Jan 17, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting

WE WILL. NOW, I GUESS WE'LL GO RIGHT TO THE.

ALRIGHTY. LET'S SEE.

YEAH. OKAY. SO, THE COMMISSION SETS ASIDE THIS TIME UP TO 15 MINUTES TO ACCEPT COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA IS WITHIN THE SUBJECT

[PUBLIC COMMENT]

MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

MISS VIGELAND, HAS ANYONE, FILED A SPEAKER SLIP ON NONPUBLIC ITEMS? YES THREE.

OKAY, WONDERFUL. OKAY, SO, IF THEY COULD PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME CLEARLY.

AND ADDRESS, FOR OUR MINUTES CLERK, MISS VIGELAND.

OKAY, I'LL CALL YOUR NAMES AND IF YOU WANT TO LINE UP UNDER THE CLOCK WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER AT THE PODIUM, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

TIM MORGAN, GARY NESSIM AND ROBERT WILKINSON.

AND I'LL JUST SAY NOW BECAUSE THESE ARE NON-AGENDA ITEMS. WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON THOSE.

BUT WE DO OBVIOUSLY TAKE THOSE, TAKE THE TAKE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

WE JUST AREN'T GOING TO BE COMMENTING OR DISCUSSING THOSE THINGS.

MEMBERS OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION WE STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY NOT AS CONCERNED, NOT AS CONCERNED CARLSBAD RESIDENTS, BUT AS A COLLECTIVE GROUP OF CONCERNED RESIDENTS ON VALLEY STREET, VALLEY AND TAMARACK.

TOGETHER, WE ARE UNITED IN THE OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL FIELD FENCE PROJECT.

THERE'S SOME PICTURES ON VISUALS ON YOUR DESK.

THE PROJECT WILL COME ACROSS YOUR DESK SOON AND LACKS BOTH COASTAL LOCAL COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL AND COMMUNITY CONSENSUS, AND DEMANDS A REEVALUATION IN LIGHT OF THE IMPACT ON SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL BEAUTY AND THE SPIRIT OF CARLSBAD.

FIRST, THE GOAL OF THE FENCE WAS TO STOP ERRANT LACROSSE BALLS, WHICH ARE NOT FREQUENT, BY THE WAY, FROM ENTERING TWO RESIDENTS PROPERTIES ON TAMARACK AVENUES.

THE PROPOSED FENCE OF NETTING IS PLANNED TO CONSIST OF 14 POLES THAT ARE WHICH ARE UNMOVABLE, MEASURING 20FT HIGH, WHICH CREATES A RISK IN CHILDREN'S SAFETY AND IS NOT THE ANSWER. THE IMPOSING POLES AND NET WILL VISUALLY SCAR THE COASTAL LANDSCAPE, NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE SCENIC BEAUTY THAT DISTINGUISHES CARLSBAD.

WE AS THE RESIDENTS.

AS CARLSBAD RESIDENTS, TAKE PRIDE IN PROTECTING OUR NATURAL BEAUTY AND RUSHING THIS PROJECT THROUGH WITHOUT PROPER OVERSIGHT UNDERMINES WHAT WHAT CARLSBAD IS ALL ABOUT. SECOND, THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS UNACCEPTABLE.

[00:05:05]

CARLSBAD THRIVES ON OPEN DIALOG COLLABORATION AND COLLABORATION EXCLUDING RESIDENTS FROM THIS PROCESS DISREGARDS OUR VOICES AND THE STAKE IN IN THIS SHARED AREA.

THE PROJECT, CONCEIVED WITH ZERO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND EXCLUSIVITY.

THE VOICES OF RESIDENTS AND CONCERNED STAKEHOLDERS DESERVES TO BE HEARD AND ADDRESSED, WHICH WE ARE NOT.

THE FENCE WILL STAND AS A PHYSICAL AND SYMBOLIC BARRIER DIVIDING VALLEY STREET AND TAMARACK ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS LIKE ADDING NATURAL LANDSCAPE OR A TEMPORARY FENCE DURING THE LACROSSE CLUB SHORT THREE MONTH TIME PERIOD ARE SOLUTIONS CAN FOSTER A MORE OPEN AND WELCOMING ATMOSPHERE, BENEFITING BOTH STUDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY.

THEREFORE, I URGE YOU THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.

WHEN THE REQUEST FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COMES ACROSS JEFF MURPHY'S GROUP COMES ACROSS YOUR DESK, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS MISGUIDED PROJECT.

LET US PRIORITIZE STUDENT SAFETY THROUGH COMPREHENSIVE MEASURES, PROTECT THE IRREPLACEABLE BEAUTY OF OUR COAST, AND UPHOLD THE VALUES OF COLLABORATION AND OPEN COMMUNICATION THAT DEFINES OUR COMMUNITY WHICH IS CARLSBAD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. AND THERE'S VISUALS ON YOUR DESK, IF YOU DON'T MIND I HEAD BACK, I'M GOING TO THE SCHOOL BOARD RIGHT NOW AND AND PRESENTING IT IN FRONT OF THERE.

SO I APPRECIATE IT.

OKAY. OUR NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.

GARY NESSIM, 2987 HIGHLAND DRIVE.

I DIDN'T BRING ANY VISUAL, BUT IT'S BETTER THAN GIVING IT TO YOU AND TAKING IT AWAY, RIGHT? I CAME TO MAKE A COMMENT AND ASKED THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO HOW WE'RE DEALING WITH OUR LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS.

AND I THINK IT WOULD BE, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, BE FAR BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY AND LESS EXPENSIVE TO NOT ONLY ON THE LAND WE'RE TRYING TO SET ASIDE FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING, BUT FOR ANY PROJECTS THAT WE ATTEMPT TO BUILD LOW INCOME HOUSING AND NOT FORCE A DEVELOPER TO BUILD LOW INCOME HOUSING.

BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE WINDING UP WITH IS BY THE TIME YOU GIVE DENSITY BONUSES FOR EVERY, YOU'RE DOING ABOUT 10% LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS.

IN ALL THE PROJECTS YOU'RE GOING TO IN ORDER TO GET THE 3,000 OR SO PROJECTS WE'RE GOING TO, UNITS WE'RE GOING TO NEED IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD TEN TIMES THAT NUMBER OF UNITS OF MARKET RATE OR UPPER END UNITS.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS GIVE BONUSES AND BUILD ABOUT 30,000 EXTRA UNITS IN CARLSBAD.

SO IF WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO CAP OUT CARLSBAD, WHICH WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYMORE.

BUT YOU CAN DO IT BY JUST BUILDING THE 3,000 UNITS OR SO, DOING A DEAL WITH AFFIRMED HOUSING OR OTHER PEOPLE THAT DO LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS DIRECTLY, AND HELPING FUND THAT, AND WAITING FOR FEDERAL AND STATE HOUSING MONEY TO HELP THEM DO THAT, AND EVEN FUNDING SOME OF IT OURSELVES, AND NOT JUST GIVING A BONUS TO A DEVELOPER, BECAUSE THEN YOU ARE ASKING FOR MANY MORE UNITS TO BE BUILT.

NOW YOU HAVE LOTS OF EXPENSES, LIKE YOU NEED THAT MUCH MORE PARKLAND AND THAT MUCH MORE WATER AND SEWER AND EVERYTHING ELSE FOR THOSE 30,000 UNITS.

AND THE RESIDENTS, WHEN THEY STARTED OUT WANTING A CAP IN CARLSBAD THAT WAS TO KEEP OUR STANDARD OF LIVING AND OUR LIFESTYLE A CERTAIN WAY, AND YOU'RE KIND OF DOOMING US TO AN EXTRA 30,000 PEOPLE IF YOU SAY, WELL, WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, WE WANT THE DEVELOPERS TO DO THAT.

AND SO WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM BONUSES AND LET THEM BUILD, LET'S SAY, AT PLAZA CAMINO REAL.

WELL, YOU COULD BUILD 500 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, OR YOU COULD BUILD 5,000 WITH 4,500 UPPER END APARTMENTS THAT WE DON'T REALLY NEED AND 500 AFFORDABLE UNITS.

AND THEN YOU WIND UP WITH 5,000 MORE UNITS, WHICH IS ABOUT 10,000 MORE PEOPLE, INSTEAD OF JUST 1,000 MORE PEOPLE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

JUST THINK ABOUT THAT AND SEE IF YOU WANT TO PASS THAT ON TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ROBERT WILKINSON, CAMEO ROAD HERE IN CARLSBAD.

[00:10:01]

MY OBJECTIVE TONIGHT IS TO GET YOU OUR PLANNING COMMISSION, TO ASK STAFF TO BRING MY ISSUE BACK AS AN AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AND A VOTE. THE ISSUE IS THE IS A REQUIRED PHYSICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE SAME OR SIMILAR ARCHITECTURAL STYLES USED IN DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE.

THIS IS FOR ANY AND ALL BUILDINGS IN THE VILLAGE CORE.

THE GOAL IS TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE ECLECTIC ATMOSPHERE OF THE VILLAGE.

AS A SIDE NOTE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THIS ECLECTIC ATMOSPHERE CAN BECOME VISUALLY BUSY AND MAY NEED TO BE MANAGED AND CALMED.

CALMING IS USUALLY AND EFFECTIVELY DONE VIA THEMED STREET TREE PROGRAMS, BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE CORE.

GRAND AVENUE HAS OVER 12 OVER A DOZEN DIFFERENT TREE SPECIES AS STREET TREES.

I WOULD SURE LIKE TO SEE THE STAFFS AND THE COMMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PLANNING AND PARKS DEPARTMENT GET TOGETHER ON THAT STREET TREE ISSUE. PEACE, LOVE AND GOOD HEALTH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OKAY, THAT'S IT FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO IF EVERYONE WILL DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN, I'LL REVIEW THE PROCEDURES THE COMMISSION WILL BE FOLLOWING FOR TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. SO THE PROCEDURES ARE REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL ITEMS. AND REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED INTO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE ITEM COMMENCING.

ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS THAT TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THE PROCEDURES ARE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS OPEN.

WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF ON THAT PRESENTATION.

THE APPLICANT, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO, CAN MAKE A PRESENTATION.

AT THAT POINT, WE OPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND THEN WE HAVE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.

AND THEN THE APPLICANT IS CAN RESPOND TO THE PUBLIC IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO.

THEN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

IT GOES TOWARDS TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION, PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AND THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

NEXT SLIDE. CERTAIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE FILED BUT MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND 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 DIVISION AT 1635 FARADAY AVENUE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:30 AND 5:30 MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, AND 8 TO 5 ON FRIDAY.

AGAIN, A TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOWED EACH SPEAKER.

ITEM SUBMITTED FOR VIEWING, INCLUDING PRESENTATION DIGITAL MATERIALS, WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE TIME LIMIT MAXIMUM FOR SPEAKERS.

OKAY. THAT'S IT.

SO NOW WE WILL GO TO, WE'LL NOW OPEN, WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

[1. CUP 2022-2023 /CDP 2022-0070 (DEV2022-0206) POINTSETTIA PARK WCF (AT&T) ]

I THINK JUST TO NOTE THAT I WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC FOR, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, COMING BACK, IT WAS WE HAD A KIND OF INTERESTING CASE LAST TIME WHERE WE WERE SHORT.

THREE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS WERE GLAD TO HAVE EVERYONE BACK TONIGHT.

AND SO AND ALSO APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC COMING BACK TONIGHT FOR THIS, CONTINUATION OF THIS ITEM.

SO AGAIN, NOW WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.

MR. LARDY, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM? YES. BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I'D RECOMMEND WE DO EX PARTE.

OH, YEAH. I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.

YEAH. EX PARTE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME.

DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE ON THE ITEM? YES. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

YEAH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

BEEN THERE MANY TIMES. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN, I ALSO AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

OKAY. I'VE ALSO BEEN TO THE SITE.

OKAY. YES. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, PRIOR TO THIS BEING AN AGENDA ITEM, IN FRONT OF US, I HAD, AN EX PARTE DISCUSSION WITH ONE OF THE, PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NORA GEORGE.

AND, REGARDING THIS CELL TOWER, WHICH I WASN'T AWARE OF AT THE TIME.

SO I COULDN'T REALLY GIVE ANY GUIDANCE, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED SEVERAL, NEIGHBORS COMMUNICATIONS, VIA EMAIL THAT HAVE BEEN FORWARDED, TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND I'M A LONGTIME AT&T CUSTOMER OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

COMMISSIONER STINE. I'VE BEEN TO THE SITE SEVERAL TIMES.

[00:15:02]

YEAH. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THE EX PARTE FROM THE LAST MEETING? NO. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING NEW TO ADD, I HAVE NOTHING NEW TO ADD.

THANK YOU. YEAH, I YOU KNOW, FROM THE LAST MEETING, I ALSO VISITED THE SITE, SO.

YEAH. GREAT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. MR. LARDY, INTRODUCE ITEM, PLEASE.

ONE LAST THING AS A REMINDER, IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM, EACH COMMISSIONER WHO WAS ABSENT ON DECEMBER 6TH, MUST HAVE EXAMINED ALL THE EVIDENCE, INCLUDING LISTENING TO A RECORDING OF THE ORAL TESTIMONY, AND REPRESENT THAT THEY HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATTER.

SO FOR EACH OF YOU WHO ARE NOT PRESENT ON DECEMBER 6TH, I'D ASK YOU TO STATE FOR THE RECORD WHAT STEPS YOU TOOK TO FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING. RIGHT.

I WATCHED THE VIDEO AND READ THE MATERIALS THAT WERE SENT OUT.

I ALSO HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEO MORE THAN ONCE AND I'VE REVIEWED THE MATERIALS.

AND I WENT THROUGH THE VIDEOS AND REVIEWED ALL THE MATERIALS AS WELL, AND ALSO, LIKE I SAID, RECEIVED SEVERAL EMAILS FROM MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THAT AREA. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, I WILL INTRODUCE, KYLE VAN LEEUWEN AND ASSOCIATE PLANNER TO GIVE OUR STAFF PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, MR. LARDY.

YES. THIS PROJECT IS THE POINSETTIA PARK WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

AND THE APPLICANT IS AT&T.

THE PROJECT LOCATION IS THE 30 ACRE PARCEL THAT COMPRISES MOST OF POINSETTIA PARK.

THAT IS A 30 ACRE PARCEL.

THE SPECIFIC AREA PROPOSED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE FACILITY IS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE MAP AS WELL.

JUST TO QUICKLY GO OVER AND RECAP THE PROJECT.

THIS PROJECT IS A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW 78 FOOT TALL LIGHT POLE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING 78 FOOT TALL LIGHT POLE.

BELOW THE LIGHTS ON THE POLE WOULD BE INSTALLED SIX PANEL ANTENNAS, NINE RADIO UNITS, AND THREE SURGE PROTECTORS.

THAT EQUIPMENT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN A FOUR FOOT RADIUS, CYLINDER RADOME.

THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF GROUND EQUIPMENT, AND THAT WILL BE WITHIN AN ENCLOSURE.

AND THAT ENCLOSURE WOULD REPLACE AN EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE THAT IS NO NO LONGER NEEDED FOR THE PARK MAINTENANCE.

HERE IS A PHOTO SIMULATION OF THE PROJECT.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE NEW TOWER OR THE NEW FACILITY WOULD BE HAVE THE ANTENNAS WITHIN THE RADOME THERE ON THE POLE.

JUST TO GO OVER STAFF'S REVIEW AND REASONS FOR STAFF SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.

PER POLICY, 64 STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE PROJECT LOCATION IS CONSISTENT WITH POLICY 64.

AS PARKS ARE ON THE PREFERRED LOCATION LIST, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AN ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS, WHICH EXPLAINS WHY SITES THAT ARE HIGHER ON THAT PREFERRED LOCATION LIST WERE EITHER UNAVAILABLE OR, NOT FEASIBLE FOR THEIR INSTALLATION AND COVERAGE NEEDS.

THE PROJECT ALSO EXHIBITS A STEALTH DESIGN, AND A EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH POLICY 64 AND IS COMPLIANT WITH SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO PROVIDED DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT THE NOISE STANDARDS AND THE FCC RADIO FREQUENCY EXPOSURE LIMITS WOULD BE WITHIN THE ACCEPTABLE LIMITS, EITHER THOSE STANDARDS SET BY CARLSBAD OR BY THE FCC.

AT THE HEARING ON DECEMBER 6TH, THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED AND THEY THE COMMISSION DID GIVE DIRECTIONS TO THE APPLICANT TO RETURN WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS.

ALSO REQUESTED WAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON VERIFYING THAT THE COVERAGE LEVELS ARE LOW IN THE AREA, AND THAT ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT IS NEEDED IN THIS AREA.

THERE WAS ALSO A REQUEST TO, FURTHER EXPLAIN WHY THIS SPECIFIC LOCATION OR THIS SPECIFIC LIGHT POLE WAS CHOSEN WITHIN THE PARK AND NOT OTHER LIGHT POLES CONSIDERED.

AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AGAIN IS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

STAFF IS AWARE THAT THREE COMMISSIONERS WERE NOT HERE LAST TIME.

IF THERE'S ANY INFORMATION THAT WAS, SHOWN LAST TIME, THAT NEEDS TO BE GONE OVER AGAIN, ALL THE SLIDES THAT WERE SHOWN LAST TIME ARE AVAILABLE IF NEEDED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. VAN LEEUWEN. ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF? WOW. OKAY.

WOW. OKAY. WOULD THE WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? SO WE CAN GET THAT DOWN.

[00:20:04]

WELL. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

I'M JOHN HEFFERNAN WITH AT&TS EXTERNAL AFFAIRS TEAM.

MY OFFICE IS IN TUSTIN AND I'M A RESIDENT OF DANA POINT, SO I WAS HAPPY TO MAKE THE DRIVE DOWN FOR THIS.

THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, AT AT&T, WE PARTNER WITH VENDORS, WE CALL THEM OUR SITE ACQUISITION PARTNERS.

AND IN THIS CASE, WE PARTNERED WITH A FIRM CALLED MD7.

AND THEIR LEAD PROJECT MANAGER IS HERE TO PROVIDE THE OVERVIEW AND THE PRESENTATION AS WELL.

WE HAVE ONE OF OUR DEDICATED RF ENGINEERS THAT THAT TOOK TIME OUT OF HIS EVENING TO BE HERE FOR ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. AND NOW I'LL HAND IT OVER TO HAROLD FROM MD7.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE BEFORE YOU AGAIN TODAY.

MY NAME IS HAROLD THOMAS.

I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF MD7 AND AT&T, AND WE'RE SEEKING YOUR APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FACILITY AT 6600 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD.

OUR OBJECTIVE WOULD BE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE RELIABLE COVERAGE TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD AREA THROUGHOUT THE INSTALLATION OF OUR NEW FACILITY.

NOW, AGAIN, AS KYLE HAD SAID, THERE WERE THREE POINTS THAT WERE RAISED FOR US TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK WITH YOU WITH.

ONE WAS THE COVERAGE OBJECTIVES, AS WELL AS WITH RELOCATING THE SITE TO THE INTERIOR, AND THEN ALSO BEEFED UP ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, ALL OF WHICH I INTEND TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ANSWERS WITH YOU THIS EVENING.

I'LL START OFF WITH OUR COVERAGE AREA.

THIS WAS DONE BY US, AS YOU WILL SEE, WE HAVE IN OUR TARGET AREA THE POINSETTIA PARK, WHICH YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE IS THAT THERE'S FOUR IDENTIFYING COLORS GREEN, YELLOW, RED AND WHITE.

NOW FOR THE GREEN.

WHAT THOSE ARE THOSE ARE AREAS WITH RELIABLE COVERAGE BOTH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR, WHICH YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE IS THAT YELLOW ARE AREAS WHERE YOU'LL HAVE RELIABLE FAIR COVERAGE, WHICH IS RELIABLE OUTDOORS, BUT NOT SO MUCH INDOORS.

RED IS WHAT YOU'LL SEE WHERE YOU HAVE UNRELIABILITY BOTH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR.

ANY AREAS THAT ARE NOTICED IN IN WHITE OR CLEAR ARE.

THOSE ARE AREAS WITH LITTLE TO NO RELIABILITY.

YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE THAT THERE ARE BLUE DOTS ON THE SCREEN.

JUST SO YOU CAN KNOW.

JUST TO CLARIFY, THOSE ARE AREAS WITH AT&T SMALL CELLS.

THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SITE.

AS YOU'LL SEE, THAT LARGE AREA THAT WAS LARGELY, WHITE BECOMES STRONG GREEN COVERAGE.

IT'S ALSO ABLE TO BRIDGE THE GAP AND BE ABLE TO WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SMALL CELLS THAT WE HAVE AT THE AREA.

NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WAS THE VALIDITY OF OUR CONCERNS.

IF WE COULD BE ABLE TO REACH OUT TO A THIRD PARTY.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DID DO.

WE REACHED OUT TO A THIRD PARTY, TO PROVIDE, TO ASK THEM TO RUN DATA TESTS AS WELL, TO VERIFY IF OUR COVERAGE WAS ACCURATE. WHAT THEY PERFORMED WAS A DRY DATA TEST.

THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY PERFORMED AND SEE OVER IN, WAS KIND OF HARD.

I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S NOT SHOWING THERE, BUT EITHER WAY, OVER IN THAT AREA THAT IS LARGELY RED TO YELLOW, THAT IS THE POINSETTIA PARK AREA, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE THIRD PARTY THAT WE HAD REACHED OUT TO, THEY ARE VERIFYING AND VALIDATING OUR COVERAGE MAPS.

NOW SECOND POINT WAS RELOCATION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY THAT WAS RAISED WAS COULD WE MOVE TO THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE? WELL, WE WOULD NOT.

WE WERE NOT ABLE TO RELOCATE TO THE INTERIOR SITE FOR THREE REASONS.

ONE, WHEN WE HAD CONDUCTED OUR DESIGN VISIT WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, THEY HAD SHARED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO TAKE UP ANY USABLE SPACE AT ALL, SO ANY RELOCATION TO THE INTERIOR WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN UP THAT USABLE SPACE.

SECOND, WHERE OUR CURRENT PROJECT IS, THERE ARE ALSO EXISTING EQUIPMENT UNDERGROUND, NOTABLY BY THE MAINTENANCE.

SO THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON AS TO WHY WE CHOSE THE SITE.

THIRD, AND FINALLY, THERE'S ISSUES WITH ELEVATION.

IF WE WERE TO MOVE OUR SITE FURTHER INWARD, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN FACING A LOSS OF ELEVATION, WHICH WOULD THEN HAVE TO POSSIBLY BE COMPENSATED WITH, A TALLER TOWER.

SO THOSE ARE THE REASONS AS TO WHY WE COULDN'T RELOCATE FURTHER INWARD.

NOW THE THIRD AND THE FINAL ONE WAS, ALTERNATIVE SITES.

THERE WAS QUESTIONS AS TO HOW OUR ALTERNATIVE SITES IF IT WASN'T ENOUGH.

I AM GLAD TO SAY THAT, AFTER THAT, I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH SOMEBODY FROM THE HOA.

THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO SEND ME ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR US TO LOOK AT, AND I WAS IN CONTACT WITH THIS PERSON UP INTO, TONIGHT.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FOUND FROM THOSE, ALTERNATIVE SITES.

[00:25:03]

AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I CAN ALSO GO MORE IN DETAIL.

BUT NINE OUT OF THE TEN OF THOSE WERE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF OUR TARGET AREA.

FOR THOSE REASONS, IT WOULDN'T ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE OUR NETWORK PER POLICY 64, I BELIEVE BULLET TWO.

AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, SIX OUT OF THE TEN OF THOSE SITES THAT WERE PROPOSED TO US WERE ALREADY BEING PROVIDED COVERAGE BY AT&T FACILITIES LESS THAN 0.6 MILES AWAY.

SO TAKING ALL THESE INTO CONSIDERATION, THOSE WERE THE REASONS WHY WE WERE NOT ABLE TO LOCATE ONTO THOSE OTHER SITES.

FINALLY, ONE OF THE THINGS TO NOTE IS THAT OUR NETWORK IS UTILIZING A SOFTWARE NETWORK KNOWN AS FIRSTNET.

NOW, WHAT FIRSTNET IS, IS THAT IT'S A DEDICATED NETWORK FOR FIRST RESPONDERS IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, AND THAT WAY THEY'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH EACH OTHER IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY.

POINSETTIA PARK IS A HEAVILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

ONE OF THE BENEFITS BY HAVING OUR TOWER HERE IS THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, THOSE FIRST RESPONDERS CAN BE ABLE TO TALK AMONGST EACH OTHER, DEVOTE RESOURCES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, AND AS WE KNOW, IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, THE LAST THING WE WANT TO WORRY ABOUT IS NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE RIGHT AUTHORITIES AND ALSO WITH THE AUTHORITIES NOT BEING ABLE TO, COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER, FAST.

SO BEING ABLE TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS ABLE TO BUILD ON TOP OF WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE, BUT ALSO JUST IN THE BENEFIT OF AT&T.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I ALSO HAVE CHRISTIAN SOTO, AS YOU WOULD REQUESTED FOR AN RF, IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

AND THEN YOU MENTIONED THE OTHER WHO'S THE OTHER PERSON THAT YOU INTRODUCED ALSO? YES, SIR. THAT IS CHRISTIAN SOTO.

HE IS OUR RF ENGINEER, SIR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO HE'S AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS ALSO? YES, SIR. GREAT. SO OKAY. SO NOW ARE THERE ANY, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? YES. COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YES. QUICK QUESTION IN REGARD TO THE FIRST, FIRST NET.

YES, SIR. THAT'S GOING TO BE IT'S PROPOSED TO BE ON THIS PARTICULAR POLE IN QUESTION.

YES. IS IT ON OTHER AT&T POLES IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS? YES, SIR. ON ALL OF THEM.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

OKAY. LET'S SEE COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

SO LET ME LET ME JUST UNDERSTAND.

IF YOU WEREN'T GIVEN THIS LOCATION AND YOU HAD TO GO BACK TO ZERO.

WHAT WOULD BE YOUR PLAN? WELL, THE ISSUE WITH IF WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GO THROUGH HERE IS THAT A LOT OF THE SITES ARE ALREADY BEING, LOOKED AT.

I MEAN, LET ME LET ME BACKTRACK.

WE WOULD FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT.

THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE THERE ARE PREFERRED ZONES.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO IS WE LOOK AT PREFERRED ZONES.

WE ALSO HAVE THE TARGET AREA.

UNFORTUNATELY WITH OUR TARGET AREA, POINSETTIA PARK, THAT ENTIRE AREA IS HIGHLY RESIDENTIAL.

SO THE ONLY VIABLE OPTION IS THE POINSETTIA PARK IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT COVERAGE TO THE NORTH, I BELIEVE OVER BY 5805 ARMADA DRIVE, THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING FACILITY THAT'S NEAR THERE.

ADDITIONALLY, MORE ALONG POINSETTIA LANE, THERE IS A IF YOU CAN GIVE ME ONE SECOND, I CAN PROVIDE THE ANSWER.

ALONG NEAR POINSETTIA LANE, WHERE THERE'S A CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER TANK THAT IS ALREADY SERVICING THE AREA THAT WAS SHOWN IN THE COVERAGE MAP IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER.

SO IF WE WERE NOT AT THIS LOCATION, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY VIABLE, OPTIONS, I GUESS.

I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS THAT I WORKED IN A BIG COMPANY, A $100 BILLION COMPANY.

WE ALWAYS HAD CONTINGENCIES ON TOP OF CONTINGENCIES ON TOP OF CONTINGENCIES.

SO I'M KIND OF ASKING.

WHAT CONTINGENCY? I JUST WANT TO EXPLORE A LITTLE BIT.

WHAT KIND OF CONTINGENCIES? IF YOU WEREN'T GIVEN THIS APPROVAL I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST.

IT'S ALL CONJECTURE.

WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE? WHAT ALTERNATIVES DO YOU HAVE? I'M JUST TRYING TO.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE OF YOUR COMPANY IN TERMS OF WHAT OPTIONS WE HAVE, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THOSE OPTIONS, YOU KNOW.

SURE, SURE. YEAH. YEAH, I CAN HELP WITH THAT AND STAY CLOSE.

SO YEAH, NEW TO THE PROJECT.

I HAD A COLLEAGUE WHO WAS IN THE NORTH SAN DIEGO AREA FOR FOR A DECADE AND A HALF, JOHN OSBORNE.

MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE WORKED WITH HIM.

HE RECENTLY RETIRED. SO, I WAS ABLE TO TAKE OVER THE THIS BEAUTIFUL PART OF COASTAL NORTH COUNTY.

[00:30:05]

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, ULTIMATELY, IF WE CAN FIND NO VIABLE OPTION, EITHER ECONOMICALLY OR TECHNOLOGICALLY THAT FITS WITHIN THE PREFERRED ZONES, WE GO TO THE RIGHT OF WAY BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE PER, THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.

WE HAVE A FRANCHISE, RIGHT.

BUT AS AS HAROLD WAS MENTIONING IT JUST IT CHANGES THINGS, RIGHT? WE CAN'T WE'RE YOU KNOW, I HEARD SOMEONE REFER TO THIS AS A TOWER BEFORE THERE'S AN EXISTING POLE THERE.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, 70 PLUS FEET.

WE'RE ATTACHING ANTENNAS TO AN EXISTING POLE.

WE'RE REPLACE THAT, BUT IT'S THE EXACT SAME HEIGHT.

WE COULDN'T DO THAT IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

AND FRANKLY, WE COULDN'T DO IT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

THERE ARE SMALLER TYPES OF FACILITIES, SOME THAT WE PUT ON ROOFTOPS.

BUT AT THIS HEIGHT, WITH THIS SIGNAL PROPAGATION, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REPLACE THIS DESIGN FOR A LIGHT DESIGN IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE, I DON'T KNOW, 6 OR 8 TO HAVE THE SAME COVERAGE.

I MEAN, THAT WAS A PRETTY I'VE BEEN TO A LOT OF THESE.

THAT'S A PRETTY DRAMATIC PICTURE THAT THAT PROPAGATION MAP PAINTED ABOUT WHAT OUR EXISTING COVERAGE IS AND WHAT THE BENEFIT WILL BE ONCE IT'S INSTALLED.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I KNOW, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES FOLKS WILL PULL OUT THEIR PHONE AND THEY'LL TEXT SOMEONE OR MAYBE THEY'LL RECEIVE A CALL WHILE THEY'RE OUTSIDE.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S VARYING DEGREES OF SIGNAL STRENGTH AND AND QUALITY OF SERVICE.

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS TO PROVIDE OUR AT&T CUSTOMERS AND THE COMMUNITY QUALITY SERVICE NOT ONLY WHEN THEY'RE OUTSIDE IN THEIR CAR, BUT IF THEY'RE IN THEIR HOME.

AND THAT'S NOT JUST VOICE, IT'S NOT JUST TEXT.

IT'S NOW DATA.

IF SOMEBODY'S WATCHING A CAT VIDEO OR DOING A ZOOM CALL FROM HOME ON THEIR PHONE.

OKAY. ONE LAST QUESTION.

OKAY. SO IS THAT AT A AT A COST BASE OF ZERO.

SO YOUR OPTIONS ARE YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO INCUR ADDITIONAL COSTS.

BUT IF YOU WERE TO INCUR ADDITIONAL COSTS IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FOR THE COMPANY, FOR THE COMPANY, BUT IT'S IT'S IT'S A IT'S A POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR, YOU KNOW, THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS.

HAVE YOU EXPLORED THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN ADDITIONAL COST? YEAH. WE HAVEN'T REALLY GONE DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE COST HASN'T BEEN THE ISSUE WE'RE LOOKING TO.

WE PARTNER WITH JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, FOLLOW THEIR CODE, FOLLOW THEIR DESIGN STANDARDS, AND ENSURE THAT OUR VENDORS WORK WITH, YOU KNOW, THEY PARTNER WITH THE CITY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET A QUALITY COMPLETE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON THE FRONT END.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT COST SPECIFICALLY, AGAIN, NOT BEING AN ENGINEER AND NOT LOOKING AT IT, WE WOULD TAKE A HIT ON OUR COVERAGE.

SO BASED ON THE THE QUALITY OF OUR COVERAGE, AND WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SITES THAT WE DEPLOY.

THANK YOU. SURE.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU, YOU KNOW, VERIFYING YOUR COVERAGE MAP WITH THE THIRD PARTY.

IT SORT OF BRINGS UP ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I DIDN'T ASK AT THE LAST MEETING.

SO CELL PHONES HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR 30 YEARS.

SO HOW HAS AT&T COVERAGE BEEN? HAS IT JUST NOT HAD COVERAGE IN THIS AREA FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS? I CAN HELP YOU OUT. BEING THE GUY WITH THE GRAY HAIR, I GUESS I CAN, I COULD SPEAK TO THAT.

SO WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THE DEMAND ON THE NETWORK, RIGHT? SO WHEN CELL PHONES FIRST CAME OUT, IT WAS, HEY, PUSH THE NUMBER THREE THREE TIMES TO GET THE LETTER C AND TO SEND A TEXT OR JUST TO BE ABLE TO RECEIVE A CALL RIGHT ON YOUR FLIP PHONES. SO NOW WE HAVE WE HAVE COMPUTERS THAT ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE DESKTOP COMPUTERS BACK IN THE 80S IN OUR POCKETS WITH THESE.

SO, AND IT'S NOT JUST CALLS, IT'S NOT JUST TEXT, IT'S IT'S VIDEO AND IT'S DOWNLOAD, IT'S UPLOAD.

SO IT'S IT'S VERY DYNAMIC.

AND WE, YOU KNOW, TO BE HONEST, WE SCRAMBLED FOR SEVERAL YEARS CATCHING UP WITH CONSUMER DEMAND.

AND NOW WE ARE FINALLY ABLE TO, DEFINE THOSE POCKETS IN COMMUNITIES WHERE THERE IS A NETWORK GAP BECAUSE WE DON'T APPROACH A JURISDICTION AND WE DON'T EXPECT APPROVAL FOR A SITE UNLESS WE CAN, YOU KNOW, DISPLAY THAT THERE IS A TRUE COVERAGE GAP.

AND THAT'S WHAT THAT PROPAGATION MAP, SHOWS YOU.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE I WAS KIND OF LATE TO THIS PROJECT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE, HAVE REALLY SHOWED A COLLABORATIVE SPIRIT IN GOING AT THE CITY'S REQUEST TO A THIRD PARTY TO DO AN ADDITIONAL TEST, VALIDATING.

I GUESS THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE MAKING STUFF UP AND JUST GETTING ON, YOU KNOW, ON THE COMPUTER WITH CRAYONS, MAKING COLORS UP.

WE HAVE A WHOLE ARMY OF ENGINEERS THAT MONITORS OUR NETWORK PERFORMANCE, WEEK IN AND WEEK OUT, BECAUSE IT'S, AS YOU KNOW, IT'S A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE AND WE WANT TO DELIVER FOR

[00:35:08]

OUR CUSTOMERS. THANKS.

THE COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

DO YOU HAVE SO ALONG THE SAME LINES AS COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, DO YOU HAVE ANY STEP CHANGE TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR THAT COULD MITIGATE HAVING TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS? NO, WHAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT THE WIRELESS IS CHANGING IN A WAY THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE SPEEDS ARE CHANGING WHERE IT'S IT'S BECOMING A REPLACEMENT POTENTIAL FOR WIRED CONNECTIVITY IN PEOPLE'S HOMES.

SO INSTEAD OF HAVING THE ETHERNET CONNECTION TO THE SIDE OF YOUR DESKTOP COMPUTER AND LIKE, BOY, IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT, GOOD LUCK.

WELL, NOW THE SIGNAL STRENGTH AND THE UPGRADES TO THESE MACRO SITES, AS THIS IS REFERRED TO, AS OPPOSED TO A SMALL CELL SITE THAT'S ATTACHED TO AN EDISON POLE OR IS PLUGGED ON TOP OF AN EXISTING STREETLIGHT.

THE MACRO SIDE SIGNAL STRENGTH IS STRONG ENOUGH WHERE WE'RE SEEING SPEEDS THAT COMPETE WITH THE WIRED CONNECTIVITY.

SO REALLY IT'S THE IT'S KIND OF THE REVERSE.

THIS TECHNOLOGY IS NOT BEING REPLACED BY SOMETHING ELSE.

THIS TECHNOLOGY AND THE SIGNAL STRENGTH IS ACTUALLY KIND OF COMPETING NOW WITH THE WIRED CONNECTIVITY.

[INAUDIBLE] QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. SOTO. YOU'RE THE ENGINEER, SIR.

YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MR. SOTO, WE RECEIVED AT THE LAST HEARING.

I EXPECT WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE TONIGHT QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC CONCERNS ABOUT HEALTH ISSUES, ABOUT IMPACTS OF EMISSIONS, RF EMISSIONS FROM THE SITE. AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF THOSE EMISSIONS, THE MAGNITUDE OF THOSE EMISSIONS, AND IN CONTEXT OF I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET UP ON OUR SCREEN, BUT IT'S PAGE 73 OF OUR STAFF REPORT.

IT'S IT SAYS ELEVATION SIMULATION.

I'M WONDERING, SIR, IF YOU COULD KIND OF ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THAT IN TERMS OF WHERE THESE EMISSIONS WOULD BE GOING AND WHAT WOULD BE THE DANGER ZONES, AND, AND COMPARE THAT TO WHERE THE CLOSEST RESIDENTS WOULD BE.

COULD YOU DO THAT, SIR? WELL, I CAN PROBABLY EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW IT WORKS.

EMISSIONS WORKS, BUT I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON HEALTH.

COULD YOU COULD STAFF GET THAT UP ON THE SCREEN HERE A LITTLE BIT THAT WE CAN GET A GOOD VISUAL? CALLED ELEVATION SUMMATION.

RIGHT. YEAH.

OUR SYSTEM [INAUDIBLE] CONSIDERED A DIRECTIONAL OR SECTORAL SECTORAL SITES.

RIGHT. SO WE HAVE AZIMUTH ANTENNA POINTING TO A SPECIFIC DIRECTION.

SO THE RF PROPAGATES DIRECTLY TO THE FRONT.

RIGHT. IF THERE IS OBSTRUCTION IT MIGHT REFLECT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

BUT IT'S SIMPLEST STRAIGHT LINE PROPAGATION FROM, FROM THE SIGNAL IN REGARDS TO TO LIKE IF FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE WE ARE TRYING TO COMPLY WHEREVER OUR THIRD PARTY VENDOR IS TELLING US THAT IT'S SAFE, TO WORK WITH.

AND THE REPORT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT, THAT'S IT.

EXCUSE ME. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

YES. COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT, SIR, PLEASE? YEAH. SO THE REPORT IS EXPLAINING THAT, AT, A LEVEL OF 77FT BECAUSE THE, LIKE I SAID, THE SIGNAL IS, PROPAGATES TO THE FRONT, RIGHT TO THE FRONT OF THE ANTENNA.

IT'S SAYING THAT IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL IF YOU'RE FOR IF YOU COULD BE HARMFUL, AT 44FT IN FRONT OF THE ANTENNA.

RIGHT.

CLEARS ANYTHING BELOW THAT THE RADIO, POSITION.

RIGHT. SO IN QUICK CALCULATION, ISN'T THAT ABOUT 55FT ABOVE THE GROUND WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE THE FIRST AREA THAT WOULD BE BLUE, WHERE YOU COULD HAVE ANY SAFETY ISSUES.

IS THAT ROUGHLY ACCURATE, SIR? IT'S ROUGHLY THE ANTENNAS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS ARE SIX FOOT AND RADIATION CENTER FOR US IS GOING TO BE AROUND 70FT.

SO IF YOU CONSIDER, THREE FEET DOWN PLUS, A SET OF RADIOS, WHICH IS ANOTHER TWO FEET, THAT'S PROBABLY AROUND WHAT YOU'RE ESTIMATING ABOUT, ABOUT, PROBABLY 60FT.

OKAY. AND BEYOND THE BLUE WAVES THAT I SEE ON BOTH SIDES, THAT WOULD BE AN AREA WHERE THERE WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT RF EMISSIONS THAT IN ANY WAY WOULD APPROACH THE FEDERAL STANDARDS.

IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT, SIR? AND ANYTHING THAT IS NOT COLORED IS CONSIDERED TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE FCC FOR ZERO ZERO.

OKAY. AND THIS TALKS ABOUT THERE ARE CERTAIN CAUTIONARY SIGNAGE UP ON THE POLES.

WOULD THAT BE NOT FOR THE PUBLIC ITSELF OR SOMEBODY USING A BALL FIELD?

[00:40:03]

WOULD THAT BE PRIMARILY FOR A WORKER, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO WOULD BE CLIMBING THE POLE TO DO SOME MAINTENANCE WORK OR OTHER WORK UP THERE? TO FOR WHOEVER HAS A NEED TO GO UP, PROBABLY, AND BE, IN FRONT OF THOSE AREAS.

OKAY. AND SO BEYOND THAT, THERE'S NOTHING.

AGAIN, WE'RE STUCK WITH THE FEDERAL STANDARDS.

LIKE THEM OR NOT, CARLSBAD CAN'T DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN ANOTHER CITY BEYOND WHAT I'M SEEING OF THOSE BLUE WAVES.

THEN THE YOUR, YOUR, YOUR FEELING IS THERE'S NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER, NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE FEDERAL STANDARDS? NOT BASED ON THE FCC GUIDELINES.

CORRECT. THANK YOU.

AND I WOULD JUST ADD, COMMISSIONER, THAT ALSO APPLIES TO SOMEONE WHO HAS TO GO UP AND CHANGE MAYBE A LIGHT THAT'S THAT'S ABOVE THE LIGHT STANDARD.

WE HAVE NUMBERS ON THERE AT THE GROUND LEVEL.

THEY NOTIFY US.

WE'LL BRING DOWN THE SITE.

THEY TELL US, HEY, WE NEED TO DO SOME WORK FOR THE NEXT 60 MINUTES TO GET UP THERE.

GET DOWN. WE ACTUALLY BRING DOWN THE SITE SHOULD THERE'S OTHER SITES WHERE MAYBE WE'RE CO-LOCATED WITH ANOTHER CARRIER OR IN THIS CASE, A LIGHT STANDARD, WHICH ARE OFTEN USED IN PARK SETTINGS, TO PROVIDE LIGHTING.

SOMETIMES WE ADD LIGHTS TO OUR TOWERS TO INCREASE ILLUMINATION, BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S ALREADY THERE.

I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW IT'S NOT ONLY OUR WORK, BUT ANYONE WHO NEEDS TO GET UP THAT, GET UP THAT LIGHT STANDARD.

WE CAN BRING DOWN THAT SITE TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE SAFE.

SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE A CITY EMPLOYEE WHO NEEDED TO DO SOME WORK.

HE OR SHE AT THE TOP THERE ON THE LIGHT, BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A LIGHT ON THE TOP FOR THE BALL FIELDS.

RIGHT? CORRECT.

AND, YOU KNOW, A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE, I REFERRED TO THE SMALL CELL SITES THAT WE ATTACH TO THE TOP OF STREETLIGHTS.

SOMETIMES JURISDICTIONS WILL PUT A STREET BAND, YOU KNOW, BANNERS UP FOR THE HOLIDAYS.

SO THAT'S A COMMON OCCURRENCE WHERE WE'RE NOTIFIED.

AND THAT'S WHY THOSE PLAQUES AND THOSE, THOSE WARNING SIGNS ARE CRITICAL.

SO YOU COULD TURN IT OFF OR TURN IT DOWN SOME WAY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THOSE WORKERS.

CORRECT. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN, DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND EARLIER? DID YOU HAVE A. OKAY.

OKAY, YEAH. WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY, SO SINCE WE'RE DONE WITH THAT PART, WE'LL NOW, WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

AND WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS, I ASSUME? YES. OKAY. OKAY, SO YOU COULD CALL THE SPEAKERS UP AND ORDER AND STATE, PLEASE AGAIN, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

OKAY. GRETCHEN M ASHTON WILL BE SPEAKING FOR A GROUP OF FOUR.

I JUST NEED, GRETCHEN TO COME TO THE PODIUM, AND THEN DAVE AND THEN THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE.

IF YOU COULD STAND AND SHOW ME THAT YOU'RE PRESENT.

DAVE GEORGE, EDWARD B, EILEEN HEIMLICH.

AND THEN SHE WANTED YOU TO HAVE HER HANDOUTS AS WELL.

AND HOW MANY SPEAKERS? HOW MANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY? 14. OKAY. THANK YOU.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY.

OKAY. I WANTED TO MAKE HANDOUTS FOR YOU BECAUSE SOME OF OUR AGENDA PACKETS ARE GETTING SO BIG THESE DAYS.

AND I THINK MY EMAIL WAS ON LIKE PAGE 114.

SO, AND ALSO, STAFF HAD RESPONDED TO A COUPLE OF THINGS IN MY EMAIL THAT I SENT AHEAD OF TIME.

BUT LET ME KNOW THAT MANY OF THE ITEMS WOULD NOT BE RESPONDED TO UNLESS YOU ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IT.

OKAY. SO I'LL GET GOING.

I'M GRETCHEN ASHTON, AND I'M REPRESENTING A GROUP OF NEIGHBORS.

I LIVE AT THE EDGE OF A 600 FOOT RADIUS EAST OF POINSETTIA PARK AT ONE 204 ABELIA AVENUE, AND I ALSO OWN A HOME IN CARLSBAD PARKSIDE, A FEW DOORS EAST OF THE ENTRANCE TO POINSETTIA PARK.

MY BACKGROUND INCLUDES A DOZEN YEARS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, WORKING MY WAY UP THROUGH ALL ASPECTS TO ONE OF THE TOP TEN DEVELOPERS IN CALIFORNIA. AFTER THAT, IN SELF-EMPLOYMENT, I HELPED PREPARE EIR REPORTS FOR BOTH SAN ALEJO RANCH AND FOR THE COASTER I RECENTLY SERVED ON THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION.

CAN YOU HEAR ME HERE STILL? OKAY. I'M THE FOUNDER OF THE CARLSBAD COMMUNITY GARDENS COLLABORATIVE.

I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A FEW OTHER CITY MATTERS, LIKE PROPERTY RELATED FEES FOR TRASH AND WATER.

A FEW DAYS AGO, I FOUND SOME TIME TO REVIEW A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FROM JUNE OF 2021.

THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO WAS RECOMMEND.

THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING, WHICH WAS RECOMMENDED BY MR. CHADWICK, WAS TO BRIEF OUR MAYOR AND COUNCIL IN PREPARATION FOR THE UPCOMING UPDATES TO POLICY 64.

[00:45:02]

THEN THAT PRESENTATION WAS INFORMATIVE AND IT WAS DONE BY TELECOM LAW FIRM.

THE MOST SIGNIFICANT TAKEAWAY FROM THAT PRESENTATION WAS THAT THE CITY IS THE LOCAL REGULATOR, NOT AT&T, NOT THE FCC OR ANYBODY ELSE.

AND IT IS THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY LEGALLY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE.

AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE POLICY 64.

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT POLICY 64 BE INTERPRETED IN ITS PUREST FORM AND FOR THE MOST POSITIVE OUTCOMES FOR OUR COMMUNITIES AND CITIZENS.

AND AT&T MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE FCC WITH POLICY 64 AND MORE TO YOUR SATISFACTION, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY.

SO I'M GOING TO GO TO SLIDE ONE.

LET'S SEE WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

AND I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THIS WITH YOU TOGETHER.

THE FIRST THING THAT I WANT TO TELL YOU IS THAT AT THAT 40 SOME FOOT LEVEL, AT&T IS COMPLETELY OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH FCC REQUIREMENTS, BOTH FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND OCCUPATIONALLY.

THE SECOND THING IS THAT THERE IS A WORST CASE POWER DENSITY ANALYSIS IN THE RFM REPORT, WHICH IS AMBIGUOUS.

I MENTIONED PERFECT SIGNAL PROPAGATION, BECAUSE IT'S CONSIDERED A WORST CASE SCENARIO, AND IT'S A METHOD FOR US TO UNDERSTAND HOW RF MOVES THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE. AND THEN AT&T IS OUT OF POLICY OR OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY 64.

IN THESE REGARDS INAPPROPRIATE VISIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC, THE NOISE OF THE GENERATOR IS INCONSISTENT WITH CITY ORDINANCES.

OUR CITY ORDINANCE DAYTIME IS 55 [INAUDIBLE] AND THEIR REPORT SAYS IT'S 60.

THERE'S A MISTAKE RIGHT THERE BEFORE THEY EVEN GET INTO THE ANALYSIS.

AND THE DIESEL FUMES INTERRUPT OUR USE OF THE PARK.

ALONG WITH THAT NOISE, MONOPOLES SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED WITHOUT ADEQUATE SITE ANALYSIS TO THE CITY'S SATISFACTION.

AND I KNOW A LOT OF US FEEL LIKE WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN THAT YET.

AND SETBACKS MUST BE FROM ALL EQUIPMENT, NOT THE TOWER, FROM THE EQUIPMENT.

AND THEN HEIGHT HAS TO BE THE SAME.

THIS TOWER IS ABOUT FIVE FEET TALLER.

THE REPLACEMENT TOWER IS ABOUT FIVE FEET TALLER.

SO NOW I'M GOING TO SKIP AHEAD.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

LET'S SEE. NOT THAT ONE.

WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT ONE.

I'M TRYING TO HURRY, SO I'M KIND OF NERVOUS BECAUSE I WANT TO GET TO EVERYTHING.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT TAKEAWAY FROM THE TELECOM PRESENTATION IS THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE IN THE FUTURE.

FORTUNATELY, OUR CITY OFFICIALS INCLUDED THE SHROUD, AND IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT GIVES US SOMEWHAT CONTROL OVER WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN DOWN THE ROAD.

IF YOU APPROVE THIS POLL, AND APPROVAL OF ANY APPLICATION AUTOMATICALLY ALLOWS THE WIRELESS COMPANIES TO MODIFY THEIR TOWERS WITHIN FCC LIMITS.

LOOK AT THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE.

THIS WAS SOURCED FROM THAT JUNE 23RD MEETING.

THIS IS WORSE THAN THE DESIGN THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED, AND IT WOULD BE A GOOD REASON FOR A DENIAL.

SO LET'S GO BACK TO SLIDES TWO AND THREE.

LET'S SEE IF I CAN GET THIS TO WORK.

I WANT TO LOOK AT THIS.

THIS IS WHY AT&T IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RF EXPOSURE.

THERE'S RULES.

IN FCC DOCUMENT 19126 THAT TELLS HOW YOU MITIGATE SOMETHING.

THEY'RE NOT DOING IT.

THEY ARE PUTTING ONE SIGN AT 44FT HIGH AND CALLING THAT THEIR MITIGATION FOR THE EXPOSURES AT THAT LEVEL.

ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THIS IS NOT HOW RF WAVES MOVE.

THAT DIAGRAM IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING ELEVATIONS, BUT IT MAKES US ALL THINK THAT THAT'S HOW THE WAVES MOVE AND THEY DON'T.

SO, LET'S LOOK AT THIS JUST REAL QUICK FOR A MINUTE.

THE SIGN THAT THEY WOULD PUT UP THERE WOULD BE SEVEN INCHES BY SEVEN INCHES, AND IT WOULD SAY, STAY BACK 44FT.

BY THE TIME YOU CAN READ IT, YOU'RE ALREADY EXPOSED.

FCCS MITIGATION GUIDELINES TWO AND THREE APPLY TO THIS PROJECT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, READ TO AVOID OVER SIGNAGE.

ACCURATE PLACEMENT OF APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE IS CRITICAL AND SHOULD MAKE CLEAR WHERE LIMITS ARE EXCEEDED AND WHERE LIMITS ARE NOT EXCEEDED.

IT ALSO INDICATES THAT THERE ARE BARRIERS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR PLACE, BARRIERS AT THE BASE OF THE POLE.

AT&T HASN'T SAID THEY'RE PUTTING THOSE SIGNS UP THAT THE GENTLEMAN STATED WERE GOING TO BE AT THE BASE OF THE POLE.

THERE'S NOTHING IN OUR PAPERWORK THAT SHOWS THAT.

YOU CAN READ SOME OF THE EXCERPTS I PROVIDED YOU FROM THE RFM REPORT PROVIDED BY AT&T, AND ALSO FROM THE FCC MITIGATION INSTRUCTIONS.

AT&T IS THE LARGEST PROVIDER IN THE UNITED STATES.

[00:50:01]

WE SHOULD CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO EXPECT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF AWARENESS, PROTECTION AND PRUDENT AVOIDANCE, ESPECIALLY IN A LOCATION SUCH AS OUR BEAUTIFUL PARK.

I WOULDN'T DO BUSINESS WITH AT&T SIMPLY BASED ON THE APPEARANCE OF THEIR DISREGARD IN SEVERAL ASPECTS OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A VERY BENIGN APPROACH TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

SO LET'S JUST LOOK AT ONE MORE THING.

I THINK I HAVE TIME FOR ONE MORE THING.

WE'RE GOING TO GO TO SLIDE SIX, WHICH IS THE WORST CASE POWER DENSITY.

SO IN THE RFM REPORT I THINK IT'S AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT AT&T REPORTS ALL THE INFORMATION AND THAT THIS TOWER IS GOING TO BE USED BETWEEN 7700 AND 9900MHZ.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ANTENNA SCHEDULE, WHICH IS ON THE NEXT PAGE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE PANEL ANTENNAS HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT ANTENNAS INCLUDED ON THE PANEL.

AND THERE'S AT LEAST SIX THAT ARE AT 3500 AND 700MHZ.

AND THEN THERE'S MORE THAT OPERATE AT 2100.

AND YOU CAN SEE ON THAT SCHEDULE THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT AZIMUTHS, AND YOU CAN SEE ALL THE DIRECTIONS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE POINTING.

OKAY. SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A CLARIFICATION.

AND IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS A WORST CASE POWER DENSITY ANALYSIS DONE ON TRUE FULL CAPABILITY OF THE TOWER, AND NOBODY'S REALLY TOLD US THAT. OKAY, SO, AT&T IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY 64 AND, MOST OF THEM ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE MOST THE BIGGEST ONE, THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT JIVES WITH ALL OF US HERE IS THE INAPPROPRIATE VISIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC. CAN, LET'S LOOK AT THAT SLIDE TOGETHER IF I CAN FIND IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF I WROTE IT DOWN EXACTLY THAT WAY.

THERE IT IS. I DON'T HAVE THAT POLICY 64, IN FRONT OF ME TO READ IT, BUT I THINK I PUT IT IN YOUR QUOTE.

THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE THE NOISE VIOLATION.

I'M ADDING GENERATOR DIESEL FUMES.

AND REGARDING MONOPOLES, AT&T MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE'S NO OTHER POLES AROUND THAT WOULD WORK FOR THEM.

AND THEN DOWN THE ROAD, IF, LET'S SAY PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS CO-LOCATION STUFF AND YOU COMBINE POLES, YOU'VE GOT TO YOU'VE GOT TO YOU'VE GOT TO SQUARE ALL THE EXPOSURES FROM ALL OF THOSE POLES AND THEN AND ANALYZE THE EXPOSURES AGAIN.

OKAY. WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE POLE THAT'S ALREADY RIGHT NEXT TO THE PARK.

MAYBE THERE'S ONE OF THOSE SMALL POLES JUST SITTING ON TOP OF A STREETLIGHT.

WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THOSE WOULD BE INCLUDED.

IT'S ABOUT BEING EXPOSED TO EVERYTHING THAT'S AROUND US.

AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT AS COMMISSIONERS, YOU CAN CHANGE THE SETBACK.

POLICY 64 GIVES YOU THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE SETBACK.

YOU CAN MOVE THAT POLE ANYWHERE AROUND THE PARK YOU WANT.

THAT'S NOT AN OPTION WE REALLY WANT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.

I'M OPPOSED TO THE TO THE POLE, THE AT&T POLE IN THE PARK ALTOGETHER.

IT'S AN INAPPROPRIATE PLACE.

AND ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SERVING AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

AND I WOULD SAY, LET'S KNOCK THIS ONE OUT OF THE PARK.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

OKAY. THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS IF YOU COULD LINE UP UNDER THE CLOCK.

DEBORAH VON ROSENBERG, KAREN SPARKS, RICHARD HEIMLICH.

HI, I'M DEB VON ROSENBERG.

I LIVE AT 1059 BEACON BAY DRIVE, WHICH IS THE ROAD WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE POLE.

THIS IS MY DAUGHTER.

SHE'S 11, IT'S EMMY.

SAY HI. AND THIS IS KAL.

HE'S EIGHT AND THIRD GRADE.

HI. AND I'M JUST HERE.

YOU SEE ALL THE DATA YOU HAVE, ALL THE ANALYTICS.

I'M HERE AS A PARENT, AND I'M SORRY IF I GET EMOTIONAL, BUT, THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH DATA TO ME TO CALL IT SAFE.

IT'S 5G HAS BEEN AROUND FOR, WHAT, LIKE 5 OR 10 YEARS OR SO, AND WE LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE KIDS GO TO SCHOOL AT PAC RIM.

THEY HAVE THEIR SPORTS COMPETITIVE SOCCER AT POINSETTIA.

HE'S GOT FNL, FOOTBALL AT POINSETTIA, THE PRACTICES ONCE A WEEK, THE GAMES WE WALK, THE DOGS IN THAT PARK, THE LONG TERM EXPOSURE.

SORRY AGAIN HAS HEALTH TO MY KIDS.

I GET VERY EMOTIONAL.

THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH DATA TO SAY THAT IN TEN YEARS OR SO THEY WOULD HAVE CANCER.

WE WOULD HAVE CANCER.

WE JUST WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

SO AS A PARENT SPEAKING TO MAYBE OTHER PARENTS, GRANDPARENTS, AUNTS, UNCLES, JUST NO TO THIS.

IT'S JUST TOO CLOSE.

NOT SAYING THAT AT&T CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE I'M SURE TO YOUR POINT, THEY COULD PROBABLY FIGURE OUT AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS.

[00:55:07]

IT'S JUST TOO CLOSE.

AND SO YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

RICHARD HEIMLICH.

ALL RIGHT. RICHARD HEIMLICH AT 6729 TEA TREE STREET ON THE EDGE OF POINSETTIA PARK.

AND I WAS INVOLVED WITH BOB HAMMOND AND DOING A LITTLE QUICK SURVEY OF THE RESIDENTS THAT WOULD COME INTO THE PARK.

THIS WAS DONE IN LESS THAN TWO DAYS, AND WE GOT OVER 300 SIGNATURES SAYING THE PARK IS THE WRONG PLACE FOR A CELL TOWER OF THIS SIZE AND THIS THIS POWER.

5G EXISTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY ON THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS.

IT CAN BE EASILY HANDLED THIS WAY TO COVER, WHAT IS A CONCERN BY THE APPLICANT.

SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THE SURVEY WAS MATTHEW, WHO WORKS FROM HOME, IN THE COVE DEVELOPMENT, SAID THAT HE IS GETTING FINE SERVICE WITH AT&T FOUR BARS AND HE HAS TO DO STREAMING.

HE HAS TO DO ZOOM.

SO HE SAID, WHAT IS THE REASON WHY OUR PRISTINE PARK SHOULD HAVE A CELL TOWER? AND MORE TO THE POINT, VERIZON IS ON THE SIDE READY TO APPLY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER APPLICANT AND WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER CELL TOWER, OR THEY'LL SHARE THE SAME CELL TOWER.

AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FARM.

PEOPLE POINTED OUT HOW BAD CALVARY HILLS PARK LOOKS.

IT'S GOT THREE LARGE ANTENNAS IN A SMALL SPACE RIGHT AROUND THE PLAYING FIELD.

AND THEY'RE SAYING IN THIS SURVEY, NO MORE CELL TOWERS IN OUR PARKS.

THEY LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED AT CALVARY HILLS.

IT'S IT'S AN EYESORE.

AND PEOPLE USED TO THINK THAT SMOKING WAS OKAY.

DR.S USED TO PITCH CAMEL CIGARETTES.

AND THEN LO AND BEHOLD, THEY ONLY TALKED ABOUT SECONDHAND SMOKE.

SO THERE'S MORE TO THIS THAN, THAN MEETS THE EYE.

AND IT'S MORE THAN JUST A VISUAL LONG TERM EFFECT IS IMPORTANT, BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST ANY MORE CELL TOWERS IN THE PARKS.

WE MADE A MISTAKE IN CALVARY HILLS.

LET'S NOT REPEAT IT IN POINSETTIA.

IT'S A PRISTINE PARK, AND IT SHOULD REMAIN THAT WITHOUT A COMMERCIAL ASPECT AND NOT A CELL FACTORY.

DEBORAH VON ROSENBERG. I ALREADY WENT. YEAH, SHE ALREADY WENT.

OH, KAREN SPARKS.

SORRY. THANK YOU.

I GAVE A HANDOUT FOR YOU ALL TO SEE.

MY NAME IS KAREN SPARKS, AND I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE COVE FOR 25 YEARS.

AND LAST MONTH, MY HUSBAND AND I.

OH. THANK YOU.

[INAUDIBLE] LAST MONTH MY HUSBAND AND I WERE HERE AT THE MEETING AND WE LISTENED TO AT&T REPORTING THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT COVERAGE IN THE POINSETTIA PARK.

AND SO I WAS AND HE AT THAT POINT COULD NOT EXPLAIN EXACTLY THE QUANTIFY HOW THE COVERAGE WHAT WHAT.

SO WHAT I DID IS I WENT TO AT&TS WEBSITE AND YOU CAN SEE IT UP HERE AND IT LISTS THEIR WIRELESS COVERAGE MAP.

AND SO I PULLED THIS DOWN TWO DAYS AGO.

AND SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE NAVY THE DARK BLUE IS THEIR 5G PLUS.

SO I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED ANOTHER TOWER IF THEIR OWN MAP AND THE URL IS ON THE SIDE TO WHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER ANTENNA IF IT ALREADY HAS 5G PLUS COVERAGE? SO THAT SEEMS, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN ENOUGH.

SO ANOTHER POINT WAS RAISED AT THE MEETING IS A LOT OF RESIDENTS CAME UP AND THEY SAID, WHY? WE ALREADY HAVE GREAT COVERAGE.

WHY DO WE NEED WHY DO WE NEED IT ANY BETTER IF IT'S ALREADY IT'S ALREADY GOOD FOR OUR HOUSEHOLD? SO ANYWAY, A GOOD POINT WAS WAS RAISED.

WELL, HOW DO WE KNOW IT'S NOT VERIZON? HOW DO THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING THIS TO YOUR YOUR BOARD THAT YOU'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE T-MOBILE OR YOU HAVE VERIZON.

SO THE COVE DECIDED TO DO A SURVEY.

SO WE DID A SURVEY TO OUR 112 RESIDENTS.

AND WE GOT A 60% RESPONSE RATE, WHICH MAKES IT STATISTICALLY VALID.

SO WE HAD 31% OF THE RESPONDENTS FOR AT&T.

SO THAT'S A GOOD SAMPLE SIZE.

AND THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSEHOLDS INDICATED THAT THEY WERE SATISFIED WITH THE COVERAGE.

AND IN ADDITION, A MAJORITY OF HOUSEHOLDS USING AT&T INDICATED THAT THEY WERE SATISFIED WITH THE COVERAGE.

[01:00:05]

AND THESE ARE HOUSEHOLDS AT THE SOUTH END OF THE PARK.

SO BEFORE THAT, WE DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY IF WE DID HAVE AT&T, YOU KNOW, CUSTOMERS THAT WERE REPRESENTING THAT THEY WERE WELL SATISFIED WITH THEIR COVERAGE.

SO SO THERE YOU HAVE IT WITH INFORMATION COMING FROM RESIDENTS THAT LIVE NEARBY.

IN CONCLUSION, THE AREA RESIDENTS ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR AT&T COVERAGE.

THE AT&T REPORTS COMPLETE 5G COVERAGE ON THEIR WEBSITE FOR THE POINSETTIA PARK.

LASTLY, THEREFORE AT&T NETWORK IS COMPLETE AND NO ADDITIONAL TOWERS ARE REQUIRED IN MY OPINION.

THANK YOU. THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS IN ORDER BRIAN KARSTENS, MARIBEL KARSTENS, NICOLE [INAUDIBLE].

HI THERE, BRIAN KARSTENS 6729 WEITZEIL STREET.

I LIVE ABOUT A BLOCK FROM POINSETTIA PARK.

WE BOUGHT OUR HOME IN 1996.

THAT WAS ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO.

AND, DURING THAT TIME, THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

PACIFIC RIM OUR KIDS WENT THERE.

LEGOLAND CAME IN.

THAT WAS GREAT. THE SOCCER FIELD AT POINSETTIA PARK, ALL GOOD STUFF.

IT'S A GEM.

JUST LIKE MY NEIGHBORS.

WE'VE, CARLSBAD IS A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE SETTLE DOWN AND RAISE YOUR FAMILY.

BUT WE'RE OUT HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE WE'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THIS CELL TOWER.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S COME UP IS THAT ELEVATION DRAWING ON PAGE 73.

ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS IT'S IT'S MISLEADING AND INACCURATE BECAUSE WHAT IT SHOWS YOU IS THE LOCATION THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING LOOKS TO BE ON FLAT LAND.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

YOU'VE BEEN TO THE SITE.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S A HILL AS YOU GO UP THE HILL FROM WHERE THE CELL TOWER IS, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND A TOT LOT.

MOMS AND CHILDREN, PREGNANT WOMEN HANGING OUT THERE CHATTING.

AS YOU GO UP FURTHER UP THE HILL, YOU'RE GOING TO COME TO THE BASKETBALL COURTS AND FURTHER STILL, YOU'RE GOING TO COME TO THE DOG PARK.

THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AGAIN, AS THEY SHOWED ON THE ELEVATION, THE MAXIMUM TRANSMISSION OF RF IS IN A STRAIGHT LINE, A HORIZONTAL LINE.

SO AS YOU GO UP THE HILL YOU'RE MEETING THAT MAXIMUM ELEVATION TRANSMISSION.

ALSO ON THE OTHER SIDE, OUR HOMES ON BEACON BAY.

AGAIN, NOT IN A STRAIGHT LINE WITH THE BOTTOM OF THE CELL TOWER, BUT BEACON BAY ACTUALLY GOES UP.

AND THE HOMES ON BEACON BAY ARE TWO STORIES.

NOW, ANOTHER THING THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IS THAT, THE TRANSMISSION IS WELL BELOW WHAT'S ALLOWED BY THE FCC.

ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND OTHER COUNTRIES DEAL WITH THIS AS WELL.

AND WHAT THE US ALLOWS, WHAT THE FCC ALLOWS IS MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES ALLOW FOR TRANSMISSIONS FROM CELL TOWERS.

COUNTRIES LIKE ITALY, SWITZERLAND, FAR BELOW WHAT THE US ALLOWS, EVEN RUSSIA.

AS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PLEASE LISTEN TO THE VOICES OF YOUR COMMUNITY.

PLEASE PUT THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC AHEAD OF THE CONVENIENCE OF THE INDUSTRY.

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AT&T TO FIND ONE OF THE SEVEN MORE PREFERRED LOCATIONS FOR THIS CELL TOWER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCILORS.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TONIGHT.

I'D LIKE TO READ AN ARTICLE FROM THE LATEST EDITION ON OF HEALTH AND SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE IN NOVEMBER OF 2023, THE BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES OF STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT, VOTED AGAINST A PLAN TO INSTALL 5G EQUIPMENT IN THEIR CITY.

SORRY. DR.

DEBORAH DAVIS NOTED DURING THE THE PRESENTATION THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, WHICH WAS SHE FOUNDED, SUED THE FCC OVER THEIR WIRELESS RADIATION EXPOSURE LIMITS.

AND IN AUGUST OF 2021, THE US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C.

COURT SECRETS CIRCUIT COURT RULED THAT THE FCC'S DECISION NOT TO UPDATE THAT EXPOSURE LIMITS WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

THE COURT DETERMINED THAT THE TESTING PROCEDURES, PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATED TO CHILDREN AND LONG TERM EXPOSURE OR A COMPLETE FAILURE.

[01:05:06]

DAVIS, REMARKED THE COURT FOUND THAT THE FCC HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF PROPERLY EXAMINING LONG TERM EXPOSURE.

CHILDREN'S VULNERABILITY.

THE TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE'S INJURY BY RADIATION SICKNESS AND IMPACTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT.

DEVELOPING BRAIN AND REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM.

SCOTT MCCONNELL, THE CHIEF LITIGATOR REPRESENTING CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE, HAS ARGUED THE FCC INTENDS TO KEEP SAILING.

KEEPS, INTENDS TO KEEP [INAUDIBLE] K EEP STALLING UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING, BECAUSE ANY REDUCTION TO THE EXPOSURE LIMITS WOULD REQUIRE A MASSIVE RECALL AND OVERHAUL OF THE ENTIRE WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE THEY WANT TO GET DEPLOYED NOW.

FOLLOWING THE BOARD'S REJECTION OF THE 5G PROPOSAL, DR.

DAVIS TOLD THE THE DEFENDER THAT WHEN CONFRONTED WITH OVERWHELMING INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE REAL PRESENT DANGERS OF BRINGING ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS CLOSER TO HUMANS THAN EVER BEFORE.

STAMFORD VOTED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT.

MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PLEASE DO NOT PUT A CELL TOWER IN POINSETTIA PARK.

PLEASE LISTEN TO OUR VOICES AND PLEASE BE OUR DEFENSE AGAINST BIG CORPORATIONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

NICOLE DORE.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS NICOLE DORAY.

I LIVE AT 1014 BEACON BAY DRIVE.

I'D FIRST LIKE TO START WITH THANKING MY FELLOW NEIGHBORS FOR THE MANY, MANY HOURS THAT THEIR FREE TIME THAT HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO OPPOSING THIS CELL TOWER.

THE PRESENTATIONS THEY'VE PUT TOGETHER AT NOT JUST THIS MEETING, BUT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, GRACIOUSLY, THESE SAME NEIGHBORS HAVE NOT JUST OPPOSED, BUT HAVE TRIED TO HELP AT&T FIND ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS AND LOCATIONS.

I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT AT&T AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COULD NOT COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVE SITES AFTER RECOGNIZING HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY ARGUED AND CLEARLY FELT SO STRONGLY OPPOSING THIS TOWER AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

I PERSONALLY, IN MY HOME I HAVE A TWO STORY HOME.

I WILL BE STARING RIGHT AT THIS TOWER.

IT IS LOCATED IN BETWEEN THE TWO BALL FIELDS.

THERE'S A BATHROOM THERE.

LOTS OF FNL GOES ON ON FRIDAY NIGHTS.

LOTS OF KIDS RUNNING AROUND.

SO I WOULD ASK YOU IF THIS WAS YOUR HOME.

LIKE, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT BEING THIS MASSIVE THING BEING PUT UP, RIGHT SO YOU CAN STARE AT THAT THROUGH YOUR BEDROOM WINDOW? IT'S IT'S VERY CONCERNING AND AFFECTS THE QUALITY OF OUR, POSSIBLY OUR HEALTH.

JUST THE IDEA OF WONDERING NOW, LIKE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I'M GOING TO GET CANCER FROM, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I LOVE MY HOME.

I'VE RAISED MY THREE BOYS THERE, TWO OF WHICH STILL LIVE THERE.

WE HAD ANOTHER MOM THAT WAS VERY UPSET.

YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE COUNCIL THANKING US AS THE PUBLIC, TAKING OUR TIME TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE SHOW THAT APPRECIATION BY VOTING NO AND LISTENING TO US AND OUR CONCERNS AND LET'S PRESERVE OUR BEAUTIFUL PARK AND VOTE NO.

THANK YOU. THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE ZACHARY SCHUBERT, LINDA SCHUBERT, FRANK SUNG. ZACH SCHUBERT 1031 SEAHORSE COURT.

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF THE AT&T CELL TOWER AT POINSETTIA PARK AS PROPOSED.

THE LOCATION IS JUST A FEW HUNDRED FEET AWAY FROM HOMES ON MY STREET, AND IS ALSO IN A HIGHLY USED CITY PARK.

THE POINSETTIA PARK LOCATION GOES AGAINST CITY POLICY TO PLACE THESE STRUCTURES AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND PARKS.

THERE MUST BE MORE SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS, AND WE MUST ASK THE TELECOM COMPANIES TO DO A MORE EXTENSIVE SEARCH.

THERE ARE LEGAL PRECEDENTS THAT LIMIT THE LOCATIONS WHERE THESE STRUCTURES CAN BE LOCATED.

MANY OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES HAVE SET UP GUIDELINES RESTRICTING CELL TOWERS FROM BEING TOO NEAR TO PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND SCHOOLS.

[01:10:01]

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING LAST MONTH, ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY THE TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANIES SELECTED THE PROPOSED LOCATION WAS EASY ACCESS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES TO MAINTAIN THE SITE, PLEASE PUT THE NEEDS OF OUR CITY RESIDENTS ABOVE THE NEED FOR EASY ACCESS.

THERE ARE MANY OTHER SPOTS IN THE PARK, NEAR THE WATER TOWER OR NEAR THE CROSSINGS GOLF COURSE, AND SEEM MORE SUITABLE IN TERMS OF DISTANCE FROM PRIVATE HOMES.

THANK YOU. LINDA SCHUBERT.

HELLO, MY NAME IS LINDA SCHUBERT.

I LIVE AT 1031 SEAHORSE COURT.

I'M HERE TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PLEASE USE POLICY 64 WITH PARKS RANKING AT THE BOTTOM, AND LOOK FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SITE FOR AT&TS MONSTROUS AND HIDEOUS CELL PHONE TOWER SO CLOSE TO THE HOMES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

EVEN THOUGH AT&T FINDS THE HEALTH RISK ACCEPTABLE, WE THE RESIDENTS DO NOT.

AND NO FCC SAYS IT'S COMPLIANCE, WE KNOW DOES NOT MEAN ZERO RISK.

MY KIDS GREW UP PLAYING IN POINSETTIA PARK, AND IT NEEDS TO REMAIN A SAFE AND BEAUTIFUL, HEALTHY GEM OF CARLSBAD.

AS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECOMES MORE DENSE WITH ADUS, THE NATURAL, HEALTHY PARKS ARE JUST EVEN MORE PRECIOUS THAN THEY WERE IN YEARS PAST.

I'M HERE TO ASK, JUST TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PLEASE PUT THE FAMILIES OF THE POINSETTIA PARK NEIGHBORHOODS OVER A FOR PROFIT COMPANIES, EASE OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALSO THE PROFITS OF THEIR SHAREHOLDERS.

THANK YOU. FRANK SUNG.

GOOD EVENING, FRANK SUNG. 21 YEAR CARLSBAD RESIDENT.

I HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK AT THE AT THE DECEMBER 6TH MEETING.

I INTRODUCED THREE QUESTIONS.

AND THEN THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE HERE, YOU HAD THREE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK FROM EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE READ AND THAT WE HAVE HEARD.

THEIR ANSWERS HAVE BEEN INCOMPLETE AND INADEQUATE, AND THAT BY ITSELF, I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD DECLINE THIS APPLICATION.

OVER THE WEEKEND I WAS JUST KIND OF THINKING ABOUT THIS.

I THOUGHT, WHAT IS GOING ON? WE HAVE THIS STRUGGLE.

I MEAN, THE CITY AND THE RESIDENTS SHOULD BE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE TABLE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY.

AND WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD IS THIS COLLUSION OF OF NEEDS, WANTS AND AND YOU KNOW, HERE WE ARE IN FRONT OF YOU.

AND I WAS DOING A LITTLE BIBLE STUDY WAS IN, JOHN CHAPTER 11.

THERE WERE THREE QUESTIONS ASKED.

I KNOW IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONTEXT, BUT THE THREE QUESTIONS ARE GOOD QUESTIONS.

THE FIRST QUESTION WAS IF ONLY IF ONLY WE READ POLICY 64 CORRECTLY, RIGHT.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? AND, AND YOU KNOW, THE INTERESTING COMMENT, KYLE IN FACT, WE HAD AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WHERE I SAID, HEY, ON PAGE SIX, YOU KNOW THE LIST.

YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS THE LEAST PREFERRED, MOST DISCOURAGED.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER? IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY COMPLETE LIST.

ARE THERE ANY CITY ZONES THAT ARE NOT ON THIS LIST? HE SAYS NO, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE LIST.

SO THE COMMENT THAT SAYS BECAUSE IT'S ON THE PAGE, IT'S FAIR GAME.

THAT'S NOT THE HEART INTENT OF POLICY 64.

I'M SORRY. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT WHAT IS IS IT IS ALL ABOUT.

SO SO IF ONLY WE WOULD INTERPRET IT CORRECTLY.

IF ONLY THE APPLICANT WOULD TRULY ENGAGE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WITH THE COMMUNITY, I THINK WE CAN FIND A WIN WIN.

I THINK WE CAN MEET THE NEEDS OF EVERYBODY.

AND THEN IF ONLY WE WOULD AGREE NOT TO LET THE ROOT OF AN ANTENNA FARM BE ESTABLISHED AT POINSETTIA PARK.

SO THANK YOU FOR VISITING THE SITE.

THE OTHER SITE YOU SHOULD VISIT.

IF SOME OF YOU HAVEN'T, GO TO CALAVERA HILLS PARK.

THERE'S FOUR CELL POLES RIGHT THERE.

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GET OUT OF YOUR CAR.

PULL IN THE PARKING LOT. LOOK AT THE FOUR.

THAT IS NOT GOOD PLANNING.

OKAY, I JUST GOT TO TELL YOU, THAT HAPPENED OVER TIME.

ONCE YOU SAY YES TO ONE POLICY 64 SAYS YOU CAN'T DENY ANY OTHER APPLICANT THAT WOULD BE DISCRIMINATING.

WHAT DO WE KNOW? WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE HEALTH CONCERNS.

YOU KNOW IT, I KNOW IT.

WHAT DO I BELIEVE? I BELIEVE THAT CARLSBAD WANTS TO EXERCISE GOOD PLANNING.

YOU WANT TO PROTECT THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS.

YOU WANT TO BE RESPONSIVE TO PROTECTING THE JEWELS OF OUR COMMUNITY, THESE PARKS.

SO AS STATED, THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE NOT DENIED.

THANK YOU. THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS IN ORDER.

KEVIN FRITZ.

ANNA HAMPTON.

NORA GEORGE.

KEVIN FRITZ 1002 BEACON BAY DRIVE.

[01:15:06]

LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, WE LEARNED ABOUT, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE THE ANTENNAS WERE, WERE, DECLINED WAS FOR ELEVATION. I BROUGHT HERE AN ELEVATION MAP SHOWING THE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING THE ELEVATION IN THE CITY ARE AROUND THE PARK HERE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ALTAMIRA RV SITE, YOU CAN SEE AT THE TOP POINSETTIA PARK.

AND THEN THE FIRE STATION NUMBER FOUR IS AT THE BOTTOM.

THEY'RE ALL WITHIN TEN FEET OF EACH OTHER ELEVATION WISE.

THAT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT THAT WAS THAT ELIMINATED OTHER OTHER SITES.

CALAVERA CHURCH IS EVEN HIGHER, WHICH PROVIDES MORE COVERAGE DOWN THERE.

THE VERY TITLE OF THIS SLIDE, THE AT&T PROJECT OBJECTIVE COVERAGE THE SOUTH SIDE OF POINSETTIA PARK.

THIS WAS THIS WAS THE VERY, VERY LAST LINE OF THE LAST OF THE THE LAST ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, THIS IS THEIR OBJECTIVE IS TO BRING IS TO BRING THE COVERAGE TO THE SOUTH OF THE PARK.

THE RED DOTS INDICATE THESE ARE ALL THE SITES THAT WE IDENTIFIED.

AND AT&T WAS GENEROUS ENOUGH TO EVALUATE THOSE.

THE Y IN THE CENTER IS IS THE TOP REPRESENTS THE TOWER AT POINSETTIA PARK.

THAT YELLOW CIRCLE IS A ONE HALF MILE RADIUS.

YOU CAN SEE WITHIN THAT RADIUS.

JUST TOUCHING THAT RADIUS TO THE SOUTH IS THE FIRE STATION.

THE TWO UP TO THE LEFT OF THE Y THERE IS THE RV ALTAMIRA RV PARK, AND NEXT TO THAT IS A UTILITY POLE, TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, JUST OUTSIDE OF THE OUTSIDE OF THAT, NEXT TO POINSETTIA IS CALAVERA CHURCH.

AND THERE'S TWO SITES THERE.

THERE'S A TWO SITES THERE.

AND THEN BEHIND THAT THERE'S ALSO TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION SITES I TOOK AND OVERLAID NOW THIS IS MD7S ANALYSIS THE SEARCH AREA. AND YOU CAN SEE THE GREEN AREA THE TOTAL THE GREEN AREA IS THE PRIMARY SEARCH AREA AND THE RED IS THE SECONDARY.

THAT'S ONLY LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE EAST TO WEST AND LESS THAN THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE NORTH TO SOUTH.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THOSE THREE SITES THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED, THE RV LOT AND THE FIRE STATION ARE RIGHT THERE, THEY'RE RIGHT THERE.

AND THEY CAN PROVIDE THE COVERAGE, TO FILL IN THIS GAP AND FURTHER TO THE SOUTH AS WELL.

AND I'M SO GLAD THAT THEY, AT&T SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT, HOW THEY USED EDISON POLES FOR CELL SITES BECAUSE IN THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, SEVERAL OTHER OF OUR SITES THEY ACTUALLY LISTED, THEY SAID, NO, WE CAN'T PUT PUT OUR STUFF ON A, ON THE UTILITY POLES. SO THERE'S A DISCREPANCY THERE.

THE OTHER THING WE LEARNED JUST EARLIER TODAY, RIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND, PASEO DEL NORTE, ON THEIR FIRST MAP, THEY SHOWED IDENTIFIED THERE WAS NO LESS THAN EIGHT SMALL CELLS TO COVER THAT AREA.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

I'LL PUT MORE.

ANYWAY. BUT THERE'S NO.

THERE WAS NO LESS THAN EIGHT SMALL CELLS JUST TO COVER THE AREA AROUND THE INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND THE FREEWAY OFF RAMP IN THE SHOPS AROUND THERE.

SO THERE THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE.

AND IT WAS THERE ARE WAYS TO STILL MEET THE COVERAGE IF THE PARK WASN'T THERE.

IT WAS A VERY GOOD QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY A COMMISSIONER TO TO ASK THAT.

SO THERE ARE SOLUTIONS THAT THAT ARE VIABLE.

WE JUST THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE WANT THAT WE WANT TO HAVE AN AT&T SITE IN THERE.

IT WOULD BE GREAT. WE JUST DON'T WANT IT IN THE PARK.

AND WE I THINK WE'VE DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES.

NOW YOU MIGHT COME UP WITH, YOU MIGHT ASK, WELL, WHY WHY WASN'T THOSE SITES CONSIDERED IN THE ACTUAL, DOCUMENTATION FROM, IN THEIR SITE ANALYSIS? THE SECOND SITE ANALYSIS, MD7 LISTED THOSE.

THEY REJECTED THE, THE ALTAMIRA SITE AND THE FIRE STATION AS THEY WOULD BE LOSING PARKING PLACES.

AND YET AT THE SAME TIME, THAT'S AN OPINION.

THEY NEVER CONTACTED THE ALTAMIRA, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, NOR DID THEY SPEAK WITH ANYBODY FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

BUT TO MAKE THAT, REPRESENTATION.

SO I THINK THAT ANALYSIS OF THE SITES ARE VERY, VERY WEAK.

AND I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH TO SIMPLY REJECT THIS SITE RIGHT HERE, FORCE THEM TO GO BACK AND PICK A DIFFERENT LOCATION, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE.

THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] BUT FOR THE RECORD, COULD YOU JUST READ THE OTHER NAMES OF THAT GROUP PRESENTATION? YES. ROBERT HAMPTON.

ELLEN FRITZ.

[01:20:02]

VALERIE FISHER.

HI, MY NAME IS ANN HAMPTON.

I LIVE AT 1026 BEACON BAY DRIVE, AND ACTUALLY A LOT OF THE POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE.

MY NEIGHBORS HAVE DONE AN AMAZING JOB MAKING ALL THOSE POINTS, SO I WON'T REITERATE WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY SAID.

I'M SO PROUD OF EVERYBODY COMING.

I THINK THIS IS AN AMAZING TURNOUT, SO I HOPE THAT YOU, APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT EVERYBODY IS MAKING TO TO SHARE WITH YOU HOW THEY'RE FEELING.

ALONG WITH THAT, I GUESS WHAT I WAS WONDERING, WHEN IT COMES TO THE SITE ANALYSIS IS A LOT OF THESE SITES WERE RECOMMENDED BY US AND MD7.

I'M CURIOUS, WHAT WERE SOME OF WHAT ADDITIONAL RESEARCH DID THEY DO ON THEIR OWN OTHER THAN TO TAKE THE SITES THAT.

AVERAGE CITIZENS SAID, WHAT ABOUT THESE? WHERE THEY'RE THE PROFESSIONALS.

SO DID THEY GO OUT AND COME UP WITH NEW SITES THEMSELVES, OR DID THEY STRICTLY TAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN TURN THEM DOWN? SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT IDEA NECESSARILY.

NORA GEORGE 1032 BEACON BAY.

GOOD EVENING.

THE COVE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN A GREAT NEIGHBOR TO THE PARK FOR 27 YEARS, SINCE THE PARK'S INCEPTION.

IT'S ONE OF OUR PRIDE AND JOYS OF LIVING HERE.

WE ARE PROTECTIVE AND VIGILANT OVER OUR PARK, NOTIFYING THE CITY OF ILLEGITIMATE TREE TRIMMINGS, VANDALISM MALFUNCTIONS.

I'VE PERSONALLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE PARKS AND REC STAFF FOUR TIMES JUST IN THIS PAST WEEK OVER THE STADIUM LIGHTS, BEING LEFT ON AND TRYING TO SAVE THE CITY SOME MONEY ON THEIR ELECTRICITY BILL.

THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, BUT I JUST GIVE THEM A CALL.

THERE IS A PARK ENTRANCE AT THE BOTTOM OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AT BEACON BAY AND WEITZEIL STREETS, FOR WHICH THE ACCESS IS ON OUR HOA PROPERTY. WE HAVE BEEN TOLERATING THE EXTRA TRAFFIC, THE LACK OF STREET PARKING, AND PICKING UP THE TRASH LEFT BEHIND IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD EVERY WEEKEND AND AND AND EVERY TIME THERE'S A SPECIAL PARK EVENT FOR THE LAST 27 YEARS.

WE WOULD LIKE THAT POSITIVE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY TO CONTINUE.

SO IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION AND THE TRUE THE TRUE INTENT OF POLICY 64, WE URGE YOU TO VOTE THE CUP DOWN AND KEEP THE CELL PHONE TOWERS AWAY FROM OUR HOMES AND OUR PARKS.

177FT FROM OUR HOMES IS NOT OKAY.

IT IS JUST NOT OKAY.

CARLSBAD IS A CONSERVATIVE CITY, AND WE SHOULD TAKE A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO THIS NEW 5G TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS ONLY BEEN AROUND SINCE 2019, FOR WHICH THERE ARE NO SAFETY STUDIES YET THERE.

I HOPE THEY'RE COMING, BUT THERE'S NOTHING FOR 5G YET THAT SAYS IT'S SAFE OR NOT SAFE.

YOUR DECISION TONIGHT WILL IMPACT THE CITY AND ITS RESIDENTS FOR THE YEARS TO COME.

PLEASE TAKE A COMPREHENSIVE PERSPECTIVE TO FIND A VIABLE SOLUTION.

BE LOGICAL.

BE RESPONSIBLE.

BE ETHICAL.

KEEP THE CELL PHONE TOWERS AWAY FROM OUR HOMES AND OUR PARKS.

PLEASE VOTE NO.

COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND AND YOUR SERVICE.

I REALIZE THIS IS VOLUNTEER AND ALLEGRA BEAUTIFUL NAME.

WELCOME. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

OUR LAST SPEAKER IS KIMBERLY DESMARIS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING US TO ALL SPEAK.

I AM A RESIDENT OF THE POINSETTIA COVE.

I'VE RAISED MY KIDS THERE, LOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I LOVE THE PARK.

AND, WHEN I GO TO THE PARK, PART OF THE EXPERIENCE IS TO ESCAPE THE CLUTTER ASSOCIATED WITH LIVING OR WORKING IN A SUBURBAN OR URBAN ENVIRONMENT.

I EXPECT TO SEE TREES, GREEN FIELDS, AND PLAY AREAS.

I EXPECT TO SEE.

I DO NOT EXPECT TO SEE INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT.

[01:25:04]

EVEN WHEN VERIFIED, VERIFIED BY A SHROUD.

IF I LOOK UP AND SEE THIS INSTALLATION, I WILL KNOW THAT IT IS BEHIND.

I WILL KNOW WHAT IS BEHIND IT.

AND THAT RUINS IT FOR ME, REALLY DOES.

I MEAN, IT JUST KIND OF LOOK AT THIS STUFF.

OH, CALAVERA.

YUCK. OKAY. SORRY.

INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT DOES NOT BELONG IN PUBLIC PARKS.

SO, WOULD YOU INSTALL.

SORRY, THIS IS HARD.

WOULD YOU INSTALL, AN OIL BARRACK OR A SOLAR FARM OR A WIND TURBINE IN A PUBLIC PARK? PLEASE CONSIDER REJECTING THE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CELL TOWER IN OUR PARKS.

SORRY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

EXCUSE ME.

WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO RESPOND.

OKAY. HELLO AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS.

ONE OF THE POINTS THAT WAS RAISED BY MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY WAS JUST QUESTIONING OUR SITE ANALYSIS.

I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE AGAIN THAT THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, THE UPDATED ONE, WAS GIVEN BY THE COVE.

I WANT TO ALSO ADD JUST A, JUST EVEN MAKE IT FURTHER.

SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, I'VE HAD ABOUT FOUR CALLS WITH ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COVE HOA.

I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT WE'VE HAD EMAILS ABOUT SEVEN TIMES ONE ON 12/7, ONE ON 12/12, ONE ON 12/18, ANOTHER ON 12/21, ANOTHER ON 1/2, ANOTHER ON 1/16, AND ANOTHER ON 12/20 OH OOPS, SORRY, I ALREADY READ 1/28.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S KNOWN THAT THERE WAS CONSTANT COMMUNICATION GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH ME AND THEN ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOA. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT WITH OUR PROJECT, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD WITH THE CITY AND DOING THINGS TO MAKE THIS MORE BETTER.

AGAIN, AS SHARED IN THE LAST MEETING, WE HAD A TALLER FACILITY THAT WAS 90FT.

WE MET WITH THE CITY.

THEY REQUESTED THAT IT BE LOWER.

LOWERING IT ALSO LED TO THE REDUCING OF OUR ANTENNAS.

AT FIRST WE HAD THE LARGEST SHROUD THAT WAS AROUND EIGHT FEET.

CITY HAD REQUESTED THAT WE, SHRINK, THAT WE REDUCED IT DOWN TO FOUR.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY TO ADDRESS THIS, THE THE REQUESTS BY STAFF AND THEN MOST RECENTLY, ME WORKING THROUGH WITH THE SITE ANALYSIS.

NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY HAD BROUGHT UP WAS TWO NOTABLE SITES.

I DO HAVE MY SITE ANALYSIS, IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO GO DEEPER, BUT NOTABLY ONE OF THEM WAS THE RV LOT ALTAMIR AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS THE FIRE STATION.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST START OFF WITH IS WITH THE ALTAMIR.

THE REASON WHY WE DID NOT CHOOSE THAT IS BECAUSE OF PARKING.

THAT IS A TOURIST ZONE.

IT'S USABLE SPACE.

NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BUT I DID NOT WANT TO LEAVE IT THERE BECAUSE THEY NEED MORE JUSTIFICATION.

IT WAS ALSO ASKED IF WHAT ABOUT THE HILLSIDE, IF THAT IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, THAT'S NOT OWNED BY ALTAMIRA.

AND TO IF WE WERE TO PURSUE THAT, THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL OF SEVERAL TREES.

THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE COULD NOT PURSUE THAT SITE.

ANOTHER SITE THAT WAS RAISED WAS THE SITE LOCATED AT, THE FIRE STATION, CARLSBAD FIRE STATION NUMBER FOUR.

ON THAT ONE. DURING MY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COVE, I HAD SHARED THAT THAT ALSO HAS LIMITED PARKING SPACE.

IN THE REAR THERE IS AN ACCESS ROUTE FOR FIRE STATIONS TO BE ABLE TO GO AND BE ABLE TO ENTER THAT FACILITY.

SO COMBINED WITH THE FACT THAT IF WE WERE TO BUILD OUR STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE TAKING USABLE PARKING SPACE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL NEED.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS AS WELL AS TOWARDS THE BACK THAT IS HIGHLY, FILLED WITH HEAVY VEGETATION.

SO FOR THOSE VERY REASONS, WE DIDN'T PURSUE IT.

I ALSO HEARD ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS THAT HAD MENTIONED ABOUT THE CROSSINGS, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS AGAIN, PROVIDED AS AN OPTION BY ONE OF THE BY THE COVE HOA.

HOWEVER, THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS THAT THERE IS AN ALREADY AT&T FACILITY THAT IS LOCATED THERE NEAR THE POND THAT IS ABOUT 35FT TALL.

[01:30:09]

IT'S A FULL TREE. THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE COULDN'T PURSUE THERE.

AND I KNOW THAT THERE WAS TALKS ABOUT, PREFERRED ZONES.

OH, AND ALSO JUST GOING BACK TO ALTAMIRA, I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THAT IS AN OPEN SPACE LOT, WHICH IS NUMBER ONE ON THE DISCOURAGE ZONE.

SO THAT IS ADDITIONALLY WHY WE CAN'T LOCATE THERE.

AND JUST IN REGARDS TO PREFERRED ZONES, I LIKE TO REITERATE THAT THERE'S NOT MANY PREFERRED ZONES IN OUR TARGET AREA.

HOWEVER, AS I DID IN MY FIRST PRESENTATION, I DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT TO THE NORTH THERE IS, 5805 ARMADA DRIVE THAT THAT IS A COMMERCIAL ZONE.

SO IT IS ONE OF THE PREFERRED ZONES.

HOWEVER, WHAT THE ISSUE IS, IS IF WE WERE TO PURSUE A FACILITY THERE, THERE IS AN ALREADY EXISTING FACILITY LESS THAN, THAT IS ABOUT 2/10 OF A MILE AWAY.

THAT IS A ROOFTOP.

THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE CAN'T PURSUE THAT.

SO THAT IS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE, CONCERNS.

AND I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO GO THROUGH SEVERAL MORE OF MY ALTERNATIVE SITES.

JUST TO PROVIDE FURTHER CLARIFICATION, BUT I NEED TO REITERATE, THOSE ALTERNATIVE SITES THAT I GOT WAS PRESENTED BY THE COVE, AND I WANT TO REITERATE THAT I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH A MEMBER OF THE COVE HOA UP UNTIL TODAY, JUST TO MAKE IT COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT.

THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? OH, I APOLOGIZE, I STEPPED OUT TO THE RESTROOM.

I JUST WANTED TO BE HERE IN CASE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS CAME UP.

I DIDN'T HEAR THE ORIGINAL, SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST GIVING THE, THE APPLICANT OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.

THEN WE'LL HAVE A TIME WHERE WE'LL BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF.

SO YEAH, NO, OUR OUR PRESENTATION WE FELT WAS COMPLETE.

SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER COMMENT ON ON ALL THE COLLABORATION WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE ALTERNATE SITES THAT WE CONSIDERED.

THANK YOU. AND SO WITH THE WITH THE STAFF, WOULD STAFF LIKE TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF COMMENTS MADE RAISED.

SO IF THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE US TO ADDRESS, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.

OKAY, FINE. SO THEN SO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

I DO THE APP IS THE APPLICANT HEADING OUT THE DOOR OR I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK.

THIS IS EXCLUSIVELY AT&T, CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY, SO THE CONSUMERS IN THE AFFECTED AREAS WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF CHOOSING A COMPETITOR.

LIKE A VERIZON OR A T-MOBILE, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND SO THE BENEFIT FOR THIS IS ENHANCING TOTALLY AT&TS FOOTPRINT AND ABILITY TO GET MORE BUSINESS.

YES, SIR. RIGHT.

SO SO THAT'S CORRECT.

COMMISSIONER, THIS IS AN AT&T SITE.

IT'S ATTACHED TO A LIGHT STANDARD IN THAT WAS DEEMED AN APPROPRIATE CANDIDATE SITE AND IT WOULD BENEFIT AT&TS CUSTOMERS.

NOW WE DO HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER CARRIERS TO HAND OFF CALLS AND ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S A DOWNSIDE OR AN EMERGENCY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE MOST PART, THIS IS A, AN EFFORT AND AN INVESTMENT IN THE COMMUNITY TO BROADEN AND INCREASE OUR, OUR CURRENT COVERAGE.

SO, SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN GREAT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ALL THE SITES AND ALL THE DUE DILIGENCE YOU PUT IN.

BUT DON'T DON'T YOU WORK TOGETHER WITH VERIZON OR T-MOBILE? AND IF THEY HAVE SITES, CAN'T YOU USE THEIR SITES.

CAN'T. WHY WOULD WE NEED TO PUT AN ADDITIONAL SITE IF THE THREE OF YOU WHO ARE OR HOWEVER MANY, COULD WORK TOGETHER SO THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THESE ADDITIONAL SITES? YEAH, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

WE REFER TO IT IN THE INDUSTRY AS A CO-LOCATED SITE OR CO-LOCATION.

SO JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE, THIS IS NOT A NEW STRUCTURE, RIGHT? WE'RE ATTACHING TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.

THERE'S A 70 PLUS FOOT LIGHT STANDARD THERE.

AND THAT'S WHEN WE LOOK AT AN IMPACT TO A COMMUNITY FROM AN ESTHETIC PERSPECTIVE.

THIS IS AT ONE OF THE PREFERRED BECAUSE IT'S A STEALTH DESIGN AND BECAUSE IT'S ATTACHING TO AN EXISTING FACILITY.

IT'S IT'S NOT SOMETHING BRAND NEW THAT FOLKS ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT.

THOSE CO-LOCATED SITES REQUIRE A DESIGNATED SPACE BETWEEN THE ANTENNAS.

SO WE WOULD NOT LIKE A LIGHT STANDARD WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT.

YOU LOOKED AT THE PROPAGATION MAP.

I'M SORRY, THE EMISSIONS MAP, THOSE THOSE ANTENNAS WOULD FOR ANOTHER CARRIER WOULD HAVE TO BE MAYBE LIKE A I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TYPICAL

[01:35:04]

SPAN IS BETWEEN CARRIERS, BUT I WOULD GUESS AT ABOUT 8 TO 10FT BETWEEN BECAUSE NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE THE ANTENNAS YOU HEARD REFERRED TO AS THE RADIOS OR RADIO UNITS, THAT'S WHERE THE SIGNALS ARE, YOU KNOW [INAUDIBLE] ENHANCED IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IT HAS TO BE ENHANCED.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A LARGER STRUCTURE.

YEAH, BUT DOES VERIZON AND T-MOBILE HAVE IN THE GENERAL AREA.

AND WAS THAT PART OF YOUR DUE DILIGENCE TO TO LOOK AT THEIR PARTICULAR THEIR SITES AND PERHAPS DO THAT ENHANCEMENT? YEAH, AT THE VERY FRONT END OF THE PROCESS AND HAROLD CAN SPEAK TO IT MORE.

YOU KNOW, OUR ENGINEERS IDENTIFY A NETWORK GAP.

THEY DEFINE A NEW PROJECT.

IT'S FUNDED. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS JUST ON THE FRONT END FOR A PRELIMINARY FOR THE RESEARCH.

AND THEY DEVELOP A SEARCH RING.

SO I THINK YOU WERE CALLING IT YOUR TARGET AREA.

AND THEY START LOOKING FOR CANDIDATES.

IT'S IT'S FAIRLY LIMITED IN WHAT'S THE FOOTPRINT OR THE CANDIDATE SITES THAT WE CAN CONSIDER TO PROVIDE THE COVERAGE THAT WE NEED.

SO WE SO WE DO LOOK AT THOSE.

OKAY. SO YOU HAVE EXHAUSTED T-MOBILE OR VERIZON OR OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTNERSHIP.

SURE. BECAUSE THAT SAVES US FROM HAVING TO PUT A LOT OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS JUST ASKING.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

I'LL GET TO YOU. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR CITY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FROST.

SO ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTERS BROUGHT UP A VERY INTERESTING POINT THAT I DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE.

THE US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C.

DISTRICT CIRCUIT DECLARED THE FCC GUIDELINES TO BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

AND I'M I DIDN'T READ THE OPINION, BUT I'M I'M ASSUMING IT VIOLATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT SOMEHOW.

SO FEDERAL LAW IS A VERY PRESCRIPTIVE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS FAR AS PREVENTING US FROM IMPOSING STRICTER REQUIREMENTS AND THE FCC [INAUDIBLE].

BUT IF THE US COURT OF APPEALS SAID THAT THE FCC, WHEN THE FCC WROTE THESE REGULATIONS OR REFUSED TO UPDATE THEM, THEY WEREN'T FOLLOWING FEDERAL LAW EITHER.

HOW MUCH DEFERENCE DO WE REALLY OWE THESE REGULATIONS? SO THANK YOU.

FOR PURPOSES OF TONIGHT, I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT THE FCC REGULATIONS ARE STILL ENFORCEABLE, STILL VALID.

THERE HASN'T BEEN A DECISION THAT STRUCK THEM DOWN.

I HAVEN'T READ THE CASE THAT WAS REFERRED TO, BUT I AM AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE FCC REGULATIONS ARE STILL ENFORCEABLE.

SO, MAYBE THERE IS A CASE THAT'S DISCUSSING WHETHER THERE IS A PROCESS THAT THE FCC NEEDS TO GO THROUGH IN UPDATING THEIR REGULATIONS.

I DON'T KNOW, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF TONIGHT, WE STILL NEED TO FOLLOW THE FCC GUIDELINES AND POLICY 64.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT SHOULD BE GUIDING YOUR DECISION IS POLICY 64.

THAT IS WHAT IS IN PLACE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AS THE RULES FOR THIS BODY TO FOLLOW.

AND UNTIL THAT POLICY IS CHANGED, THAT IS THE CITY'S POLICY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YEAH. QUICK QUESTION TO YOU, THE APPLICANT, IN REGARD TO FIRE STATION FOUR AND ALSO ALTAMIRA, THERE IS EXISTING YOU HAVE EXISTING CELL TOWERS THERE, CORRECT? NOT AT ALTAMIRA.

NOT NOT NOT AT EITHER OF THEM, HOWEVER, THE FIRE STATION IS BEING SERVICED BY ONE OF OUR EXISTING TOWERS LOCATED AT THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER WATER TANK, SO THAT IS BEING SERVICED BY OUR AT&T FACILITY OVER THERE.

OKAY, SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THOSE TWO SITES, ARE THEY AS YOUR ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS AS TO THE POSSIBILITIES OF BUT IT DOESN'T MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS? YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

SO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU HAD STATED OR THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU SAID IN THOSE TWO PARTICULAR SITES, FIRE STATION, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PARKING.

ALTAMIRA YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, VEGETATION, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

WHY IS THAT AN ISSUE? WELL, I WANT TO STATE AGAIN FOR ALTAMIRA, IT'S NOT ONLY THAT, BUT ALSO THAT THE SITE IS A, OPEN SPACE LOT, WHICH IS NUMBER ONE ON THE DISCOURAGE ZONE.

SO THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL REASON AS TO WHY.

BUT IT'S ALSO THE FACT THAT WHENEVER WE DO AND IT HASN'T BEEN JUST WITH CARLSBAD WITH OTHER, BUT IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS.

CERTAIN SPACES HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

IF THEY GO BELOW, IF WE GO, IF THAT SPACE LOSES ITS, PARKING LOT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, IT, IT POSES MORE ISSUES.

SO ONE POLE IN A PARKING LOT WOULD HAVE THAT MUCH OF AN IMPACT ON THE NUMBER OF SPACES.

NOT JUST THE POLE, SIR, BUT IT WILL ALSO BE THE POLE AND THE EQUIPMENT AREA, WHICH HAS A FOOTPRINT OF ABOUT 250FT².

SO THOSE TWO, IN CONJUNCTION AS OUR TOTAL LEASE AREA, CAN LEAD TO THE REMOVAL OF SEVERAL PARKING SPACES.

[01:40:02]

OKAY. SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS, IS IN REGARD TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES THAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE, I THINK YOU SAID THE THE WATER TOWER UP THERE ON BLACK RAIL AND WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE, WHAT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING THAT FACILITY OR ANOTHER FACILITY VERY CLOSE BY AND EXPAND IT TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA AROUND THE PARK? YES, SIR. AND I CAN ALSO HAVE OUR RF ENGINEER, IF YOU'D LIKE TO, CLARIFY EVEN FURTHER, BUT BASED OFF OF OUR TALKS, EVEN WITH THE POWER INCREASE, WHILE IT DOES IMPROVE THE OVERALL AREA, IT STILL DOES NOT MEET AND DOES NOT ALLOW US TO REACH OUR MAIN POINT OF FOCUS WHICH IS THE, POINSETTIA PARK AREA, SIR.

OKAY. THEN MY LAST QUESTION WOULD BE THERE ARE OTHER WAYS IN WHICH TO PUT FACILITIES CELL CELL FACILITIES THEY'RE SMALLER OBVIOUSLY. YOU KNOW LIKE YOU SAY ON ON STREETS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE IN AND AROUND THE AREA.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IN THAT REGARD IS, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE SMALLER IS A POSSIBILITY.

AND DID YOU LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITIES OF MAYBE HAVING, 3 OR 4 OR 5 SMALLER SITES IN THAT GENERAL AREA THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE WHAT YOUR NEEDS ARE? WELL, THE ISSUE WITH THOSE, THE ISSUE WITH THOSE SMALLER SITES WHICH ARE WHICH WOULD BE HOUSED ON, THE THE ISSUE OF THE SMALLER SITES WHICH WILL BE HOUSED ON TOP OF STREET LIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD HAVE QUITE A BIT.

THERE IS THE NEED FOR THE HEIGHT.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS, IS THAT WE WITH THAT ADDED HEIGHT, IT'S ABLE TO DO A LOT FURTHER AND BE ABLE TO EXPAND GREATER DISTANCE, GREATER DISTANCE AND GREATER COVERAGE, BEING ABLE TO BE THAT HIGH COMPARED TO MULTIPLE SMALLER ONES.

THAT MIGHT BE TRUE, BUT YET IF YOU HAD FOUR OF THEM, WOULD THAT HEIGHT NECESSARILY BE? WOULD THAT BE NECESSARY? SORRY IF I CAN ADD, THE REASON WE DON'T GO INITIALLY WITH THAT AS AN OPTION IS BECAUSE THOSE SMALL STRUCTURES YOU MENTIONED, THEY'RE LIMITED TO WHAT WE CAN DEPLOY AS A TECHNOLOGY, FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE, THE ONES THAT ARE REFERENCED HERE ON, CLOSE TO THE TO THE, TO THE OUTLETS, THOSE ARE SMALL CELLS WE CONSIDER SMALL ON RIGHT OF WAY, STREET LIGHTS, THOSE DON'T NOT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DEPLOY, 5G OR FIRSTNET, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE TO PROVIDE PERSONAL SERVICES TO. RIGHT. SO IF WE GO THAT ROUTE, ALSO, THEY'RE NOT DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A LOT OF THEY'RE NOT HAVE ENOUGH POWER TO DO IN-BUILDING COVERAGE.

THEY'RE MAINLY TO DO OTHER COVERAGE.

RIGHT? THAT'S THEIR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE.

AND THIS IS WHY WE INITIALLY PREFER TO GO WITH THE ROUTE OF A NEW BUILD OR A CELL SITE.

RIGHT. AND ALSO TO JUST ADD TO YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT ABOUT, MODIFYING THEIR EXISTING STRUCTURES, WE ALREADY ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.

MEANING LIKE WE ALREADY DID AN ANALYSIS IF MODIFYING MAKING CHANGES TO EXISTING, WE CAN IMPROVE IT.

AND WE ATTEMPTED IT AND THAT DIDN'T WORK.

WE DIDN'T SEE ANY MAJOR IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE OF TERRAIN.

RIGHT. THERE'S, DIPS ON THE TERRAIN IN CERTAIN AREAS THAT IS CREATING THE BLOCKAGE OF THE SIGNAL TO PROPAGATE SPECIFICALLY ON THAT IN THAT AREA AND THIS IS WHY.

THANK YOU. ONE THING, IF I COULD ADD, RELATED TO THE, THE SMALL CELL AND THE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE PREFERRED AND DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS. WHEN THE POLICY WAS UPDATED IN 2021, TO IT WAS REALLY IN REFERENCE TO THE NEW TECHNOLOGY, THE SMALL CELL WIRELESS THAT WAS COMING OUT AND NEW GUIDANCE FROM THE FCC.

THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERED THAT AND ACTUALLY ADDED THAT AS THE LAST OF THE PREFERRED LOCATIONS.

SO THAT IS THE ONE PREFERRED LOCATION THAT WOULD BE BELOW A PARK IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

AND WE COULD PROBABLY PULL THAT UP.

BUT IT IS ON PAGE 36 OF YOUR REPORT.

IT'S A1I.

APPRECIATE. I THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. ROMA, COULD YOU COME UP ADDRESS A TECHNICAL ISSUE? YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE THE RF ENGINEER, CORRECT, SIR.

YES. I'M SORRY.

AS YOU HEARD AND LISTENED TO THE TESTIMONY, WE HAVE GOT A PLETHORA OF, PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HEALTH IMPACTS.

WE HEARD THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN, AND WE HEARD IT IN DECEMBER.

OKAY. AND I DON'T WANT TO DISMISS THOSE CONCERNS, BUT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT.

ONE OF THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS WAS THE TESTIMONY THAT THE EVALUATION SIMULATION WAS MISLEADING IN THAT THERE WERE HILLS IN THE AREA, AND THE IMPLICATION I DREW FROM THAT IS THAT THAT PERHAPS THIS BECAUSE OF HILLS IN THE AREA, MAYBE THIS HORIZONTAL EMISSIONS COULD CONTACT THE HILLS AND IMPACT THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE ON THOSE HILLS.

COULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT, PLEASE?

[01:45:02]

WELL, THE REPORT SHOWS THAT IF YOU'RE BEYOND 44FT FROM THE ANTENNA, THERE'S NO REAL CONCERN OF EMISSIONS.

SO THESE HILLS YEAH, I KNOW THERE'S LIKE IT'S A BOWL THEY'RE BEYOND THAT, THAT THAT DISTANCE.

RIGHT. SO TECHNICALLY IF EVEN IF THE RF IS TRANSMITTED THAT WAY, YOU'RE NOT EXCEEDING THE FCC LIMITS AT THAT DISTANCE.

OKAY. AND YOU'VE WALKED THE SITE, SIR.

RIGHT. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND THE HILLS, CORRECT? YES. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE PICKED THIS LOCATION.

OKAY. WE ARE WE'RE AWARE THAT POSSIBLY THAT COULD BE A CONCERN.

AND WE TRIED TO PUT IT AS FAR AWAY AS FROM THE POPULATION.

YEAH. DO YOU KNOW APPROXIMATELY HOW CLOSE THE CLOSEST HILL IS TO THE POLES? YOU KNOW, IS IT 100FT? IS IT 75FT? I'LL BE GUESSING, BUT JUST BASED ON THE DISTANCE FROM THE SITE TO TO THE CLOSEST, I'LL PROBABLY SAY AROUND 600FT TO 500FT. OKAY.

I'M NOT I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.

I KNOW. I DON'T WANT YOU TO GUESS.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO GUESS, BUT BUT BUT SAFE TO SAY, FROM YOUR JUDGMENT, IT'S FAR, FAR BEYOND THE 44FT LIMIT OF THE SAFETY ISSUES IN THAT DIAGRAM. IS THAT RIGHT? I THINK IT IS, YES.

ANY OTHER, QUESTION? YES, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

ONE OF THE COMMENTS MADE WAS THERE ARE NO SAFETY STUDIES FOR 5G RF EXPOSURE.

IS THAT THE CASE AND WHAT WOULD BE WE BE USING TO MEET CRITERIA, IN THE, IN THE, RESOLUTION? NUMBER 15, TO AND NUMBER WELL, ESPECIALLY, NUMBER 20, WHERE IT SAYS WE NEED TO HAVE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO BE PROVIDED IF THERE'S, NO SAFETY STANDARDS.

SO WHAT SAFETY STANDARDS ARE WE ACTUALLY, WHAT STUDIES ARE WE LOOKING AT TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT O N PAGE 17 OF THE RESOLUTION THAT STATES THAT THEY HAVE TO BE BASED ON FINDINGS, HAVE TO BE BASED ON OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, IF THERE ARE NO STUDIES? OKAY. AND REGARDING THE STUDIES AND YOUR QUESTION, THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY, WHEN WE DO OUR INITIAL APPLICATION, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE A EME REPORT, A RADIO FREQUENCY REPORT, WHICH IS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY.

THAT EME REPORT ALSO, TAKES INTO ACCOUNT AND I CAN ALSO HAVE OUR ENGINEER SPEAK, BUT IT ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE 5G.

SO WHAT WE DO IS WE, REACH OUT TO THE THIRD PARTY, WE TELL THEM EXACTLY WHAT EQUIPMENT WE'RE PLANNING ON USING.

AND FROM THERE THEY RUN THEIR SIMULATIONS.

AND THAT'S HOW THEY MAKE THEIR DETERMINING FACTORS.

YEAH, BUT I GUESS I'M.

I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

I UNDERSTAND YOU CAN RUN SIMULATIONS ON HOW MUCH RADIATION IS BEING EMITTED.

BUT YOU IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE ARE STUDIES AS TO HOW THAT AFFECTS HUMAN INTERACTION.

IS ARE THERE STUDIES THAT ARE PART OF THAT? IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT SET IS A REGULATIONS FOR THIS IS POLICY 64.

AND I ASKED KYLE TO PULL IT UP.

IF YOU COULD GO TO I THINK IT'S PAGE THREE.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF SUMMARIES OF THE FEDERAL LAW AND RULES AND REGULATIONS.

A LITTLE BIT OF ONE BULLET POINT UP.

PERFECT. SO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN, I THINK IT SUMMARIZES THE EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE FCC.

AND THIS IS OUR GUIDEBOOK ON HOW WE PROCESS THESE.

BUT IT STATES THAT THE CITY CANNOT DENY AN APPLICATION BECAUSE OF PERCEIVED RADIO FREQUENCY HEALTH IMPACTS.

AND THEN IT FURTHER GOES ON TO FEDERAL STANDARDS ARE MET CITIES MAY NOT DENY PERMITS ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE RF EMISSIONS ARE HARMFUL TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE HEALTH OF RESIDENTS. HOWEVER, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY REQUIRE CARRIERS TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS.

THE FCC HAS ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS RULES, AND SO AS PART OF THIS LAND USE APPLICATION, WE'VE REQUESTED PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS.

BUT UNDER THIS, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK FOR ANY ADDITIONAL SAFETY OR OTHER INFORMATION.

THIS IS THE LIMIT OF WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO ASK.

SO IN THIS CONDITION 20 ON PAGE 17 I T STATES THAT TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN REPORT CERTIFIED BY A QUALITY RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEER FAMILIAR WITH THE FACILITY THAT CERTIFIES

[01:50:10]

THE FACILITY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SUCH LAWS.

THE CITY PLANNER ENGINEER MANAGER MAY ORDER THE FACILITY TO BE POWERED DOWN IF BASED ON OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.

SO IS THAT REPORT THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE? AND IT'S NOT BASED ON, ANY TYPE OF SAFETY STUDIES.

IT'S ONLY BASED ON EMISSION STUDIES.

IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. I MEAN, THIS THIS CONDITION IS AN ONGOING CONDITION, THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERMIT.

SO IF AT ANY TIME WE THOUGHT THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE RF EMISSION STANDARDS, WE COULD REQUEST A REPORT FROM THE APPLICANT.

SO MY QUESTION IS WHAT CONSTITUTES THAT REPORT? IT WOULD LIKELY. IS IT A STANDARD THAT IS OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE? YEAH IT WOULD. IT WOULD LIKELY BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THE RF REPORT THAT THEY PROVIDED.

IF THE TOWER WAS IN OPERATION.

WE COULD ALSO ASK FOR ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS IN THE FIELD BECAUSE THIS IS BASED ON A MODELED SIMULATION.

BUT WE COULD REQUEST THAT THE STANDARD AND OBJECTIVE STANDARD WOULD BE THE NUMERIC STANDARD SET BY THE FCC.

COULD WE REQUEST THAT? DOES THIS REQUEST THAT? CAN IT BE A CONDITION? WELL, THIS IS A CONDITION.

I MEAN, WE WE HAVE AT ANY TIME THE ABILITY TO REQUEST THAT.

AND SO WE, WE COULD REQUEST THAT OF THE APPLICANT.

BUT LIKELY THE BEST WOULD BE IS IF THE FACILITY IS APPROVED AND PUT IN OPERATION, HAVE A STUDY, SENT TO US PROVING THAT IT STILL MEETS THE STANDARDS. I'D ASK IF THE APPLICANT WANTED TO RESPOND TO ANYTHING ELSE.

YEAH, WE WE DO THAT OFTEN AT KIND OF A POST ACTIVATION STUDY WHEN IT'S A CONDITION.

BUT THE EME REPORTS OR THESE ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY EMISSIONS REPORTS, WE DON'T WE DON'T DO THEM.

WE HAVE TO PAY A THIRD PARTY AND THESE EXPERTS AND THIS ONE IS, IS DONE BY A FIRM CALLED EBI CONSULTING.

SO ALL THE CARRIERS, THERE'S ONLY A HANDFUL OF THEM THAT HAVE THIS EXPERTISE.

ANOTHER ONE IS [INAUDIBLE].

SO THERE'S YOU KNOW, WE DON'T PRODUCE THE STUDIES.

WE ONLY WE ONLY BUILD WHAT'S, WHAT'S FOUND TO BE COMPLIANT AND WHAT'S APPROVED BY THE JURISDICTION.

AND ONE OTHER QUESTION.

IS THERE A SO THIS IS A VERY LARGE POLE WITH ANTICIPATED LARGE COVERAGE. AND OBVIOUSLY LARGER EMISSIONS, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU HAVE A BIGGER POLE WITH MORE STUFF, BIGGER EMISSIONS.

DO SMALLER POLES.

YOU MENTIONED IN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR PRESENTATION THAT 6 OR 8 POLES WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THIS, BUT 6 OR 8 POLES, MEANING THAT THEY WOULD BE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, OR WHAT KIND OF POLES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? AND WOULD I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS HOW DO WE REDUCE THE IMPACT OF THIS 5G RF EXPOSURE IF WE BREAK IT DOWN, YOU KNOW, INTO SMALLER ELEMENTS? DOES IT HAVE THE SAME EFFECT OR DO SMALLER POLES CREATE LESS EMISSIONS? WELL, THEY CREATE LESS EMISSIONS BECAUSE THEY THEY DRAW LESS POWER AND THE SIGNAL STRENGTH IS WEAKER.

SO YOU DON'T GET THE SAME COVERAGE BENEFIT.

I MEAN, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, AT 60FT IN THE AIR ON A ON A LIGHT STANDARD, IS PRETTY OPTIMAL IN TERMS OF MITIGATING RISK.

AND PLACING ADDITIONAL SIGNS AT GROUND LEVEL IF THAT'S REQUESTED.

IF THAT'S A CONDITION, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

I MEAN, AGAIN, I WAS JUST KIND OF GUESSTIMATING THE NUMBER OF SMALLER SITES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

THAT WOULD REQUIRE A WHOLE TEAM OF ENGINEERS TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY OUT THERE AND AND WHAT WOULD KIND OF MEET THE SIMILAR OBJECTIVE.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A THERE'S TWO WAYS TO TRY TO EVALUATE THIS.

AND MY CONCERN IS ONE BIG POLE COULD COVER A LOT OF AREA.

BUT ESTHETICALLY IT'S PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT R EALLY, YOU KNOW, AND WITH THE BOWL LIKE YOU WERE DESCRIBING OF THE PARK, WE ALL KNOW OBVIOUSLY, THAT POLE IS GOING TO BE DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH SOME OF THE HOMES THAT ARE SURROUNDING THAT.

SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, IT DOES SEEM LIKE THAT'S A DIFFICULTY.

[01:55:01]

YOU KNOW, AND THEN I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS, OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.

YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENT IN THE CONDITIONS TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE FINDING THAT.

YEAH, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY REALLY VIABLE SOLUTION WHEN IN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU DID SAY 6 OR 8 SMALLER POLES COULD HAVE PROBABLY DONE THE SAME THING, SO I AM JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT.

AND I ALSO KNOW THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE IS ONLY FOR TEN YEARS, AND WE DO HAVE AN OPTION AS A CITY TO, REEVALUATE IF WE'RE NOT FINDING THAT THIS POLE IS, HELPING US AND, BUT I THINK THAT CONDITION 13, 15 AND 20 ARE ALL ITEMS IN THE RESOLUTION THAT I AM QUESTIONING RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT MEETS THAT SAFETY STUDY, THE SAFETY STUDY REQUIREMENT THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH SO AND THE OBVIOUSLY THE NEIGHBORHOODS CONCERNED.

YEAH, WE APPRECIATE WHEN IT COMES TO SAFETY.

WE JUST ENSURE THAT ALL OF OUR SITES ARE COMPLIANT WITH THOSE STUDIES.

AND AS IT COMES, YOU KNOW, REFERRING TO ESTHETICS THERE, LIKE I'VE SAID BEFORE, THERE IS AN EXISTING POLE THERE.

IT'S NOT A NEW TOWER.

IT'S NOT A NEW ELEMENT.

YES, THERE IS A SHROUD.

THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL, EQUIPMENT UP ABOVE.

AND IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN REAL QUICK AND MAKE A CLARIFICATION.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ALTERNATE SITES AND SMALLER SITES, MULTIPLE SITES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THAT WOULD BE A LESS PREFERRED LOCATION.

SO THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO GO IN ORDER.

THIS WOULD BE MORE PREFERRED THAN THE SMALLER SITES AND THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO HE WOULD NEED TO SHOW THAT THIS IS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE GOING THERE.

OKAY. WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, YEAH. COMMISSIONER STINE, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, KIND OF PIGGYBACKING ON WHAT COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY REFERENCED.

AND IF YOU SAID THIS, I JUST DIDN'T GET CLARIFICATION FEEL REAL COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, ASSUMING THIS PERMIT GETS APPROVED AND THERE'S NO APPEAL AND THE SITE IS PUT UP, WOULD AT&T PROACTIVELY BE PROVIDING CITY STAFF WITH ANY TYPE OF REPORT SHOWING THAT, IN FACT, THE EMISSIONS ARE WITHIN FCC STANDARDS? WE WOULD, AS ITS STATED THAT IT CAN BE REQUESTED AT ANY TIME, OR IF IT'S A CONDITION THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THAT.

CAN WE DRILL DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

BUT PROACTIVELY YOU PUT UP THE SITE, YOU TURN IT ON IS WOULD THE APPLICANT AT&T BE PROVIDING THE CITY WITH THAT CONFIRMATION AT THE GET GO FROM THE OUTSET THAT THESE EMISSIONS ARE WITHIN THE FEDERAL STANDARDS? OR, CONVERSELY, ARE YOU WAITING FOR THE CITY TO SAY, HEY, WE NEED TO SEE A REPORT? YEAH. IT'S NOT DONE PROACTIVELY ON THE, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SITES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

BUT WHEN IT IS A CONDITION, WHEN IT'S SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

WE RELY, LIKE I SAID, ON THIS THIRD PARTY, THAT WE WE PAY FOR THESE EME REPORTS FROM THAT MODELING.

THAT'S VERY SPECIFIC, VERY SCIENTIFIC.

THAT'S WHY YOU GET THAT SIX FOOT AND 44 FOOT, YOU KNOW, LIMITS THAT ARE UP THERE, BUT ON A PROACTIVE BASIS FOR EVERY SITE THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY? NO, BUT DEFINITELY WHEN IT'S REQUESTED.

OKAY. IN THIS CASE, WOULD AT&T HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF A CONDITION WAS PLACED ON THE APPROVAL OF THE THE THE SITE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AT&T WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS AFTER THE SITE IS ERECTED AND THE EMISSIONS ARE THE RF IS TURNED ON TO SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE CITY CONFIRMING THAT IT'S WITHIN THE FCC STANDARDS.

YEAH, WE WE DO THAT FREQUENTLY WHEN IT'S A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.

YOU WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION IF THAT WAS MADE CLEAR HERE.

NO OBJECTION. THANK YOU.

IT'S NOT.

COMMISSIONER MEENES.

YEAH. I YOU KNOW, WE AS A AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, WE ARE THE REGULATORY BODY, OF THE CITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE POLICY, BODY OF THE CITY.

AND MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF, OF MAKING OUR DECISIONS ARE BASED UPON FINDINGS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS AND ONE OF THE ITEMS UNDER ITEM NUMBER TWO OF FINDINGS WITHIN OUR REPORT IS IT STATES, THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 PREEMPTS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES ON THE BASIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF RADIOFREQUENCY EMISSIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH FACILITIES COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS WHICH IS FCC STANDARDS FOR SUCH EMISSIONS.

[02:00:02]

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH FCC REGULATIONS FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES.

SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

YEAH. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEENES.

AND CHAIR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING CONDITION.

IT'S CONDITION 15.

I WASN'T LOOKING AT THAT EARLIER, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY, OR AT ANY TIME, THEY SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE CITY PLANNER, PROVING COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.

SO THE COMMISSION CERTAINLY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THIS CONDITION, BUT THERE IS A CONDITION THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PERMIT.

GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, MR. LARDY. OH.

EXCUSE ME, ARE THERE ANY OTHER, QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS? I HAD A FEW, BUT, DO ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY? OKAY, YEAH.

SO THE QUESTION I HAD IS IT WAS INTERESTING THE FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKER BROUGHT UP A, YOU KNOW, PRETTY DETAILED, MULTI-PAGE PACKAGE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SAYING AT&T IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH FCC. THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF DATA IN THERE.

DID DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THOSE PARTICULAR POINTS ON THAT OR ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT? OR WELL, IT SEEMS TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF OUR THIRD PARTY REPORTS AS WELL AS THE ANALYSIS OF YOUR STAFF.

SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY IN REBUTTAL TO THAT.

OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE OF THE COMMENTERS BROUGHT UP THE, THE AT&T OWN COVERAGE MAP ON THEIR WEBSITE SHOWING IT WAS ADEQUATE COVERAGE ON THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A DISPARITY BETWEEN WHAT, YOU KNOW THE REPORT SAYS AND WHAT AT&T IS SAYING ON THEIR WEBSITE.

IS THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT OR.

YEAH, I THINK THE MAP THAT'S ON OUR WEBSITE, IS IN RELATION TO WHERE 5G IS AVAILABLE AND WHERE WE'VE DEPLOYED IT IN REGIONS. SO UNFORTUNATELY, MAYBE IT'S BROAD BRUSH STROKES BUT NOT, YOU KNOW, INTERSECTION BY INTERSECTION WHERE 5G HAS BEEN DEPLOYED.

OKAY. THE OTHER CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS JUST SORT OF THE PROPAGATION OF, YOU KNOW, PRE, YOU KNOW, PRETTY SOON WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, JUST ALL KINDS OF TOWERS AND SITES.

YOU KNOW WE BROUGHT THE CALAVERA HILLS SITE.

I MEAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS ON THAT CONCERN? YEAH, I THINK IT'S EVERY TIME THAT WE INITIATE OR DEVELOP A SEARCH RING, WE'VE IDENTIFIED A NETWORK COVERAGE GAP.

OUR VENDOR PARTNERS ARE MANDATED AND DIRECTED TO PARTNER WITH CITY STAFF AND KIND OF IN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, FIND CANDIDATE SITES WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, COME BEFORE YOU AND WASTE THEIR TIME WITH A DESIGN THAT REALLY DOESN'T MEET YOUR COMMUNITY STANDARDS OR WOULDN'T FIT.

SO LIKE I SAID, ATTACHING TO AN EXISTING POLE AT THAT HEIGHT, IT SEEMS TO BE A GOOD OPTION IN THIS CASE.

OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

I THINK THERE'S ONE LAST, I THINK.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S IT. OKAY, GREAT.

GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

SO I GUESS THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF.

SO NOW WE WILL GO ON TO OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO GO FIRST? WOULD ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO DISCUSS ITEM? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. YEAH.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CRITERIA, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AT&T PROVIDES THIRD PARTY REPORTS, BUT THEY'RE PROVIDING THE REPORTS.

WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY HAVING THESE REPORTS.

SO I STILL FEEL THAT CONDITION 20 IS A CONCERN BECAUSE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE SEEMS TO ME, SHOULD BE FROM OUTSIDE VENDORS THAT THE CITY REQUIRES EVIDENCE FROM, AS OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPER.

SO THAT TO ME IS A CONCERN.

THE IDEA THAT, WE'RE ATTACHING TO AN EXISTING POLE, WELL, ACTUALLY, WE'RE DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING POLE, AND WE'RE PUTTING UP A POLE THAT'S THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE EXISTING POLE.

SO THE IDEA THAT IT'S EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE IS TRUE AND NOT TRUE.

IT'S SORT OF CONTRADICTORY, AND I FIND THAT A CONCERN AS WELL.

SO FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, I AM CONCERNED THAT AND YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THE IDEA WHERE 6 TO 8 SMALLER COVERAGE COULD ACTUALLY MEET THIS SINGLE, LARGER COVERAGE OPPORTUNITY, SEEMS TO ME A BETTER, MORE VIABLE OPTION.

SO I AM CONCERNED THAT WE'RE NOT MEETING THE CONDITIONS OF THIS, IN THIS REPORT RIGHT NOW.

[02:05:10]

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

ANY OTHER COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON THERE.

WOW. OKAY. OKAY.

OH. OH. I'M SORRY.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER STINE.

YEAH. THERE WE GO.

AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR ALL THE PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS.

AND I KNOW IT'S HEARTFELT.

I KNOW IT'S A VERY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS BY EVERYONE WHO SPOKE UP HERE TONIGHT, AND I TAKE THOSE CONCERNS QUITE SERIOUSLY. BUT WE ARE SOMEWHAT CONSTRAINED WITH REGARD TO THE RF ISSUE, NOT SOMEWHAT TOTALLY CONSTRAINED BY FCC STANDARDS LIKE THEM OR NOT THAT'S THE LAW.

NOW, I AM COMFORTED A BIT WHEN, AS MR. LARDY POINTED OUT, THAT WE'RE JUST NOT TAKING SIMULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE AND SAY, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH.

THERE IS A REQUIREMENT AND IT'S POINTED OUT IN NUMBER 15 CONDITION THAT WOULD INDICATE WITHIN SIX MONTHS THEY MUST SUBMIT A REPORT THAT SHOWS SIX MONTHS OF ACTIVATION OR THAT SHOWS, IN FACT, IT DOES COMPLY.

PROJECTIONS ARE ONE THING, SIMULATIONS ARE ONE THING, BUT ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THAT EXPOSURE IS ANOTHER.

AND I LIKE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THAT IN THERE.

AND WHEN I PRESSED THE APPLICANT ABOUT IT, THEY WERE WILLING TO PROACTIVELY DO IT ANYHOW.

SO WE SHOULD HAVE THAT DATA THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIATE THAT THESE EMISSIONS ARE CLEARLY WITHIN THE FCC STANDARDS. SO THAT WAS COMFORTING TO ME.

WITH REGARD TO THE, SIMULATION EXHIBIT, I DRILLED DOWN ON THAT TO SOME EXTENT WITH THE MR. SOTO AND AND THAT'S AND IN RESPONDING TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT ANY HILLS OR RESIDENCES WOULD BE WOULD BE FAR, FAR BEYOND THE 44 LIMIT OF 44 FEET LIMIT FOR THE ZONE THAT WOULD EXPOSE SOME SAFETY CONCERNS NOTWITHSTANDING THE HILLS.

THE HILLS ARE NOT RIGHT DOWN BELOW.

THERE'S SOME DISTANCE OFF.

SO I AM COMFORTED BY THAT.

ONE FURTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO MY COMMISSION COLLEAGUES.

WE'VE HEARD, ON DECEMBER AND WE'VE HEARD TODAY ALMOST UNANIMITY AMONG MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN OPPOSITION TO THIS.

DON'T DO IT. THERE'S SAFETY ISSUES, THERE'S ESTHETIC ISSUES AND A WHOLE BARRAGE OF ISSUES.

AND I TAKE THOSE SERIOUSLY.

BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THERE IS NOT UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS ON THIS.

IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 154 OF OUR STAFF REPORT, THERE IS AN EMAIL FROM A GENTLEMAN WHO LIVES IN THE AREA AND HE SAYS, HELLO I LIVE IN THE BEACON BAY DRIVE AND HAVE AN AT&T CELL SERVICE, THAT IS WHEN IT WORKS.

I HAVE A SERVICE WHEN IT WORKS.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A NEW CELL TOWER INSTALLED SO THEY CAN RECEIVE PHONE CALLS LIKE THE REST OF THE COUNTY.

PLEASE. SO THERE IS AT LEAST SOME SENTIMENT THAT THERE IS A DEFICIENCY IN THE AT&T SERVICE IN THE AREA.

AND I WOULD THINK COMMON SENSE TELLS ME THAT AT&T WOULD NOT GO TO THE TIME TROUBLE AND CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE IF THEY FELT THEIR SYSTEM WAS ADEQUATE AND THEY DIDN'T NEED ANOTHER, TOWER.

SO SO THERE IS NOT UNANIMITY HERE.

AND I WOULD THINK AS A BUSINESS, WHY GO TO THIS TROUBLE AND RECEIVE THIS EXTENSIVE OPPOSITION UNLESS YOU SINCERELY BELIEVED, BASED UPON FEEDBACK FROM YOUR CUSTOMERS, THAT THERE IS SOME DEFICIENCIES IN THE SYSTEM.

SO, I THINK THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE. LET'S ALSO TRY TO KEEP COMMENT.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE HEARING SOME NOISE FROM THE AUDIENCE.

LET'S TRY TO KEEP THIS IN ORDER HERE.

LET'S SEE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.

LET'S SEE. OKAY.

YES, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

YOU KNOW, I ATTENDED THE LAST MEETING AND I COULD NOT VOTE FOR THE PROJECT AT THE LAST MEETING FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.

AND I WON'T REPEAT THEM ALL NOW, BUT TO SUMMARIZE, I JUST FELT THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT MEET THE HIGH BURDEN OF PROOF, THAT THEY MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY NEEDED TO, THAT WE HAD TO MAKE THOSE FINDINGS THAT COMMISSIONER MEENES WAS MENTIONING AND I STILL FEEL THAT WAY.

I HAD HOPED TO SEE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND, AND I DEFINITELY DID SEE EVIDENCE THAT CONVINCED ME THAT THIS IS TRULY A NEED

[02:10:08]

FOR BETTER COVERAGE IN THIS AREA.

I THINK THERE'S NO QUESTION IN MY MIND ABOUT THAT.

AND I RECOGNIZE IT'S VERY CHALLENGING TO SERVE THIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE HILLS.

OUR LAND USE IS IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND PARKS.

AND, YOU KNOW, OUR REGULATIONS DON'T ALLOW FOR A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, CREATIVITY IN WHERE THEY CAN PLACE THESE SITES.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR POLICIES, YOU KNOW, OUR POLICY 64 IN PARTICULAR, IT WAS SAID AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING BY OUR LEGAL COUNSEL THAT THIS WAS THE BEST OPTION AMONG THE BAD OPTIONS.

BUT BASED ON THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, WHICH IS FAR MORE DETAILED AND COMPLETE THIS TIME, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S TRUE.

THE APPLICANT COULD PUT IT AT THE FIRE STATION, AND WE'D ONLY LOSE A PARKING SPOT OR TWO PARKING SPOTS.

AND IF WE WANTED TO GRANT THIS PERMIT, WE WOULD HAVE TO VALUE THOSE TWO PARKING SPOTS OR HOWEVER MANY PARKING SPOTS IT REALLY IS, I DON'T KNOW, OVER THE STRONG OBJECTIONS OF HUNDREDS OF RESIDENTS.

I THINK I SAW A PETITION WITH OVER 300 SIGNATURES.

I DO NOT THINK THAT THAT IS A GOOD FAITH IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY 64.

I DO NOT THINK THAT THAT IS, REASONABLE FOR US TO DO UP HERE AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

WE SERVE YOU, WE SERVE THE PUBLIC, AND I CANNOT MAKE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO GRANT THIS PERMIT.

ALTHOUGH I REALLY AM TORN ABOUT THIS, I RECOGNIZE THAT DENYING THE PERMIT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT AND WILL CAUSE PEOPLE WHO USE AT&T TO NOT HAVE COVERAGE. AND I AM VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THAT, AND I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE APPLICANTS, BECAUSE I WANT TO HELP THEM COMPLETE THEIR NETWORK.

AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN, BUT I CAN'T GRANT THE PERMIT TO PUT THIS SITE AT THE PARK.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. SEEING NONE, MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THE ITEM? YES, COMMISSIONER STINE.

YES. AFTER WEIGHING ALL THE FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS AND IN PARTICULAR LOOKING TO WHAT OUR ROLE IS HERE, WHAT OUR JURISDICTION IS HERE AS A LAND USE DECISION MAKING BODY WITH REGARD TO A MINOR CUP AND A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

THAT'S OUR JURISDICTION HERE.

AND IT'S NOT MAKING CALLS, AS THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE CALLS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO, BECAUSE IT'S A CITY PARK AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT A LEASE OF THAT FOR AT&T.

THOSE ARE SEPARATE CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE BEYOND OUR PURVIEW.

WE MAKE THE LAND USE CALL BASED UPON THOSE TWO PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN PARTICULAR, BASED UPON, RESOLUTION 64.

I LOOKED AT THAT RESOLUTION EXTENSIVELY, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICATION BEFORE US DOES COMPLY WITH THAT, POLICY RECOMMENDATION.

AND BASED UPON THAT AND BASED UPON WHAT OUR PURVIEW IS AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, MINOR CUP COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, I WILL MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STINE.

AND IS THAT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MEENES? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE VOTE.

OKAY. THE MOTION.

LET'S SEE, THE MOTION PASSES.

4 TO 3. OKAY.

YEAH. OKAY.

AND, SO WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM, AND WE'LL TAKE A WHAT FIVE, TEN MINUTE RECESS.

CALLED THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

LET'S SEE. WE'RE ON MOVING ON TO, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO BEFORE WE INTRODUCE ITEM DOES ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE,

[2. SDP 2023-0012/CDP 2023-0022 (DEV2023-0061) - LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA PROJECT 2025-- (CEQA) APPLICABILITY/PROCESS DETERMINATION]

DISCLOSURES ON IT.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

YES. I POSSESS A DRIVER'S LICENSE FROM THE LEGOLAND [INAUDIBLE].

[LAUGHTER] OKAY.

OH, AND, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, YOU HAD, I THINK.

YEAH. I NEED TO RECUSE.

MY SON WORKED UP THERE ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.

SO, OKAY.

YEAH. MY DAUGHTER WORKED THERE 15 YEARS AGO.

[02:15:01]

YEAH. NO, NO, NO. MAY I RECUSE MYSELF COUNCIL.

NO, YOU MAY NOT.

THAT REQUEST DENIED.

YEAH. OKAY.

AND THEN I THINK MY KIDS PROBABLY HAD DRIVER'S LICENSE FROM THERE, BUT I DID NOT GO BACK.

YES. COMMISSIONER STINE.

I HAVE BEEN TO LEGOLAND ONE TIME, ABOUT A YEAR AGO, ACTUALLY, LAST FEBRUARY, AND I'M SURE I WENT TO THIS AREA.

I WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE PARK, SO I'VE BEEN THERE ONE TIME, 11 MONTHS AGO, TO BE EXACT.

OKAY, GREAT. BEING THAT YOU CLARIFIED IT IN THAT REGARD.

YES. I HAD BEEN AT THE PARK ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, BUT NOT FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.

OKAY. MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER TWO? SURE. HERE YOU HAVE THE PRESENTATION FOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS SENIOR PLANNER JASON GOFF.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. GOOD EVENING.

THE SUBJECT OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION IS REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING ATTRACTION WITHIN THE INNER PARK AREA OF THE LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA THEME PARK.

LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA IS LOCATED WITHIN AND IS SUBJECT TO THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE PLANNING AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED COMMERCIAL TOURIST WITH A QUALIFIED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, ALSO KNOWN AS A Q OVERLAY.

THE Q OVERLAY REQUIRES APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.

THE PROJECT SITE IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE MELLOW TWO SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, BUT IS NOT WITHIN THE APPEALS JURISDICTION OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION.

DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE REQUIRES APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

AS SUCH, THE REQUIRED PERMITS ASSOCIATED WITH TONIGHT'S PROJECT INCLUDE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SDP 2023-0012, AND A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 2023-0022.

ZOOMING IN CLOSER INTO THE PARK INNER PARK AREA OF LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA.

THE PROJECT IS MORE SPECIFICALLY PROPOSING THE DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING DRIVING SCHOOL AND JUNIOR DRIVING SCHOOL THEMED ATTRACTION WITH A NEW LEGO GALAXY THEMED SPACE THEMED ATTRACTION ON A 2.3 ACRE PROJECT SITE.

HERE'S A GRAPHIC SHOWING THE EXISTING SITE PLAN OF THE ATTRACTION TO BE REMOVED, AND THE LIMITS OF WORK HIGHLIGHTED BY THE RED DASHED LINE.

HERE'S A GRAPHIC SHOWING THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED SPACE THEME ATTRACTION.

THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HEADLINE RIDE, A SECONDARY RIDE, A CHILDREN'S PLAY STRUCTURE AND A TODDLER PLAY AREA.

THE HEADLINE RIDE CONSISTS OF AN INDOOR ROLLER COASTER, HOUSED INSIDE A NEW SINGLE STORY 32,319 SQUARE FOOT, 43 FOOT TALL PRE-MANUFACTURED STEEL BUILDING.

THE SECONDARY RIDE IS 24FT TALL, AND CONSISTS OF THREE CANTILEVERED ARMS, WHICH ARE EACH LIFTED BY HYDRAULIC ACTUATORS AND CARRY A COUNTER-ROTATING GYRO ELEMENT HOLDING FOUR GONDOLAS AT EACH END.

THE CHILDREN'S PLAY STRUCTURE IS A STATIC DISPLAY, STANDING 30FT IN HEIGHT AND DESIGNED AS AN ALIEN SPACESHIP.

AND LASTLY, THE TODDLER PLAY AREA IS A 1,234 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR AREA FEATURING LEGO DUPLO PLAY FEATURES SHADE COVER AND SEATING AREA. HERE ARE SOME PREPARED RENDERINGS.

THE TOP LEFT ILLUSTRATION IS OF THE CHILDREN'S PLAY STRUCTURE.

THE LOWER ILLUSTRATION SHOWS THE EXTERIOR OF THE HEADLINE RIDE, AS WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM THE INSIDE OF THE INNER PARK AREA.

WITH THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT.

SPECIFICALLY, THE HEADLINE COASTER RIDE BUILDING IS A SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE WITH A PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT OF 43 FEET PER THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN. ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN LEGOLAND SHALL NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 35FT OR THREE LEVELS.

HOWEVER, ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT MAY BE PERMITTED TO A MAXIMUM OF 45FT THROUGH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, PROVIDED THAT THE BUILDING DOES NOT CONTAIN MORE THAN THREE LEVELS.

ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS ARE INCREASED AT A RATIO OF ONE HORIZONTAL FOOT FOR EVERY ONE FOOT OF VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION BEYOND 35FT, AND THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK AREA IS MAINTAINED AS LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE.

THE PROJECT MEETS ALL THREE CRITERIA, AND THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS ONE STORY.

THE EIGHT FEET OF INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT IS OFFSET BY AN INCREASED LANDSCAPE SETBACK OF GREATER PROPORTION.

MORE SPECIFICALLY, IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA ALONG LEGOLAND DRIVE, WHERE A 43 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK WOULD BE REQUIRED WITH THE PROPOSED INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT, THE PROJECT SITE IS PROVIDING A 55 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK WHICH IS 12FT WIDER THAN IS REQUIRED, ALL OF WHICH IS ALREADY MAINTAINED AS LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE.

NONE OF THE OTHER ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES OR FEATURES UNDER CONSIDERATION TONIGHT ARE PROPOSED TO EXTEND UP TO OR BEYOND THE 43 FOOT TALL BUILDING HEIGHT.

[02:20:08]

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 SECTION 15 332 INFILL EXEMPTION OR INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

AND ON NOVEMBER 30TH, 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 INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED.

NO COMMENTS OR APPEALS WERE RECEIVED DURING THE NOTICING PERIOD CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 2154 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.

THE CITY PLANNERS WRITTEN DECISION IS FINAL.

IN CONCLUSION, THIS PROJECT WAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, ITS LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, AND ARE ALL REQUIRED CITY CODES, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

THE STAFF REPORT AND RESOLUTION IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.

TONIGHT CONTAINS ALL THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THIS RECOMMENDATION.

AS SUCH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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.

BEFORE CONCLUDING, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT FOR QUESTIONS IF NEEDED.

AND AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. GOFF. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF ON THIS PROJECT? YEAH. COMMISSIONER STINE.

MR. GOFF, HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS WHATSOEVER IN THIS MATTER? NO, SIR. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY, I DO.

I KIND OF CAME UP IN THE BRIEFING.

IF YOU COULD PULL UP THE I GUESS WAS THE PICTURE OF THE RENDERING SHOWING EVERYTHING ON THERE.

LET'S SEE WHICH ONE. YEAH.

RIGHT THERE. OKAY. SO THE BUILDING THAT HOUSES THE ROLLER COASTER, IT'S A, YOU KNOW, STEEL METAL BUILDING, AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.

THE THING THAT BROUGHT UP IN THE BRIEFING THAT NORMALLY IN AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING OR SOME OF THAT SIZE, THERE'S A WHOLE ISSUE OF MASSING, YOU KNOW, THAT NOT ALLOWING LIKE FLAT STRUCTURES TO GO ON THAT'S COME UP IN MANY DIFFERENT PROJECTS.

AND HERE, YOU KNOW, ACROSS THE FRONT, ACROSS THE TOP ELEVATION, ACROSS THE LONG SIDE, THERE'S JUST ONE BIG, FLAT, LONG STRUCTURE THERE, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE AND AGAIN, AT LEAST I SAW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS.

I MEAN, IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A BUILDING THAT WE'D SEE LIKE IN ESCONDIDO, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, BIG METAL BUILDINGS.

THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE WORK WITH.

I DON'T SEE A LOT OF THAT.

SO JUST KIND OF SURPRISED THAT WE DON'T SEE ANY TYPE OF, I GUESS, ARTICULATION OR MASSING.

IT SEEMS KIND OF ODD FOR ME TO SAY THIS, BECAUSE USUALLY I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL THINGS, BUT IT DOES SORT OF, I THINK, STICK OUT TO ME VERSUS THE REST OF THE PROJECT. SO I WAS KIND OF WONDERING, ARE THERE ANY REGULATIONS WITHIN, MASSING OR ARTICULATION WITH THAT? THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN MERZ.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO ELABORATE ON THAT.

YEAH. SO THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE INNER PARK OF LEGOLAND, LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE OUTLINED BY THE CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC.

PLAN, IT REALLY FOCUSES ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, BUILDINGS THAT ARE OUT ALONG, THE PUBLIC INTERFACE, BY THE GOLF COURSE, ALONG THAT FRONTAGE, AS WELL AS THE HOTEL DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE MORE PUBLIC FACING.

THIS SITE IS DIRECTLY ALONG PRIVATE DRIVE, LEGOLAND DRIVE.

THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, REQUIREMENTS.

IT GIVES A LOT OF DEFERENCE TO THE INNER PARK AREA AS IT RELATES TO ARCHITECTURE.

AND IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS ELEVATION THAT YOU SEE HERE.

AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THAT, DESIGNED THE LAYOUT HERE IS HERE TONIGHT.

BUT I KNOW IN SPEAKING WITH HIM, THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE LANDSCAPING THAT YOU SEE THERE, THOSE IS CLUMPING, CLUMPS OF 50 FOOT TALL, BAMBOO.

THAT WOULD BE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT BUILDING, IN THE AREA OF THE CORNER HERE.

THERE'S EXISTING TREES THAT EXIST TODAY.

THIS ONE RIGHT HERE IN PARTICULAR IS WILL BE REMAINING, THAT IS A LARGE FICUS TREE THAT WOULD ALSO BE OFFSETTING THE SITE.

ADDITIONAL, THERE'S A LOT OF SCREENING ALSO ALONG LEGOLAND DRIVE.

THE SITE HAS OVER 55 FEET OF LANDSCAPING.

THERE'S TOPOGRAPHY ALSO IN THAT LANDSCAPING WITH PINE TREES ON TOP OF THAT TOPOGRAPHY.

SO, SOME OF THOSE THOUGHTS WERE DEFINITELY THOUGHT OF.

[02:25:04]

SO AND IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE, ELEVATION ONE ON THAT ONE THERE, I SEE ALONG THE SIDE THERE, BUT RIGHT THERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FRONT OF IT.

THAT'S, WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE IN THE CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER OR SAY, CARLSBAD AIRPORT BUSINESS PARKING OVER THERE, THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW A BUILDING LIKE THAT ANYWHERE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK, RIGHT.

BECAUSE, I MEAN, IT'S JUST YOU'RE SAYING THE ONLY REASON THAT WE'RE ALLOWING THIS, BECAUSE IT'S INSIDE THE PARK WHERE PEOPLE CAN'T SEE BECAUSE THEY WOULD NEVER ALLOW AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LIKE THAT TO BE BUILT IN ANYWHERE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE OF CARLSBAD.

CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

MOST OF OUR SPECIFIC PLANS HAVE VERY SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES AS IT RELATES TO ARCHITECTURE SPECIFICALLY AND ESPECIALLY ALONG, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC FRONTING ORIENTATION. RIGHT.

SO THE ONLY REASON THAT THIS IS ALLOWED IS BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN BECAUSE I GET THE PART ABOUT THE SIDE AND ALL, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT AS THE PUBLIC SEES THAT, I MEAN, THAT JUST LOOKS LIKE A METAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING.

I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED BY IT.

OKAY. WELL, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO ADD IS THAT WHEN WE DESIGN OUR SPECIFIC PLANS OR REGULATIONS, WHERE WE DESIGN THEM FOR WHAT ARE THE USERS AND THE END GOAL, AND WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ON THE SITE AND OFF THE SITE.

AND A LOT OF OUR REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO LEGOLAND ARE WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS TO ESSENTIALLY SHIELD WHAT IS HAPPENING THERE? THE AMUSEMENT PARK FROM THE REST OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, WHICH IS WHY THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS IN PLACE AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THIS.

THIS VIEW WOULD BE FROM USERS OF THE PARK.

AND SO I ALSO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS TO ASK THE APPLICANT ABOUT THEIR DESIGN AND THOUGHT PROCESS WHEN THEY DESIGNED IT.

BUT YES, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, THIS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN OTHER INDUSTRIAL PARKS.

RIGHT? RIGHT. I THINK THIS AND I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT TOO, BECAUSE EVEN AS WE LOOK AT THE FRONT, JUST EVEN THE ROOFLINE THERE, NORMALLY YOU WOULD HAVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD JUST SAY, MAKE IT LOOK A LITTLE LIKE AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, YOU KNOW, 1970S INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.

SO LIKE THAT. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER MERZ, I ALSO HAD, CONCERNS REGARDING THE PREFAB ASPECT OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, BUT, LIKE ANYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT, SOMETHING FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT, CLOSE TO, LIKE, ARMADA OR SOME OF THOSE OTHER STREETS.

BUT BEING WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF THE PARK, YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH THAT WE CAN DO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THAT.

AND THAT STAFF HAS JUST ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

THE OTHER THING AS A COMPLIMENT TO THE APPLICANT IS THAT AT LEAST, EVEN THOUGH THE DESIGN IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE OUT ON CARLSBAD BOULEVARD OR PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD.

YET AT THE SAME TIME, THEY HAVE PUT FORTH SOME EFFORT IN REGARD TO SHIELDING WITH LANDSCAPING.

AND I HAVE TO COMMEND THEM.

AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF THE PARK, THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEIR FAIR SHARE COULD BE IN PROVIDING THAT, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING, WHICH I THINK IS GOOD. YEAH, I GUESS I JUST YEAH, I GUESS WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT INTO THE DISCUSSION SIDE, SO I KNOW, OKAY.

IS THERE ANY OTHER. YEAH.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]. I MEAN, WE'RE OUTSIDE THE TARGET AUDIENCE FOR THIS, RIGHT? RIGHT. I MEAN, THIS IS FOR KIDS 5 TO 8.

SO, YOU KNOW, YOUR INCLINATIONS ARE WELL DOCUMENTED.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, I GET IT.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER, WAS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

WAS THERE, ARE THERE, WAS THERE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS ON THIS ITEM? NO, THERE WAS NOT. OKAY, SO WE'LL OPEN AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THAT ONE.

OKAY. ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I GUESS. YEAH. COMMISSIONER MEENES.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A, MOTION.

OKAY. I THINK, COMMISSIONER STINE, WERE YOU GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT.

DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. I'M SORRY. I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT.

IS THE APPLICANT DECLINING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? OH, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T ASK IT I APOLOGIZE.

PRESENTATION. WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF HUMOR INVOLVED THERE, AND I SOMEHOW MANAGED TO MISS MY STRUCTURE THERE WHEN.

[LAUGHTER] YOU KNOW TRIED TO FOLLOW THE SCRIPT AND I GOT A LITTLE BIT FLUSTERED.

I GOT A LITTLE BIT FLUSTERED BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER'S COMMENTS.

SO I STILL DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT HE MEANT.

AND IN THAT I HAVE TO ASK HIM AFTER THAT.

SO YOU DO HAVE I DIDN'T ASK YOU IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION, SO I APOLOGIZE.

NO, THERE IS NO PRESENTATION.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INTRODUCE MYSELF AS A SENIOR PM REPRESENTATIVE FOR LEGOLAND AND I BROUGHT MY TEAM ALL THE WAY HERE AND MY FINANCE DIRECTOR FLYING FROM UK TO JOIN THIS OCCASION TOGETHER, JUST IN CASE ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS AND IS SPEAKING OF THE STRUCTURE.

I GUESS IMAGINE IN GALAXY AND ALIEN SORT OF IDEA.

[LAUGHTER] OKAY, GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY.

SO WHERE WERE WE IN MY LITTLE SCRIPT HERE.

SO WE'VE GOTTEN.

NO MORE COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION.

[02:30:01]

OKAY, SO NOW WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? YES, I MAKE A MOTION TO, MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

I'M SORRY. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MEENES SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

DID I MISS SOMETHING? OKAY.

WE HAVE TO MARK, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY RECUSED.

OH, NO, YOU HAVEN'T VOTED YET.

OKAY, I HAVEN'T VOTED, BUT IT DIDN'T POP UP.

NO, IT'S. I NEED TO MARK HER RECUSED.

HOLD ON ONE MOMENT.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE. GO AHEAD.

OKAY. PASSES, 6 TO 0 WITH, COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, RECUSED.

CONGRATULATIONS. YEAH.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT WE STILL NEED TO ASK OKAY. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.

[3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ]

MR. LARDY WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THAT ITEM? SURE. THIS IS THE ANNUAL ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION, ADOPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES AND THE ELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR.

JUST A REMINDER TO THIS ONE IS, WHAT WE DID IN THE LAST YEARS IS WE FIRST KIND OF TOOK A STRAW POLL.

HAD COMMENTS, GAUGED INTEREST IN IT BEFORE MOTIONS.

SO AS YOU'RE DOING THAT, PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT YOU WANT TO DO FOR THIS.

AN OTHER ADDITIONAL THING RELATED TO THIS IS THIS IS A RE ADOPTION OF THE PROCEDURES AS THEY WERE ADOPTED APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO.

WE JUST WANTED TO REPRESENT THEM AND RE ADOPT THEM WITH THE CURRENT COMMISSION.

BUT NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED.

THE LAST TIME THEY WERE ADOPTED WAS WHEN, THE MEETING TIME WAS CHANGED TO 5:00, AND WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGE TO THAT.

AND SO WITH THAT, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

OKAY. AND I THINK YOU SAID FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, WE NEED TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THAT.

OR WERE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO, THERE WERE NOT. OKAY.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE.

OKAY. SO NOW, I SEE COMMISSIONER.

OH, I THINK THAT WAS CLEAR FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE.

OKAY. NO, I'M SORRY I MISSED THAT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, SO MY LAST ITEM.

SO WHAT DO WE DO NOW? COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION. OKAY, SO I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION TO GAUGE INTEREST HERE OR NOMINATIONS. SO WE GO FIRST WITH THE VICE CHAIR.

EITHER WAY, OKAY, WE CAN GO WITH THE VICE CHAIR OR THE CHAIR.

I THINK WE'LL START WITH THE CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO, NOMINATE COMMISSIONER SABELLICO FOR YOU SO SERVED WELL AS OUR VICE CHAIR THIS YEAR TO BE THE CHAIR FOR TO BE THE CHAIRPERSON FOR NEXT THE NEXT YEAR, THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.

YOU HAVE A SECOND. OKAY.

SECOND, COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

OKAY. ARE WE WELL, CLARIFICATION, MR. CHAIR, ARE WE GOING TO ASK FOR A SHOW OF HANDS OF INTEREST OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED? YEAH, YEAH, I APOLOGIZE, I'M A LITTLE BIT OUT OF MY.

I'M A LITTLE BIT.

ALL RIGHT. YEAH. SO I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE KNOW IF OTHER PEOPLE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO, COMMISSIONER STINE, HOW WOULD YOU.

WHAT ARE YOU.

JUST I THINK I WOULD ASK FOR JUST A SHOW OF HANDS.

THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

ALL THOSE WE KNOW COMMISSIONER SABELLICO WOULD LIKE TO SERVE.

MAYBE THERE ARE OTHERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SERVE AS WELL.

AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW.

SO A SHOW OF HANDS WHO WOULD.

THAT WOULD BE MY. OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT.

YEAH. WELL, AND ONE THING I WANT TO ADD TOO AS WELL, I KNOW I'VE BEEN A CHAIR, COMMISSIONER STINE HAS BEEN A CHAIR.

[02:35:07]

AND SO I REALLY AM FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT, WE REALLY NEED TO KIND OF ROTATE.

ROTATE, AND GIVE OPPORTUNITIES TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CHAIRS IN THE PAST, LIKE MYSELF AND COMMISSIONER STINE.

SO JUST THOUGHT I'D ADD THAT.

AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO INTERJECT, I FIRST OFF, YOU KNOW, SINCE THE GIVEN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE, I APPRECIATE WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU.

AND THIS IS A TIME WHEN I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER STINE, COMMISSIONER MEENES COMMENTS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.

YEAH, IT IS A LITTLE BIT AWKWARD SOMETIMES ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

SO, OKAY, SO THEN COMMISSIONER STINE, IF I COULD GO ALONG WITH WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, THEN WOULD BE IS A RAISE OF HANDS TO SEE IF ANYONE ELSE IS INTERESTED IN BEING THE CHAIR. THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COULD I SEE A SHOW OF HANDS OF ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SERVE AS CHAIR? OKAY. SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SABELLICO AND COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SERVING AS CHAIR.

OKAY. WHAT DO WE DO NEXT? OKAY. JUST FOLLOWING OUR TYPICAL PROCEDURES, IT WOULD BE TIME FOR DISCUSSION.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND A VOTE TO SELECT THE CHAIR.

OKAY. DISCUSSION.

YEAH. OKAY, SO WE'LL OPEN THIS UP FOR COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

WHAT A GREAT WAY TO END MY TIME AS CHAIR.

IS IT A FUN TIME TO END IS IT COMMON TO HAVE SORT OF THE A SUCCESSION HERE WHERE ACTUALLY IN MY EXPERIENCE IN THE CHAIR, THIS IS ALWAYS THE AWKWARD PART.

THIS IT'S ALWAYS KIND OF AWKWARD BECAUSE NO ONE REALLY QUITE KNOWS HOW TO DO THIS.

SO IT'S ALWAYS A LITTLE BIT I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

SO I MEAN, YEAH, OKAY.

IT WOULD SEEM LOGICAL TO ME.

TO WHAT NOW. TO HAVE A SUCCESSION THAT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU GO FROM VICE CHAIR TO CHAIR.

ACTUALLY THAT'S ACTUALLY THAT'S NORMALLY THE WAY IT'S BEEN.

IT'S LAST YEARS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN I WAS NOT VICE CHAIR.

THEN I WENT ON TO BECOME CHAIR.

BUT IN PREVIOUSLY I THINK IT'S NORMALLY THE WAY IT HAS GONE FROM VICE CHAIR TO CHAIR.

SO.

WE DO A SHOW OF HANDS WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN VICE CHAIR? WELL LET'S DO THIS FIRST.

DO THIS FIRST. I THINK COMMISSIONER SABELLICO AND YOU HAD RAISED YOUR HAND ALSO, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN, COULD WE HEAR WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO SAY? SURE. I APPRECIATE THE NOMINATION.

I HOPE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS THAT WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE THIS LESS AWKWARD.

THANK YOU. WHICH I'D BE MOST GRATEFUL FOR.

[LAUGHTER] LIKE I SAID, I DO APPRECIATE THE NOMINATION.

IF IT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION, I WOULD BE WILLING AND READY TO SERVE AS THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMISSION.

I HOPE I CAN, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE CONFIDENCE OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

IT IS MY LAST YEAR ON THE COMMISSION, SO, I WILL IT WOULD BE AN HONOR TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS CHAIR.

BUT IF IT'S NOT THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION, FOR WHATEVER REASON OR NO REASON, I HAVE NO HARD FEELINGS.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WISH TO CAUSE ANY AWKWARDNESS BETWEEN US, ON THIS, YOU KNOW, ROUTINE VOTE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

A YEAR AGO, I WAS ASKED IF I WOULD LIKE TO SERVE EITHER AS A CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR, AND I INTENTIONALLY DEFERRED MY PERSONAL DESIRES.

TO SUPPORT TWO OF OUR COMMISSIONERS, ONE WHO I KNEW REALLY WANTED IT, AND ANOTHER WHO I LEARNED, WAS PERHAPS A LITTLE DEJECTED OR DEPRESSED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET A JOB HE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO GET AFTER THE ELECTION.

SINCE THEN, I HAVE BEEN, CAJOLED, SUGGESTED, RESPONDED TO MULTIPLE TIMES BY BOTH CURRENT AND FORMER CITY OFFICIALS WHO QUESTIONED MY ALTRUISM AND SUGGESTED THAT I RUN FOR CHAIR THIS TIME.

I THINK SOME OF YOU KNOW ME FAIRLY WELL.

I HAVE HAD DECADES OF EXPERIENCE CHAIRING OTHER PROFIT NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

I HAVE, SEVERAL IDEAS WHICH I BELIEVE COULD MAKE THIS MORE EFFICIENT, POSSIBLY MORE ENJOYABLE

[02:40:01]

AND BETTER SERVING OUR CONSTITUENCY IN THE COMMUNITY.

THIS IS ALWAYS AN AWKWARD TIME.

WE HAVE QUALIFIED, DEDICATED PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SERVE, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.

WELL, BETWEEN REALLY TWO CANDIDATES THAT HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY CAN DO THE OR THEY WOULD LIKE TO SERVE.

AND I'M CONFIDENT EITHER ONE COULD DO THE JOB.

I NEED TO, INDICATE THAT I'VE KNOWN BILL KAMENJARIN FOR OVER 20 YEARS, AND I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY SINCE WE'RE BOTH ATTORNEYS AND WE'RE BOTH INVOLVED IN A NUMBER OF ATTORNEY ORGANIZATIONS SEE HIM IN A LEADERSHIP ROLE, SEE HIM RUNNING MEETINGS, SEE HIM GET THE RESPECT OF HIS COLLEAGUES AND IN SOME CASES, THE AUDIENCE IF IT WAS A LARGE MEETING.

HE DOES THAT VERY WELL.

HE'S RESPECTFUL, INTELLIGENT AND RUNS AN EXCELLENT MEETING.

SO I'M REALLY IMPRESSED WITH WHAT I HAVE SEEN AGAIN, OVER.

I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND I'VE SEEN HIM MANY, MANY TIMES PERSONALLY ASSUME A LEADERSHIP ROLE, RUN A MEETING.

AND FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I CAN, INDICATE THAT HE RUNS AN EXCELLENT MEETING.

WHEN YOU RUN CHAIR OF A MEETING LIKE THIS, YOU HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT EFFICIENCY.

BUT YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT DUE PROCESS.

THAT'S KIND OF A LEGAL ISSUE THAT GIVING EVERYBODY A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO, GIVE THE $0.02 WORTH, BOTH FROM THE APPLICANT AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS OUR COMMISSION HERE.

AND I'M CONVINCED THAT, BILL KAMENJARIN WOULD DO THAT IN SPADES.

EXCELLENT. SO YOU GOT TO MAKE A TOUGH CALL HERE.

BUT I WOULD SUPPORT MR. KAMENJARIN BASED UPON MY EXPERIENCE AND SEEING HIM IN ACTION LEADERSHIP FOR OVER 20 YEARS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER STINE.

I'M VERY WELL SPOKEN.

I THINK I MAY HAVE JUMPED THE GUN A LITTLE BIT IN THE PROCESS ON THIS ONE.

SO, I GUESS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? OH. DID WE HAVE A MOTION BEFORE? NO. ALL RIGHT.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION.

I MOVE THAT BILL KAMENJARIN BE OUR COMMISSION CHAIR FOR 2024.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

I'LL SECOND.

DISCUSSION. OH.

WHAT'S THAT NOW? YEAH, LET'S HAVE DISCUSSION ON THAT.

DOES ANYONE, LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT FURTHER? I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED.

OKAY, SO IF THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES, DO WE VOTE ON TWO CANDIDATES OR JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND? THIS IS A MOTION TO NOMINATE MR. KAMENJARIN AS THE CHAIR.

AND SO IT WOULD BE A YES OR NO VOTE TO THIS.

IF THAT MOTION DOESN'T PASS, THEN YOU COULD CONSIDER OTHER MOTIONS.

OKAY. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT.

YEAH. AGAIN, I, OH, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER SABELLICO.

AS I SAID BEFORE, I WISH TO MAKE NO AWKWARDNESS BETWEEN MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

MY VOTE, WHICH WILL BE NO ON THIS MOTION, IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A REFLECTION ON WHAT I THINK OF YOUR LEADERSHIP ABILITIES, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

JUST A SIMPLE REFLECTION OF THE FACT THAT I ALSO WAS NOMINATED FOR CHAIR, AND I THINK THAT I WOULD BE A GOOD CHAIR.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS.

SO I GUESS WE'LL VOTE. VOTE.

THE VOTE IS 6 TO 0 IN FAVOR? 6 TO 1 IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

[02:45:04]

AGAIN? OKAY.

OKAY, SO NOW ON TO, VICE CHAIR.

DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION ON VICE CHAIR.

COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

WOULD COMMISSIONER SABELLICO BE INTERESTED IN VICE CHAIR AGAIN? IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION.

I WOULD BE WILLING AND READY TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR AGAIN.

RIGHT. ANY OTHER.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

AS WE DID PREVIOUSLY, WHY DON'T WE HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS IF ANYONE ELSE IS INTERESTED IN SERVING.

OH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

YEAH. WOULD ANYONE ELSE BE INTERESTED IN SERVING AS VICE CHAIR? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NO ONE'S RAISED THEIR HAND.

OKAY. ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION THAT, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO BE VICE CHAIR FOR YEAR 24.

DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY SECONDS.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

PLEASE VOTE. WHY DID THAT NOT GO? PLEASE VOTE.

OKAY. THAT PASSES 7 TO 0.

THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES.

SO WE NEED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION FOR THE NEW PROCEDURES.

SO WE GET A MOTION. AND A SECOND RELATED TO THAT.

CAN WE GET A MOTION ON THAT? COMMISSIONER MEENES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.

PLEASE VOTE ON THAT.

OKAY, IT PASSES 7 TO 0.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER THREE.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ARE THERE ANY.

[Additional Item]

LET'S SEE. OKAY.

THAT CLOSES THAT ARE THERE ANY, COMMENTS OR REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY.

JUST HISTORIC PRESERVATION MET ON JANUARY 8TH AND, APPROVED TO MOVE FORWARD A PLAQUE PROGRAM AND A HISTORIC PRESERVATION BENEFITS AND INCENTIVES. THEY'RE DOING A WORK PLAN, AND THEY'RE CREATING A WEBSITE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, TO BE ABLE TO HELP PROMOTE THE MILLS ACT AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF, PRESERVATION IN OUR COMMUNITY.

SO. GREAT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER STINE.

I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY THANK YOU CHAIR MERZ, FOR YOUR SERVICE IN 2024.

YOU'VE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB BEING HERE ALMOST EVERY MEETING.

SOMETIMES THINGS DON'T GO ACCORDING TO PLAN, AND YOU HAVE TO IMPROVISE A LITTLE BIT.

YOU THOUGHT ON YOUR FEET AND MADE SOME CHANGES, BUT I JUST THINK THE WHOLE COMMISSION OWES A THANK YOU TO YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE IN 2023.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER. YES. AND I WANT TO CHIME IN ON THAT AS WELL.

I KNOW I WAS, CHAIR A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND BEING CHAIR SOMETIMES IS NOT EASY MOSTLY WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH, THE PUBLIC, AND ALSO TRYING TO KEEP THE COMMISSIONERS IN LINE.

AND THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT ONE.

SO ANYWAYS, YES, I WILL HAVE TO SAY, I ALSO THINK I KNOW FROM AN EARLY ON STANDPOINT, THE FIRST COUPLE OF YOUR MEETINGS, WE'RE A LITTLE DICEY.

YES. I'LL BE FRANK, BUT YOU HAVE, MATURED TO THE POINT WHERE YOU VERY EASILY COULD BE CHAIR ANOTHER YEAR, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THAT HAPPEN.

[LAUGHTER] YEAH, I'M GLAD.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THOSE KIND WORDS.

ANY OTHER.

YEAH COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN? YES.

COMMISSIONER MERZ, LET ME ECHO AND THANK YOU AGAIN.

I KNOW THIS IS A TOUGH JOB.

YOU'VE DEMONSTRATED YOUR MEDAL TONIGHT.

I'M SORRY I WASN'T HERE FOR THE DEBACLE IN DECEMBER.

I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE LIGHT OF THIS.

YOU DID A GREAT JOB. I WANTED TO THANK YOU.

AND I WANTED TO THANK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR VOTE, SUPPORT, AND ENCOURAGEMENT.

I HAVE A COUPLE IDEAS WHICH I'D LIKE TO KICK AROUND.

AND HOPEFULLY, LIKE I SAID, WE CAN MAKE THIS MORE, EFFECTIVE, IF NOT ENJOYABLE.

[02:50:04]

SO THANK YOU ALL.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN.

OKAY, OKAY.

AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S, I REALLY APPRECIATE ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS WE ALL BRING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES TO WHAT WE DO, AND THERE'S A GREAT AMOUNT OF PROFESSIONALISM AND COLLEGIALITY AMONG ALL OF US.

AND I THINK, IN DEALING WITH DIFFICULT DECISIONS AND CHALLENGES, IT'S JUST SO ENJOYABLE HEARING OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.

I THINK THAT GETS US TO TO GOOD DECISIONS.

I THINK WE ALL WORK WELL TOGETHER AS A TEAM.

AND, YOU KNOW, I WISH THE BEST TO, OUR NEW CHAIR, COMMISSIONER KAMENJARIN AND VICE CHAIR.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, FOR AGREEING TO SERVE FOR ANOTHER TERM AS VICE CHAIR.

AND, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

COMMISSIONER LARDY.

I MEAN, PLANNER LARDY.

[PLANNER REPORT]

SO JUST A COUPLE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. WE WILL HAVE A MEETING ON FEBRUARY 7TH.

THERE'S ONE ITEM. IT'S THE BEGONIA COURT VARIANCE.

IT IS A VARIANCE REQUEST.

AND THEN WE ARE LOOKING AT CANCELING THE FEBRUARY 21ST MEETING, DUE TO LACK OF ITEMS. AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MEETING, AGENDA ITEMS FOR BOTH OF THE MARCH MEETINGS.

SO, WE'LL SEND THIS OUT.

THE OTHER ITEM THAT MAY BE OF INTEREST, BECAUSE IT'LL OCCUR BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING IS ON JANUARY 30TH.

THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE PROGRAM FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

YOU HEARD THAT IN OCTOBER.

THAT MEETING IS RESERVED ENTIRELY FOR THAT ITEM.

OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. AND, ANY COMMENTS FROM OUR NEW, COUNSEL?

[CITY ATTORNEY REPORT]

JUST WANTED TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE DEPTH OF EXPERIENCE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL.

GREAT. AND I THINK AS WE WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU ABOARD.

YEAH. HAPPY TO HAVE YOU ABOARD. THANK YOU.

AND I THINK BEFORE WE ADJOURN, COMMISSIONER SABELLICO, YOU HAD SOMETHING.

YES. I'D LIKE TO, ADJOURN THIS MEETING IN MEMORY OF MY GRANDFATHER, RONALD SABELLICO, WHO PASSED AWAY YESTERDAY MORNING AT THE AGE OF 77. RON SABELLICO WAS A RESIDENT OF ENFIELD, CONNECTICUT, AND LATER PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA.

HE EMBODIED STRENGTH THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE, RAISING THREE KIDS, TWO OF THEM WHO WERE BORN WHEN HE WAS 18 YEARS OLD, AND RAISING THOSE KIDS TO BECOME RANKING OFFICERS OF THE US COAST GUARD. HE BATTLED MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS THROUGHOUT MOST OF HIS LIFE, BUT HE NEVER LET HIS AILMENT PREVENT HIM FROM PURSUING HIS PASSIONS.

I REMEMBER HIM WEARING AN EYE PATCH ON ACCOUNT OF HIS DOUBLE VISION, JUST SO HE COULD PLAY PING PONG WITH ME WHEN I WAS A KID.

HE WAS A LOVING BROTHER, FATHER AND GRANDFATHER AND HE WILL BE MISSED DEARLY.