
THAT WAS JUST FINE. TALCUM POWDER IS JUST FINE.
RED DYE COLOR IN OUR FOOD IS JUST FINE.
SO LET'S BE WISE, AND WHEN WE'RE BEING WISE, WE'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE OUR EXPOSURE TO THIS.
LET ME GET TO POINT. NUMBER THREE.
WHY IS IT BEING RECOMMENDED FOR THIS PARK, MUCH LESS ANY OF OUR PARKS? WE'VE TALKED ABOUT COUNCIL POLICY 64.
IT IS NOT CURRENTLY BEING INTERPRETED CORRECTLY.
IT IS NOT THE INTENT TO SELL IT TO WHOEVER WANTS TO PLAY SOMETHING THERE.
SO LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO I DID A LITTLE SANITY CHECK.
PREFERRED LOOKED AT THE DEFINITION.
IT'S LIKE BETTER OR BEST WANTED IN PREFERENCE TO OTHERS.
DISCOURAGED TO HINDER BY DISFAVORING TO AVOID.
SHOULD BE STAY AWAY FOR SOME REASON.
JUST BECAUSE IT'S ON THAT PAGE, IT MAKES IT FAIR GAME.
MY GOODNESS, THAT'S A REALLY WEIRD WAY OF THINKING.
SO WE MET WITH THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THEY'VE BEEN VERY COURTEOUS. I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THAT, AND THEY SAID, HEY, LOOK, WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT ALL THESE YEARS IN HOW WE INTERPRET POLICY 64, AND WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY MEANS OR GROUNDS TO DENY THIS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE.
IT'S A MAJOR VISUAL BLIGHT WHEN YOU PUT THESE POLES IN.
SO CALAVERA HILLS PARK FOR CELLULAR POLES IN THE SAME BASEBALL FIELD RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE NEAR THE COMMUNITY CENTER. THAT'S LIKE, OH MY GOSH, IF WE THINK THAT'S BEST PRACTICES AND PLANNING, I WOULD BEG TO DIFFER.
SOME ARE SHIELDED, SOME ARE UNSHIELDED, AND I WANT TO SHOW YOU A TIMELINE.
YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE NEXT APPLICANT AND THE NEXT APPLICANT AND THE NEXT APPLICANT.
SO WHAT HAPPENED? HOW DO WE GET THE FOUR POLES IN ONE PARK? YOU KNOW, AT BASEBALL FIELD FIRST POLE WENT IN THE YEAR 2000.
WHATEVER THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS, WE DID NOT HAVE POLICY 64 IN PLACE AT THE TIME.
POLICY 64 WAS PUT INTO PLACE LATE 2001.
SECOND CELL POLE WAS APPROVED IN 2004.
YOU CAN'T SAY NO TO THE SECOND ONE WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED THE FIRST ONE.
POLICY OR NO POLICY, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SUBJECT TO A LAWSUIT.
POLE NUMBER THREE WAS APPROVED IN 2019.
POLE NUMBER FOUR WAS APPROVED IN 2013 AND 2019.
SO HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE. HOW DO YOU GET TO THIS I THINK IT'S UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
[01:30:04]
I WOULD HOPE THAT OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIDN'T THINK THIS WAS A GREAT IDEA, IF THEY HAD LOOKED AHEAD A LITTLE BIT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO PREVENT AT POINSETTIA PARK. SO THE GOOD NEWS IS WE CAN AVOID HAVING A CELLULAR FARM AT POINSETTIA PARK BY SAYING NO TO THE FIRST ONE, AND WE HAVE THE POLICY.IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE. WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED, WE JUST NEED TO CORRECTLY INTERPRET IT.
IS THERE A NEED? WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR CHARTS? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CELLULAR COVERAGE? NO. THE AREA IS HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM AS YOUR VOTING MACHINE, PETER.
[CHUCKLING] NO ADEQUATE SERVICE.
THANK YOU. THIS THING THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT'S A MARKETING CAMPAIGN.
THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL PEOPLE ON IT.
I MEAN, COME ON, GIVE ME A BREAK.
THERE IS NO NEED. NUMBER TWO, IS IT WISE TO PLAY CELLULAR FACILITIES SO CLOSE TO HOMES? EMPHATICALLY, NO, IT'S NOT WISE.
YOU KNOW, BEST PRACTICES IN COMMUNITIES, AS WE READ ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY, IS A MINIMUM OF 400M.
WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS THING AT POINSETTIA, MUCH LESS ANY OTHER PARKS? THE ONLY PERMANENT FACILITIES ARE IN CALAVERA HILLS, AND I SHOWED YOU WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN HERE, PLEASE.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS AND THE CONVERSATION AND THE QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT FACTORS HERE.
SO ALL THOSE EXAMPLES OF WCFS IN PARKS I MEAN IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION.
A MATURE NEIGHBORHOOD, NATURAL VALLEY, ADEQUATE SERVICE, MATURE PROTECTED ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS, THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF POLICY 64 AND NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED AND CAN BE FOLLOWED.
THE SITE ANALYSIS IS INADEQUATE AS IT STANDS.
WE NEED TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO DO BETTER.
WE DON'T NEED TO SETTLE FOR THE BEST OF BAD CHOICES.
IF YOU'D CALL THE NEXT SPEAKER.
THERE ARE SEVERAL SPEAKERS, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO COME UP IN GROUPS OF THREE.
WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, CAN YOU PLEASE LINE UP UNDER THE CLOCK? THE FIRST SPEAKER TO THE PODIUM WOULD BE GIAN [INAUDIBLE] MAZZINI.
YEAH. MAKE SURE AND SAY YOUR NAME CLEARLY AND WITH YOUR ADDRESS.
SO GOOD EVENING AND THANKS FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
MY NAME IS GIAN [INAUDIBLE]MAZZINI.
AS YOU CAN TELL FROM MY THICK ACCENT, I'M NOT FROM HERE ORIGINALLY.
I MOVED TO THE US ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO FROM ITALY AND RECENT JOB OBVIOUSLY, BUT THE SECOND REASON WAS DEFINITELY THE DEMOCRACY AND THE WAY IT'S IMPLEMENTED HERE.
YOU GUYS AND ME ALSO TODAY, SINCE I'M A CITIZEN NOW, WE ARE AN EXAMPLE IN THE WORLD AND I THINK YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT. I'M EXCITED TO BE PART OF THIS PROCESS TONIGHT IN THE LITTLE ASSEMBLY THAT WE HAVE HERE, BUT ALSO VERY CURIOUS TO SEE HOW IT WILL GO TO DEVELOP, TO SEE IF WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IS TRUE, AND SO AGAIN, EXCITED AND VERY MOTIVATED TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS.
I'M AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER FORMATION.
SO I CANNOT REALLY UNDERSTAND EXACTLY THE POTENTIAL OF VIRTUAL OR REAL IMPACT OF RF ON HUMAN HEALTH, BUT AS AN ENGINEER, I KIND OF UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION AND ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF, AND I KNOW THAT IT'S ALWAYS KIND OF COMPLICATED, ESPECIALLY WITH 5G INSTRUMENTATION, TO DETERMINE REALLY THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF IRRADIATION THAT CAN AFFECT DIFFERENT AREAS.
5G USES ACTUALLY BEAM SHAPING TECHNOLOGY IN ORDER TO DIRECT THE BEAM.
[01:35:06]
SO THE BEAM IS NOT ALWAYS ACTUALLY FIXED IN SOME WAY, BUT ACTUALLY IT CAN FOLLOW THE RECEIVER AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.I DON'T CARRY A CELL PHONE, I NEVER CARRY ONE AND JUST FOR CAUTION, BUT AGAIN, I MEAN THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD.
WE CANNOT JUDGE ABOUT THIS, BUT ALSO WE ARE FROM [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK IT IS VERY REASONABLE.
SO TO CONCLUDE, I THINK YEAH, I'M DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT.
AT THE VERY LEAST, I ASKED THE PEOPLE TO RECONSIDER THE LOCATION OF THE ANTENNA WITHIN THE PARK, BUT IT WILL BE BETTER FOR ME THAT IT WILL DEFINITELY NOT BE PLACED INTO THE PARK.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, KEEP THIS THING GOING, OKAY? I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO MUCH OF A, YOU KNOW, TASKMASTER, BUT LET'S, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE DECORUM OF THE MEETING.
MY NAME IS BRIAN [INAUDIBLE] AND I ALSO LIVE IN POINSETTIA COVE NEXT TO THE PARK.
OUR ADDRESS IS 6729 WHITESAIL STREET.
WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS OR SO AND IT'S BEEN AN INCREDIBLE PLACE.
THE CITY, THE PLANNING, BEAUTIFUL JOB ON POINSETTIA PARK.
EVERYBODY ENJOYS IT AND IT'S BEEN REALLY GREAT UNTIL NOW.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS REALLY SURPRISED TO HEAR AS A REASON MAKING THIS AREA, ONE OF THE REASONS THEY CHOSE THE SITE IS THEY MENTIONED EASE OF CONSTRUCTION.
NOW, IF YOU'VE TAKEN THE TIME TO GET THERE, I'M SURE YOU'VE NOTICED.
YES, YOU CAN DRIVE RIGHT TO THE SITE AND THERE'S A PARKING LOT, AND WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GO THERE ON ANY FRIDAY NIGHT, ANY WEEKEND? YOU'RE GOING TO FIND TONS AND TONS OF PEOPLE IN THAT PARKING LOT.
CHILDREN, KIDS, DOGS, ALL AGES, AND IT'S JUST NOT A LOGICAL SPOT TO PUT AN INDUSTRIAL SITE BUT I KNOW YOU CAN'T CONSIDER A HEALTH CONDITIONS, BUT LET'S CONSIDER THE ELEVATION DRAWING THAT WAS DISPLAYED.
WE GOT THIS NOTIFICATION FROM MD7, AND ONE OF THE THINGS IN HERE IS THE ELEVATION DRAWING, AND WE SAW IT A LITTLE EARLIER I THINK IN YOUR PRESENTATION. SO IT SHOWS YOU THE ELEVATION OF THE SITE, BUT IT'S INACCURATE ON THAT REASON ALONE.
YOU SHOULD REJECT THE APPLICATION.
THERE IS A BASEBALL FIELD DOWN HERE, BUT WHAT THIS DOESN'T SHOW IS THAT THERE'S ALSO A SLOPE BEHIND THE FIELD, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT RF TRANSMISSIONS AND YOU MENTIONED BEAM SHAPING, THE WAY BEAMS WORK, THE STRONGEST TRANSMISSION IS HORIZONTAL FROM THE ANTENNA.
SO AS YOU GO UP THE SLOPE, YOU'RE ENCOUNTERING STRONGER TRANSMISSION, AND IF YOU'RE AT THE SITE AND YOU GO BEHIND THE BASEBALL FIELD, WHAT YOU'LL FIND BEHIND.
BEHIND FIRST BASE A LITTLE WAYS.
MOTHERS, PREGNANT WOMEN, TODDLERS HANG OUT FOR HOURS IN THE TOT LOT.
THAT'S NOT WHERE YOU WANT TO BE PUTTING AN INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH ANTENNA.
IF YOU GO BEHIND THIRD BASE, ALSO UP THE HILL AGAIN, GETTING CLOSER TO THE STRONGEST PART OF THE BEAM IS THE DOG PARK, AND AS YOU GO UP THE HILL STILL FURTHER, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND ANOTHER LIGHT POST, WHICH IS...
SORRY, BUT YOUR TIME DID EXPIRE.
YEAH, BUT THANK YOU, AND NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.
[01:40:03]
COUNCIL. I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULT TASK.YOU HAVE TO BALANCE THE LAW AND THE DESIRES OF THE PUBLIC, AND I WOULD SAY YOU DO HAVE SOME ROOM, AS I'VE BEEN LISTENING TONIGHT TO BOTH SUPPORT THE PUBLIC AND THEIR DESIRES AND STAY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW.
THE CELL TOWER, ITS ENCLOSURE AND ITS SETBACKS ARE ARE ON VALUABLE RECREATION LAND, WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE AN UNLIMITED SUPPLY IN OUR CITY.
CONSIDERING CONCERNS OF NEARBY RESIDENTS, AND MY NEIGHBORS, AS VICE CHAIR SAID, MENTIONED THERE COULD BE ANOTHER PART IN THE PARK.
A PLACE IN THE PARK THAT MAYBE NOT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED THAT IS FURTHER AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES.
IT SHOULD. YOU HAVE TO PUT IT IN THE PARK, WHICH WE DON'T WANT.
THERE'S NO SETBACK THAT WOULD PROTECT A PUBLIC CITIZEN SHOULD SOMETHING FALL OFF THAT TOWER.
THE REVIEW OF THE SITE LOCATIONS TO ME APPEAR TO BE INCOMPLETE, AND WHILE IT DOES SEEM THAT THE CITY PLANNERS HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB IN TERMS OF THEIR WORK, AND LOOKING AT THE PLAN, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATE FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC, AND THERE SEEMS TO BE MISSING COMPONENT IN THIS SUBJECT IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC'S COMMENT.
IT ALSO SEEMS THAT THERE WERE, AS THE AT&T REPRESENTATIVE SAID, THERE ARE OTHER LANDLORDS THAT HAVE DENIED THIS APPLICATION, AND SO I'M WONDERING WHAT WERE THEIR GROUNDS FOR DENYING THE APPLICATION, AND ARE THOSE GROUNDS THAT WE COULD USE AS WELL? COUNCIL CAN DENY THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE CELL PHONE COMPANY ALREADY HAS ADEQUATE COVERAGE IN THE AREA, WHICH ONE OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS HAS SAID, AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS TOWER IS JUST ABOVE AND BEYOND THE RIGHT, THAT THEY HAVE TO CREATE A CELL PHONE TOWER.
THERE'S ALREADY COVERAGE, AND THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THEIR RIGHTS AND THEIR DUE WHEN APPROPRIATE.
I'D LOVE FOR THE COMMISSION TO COMMENT ON THE CONCERN THAT ADDITIONAL TOWERS MAY BE INSTALLED IN THE PARK, AND MAY CAUSE EVEN MORE DIFFICULTY FOR THE NEIGHBORS, AND THEN MY WIFE, AS A PEDIATRICIAN IN THE COMMUNITY, WOULD WANT ME TO SAY THAT SHE'S VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEALTH CONCERNS THAT THIS THE RADIATION WOULD CAUSE FROM THIS TOWER.
THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKERS RICHARD HEIMLICH.
I'M LIKE. RICHARD HEIMLICH, RESIDENT OF THE POINSETTIA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, 25 YEARS 6729 TEA TREE STREET, CARLSBAD.
ALSO ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MARINERS POINT HOA ASSOCIATION BUT I STAND HERE REPRESENTING 300 PEOPLE WHO HAVE VOICED A CONCERN AND DO NOT WANT MORE CELL TOWERS IN OUR PARKS.
WE HAD, IN JUST A DAY AND A HALF, 300 SIGNATURES, ONLINE AND IN PRINT.
BUSY WORKING COUPLES, MANY WITH CHILDREN, COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, BUT I'M STANDING IN FOR THEM, AND A FEW COMMENTS THAT CAME FROM THE SURVEY I'D LIKE TO RELAY TO YOU.
SHOULD BE POLLUTION FREE EXCEPT FOR TREES AND BLUE SKIES.
LET'S STOP THE VISUAL POLLUTION IN CARLSBAD AND ANNE SAID, I'M SURE WITH ALL THE OPEN SPACES IN CARLSBAD, THERE ARE BETTER PLACES THAN PARKS IN THE MIDDLE OF NEIGHBORHOODS TO PUT THE CELL TOWER.
CELL TOWERS SHOULD BE PLACED AWAY, SAID MARSHA, FROM PLACES WHERE PEOPLE CONGREGATE AND LIVE.
CHOOSE SITES CLOSE TO OUR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
POINSETTIA IS A BEAUTIFUL PARK.
MAKE AT&T WORK A BIT HARDER AT FINDING SUITABLE LOCATIONS.
SO UNNECESSARY AND THE HEALTH IMPLICATIONS, ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN, ARE STILL UNKNOWN, AND DAVID SAID, WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE VISUAL POLLUTION IN OUR PARKS AND CITY.
MANY HAD COMMENTED ON CALAVERAS HILLS AND HOW UGLY AND HOW MANY CELL TOWERS ARE THERE.
DID NOT WANT TO REPEAT IN POINSETTIA PARK.
[01:45:03]
SCOTT SAID, LET'S KEEP OUR PARKS PRISTINE.ALSO, WE ARE NOT AWARE OF THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF THESE TYPES OF HIGH INTENSITY ANTENNAS, AND WE DON'T WANT THEM TO HERE TO EXPOSE OUR CHILDREN TO ANY LONG TERM EFFECTS, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT AND VALERIE SAID THIS LOCATION AT A PARK AND NEAR AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS NOT APPROPRIATE, GIVEN THE SAFETY CONCERNS AND SEVERAL OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE SURVEYED.
MATTHEW HERE ECHOED THAT SAID, I'M WORKING FROM HOME, RIGHT? RIGHT BY THE PROPOSED TOWER.
CURRENTLY, I'M ON AT&T AND HAVE FOUR BARS.
IF PRIVATE OWNERS DO NOT WANT IT INDUSTRIAL SPACE, WHY WOULD CARLSBAD WANT IT IN A PARK? SO I ASK YOU TO DENY THIS AND ASK FOR THE APPLICANTS TO GO BACK AND FIND MORE SUITABLE LOCATIONS.
COULD YOU BRING UP THAT LAST SLIDE WITH THE COVERAGE WITH THOSE? THANK YOU. MY NAME IS KEVIN FRITZ.
I LIVE AT 1002 BEACON BAY DRIVE IN CARLSBAD.
I'M A BOARD MEMBER OF THE COVE HOA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
THERE WE REPRESENT 112 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF POINSETTIA PARK.
WE DON'T WANT THE TOWER IN THE PARK BECAUSE IT'S UGLY.
THE CYLINDRICAL RADOME DESIGN, OR STEALTH DESIGN AS THEY'VE PROPOSED, IS UGLY.
IT'S A BLIGHT ON THE PARK, AND I THINK THERE'S THAT, THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE PANEL IS TO ASK THEM TO ASK AT&T TO GO BACK AND REVIEW OTHER SITES.
WE'D LIKE TO WORK WITH YOU, EVERYONE, TO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A TOWER.
WE'D LIKE TO WORK WITH EVERYONE TO DO THIS.
SO WE HAVE SOME IDEAS ON WHERE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS THAT THEY COULD REVIEW.
ALSO PUTTING A TOWER ON ON FIRE STATION NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS RIGHT IN THE RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF THAT BLANK AREA, THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE.
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ALSO IS TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO NOT USE ONE GIANT ANTENNA ARRAY, BUT MAYBE HAVE TWO SMALLER ANTENNA ARRAYS THAT WOULD HANDLE THE SAME COVERAGE AND ACHIEVE THE SAME GOAL.
OUR SUGGESTION IS PLEASE SEND IT BACK TO THEM.
ASK FOR A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING REVIEW ANALYSIS OF SITE ANALYSIS RATHER THAN JUST A PARAGRAPH BACK OF THE ENVELOPE KIND OF ANALYSIS OF OTHER SITES.
THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.
MY NAME IS CATHERINE [INAUDIBLE].
I LIVE AT 1020 BEACON BAY DRIVE.
I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE COVE FOR 27 YEARS.
WHEN I FIRST MOVED IN, THE PARK WASN'T EVEN OPEN.
IT HAD BEEN BUILT, BUT IT WASN'T QUITE OPEN AND WE WERE THRILLED WHEN IT FINALLY DID OPEN.
I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE CELL PHONE TOWER BEING IN POINSETTIA PARK.
SO I'M KIND OF DOING THIS ON THE FLY NOW.
I JUST WANT TO PICK UP ON SOMETHING THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM AT&T SAID.
IT'S A CONVENIENT PLACE FOR US TO BUILD IT IF IT HAS TO BE IN THE PARK, WHICH I AM OPPOSED TO.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RECONSIDER.
I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE THAT CLOSE TO ANY OF OUR HOMES.
IT'S NOT A PLACE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE CELL PHONE TOWERS IN OUR PARKS.
I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CREEP.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME AGAIN.
WE OPPOSE THE CELL PHONE TOWER IN POINSETTIA PARK.
COULD YOU CALL THE NEXT GROUP OF SPEAKERS, PLEASE? THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE ANNE HAMPTON, VALERIE FISHER, AND ROBERT HAMPTON.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANNE HAMPTON.
I LIVE AT 1026 BEACON BAY DRIVE.
[01:50:07]
POINSETTIA PARK IS THE HUB FOR THE COMMUNITY.I'VE ALSO BEEN TEACHING AT PACIFIC RIM FOR 25 YEARS.
DID YOU KNOW THAT OUT OF 8600 SCHOOLS IN CALIFORNIA, PACIFIC RIM IS NAMED 10TH BEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BY US NEWS AND WORLD REPORTS FOR A SECOND TIME? IT'S A HUGE TESTAMENT TO THE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN BUILT AROUND THIS PARK.
EVERY SPRING I BRING MY CLASS TO VISIT THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
I ALSO DISTINCTLY REMEMBER AN ACTUAL MEETING I ATTENDED.
ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS WAS ABOUT ADDING STOPLIGHTS ALONG CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.
NOW I'M LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE PLAN TO PLACE A CELL TOWER IN POINSETTIA PARK.
IT MAY BE CHALLENGED TO REJECT OR DELAY THE APPLICATION FROM AT&T WHILE ALTERNATIVES ARE RESEARCHED, BUT I KNOW THERE ARE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY TO FIND A BETTER LOCATION FOR THIS TOWER. WE ALL KNOW THESE TOWERS ARE UNSAFE IN THIS LOCATION, 180FT FROM HOMES, LESS THAN 800FT FROM ELEMENTARY AND PRESCHOOL STUDENTS.
YOU SHOULD USE ANY MEANS AVAILABLE TO YOU TO HAVE THIS LOCATION CHANGED.
THESE CORPORATIONS DON'T CARE.
IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND YOUR JOB TO LOOK OUT FOR CARLSBAD'S BEST INTEREST.
I LIVE AT 1062 BEACON BAY DRIVE.
OKAY. I'LL START OFF WITH JUST SAYING.
OUR CITY HAS HIGHLY ESTEEMED AND HIGHLY VALUED PARKS THAT CONVEY A FEELING MUCH AKIN TO THAT OF OPEN SPACES, WHICH IS ON DEBT POLICY NUMBER DISCOURAGED DESIGNATION LIST.
YES, AND POLICY NUMBER FOUR LISTS THAT THE TOP TWO DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS ARE OPEN SPACE ZONES AND LOTS, AND THEN TWO, RESIDENTIAL ZONES AREAS, WHICH IS GREAT.
SOMEHOW ADDING A PARK TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE PUTS IT ON THE PREFERRED LOCATION LIST, SO ADDING IT TO A POSITION OF NUMBER SEVEN OF EIGHT ON THE PREFERRED LOCATION LIST FROM THE DISCOURAGED ZONE, IT MAKES NO SENSE.
ITS PROPOSED LOCATION IS ONLY 70M AWAY FROM THE CLOSEST HOUSE, AS WE'VE ESTABLISHED.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY PUTTING IT IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, A DISCOURAGED LOCATION DESIGNATION.
AMONG THE SUGGESTIONS IN HOUSE BILL 1644 WERE.
TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS MUST BE AT LEAST 500M FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREAS PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES, DAYCARE CENTERS, AND SCHOOLS. THEY ALSO SEEK TO ESTABLISH AN ONLINE REGISTRY FOR RESIDENTS WHO ARE EXPERIENCING BIOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS FROM WIRELESS RADIATION EXPOSURE.
I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE WERE TOLD THAT WE CAN'T DENY THIS, BUT IT'S NOT A DONE DEAL.
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT HAS ACTUALLY REJECTED 5G IN THEIR CITY.
THEY'RE THE THIRD LARGEST CITY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
THEY'RE THE THIRD LARGEST CITY IN CONNECTICUT, AND THEY HAVE REJECTED IT IN THEIR CITY.
ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, I'D LOVE TO REJECT IT FOR THE CITY.
I LOVE FAST INTERNET, BUT WE DO HAVE ADEQUATE COVERAGE WHERE WE ARE.
THEY'VE REJECTED IT FOR THEIR CITY.
[01:55:01]
WE'RE JUST ASKING IT TO BE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN IN A PARK THAT IS WITHIN 400-500M OF A SCHOOL ZONE AND A COUPLE OF DAYCARE CENTERS. THAT IS TOO MUCH EXPOSURE TO UNKNOWN RADIATION THAT WE'RE PUTTING OUR KIDS IN.I ALSO WANT TO ADD THAT THE FCC AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T SUPPOSED TO PERTAIN, BUT IT DOES.
IT DOES IN THE BACK OF ALL OF OUR MINDS.
THEY SET THEIR RADIATION LEVELS BACK IN 1996.
I URGE EVERYONE TO LOOK UP THE STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT, HEARING THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO REJECT 5G.
I SENT THIS IN AN EMAIL TO SEVERAL OF YOU YESTERDAY FOR HOUR LONG VIDEO, IN WHICH THEY BROUGHT IN SIX EXPERTS ON VARIOUS DISCIPLINES TO ACTUALLY GIVE THEM THE.
I'M ROBERT HAMPTON AND I LIVE AT 1026 BEACON BAY FOR THE LAST 26 YEARS.
I SAY AGGRESSIVE PLACEMENT BECAUSE THIS TOWER WOULD ONLY BE 180FT FROM MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINE.
IT ALSO STATES THAT THESE SETBACKS SHOULD BE ONE AND ONE HALF TIMES THE HEIGHT FROM ANY PRIVATE OR PUBLIC ROAD, AND AND THIS TOWER WOULD BE LESS THAN 30FT FROM THE ROAD OR THE PARKING LOT OF THE BALL FIELD, OR 87FT OUT OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE SETBACK.
OUR RESEARCH SHOWS THAT 94% OF BUYERS ARE LESS LIKELY TO PURCHASE HOMES NEAR CELL TOWERS, AND THAT PROPERTY VALUES CAN DROP BETWEEN 5 AND 15%, DEPENDING ON THE PROXIMITY OF THE TOWER. THIS WOULD BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF LOST EQUITY TO RESIDENTS THAT LIVE WITHIN 1000FT OF THESE TOWERS.
HONESTLY, WE HAVE HIGHER RISK BECAUSE THESE ARE OUR HOMES.
WE WILL BE THERE 24/7, AND WE ARE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE BECAUSE OF THE YOUTH, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT AS YOUNG AS SOME OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS, AND WE HAVE ELDERLY AND CHILDREN IN OUR HOMES.
ALMOST EVERYONE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN, AND THE STATEMENTS WOULD BE, HOW COULD OUR CITY ALLOW THESE TOWERS TO BE PLACED IN OUR BEAUTIFUL PARKS AND SO CLOSE TO HOMES? I HAD TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT OUR CITY HAS POLICY 64 AND IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES STATES THE PROXIMITY TO HOMES, PARKS AND SCHOOLS ARE THE LEAST FAVORED LOCATION THESE COMPANIES SHOULD APPLY FOR WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING THESE.
YET AT&T SEEMS TO HAVE PAID LITTLE ATTENTION TO THE INTENT OF THIS POLICY, AND IS PUSHING FOR THESE SITES AT THE MOST, AT THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE TO THEM, COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY.
AS A CITIZEN, I'M NOT SAYING NO TO CELL TOWERS.
I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S BETTER LOCATIONS THAN OUR PARKS.
THANK YOU. THE LAST SPEAKER IS NORA GEORGE.
THE BEST FOR LAST. [CHUCKLING] GOOD EVENING.
1032 BEACON BAY, AND THAT'S GEORGE WITH A G.
I NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT I'M CURRENTLY AN ARTS COMMISSIONER, AND I'M NOT HERE SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF BUT I DO HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT CELL PHONE TOWERS ARE THE OPPOSITE OF PUBLIC ART.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY PUBLIC BLIGHT.
WE DO HAVE ADEQUATE PHONE CELL PHONE SERVICE.
I HAVE T-MOBILE AT MY HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO TWO POINSETTIA PARK, BUT THE CELL PHONE TOWERS JUST.
THEY DON'T BELONG IN PARKS OR NEAR OUR HOMES.
THEY BELONG IN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONES, AND COUNCIL POLICY 64 SAYS SO AS YOU SAW ON THE SLIDE ON PAGE SIX, SECTION A TITLED LOCATION GUIDELINES FOR PLACEMENT.
[02:00:01]
PARKS AND RECREATION ZONES ARE LOW ON THE PREFERRED LIST.YOU'VE HEARD THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND I THANK COMMISSIONER SABELLICO FOR BRINGING UP THE AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE . ON THE DISCOURAGED LIST, YOU'VE GOT OPEN SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES AT THE TOP, SO THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF THAT EXCEPTION IN THE PARENTHESES, AND EXCEPTION LANGUAGE, WHICH MAKES IT A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT, AND THE PLANNING STAFF IS ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETING THIS AS WE'VE BEEN TOLD.
IF IT'S ON THE LIST, IT'S FAIR GAME.
WELL, AGAIN, THAT GOES AGAINST YOUR COMMON SENSE.
THIS INTERPRETATION WE'VE BEEN TOLD IT HAS BEEN STRICTLY OUT OF PRECEDENCE.
IT'S HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION.
PRECEDENCE, HISTORY, AS YOU KNOW, IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.
A LOT OF THIS DATA WE'VE BEEN HEARING IS OUTDATED AND SO FORTH.
SO AGAIN, LIKE FRANK SAID, COMMON SENSE, BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THERE'S A SIMPLE SOLUTION.
THE APPLICANT'S ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS IS VERY, VERY SPARSE.
HAVE YOU READ IT? IT DOESN'T TAKE LONG.
THE CONCLUSION AND THE INTRODUCTION ARE ALMOST AS LONG AS THE BODY AND HALF OF THEM ARE THE LAND.
THE LANDOWNER DOESN'T WANT IT THERE.
WELL, THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT.
SO AGAIN, THE SIMPLE SOLUTION, THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS IS VERY SPARSE.
IT LACKS DETAIL FOR THE EXCLUDED SITES.
LIKE I MENTIONED A SIMPLE THE OWNER DOESN'T WANT IT THERE AND IT'S INCOMPLETE.
THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES OFF THE PARK AND AWAY FROM OUR HOMES THAT THESE THINGS COULD BE PUT THAT WEREN'T EVEN CONSIDERED, AND OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS.
IS THAT OUR LAST SPEAKER? OKAY, GOOD. SO WE'LL WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AS WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND DOING A LOT OF [INAUDIBLE].
SO WE THANK YOU FOR THAT AND FOR THE TIME AND PREPARATION.
SO NOW WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY WITH THE APPLICANT.
OKAY. HELLO? OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
YES. I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO JUST A FEW OF THEM.
I WANT TO REITERATE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT I DID NOT SAY THAT'S THE SOLE REASON WHY.
THE SOLE REASON WAS NOT JUST BECAUSE OF CONVENIENCE.
EARLIER I HAD STATED THAT WAS WALKED DURING A DESIGN VISIT WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
SO I WANT TO REITERATE AGAIN, THAT WAS NOT JUST OUT OF CONVENIENCE, ALTHOUGH THAT IS ONE BEING ABLE TO ACCESS THE SITE COMPARED BEING ABLE TO ACCESS THE SITE DUE TO ITS PROXIMITY TO THE TO THE PARKING LOT, DOES MAKE CONSTRUCTING IT MUCH EASIER THAN GOING DEEP INSIDE, WHICH COULD CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE PARK ITSELF.
SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO ADDRESS.
I KNOW THAT ANOTHER ONE WAS JUST THAT THE EXPRESS OF GOOD COVERAGE IN THE AREA.
I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT WHEN WE DID DROP OUR PANEL ANTENNAS, ONE WHEN WE REDUCED THE HEIGHT, AND THEN WHEN WE ALSO HAD TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PANEL ANTENNAS, IT WAS REQUESTED, AND WE ALSO MADE SURE TO PROVIDE THE CITY OF CARLSBAD WITH AN UPDATED COVERAGE MAP. I MADE SURE TO EMAIL THE RF TEAM, HAVE THEM RUN A NEW STUDY, WHICH IS WHAT THEY NEED TO DO SINCE WE ARE REDUCING THE ANTENNA AS WELL AS THE HEIGHT, THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY RUN THAT AGAIN WHEN THEY RAN IT AGAIN, THAT'S THE REASON WHY, AS I HAD SHARED DURING MY PRESENTATION, THIS, THE FINDINGS STILL REMAIN THE SAME THAT FOR AT&T CUSTOMERS IN THAT AREA, THAT WAS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WITHOUT HAVING THE TOWER THERE.
I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE OTHER CONCERNS WAS JUST HAVING HAVING TOWERS LOCATED IN THE PARK.
[02:05:06]
WHILE I HAVE, I SAW ONE OF THE ONE OF THE PRESENTATIONS WITH THOSE FOR WHILE I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT A PART OF THAT.WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT WITH HAVING THIS, WITH HAVING A TOWER AT THIS LOCATION.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO DO ALSO IS LOOK FOR AREAS OF CO-LOCATION.
IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO CO-LOCATE, WE MAKE SURE TO DO THAT AGAIN WITH THIS ONE.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS INVOLVED IN OUR RESEARCH AND WHAT WE PROVIDE WITH THE CITY.
AGAIN, AND I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LIST.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS ALSO WAS WHY IS IT THAT THOSE OTHER OTHER SITES REJECTED IT? AND THE REASON WHY THAT THOSE OTHER SITES REJECTED IT HAD TO DO WITH LEASING CONCERNS AS WELL AS A FEW OTHER PARTS.
THAT HAPPENS WITH OUR NEGOTIATION TEAM, BUT I DO KNOW THAT WITH THOSE ONES, THEY DID SHARE THAT.
A LOT OF IT IS DUE TO LEASING AND THEN A FEW OTHER THINGS BEYOND THAT.
SO IT'S NOT JUST THE FACT OF BASED OFF OF WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD OF SOMEBODY JUST NOT WANTING TO HAVE A TOWER, THERE'S A LOT MORE THAN JUST THAT, AND THEN LET ME SEE, I THINK.
I APOLOGIZE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I ADDRESS EVERYTHING.
SO THAT WAS JUST MOSTLY MY DESIGN, MY RESPONSE.
I DO KNOW THAT THE CONCERN WAS WITH THE RADOME.
THAT WAS AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT WAS SUGGESTED BY THE CITY.
ORIGINALLY IT WAS EIGHT FEET AND THAT ONE LOOKED VERY THAT ONE DID NOT LOOK UP TO PAR.
SO THAT'S WHY WE WHAT WE DID, WE BASED IT ON RECOMMENDATIONS EVEN WITH AND AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT EME IS NOT PART OF IT, BUT AGAIN, AS WAS SAID, THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT IT'S BELOW THE LIMIT, BUT ALSO JUST THE FACT THAT IT'S REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WE PROVIDE A SITE THAT IS GOING TO BE SAFE.
SO I'VE DEFINITELY SEEN THAT HAPPEN DURING MY TENURE, BUT WITH THIS ONE, AGAIN, WHEN WE HAD REDESIGNED IT, WE HAD TO GO BACK TO THE WE HAD TO GO BACK TO OUR EME TEAM.
WHEN WE DID THIS, WE HAD TO DO IT AGAIN.
I BELIEVE THAT'S PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING I HAVE TO SAY.
OKAY, SO WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED? YOU KNOW, I THINK THE ONLY THING TO MAYBE CLARIFY IS THAT TO ADD TO WHAT HAROLD HAS TO SAY IS THAT WHAT THE PARK'S REPRESENTATIVES HAD TOLD ME IS THAT THEY WERE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, OR WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A LOCATION WAS A SITE THAT DIDN'T TAKE AWAY ANY USABLE SPACE WITHIN THE PARK. SO I WANT TO REITERATE THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THIS LOCATION WAS WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD CHOSEN IS BECAUSE IT WAS ADJACENT TO A TRASH ENCLOSURE THAT WAS NO LONGER NEEDED, AND THEREFORE WOULDN'T CONVERTING THAT TRASH ENCLOSURE TO AN EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY USABLE SPACE IN THE PARK . THANK YOU. OKAY.
DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? OH, I'M SORRY, MR. KEMP. I DIDN'T SEE THAT JUST BEFORE YOU WERE GOING TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE GUIDE THE DISCUSSION.
ONE, WE'RE DOWN THREE COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT.
SO YOU'LL HAVE TO VOTE FOUR ZERO TO PASS THE ITEM.
[02:10:07]
I ALSO WANT TO CORRECT THE STATEMENT THAT'S BEEN MADE A NUMBER OF TIMES TONIGHT THAT YOU CAN'T CONSIDER THE RF.I THINK IN A WAY THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A MISCHARACTERIZATION.
IT'S JUST THAT THE CITY DOESN'T SET THE STANDARD FOR RF.
THE STANDARD IS SET BY THE FEDS, AND IF IT MEETS THOSE STANDARDS, THEN IT MEETS THE STANDARDS, BUT YOU WOULD BE CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROJECT MEETS THE RF STANDARD THAT'S BEEN SET BY THE FEDS, AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN SET BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. SO WE ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT RFS ARE BY LOOKING AT IT THROUGH THE FED LENS.
IT'S JUST THE FEDS ARE THE ONES WHO SET THAT STANDARD, AND THEN THE LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE, AND MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE BIT TOO ESOTERIC, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T WRITE POLICY.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IMPLEMENTS THE POLICIES THAT ARE SET BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO YOU APPLY 64 AS WRITTEN AND WHETHER THE PROJECT MEETS THE.
PARAMETERS OF POLICY 64, AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
SO I WAS LOOKING AWAY WHEN YOU RAISED YOUR HAND.
SO NOW DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? I THINK COMMISSIONER MEENES.
VERY MUCH APPRECIATED ALL THE INPUT, BUT QUESTION FOR OUR COUNSELOR IS THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT ONE, THE LOCATION OF THE TOWER OR THE POLE WITHIN THE PARK.
OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS IS AS REGULATORS.
I GUESS YOU COULD SAY ANYTHING ELSE IS, YOU KNOW, DOES IT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS? SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE POLL TO BE, POSSIBLY, IF IT WERE TO BE IN THE PARK, TO BE POSSIBLY LOCATED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE PARK, AND SO I'M ASKING YOU FROM THE STANDPOINT OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY OF BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
DO WE HAVE IT WITHIN OUR PARAMETERS TO EVEN BE ABLE TO REQUEST THAT BE DONE, OR IS THAT OUT OF OUR PURVIEW? IT'S COMPLICATED.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING OUR COUNSELOR.
IT REALLY IS. THERE'S THREE THINGS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN DO TONIGHT.
ONE, YOU CAN GRANT THE PERMIT.
OR THREE, IF YOU DON'T FEEL THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU TO MAKE A DECISION, YOU CAN REMAND IT BACK FOR FURTHER INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN TO YOU.
IF YOU DON'T FEEL YOU HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU TO MAKE A DECISION.
SO THAT IS ONE THING YOU COULD DO IF YOU WANTED TO.
SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE THOSE THREE CHOICES THAT YOU WOULD MAKE, AND AND IF YOU FELT THAT THERE WASN'T ENOUGH INFORMATION, IT WOULD COME BACK AND MAYBE YOU'D HAVE A FULL COMMISSION TO DECIDE OR MAYBE YOU WOULDN'T, BECAUSE THE OTHER THREE WOULD HAVE TO WATCH THE MEETING AND HEAR ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED IF THEY WERE GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEXT HEARING, IF THERE WAS A NEXT HEARING.
SO IN REGARD TO EXCUSE ME NOT CO-LOCATION, BUT IN REGARDS TO THE LOCATION, YOU KNOW, IT WAS STATED VERY EARLY ON IN THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT THAT YOU HAVE A LIMITED ABILITY TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION, BUT THAT ABILITY IS TEMPERED BY WHETHER YOU CAN SHOW THAT THEIR NETWORK WOULD STILL BE COMPLETE AT THE OTHER LOCATION.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU SENT THEM BACK, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU TO SAY.
I WOULD IMAGINE AT&T WOULD TELL YOU THAT THEY PRESENTED YOU WITH ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SHOW YOU THAT THE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF WHAT THEIR SYSTEM DOES, OR ALSO THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE REPRESENTING THAT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO NEGOTIATE FOR A LOCATION IN A DIFFERENT PLACE.
[02:15:06]
SO IF YOU FIND THAT AT&T HAS MADE A PERSUASIVE CASE TO YOU THAT ANOTHER LOCATION IS INFEASIBLE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU, THEN YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR IT IN THIS LOCATION.IF YOU FEEL YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION, YOU COULD ALWAYS SEND THEM BACK TO SAY, WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR TO SHOW THAT LOCATION ISN'T FEASIBLE. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO? NO, NO. I'M GOOD. OKAY.
GOOD QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR THE APPLICANT? YOU DO NOT.
COVERAGE IS INADEQUATE, AND WE HAVE TESTIMONY, PUBLIC TESTIMONY SAYING THAT IT IS.
SO I'M JUST HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFICULT TIME RECONCILING THAT BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AND SO WE'VE GOT SLIDES SAYING THAT IT'S VERY INADEQUATE AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY SAYING THAT IT'S FINE.
SO I'M JUST KIND OF WONDERING HOW HOW DO YOU WEIGH THAT.
YEAH HOW DO YOU WEIGH THAT? WELL, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SOURCE OF THE TESTIMONY, AND SO YOU HAVE AT&T WHO HAVE SUBMITTED REPORTS ASSUMED BY REGISTERED ENGINEERS TELLING YOU THAT THE COVERAGE YOU'VE SEEN, COVERAGE MAPS WERE INADEQUATE AND THAT THIS NOW MAKES THEIR NETWORK COMPLETE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE PARAMETERS OF POLICY 64.
WE CANNOT DENY THE COMPLETION OF A NETWORK.
SO FAR, WHAT YOU RECEIVE FROM THE PUBLIC IS LAY TESTIMONY THAT THEY FEEL THAT THE NETWORK IS COMPLETE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT NETWORK THEY'RE DISCUSSING, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT MEETS INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE.
IN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, THE POINT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT AB 57.
YES. COULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT AT ALL? YEAH. DID A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH.
AB 57 WAS PASSED IN 2015, AND IT WAS PASSED IN RESPONSE TO SOME FEDERAL LAW CHANGES AND SOME COURT CHANGES REGARDING CO-LOCATION OF FACILITIES, AND IT SET UP THE INFAMOUS WHAT WE CALL THE SHOT CLOCK, WHICH SAYS THAT IF A CITY DOESN'T ACT ON AN APPLICATION BY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, THEY CAN BE DEEMED TO BE APPROVED.
WHAT THIS SECTION OF AB 57 IS BEING REFERRED TO AS FIREFIGHTERS IS.
CO-LOCATION OF FACILITIES LOCATED AT A FIRE STATION ARE EXCEPTED FROM THAT RULE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WON'T BE DEEMED OR AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED AND LET ME POP OPEN MY IPAD AND I CAN READ YOU THE LANGUAGE RIGHT FROM THE CODE SECTION. IT SAYS DUE TO THE UNIQUE DUTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SWIFT AND EFFECTIVE DEPLOYMENT OF FIREFIGHTERS, THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A CO-LOCATION OR SITING APPLICATION FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, WHERE THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED FOR PLACEMENT ON FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES, SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT WON'T BE AUTOMATICALLY DEEMED TO BE APPROVED BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE DUTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SWIFT AND EFFECTIVE DEPLOYMENT OF FIREFIGHTERS.
SO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ISN'T RELATED TO RF EXPOSURE.
IT'S MORE RELATED TO LIKE WHEN YOU GET ON AN AIRPLANE AND THEY SAY, WILL YOU PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONE? THE CITY NEEDS TIME OR THE MUNICIPALITY, WHOEVER IT IS, TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF PLACING A TOWER ATOP A FIRE STATION SO IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH THEIR ABILITY TO.
HAVE SWIFT AND EFFECTIVE DEPLOYMENT, SO IT DOESN'T MENTION HEALTH CONCERNS.
I THINK THEY'RE MORE CONCERNED WITH RADIO INTERFERENCE AND THAT KIND OF THING.
SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THE BILL REALLY IS ADDRESSING CITIES NEED TO ACT QUICKLY ON CO-LOCATION OF FACILITIES BECAUSE AS YOU'VE SEEN IN POLICY 64, IT'S PREFERRED THAT ANTENNAS ARE CO-LOCATED ON ONE SITE TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF TOWERS.
[02:20:07]
OKAY. THE OTHER THING THAT CAME UP IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, BUT I MEAN, THE SO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THERE WAS QUOTED OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, OTHER STATES, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S NOT APPLICABLE TO US, BUT THEY THREW SOME ACTUALLY MUCH LARGER NUMBERS OUT IN TERMS OF DISTANCE.SO I MEAN, WHAT'S YOUR OBLIGATION.
THAT'S WHY I SAID THAT AT THE BEGINNING A FEW MINUTES AGO.
BEFORE YOU CONSIDER THIS IS YOU HAVE POLICY 64 THE CITY COUNCIL, WRITES THE POLICIES AND SETS THE RULES, AND YOUR JOB IS TO APPLY THEM. SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE DISCRETION TO SAY, I WANT A BIGGER SETBACK THAN WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY SAID.
THE RULE IS OKAY AND THE RISK OF BEING REPETITIVE.
I MEAN, COULD YOU PLEASE ONE MORE TIME, EXPLAIN EARLIER IN THE MEETING THE YOU KNOW, THERE'S A SLIDE FOR POLICY 64, VERY LOW ON THE PREFERRED AND THERE'S A HIGH ON THE DISAPPROVED, BUT THEN COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT ONE MORE TIME? I DON'T MEAN TO BELABOR THAT, BUT I JUST WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT ONE MORE TIME.
IT'S JUST WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF REVIEW GOING TO BE? SO OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU PUT TOGETHER A POLICY LIKE THAT AND TAKING INTO MIND THE NEEDS OF THE CITIZENS, YOU DO WANT THE CELL SITES TO BE LOCATED IN AREAS THAT ARE AWAY FROM RESIDENCES AND THAT ARE AWAY FROM MORE PLACES WHERE PEOPLE WILL CONGREGATE, SUCH AS A PARK OR WHATEVER.
SO THERE'S A LIST OF THE PREFERRED LOCATIONS, AND A PARK IS ON THE LIST, BUT TOWARD THE BOTTOM.
SO WHEN AT&T CONSIDERED THIS SITE, WHAT I HEARD TONIGHT WAS THEY WENT THROUGH THE BULLET POINTS AT THE TOP AND ELIMINATED THOSE SITES.
SOME OF THEM JUST SIMPLY WEREN'T BY THERE OR DIDN'T FIT THEIR NEEDS.
SOME OF THEM APPARENTLY THEY COULDN'T GET LAND RIGHTS TO PUT THEIR TOWERS THERE.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR IS WHERE CAN WE GO? YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS MANDATED THAT THEY CAN GO IN THE RIGHTS OF WAY, AND ALSO THE CITY HAS SAID TO HELP COMPLETE THE NETWORKS, WE WILL ALLOW THEM TO GO INTO PUBLIC PARKS ONCE THEY'VE CONSIDERED ALL THESE OTHER PLACES.
SO THEY HAD TO CONSIDER ALL THOSE OTHER PLACES.
OPEN SPACE IS A DISCOURAGED LOCATION.
NOT BECAUSE THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, BECAUSE IT ISN'T IN THE COASTAL ZONE, BUT IT IS AN OPEN SPACE BECAUSE TRAILBLAZER PARK HASN'T BEEN BUILT YET, AND SO IT'S NOT A PARK WE CALL IT THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE A LABEL, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST AN OPEN SPACE PARCEL.
SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED A CELL TOWER THROUGH A MINOR CUP PROCESS THERE BECAUSE IT WAS A DISCOURAGED LOCATION BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE OPEN SPACE.
DOES THAT HELP? IT DOES. THANK YOU. OKAY, THEN I GUESS SO THIS PART HERE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT OR STAFF.
SO I GUESS ONE, I THINK THE ONE THING THAT I'M WE ASKED THIS QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT ONCE BEFORE WAS IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE CONCERN IS WITH THE ALTERNATE SITES THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY SAID THAT THE THERE WASN'T ADEQUATE DISCUSSION ON THE ALTERNATE SITES. WHEN I ASKED YOU THAT BEFORE, IT DIDN'T IT FELT LIKE YOUR ANSWER WAS A I MEAN, A LITTLE BIT LACKING IN THAT AREA, YOU KNOW? SO I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DESCRIBE IT, BECAUSE I KNOW ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS IS PUBLIC TESTIMONY HAS STATED SEVERAL TIMES, HAVE WE REALLY LOOKED AT OTHER SITES OR EVEN BROUGHT UP A FEW THINGS AND I'M NOT REALLY SEEING SPECIFIC ANSWERS ON WHY THOSE ALTERNATE SITES DON'T WORK.
SO I WANT TO GIVE YOU AT LEAST ANOTHER.
I KNOW SOMETIMES WHEN I'M PUT IN THAT SITUATION, I THINK, OH I WISH I WOULD HAVE SAID THIS THAT WAY THE REASON I'M GIVING YOU ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IS WHY DON'T THESE ALTERNATE SITES WORK BECAUSE WE'RE IN A PUBLIC MEETING, AND THIS HAS COME UP SEVERAL TIMES.
YEAH. IF I COULD JUST GRAB MY SITE ANALYSIS, I CAN.
[02:25:12]
OKAY. SO IN REGARDS TO THE SITE ANALYSIS, ONE OF THEM BEING AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO SAY FIRST IS THAT WHEN WE DO THIS, WE HAVE A TARGET AREA WHERE WE'RE A TARGET AREA OF WHERE WE'RE SEEKING TO LOOK TO PLACE A SITE.SO THAT'S WHAT'S THAT GUIDES WHERE WE START OUR SEARCH IN REGARDS TO AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
THERE WAS NO INDUSTRIAL ZONE LOCATED WITHIN OUR TARGET AREA.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE COULDN'T PURSUE A SITE THERE.
AT 901 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD THAT'S A COMMERCIAL ZONE.
WE ALSO LOOKED INTO POSSIBLE ROOFTOP FACILITIES.
A ROOFTOP FACILITY COULD NOT WORK, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS TO NOTE IS THAT 901 AIRPORT ROAD IS 73FT LOWER IN ELEVATION, SO TO BE ABLE TO PUT A TO BE ABLE TO PUT A STRUCTURE ON THERE, WHILE IT WOULD BE IN A PREFERRED ZONE, IT WOULD NOT BE MEETING THE NEEDS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE MEETING THE OBJECTIVE THAT AT&T WAS SEEKING TO PROVIDE SO IT WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE.
ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAD WAS LOCATED AT 6030 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE E.
ON THIS ONE WE HAD A DIFFICULTY BECAUSE WE, DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TALKING ABOUT LEASING AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS.
I'M NOT A PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS, BUT WHAT I GOT BACK FROM THE TEAM DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS IS THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO WORK OUT DIFFERENT LEASING CONCERNS AND LANGUAGE, BUT THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING, SO WE COULD NOT GO THERE.
THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE, I DON'T KNOW THE ADDRESS.
I TRIED TO LOOK IT UP, BUT I AT LEAST HAVE THE APN.
APN 214-010-95-00 THAT'S IN A PUBLIC UTILITY ZONE, AND ONE. LET ME SEE THIS ONE.
THE ISSUE WITH THIS ONE AGAIN WAS BECAUSE OF NEGOTIATIONS.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO JUST REITERATE AND I CAN CONTINUE TO GO DOWN, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I JUST WANT TO CONTINUE TO REITERATE TO THE COMMISSIONERS IS THAT THIS IS A MIXTURE OF ELEVATIONAL ISSUES THAT WE HAVE.
THIS IS ALSO AN ISSUE OF ONCE WE FIND IT, WHAT ARE OUR DISCUSSIONS GOING TO BE LIKE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND ARE THEY WILLING ? THAT ONE CANNOT WORK.
THE NEXT ONE, WE LOOKED AT PUBLIC PROPERTY.
A CITY FACILITY IS NOT IN RESIDENTIAL AREA.
WE LOOKED AT [INAUDIBLE] COMMUNITY PARK AS A POTENTIAL AS A POTENTIAL SITE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE REASON WHY WE COULD NOT GO HERE IS BECAUSE THIS AREA WAS DOING FAIRLY WELL IN COVERAGE, SO TO PLACE A TOWER HERE WOULD BE PLACING THE TOWER IN AN AREA THAT'S ALREADY HAVING GOOD COVERAGE, AND I THINK IS EVEN AS ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN SHOWED DURING HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY OF THAT ONE PARK THAT HAD FOUR CELL SITES THERE, THAT'S NOT OUR GOAL.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
WE'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE AS MUCH OF A FOOTPRINT AS WE CAN.
ANOTHER ONE THAT WE HAD SOUGHT WAS 5800 THE CROSSINGS DRIVE.
ONE OF THE THINGS TO NOTE ABOUT THIS ONE IS NOW THIS IS OUTSIDE OF OUR TARGET AREA, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE CITY, WE STILL DECIDED TO LOOK FOR IT ANYWAYS, AND THIS WAS THE REASON WHY WE COULDN'T DO THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE TARGET AREA INSIDE OF OUR TARGET AREAS.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE AND AGAIN, WHEREVER WE WANT TO PROVIDE COVERAGE, IT HAS TO ONE, MAKE SENSE AND IT HAS TO BE A NEED, NOT JUST PLACING A TOWER JUST TO HAVE A TOWER FOR TOWER'S SAKE.
ANOTHER ONE IS THERE WAS ONE ALONG 705 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD.
[02:30:06]
THIS ONE SEEMED TO BE VIABLE FOR US, UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATIONAL DISADVANTAGE.POINSETTIA PARK WAS AT AN ELEVATION OF 175, WHILE THIS ONE WAS AT AN ELEVATION OF 63FT.
THAT'S A PRETTY STARK CHANGE IN ELEVATION, WHICH COULD LEAD TO A SUPER TALL TOWER THAT IS NOT, THAT DOES NOT FIT THE OVERALL SCENIC OR OVERALL SETTING, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WITH OUR TOWER IS THAT, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT WAS REDUCED FROM 90 TO 78FT IS BECAUSE OF THE ESTHETIC APPEAL.
AT 90FT, THAT SITE WAS NOT ESTHETICALLY PLEASING AT ALL.
IT DID NOT MATCH THE OVERALL SURROUNDING.
SO THE REASON WHY WE HAD TO DROP IT TO 78FT TO DO MAKE IT AS CLOSE TO LIKE TO LIKE IS BECAUSE.
BY HAVING IT AT 78FT, IT'S KEEPING IN CHARACTERISTIC TO THE ALREADY EXISTING LIGHT POLES.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE'RE MOUNTING CELLULAR ANTENNAS ON THERE.
LET ME SEE. I THINK I SAID 705.
THEN JUST THERE WAS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ROAD, BUT I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO IS WE TRY TO AVOID PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS IF WE TRY TO DO AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
I'VE NEVER I'VE NOT BEEN ON A PROJECT WHERE WE'VE PROPOSED A TOWER IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN A PART OF.
I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYBODY ON MY TEAM PROPOSE A TOWER IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SO THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO, AND AGAIN, AFTER PROVIDING THIS LIST TO THE CITY, THIS IS WHAT LED TO THE DESIRED LOCATION THAT WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW, SIR.
THANK YOU. THEN ONE OF THE ONE OF THE TESTIMONY PEOPLE MENTIONED IN ALTERNATE SITES, LIKE THE WATER TOWER OFF OF BLACKRAIL ROAD, OR YOU SAID ONE OR OTHER TWO, CAN YOU ARE YOU IN A POSITION ADDRESSING THOSE ALTERNATE SITES THAT WEREN'T THAT THEY SUGGESTED OR.
WHILE I'M NOT TOO FAMILIAR WITH THOSE ONES, WHAT I WOULD LEAN IS THAT IT'S JUST NOT IN OUR TARGET AREA, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, AS I WAS EVEN READING THIS, IS THAT WE ENDED UP LOOKING AT EVEN PLACES OUTSIDE OF OUR TARGET AREA TO PROVIDE A JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT.
SO AND AGAIN, WITH IT BEING NOT IN OUR TARGET AREA, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PUT A TOWER IN A PLACE THAT IS ALREADY BEING WELL SERVICED BECAUSE, AGAIN, THAT'S NOT PROVIDING ANY COVERAGE.
IT'S JUST HAVING A TOWER THERE FOR NO REASON, AND IT LEADS TO PROBLEMS WHERE WE HAVE MULTIPLE TOWERS AT ONE LOCATION, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, SIR, AND THANK YOU. THEN COULD YOU ADDRESS THIS THE I MEAN, I BROUGHT IT UP WITH COUNSELOR KEMP, BUT JUST YOU'VE SHOWN THIS THIS MAP HERE THAT SHOWS IN THE, I GUESS, THE NON-COLORED AREA THAT THERE'S A BIG FOR LACK OF A DEAD AREA, BUT THEN WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY PUBLIC TESTIMONY SAYS THAT THERE'S NOT A PROBLEM.
AS A PUBLIC MEETING WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO BOTH THINGS.
AS AN APPLICANT, THIS IS WHERE YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THAT.
SO COULD COULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THAT? OF COURSE. SO I'VE HEARD THE CONCERNS REGARDING AREAS OF GOOD SERVICE THERE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THOUGH TO NOTE IS THAT ON THAT IT WOULD I'M NOT SURE IF THAT SERVICES FOR VERIZON TOWERS RIGHT BECAUSE THIS IS AN AT&T TOWER.
SO MAYBE VERIZON IS EXPERIENCING GOOD COVERAGE OVER THERE, AND THAT'S GREAT.
IF THIS IS T-MOBILE, MAYBE T-MOBILE USERS ARE EXPERIENCING GREAT COVERAGE OVER THERE.
THAT'S GREAT AND BENEFICIAL TO THEM, BUT THIS TOWER IS LOOKING AT EXACTLY FOR AT&T TOWERS, AND THEN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD MENTIONED IS I DID READ A I READ AN EMAIL FROM A GENTLEMAN WHERE HE SAID THAT HE SEES THIS AS A BENEFIT HE SHARED IN HIS EMAIL, AND I READ IT SEVERAL TIMES, AND I READ IT EVEN BEFORE THIS MEETING, WHERE HE SAID THAT HE BELIEVES HIM AND HIS FAMILY BELIEVES THAT HAVING THE TOWER HERE IS BENEFICIAL.
NOW WHETHER HE'S HERE TODAY OR NOT.
I'M NOT TOO SURE, BUT I DO KNOW THAT I HAVE THAT IN MY RECORDS THAT HE DID SUPPORT IT, AND REGARDING THE COVERAGE MAPS ITSELF, IT COULD ALSO BE ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO KNOW WITH COVERAGE IS THAT THERE MIGHT BE DAYS WHEN IT IS GOOD.
THERE'S DAYS WHEN YOU CAN'T CONNECT TO THE INTERNET THESE DAYS WHEN YOU CAN GET CALLS, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE ALSO KNOW PERSONALLY IS THAT THERE'S ALSO DAYS WHEN IT SEEMS LIKE OUR PHONES NOT WORKING RIGHT.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE GETTING A CALL.
[02:35:04]
SO THAT THING THAT VARIES.THAT VARIES, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY, AGAIN, WHEN WE WHEN I WENT BACK TO OUR ENGINEERS AFTER REDUCING THE EQUIPMENT, REDUCING THE SIZE, I HAD TO HAVE THEM DO ANOTHER COVERAGE STUDY AND MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING IS ACCURATE BASED OFF OF WHAT THEY HAD PROVIDED WITH ME, AND THIS WAS, I BELIEVE RIGHT AROUND JUNE OR JULY WHEN WE FINALLY GOT DOWN TO THIS DESIGN. THIS IS WHERE IT WAS STANDING AT AT JUNE OR JULY.
SO THAT'S ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO.
THANK YOU, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON IT.
CHAIR, ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO ADD IS THE LOCATION OF THE WATER TOWER.
BLACKRAIL RD IS RIGHT OFF THE WEST OF THIS MAP.
I'M SORRY, THE EAST OF THIS MAP.
IT'D BE APPROXIMATELY IN THAT AREA.
WHERE'S YOUR [INAUDIBLE]? I COULDN'T SEE. BLACKRAIL RD, AND AT&T CURRENTLY HAS A TOWER ON THE WATER TOWER AT BLACKRAIL.
OKAY. OKAY, SO THAT KIND OF LEADS TO ANOTHER WE CAN ASK APPLICANTS QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT OR STAFF.
SO I MEAN, DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT FURTHER ON THE ALTERNATE SITE THING BEYOND WHAT WAS STATED HERE? NO, I JUST WITH HAROLD NOT KNOWING THAT THERE'S MULTIPLE COMPANIES, I THINK THAT IN THE PAST THIS WAS NOT THIS SITE WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY HAROLD'S COMPANY.
RIGHT. PROBABLY WHY YOU DIDN'T KNOW AT&T HAD A TOWER THERE OR THE NAME OF THE ROAD.
SO OKAY, SO BUT THERE IS A I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WAS CONFUSION ON THAT.
OH, OKAY. [INAUDIBLE] IS RIGHT HERE.
BLACKRAIL THERE, AND THAT MARK RIGHT HERE IS THE TOWER.
OKAY, SO THERE IS ONE ON [INAUDIBLE].
OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
THAT'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR ME.
SO I THINK THAT IS THE END OF THAT.
COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, THANK YOU.
I KNOW WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE, SO I HAVE ONE REALLY QUICK QUESTION.
THE VERIZON FACILITY, WHICH IS JUST A COUPLE HUNDRED FEET FROM THIS ONE.
WHY DID THAT NOT COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? THAT IS NOT AN EXISTING FACILITY.
THAT IS A FACILITY THAT'S IN PROCESS THAT WILL ULTIMATELY COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO THERE'S ANOTHER ONE OF THESE.
THERE IS, YES. [CHUCKLING] GREAT.
OKAY. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF.
OKAY. SO SEEING NONE WE'LL OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION OKAY.
DO WE COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ITEM.
COMMISSIONER STINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I HAVE QUITE A FEW COMMENTS, SO BEAR WITH ME, BUT THE FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY WITH ALL SINCERITY IS THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE COME OUT HERE TONIGHT.
WE APPRECIATE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO COME OUT TONIGHT.
YOU COULD'VE STAYED HOME AND WATCHED TV OR WATCHED THE DEBATES TONIGHT, BUT YOU CAME OUT HERE.
LET ME GO DOWN THE LIST OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS THAT I HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC, AND BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I WANT TO SAY THAT I SPENT A LOT OF TIME REVIEWING THE STAFF REPORT AND THE POLICY 64 AND EVERYTHING AS BACKGROUND FOR THIS MEETING.
SO TO EDUCATE MYSELF AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH REGARD TO THESE ISSUES BUT LET ME ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED AND RESPECTFULLY COMMENT ON THOSE CONCERNS.
THERE WERE 11 SPEAKERS, AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE LIST OF CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED, MANY OF THEM REPEATEDLY, AND ADDRESS THOSE. THE FIRST CONCERN HAS TO DO WITH AN INTERPRETATION OF POLICY 64, AND THAT IS IN THE CONTEXT OF LOCATIONS.
WHERE SHOULD A SITE BE? NOT WITHIN THE PARK, BUT ON SHOULD IT BE AN INDUSTRIAL AREA, SHOULD IT BE THIS AND THAT? AND WE'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC, ONE OF WHOM SAID THIS IS A BAD CHOICE, AND THE POLICY 64 MY NOTES SAY THE BEST OF BAD CHOICES TO LOCATE IT IN A PARK.
[02:40:01]
WE'RE HERE NOT TO MAKE NEW POLICY.WE'RE HERE TO INTERPRET AND APPLY THE POLICY.
SO THESE ARE THE RULES, LIKE IT OR NOT, AND WE NEED TO FAIRLY INTERPRET THOSE.
WHEN I LOOK AT POLICY 64 AND SIMPLY THE PLAIN MEANING OF THOSE WORDS, I CONCUR WITH STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THAT, AND LET ME TELL YOU A REASON WHY.
THEY HAVE TWO CATEGORIES OF LOCATIONS, ONE PREFERRED AND ONE DISCOURAGED.
OKAY. WHAT DOES PREFERRED MEAN? IT MEANS YOU LIKE WE ENCOURAGE THOSE THESE ARE GOOD SITES, AND THEN IT HAS VARIOUS GRADATIONS FROM MOST PREFERRED TO LEAST PREFERRED LEAST PREFERRED LEAST PREFERRED WOULD BE I AND THAT WOULD BE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, BUT EVEN LEAST PREFERRED IS PREFERRED.
THESE ARE ALL GOOD SITES, SOME BETTER THAN OTHERS.
SO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE, IN MY JUDGMENT, IS A GRADATION OF GOOD SITES.
THE BEST WOULD BE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL, BUT OUR APPLICANT IS EXPLAINED WHY THOSE DON'T WORK HERE.
THEY WORK IN SOME AREAS BUT THEY DON'T WORK HERE.
SO I BELIEVE IN OUR STAFF'S INTERPRETATION HERE THAT THIS IS GRADATIONS OF GOOD SITES.
IF YOU GO TO ITEM TWO THOSE ARE THE NON PREFERRED.
THOSE ARE THE ONES WE WANT TO DISCOURAGE AND NOT HAVE CELL SITES.
SO THIS IS A LOWER ORDER BUT IT IS STILL A PREFERRED LOCATION.
SO THAT'S MY RESPONSE TO WHAT WE'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON THAT.
SO IT IS A PREFERRED LOCATION.
NOW WE'VE HEARD ISSUES OF LOCATION WITHIN THE POINSETTIA PARK.
COULD THERE BE BETTER PLACES THAT COULD BE PLACED RATHER THAN REALLY IN BETWEEN A COUPLE OF BASEBALL FIELDS? AND I THINK WE'VE HAD GOOD TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT AND FROM STAFF INDICATE THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD LOCATION.
WHY? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TAKE UP OR CONSUME OTHER RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES.
IT'S NOT PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF A BALL FIELD.
IT'S NOT PLACED NEXT TO A TENNIS COURT.
THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PARK WE HAVE THERE AND BY PUTTING THIS CELL SITE ON A TOWER THAT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME SIZE AS THE EXISTING TOWER, NOT BIGGER, SAME SIZE AND HEIGHT.
WE ARE NOT TAKING OUT OR USURPING RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES.
SO THIS DOESN'T REMOVE OR IN ANY WAY NEGATE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES.
SO I SAY WITHIN THE PARK AND IT'S MORE THAN A CONVENIENCE ISSUE FOR AT&T IF THAT WAS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT DOESN'T CARRY A LOT OF WEIGHT FOR ME, BUT ALL THESE FACTORS IS YOU'RE NOT CONSUMING OR TAKING AWAY OTHER GREAT RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE THIS PARK.
AS COUNSELOR KEMP VERY ELOQUENTLY AND I THINK ACCURATELY STATED, WE DO CONSIDER THIS.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING, BUT WE DO WE ARE PREEMPTED IN TERMS OF THE LAW BY FEDERAL STANDARDS AS TO WHAT THOSE STANDARDS ARE. WE HERE IN CARLSBAD CAN'T MAKE A MORE RIGOROUS OR MORE STRINGENT STANDARD THAN ENCINITAS, VISTA, OCEANSIDE, OR ANOTHER CITY.
THEY ARE THE FEDERAL STANDARDS, BUT WE APPLY THOSE STANDARDS.
WE HOLD THE APPLICANT'S FEET TO THE FIRE WITH REGARD TO THOSE STANDARDS.
IN FACT, IT'S A CONDITION IN THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL.
IF THOSE STANDARDS, IF THOSE EMISSIONS EXCEED THE STANDARDS, NO GOOD SHOULDN'T BE THERE.
SO THAT SHOULD ADDRESS THE HEALTH IMPACTS, AND THE OTHER ON THE HEALTH ISSUE.
BEFORE I TURN TO SOMETHING ELSE WITH OUR STAFF MEMBER, MIKE STRONG CAME UP AND TALKED ABOUT, I WAS WE WERE LOOKING FOR SOME INFORMATION ABOUT NUMBERS AND WHAT'S THE FEDERAL STANDARDS AND WHAT THE EMISSIONS ARE AND UNFORTUNATELY, OUR APPLICANT COULD NOT PROVIDE THAT TO US, BUT MR. STRONG AND JUST INTERPRETING WHAT WAS PART OF OUR STAFF REPORT TALKED ABOUT AT THE MOST 8%.
WE WOULD GET 8% OF THE FEDERAL STANDARD.
OKAY. THE SET OF CONSERVATIVE STANDARDS FOR WHAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE HEALTH IMPACT IF SOMEBODY WAS TO STAND RIGHT UNDERNEATH THOSE TOWERS, AND I THINK THE SAME REASONING WOULD APPLY. THESE ARE BALL FIELDS HERE.
WE'VE GOT RIGHT FIELDERS AND LEFT FIELDERS AND PEOPLE, ADULTS AND KIDS PLAYING BALL THERE.
SO WHAT I'M SEEING FROM OUR OWN RECORD AND AMPLIFIED BY MR. STRONG, IS THAT THIS IS A SMALL, SMALL FRACTION OF THE FEDERAL LIMIT ON EXPOSURE TO RADIOFREQUENCY.
[02:45:03]
SO I WOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT IT, AND YES, [INAUDIBLE] CONCERNED IF YOUR NEIGHBORS, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR FEDERAL STANDARD, WHICH WE ARE APPLYING, WE ARE APPLYING, WE ARE HOLDING [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S MEETING THOSE STANDARDS, AND THAT WOULD BE THE END OF STORY IF WE HAVE RECORDS SOMETIME DURING IF ASSUMING THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED, WHERE THEY START TO NOT TO EXCEED THE STANDARDS TO GO BEYOND THAT DIFFERENT ISSUE, WE COULD CALL IT BACK FOR A REVIEW, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT A CLOSE CALL.IT EASILY MEETS THE FEDERAL STANDARDS.
ANOTHER ISSUE THAT CAME UP WAS DOES THIS PAVE THE WAY FOR ADDITIONAL SITE APPLICATIONS? THERE'S CONCERN THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL SITES ALREADY THERE, AND THAT'S FINE, BUT HAS PAVED THE WAY, AND MY ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE NO, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH OF THOSE INDIVIDUALLY, AND IF [INAUDIBLE], JUST LIKE WE'RE SPENDING TIME ON THIS ONE TONIGHT, AND IF THOSE DON'T MEET THE FEDERAL STANDARDS OR THEY'RE ESTHETICALLY DISPLEASING ALL THOSE THINGS, WE WOULD REVIEW THOSE SITE APPLICATIONS.
APPARENTLY, ONE IS GOING TO BE COMING TO US AT SOME PARTICULAR POINT ON THE MERITS OF THOSE SITES.
THIS DOESN'T SET A PRECEDENT THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE ANOTHER APPLICANT FOR ANOTHER SITE.
WE LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THOSE SITES AND MAKE A JUDGMENT.
ANOTHER POINT ESTHETICS, VISUAL BLIGHT.
I HAVE HEARD THE TERM IT'S UGLY.
NOW THAT'S AN AREA WHERE WE DO HAVE SOME CONTROL; I GRANT YOU THAT, AND SOME OF THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED PREVIOUSLY, AND THERE'S WE LISTED, I THINK IT WAS AT CALVARA HILLS. I HAVEN'T BEEN OUT TO THAT SITE WHERE THESE HUGE ANTENNAS REALLY UGLY EYESORE THINGS.
IF WE LOOK TO WHAT WE HAVE, WE'RE REPLACING A 78 FOOT TALL POLE WITH ANOTHER 78 TALL POLE, SAME HEIGHT AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PLACING A FAIRLY NARROW CYLINDER, AND THROUGH STAFF'S WORK, WE HAVE NARROWED THE CYLINDER.
IT WAS GOING TO BE EIGHT FEET.
NOW IT'S FOUR FEET, AND I LOOKED AT THOSE PICTURES.
I THINK THEY'RE SHIELDED AS MUCH AS THEY CAN BE.
IF THEY WERE THE EIGHT FEET ONE, I MIGHT HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY.
MY OWN VIEW IS THAT OVER TIME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY THAT PARK.
IT'S A GREAT PARK AND THEY'RE GOING TO FORGET ABOUT THAT.
THERE IS WHAT USED TO BE A 78 FOOT TALL LIGHT POLE.
IT'S STILL 78 FOOT TALL LIGHT POLE, BUT TOWARD THE TOP END OF IT, IT DOES HAVE A CYLINDER WITH SHIELDS, CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS. I THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STILL ENJOY THE PARK, ALL THE ACTIVITIES NOTWITHSTANDING THAT.
SO IN TERMS OF MY ASSESSMENT, I DON'T SEE THAT IT IS A EYESORE, A SORE THUMB OR ANYTHING THAT WE SHOULD TURN IT DOWN BECAUSE OF ESTHETICS, AND THEN FINAL COUPLE OF POINTS, KIND OF BRINGING IT BACK TO THE CORE OF WHAT WE DO.
ONE IS A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ONE IS A MINOR CUP.
DO THE FACTS THAT ARE BEFORE US.
HAVE THEY MET THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE TOO? THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT VISUALLY IMPAIRS THE VIEW OF THE OCEAN.
CERTAINLY THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT WOULD PREVENT OR IN ANY WAY BURDEN ACCESS TO THE BEACH AREA.
THOSE ARE THE CONCERNS THAT GENERALLY HAVE WITH THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT.
ONE LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING WHEN WE GET TO THE MINOR CUP, AND AS WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFF, IT'S ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVE THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT THIS, THIS CUP COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD SIMPLY BE REVIEWED AND MOST LIKELY APPROVED BY STAFF.
IT WOULD NEVER COME TO US, BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, IT DOES COME TO US.
SO CUP, WHAT DO WE LOOK AT? IMPACTS. IS THIS GOING TO HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS? MY JUDGMENT NOT TO THE USE OF THE PARK.
WE'RE STILL GOING TO PLAY BASEBALL.
WE'RE STILL GOING TO PLAY TENNIS.
STILL WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR FRIDAY NIGHT CONCERTS OUT THERE.
ALL THE THINGS WE ENJOY CAN STILL BE ENJOYED WITH THIS.
IS IT GOING TO CREATE TRAFFIC ISSUES? NO. OCCASIONALLY, MAYBE ONCE A MONTH, THEY'LL HAVE TO GO OUT TO SERVICE IT.
SO HEALTH IMPACTS I THINK WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF AND I JUST DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S AN ESTHETIC ISSUE, AND IN TERMS OF CUP, I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE USE OF OUR BEAUTIFUL POINSETTIA PARK.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS I SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
[02:50:04]
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PERSUASIVE, NON-BINDING PRECEDENT REGARDING THE OTHER TOWERS.CALVERT HILLS, I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THOSE, BUT THEY DO EXIST.
THEY ARE THERE. SO IT IS PRECEDENT.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE POLICY IS WORDED IN A WAY THAT PERHAPS COULD USE IMPROVEMENT, BUT PARKS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PREFERRED LOCATIONS AND AT THE TOP OF THE DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS.
I FOUND THAT THERE WERE VERY FEW CANDIDATE SITES THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANTS.
THEY ALSO CONSIDERED SITES OUTSIDE THE TARGET AREA.
I UNDERSTAND NOW FROM THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE CITY STAFF.
I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHY, BUT REGARDLESS, THE ACTUAL TRUE NUMBER OF CANDIDATE SITES THAT WERE CONSIDERED, IF YOU EXCLUDE THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATE SITES THAT WERE ALREADY OUTSIDE THE TARGET AREA. SO WE'RE EXCLUDED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IS VERY LOW, AND I THINK OUR CITY HAD MORE CANDIDATE SITES AND THEY WERE NOT EXPLORED.
JUST A BRIEF ASIDE, PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T USUALLY JUMP AT THAT OPPORTUNITY.
THEY USUALLY WANT YOU TO GIVE THEM SOME MONEY, AND I THINK THAT ASPECT OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY NEGOTIATED AND WHAT WAS OFFERED AND WHAT WAS REJECTED WAS NOTABLY ABSENT FROM THE ANALYSIS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.
I MEAN, THAT IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IF I'M REQUIRED TO MAKE A FINDING THAT OTHER SITES WERE UNAVAILABLE OR NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE? I NEED TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION.
I AM VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE FACT THAT OUR COST OF LIVING IS SKYROCKETING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE GOING UP FASTER THAN INFLATION, BUT OUR JOB IS NOT TO LOWER THE COSTS AND MAKE IT EXTREMELY CONVENIENT FOR THE APPLICANT.
IT COUNTS AS A STRIKE AGAINST THE APPLICANT THAT THE SITE WAS SELECTED SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS, AND LASTLY, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT READ THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC CONCERNING THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, THAT THOSE COMMENTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO ME, AND THEY'RE IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US HERE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE TAKE ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY, AND IT'S OUR JOB TO CONSIDER THEM.
THAT IS PART OF A FAIR HEARING, IS MAKING SURE THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE AND YOU BRING IT TOWARDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE LISTEN TO YOU AND WE HEAR YOU AND MAKE OUR DECISION ACCORDINGLY.
SO I'M JUST CONCERNED ALSO THAT THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS IS BEING CONSIDERED BEFORE THE LEASE.
I THINK IT IS ALSO LIKE JUST FROM A PRACTICAL MATTER, A BIG WASTE OF TIME, THAT IF WE PASS THIS AND THEN WE GO TO THIS, THIS GOES TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEY SAY, WE DON'T ACTUALLY WANT TO DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IT'S JUST FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE.
I HOPE THAT IS NOT I WISH TO DISCOURAGE THAT IN THE FUTURE, AND ULTIMATELY, I DO THINK PUTTING THIS THING ON A DIFFERENT LIGHT POLE IN THE PARK IS PROBABLY THE MOST FAIR COMPROMISE, AND ONE THAT I COULD POSSIBLY APPROVE IF THOSE OTHER CONCERNS THAT I JUST LISTED ARE ADDRESSED, BUT I CAN'T APPROVE.
I CAN'T I JUST THIS LIGHT POLE AND SPECIFICALLY WHICH IS LIKE THE CLOSEST IT POSSIBLY CAN BE TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF POLICY 64 AND WHAT'S BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT ISN'T A COMPROMISE.
THIS ISN'T I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT, IN MY OPINION, GOT A LITTLE BIT TOO EAGER AND DIDN'T FOLLOW THE SPIRIT OF OUR CITY'S POLICIES, AND WE'RE ALL HUMAN.
IT HAPPENS, BUT I THINK IT IS OUR JOB TO ENSURE THAT THOSE APPLICANTS COMPLY WITH OUR POLICIES, AND THAT IS WHY I BELIEVE THAT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE TO REMAND THIS, AND IF, YOU KNOW WE CAN'T REMAND IT, I'M GOING TO DENY IT.
THIS IS ALSO A DISCUSSION TOO.
SO ACTUALLY YOU KIND OF ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
[02:55:06]
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR POINT WOULD BE IF IT ISN'T REMANDED, THEN YOU WOULD.OKAY. THE OTHER THING, I GUESS BEING DISCUSSIONS TOO, AND BEING IN THE FIELD OF COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE AND SEEING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WHERE THERE'S BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY DESIGNED TO HAVE CELL TOWERS DONE.
SO, AND I THINK THE POINT THAT I WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO DISCLOSE WHAT HAPPENED IN PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS WITH A PRIVATE LANDOWNER, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE THING WE CAN ASK THEM TO DO.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN NECESSARILY DISCLOSE.
RIGHT, AND SO I WOULD I WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT STATE.
OKAY THEN YES, AND IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING WE COULD REQUIRE.
IT'S SOMETHING WE COULDN'T REQUIRE.
RIGHT. RIGHT. YEAH, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY.
YEAH. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MEENES.
I KNOW OUR RESPONSIBILITY AGAIN IS BEING A REGULATOR AND NOT LOOKING AT VARIOUS OTHER THINGS REGARDING ESTHETICS AND VARIOUS OTHER CONCERNS THAT THE PUBLIC HAS.
THAT'S NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY, BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, I, AFTER HEARING THE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT IN REGARD TO AT&T, AND I LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVE SITES AND I CAN SEE THE ISSUES IN REGARD TO THE ELEVATION IN REGARD TO WHAT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO IN REGARD TO THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWERS AT SOME OF THE LOWER ELEVATIONS IN THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
SO I CAN APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL, BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, I'M SOMEWHAT CONCERNED IN THE ANSWERS THAT I RECEIVED THIS EVENING IN REGARD TO IF WE HAVE THIS PARTICULAR SITE BECAUSE IT'S NEXT TO THE TRASH CONTAINER NEXT TO THE PARKING LOT THAT IS THE SITE.
THE APPLICANT'S ANSWER IN REGARD TO, WELL, IF YOU LOOKED AT OTHER SITES WITH OTHER SITES WITHIN THE PARK, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS MENTIONED THAT VERIZON'S LOOKING AND THAT MIGHT BE COMING TO US IN THE NEAR FUTURE REGARDING ANOTHER POLE AT THE PARK.
I AM UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT I HAVE TO SAY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT&T GO BACK.
WE'D LIKE TO REMAND THIS AND HAVE THEM LOOK AT MAYBE ANOTHER LOCATION WITHIN THE PARK THAT MIGHT BE SATISFACTORY. ACCOMPLISHING THE GOALS OF WHAT THEY NEED TO ACCOMPLISH REGARDING THE TYPE OF FACILITY THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN.
OBVIOUSLY THE ELEVATION WITHIN THE PARK DOESN'T CHANGE THAT MUCH.
I THINK IF THEY WENT BACK AND WORKED WITH STAFF IN REGARD TO MAYBE ANOTHER LOCATION WITHIN THE PARK, IT MIGHT BE MORE SATISFACTORY TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND YET, STILL ACCOMPLISH EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO ACCOMPLISH.
COUPLED WITH I KNOW WE POSSIBLY CANNOT DENY BEING A PUBLIC AGENCY.
THE REQUEST, BUT YET IF WE REMAND HAVE THEM, AND MAYBE THE COUNSELOR CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M INCORRECT, I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO BACK AND REMAND FIND ANOTHER LOCATION WITHIN THE PARK, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.
THERE IS ANOTHER WAY THAT HAS OCCURRED TO ME BECAUSE THERE IS AN EVEN NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT.
IF YOU TOOK A STRAIGHT UP VOTE AND IT WAS 2 TO 2, AND I GUESS I'D HAVE TO THINK THIS ONE THROUGH, MAYBE WE COULD TAKE A RECESS AND I COULD THINK IT THROUGH BUT WHEN THERE IS A TIE VOTE, THE MATTER GETS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING TO BE DECIDED AGAIN, AND THIS TIME IT WOULD INVOLVE IF WE COULD GET THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO WATCH THE TAPE, THEY COULD PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION, BUT ANY COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD PARTICIPATE, WHO WASN'T HERE TONIGHT WOULD HAVE TO WATCH THE MEETING AND HEAR THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS GIVEN, BUT WE DO HAVE A CODE SECTION THAT SAYS WHEN THERE'S A TIE VOTE, IT GETS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING, AND CONCEIVABLY A FULL
[03:00:10]
COMMISSION COULD TAKE THAT ON IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THAT WAY, I'D WANT TO TAKE A TIME OUT AND CONFER.I'VE GOT TWO OTHER CITY ATTORNEYS HERE TONIGHT AND TALK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU WOULD NEED THREE AS A QUORUM TO PASS, I MEAN, FOUR TO PASS IT.
SO I JUST WOULDN'T WANT TO CONFER WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE TO SEE IF A 2-2 WOULD JUST AS OPPOSED TO A REMAND, IT WOULD JUST SEND IT BACK AS A CONTINUATION TO THE NEXT MEETING. SO IF YOU'D LIKE, WE CAN TAKE A LITTLE FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND WE'LL CHAT ABOUT THAT, AND I'LL ALSO SAY, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW WHERE YOU GUYS ARE AT.
SO. WELL, THE ONE THING I CAN ANSWER, RIGHT, AS YOU MENTIONED, IF THE OTHER COUNCIL, I MEAN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I CAN ASSURE YOU, AND I'LL MAKE SURE THAT THEY LISTEN TO THAT TAPE. IF THEY'RE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THE TIME AND THEY'RE GOING TO LISTEN TO THAT TAPE.
SO I MEAN, WE COULD BE JUST TALKING ABOUT SEMANTICS.
RIGHT. I'M LISTENING BY THE AMOUNT OF QUESTIONS I ASKED, I LISTENED VERY CAREFULLY IN THIS MEETING.
I ALSO WILL SAY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A REMAND I WOULD LIKE, I THINK IN SOME C AREFULLY SEEING SOME CRITICAL TO THE APPLICANT.
LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT SEMANTICS REMAND ACTUALLY MEANS YOU'RE SENDING IT BACK FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF MORE INFORMATION THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TODAY, WHEREAS A TIE VOTE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE MORE INFORMATION.
IT WOULD JUST BE THE OTHER THREE.
SEE THE MEETING AND YOU COME BACK AND YOU VOTE AGAIN.
SO DO WE NEED TO HAVE A BREAK TO DO THAT OR CAN WE IF IT'S.
OKAY, LET'S TAKE A 3 OR 4 MINUTE BREAK AND THEN YOU CAN [INAUDIBLE] OH THIS [INAUDIBLE] LET'S ALLOW HIM WHATEVER TIME HE NEEDS TO FEEL COMFORTABLE GIVING US HIS LEGAL OPINION.
OKAY. WELL, HE WANTS HIM TO BE COMFORTABLE.
I WANT YOU TO GET IT DONE QUICKLY.
SO WE'RE GONNA TRY FOR FIVE. HOLD ON.
OKAY. GIVE US FIVE AND WE'LL COME BACK FIVE.
IF SOMEONE GRABBED THEIR SEAT HERE, I THINK THE ATTORNEYS HAVE CONFERRED AND THEY'RE BACK.
NORMALLY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THREE ATTORNEYS HERE, BUT THIS IS MY LAST MEETING.
SO MY SUCCESSOR IS HERE AND THE CITY ATTORNEYS IN THE BACK.
HAVING SAID THAT, THE WAY THE CODE READS IS A MAJORITY OF THE BODY.
HAS TO APPROVE THE PROJECT OR IT'S A DENIAL.
SO IF THE VOTE IS 2-2, THAT'S NOT A MAJORITY OF THE BODY AND THE PROJECT WOULD DEEM TO BE DENIED IF YOU VOTE TO REMAND.
THIS BECAUSE YOU NEED FURTHER INFORMATION.
THE INFORMATION YOU ARE REQUESTING HAS TO BE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF POLICY 64.
SO YOU CAN'T SAY I WANT TO KNOW WHY ANOTHER LOCATION WOULDN'T WORK FOR THE WRONG REASONS.
WHAT DO THEY NEED TO PROVIDE YOU THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TONIGHT TO MAKE A DECISION? SO THINK THAT ONE THROUGH.
IF YOU SEND IT BACK AND YOU REMAND IT, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE AND WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE BOUNDARIES OF POLICY 64'S REQUIREMENTS. YOU CAN'T SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, I WANT ONE THAT'S FURTHER AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN
[03:05:03]
THE SETBACK.YOU CAN'T SAY, WELL, I THINK THIS ONE WOULD BE FURTHER AWAY.
SO IT WOULD BE MORE ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OUR RULE DOESN'T SAY IT HAS TO BE FURTHER AWAY.
OUR RULE SAYS IT HAS TO BE WITHIN WHATEVER.
THE SETBACK WAS 70 SOMETHING FEET AND IT'S 170 SOMETHING FEET.
SO IF YOU WANT TO REMAND IT AND YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION, YOU'LL HAVE TO THINK THROUGH WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, AND ONCE AGAIN, TO PASS, YOU NEED ALL FOUR OF YOU TO PASS IT.
THIS WOULD BE THE TIME YOU'RE GOING TO REMAND IT.
YEAH. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION COUNSELOR KEMP'S COMMENTS, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR FOR THE CONSULTATION AMONGST THE ATTORNEYS.
THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR ME TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF PARAMETERS AND REQUIREMENTS.
WITH THAT IN MIND, THEN I HAVE TO SAY THAT I DO SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
GIVEN WHAT YOU HAD JUST SHARED THIS EVENING.
THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONERS STINE YES, WE CAN SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE TAKE AN UP OR DOWN DECISION ON THAT TONIGHT? IT'S OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD NOT PASS AND THAT WOULD BE DEEMED A DENIAL.
I'M LOOKING FOR SOMETHING IN THE.
THAT WOULD BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE TO US, AND THAT WE COULD BRING IT BACK AND HAVE HOPEFULLY MORE THAN FOUR OF US HERE NEXT TIME AFTER BEING REMANDED, AND THE TWO ISSUES.
ONE WOULD BE I'M LOOKING AT THE POLICY AND IT DOES TALK ABOUT VISIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC, AND WE HAD QUITE A BIT OF COMMENTS HERE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT SAID IT WAS UGLY, IT WAS DISPLEASING.
IT WAS IT WAS NOT A NICE LOOKING.
JUST THROW OUT FOR DISCUSSION.
I'M KIND OF THINKING OUT LOUD HERE THAT PERHAPS IF IT WAS REMANDED TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER PERHAPS A REDESIGN OR FURTHER WORK THAT WOULD REDUCE, IF NOT MINIMIZE, THE VISUAL IMPAIRMENT OR THE VISIBILITY OF THE OF THE CELLULAR FACILITY ITSELF.
I KNOW IT'S ALREADY BEEN REDUCED FROM LIKE 8 TO 4FT, BUT PERHAPS THEY COULD DO SOMETHING MORE THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE PUBLIC'S CONCERN ABOUT HOW IT LOOKS.
SO AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IN 64 VISIBILITY.
SO I WOULD THINK AND I WELCOME COMMENTS FROM MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS ABOUT WHETHER THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE WORTHY OF THE APPLICANT TAKING A SECOND LOOK AT AND THEN COMING BACK AND ADDRESSING THAT ISSUES, PERHAPS WITH SOMEWHAT OF A MODIFICATION OF THE DESIGN.
COULD I ADDRESS I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE ONE MORE SUGGESTION.
I MEAN, ONCE YOU DECIDE WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ASK FOR, IF THAT'S WHERE YOU GO, I THINK THE APPLICANT SHOULD GET A CHANCE TO ADDRESS WHETHER THEY JUST WANT A STRAIGHT UP DENIAL OF THE PROJECT SO THEY CAN APPEAL IT TO COUNCIL AND MOVE ON WITH THEIR PROJECT, OR IF THEY FEEL THAT THE REMAND IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY DO.
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NARROWING IT FURTHER, YOU KNOW WHAT PRECEDENT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET IN THE CITY AND APPROVING THOSE THINGS AND WHERE IT COULD GO. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT I THINK THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE WEIGHED IN TO SEE IF THEY WOULD JUST PREFER A STRAIGHT UP VOTE.
RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNSELOR KEMP.
I GUESS I WOULD SAY IS THAT SO PART OF MY EX PARTE WAS I DID GO TO THE ARMY NAVY ACADEMY.
I SAW THE TOWER WITH MY OWN EYES, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ESTHETIC ISSUE AT ALL.
[03:10:05]
I THINK IT'S SMALL TO ME.I DON'T THINK IT'S I GUESS THE QUESTION I ASK IS, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE APPLICANT COULD MORE ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE CONFLICT IN TESTIMONY OVER COVERAGE AND THEN ALSO TWO I JUST FELT THAT THE REASONS WHY ALTERNATE SITES DIDN'T WORK, THE ANSWERS TO THOSE CAN THAT I MEAN, IF THAT CAN ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THOSE AND THAT'S WITHIN WHAT WE COULD REMAND.
IS THAT WITHIN THE BOUNDS TO THAT? YEAH. I GUESS JUST FROM WEIGHING TESTIMONY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COVERAGE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER PEOPLE GOT UP AND TESTIFIED, SAID THAT THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AT&T COVERAGE AS OPPOSED TO IN OTHER WORDS, WE CAN'T FAVOR ANY CARRIER OVER ANOTHER.
WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS THAT AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO CHOOSE MY WORDS CAREFULLY.
SHOULD BE ABLE. WELL, OKAY, I'LL LET THAT ONE GO, AND THEN HOW ABOUT I FEEL LIKE.
THERE YOU GO. SO I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO I GUESS I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STINE PRACTICAL LOOKING FOR IF WE'RE GOING TO REMAND THIS, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S HEADING TOWARDS A DEFEAT ON THREE ONE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM REMAND WITH THE MORE INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT SPECIFICALLY ON WHY EACH OF THOSE SITES DIDN'T WORK.
OKAY. SO I SHOULD ASK THE APPLICANT THAT.
YEAH. SO I GUESS WITH THAT APPLICANT BE IN SUPPORT OF COMING BACK WITH JUST A LITTLE MORE BEING ABLE TO FURTHER ADDRESS BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED IN THAT YOU MENTIONED ONE OF THE ONES IS AN APN, BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE ADDRESS TO IT.
RIGHT AND SO IT SEEMED LIKE THE THAT.
RIGHT? SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A BETTER ANSWER TO THOSE QUESTIONS.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S KIND OF NOT BEEN ANSWERED ADEQUATELY.
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO COME BACK IF WE REMANDED THIS TO WITH MORE PREPARATION TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IN MORE DETAIL? CHAIRMAN. YES.
I'M SORRY SIR, PERHAPS BEFORE WE ASK THE APPLICANT IF YOU KNOW HE'S ABLE TO GIVE US THOSE ANSWERS.
IF WE REMAND IT, I COULD I COULD SAY WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE REMANDED IT.
THE REASON I ASKED HIM IS BECAUSE COUNCILOR KEMP ASKED ME TO ASK HIM.
SO, I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE NOW? LET COMMISSIONER SABELLICO GIVE HIS REASONS FOR REMAND, BECAUSE WHATEVER YOUR MOTION, AND I'M NOT DISAGREEING, I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS HERE.
I KNOW THIS IS UNUSUAL, SO THANK YOU ALL FOR BEARING WITH ME.
SO I MEAN, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ARE THREE THINGS WHY THIS LIGHT POLE SPECIFICALLY WAS CHOSEN OVER THE OTHER LIGHT POLES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE WITHIN POINSETTIA PARK, WHICH ARE FARTHER AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
SECONDLY, A MORE COMPLETE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS SIMILAR TO WHAT COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN MERZ WAS SAYING, WITH TO INCLUDE MORE SITES AND ALSO TO INCLUDE A RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, AND FINALLY, EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COVERAGE MAP THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US.
THAT GOES BEYOND A MAP, BUT ACTUALLY EVIDENCE THAT SAYS THE MAP IS ACCURATE.
[CHUCKLING] SO THANK YOU. THAT WAS MUCH, MUCH BETTER.
I DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH NUMBER ONE BECAUSE I THINK THAT GETS INTO THE SETBACK ISSUE.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO STICK WITH TWO AND THREE, BUT THAT'S YOUR CALL OKAY.
SO I MEAN CAN WE JUST KEEP IT TO TWO AND THREE THEN.
NO, WELL I'M SORRY POLICY THERE.
LET ME BACK BACK THAT UP HERE.
WELL I MEAN YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE THE MOTION AND OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO NOW I GUESS IT JUST BE AGAINST THE HOLD UP.
[03:15:06]
RIGHT, AND THEN BUT THEN WE ALSO NEED THE APPLICANT TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.NO. NOT AGREEMENT, BUT WE'RE SAYING THAT HE COULD ASK FOR AN UP OR DOWN VOTE.
SAY NO, I DON'T WANT AND WE DON'T WANT UP AND DOWN VOTE RIGHT NOW.
CORRECT. RIGHT. SO THAT'S THAT WAS THE QUESTION YOU HAD ASKED EARLIER.
RIGHT. SO YOU KNOW, IF SO, THEN THE QUESTION IS THE APPLICANT NOW WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF REMANDING OR HE SAY NO, AS AN APPLICANT HE HAS A RIGHT TO AN UP OR DOWN VOTE.
OKAY. SO THEN THE COMMISSION IS ASKING FOR THE ONE, TWO AND THREE OF COMMISSIONER.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
SURE, AND I DO FEEL STRONGLY THAT NUMBER ONE SHOULD BE INCLUDED BECAUSE OF MY OPINIONS ON [INAUDIBLE] NO. PLEASE DON'T CLAP. THANK YOU.
BECAUSE OF MY OPINIONS ON POLICY 64.
SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO REMAND.
SHOULD I DO THAT NOW? SURE. OKAY. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO REMAND TO A LATER COUNCIL MEETING FOR STAFF TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHEN THIS AGENDA ITEM, AND BRING BACK A STAFF REPORT.
NUMBER TWO, A MORE COMPLETE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS WITH MORE SITES, INCLUDING A RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS CONCERNING THE APPLICANT SITE ANALYSIS, AND FINALLY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR COVERAGE MAP THAT THEY PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION.
OKAY, SO NOW WE SOME SECONDS THAT IF SOMEBODY WILL.
OKAY. WELL DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION.
I DO NOT SECOND, BUT MAY I COMMENT? I THINK WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT AS TO HIS PREFERENCE.
IS THE APPLICANT PREFER AN UP OR DOWN TONIGHT? WE BROUGHT HIM UP HERE.
MR. CHAIR I'D LIKE HIM TO KIND OF RESPOND AS TO WHETHER HE WOULD PREFER [INAUDIBLE] TONIGHT OR HE WOULD PREFER A REMAND.
I'M JUST THINKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT BECAUSE.
REGARDING THE COVERAGE, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT MORE I CAN PROVIDE WITH THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, AS I HAVE SHARED MULTIPLE TIMES WHEN WE DID THE NEW COVERAGE MAPS, THAT'S UP TO DATE.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT MORE WE CAN DO WITH THAT.
SO. SO IN REGARDS TO THAT ONE, I'M NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, LIKE I UNDERSTAND THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, BUT THIS IS A STUDY THAT WE HAVE HAD FROM THE RF ENGINEERS WHO RAN IT SEVERAL TIMES.
NOT ONE TIME IT WAS SEVERAL TIMES.
SO REGARDING THAT, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT MORE WE CAN DO WITH THAT.
CAN YOU CAN YOU ADDRESS THE THREE? THAT WAS OFFERED BY [INAUDIBLE].
HE WAS DOING THAT. SABELLICO AND COULD YOU ANSWER WHAT AT&T'S POSITION WOULD BE IN THOSE ONE, TWO AND THREE? OKAY.
WE'LL. WE'LL AGREE TO REMAND IT.
NO, THE QUESTION I WAS ASKING IS, COULD YOU ANSWER? I'M SORRY. NUMBER ONE, AND PARDON ME IF I GUESS THE QUESTION AND I APOLOGIZE.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT BACK AND FORTH, AND SOMETIMES IT GOES.
WELL, THE MOTION FOR ONE, TWO AND THREE IS ALREADY FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
I WAS JUST I JUST WAS INTERESTED.
SO WHEN YOU ASK ABOUT ONE, YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN A VOTE ON TWO AND THREE BECAUSE 1ST MAY BECOME MOOT IF YOU DECIDE TO VOTE YES ON TWO.
COUNSELOR, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
I THINK THERE WAS A PAUSE BEFORE A SECOND.
I MEAN, BECAUSE I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
SO WHICH MOTION? HIS. THE ONE HE MADE.
I WAS WAITING TO HEAR IF ANYONE ELSE WAS GOING TO SECOND THAT, BUT I WOULD SECOND HIS MOTION.
THEN HE NEEDS TO REMAKE IT BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED.
OKAY. GO AHEAD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
I MOVE THAT WE REMAND AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE TO A DATE TO BE DEEMED BY CITY STAFF AT A LATER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING F OR THIS ITEM AND BRING IT BACK TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ONE.
WHY THIS LIGHT POLE WAS CHOSEN OVER OTHER LIGHT POLES IN THE PARK?
[03:20:02]
CAN I INTERRUPT JUST FOR ONE SECOND? IF YOU DON'T PICK A DATE? WE HAVE TO RE NOTICE IT.SO YOU NEED TO PICK THE NEXT MEETING.
OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE JANUARY 17TH.
THANK YOU. I'M SORRY EVERYONE.
IT'S VERY LATE. I MOVE TO REMAND AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE TO THE JANUARY 17TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES EXPANDED UPON ONE.
WHY THIS LIGHT POLE WAS CHOSEN OVER OTHER LIGHT POLES IN THE PARK, WHICH ARE FARTHER AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS, TO A MORE COMPLETE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS WITH MORE SITES, INCLUDING A RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED SITE ANALYSIS, AND NUMBER THREE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COVERAGE MAP THAT WAS PRESENTED.
OKAY, AND I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
CAN CAN WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE ON THAT? SURE. YEAH.
HE SAYS, I CAN'T PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY MORE.
THERE'S NOTHING MORE THAT YOU HAVE.
DID I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT, SIR, THAT YOU CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING MORE YOU COULD PROVIDE US? NO, I'M SAYING THAT I'M NOT AT THIS TIME.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE I CAN PROVIDE, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO REMAND IT, THEN I WILL MAKE SURE TO GO BACK, BUT AT THIS TIME, I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE, GIVEN THE THREE REVISED COVERAGE MAPS THAT WE PROVIDED, BUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE REMANDED, I'LL MAKE SURE TO GO BACK TO THE RF ENGINEERS.
OH, SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU DON'T HAVE IT OFF THE TIP OF YOUR TONGUE TONIGHT.
YOU DON'T HAVE IT HERE, BUT YOU WOULD MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESPOND TO EACH OF THOSE THREE.
YES, SIR. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.
OKAY. SO WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS.
ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
LET'S VOTE, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO A VOICE VOTE THIS TIME.
THANK YOU. WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH OUR MACHINE TODAY.
I'LL GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM SO THE RECORD CAN SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER HUBINGER IS ABSENT.
COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN IS ABSENT.
[INAUDIBLE] YES, IT DOES BECAUSE IT'S A MINUTE MOTION.
A RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE NEEDS A MAJORITY, BUT THIS IS A MINUTE MOTION.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THIS PASSES 3-1.
SO IT WILL BE COMING BACK ON JANUARY 17TH.
NO, THEY WILL REVIEW PARTICIPATE.
THEY WILL AND THEY CAN PARTICIPATE.
SO THIS THIS WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE ARE DONE.
SO I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING OUT AND SO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
NO. WE CAN HAVE ASSOCIATE PLANNER DANNA MEET YOU OUT IN THE BACK TO HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
YEAH, WE STILL HAVE A FEW MORE BUSINESS ITEMS. OKAY. WOW, THAT WAS TOUGH STUFF.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? ANY REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE CITY PLANNER? YES. THANK YOU. OKAY.
I'LL WAIT TILL. YEAH, IF FOLKS HAVE THANKS FOR COMING.
YEAH. THANK YOU. WE'RE CONFUSED AS TO THE THREE ONE.
YOU CAN'T DO THIS. YEAH, TALK TO COMMISSIONER NOT COMMISSIONER, BUT WE'LL CONCLUDE THE MEETING IN A FEW MINUTES, AND WE CAN MEET YOU OUT FRONT AND EXPLAIN. YEAH.
I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE RON KEMP FOR HIS EXEMPLARY WORK AND SERVICE TO OUR COMMISSION.
HE IS A GENTLEMAN TO DEAL WITH, AND I AM SO SORRY THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE YOUR LAST MEETING, BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN THE HEART AND SOUL OF OUR COMMISSION IN TERMS OF PROVIDING VERY ACCURATE, VERY WISE, VERY THOUGHTFUL LEGAL ADVICE THROUGHOUT CERTAINLY THE FIVE YEARS THAT I'VE
[03:25:07]
BEEN HERE. SO I THINK WE WOULD BE REMISS IF WE DIDN'T SAY SOMETHING ON THE RECORD OF WHAT AN OUTSTANDING JOB YOU HAVE DONE AND WISH YOU SO VERY, VERY WELL IN YOUR RETIREMENT.COMMISSIONER. IT WAS WELL SAID COMMISSIONER STINE, BUT I ALSO I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH RON FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, BEING THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE LENGTH OF TIME I HAVE, AND IT'S BEEN AN ACTUAL PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU PROVIDE EXPERT ADVICE AND THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND VERY PROFESSIONAL, AND YOU ARE GOING TO BE MISSED HERE AT THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
YEAH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.
I AM PERSONALLY VERY GRATEFUL FOR YOUR SERVICE HERE IN CARLSBAD.
I FEEL THAT YOU HAVE YOUR COUNSEL HAS ALLOWED ME TO BECOME A MUCH BETTER COMMISSIONER THAN I OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN, AND YOU WILL BE SORELY MISSED. YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD IS IMMENSELY APPRECIATED, AND CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR WELL-EARNED RETIREMENT.
THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO MENTION, JUST ON A PERSONAL NOTE, HOW BEING CHAIR THIS YEAR AND THEN PRIOR TO THAT, YOU'RE ALWAYS SO AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ALL MY QUESTIONS AND HELP ME DO MY JOB BETTER, AND I ALSO WISH YOU THE VERY BEST OF RETIREMENT.
SO WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE SACRAMENTO.
YEAH. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'VE BEEN HERE ALMOST 20 YEARS.
IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO SERVE.
I'LL BE THINKING ABOUT YOU ON THE 18TH, BUT NOT REALLY, BUT BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS.
YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN GOOD HANDS WITH ATTORNEY FROST.
SHE'LL TAKE GOOD CARE OF YOU, AND IN A YEAR, YOU'LL BE SEEING RON.
WHO? DID YOU HAVE A CITY PLANNER WHEN REPORTS WERE COMING FROM A CITY PLANNER?
[CITY PLANNER REPORT]
JUST A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. WE CURRENTLY ARE GOING TO BE CANCELING THE DECEMBER 20TH AND JANUARY 4TH MEETINGS DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE HOLIDAYS.WE CURRENTLY HAVE A FEW ITEMS ON JANUARY 17TH.
I KNOW AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER HAS ASKED ABOUT FEBRUARY.
OKAY, AND THIS LAST CHANCE FOR COUNSELOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR REPORTS FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY? YAHOO! ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.