Cool.

Good evening.

Welcome to the June 4th Fairview MAC meeting.

We'll call the meeting to order.

Start off with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Higgins, will you lead us?

Thank you.

Can we get a roll call, please?

Councilmember Farmer, excused.

Council Member Higgins.

Here.

Council Member Philbin.

Here.

Vice Chair Rhodes, excused.

Chair Anglin.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

And we'll open public comment.

Three minutes to speak on anything not on the agenda.

Do we have any speaker cards?

Or anybody online?

There we go.

Sergeant Fenton Cully with Alameda County Sheriff's Office.

I supervise our real-time information center.

And I just wanted to let the uh board know that uh and everybody uh attending this meeting that we will be uh moving forward at the unincorporated services meeting on June 24th.

That'll be uh down in San Lorenzo, office O'Brande.

And we will be presenting um automated license plate readers, our drone first responder program, as well as our pan-tilled Zoom cameras, um, and that will be uh eventually going to the board for a vote on June 30th.

So if anyone would like to attend that, you're more than welcome to.

We want uh community input, and that's all I have.

Thank you.

Yes, sir, it's it's June 24th on the uh unincorporated area.

Committee, but the board can board date.

The actual Board of Supervisors vote will be June 30th.

Okay, yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no other.

Oh, I'm sorry, I have a caller.

You're on the line.

You have three minutes, Kelly.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, just uh the uh county administrator and the county council just uh talked about some new law that's coming in, and it's gonna give uh all the Macs the um opportunity or option or possibility.

Uh and I think it's your choice.

I don't, I don't think it's um that this is something some other somebody tells you to do this.

I think you have to choose to do this, to do a lot more uh remote meetings.

And of course that's lower cost, and that way then their idea is that maybe they don't have to send out staff person out to the middle of nowhere to meet to uh to uh you know uh work at one of these uh meetings, um, and that that would save them a lot of a lot of trouble.

Um this is I and I just want to you know express my little my feeling about it's because I'm not sitting there going to all these meetings like you do, but uh the you know if if uh if there's the opportunity to do more remote meetings, I'd I'd say why not hybrid?

Why not do do a few of these remote meetings or and uh do and keep doing the in-person stuff quite a bit because uh I think there's value in in-person.

And you saw what happened, uh I think the pandemic was a big uh big lesson where uh they tried uh remote things, uh remote uh remote what was it, remote learning is what they called it.

And all the schools were doing that, and uh that it looked great on paper, except it doesn't work and and all the the performance and all the educational stuff went down down the down the toilet.

So I think the same with uh with the in-person meetings.

Yeah, you still have to have them uh quite a bit, maybe not all the time, but uh there is there's a lot of value.

Thank you so uh basically carl moose and i'm here to address where is the paperwork when we have a trip in fall due to a tree well on the sidewalk the county's tree wells so for an insurance claim where's the paperwork and how do we file a complaint when a bicyclist hits a pedestrian do you call CHP what do you do is it a is it a crash report what is it what makes it legal for a bicycle to be on the sidewalk scooters and e-bikes at the same time a pedestrian there's no room uh staff will follow up Fran you're on the line for public comment hi this is Fran Krug Chair Anglin you may have been announcing this in your comments later but I wanted to share two things regarding the fireworks ordinance the board of supervisors did pass it unanimously on Tuesday yesterday Bob Clark and I attended the sheriff's advisory committee meeting to thank Captain McMillan and Sergeant Imperial as well as Sheriff Sanchez for their work on getting the ordinance uh developed researched and ultimately enacted we were very pleasantly uh not surprised but very much relieved to hear there's going to be a major rollout PR program uh announcing the changes in the fireworks and there have received funding for a postcard to be mailed to all residents in the unincorporated areas of Alameda County um they also acknowledge the work that the Fairview Mac and Fairview residents had uh done to get this fireworks ordinance enacted thank you very much I have no other speakers for this item thank you we'll close public comment sorry chair before we move on um we do need to take public comment on the uh call the order roll call and pledge of allegiance so if you just want to open up public comment for anything on there and then close it okay do you have any public comment on those three items?

No I have no speakers for those items I've got that's something yeah okay we'll close that public comment okay no thank you next item approval minutes from May 5th 2026 we'll open it for public comment I have no, oh, I do have a speaker.

Kathy.

Kathy Langley, unmute your microphone.

Hi, I finally got through to you guys.

Thanks for being here.

I just wanted to make a comment about the housing limit.

The housing element is state mandated imminent domain.

I chose to invest in my home in Fairview for its rural environment.

We must restore.

Sorry, Kathy.

It's Ashley.

Sorry, we're on public comment for the approval of the minutes.

Oh, I approve the minutes.

Fine.

I joined late, sorry.

Thank you.

Any other comment on the approval of the minutes?

Okay, we'll close public comment.

Do you have a motion or any discussion?

You guys do it.

And then I have a question.

I'll move to accept them.

I'll second.

Discussion.

Further discussion.

I have a question.

Am I eligible to vote since I wasn't here at that meeting?

Okay, and so even though we don't, it's okay.

Okay, thank you.

We're all called.

Councilmember Philbin for approval of May 5th minutes.

Abstain.

Councilmember Higgins.

Aye.

Council member Chair England.

Aye.

Um minutes not approved.

We need a quorum to approve the minutes.

We'll just roll that to next month.

Yes, continue to July 7th.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay, moving to regular calendar.

Item number one has been continued to July.

That was the D Street Historical Site Development Review.

Item number two, PLN 2026-00012, conditional use permit renewal.

T Mobile and I believe we have Joshua Hernandez.

Yes.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm waiting for the slides to show up on the screen.

Um, just uh my apologies for the type order on the cover um says Castro Valley instead of Fairview, but um if I see the screen then.

Uh can you introduce yourself, please?

Yes.

Um again, good if you're morale.

I'm so sorry.

I've got to interrupt again.

So we even though you continued item number one, we have to take you have to open public comment and then close public comment.

I'm sorry for the interruption.

No problem.

Hang on one quick second.

Do we have any public comment on item number one?

D Street historical site development review.

One speaker.

All right, caller, you're on the line.

We're taking comment on item one.

Kelly.

Yeah, just real quick.

I have seen some uh people have written some very detailed um uh um analyses of this project and environmental impacts and all that, and I'm not uh I I'm not having good, I'm not up to speed on that, so I'm not gonna talk about that.

But I will say that if you look on Google at this site and you look uh right along where all the trees are, I guess or maybe there's a little creek or uh some kind of uh maybe a uh a seasonal creek or something down there, but uh it's labeled, it's the most unusual Google label I've ever seen for almost any site anywhere in the world.

It's uh and it's somebody got it marked.

It's an official Google marking label.

It says that you have right there in Fairview.

Uh it's on uh I guess East Avenue or wherever this is.

Um you got you have Coyote Pups.

Coyote Pups.

It's a special spot, so get out there, bring your cameras.

I'm sure they're very cute.

Thank you.

Kathy, we're taking comment on item one.

I thought item one was postponed to July 7th.

It is, but we're still taking comments on the agenda.

Interesting.

Again, um, I just want to say that it is a wetlands uh area with several creeks going into that, and with the housing element uh rezoning our areas, then what's happening here is that they're going to uh along with the USGS maps being redrawn on our creeks.

That means uh the housing element and the developers' dream is coming true to just pave over that land that has creeks that's already been done on Pickford Way and Pickford Lane with a culvert that was mismanaged and not permitted, and flooding goes down that street and impacts that housing.

The sump pumps go on all day and all night, even during the summer.

So, you know, go ahead, rape our properties.

Great idea, all in the name of the housing element, and that the housing element is state-mandated eminent domain.

I chose to invest in my home in Fairview for its rural environment.

We must restore control of our land to local control.

The only way to do that is to overturn the housing element, and that is to put it on the ballot.

And the only organization doing that is a grassroots organization called our neighborhood voices.

Please go on to their website and donate, because it's very expensive to get something on the ballot.

And the only way to stop this mess of the housing element is to get this on the ballot.

Thank you.

I have no more speakers for item one.

Thank you.

And as a reminder, this item was continued to the July 7th Fairview Mac meeting.

Uh we can close public comment there.

If there's no further hands, did we have a hand up?

I'm seeing one on.

Hello, yes.

Sorry, I also joined a little late.

I would like to know how we get more information about this July 7th meeting for that 21 unit housing project, and that way we know we can share with our neighbors.

I know there are more people that wanted to speak on the subject, but unfortunately, weren't able to be there today.

And I'd like to be able to have that information to be present on the 7th.

Um, if I may interrupt, um, so county would send out um neighborhood courtesy notice and hearing notices two weeks before the hearing date, um, within the 500 radius of the um parcel lot address, so mostly um the neighbors would get notified through mail.

Was that it for comments?

Yes, I have no other speakers for item one.

Okay.

We'll close public comment, close that item one, and people can see our agendas online too at the MAC website.

Back to item number two, PLN 2026-00012.

If you could introduce yourself and yes.

Um, hello again, everyone.

Good evening.

Um, my name is Maral Esmaili, Planer of the Alameda County Planning Department, and tonight I'm presenting uh a conditional use permit application for a request to allow the continued use of um an existing team of wild wireless telecommunication facility located on East Avenue, approximately 250 feet northwest of uh Woolfed Road.

Next slide, please.

So this application is for a new conditional use permit to allow continued operation of the existing T-Mobile.

The properties owned by PGNE Tower.

And I'm sorry, PGNE and is designated under the Fair Review Area Specific Plan within the Eden Area General Plan.

The site is zoned as R1, BE, single family residential, and the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 existing facilities.

Next slide, please.

So the project involves the continued operation of the existing T-Mobile that is co-located on the existing PGE tower.

The original conditional use permit, case number C-8558 approved the facility but expired at 2017.

However, T-Mobile continued operating through subsequent building permits approval and equipment upgrades.

This new conditional use permit is now a new conditional use permit is now required to authoritize uh continued operation of the facility.

Um extension of the lease area or tower is proposed at this time.

The facility includes antennas, radius, and related telecommunication equipment mounted to the existing uh 153-foot 10-inch PGNE utility tower, along with the ground uh equipment located within the fence list area adjustment to the tower.

Um, and then as you could see on the slides, the facility includes multiple antennas and radio units mounted on the existing PGE tower.

Next slide, please.

As you can see, the subject site is located along um East Avenue within the fair view area.

The parcel is surrounded primarily by single-family residential developments, and to the north is a lawn tree cemetery across East Avenue to the south is vacant parcel with um Bay Hill Food Market and Pilgrim Temple Church located further south.

Next slide, please.

So this slide illustrates the site layout.

T-mobile equipment lease area is located approximately 30 feet northwest of the utility tower, and ground equipment is enclosed within the fenced area.

And um the existing side access and utility infrastructures are shown on the site plan as well.

Next slide, please.

These elevations uh um show the existing PGNE Lactic Tower and the placement of T-mobile antennas and associated equipment.

The antennas are mounted directly to the existing tower structure and designed to match the appearance of the tower.

No increase on the tower height or structural expansion is proposing.

Um, next slide, please.

This um slide also provides photographs of the site from the public right away.

The telecommunication equipment is relatively um unobstructive because it's mounted to the tower, and then ground equipment is the screen behind the fencing, and it's not um visible from the surrounding public access.

Next slide, please.

The fair view area specific plan does not contain specific policies um regarding telecommunication facilities.

Therefore, staff reviews relies on Alameda County development standards for sitting of telecommunication facilities adopted by the Board of Super Supervisor in October 1997.

Staff finds that the project is consistent with the intent of Eden Area General Plan and the applicable telecommunication development standards.

Next slide, please.

So the facilities uh considered a co-location on the existing utility power again.

And this is uh encouraged under county telecommunication facility uh policies because it minimized the need for new towers.

The equipment area is located um 30 feet from the tower and it's enclosed by fencing.

The applicant propose proposes replacing the existing fencing with uh fiberglasses fencing painted with fire resistance paint.

So the existing tower structure provide screening um for the equipment area and the additional landscaping may be installed for further uh reduce on visual impact.

Um the facility will continue to be maintained in good condition, remain uh gravity-free and comply with all the applicable building fire and FCC uh regulations.

Next slide, please.

Um staff has reviewed the application against the required conditional use permit findings.

First, the facility serves an important public need by providing reliable wireless communication service, including emergency communications.

Um second, the facility is properly related to surrounding land uses because it's located on an existing utility tower and generates minimal traffic and operational impact.

Third um finding is that the facility will not um adversely affect public health safety or welfare.

It complies with the applicable building fire and um FCC standards and has operated without known adver adverse impact.

And finally, the facilities consist with the uh with the character and performance standards of the zoning district because it utilized an existing utility structure and remained visually unobstructive.

Next slide, please.

So in conclusion, staff finds that the continued operation of the T-Mobile Wireless Telecommunication Facility is consistent, is inconsistent with the Alameda County Development Standards for sitting of telecommunication facilities with Eden Area General Plan and Fairview Area Specific Plan.

Therefore, staff recommend that Fairview Municipal Advisory Council recommend approval of the conditional use permit PLN 2022-0012, subject to the conditions of approval uh contained in the staff report.

And this includes my presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ashley, do we need to do another roll call with member former here?

We're good.

Okay.

Um you guys have pressing questions or you want to go to public comment first and come back.

I've got a bunch.

My only question really is about the generators.

Um, is are this is this tower hooked up to PGE in the and the generators for emergency use only?

Um, not for emergency use only, but basically it's for um the connection of the neighborhood um to make it easier for everyone, I believe.

So the generators run 24-7.

Uh I think so.

That would be a good question for the applicant uh representative.

They are online and if they raise their hand, they might be able to respond to your questions more specifically.

Because I think that's an air pollution issue.

Um yeah, that's uh not my responsibility to talk about it.

So I would just pass it.

Yeah, I would pass it to Joshua.

Hello, yes.

Can you guys hear me?

We can.

If you could give us a little more info and then answer her question.

That'd be great.

Yeah, for the generators.

Um I believe they're just there for backup emergencies, but I will need to um uh reach out to the proper staff to answer that question.

Um I can send the answer to staff um sometime by next week, just to get a clarification on that.

Rodrigo, do you?

Yes, good evening, everybody, Rodrigo doing with Kenny Plain.

Yes, so so in all other instances where we have a permitted telecommunication facilities, the generators are only there for as backup power.

They are there for emergencies in case that the that the um facility loses grid power.

So they are only there for as backup and not running 247.

Thank you.

Other questions from our panel?

You want me to go through them?

Sure.

We'll do ours and then go to public.

Okay, so I have I have a lot I have a number of questions.

Some of them have to do with I think probably just mistakes within the document.

On the cover page, it has for the address East Avenue, no address, it says, but on the document from Alameda County Public Works Agency Sheriff's Office, it's it gives an address, 2718 East Avenue.

So I'm wondering which is it?

So um basically on our records on the main star that we were looking at it, it was both addresses uses for different cases, but I use the most recent one uh for East Avenue, just on the north side, 250 feet northwest of the Weinfeld.

So the one that your department used probably is recorded for the parcel on the SSR department as well.

Okay.

So isn't an address kind of a thing?

You know, it's it should it shouldn't like change depending on what you're doing, right?

It's the same, should be the same.

Yeah, okay.

Um so down here where it talks about environmental review, you have an adjective categorically exempt.

So what does that mean?

What's the difference between being exempt and being categorically exempt?

Um I can answer that.

Uh, there again, Rodrigo doing with county planning.

There are different kinds of exemptions.

There are statutory exemptions per state law that basically those were uh specifically written for specific purposes.

For example, the Olympics back when they were held in LA and certain certain other um specific written into law exemptions to uh CQA potential SQL impacts categorical exemptions are those that could be any project that fits a certain category.

So, for example, existing facilities such as this one, um the the continuing to operate.

There are no new environmental impacts that would be uh considered as part of this um proposal, and therefore it's a categorical exemption.

There are other categorical exemptions, for example.

Okay, I get it.

Yeah, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um, let's see.

That was explained to me earlier.

So because this um approval is expired since 2017.

This is being applied for as if it were brand new.

Is that right?

Yes, okay.

And in one place, it talks about uh let's see, upgrading and where is it?

Let me see.

Oh, change of subject.

So it says here that the facade mount should be allowed within 300 feet of a residence, but in fact, this one is 45 feet.

So I'm wondering what is the basis for 300 feet?

Is it is there a reason like is there danger involved if it's any closer than 300 feet?

Why is 300 feet the standard and why is this one allowed at 45 feet?

It's a significant difference.

Yeah, so so it is for comfort level.

Uh, as you Rodrigo, you're muted.

Am I?

Uh should be unmuted.

Um, unmuted on my side.

Can you hear me?

We can all hear you.

Sorry, I should be unmuted.

I can hear, let's see.

Rodrigo, you don't show muted on Zoom, but we can't hear you.

Maybe your microphone's switched.

I show mute.

Can you hear me now?

Still, I cannot hear you.

Okay, microphone, right.

Okay, how about that?

Can you hear me now?

Um can you hear me now?

Uh maybe you need to reconnect to the zoom meeting.

Okay, can you hear me now?

No.

Okay, hold on.

Maybe maybe he needs to log off and back on.

Yeah.

And do you have a response, Joshua?

Do you know?

It's kind of a technical question, I guess.

Um, just um in response since we included the history of this tower, um, it goes back to um, let me bring the history here.

I think the initial one um was approved in 1956.

Um, I'm sorry, um 2007, the conditional use permit C-8558 approved the installation of T-mobile wireless telecommunication facilities on uh existing PGNE tower.

So this tower has been there for a long time, and probably as a non-confirming um structure, they're just updating uh the new conditional use permit, not just relocating a tower.

Right.

That is my experience.

I understand.

It's just that that's such a significant difference in the distance.

And I'm wondering if that tower is in fact a dangerous entity surrounded by those residences.

Yeah, totally understand.

Um, so probably the device is not built afterwards, yeah.

Better response to that.

Uh oh.

So Rodrigo Dunio's county plan again.

Yeah, so it's so low.

Your voice is so low, we cannot hear you properly.

Hopefully that's better.

Yes.

Okay.

So uh yeah, so apologies for my uh technical difficulties.

Yeah, so so as you know that the PGE towers were there.

Um the reason for the 300 feet is normally for the convenience to make sure that the uh that the potential um visual and audit audio uh impacts are reduced to the neighbors, as you know, uh FCC does not allow us to consider uh a risk or or deny an application based on fear of risk of uh radio frequency emissions, as long as the radio frequency report comes back that there are no impacts.

Um the way these antennas work is that they pretty much shoot a horizontal uh signal.

So as long as that signal is above uh any receptors, then there are very uh insignificant levels of radio frequency that pose no danger to the population, and that's what these reports identify.

So the the reason for the 300 feet versus, for example, in this case, a much narrower shorter distance is to reduce the potential visual impact in case that uh people don't like to see the cabinets or the antennas themselves, but also the the potential noise impact from uh the humming of the equipment uh cabinets, uh the the generators when they go off on an emergency basis, etc.

So again, this has been approved a lot as Moral was indicating uh pretty much uh over decades ago.

And so the the idea is that this is uh an existing facility with uh the the residents already um having the circumstance of having the PGE tower located.

And again, we're not reviewing the PGE tower here, whether or not that's uh a potential health hazard uh is not part of this uh analysis, the antennas themselves.

Um, so what we are considering is whether the totality of the potential visual impact of this huge PGE tower and the relatively small antennas uh and equipment cabinets, and also the the noise from from the cabinets themselves.

We have received no complaints about the noise and no complaints about uh the generators, so that's why we're continuing to recommend approval on this continued operation.

Okay, thank you.

I have a I have another question about the cabinets that are being placed around.

They talked about painting them a color similar to the um environment in the area.

So, how about doing what's been done elsewhere and paint some deer grazing on them or some foxes or some murals, not bright murals, things that blend in with the background.

Is that a possibility?

That's a possibility.

The aesthetics are totally something that this body could make recommendations on, yes.

Uh it would take a little bit longer because you know, some one person's deer uh is cartoonish, maybe uh another person's um uh uh aesthetically inappropriate paint job.

Right, got it.

Um just there's a typo on page six in the one two third category, it says L E A S instead of L E A S E.

So it's just an aside.

Um, so existing vegetation, so basically it's just weeds, right?

So you're just gonna maintain the the weeds and keep the mode in the area.

Okay, fire hazard, yes.

Yep.

Um let's see, where was that sentence that I don't know what it means?

Because it was, oh, here we go.

Okay, here's a sentence.

It's on page nine number eight, has regulatory program fee, and the sentence reads prior to the applicant shall pay a cash sum of six hundred and seventy thousand.

The Alameda County Planning Department open parents, payable to treasure, comma, county of alameda closed brand to help cover the department's um costs in administering wireless communication regulatory.

That sentence makes no sense.

So I don't know what was left out prior to the applicant application prior to the applicant paying something.

You know, the sentence is just nonsense, the way it's written.

Sorry about that typo, it's it's it's definitely a uh a mistake.

It's this is a continued operation.

It normally is prior to applicants in the middle of building permits uh for the construction.

However, this is already there and it would be a continued operation.

So we definitely need to give a time distance.

So this should read prior to 60 days from date of approval, applicants shall pay a cash sum of $670 to the Alameda County Planning Department to help the department's administrative wireless communications regulatory program.

Okay.

So that's something you guys can fix in this report, right?

Yes.

And then it there's another reference uh higher up on that page.

Letter G.

It's um, no, it's actually letter H, excuse me.

It talks about firefighting apparatus shall be provided to the immediate job site at the start of construction.

Is there construction associated with this or is it just continued usage of the existing situation?

It is continued usage, uh, however, they do apply for 6409 permits every few years to upgrade the technology as long as those upgrades are less than I believe it's 10% additional height and and a certain amount of remaining within the envelope, in this case remaining within the the um parameters of the construction of the PGE tower.

So whenever they do provide any construction, they do need to provide uh fire um conformance with the fire department and up to and including uh fire department access.

Okay, and in G, it talks about permanent water source, blah blah blah.

It seems like that should be available all of the time, not just when there's an overabundance of combustible material in the area.

I mean, doesn't there always have to be water source available?

So as soon as combustible material uh accumulates at the site, like yeah, this is this is from a fire department.

They basically are uh, you know, as you know, that there are uh they they for the generators they do provide um um not uh what do we cook with in our barbecues?

Um like gas charcoal no lighter fluid, yeah.

Propane, um propane.

So so they do provide they do provide um uh uh tanks for to run those generators, and so that's what the fire department is referring to.

Okay, I just think I think they should say that.

It doesn't say that to me.

Okay.

And oh, this was interesting.

Uh, this is just an aside, and I apologize for taking the time to bring it up, probably.

When we were looking at an ATT tower, they were talking about that it had been denied on this PGE tower, but this number 14 on page 11 says that an applicant and owner shall allow other existing and future wireless communications company, including public and quasi public agencies using similar technology to co-locate antenna equipment facilities, etc.

etc.

So it sounds like that presentation we heard before was kind of bogus if the ATT tower has to allow their them to use their tower.

So they have to allow co-location.

So the the first one, which is this one, this T-Mobile one goes through the full conditional use permit process.

However, per uh again, we've been, you know, a lot of some of this uh conditions are or mandates from the feds.

Once a facility is up, then we have to um pass along the requirement to the owners of whether they're private towers, such as, for example, you many times you see those slim line telecommunications poles, those are completely privately owned, specifically and only for the purposes of uh telecommunications um carriers such as T-Mobile ATT and Verizon, etc.

Also uh on buildings and or uh in this case PG<unk>E towers uh which um host uh these telecommunications facilities, all of a sudden they they become telecommunications carriers, and they are obligated also uh uh to of course to negotiate leases, etc.

But to allow for potential co-locations should a second telecommunications uh carrier come into that same uh property.

The idea being that um that um adequate or preferred um projection geographies are limited, right?

So high places, uh ridge tops, building uh tops, areas that have large coverage, those are limited, and so um the carrier, the first carrier to come in cannot monopolize that beneficial geographical location, and so they have to allow for others to also co-locate.

So ATT should have been allowed to also place its equipment on that tower.

Is that my interpretation correct?

Yes, if if their technologies do not conflict, sometimes ATT says uh, you know, actually need to be lower or right at the level of the T Mobile antennas and it's not gonna work or what have you.

There are it's you know, sometimes it's it's it's more than just a certain one uh circumstance that may preclude co-location.

Uh as far as we've been uh informed, uh there's there's uh uh a menu of potential reasons why somebody would or would not co-locate on a on an existing tower.

Okay, and my last my last question, um the status reports that go every after the first year and every five years to the Board of Zoning, can those status records also be um delivered to the Fairview Mac so that we have updates?

We can we can yes, yes, that is that is a condition that can be modified.

Okay, thank you.

Take a deep breath, I'm done.

Thank you.

Member Higgins.

Sally, you got a couple of the ones I was looking for.

Um, yeah, so and and to piggyback on the the issue of testing.

Um when I read this, it is it like an annual testing that they do of the equipment.

What what's the frequency of testing?

Um that I am not sure about it's periodic.

I know that they they test it for continued uh compliance with with SEC regulations.

Uh if they upgrade their equipment, they'll test that upgraded equipment.

Uh, if there's a new facility moved into the area, they made retesting so there's no interference.

So it is periodic and and uh hopefully um the applicant here uh can give more concise information.

Okay, okay, and and that's he'll he'll get a chance to speak.

I I just the um again back to the ATT tower that uh they were asking for a variance to locate that tower less than 300 feet from the um the T Mobile Tower.

Um I would love to get an explanation that I understand about why the ATT stuff couldn't go on that tower and and maybe the applicant will can help us on that.

Um, covered the frequency of the of the testing.

Um this so looking at page eight.

Um the tower elements, these are all elements that are already installed, or are they they they upgrading them?

Um those are based on the latest uh 6409 approval that um county issued for um I think both T Mobile and AT tower um tower and antennas to be um upgraded.

So no changes right now is proposing.

Okay, so this is just an inventory of yes of what's there.

Okay.

Um then on uh page 10 item nine public safety interference.

Um it says the approved facility shall not interfere with any public safety communications and shall comply with the uh a series of of uh regulations.

Now is there a periodic uh you know periodic maintenance or periodic certification that it's it's not interfering with any of that stuff or just uh sketch can't.

So usually with uh the 6409 that comes um like occasionally or by any changes to the facilities, uh we would they would provide all the uh maintenance results and all the documents for us to review, but I'm not sure about uh detailed that did like timeline for um checking the maintenance.

So could could that be reported to us?

That's the kind of things when when we're preparing for for these meetings.

I I kind of look to see, hey, um it it says that you you have to do this stuff, and it would be nice to see that somebody had actually done it, right?

Because this um what this this can this uh conditional use permit expired what eight nine years ago?

Yeah, 2017.

Yeah, so you know, a lot of things change.

The technology has changed quite a bit, you know.

Yeah, so that's why I mentioned um mostly they have been updating um all the antennas and equipment through the building permits, and they have been updated.

Uh, but the latest one for this um COP renewal considered as a new conditional use permit was the main one to go over all these regulations.

Yeah, and so but my point is that you're asking us to approve this, and if I vote in favor of this, and I find out later that um the the testing and stuff hasn't been done um and it harms my neighbors um that that concerns me.

So we can we this is right with plan.

We can we can request that the uh uh latest test report be filed with us and then we can move forward on to the to this body.

Okay, yeah, I I really appreciate that.

You can add that as a condition of approval to to do it prior to uh issuance of this conditional use permit.

Yeah, I mean that the thing is that people in the community look to us to you know not approve stuff that hurts them, you know, and and I I I that's important to me.

So we'll get you that information prior to issuance of this conditional use.

Okay, and then and some of these this stuff I uh maybe the applicant can can answer when we when we give him a chance.

Um and again, I I wrote the question on number 11 the uh uh RF and the EMF emissions, the um does that get measured?

And I I know you talked about it uh and the um I always uh in in the past when I've looked at these, I I see they they talk about the um uh the impact dropping off quickly, you know, anything beyond 50 feet, but now we have a residence within 45 feet of this, so uh so it's so yeah, so it's 50 feet horizontal, not 50 feet horizontal and down, right?

That's the these things shoot shoot horizontally.

So if the residence is below the elevation of the antenna, then it's then you're you're your you're beyond so so has anyone measured the stuff with this house that's I know it's the the stuff is above, but it's within 45 feet horizontally, and has anybody ever measured it with that residence?

I'd be a I'd be a lot happier if if I knew that somebody has done that for those people.

I I maybe I can't ask that, but uh I would be a lot happier with that.

And we can we can get that in okay.

Again, if you know, yes, okay.

Um and number fourteen, the co-location.

Uh we already kind of beat that up uh quite a bit.

Let me see if I have anything that uh oh on page A1, where it shows the um the equipment shed.

Uh if I remember correctly, correct me, uh my colleagues.

ATT, one one of the reasons they said they couldn't co-locate is there was um no room directly under the tower because the uh T Mobile was using that space, and yet this on A1, the T Mobile equipment enclosure is not directly under the tower.

It's directly under the lines, it's probably within the, what's it, that the 300 volt line that that they talk about.

Um but I I just a little frustrated because I'm not sure that we've got honest answers from ATT when we heard the hearing there, but that's water under the bridge.

That's that's the last piece I have.

Thank you.

Rodrigo, I know there's been multiple towers that had expired CUPs quite a while ago.

And member Philbin asked an interesting question.

What does that mean?

Does that mean they have to start the process all over again?

So they they are technically considered for legal purposes a new facility.

So if you consider that they um do not fit within the aesthetic or um or convenience standards of the community, then they could be denied because they are not legally currently entitled to be there.

They're they're they're considered a new facility versus one that is a continued operation, they come in before the expiration date, then they're vested, and then um they have uh vested rights to continue until their permit runs out.

And do we know why we're nine years late?

Was that on T-Mobile?

Uh it's we we request that that the carrier maintain records, our records um are not good, obviously, because nine years later we we discover that they needed a new permit, so um, so it is both the county and t-mobile's um drop the ball.

Okay.

That's probably one of the ugliest towers out there.

I'm open to suggestions on making it look a bit better where we can.

Obviously, we can't touch the PGE tower, but if we were to approve anything and hope they make it nice, it's gonna be a much different outcome than looking at options before we approve anything.

How does that work with the timeline if we'd like to see some of the renderings or proposals that they would offer on making it look nicer?

Well, you could say that you're recommending, you know, if if your inclination is to recommend it now because you think that this is aesthetically unpleasing, then you can give the applicant an opportunity to uh either go with the recommendation for denial or agree to toll the clocks until it's such time they come back with a better um either camouflage, full camouflage, or uh a different attempt at um aesthetic improvements.

Okay, and this may be one for Joshua, but do we know when the equipment was last given a major upgrade in that tower?

That would have been the last 6409 morale.

I don't know if you have that.

Yes, um, it's April 1st, 2024.

Um that approved for proposed minor modification to T Mobile side at the request of the applicant at the shot clock for these type of applications fire.

So it was 2024, and mostly all the um antennas specification and equipment area specification on the report goes back to uh 2024 approval.

Thank you.

That's all my questions.

We'll open it up for public comment on this item.

Chuck Meadows.

Good evening.

My name is Chuck Meadows, and Rodrigo, I'm glad you're on the phone or on the uh meeting, because I don't have any specific objections or questions to this particular application, but I did want to talk about the process as a whole because this is a recurring issue in two ways.

One is which uh has been identified this evening, which is the failure by whichever party to track these CUP renewals on a timely basis.

I believe you had mentioned that you the county was working on a system to track these uh at other meetings.

I believe I heard you say that.

So that is a good um moving forward prospective solution.

But more importantly, I want to talk about the uh shot clock issue and the fact that planning needs to create a separate track for these federally mandated shot clocks.

The problem being, for those who are not familiar with this, is there are federal rules that basically overrule local government's ability to withhold approvals from these permit applications, and the timelines are very aggressive depending on the nature of the application.

They can be as short as 30 days up to I believe the maximum is 120 to 150 days.

What that essentially means is if the county does not grant the approval, then essentially the county loses the right to veto the application and it is deemed approved.

If the county then decides to challenge it, then the carrier can then take the county to court, which terrifies the county obviously for the expense.

Now there is a way to toll the agreements.

What the county can do is if they have published aesthetic requirements or other requirements, and let me give you a for instance, one of the requirements that can be imposed is undergrounding some of the facilities.

Obviously, not the antenna, but the other facilities.

Now, the county wouldn't necessarily want to force that across the board, but what they could do to increase the negotiating position is to put that in as a requirement, subject to waiver by the Mac and the BZA.

Now, the Mac and the BZA would then have a bargaining chip to take to the carriers and say, look, we don't want a 300-foot antenna here.

If you cut it down to a hundred feet, we'll waive the undergrounding requirement, therefore saving you costs.

In short, we need to give the Macs and the BCA and the county supervisors some valid, meaningful ways to retain some control over these approvals.

Lastly, at the last approval, there was a flood of emails that came in from the carrier's subscribers, of which Dale Silva went through them, and a number of them still maintained or still had the original text from the carrier embedded in the email.

I think this uh what's it called?

It's called astro-turfing.

These kind of efforts need to be controlled and not just have a flood of people who don't live in the area supporting the approval.

Thank you.

Carl moves.

I think you're entitled to a representation better than what the planning speakers giving you.

You're dealing with a high tension transmission line.

The first thing she should have done is explained, power, watts, voltage, current, magnetic lines of flux, flux density.

These terms are not being used.

Ask her to do her homework and come back with a better presentation.

Any online colors.

No, I have no additional speakers for item two.

Okay, we'll close public comment.

Further discussion from our group.

The only comment I have is we all know we need our cell phones to work.

So there's got to be some balance in what we can do in the way it's managed.

We've heard some good points about not letting these go nine years overdue and making sure the equipment's up to date.

But we do all need our cell phones.

So the request tonight was to approve the CUP for this or recommend approval for it.

We can accept it, we can deny it.

We can offer something different.

There were a number of suggestions during the course of the asking questions, and I'd like to include some of those in the motion that we make.

For instance, if we say something like I move that we approve this request as amended amendments to include artwork on the buildings, to include the various report outs to um BZO or others being be given to the uh Fairview Mac.

Did you have you had some other ones, Chris?

I just want to include it in the motion.

Yeah, joining house.

Surveying the adjoining house for um audio and electrical impacts, and well, and the EMI and the RF and EMI.

EMIR, yeah.

What Chris is saying?

So and the um the frequency of testing of the equipment, right?

Because the this is the the safety kind of stuff.

You know, we we get our car smogged every couple years.

Yeah, so they do that this every five years, right?

Okay.

Well, that's the the CUP gets renewed every five years, but the equipment was one of our questions was the the no there's there's there's this reporting that happens after the first year and then every five years.

Okay, right?

Yeah, and the CP gets renewed every 10.

Yeah, so the it's renewed in 10 years, but this other is the reporting, my glasses back on.

Um anyway, whatever that says, I I would like that included in our motion.

Do I need to find it to include it?

I probably do, don't I?

Um, I know I yellowed it.

Oh, the um report status reports one year from the date of this approval, and on each five-year anniversary, their apple thereafter permittee shall submit to the board of zoning a brief a brief status report describing compliance with conditions of the permit, including maintenance of equipment, fencing, landscaping, antennas, photograph of the site, verifications of the facilities in compliance with an active FCC license, that's etc.

That that report come to the Fairview Mac on those intervals.

Was there something else that you were looking for, Chris?

That's fine, okay.

So that's that's my motion.

Were you able to capture that one?

Okay, I'll second it if so.

Yes, we were.

One year and on E50.

Right, yeah, plus the other things that I said, which is in the recording.

Yeah, any further discussion.

How close is this to the empty lot or the market that is supposedly will get developed someday?

It's across the street and up the hill a little bit.

It's further away from them than it is from that house.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's further away from it's across the East Avenue from there.

The the houses.

Most of what the impact is is the houses across, yeah.

All right, ready for a roll call.

Council member Farmer?

Aye.

Councilmember Higgins.

Aye.

Councilmember Philbin?

Aye.

Chair England.

Aye.

Approved.

Motion passed.

4-0.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, item number three was also continued to July tonight, in all fairness to having member Rhodes here for that discussion.

We will still take public comment on it.

Do we have any public comments?

I have no speakers for item three.

Great.

We'll close public comment.

Next item, Chair's report.

Bran beat me to it again, two months in a row.

Thank you.

Great report.

I'll still take public comment just in case there is any.

We'll open that up.

Any public comment on the fireworks regarding the uh chair's report, sorry.

Seeing none, we'll close public comment.

Council announcements.

Anything from the group?

Ms.

Philbin.

I have my monthly announcement to remind everyone to mark their calendars for Sunday.

Sunday, November the 8th at one o'clock at Lone Tree Cemetery for our annual veteran celebration.

And there will be information pieces starting to hit Facebook and various other go-to places.

Other comments.

Beth, our little subcommittee, our next meeting's June 30th, isn't it?

Yeah.

So we we don't have a report for that.

The housing.

I'd like to see more signs up about the fair about the fireworks ordinance.

Yeah, that'll be a big one.

Any public comment?

We'll open that up for our announcements.

Seeing none, we'll close public comment.

Any staff announcements?

The only announcement that I have is uh so Chris and those of you that are are on any subcommittees.

Um please let the chair know uh early in advance if you're going to be giving uh an update so that we can add it to the agenda properly.

And that's all for me.

Do we have any public comments for staff comments?

We'll open that up.

Seeing none, we will close that.

And with that, meeting is adjourned.

Everybody have a good night.