10. ORDINANCE NO. CS-470 – CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION’S SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO AMENDMENTS TO CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 21

[13. APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY WITHIN POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK AND A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS FOR A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH AT&T (CUP 2022-0023/CDP 2022- 0070/DEV2022-0206) ]

GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ITEM 13 IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THIS IS THE APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY WITHIN THE POINT SANTIAGO COMMUNITY PARK, AND A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS FOR A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH AT&T.

MAKING OUR PRESENTATION TODAY IS OUR CITY, OUR ASSOCIATE PLANNER KYLE VAN LOON, AND PRINCIPAL PLANNER CLIFF JONES, ALONG WITH

[00:35:03]

OUR REAL ESTATE MANAGER, CURTIS JACKSON.

GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU, MR. CHADWICK. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBERS.

CAN YOU BACK UP TWO SLIDES, PLEASE? TONIGHT'S MEETING IS AN APPEAL OF A WIRELESS FACILITY.

AND FOR APPEAL.

THERE'RE SPECIFIC PROCEDURES THAT NEED TO BE FOLLOWED.

SO, I'M GOING TO OUTLINE WHAT THOSE PROCEDURES ARE FOR TONIGHT.

FIRST IS THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPENED.

THEN STAFF WILL MAKE ITS PRESENTATION.

THE CITY COUNCIL WILL THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

THEN THE APPELLANT WILL BE GIVEN TEN MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

THE CITY COUNCIL THEN HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPELLANT.

THEN THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

THE CITY COUNCIL THEN HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.

THE CITY COUNCIL THEN WILL INVITE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.

AND IF THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES IT'S NECESSARY, THEY'LL ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF, APPLICANT AND THE APPELLANT.

THEN THE CITY COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS THE ITEM VOTE AND THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

SO WITH ME THIS EVENING I HAVE KYLE VAN LUYN, WHO IS THE PROJECT PLANNER, AS WELL AS CURTIS JACKSON, WHO IS AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THE LICENSING AGREEMENT. TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION.

JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW.

I'M GOING TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY REGULATIONS.

THAT INCLUDES THE FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996, AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL POLICY NUMBER 64.

THEN I'LL HAND IT OFF TO MR. VAN LUEN, WHO WILL GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AS WELL AS THE ISSUES CITED IN THE APPEAL.

SO THE FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT, THE FEDERAL LAW THAT APPLIES TO WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1996.

IT ALLOWS THE CITY TO REGULATE THE PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES.

HOWEVER, THERE'S FIVE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE PERTINENT TO TONIGHT'S TO TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION.

FIRST IS THAT A CITY MAY NOT FAVOR ANY CARRIER.

A CITY MAY NOT PREVENT COMPLETION OF A NETWORK.

WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY APPLICATIONS MUST BE PROCESSED IN A REASONABLE TIME.

AND THESE LAST TWO ARE PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT.

AND THEIR EVALUATION OF THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CITY CANNOT DENY A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY APPLICATION BECAUSE OF PERCEIVED RADIO FREQUENCY HEALTH HAZARDS.

AND THAT A DECISION TO DENY A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY APPLICATION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.

WE HAVE CITY COUNCIL POLICY NUMBER 64, WHICH WAS TO DEVELOP TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED IN 2001, AND IT'S BEEN AMENDED A FEW TIMES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW AS WELL AS STATE LAW.

AND THIS IS THE DOCUMENT THAT GUIDES THE PUBLIC APPLICANTS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND STAFF IN REVIEWING THE PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES. IT INCLUDES REVIEW GUIDELINES, AND WITHIN THOSE GUIDELINES IT LISTS PREFERRED LOCATIONS, AND THOSE ARE LISTED IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE. IT ALSO IDENTIFIES DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS.

IT SPECIFIES WHAT OUR STEALTH DESIGN TECHNIQUES.

IT HAS LOCATION AND SCREEN OF EQUIPMENT, SPECIFICATIONS AND OF COURSE APPROPRIATE HEIGHT AND SETBACKS.

AND IF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THOSE GUIDELINES, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

AND I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL OF ON THIS SLIDE, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S LOCATION GUIDELINES.

IT LISTS A WHOLE LIST OF PREFERRED LOCATIONS I KNOW THE COUNCIL IS AWARE OF.

IT RANGES FROM INDUSTRIAL ZONES ALL THE WAY TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

YOU'LL SEE PARKS IS DOWN THERE ON THE LOWER PART OF THE LIST ON NUMBER H, AND IT PROVIDES A NUMBER OF DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS AS WELL.

WITH THAT BACKGROUND, I'M NOW GOING TO HAND THE PRESENTATION OVER TO MR. VAN LUEN, WHO WILL GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE PROJECT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU PRINCIPAL PLANNER JOHN JONES.

YES. THIS APPEAL IS CONSIDERED A DE NOVO APPEAL, MEANING THAT THE MATTER IS HEARD ANEW AND THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL CONSIDER ONLY THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE DECISION.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

AND THAT THE GROUNDS ARE LIMITED TO IF THERE WAS AN ERROR OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION, OR THAT THE DECISION DECISION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS. CITY COUNCIL MAY UPHOLD OR UPHOLD IN PART OR REVERSE THE DECISION THAT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL.

AND SPECIFICALLY THE GROUNDS OF THE.

FOR THE APPEAL SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING.

THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IN THAT THE DECISION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

[00:40:08]

PRIOR TO THE DECISION BEING APPEALED, OR THAT THERE WAS NOT A FAIR OR PARTIAL HEARING.

SO FOR THIS PROJECT, IT IS A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY PROPOSED IN POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE.

THE SPECIFIC LOCATION IS IN THE SOUTH PARKING LOT NEXT TO THE BALL FIELDS ALSO HIGHLIGHTED ON THIS MAP.

THE PROJECT PROPOSES A NEW 78 FOOT TALL LIGHT POLE, WHICH WILL REPLACE AN EXISTING 78 FOOT TALL LIGHT POLE WITH SIX PANEL ANTENNAS BELOW THE LIGHTS ON THE POLE AND SOME ADDITIONAL ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.

THAT EQUIPMENT WOULD BE SCREENED BY A FOUR FOOT RADIUS RADOME OR A CYLINDER, AND THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES AN EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE, WHICH IS PROPOSED IN THE AT A SITE OF A EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE THAT IS NO LONGER NEEDED IN THE PARK.

HERE'S A SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION, CIRCLING THE LOCATION OF THE POLE NEXT TO A MAINTENANCE BUILDING, AS WELL AS THE GROUND LEVEL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE IN THE PARKING LOT.

AND HERE IS A ELEVATION FROM THE PLANS, AS WELL AS PHOTO SIMULATIONS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

IN TERMS OF POLICY. 60 FOR THIS PROJECT IS COMPLIANT BECAUSE THE SITE IS ON THE PREFERRED LOCATIONS LIST, IT IS A PREFERRED LOCATION.

THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTS STEALTH DESIGN CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PAST APPROVALS THAT WERE APPROVED AS STEALTH DESIGN.

THE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE IS PROPERLY SCREENED AS REQUIRED BY POLICY 64, AND THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE STATED HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

IN TERMS OF THE APPEAL TIMELINE.

THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 17TH AND WITHIN THE TEN DAY APPEAL TIME PERIOD, A APPEAL WAS RECEIVED ON JANUARY 24TH FILED BY CARLSBAD RESIDENTS AGAINST CELL TOWERS AND PARKS.

THE APPEAL MAKES A NUMBER OF POSITIONS, WHICH WE WILL HIGHLIGHT NOW AND GIVE A RESPONSE FROM STAFF.

FIRST, THE APPEAL POSITION OF WHY THE PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

ARE THAT VIABLE SITES THAT ARE MORE PREFERRED DO EXIST, AND THAT AN INCOMPLETE SITE STUDY OR OMITTED INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT? STAFF'S RESPONSE IS THAT SPECIFICALLY IN POLICY 64, THE REQUIREMENT FOR A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS, THE TECHNICAL SERVICE OBJECTIVES, AND THE REASONS FOR SELECTING THE PROPOSED SITE AND REJECTING OTHER SITES.

IT IS NOT ASKED FOR A CONCLUSIVE THERE ARE NO OTHER SITES, JUST THAT THERE WAS A PROCESS THAT CLEARLY WAS DESCRIBED TO THE BY THE APPLICANT. THAT ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS EVALUATED 17 ALTERNATIVE SITES.

THE APPEAL DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SPECIFIC SITES TO EVALUATE, AND THE TARGET AREA FOR THIS COVERAGE IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO FIND A SITE THAT'S ON THE PREFERRED LIST.

THE POSITION OF THE APPEAL ALSO STATED THAT THERE WAS ONLY A CURSORY ATTEMPT AT CO-LOCATION, WHICH IS ALSO IN THE POLICY AS A PRIORITY, AND THAT SMALL CELL OR RIGHT OF WAY OPTION WAS NOT EXPLORED, AS THIS WAS BROUGHT UP BY ONE OF THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT THAT WOULD BE THEIR BACKUP PLAN WAS TO DO A RIGHT OF WAY INSTALLATION.

THE POLICY 60 FOR THE APPEAL ALSO STATES THAT POLICY 64 WAS MISINTERPRETED BY STAFF.

STAFF RESPONSE IS THAT THE CO-LOCATION IS VERY, AGAIN, VERY LIMITED, GIVEN THAT THE AREA IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE, AND THE APPEAL DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY OTHER SITES TO EXPLORE FOR CO-LOCATION, AND STAFF IS UNAWARE OF ANY TO EXPLORE ALSO.

IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OPTION.

THIS IS LOWER ON THE PREFERRED LIST THAN PARKS OR OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES, AND THIS TYPE OF INSTALLATION USUALLY REQUIRES MULTIPLE SITES TO COVER THE SAME AREA, WHICH IS ALSO INCONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY WHICH CALLS FOR THE FEWEST NUMBER OF WIRELESS SITES TO COVER AN AREA. I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF RIGHT OF WAY TYPE OF INSTALLATIONS.

ONE IS SPECIFICALLY SMALL CELL AND THAT IS REPRESENTED IN THE PICTURE IN THE UPPER RIGHT.

AND THIS IS AN EXISTING SMALL CELL SITE ON POINSETTIA.

THESE ARE SMALLER CELL SITES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

HOWEVER, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE TYPE OF INSTALLATION THAT'S LOWER ON THE PREFERRED LIST, IT'S ACTUALLY A RIGHT OF WAY.

INSTALLATION THAT WOULD BE A LARGER CELL TOWER SIMILAR TO THE ONE IN THE PICTURE.

[00:45:03]

ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THAT IS LOWER ON THE LIST IS THAT THERE ARE NOT SPECIFIC OUTLINED SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY INSTALLATION.

ESSENTIALLY, THE TOWER YOU SEE ON THE LOWER PICTURE COULD BE ON THAT POLE ABOVE IN A RIGHT OF WAY APPLICATION AND BE THAT CLOSE TO A RESIDENCE AGAIN.

WHY IT IS SO LOW ON THE PREFERRED LIST? THE APPEAL ALSO HAS A POSITION THAT.

OH, AND STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THAT POLICY 64 WAS MISINTERPRETED BY STAFF.

STAFF NOT ONLY READ THE LANGUAGE TO UNDERSTAND POLICY 64 BUT DID LOOK AT PAST APPROVALS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CURRENT INTERPRETATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH PAST APPROVALS.

THIS INCLUDES THE INSTALLATION IN TRAILBLAZER PARK, WHICH WAS APPROVED AS A TWO FAUX EUCALYPTUS TREES. THERE WAS ALSO AN APPROVAL FOR VERIZON TOWER AT ARMY AND NAVY ATHLETIC FIELD.

THIS INSTALLATION IS ACTUALLY VERY SIMILAR TO THIS.

THERE'S ALSO TWO INSTALLATIONS, ACTUALLY AT CARLSBAD HIGH SCHOOL.

THE MOST RECENT IS SHOWN IN THIS PICTURE ON A LIGHT POLE.

THIS IS AN OPEN SPACE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, AND IT IS ONLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS A SHORTER SETBACK THAN PROPOSED FOR THE PARK.

THE APPEAL CONTINUES TO GO ON TO STATE THAT THE ESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET BY THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT THE NOISE ASSESSMENT WAS QUESTIONABLE.

THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THESE POSITIONS ARE THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC ESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE CITED BY THE APPEAL THAT WERE NOT MET, AND THAT THE PROJECT INCLUDES STEALTH DESIGN AS STATED, THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS APPROVALS.

IN TERMS OF THE NOISE ASSESSMENT, THE LETTER THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT LETTER DID STATE THE WRONG LIMIT THAT IT WAS 60DB, NOT 55, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED.

HOWEVER, THE NOISE ASSESSMENT LETTER FOUND THAT THEY WOULD PREDICT 53.8DB, WHICH IS STILL COMPLIANT WITH THE 55-DECIBEL LIMIT.

ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE, PROVIDED AS PART OF CORRESPONDENCE AN UPDATED NOISE ASSESSMENT LETTER, WHICH ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT WILL BE INSIDE OF THE ENCLOSURE AND THE DECIBEL LEVEL IS MUCH LOWER AS RED WOULD BE PREDICTED TO BE READ AT THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE.

IN SUMMARY, THE PC DID APPROVE THE PROJECT DUE TO ITS CONSISTENCY WITH POLICY 64 STAFF HAS EVALUATED THE APPEAL AND RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR THE USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH STAFF FINDS THEY HAVE FAILED TO DO.

NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE SITES WERE PROVIDED, NO EVIDENCE OF A SUPERIOR OPTION WAS PROVIDED, AND NO SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE GUIDELINES WERE PROVIDED IN THE APPEAL.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FIRST TO ADOPT THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND RECOMMENDED ACTION.

NUMBER TWO IS TO CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE LICENSE NEGOTIATIONS WITH AT&T FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY AT POINSETTIA COMMUNITY PARK. AND WE DO HAVE CURTIS JACKSON, REAL ESTATE MANAGER, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT RESOLUTION.

WOULD YOU PLEASE PUT THE SLIDE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE PROCEDURES? I GO. WE'RE ON THERE IS OPENING THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DO IT IN THE PROPER ORDER.

WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT NOW? NO, SIR. SO, NUMBER TWO, SEND THAT NOW THREE BECOME CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

THEN THE APPELLANT PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY CITY COUNCIL OPPORTUNITY.

AND THEN YOU'LL DO INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC ON NUMBER EIGHT.

OH, GOT IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE DON'T DO VERY MANY OF THESE APPEALS.

SO, I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF A CHEAT SHEET.

DOES CITY COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

MISS LUNA? MR. JONES, I'M JUST CURIOUS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, PAGE SEVEN OF 53, EVEN THOUGH YOUR SLIDE DOES CITE THE ROBERTSON RANCH PARK SITE, YOU HAVE NO MENTION OF IT IN THE BASIS AS TO WHY THE INTERPRETATION OF POLICY NUMBER 64 WAS INTERPRETED THOUGHTFULLY AND CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ACTIONS THAT WE'VE TAKEN.

WOULD YOU CARE TO ELABORATE ON THAT? I'M SORRY. WOULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION ONE MORE TIME? TRAILBLAZER PARK WCF YOU HAVE CITED ON THE SLIDE, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE IT IN THE STAFF REPORT AS ONE OF THE PARKS OR ONE OF THE SITE SITES.

WITH RESPECT TO CONSISTENCY AND INTERPRETATION OF POLICY NUMBER 64.

[00:50:05]

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT TRAILBLAZER PARK IS ACTUALLY ON A PARK SITE ADJACENT TO A FIRE STATION, AND THE CITY DOES RECEIVE REVENUE FROM THAT? WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ELABORATE ON THAT? SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THAT IS CORRECT. WE DO RECEIVE REVENUE.

IT'S A SHORT-TERM AGREEMENT ABOUT THREE YEARS WITH THREE-YEAR EXTENSIONS.

DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO DESIGN THE PARK, BUT YES, WE DO RECEIVE REVENUE ON THAT SITE.

OKAY. AND IS THERE WAS THAT JUST AN OVERSIGHT THAT YOU DIDN'T MENTION IT IN THE STAFF REPORT? NO. THIS IS JUST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHOWING THAT STAFF IN THEIR REVIEW DOES LOOK AT PAST APPROVALS TO ESTABLISH THAT THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGES IS ACCURATE.

TRAILBLAZER PARK SPECIFICALLY, AND IS ADDED TO THE SLIDE JUST TO SHOW THAT STEALTHING REQUIREMENTS AN EXAMPLE OF STEALTHING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THIS PROPERTY IS AN OPEN SPACE ZONE, BUT A FUTURE PARK, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO POINSETTIA PARK.

IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT BECAUSE THAT GIVE ME A SECOND.

THE I BELIEVE WHEN THAT WAS APPROVED, IT WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED AS A DISCOURAGED LOCATION BECAUSE IT IS NOT CURRENTLY A PARK, BUT IT WAS RECOGNIZED AT THAT TIME THAT IT WOULD BE FUTURE PARK. SO, IT WAS REVIEWED SIMILARLY.

AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

IT'S ACTUALLY A NOT A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

IT IS A REGULAR CONDITION.

OKAY. I JUST WONDERING WHY IT WASN'T THERE.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION, MISS BURKHOLDER.

QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

I'M JUST CURIOUS ON SLIDE 19.

SO, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT ONE REALLY TALL TOWER AND POINSETTIA PARK VERSUS SEVERAL RIGHT OF WAY.

TOWERS DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY IT WOULD TAKE TO OFFSET THE ONE REALLY TALL ONE? YEAH. I THINK THE BEST WAY TO CLARIFY IS THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY SORT OF REVIEW OR PROPOSAL, AND THE APPLICANT HAS NOT STUDIED THAT OPTION.

IN THE APPEAL, IT WAS CITED BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN RESPONSE TO A PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE CONTINGENCY PLAN WOULD BE IF THE PARK SITE WAS EITHER NOT APPROVED OR WAS NOT THERE.

AND THE AT&T REPRESENTATIVE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS HERE TONIGHT, WHO COULD EXPLAIN FURTHER, SAID THAT THEY WOULD LIKELY PURSUE A RIGHT OF WAY TYPE OF INSTALLATION. HE ACTUALLY DID NOT SAY SMALL CELL.

SO IT SAID RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS ON ON OUR PREFERRED LIST BUT LOWER.

AND SINCE THAT WAS IN THE APPEAL, WE WANTED TO AT LEAST GIVE A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATION OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN THIS, IN THIS PRESENTATION.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU, THAT WE WOULD HAVE LESS OF A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHERE THESE GO IF AT&T WERE TO DO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SMALL CELLS. YEAH.

POTENTIALLY. YEAH.

THERE IS CERTAIN JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS THAT THEY HAVE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

WE, OF COURSE, WOULD REVIEW THAT INSTALLATION TO MAKE SURE IT WAS COMPLIANT WITH FCC REGULATIONS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE SETBACK SPECIFICS FOR RIGHT OF WAYS.

AND THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO THE PARK THAT WOULDN'T THE RIGHT OF WAY.

AND I THINK I HEARD THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

FOR A SMALL CELL, THERE IS NO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED.

THERE IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED IF IT IS LARGER THAN A CERTAIN SIZE OR IS NOT CONSIDERED SMALL CELL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS.

MS. ACOSTA? THANK YOU.

I THINK I WAS READY TO ASK THIS QUESTION OF AT&T, BUT I'M, I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT WAS JUST SAID.

SO, IF THE ALTERNATIVE TO THIS LARGE SITE IS MULTIPLE SITES, AND I'LL CONFIRM THIS WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT THERE WOULD BE NO CITY ABILITY TO SAY NO.

IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? FOR THE SMALL CELLS.

FOR SMALL CELLS, FOR THOSE THAT HAVE CERTAIN STANDARDS FOR THE SMALL CELL SITES.

BUT THAT IS NOT A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL.

SO, WE DO NOT HAVE A HEARING OR NOTICE THE SAME WAY THAT WE WOULD DO FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED TYPE OF PROJECT.

RIGHT. AND CAN YOU ELABORATE? WE WOULDN'T HAVE MUCH DISCRETION THERE.

SO WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT IN TERMS OF SETBACK? I THINK YOU ALLUDED TO IT, BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN CLARIFY FOR THE PUBLIC WHAT THAT MEANS IF WE HAVE SMALL CELLS IN THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY CLOSE TO THAT HOUSE, DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 10 OR 12 IN THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE THAT UP AND DOWN THE STREET, OR WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? SO I WOULD I WOULD LEAVE THAT QUESTION OF THE NUMBER AND EXACTLY HOW THAT LOOKS TO AT&T REPRESENTATIVE.

[00:55:05]

BUT AGAIN, GIVEN FCC REGULATIONS, WE CANNOT PREVENT THE COMPLETION OF A NETWORK.

SO AT A CERTAIN POINT, WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO BE INSTALLED SOMEWHERE TO COMPLETE THEIR NETWORK IF THEY'RE LACKING IN THEIR NETWORK COVERAGE.

AND WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR REGULATIONS WRITTEN IN ADVANCE.

SO THERE AGAIN, WITHIN POLICY 64, THERE ARE FEWER REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE RIGHT OF WAY INSTALLATIONS.

SO THERE ARE NOT SPECIFIC SETBACKS.

RIGHT? OKAY.

SO NO SETBACKS. AND WE CAN ASK HOW MANY THERE MIGHT BE, BUT I'M JUST KIND OF WONDERING IF ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES TO THIS.

SO I WILL RESERVE MY QUESTIONS FOR LATER IF YOU'RE DONE.

THANK YOU.

MS. BHAT-PATEL? YES. THANK YOU.

THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION AND I'M SURE I'LL HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS AFTER, BUT I WANTED TO I THINK IT'S ON SLIDE EIGHT WHERE YOU HAVE THE LIST OF SITES . AND WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW HOW A SITE HOW WE ENDED UP FIGURING OUT WHICH SITES SHOW UP ON THAT NOT APPROVED OR DISCOURAGED LOCATIONS LIST.

GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL.

SO THIS LIST IS FROM POLICY 64.

IT WAS LAST AMENDED IN DECEMBER 2021 WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE SMALL CELL WIRELESS.

THE THE LANGUAGE WAS MODIFIED SLIGHTLY WITH THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BECAUSE IT WAS A NEWER TECHNOLOGY AND UPDATING FOR THE FCC REGULATIONS.

SO THAT'S THE ORIGIN OF THIS LIST.

OKAY. AND.

WAS WAS IT? I GUESS MY MY QUICK QUESTION FOR THAT AS A FOLLOW UP WOULD BE, WAS THAT PARTICULAR LIST UPDATED WHEN WE UPDATED THE POLICY IN 2021 OF DECEMBER? THE LIST WAS NOT COMPREHENSIVELY UPDATED.

IT WAS PRIMARILY LOOKED AT TO CHANGE FOR THE SMALL CELL WIRELESS, WHICH HAS CERTAIN SIZE RESTRICTIONS.

AND THEN I THINK THE CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO TELL ME TO STATE MY NAME FOR THE RECORD, WHICH IS ERIC LARDY, CITY PLANNER.

THANK YOU. GREAT.

THANK YOU. AND OKAY, THE OTHER QUESTION WAS ALREADY ASKED AROUND.

THE RIGHT OF WAY AND DIFFERENT SITES.

IF. LET'S SEE, ON THE REGULATORY FRONT, I'D BE CURIOUS TO THE ATTORNEY IF THERE IS AN ABILITY TO DENY THIS, GIVEN THE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE LAW.

SO, I THINK THE STAFF DID GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE THINGS THAT YOU CANNOT BASE YOUR DECISION ON.

SO, YOU CANNOT BE SET ON THE RADIO FREQUENCY, HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

AND IN MAKING YOUR DECISION, YOU CANNOT MAKE A DECISION THAT WOULD PREVENT AT&T FROM BUILDING OUT ITS NETWORK.

AND YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST COMPARABLE PROVIDERS.

THOSE ARE THE GUIDELINES YOU'RE WITH.

BEYOND THAT, THE GUIDELINES ARE IN YOUR CITY COUNCIL POLICY 64, AND IT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN MET IN THIS CASE.

OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION, BECAUSE I KNOW I'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF EMAILS ON THIS, WOULD BE AROUND IF WE DIDN'T APPROVE THE LEASE FOR THE SITE, WHAT WOULD IT MEAN FOR THE RESIDENTS? AND I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT BEEN ANSWERED, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT AGAIN.

I CAN TAKE THIS QUESTION.

SO, IF THE LEASE WERE NOT APPROVED, THEN AT&T WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INSTALLATION OF AT THIS LOCATION AT THE PARK.

OKAY. AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER? REPERCUSSIONS BASED ON THAT.

I MEAN, I KNOW THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, BUT WHAT WOULD? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE OR STAFF WOULD LIKE DIRECTION FOR FUTURE APPLICATIONS AS WELL? I THINK THAT INPUT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO STAFF AS WELL.

OKAY. I HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL RESERVE THEM FOR LATER.

THANK YOU. THIS IS BEING PROPOSED BY AT&T.

THEY WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE USING IT.

BUT DO THEY SHARE THAT WITH VERIZON AND T-MOBILE, OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE ASKING FOR ANTENNAS AS WELL? CURRENTLY, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR AT&T, BUT WE DO HAVE ON FILE AN APPLICATION FROM VERIZON AS WELL WHO HAVE PUT THEIR APPLICATION ON HOLD PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS DECISION. WOULD THEY USE THE SAME ANTENNA OR ARE THEY GOING TO DO A DUPLICATION OF THIS SAME ANTENNA SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE PARK? THEY'RE LOOKING AT A SOMEWHAT OF A DUPLICATION, A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON THE PARK SITE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND PLEASE PUT UP THE PROCEDURES AGAIN.

[01:00:01]

I'LL TAKE A PICTURE OF IT THIS TIME, SO I WON'T HAVE TO KEEP ASKING YOU TO GO BACK TO IT.

THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.

APPELLANT PRESENTATION.

YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO A PRESENTATION? I'M THE CLICKER MONITOR.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR BLACKBURN AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS NORA GEORGE.

THANK YOU FOR APPOINTING ME TO THE ART COMMISSION, BY THE WAY.

TONIGHT, I AM NOT SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF.

TONIGHT, I AM REPRESENTING SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE PONCE PARK AREA.

WITH ME TONIGHT, I HAVE TWO BOARD OF DIRECTORS, HOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITH ME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

MR. FRANK SUNG, THE CLICKER FROM MARINER'S POINT AND KEVIN FRITZ FROM THE COVE, EXCUSE ME, THE POINSETTIA NEIGHBORHOODS ARE APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY PERMIT AT POINSETTIA PARK, BECAUSE THAT DECISION WAS MADE ON AN INCOMPLETE AND FABRICATED ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS, DISPUTED POLICY 64 VERBIAGE AND ITS UNMET VISUAL CRITERIA.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ILL INFORMED AND DELIBERATELY MISLED INTO BELIEVING THAT POINSETTIA PARK IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE, THE ONLY OPTION FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IT'S NOT. THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES, AND THERE'S ALSO AT&T CONTINGENCY OF A SMALL WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY.

OUR GOAL IS TO NOT HAVE OUR PARKS LOOK LIKE CALAVERAS.

THE LAST ONE WENT UP 20 YEARS AGO AND OUR CITY HAS EVOLVED, OUR STANDARDS HAVE CHANGED, AND THANKFULLY, SO HAS THE TECHNOLOGY THAT THESE ARE NO LONGER THE STANDARD AND UPSCALE CITIES TO PROVIDE FULL SERVICE.

THE POLL SELECTED BY AT&T, WAS DESCRIBED BY MD7 AS CONVENIENT BECAUSE OF ROAD ACCESS, THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT, AVAILABILITY OF ELECTRICITY, AND AN EXISTING POLE.

THESE ARE COST EFFECTIVE BENEFITS FOR AT&T, BUT NOT PRUDENT FOR CARLSBAD, AS IT WOULD PLACE IT 177FT FROM OUR HOMES. COUNCIL POLICY 64 ECHOES THIS SENTIMENT AS IT RANKS PARKS ON OPPOSITE SPOTS ON THE PREFERRED AND THE DISCOURAGED LOCATION LISTS.

NOTE OPEN SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES ARE THE TOP TWO ON THAT DISCOURAGED LIST, AND PARKS ARE THE PENULTIMATE ON THE OTHER SIDE.

THAT'S WHY THE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS IS THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE, AND WHY WE ATTEMPTED TO WORK WITH MD7.

CLEARLY, THE SPIRIT OF THE POLICY IS NOT TO PLACE THESE THINGS IN PARKS AND NEAR OUR HOMES.

THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE, AND WE'RE ALARMED THAT A THAT MD7'S INABILITY TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS DILIGENTLY AND WITHOUT THE WORKAROUNDS THAT ARE EVIDENT IN THEIR ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS, PER COUNCIL POLICY 64 THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE WHY THE ALTERNATIVES WON'T WORK. THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUBMITTED WAS SPARSE, INCOMPLETE AND OMITTED VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION, LEAVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEGGING FOR MORE INFORMATION, AND EVENTUALLY REMANDED THE ITEM.

OUR SMALL CITY PLANNING STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THE TIME TO FOLLOW UP AND VALIDATE APPLICATIONS LIKE BIGGER CITIES, AND SO THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT THE SIGNED DOCUMENTS AND THE STUDIES AT FACE VALUE.

HOWEVER, COUNCIL POLICY 64 DOES ALLOW FOR THE CITY TO HIRE A CONSULTANT TO REVIEW FOR ACCURACY.

WE DID SOME OF THAT ON OUR OWN AND THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND OUT.

MOST OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON MOST OF THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DISMISSED FOR QUESTIONABLE AND INVALID REASONS, INCLUDING THE REPORTED LACK OF INTEREST BY PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE ENCINAS WASTEWATER AUTHORITY SITE.

CANDIDATE NUMBER FOUR WAS IDENTIFIED NOT BY NAME, NOT BY ADDRESS, BUT BY A PARCEL NUMBER ON THE STUDY.

IT FAILED TO MENTION.

THEY FAILED TO MENTION THAT ENCINAS NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH WITH AT&T FOR OVER A YEAR, AND THEN SUDDENLY PULLED OUT, CLAIMING THEY FOUND A MORE FAVORABLE ALTERNATIVE. MD7 REPORTEDLY DISMISSED THIS OPTION DUE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS LACK OF INTEREST, WHEN IN ACTUALITY THE WASTEWATER BOARD, INCLUDING OUR OWN MAYOR BLACKBURN AND THEN COUNCILWOMAN CORI SCHUMACHER, UNANIMOUSLY VOTED IN FAVOR OF HAVING A WIRELESS

[01:05:04]

COMMUNICATION SITE.

WE HAVE THE ENCINAS MINUTES BOARD, MINUTES ON THIS AND THE GENERAL MANAGER'S EMAIL TO BACK THAT UP.

THESE EVENTS WERE EXCLUDED FROM BOTH THEIR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS.

THE SERVICE DIRECTOR OVERSEEING THE PROPERTY TOLD US HE HAD NEVER BEEN CONTACTED BY MD7 OR AT&T.

SAME WITH CANDIDATE NUMBER TWO, THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND PASEO DEL NORTE.

THE 7-ELEVEN. IT WAS DISMISSED DUE TO A LACK OF PROPERTY OWNERS' INTEREST.

HOWEVER, BOTH THE FRANCHISEE AND THE PROPERTY MANAGER WERE NOT CONTACTED.

THEY TOLD US THEY WERE NOT CONTACTED BY AT&T OR MD7.

THE ALTAMIRA RV PARK OPTION CANDIDATE NUMBER SIX WAS DISMISSED DUE TO A LOSS OF PARKING SPOTS.

ALTAMIRA, HOA NOR THE RV MANAGEMENT WERE EVER CONTACTED.

IT'S AT THE SAME ELEVATION AND WITHIN THE AT&T TARGET AREA.

THIS WAS NEVER DISCUSSED WITH STAFF EITHER.

WHEN DISCUSSING CANDIDATES SIX AND SEVEN, MD SEVEN STATED UTILITY COMPANIES DO NOT ALLOW FOR CO-LOCATION.

HE SAID THAT HERE IN THE MEETING, HOWEVER, WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF NEARBY A T-MOBILE ARRAY AT EL CAMINO REAL AND POINSETTIA LANE AND OTHERS.

AGAIN, THIS IS VERY MISLEADING.

AND AS A REMINDER, CO-LOCATION IS A PRIORITY OF COUNCIL POLICY 64.

EVENTUALLY, THERE WAS ONE MORE VIABLE OPTION THAT WAS REVEALED AT THE REMAND MEETING AS A RESULT OF COMMISSIONER HUBINGER SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR A CONTINGENCY PLAN.

AT&T'S CONTINGENCY OF USING SMALL CELL TECHNOLOGY, WHICH IS A LOWER PROFILE AND LOWER RADIATION ALONG THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH WAS NOT EXPLORED. UNFORTUNATELY, BOTH COUNCIL AND THE CITY PLANNER STEERED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AWAY FROM THIS, CLAIMING THAT THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY OPTION IS LOWER ON THE PREFERRED LIST, WHICH IS TRUE FOR A MONOPOLE, BUT.

YOU CAN HAVE THE. COUNCIL POLICY 64 EXCLUDES SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES FROM THE LOCATION GUIDE'S GUIDELINES AND HIERARCHIES.

IT'S RIGHT THERE AT THE VERY, VERY TOP LINE EXCLUDING SWFS.

THIS DIFFERENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGY FORMAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THESE GUIDELINES.

THESE CAN BE FOUND THROUGHOUT AVIARA.

THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA AND OTHER UPSCALE CITIES.

IN FACT, THERE'S ONE AT THE ENTRANCE OF POINSETTIA PARK ALREADY AND THE TWO MORE ABOVE IT ON PASEO DEL NORTE.

ONE FINAL POINT UPON CITY PARK LOCATION MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SATISFY THE COUNCIL POLICY 64 ESTHETIC CRITERIA OF VISIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC WHERE, QUOTE, NO WCF SHOULD BE INSTALLED IN A LOCATION READILY VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC PLACE, RECREATION AREA, SCENIC AREA OR RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND UNLESS IT IS SATISFACTORY, LOCATED AND OR SCREENED SO THAT IT IS HIDDEN OR DISGUISED.

END QUOTE. THE PROPOSED TOWER THAT YOU SEE, THE DEPICTION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER WILL BE NEITHER HIDDEN NOR DISGUISED, SINCE THAT RADOME COVER IS NOT A CLOAK OF INVISIBILITY, AND NOR IS THE POLE CAMOUFLAGED WITH EUCALYPTUS.

EUCALYPTUS GROVE.

IN CONCLUSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE.

THE PERMIT WAS BASED ON A FABRIC ON FABRICATED INFORMATION, A LACK OF EVIDENCE AND UNSCRUPULOUS PRACTICES TO PURPOSELY SKEW THE DECISION AND MISLEAD THE COMMISSION INTO BELIEVING THAT POINSETTIA PARK WAS THE ONLY OPTION.

A PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE OF FOUR THREE IS HIGHLY INDICATIVE OF DOUBT.

AT&T'S CONTINGENCY WAS REVEALED BUT NOT EXPLORED IN FAVOR OF A CHEAPER, MORE PRACTICAL OPTION FOR THE APPLICANT, PUTTING PROFIT OVER COMPATIBILITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY.

BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES WITH LESSER IMPACT ON THE PARK AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

WE URGE YOU TO REVERSE THIS DECISION AND LOOK TOWARDS A MORE AMICABLE AND FITTING ALTERNATIVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH AT&T.

I APOLOGIZE FOR MY VOICE.

THIS WAS JUST TOO IMPORTANT TO MISS.

[01:10:03]

THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL OF THE APPELLANT.

ANYWAY. MS. ACOSTA. GREAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ON THE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS ARGUMENT THAT THAT YOU HAVE AS AN APPELLANT, THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE ENCINA OR EWA ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY'S STUDY THAT YOU PASSED OUT TO COUNCIL, THAT YOU THOUGHT THOSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND THEY WEREN'T.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THE ENCINA SITE WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS BY MD7.

SO THAT WAS THE SITE THAT THEY SUPPOSEDLY LOOKED AT.

WE DIDN'T KNOW WHICH SITE IT WAS EXACTLY, AND NEITHER DID THE COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE IT WAS A PARCEL NUMBER, NOT A NAME OR AN ADDRESS.

IN FACT, THE CHAIRPERSON QUESTIONED ABOUT THAT, QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT THAT, BUT HE NEVER DISCLOSED.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ENCINAS WATER WASTEWATER SITE THEY HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING, AND MAYBE MAYOR BLACKBURN COULD TALK MORE ABOUT THAT, BUT THEY HAD NEGOTIATED FOR OVER A YEAR.

THEY AGREED TO HAVE IT THERE.

AND I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS.

MAYBE YOU REMEMBER IT WAS A WHILE AGO, BUT THEY AGREED.

THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.

WE HAVE THE MINUTES FOR YOU AND BOARD REPORT TO HAND OUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM, AND AN EMAIL FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER SAYING THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED AND THEY WERE VERY UPSET TO HEAR THAT.

MD7 REPORTED THAT ENCINAS HAD NO INTEREST IN THIS SITE.

TOWER. OKAY, I JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER.

AND I THINK, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU, AS THE APPELLANT, THINK THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A VIABLE OPTION.

INSTEAD, IT'S RIGHT ON THE BORDER OF ITS OF THEIR TARGET MAP.

OKAY. AND THEN SO THAT'S FOR A LARGE FACILITY, THE SAME SIZE BUT JUST A DIFFERENT LOCATION.

CORRECT. AND AT&T WAS PURSUING THAT FOR OVER A YEAR WITH THE WASTEWATER.

OKAY. WE'LL TALK TO THEM AND ASK THEM IN A MINUTE.

THANK YOU. AND THEN ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE DESIGN AND THE ESTHETIC, BECAUSE THAT WAS ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT YOU ALL HAD.

ARE YOU FOCUSED ON HAVING EUCALYPTUS FAKE EUCALYPTUS TREES OR LIKE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND IN TERMS OF STEALTHING? WELL LIKE THERE WAS ANOTHER SPEAKER EARLIER TALKING ABOUT THAT AND HOW YOU CAN'T REALLY ARGUE OTHER STUFF, BUT YOU CAN ARGUE THIS BECAUSE IT'S PART OF POLICY 64.

SO OF COURSE WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE VISUAL.

AND THE VISUAL.

CRITERIA CLEARLY SAYS HIDDEN OR CAMOUFLAGE.

WELL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEM AND YOU SEE THAT PICTURE OF ALL THE TOWERS THAT AT CALAVERAS, I MEAN, IT TAKES ME BACK TO SESAME STREET.

WHICH ONE OF THESE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE OTHERS? OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT A LIGHT POLE.

THERE'S SOMETHING BEHIND THAT RADOME.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DUMB.

WE KNOW THEY'RE NOT SPITTING OUT RAINBOWS.

SO, IT'S NOT INVISIBLE AND IT'S NOT CAMOUFLAGE.

IF IT WAS LIKE ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE PARK WHERE WE HAVE A GREEN BELT OF EUCALYPTUS TREES DIVIDING THE PROPERTIES FROM THE PARK, THEN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO, LIKE YOU SAID COVER IT WITH EUCALYPTUS, FAUX EUCALYPTUS LEAVES AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT'S PART OF THE GREENBELT.

THANK YOU. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET TO IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU, THE APPELLANT HAS AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION IN MIND.

AND IF YOU ALSO HAD A SOLUTION IN TERMS OF THE ESTHETICS IN MIND, LIKE NOT TO KEEP POKING AT IT, BUT LIKE WHAT IS THE SOLUTION YOU'RE OFFERING INSTEAD? THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.

BUT I THINK YOU ANSWERED THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MISS GEORGE.

THANK YOU, MISS BHAT-PATEL.

MA'AM? YOU.

YES, YOU DID.

YOU TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT ALTERNATE SITES.

YES. AND YOU DID GIVE US SOME EMAILS FROM ENCINO WASTEWATER, WHICH KIND OF CONFIRMS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

NOT DOUBTING YOUR WORD, BUT YOU ARE NOT A DISINTERESTED PARTY IN THIS.

SO, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, LIKE YOU LISTED 7-ELEVEN AND SEVERAL OTHERS THAT THEY WERE NEVER CONTACTED, DID YOU GET AN EMAIL OR ANY KIND OF CONFIRMING DOCUMENTATION THAT THAT ACTUALLY IS, IS FACTUAL THAT THEY WEREN'T NEVER CONTACTED.

KEVIN, DO YOU WANT? DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT? DO YOU HAVE AN EMAIL FROM CARLSBAD CAR? OH, SOME OF OUR TEAM MEMBERS WENT TO THE DIFFERENT SITES AND SPOKE TO THE MANAGERS AND THE SITE PROPERTY MANAGERS, AND THEY GAVE US A VERBAL LIKE, NO, THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

7011 DID SAY THAT THEY HAVE OTHER TOWERS ON TOP OF THEIR ROOF.

THEY'RE LIKE 40 FOOT, I THINK SEVERAL OF THEM CO-LOCATED.

AND SO, THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY SAID, NO, NOBODY HAS CONTACTED US.

BUT IF THEY DID, THIS WAS WHERE IT WOULD GO.

WE HAVE OTHER PROVIDERS HERE, BUT EVERYTHING WAS HOLD ON FOR JUST A MOMENT.

[01:15:02]

EVERYTHING WAS JUST VERBAL.

WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS THAT EXTRA MAKES ME COMFORTABLE THAT IT ISN'T BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC INTEREST IN YOUR PRESENTATION.

NOT SAYING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS NOT ACCURATE.

BUT DO YOU HAVE EMAILS OR ANYTHING THAT'S IN WRITING WHERE PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NOBODY WAS EVER CONTACTED AT THESE BUSINESSES? WE HAVE THE ONE FROM THE ENCINITAS WATER WASTEWATER, WHICH WAS THE BIGGEST ONE, AND I BELIEVE THE CAR COUNTRY.

DO WE HAVE THE ONE FOR CAR COUNTRY, THE CAR COUNTRY? I SPOKE, I SPOKE TO THE DIRECTOR IN PERSON AND THE 7-ELEVEN THEY SPOKE.

WE HAD ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS SPEAK WITH HIM IN PERSON.

SO, WE DID NOT DOCUMENT ANY OF THAT, BUT WE CAN ATTEST.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY BUSINESS CARD, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO IT.

BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY QUESTION WAS DOCUMENTATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS.

I FAILED TO ASK IF ANY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING TO DISCLOSE ON THIS ISSUE.

I'VE DRIVEN BY THE PARK NUMEROUS TIMES AND BEEN IN THERE, SO I'M INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE EXISTING TOWERS AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE OTHER TOWERS THAT ARE IN PARK SITES, AND THAT I ATTEND THOSE PARKS AND THAT I DO SEE THE TOWERS.

MISS BURKHOLDER I CAN I DITTO WHAT MISS LUNA JUST SAID INSTEAD OF SAYING IT ALL OVER AGAIN.

AND ALSO, DEFINITELY DROVE BY TO REFRESH MY MEMORY ON CALAVERA AND THE APPEARANCE AND DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN TO THE PARKS MULTIPLE OCCASIONS AND LIVE VERY NEAR TO CARLSBAD HIGH SCHOOL.

MS. ACOSTA? I'M FAMILIAR WITH BOTH CALAVERA AND POINSETTIA PARK.

VERY FAMILIAR. BUT IN TERMS OF THIS AGENDA ITEM, I HAVE NOTHING TO DISCLOSE.

I RECEIVED A LOT OF EMAILS, BUT THEY WERE ALL FORWARDED, AND I THINK THEY WERE RECEIVED BY ALL OF US.

THANKS. AND MISS BHAT-PATEL.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NOTHING ELSE TO REPORT.

OKAY. AND WE DID ALL RECEIVE A LOT OF EMAILS.

AND CITY ATTORNEY, WOULD YOU PLEASE REMIND US, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC DOESN'T THINK WE IGNORED THE EMAILS.

THERE'RE SOME LEGAL REASONS WE COULDN'T DISCUSS IT BECAUSE IT WAS COMING BEFORE US.

AND CITY ATTORNEY, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT JUST BRIEFLY, SO THE AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDS WHY WE DIDN'T ANSWER EMAILS? YES, MAYOR. THANK YOU.

SO, WHEN YOU RECEIVE EMAILS, THEY'RE PUT INTO THE RECORD.

SO, AS MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THIS AFTERNOON, ALL THE EMAILS WERE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.

IF COUNCIL WERE TO RESPOND TO THEM.

AND THOSE RESPONSES WERE WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD THAT WOULD BE DISCLOSING TO ONE ANOTHER WHAT THEY MIGHT BE THINKING ON THIS ITEM, WHICH WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE A MEETING FOR BROWN ACT PURPOSES.

AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE BROWN ACT MEETINGS WITHOUT BEING HERE IN THE PUBLIC, WHERE YOU ALL CAN SEE AND HEAR AND KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

THANK YOU. AND THE REASON I ASKED THE ATTORNEY TO SAY THIS, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT WE READ YOUR EMAILS, AND WE DIDN'T CARE ENOUGH TO RESPOND TO THEM.

YES, MISS BHAT-PATEL AND CITY ATTORNEY.

I'M ALSO ASSUMING, SINCE THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, ANOTHER I DID RESPOND TO THEM, BUT I DID NOT INDICATE ANYTHING BESIDES SAYING THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK. YES, ALSO, BECAUSE THIS IS AN EX PARTE MATTER.

IF YOU HAD RESPONDED OR HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER, THE SUBSTANCE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE DISCLOSED WHEN YOU JUST MADE YOUR DISCLOSURES.

THANK YOU. NEXT TEN MINUTES FOR THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M JOHN HEFFERNAN, I'M PART OF AT&T.

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS TEAM.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SOME INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS BEFORE I HAND IT OFF TO OUR VENDOR MD7, WHO PREPARED THE PRESENTATION.

AND THEY DO ALL THE KIND OF HEAVY LIFTING AND INTERACTION WITH THE CITY STAFF AROUND PERMITTING.

SO, APPRECIATE THE COLLABORATION, THE PARTNERSHIP AND THE RESPONSIVENESS.

YOU'RE WELL REPRESENTED BY KYLE AND THE TEAM.

THANK YOU. GOOD DAY.

MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I DO HAVE A JUST A SLIGHT PRESENTATION TODAY.

KYLE DID A GREAT JOB WITH HIS STAFF PRESENTATION, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO KIND OF GO OFF OF THAT AS WELL.

OKAY. SO JUST AGAIN, THE PHOTO SIMULATIONS, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW.

[01:20:01]

WHAT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE WITH THE FOUR-FOOT RADOME OR SHROUD? AND JUST A CONCLUSION.

AT&T WIRELESS IS WORKING TO UPGRADE THE NETWORK TO MEET THE GROWING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEMANDS IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED OUR PROPOSAL ON 11/7/2024.

AT&T DESIGN IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ZONING REGULATIONS.

THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS DESIGNED TO BE LEAST INTRUSIVE WHILE FULFILLING THE SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE NEED, AND I BELIEVE IS HITTING THE TWO-PRONGED TEST BECAUSE OF THOSE FACTORS. FOR THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE APPEAL IS DENIED, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AT&T MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS UPHELD ALTERNATIVE SITES.

IS THAT THE CONCLUSION OF.

OH, THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL.

NO QUESTION.

MS. ACOSTA? OKAY, MISS BURKHOLDER, WAS IT FAST ENOUGH? I GO BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED STAFF EARLIER, AN EXPLAINING MORE ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY OPTIONS. SORRY, THAT WERE JUST LOST.

I MEAN, IT JUST WENT OUT OF MY MIND.

SO, IF YOU COULD TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT, IF THERE'S NOT ONE BIG GIANT ONE IN THE PARK, THEN WHERE ARE THE OTHER ONES GO WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, HOW BIG ARE THEY, HOW INTRUSIVE ARE THEY, ETC.? SO I'M NOT THE RF ENGINEER HERE.

I WOULDN'T KNOW EXACTLY THE COUNT OF HOW MANY WE WOULD NEED.

HOWEVER, IT WOULD LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT KYLE PRESENTED KIND OF ON STREETLIGHTS NEAR THE RESIDENCES ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

YEAH, AND I CAN MAKE A COMMENT.

THANKS. COUNCIL MEMBER BURKHOLDER.

SO THAT TOPIC CAME UP DURING THE Q&A SESSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOT BEING AN ENGINEER.

YOU KNOW, I JUST I JUST SHARED WHAT I THOUGHT POTENTIALLY COULD BE THE NUMBER OF SMALL CELL WIRELESS FACILITIES REQUIRED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO MEET THE COVERAGE GAP OBJECTIVES IN PLACE OF A MACRO SITE.

BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE ANALYSIS FROM OUR ENGINEERS RF STUDIES TO REALLY LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, AND BASED ON PLACEMENT, LOOK AT WHAT IF WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.

THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER. SO, THEN I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION IS, IS THERE NOT A PRECEDENT THAT YOU'VE DONE THIS BEFORE? MAYBE YOU DIDN'T GET IT IN A PARK, BUT YOU PUT IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE THERE HAS TO BE A PARAMETER OF NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT YOU SERVE IN IN A REGION.

WHAT'S A TYPICAL PRACTICE, I GUESS, IS WHAT I'M ASKING.

YEAH. SO, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO MY ENGINEERING TEAM.

WE'VE GOT A LARGE TEAM THAT MONITORS OUR NETWORK PERFORMANCE.

AND YOU KNOW, THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT ANALYSIS IN THIS CASE.

OKAY. I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR AT&T.

THANKS, MS. ACOSTA. THANK YOU. JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS, THIS SAME TOPIC.

SO, WE'VE BEEN TALKING A BIT ABOUT ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS.

SO, I UNDERSTAND YOU DID AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANALYSIS, AND THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT UP THIS LIST AND THE ENCINO WASTEWATER AUTHORITY LOCATION.

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHY THAT WAS NOT SELECTED IF THAT IS STILL A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE? SURE. SO SORRY.

SO YES, THIS SITE WAS LOOKED AT AND I BELIEVE LEASE NEGOTIATIONS JUST DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE.

WITH BETWEEN THE WASTEWATER AND AT&T.

ALSO. ADDITIONALLY, THIS SITE IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF OUR SEARCH AREA WHERE WE NEED THE MOST COVERAGE.

SO, IT'S RIGHT OUTSIDE THE SEARCH AREA.

IT JUST DIDN'T AFTER THE NO LEASING CAME TO FRUITION.

IT WAS NOT A SUITABLE CANDIDATE.

OKAY, SO JUST TO TAKE THOSE TWO PIECES APART FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS NOT GOING ANYWHERE PORTION WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED WITH, WITH DOCUMENTATION THAT SAYS THE OPPOSITE.

SO THAT THAT'S A CONCERN.

BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, IF IT DOESN'T COMPLETE YOUR NETWORK THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

RIGHT. AND I'M WONDERING THEN WHY THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE SITE ANALYSIS OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING THAT? MAYBE YOU CAN. YEAH.

HELLO, I'M MATT RAMIREZ, PROJECT MANAGER.

SITE ACQUISITION MANAGER FOR MD7.

[01:25:01]

I DIDN'T WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE WASTEWATER.

BUT MY MY PREVIOUS COLLEAGUE DID.

SO, THERE WERE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE WASTEWATER, AND THEY DID GO ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

A YEAR PLUS.

HOWEVER, THOSE NEGOTIATIONS FELL THROUGH BECAUSE THE TWO PARTIES COULDN'T AGREE TO TERMS. SO, WHILE THE WASTEWATER WAS INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD AT&T'S BUSINESS DECISION FOR A SITE THAT WASN'T MEETING THEIR COVERAGE OBJECTIVES DIRECTLY DECIDED TO MOVE IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.

OKAY. SO IN TERMS OF MEETING YOUR COVERAGE OBJECTIVES AND COMPLETING YOUR NETWORK, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN'T PREVENT YOU FROM COMPLETING YOUR NETWORK.

SO I'M WONDERING WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE IF IF THIS WERE NOT THE RIGHT SITE FOR YOU.

WOULD IT BE SMALL CELLS AND ANY INFORMATION YOU CAN PROVIDE WOULD HELP US MAKE THIS DECISION TONIGHT IN TERMS OF NUMBER, LOCATION ANYTHING THAT YOU COULD PROVIDE, SETBACK, WHATEVER YOU COULD PROVIDE, AND I UNDERSTAND, I BELIEVE MAYBE YOU CAN ELABORATE ON WHAT YOUR ROLES ARE, BECAUSE I THINK AT LEAST ONE OF YOU IS AN RF ENGINEER.

YES. GOOD.

YEAH. SO AGAIN, THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER ACOSTA.

SO, THE ANALYSIS GOES INTO ONCE A SEARCH RING OR A TARGET AREA IS CREATED, AND A CANDIDATE SITE IS IDENTIFIED, AND THE ENGINEERS GO TO WORK REGARDING HEIGHT OF THE ANTENNAS, THE RADIO UNITS, THE, YOU KNOW, THE TYPE OF SPECTRUM THAT WILL BE EMITTED TO COMPLETE OUR COVERAGE GAP.

SO, IN THIS CASE IT WAS A MACRO SITE.

IT WAS A 70 PLUS FOOT, YOU KNOW EXISTING LIGHT POLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE WITH THE ANTENNAS BEING, I THINK, AT 60FT OR BETWEEN 50 AND 60FT.

SO, THERE WAS NO ENGINEERING OR ANALYSIS ON THE SMALL CELL KIND OF ALTERNATIVE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A DESIRE TO KNOW, HEY, HOW MANY AND WHERE TO KIND OF MEET THAT.

BUT THE ENGINEERS, IT'S, IT'S SORT OF PROJECT SPECIFIC, THE ANALYSIS THAT THEY DO.

AND THAT'S WHY WE, YOU KNOW, IN WORKING WITH STAFF, WE'RE HAPPY TO GET MAKE SURE THAT OUR VENDOR FOLLOWED THE CITY'S CODE STANDARDS AND, AND ULTIMATELY RECEIVED APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION.

OKAY, SO JUST TO RESTATE THAT IN A WAY THAT I UNDERSTAND AND HOPEFULLY OTHERS, TOO.

THE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS THAT WAS CONDUCTED WAS FOR MACRO SITES FOR OTHER LARGE 78-FOOT HIGH, BIG, WIDE RANGING, WIDE COVERING FACILITIES. THERE WAS NO STUDY DONE ON SMALL CELLS.

IT WAS ONLY A COMMENT THAT I THINK YOU SAID YOU MADE IT PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ON KIND OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE IN TERMS OF SMALL CELLS VERSUS A LARGE MACRO CELL SITE.

IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.

YEAH. AND YOU KNOW, YOU ASKED ABOUT OUR ROLES.

SO, I'M IN THE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TEAM.

SO, I'M THE ONE THAT INTERACTS WITH THE CHAMBER OR DONATES TO THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, BUT ALSO IS HERE TO RECEIVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.

IF OUR TEAMS ARE DOING WORK OUT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, IF THERE'S TRAFFIC CONTROL ISSUES, THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED AN RF ENGINEER, WE ACTUALLY DID BRING SOMEONE WHO'S NOT WITH AT&T.

WE BROUGHT SOMEONE DOWN FROM NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TO ANSWER VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

AND BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW DEEP IN THE WEEDS YOU WANT TO GET ABOUT SPECTRUM AND THE PROPAGATION OF THE SIGNAL.

BUT HE CAN SPEAK TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MACRO SITE AND SMALL CELLS, IF YOU'D LIKE.

I THINK IT WOULD ONLY BE RELEVANT IF IT COULD, IF WE COULD COMPARE THEM LIKE WHAT IS ONE MACRO SITE VERSUS HOW MANY SMALL CELLS WOULD WE NEED TO HAVE THE SAME IMPACT OR THE SAME COVERAGE.

YEAH. SO, IT'S VERY DYNAMIC.

THERE'S LOW POWER, LOW SIGNAL STRENGTH.

THEY CAN BE IMPACTED BY TOPOGRAPHY OR STRUCTURES.

IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT TYPE OF THE ANALOGY I USE IS IF YOU LOOK AT A FOOTBALL FIELD AND YOU GET THOSE BIG SPRINKLERS THAT WILL COVER LARGE AREAS VERSUS WHAT YOU HAVE, MAYBE IN YOUR FRONT YARD WITH SMALL SPRINKLERS.

IT'S JUST A THERE ARE APPLES AND ORANGES.

OKAY. IT'S HARD BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD REALLY HELP US MAKE A GOOD DECISION HERE IF WE KNEW THAT INFORMATION.

THE OTHER QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.

OH, DID YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT? WELL, I JUST I MY UNDERSTANDING WAS TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION WAS AROUND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION.

AND, AND IN MY 15 YEARS OF DOING THIS, I FEEL LIKE THEY DID HAVE THE INFORMATION.

THEY DID HAVE.

COUNCIL FROM CITY STAFF.

THERE WAS A, YOU KNOW, ANIMATED EXCHANGE.

AND ULTIMATELY, I THINK THEY MADE THE CORRECT DECISION.

OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING WITH THE DE NOVO ASPECT OF THINGS AND BEING PRESENTED WITH THIS INFORMATION, BUT I DID WANT TO ASK ALSO ON THAT.

[01:30:07]

SO, THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT UP ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS.

IT'S A BIG REASON THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO APPEAL.

AND THEN THE OTHER WAS ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS.

AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAD ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS, IF YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT.

YEAH. SO, WE ALWAYS WANT TO OR AIM TO BUILD ON SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING, IN THIS CASE, THE LIGHT POLE.

WE ACTUALLY REDESIGNED THIS SITE TWICE.

MAKING IT COMPATIBLE WITH CITY REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF THE SHROUD.

SIZE OR THE RADOME SIZE? SO, WE DID WE HAVE REDESIGNED THIS SITE A FEW TIMES.

GREAT. THANK YOU. AND WERE THERE TIMES THAT MAYBE WE LOOKED AT FAUX TREES? I'M ONLY ASKING BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP.

SO YEAH, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WITH CARLSBAD ACTUALLY DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE UP USABLE SPACE IN THE PARK.

AND SO, BY US USING AN EXISTING FACILITY AND AN EXISTING TRASH BIN, WHICH IS NO LONGER REQUIRED, WE REALLY DIDN'T TAKE UP ANY SPACE.

IF WE WERE TO LOCATE, YOU KNOW, IN THE TREE LINE OR WHATNOT, LIKE THAT WAS THAT WAS SUGGESTED WE WOULD HAVE OUR EQUIPMENT AREA OUT THERE AS WELL TAKING UP USABLE SPACE.

AND THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT DIDN'T WANT TO ALLOW IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

OKAY, I'M STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND SOME OF THIS BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ANSWERS.

MRS. BHAT-PATEL.

YES. THANK YOU. SOME OF MY QUESTIONS WERE ASKED BY MY COLLEAGUE.

ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS AROUND THE ALTERNATIVE, OTHER ALTERNATIVES.

SO, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED AROUND ENCINA WASTEWATER, BUT CAN YOU GO INTO MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL? I KNOW IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A POTENTIAL THAT SOME OF THESE SITES WEREN'T CONTACTED.

SO, IF YOU COULD KIND OF GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE AROUND THAT AND THEN WHY THOSE OTHERS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.

GOT IT. SO, I'LL START WITH THE CONCLUSION, AND THEN WE CAN GO INTO MAYBE SITE SPECIFICS AS WELL.

SO, THE FOLLOWING PREFERRED LOCATIONS WERE NOT FOUND WITHIN THE SEARCH RING.

AT&T HAS COVERAGE GOAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL ZONES.

EXCEPT FOR OPEN SPACE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ROADS ADJACENT TO INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONES.

PUBLIC PROPERTY NOT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

MAJOR POWER TRANSMISSION TOWERS IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONES OR AREAS.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITY INSTALLATIONS NOT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE.

IN RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE ZONES, FOR EXAMPLE WATER TANKS RESERVOIRS.

AND THE COVERAGE OBJECTIVE WAS REALLY COVERAGE TO THE SOUTH OF THE PARK.

SO, WITHIN THAT LITTLE AREA IT WAS ALL RED BASICALLY WHERE WE WERE LOOKING.

OKAY. AND YEAH, ALL MY OTHER QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED, SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE'VE BEEN IN SESSION FOR OVER AN HOUR AND A HALF, SO THIS IS A GOOD BREAKING POINT.

WHEN WE COME BACK, I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.

I'M SORRY. OH. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I'M SO SORRY, MR. MAYOR.

ONE OF THE. THERE.

GO AHEAD. YEAH. THIS IS A BUSINESS.

IT'S A MONEY-MAKING BUSINESS.

SO, I JUST WANTED WHO PROFITS IF THE TOWER IS IN THE PARK VERSUS WHERE THEY ARE SPREAD OUT THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO MAKES MONEY ON THIS ADVENTURE? COUNCIL MEMBER.

I CAN ANSWER THAT.

WE NEGOTIATE LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH AT&T AND OTHER CARRIERS.

IF IT'S ON CITY PROPERTY.

IN THIS CASE, WE WOULD NEGOTIATE A LONG-TERM LEASE AGREEMENT IF IT WERE LOCATED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY BY FCC RULES, WE CAN ONLY RECEIVE $270 PER YEAR PER LOCATION.

THAT'S SUBJECT TO 3% EACH YEAR.

SO, IF THERE WERE TEN FACILITIES AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE TEN, BUT IF THERE WERE TEN, THAT'S $2,700 PER YEAR.

WHEREAS A TYPICAL MACRO SITE, AS THESE ARE CALLED, WOULD BE AROUND 50,000 STARTING.

SO THE YIELD IS IS QUITE SIGNIFICANT.

AND ALSO KIND OF WAS TOUCHED ON BEFORE.

WE HAVE AN EXISTING MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH AT&T AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER CARRIERS.

AND SO THERE'S A PROCESS IN PLACE WHERE THEY CAN COME IN, SUBMIT THE PERMIT APPLICATION, WHICH IS AN EXHIBIT TO THAT MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT.

AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DOES REVIEW TO MAKE SURE THAT IT THAT IT COMPLIES WITH OUR POLICY.

[01:35:02]

BUT THAT PROCESS IS ALREADY LAID OUT AND THERE IS NO NEW AGREEMENT TO BE NEGOTIATED AT THAT POINT.

THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK AND WE'LL RECONVENE AT A 6:45.

THANK YOU GUYS.

I'M CALLING THE MEETING. BACK TO ORDER.

NEXT WILL BE OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THE PUBLIC HEARING? YES, SYLVIA CHANG, FOLLOWED BY KEVIN KAREN SPARKS.

HI, I'M SYLVIA CHANG.

ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT THIS COUNTRY IS THAT IT HAS A GOVERNMENT THAT IS OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE PEOPLE ELECT OTHER PEOPLE WHO SERVE AS REPRESENTATIVES FOR THEM.

UNFORTUNATELY, AS WE'VE AGED AS A NATION, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE LOST FAITH IN OUR SO-CALLED REPRESENTATIVES ACTUALLY REPRESENTING ANY PEOPLE, AS INDICATED BY THE EXTREMELY LOW.

TURNOUTS IN OUR ELECTIONS.

I'VE HAD THE PLEASURE OF LIVING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FOR THE PAST 22 YEARS, IN AN IDEAL LOCATION NEXT TO POINSETTIA PARK.

I OWN A BUSINESS IN THE CITY AND I RAISE MY RAISED MY CHILDREN HERE.

ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKED ABOUT CARLSBAD WAS THAT IT HAD A GROWTH PLAN, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED MANY YEARS AGO AND SEEMED TO BE ADHERED TO.

BUT NOW IT SEEMS THAT THE PLAN IS CONSTANTLY AMENDED AND THAT THE PEOPLE'S WISHES ARE IGNORED.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NOW STATE PRESSURES, BUT SOME OF THE ISSUES COULD COULD BE HANDLED MORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, RATHER THAN THE WILL OF BUSINESSES AND THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS ISSUE WITH THE BUILDING OF THE CELL TOWERS IN POINSETTIA PARK IS ONCE AGAIN SOMETHING THAT'S DRIVEN BY BUSINESS RATHER THAN THE PEOPLE.

THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA DON'T WANT THE CELL TOWERS IN THE PARK.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT OTHER SITES WERE NOT SERIOUSLY VETTED.

AND ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S POLICY 64 PARKS AND NEIGHBORHOODS ARE AMONG THE LAST PREFERRED OPTIONS.

WHY WOULD YOU PLACE CELL TOWERS IN AN AREA THAT'S SURROUNDED BY A LARGE POPULATION OF PEOPLE, AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND A VERY BUSY PARK? WHEN THERE ARE PLENTY OF LESS POPULATED AREAS, THAT COULD BE OPTIONS.

AS I SAID IN MY EMAIL TO YOU, I HOPE THAT EACH OF YOU WILL THINK ABOUT WHAT YOUR ROLE IS AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE.

YOU'RE NOT HERE TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT YOU THINK IS BETTER FOR THEM.

YOU'RE HERE TO REPRESENT WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.

THE PEOPLE OF CARLSBAD DO NOT WANT CELL TOWERS IN THEIR PARKS THAT ARE NEXT TO HOUSES AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS KAREN SPARKS AND I LIVE IN THE COVE COMMUNITY IN CARLSBAD.

I HAVE LIVED IN CARLSBAD FOR 25 YEARS, AND THE FIRST TIME I FEEL LIKE OUR COMMUNITY IS NOT BEING LISTENED TO.

WE NEED A WCF.

WE NEED A WCF AT POINSETTIA PARK.

NO, WE DO NOT.

I SURVEYED THE POINSETTIA COVE COMMUNITY IN JANUARY OF 2024 ABOUT THEIR SATISFACTION WITH THEIR CELLULAR COVERAGE.

OUT OF THE 112 HOUSEHOLDS, THE MAJORITY WERE SATISFIED WITH THEIR CELLULAR SERVICE, AND THIS INCLUDED AT&T CUSTOMERS.

I PRESENTED MY SURVEY RESULTS AT THE JANUARY 17TH PLANNING AND COMMISSION MEETING.

IN ADDITION TO THE SURVEY, A PETITION WAS SIGNED BY OVER 300 PEOPLE AT POINSETTIA PARK WHO WERE OPPOSED TO A WCF IN THE PARK.

WE HAVE TRIED TO SUGGEST ALTERNATIVE SITES AND WE ARE ALWAYS MET WITH WHY ARE OTHER SITES? WHY DON'T THESE OTHER SITES MEET THE CRITERIA? AT&T HAS NO BACKUP PLAN AT POINT CITY PARK.

LOCATION IS DENIED AS STATED BY AT&T AT THE JANUARY 17TH MEETING.

WHY IS THIS? FOR EXAMPLE, AT&T TOLD THE PLANNING COUNCIL THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS NOT A VIABLE LOCATION BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.

DID AT&T CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND SPEAK WITH THEM TO SEE IF THERE WAS ROOM IN THEIR PARKING AREA FOR A WCF? NO, THEY MADE AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT FACTS.

ALSO, TOO MANY SHRUBS WERE CITED AS A REASON TO ELIMINATE THE FIRE STATION AS A VIABLE OPTION.

SHRUBBERY CAN BE PRUNED OR REMOVED.

A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT ACTUALLY TALKING WITH OTHER ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS.

HOW DO YOU ELIMINATE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS WITHOUT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK? THE FIRE STATION IS A PERFECT SPOT FOR THE WCF BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE SAME ELEVATION AS POINSETTIA PARK.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS, THE CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PASSED THIS PROJECT WITHOUT BEING PRESENTED INFORMATION, WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIATED, WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIATED, AND FACT CHECKED.

WE DO. WE NEED TO DO BETTER AND MAKE SURE CLAIMS ARE CONFIRMED AND VERIFIED BEFORE IMPORTANT DECISIONS ARE MADE.

[01:40:05]

WCF MIGHT STAND FOR WIRELESS CELLULAR FACILITY, BUT ALSO WCF STANDS FOR.

WE CAN FIGURE A BETTER PLAN LIKE UTILIZING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES.

ENCINITAS CITY COUNCIL WAS FACED WITH THE SAME ISSUE, AND THEY AGREED TO KEEP THE 5G CELL TOWERS AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND SCHOOL AREAS.

PLEASE REJECT THIS APPLICATION UNTIL THERE'S A CHANCE TO TRULY EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE SITES.

AND ONE THING THAT WAS NOTED ON AT&T CONCLUSION SLIDE THAT WAS JUST UP THERE.

IT SAID THAT THEY IN CONCLUSION THAT THEY ARE LOOKING TO UPGRADE AND NOT COMPLETE THEIR NETWORK.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE POINTS.

THEY WERE SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T STOP THEM FROM COMPLETING THEIR NETWORK.

BUT ON THEIR SLIDE, THEY SAID IN CONCLUSION THAT THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO UPGRADE THEIR NETWORK.

AND THEN LASTLY, IF WE ALLOW ONE CELL TOWER, THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO ALLOW ALL THE REST.

SO IF YOU ALLOW ONE, THEN ALL THE OTHER CARRIERS ARE GOING TO BE ADDING MORE, SO UP TO 5 OR 6.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

LINDA SCHUBERT, FOLLOWED BY KEVIN FRITZ. ARE YOU READY? HI, I'M LINDA SCHUBERT.

I LIVE AT 1031 SEAHORSE COURT IN THE COVE.

A LITTLE ABOUT ME. I'M A DOCTOR OF PHYSICAL THERAPY AND ALSO A COMMANDER IN THE NAVY.

MY FAMILY MOVED FROM OUR LAST HOME 15 YEARS AGO TO THE COVE.

ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THAT WE MOVED WAS WE HAD RADIO TOWERS IN THE CANYON BEHIND OUR HOME.

WE HAD TWO SMALL CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPING BRAINS, AND THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH RESEARCH PERFORMED CONCERNING THE HEALTH HAZARDS.

RAISING OUR CHILDREN IN THE WONDERFUL COVE COMMUNITY NEXT TO POINSETTIA PARK HAS BEEN IDYLLIC.

OUR CHILDREN GREW UP IN THAT PARK.

MY DAUGHTER, A COLLEGE SENIOR, AND MY SON, A YOUNG PROFESSIONAL, BOTH STILL FREQUENT THE PARK ON A REGULAR BASIS.

AS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BECOME DENSER WITH ADUS, OUR OPEN NATURAL SPACE HAS BECOME EVEN MORE PRECIOUS TO US.

THE 5G TOWER WOULD DISRUPT THE AMBIANCE AND THE OVERALL BEAUTY OF THE PARK, AND ALSO THE MITCHELL THORPE FIELD, WHICH IS A VERY SPECIAL MEMORIAL TO OUR COMMUNITY. COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLEASE ASK YOURSELF, WOULD YOU WANT TO LOOK OUT YOUR BEDROOM WINDOW AND SEE THIS HIDEOUS LOOKING TOWER? THAT'S WHAT MY NEIGHBORS ON BEACON BAY WOULD SEE.

THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS, SUCH AS INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS, THAT ARE NOT NEXT TO FAMILY HOMES AND SCHOOLS.

PLEASE CONSIDER THOSE.

I ATTENDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND HEARD THE CITY ATTORNEY SAY HEALTH CONCERNS WOULD NOT BE A REASON FOR DENYING THE TOWER, BECAUSE THE FCC SAYS IT IS SAFE ENOUGH. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S STANDARDS SHOULD NOT BE CARLSBAD STANDARDS.

THINK OF ALL THE FOOD ITEMS THE FDA CONSIDERS SAFE IN OUR COUNTRY THAT EVERY FIRST WORLD COUNTRY BANS.

WOULD YOU DRINK THE WATER FROM FLINT, MICHIGAN? WOULD YOU DRINK THE WATER AT CAMP LEJEUNE? THE EPA HAS KEEPS SAYING IT'S SAFE.

WE CLEARLY CANNOT COUNT ON THEM TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.

ONE THING THAT I THINK THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON IS THAT THEIR BACKUP GENERATOR THAT THEY HAVE PLANNED FOR THIS SITE, WITH 100 GALLON OF DIESEL FUEL CLOSE TO FAMILY HOMES AND A PLAYGROUND, IS A HEALTH HAZARD.

IF YOU LOOK AT 5G TOWERS, I'VE LOOKED AT THEM.

THEY HAVE WARNING LABELS ON THEM THAT SAY.

THIS ANTENNA MAY EXCEED THE FCC.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS AND PROLONGED EXPOSURE MAY BE HARMFUL TO HUMANS, ANIMALS, AND EVEN PLANTS.

ALSO, IT WAS MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO TEAR THAT DOWN AND REBUILD THE TOWER.

SO, THAT'LL BE KIND OF INTERESTING. ANOTHER QUESTION IS, WHERE IS THE GARBAGE GOING TO GO IF THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY THAT BIG DUMPSTER, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO LEAVE THEIR GARBAGE IN THE PARK IF THERE'S NO DUMPSTER THERE SO THAT IT'S A LARGE DUMPSTER.

BUT I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER A DIFFERENT LOCATION AWAY FROM FAMILY HOMES AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, PLEASE PRIORITIZE CARLSBAD FAMILIES OVER A LARGE CORPORATION.

SHAREHOLDERS PROFITS.

THANK YOU.

HI, I'M KEVIN FRITZ.

IN ORDER TO, WE'RE HERE TO WE'RE, HERE TO ASK YOU FOLKS TO OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ASK THEM WHAT THEY HOW THEY ERRED IN THEIR DECISION.

AND MY POINT HERE IS TO POINT OUT THAT EVERYONE HAS RELIED THE CITY STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELIED ON EVERYONE, THE APPLICANT BEING TRUTHFUL IN THEIR APPLICATION, IN ALL THEIR FACTS THAT THEY PRESENTED AND SO FORTH.

WE'VE PRESENTED ALREADY ONE.

I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT TWO MORE OR TWO.

I JUST EXPAND ON TWO MORE OF EXAMPLES OF THE.

IT SHOWS THE AT&T IS SHOWING A PATTERN OF BEING LESS THAN TRUTHFUL IN WRITING IN THEIR PROPOSALS TO THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IN AN EFFORT TO SWAY THEIR DECISION IN FAVOR OF IN FAVOR OF POINSETTIA PARK.

[01:45:03]

WE'VE DISCUSSED I PERSONALLY SPOKE WITH THE GENERAL MANAGER AT ENCINA WHO COMMUNICATED WHAT YOU'VE WHAT YOU HAVE IN THAT EMAIL.

BUT SEE, REMEMBER, IN THE INITIAL ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS THAT WAS INITIAL THAT WAS A CONSIDERATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH WAS RULED OUT.

SO, THERE WAS AN UNTRUTH THAT REPRESENTED THERE.

AND THE CITY RELIED, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELIED ON THAT AND MADE THEIR DECISION APPROPRIATELY.

THEN WE GO DOWN TO THE TRANSMISSION TOWER.

THERE'RE MULTIPLE TRANSMISSION TOWERS THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED AND SUGGESTED TO THE CITY.

ALL OF THOSE THAT THAT WAS MET WITH THE OBJECTION BY BY AT&T STATING THAT UTILITY COMPANIES HAVE NOT ALLOWED WIRELESS FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED ON THEIR STRUCTURE OR WITHIN THE EASEMENT. AGAIN, THAT'S IN WRITING, THAT'S IN THEIR ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS.

AND THAT RULED OUT SEVERAL SITES THAT WE FELT THAT WERE WITHIN THE TARGET AREA.

AND THEN WE SHOWED YOU THAT PICTURE THERE WHERE THERE'S ONE LESS THAN TWO MILES AWAY AT THE CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL, AND POINSETTIA, WHERE T-MOBILE HAS A SITE RIGHT THERE IN THE CITY. IT'S BEEN PERMITTED BY THE CITY.

THE CITY IS AWARE OF IT, BUT THAT WAS THEN DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTED OR LEFT OUT.

SO, OUR ARGUMENT IS SIMPLY HOW CAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE A QUALIFIED DECISION, AN INFORMED DECISION, IF THEY RECEIVED FILTERED INFORMATION THAT OMITTED CRITICAL INFORMATION? SO, OUR SO ESSENTIALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

THEREFORE, THE WHOLE THING NEEDS TO BE OVERTURNED AND THROWN BACK AND LET AT&T RESUBMIT USING THE SMALL CELL TECHNOLOGIES OR THE FIRE STATION. THANK YOU.

VALERIE RUBIN, FOLLOWED BY ANN HAMPTON.

GOOD EVENING.

I'M JUST GOING TO.

OPEN UP MY PHONE TO LOOK AT MY NOTES.

MY NAME IS VALERIE RUBIN AND I HAVE LIVED IN CARLSBAD FOR 20 YEARS.

I ALSO LIVE IN THE COVE NEIGHBORHOOD ON BEACON BAY ROAD, SO RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE NEIGHBORS WHOSE YARDS ABUT POINSETTIA PARK AND ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS.

THEIR BACKYARD PROPERTY LINE IS 170 OR SO FEET FROM THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER LOCATION.

SO I AM AGAINST HAVING A CELL TOWER THAT IS VERY CLOSE TO RESIDENTS.

THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY A PICTURE OF THE PARK PUT UP ON A SLIDE, AND THE PARK IS ESSENTIALLY.

I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY ABOUT A SQUARE.

AND THERE'S ONLY ONE BORDER OF THE PARK WHERE THE PARK BORDER AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINES ABUT, AND THAT IS THE SIDE OF THE PARK WHERE THEY ARE PROPOSING THE CELL TOWER.

THE OTHER THREE SIDES OF THE PARK HAVE STREETS OR A CANYON BEFORE THERE IS RESIDENCES.

SO ANY PART OF THE PARK NEEDED TO BE CHOSEN.

IN MY OPINION, THIS IS THE WORST PART OF THE PARK.

IT'S THE CLOSEST TO RESIDENTS.

SO, NUMBER ONE, I DON'T LIKE THE LOCATION WITHIN THE PARK, AND I DOESN'T FIT THE CITY.

PROPOSITION 64 OF BEING NOT PLACING A CELL TOWER NEAR RESIDENCES.

MY OTHER CONCERN IS LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS THIS EVENING IS THAT THE MD7 OR AT&T THAT HAD TO HAD TO LIST ALTERNATIVE SITES, SEVERAL OF THE SITES THAT THEY LISTED IN THEIR PROPOSAL, INCLUDING THE ENCINITAS WATERPOWER PLANT, 7-ELEVEN AND CAR COUNTRY CARLSBAD, ARE ALL NORTH OF THE PARK.

AND THE AT&T REPRESENTATIVE TONIGHT SAID THAT THEIR TARGET AREA IS SOUTH OF THE PARK, SO IT IS UNCLEAR TO ME IF THEY EVEN DID DUE DILIGENCE IN THEIR REPORT TO LIST LOCATIONS THAT WERE FEASIBLE AT ALL.

FOR THE AREA THEY WANTED TO COVER.

AND I WANTED TO ALSO REITERATE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SAFETY NOT OF THE RADIO TOWER RADIO WAVES, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION THAT, BUT SAFETY OF THE DIESEL FUEL AND SAFETY OR NOT NECESSARILY SAFETY, BUT THE SOUND LIMITS, BECAUSE THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT MENTIONED THAT THE SOUND LIMITS COULD BE AS HIGH AS 53.8DB AND THE CITY RULES ARE UP TO 55.

AND THAT TO ME SEEMS VERY, VERY CLOSE.

AND THE ESTIMATION PROBABLY HAS A AREA OF UNRELIABILITY.

SO, IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THE SOUND LIMITS COULD END UP BEING HIGHER THAN OUR LIMITS OF 55.

SO, IT MAY NOT MEET THAT.

AND THE CITY.

SORRY. ONE FINAL POINT.

THE.

[01:50:09]

HI, MY NAME IS ANNE HAMPTON AND I'VE BEEN IN CARLSBAD FOR OVER 27 YEARS.

OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE BEEN THRILLED TO LIVE NEAR POINSETTIA PARK AND ENJOY DIFFERENT AREAS DESIGNED TO APPEAL TO A LARGE VARIETY OF INTERESTS.

AND BECAUSE OF THIS PLANNING, POINSETTIA PARK IS A HUB FOR THE COMMUNITY.

I'M ALSO A TEACHER AT PACIFIC RIM.

I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 25 YEARS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT OUT OF 8600 SCHOOLS IN CALIFORNIA, PACIFIC RIM IS NAMED THE 10TH BEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BY US NEWS AND REPORTS TWO TIMES.

IT'S A HUGE TESTAMENT TO THE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN BUILT AROUND THIS PARK.

EVERY SPRING, I BRING MY CLASS TO THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

WE EXPLAIN TO THE CHILDREN HOW CITIZENS BRING CONCERNS TO THE CITY AND HOW WE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CITIES.

EMPLOYEES WORK TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT US.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'LL BE HERE ON THURSDAY DURING OUR MOCK CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

THEY AND THEIR PARENTS LOVE HEARING HOW THE CITY HAS BEEN CREATIVE IN FINDING SOLUTIONS TO CITIZENS ISSUES.

THE KIDS LEARN THAT THE CITY MOVED A SIDEWALK IN ORDER TO IMPROVE SAFETY FOR PEOPLE WALKING AND RIDING BIKES.

THEY DID THIS TO PROTECT A WONDERFUL OLD TREE THAT IS STILL GROWING DOWNTOWN, NEAR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB.

I ALSO DISTINCTLY REMEMBER AN ACTUAL MEETING I ATTENDED.

ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS WAS ABOUT ADDING MORE STOPLIGHTS ALONG CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.

THE CITIZENS AND NEIGHBORS SHARED CONCERNS ABOUT BALANCING SAFETY WITH THE BEAUTY THAT MAKES CARLSBAD AMAZING.

EVERY TIME I DRIVE ALONG THE COAST AND STOP FOR THOSE FLASHING LIGHTS, I'M REMINDED THAT OUR CITY GOVERNMENT FOUND A CREATIVE, CREATIVE SOLUTION THAT BENEFITS EVERYONE.

FOR YEARS NOW, I'VE BEEN TELLING MY STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS ABOUT THAT MEETING AND HOW IT WAS DECIDED TO KEEP CONSIDERING OPTIONS BECAUSE THE STOPLIGHTS WERE UNACCEPTABLE.

NOW, I'M LISTENING TO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A PLAN TO PLACE A CELL TOWER IN POINSETTIA PARK.

THIS IS ALSO UNACCEPTABLE.

IT'S DISAPPOINTING AND FRANKLY, UPSETTING TO HEAR THERE MAY BE A LACK OF WILL TO KEEP THESE TOWERS AWAY FROM HOMES, PARKS AND SCHOOLS.

MAYBE A CHALLENGE TO REJECT THE APPLICATION WHILE ALTERNATIVES ARE RESEARCHED, BUT THERE MUST BE OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY FOR A BETTER LOCATION FOR THIS TOWER.

WE ALL KNOW THESE TOWERS ARE UNSAFE IN THIS LOCATION, 180FT FROM HOMES AND LESS THAN 800FT FROM ELEMENTARY AND PRESCHOOL STUDENTS.

YOU SHOULD USE ANY MEANS AVAILABLE TO YOU TO HAVE THIS LOCATION CHANGED.

OTHER CITIES ARE DOING IT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION FAVORED CORPORATIONS OVER THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS.

I HOPE YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY LIKE TOBACCO AND PHARMA IN THE PAST WHEN THEY SAY THEIR PRODUCTS ARE SAFE.

WE ALL KNOW THERE'S PLENTY OF RESEARCH SHOWING THESE 5G TOWERS NEED TO BE REPLACED FARTHER AWAY FROM HOMES AND CHILDREN.

BUT THESE COMPANIES DON'T CARE.

AND SADLY, IT'S NOT SURPRISING THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A SPOT THEY FIND CONVENIENT AT OUR EXPENSE.

BUT YOU, OUR CITY OFFICIALS, NEED TO CARE.

IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND YOUR JOB TO LOOK OUT FOR THE CARLSBAD'S BEST INTERESTS.

I LOOK FORWARD TO TELLING MY STUDENTS ON THURSDAY WHEN WE'RE HERE, A NEW EXAMPLE OF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT FINDING A CREATIVE SOLUTION TO PROTECT CARLSBAD CITIZENS.

GRETCHEN ASHTON, FOLLOWED BY ROCHELLE ALLEN.

GOOD EVENING. I'M GRETCHEN ASHTON AND I LIVE IN MARINERS POINT, AND I ALSO OWN A SECOND HOME IN CARLSBAD.

PARKSIDE. MY HOME IS 600FT AWAY FROM THE PARK, AND MY SECOND HOME IS 100FT AWAY FROM THE PARK, TWO DOORS FROM THE ENTRANCE.

AND I'M OPPOSED TO THIS CELL TOWER IN POINSETTIA PARK.

I WAS GOING TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE, BUT I'VE CHANGED MY MIND AND I'M GOING TO BE A CLEAN-UP HITTER ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.

THIS ISN'T SIMPLY A LAND USE MATTER; IT IS TRULY A QUALITY-OF-LIFE MATTER.

JUST BECAUSE A LAND USE ZONE IS NOT EXCLUDED FROM A POTENTIAL PROJECT SITE DOESN'T MEAN IT ALIGNS WITH OUR VISIONS AND OUR GOALS.

WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLE LEGACY IN CARLSBAD OF COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICY, AND I'M HOPING THAT TONIGHT WE HAVE PROVEN THIS GROUP OF US, HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE, HAVE COME TO COME TO YOU TO TELL YOU HOW VERY IMPORTANT THIS ISSUE IS.

SO, THE CLEANUP I WANT TO DO IS THE LAST ONE OF THE LAST PAGES IN POLICY 64 IS A MAP, AND THIS IS THE CITY'S PREFERRED LAYOUT FOR SWFS IN LINE SMALL CELL WIRELESS.

IF YOU WERE TO PUT THEM IN A ROW SOMEWHERE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE.

I LOOKED AT 200 DOCUMENTS IN A RECORDS REQUEST ON THIS ISSUE SOMEWHERE.

I THINK IT SAID EIGHT SWFS.

AND THERE WAS CONVERSATION ALONG HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD, WHERE THE MAP SHOWS ALONG HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD THAT MIGHT ANSWER ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR WHERE SWFS COULD GO.

BUT AT&T DOESN'T REALLY WANT TO GO THERE, SO THEY DON'T COME PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THE THINGS THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO.

I'VE SEEN THAT IN A COUPLE OF MEETINGS NOW.

ALSO, IN POLICY 64 STAFF HAS ALL KINDS OF LATITUDE FOR CHANGING SETBACKS.

[01:55:03]

THEY COULD EVEN DO IT ON THIS TOWER.

THEY COULD CHANGE IT ON SWF'S STAFF, STAFF, CITY STAFF CAN DO THAT.

ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO BRING UP.

THE VIDEO THAT WE WERE WATCHING FROM TELECOM LAW TALKED ABOUT HOW IF YOU APPROVE THIS TOWER WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL APPROVALS, THEY COULD AUTOMATICALLY ADD ANOTHER LIKE 10 OR 20FT TO THIS TOWER.

THEY COULD ADD NEW EQUIPMENT, THEY COULD DO ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION AND SO FORTH.

WE DON'T WANT TO AUTOMATICALLY APPROVE THAT KIND OF AN EXPANSION ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS IF WE'RE NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT'S HERE ALREADY.

SECONDLY, OR.

LASTLY, I SHOULD SAY, THE PROPERTY LINE OF 177FT 53.8DB IS NOT A COMPLIANCE.

THE GENERATOR OPERATES AT 70DB.

IT'S THE PEOPLE INSIDE THE PARK THAT ARE GOING TO BE EXPOSED TO HARMFUL NOISE AND EXHAUST RATE.

ALL AROUND THORPE FIELD, YOU KNOW WHERE WE GATHER FOR FIVE DAYS.

SO, I HOPE I DID A GOOD JOB OF CLEANUP HITTING TONIGHT.

HELLO, MY NAME IS ROCHELLE ALLEN AND I HAVE BEEN A CARLSBAD RESIDENT.

THIS WILL BE MY 30TH YEAR IN CARLSBAD AND I HAVE BORNE MY CHILDREN AND RAISED THEM ALL HERE.

AND I LIVE IN THE COVE NEXT TO POINSETTIA PARK AS WELL, AND MY KIDS GREW UP THERE.

THEY ABSOLUTELY LOVE THAT PARK.

EVEN NOW, EVEN MY I HAVE ADULT KIDS EVEN AND THEN DOWN TO TEENS AND THEY STILL GO TO THE PARK.

THEY LOVE IT. IT'S SO SPECIAL FOR THEM.

AND SO, THIS PROPOSAL TO ME IS VERY, VERY SAD IN IT.

THE FACT THAT AT&T HAS NOT TAKEN THE TIME, I FEEL TO LOOK AT ACTUAL OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO GIVE US BETTER OPTIONS OF WHAT THEY CAN DO.

I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN AN AT&T CUSTOMER THE WHOLE ALMOST 30 YEARS THAT I HAVE LIVED HERE IN CARLSBAD.

AND SO, AS AN AT&T CUSTOMER, I CAN SAY MYSELF THAT MY CELL PHONE COVERAGE IS JUST FINE IN THE COVE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEMS THERE, AND IT IS VERY DISAPPOINTING TO ME THAT THEY HAVE DONE THIS AND TRIED TO PUT IT IN A PLACE THAT IS EASIEST FOR THEM, WHICH IS IN THE MIDDLE OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND BY A SCHOOL.

THEY NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO FIND A BETTER SITE TO TRY TO LOOK FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

GET MORE STUDIES ON WHAT YOU GUYS ARE.

I WAS HEARING ABOUT THE SMALL CELL TOWER.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT. DO SOME MORE RESEARCH, SHOW US MORE OPTIONS SO THAT WE HAVE OTHER CHOICES ABOUT THIS SITUATION.

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND WOULD ALL BE ABLE TO SEE IT.

AS YOU GUYS KNOW THAT POINSETTIA PARK IS VERY LARGE.

THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF ACTIVITIES THERE ALL THE TIME AND WE WOULD SEE IT.

IT WOULD NOT BE VERY NICE.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING MORE ON A PERSONAL NOTE, BECAUSE I LIVE THERE, THERE ARE BEAUTIFUL OSPREYS AND AT NIGHT TIME YOU CAN SEE THEM FLYING IN THE SKY.

AND THERE'S ONE PARTICULAR ONE THAT HAS A HUGE NEST IN THE TOP OF ONE OF THE THE, THE TOWERS THERE, THE LIGHT TOWERS.

YOU CAN GO LOOK AT IT.

IT'S INCREDIBLE.

AND I TRIED TO DO RESEARCH ON THE OSPREYS AND WE CALLED THE OSPREYS.

THERE'S NO RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO SEE WHAT THESE CELL TOWERS DO FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

WHAT IS IT GOING TO DO TO THESE BIRDS? YES. THE PARTICULAR ONE WHERE THE BIRD NEST IS, IS NOT, I DON'T BELIEVE THE ONE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE DOWN.

BUT WHAT'S IT GOING TO DO TO THAT BIRD'S NEST AND THE BIRDS THAT ARE UP THERE WHEN THE CELL TOWERS JUST RIGHT THERE ACROSS FROM IT? I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE A POSITIVE SITUATION.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP ON THE BOARD, IT WAS D AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT IT TALKED ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL THINGS.

THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS THAT ARE DONE ON THIS TO SEE WHAT THIS IS.

SO, MY SUGGESTION IS TO TRY TO LET'S WAIT ON MAKING IT A HASTY DECISION HERE, SEE IF THERE'S OTHER INDUSTRIAL ZONES.

IT SOUNDS LIKE CAR COUNTRY CARLSBAD AND SENIORS.

I'M CURIOUS WHY THEY SAY NOW THAT ENCINA'S WATER WASTE IS OUT OF THEIR COVERAGE AREA, BUT THEY WERE LOOKING THERE.

THAT SEEMS VERY ODD TO ME, SO I WOULD WANT TO LOOK INTO THAT.

SO, I WOULD JUST ASK YOU GUYS TO PLEASE SAY NO AT THIS POINT AND WAIT FOR MORE RESEARCH.

THANK YOU. VALERIE FISHER, FOLLOWED BY ROBERT HAMPTON.

OKAY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I COME I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FOR 26 YEARS.

AND I JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT BELLS WENT OFF FOR ME UPON LEARNING OF THIS MONUMENTAL ISSUE.

I FIRST HEARD THAT CITIES ACROSS THE US WERE TOLD THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO FIGHT CELL TOWERS BASED ON ALLEGED HEALTH RISKS.

[02:00:07]

WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO MENTION HEALTH CONCERNS AS REASON TO WHY WE DON'T WANT THEM IN OUR PARKS AND NEAR OUR HOMES OR SCHOOLS.

I FOUND THAT INCREDULOUS.

SAME THING WAS TOLD TO THE CITY OF STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES LAND USE COMMITTEE BEFORE STAMFORD REJECTED 5G IN THEIR CITY JUST LAST NOVEMBER. THE GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT DESIGNED A TEMPLATE FOR THEIR FIVE LARGEST CITIES TO USE TO MAKE ROLLING OUT 5G EASIER FOR THEIR FIVE LARGEST CITIES. BUT THEY HAD THE SENSE TO REJECT TO REJECT IT.

SINCE WHEN ARE WE, AS AMERICAN CITIZENS, NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION OR ARGUE PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR ANY REASON, HEALTH REASONS OR WHATEVER? WHEN ARE WE ALLOWED TO NOT TALK ABOUT WHAT IS BEFORE US? THE FCC IS NOT A HEALTH AGENCY.

IT DEFERS TO OUTSIDE ENTITIES, YET IT CONTROLS RADIATION EXPOSURES, WHICH IS AN EVER-EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY THAT EVEN THE EXPERTS SAY IS NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD. THEIR TOWER RF LIMITS ARE UNCHANGED SINCE 1996, 28 YEARS AGO, WHEN THEY HAD NO IDEA THE EMF TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE TODAY, THE LIMITS SET IN 1996, SET THE LIMITS BASED ON A SIX-MINUTE PHONE CALL.

ORIGINALLY, THOSE LIMITS DID NOT ADDRESS THE REAL-WORLD EXPOSURES OF TODAY.

WHEN WE'RE EXPOSED VIA MULTIPLE MODALITIES 24 OVER SEVEN TO EMF RADIATION, AND THEY PARTICULARLY DID NOT ADDRESS THE VULNERABILITY TO CHILDREN. OUR SCHOOLS AND DAY CARE CENTER, WHICH IS ALSO CLOSE BY, NOR THE ENVIRONMENT, NOT TO MENTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND FLORA.

THERE ARE NO GUIDELINES IN PLACE ALSO FOR LONG TERM EXPOSURE.

MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT PURCHASE INSURANCE TO PROTECT FROM DAMAGES THAT MIGHT OCCUR FROM TOWERS OR ANY OTHER WIRELESS EXPOSURES THAT MIGHT BE CREATED.

SINCE 1997, LLOYD'S OF LONDON HAS REFUSED TO COVER ANY HEALTH DAMAGES FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS, AND IN 2019, A PRIVATE SWISS CONSULTING GROUP DECLARED THAT 5G WAS OFF THE LEASH AND UNINSURABLE, THE SAME CATEGORY THAT WAS ONCE OCCUPIED BY ASBESTOS AND LEAD. THIS IS OUR CITY AND OUR DECISION TO MAKE, NOT FOR CELL CARRIERS TO MAKE WITH WHAT'S CONVENIENT FOR THEM.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

I'M ROBERT HAMPTON.

I LIVE AT 1026 BEACON BAY FOR THE LAST 27 YEARS.

IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE WE ARE HERE TODAY TO IMPLORE OUR CITY COUNCIL TO STOP THE AGGRESSIVE PLACEMENT OF A CELL TOWER IN THE CITY PARK, ONLY 180FT FROM MY HOUSE.

OUR CITY OFFICIALS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT CARLSBAD'S CITIZENS FROM THESE NATIONAL CORPORATIONS WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR PROFITS THAN ABOUT THE HEALTH AND QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY.

OTHER CITIES HAVE STOPPED THE PLACEMENT OF THESE TOWERS AROUND RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES.

I PERSONALLY WALK THE PARK GATHERING OVER 300 SIGNATURES TO TRY TO STOP THE PLACEMENT OF THE CELL TOWER IN THE PARK.

MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THESE PETITIONS ASKED ME, HOW COULD OUR CITY ALLOW THEM TO PLACE US IN OUR PARK? I HAD TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT OUR CITY POLICY 60 FOR THAT IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES, STATES.

THE PROXIMITY TO HOMES AND PARKS AND SCHOOLS IS AT THE LOWEST TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PLACING THESE TOWERS.

YET MD7 SEEMS TO HAVE PAID LITTLE ATTENTION TO THE INTENT OF THESE POLICIES THAN PUSHING FOR THE SITE THAT IS MOST COST EFFECTIVE TO AT&T.

I HAVE WORKED IN THE BUILDING COMMUNITY FOR OVER 30 YEARS, BUILDING HOMES AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN DEL MAR, ENCINITAS, RANCHO SANTA FE, AND IN CARLSBAD.

DURING THIS PROCESS, I WAS NEVER ASKED WHAT'S MOST CONVENIENT FOR ME, THE APPLICANT.

YET THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND THE DECISION FOR THIS PARTICULAR PLACEMENT, MD7 STATED THAT THIS WOULD BE THE MOST CONVENIENT SPOT FOR AT&T.

THEY SEEM CONFIDENT THAT THAT WOULD GET APPROVED, AND THAT THE QUESTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ASKED.

I THINK IT WAS DAVE HUBINGER ABOUT A BACKUP PLAN, AND IF THEY HAD ONE, THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T.

MD7 SAID THAT THEY HADN'T LOOKED INTO TO GET ONE YET.

BUT AFTER THE MEETING WE FOUND OUT THAT THERE WERE OTHER POTENTIAL SITES, BUT THEY HAD BROKEN OFF THE COMMUNICATION WITH THEM.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY CAN'T USE THESE SMALL CELL SITES TO IMPROVE THEIR NETWORK.

THEY ALREADY HAVE A COMPLETED NETWORK, SO WHY CAN'T THEY IMPROVE IT WITH THESE SMALLER CELL SITES? I WAS DRIVING THROUGH THE AREAS OF SIMILAR TOPOGRAPHY DEL MAR, SAN CLEMENTE AND ENCINAS TO SEE IF THESE TOWERS ARE BEING USED, AND I FOUND THEM IN NUMEROUS LOCATIONS ON DEL MAR HEIGHTS ROAD, ON HIGHWAY 101, AND IN SMALL STREETS WHERE I GUESS THEY NEEDED MORE CONNECTIVITY.

[02:05:02]

THESE CITIES ARE PLACING THESE TOWERS, THESE SMALLER CELL SITES THAT DON'T THROW AS MUCH RADIATION INTO THE PUBLIC AS THESE LARGER ONES DO.

I JUST IMPLORE YOU TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO LOOK FOR A DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE THAN PUTTING UP THIS MASSIVE TOWER AROUND OUR SCHOOLS AND OUR PARKS.

THANK YOU. FRANK SUNG, FOLLOWED BY MARIBEL CASTAS.

WELL, YOU'VE HEARD A LOT.

MY NAME IS FRANK SUNG.

I REPRESENT THE MARINER'S POINT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD TONIGHT.

WE SENT A LETTER IN DECEMBER TO SCOTT CHADWICK OPPOSING CELL POLES IN THIS PARK.

THESE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ARE VISUAL BLIGHTS.

THERE'S, I THINK, NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT.

PLEASE DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN.

OUR COUNCIL POLICY 64 SPECIFICALLY PUSHES THEM AWAY FROM PUBLIC PARKS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

AND SOME OF THESE HOMEOWNERS TONIGHT HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THEIR HOMES FOR 27 YEARS.

IT'S A MATURE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND MY GOSH, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WANT TO CONVENIENTLY STICK A BIG MACRO FACILITY RIGHT THERE IN THEIR BACKYARD.

YOU KNOW, AND I JUST WANT TO REEMPHASIZE THAT ONCE THE CITY APPROVES ONE, YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AND DENY SUBSEQUENT APPLICANTS.

AND THERE'S ALREADY A SECOND ONE FROM VERIZON ON THE BOOKS.

SO, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH IF YOU DON'T SAY NO TO THIS ONE, IS YOU WILL END UP WITH A CELL FARM, TREE FARM AT POINSETTIA PARK, JUST LIKE CALVARY HILLS PARK. AND I DON'T THINK WE WANT THAT.

WHAT HAPPENED THERE? HOW DID IT GET TO FOUR? WELL, THE FIRST ONE WAS APPROVED, PROBABLY WITHOUT A LOT OF SCRUTINY IN 2000.

THAT WAS BEFORE THE POLICY WAS IN PLACE.

THE POLICY WAS PUT IN PLACE AT THE END OF 2001.

SO, ONCE YOU HAVE IT IN PLACE, THEN YOU HAVE A POLICY THAT WE CAN USE TO OUR BENEFIT.

NUMBER TWO CAME IN IN 2004 AND NUMBER THREE CAME IN 2013.

NUMBER FOUR CAME IN 2019.

ONCE YOU SAY YES TO ONE, YOU CANNOT SAY NO.

THAT'S WHEN YOU GET INTO LEGAL JEOPARDY.

WHEN YOU SAY NO TO THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH ONE, PLEASE SAY NO.

YOU NOW HAVE A POLICY THAT CAN PREVENT THIS OUTCOME.

IT DEFINITELY IS NOT GOOD FOR QUALITY OF LIFE IN CARLSBAD, AND IT'S TOTALLY DISRESPECTFUL TO THE NEARBY RESIDENTS.

ALL THIS MAKES THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, AND WE HAVE SHOWN YOU WITH PROOF THAT THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS REPORTS TURNED IN BY MD7 ARE INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE AT BEST, AND SOME OF IT MAY EVEN BE FABRICATED.

THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

THAT'S EVIDENCE. THAT'S PROOF.

THE PROOF SHOULDN'T BE ON US.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? WHERE ARE YOU? WHERE SHOULD THEY PUT IT? WELL, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THEY HAVE REVEALED UNLESS THEY'RE JUST WINGING IT, DOING SOME MOONWALKING HERE, THEY HAVE A BACKUP PLAN.

THEY SAID THAT AT THE LAST MEETING.

IT'S THE SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY.

BUT EVEN WHEN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, CITY STAFF CUT OFF THAT CONVERSATION.

IT SHOCKED US. THEY CUT OFF THAT CONVERSATION AND SAID, OH, THAT'S EVEN A WORSE PLACE.

BUT WHAT THEY DIDN'T READ CAREFULLY IS THAT SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY IS SPECIFICALLY NOT PART OF THAT LIST.

THEY CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AWAY AS WORSE.

WELL, IF IT WAS A BIG MACRO ONE, IT IS WORSE ANYWAY.

SO, WE HAVE SOME BIAS GOING ON HERE.

I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

I HAVEN'T FIGURED THAT OUT.

SO, WE'RE NOT HERE TO DELIBERATE INTENTIONS.

WE'RE JUST ASKING YOU TO STOP IT.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'D LIKE TO JUST, IF I COULD JUST SHOW YOU THESE PHOTOS.

GIVE THOSE TO THE CLERK.

SO, AS YOU PASS THOSE PHOTOS AROUND, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SEE THESE PHOTOS THAT DEPICT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER IN POINSETTIA PARK.

AND I'M SORRY. MY NAME IS MARIBEL CARSTENS.

I LIVE AT 6729 WHITE SAIL STREET AT THE COVE, AND I'VE LIVED THERE WITH MY HUSBAND AND OUR TWO GROWN CHILDREN.

NOW THAT THEY'VE, THEY'VE LIVED WE'VE LIVED THERE SINCE THEY WERE BABIES FOR 28 YEARS AND WE'VE ALWAYS ENJOYED THE PARK.

BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THESE PHOTOS YOU COULD SEE THAT THESE ARE YOUNG CHILDREN PLAYING NEARBY, AND IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE PARKING LOT AS WELL AS THE SIDEWALK.

AND AS I RECALLED THE LAST TIME WE MET AND THE I BELIEVE THE MD7 WERE EXPLAINING WHERE THE POSITION OF THE TOWER WOULD BE AND HOW IT WAS SAFE, BECAUSE IT WAS A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE TOWER, FROM THE PARKING LOT AS WELL AS THE

[02:10:02]

SIDEWALK. WELL, AS IN THOSE PICTURES, YOU CAN SEE HOW CLOSE THE TOWER IS IN RELATION TO THE SIDEWALK, AS WELL AS THE PARKING LOT.

IT'S NO MORE THAN 20FT WHERE I BELIEVE THE MDF SAID THAT IT WOULD BE SAFE, ROUGHLY.

I THINK IT WAS 40 OR 80FT FROM THE TOWER.

WELL, THAT'S WAY INSIDE THAT ENCLOSURE.

AND I ALSO WANTED TO SAY AT&T WILL TELL YOU THAT THE RF EMISSION COMPLY WITH THE FCC SAFETY GUIDELINES, BUT THEY WON'T TELL YOU THAT THOSE GUIDELINES HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE THE 1990S.

THEY WON'T TELL YOU THAT THE EXPOSURE LIMITS ARE BASED ON WHAT IS SAFE FOR A SIX-FOOT, 200-POUND MAN.

CHILDREN WITH SMALLER BODY MASS REQUIRE LESS EXPOSURE TO THE RF EMISSIONS.

PLEASE FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE SPIRIT OF THE POLICY 64 AND ENCOURAGE AT&T TO LOCATE THE TOWER IN A MORE PREFERABLE LOCATION AND SAFER FOR OUR RESIDENTS, AS WELL AS THE CHILDREN THAT ARE GROWING UP NEAR SCHOOLS AND NEIGHBORHOODS, AS WELL AS PARKS.

IF YOU COULD PLEASE REFER TO MAYBE THE RV PARKING LOT ON PASEO DEL NORTE OR THE 7-ELEVEN OR THE OTHER PREFERRED MENTIONED AREAS THAT WAS SPOKEN PRIOR TO MINE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING.

AND I'M SORRY, I CAN'T QUITE DECIPHER YOUR WRITING.

SUCH RESIN.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

MY NAME IS SUSAN. I LIVE ON BEACON BAY DRIVE.

WE ARE SO LUCKY TO LIVE IN CARLSBAD AND NEXT TO A BEAUTIFUL PARK.

A PARK WHERE YOU CAN TAKE A WALK AND ADMIRE THE BEAUTIFUL LAWNS, TREES, LANDSCAPING AND NATURE.

A PLACE FOR FAMILIES TO CONGREGATE, PLAY SPORTS, KIDS PLAY, AND DOGS LOVE IT TOO.

IT IS NOT A PLACE FOR AN INDUSTRIAL BEHEMOTH FULL OF RADIOFREQUENCY, RADIATION AND FUEL STORAGE.

I HOPE YOU REGRET APPROVING A CELL TOWER IN OUR PARKS.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO MOVE PARKS OFF THE PREFERRED LIST? A LOT OF PLACES IN THE WORLD WOULD NOT ALLOW A CELL TOWER IN THEIR PARKS.

IT IS IMPORTANT, AS YOUR CONSTITUENTS, THAT YOU HEAR OUR CONCERNS AND HELP US STAND UP TO THE BIG MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS LIKE AT&T.

ALTHOUGH SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO ARE AT&T CUSTOMERS NEED BETTER COVERAGE, AT&T HAS OTHER ALTERNATIVES.

IT IS OBVIOUS TO US ALL THAT AT&T WANTS THE LOW-COST OPTION FOR THEMSELVES, SUCH AS EASY ACCESS TO THEIR TOWER AND LOW LEASE COSTS.

HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR OUR CARLSBAD NEIGHBORHOOD.

PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS BIG CORPORATION BULLY US TO ACCEPT THIS CELL TOWER IN OUR PARK.

I KNOW HOW MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS WORK.

I USED TO WORK FOR ONE.

MANAGEMENT CHANGES, POLICIES CHANGE COMMITMENTS GET RETRACTED.

SHAREHOLDERS CARE ABOUT MONEY, STOCK PRICE AND DIVIDENDS.

I DON'T TRUST AT&T.

I DON'T TRUST THAT IF WE WERE TO MEASURE RADIO WAVES FROM THE SITE, THAT THEY WOULD TURN DOWN THE POWER FOR THE TEST.

THEY HAVE CONTROL TO DO SO.

AND IF THE RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION WAS TOO HIGH, GOOD LUCK FOR US TRYING TO REMOVE THAT TOWER.

ONCE THERE ARE OTHER CELL COMPANIES WILL WANT TO ADD THEIR CELL TOWERS.

5G IS A VERY HIGH FREQUENCY RADIO WAVE, UP TO 39GHZ.

JUST AS A COMPARISON, MICROWAVE OVENS ARE ONLY 2.5GHZ IN COMPARISON, SO 5G IS NEW AND NOT FULLY STUDIED.

RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION IS BAD FOR US.

THIS TOWER IS UGLY AND A SYMBOL OF CORPORATE GREED.

IF YOU PROVE THIS TOWER WHEN I LOOK AT IT, I WILL THINK ABOUT HOW THE CITY FAILED US AND HOW MONEY AND POWER ALWAYS WIN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THERE WAS A COUPLE OF NOTES BEING PASSED.

I WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS WAS NOT HIGH SCHOOL STUFF.

WE DON'T ENTERTAIN APPEALS VERY OFTEN.

SO, SOME OF THE NOTES WENT BACK AND FORTH TO THE CITY ATTORNEY ASKING FOR SOME LEGAL CLARIFICATION.

SO JUST TO BE TRANSPARENT.

CITY ATTORNEY, WOULD YOU PLEASE TALK TO US ABOUT WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T CONSIDER AND WHAT THE THRESHOLD IS FOR EITHER DENYING OR ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION? SURE. MAYOR, BEFORE I DO THAT, DO YOU WANT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY? THANK YOU. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU. SO, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS THERE THE APPELLANT AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'M NOT AS CONVERSANT IN THE RECORD AS OUR CITY STAFF WHO LIVE AND BREATHE IT FOR

[02:15:01]

MANY MONTHS.

BUT THE APPELLANTS APPEAR TO HAVE PRESENTED SOME INFORMATION THAT MAY NOT BE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD AND YOUR APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR THIS ITEM, WHICH ARE IN SECTION 2154 150 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, DOES CONFINE YOUR DECISION TO THE MATTERS THAT WERE IN FRONT TO THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YOU LOOK AT IT FRESH, BUT YOU'RE CONFINED TO THAT EVIDENCE.

SO, IF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEARD TONIGHT IS RESONATING WITH YOU OR PERSUASIVE TO YOU, ONE OF THE OPTIONS YOU HAVE IS TO SEND THIS MATTER BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE OF THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD.

SO, IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND SENDING IT BACK TO THEM TO FLESH OUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THE RESIDENTS HAVE RAISED ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE COVERAGE OPTIONS THAT AT&T PRESENTED.

THANK YOU. NEXT, WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION.

BUT I'M GOING TO START BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO FIND THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD, THAT THEY ERRED IN JUDGMENT.

SO, MY OPINION IS THAT THEY DID NOT IN JUDGMENT.

SO, I'M INCLINED TO DENY THE APPEAL.

BUT THE SECOND QUESTION THAT COMES UP IS, DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO ENTER INTO A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO START A CONTRACT WITH AT&T? SO, MY FIRST POSITION IS I DON'T THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED, BUT MY SECOND POSITION.

YES, MAYOR. I'M SORRY.

DO YOU NEED TO INTERRUPT? THERE IS STEP NUMBER NINE THAT DOES ALLOW THE STAFF, APPLICANT AND APPELLANT TO PROVIDE A RESPONSE.

BEFORE THAT, WE GET INTO COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION.

SO, I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT IF YOU'D LIKE TO.

TO MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT.

OR THE APPELLANT. I'M SORRY, MAYOR, CAN I JUST CLARIFY? SO, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT THE PROCEDURES AND IT'S STILL 12.

SO, IT'S NOT I'M JUST TRYING TO SORT IT OUT.

YOU'RE RIGHT. WE DON'T DO THIS A LOT.

OKAY? IT WOULD BE BEST IF WE REOPENED PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND THEN CLOSE IT AFTER THE RESPONSE.

REOPENING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION.

SPEAKER MENTIONED THAT HE COLLECTED 300 SURVEYS.

THAT WAS OVER JUST TWO DAYS.

SO, IF WE HAD ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD, WE COULD HAVE COLLECTED EXPONENTIALLY MORE.

I JUST WANT TO CONCLUDE THIS BY SAYING THAT CLEARLY, WE HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THE SITE ANALYSIS IS FAULTY, AND I KNOW WE HAVE TO WE'RE HERE BECAUSE WE FEEL THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THEIR DECISION BASED ON A FAULTY INFORMATION, FAULTY DOCUMENT, AND IN THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL, IT SAYS THERE EXACTLY THAT, THAT IF WE FEEL THAT SOMETHING WAS IN ERROR BASED ON ERRONEOUS INFORMATION AND SO FORTH, WE HAVE GROUNDS TO APPEAL.

SO, WE ARE HERE JUST TO WE HAVE PROVEN THAT THE ANALYSIS IS FAULTY.

WE HAVE PROVEN THAT THEY'VE SAID THINGS WRITTEN IN THE ANALYSIS AND PRESENTED THINGS AND IN REALITY, THEY DID NOT OCCUR.

AND SO THEREFORE IT IS INVALID IN THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS MADE ON INVALID INFORMATION, SO ON ERRONEOUS INFORMATION OR BIASED INFORMATION OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

BUT IT WAS FAULTY. AND SO THEREFORE THEIR DECISION IS INVALID.

AND THE OTHER ITEM I WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT SOME OF OUR SPEAKERS POINTED OUT THAT THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PREVENT AT&T FROM COMPLETE THEIR NETWORK.

AND WE'RE NOT DOING THIS.

AT&T WANTS TO UPGRADE THEIR NETWORK.

AND THEY DIDN'T MENTION THIS TODAY.

BUT ON THE FIRST MEETING, THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS EXTRA POTENT TOWER WOULD ALLOW THEIR EMERGENCY SERVICE PACKAGE TO BE SOLD AND THAT THEY'RE READY AND ABLE TO SELL THAT EMERGENCY PACKAGE TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.

AND SO, WE WENT AND LOOKED ONLINE TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE ONLINE AS COVERAGE.

AND OF COURSE, THEIR WEBSITE SHOWS WE HAVE THEY HAVE COMPLETE COVERAGE IN OUR, IN OUR IN OUR WEBSITE AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY'RE SHOWING COMPLETE F 5G AND 5G PLUS.

SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ADVERTISING ON THEIR WEBSITE.

I TOOK A SCREENSHOT OF THAT, BUT YOU CAN LOOK THAT UP ON YOURSELF.

SO, I GUESS OUR POINT IS, IF THE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS IS FAULTY, WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A DECISION BASED ON THAT, IT ALSO KEEPS US THINKING, WELL, IS THE NOISE STUDY FAULTY?

[02:20:01]

IS THE RADIATION STUDY FAULTY? WE DON'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE OUR BLOCK IS FULL OF ENGINEERS, DOCTORS.

I'M THE ONLY TOKEN CITY PLANNER.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY RADIOLOGY PEOPLE ON OUR IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT. WE'RE NOT EXPERTS IN THAT.

BUT IT LENDS TO QUESTION THAT IF ONE THING IS WRONG, HOW DO WE TRUST THE OTHERS? I WORKED FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES FOR MOST OF MY CAREER.

THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, I ACTUALLY WORKED FOR A PUBLIC, I'M SORRY, A PRIVATE CONSULTANT.

WE WERE EXTENSION STAFF TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TRAFFIC ENGINEER, SO I GOT TO SEE A LITTLE GLIMPSE OF THE PRIVATE CONSULTING INDUSTRY.

AND IT'S LIKE THIS.

YOU HIRE A CONSULTANT TO DO SOMETHING, TO STUDY SOMETHING.

THEY DO IT. AND THEN IF THE CLIENT DOESN'T LIKE IT, THEY ASK TO MASSAGE IT AND THERE'S SOME WIGGLE ROOM THERE.

AND THEN IT GETS MASSAGED AND MASSAGED AND MASSAGED TO MEET WHAT THE CLIENT WANTS.

SO. THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THE OTHER STUDIES.

WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO FIND FAULT IN ONE, WHICH IS THE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS.

AND GIVEN WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED TODAY, THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS CASE IS THE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THE PLANNING COMMISSION USED TO MAKE THEIR DECISION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

WITH THE APPLICANT. LIKE TO SPEAK? HELLO AGAIN.

JUST IN.

KIND OF RESPONSE TO WHAT WAS JUST SPOKEN ABOUT.

FIRE STATION BEING AN ALTERNATIVE SITE.

THAT IS LISTED IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

SO THAT IS THE LEAST PREFERRED ZONE.

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD WE ARE NOT ABLE TO GET AUTOMATIC APPROVALS FOR EXTENDED ARRAYS OR ADDITIONAL ANTENNAS THAT DOES GO THROUGH THE JURISDICTION FOR PERMITTING AND APPROVAL.

WE HAVE PROVIDED COVERAGE MAPS AND DRIVE TEST DATA THAT THAT SHOWS THE SIGNIFICANT GAP IN COVERAGE FOR THIS SPECIFIC AREA. AND THAT WAS THAT WAS SHOWN ON, ON OUR LAST ON OUR PC HEARING.

AND TO KIND OF ALSO TALK ABOUT WE USE THIRD PARTY VENDORS IN ORDER TO DO OUR NOISE ANALYSIS, OUR MRF REPORTS AS WELL THAT HAVE NO STAKE IN, IN AT&T.

YOU KNOW, THEY DO OUR JOB, THEY DO THEIR JOB TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY.

SO THOSE WERE MY TAKEAWAYS AND COMMENTS THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP.

GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS HAROLD THOMAS.

I'M ONE OF THE LAND USE PLANNERS.

I JUST WANTED JUST TO ADD REGARDING THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS THAT ON THE ORIGINAL PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON DECEMBER 16TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ASKED THAT WE WORK WITH THE APPLICANT, I MEAN, THE APPELLANT, ABOUT LOOKING INTO ALTERNATIVE SITES.

SO THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY WERE ALL SUGGESTIONS BY THE APPELLANT.

I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I JUST KEEP RUNNING INTO IS THAT WHILE THEY'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE PRESENTING A FAULTY ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, IT'S NOT THEY'RE NOT REALLY SHARING THE FULL STORY.

ONE OF THE ONE OF THE POINTS THAT THEY MENTIONED, RIGHT, WAS REGARDING THE LATTICE TOWER, AS MY COLLEAGUE TARA CARMICHAEL HAD MENTIONED, THAT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

AND THIS IS REGARDING AN SDG AND E LATTICE TOWER THAT'S NORTH OF CALVARY CHAPEL.

THAT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

WHAT'S ALSO PRETTY IMPORTANT TO NOTE, WHICH IS IN THE ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, IS THAT WE NOTE THAT THERE'S AN ALREADY EXISTING AT&T FACILITY THAT'S ABOUT 0.6 MILES AWAY. I BELIEVE THAT'S A PRETTY IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO NOTE, BECAUSE WE'RE BEING YOU'RE BEING PRESENTED ASIDE SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT PROVIDING THE FULL STORY, BUT IN THAT SAME SENTENCE, WE NOTE HOW FAR EXISTING FACILITIES ARE.

ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL POINTS THAT THEY HAD MADE WAS REGARDING THE FIRE STATION.

AS AS MY COLLEAGUE TARA CARMICHAEL HAD MENTIONED, THAT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

BUT WE WERE ALSO LOOKING AT IT TAKING A VERY WIDE VIEW OF IT, LOOKING AT PARKING.

[02:25:01]

THERE'S ALSO THE ADDITION OF IF THERE WAS BEEN A ROOFTOP FACILITY, WHAT WOULD THAT HAVE LOOKED LIKE? BASED ON THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER, THAT, I MEAN, HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, THAT'S 14FT COMPARED TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

AND THEN ALSO JUST LOOKING TOWARDS THE BACK AT HOW THERE COULD BE A POTENTIAL TO REMOVE VEGETATION.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THESE THINGS IN CONJUNCTION WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT A SITE WHERE WE WON'T BE REMOVING ANY VEGETATION, WHERE DURING OUR SITE WALK, THIS WAS A AREA THAT WAS AGREED UPON BY THE BY THE PARKS AS JUST TAKING UNUSABLE SPACE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE KEPT HEARING THROUGHOUT TONIGHT'S TONIGHT FROM THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE CONVENIENCE FACTOR.

BUT AGAIN, WHAT I'M NOTICING IS THEY'RE NOT PREVENT SORRY, THEY'RE NOT SHOWING THE FULL STORY AND NOTICING THAT, AS WE MENTIONED ON THE 17TH, THAT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THAT.

WE WERE LOOKING AT THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS AGREED UPON.

WE LOOKED AT LOOKING AT MORE INTERIOR BUT THAT WOULD BE USING USABLE SPACE.

SO I JUST IN CONCLUSION, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THE COUNCIL, PLEASE TAKE A SECOND JUST TO REALLY CONSIDER IF YOU'RE ALSO HEARING THE FULL SIDE, BECAUSE THROUGHOUT THIS ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS, YOU'LL NOTICE EXACTLY HOW FAR WE'RE LISTING ALTERNATIVE AT&T FACILITIES FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY THEM.

AND YEAH.

JUST WANTED TO CLOSE WITH THAT.

SORRY. THANK YOU.

DOES STAFF HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? YEAH, A FEW THINGS THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT.

FIRST OFF IS THAT YES, BETWEEN THE DECEMBER 6TH AND THE JANUARY 17TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL SITE ANALYSIS THAT WAS PERFORMED BY THE APPLICANT, AND ALL OR MOST OF THOSE SITES WERE SITES RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMUNITY.

THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE THEIR ANALYSIS OF WHY THAT SITE DIDN'T WORK FOR THEM.

AS WELL AS STAFF LOOKED AT THAT ANALYSIS TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING IN THERE THAT SHOULD BE EXPLORED FURTHER.

AS THE APPLICANT HAS STATED, THE FIRE STATION IS A PUBLIC PROPERTY, BUT IT IS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, SO THEREFORE IT IS NOT ON THE PREFERRED LIST.

E IT WOULD BE ON A DISCOURAGED LOOK.

IT WOULD BE A DISCOURAGED LOCATION.

THERE'S ALSO THE RV FACILITY THAT IS ACTUALLY OPEN SPACE ZONE THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE CONSIDERED A COMMUNITY FACILITY.

BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE NO BETTER ON THE PREFERRED LIST THAN THE PARK.

SO STAFF HAS STATED IN THEIR STAFF REPORT THAT STAFF IS UNAWARE OF ANY MORE PREFERRED LOCATIONS WITHIN THEIR TARGET COVERAGE AREA, AND THAT HAS TO ALSO INCLUDES THE ADDITIONAL SITES THAT WERE LOOKED AT BY THAT SECOND SITE ANALYSIS.

THE ONE A COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS.

THERE'S SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE DIESEL FUEL FOR THE BACKUP GENERATOR.

THAT CONCERN WHEN IT WAS RAISED, I DID ASK OUR FIRE MARSHAL IF HE HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

IT WAS EVEN RAISED THAT MAYBE IT WOULD BE SAFER IF WE PUT IT UNDERGROUND.

HE DID NOT FEEL THAT THERE WAS ANY CONCERN FOR SAFETY, AND IT ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOT BE SAFER BY PUTTING IT UNDERGROUND.

A LOT OF THESE FACILITIES ARE USING BACKUP BATTERIES INSTEAD OF DIESEL GENERATORS.

NOW. HE FEELS SAFE, FEELS MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE DIESEL GENERATOR THAN THE BACKUP BATTERIES.

NOT TO SAY THE BACKUP BATTERIES AREN'T SAFE, BUT IN HIS OPINION, THE DIESEL GENERATOR IS ACTUALLY A SAFER OPTION.

THE TRASH ENCLOSURE WAS CONFIRMED BY PARKS TO NO LONGER BE NEEDED.

THEY CHANGED THE WAY THEY HANDLE TRASH IN THE PARK, AND THERE'S A SERVICE THAT COMES AND TAKES ALL OF THE TRASH FROM THE TRASH CANS AND TAKES IT OFF SITE BEFORE IT WOULD TAKE THEM FROM THE TRASH CANS, PUT IT INTO THE DUMPSTER.

DUMPSTER GETS COLLECTED SO THAT IS NO LONGER A NEEDED SITE.

THE NOISE ANALYSIS THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE BACKUP GENERATOR.

ASSUMED A CLEAR FIELD BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE GENERATOR.

THIS GENERATOR WILL BE INSIDE THAT ENCLOSURE.

SO THAT ENCLOSURE WILL FURTHER DAMPEN THAT SOUND TO LEVELS EVEN LOWER THAN CONCERNED.

THAT GENERATOR WILL, MY UNDERSTANDING RUN ONCE A WEEK FOR 15 MINUTES JUST TO CYCLE? SO IN TERMS OF NOISE IMPACT OUTSIDE OF AN EMERGENCY, VERY LITTLE AND WITHIN REQUIREMENTS BY OUR NOISE ELEMENT.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT WAS RAISED, I'VE GOT SOME OTHER CLARIFICATIONS IF YOU NEED THEM.

THANK YOU. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO WHAT MY THOUGHTS ARE.

I DIDN'T FIND I DON'T HAVE ANY FINDINGS PERSONALLY, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO DENY THE APPEAL.

[02:30:07]

I DO NOT WANT TO SEND THIS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I THINK BOTH PARTIES NEED RESOLUTION TODAY.

BUT I WILL ON ON THE NEXT QUESTION.

AND THAT IS WHETHER WE SHOULD CONSIDER DENY THE RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH AT&T.

AND BASED ON ALL THE INFORMATION I'VE RECEIVED, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERRED IN THEIR DECISION, I'M GOING TO VOTE TO DENY ENTERING INTO THE CONTRACT WITH AT&T.

AND SO THAT THAT'S MY INPUT.

AND MISS BHAT-PATEL YOURS, PLEASE.

YES. THANK YOU.

AND THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

AND OF COURSE, TO THE COMMUNITY FOR BEING OUT HERE.

THIS IS IN MY DISTRICT, AND I KNOW I'VE KNOCKED ON MANY OF YOUR DOORS, ACTUALLY, I'M SURE ALL OF YOUR DOORS BEFORE, AND I DID GROW UP GOING TO POINSETTIA PARK AS WELL.

SO I WANT TO EMPATHIZE WITH YOU ALL IN THAT PARTICULAR REGARD.

BASED ON WHAT WAS SAID PREVIOUSLY REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOT RECEIVING ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED TONIGHT, AT LEAST FROM FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD.

FOR THE FIRST PART, SINCE WE CAN'T BASE OUR DECISION ON THE NEW INFORMATION PRESENTED TONIGHT.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN REFERRING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER EVIDENTIARY DEVELOPMENT.

I WOULD WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE OTHER FEASIBLE LOCATIONS FOR LOCATING THIS.

I WOULD ALSO BE CURIOUS TO HEAR ABOUT ALTERNATIVES WITH THE SMALL CELL TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.

WHICH I FEEL LIKE WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION REGARDING EITHER.

THE OTHER SECOND PIECE, BASED ON THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS, OF COURSE, I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE AGREEMENT AT THE PARK, WHICH IS I IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE AGENDA, IT'S THE SECOND PART THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT.

I DO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PIECE THAT I'LL HOLD OFF ON UNTIL EVERYONE ELSE IS DONE THAT I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE AS WELL.

MISS ACOSTA. THANK YOU.

I THANK YOU ALSO TO THE STAFF AND TO THE APPLICANT AND THE APPELLANT FOR ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SHARED TONIGHT.

I WANT TO ECHO A LOT OF WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM JUST SAID, THAT I DO FEEL THAT THERE IS THERE WAS INFORMATION HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE FURTHER.

ELABORATED ON AND RESEARCHED, AND I THINK WE SHOULD SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE ISSUES.

SO I WANT TO THANK THE APPELLANT, MISS GEORGE, FOR BEING VERY CLEAR ON WHY THE APPEAL WAS BEING PRESENTED.

AND REMIND PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE LIMITED AUTHORITY HERE AND IT'S ALL IN THE THE AGENDA PACKET. I JUST THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION AROUND THE ISSUE.

SO I THINK STAFF DID A WONDERFUL JOB OF OF PREPARING IT.

BUT I DO THINK THAT SENDING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR MORE OF THE EVIDENTIARY RESEARCH, I HOPE I SAID THAT.

RIGHT. IS IS A GOOD MOVE.

THANK YOU. MR. BURKHOLDER. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE MAYOR ON THIS ONE.

I DIDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENTIARY, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, I SHOULD SAY, OF A REASON TO DENY THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION. HOWEVER CONSIDERING MY COLLEAGUE'S REQUEST TO SEND IT BACK TO BACK TO THE BOARD, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.

SO I WILL BE INTERESTED IN HEARING THE MOTION.

AS FAR AS THE SECOND PIECE I WOULD BE INCLINED TO DENY THAT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. MISS LUNA.

SO FOR THOSE OF YOU OUT THERE IN THE AUDIENCE, I THINK OUR CITY ATTORNEY DID A VERY GOOD JOB ON WHAT THE DE NOVO NATURE OF THIS APPEAL IS VERY SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT WE CONSIDER AND WHAT WE CANNOT.

AND I CONCUR WITH THE MAYOR THAT I DID NOT FIND ANY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL.

WHAT'S CAUSING ME A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTACHE IS THAT WE HAVE CITED SOME 5G TOWERS IN A PARK SITE NEXT TO A FIRE STATION NEAR RESIDENCE.

AND IT HAS BEEN CITED THERE YET? MY COLLEAGUES HERE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ENTERING INTO A LEASE WITH AT&T ON THIS SITE.

SO WHAT WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE WE HAVE A LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN THE WAY THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING OUR POLICIES.

AND GOING FORWARD, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT IF WE ALLOW IT SOMEWHERE AND DON'T ALLOW IT SOMEWHERE ELSE OR DON'T WANT TO EXTEND THE

[02:35:06]

LEASE. I THINK WE SHOULD BE A LITTLE MORE STANDARDIZED, STANDARDIZED ON WHAT WE ALLOW AND NOT.

SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND BEGRUDGINGLY SUPPORT YOU, MR. MAYOR, ON DENYING THE LEASE.

BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OTHER SITES, PARKS, SCHOOLS AND WHATNOT, AND MAYBE TAKE A LOOK AT 64 TO BE CONSISTENT.

MRS BHAT-PATEL. MAY I GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION? YES. OKAY.

SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND REFER THIS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER EVIDENTIARY DEVELOPMENT.

AND I'LL TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.

SO THAT'S MY FIRST MOTION.

OKAY. DO YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT? CITY ATTORNEY.

BESIDES THE SECOND SECOND, THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS, IF THE COUNCIL'S NOT INCLINED TO LEASE IN THIS AREA, IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO REFER THIS MATTER BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.

OKAY. SO I'LL MAYBE I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FOR THE SECOND COMPONENT FIRST, WHICH WOULD BE I WOULD LIKE TO NOT SUPPORT THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE AGREEMENT AT THE PARK.

TONIGHT. SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD BE TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER NOT TO INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS.

SO WE'RE TAKING THE SECOND ITEM FIRST.

OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. COMMENTS, MISS LUNA? MISS BURKHOLDER. MISS ACOSTA.

I'LL MAKE THE ONE THAT I.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS.

AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, I DIDN'T FIND ANY REASON TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION, BUT I WOULD SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH AT&T AT THIS LOCATION.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AT THIS POINT.

I'M HOPING THE CITY PLANNER CAN HELP WEIGH IN HERE.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT CONSENT TO AN APPLICATION, THAT THE APPLICATION DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

THAT IS CORRECT. WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT AT THE APPLICATION BE EFFECTIVELY WITHDRAWN.

IF WE WANTED, WE COULD TALK TO THE APPLICANT AND GO INTO A BRIEF RECESS AND CONFIRM THEY HAVE THAT SAME UNDERSTANDING, OR THE CITY COUNCIL COULD DISPEL OF THE APPEAL AND TAKE AN ACTION ON THAT.

WHAT WOULD WE LIKE TO JUST TAKE AN ACTION ON IT AND PUT THAT TO REST? WE'LL MAKE A VOTE ON WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO DENY THE APPELLANTS MOTION. IS THAT GOING TO PUT WILL THAT PUT THIS TO REST? YES. IF THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES ACTION TO DENY THE APPELLANT'S MOTION, THAT WOULD PUT THIS TO REST.

WE WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT.

IF THEY WERE TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE PROJECT FOR OTHER WIRELESS FACILITIES, WE WOULD NEED DOCTOR BHAT-PATEL TO WITHDRAW HER PENDING MOTION AND THE PENDING SECOND, WHICH IS TO REFER IT BACK. AND THEN WE'D NEED A NEW MOTION.

YEAH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND WITHDRAW.

OKAY. WITHDRAW MY SECOND.

OKAY. SO THE MOTION IS TO DENY THE APPEAL.

I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.

I'LL SECOND IT. ANY COMMENTS? PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 4 TO 1 WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ACOSTA VOTING NOW. SO TO STAFF, DOES THAT TAKE CARE OF WHAT YOU NEEDED? YES, THAT TAKES CARE OF WHAT WE NEEDED.

UNLESS THE COUNCIL HAS ANY ADDITIONAL DIRECTION ON THIS ITEM, I DO, YES.

SO I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMMUNITY INTEREST ON THIS, AND SO I'D LIKE TO ACTUALLY MAKE A MINUTE MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROPOSE REVISIONS TO COUNCIL POLICY 64 AND RETURN TO THE COUNCIL TO PRESENT SAID REVISIONS AT A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING.

SECOND COMMENTS.

DISCUSSION. MISS LUNA.

COUNCIL MEMBERS, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY MORE SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO STAFF BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO COME BACK AND CHANGE IT, BUT YOU'RE NOT GIVING THEM REALLY ANY GUIDANCE, SO I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF YOU GAVE THEM SOME GUIDANCE.

WHAT YOUR CONCERNS ARE.

YEAH. I THINK I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO LOOK AT YOU KNOW, WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE, ARE DOING IN THIS PARTICULAR REGARD.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAD INCLUDED, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO TOO MANY DETAILS IN CASE THE OTHER PIECE I THINK IS JUST AROUND THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT AND OUR LIST SPECIFICALLY AND REALLY TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING, I WON'T GO INTO THE WEEDS, BUT THE LOCATIONS AND JUST LOOKING AT THAT LIST AGAIN. SO THOSE WOULD BE THE COUPLE OF THINGS.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF MY COLLEAGUE HAS ANY OTHER PIECES TO ADD OR ANY OTHER COLLEAGUES HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

MISS ACOSTA, THANK YOU.

I ACTUALLY SEPARATELY WAS CONSIDERING MAKING A MINUTE MOTION, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS SO QUICK TO JUMP ON TO A SECOND.

[02:40:03]

AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S BEEN UPDATED AND TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A FRESH LOOK AT THIS AND TAKE TAKE A, YOU KNOW, A BETTER DO MORE RESEARCH AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MINE WOULD BE THAT PLEASE LOOK AT OTHER CITIES WHO'VE HAVE IMPLEMENTED IT, BUT LEARN FROM MAYBE SOME OF THEIR MISTAKES, SOME OF THEIR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ON THEIR POLICIES.

AND THEN WE WOULD BRING THIS BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING, AND I'LL LET THE CITY MANAGER DETERMINE WHEN THAT'LL COME BACK.

THANK YOU, SIR, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, ERIC, DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH BASED OFF OF THIS DIRECTION? YES. I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ENOUGH BASED ON THIS DIRECTION.

OKAY. AS WELL AS UPDATING BASED OFF OF CHANGES IN LAW.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

AND WE WILL RETURN.

IT COULD BE A LARGER PROJECT.

SO WE'LL RETURN WITH A TIMELINE ONCE WE EVALUATE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.

GREAT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. STAFF MAYOR, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE CITY PLANNER ON THE DENIAL MOTION.

DO WE NEED TO COME BACK WITH A RESO NEXT WEEK TO RESO DENYING THE APPEAL? THE THE RESOLUTION INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING THE PERMIT.

THANK YOU. AND HAVE A REQUEST FOR A BRIEF FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

WE'RE GOING TO RESUME THE MEETING AT FIVE MINUTES TO EIGHT.

[02:46:56]

CALLING THE MEETING. BACK TO ORDER.

ITEM NUMBER 14.

CITY MANAGER, PLEASE. YES.

[14. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ANNUAL REPORT FOR REPORTING PERIOD 7, JAN. 1, 2023 – DEC. 31, 2023 ]

THANK YOU SO MUCH. ITEM NUMBER 14 IS THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ANNUAL REPORT FOR REPORTING PERIOD JANUARY 1ST 23 THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST 23.

MAKING OUR PRESENTATION TODAY AS OUR SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER, KATIE HENDRICK.

KATIE. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M KATIE HENDRICK, I'M THE CITY'S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ADMINISTRATOR.

AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THE SEVENTH CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ANNUAL REPORT.

AND HERE IS A HIGHLIGHT OF WHAT I WILL BE COVERING IN MY PRESENTATION.

THIS SLIDE HAS BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.

THIS HASN'T CHANGED SINCE LAST YEAR'S ANNUAL REPORT.

THERE'S MORE INFORMATION IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT THESE DATES.

BUT JUST WHEN OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED IN 2015 AND THEN AMENDED IN 2020.

HERE IS OUR 2012 GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY THAT THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IS BASED OFF OF.

AND YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY ON THE SLIDE WHAT THE BREAKDOWN IS OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN THE CITY.

HERE IS A SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, BASELINE REDUCTIONS AND TARGETS IN THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.

THIS SHOWS OUR 2020 AND 2035 TARGETS WITH THE MOST RECENT INVENTORY DATA JUST BELOW, AND I WILL CLICK THROUGH THESE LOVELY ANIMATIONS.

WE HAVE MANY MEASURES IN OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN THAT ARE GROUPED INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE.

BUT THE REAL MEAT OF THE ANNUAL REPORT IS THE PROGRESS IN OUR CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.

YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE WHICH ACTIONS ARE COMPLETED IN PROGRESS AND ON SCHEDULE, IN PROGRESS AND DELAYED OR NOT YET STARTED.

THE MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE EITHER BEEN COMPLETED OR ARE IN PROGRESS AND ON SCHEDULE.

SOME IMPLEMENTATION HIGHLIGHTS FROM THIS REPORTING PERIOD.

THE CITY CONTINUED ITS HOME ENERGY SCORE ASSESSMENT PILOT PROGRAM.

WE COMPLETED 52 FREE ENERGY ASSESSMENTS COVERING OVER 110,000FT².

WE CERTIFIED 18 BUSINESSES IN THE CARLSBAD GREEN BUSINESS PROGRAM.

WE INSTALLED OVER FIVE MEGAWATTS OF NONRESIDENTIAL SOLAR.

WE INSTALLED SIX MILES OF NEW BIKE LANES AND IMPROVED OVER 16 MILES OF EXISTING BIKE LANES.

AND WE REPLACED EIGHT CITY VEHICLES WITH HYBRID ALTERNATIVES.

WORK ON THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE HAS BEEN CONTINUING.

I LAST PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, WHEN I SHARED THE PROPOSED MEASURES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE.

THAT MEETING TOOK PLACE DURING PHASE TWO OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.

ONCE THAT CONCLUDED, THE PROPOSED MEASURES WERE REVISED BASED ON THE INPUT WE RECEIVED, AND SINCE THEN, WE'VE BEEN DRAFTING THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DOCUMENT, AND WE PLAN TO SHARE

[02:50:10]

A PUBLIC DRAFT OF THE UPDATED CLIMATE ACTION PLAN EARLY THIS SUMMER, WITH THE FINAL CLIMATE ACTION PLAN BEING PRESENTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL LATER IN THE SUMMER. WITH THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE ON THE HORIZON.

THIS WILL BE THE FINAL ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE EXISTING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.

STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THE EXISTING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UNTIL THE UPDATE IS COMPLETE, AND WE WILL ALSO CONTINUE ANNUAL MONITORING AND REPORTING WITH THE UPDATED CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.

ANNUAL REPORT FOR REPORTING PERIOD 7TH JANUARY FIRST, 2023 THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, 2023.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? YES. LINDA DANIELS, FOLLOWED BY PAIGE TOCINO.

HELLO AGAIN.

I'M LINDA DANIELS, I'M PRESIDENT FOR 11 YEARS HERE AT THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND. BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION IS IMPORTANT TO ME AS I'M A MEMBER OF THE SAN DIEGO BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION COALITION, COMPRISED OF 40 GREEN ORGANIZATIONS FROM THE SURF RIDERS TO 350 SAN DIEGO, THE SIERRA CLUB.

WHAT IS THE BUILDING? SAN DIEGO BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION COALITION.

WE'RE AN ALLIANCE OF COMMUNITY, LABOR, BUSINESS, FAITH, JUSTICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS COMING TOGETHER TO ACCELERATE ELECTRIFICATION IN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION.

BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION IS ESSENTIAL TO MEETING CALIFORNIA AND SAN DIEGO'S AMBITIOUS CLIMATE GOALS BY REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, IMPROVING AIR QUALITY IN OUR HOMES AND BUILDINGS, AND PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH.

OUR MISSION SDBC ADVOCATES OF FOR BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION IN NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS BY SUPPORTING EQUITABLE BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION CODES, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THROUGHOUT THE SAN DIEGO REGION.

AS WE KNOW, BUILDINGS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE THAN A THIRD OF TOTAL GREENHOUSE GASES AND THE EMISSIONS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

OUR GOALS ARE TO ADVANCE.

AN ADVOCATE TO HALT THE EXPANSION OF METHANE GAS INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACCELERATE THE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.

WE WANT TO PROVIDE EDUCATION AND OUTREACH TO BUILD, BUILD COMMUNITY AND MARKET SUPPORT FOR ELECTRIFICATION.

THAT'S WHY I'M AT COAL LIBRARY EVERY OTHER WEEK, OKAY, RIGHT THERE FROM 10 TO 12.

AND I'M GETTING SIGNATURES FROM PEOPLE SAYING THEY BELIEVE IN BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION.

WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF SIGNATURES.

AND WHEN WE HAVE MAYBE 500 OR SO, RIGHT.

PAGE WE'LL WHERE PAGE GO, OH, THERE SHE IS.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT THEM TO CITY COUNCIL.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE THE COMMUNITY IS VERY INVOLVED IN TRYING TO STOP GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

DECARBONIZING THE BUILDING SECTOR HAS BROAD BENEFITS, INCLUDING SAVING PEOPLE MONEY.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE.

HOMES AND BUSINESSES AND REDUCING THE SIZE OF NEW.

NEW POWER GRIDS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENABLING FAST.

AND INTERACTIVE DISTRIBUTIVE ENERGY RESOURCES LIKE ON SITE SOLAR PANELS, BATTERY STORAGE, AND EV CHARGING.

AND THAT VEIN, BUT WE WANT TO DO IS SUPPORT KATY AND ALL THAT SHE'S DOING WITH THE CAP AND HELP HER WITH ANY QUESTIONS SHE MAY HAVE IN.

HELPING CARLSBAD BECOME.

HI. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M PAIGE GIOACHINO, AND I WANT TO THANK KATIE FOR THIS REPORT AND HER REALLY DUE DILIGENCE IN TRYING TO HELP THE CITY MEET ITS CLIMATE ACTION GOALS. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM ONE OF HER SLIDES, IT WAS FIGURE THREE IN THE REPORT.

TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNTS FOR 50% OF OUR EMISSIONS.

THE EXISTING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, OR CAP MEASURES, ARE SLATED TO CONTRIBUTE TO 39% OF OUR EMISSION REDUCTION TARGET.

[02:55:01]

AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT A SMALL AMOUNT.

IT'S QUITE A LOT, BUT IT'S PRETTY HARD TO MEASURE.

IMAGINE THAT MEASURES K AND L IN THE CURRENT CAP COVERING THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT OR TDM PROGRAM AND MORE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES AND CHARGING STATIONS RESPECTIVELY, WILL ACTUALLY HELP US GET ALL THE WAY TO OUR GOALS, PARTICULARLY WHEN LAST SUMMER, THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL VOTED TO PURCHASE 40 NEW ALL GAS POWERED POLICE VEHICLES INSTEAD OF HYBRIDS OR EVS.

THANKFULLY, THERE ARE MANY MORE TRANSPORTATION MEASURES UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE UPDATED CAP COMING TO YOU THIS SUMMER.

TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY FROM THE PREVIEW OF THE CAP THAT YOU RECEIVED LAST NOVEMBER FROM KATIE, SHE TOLD YOU THAT ALL THOSE MEASURES MUST BE IMPLEMENTED TO ENSURE OUR TARGETS ARE MET AND THAT WITH MANY, THAT'S WITH MANY OF THE UNKNOWNS IN SOME OF THE MEASURES, JUST BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF DETAILS.

MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT IS THAT WE NEED REALLY STRONG MEASURES TO ADDRESS TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS.

A GOOD PLACE TO START WOULD BE TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER HOW WE THINK ABOUT PARKING AS A MEANS TO LOWER VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, OR VMT PARKING.

OUR PARKING MANAGEMENT STUDY SHOULDN'T BE THE END ALL FOR PARKING STRATEGIES, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

CONSIDER PARKING STRATEGIES THAT INCENTIVIZE EMPLOYEES NOT TO PARK, WHICH MEANS NOT TO DRIVE.

I'M SURE KATIE CAN EXPLAIN HOW THOSE WOULD WORK.

YOU SHOULD BEGIN WITH CITY EMPLOYEES AND MOVE ON TO SOME OF THE LARGER EMPLOYERS IN CARLSBAD.

THIS COULD BECOME A PART OF THE TDM PROGRAM.

YES, THIS STRATEGY OF HAVING MORE ZERO EMISSION EVS IS A GOOD WAY TO LOWER EMISSIONS, BUT GETTING THE CARS OFF THE ROAD IS BETTER, LEADING TO LOWER ROAD AND PARKING DEMANDS.

WHEN YOU SEE THE UPDATED CAP, YOU REALLY NEED TO PUSH FOR AGGRESSIVE AND AGGRESSIVE APPROACH.

THE WORLD IS DOING A TERRIBLE JOB AT MEETING THE CLIMATE CRISIS.

WE NEED TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE.

THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS.

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL.

COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MR. ACOSTA. THANK YOU.

I WANTED TO THANK YOU, MISS HENDRICK, FOR THE PRESENTATION AND JUST SAY I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THE CAP UPDATE.

THANKS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MOTION, PLEASE.

YEAH. MOVE! STAFF RECOMMENDATION SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. KATIE.

ITEM 15 CITY MANAGER.

[15. UPDATE ON THE MAERKLE RESERVOIR SOLAR ENERGY STUDY]

GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ITEM 15 IS AN UPDATE ON THE MARKLE RESERVOIR SOLAR ENERGY STUDY.

AND MAKING THE PRESENTATION IS OUR UTILITIES DIRECTOR, VICKY QUORUM, OUR UTILITIES SENIOR ENGINEER CARRIE MARTINEZ, AND OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, JASON HABER.

THANK YOU, MR. CHADWICK. GOOD EVENING BOARD PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE WATER DISTRICT BOARD.

I'M JASON HABER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY.

I JUST WANTED TO OFFER.

WE HAVE ABOUT A 25 SLIDE PRESENTATION.

THE INTENT OF THIS ITEM IS TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE MURKLE RESERVOIR SOLAR ENERGY STUDY.

THIS PROJECT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S CAP AND IN THE CITY'S FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN.

AND AS PART OF YOUR BUDGET PROCESS, LAST YEAR, YOU AUTHORIZED AN APPROPRIATION TO PROCEED WITH A FEASIBILITY STUDY.

LOOKING INTO THIS PROJECT, WE DID SOME PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND STUDYING OF THE PROJECT, THE SITE, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR THE SITE.

WE'RE HERE TO PRESENT THAT ITEM, THAT INFORMATION TO YOU TONIGHT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEXT STEP OF ISSUING, DEVELOPING AND RETURNING TO THE BOARD WITH A PROPOSED RFQ AND RFP PROCESS TO IDENTIFY A SOLAR DEVELOPMENT PARTNER TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE PROJECT.

JUST GIVEN THE LATE HOUR AND LENGTH OF THE MEETING WANTED TO OFFER QUICKLY, WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH THE PRESENTATION IF YOU'D LIKE TO RECEIVE THAT, OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, WE CAN RECEIVE THAT AS WELL.

MOVE APPROVAL OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

HOW ABOUT THAT? RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SPEAKERS.

OH, WE HAVE SPEAKERS. OKAY I'M GOING TO JUMP TO SPEAKERS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND THEN YOU'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

DON CHRISTENSEN.

GOOD EVENING. BOARD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, STAFF AND FELLOW CITIZENS.

MY NAME IS DON CHRISTENSEN.

I LIVE AT 3715 LONGVIEW DRIVE, AND I AM STILL A DECENTRALIZED RENEWABLE ENERGY ADVOCATE.

IT HAS ALWAYS WELL, THAT'S A LONG TIME, BUT IT JUST MAKES SO MUCH GOOD SENSE TO ME AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE I'VE TALKED WITH THAT WE ARE BETTER SERVED AS A COMMUNITY TO CREATE WHAT WE CAN LOCALLY, RATHER THAN DEPEND UPON BILLION DOLLAR PLUS GLORIFIED EXTENSION CORDS TO GET POWER FROM WHERE IT'S CREATED IN THE

[03:00:07]

BOONIES, AND TEARING UP THE BACK COUNTRY WITH TRANSMISSION LINES TO GET IT WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY USED ALONG THE COAST.

SINCE THE PRESENTATION.

GREAT PRESENTATION AS FAR AS THE HANDOUT.

SO, ALLOW ME TO SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE MERKEL RESERVOIR, PROPOSED MERKEL RESERVOIR SOLAR PROJECT.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS.

GENERATE RENEWABLE ENERGY, GENERATE REVENUE, OFFSET CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ELECTRIC COST.

LOWER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CUSTOMER RATES.

WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE ABOUT THAT? I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS.

INCREASED RESILIENCY.

WE HAVE A LITTLE ISSUE WITH WILDFIRES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND A LOT OF OTHER PLACES.

THE MORE WE DO WHAT WE CAN LOCALLY, THE LESS PROBLEM WE WILL HAVE WITH UNMITIGATED WILDFIRES.

IT TURNS OUT.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION ON THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN EARLIER.

BUT I PULLED UP SOME INFORMATION ON TONIGHT'S PACKET FROM THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND IT SHOWS THAT OVER ONE THIRD OF THE PROJECTED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS VIA THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN WILL COME FROM COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY. WELL, HERE WE HAVE THE CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE, WHO IS BETTER SUITED THAN OUR LOCAL CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE, TO BE THE OFF TAKER FOR THE ELECTRICITY THAT IS GENERATED AT THE MERKEL RESERVOIR OR KEEPING IT CLOSE? THIS HAS THE MAKINGS OF A BACKBONE OF A MICROGRID.

NOW, AS FAR AS MICROGRID EXPERTISE, WE HAVE TO LOOK NO FARTHER SOUTH THAN LA JOLLA, THE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS THERE MICROGRID UP AND RUNNING TO THE NORTH, CAMP PENDLETON.

I CAN PROVIDE PEOPLE THAT I WOULD SUGGEST TALKING WITH THAT HAVE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN BOTH OF THOSE MICROGRID PROJECTS.

SO THAT'S IT.

I'M GLAD TO SEE THE CITY IS MOVING ALONG WITH THIS, AND I APPRECIATE LEADERSHIP.

I APPRECIATE WHAT THE CITY DID BACK IN THE DAY WITH PROVIDING SEAWATER DESALINATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE.

THIS IS ANOTHER LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS.

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL.

MS. ACOSTA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A FULL PRESENTATION, BUT I DID IN LOOKING THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT AND HEARING FROM FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY, HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

I JUST WONDERED IF WE HAVE A POTENTIAL SIZE OF HOW MUCH ENERGY WE COULD GENERATE FROM THIS SITE, MEGAWATT WISE.

DO WE HAVE, LIKE A BALLPARK? HI. GOOD EVENING. BOARD PRESIDENT AND BOARD MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS CARRIE MARTINEZ, AND I'M A SENIOR ENGINEER IN UTILITIES.

AND I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

WE WILL YOU PLEASE SPEAK CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, I APOLOGIZE.

OKAY. SO, WE LOOKED AT THE SITE AND LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPABLE AREA CONSIDERING POTENTIAL SETBACKS FROM THE SITE, WE DO HAVE AN ACCESS ROAD THAT SITS ABOUT 150FT FROM THE VISTA RESIDENCE.

WE ANTICIPATE HAVING MAYBE 50 TO 100FT SETBACKS FROM THE OTHER PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND THE EXISTING MWD FACILITIES OUT THERE.

SO BALLPARK, WE THINK WE HAVE ABOUT 30 TO 40 ACRES OF DEVELOPABLE AREA.

RULE OF THUMB, SOME OF OUR RESEARCH AND TALKING WITH INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS, WE THINK 5 TO 7 ACRES REQUIRED PER MEGAWATT GENERATION.

SO JUST A ROUGH ESTIMATE, WE THINK 7 TO 8 MEGAWATT SYSTEM AND ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM.

GREAT. THANK YOU. AND MY SECOND QUESTION IS ABOUT KIND OF THE TEAM WHO HAS BEEN MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND KIND OF COMING UP WITH THIS.

I KNOW IT SAYS STAFF AND A CONSULTANT, INCLUDING ALSO MET WITH INDUSTRY EXPERTS LIKE THE CEA AND THE CARLSBAD SUSTAINABILITY COALITION.

I JUST KIND OF WONDERED IF YOU COULD GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT THAT OUTREACH PROCESS WAS AND WHO WAS INVOLVED.

SURE. SO, WE HAVE THIS PROJECT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND WHEN THE PROJECT WAS TRANSFERRED TO CMWD AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, WE WERE DOING SOME INITIAL RESEARCH, REACHING OUT TALKING WITH THE CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE ON MAGNITUDE AND SIZE OF PROJECT, JUST TRYING TO GET OUR HEADS AROUND IT.

WE'RE WATER AND WASTEWATER, FOLKS OVER IN UTILITIES.

SO SOLAR IS NOT NECESSARILY OUR EXPERTISE.

SO THAT WAS KIND OF SOME INITIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH, WITH THOSE TWO STAKEHOLDERS.

AND THEN WE STARTED MEETING WITH THE VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS, TRYING TO JUST FLUSH OUT SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH DEVELOPING THE SITE ON THAT PARTICULAR LAND.

[03:05:09]

SO, IF THERE WERE ANY REAL ESTATE CONCERNS WITH EXISTING EASEMENTS SOME OF THE PLANNING CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THERE'S THE DAWSON LAS MANOS RESERVE TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.

SO, I'M TALKING WITH THAT IN TERMS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS PERMITTING CEQA.

SO, WE CONSULTED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REGARDING THE SURPLUS LAND ACT AND THE EXEMPTION FOR THE AGENCY FOR AGENCY USE.

SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS, I DON'T KNOW.

YEAH. IF I COULD JUST ADD ON TO THAT A BIT.

THE CMWD CONTRACTED WITH A CONSULTANT, ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WITH EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE IN DEVELOPING SIMILAR PROJECTS WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES SIMILAR TO THE DISTRICT.

THEY WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING US IDENTIFY SOME OF THOSE KEY ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED AND LAYING OUT SOME OF THE TYPICAL APPROACHES AND STRUCTURING OF SIMILAR TYPES OF PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD.

AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS, WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY REAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON THE PROJECT.

WE'RE VERY CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY IN TERMS OF PHASING AND LOOKING INTO THIS, BUT WE DO ANTICIPATE, AND YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN IN OUR PRESENTATION AS WE GET INTO FEASIBILITY, PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, EACH ONE OF THOSE PHASES THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS WOULD HAVE A MORE ROBUST COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INCLUDING REPRESENTATIVES FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORING CITIES.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS WHAT I GATHERED FROM THE STAFF REPORT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

SO, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS VERY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE.

THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? OKAY.

THIS IS A. DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? OH, PLEASE. MISS BHAT-PATEL? YES. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR MANY YEARS.

AND SO, AND, MR. CHRISTENSEN, I HAVE TO SAY, YOU ARE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE YOU'VE TALKED TO ME ABOUT, AND QUITE A FEW FOLKS HAVE TALKED TO ME ABOUT, SO I'M REALLY GLAD TO SEE IT COME TO THIS POINT.

AND LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPPORTING IT TONIGHT.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL JUST I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER COMMENTS, I'M SURE, BUT I'LL MOVE.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? OKAY. I DON'T THINK I THINK THIS IS AN INFORMATION ONLY, AM I CORRECT? THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO OBTAIN DIRECTION, RIGHT, OR RECEIVE INPUT.

THE INTENT WAS TO RECEIVE INPUT.

IF YOU HAD ANYTHING SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF CONTENT YOU WANTED TO SEE IN THE RFQ.

OUR INTENT AT THIS POINT WOULD BE TO RETURN TO GO AND DEVELOP AN RFQ TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION AND FOR AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE THAT FOR PUBLIC CONSIDERATION.

SO THAT WOULD WE'D ANTICIPATE BEING BACK TO YOU TOWARDS THE END OF THE SUMMER AND WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF COMPLETING A PROCESS AND POTENTIALLY SELECTING A DEVELOPMENT PARTNER BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

SO, ANY DIRECTION FOR STAFF LOOKING AT CITY ATTORNEY? DO WE NEED ANYTHING TONIGHT BESIDES.

THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY MIGHT ALREADY HAVE THE DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD.

THAT'S THEIR PROPOSAL. IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD, YOU COULD GIVE THEM DIRECTION.

THEN I'LL REMOVE MY MOTION.

WITHDRAW MY SECOND. OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE WILL PROCEED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 16, CITY MANAGER.

[16. AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM A PUBLIC WORKS STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT TO THE ORION CENTER PROJECT AND APPROVING A DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CARRIER JOHNSON FOR THE ORION CENTER PROJECT (CIP PROJECT NO. 3572)]

THANK YOU, SIR. ITEM 16 IS THE LAST ITEM FOR COUNCIL'S AGENDA TONIGHT.

AND THIS IS AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT TO THE ORION CENTER PROJECT AND APPROVING A DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CARRIER JOHNSON FOR THE ORION CENTER PROJECT.

AND MAKING OUR PRESENTATION TODAY IS STEPHEN STEWART, ALONG WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER, JOHN MASSIF.

AND THEY ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE UNDER TIGHT TIME CONSTRAINTS.

NO. NO PRESSURE.

I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO TRY TO IMPROVISE LIKE JASON DID AND STARTED OFF.

THANK YOU, MR. CHADWICK. JOHN MASSIF, PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER HERE WITH STEPHEN STEWART.

UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORION CENTER HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS AND HAD BEEN A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR MANY YEARS AND RECOGNIZING THAT YOU DID RECEIVE THREE COUNCIL MEMORANDUMS UPDATING YOU ON THE STATUS OF THE PROJECT LAST YEAR AND RECOGNIZING THAT ALL OF THE ACTIONS THIS EVENING ARE FAIRLY ROUTINE IN NATURE.

I'M HAPPY TO DEFER THE PRESENTATION, WHICH I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SLIDES, BUT I KNOW IT'S ABOUT TEN MINUTES.

IF YOU'D LIKE US TO JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, OR I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THEM.

WELL, FIRST, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS.

DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL.