the

commission.

Good evening everyone we're going to go ahead and call to order the county planning

commission for November 18th 2024. Will you please call the roll.

Commissioner Sporha. Yes.

We have a quorum.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Here and we have a quorum.

Please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance.

yes the county fosters pardon me public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation

civility and use of courteous language the commission does not condone the use of profanity vulgar language gestures or other inappropriate behavior

including personal attacks or threats directed towards any meeting participant seating may be limited and available on a first-come-first-served basis

To make an in-person comment public comment rather please complete submit a speaker request form to the clerk each individual will be invited to the podium

To make a comment members of the public may send a written comment

Which is distributed to Commission members and filed in the record contact information is optional and should include the meeting date and agenda

off agenda item number to be sent as follows email a comment to board clerk at site county gov or mail a comment to

700 H Street

324 50 Sacramento, California

95814

Thank you

If you please call item number one your first sighting this evening commissioners is PLMP 2023

0046 and its for use permit special development permit and design review

It is located at the southwest corner of West Elkhorn Boulevard and Metro air parkway in the Natomas community and the

Environmental document is an addendum

Evening commissioners Leanne Mueller with planning an environmental review. This is a non cut contested item

So we can do a presentation if the planning commission would desire

Any requests for a presentation this evening commissioners?

Any questions for staff this evening?

All right scene none we can invite the applicant up if they would like to address the commission not required this evening

But you are welcome to if you would like

We'll get you sworn in

Just raise your right hand and the appropriate responses

I do do you swear that they testimony that you're about to give the commission is the truth

So I'll be a god and if you do not swear do you so affirm?

Okay, if you would state your name for the record and then make this statement. I have been sworn

Thank you Leslie

This fast I don't really have a presentation

I just wanted to say we were very excited about having the first commercial gas station here in this new plan area

It's been a great experience learning all about the requirements out there

And we feel like we're presenting a very good package here very attractive

We agree to all of the conditions of approval. So I'm here for questions and let me know if I can answer anything for you

Thank you so much questions for the applicant this evening

All right, we have none. Thank you. Thank you very much

And I don't see any public comment, but any public comment no public comments perfect

We'll go ahead and close public comment happy to entertain a motion on this item

Second

All right, we have a motion for staff recommendation and a second

Any further comments or deliberation?

All right, please call the roll and chair reethel just to confirm was a second from you or commissioner borja

Commissioner borja. Okay. Thank you and

Rolls commissioners borja. Yes Conklin. Yes Corona Savagnano

Devlin and reethel. Yes and the motion carries

All right. Thank you that concludes the non contested portion of our agenda this evening

It will move us to the contested portion

Please call item number two and your item number two this evening is PLMP 2024

0082 it's for use permit special development permit and design review. It's located at 7908 Hazel Avenue

Approximately 490 feet south of the intersection of cherry Avenue and Hazel Avenue in the Orangevale community and the environmental document is that it's exempt

Good evening commissioners Irving Guerto here assistant planner and project manager

For the 7908 Hazel Avenue

wireless communications facility use permit

I'll go ahead and get us started with a brief presentation

So the project site is located over at 7908 Hazel Avenue

Approximately

790 feet south of the intersection of cherry Avenue and Hazel Avenue

within the Orangevale community

The subject site is currently developed with an existing single family dwelling and the ad you and two sheds

Moving on to community context the project site is zoned agricultural residential to a R2

The surrounding uses as you can see up on the screen

Primarily composed of single family

Residential all AR2 zoned

There is a place of worship just located north of the site

So back in September of 2017 there was a use permit approved for the 1200 square foot ADU on the site

Aside from that there is no other planning entitlements

associated with the project site as well as no current active code enforcement cases

Moving on to the entitlement request

So the request includes the following a use permit to allow a new wireless communication facility in the air to zoning district a

special development permit

To allow the proposed project to deviate from the following development standards

That is the maximum height as well as the separation from group one zoning

And that would be the minimum separation requirement

The entitlement also includes a design review and that is to determine substantial compliance with the Sacramento County

Countywide design guidelines

So there was an environmental document prepared for this project that was an initial study mitigated negative declaration

That document was released for public review on October 18th

2024 the impacts discussed in that document

included hydrology and water quality

biological resources

tribal cultural resources and

hazards and hazardous materials

The it was concluded in the document that the project would result in less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures

So this is a kind of like an aerial overview of the site plan for the proposed wireless facility

So this is currently right here the parcel. I try my best to use the point right here

The actual parcel itself

So the actual wireless facility is going to be located over here in the rear part of the property

Inside a 40 by 40 foot lease area

That lease area is proposed to be secured by a new six foot tall chain link fence

with privacy slots and

That that lease area is going to be accessed via an existing gravel driveway that currently serves the existing house as well as the ADU

so this is the

Gravel driveway that I'm referring to and so serves right here the existing house and then the ADU over here and

Then this will as well access the lease area

One thing to note as part of the special permit permit request

The applicant is requesting to deviate from the separation from group one zone

property minimum requirement

The requirement is three times the height of the proposed tower

In this case the proposed tower height is 110 feet

Therefore a 330 foot separation from group one zoning is required

So as shown over here in the site plan

The proposed wireless facility would be 125 feet from the group one zone

Over here on the south as well as the east and then 204 feet over here on the northern side

Moving on to a closer look at the actual lease area

So the wireless facility again is going to be operating 24 hours. It's going to be unmanned

most of the

Lease area is going to contain again just a shelter with the outdoor equipment cabinets as well as a backup generator

Moving on to elevations

So again the proposed tower height is 110 feet tall wireless facility

Going to be consisting of 12 panel antennas and 12 remote radio units

Little bit hard to see in the image, but the wireless facility tower would resemble a broadleaf tree

with faux bark leaves and branches

Again as part of the special development permit request the applicant is requesting to deviate from the maximum height requirement

the maximum height allowed

For a group for a wireless facility within a group one zone is 55 feet and currently as proposed

The tower would be 110 feet

So these next three slides are just a photo simulations taken from different perspectives

Around the project site the top

Rendering's are currently

how the site or the area looks like and then the bottom

Rendering's are the ones where that show that future proposed tower

So in this slide over here on the left side

We are the renderings or the I should say the simulations

Are being shown looking east from Hazel Avenue and then over here on the right side

We have the view from Creek Oaks Lane looking southeast at the site

In this slide the on the left side the perspective is from Cherry Avenue looking south of the site and

Then over here on the right side is the view from Excelsior Avenue looking west at the site

In this last photo simulation on the left side we have the

View from Cherry Avenue looking southwest at the site and over on the right side

Is the view from Golden Gate Avenue looking northwest at the site?

So these next two slides we take a look at some of the coverage maps provided over by the applicant

Kind of the this slide and the next slide

Depict coverage with and without the proposed 110 foot wireless

Tower so this slide currently depicts currently the existing coverage

Without the proposed tower

And just to give you a reference of where the proposed tower

Would be located. It's in this red dot right here. It might be a little hard to see on the screen, but just for context

And

So this slide depicts the actual coverage with the proposed tower

As you can see the existing coverage

Gap is going to be minimized with the proposed tower

So I'll just go back just to give you an idea of what looks like beforehand. So this before and this is after

In addition to the coverage maps

Presented though they're part of the staff report packet and attachment eight. There's also coverage maps provided to you

In the instance that a 50 foot or 55 foot tower were to be proposed instead

As well the applicant did provide an alternative site analysis

That's attachment seven of your staff report packet and that report discusses alternative sites

That were looked at for possible co-location as well as installation of a new

wireless tower

As well as a reasoning why the alternative sites were not chosen

Moving on to advisory recommendations

So the design review advisory committee met on August 8th

2024 and their

Recommends that the planning commission find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines

The Orangeville community Planning Advisory Council met on September 3rd

2024 and recommends that the planning commission

Deny the request entitlements that vote was three. Yes one no one absent

Some of the items or comments I should say that came up during the CPAC

There was questions

That came up regarding the proposed deviations that are being requested under special development permit

I'd say the majority of public comments that had come up during the CPAC meeting were negative

citing concerns with the site analysis report the deviations requests

concerns with property values as well as the location of the tower within a residential area

Also, additionally the CPAC did vote to preauthorize a community-wide interest appeal

That vote was for yes zero no one absent

Should the planning commission approve the proposed project?

Moving on to project analysis

So the proposed project is consistent with the general plan community plan and zoning code as conditioned

The project is compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses

There's no significant environmental concerns

While the project was not supported by the Orangeville CPAC

The proposed project would bring community benefit as the proposed wireless tower is a first net facility

Therefore it would provide better emergency services

increasing the network coverage in the area and

The design of the tower itself is designed as a broadleaf tree

In order to blend in with the surrounding trees in the area

The project was also found consistent with the design guidelines by the DRAC

Moving on to staff recommendation

I do want to there is a minor typo up there. So just for the record just wanted to correct that

Should state planning commission not subdivision review committee

But moving forward the planning and environmental review staff

Recommends that the planning commission approve the following

Determined that the environmental analysis prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act is

adequate and complete

Adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program

Approve the use permit subject to findings and conditions

Approve the special development permit subject to findings and conditions and

Lastly find the project and substantial compliance with the design guidelines subject to findings and conditions

This concludes the end of my presentation

I'm available to answer any questions that you may have

Additionally, we do have our applicant team present as well and they are available to answer any questions that you may have

Thank you

Thank You mr. Wurtt

Questions for staff this evening

Mr. Cogman thank you very much for the presentations very thorough as always I was reading through the staff analysis

the description of the

Alternate proposed sites that were being

Consider at least on consideration

I know that has been kind of the the center of a lot of

Neighbors and constituent concerns about the proposed site there were some

I think some some letters that had indicated that they you know that their property

was one of the proposed sites and

was being looked over and

As I understand it and correct me if I'm wrong

a lot of these proposed sites were ineligible because of

Contracts lease agreements decommissioning

Some of the property owners just decided that they did not want to enter into an agreement with the applicant

Or have this kind of facility on on their property

Could you dive a little bit into that because I know there was a lot of letters being submitted

Kind of focusing on some of these questions, and I thought maybe you could kind of unearth that in greater detail

Yeah, so

pardon, so yeah regarding the

Particularly the alternative site analysis report. It's my understanding that the it's a requirement that we ask our applicants

In order to provide

Given that there's been again in the past kind of concerns about

Wireless facilities going up I

Had some communication with the applicant and transmitting some of those concerns over

It was my understanding that essentially how the

applicant team kind of

Determines kind of the sites and such is kind of the items that you had just discussed previously. So

Termination of contracts or lease leases ending

Inability to co-locate due to already

the co-location being

exhausted at certain towers as well as

You know certain property owners, maybe perhaps not wanting to lease

the site I know that there was I think some

miscommunication maybe some misunderstanding perhaps on kind of the

the report itself

And that's something that we had tried to work with both the applicant as well as members of the community

to correct

I would say in terms of kind of how we came to this site

I think maybe perhaps the applicant would be better suited in

regards to why they chose this site in particular

Kind of the information provided to us is looking at the coverage gaps in the area

The facility itself being a first net

Facility as well as well as the inability of again other

Items described in the report so inability to co-locate

Again lease terminations coming up as well as owners not wanting maybe perhaps the applicant could provide a bit more on that

Other questions for staff this evening Commissioner Bra. Thank you for the presentation so what that

So do you

So when you when you have an attachment such as number seven well the alternatives were provided

Do you this your office or do your team members then validate whether the information provided to you by the applicant?

It's correct because we you know we receive a letter here and I don't know

Chair if this is something that you're going to be from another law firm of a

Love an existing tower that's already received a permit that

Now we're playing a he said she said in here and so

I'm a I'm a little bit unsure. It's just it's not very many times where we get letters like this that actually

not even just directing a direct opposition to the tower, but rather just

kind of

addressing what was provided to the planning staff about an existing tower north of this that

Could possibly be a co-location

So I was just curious to see you know if the applicant provides seven different

Or in this case six or seven different alternative areas does your team then go ahead and actually review to say

These were then vetted or do we just kind of take the information at face value?

Or is there any other like other analysis provided to that? Yes in terms of the analysis

With the reports provided

We do tend to cross-reference again when we do our review of our application

I would say in terms of maybe the

Description at each of the sites as to why they were not

Chosen

You know, I don't think a staff personally like reach out to the property owners directly we kind of

Go ahead and essentially take the report and take for what it is

So when issues do come up like that from members of the community

I mean we did have a member of the community reach out to us and we we tried to work dialogue between both the

Applicant as well as between them

So yeah in the instance we do again take a look at the report

In terms of again the the findings that the applicant provides

I mean, we're not calling the owners directly. So hopefully that gives you a better insight on how we tend to review

Thank you. I appreciate it sir materials

But what might be the easiest way because I struggled a little bit over the weekend to try to find the maps a

map that would pinpoint all of the kind of the cell towers in the area just to kind of see

what we have as far as like a heat map or

just the proximity of

Of an app of an existing cell phone tower

That might be nearby is there a way is there like a GIS tool outside of what the applicants are providing which is

Specific analysis to their carrier service, but does the county have like a GIS tool that says these are all the existing

cell phone towers and

Up to how high they're they're currently permitted at yeah

I don't think we do have a mechanism or like a layer in our GIS or a sister's parcel of viewer

I think it's a great idea actually that you bring that up

I think that would actually as well help us. I think further and maybe kind of

Kind of prevent these types of situations to come up in the future

But going back to it we don't

What we would do or at least what I would do as a planner is

Essentially type in the assessment parcel and check every site just to cross reference

That's yeah, I do like the idea though of a GIS later. So maybe that's something I could talk with management

That we can perhaps work on in the future. I appreciate it sir. Thank you so much

Other questions first half this evening

All right, thank you sir, thank you at this time I'd like to invite the applicant team up

And we'll get you sworn in

Perfect and can you please raise your right hand and the appropriate responses I do do you swear that the testimony you're about to give the commission

It's a true soap you got and if you do not swear do you so affirm? I do okay?

If you could state your name for the record and then make this statement. I have been sworn

Good evening planning commissioners. My name is Carl Jones. I'm one of the applicants here tonight above 18 team my work colleague

Andrew Lisa

Here to answer any questions concerns the planning commission has got I

I'm also a resident of Sacramento County. I've been for close to 40 years now

I've had the pleasure of working with a few of you guys on other sites

Don't a lot of work with the first responders in the county

So

Living fulsome so I know this area pretty pretty well

We've done a lot of community outreach myself and and my work colleague here

And I know it's raised a little bit of concerns tonight, so hopefully we can we can reassure you guys and get your support

I'm definitely want to thank Irving for all of his time and consideration for this project

He's done a lot and we've been here to do anything. He's asked when we're here to try and

Clarify anything that you guys might have questions on tonight

Let's kick off with the elephant in the room

Can we talk about the cell tower site to the north is there a cell tower site?

to the north

That exists

And why is it not shown on the coverage maps? It shows basically no coverage to the north where this tower city

so I believe the tower you referred to was

identified in the alternate site analysis and

One thing that were required to do and kind of

Federal government gives a certain guidelines is to reach out for co-location and obviously that's the easiest fastest and cheapest route for most carriers to do

We reach out to this carry we have to work with the carry. We know that the underlying landlord

He's definitely interested in getting 18 T on this tower, but the tower company told us that this was not a viable

unavailable at that time

So we had a stick to that so it was identified in the alternate site analysis

I'm not sure if it's shown or in the coverage maps

That particular tower

It's blue where the tower exists, so that's my where my confusion is

And

Are you gonna join in and no, it's fine. We'll just get you sworn in sorry

I should have made a point of it. We'll get you sworn in now. Okay. Is there anyone else that may be speaking?

No worries if you please raise your right hand the appropriate responses

I do and do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give the commission is the truth to help you God

And if you do not swear do you so firm?

I do okay if you'd state your name for the record and then make this statement

I have been sworn Andrew Lisa. I have been sworn. Thank you. Thank you

so I just

just for clarity the

coverage maps show AT&T is existing coverage and so

Although the existing tower may be

In the map view AT&T is not currently on it. So it wouldn't show coverage to the north

Does that answer your question? Yeah, that is my question. So there's coverage that exists just not your coverage

Right correct from a first Verizon for instance was on that tower and I don't know if they are but if they were they would have their

own coverage different coverage maps and AT&T and they would

Have coverage further to the north where AT&T does not got it

But if I make a 911 call on that area, it's gonna be picked up by that tower, right?

I

Which area the our with the existing tower or where we're present for a new tower when we talk about emergency response

There is coverage in that area. Well, we're here and the item to where is like the area of the proposed new tower

which is lacking in coverage and capacity and

Again, depending on where in this area of the new tower pose that you may not have number one coverage. I

Just want to

Clarify mr. Chair which tell you talking about the new proposed location

The AT&T has a significant gap in coverage and they're lacking coverage

And so there wouldn't necessarily be no more coverage in that area. Okay

Questions for the applicant team

I think thank you both for presenting here today

So the the outside under site analysis was received April 9th of 2024

We now have under record and I think it would be a publicly accessible document

documents

From the existing party that's dated November now

1820-24 that does say that the existing owner doesn't intend to have a good faith open negotiation with your

Applicant team to possibly discuss about co-location. Is that something that your applicant team would consider at this point?

Well commissioner one of that's great question one of the challenges that we have when we're identifying locations

To co-locate on

We're actually working with who owns the asset which is the tower itself and in this case

American Tower owns that asset and that's who we initially reach out to for communication to determine if it's an acceptable

co-locatable site

Over the course of a year we worked with them and in multiple occasions

They informed our office that that is not a co-locatable facility and it's not available for ATT to collate co-locate equipment on

so although

To your point the underlying property owner may be interested

We still need the tower owner to be a willing party in this because that's who enters into a lease agreement with ATT

But I guess I'm a little confused though because it says in here and our report and I think this is provided by you guys is that

The ATC Tower owners have informed EPICS office that the underlying property owners are not renewing the existing tower lease

We revised that alternate site analysis

Analysis that must be the old one. We amended that to remove that statement

Again, it's it's like if Commissioner Devlin is American Tower Corporation. I reach out to Commissioner Devlin

Do you have space is this tower available to when Commissioner Devlin tells me that it is not available

It's not viable, but then the property owner that could be the commissioner

Rosalind says hey, I'd like to lease you ground space

Well, we can't lease ground space if Commissioner Devlin has told me the tower is not available. It's not viable

We have I think it's important to note too. We've had I personally have had conversations with the property owner

To clarify that and and oh, you know, they are interested in leasing more ground space and trying to work with us

But again, I explained to them kind of that conundrum that we have where

We're actually needing to lease space on the tower asset itself not the ground space necessarily so

The tower company in this case over the course of a year informed our office on a couple occasions that it was not viable for co-location so

you know

It's a it's a it's a tricky situation right where we're we're in a bit of a yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry

So I guess my I keep where I keep kind of going back to is like why was this tower not available is this

Yeah, that's a great question

I don't know the entirety of the specifics the there's many times when we come across this the

Underline property owner and the tower company do not have a long-term lease agreement in hand

There may be future plans to decommission and remove the tower. There may be

Something that has occurred on title or change of ownership or legality issues on title that are preventing the tower company from moving forward and extending the lease agreement

Honestly, we aren't

Priby to that type of detail. They don't share that information with us

They simply say if this is something we can pursue and move forward with taking an application and

Beginning the process of co-locating or if it's not available and in this particular case

Like I said, we worked with them for over the course of a year

We we actually looked at multiple properties that you saw on the alternative site analysis

and

And we kind of started with the American Tower location

We're told no began looking at other locations came back to the American Tower location on about a year later

we're told no again and

Fortunately, we're able to find what is a very large parcel in an area that's completely zoned AR2

To allow us to get as much separation as we can from neighboring parcels with our subject parcel that we have before you tonight

And I think we came up with a design and a placement among some existing trees

That's going to better stealth the facility even more so than the the American Tower location, which is unstealth so

You know, we're trying to do the due diligence as much as we can. Yeah, I would like to add to if I may there I

We had a lot of

community

Come back to me saying call it pick me pick me

I had quite a few homes of people very interested in this Salter and as Irvin had stated

A lot of properties are not viable. They're not the least intrusive means of doing this. So it's this

Particular project is it's again. It was handy for us because we live in Folsom

But I didn't think of four or five different properties. It also said, oh, I would love to have that cell tower

So we don't like due diligence and we it's been a long road to get here

And so it's not like we've just picked the easiest and the fastest route commissioners

I absolutely

Do not doubt the amount of effort that went in to getting to this point

I know that it was a lot I

Guess war I'm kind of personally

It's from policy standpoint

Maybe struggling as it relates to a new cell tower

We get a number of these and so as a

I guess a personal view of of public policy, you know, the fewer cell towers the better

I mean if we can if we can cover the whole city with one that'd be great

Instead every Monday, it seems to be another one, you know kind of popping up here and

Despite everyone's, you know best efforts. They don't look like trees

Whether it's a eucalyptus or a pine tree or

Whatever tree or a big tower

So these aren't really, you know particularly like

Aesthetically pleasing objects recognizing that they're essential to our modern communications. I think our

We would still like to have fewer of them. So in this position, it's kind of a bit frustrating to say

to to learn that

It can't be done, but we don't know why right it's just because they don't like AT&T like I don't I mean

That I guess that's kind of like

Where I'm struggling and I guess kind of related to that and that is there

I mean these tell cell towers are kind of I guess I would I think an argument can be made that kind of part of like the public

Trust if you will there are public service. They're here seeking entitlement. Is there any sort of like requirement?

that is or currently that they have the that they must kind of

provide

Co-location when it's possible or is this a discretionary action once they've received the

Discretion action on their part once they've received the entitlement to build the pole do they the then

Feliz holder of that pole have this soul ability to say well you can come here you can't

It's encouraged and planners can correct me if I'm wrong about that, but

Yeah, there's nothing directive or there's no

Penalty to refusing to co-locate

There's the risk of

You know not being approved I guess they can't find if an applicant can't find a place to co-locate

You know as long as you're making the findings you need to make there's always that but in terms of an existing tower

that

May or may not choose to let someone else hop up there. No, there's no obligation on them to do that

Thank you

If I may add to that commissioner

I one of the things that we've done in evaluating this area, you know AT&T comes to our office and says we have a

Significant gap in coverage that we need to be filled

So we identify, you know, where can we go that best meets code?

That is the least intrusive means that does fill the significant gap in coverage and in

Evaluating multiple properties including the existing facility

You know in addition to being turned down from American Tower

We we identified that this location actually fills that gap in coverage more significantly

It does a better job of doing that. We're we're able to come further down Hazel Avenue with better coverage

There's a lot of places of worship along Hazel Avenue that we're able to get coverage

There's a lot of homes

To the West that get better coverage at this location as well. So, you know that is a benefit as well

we also made sure that

You know, it's a bit in the eye the beholder of what tree type is the best use

We did look though at existing foliage on site one of which is a 93-foot eucalyptus tree

And so we did choose the tree design to kind of better blend with the existing tree line

That's out there and then we designed the site to be co-locatable to address your concerns of you know

There are other carriers that are not out in the area

There's other internet providers and things that utilize this type of infrastructure

And so that facility would be designed to accommodate them as well. Yeah, just to be clear. I'm not

questioning the amount of due diligence that you did and and

Your attempt at putting this in the best possible

Location with the you know fused amount of impacts. I'm not not questioning that I guess was I'm question is is

why you know American Tower

Why weren't they forthcoming with the with the with the why this isn't a co-locatable?

Tower

Because again, I just as a matter of policy it'd be nice if we had fewer of these in the community than than than more

Commissioner com

Yeah, I think I share the struggles of my colleagues here

you know, I'm looking at

a map here

in our in our packet that

shows 11

on-air sites and to plan sites

and what I'm interpreting is that

much as it was shed or shared before

You know when we have our

our regular

Commission meetings we have an applicant seeking to

deviate from the height restrictions and deviate from

the setback requirements in order to

forecast potential

co-locating opportunities and I'd like to see you know if these

Existing towers in that area that it appear to be within a two and a half mile

radius from the epicenter of the proposed site

Have co-locating or they squeezing unnecessary

Conflict and competition in order to yield a better return

Which I'm hope is not the case, but we're being forced to constantly

wave

these

ordinances requirements

What appears to be kind of

You know hopefully not unscrupulous actors and and and and not looking at

Bridging the digital divide is and viewing it as part of a critical component of the public infrastructure, so I I

Almost would like to see more information

on on these other sites and

really root out if these are truly unviable or

Someone's just withholding

Other is there a question there for the applicant team?

That's right. That's all right. No worries. I'm just making sure before I move on to the next

anyone

I

guess I guess I have two questions one is is

Sounds like you have a willing person at the existing tower site for a ground lease

So could you explain why you wouldn't put a second tower on that existing site?

You're talking at the site location where the American Tower is

Because you said a ground lease wasn't sufficient if there's a tower was there. I was just curious

I just read some of the residents comments that you know, maybe aesthetically they would prefer

Clumping their visual impacts versus spreading out their visual impacts and I go okay

I get some hey that already looks terrible over there. So I'll look that way. Oh

having two towers maybe

Better on that site if it wants not co-locatable or

Build a tower next to it which has for and take down the old ATC tower

I'm just wondering if you guys are in the business of building the tower

You know, I guess AT&T would build it, but then you could move the other three over and decommission the old one

Yeah, I think I

Don't I can't speak to the decommissioning of the existing tower. I don't I don't know the status of that

I do know that in evaluating the area we that AT&T prefers the proposed site location

Over that existing tower location from a coverage perspective. Okay, so there's a it it more

beneficially fills a significant gap in coverage that they've identified

But to be honest, we didn't do the normal level of due diligence to develop a set

second tower on that site location if I may speak to that the county code does not allow it

You can't build another tower within a certain distance of an existing site

In addition to the fact it wouldn't be the least intrusive means but it states in the county's zone ordinance

That any new tower must be a significant distance from an existing tower

So I don't think you can permittable build on the tower Jason's another one in sat county

I'm looking to staff because I haven't seen this in the code Kimberg it era is a senior planner

We do we do not have a separation requirement from existing towers. We just have it from different zoned properties

and property lines

My next question is is how do you feel about a 55 foot tower?

Because that's what our code

Currently allows

And I'm just wondering I think commissioner Conquince point is there's a number of towers around one these could be co-located

able, but if not

To me when I look at the map

It's blue on the top. It's blue to the north. It's blue to the west. It's blue to the east

Even a hundred and ten foot tower doesn't solve your gap in coverage. You still have gaps in coverage

Three out of four directions. You could go a hundred and fifty foot tower a three hundred foot tower maybe solve that

But you've chosen a hundred and ten feet

Which looks drastically or remarkably like the tower that's

1700 feet away

Why a hundred and ten feet why not 55 feet? Why not 65 feet? Why at 75 feet because I start to look at this

I go this isn't just an exception. This is double the height of what the county code

Says so can you elaborate on the height requirement and why not two or three 55 foot sites?

Yeah, we we did look and I believe it was presented. I believe it was presented in the staff report at coverage

Comparison at the 55 foot height limit. Yes, it's in there

So AT&T we asked them to evaluate it based on that they determined that at that

Reduced height it does not fill their significant gap in coverage. So

Obviously there is some improved coverage because there's a new cell facility there

But it's not adequately filling their significant gap that they've identified. So

That's the discrepancy with the height as far as other locations not having great coverage in the surrounding environment

cell facilities

operate like a cell individual cell that work together in a network and so

You know to Commissioner Devlin's point you do see more

Self-facilities pop up because they're kind of working to integrate themselves within the existing coverage and as that changes and as

Growth patterns change and density of population changes and traffic behavior changes and so on and so forth

new cell facilities pop up to fill those coverage gaps or those

Impacts to the network from density and usage. So

We did ask them to look at it

Unfortunately that height does not fill the significant gap in coverage

But you guys didn't do an alternative analysis to look at multiple

Site multiple facilities

Well, we looked at we look at what's the least intrusive means so building

Three or four facilities at 55 feet in a in the given search area

Would not be considered less intrusive than one facility at a taller height

Okay

more question

if

the

application is granted

for 110 feet it is

Is it the intention to?

Colocate that that facility

Yeah, absolutely. It would be designed to accommodate additional loading for colocation and what would be the height of that?

collocated on the

Vertical space on that antenna

Your op if AT&T is occupying the hundred and ten you know somewhere near the top I would imagine

Right, it's a leasing space below it. Where would that be located? Approximately ten feet below ten feet, okay?

Any other questions for the applicant team?

All right, thank you gentlemen, thank you

All right, we're gonna go ahead and open up public comment

First off we've got dr. Jonathan Kramer on deck. We've got Sally Weber

If you haven't had a chance to fill out a comment card and you'd like to speak tonight

Please grab one of these from the back and get it filled up and bring it up to us

Yeah, okay

Good evening. I'm dr. Jonathan Kramer. I am a telecommunications engineer for 40 years and a lawyer

Telecom lawyer for 20 years

I represent the star family which owns the property that you've been discussing the alternative that was not evaluated

Because it's owned by American Tower the tower itself is owned by American Tower

for clarity on the record

The alternative site that is not being considered by AT&T here that's controlled by American Tower is fully available

The discussion about it not being available

That's news to the owners of the property. They're more than willing the lease has come to an end

They're willing to extend that in fact American Tower was in the process of

actually buying a

formal easement for that and then they

Discontinued and that really speaks to the problem that you have a foreign corporation in Massachusetts

controlling how

Sacramento County is going to

Have its aesthetics impacted and that's the problem is you've got a key party who's missing in this discussion

so please understand that the landlord is certainly willing and able to

Extend this current lease enter into new lease whatever is going to take

Whatever is necessary. I provided with you through the clerk a letter

I'm not going to deep dive into it because I know you've had a chance to read and I appreciate that

but the the key to this is that

We think that the right action would be for the board here to continue this hearing to a date uncertain

To give several months to negotiate because these these contracts take a period. I've

primarily our firm works for local governments and

For private landlords and we do a tremendous amount of leasing so I can tell you that these

This process does take months

But taking months now as opposed to inflicting the community with a new tower

It's closer to the residents as opposed to an existing tower that's been there for decades and decades

It's not a good policy decision

In terms of the existing tower

Sprint decommission from it. So there's space on it. It's certainly available for first net

It's basically the best solution

That frankly hasn't been considered I

Think that's really without trying to belabor the points. I think that's like the key thing here

visiting party

policy decisions

And I would close on the fact that

If AT&T goes on to the existing tower it doesn't require a variance and

It's it falls under a different set of rules to the we call them the 6409 rules which

Basically grant them the authority to go on to that tower with a minimum of process

But again that the best approach here is one that doesn't inflict a new tower on the community where there's been one a legacy

Tower for decades, so

Thank You dr. Kramer open your questions

Thank You dr. Kramer. Thank you

All right, Miss Sally Weber you are up and I've got Blake star on deck

My name is Sally Weber I recited 8951 Golden Gate Avenue

My my property extends 330 feet across the front of Golden Gate Avenue and

660 feet back and I meet the property that we're talking about my northwest corner is their southeast corner and if

If this was allowed

well, I

Don't understand why you would permit it because if you're going to waive the height restriction

You're going to waive the setback

Then I am

Within all of those if you weren't waving them then you wouldn't do it because I would be too close and it would be too high

My house is right back right close to the back

My granddaughter and her husband live on the upper part with a deck that looks out over the west and what look right over at the

110 foot tower

It's just this is a residential neighborhood

It's a R2 just because it's two acres doesn't mean that there's going to be space between the people

There is not space between the tower and the people to the back of me or myself

I

Am here representing this community you have all received concerns from people you've heard how we are concerned about the

ElectroMAT the I don't know the scientific terms the technology though whether the waves and the

Emissions that come from these are harmful. Nobody really knows so we don't want it that close to us. We really don't

Given the uncertainty and the necessity to set aside standards that are there for good reason

Please deny this request. We are not experiencing any problem

And I'm hearing that there are sincere and viable

Concerns about having it go up that are beyond just mine and I really appreciate that I appreciate so much your service

I appreciate the fact that you're doing a very hard job and

This isn't necessary. It's not needed. Please don't waive everything the good standards are there for a good reason. Thank you

Thank You miss Weber

Alright, I got Blake star

I

Hello Commission I own the property where alternative site one is not the tower that is owned by my family

I'm not a benefactor to it

However, I did express that yes

It is available there if co-location of the existing tower is not possible

Then yes, the applicant can talk to me about leasing additional space for a new tower

There's like 200 foot smud towers there

There's already a tower with a generator already there the closest property with a residence

There's like 500 feet away in either direction and then greater in the other directions property to the north

They bought it for a church. They're planning to develop it for a church

and then the planned community to the east of that one is

Planned for a development. However, those residences the build sites are over 500 feet as well

So alternative one is truly the least intrusive to the community

In addition, I want to highlight that in the alternative site study

For alternative one they stated that it was because the owners didn't want to lease additional space

Not because it was not located in a spot for AT&T that they determined viable like they did with the other alternatives

So clearly alternative one is a possible location for AT&T

Lastly, I hope you guys have read the comment on the negative declaration that I included

I work with public projects and

They are very important pieces of documentation

And they shouldn't be taken lightly. I want to mention that

Just one part where it mentions that the generator

Any noise by this project would be abated by

There's the sound ordinance, you know county sound ordinance and then the next one it mentions that it is exempt from it

So it's like which one is it like when you're performing the study like taking it seriously

Were you actually considering everything or not?

It also didn't address the fact that this is via another tower

within 1700 feet from the existing one and

At least 10 properties would be located between 230 kilowatt generators

Now they call in stealth generators

But that's just because of the decibel that is reduced the dust decimal reduction not the actual decibel output

I can contest that the low frequency noise emitted by these penetrates buildings very well and they do travel

especially in a rural setting

so you'll be placing 10 residences at least in the

Path of both of these

And so when you're looking at hey, you know, I wish we had this question earlier

Maybe with the applicant like you know, maybe a postcard or something sent over like do you have any interest?

if the applicant went through and

Contacted the property owner rather than relying on here say I think this all could have been avoided

however, I don't think that's the public's fault and

I certainly don't think it's the adjacent property owners in the surrounding community who will have to deal with the generator noise and

The rear current beeping. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Star

All right, that concludes our public comments for this evening

And we can move on to deliberation

Oh, thank you so much at this time, we'll invite the applicant back up if you want to address any of the comments made during public comment

Thank You commissioners

I appreciate comments from the community obviously some of these we've heard and I think we've tried to address as well a

Couple things to note as dr. Cramer had mentioned that I think you I believe if I heard him correctly

He mentioned that the lease has come to an end that they have with American Tower

He also mentioned that American Tower

With drew an offer to purchase the easement that's in place there

so just you know been in this industry for a long time and

That fly that kind of raises some red flags to me as to whether or not they have

Some legal issues on title or maybe there's some concern that American Tower has with the viability of the project moving forward

I don't know I can't speak to that

but what I do know is it sounds like they don't have an active lease agreement or something that may be coming to an end soon and

They had some interest from American Tower and then it was withdrawn

And so that may be the reason we're getting the feedback from American Tower that this is not a viable location for to have AT&T

Co-locate on I know that was some of the concerns before

I think with regards to mr. Starr's comments

You know, I think it's clear that he'd prefer the facility to be located on his property

Obviously, there's some potential financial benefit for that

But I do want to make note that we did reach out to property owners

And I believe he took ownership of that kind of at the time

We were doing a lot of this investigative work

And so it as I understand it transferred some other from some other family owners

And there was some trust that owned the property before mr. Starr owned it

So, you know, it could have been a case of us speaking to some of the previous owners prior to the transfer of title

I can't speak to the exact timeline of that

But you know, we did investigate other properties up in and around his parcel as well

so I

Would just say that

Just want to just reiterate to the Commission that

We really do try to find the least intrusive means possible to fill the significant gap in coverage

We really do try to find sites that work. It's very challenging to find

You know willing property owners areas that meet AT&T's gap

requirements

Clean title reports, you know power fiber

There's lots of components that come into these types of developments

And so it's it's not on a whim that we select the locations that we do

We really do try to find something that works best for all parties of both

Yeah, I again, I just want to

Retreat the importance of improved public safety in the in the county of I didn't think it was necessary tonight

But I've had many times I've had the police chief on the fire

But telling chief come and talk on behalf of some of our projects that we're working on because they have witnessed

First stands when networks get saturated. This is an area that's under a lot of development right now

There's a school plan. There's I think four churches in the area, which is large gatherings of people again

I live in the county. I live in fourth one. We've got multiple cell sites and it's great

I know it's we have to have it. I mean the county's growing

So I know you guys have got a tough job to do

actually just renewed my CPR been doing it for 25 years and

the

Merchry spot that said that

They have witnessed you just happen to say what do to witness many many times and how sat County right now is

Underserved we've just first responders for ambulances, etc

Like a 45 minute turnaround time to get to Rancho Marietta some of the outskirts of the county

So and they got a tough job

But again, this is critical infrastructure and it's an area that's getting developed

And it's a very busy part of Hazel Avenue. So I want to take that into consideration and

Like Andrew said

They do not have a lease of ATC. We can't go if you don't have a lease

It's whether you're working on it. You don't have it's not viable right now. That's like we can't sit and just wait

That could take you as we just don't that's not how you know we operate

Thank you. Thank you

All right now we'll move on to commission deliberation I

Can kick us off this evening I

Think the alternative site analysis has challenges and

I'm not a fan of a hundred and ten foot tower I get there is a hundred and ten foot tower out there

That's not very far away. And so that may have been the

go-to height

For the applicant to come and ask for

I'm not hearing any willingness for a decrease in height to come closer to county

standards

If there was I could definitely check in with the applicant later on after hearing what the other commissioners

How they feel about it?

But my preference at this point would be to either defer and

Allow continued negotiations and alternative site analysis

To me one of the big challenges with this is that we're looking at this

This is a network issue and we look at a single point

in the network and

That is not the best way to approach this I understand it's constantly changing. There's multiple competing interests

And there's a challenge to doing that when I look at this I go could we not solve this gap in coverage with a more robust look?

And I personally don't think one hundred and ten foot tower is less intrusive or less visually appealing

Especially not in the case of Miss Weber's

Place I think the hundred and ten foot tower to her would be much more intrusive and much less visually appealing than three fifty five foot towers

That are spread out throughout her

Throughout that couple of miles, so I guess less intrusive all depends on the eye of the beholder

so my preference would be to

Stick to our standards

Or defer and allow the applicant more time to look at

an ATC second tower or some other

approach to this I

Would like to just I think echo the chairs concerns I

I heard the applicants rebuttal

with a common theme of

time constraints and challenges with time and and

And things were not available because of transition

ownership and and if they were given more time and so

I I think it's less expensive to

Co-locate an existing tower then to build a new tower. I think we've heard that multiple times

with previous applicants

but if

Time is is

What was the cited as the the constraint or the the challenge then I would?

Move to give them

Some additional time and bring this back to a future date for

Vote at that point

Thank you, I would I think share a lot of those sentiments of maybe giving them some additional time

And put the staff and maybe your attorney

Just this issue as a

More broadly not this project, but cell towers as a whole

I think part of my

challenges we continually

You know have these nobody wants a cell tower. We all need it. So, you know, they're gonna go somewhere

But by the time it gets to us it feels like I'm dealing with somebody's someone else's crisis

that is

part of some what feels like on the receiving end of an ad hoc kind of

Reactionary plan that I don't really get to see I only get to see this request in this moment

And then I hear well, you know, some other actors not willing to share their

For whatever reason we don't know

You know, so I guess I wonder out loud. Is there a better way of

dealing this in a more

systematic and systemic way

Can we get these providers

into a room like

What towers do you all need in the next ten years?

Like can we can you agree to work together? Can we can we be a little bit more intentional about this? Can we?

You know kind of drive some sort of cooperation

So we do have fewer towers in the most appropriate locations

Recognizing that we do need these things

but

But as they come kind of ad hoc it just feels like I need we need the tower and and I feel for the applicant who spent a

Lot of time and effort and and resources to get to this point

And that's frustrating. I recognize that

However, it doesn't lessen the impacts in the community though

You know when we when we place these things here, so I

Think I have some

Answerable questions beginning with why isn't this locato co-locatable at the Tower America or America Tower company?

Whatever the correct name is

And if maybe that current site isn't also a viable

option since we don't have

Distance requirements between towers

Thank you everyone and I really appreciate everyone joining us this evening. I do have one quick question for the staff

How are we on the?

The shot clock or the timing in this do you mind letting us know?

director Smith

the the tolling agreement ends in December December 6

December 6, you would need the agreement of the applicant to you know as has been proposed by a commenter

Continue to a date uncertain

You know if we do that and the applicant doesn't agree to that then it can just be deemed approved

So we would need them to agree to a continuance

Understood. Okay, so it would have to be an agreement with the continuance by the summer 6

7th or whatever that date that you have mentioned

Part of us here, too. It's also to to approve this that the sequel which I

Just have a couple other questions for the team here on on the sequel

a lot of the reference materials and again

I struggled because I read all 52 pages and I looked at all of the other

Applications that were provided by by epic wireless in other communities Lincoln and everything that's available in OPR

Office of planning and research, so that's available online and a lot of the information that was highlighted there was the 2019 FCC guidelines

The majority of what our county determination here is 90 96 and 2000 and then there's a language there for

Significantly less without mitigation. We're still looking at the area as a highly urbanized

I mean I can even quote it verbatim on one of the attachments and that's where I'm having trouble because

There could potentially be

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but there's there's been significant amount legal challenges if we were to deem the sequel to be completed and

Realized that there were some concerns on the actual document and so I do not know I am unable to tell

What's gonna happen in the future? But again

On just the sequel standpoint not not even talking about the policy

I do have a little bit of concerns and I don't know director Smith or

Mismanager Newton if you can just comment on those but again if you were to look at

Just page 42 is 40

Aesthetics letter C. I mean the language says that it's aesthetic impacts are subjective nevertheless given the urbanized environment

Which the project is proposed we're talking about an AR2. I mean there's gonna be consistencies or inconsistencies that

And if we were to pass and say that the sequel is adequate and complete that would technically be on us

In my humble opinion, so so that's one concern and again. I

Don't want to you know, I'm all about

You know providing an adequate opportunity for every applicant to state their case and doing not a big fan of

government having to

Unfortunately wait into free market

Negotiations, but it does seem like there's some information that we have where I think a number of our fellow

Commissioners feel that the information that we have right now is inadequate

In the number of years that we've sat on this board there hasn't been very many

Instances in which a viable tower that already exists that seems to have an opportunity for

Coalation was given to us an awesome alternative and so I think that in itself poses a question

As to what one are we putting a

High density and heat map of these

That's very closely tied together. Is that something that we need to discuss in our environmental document?

I do not know. I don't know the science whether or not frequencies

And I do believe that the 2019 FCC document does say that we cannot challenge the science however

it kind of remains a little bit silent about the number of

Number of towers in a given area on the run frequency

So for that that's a little bit of unknown in my humble opinion

But again regardless of the fact that they can kind of just move us by the first week of December

I'm not comfortable at this stage to let alone just

approve the sequel and

Where I'm having a little bit of trouble because then that would

The community members can then take a challenge in a sequel once it gets filed at OPR

Which then it would be behoove to us to say hey

You have to have asked the questions before you admit that the environmental

Document is adequate and complete and so again just through administratively. I'm already having a little bit of an issue

Second I do I go the sentiments of my fellow commissioners about policy. We do definitely agree that there is a

There's a merit and a public benefit to having the towers however

Given that there's an abundance of different things that are I would consider as minor flights or maybe major flights in different extent

I'm just not there yet or do feel very comfortable moving this forward

And I do would like to have the idea of having this continue to date certain

It seems like our council have already mentioned to us that that might be a move point

But I think that

For my fellow commissioners we have the responsibility to again look at every document turn every page and make sure that

You know, we don't leave any stone unturned and right now it's an opportunity for us to take a look at an alternative site

There's literally 1500 feet or 1700 feet there

Which we've never had in the two or three years that we've had this kind of issues come up and again just a number of

The density or I guess the heat maps of all of these tell towers existing that's very close to street

I think eventually there's gonna be some sort of impact that we have to kind of take a look that

Holistically and not just on a case-by-case basis

My two cents. Thank you chair understood

Any further comment or would you like me to have some discussion with the applicant or go ahead I

Think your mic's off

I

Just speak loudly

I'm sorry. Oh, there we go. I

Yeah, I definitely want to hear from the applicant and see where we go from here

But I think just generally I feel like every time there is a

Cell tower it's the same conversation up here. So I'm wondering if just going forward if we can

Have a conversation or we can I know we've gotten some information in the past, but I'm just curious the 55

Requirement or maximum in the county where that came from how long that's been in place

Is that consistent with other jurisdictions?

Just because I feel like we've never gotten a 55 or maybe those don't even come to us

But it's always 65 85 a hundred and I feel like every time there's the same conversation up here

So I'm just hoping for a little bit more

Clarity I think going forward if we're gonna see when we see another one of these

But definitely want to hear from the applicant where we go from here

We did that I don't know how many years it's been or if any of you were on the commission at that time

But the question came up is the distance the separation standard was it put in place?

Because or in part partly because of the fear of the tower falling and we did look into that

And as I recall the answer was no that wasn't it now what?

I'm guessing visual impact is part of that, but it what the concern wasn't because of the structural integrity

But I mean so there probably is if we all go back in our notes and our emails or whatever it is

And we could probably find the response that was given at that time you guys remember that that was I don't know maybe

It could be a year it could be five years ago

March of this year

Yeah, that's that's the way I recall it is is that it was an aesthetic

Call that was made and the idea is this you know the larger it is the further you want from it specifically

basically residential properties

But as we've we've kind of you know, I guess what we haven't done and maybe this what you're asking is is more of a

How many towers do we have out there? What size are they all you know? That's one thing that we have never

Really that I don't really have a grasp on right other than you know driving out to these locations and taking a look around

This we actually got a map of where the other towers are this time, but that's something I don't even normally see

That's in there

So is that what you're looking for more of a statistical look at yeah

I think more of that but I think just on the policy side is does it make sense or what does that process or we prevented from

But in or is there even appetite to increase it?

Yeah, because I think the conversation up here is like a requirement or max requirement is 55 and this is 110

So it's double so I feel like that's the conversation

Right if it's if we move the requirement up to 85 then it's not double and I feel like that

Conversation up here is different. It feels different

Absolutely

All right, I think we've heard from all of the commissioners now the concerns are on the table

Do you have a comment?

Yeah, I was just that Julie Newton environmental coordinator with planning

Commissioner borja is just going to shed a little bit additional light on your comments around the sequel document

the page that you were referencing referencing is our checklist which summarizes each of the

Topical impact areas when it comes to aesthetics. We do have a bit more robust discussion

earlier in our in our package and

aesthetics is

Approach for these projects and urban versus rural nature

As our sequel guidelines state for projects in an urbanized nature

We're looking to see if a project would substantially conflict with any policies that are in place. So with that

We take a handful of things into consideration

Including a visual analysis that we we look at the surrounding community with the visual simulations from our publicly available viewpoints

We also take into consideration

the feedback that we received from our

design review committee for their consistency analysis as well as our policy and policies and findings analysis to make those conclusions and

Then as it relates to the discussion around the FCC regulations

we we include a discussion in our document for

disclosure and transparency purposes, but we

Per FCC regulations we were not allowed

To regulate

Further those projects that are already meeting those standards. So as part of the submittal package

We check to make sure that that projects are

Consistent with those guidelines and then we include additional background in our documents, but we don't make

Significance findings

All right, I'll invite the applicant team back up after hearing commission comments before we take action this evening

and hear your thoughts or an appetite for a

Smaller tower more time sounds like we're under a little bit of a time crunch. Yeah, thank you commissioners. I

Appreciate hearing the discussion. It definitely shed some light on some of the concerns

So that was very helpful. Thank you a couple things

I just want to be clear that we're not asking for more time

We've been at this search for finding a suitable location to fill a much needed gap in coverage for about two years now

We have afforded the county I think two tolling agreements to extend the shot clock to date as

I'm sure you're all very familiar. You have quite a robust review process

Different than some other local jurisdictions that requires multiple hearings multiple meetings with different design review committees

And I think it's a good process

It does take a bit longer, which is why we had to extend the shot clock beyond what feral limits require

But we did get feedback from design review committees, which was overwhelmingly supportive of both placement design location

We actually worked with staff to slightly adjust some of our access routes and utility routes to prevent impact to existing trees on site

so I think we you know, we really went through the process with

Sacramento County and staff to

You know evaluate the design and how it's impacting and listen to all those partners as we went through the process and try to implement those

Concerns into design with regards to tower height. That was something that was not brought up

As a major concern, but it is tonight. I understand and you know, we are

able to reduce the height to a 90 foot

We have 110 right now in the proposal we could drop that 20 feet

I know a 90 foot towers is still a significant

Structure, but it's a it's a pretty significant reduction in height

We believe, you know, we've obviously my office has worked with Sacramento County on a lot of different projects representing multiple different

Chariders we understand some of the concerns of the community. We were able to get that pre authorized by AT&T's

engineers so we are

You know, it's not going to be the same level of coverage that we would get at 110 feet

But it's something that they believe that they can still fill their significant gap in coverage with a 90 foot tall tower

I just I also want to reiterate that when we did work with staff and we did work through the design review process

You know staff identify that this does meet general plan. It is consistent

with with what staff is looking for and

and

So it's it's our position that we would not be interested in entertaining any kind of additional shot clock extension at this point

And and I just again we asked the Commission to treat AT&T

You know on a level playing field with their competitors that are already operating the area and and allow AT&T to fill their

significant gap in coverage as as they seem

As I see fit and I think that is this project tonight even with a reduction in height at 90 feet

Thank you. Thank you

All right, I will kick us off this evening with a move to deny the project

based on insufficient site and alternative site analysis and

visual impact

Okay, I so I drafted up a set of written findings in the event that the Commission was going to

Go towards a denial. So I only made one copy. Did you ask me to do it?

Either we

I'd like to see them all to have them all see it so I can either we could put it up on the screen or we can make copies or

Oh

No, just to staff there was an alarm going off back

That door. I don't know if any I should be concerned about said alarm back there

All right, let's bring it up while we're working this

It was it was making it hard to hear so I close the door

Thank you

I

Can I work for you guys can you see it I mean I can read through them

It's getting better

Adjust the paper

Okay

Okay, so

I've got seven findings and

The Commission can you know you can edit these or revise or whatever you feel you need to feel comfortable with each of these findings

So the first one

The deviations proposed by the special development permit requests

Substantially exceed the ordinary development standards as follows

well

officially 110 feet

height exceeds the 55 foot standard

the 125 foot to the south and east and 204 foot to the north separation from the property line exceeds the

The 330 foot minimum standard

The

Significant exceedances exacerbate the visual aesthetic impact to adjacent residents

Second finding the proposed development is not of sufficient size and is not designed so as to provide a desirable

Environment within its own boundaries this language comes from the special development permit

Standard order findings in the zoning code the size height of the facility causes significant visual aesthetic impacts

external to the project site and the property

The proposed development is not compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area stealth design

Inadequate to imitate or resemble the natural environment

For the proposed development will be materially detrimental to the environment health safety and welfare of adjacent residents

Significant visual

aesthetic impact on environment and welfare of adjacent residents including reduction in property values

Finding five the use of screening stealth design and architectural features will not minimize nuisance impacts from the proposed facility

The stealth design does not adequately mimic or resemble the natural environment

Okay

We're at six feasibility of alternative site locations

The applicant has not meaningfully demonstrated that the manner in which it proposes to build a gap in service coverage

Is the least intrusive on the values the denial seeks to serve?

And that is respecting aesthetics

The applicants alternative site analysis does not offer a meaningful comparison alternative sites

That comes from the case law the common law on these kinds of applications that language I

Added three of the eight alternative sites considered were already infeasible due to being located outside of the service objective

And you might now add to that one that there is a question of fact regarding the feasibility of alternative one

And if that site could actually be used

And seven there are potentially available and technically feasible alternative sites

so you can discuss that if you want to change any of it if you want to

adopt it as is

But you have to adopt something if you if you are ultimately going to deny the project and understood

The only thing on item number one. I know the sequel analysis looked at it and it's it talks a little bit about

What we're looking at is public viewpoints versus the adjacent residents. I wonder if it's worthwhile

Saying it's not only the visual aesthetic impact to the adjacent residents, but also public viewpoints

Sure, if that is a viewpoint shared by the by a majority of the commission. Yeah

I'd say I'm comfortable with these findings with adding adjacent residents and public viewpoints and then adding on step

finding number six that

Alternative site one

May be a potential I can't see number six right now, so can we push it to where number six is?

Three of the eight alternative sites consider already infeasible do being located outside of the service objective and

One of the eight alternative sites

I

Want to word it seems to be technically feasible based on the information received tonight. I

Would concur with that yeah, I would that chair I would actually like to

Mr. Burke said a sentence

After he read number six that I think captures that that there was a question of material fact as to whether or not

We can determine at this time

if the information provided and alternative one is what we can go for so I think if we could just include that language however

Council Burke has kind of put that there

that I

Think that would be good or just leave it as is or make that change too

Yeah, I think I'm finding number six my wording versus your wording what did you say for alternative number six at one of the alternative sites?

Oh, I just made a note that

That there's public testimony that the alternative one site may be feasible

Period public testimony that alternative one site may be feasible. Yeah, got it

that works for the change in and

Finding number six and then finding number one just adding on and public viewpoints got that

Any other changes to the findings to be considered

That

Is a motion

We have a motion in a second any further deliberation this evening

Please call the roll commissioner to Sporha yes Conklin yes, Corona Sopaniano no

Devlin and

Rethal yes, and the motion carries

You look like you have a question there, okay

All right, that concludes item number two this evening. We'll move to the planning directors report

We'll keep it very brief tonight, although not as brief as last time just want to share some news

positive news

the county

Board of Supervisors last week

Excuse me two weeks ago now

adopted the

First community-wide climate action plan and adaptation plan

There's an anonymous vote of all five of the board members and we're looking forward to implementation in early next year

Excellent

We will move on to miscellaneous scheduling items

And the next meeting is on December 2nd

Do we anticipate anyone is going to be absent?

I'm maybe on that evening

And the only other announcement is that will be my last meeting

On December 2nd as I will be

Serving on the Folsom City Council and so have resigned from this board

After the December 2nd meeting that'll be my last one

Any public comments this evening and no additional public comments all right we're gonna go ahead and adjourn 7 0 6 p.m. Thank you all