 Good evening, everyone, and welcome to a special meeting of the City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission on March 14th 2019. This is a special meeting with one agenda item and we'll call the meeting to order and ask for a roll call, please. Mr. Schifrin? Here. Conway? Here. Spellman? Here. Nielsen? Singleton? Here. Greenberg? Here. Chair Pepe? Present. And I don't, I'll ask for any statements of disqualification. Seeing none, we'll move on to the public hearing. Normally at general meetings we ask for oral communications for items not on the agenda item, but not on the agenda. But since it's a special meeting with only one agenda item, we will go to the public hearing and item number one, the telecommunications ordinance. Staff has a presentation. Yeah, Mike Ferry with planning. Good evening, commissioners. So in 1996, the federal government approved the Telecommunication Reform Act. It established regulations on how carriers could site their facilities. It significantly included a section of the Act section 704 that says no state or local government may regulate the placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities. On the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC regulations. So what that means is we can't regulate on RF emissions more stringent than the federal government allows. And what we have done since 2000 anyway, since I've been here, is required each of these new applications to submit a radio frequency analysis. The analysis that we get with an application is modeled based on the topography, building heights, stuff like that. The power of the radio receivers, the antenna height, all these variables go into it. We would require a registered professional engineer in the state of California to do those calculations. If a project is approved, we give it a tentative approval. It can operate for up to 45 days. And then we ask for an onsite analysis where they actually go out with equipment and measure the RF frequencies that the situation or that the installation is producing. So in almost all of the facilities that I've handled, quite a few. There was one where they were going to have, I think, four towers in a cluster together. And all of those would generate about 10% of what the federal government allowed at ground level. Most of the ones that we've seen that primarily we're going to be talking about tonight are these distributed antenna systems that go out in the public right of way. And I haven't seen any that even reached the level of 1% of what the federal government allows. So we're allowed to ask them to show us that it meets the FCC guidelines. But we can't regulate the placement based on any health effects that people might be concerned with. We are allowed to regulate the visual, the aesthetics, and that's primarily what we're looking at tonight. So currently, the entitlement process for the cellular systems that are going out into the right of way take about 180 to 270 days to process. And that's because we have to go through the planning entitlement process, which is usually three to six months to get to a decision at a public hearing. After that approval, they go into the public works department for an encroachment and a road opening and all of those types of permits. That's usually about 90 days. So part of the new ruling that we're going to be discussing tonight limits our abilities to process these applications. And the limitation is 60 days for a facility if they want to use an existing pole and put their antenna on top of it and all their equipment. We've got 60 days from when the application is submitted to when it has to have a decision. If it's a situation where they're going to replace a pole or add a new pole into the pole system, then we have 90 days. So our current entitlement process with public works and planning varies from 180 to 270 days and the new rule requires us to respond within 60 or 90 days. Failure to comply with the shot clock will result in the facility being deemed approved. So to try to conform with these new shot clock requirements, we're basically asking that the entitlement process in the zoning ordinance be disseminated for these DAS systems out in the right of way. Public Works is currently writing a new chapter. It's going to be in the streets and sidewalks section. It's 1538, and they're going to have a whole bunch of regulations. They're going to have the same kind of submittal requirements that we currently have in the zoning ordinance, which is about three pages long. And last that, I don't want to talk about we're working with the city attorney's office with carriers and with the public trying to generate an ordinance that sort of satisfies everybody but still will get through this shot clock process. So I've got some slides. So on September of 2018, September 26th, the FCC adopted this dectratory ruling in third report and order in the manner of accelerating wireless deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure. So that was totally set up to get these things through as quickly as possible. The FCC ruling was published in October and it became effective 90 days after that, which was on January 13th. So the new ruling adopts standards and limitations when a local can prohibit or deny small cell facilities. The new deadlines, the shot clocks that I described, the 60 and 90 day shot clocks are in effect now. They also put a limitation on the fees and the rents that an agency can charge for using their equipment, their street lights, stuff like that. They generated new aesthetics requirements and new standards for spacing and under grounding requirements. So we think that we've incorporated all of those into this proposed public works ordinance. The public works ordinance doesn't go through the planning commission. You don't have a purview over that. It doesn't go to the public works commissions. It goes straight to the city council for approval. So we are going to bring the result of tonight's ordinance request with that public works new ordinance to the city council on. Should I put a note in here somewhere? April 9th. So the city council will hear both of those ordinances on April 9th. We'll probably be co-presenting it both myself and someone from public works so that it hopefully makes sense to the city council. So I've already explained the Shotcock rules, the 60 and 90 day. In terms of aesthetics, the FCC says that the requirements have to be reasonable. So it kind of has to be in line with other utilities that are going in the right of way. Which is kind of tricky because we don't have any regulations over PG&E. They can put a poll and they're transformers and all that stuff where they want. These guys, at least, we can apply some reasonable aesthetic requirements. It must be nondiscriminatory and that's going to be an interesting one if they compare themselves to current folks that use the public right of way like PG&E, for instance. And primarily, and what's important is that it has to, those guidelines have to be published in advance of that date, April 15th, 2019. And it's not clear if we miss that date that we can come back later and publish something in terms of design guidelines. So we are on a pretty good crunch. I did include the design guidelines for you guys. Many of you commissioners have seen these before. These are examples of facilities that had been installed that don't have guidelines. And they have all kinds of crazy approaches to this. They've got arms that come out of the telephone pole and they put the antenna on top. And then they've got their radio remote units in a box. They've got PG&E electric meters down here, switching equipment in this box. They're all resting, there's graffiti on them. Here's another example of the same kind of thing. E-cals, this one has outrigger arms that hold the antennas that are facing the directions that they want the antennas to go. And then all the associated equipment just bolted to the pole. And that's what we're trying to avoid by having these design standards. And the design standards are basically going to look for designs like this. Where all the cabling is and the antennas are within a shroud. If it's a city street light, all the wiring will go down inside of the light pole. We're not going to allow traffic signals to have these, but this was a good example of what a street light might look like in the future. All the wiring and all that stuff, the antenna in the shroud, and then the wiring going down. These are some other examples. And we sort of developed this by coming to you folks. I don't know how many times we came up here, 15, 16, 20 times something. And we kind of slowly whittled down what you would go for and what you wouldn't go for. We started indicating this to our applicants and they started to respond. And I think a lot of other agencies have also come up with the design guidelines that are pretty similar to this. So in the zoning ordinance right now we regulate all cell installations on public and in the right of way. And what we're proposing is that all of these smaller systems in the right of way are eliminated. You can flip through the existing telecom ordinance and see the strike out and underline language, we define what a small cell is. That definition comes directly from the FCC. And I think the intention behind this whole thing is they're going to roll out a lot of these throughout the city. We've heard numbers like 100 of them. About a year ago, we were at a conference over the hill and there was an AT&T representative that said that this new distributed antenna system is what they were going to be looking for in the future. They allowed them to locate in residential districts where the more robust cell towers that we've seen for the last 15 years, those have all gone on private property. You've seen the fake trees and the monopoles and all these various things. They came up with an engineering solution that to them is more appealable in residential neighborhoods. So that's really what this is. We're trying to meet the new shot clock deadlines so that projects aren't deemed approved. And we're trying to come in under the wire with a design ordinance that gives us some sort of aesthetic control over the situation that we're finding ourselves in. We do have representatives from the city attorney's office. I thought we were going to have a representative. We do have a representative from the public works department. So if we have questions on what that ordinance is look like, but it's evolving right now. So we do have those two folks if you have any either legal or public works types of questions. And then I'm available, this is the rest of the presentation. We're hoping that you guys approve the recommended ordinance revisions and that you've looked through the design standards that we've got. And you either make suggestions or recommend that the city council approve that as well. So I can answer any questions you might have. Thank you. So commissioners, any questions for staff before we go to public comment? And then we'll come back to commission to see what we want to do with it. Commissioner Spellman? Yeah, one question on a clarification on the new public works ordinance and how that meshes with the wireless ordinance that we're proposing. We know that that's just controlling certain elements that are in the right of way that have to be dealt with. Yeah, it was unclear how that. So right now we've got this entitlement process and planning. That takes the gargantuan amount of the time that the whole process takes. And then after that, they go to public works. So it's an either or. So the smartest thing, what we think is the smartest thing is to eliminate it from planning and then just go to public works. So they'll apply for, they'll generate a name for this. It'll be a public works permit and they'll run that through within that time frame that they have to run it through. So I think what we're envisioning is that somebody will go to the public works counter. They'll say, what do we have to do to apply to one of these things? They'll get handed a list of submittal requirements and then they'll have all the stuff that we currently have in the zoning ordinance in terms of submittal. Which is exhaustive, it'll have a RF report, photo simulations, they'll require all of that stuff. They'll send one of those sets of plans to planning and then I'll get that set of plans and I'll look at it and compare it to the design guidelines and then I'll give a recommendation or comments to public works. Ultimately, it'll be the public works director's call. There's going to be some situations like we ran into in front of the Safeway on Morrissey. Where when the actual permit plans came, there was all kinds of trenching that was going to be required throughout that intersection. Public works had just paved that road, so they really didn't like that. So they sort of battled back and forth in a situation like that. The public works director might think that it's a better idea, a better solution to put some of this stuff on the pole, some of the equipment. So, the way we're thinking now is ultimately it's going to be the public works director's call. I don't know that that will happen all of the time, or not all of the time. I don't think that will happen very often, but we do want that in there. Did that answer your question, Peter? One other question is, so I don't know if it was two years ago, we had, I want to say almost 200 of these potentially coming before us that all of a sudden went on hold. I think there was some ruling that was going to come out supposedly in their favor. And so they were all just going to wait and go for the easier process. Is this where we are now? This is the easier process theoretically for the approval? I can't really say why they went on hold. My theory is that's what happened. There's also a state bill circulating that was going to be just as extreme as this new bill that was approved by the feds. So I think they were holding for one or the other of those legislative things. I haven't been hearing from any of them, so I can't really answer that. Thank you. Mr. Schifrin, did you have questions? A couple of questions. Sure. The encroachment permit from that would be given by the Public Works Director is appealable to the city council or not? I believe at this time that we are adding an appeal section to that. Well, commissioners, my name is Joshua Spangard, Senior Civil Engineer of Public Works. Yes, it will be appealable to the public to city council. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. My second question has to do with the language and the ordinance. You'll remember I had a concern that there was no formal tie-in between the ordinance and the design guidelines. And you sent me back some language for section 24121510, I think it was. 1410, number seven? Yes, and where you suggested adding the language at the end of seven. So it would read small self-assilities located in a public right of way, which is subject to the requirements of Chapter 1538 of the municipal code. And then you added the language, which I was wondering about. And small cell standards and guidelines policy adopted by the city council. So you didn't mention that in your staff report. Is that part of the staff recommendation to have that language added? Yeah, what I had sent you was, I said that's a good suggestion. We already had this written and the staff report was already written, so I couldn't change anything at that point. But if you read that into the record, we can certainly include that there. Okay, thank you. Sure. Any other questions from commissioners or staff? We'll invite the public to share your comment on this. We invite everyone to line up on the right side of the room. We invite you to state your name, if you would. Please sign in and everyone will have two minutes to address the commission. And after we don't have a dialogue back and forth, we'll just receive your comments. And then we'll close the public hearing and deliberate as a commission on how to decide whether we're going to move forward with this. Thank you for being here and welcome. Come on up. I am Mariposa, and I'm here to speak for the butterflies. And also for the bees, here they are. We can't forget our friends, they have no voice. And neither do we, we don't even have a choice anymore. When a person picks up a cell phone, it has a warning in it. It doesn't put it on the outside like cigarettes or alcohol. That it's deleterious to all living things and kills babies and causes cancer. All these are proven facts. Scientific facts, not suggestions or supposes. So if we are not allowed to opt out, like we did when PG&E mandated, that we had to have a smart meter, then we don't have any rights as citizens anymore. We're just corporate beings to be counted and expelled and to suffer. I suffer constantly, that's why I know about the bees and the butterflies. They are suffering too. And to mention the birds, the bees, the butterflies, the trees. Every living thing vibrates with, and we have to have sleep. And it says here that we also have rights of equality here. And supposedly as citizens. And yet, the firefighters are allowed to opt out, and the first responders are allowed to opt out. But everyone else's hands are tied by the laws of the land. These laws are draconian, and they're not acceptable. First of all, that's it. Thank you for your comment. So thank you for your service. I know you all are having to listen to a lot of things and make important decisions, and I appreciate that. Is there any chance that I could have a little more than two minutes? Because I have two or three things that I'd like to talk about. About three minutes. Okay, can you change that test? My name's Rico Baker, and I came here to go to the university. I was in the first class at Stevenson in 1965, 66. And I'm a Navy veteran, and I happen to be very sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies. Part of it come from the Navy and being a year in Vietnam, not only getting sprayed with Agent Orange and other things. But my job on the ship was also something where I was around radar and a lot of other electronic equipment as a quarter master. Anyway, I have sensitivity to electromagnetic frequencies. And I'd like to give you a little bit of a background, because part of what's going on here is that we don't really understand electricity. We never really have, it's magic, right? We just think, wow, we plug things in, and especially Wi-Fi, we do something here. And over there, something happens. But what happens is there's a signal sent between the antenna and the receiver. And whatever's in between, if you imagine that there's enough power now and they keep upping it all the time, one of these rules that we're supposed to stay beneath have anything to do what the real meaning is on a human body, and they were made many years ago. So we're talking about something, first of all, that is dangerous, and it's dangerous at a level much lower than what's set. So that's just one thing. The other thing I want to talk about is something that you all are actually where the rubber meets the road. You get to make some decisions for we the people. And what I want you to know is because of the Constitution, and I don't know if you guys take an oath or not. I know that the city commissioners do, or the city council. But what it says is that it's not only the right, but it's the duty of the state if the federal government gets out of line. Right now the FCC is made up of people that are, there's going to be trillions of dollars made on this deal with the 5G that they're now trying to roll out. The towers that you're listening about now are just a step in that direction. They want to put hundreds of these, thousands of these up, and they want to put 20,000 satellites. So it's an important decision, and I hope you'll really think about it on a very deep level. You have not only the right, but the duty, if the federal government is doing something that hurts the people. It's your duty to say the feds. Thank you for your comments. I'm Glenn Chase, I'm a professor locally. Can I have three minutes please? I've been called by about four people to please come here tonight and talk to you. That's why I shouldn't have done that, but sure. Go ahead, three minutes. I've worked with the city and the county on the light brown apple moth and was key to stopping. And I've also worked with the court on the, getting the opt out for the smart meters. Real quickly, I have a handout that I'll give you when I leave. But if you, they call it a wireless radiation electromagnetic, the insurance companies. So I Googled electromagnetic radiation and insurance and it says, insurer Lloyds of London has excluded any coverage for injury resulting directly or indirectly from electromagnetic radiation. The second sheet says, world health organization possibly carcinogenic to humans. The third sheet is a disclosure by Verizon and there is one of these for each wireless company. Notice it's to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, not to the public. It says, our wireless business also faces personal injury and consumer class action lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of radio frequency transmitters. We may be required to pay significant wards or settlements. They're not required to divulge to disclose frivolous lawsuits. The next sheet is a fact sheet on cell tower health studies that are done around the world and they're more free to speak about this because they don't have the parent company located within their national boundaries like we do. And then another one and this one has animals because a lot of people that care about things tend to care about animals. And of course, it talks about the problems with animals. Here's the safety distance from these transmitters. It varies from 500 to 1,000 feet to be safe. And the final sheet is a nationwide insurance company policy that's been cut and pasted so you can see the relevant items so I didn't bring something that was two inches thick. It shows that nationwide insurance also will not cover electromagnetic in any way. But the grouping is they exclude asbestos, electromagnetic, lead, and radon. I would encourage you, whatever method you have, do not fast track this for the simplicity of administration. In some number of years from now, I wish it was ten years ago, they won't be allowed to do this. It's just like asbestos, it's like lead, it's like methyl bromide. It's more difficult because we can't see this. I'm an expert in environmental toxins, people smell pesticides, they trust you. And if they can't see it and they've got an addiction to a phone, which you only need to be about so far away for relative safety, but not the towers. The towers are the significant bombs of this toxin. And I hope you can not fast track this. Thank you so much. Steve Goncannon, lifetime resident, born and raised in Santa Cruz, benefited from being here, going to school, etc. Mr. Chase brought up in another meeting that these rulings that were so well talked about are subject to interpretation, the FCC. And these rulings, I feel, are biased. This, what do we call it, partnering now with these big companies, Verizon and such, with the federal government and big business, could be disastrous. Now one attorney looked into this and said we would be better off to make a stand now. And the rumor is Verizon will go against the city and I would say let them. We have attorneys, we have a voice. Because the repercussions, as Mr. Chase has said, they're going to be phenomenal. Far exceed the cigarette industry. I don't know if they'll exceed the drug problems we're having with addiction. But this fast track needs to be slowed down. Our decision making, our jurisdiction needs to be here. California now is standing up to stage fright versus federalism. It's our job, and most of us think of ourselves as well balanced states rights people. And we have things pending at Sacramento now and we need time to review this. So fast tracker, as they call this, shotgunning or whatever. I think it's going to get us in the foot. So I want to leave something for those that come behind us. And this is crisis. This is about as serious as anything I've come up with in my lifetime. I'd like you to consider these things and I thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Good evening, I'm here representing EMF aware. I would like to have three minutes to if possible. I would have requested that ahead of time if I thought I could. Okay, thank you. I've written you a couple of letters already. I think you've done some good things in the ordinance. I appreciate them. There's some changes I'd like to ask for as well. Other cities have incorporated 1500 feet distance between their installations. And what we've backed that up with is that Verizon's own CEO, Lowell McAdam, I've sent you a video of it, has quoted that these frequencies can travel 2000 feet or more. There is no line of sight problem with that. So there's no reason whatsoever that they need to be as close as they're saying they do. And that would help a lot. It would know, but it takes away from people's, the value of their homes. I mean, it's really too bad to have to just only talk about these things. I'm also EMF sensitive as well. So to me, I could no longer live in Santa Cruz if this happens. But I know you're prohibited from talking about that, which makes me want to cry every time I hear those words spoken. Because it seems completely absurd that a government could say you cannot talk about health or the environment and rule on those grounds. But I would also like to add that I was really concerned about moving everything to the public works department. Because it seemed to me that the public process would be completely eliminated, which feels very troubling. So I'm happy to hear we could at least appeal to the city council. But I wonder about that. So is that going to cost us something to do that? Because we don't have money, we shouldn't have to pay. I mean, some appeals cost $1,200 in the county level. So we should not be expected to do something like that. We do have a right, these are our rights. We can't be denied our rights to public comment. So also, I want to say what some other towns have done is when, with the shot clocks and actually there's a very good chance that these rulings are going to be overturned. There's a lot of legal challenges right now to the FCC's rulings. They are overturned and we get this new process in that doesn't allow any public comment or stuck with it. So it's going to be very hard to reverse that. So I say we should not be hasty and implement something like that. We, the city, the city council has made two resolutions opposing the FCC's actions. And so it's time for us to put some power behind that in our actions. So what some other towns have done is they have immediately denied without prejudice all incomplete applications immediately when they come in to keep the shot clocks from tolling. So is that the end? Okay, thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Hello, I'm Joanne from Scotts Valley. 4G is said to take our health and our well-being on the alternative media sites. 5G in millimeter wave frequencies in hours alters our mind and our brain. And if left in millimeter frequencies too long, you will have permanent brain damage. It's just incredible that we're living in a time right now where we, as a humanity, is being taken hostage by telecom, by an industry that's controlling our lives and our health and probably aren't closer passing away. And to be responsible for families and see this happening to your kids, your teenagers or your young adults, it's like we're not really living in a reality. It is absolutely proven that radiation is dangerous at any level. It alters human and animal cells. Cancer, diabetes, and autoimmune are conditions that come from radiation commonly. Cancer isn't something that comes outside of the body and comes in. Cancer are normal cells that alter from environmental factors, such as ingesting toxic foods, particularly over a long period of time. Toxic environment, as we know asbestos and various other things, and radiation. Radiation alters cells in the human body and in animal bodies. The scientists who say, who have been studying non-ionizing radiation for years, say that all human life and life on this planet will probably not exist if we actually go to 5G. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. My name is Suzanne Davis. I've lived in the county for 37 years. The current wave of unconstitutional regulations regarding small cell installations issued by the Federal Communications Commission should be a grave concern to you all. We have a right to health and safety in our own neighborhoods, corporations that have no regard for anything but profit need to be stopped. That brings us to the illicit, immoral, and unconstitutional laws being forced upon us and our municipalities by the FCC. A recent Harvard Ethics Study entitled, Captured Agency, how the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industry, it presumably regulates. Succinctly describes the revolving door between the agency's executive leadership and the telecom industry. The negative impacts of the collusion of the telecom industry and government on our communities is only beginning to be understood because of the suppression of information on wireless technology not sponsored by the industry. The health effects from non-thermal wireless radiation are dire, yet the FCC has systematically denied overwhelming proof of this. A vast array of worldwide scientific peer reviewed studies shows that this radiation unequivocably harms all life forms. 5G deployment with small cell facilities every few hundred feet in every neighborhood, issuing pulsed microwaves which penetrate deeper into the body than previous generations of wireless radiation will threaten every living organism. Do not allow this federal agency to take away our human rights to health, safety, and self-determination. Now is the time to make a stand for your own rights and the rights of the people of this community. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Bruce Tanner, thank you for bringing in the consideration of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. That protects people who have electromagnetic sensitivity, who are a protected class of people in the United States now. And we're going to be seeing many, many more. We're going to be seeing millions and millions of people who are going to be electrosensitive. Because the levels that we're being exposed to are ramping up all over. These are serious harms, in certain cases, permanent harms to our biology. I agree that the distance between these facilities has to be at a minimum 1500 feet. Lowell McAdams actually said that they have demonstrated at Verizon that the 5G waves will travel 3000 feet and they don't have to be line of sight. So when they say they want to have things incredibly close together, beware. The levels of exposure that we're experiencing now are, you know, there's nothing like them in human history or in geological history for the planet. This is being done by forces that have tremendous power and ungodly budgets. In a certain sense, they're waging war on the people of this country. I don't know what to tell you what to do. Obviously, staff will tell you that you're constrained in what you can do over and over and over again. They'll tell you that you're under the supremacy clause of the Constitution. But somehow we have to protect people. Otherwise, it is going to be an electromagnetic holocaust. Thank you very much. For your comments. My name's Alyssa Barnes. I've lived in Santa Cruz for 30 years. I want to thank everybody for their service to the community. I'm here really just to support the slowing down of adopting more radio frequency devices in our community. Many before me have spoken eloquently on the reasons why to do that. I honestly believe from my research that more layers of radiation are going to affect more people. And that we are going to be in a very problematic situation. We are already in a problematic situation. And I honestly believe that this will cause more problems than it will solve. So I'm just here to give you a heartfelt request to slow things down. Do not speed these through just for the benefit of the big business at hand. I believe that the FCC will be brought down. I know the problem here is that many people do not understand the dangers. I see people all the time with their cell phones and other devices. And we're not as a community saying don't use those. Just do what we can to slow things down. Anything that you can do is deeply appreciated. The 1500 foot distance is helpful and this is certainly not a question of aesthetics. So that's just really silly. Small communities like ours need to take the strong stand. And I'm proud to live in Santa Cruz and in California and to have that opportunity. So I just really support you and I will stand by you for any strong stand that you can make to slow down the telecommunications industry and to keep our community one that is somewhat free. More so free from the exposure to radiation. So thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Hi my name is Daria Sposenin. You know I'm sure everybody. Folks who came here tonight and spoke are well-meaning and passionate folks and so forth. But at the end of the day we need to rely on real science. There's not been one, there's no way to even identify or diagnose an EMF sensitivity. There's been no known recorded case of any ailment, diabetes, cancer, et cetera, due to EMF radiation. And in fact the peak, by the way, for full disclosure, I'm a electrical engineer with degrees from a bachelor's and a master's in EE and this is kind of my field. The peak frequency for where the body absorbs radiation is in the 200 to 700 megahertz band. KPIG is at 1.7. We've been radiated by KPIG through our bodies for the last how many years? 40 years. Has there been any known issues with that? And there's some misinformation I heard about 5G and millimeter waves. They're not absorbed by the body. They're actually reflected by the body, the human body. And the beauty of 5G is actually in the small cells because when you blanket an area with small cells, the power is much reduced as opposed to large towers that radiate more higher intensity waves which again are well, well below the standards for, set by the FDA and other institutions both here and abroad. So, and just from an economic point of view, I mean 5G is kind of the next major advancement. I don't know if you're familiar with the internet of things but that's where everything is connected and possibly including your toilet for that matter. And it's really, without 5G in this country, we're basically going to be a third world country compared to the rest of the world. It's the most, it is this infrastructure. Please be quiet while, thank you. Were you done, sir? Yes, okay. Most of the interruptions for speakers have been applause so I just let that go but please have respect for fellow members of the public when they're speaking like they have when you were speaking and hopefully we can all share, hopefully we can all respect one another and listen to comment whether we agree with it or not. Thank you for honoring that. Welcome. Jackie Griffith. Almost 40 years here and 12 years on different city commissions and county commissions. I think this is really unconstitutional. We have an ADA. I want to suggest that everything that this man just said to you, it's like if you go back 15 years or so, it's what was being said about Roundup earlier, it was said about DDT and we all found out how that was and now we found out that Roundup is also cancer causing. I was exposed and went through four major surgeries from a pesticide exposure in my mom and dad's business. So I was very sensitive when Roundup came out. I could smell it. I would get sick every summer, but here's the point. People didn't really believe me. They would say just the same kind of thing that this guy has said. If you allow this to go through just so it has to be appealed. This is really getting, taking, there won't even be a knowledge of when people are sickened by this. I saw a lot of people have to move out of Santa Cruz before we were able to get it off the parks and off the highway and off the city street medians for pesticides. The same thing here, but there's no way they're trying to box us in. I think this is a matter of free speech. It's a matter of the Americans for Disabilities Act, and you're not even going to know what's happening under this thing. So do everything you can. I would say stand up. I stood up on Vietnam. I stood up on the pesticides and several other things since then. We've got to take a stand, please. Thank you for your comments. Hi, I'm Gil Necunam. And one of our party asked me to repeat something they could not say, which is they're asking if you're willing to show liability insurance. If anything, anyone is harmed from this. Another person is asking if you can delay this until the FCC investigation, which is in process now and wait until they're fully investigated because they are a captured agency. Another thing is that Barry Trower came out of retirement just for the purpose of this technology being deployed. He's a Royal British Navy microwave weapons expert. And this is a quote from him. He says, to my knowledge, microwave or radiation sickness was first reported in August 1932. With the symptoms of severe tiredness, fatigue, fitful sleep, headaches, intolerability, and high susceptibility to infection. The paradox, of course, is how microwave radiation can be used as a weapon to cause impairment, illness, and death, and at the same time be used as a communications instrument. The Russians beamed the American Embassy during the Cold War, and it gave everybody working in the Embassy cancer, breast cancers, and leukemia. And it was realized then that the low-level microwaves were the perfect stealth weapon to be used on dissident groups around the world because you could make dissident groups sick, give them cancer, change their mental outlook on life, without them even knowing they were being irradiated. The people here really represent thousands and thousands of people in this community that have no idea this meeting is going on or that this technology is being deployed. It is not widely known. When you say when we hear from government officials that your hands are tied by these rules, it's like saying you can't fight for your own life. Thank you for your comments. My name is Esther Francis, and I've been here since 2012. And I'd like to speak up on behalf of the infants and the young people who will be most affected by this kind of proposal, who don't have a voice yet. I have a friend on the East Coast who got a brand new electric car and had to get rid of it six weeks later because of her sensitivity. She broke out in a rash. She couldn't be in it. I have other friends here in our local neighborhood who have had rooms next to a smart meter, and they have not been able to sleep in their rooms because of their symptoms. So I know that from firsthand experience that people do have these sensitivities, which is a health issue, and these things aren't even reported, the cases I know of. So that's, I feel like the research is there and it really behooves us to look into it. And to not be in a hurry, I know there were doctors who said tobacco wouldn't hurt you and all the other things that have been shared. So that's what moves me to speak up. I think it's a really real concern and has to do with health freedom and our rights to live a full life. So thank you for listening. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else like to address the commission? This is your last chance. I'm going to, yeah, just one, one time, one time for everyone. Welcome. Hi, my name is Jane Meal. One of the concerns that I have is that actually this is a project and it would need an EIR in order to really evaluate the effects of these 5G. The other point that I want to make is that as we know, we're in the midst of climate change and we have much higher winds than before. These towers are mounted to the PG knee poles, which make them higher. And when you watch, you can see that those poles move very differently from the ones that do not have the towers on it. And I think that should be considered too. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comment. My name is Rhonda Haifs and I want to thank you for including the ADA accommodation with your plans. I have EMF disability. My life has changed greatly since all this stuff has started coming in heavily. I'm no longer able to work and it's cut my social security, so I'm, you know, really struggling and of course I can't get my health taken care of either because of all our medical scenarios here. I would like us to pull together with all the other cities around the bay and in California who are fighting this successfully. It's being done. We don't have to roll over. We can join together with the others that are pulling this off. We don't have to just, you know, I feel like we're becoming like a country that we all quote now is, how did that ever happen during World War II? And it seems like we're just becoming, you know, like robots and responding to corporate rule. I would hope that we would stand up for our community, look at this more closely. We do have civic rights. I don't want to see those go away for a faster process. So I hope you guys will consider that. That's about all I have to say on this topic. I feel very, I can't even believe this meeting is happening. It's so mind blowing to me. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. This will be the final speaker unless anyone else would like to line up and address the commission. Welcome. Hi there. My name is Carol Pretty. I'm from Soquel and the reason I would like three minutes if possible. The reason I'm very interested is that my ex-husband did his PhD. It was titled Electromagnetics and he worked at Electromagnetic Systems Lab. And that man went on to become Secretary of Defense during the time that they rolled out the 1996 Telecommunication Act, which had a lot of input by the man who's now head of the Department of Justice, William Barr. So what's happening is we are really in the middle of this rollout that can't be stopped, it seems. So the more we can do as citizens, the better it is. I wrote a letter, I gave a lot of information to Bill Monning, and he wrote me a wonderful letter. I couldn't find it, I didn't have time to find it. He said, we really need to apply the precautionary principle. I know the gentleman said that he thinks 5G is safer because it's small cell. I'm not so sure that everybody is, if that's correct. So I think we really need to do something and take a stand, and I appreciate anything that you can do. Because when this 1996 Telecommunication Act was rolled out, less EMF came on board. This company was founded by a Chinese man in New York, and they know this causes problems. My commercial insurance policy lists RF radio frequency with lead, asbestos, and radon as an exclusion. In other words, nationwide, my policy backed by Lloyds of London is not going to cover any damage. I went door to door for the smart meters because I wanted to see where people were. I wasn't too excited to have that all the time because I had seven units. I didn't want seven smart meters on a bedroom wall. This is really harming people that live in apartment buildings because everybody has their Wi-Fi and everybody has their routers. And it's putting out a lot of stuff that you can't see. So the problem is it can't be seen, it can't be heard, it can't be smelled, it can't be felt until it's too late. And when it's too late, you can't sleep. You have neurological problems like lead. You have cancer problems like asbestos. It's a real problem, and it's probably going to be a great conundrum for our society to deal with. Because when you get, this is the biggest problem that we could really foresee. And when you get to the internet of things, we're basically helping things. What about people? We're the ones that are living, we're alive. So I'd like to see the precautionary principle. Anything that you can do, I think we need to talk to people that live in apartments. This has a, thank you. Thank you for your comments. Sure, that's right. I gave that to others. You can have one minute. Welcome. Sorry they didn't afford you that. My main concern is that we, I want to know, the first thing I have is a question. How much money is this county getting for all the right-of-way that we are giving or selling? Selling or giving to Verizon and all these other providers? How much money is this generating for you guys and for me and the public? After all, it is our public right-of-way. Number two, how can these things be put on these polls and shoot stuff right into our house 24-7? That's an experiment on the people. It's against the international conventions, including the Nuremberg Convention, to experiment without my consent. That's why I'm making a petition and I'm going to opt out. And I'm going to sue some bastards. You get it? Thank you for your comments. We'll close the public hearing now and bring it back to the commission for discussion and potential motion. Anyone want to lead the conversation? Commissioner Schifrin and then Commissioner Spellman. My first question has to do with what's really changing here. The city has an ordinance that regulates wireless communication facilities. Is that not correct? Yes, that's correct. Is there a process that applicants need to go through? And after going through that process, their application is heard by the zoning administrator. Is that not correct? Am I understanding that? If it's a new monopole that doesn't use stealth requirements as visible from the public, that has to go to the zoning administrator for the last 10 or 15 years. If it's a stealth facility that meets all of our requirements in terms of aesthetics, it doesn't have to go to the public. It's an administrative design permit approval. So is that appealable to the city council? Yeah, everything. In the zoning ordinance, everything is appealable. Okay, so without this ordinance change, how would these small cell tower facilities be regulated? Would they fall under the regular ordinance and have to go through that process? Yes. So I'm just trying to understand what's being done here, that as a result of the FCC regulation that asks that these facilities be treated differently. And that by treating them differently, there's a time limit that we have to follow, otherwise they're already approved, whether we like it or not, as I understand it. What the staff is proposing in the ordinance is that the way of approving them to stay within the time limit so they're not approved automatically is to have them go to the public works department, get a permit from the public works department. That permit would have to comply with a series of design requirements. How different are those design requirements and the requirements that are in the current ordinance? Are they more strict or less strict? It's a different animal. Our design permit in the zoning ordinance was really focused 99% on private properties where they would either erect a new monopole with antennas on top or they would put it in the top of a commercial building. All of our regulations are centered around. We just happen to include any cell phones or cellular sites in the right of way. Our existing ordinance says that and it even emphasized that that would be a good location in an existing utility pole. So we're eliminating that language out of the general or out of the zoning ordinance. But does the existing ordinance have aesthetic criteria in it or design criteria? In general design criteria and we're trying to be more specific with the new standards that require us to be more specific by the FCC so people understand what those design criteria are when they come in. And just the nature of these applications, they're in the right of way. It's not like they're on a building on private property. So they're right in the right of way. They're going to be very visible. So us generating these design guidelines will ensure that we get the facilities, the last slides that I showed you will get something that's a little more aesthetically pleasing than what it could be if we didn't have any control over the deployment. So under the current regulations, any application for wireless communication facility is appealable to the City Council. Yes. I'm sorry, it'd be appealable to the Planning Commission and then ultimately to the City Council. So there's two levels. I understand that but ultimately they can be appeal to the City Council. Under the new regulations, as anticipated, the permits from the Public Works Department will be appealable to the City Council. Currently the way the ordinance reads yes. Okay. I think that would be important to retain that ability of the public to have the council make a final decision on it. So really at root, while the time is much longer under the current ordinance to get to the City Council, ultimately that's the final decision maker under the existing ordinance and under the new ordinance. Under the new ordinance the Public Works Director would be the ultimate decision maker unless it's appealed and then it would be the City Council. Well under the current ordinance the ZA is the ultimate decision maker unless it's appealed. Correct. So I mean the reality is the City Council is the final decision maker if it's appealed. So there's really not a change in terms of the role of the City Council of making the final decision about these facilities. That's what I'm trying to get at. That's correct. And if I'm understanding the reality of the design guidelines in a sense they're more specific as they're supposed to be than they are under the current ordinance. And they kind of provide more guidance to the staff and more information to the public about what's acceptable and what's not acceptable in terms of design. Now obviously from the testimony we got tonight that's not really a consideration for people. But that's the only thing legally at this point we have the ability to regulate. Now is that correct? Yes that's correct. So in terms of the you know the testimony about standing up for to the FCC standing up to the federal government. The way to do that it seems to me if the City Council desires to do it is for them to sue the FCC and the federal government and join other suits if that's what they want to do. What a majority of them decides to do. But as far as this ordinance is concerned as I understand that if we don't adopt the ordinance then these facilities can just be built. We have no ability to regulate them. They're deemed approved unless we act within these new shot clocks. So by deemed approved means that they can be built. Is that correct? That's my understanding. We have the city attorney's office and she. Let me clarify it a little bit more. Not just talking about an application has to be acted on within the time limits or otherwise it's deemed approved. But what happens if we don't adopt the if the city doesn't adopt the ordinance within the time limits that we're we're facing or just decides no we're not going to do it. We're not going to adopt the ordinance. What I'm concerned about is that this would give the telecommunications companies the ability to say okay you had your chance you blew it. We're just going to put up our facilities and you have no right to stop us because you didn't adopt an ordinance that regulated us. So that's what I'm wondering is what's the effect of not adopting this ordinance because that's the testimony we're hearing. Don't adopt the ordinance. Don't go don't meet the requirements of the FCC. That's an option that the city has the city council doesn't have to adopt this ordinance. But my concern is from reading the staff report that that essentially means there's no regulation of these facilities that the companies can just go out and build them. And that seems to me to put us in an even put the community into an even worse situation than we have with the limited regulatory authority that still exists. So I guess that's my question is what happens if the city doesn't adopt this new ordinance in terms of the small cell facilities. And I see someone is standing up there. I don't know who you are but maybe you can answer this. This is Stephanie Hall from the city attorney's office. Hi, so speaking to your question, first of all the FCC shot clocks that went to effect in January. So whether we change the ordinance or not, the city is still required to meet those 60 days or 90 days. So in that sense, if we don't meet those shot clocks, they'll be deemed approved. The facility will be deemed approved and they can move forward without us being able to have any kind of conditions under an encroachment permit, for example, which is what we're considering with the public works ordinance. As for the aesthetic guidelines that we have until April 15th to adopt. And it's not entirely clear, but it seems to me that if we don't adopt them by then, then effectively they could deploy the facilities without us applying any kind of guidelines. So if we want the opportunity to apply some kind of design standards, we have until April 15th to do so. So if I'm understanding correctly, what goes on here is that with this new ordinance, the public will have the ability around specific facilities to appeal them to the city council. They may have the same objections as we've heard tonight. At least they'll have the ability to state those objections. If the city doesn't adopt this ordinance, then they won't even have the ability to state those objections because there'll never be any public decision making permitted under the FCC rules unless those rules are changed. Is that correct? I believe we still have, they could be appealed under the current ordinance. They wouldn't be going to- He's saying if they can build by right, there would be no public process. I think you're right. If we didn't meet the shot clock, so if the city did not have a decision within those 60 days or 90 days, it would then be deemed approved. But we would have no procedure for meeting the shot. We would have our existing procedure, which we've stated that we probably cannot meet those shot clock requirements given the public noticing requirements, the appeal requirements, and everything else. So that's, I think what Mike presented was what those timelines could be under our current ordinance. And that's why we can't continue with these small cell and public right away under our current ordinance just because we can't meet the shot clock under our current ordinance. I think Commissioner Schifrin, what you're saying is if we don't approve the ordinance, there'll be no public process and these can be installed. If we approve this ordinance, there still will be the opportunity of a public process. Is that what you're saying? Well, that's what I'm asking. Well, we have a public process, but I think people will either choose not to participate or they'll participate and we won't be able to meet the requirements. And so they will be deemed approved. So without a public process. Well, because we can't meet our own process. It's already existing. So we're saying we need this new process. Understand that. Okay, thank you. I had another question, but I'll wait. Okay, Commissioner Spellman. Thank you. Yeah, so this obviously is a very tough topic. I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight and sharing your thoughts on a personal level. We'll come back to Commissioner Spellman. Any other? I have. I remember. Different? Some of the testimony we heard was that the FCC rules are being challenged by various people. And the concern with the city approving the ordinance is that once it's approved, it's sort of set in stone. My understanding would be if the FCC regulations were overturned and new different old requirements were put back in force. And the ordinance would return to the commission and the council for revision. Is that not correct? Yeah, that'd be correct. So as we are forced to adjust to this new FCC regulations for these small cell facilities. And that's why this ordinance is in front of us. And I see it as an attempt to have as much city authority over the small cell facilities as we can have under the existing regulations. If those regulations change, as we had to adjust to these, we would adjust to the new ones. So it's not like this isn't a moving target. And if there's more information, it comes out or there are court decisions that come out that change what the rules are. The city will have the ability to change its ordinance and probably will have to change its ordinance to reflect those rules. That's correct. You have more about that, Mike? Yeah, I think we've got something in here about that. You're talking about the FCC changing rules and regulations? If there's a lawsuit that successfully challenges them or some constitutional issue that's been raised that is successful. I think we can always have a chance to change. Right. I just want the members of the public to be clear that from what I'm hearing Steph saying, this is being done because this is the most the city can do to regulate these kinds of facilities under the current rules. And whether we like it or not, we're governed by those laws. And I certainly heard from a lot of people that they don't like it. But as an institution and as representatives of that institution, we have to follow the law. And I don't think we have the ability to say, no, we're not going to do it. It may well be that we don't have the choice, but the city has the choice to challenge the law. But we are a society that supposedly is governed by laws. And so I think certainly as I feel as a member of this commission, it's incumbent on me and I think incumbent on us to really do what the law requires. In the ordinance that actually in the existing ordinance, it says the city shall review and may revise this chapter after a change of the FCC regulations, which state local governments may regulate wireless telecommunications based on their health effects. And it also talks about if the rapid changing of wireless communications that we can change things as well. So that's already in the current ordinance. Okay, and then the final thing I'll say is that the ability of, as I've seen over the years, the ability of local governments to regulate telecommunications facility has shrunk over time. And one of the reasons it shrunk over time has been presented to us tonight. The telecommunications industry is extremely powerful. And what I'm afraid of or what I suggest is not an unlikely outcome of the city refusing to abide by the rules is that the FCC will take away all authority at the local level. We've seen that happen with cable where the city and county no longer can regulate the cable companies. They were able to change the law at the state level. And what I'd be concerned about is if the localities aren't willing to abide by the rules that have been set down, they'll just change the rules again and take away what little authority still remains. And unfortunately, I think they have the legal ability to do that. So although that can be challenged as well, I think it's not an unlikely outcome. I'd be willing to make a motion. Commissioners don't seem like they're jumping forward. Go ahead and make a motion and then the rest of the discussion can be on that motion if there's a second. I would move that we support the staff recommendation with a change in section 24121410 to add under B7 the words at the end of the sentence and small cell standards and guidelines policy adopted by the city council so that it makes clear that the small cell facilities are to be governed by those guidelines. So you're moving the staff recommendation with that slide. Okay. Is there a second? Is there any discussion around the motion? Commissioner Spelman. So I'd like to make some other comments around this. I think my take on that is a little bit different. I don't think we are, I think we can do much better than the language that's presented to us tonight. If that's the direction we decide to go. I've done, you know, some research on this. Even in the past week, for example, Monterey's recent ordinance on their communications started essentially with a public committee, essentially that was advising the ruling and their wording of their ordinance. And if you read it, just if it gets back to public participation. Commissioner Greenberg. Yeah, I also wanted to echo the thanks for everyone sharing their experience and knowledge on this on this topic and it's a very sensitive one. And I think a lot of the frustration having to do with like this feeling that our hands are tied and what what is how can we be strategic I suppose within this kind of legal constraint that we're facing. And I guess one question I had, I propose what Commissioner Spelman is talking about. Some people spoke about the Bay Area having different kinds of approaches to this current situation. I'm wondering if the staff have reviewed other local ordinances and if there's kind of a unanimity in this or if there's variation in the way that people are approaching this in response to some of these concerns. So that's kind of one sort of a general question and I'm interested to hear what Monterey is doing. People brought up the issue of liability insurance and so while we're constrained by you know the higher scale of government and the FCC also the question of what would happen if someone were to experience some kind of effect of this and where would that go with you know in terms of our own liability. And someone, a third point is someone brought up the question of environmental impact or I don't know if this is subject to CEQA in the same way or how that plays into this environmental impact review. And I have a fourth question but I'll hold off because I've already asked three questions. So the comparative question and what your sense is of other approaches to this, issues of liability and environmental impact. The other agencies that I've looked at are basically doing the same thing that we're doing. I haven't seen any agency that was trying to write regulations that, based on health effects. I don't know the answer at all about the insurance. I've heard that before but I have no idea how to respond to that. What was the third thing? Environmental impact review. Oh, oh. This is subject in any way to whether individual you know installations could be appealed on the basis or you know would be subject to EIR or you know how that plays out. I don't know. The ordinance amendment does not require any EIR. If somebody thought an EIR would be required for one of the sites, it would have to be based on some sort of an impact. Right. And if it's a health thing again, we see less than 1% of the RF emissions than what the federal government allows. And our hands are tied when it comes to regulating these facilities based on health effects. Is it possible that we could conduct our own study of health effects or other jurisdictions could or you know given that I mean it's kind of one person brought up the point that there's a sense in the public's mind that this is kind of this large experiment that's being undertaken. And so it seems like an opportunity in a way to study these effects in a more systematic way. I don't know if anyone's thinking along those lines. I don't know if that's something that, how that would take place, but you're smiling. I'm just thinking of all the implications. I think the answer is no. The federal government regulates the health and we're partly enacting what they've stated. They're regulating it for us to try to. We do our own studies to make sure, like Mike said, that it meets those standards, but that's the best we can do. Yeah. Okay. Final, well, maybe I put a lot of things out there. Do you have any, do any commissioners have responses to those questions about? I was just going to follow up on your questions. Yes. I was going to ask the city attorney to weigh in on the liability issue because I think in adopting an ordinance, the city would not have any liability, but I could be wrong. So that's why I wanted to ask. Good evening, Barbara Choi with the city attorney's office and I want to address the question about liability. So as part of approving an application, we typically currently require an encroachment permit and the encroachment permit allows an agreement to be entered into between the carrier and the city whereby the carrier is required to indemnify and defend and hold harmless the city. Relating to its use of the city's public right away and also we require the carrier to provide to meet the insurance requirements. Now with when we, I'm currently in the process of drafting and master license agreement and that would be used to have the carriers enter into an agreement with the city and the city would be able to require specific terms and conditions relating to the carrier's use of the public right away. And in that agreement is one of the major requirements would be to hold the city harmless and to defend and identify us for relating to any of their use of their small cell wireless facility. And also we would impose insurance requirements for use of our right away. So the city would be protected. I have a question since you're up here. I should remind you use the mic if you can so everyone can hear you well. Did you in advising staff for for this ordinance change? Do you do research on what some of the other communities are doing? The reference was made to other communities fighting back and that type of thing. And do you research that so that you can inform staff in a way that's aware of those other efforts, a different approach? I'm going to defer to Stephanie on this. We're still in the process of researching that. But like Mike said, we haven't seen any other city base or regulating any of the facilities based on environmental effects of RF emissions. Have you seen them push back like creatively? I mean, we're dictated it's dictated on just aesthetics only. And so are they pushing back or is that have you have you seen them? There are spacing requirements that kind of thing, but not based on RF emissions. I have a question sort of related to that, which is could it be construed that the distance from a home or residential area to one of these installations, that could be considered aesthetic? It's not really a legal question. Sure. Yeah, if it was in the middle of a neighborhood, that would be an aesthetic consideration. It's obscured in some way. You know, we've come up with this through the course of four or five years of having these come in front of us and we've sort of whittled down to the point where we don't have much control. But the kinds of facilities that we're hoping they deploy are going to look similar to these kinds of things on the screen. We did look at other cities to see what other cities were doing, so we're pretty consistent with what other cities are. I don't know what Monterey is doing. I don't remember seeing anything, but I think we looked at Palo Alto and some other jurisdictions. The public hearing is closed. I'm sure that's frustrating for folks sometimes, but we're discussing what the commission will do on this if we're going to make a move. So we did try to, for the design guidelines, look at what other cities were doing and propose what's consistent with other cities. And was distance ever part of those design guidelines? Yeah, and I think from talking with Mike, there was some variety in what other cities were requiring. I don't know. You want to say how we came up with our recommendations? Mike, can you address the 1500 as well? Because that was a specific recommendation shared a number of times tonight. You could certainly change it. It's in the design guideline. So an allowance where if they can show that they need something less than 1500, then the public works director can approve it. So it's based on, you've seen those circles before. They have all their search rings and all this stuff, and it depends on the equipment. So I've heard in the last three or four years that these have had a range from, I think it was the smallest one was maybe 300 feet. They came to the planning commission and then some had a range of a thousand. So there is a different range. And I think that they pick the equipment based on the coverage that they're trying to get. Mr. Spellman. Yeah, I think those are the moves in the right direction, putting the limit on how close these can be together. We can make a stand on that and include language in our ordinance. Mr. Monterey, I believe they still have a public hearing process and still meet the shot clock requirements. It's truncated and it's expedited. I don't know how it actually works. I just read it today, but they're they're somehow able to keep that part of the process. Aside from a full on public hearing, I think there needs to at least be noticing to the public within some distance of any proposed installation. Berkeley has an actual full section in their wireless ordinance that deals with public information requirements, which again is putting the word out where are these things going? How many of them are there? Their city website is required to have a map that shows these so anybody could go and understand, you know, how insidious the infiltration is happening and how quickly. We can't keep ourselves out of that equation. So we were looking at adding notification within 300 feet. That is correct. That was in the original draft of the ordinance that we had. Yes. So we're still working on this public works element and I shot an email to you and I haven't heard back from the city attorney, but we are also suggesting that the carrier would conduct a community meeting at a public facility that was close to the project site and that they had the same noticing requirements. I mean, we aren't thinking about this stuff. We're thinking that they have to do the public noticing just the same as we do for planning commission or the zoning administrator. It would be a 300 foot radius. It would be posted at the site. They would conduct a meeting and that would be part of their application submittal requirements. And I might say that's part of the public works process right now for things that are going up right now. They do have to notify people within a certain distance of the facility. So then my recollection of their ordinance is that the public hearing is still required. So, you know, I understand the noticing that's a good thing that those things still happen. It's about getting the people out so they have a chance to speak and educate other people about, you know, the issues that are behind us or in front of us. You know, anybody that's done any research on this, you know, there's just too many questions unanswered. I had a question for staff about 6G will be the next thing and all of that. And then I guess we just, as written with the ordinance, would the change prevent the utility from ramping to a new technology or modifying at all? I mean, I know we can always come back and look at an ordinance, but are there constraints on what they can do? I don't know what, I don't know 6G. So if they turn into 6G or 7G? Eventually, I don't know. I know we can revisit it, but is there language that says you can only do so much? No. Okay. My other question was with regard to the number of DAS or other utilities that can be approved. There's not a number, a maximum per year or a maximum density on a block or there's nothing. As a matter of fact, one thing that we have seen is other agencies restricting the applicant to a limited number of applications they can submit per month because everybody's anticipating that we're just going to get a flood of these things. Limiting it to the maximum number. Right. So we'll say something like, and I'm not sure if we've got that in the ordinance or not. We talked about it, limit anyone carrier to no more than 6 applications a month, let's say. I had a question about the noticing. I was happy to hear you talk about the noticing, but help me understand. So the Public Works Director has the ability to approve these, if we were to approve this change. And then it would just be on a consent agenda for public, for city council or what? If it was appealed, then it would go to the city council. Otherwise it's the sole discretion of the Public Works Director. Okay. So this happens right out front of my house and I'm, because it's 300 feet, I'm noticed. Is that right? Right. Currently what we're discussing is having the applicant provide public notification and a meeting if people are interested and explain the project. Show them, you know, their RF analysis, show them a photo simulation of what the site would look like. And that package would be provided to us with their application. So they're going to do that work up front. That's what we're hoping we end up with. They're going to, for every installation. As they're going to reach out, they're going to, they have the burden to reach out to the public and then bring that to you. Correct. Okay. And then unless it's appealed, it doesn't go to council. Correct. Right. Okay. See my other, just looking at my notes here. Those are some of the only questions I had. Commissioner Schifrin. Yeah. I think we're, this is a sort of a strange situation. It seems to me in that we're approving an ordinance that's based on another ordinance that we're not approving. And that this all has to be approved by the city council by April in order to avoid, in order to be able to continue to regulate. So what I would suggest that we, what I would like to add to the motion if it's okay with the second is a few recommendations that we would make for provisions in this other ordinance. That is being drafted by staff and that will ultimately go to the city council, but not to us if I'm understanding correctly. Correct. And so what I would say is that I would like to add that the, that other ordinance, which would be the, I guess why I'd call it the permitting ordinance, include provisions for meaningful public noticing. At least a public meeting and to consider a public hearing to include a recommendation on the limit of the number of applications that Carrier could submit each month. So let me just start with those and get those out there. That's what I've been hearing from other commissioners about provisions that really belong in the permitting ordinance in terms of how the permitting ordinance is going to operate as opposed to this ordinance. And then at least that would be part of our recommendation that would go up to the council when they consider the ordinance to meet the timeline. So if it's okay with the second then. Notting commissioner Singleton agrees with that. I would add those to the motion. Pause. Do you want to add more? No, but I might have forgotten something that's important to somebody else. So I'm willing to consider more in terms. I'm feeling like we could be close to a vote, but I don't want to truncate the conversation. Other comments? Commissioner Conway. Do my best here to make a comment. I appreciate your earlier take on this commissioner. I am concerned about adding to a process that's going to be administratively burdensome and isn't going to result in any more actual review. I think that obviously there's a very high degree of interest in public participation. So along with your later comments where you're talking about additional process. I think process that in which the burdens on the company and not on the city and doesn't add to the administrative burden of the city to no effect would be important to me. I don't know if that was clear enough but I know that you're busy thinking about it and one of them is we want to provide an opportunity for meaningful voice and knowledge. Without adding cost and time to the city and not actually accomplishing anything additional for the community. Commissioner Spellman. Yes, I think one that falls clearly into that category is the distance between any new proposed facilities. If the companies are telling us this technology reaches 3000 certainly 2000 feet. I think 1500 feet is a reasonable starting point. There's already an out for them that says if they prove that their coverage doesn't work with that number that they basically can put it closer. But if we don't say we'd like it at least 1500 feet apart, we're not going to get them 1500 feet apart. So if I'm understanding, if I could go, if I'm understanding what you're suggesting it would be into the guideline policy. Page two. Number four was site location restrictions. There would be a section D that would say. We have a section B that has 500. We can just change that to 1500 very simply. So that's on page two. It's under four B, residential zone districts, one facility every 1500 feet. Again. I would add that to the motion if it's acceptable to the second. It's acceptable. Not a dead air here, so I don't want to cut it off. Be ready to call for the question unless there's more. Not hearing any. Mr. Conway. I'm not convinced of the benefit of the 1500 feet. You wouldn't be. I wouldn't be crazy about that. Discuss that a little then. Want to sell that or? Well, I'm pretty much responding. I didn't include it in my original. My understanding that the city had a distance requirement from schools that was challenged successfully by one of the carriers and it was kicked out. I see this provision as a way of trying to respond to public comment. If the carriers don't like it. They will complain about it and Sue us and the city will have to change it. So the way that that reads is that. And it does give an out, you know, there is an out. So then it's specifically if the carrier says that 1500 is too great in this instance. So if they can show the public works director. That by refusal of a new facility within that 1500 feet will result in the creation of a coverage cap. That the public works director can waive that 1500. Let me see that we're on a little bit thin ice here to sort of say this is an aesthetic concern. But in answer to one of our commissioners questions. Staff did say that distance is an aesthetic issue. So I think we could be legitimate. At least we can, we can, we can argue that it passes the straight face test. Mr. Conway, are you compelled? I'm concerned about not cost causing additional expense to the city that isn't going to actually accomplish anything. That's what I'm coming back to. I'm not if if we can reasonably call this aesthetic and we are not exposing the city to unnecessary cost. And again, that isn't going to accomplish anything. Any of the, you know, goals that were discussed tonight. We've got an out for it. That is sounds seems like it's reasonable. But that's my concern that we get caught up in a kind of a tail chaser of legal work that we're not winning anything. Commissioner Singleton and then Commissioner Spellman. I largely echo the comments that Commissioner Conway said. I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of creating a 1500 foot barrier for aesthetic reasons in the ordinance. But at the same time, there's an out for it. They'll come back and complain if it's causing any problems. Staff I'm sure will let us know if it's causing any onerous administrative burden. So for the purposes of responding to public comment and public concerns and the precautionary principle, it seems like a reasonable or appropriate consideration for aesthetic purposes. My other thought on it is that the council can chew on this with addition. Maybe the city attorney or staff can advise, you know, we have, we'll give a recommendation and then you all can qualify it or add to it. Commissioner Spellman. Yeah, I mean, we're not addressing the elephant in the room. We can't talk about health issues or exposure issues. We can only talk about aesthetic issues. And I would argue that this is certainly an aesthetic issue. If we have one third the amount of polls being added to by virtue of 15 versus five, then it's it's certainly an aesthetic issue. I would hopefully then also trickle down to less work for staff. If they've got a third less or two thirds less applications because they can only go in, then it's a much more efficient process for them. So I was like, Commissioner Schiffin. You brought up a somebody brought up the point about this coming back to us if it becomes a legal problem. My understanding is that the small cell standards and guidelines policy are is not per se part of the ordinance and that it will be adopted by the council. And if it needs to change, it will be changed by the council. So it doesn't it won't need to come back to us unless the council decides to send it to us for some reason. Is that am I am I understanding that correctly? Yeah. Okay, good. Commissioner Greenberg. So I would support this direction for the reasons mentioned and I think there are rationales for it. I don't know if there's a way we could endeavor to just conduct more research into what other air and what other jurisdictions are are doing on this. And my understanding is so Monterey the case of Monterey that perhaps other areas in the North Bay, like Marin Valley are doing some other are making other efforts. And I don't know what those have resulted in, but I just be interested in in our conducting more research into what other approaches are being taken on this. How about a suggestion that we honoring the calendar deadlines that we not telling people how to vote, but we vote on it and then maybe add narrative that we wished. We were trying to honor the deadlines and we wished we could have had some more time to research and we recommend council consider that they've got a deadline as well. But we're trying to not slow them down. How's that sound? That sounds good to me. Yeah. Any other discussion? I'm going to call the vote unless folks are pressed. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Could we have a roll call vote please? Commissioner Schifrin. Aye. Conway. Aye. Spellman. Aye. Singleton. Aye. Greenberg. Aye. Pepping. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you to members of the public for coming and enduring the process and sharing your comment and for caring enough to be here. Thanks staff. And with that, our meeting is adjourned. I just wanted to say the council did invite the planning commission.