1 00:02:00,620 --> 00:02:04,820 >> May we please have a roll call. 2 00:02:05,564 --> 00:02:09,164 [Members roll call vote in progress] 3 00:02:32,949 --> 00:02:34,949 >> 4 00:02:37,250 --> 00:02:38,483 (Indiscernible there are some items 5 00:02:38,483 --> 00:02:41,285 that have been put on the dais this evening for item G point 6 00:02:41,285 --> 00:02:43,285 one. 7 00:02:46,251 --> 00:02:48,543 >> And is there also available right in front for folks 8 00:02:48,543 --> 00:02:53,347 in the audience if they'd like to see them in the agendas? 9 00:02:53,347 --> 00:02:54,429 Thank you. 10 00:02:54,429 --> 00:03:00,382 That brings us to item D, public comment on agenda items. 11 00:03:00,382 --> 00:03:06,125 This time from -- that is relevant to the jurisdiction 12 00:03:06,125 --> 00:03:07,949 that is not on the agenda tonight. 13 00:03:07,949 --> 00:03:11,111 If you're here to comment on something not on the agenda, 14 00:03:11,111 --> 00:03:13,151 please wait and we will have a comment period 15 00:03:13,151 --> 00:03:15,225 for each item on the agenda. 16 00:03:15,225 --> 00:03:18,395 Is for items that are not on the agenda. 17 00:03:18,395 --> 00:03:21,971 So if you would like to make a public comment on a non agenda 18 00:03:21,971 --> 00:03:27,371 item, please approach the podium or raise your hand. 19 00:03:28,925 --> 00:03:34,925 If you are online, please raise your hand immediately -- 20 00:03:36,280 --> 00:03:37,598 in the audience. 21 00:03:37,598 --> 00:03:42,398 There's a little bit of feedback going on. 22 00:03:42,645 --> 00:03:44,621 Public commission and the audience 23 00:03:44,621 --> 00:03:46,945 and see if anybody would like to pull these agenda 24 00:03:46,945 --> 00:03:49,845 items to have a staff presentation and public 25 00:03:49,845 --> 00:03:51,381 comment on them. 26 00:03:51,381 --> 00:03:54,381 Otherwise, we will make one vote as a commission. 27 00:03:54,381 --> 00:03:59,837 Our first item to see if we want to keep on the consent agenda is 28 00:03:59,837 --> 00:04:03,325 item one, review and approval of the August 6th, 29 00:04:03,325 --> 00:04:05,750 2026 Action Summary. 30 00:04:05,750 --> 00:04:08,133 Would anybody on commission like to pull this item? 31 00:04:08,133 --> 00:04:11,493 Would anybody in the audience like to pull this item? 32 00:04:11,493 --> 00:04:13,605 Please raise your hand. 33 00:04:13,605 --> 00:04:14,105 Okay. 34 00:04:14,105 --> 00:04:17,631 We will stay on the consent agenda. 35 00:04:17,631 --> 00:04:21,589 I saw a hand raised for a moment. 36 00:04:21,589 --> 00:04:26,435 Please raise it again if you do want item one pulled. 37 00:04:26,435 --> 00:04:27,271 Okay. 38 00:04:27,271 --> 00:04:31,598 I'm not seeing it raised again so we will move to item two, 39 00:04:31,598 --> 00:04:33,935 review and approval of the August 20th, 40 00:04:33,935 --> 00:04:35,935 2026 Action formula. 41 00:04:36,685 --> 00:04:39,885 Anybody on the commission like to pull this item? 42 00:04:39,885 --> 00:04:42,245 Anybody in the audience and online you'd 43 00:04:42,245 --> 00:04:43,845 like to pull this item? 44 00:04:43,845 --> 00:04:44,885 Okay. 45 00:04:44,885 --> 00:04:49,965 Item three on the consent agenda is Humboldt exotics, 46 00:04:49,965 --> 00:04:52,500 LLC conditional use permit. 47 00:04:52,500 --> 00:04:55,690 Would anybody in the commission like to pull this item. 48 00:04:55,690 --> 00:04:58,298 Would anybody in the audience like to pull this item? 49 00:04:58,298 --> 00:04:58,871 Okay. 50 00:04:58,871 --> 00:05:02,290 I'm not seeing any hands raised. 51 00:05:02,290 --> 00:05:06,143 That brings us to the end of our list on our consent agenda. 52 00:05:06,143 --> 00:05:12,143 With that, do we have any discussion or a motion? 53 00:05:15,244 --> 00:05:17,685 >> I moved to approve consent items one through three. 54 00:05:17,685 --> 00:05:19,205 >> I'll second. 55 00:05:19,205 --> 00:05:19,711 >> Okay. 56 00:05:19,711 --> 00:05:22,258 Let's go ahead and just do a voice vote. 57 00:05:22,258 --> 00:05:26,458 All those in favor please say, aye. 58 00:05:27,787 --> 00:05:28,636 Any against? 59 00:05:28,636 --> 00:05:29,885 Any abstain. 60 00:05:29,885 --> 00:05:31,885 Motion passes. 61 00:05:34,985 --> 00:05:36,943 >> That brings us to item F, item from consent. 62 00:05:36,943 --> 00:05:39,685 We did not have any items pulled from consent 63 00:05:39,685 --> 00:05:41,804 so we'll move to item G, public hearings. 64 00:05:41,804 --> 00:05:44,909 We have one public hearing item tonight -- 65 00:05:44,909 --> 00:05:50,909 the new Cingular wireless PCs LLC AT&T mobility conditional 66 00:05:51,385 --> 00:05:54,698 Use permit Coastal Development permit and special Use Permit. 67 00:05:54,698 --> 00:05:57,610 We are going to open that up with a staff report. 68 00:05:57,610 --> 00:05:59,525 I have time for questions from the commission 69 00:05:59,525 --> 00:06:02,301 and then we will open up public comment for that. 70 00:06:02,301 --> 00:06:04,945 And then we'll bring it back to the Commission 71 00:06:04,945 --> 00:06:07,345 for discussion and decision. 72 00:07:13,388 --> 00:07:15,388 >> Good evening commissioners. 73 00:07:15,940 --> 00:07:18,100 I'm with the Humboldt County planning 74 00:07:18,100 --> 00:07:24,100 and I'm here to present the project PLN-2025-19320 Cingular 75 00:07:31,600 --> 00:07:35,000 wireless PCs and AT&T mobility for a conditional use permit 76 00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:37,560 and coastal development permit for a cell tower. 77 00:07:37,560 --> 00:07:40,436 This project is at 3384 Lily Ave. 78 00:07:40,436 --> 00:07:43,753 The operator is Cingular wireless PCs and AT&T mobility 79 00:07:43,753 --> 00:07:47,320 and the agent is Erin D law and he's available later 80 00:07:47,320 --> 00:07:49,320 for questions. -- 81 00:07:49,588 --> 00:07:52,180 Erin Dillow and he's available later for questions. 82 00:07:52,180 --> 00:07:56,220 The location of this cell tower is on the northern end 83 00:07:56,220 --> 00:07:57,660 of Mckinleyville. 84 00:07:57,660 --> 00:08:02,284 The property is just south of the Arcada Eureka Airport 85 00:08:02,284 --> 00:08:04,684 and adjacent to highway 101. 86 00:08:05,308 --> 00:08:08,908 Here is another image showing you 87 00:08:09,220 --> 00:08:14,620 from the south where the cell tower is proposed. 88 00:08:15,580 --> 00:08:22,180 This project is for an 89 foot tall monopole tower with stealth 89 00:08:23,804 --> 00:08:27,420 designed to resemble a large conifer tree, 90 00:08:27,420 --> 00:08:31,436 surrounding trees ranging between 72 and 76ft tall. 91 00:08:31,436 --> 00:08:36,220 The lease area for the equipment and the 30 kilowatt generator 92 00:08:36,220 --> 00:08:38,428 for backup power would be 414ft². 93 00:08:38,428 --> 00:08:43,828 And the tower would include 12 antennas, 12 remote radio units 94 00:08:45,760 --> 00:08:47,476 and one GPS antenna. 95 00:08:49,460 --> 00:08:54,860 This is the location of the decommissioned cell tower. 96 00:08:54,970 --> 00:09:00,580 It used to be on the gas station 76 on Murray Avenue. 97 00:09:00,580 --> 00:09:03,420 Most people didn't even recognize it was there. 98 00:09:03,420 --> 00:09:07,200 This is the proposed new location. 99 00:09:07,300 --> 00:09:09,866 And then, this is the -- 100 00:09:09,866 --> 00:09:10,692 I apologize. 101 00:09:10,692 --> 00:09:15,450 The location on the right is the vertical bridge site 102 00:09:15,450 --> 00:09:22,500 that recently was approved over at the Bow Prairie Golf Course. 103 00:09:24,700 --> 00:09:27,700 Several alternative sites were considered 104 00:09:27,940 --> 00:09:30,860 as required by County code. 105 00:09:30,860 --> 00:09:35,660 313912834 -- examined possible sites for the proposed tower. 106 00:09:38,900 --> 00:09:44,900 This is the existing coverage map of the 76 gas station 107 00:09:47,340 --> 00:09:50,340 location where the old tower used to be. 108 00:09:50,340 --> 00:09:52,260 It was recently torn down. 109 00:09:52,260 --> 00:09:55,420 So you can see the coverage map. 110 00:09:55,420 --> 00:10:00,820 This next one shows the absence of that tower 111 00:10:01,976 --> 00:10:06,680 and theoretical use of the vertical bridge site, 112 00:10:06,680 --> 00:10:08,460 if they were to use the co-location. 113 00:10:08,460 --> 00:10:12,600 This would be the coverage area. 114 00:10:12,236 --> 00:10:15,900 This next map shows the proposed site 115 00:10:15,900 --> 00:10:23,600 of what the coverage would be if the new site were to be built. 116 00:10:23,600 --> 00:10:26,460 The next few slides are a photo simulation 117 00:10:26,460 --> 00:10:29,166 of what the tower would look like. 118 00:10:29,166 --> 00:10:32,900 This is looking south on Lily Avenue, 119 00:10:32,900 --> 00:10:34,306 towards where the tower would go. 120 00:10:34,306 --> 00:10:38,819 And as you can see, there's a representation of the tower. 121 00:10:38,819 --> 00:10:42,419 Again, 89ft tall, monopole evergreen tower. 122 00:10:43,460 --> 00:10:48,580 This next slide is from the south on Meyers Avenue looking 123 00:10:48,580 --> 00:10:49,180 Northwest. 124 00:10:49,180 --> 00:10:52,180 And there it is again. 125 00:10:52,460 --> 00:10:57,860 This next simulation is from Yamaha place, looking west. 126 00:11:02,403 --> 00:11:06,603 And that would be the tower of. 127 00:11:07,115 --> 00:11:11,315 This shot is on the 101 southbound side, 128 00:11:12,730 --> 00:11:14,390 looking northbound. 129 00:11:14,390 --> 00:11:17,390 And there's the tower there. 130 00:11:18,460 --> 00:11:24,600 And this last one is on the south side but looking south. 131 00:11:24,600 --> 00:11:27,100 And that would be the tower. 132 00:11:27,100 --> 00:11:33,328 Here photos are taken from in order and I would like to note 133 00:11:33,328 --> 00:11:38,740 the where y'all are places, this does not show the properties 134 00:11:38,740 --> 00:11:44,740 that are actually built in this shows what is currently? 135 00:11:52,660 --> 00:11:55,483 The FFA was contacted as required 136 00:11:55,483 --> 00:11:58,228 to determine if there was any hazard to the aviation zone. 137 00:11:58,228 --> 00:12:01,228 The project received a 74601 clearance. 138 00:12:01,940 --> 00:12:06,498 No tower lights are required nor have they been proposed. 139 00:12:06,498 --> 00:12:09,980 And the top of the 89 foot tower would 140 00:12:09,980 --> 00:12:15,380 be six feet below the ceiling of protected airspace. 141 00:12:17,500 --> 00:12:22,900 This project is CEQA exempt under class three exemption 15 142 00:12:30,551 --> 00:12:35,351 303(c) new construction and conversion of small structures. 143 00:12:36,620 --> 00:12:38,100 We received public comment. 144 00:12:38,100 --> 00:12:39,460 We had three emails. 145 00:12:39,460 --> 00:12:43,136 And a petition was also sent in signed by 21 signatures opposing 146 00:12:43,136 --> 00:12:43,929 the construction. 147 00:12:43,929 --> 00:12:48,150 All of the signatures were from residents of Brandon. 148 00:12:48,150 --> 00:12:52,130 The project is in alignment with Humboldt County Ordinance 149 00:12:52,130 --> 00:12:55,540 2787 which was adopted from the California Coastal 150 00:12:55,540 --> 00:12:59,140 Commission which changed the set uniform standards for wireless 151 00:12:59,140 --> 00:13:02,140 telecommunication facilities and unincorporated areas 152 00:13:03,770 --> 00:13:05,770 of Humboldt County. 153 00:13:06,600 --> 00:13:10,800 Under federal law, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 154 00:13:12,676 --> 00:13:17,510 local governance cannot deny a wireless facility permits based 155 00:13:17,510 --> 00:13:21,700 on health concerns related to FCC compliance radio frequency 156 00:13:21,700 --> 00:13:22,320 emissions. 157 00:13:22,320 --> 00:13:26,520 This includes human exposure to radio frequencies, 158 00:13:30,580 --> 00:13:32,580 RF, electromagnetic fields. 159 00:13:32,905 --> 00:13:35,730 A study was done and presented in the report as a supplemental 160 00:13:35,730 --> 00:13:39,330 that you all received earlier today. 161 00:13:40,300 --> 00:13:43,300 There was also concerns regarding 162 00:13:44,524 --> 00:13:47,393 the placement of the tower. 163 00:13:47,393 --> 00:13:51,604 There were -- there was one commenter who suggested moving 164 00:13:51,604 --> 00:13:53,220 it to the secondary location. 165 00:13:53,220 --> 00:13:55,220 That was considered. 166 00:13:55,860 --> 00:13:57,630 This is the current location considered. 167 00:13:57,630 --> 00:14:00,250 This location is slightly southwest 168 00:14:00,250 --> 00:14:02,650 which was also considered. 169 00:14:02,670 --> 00:14:08,670 This is located at 3248 Lets Avenue along the Hammond Trail. 170 00:14:10,460 --> 00:14:12,640 Per the applicant, this was considered. 171 00:14:12,640 --> 00:14:16,606 But with the concerns regarding vegetation -- 172 00:14:16,606 --> 00:14:20,588 lack of vegetation to blend in the monopole with its stealth 173 00:14:20,588 --> 00:14:23,492 design, it would also be much more visible from the Hammond 174 00:14:23,492 --> 00:14:24,985 Trail and the highway itself. 175 00:14:24,985 --> 00:14:28,140 And it was also in the safety zone 176 00:14:28,140 --> 00:14:32,340 two for approaching incoming airplanes as well. 177 00:14:35,780 --> 00:14:39,380 Staff does recommend an additional condition. 178 00:14:41,486 --> 00:14:46,886 The tower is currently considered a broad leaf tower 179 00:14:46,966 --> 00:14:47,466 design. 180 00:14:47,466 --> 00:14:51,580 We suggest having a faux pine to match the Monterey Pine design 181 00:14:51,580 --> 00:14:53,820 as opposed to the broad leaf. 182 00:14:53,820 --> 00:14:55,890 So that way it would match the trees. 183 00:14:55,890 --> 00:15:00,900 Staff recommends that the tower be approved. 184 00:15:01,324 --> 00:15:06,124 The proposal implies -- complies with all telecommunications 185 00:15:06,500 --> 00:15:08,380 facility ordinances. 186 00:15:08,380 --> 00:15:14,617 The lease area cited -- the lease area is sited in a grassy 187 00:15:14,617 --> 00:15:17,172 field and is absent from watercourses and sensitive 188 00:15:17,172 --> 00:15:17,708 habitat. 189 00:15:17,708 --> 00:15:22,500 And the requirements from the variances from the airport 190 00:15:22,500 --> 00:15:24,900 have also been approved. 191 00:15:25,188 --> 00:15:28,788 And I'm available for any questions. 192 00:15:32,993 --> 00:15:34,493 >> Before we move to public comment, 193 00:15:34,493 --> 00:15:38,420 does the commission have any questions for staff? 194 00:15:38,420 --> 00:15:40,420 Commissioner Kyriazi. 195 00:15:46,945 --> 00:15:47,487 >> Thank you. 196 00:15:47,487 --> 00:15:49,290 Can you clarify again what the zoning 197 00:15:49,290 --> 00:15:52,273 is for that property and the surrounding property? 198 00:15:52,273 --> 00:15:55,873 Isn't mostly residential around that parcel? 199 00:16:23,360 --> 00:16:24,100 >> Pardon me. 200 00:16:24,100 --> 00:16:27,944 It is considered residential low density, five, suburban area 201 00:16:27,944 --> 00:16:32,386 with a combining zoned for airport review and noise 202 00:16:32,386 --> 00:16:34,386 impacts. 203 00:16:34,853 --> 00:16:36,853 RS5. 204 00:16:37,320 --> 00:16:41,320 >> So why wasn't it able to go back to the property for the gas 205 00:16:41,320 --> 00:16:42,725 station property? 206 00:16:42,725 --> 00:16:45,142 >> The owner of the gas station denied renewing the lease. 207 00:16:45,142 --> 00:16:49,320 So there was no way to keep it. 208 00:16:49,320 --> 00:16:53,700 >> But the gas station is going back on that site? 209 00:16:53,700 --> 00:16:54,820 >> I don't know what's going on that site. 210 00:16:54,820 --> 00:16:55,882 It's been razed. 211 00:16:55,882 --> 00:16:58,340 I don't know what's currently going to happen to that site. 212 00:16:58,340 --> 00:16:59,200 And 213 00:16:59,200 --> 00:17:02,940 >> They have permits to reconstruct and you can gas 214 00:17:02,940 --> 00:17:04,906 station with a new convenience store. -- 215 00:17:04,906 --> 00:17:08,344 to reconstruct a new gas station with a new convenience store. 216 00:17:08,344 --> 00:17:10,720 So when you showed that circle, that was the zone 217 00:17:10,720 --> 00:17:13,120 that it would serve? 218 00:17:13,720 --> 00:17:18,510 >> Sorry, that circle was showing the different locations 219 00:17:18,510 --> 00:17:22,480 that were considered for the new site. 220 00:17:22,480 --> 00:17:23,937 >> For the new site? 221 00:17:23,937 --> 00:17:26,128 And is there a circumference of that circle. 222 00:17:26,128 --> 00:17:29,460 Like, how many feet out did it go? 223 00:17:29,460 --> 00:17:31,333 >> I don't have that in front of me. 224 00:17:31,333 --> 00:17:33,833 >> Because I'm in that circle, and I didn't know if that was 225 00:17:33,833 --> 00:17:34,580 a conflict. 226 00:17:34,580 --> 00:17:37,800 >> The applicant is here so he might be able to provide that 227 00:17:37,800 --> 00:17:38,440 information. 228 00:17:38,440 --> 00:17:40,170 >> I would not say that's a conflict. 229 00:17:40,170 --> 00:17:45,552 I, unless you're within close proximity to the actual site. 230 00:17:45,552 --> 00:17:49,152 But being within the circle, no. 231 00:17:49,960 --> 00:17:51,960 >> Okay. 232 00:17:56,554 --> 00:17:59,480 >> I saw Commissioner MacFarlane in commissioner curiosity. 233 00:17:59,480 --> 00:18:01,900 >> I saw there was a referral to the county of development 234 00:18:01,900 --> 00:18:04,242 of Environmental Health for hazards because there were 235 00:18:04,242 --> 00:18:05,950 so many comments about radio frequencies. 236 00:18:05,950 --> 00:18:10,000 Was there any referral to county public health or any third party 237 00:18:10,000 --> 00:18:14,200 health person to weigh in on that? 238 00:18:16,705 --> 00:18:17,413 >> There was not. 239 00:18:17,413 --> 00:18:20,320 And again, as was said, federal law 240 00:18:20,320 --> 00:18:23,464 prevents us from considering the health effects 241 00:18:23,464 --> 00:18:26,892 of radio frequencies as long as it complies with the FCC 242 00:18:26,892 --> 00:18:27,392 standards. 243 00:18:27,392 --> 00:18:29,165 And so that's what we do. 244 00:18:29,165 --> 00:18:32,000 We make sure that it complies with the standards. 245 00:18:32,000 --> 00:18:33,592 And presumably, if it's approved, 246 00:18:33,592 --> 00:18:38,100 the FCC would also require them to comply with the legal RF 247 00:18:38,100 --> 00:18:40,100 standards. 248 00:18:46,947 --> 00:18:47,489 >> I'm sorry. 249 00:18:47,489 --> 00:18:49,364 I saw that it was in the Coastal Appeal zone. 250 00:18:49,364 --> 00:18:50,997 Did they make any early comments? 251 00:18:50,997 --> 00:18:51,497 >> No. 252 00:18:51,497 --> 00:18:54,960 They did not make any referrals or comments. 253 00:18:54,960 --> 00:18:56,960 >> Commissioner Curiosi. 254 00:18:58,120 --> 00:19:04,120 >> I guess, can you repeat one more time what the FCC says we 255 00:19:04,120 --> 00:19:07,840 are allowed and not allowed to reject based on -- 256 00:19:07,840 --> 00:19:11,445 you had it pulled up on the slide. 257 00:19:11,445 --> 00:19:18,450 And I guess, related to that, for the Beaupre cell tower, 258 00:19:18,840 --> 00:19:21,328 I noticed that the RF analysis actually 259 00:19:21,328 --> 00:19:23,480 included a watts per square meter 260 00:19:23,480 --> 00:19:27,408 on the ground at different radiuses around that antenna. 261 00:19:27,408 --> 00:19:31,384 But this report was pretty bare boned. 262 00:19:31,384 --> 00:19:34,240 So I'm curious, because I'm assuming 263 00:19:34,240 --> 00:19:36,693 the FCC regulations are based off 264 00:19:36,693 --> 00:19:38,904 of that watts per square meter exposure. 265 00:19:38,904 --> 00:19:46,104 And I didn't really see that in this analysis that was done. 266 00:19:52,346 --> 00:19:54,106 >> Again, the analysis was what we were -- 267 00:19:54,106 --> 00:19:56,900 what we received on the applicant. 268 00:19:56,900 --> 00:19:59,700 It was signed off by the electrical engineer leading 269 00:19:59,700 --> 00:20:02,232 the project -- completing the project. 270 00:20:02,232 --> 00:20:03,840 And it was stamped. 271 00:20:03,840 --> 00:20:05,604 So we have to assume that it was correct. 272 00:20:05,604 --> 00:20:09,390 I apologize if I wasn't as detailed as past reports 273 00:20:09,390 --> 00:20:11,390 that you've seen. 274 00:20:11,800 --> 00:20:17,520 >> Just to repeat what we had had up on the slide was that 275 00:20:17,520 --> 00:20:21,720 the Federal Telecommunications Act states that local 276 00:20:22,480 --> 00:20:25,776 governments cannot deny a proposed facility based 277 00:20:25,776 --> 00:20:30,370 on the health concerns of RF as long as the RF standards that 278 00:20:30,370 --> 00:20:32,770 they set are compliant. 279 00:20:38,158 --> 00:20:39,200 >> Commissioner Skavdahl. 280 00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:42,128 >> I didn't notice in the staff report that you sent to us 281 00:20:42,128 --> 00:20:45,740 or the presentation tonight that you have included any visual 282 00:20:45,740 --> 00:20:50,100 simulations from the alternative sites or coverage maps. 283 00:20:50,100 --> 00:20:52,100 Are those available? 284 00:20:52,760 --> 00:20:54,840 >> Those were not provided. 285 00:20:54,840 --> 00:20:56,840 >> Thank you. 286 00:21:00,599 --> 00:21:05,999 >> Any additional questions before I move to public comment? 287 00:21:07,980 --> 00:21:09,980 >> Thank you. 288 00:21:09,640 --> 00:21:15,640 I guess we have a stamped analysis from an electrical 289 00:21:16,240 --> 00:21:19,240 engineer, but it doesn't -- 290 00:21:20,667 --> 00:21:22,125 I think the one thing that gives me 291 00:21:22,125 --> 00:21:27,288 pause is that I don't see the results of the modeling 292 00:21:27,288 --> 00:21:30,338 that they claimed was done by approved software. 293 00:21:30,338 --> 00:21:33,853 I just see a stamped sheet saying, we are good. 294 00:21:33,853 --> 00:21:37,472 And what kind of concerns me is that I surrounding area 295 00:21:37,472 --> 00:21:39,826 is all zoned as residential. 296 00:21:39,826 --> 00:21:43,873 And so I don't know how closely residences are allowed 297 00:21:43,873 --> 00:21:47,260 to be built to this facility. 298 00:21:47,260 --> 00:21:52,660 And so, I'm sorry, maybe I'm getting too far 299 00:21:52,753 --> 00:21:54,293 out of questions. 300 00:21:54,293 --> 00:21:58,600 But I'm wondering if it's possible to get more detailed 301 00:21:58,600 --> 00:21:59,400 results -- 302 00:21:59,400 --> 00:22:00,840 analysis results. 303 00:22:00,840 --> 00:22:03,824 >> If I could, one of the things -- clearly, 304 00:22:03,824 --> 00:22:08,320 the maximum permissible exposure is identified within the report. 305 00:22:08,320 --> 00:22:11,970 It identifies that it's less than that. 306 00:22:11,970 --> 00:22:15,646 One of the things that commission can do, 307 00:22:15,646 --> 00:22:19,320 you can commission the project to demonstrate compliance 308 00:22:19,320 --> 00:22:21,720 with the FCC regulations. 309 00:22:23,260 --> 00:22:26,260 Normally, FCC, their RF regulations 310 00:22:27,552 --> 00:22:33,880 are kind of off limits in terms of making a decision on a land 311 00:22:33,880 --> 00:22:35,106 use permit. 312 00:22:35,106 --> 00:22:38,920 But you can ask for proof that it complies 313 00:22:38,920 --> 00:22:41,320 with the FCC regulations. 314 00:22:41,560 --> 00:22:45,480 So I think there's a balance there in terms of whether 315 00:22:45,480 --> 00:22:47,648 or not that's something you need to see 316 00:22:47,648 --> 00:22:50,343 before you're willing to take an action on it. 317 00:22:50,343 --> 00:22:53,680 Because you can't approve it or deny it based upon that. 318 00:22:53,680 --> 00:22:56,864 But you can absolutely require that they demonstrate 319 00:22:56,864 --> 00:23:00,200 that they are in compliance with modeling 320 00:23:00,200 --> 00:23:03,200 prior to issuance of permits. 321 00:23:09,727 --> 00:23:13,240 >> To follow up, how close can a neighboring residential lots 322 00:23:13,240 --> 00:23:18,640 that aren't developed With this tower preclude them from 323 00:23:20,350 --> 00:23:22,640 their currently allowable future development -- 324 00:23:22,640 --> 00:23:25,600 developed would this tower preclude them from 325 00:23:25,600 --> 00:23:28,600 their currently allowable future development? 326 00:23:28,360 --> 00:23:33,160 >> I'm sorry, could you please repeat the question? 327 00:23:34,178 --> 00:23:36,720 >> Would installing the tower preclude the adjacent currently 328 00:23:36,720 --> 00:23:39,464 zoned residential lots from future development because it 329 00:23:39,464 --> 00:23:42,530 would violate a setback limit? 330 00:23:42,530 --> 00:23:45,160 >> According to our current county code, 331 00:23:45,160 --> 00:23:48,760 the shortest setback would be 50ft. 332 00:23:49,194 --> 00:23:51,680 And that would require a variance. 333 00:23:51,680 --> 00:23:55,660 The closest home which is on the property that the tower would be 334 00:23:55,660 --> 00:23:58,666 sited is a little over 150ft. 335 00:24:00,280 --> 00:24:04,400 >> So the short answer is no, it's not going to adversely 336 00:24:04,400 --> 00:24:07,400 affect any lot from development. 337 00:24:12,595 --> 00:24:14,720 >> Okay, I'm not seeing any additional commissioner 338 00:24:14,720 --> 00:24:17,178 questions at this time so it seems like a good time to open 339 00:24:17,178 --> 00:24:18,960 up public comment. 340 00:24:18,960 --> 00:24:20,880 We're going to start with folks in the room. 341 00:24:20,880 --> 00:24:21,820 If you could please approach the podium 342 00:24:21,820 --> 00:24:24,591 and make a line if you'd like to comment on this item. 343 00:24:24,591 --> 00:24:26,417 And if you are online or calling in 344 00:24:26,417 --> 00:24:28,000 and would like to comment on this item 345 00:24:28,000 --> 00:24:30,910 please raise your hand now so that I 346 00:24:30,910 --> 00:24:33,340 know who to call on when we move to that time. 347 00:24:33,340 --> 00:24:34,989 As I mentioned before, there can be 348 00:24:34,989 --> 00:24:37,844 a bit of a lag in the video feed so it's good to get practice 349 00:24:37,844 --> 00:24:39,136 to raise your hand immediately. 350 00:24:39,136 --> 00:24:41,897 And then we will come to you once we finish 351 00:24:41,897 --> 00:24:43,897 the in-person commenting. 352 00:24:44,346 --> 00:24:46,400 >> If I could interrupt. 353 00:24:46,400 --> 00:24:49,704 Normally, it's the practice of the commission 354 00:24:49,704 --> 00:24:52,400 to allow the applicant to speak first. 355 00:24:52,400 --> 00:24:54,400 >> You are correct. 356 00:24:55,400 --> 00:24:57,833 thank you for reminding me. 357 00:24:57,833 --> 00:24:59,550 We will have the applicant speak first. 358 00:24:59,550 --> 00:25:00,926 They have up to ten minutes. 359 00:25:00,926 --> 00:25:03,460 And then we will move to public comment in the room, 360 00:25:03,460 --> 00:25:05,880 and then we will move to online public 361 00:25:05,880 --> 00:25:07,520 >> Thank you, commissioners. 362 00:25:07,520 --> 00:25:10,960 I'm Erin with centerline Communications representing 363 00:25:10,960 --> 00:25:12,195 AT&T on this project. 364 00:25:12,195 --> 00:25:13,954 I'd like to thank you all for being here 365 00:25:13,954 --> 00:25:15,625 and doing what you do. 366 00:25:15,625 --> 00:25:19,340 I would also like to thank planning staff and Michael 367 00:25:19,340 --> 00:25:20,390 for that presentation. 368 00:25:20,390 --> 00:25:21,760 I had a whole bunch of things to say 369 00:25:21,760 --> 00:25:23,653 but he has really already said them. 370 00:25:23,653 --> 00:25:28,120 I'd also like to thank the public for being out here. 371 00:25:28,120 --> 00:25:31,000 Yesterday I received copies of the community's feedback 372 00:25:31,000 --> 00:25:32,940 and the petition. 373 00:25:32,940 --> 00:25:37,992 There are concerned -- their concerns seem to revolve around 374 00:25:37,992 --> 00:25:38,640 three issues. 375 00:25:38,640 --> 00:25:42,808 One is the potential negative health effects of e m exposure. 376 00:25:42,808 --> 00:25:48,208 I read Doctor de letter regarding her condition -- 377 00:25:48,874 --> 00:25:50,611 e m e exposure. 378 00:25:50,611 --> 00:25:54,811 I read doctor letter regarding her condition. 379 00:25:55,193 --> 00:25:58,928 I can say that AT&T takes very seriously obligation 380 00:25:58,928 --> 00:26:01,354 to be in compliance with all rules and regulations. 381 00:26:01,354 --> 00:26:05,120 I am in no way or qualified to speak on the matter. 382 00:26:05,120 --> 00:26:07,502 They did have the independent engineering firm 383 00:26:07,502 --> 00:26:08,960 run a study on the maximum exposure 384 00:26:08,960 --> 00:26:11,352 to a person on the ground that they 385 00:26:11,352 --> 00:26:13,200 could receive from this tower. 386 00:26:13,200 --> 00:26:16,153 And I believe that the number was 3.156% 387 00:26:16,153 --> 00:26:19,153 of the maximum allowable limit. 388 00:26:22,416 --> 00:26:26,325 I mean no disrespect and I don't mean 389 00:26:26,325 --> 00:26:28,980 to discredit anybody's thoughts or opinion on this matter 390 00:26:28,980 --> 00:26:31,904 pure mind I'm just saying that AT&T follows the rules. 391 00:26:31,904 --> 00:26:36,900 There was also some commentary about the possibility 392 00:26:36,900 --> 00:26:37,808 of declining home values. 393 00:26:37,808 --> 00:26:41,780 Before I got into wireless, I was a realtor selling 394 00:26:41,780 --> 00:26:43,826 homes in the Sacramento area. 395 00:26:43,826 --> 00:26:48,352 And all I can say is that the value of a property 396 00:26:48,352 --> 00:26:51,232 is determined by the buyers opinions. 397 00:26:51,232 --> 00:26:55,880 And it can vary widely to be surprising. 398 00:26:55,880 --> 00:27:00,893 Recently, I did a public hearing in Palo Alto. 399 00:27:00,893 --> 00:27:04,805 Only one couple -- a neighbor showed up to the hearing. 400 00:27:04,805 --> 00:27:07,180 And they wanted to make sure that their house was getting 401 00:27:07,180 --> 00:27:08,722 better coverage because they accessed 402 00:27:08,722 --> 00:27:12,160 the internet through their hotspot off their telephone. 403 00:27:12,160 --> 00:27:14,560 So what may be negative to one person 404 00:27:14,560 --> 00:27:15,576 may be somebody else's positive. 405 00:27:15,576 --> 00:27:18,448 It's up to the buyer. 406 00:27:18,448 --> 00:27:25,480 Yeah, and the last thing is the candidate on lets avenue 407 00:27:25,180 --> 00:27:26,340 that Michael addressed. 408 00:27:26,340 --> 00:27:28,400 I was there with the owner. 409 00:27:28,400 --> 00:27:30,480 And while I was standing at the site, 410 00:27:30,480 --> 00:27:33,312 I could see people walking by on the Hammond trail. 411 00:27:33,312 --> 00:27:37,000 And there's some bushes around but no real tall trees 412 00:27:37,000 --> 00:27:38,390 to hide the thing in. 413 00:27:38,390 --> 00:27:40,140 I've been doing this for a real long time. 414 00:27:40,140 --> 00:27:44,480 I try to sites -- site the sites as well as I can and have some 415 00:27:44,480 --> 00:27:47,680 tree camouflage or whatever type of camouflage camouflage we can 416 00:27:47,680 --> 00:27:53,199 get to keep -- to keep it hidden as soon as possible. 417 00:27:53,199 --> 00:27:54,616 With that said, I'm here to answer 418 00:27:54,616 --> 00:27:57,616 any questions you may have. 419 00:27:58,200 --> 00:28:00,420 >> If the permit was not approved tonight, 420 00:28:00,420 --> 00:28:02,755 would AT&T abandon the project? 421 00:28:02,755 --> 00:28:07,480 Where will they move it to a different location? 422 00:28:07,480 --> 00:28:11,412 >> That's not a decision that I can make. 423 00:28:11,412 --> 00:28:13,610 Like I said, I'm a representative. 424 00:28:13,610 --> 00:28:16,406 I'm not even an employee of AT&T. So 425 00:28:16,406 --> 00:28:20,600 that would be up to them. 426 00:28:24,605 --> 00:28:25,147 >> Thank you. 427 00:28:25,147 --> 00:28:27,660 >> Sure. 428 00:28:27,660 --> 00:28:27,566 >> Okay. 429 00:28:27,566 --> 00:28:30,591 Now we're going to open it up to public comment. 430 00:28:30,591 --> 00:28:32,466 Folks who would like to comment on this item, 431 00:28:32,466 --> 00:28:33,884 you will have three minutes. 432 00:28:33,884 --> 00:28:36,520 So if anybody in the room would like to comment on this item, 433 00:28:36,520 --> 00:28:38,600 please approach the podium. 434 00:28:38,600 --> 00:28:39,984 And if you are calling in online, 435 00:28:39,984 --> 00:28:41,740 please raise your hand now. 436 00:28:41,740 --> 00:28:45,708 It is star nine to raise your hand. 437 00:28:45,708 --> 00:28:48,000 I'm not seeing anyone in the room approach 438 00:28:48,000 --> 00:28:50,294 the podium so we will move to online. 439 00:28:50,294 --> 00:28:52,696 And I see a couple of folks with their hands 440 00:28:52,696 --> 00:28:54,946 raised so I'm just going to start with my first person 441 00:28:54,946 --> 00:28:57,284 and move down the list. 442 00:28:57,284 --> 00:29:02,684 Doctor Stephanie Israel de Souza, you have three minutes. 443 00:29:02,960 --> 00:29:03,704 >> Thank you. 444 00:29:03,704 --> 00:29:07,400 Good evening, I'm doctor Stephanie Israel de Souza, 445 00:29:07,400 --> 00:29:09,560 a resident of Yamaha place and the one 446 00:29:09,560 --> 00:29:11,728 who circulated the petition against the proposed cell tower 447 00:29:11,728 --> 00:29:13,600 location at Lillie Road. 448 00:29:13,600 --> 00:29:16,840 I spoke to a total of 23 residents at Yamaha Place. 449 00:29:16,840 --> 00:29:19,270 21 of these 23 opted to sign the petition 450 00:29:19,270 --> 00:29:21,328 due to the concerns about the impact on the cell tower 451 00:29:21,328 --> 00:29:23,976 on our neighborhood, our property values and 452 00:29:23,976 --> 00:29:24,973 or our health. 453 00:29:24,973 --> 00:29:28,600 Of these 21, 19 are homeowners and to our renters. 454 00:29:28,600 --> 00:29:30,653 Many of these residents want to be here tonight 455 00:29:30,653 --> 00:29:32,905 but had work come a school or child related 456 00:29:32,905 --> 00:29:33,755 schedule conflicts. 457 00:29:33,755 --> 00:29:36,470 I would like to share my insights from my conversations 458 00:29:36,470 --> 00:29:37,194 with my neighbors. 459 00:29:37,194 --> 00:29:39,540 The concern universally shared by homeowners 460 00:29:39,540 --> 00:29:42,973 that signed the petition was the negative impact that it would 461 00:29:42,973 --> 00:29:45,960 have on our property values, which is backed up 462 00:29:45,960 --> 00:29:49,310 by all peer reviewed studies in the real estate literature. 463 00:29:49,310 --> 00:29:52,700 Several who signed brought up concerns regarding 464 00:29:52,700 --> 00:29:56,350 how the Amazon facility going into the nearby airport business 465 00:29:56,350 --> 00:29:59,195 park will already make our neighborhood less desirable, 466 00:29:59,195 --> 00:30:01,878 noting that adding a nearby cell tower on top of that 467 00:30:01,878 --> 00:30:04,253 could significantly impact the character and desirability 468 00:30:04,253 --> 00:30:05,270 of our neighborhood. 469 00:30:05,270 --> 00:30:08,186 And thus worsen the impact on our property values. 470 00:30:08,186 --> 00:30:11,410 Many expressed concerns about how visible the cell tower will 471 00:30:11,410 --> 00:30:13,356 be from our yards and windows, noting 472 00:30:13,356 --> 00:30:17,861 that an 89 foot tower will stand well above the highest trees. 473 00:30:17,861 --> 00:30:19,944 Some referenced the cell tower and the golf course 474 00:30:19,944 --> 00:30:22,602 noting that the monoplane design does not look anything 475 00:30:22,602 --> 00:30:24,144 like a real tree and still represents 476 00:30:24,144 --> 00:30:25,853 a significant eyesore. 477 00:30:25,853 --> 00:30:28,380 Residents who signed questioned the justification 478 00:30:28,380 --> 00:30:30,144 for placing the cell tower adjacent 479 00:30:30,144 --> 00:30:32,222 to a residential neighborhood, suggesting 480 00:30:32,222 --> 00:30:33,680 multiple possible alternatives that 481 00:30:33,680 --> 00:30:38,520 would be less intrusive and less damaging for our values the. 482 00:30:38,520 --> 00:30:41,650 Whether -- was there an area zoned for commercial 483 00:30:41,650 --> 00:30:43,652 or industrial use and other areas not right next 484 00:30:43,652 --> 00:30:44,860 to residential neighborhoods. 485 00:30:44,860 --> 00:30:46,613 Possible alternative locations suggested 486 00:30:46,613 --> 00:30:49,560 by residents including placing on the existing 487 00:30:49,560 --> 00:30:51,133 tower in the golf course, placing the cell tower 488 00:30:51,133 --> 00:30:54,400 at the northern end of the airport business park, perhaps 489 00:30:54,400 --> 00:30:55,890 even on top of the proposed Amazon facility. 490 00:30:55,890 --> 00:30:58,152 Or even placing the tower at the far northern end 491 00:30:58,152 --> 00:31:01,640 of the same parcel on Lillie Road known by residents 492 00:31:01,640 --> 00:31:04,800 as the area where horses are known as the road 493 00:31:04,800 --> 00:31:05,952 closest Airport Road. 494 00:31:05,952 --> 00:31:09,209 I did not circulate the petition due to the short notice 495 00:31:09,209 --> 00:31:10,792 we received and limited on my own time 496 00:31:10,792 --> 00:31:11,875 as a professor and mother. 497 00:31:11,875 --> 00:31:13,875 But I imagine that other nearby residents likely 498 00:31:13,875 --> 00:31:15,250 share the same concerns expressed 499 00:31:15,250 --> 00:31:16,666 by the residents of Yamaha Place. 500 00:31:16,666 --> 00:31:19,200 At the time the petition was circulated to, 501 00:31:19,200 --> 00:31:21,960 we were not aware that an alternative site assessment 502 00:31:21,960 --> 00:31:25,910 was conducted which identified another site at 3248 Lutts 503 00:31:25,910 --> 00:31:26,410 Avenue. 504 00:31:26,410 --> 00:31:28,600 Although this location is still closer to our homes 505 00:31:28,600 --> 00:31:32,160 and I personally am comfortable with due to my specific health 506 00:31:32,160 --> 00:31:34,850 concerns, this location seems preferable 507 00:31:34,850 --> 00:31:38,340 as it is not adjacent to any residential neighborhoods. 508 00:31:38,340 --> 00:31:40,888 This would significantly reduce if not 509 00:31:40,888 --> 00:31:43,472 eliminate any negative impact on our own property values 510 00:31:43,472 --> 00:31:46,948 in addition to reducing the overall impact to any property 511 00:31:46,948 --> 00:31:47,592 values. 512 00:31:47,592 --> 00:31:52,496 The 3248 Lots Avenue site seems preferable via a least intrusive 513 00:31:52,496 --> 00:31:53,248 means test. 514 00:31:53,248 --> 00:31:56,480 Each of the 21 residents of Yamaha Place that 515 00:31:56,480 --> 00:31:59,170 signed the petition ask that this location of the cell tower 516 00:31:59,170 --> 00:32:00,000 be reconsidered. 517 00:32:00,000 --> 00:32:04,200 Thank you for listening to our feedback. 518 00:32:08,595 --> 00:32:09,950 >> Okay. 519 00:32:09,950 --> 00:32:09,104 I have one more person with their hand raised. 520 00:32:09,104 --> 00:32:11,330 Just as a reminder, please raise your hand now 521 00:32:11,330 --> 00:32:12,784 if you would like to speak on this item. 522 00:32:12,784 --> 00:32:15,838 Lindsey Reed, you have three minutes. 523 00:32:15,838 --> 00:32:18,380 >> Good evening members of the board and thank you for giving 524 00:32:18,380 --> 00:32:20,740 me the opportunity to speak today. 525 00:32:20,740 --> 00:32:22,640 I am also a resident of Yamaha Place 526 00:32:22,640 --> 00:32:24,856 and I'm here today because I have 527 00:32:24,856 --> 00:32:26,944 serious concerns about the proposed cell tower 528 00:32:26,944 --> 00:32:28,700 placement near my property. 529 00:32:28,700 --> 00:32:31,800 The current location is extremely close to my home 530 00:32:31,800 --> 00:32:33,376 and I'm really worried about the long term 531 00:32:33,376 --> 00:32:36,960 impacts this structure will have on both my property 532 00:32:36,960 --> 00:32:39,360 value and the overall character of our neighborhood. 533 00:32:39,360 --> 00:32:43,200 Several real estate and urban planning analyzes 534 00:32:43,200 --> 00:32:45,960 indicate that homes located near large cell towers 535 00:32:45,960 --> 00:32:49,120 can experience notable decrease in value. 536 00:32:49,120 --> 00:32:52,576 While exact numbers vary between the city, 537 00:32:52,576 --> 00:32:55,760 many reports show reductions in residential property values 538 00:32:55,760 --> 00:32:59,121 ranging from anywhere between roughly 10 to 15% 539 00:32:59,121 --> 00:33:01,840 when a tower is placed in close proximity to a home. 540 00:33:01,840 --> 00:33:03,761 This potential loss is significant and deeply 541 00:33:03,761 --> 00:33:05,553 concerning for homeowners who have invested 542 00:33:05,553 --> 00:33:09,900 in their properties and rely on equity for financial stability. 543 00:33:09,900 --> 00:33:11,370 I want to emphasize that I do understand 544 00:33:11,370 --> 00:33:14,130 the importance of reliable cellular service 545 00:33:14,130 --> 00:33:17,448 and infrastructure improvements for our community. 546 00:33:17,448 --> 00:33:19,580 And my request is not in opposition 547 00:33:19,580 --> 00:33:21,704 to progress, but rather in support 548 00:33:21,704 --> 00:33:24,120 of finding a location that offers the same service 549 00:33:24,120 --> 00:33:28,200 benefits without facing such a substantial commercial structure 550 00:33:28,200 --> 00:33:30,600 directly beside existing homes. 551 00:33:30,680 --> 00:33:33,320 I respectfully asked the board to reconsider 552 00:33:33,320 --> 00:33:36,400 the current proposed site and explore alternative locations 553 00:33:36,400 --> 00:33:39,240 that will still meet the community's connectivity needs 554 00:33:39,240 --> 00:33:42,800 while minimizing negative impacts on nearby homeowners. 555 00:33:42,800 --> 00:33:48,120 Choosing a less residential location such as the Lutz Avenue 556 00:33:48,120 --> 00:33:51,400 would help preserve property values, 557 00:33:51,400 --> 00:33:55,240 protect neighborhood character and ensure that infrastructure 558 00:33:56,120 --> 00:33:58,520 improvements would benefit everyone 559 00:33:58,592 --> 00:33:59,800 without causing undue burden. 560 00:33:59,800 --> 00:34:02,430 Thank you for your time, your consideration and commitment 561 00:34:02,430 --> 00:34:04,200 to finding a balanced solution that 562 00:34:04,200 --> 00:34:08,173 supports community and progress in homeowner protection. 563 00:34:08,173 --> 00:34:10,173 That's it. 564 00:34:12,800 --> 00:34:14,800 >> Thank you. 565 00:34:15,782 --> 00:34:17,240 >> I see you have your hand raised. 566 00:34:17,240 --> 00:34:20,240 You have three minutes, Amy. 567 00:34:20,240 --> 00:34:21,200 >> Hey there. 568 00:34:21,200 --> 00:34:22,513 This is Amy Bland. 569 00:34:22,513 --> 00:34:24,860 I also live on Yamaha Place. 570 00:34:24,860 --> 00:34:28,780 You can see my travel trailer in the picture that 571 00:34:28,780 --> 00:34:31,600 was taken from Yamaha Place. 572 00:34:31,600 --> 00:34:35,432 And I am also worried about the value of my home. 573 00:34:35,432 --> 00:34:38,896 This is not my forever home and I would like to eventually 574 00:34:38,896 --> 00:34:41,896 sell and move somewhere else. 575 00:34:41,946 --> 00:34:46,640 So I also am on board with Stephanie and Lindsey 576 00:34:46,640 --> 00:34:50,480 regarding this situation with the cell phone tower 577 00:34:50,480 --> 00:34:54,528 and the overall health and well-being of our families. 578 00:34:54,528 --> 00:34:56,959 And of course, our children. 579 00:34:56,959 --> 00:35:00,742 As you can see in the map, it is a cul de sac 580 00:35:00,742 --> 00:35:04,520 and a lot of children are outside playing. 581 00:35:04,520 --> 00:35:07,466 It's a pretty safe neighborhood overall. 582 00:35:07,466 --> 00:35:11,977 And I think the eyesore is also going to be a huge problem. 583 00:35:11,977 --> 00:35:14,301 I think it looks ugly, personally. 584 00:35:14,301 --> 00:35:17,220 And I don't think it should be here. 585 00:35:17,220 --> 00:35:19,706 I think it should be close to the Hammond trail. 586 00:35:19,706 --> 00:35:21,706 Thank you. 587 00:35:23,640 --> 00:35:24,520 >> Thank you. 588 00:35:24,520 --> 00:35:27,146 Okay, I'm not seeing any other hands raised online. 589 00:35:27,146 --> 00:35:30,390 I'm going to give one more second to make sure 590 00:35:30,390 --> 00:35:33,797 and then we are going to go ahead and close public comment. 591 00:35:33,797 --> 00:35:34,297 Okay. 592 00:35:34,297 --> 00:35:39,824 We are going to go ahead and close public comment 593 00:35:39,824 --> 00:35:44,466 and take this back to commission for deliberation. 594 00:35:44,466 --> 00:35:46,466 Commissioner Kyriazi. 595 00:35:47,400 --> 00:35:51,880 >> Can I ask what the zoning is around the alternate site? 596 00:35:51,880 --> 00:35:54,600 Are you able to pull that up? 597 00:35:54,600 --> 00:35:56,600 Is it the same zoning? 598 00:35:56,600 --> 00:35:59,600 Was it low density residential? 599 00:36:06,967 --> 00:36:10,567 Them the zoning of the -- 600 00:36:15,245 --> 00:36:19,445 >> The zoning of the alternate site (Indiscernible). 601 00:36:19,587 --> 00:36:21,987 Where is the zoning? 602 00:36:23,207 --> 00:36:25,207 It's not here. 603 00:36:25,397 --> 00:36:27,397 That's interesting. 604 00:36:28,967 --> 00:36:30,967 Let's try this. 605 00:36:36,887 --> 00:36:41,870 our GIS is not showing the zoning. 606 00:36:43,770 --> 00:36:48,570 Let's take a look at something else here. 607 00:36:53,929 --> 00:36:56,387 >> Commercial recreation is the zoning of the property that 608 00:36:56,387 --> 00:36:58,900 the alternate site would be on. 609 00:36:58,900 --> 00:37:05,500 But all of the properties north and south are zoned residential. 610 00:37:13,532 --> 00:37:16,527 >> Would you be able to bring that map up for us? 611 00:37:16,527 --> 00:37:21,927 And Commissioner, I see you have a question next. 612 00:37:27,560 --> 00:37:28,764 >> That should be up on the screen share. 613 00:37:28,764 --> 00:37:31,452 The property is the one that is shown there in red. 614 00:37:31,452 --> 00:37:35,870 So what this is doing is showing the zoning. 615 00:37:35,870 --> 00:37:37,447 Everything yellow is residential. 616 00:37:37,447 --> 00:37:38,327 Light yellow. 617 00:37:38,327 --> 00:37:41,317 And then red is the commercial recreation zone. 618 00:37:41,317 --> 00:37:45,200 So that red property is the alternate site. 619 00:37:45,200 --> 00:37:49,820 And then, if I take that layer off, 620 00:37:52,600 --> 00:37:55,807 you can see that there is a residential neighborhood 621 00:37:55,807 --> 00:37:57,738 down to the south. 622 00:37:57,738 --> 00:38:02,967 And a larger lot residential neighborhood to the north. 623 00:38:02,967 --> 00:38:06,167 >> If we were to pursue an alternative site, 624 00:38:06,167 --> 00:38:10,967 would we need to re notice this decision? 625 00:38:18,262 --> 00:38:19,845 >> It's my recollection from the past, 626 00:38:19,845 --> 00:38:25,245 when we evaluated cell tower sites, we've had -- 627 00:38:27,207 --> 00:38:29,307 the applicant has provided comparative information 628 00:38:29,307 --> 00:38:33,191 on the alternative sites, including visual as well 629 00:38:33,191 --> 00:38:35,475 as coverage maps and those types of things. 630 00:38:35,475 --> 00:38:39,767 So it's difficult for me to make a decision here 631 00:38:39,767 --> 00:38:41,767 without that comparative information. 632 00:38:41,767 --> 00:38:45,967 I know visual impact is somewhat subjective, 633 00:38:47,927 --> 00:38:51,167 but personally, I don't consider the impact of a drive 634 00:38:51,167 --> 00:38:55,930 by on the freeway the same as driving home to my house. 635 00:38:55,930 --> 00:38:57,197 So the people that live in the neighborhood 636 00:38:57,197 --> 00:39:00,527 and have front yards and backyards, 637 00:39:00,527 --> 00:39:03,727 and this is in their view shed, I consider 638 00:39:03,727 --> 00:39:06,237 that a little bit different than perhaps 639 00:39:06,237 --> 00:39:12,558 driving by a freeway or even walking or biking along a trail. 640 00:39:12,558 --> 00:39:17,183 So I would need -- for this project, to support it, 641 00:39:17,183 --> 00:39:20,260 I would need a complete practice with that additional information 642 00:39:20,260 --> 00:39:21,636 and comparative analysis. 643 00:39:21,636 --> 00:39:24,612 I'll tell you right now, for those reasons, 644 00:39:24,612 --> 00:39:30,120 I'm not going to be able to support this. 645 00:39:35,844 --> 00:39:36,927 >> Commissioner curiosity. 646 00:39:36,927 --> 00:39:38,700 >> Thank you. 647 00:39:38,700 --> 00:39:43,791 Can you clarify if future modifications to the cell tower 648 00:39:43,791 --> 00:39:49,687 were to increase the cumulative total watts per square meter 649 00:39:49,687 --> 00:39:51,751 output from that tower? 650 00:39:51,751 --> 00:39:54,919 Does that require a permit process? 651 00:39:54,919 --> 00:40:00,687 And does the county staff -- what would that look like? 652 00:40:00,687 --> 00:40:06,870 >> That would not require a permit from county staff. 653 00:40:08,247 --> 00:40:11,887 >> You could attach conditions to this though. 654 00:40:11,887 --> 00:40:15,467 It would say that any future modifications need 655 00:40:15,467 --> 00:40:19,670 to demonstrate compliance with RF -- 656 00:40:19,127 --> 00:40:21,527 FCC RF emission requirements. 657 00:40:30,429 --> 00:40:34,175 >> Yes, I was just thinking back to the old cell tower site. 658 00:40:34,175 --> 00:40:39,870 It was probably less than 150 yards from Widow White Trailer 659 00:40:39,870 --> 00:40:40,842 Park, correct? 660 00:40:40,842 --> 00:40:42,717 And there was nothing done on that cell tower 661 00:40:42,717 --> 00:40:45,940 to protect the viewshed or even try to hide it via a tree. 662 00:40:45,940 --> 00:40:47,887 Is that correct? 663 00:40:47,887 --> 00:40:48,780 >> Correct. 664 00:40:48,780 --> 00:40:54,767 It was strictly a gas station pole sign, rather tall, 665 00:40:54,767 --> 00:40:56,953 with antennas off the top. 666 00:40:56,953 --> 00:41:00,207 So I would consider this an improvement over what 667 00:41:00,207 --> 00:41:02,607 was there once before. 668 00:41:03,550 --> 00:41:06,300 It's real close to an industrial area 669 00:41:06,300 --> 00:41:09,751 as well that is looking in the future to be developed. 670 00:41:09,751 --> 00:41:12,895 I understand that it may not be the prettiest thing 671 00:41:12,895 --> 00:41:16,700 in your backyard, but I believe we 672 00:41:16,700 --> 00:41:19,373 don't worry about the viewshed, especially when they've 673 00:41:19,373 --> 00:41:21,620 tried to dress it up. 674 00:41:21,620 --> 00:41:23,927 If we move it over to the other side of the highway, 675 00:41:23,927 --> 00:41:26,385 you're going to have the same complaints just from somebody 676 00:41:26,385 --> 00:41:27,813 else on the other side. 677 00:41:27,813 --> 00:41:30,947 The health concerns, I like the condition 678 00:41:30,947 --> 00:41:36,347 of approving that they are within the FCC regulations. 679 00:41:37,270 --> 00:41:38,567 So I for 1 a.m. 680 00:41:38,567 --> 00:41:41,567 In favor of this project. 681 00:41:43,470 --> 00:41:45,543 >> Just to ask for clarification, 682 00:41:45,543 --> 00:41:49,107 I didn't see it on the alternative site analysis. 683 00:41:49,107 --> 00:41:54,407 But I thought someone had mentioned that the let's site 684 00:41:54,407 --> 00:41:59,191 was -- at the Lutz site was in the safety zone of the airport. 685 00:41:59,191 --> 00:42:00,444 Is that true? 686 00:42:00,444 --> 00:42:02,777 >> It would have been in safety zone two of the airport. 687 00:42:02,777 --> 00:42:06,870 The current proposed location is technically also 688 00:42:06,870 --> 00:42:07,975 in Safety Zone two. 689 00:42:07,975 --> 00:42:11,507 However, it is on the far right side of the approach. 690 00:42:11,507 --> 00:42:15,870 The alternative site is directly on approach. 691 00:42:15,870 --> 00:42:18,223 However, it is further back from what they would 692 00:42:18,223 --> 00:42:20,157 consider the tower location. 693 00:42:20,157 --> 00:42:23,557 So the FAA would still have to do a review to make sure 694 00:42:23,557 --> 00:42:25,000 that it would be Approvable. 695 00:42:25,000 --> 00:42:28,207 But it is technically a greater distance 696 00:42:28,207 --> 00:42:29,635 from the end of the runway. 697 00:42:29,635 --> 00:42:31,538 So I would assume that they would approve it. 698 00:42:31,538 --> 00:42:35,138 But I am not the FAA. 699 00:42:37,687 --> 00:42:40,887 >> Greater distance, but also in a direct flight path? 700 00:42:40,887 --> 00:42:42,887 >> Correct. 701 00:42:44,872 --> 00:42:47,247 >> I'm sorry I don't have the information in front of me. 702 00:42:47,247 --> 00:42:50,627 Can you help us understand the alternative 703 00:42:50,627 --> 00:42:55,427 to site proposed distance to potential residences compared 704 00:42:56,947 --> 00:43:01,747 to the current proposed site distance to residences? 705 00:43:15,606 --> 00:43:19,567 >> The closest site for the currently proposed is 150ft. 706 00:43:19,567 --> 00:43:25,567 The neighborhoods on Yamaha Place range between from what I 707 00:43:25,991 --> 00:43:30,191 calculated, 250 to 350ft depending on what side 708 00:43:30,460 --> 00:43:34,600 of the road you were on. 709 00:43:43,983 --> 00:43:45,983 >> (Indiscernible) (Indiscernible) 710 00:43:49,362 --> 00:43:52,610 >> I'll share a little bit of my thinking right now. 711 00:43:52,610 --> 00:43:53,978 I particularly feel for the public commentator 712 00:43:53,978 --> 00:43:55,941 who has chronic health condition and struggles 713 00:43:55,941 --> 00:43:57,958 to find a safe place to exist. 714 00:43:57,958 --> 00:44:00,131 I know what that's like but I also 715 00:44:00,131 --> 00:44:01,798 understand that's not within our purview 716 00:44:01,798 --> 00:44:03,564 to make a decision tonight. 717 00:44:03,564 --> 00:44:06,690 I think my thinking, from what I'm understanding, 718 00:44:06,690 --> 00:44:12,494 if there is an alternative site that the only difference is -- 719 00:44:12,494 --> 00:44:15,164 the primary difference for not choosing that site is because it 720 00:44:15,164 --> 00:44:18,151 does not blend as easily with the surroundings because there 721 00:44:18,151 --> 00:44:20,248 are not as many tall trees. 722 00:44:20,248 --> 00:44:25,648 I lean towards trying to address the neighborhood's concerns 723 00:44:28,171 --> 00:44:34,171 around their home values and a second site that potentially 724 00:44:35,942 --> 00:44:39,769 does not have neighbors as close but does a bit hinge on 725 00:44:39,769 --> 00:44:42,538 how close we have residents at this other alternative site. 726 00:44:42,538 --> 00:44:46,257 Because I do hear that if we are just looking at another site, 727 00:44:46,257 --> 00:44:48,674 then we are looking at a second neighborhood that's upset. 728 00:44:48,674 --> 00:44:50,175 That doesn't really get us anywhere 729 00:44:50,175 --> 00:44:56,775 and I would hate to delay the applicant for no reason. 730 00:45:01,915 --> 00:45:07,315 >> I guess, in response to that, I'm still undecided. 731 00:45:08,156 --> 00:45:11,384 Just what you stated, the only difference 732 00:45:11,384 --> 00:45:14,516 is we now move it to the direct approach path. 733 00:45:14,516 --> 00:45:17,719 We also move it to the west side of the highway which means 734 00:45:17,719 --> 00:45:20,869 it's going to be much bigger compared to the -- 735 00:45:20,869 --> 00:45:22,286 concern to the Coastal Commission. 736 00:45:22,286 --> 00:45:24,362 That's not our decision to make. 737 00:45:24,362 --> 00:45:26,279 That's up to the decision -- 738 00:45:26,279 --> 00:45:27,756 Commission. 739 00:45:27,756 --> 00:45:30,396 >> A much higher but even passable part of permitting 740 00:45:30,396 --> 00:45:35,396 because of the visual impacts and just the coastal 741 00:45:35,396 --> 00:45:35,896 development. 742 00:45:35,896 --> 00:45:39,656 I also didn't see a biological report done for the Lutz Avenue 743 00:45:39,656 --> 00:45:43,416 so we don't know if that is in a wetland or something that 744 00:45:43,416 --> 00:45:47,160 would actually prohibit the Non-compatible use. 745 00:45:51,116 --> 00:45:54,188 >> To add to that, I think the difference would be that 746 00:45:54,188 --> 00:45:58,360 the Lutz site is presumed commercial recreation, 747 00:45:58,360 --> 00:46:02,212 which to me has some meaning in terms of the likelihood 748 00:46:02,212 --> 00:46:08,812 of residences being built super close to that location is less. 749 00:46:12,591 --> 00:46:15,216 >> May I ask to you, it has some meaning in that it's favorable 750 00:46:15,216 --> 00:46:17,216 or not favorable? 751 00:46:18,236 --> 00:46:23,636 >> Favorable in terms of my concern of RF exposure, 752 00:46:24,412 --> 00:46:29,116 just watts per square meter, and making sure that it stays 753 00:46:29,116 --> 00:46:31,456 in compliance as development happens. 754 00:46:31,456 --> 00:46:35,656 But I also appreciate Director Ford's suggestion 755 00:46:36,129 --> 00:46:38,656 of conditioning that any future upgrades that 756 00:46:38,656 --> 00:46:41,796 changed that Watts per square meter output, 757 00:46:41,796 --> 00:46:44,436 just to make sure they demonstrate compliance with FCC. 758 00:46:44,436 --> 00:46:48,636 And I'm okay with that as well. 759 00:46:51,936 --> 00:46:54,436 >> Just the discussion and the speculation if you will about 760 00:46:54,436 --> 00:46:57,356 one site versus another site and the impacts, 761 00:46:57,356 --> 00:46:59,185 whether it's in the FAA flight zone, 762 00:46:59,185 --> 00:47:00,560 whether it's in the coastal zone, 763 00:47:00,560 --> 00:47:03,210 whether or not there's more residents there. 764 00:47:03,210 --> 00:47:04,936 That's the challenge that I'm having. 765 00:47:04,936 --> 00:47:06,786 We don't have comparable information 766 00:47:06,786 --> 00:47:09,475 and a complete packet of information 767 00:47:09,475 --> 00:47:12,622 on one site versus the other. 768 00:47:12,622 --> 00:47:18,622 So, it's difficult for me to make that determination based 769 00:47:18,626 --> 00:47:24,626 on what ifs , without having had the applicant provide that 770 00:47:29,586 --> 00:47:33,786 similar depth of information on both sides. 771 00:47:33,996 --> 00:47:36,964 Instead, the applicant has selected a site 772 00:47:36,964 --> 00:47:41,764 and justified that site as being more preferred. 773 00:47:44,796 --> 00:47:49,546 And so that leaves me in the quandary. 774 00:47:49,546 --> 00:47:54,346 And I'm still >> I certainly understand that sentiment. 775 00:47:54,403 --> 00:47:57,849 And I think my thought is that from our purview, 776 00:47:57,849 --> 00:48:02,108 it is our job to review what the applicant has submitted 777 00:48:02,108 --> 00:48:04,289 and then what staff have reviewed as part 778 00:48:04,289 --> 00:48:05,892 of the application package. 779 00:48:05,892 --> 00:48:08,796 And so if staff agrees with the applicant 780 00:48:08,796 --> 00:48:12,436 that the site complies with all regulations, 781 00:48:12,436 --> 00:48:16,460 and I could definitely get on board 782 00:48:16,460 --> 00:48:19,862 with the condition of demonstrating compliance 783 00:48:19,862 --> 00:48:20,796 in the future. 784 00:48:20,796 --> 00:48:24,776 But I think at this point I'm leaning towards support 785 00:48:24,776 --> 00:48:26,776 for the project. 786 00:48:32,459 --> 00:48:35,308 >> We did find the distance to the nearest residence from 787 00:48:35,308 --> 00:48:36,936 the alternative site. 788 00:48:36,936 --> 00:48:41,136 And the nearest residence is approximately 280ft. 789 00:48:41,636 --> 00:48:43,636 >> Thank you. 790 00:48:47,660 --> 00:48:48,649 >> So just to confirm, Yamaha was 250. 791 00:48:48,649 --> 00:48:54,490 So we see no difference in proximity to residential ? 792 00:48:57,341 --> 00:49:00,196 >> Yeah, to clarify though, Yamaha place is a more dense 793 00:49:00,196 --> 00:49:05,596 neighborhood than what you would have adjacent to Lutz . 794 00:49:06,882 --> 00:49:10,482 So it's not a complete comparison. 795 00:49:11,556 --> 00:49:15,532 >> And there is that residence that is on the proposed property 796 00:49:15,532 --> 00:49:17,932 that is closer, yes? 797 00:49:24,881 --> 00:49:29,681 Which I'm assuming that because it's on that property, 798 00:49:29,681 --> 00:49:32,521 those property owners are consenting to the cell tower. 799 00:49:32,521 --> 00:49:35,229 >> Our understanding is that the people who live on that property 800 00:49:35,229 --> 00:49:39,863 are renters so we do not know if they've actually consented. 801 00:49:39,863 --> 00:49:40,613 >> (Indiscernible) 802 00:49:40,613 --> 00:49:44,801 >> They would have received notice of this hearing. 803 00:49:44,801 --> 00:49:46,801 >> Thank you. 804 00:49:49,916 --> 00:49:53,290 >> It does state for that property (Indiscernible) that 805 00:49:53,290 --> 00:49:57,490 has a willing landowner on the analysis. 806 00:50:10,220 --> 00:50:12,647 >> I think I'm leaning towards Commissioner scandal and I'll be 807 00:50:12,647 --> 00:50:14,939 interested in a bit more information on the alternative 808 00:50:14,939 --> 00:50:17,939 sites presented by the applicant. 809 00:50:21,585 --> 00:50:26,601 >> You guys know my opinion but I generally support cell towers. 810 00:50:26,601 --> 00:50:33,129 But if 19 homeowners -- and a lot of Mckinleyville has turned 811 00:50:33,129 --> 00:50:33,705 into rentals. 812 00:50:33,705 --> 00:50:37,433 But when you have 19 out of 21 of the homeowners opposed to it, 813 00:50:37,433 --> 00:50:39,673 I think we should listen to people who 814 00:50:39,673 --> 00:50:41,441 have invested in Mckinleyville. 815 00:50:41,441 --> 00:50:45,410 And primarily the towers there that 816 00:50:45,137 --> 00:50:47,241 serve people driving up and down the highway, 817 00:50:47,241 --> 00:50:49,369 that's its primary function. 818 00:50:49,369 --> 00:50:52,697 But I would vote against it. 819 00:50:52,697 --> 00:50:54,697 That's my opinion. 820 00:50:59,819 --> 00:51:01,819 >> (Indiscernible) answered your question before 821 00:51:01,819 --> 00:51:04,441 but the alternatives analysis does say that the Lutz parcel 822 00:51:04,441 --> 00:51:07,217 would be considered as part of the primary candidate 823 00:51:07,217 --> 00:51:09,737 if the first parcel was disqualified. 824 00:51:09,737 --> 00:51:13,110 So I think from that, we can interpret based on your earlier 825 00:51:13,110 --> 00:51:15,801 question that AT&T wouldn't scrap the project, 826 00:51:15,801 --> 00:51:17,698 but they would review the second site. 827 00:51:17,698 --> 00:51:20,111 So we don't know if the second site is permeable, 828 00:51:20,111 --> 00:51:24,311 but they would still pursue the project. 829 00:51:25,810 --> 00:51:27,511 >> So I'm hearing sentiments in favor. 830 00:51:27,511 --> 00:51:29,494 I'm hearing sentiments against. 831 00:51:29,494 --> 00:51:31,954 I'm hearing that we need more information. 832 00:51:31,954 --> 00:51:36,810 Unless there's more discussions to be had, 833 00:51:36,810 --> 00:51:39,281 would anybody care to dabble in a motion 834 00:51:39,281 --> 00:51:42,281 in one direction or another? 835 00:51:45,818 --> 00:51:46,943 >> I'll take a stab at one. 836 00:51:46,943 --> 00:51:49,401 I would move to continue this project 837 00:51:49,401 --> 00:51:53,161 and request the applicant to provide additional information 838 00:51:53,161 --> 00:51:57,361 on alternate sites including equivalent information as 839 00:52:04,361 --> 00:52:07,361 presented for the primary site. 840 00:52:10,473 --> 00:52:11,681 >> I'd make a recommendation. 841 00:52:11,681 --> 00:52:14,332 Before you make that motion and get a second on it, 842 00:52:14,332 --> 00:52:16,249 I would encourage you to talk to the applicant 843 00:52:16,249 --> 00:52:21,649 and see if they are willing to do that. 844 00:52:22,441 --> 00:52:25,474 I'll just ask you to ask that question 845 00:52:25,474 --> 00:52:28,281 and I would ask you to ask that question. 846 00:52:28,281 --> 00:52:32,601 >> Can you remind me of the applicant's name? 847 00:52:32,601 --> 00:52:35,601 >> It looks like Aaron Deleo. 848 00:52:38,601 --> 00:52:41,601 >> Please approach the podium, yes. 849 00:52:41,878 --> 00:52:42,795 >> Thank you for that. 850 00:52:42,795 --> 00:52:45,835 I was dying to come back up here. 851 00:52:45,835 --> 00:52:49,409 So I was asked to provide information about the candidate 852 00:52:49,409 --> 00:52:55,456 over by the golf course, which, if you had asked about photo 853 00:52:55,456 --> 00:52:56,831 simulations and other information 854 00:52:56,831 --> 00:53:00,847 about the Lutz candidate, I'd be happy to provide that. 855 00:53:00,847 --> 00:53:04,881 I think that AT&T would prefer to continue and provide 856 00:53:04,881 --> 00:53:08,481 additional information than to have a denial 857 00:53:08,481 --> 00:53:11,921 and possibly go to appeal or whatever type of other remedies 858 00:53:11,921 --> 00:53:14,458 they would want to go for. 859 00:53:14,458 --> 00:53:17,873 I think that there are problems with the Lutz property. 860 00:53:17,873 --> 00:53:21,921 I did do the original scrub of this ring. 861 00:53:21,921 --> 00:53:24,330 We call it scrubbing a search ring. 862 00:53:24,330 --> 00:53:27,589 The circles that Michael showed on the map, 863 00:53:27,589 --> 00:53:31,945 there was a smaller one that focused around the gas station 864 00:53:31,945 --> 00:53:35,336 where the exit site is -- at the site that's being 865 00:53:35,336 --> 00:53:35,961 decommissioned. 866 00:53:35,961 --> 00:53:38,337 I searched all of those properties, 867 00:53:38,337 --> 00:53:40,233 and I didn't find anything that would 868 00:53:40,233 --> 00:53:43,803 work with a willing landlord and all the other things we need. 869 00:53:43,803 --> 00:53:46,730 AT&T expanded it even further. 870 00:53:46,730 --> 00:53:50,774 I've been doing this for two years on this one search ring. 871 00:53:50,774 --> 00:53:55,340 So I prefer not to scrap everything and just 872 00:53:55,340 --> 00:53:59,931 be able to provide enough information to you to make 873 00:53:59,931 --> 00:54:01,931 a informed decision. 874 00:54:04,574 --> 00:54:06,569 >> Do we have any questions for the applicant? 875 00:54:06,569 --> 00:54:08,569 Thank you. 876 00:54:19,581 --> 00:54:22,321 >> I'll second a motion if there is no more discussion. 877 00:54:22,321 --> 00:54:24,321 (Indiscernible) uncertain. 878 00:54:31,450 --> 00:54:33,161 >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. 879 00:54:33,161 --> 00:54:35,743 >> Could you add to that? 880 00:54:35,743 --> 00:54:37,732 I don't know how to phrase this but could 881 00:54:37,732 --> 00:54:42,227 you add to this that for the first two sites, 882 00:54:42,227 --> 00:54:46,100 that we need to hear from the Coastal Commission? 883 00:54:46,100 --> 00:54:49,100 Especially because the Western site, 884 00:54:49,861 --> 00:54:52,541 whether it's the biological resources, the visual, 885 00:54:52,541 --> 00:54:55,321 it completely disqualifies them from permitting at all. 886 00:54:55,321 --> 00:54:57,705 I think that needs to be a factor in our decision. 887 00:54:57,705 --> 00:55:02,505 That could be more information for the continuance. 888 00:55:04,753 --> 00:55:06,961 >> I'm okay with that if that seems like a reasonable 889 00:55:06,961 --> 00:55:08,961 condition. 890 00:55:09,121 --> 00:55:14,810 >> We can ask, but we can't force a response. 891 00:55:14,810 --> 00:55:17,441 >> And to clarify that the west side of the highway is 892 00:55:17,441 --> 00:55:19,841 significantly different in consideration 893 00:55:20,214 --> 00:55:21,894 for the Commission? 894 00:55:21,894 --> 00:55:27,294 Bam particularly, when it comes to scenic vistas. -- 895 00:55:28,421 --> 00:55:32,870 >> Particularly, when it comes to scenic vistas. 896 00:55:32,870 --> 00:55:34,587 >> The other thing through the chair is obviously that if it 897 00:55:34,587 --> 00:55:37,212 were to be considered, we would want to see detailed biological 898 00:55:37,212 --> 00:55:40,201 information which probably not be able to be obtained until 899 00:55:40,201 --> 00:55:41,441 next spring. 900 00:55:41,441 --> 00:55:44,141 We can see about getting some feedback from the commission 901 00:55:44,141 --> 00:55:46,901 but we're not going to have complete information 902 00:55:46,901 --> 00:55:52,901 to decide that that is an appropriate site to approve. 903 00:55:53,201 --> 00:55:54,289 >> Yes. 904 00:55:54,289 --> 00:55:54,833 Agreement. 905 00:55:54,833 --> 00:55:58,105 But we could use some existing online resources 906 00:55:58,105 --> 00:56:01,521 to get a baseline assumption of what could exist. 907 00:56:01,521 --> 00:56:04,100 And we could get Coastal Commission staff 908 00:56:04,100 --> 00:56:07,849 feedback on the visual impact, and then 909 00:56:07,849 --> 00:56:10,249 maybe take the temperature. 910 00:56:16,396 --> 00:56:18,729 >> I believe we have another question for the applicant, 911 00:56:18,729 --> 00:56:23,529 if you would please approach the podium again. 912 00:56:24,100 --> 00:56:27,261 >> I just have a quick question in regards to the property -- 913 00:56:27,261 --> 00:56:29,801 the second property across the highway. 914 00:56:29,801 --> 00:56:32,321 Is there any infrastructure already in place as to roads 915 00:56:32,321 --> 00:56:35,381 to where the cell tower would be installed? 916 00:56:35,381 --> 00:56:35,881 >> No. 917 00:56:35,881 --> 00:56:39,361 We would have to improve a road to get to the spot 918 00:56:39,361 --> 00:56:45,267 that the landowner specified as the best spot to place it. 919 00:56:45,267 --> 00:56:48,290 That was two years ago. 920 00:56:48,290 --> 00:56:50,937 So I don't know if the property has changed hands. 921 00:56:50,937 --> 00:56:52,865 I don't know if that landlord is willing. 922 00:56:52,865 --> 00:56:56,281 I guess that would probably be the first step. 923 00:56:56,281 --> 00:56:58,421 But there are problems with that. 924 00:56:58,421 --> 00:57:02,350 Like I said, I've been doing this for 20 years. 925 00:57:02,350 --> 00:57:04,193 I try to find the path of least resistance, 926 00:57:04,193 --> 00:57:07,901 not just only for the community but for myself. 927 00:57:07,901 --> 00:57:12,587 We don't want this to turn into a battle of us against them 928 00:57:12,587 --> 00:57:14,294 or anything like that. 929 00:57:14,294 --> 00:57:18,481 It may very well be in the flight path of the airport. 930 00:57:18,481 --> 00:57:23,281 And I know we had this current site. 931 00:57:23,501 --> 00:57:26,184 We had the tower taller. 932 00:57:26,184 --> 00:57:27,993 And with the local airport authority, 933 00:57:27,993 --> 00:57:33,227 they had us bring it down because of the distance to -- 934 00:57:33,227 --> 00:57:36,813 I forget what it was but it was very complicated. 935 00:57:36,813 --> 00:57:43,429 This new site, we will have to look at the let's site and see 936 00:57:43,429 --> 00:57:47,363 if it would even be allowed there or they would shorten us 937 00:57:47,363 --> 00:57:50,361 to 35ft or something that wouldn't work. 938 00:57:50,361 --> 00:57:54,441 So they would need to be some additional work there. -- 939 00:57:54,441 --> 00:57:56,721 there would need to be some additional work there. 940 00:57:56,721 --> 00:57:59,209 >> In the two years that you would review these sites, 941 00:57:59,209 --> 00:58:02,721 did you confer with the people that lived around the Yamaha 942 00:58:02,721 --> 00:58:05,121 site or the area? 943 00:58:05,201 --> 00:58:07,201 >> No. 944 00:58:10,937 --> 00:58:12,937 >> I just want to put the question on the table, 945 00:58:12,937 --> 00:58:18,481 what happens if we come back and we have an outpouring of letters 946 00:58:18,481 --> 00:58:22,810 from the public saying that they are against the Lutz site 947 00:58:22,810 --> 00:58:25,321 because they use the Hammond Trail and it's a visual impact 948 00:58:25,321 --> 00:58:26,258 to a scenic view? 949 00:58:26,258 --> 00:58:28,241 So now we are weighing those opinions 950 00:58:28,241 --> 00:58:30,641 versus the Yamaha residents. 951 00:58:33,905 --> 00:58:35,238 It puts us in a bit of a pickle. 952 00:58:35,238 --> 00:58:36,975 I don't have an answer but it's something 953 00:58:36,975 --> 00:58:40,940 to consider if we continue it and we see that outpouring, 954 00:58:40,940 --> 00:58:43,325 because now you have potentially a broader impact. 955 00:58:43,325 --> 00:58:45,825 >> There's also the alternative that you don't do the tower, 956 00:58:45,825 --> 00:58:47,147 or there's another site. 957 00:58:47,147 --> 00:58:49,721 So it's not all or nothing. 958 00:58:49,721 --> 00:58:55,710 If it's not here, it can't be there, then it'll never happen. 959 00:58:55,710 --> 00:58:58,694 Of course, there's been money invested in researching these 960 00:58:58,694 --> 00:59:01,725 sites already, and say they don't want to lose that 961 00:59:01,725 --> 00:59:07,139 investment. -- and so they don't want to lose that investment. 962 00:59:07,139 --> 00:59:07,889 >> (Indiscernible) 963 00:59:07,889 --> 00:59:10,809 >> I think that we consider that after we look at what the review 964 00:59:10,809 --> 00:59:13,809 is of the alternative site. 965 00:59:14,514 --> 00:59:16,625 But it's not all or nothing. 966 00:59:16,625 --> 00:59:19,821 And maybe we don't approve any site. 967 00:59:19,821 --> 00:59:21,821 I don't know. 968 00:59:22,961 --> 00:59:24,566 >> My answer to that question is, 969 00:59:24,566 --> 00:59:27,921 we will have done our due diligence and explored 970 00:59:27,921 --> 00:59:28,553 alternatives. 971 00:59:28,553 --> 00:59:32,481 And for me, even if that points us back to the site 972 00:59:32,481 --> 00:59:34,667 that we are looking at today, I can still 973 00:59:34,667 --> 00:59:40,209 make a decision to do that if I had all the information. 974 00:59:40,209 --> 00:59:42,138 So that's all I asking. 975 00:59:42,138 --> 00:59:48,811 If we check with the FAA and they say it's not feasible, 976 00:59:48,811 --> 00:59:50,210 then it's not feasible. 977 00:59:50,210 --> 00:59:51,441 But we checked. 978 00:59:51,441 --> 00:59:53,841 That's all I'm asking. 979 00:59:53,921 --> 00:59:57,521 >> I'm going to -- do you have something to say? 980 00:59:57,521 --> 01:00:02,521 >> I hope it's not a matter of a site or not a site, 981 01:00:02,521 --> 01:00:07,321 because the FCC is pretty strict about that. 982 01:00:07,541 --> 01:00:10,157 They need to provide coverage, we 983 01:00:10,157 --> 01:00:12,884 need to allow them to provide coverage. 984 01:00:12,884 --> 01:00:18,941 What I hear is, is this really a matter of this 985 01:00:18,941 --> 01:00:20,421 being the best site? 986 01:00:20,421 --> 01:00:23,147 Have the alternatives rendered a better coverage map? 987 01:00:23,147 --> 01:00:25,681 Do they render a better visibility? 988 01:00:25,681 --> 01:00:28,214 And so coming back with that information 989 01:00:28,214 --> 01:00:32,427 to demonstrate that this is the better site for coverage. 990 01:00:32,427 --> 01:00:36,627 It is a better sight for visibility. 991 01:00:38,251 --> 01:00:42,621 For the larger community, I understand the residents 992 01:00:42,621 --> 01:00:43,952 are very concerned about it. 993 01:00:43,952 --> 01:00:46,121 And you can't really argue with that. 994 01:00:46,121 --> 01:00:49,810 But it really is a matter of taking the broader picture 995 01:00:49,810 --> 01:00:51,810 into consideration. 996 01:00:52,281 --> 01:00:54,307 >> Can you explain that better to me? 997 01:00:54,307 --> 01:00:56,781 AT&T is the applicant, right? 998 01:00:56,781 --> 01:00:58,501 They are the ones that will financially 999 01:00:58,501 --> 01:01:02,449 benefit from this tower, so how does the FCC need this site? 1000 01:01:02,449 --> 01:01:05,641 I thought they were the permitting authority? 1001 01:01:05,641 --> 01:01:08,601 >> One thing I can tell you, if you're driving in that area 1002 01:01:08,601 --> 01:01:12,510 right now, you saw the coverage map earlier. 1003 01:01:12,510 --> 01:01:17,107 People don't have indoor coverage anymore in that area. 1004 01:01:17,107 --> 01:01:17,834 Okay? 1005 01:01:17,834 --> 01:01:21,201 So now, there's adequate outdoor coverage. 1006 01:01:21,201 --> 01:01:25,905 But most carriers want to achieve indoor coverage 1007 01:01:25,905 --> 01:01:30,305 so that people can connect to the internet with their cell 1008 01:01:30,305 --> 01:01:31,929 phones in their homes. 1009 01:01:31,929 --> 01:01:36,441 Right now, that's been curtailed a little bit 1010 01:01:36,441 --> 01:01:38,761 because the site has been taken down. 1011 01:01:38,761 --> 01:01:43,169 So AT&T obviously wants to provide good service 1012 01:01:43,169 --> 01:01:44,481 to their customers. 1013 01:01:44,481 --> 01:01:47,841 This obviously is a site that gets used. 1014 01:01:47,841 --> 01:01:51,364 I don't think that they think they are going to build a site 1015 01:01:51,364 --> 01:01:52,881 and attract customers. 1016 01:01:52,881 --> 01:01:55,961 They have customers that they need to serve. 1017 01:01:55,961 --> 01:02:00,610 And the FCC wants to make sure that they are 1018 01:02:00,610 --> 01:02:02,913 able to provide that service. 1019 01:02:02,913 --> 01:02:06,951 And so that's where the FCC gets involved and says, 1020 01:02:06,951 --> 01:02:09,741 local jurisdictions, you can't come up with reasons 1021 01:02:09,741 --> 01:02:12,741 to just deny these sites. 1022 01:02:14,121 --> 01:02:19,134 >> And I'll add as counsel, that the way they do it is very rule 1023 01:02:19,134 --> 01:02:23,658 making and it's very detailed (Indiscernible) when state 1024 01:02:23,658 --> 01:02:25,601 and local regulations become -- 1025 01:02:25,601 --> 01:02:26,761 I'm sorry. 1026 01:02:26,761 --> 01:02:29,617 I'll add that FCC regulations also 1027 01:02:29,617 --> 01:02:34,377 add in specific rules for when state and local regulations can 1028 01:02:34,377 --> 01:02:36,227 amount to an effective prohibition. 1029 01:02:36,227 --> 01:02:38,401 And that's something that I'm happy to provide 1030 01:02:38,401 --> 01:02:39,457 additional details about. 1031 01:02:39,457 --> 01:02:41,801 I'm not saying that anything that I've heard today 1032 01:02:41,801 --> 01:02:43,780 hasn't gone on the wrong side of that line. 1033 01:02:43,780 --> 01:02:46,361 But really, what it is, it's a great question. 1034 01:02:46,361 --> 01:02:49,621 The FCC actually has the ability to limit what any local state 1035 01:02:49,621 --> 01:02:53,761 regulatory body is able to do on this topic because of touching 1036 01:02:53,761 --> 01:02:55,201 on interstate commerce. 1037 01:02:55,201 --> 01:02:58,921 So that is how they authorize that. 1038 01:02:58,921 --> 01:03:01,837 >> The lack of coverage is a health and safety issue. 1039 01:03:01,837 --> 01:03:03,629 If there's people living in that community. 1040 01:03:03,629 --> 01:03:06,256 And I don't know how many are impacted by the fact 1041 01:03:06,256 --> 01:03:08,121 that that other tower went down in. 1042 01:03:08,121 --> 01:03:11,470 But if they are unable in their home with their cell phones 1043 01:03:11,470 --> 01:03:14,433 to call 911 -- well, I guess they can call 911. 1044 01:03:14,433 --> 01:03:17,661 But call family or whoever they might need to. 1045 01:03:17,661 --> 01:03:19,520 And so you're saying, right now there 1046 01:03:19,520 --> 01:03:20,832 are people who can't do that? 1047 01:03:20,832 --> 01:03:26,232 Or that are >> don't want to specific arguments -- 1048 01:03:26,809 --> 01:03:28,970 comments like that. 1049 01:03:28,970 --> 01:03:30,577 But you saw on the coverage map that indoor coverage 1050 01:03:30,577 --> 01:03:33,921 was removed from that area, including the residents. 1051 01:03:33,921 --> 01:03:35,281 It's not just the freeway. 1052 01:03:35,281 --> 01:03:38,161 That was for people who are living there. 1053 01:03:38,161 --> 01:03:39,741 >> Who are just AT&T customers? 1054 01:03:39,741 --> 01:03:42,951 Because I hadn't noticed a difference. 1055 01:03:42,951 --> 01:03:44,951 But, okay. 1056 01:03:45,520 --> 01:03:47,647 >> That site may not be off air. 1057 01:03:47,647 --> 01:03:49,560 I'm not sure about that. 1058 01:03:49,560 --> 01:03:53,158 Will usually try to get the new site up on air before the -- 1059 01:03:53,158 --> 01:03:55,647 we usually try to get the new site up on air before the old 1060 01:03:55,647 --> 01:03:58,120 site is going to be decommissioned. 1061 01:03:58,120 --> 01:03:59,220 >> I'm happy to be corrected. 1062 01:03:59,220 --> 01:04:00,694 I thought that the site went down. 1063 01:04:00,694 --> 01:04:02,694 Thank you. 1064 01:04:03,441 --> 01:04:08,161 >> You might have had a comment before I moved to Director Ford? 1065 01:04:08,161 --> 01:04:09,560 Okay. 1066 01:04:09,560 --> 01:04:11,560 Commissioner karaoke. 1067 01:04:16,196 --> 01:04:18,321 >> I'm just acknowledging the proposed modification 1068 01:04:18,321 --> 01:04:23,661 to the motion of asking the Coastal Commission for comments. 1069 01:04:23,661 --> 01:04:26,670 It makes sense to me. 1070 01:04:26,670 --> 01:04:30,801 And then, including -- it sounds like we are proposing to include 1071 01:04:30,801 --> 01:04:33,234 information from the f a. 1072 01:04:33,234 --> 01:04:36,834 Is that what I was hearing? 1073 01:04:39,156 --> 01:04:41,489 >> We will look at that and we will determine the extent 1074 01:04:41,489 --> 01:04:44,866 to which additional analysis needs to be done. 1075 01:04:44,866 --> 01:04:47,241 >> Don't both of the sites require the Coastal Commission 1076 01:04:47,241 --> 01:04:48,827 approval? 1077 01:04:48,827 --> 01:04:49,961 >> No. 1078 01:04:49,961 --> 01:04:51,521 >> Just the one? 1079 01:04:51,521 --> 01:04:55,587 >> Neither one requires Coastal Commission approval unless 1080 01:04:55,587 --> 01:04:57,587 it's appealed. 1081 01:04:57,721 --> 01:05:01,734 >> So why do we want to know then what they think? 1082 01:05:01,734 --> 01:05:04,201 >> I was asking because on the west side, 1083 01:05:04,201 --> 01:05:06,873 you have a much higher likelihood of it getting 1084 01:05:06,873 --> 01:05:07,525 appealed. 1085 01:05:07,525 --> 01:05:11,267 If he gets appealed to the Coastal Commission, 1086 01:05:11,267 --> 01:05:14,321 the Coastal Commission can deny it. 1087 01:05:14,321 --> 01:05:16,105 >> So you're just worried about an appeal? 1088 01:05:16,105 --> 01:05:18,230 You're not worried about them not getting a permit? 1089 01:05:18,230 --> 01:05:20,811 Because the county would be issuing that for them? 1090 01:05:20,811 --> 01:05:21,311 >> Right. 1091 01:05:21,311 --> 01:05:25,627 But it's much more likely on the west side to be appealed. 1092 01:05:25,627 --> 01:05:27,454 >> Okay. 1093 01:05:27,454 --> 01:05:31,214 >> I don't know who to ask, if this is a question 1094 01:05:31,214 --> 01:05:35,521 to the director, but how long, if we were to ask for this 1095 01:05:35,521 --> 01:05:39,717 continuance, how long would that information take to gather? 1096 01:05:39,717 --> 01:05:41,884 >> That's something we're going to have to work with 1097 01:05:41,884 --> 01:05:45,810 the applicant on to put that information together. 1098 01:05:45,810 --> 01:05:47,721 I don't know what their ability is. 1099 01:05:47,721 --> 01:05:50,361 We will work with the airport. 1100 01:05:50,361 --> 01:05:54,640 But first, we've got to -- realistically, 1101 01:05:54,640 --> 01:05:58,330 they've got to do their analysis of the height of the tower, 1102 01:05:58,330 --> 01:05:59,801 the location of the tower. 1103 01:05:59,801 --> 01:06:04,810 And then after that's done, we know what the coverage is. 1104 01:06:04,810 --> 01:06:07,521 Then we can determine the visual impacts. 1105 01:06:07,521 --> 01:06:10,601 Then we can talk to the airport director 1106 01:06:10,601 --> 01:06:16,100 about what the potential impacts to the airport are. 1107 01:06:22,110 --> 01:06:24,344 >> I'm just cognizant of the amount of work that's going 1108 01:06:24,344 --> 01:06:25,625 to add to county staff. 1109 01:06:25,625 --> 01:06:28,161 We've also had similar cases not where the applicant has 1110 01:06:28,161 --> 01:06:30,441 been a large commercial industry, 1111 01:06:30,441 --> 01:06:33,337 but some similar cases where it's been an individual 1112 01:06:33,337 --> 01:06:34,881 and they don't want the continuance 1113 01:06:34,881 --> 01:06:38,359 because financially they need to move the project along. 1114 01:06:38,359 --> 01:06:40,554 So I don't know that that applies here, 1115 01:06:40,554 --> 01:06:43,806 but I am cognizant of the work that is going 1116 01:06:43,806 --> 01:06:47,406 to be put on county staff. 1117 01:06:48,521 --> 01:06:51,801 >> I believe we heard from the applicant that they preferred 1118 01:06:51,801 --> 01:06:55,401 a continuance over a decision today, 1119 01:06:55,801 --> 01:07:00,100 that given the direction of the wind . 1120 01:07:02,916 --> 01:07:07,387 I just wanted to -- to some of the comments I heard earlier, 1121 01:07:07,387 --> 01:07:10,658 I truly am on the fence on this. 1122 01:07:10,658 --> 01:07:12,595 I hear you. 1123 01:07:12,595 --> 01:07:15,521 I appreciate that the applicant is willing to find more 1124 01:07:15,521 --> 01:07:20,864 information and that this is the kind of project that there is 1125 01:07:20,864 --> 01:07:25,100 usually no good side, and we have to make a decision. -- 1126 01:07:25,100 --> 01:07:27,737 no good sight, and we have to make a decision. 1127 01:07:27,737 --> 01:07:30,161 Two Commissioner's point, I think 1128 01:07:30,161 --> 01:07:32,621 I would like to really make sure that I 1129 01:07:32,621 --> 01:07:36,761 feel like we've done our due diligence 1130 01:07:36,761 --> 01:07:41,161 and are addressing finding the best possible site 1131 01:07:41,161 --> 01:07:42,145 for this community. 1132 01:07:42,145 --> 01:07:45,201 Thank you for being here tonight. 1133 01:07:45,201 --> 01:07:48,801 Thank you for answering our questions. 1134 01:07:48,801 --> 01:07:51,789 We have a motion and a second on the table . 1135 01:07:51,789 --> 01:07:54,170 We have a request for an amendment to that motion. 1136 01:07:54,170 --> 01:07:58,881 I wanted to process the point and make sure 1137 01:07:58,881 --> 01:08:02,410 that the seconder was okay with that amendment to the motion. 1138 01:08:02,410 --> 01:08:03,281 >> No. 1139 01:08:03,281 --> 01:08:04,140 >> Okay. 1140 01:08:04,140 --> 01:08:06,661 So then, I do believe, process-wise, 1141 01:08:06,661 --> 01:08:09,610 we need director Ford. 1142 01:08:10,781 --> 01:08:14,353 >> Process-wide, you even -- you need another second or you need 1143 01:08:14,353 --> 01:08:16,241 to reframe the motion. 1144 01:08:16,241 --> 01:08:18,701 >> Can I ask why, if you're specifically pushing 1145 01:08:18,701 --> 01:08:20,621 for a continuance to get more information, 1146 01:08:20,621 --> 01:08:24,821 why wouldn't you want to get -- 1147 01:08:29,874 --> 01:08:32,291 >> Because I think that's the applicant's decision whether 1148 01:08:32,291 --> 01:08:32,587 they want to approach the coastal Commission. 1149 01:08:32,587 --> 01:08:35,656 And I think if we approached the Coastal Commission, 1150 01:08:35,656 --> 01:08:39,856 we are putting that pathway in place. 1151 01:08:40,754 --> 01:08:45,241 So I would leave it up to the applicant to -- 1152 01:08:45,241 --> 01:08:48,441 if they are concerned about that, 1153 01:08:48,441 --> 01:08:51,571 they could certainly take it to the Coastal Commission. 1154 01:08:51,571 --> 01:08:54,172 I don't think we need to direct them to do that. 1155 01:08:54,172 --> 01:08:57,961 I think it opens another can of worms. 1156 01:08:57,961 --> 01:09:00,881 >> I guess playing devil's advocate here, 1157 01:09:00,881 --> 01:09:04,465 worst case scenario would be we approve the Lutz location, 1158 01:09:04,465 --> 01:09:06,511 it gets appealed and then denied by coastal, 1159 01:09:06,511 --> 01:09:09,741 and then the applicant is right back here? 1160 01:09:09,741 --> 01:09:11,841 >> That's the applicant's risk. 1161 01:09:11,841 --> 01:09:17,241 >> Understand that we can't just move it to the Lutz location. 1162 01:09:17,241 --> 01:09:21,441 The applicant's agreeable, this application being withdrawn. 1163 01:09:22,336 --> 01:09:24,491 A new application being submitted, 1164 01:09:24,491 --> 01:09:28,441 sending out referrals that would include the Coastal Commission, 1165 01:09:28,441 --> 01:09:30,821 having conversations with the Coastal Commission 1166 01:09:30,821 --> 01:09:33,710 about that new application. 1167 01:09:33,710 --> 01:09:35,471 It starts all over. 1168 01:09:46,168 --> 01:09:50,341 >> I'm convinced and fine with removing those amendments 1169 01:09:50,341 --> 01:09:55,741 and keeping to my original proposal to request comparable 1170 01:09:57,334 --> 01:10:03,334 information for alternate sites for us to make an informed 1171 01:10:03,649 --> 01:10:04,625 decision. 1172 01:10:04,625 --> 01:10:10,250 And continuing to >> I believe that brings us back 1173 01:10:11,748 --> 01:10:14,493 to our original motion and our second. 1174 01:10:14,493 --> 01:10:15,545 Okay! 1175 01:10:15,545 --> 01:10:20,304 Well, then, I believe with that, let's go ahead 1176 01:10:20,304 --> 01:10:24,504 and have a roll call vote, please. 1177 01:10:25,348 --> 01:10:27,472 [Members roll call vote in progress] 1178 01:10:27,472 --> 01:10:29,241 >> Yes. 1179 01:10:29,241 --> 01:10:31,241 >> Yes. 1180 01:10:32,561 --> 01:10:34,561 >> Yes. 1181 01:10:35,561 --> 01:10:37,561 >> Yes. 1182 01:10:41,949 --> 01:10:42,721 >> Yes. 1183 01:10:42,721 --> 01:10:44,721 >> Motion passes. 1184 01:10:45,100 --> 01:10:46,961 >> Okay, thank you. 1185 01:10:46,961 --> 01:10:48,961 >> Thanks. 1186 01:10:51,429 --> 01:10:52,971 >> Alright, this brings us to item H, 1187 01:10:52,971 --> 01:10:56,501 our public workshop on the Humboldt Bay area plan. 1188 01:10:56,501 --> 01:10:58,909 I think this is probably a good time for us 1189 01:10:58,909 --> 01:11:01,352 to take our ten minute break. 1190 01:11:01,352 --> 01:11:04,669 We will return at 7:21 p.m. 1191 01:11:04,669 --> 01:11:08,269 To take up the workshop item. 1192 01:20:51,367 --> 01:20:53,165 >> We are back. 1193 01:20:53,165 --> 01:21:00,365 We are going to go ahead and move to our workshop item. 1194 01:21:03,278 --> 01:21:07,478 I'm gonna pause for just one moment. 1195 01:21:07,998 --> 01:21:10,704 >> My apologies come on we can go ahead. 1196 01:21:10,704 --> 01:21:13,518 >> I just wanted to make sure it wasn't anything we needed 1197 01:21:13,518 --> 01:21:14,158 to address. 1198 01:21:14,158 --> 01:21:17,746 We have a public workshop on the Humboldt Bay area plan. 1199 01:21:17,746 --> 01:21:21,878 And we are going to do this a little bit differently tonight. 1200 01:21:21,878 --> 01:21:24,446 If you've been following along this 1201 01:21:24,446 --> 01:21:26,854 will be our third time with the workshop. 1202 01:21:26,854 --> 01:21:31,611 We've made it about two thirds of the way through the document 1203 01:21:31,611 --> 01:21:32,724 so far. 1204 01:21:32,724 --> 01:21:39,358 Staff has asked to start with a presentation on the Samoa Town 1205 01:21:39,358 --> 01:21:40,380 Master Plan. 1206 01:21:40,380 --> 01:21:43,384 And then we're going to do public comment on that piece. 1207 01:21:43,384 --> 01:21:46,854 And then we will move back to the top of the document 1208 01:21:46,854 --> 01:21:51,318 and go through the changes and discuss things again and pick up 1209 01:21:51,318 --> 01:21:53,203 where we left off last time. 1210 01:21:53,203 --> 01:21:57,558 And if we have time to do a second public comment again 1211 01:21:57,558 --> 01:22:00,438 on the other changes to the documents 1212 01:22:00,438 --> 01:22:03,798 separate from the Samoa Town Master Plan. 1213 01:22:03,798 --> 01:22:05,998 Did I capture that accurately? 1214 01:22:05,998 --> 01:22:07,998 Great. 1215 01:22:08,380 --> 01:22:10,380 >> Yes you did. 1216 01:22:10,380 --> 01:22:11,825 >> Do you have a question? 1217 01:22:11,825 --> 01:22:13,742 >> I want to make sure I heard that correctly. 1218 01:22:13,742 --> 01:22:17,460 So we're going to cover the proposed changes in the Samoa 1219 01:22:17,460 --> 01:22:19,358 master plan section, take public comment 1220 01:22:19,358 --> 01:22:22,958 and then go back to the beginning of the document? 1221 01:22:22,958 --> 01:22:24,958 >> I believe so. 1222 01:22:25,758 --> 01:22:30,840 >> We also recognize that there are some questions on the Samoa 1223 01:22:30,840 --> 01:22:31,354 Town Master plan. 1224 01:22:31,354 --> 01:22:35,198 We will do that as a part of this. 1225 01:22:35,198 --> 01:22:36,470 >> Thank you. 1226 01:22:36,470 --> 01:22:40,700 With staff, whenever you are ready. 1227 01:22:52,725 --> 01:22:53,850 >> Good evening Commission. 1228 01:22:53,850 --> 01:22:57,857 We will be continuing with the Humboldt Bay area plan tonight. 1229 01:22:57,857 --> 01:23:02,570 The agenda as chair West has stated, 1230 01:23:02,481 --> 01:23:09,681 we will be discussing chapter seven which is the Samoa plan -- 1231 01:23:09,987 --> 01:23:11,258 Town Master Plan. 1232 01:23:11,258 --> 01:23:13,934 We would like to cover the definitions from chapter eight 1233 01:23:13,934 --> 01:23:15,481 and then go to public comment. 1234 01:23:15,481 --> 01:23:16,811 It's my understanding. 1235 01:23:16,811 --> 01:23:21,891 And then from there, we will review the draft, 1236 01:23:21,891 --> 01:23:26,201 implement any changes that we have been discussing 1237 01:23:26,201 --> 01:23:28,601 at the previous workshops. 1238 01:23:30,900 --> 01:23:32,661 And we've received two public comments 1239 01:23:32,661 --> 01:23:34,281 as we're going through the document, 1240 01:23:34,281 --> 01:23:39,810 we will address those in the appropriate section. 1241 01:23:39,201 --> 01:23:43,408 >> We did hold a meeting for the town of Samoa residents on this 1242 01:23:43,408 --> 01:23:46,340 Monday August 31st at 6 p.m. 1243 01:23:46,340 --> 01:23:50,121 To discuss these following topics with them to let them 1244 01:23:50,121 --> 01:23:53,721 know that we are proposing to discuss these 1245 01:23:53,721 --> 01:23:56,121 with the Commission tonight. 1246 01:23:56,521 --> 01:24:00,121 The following topics would be adding 1247 01:24:01,294 --> 01:24:06,841 a completed in or on date for Samoa Town Master Plan 1248 01:24:06,841 --> 01:24:08,527 policy that has been completed just 1249 01:24:08,527 --> 01:24:11,361 to make it very clear to everyone involved 1250 01:24:11,361 --> 01:24:13,781 that that policy has been met. 1251 01:24:13,781 --> 01:24:17,567 But we are not proposing to delete it or add it. 1252 01:24:17,567 --> 01:24:20,241 Just simply adding the words completed in or on 1253 01:24:20,241 --> 01:24:22,801 and then whatever the appropriate date is. 1254 01:24:22,801 --> 01:24:25,201 The California Coastal Commission 1255 01:24:25,217 --> 01:24:30,617 had a suggestion to add two sentences to 7.1, purpose 1256 01:24:31,121 --> 01:24:32,621 and general provisions. 1257 01:24:32,621 --> 01:24:38,741 We are proposing an addition of one sentence to the community 1258 01:24:38,741 --> 01:24:41,361 character and visual policy six by not 1259 01:24:41,361 --> 01:24:44,614 requiring a coastal development permit to repaint or reroof 1260 01:24:44,614 --> 01:24:45,587 a house. 1261 01:24:45,587 --> 01:24:47,431 Adding that exterior lighting shall 1262 01:24:47,431 --> 01:24:51,494 be consistent with the outdoor lighting ordinance for community 1263 01:24:51,494 --> 01:24:53,641 character visual policy eight. 1264 01:24:53,641 --> 01:24:57,610 And similarly, adding that sound should be consistent with 1265 01:24:57,610 --> 01:25:01,261 the signs ordinance for Community Care -- 1266 01:25:01,976 --> 01:25:03,184 character Visual Policy nine. 1267 01:25:03,184 --> 01:25:05,794 This would be an example of adding the completed 1268 01:25:05,794 --> 01:25:09,401 in or on date for any completed policy within the Samoa Town 1269 01:25:09,401 --> 01:25:11,401 Master Plan. 1270 01:25:13,121 --> 01:25:17,321 7.1, the two sentences recommended by the California 1271 01:25:19,721 --> 01:25:23,881 Coastal Commission are highlighted in a dark blue. 1272 01:25:23,881 --> 01:25:27,361 So there's one at the beginning of the section and one 1273 01:25:27,361 --> 01:25:29,937 at the end of the section just clarifying further 1274 01:25:29,937 --> 01:25:34,737 the role of the Samoa Town Master plan. 1275 01:25:35,441 --> 01:25:40,841 Then moving on to preservation and enhancement of community 1276 01:25:41,281 --> 01:25:46,810 character and visual resources to remove the requirement 1277 01:25:46,890 --> 01:25:48,887 to get a coastal development permit 1278 01:25:48,887 --> 01:25:51,385 to repaint or reroof a house. 1279 01:25:51,385 --> 01:25:54,809 The beginning of that policy would start off 1280 01:25:54,809 --> 01:25:57,121 with the remodeling and restoration. 1281 01:25:57,121 --> 01:26:01,410 And then we are recommending to remove 1282 01:26:01,410 --> 01:26:04,425 including but not limited to painting or reroofing. 1283 01:26:04,425 --> 01:26:07,473 So a coastal development permit would no longer 1284 01:26:07,473 --> 01:26:11,730 be required for those two actions. 1285 01:26:14,281 --> 01:26:17,281 Adding the sentence exterior lighting 1286 01:26:18,171 --> 01:26:20,891 shall be consistent with outdoor lighting ordinance. 1287 01:26:20,891 --> 01:26:26,891 And adding that signs shall be consistent with the signs 1288 01:26:27,346 --> 01:26:27,846 ordinance. 1289 01:26:27,846 --> 01:26:32,137 We did discuss this with the town of Samoa residents 1290 01:26:32,137 --> 01:26:35,681 and did not receive any opposition. 1291 01:26:35,681 --> 01:26:40,481 Andere, we can move on to the document. 1292 01:26:59,641 --> 01:27:06,241 So this will be from attachment two, the workshop draft revised 1293 01:27:06,701 --> 01:27:08,436 for this meeting. 1294 01:27:08,436 --> 01:27:14,436 Chapter seven, this is page 125 out of 175, the Samoa Town 1295 01:27:14,814 --> 01:27:15,467 Master plan. 1296 01:27:15,467 --> 01:27:18,521 So the changes are not included in this draft 1297 01:27:18,521 --> 01:27:21,937 because we did want to discuss it 1298 01:27:21,937 --> 01:27:25,705 with the residents of the town of Samoa first 1299 01:27:25,705 --> 01:27:27,337 and the Commission. 1300 01:27:27,337 --> 01:27:33,337 So once again, 7.1, the addition of the area plan land 1301 01:27:33,721 --> 01:27:36,767 use maps for this area and Simone 1302 01:27:36,767 --> 01:27:41,331 show a Samoa Town master plan land use designation overlay. 1303 01:27:41,331 --> 01:27:43,751 The overlay designation provides standards 1304 01:27:43,751 --> 01:27:46,201 that supplement that underlying land use 1305 01:27:46,201 --> 01:27:48,937 designation of the lands to which the land Use 1306 01:27:48,937 --> 01:27:50,381 designation is a applied. 1307 01:27:50,381 --> 01:27:57,145 That would go before the purpose of the Samoa Town Master Plan. 1308 01:27:57,145 --> 01:28:02,940 And the concluding sentence of that section would be where 1309 01:28:02,940 --> 01:28:07,241 a conflict arises between the policies of the Samoa Land Use 1310 01:28:07,241 --> 01:28:11,541 Overlay designation and any other policies of the Certified 1311 01:28:11,541 --> 01:28:16,281 humble Bay Area Plan, the policies of the Samoa Master 1312 01:28:16,281 --> 01:28:19,537 Plan overlay designation shall take precedence -- 1313 01:28:19,537 --> 01:28:22,537 I believe it says precedence. 1314 01:28:25,100 --> 01:28:29,801 I'm not sure if we want to start scrolling or get 1315 01:28:29,801 --> 01:28:34,481 the Commission's opinion on adding the Coastal Commission's 1316 01:28:34,481 --> 01:28:36,294 recommendations on those two sentences. 1317 01:28:36,294 --> 01:28:40,580 And if it is more challenging to read in this format, 1318 01:28:40,580 --> 01:28:42,261 I can go back to the slide show. 1319 01:28:42,261 --> 01:28:44,261 Thank you. 1320 01:28:44,501 --> 01:28:47,209 >> It's your choice if you would like to walk through these where 1321 01:28:47,209 --> 01:28:53,209 we can begin walking through the existing document to allow 1322 01:28:54,341 --> 01:28:56,161 comments. 1323 01:28:56,161 --> 01:28:58,161 >> Okay. 1324 01:28:58,881 --> 01:29:01,869 >> Maybe take a consensus and see if there's any concern with 1325 01:29:01,869 --> 01:29:04,107 what's been presented as the changes. 1326 01:29:04,107 --> 01:29:06,966 And we can go through those one at a time 1327 01:29:06,966 --> 01:29:09,966 if that would be helpful. 1328 01:29:13,527 --> 01:29:16,214 >> Commissioners, so far, would you like to go through 1329 01:29:16,214 --> 01:29:18,641 the changes one by one? 1330 01:29:18,641 --> 01:29:21,501 Do you have thoughts on what you've heard so far 1331 01:29:21,501 --> 01:29:23,901 and what to discuss? 1332 01:29:28,762 --> 01:29:30,262 >> I don't have any initial changes. 1333 01:29:30,262 --> 01:29:35,236 I think pulling up the language in the easier read would be 1334 01:29:35,236 --> 01:29:37,721 presentation -- and the easier read presentation would be 1335 01:29:37,721 --> 01:29:40,100 helpful just to see it one more time. 1336 01:29:40,100 --> 01:29:42,100 Pam okay. 1337 01:29:53,390 --> 01:29:56,570 >> Beginning with the beginning section of the Samoa Town master 1338 01:29:56,570 --> 01:29:59,361 plan, this would be the first proposed change. 1339 01:29:59,361 --> 01:30:01,756 In that dark blue highlighted, those 1340 01:30:01,756 --> 01:30:03,131 are the two sentences recommended 1341 01:30:03,131 --> 01:30:08,531 by the Coastal Commission to add to that section. 1342 01:30:21,283 --> 01:30:24,883 >> Those changes make sense to me. 1343 01:30:29,121 --> 01:30:32,340 >> I will move back real quick to the suggestion of adding 1344 01:30:32,340 --> 01:30:36,144 a completed in or completed on date. 1345 01:30:36,144 --> 01:30:40,401 For this draft, we do not have the completed policies 1346 01:30:40,401 --> 01:30:44,121 identified so I cannot tell you how many have been determined 1347 01:30:44,121 --> 01:30:47,841 to be completed or what those dates would be at this moment. 1348 01:30:47,841 --> 01:30:51,340 However, just an example of that would 1349 01:30:51,340 --> 01:30:54,707 be proposing to put it right after the title of each policy 1350 01:30:54,707 --> 01:30:58,721 to make it very clear when that was completed. 1351 01:30:58,721 --> 01:31:03,521 But other than that, not altering those policies. 1352 01:31:04,267 --> 01:31:07,810 >> To me, that makes sense. 1353 01:31:07,810 --> 01:31:09,794 >> I don't know where this goes or if it should even be brought 1354 01:31:09,794 --> 01:31:13,401 up at this point but is there any way to designate 1355 01:31:13,401 --> 01:31:16,641 preservation of historical properties that are out there? 1356 01:31:16,641 --> 01:31:18,894 I know it looks like some of them 1357 01:31:18,894 --> 01:31:22,761 have been brought up to current standards 1358 01:31:22,761 --> 01:31:24,961 but they were still some properties 1359 01:31:24,961 --> 01:31:27,861 that I saw when I was out there or buildings 1360 01:31:27,861 --> 01:31:32,661 that could be preserved rather than torn down. 1361 01:31:32,881 --> 01:31:36,711 >> Yeah, there is language in there about some of the historic 1362 01:31:36,711 --> 01:31:39,711 buildings in the existing document. 1363 01:31:40,401 --> 01:31:42,641 Once we have finished with this, we 1364 01:31:42,641 --> 01:31:47,441 can scroll down and see if that's adequate. 1365 01:31:49,422 --> 01:31:55,422 >> I think I'm seeing support for the completed on dates. 1366 01:31:56,263 --> 01:31:59,107 >> I guess that this makes sense to me as well. 1367 01:31:59,107 --> 01:32:03,507 One thought is, I find the phrase completed 1368 01:32:03,507 --> 01:32:05,907 in slightly confusing language. 1369 01:32:06,601 --> 01:32:09,361 Doesn't the county code already show 1370 01:32:09,361 --> 01:32:11,377 in parentheses added as a particular date 1371 01:32:11,377 --> 01:32:17,321 as you go through, and so may be following that same approach. 1372 01:32:17,321 --> 01:32:19,321 >> Sure. 1373 01:32:26,125 --> 01:32:29,725 >> As a layperson, it's certainly helpful 1374 01:32:30,783 --> 01:32:31,462 (Indiscernible). 1375 01:32:31,462 --> 01:32:36,461 >> Moving on to the next recommended change or discussion 1376 01:32:36,461 --> 01:32:40,574 would be removing including but not limited to painting 1377 01:32:40,574 --> 01:32:44,774 and roofing, therefore repainting roofing would never 1378 01:32:45,809 --> 01:32:48,809 need a coastal development permit. 1379 01:32:57,614 --> 01:33:00,281 >> Do we have to spell out more examples or is it something that 1380 01:33:00,281 --> 01:33:02,711 the owners would reach out to you. 1381 01:33:02,711 --> 01:33:04,654 Let's say they are replacing a window. 1382 01:33:04,654 --> 01:33:07,757 Is it better we leave it less language 1383 01:33:07,757 --> 01:33:10,521 and they reach out case by case? 1384 01:33:10,521 --> 01:33:15,341 >> If I could, I think the struggle here is that this is 1385 01:33:15,341 --> 01:33:19,694 a much higher standard than is applied any place else 1386 01:33:19,694 --> 01:33:21,445 in the coastal zone. 1387 01:33:21,445 --> 01:33:24,946 And so this is the actual language 1388 01:33:24,946 --> 01:33:28,100 that we're just proposing to remove. 1389 01:33:28,100 --> 01:33:33,401 Relative to replacing windows or doing other things that 1390 01:33:34,161 --> 01:33:36,801 changed the basic refurbished condition of the house 1391 01:33:36,801 --> 01:33:38,401 requires a design approval. 1392 01:33:38,401 --> 01:33:42,601 So there's already a process for that. 1393 01:33:42,961 --> 01:33:46,921 >> To me, it's wild that this ever required a CDP to paint 1394 01:33:46,921 --> 01:33:48,932 or reroof a house. 1395 01:33:48,932 --> 01:33:52,897 I feel the cost of that added on to whatever is already 1396 01:33:52,897 --> 01:33:59,497 a really challenging cost, I'm glad to see we're removing that. 1397 01:34:05,133 --> 01:34:07,601 >> The next change would be adding the sentence exterior 1398 01:34:07,601 --> 01:34:09,961 lighting shall be consistent with the recently adopted 1399 01:34:09,961 --> 01:34:11,961 outdoor Lighting ordinance. 1400 01:34:18,890 --> 01:34:20,281 >> I'm seeing head nods for that one in support. 1401 01:34:20,281 --> 01:34:23,401 >> And finally, similar train of thought, 1402 01:34:23,401 --> 01:34:27,841 adding signs shall be consistent with the signs ordinance. 1403 01:34:27,841 --> 01:34:30,841 >> I'm seeing some thumbs up. 1404 01:34:33,974 --> 01:34:36,374 >> I'm seeing no concerns. 1405 01:34:38,970 --> 01:34:40,514 >> That would conclude the proposed language to the master 1406 01:34:40,514 --> 01:34:41,140 plan. 1407 01:34:41,140 --> 01:34:45,953 So I will reopen the document and we can go section by section 1408 01:34:45,953 --> 01:34:47,681 for that. 1409 01:34:47,681 --> 01:34:48,707 >> Okay. 1410 01:34:48,707 --> 01:34:52,750 And maybe it didn't make sense but if we 1411 01:34:52,750 --> 01:34:54,801 are going to have wind towers out there, 1412 01:34:54,801 --> 01:34:58,694 wouldn't they have to be lit in order for safety. 1413 01:34:58,694 --> 01:35:02,894 And would that violate our lighting ordinance? 1414 01:35:06,725 --> 01:35:09,287 >> So that will be one of those things that will need to be 1415 01:35:09,287 --> 01:35:12,521 addressed as part of the port overlay. 1416 01:35:12,521 --> 01:35:17,921 Or if the port overlay is not incorporated into this document, 1417 01:35:17,921 --> 01:35:20,881 that would need to be addressed as part 1418 01:35:20,881 --> 01:35:25,745 of the future approval of whatever the zoning looks 1419 01:35:25,745 --> 01:35:29,345 like for the heavy lift terminal. 1420 01:35:47,728 --> 01:35:51,328 >> Beginning with 7.1, purpose and general provisions. 1421 01:35:55,681 --> 01:35:58,825 Of this first section of policies 1422 01:35:58,825 --> 01:36:01,825 is related to new development. 1423 01:36:07,890 --> 01:36:09,470 >> So to make sure I'm understanding correctly, 1424 01:36:09,470 --> 01:36:12,481 we are reading through this section to see if in addition 1425 01:36:12,481 --> 01:36:14,574 to the changes that you are suggesting, 1426 01:36:14,574 --> 01:36:18,774 commissioners have any other suggestions or comments? 1427 01:36:19,267 --> 01:36:21,241 >> Yes, please. 1428 01:36:21,241 --> 01:36:23,241 >> Okay. 1429 01:36:23,561 --> 01:36:25,327 >> I have a question. 1430 01:36:25,327 --> 01:36:29,774 Could staff just elaborate a bit on what Master parcel two is 1431 01:36:29,774 --> 01:36:34,574 and what the role of identifying that plays? 1432 01:36:34,801 --> 01:36:36,993 >> Originally, there were two parcels. 1433 01:36:36,993 --> 01:36:43,555 There was parcel one which was the ecology parcel and master 1434 01:36:43,555 --> 01:36:46,651 parcel two, which was everything else. 1435 01:36:46,651 --> 01:36:51,161 And this is identified within the small town master plan. 1436 01:36:51,161 --> 01:36:55,361 It was then modified into three parcels. 1437 01:36:55,601 --> 01:36:59,121 And parcel one was the parcel. 1438 01:36:59,121 --> 01:37:01,501 Parcel two was Vance Avenue and the location 1439 01:37:01,501 --> 01:37:05,321 of where the wastewater treatment plan is located. 1440 01:37:05,321 --> 01:37:10,321 And it's got some open space associated with it. 1441 01:37:10,321 --> 01:37:12,721 And then everything else. 1442 01:37:18,180 --> 01:37:20,601 >> I can bring those exhibits up if the commission would like. 1443 01:37:20,601 --> 01:37:25,401 It looks like there's a request for that. 1444 01:37:29,617 --> 01:37:32,105 >> I'm gonna go to Director Ford with this. 1445 01:37:32,105 --> 01:37:36,905 This master plan was developed at the beginning 1446 01:37:41,561 --> 01:37:45,221 of the town of Samoa moving from private parcel 1447 01:37:45,221 --> 01:37:48,827 to more of a public entity, right? 1448 01:37:48,827 --> 01:37:51,989 And it seems when I'm reading through this, 1449 01:37:51,989 --> 01:37:59,189 a lot of this stuff has been completed or is in progress. 1450 01:37:59,921 --> 01:38:04,121 And I didn't think that the effort 1451 01:38:04,225 --> 01:38:09,250 to update Humboldt Bay area plan was also 1452 01:38:10,100 --> 01:38:15,665 intended to be necessarily a complete update of the Samoa 1453 01:38:15,665 --> 01:38:16,894 Town Master Plan. 1454 01:38:16,894 --> 01:38:18,849 But maybe it is becoming that. 1455 01:38:18,849 --> 01:38:21,249 Can you clarify that? 1456 01:38:21,961 --> 01:38:24,251 >> We're trying not to completely update this. 1457 01:38:24,251 --> 01:38:29,650 We're trying to have the lightest touch possible on this. 1458 01:38:29,650 --> 01:38:33,410 Even to a point where rather than take a bunch of policies 1459 01:38:33,410 --> 01:38:35,561 out, just say, complete it. 1460 01:38:35,561 --> 01:38:37,561 This is done. 1461 01:38:37,761 --> 01:38:39,761 >> Okay. 1462 01:38:40,601 --> 01:38:43,361 So that it's really to provide everybody 1463 01:38:43,361 --> 01:38:46,435 an understanding of what's required, what's been done 1464 01:38:46,435 --> 01:38:48,206 and when it was done. 1465 01:38:48,206 --> 01:38:52,406 And just keep the original approval intact. 1466 01:38:53,321 --> 01:38:54,265 >> Okay. 1467 01:38:54,265 --> 01:39:00,865 So with that understanding, it seems that we as a commission 1468 01:39:04,581 --> 01:39:06,953 really shouldn't be making big changes in the direction 1469 01:39:06,953 --> 01:39:08,494 with the town Master plan. 1470 01:39:08,494 --> 01:39:11,561 It's a plan that is being implemented 1471 01:39:11,561 --> 01:39:14,975 and has been being implemented for several years now. 1472 01:39:14,975 --> 01:39:19,389 I get the idea of eating it up in areas 1473 01:39:19,389 --> 01:39:23,221 where a great example is not requiring a coastal permit 1474 01:39:23,221 --> 01:39:25,296 for repainting your house. 1475 01:39:25,296 --> 01:39:29,846 But I was thinking that we weren't trying to go too much. 1476 01:39:29,846 --> 01:39:35,846 We need to be careful about making some wholesale changes 1477 01:39:36,121 --> 01:39:39,881 to a plan that's already going down the tracks. 1478 01:39:39,881 --> 01:39:42,326 >> I think that's a fair statement because there is a lot 1479 01:39:42,326 --> 01:39:44,326 that has happened. 1480 01:39:46,121 --> 01:39:52,121 Including the development of the Old Town is rapidly moving. 1481 01:39:53,164 --> 01:39:55,996 I want to be careful about the adjectives I use there. 1482 01:39:55,996 --> 01:39:58,396 But it's moving (Indiscernible). 1483 01:39:59,285 --> 01:40:02,649 And there is an improved map for the new town 1484 01:40:02,649 --> 01:40:04,941 that has not been recorded yet. 1485 01:40:04,941 --> 01:40:09,141 But the tentative map has been approved. 1486 01:40:09,801 --> 01:40:14,201 They are in plan check to have the improvement plans approved 1487 01:40:14,201 --> 01:40:17,201 and the final map recorded. 1488 01:40:18,701 --> 01:40:23,501 So modifying things that would affect those entitlements 1489 01:40:24,361 --> 01:40:26,361 should be avoided. 1490 01:40:28,881 --> 01:40:32,376 >> With that in mind, (Indiscernible) thank you 1491 01:40:32,376 --> 01:40:34,776 for highlighting that again . 1492 01:40:37,141 --> 01:40:40,427 Took me a minute to follow along and process everything. 1493 01:40:40,427 --> 01:40:43,289 I want to pull the commission and see whether or not we really 1494 01:40:43,289 --> 01:40:48,410 truly want to have staff pull this page by page 1495 01:40:48,410 --> 01:40:51,138 and see if there's more input from us. 1496 01:40:51,138 --> 01:40:53,231 And I want to hear from you guys. 1497 01:40:53,231 --> 01:40:56,521 Do you have more input on this than what staff has proposed? 1498 01:40:56,521 --> 01:41:00,306 Do we need to go page by page? 1499 01:41:00,306 --> 01:41:03,906 Or can we move past this? 1500 01:41:09,939 --> 01:41:12,481 >> I would like to propose that we move past the page by page 1501 01:41:12,481 --> 01:41:17,881 thing and address any questions if there's no questions 1502 01:41:18,745 --> 01:41:20,841 on something -- questions. 1503 01:41:20,841 --> 01:41:22,487 If there's no questions on something, 1504 01:41:22,487 --> 01:41:25,521 there's no reason to go through that page. 1505 01:41:25,521 --> 01:41:28,860 >> Is everybody else comfortable with that? 1506 01:41:28,860 --> 01:41:30,669 >> Thank you come on that's a more succinct way of saying what 1507 01:41:30,669 --> 01:41:34,269 I was trying to get at. 1508 01:41:34,441 --> 01:41:38,561 >> I think I just want to clarify -- 1509 01:41:38,561 --> 01:41:45,100 I want to clarify that I see it as staff's recommendation that 1510 01:41:45,100 --> 01:41:52,201 we don't touch the master plan in any way outside of making 1511 01:41:52,633 --> 01:41:55,810 the changes that have already been made, 1512 01:41:55,810 --> 01:41:57,140 rather than we shouldn't. 1513 01:41:57,140 --> 01:41:59,616 So I think it is up to us. 1514 01:41:59,616 --> 01:42:03,816 I think I agree with staff's approach. 1515 01:42:03,889 --> 01:42:07,701 And I agree with going ahead and addressing 1516 01:42:07,701 --> 01:42:08,903 the questions we have. 1517 01:42:08,903 --> 01:42:12,787 I also want to bring up that I had indicated that there were 1518 01:42:12,787 --> 01:42:14,772 a number of things I wanted to bring up 1519 01:42:14,772 --> 01:42:17,241 for this section at the last workshop, 1520 01:42:17,241 --> 01:42:22,641 but I think staff has itemized comments or responses 1521 01:42:25,201 --> 01:42:29,143 to public comment really helped with a lot of this. 1522 01:42:29,143 --> 01:42:33,281 So I think I have a couple of questions myself. 1523 01:42:33,281 --> 01:42:37,441 >> Thank you for clarifying where you are coming from. 1524 01:42:37,441 --> 01:42:39,801 Through this process, I really understood 1525 01:42:39,801 --> 01:42:45,261 that the town of Samoa is highly interested in this process. 1526 01:42:45,261 --> 01:42:50,427 And are concerned about changes to the Samoa Town Master plan 1527 01:42:50,427 --> 01:42:56,330 are a great interest to them -- is a great interest to them. 1528 01:42:56,330 --> 01:43:01,271 Are I want to make sure that if we're cracking this open that we 1529 01:43:01,271 --> 01:43:04,187 listen to the community and keep the community in mind. 1530 01:43:04,187 --> 01:43:07,353 I appreciate that staff went and had a meeting with the community 1531 01:43:07,353 --> 01:43:11,341 and that there's a light touch of changes being made now. 1532 01:43:11,341 --> 01:43:13,891 And that we've changed our stance from no changes 1533 01:43:13,891 --> 01:43:15,641 to sunlight changes. 1534 01:43:15,641 --> 01:43:19,330 So I appreciate all of that and I'm 1535 01:43:19,330 --> 01:43:21,661 comfortable with the recommendation of not 1536 01:43:21,661 --> 01:43:24,137 doing much more than that. 1537 01:43:24,137 --> 01:43:26,126 It sounded like Commissioner curiosity, 1538 01:43:26,126 --> 01:43:27,963 you did have a couple of questions 1539 01:43:27,963 --> 01:43:30,481 that you wanted to address. 1540 01:43:30,481 --> 01:43:32,810 >> Yeah. 1541 01:43:32,810 --> 01:43:38,810 One, in response to our Ceas comment regarding gas pipelines 1542 01:43:38,831 --> 01:43:44,831 and limiting to where those are allowed to be placed. 1543 01:43:45,345 --> 01:43:50,145 I think staff was -- was proposing for. 1544 01:43:53,854 --> 01:43:57,810 I guess, what's the status of staff 1545 01:43:57,810 --> 01:44:01,281 addressing that particular part of the comment? 1546 01:44:02,625 --> 01:44:06,225 For example, not allowing pipeline pipelines 1547 01:44:06,841 --> 01:44:08,841 through existing residential. 1548 01:44:10,100 --> 01:44:11,893 >> I think there's two struggles. 1549 01:44:11,893 --> 01:44:15,489 One is that some of the areas are existing residential. 1550 01:44:15,489 --> 01:44:20,889 And so we can't very well turn that off. 1551 01:44:22,107 --> 01:44:26,993 There are some existing lots in the old town 1552 01:44:26,993 --> 01:44:29,970 that are not developed yet. 1553 01:44:29,970 --> 01:44:33,897 As we move forward, part of the RCP 1554 01:44:34,572 --> 01:44:38,901 would be to try to move away from gas. 1555 01:44:38,901 --> 01:44:42,801 Certainly in the new town, moving away from gas 1556 01:44:42,801 --> 01:44:44,641 would be appropriate. 1557 01:44:44,641 --> 01:44:52,313 That's part of what we're trying to do with the action plan. -- 1558 01:44:52,313 --> 01:44:55,313 the Regional Climate Action plan. 1559 01:44:56,521 --> 01:44:57,461 >> Thank you. 1560 01:44:57,461 --> 01:44:59,345 I think that makes sense. 1561 01:44:59,345 --> 01:45:02,841 And it sounds like maybe that is better 1562 01:45:02,841 --> 01:45:08,241 addressed in a different section than in the energy 1563 01:45:08,681 --> 01:45:12,881 VMT additions made to this master plan. 1564 01:45:14,801 --> 01:45:18,401 I do have one other question. 1565 01:45:18,561 --> 01:45:19,974 Give me one second. 1566 01:45:19,974 --> 01:45:22,374 Where did it go? 1567 01:45:28,801 --> 01:45:33,100 The sea level rise numbers, I think, 1568 01:45:36,814 --> 01:45:41,140 maybe there's inconsistency in the sea level 1569 01:45:41,281 --> 01:45:44,881 rise numbers in new development policy >> 1570 01:45:52,546 --> 01:45:54,921 Are you talking about under the geologic hazard analysis? 1571 01:45:54,921 --> 01:45:58,810 Because I think I might have the same comment. 1572 01:45:58,810 --> 01:46:01,810 Is there a page number? 1573 01:46:01,241 --> 01:46:04,841 >> I'll have to pull it up. 1574 01:46:11,613 --> 01:46:16,413 >> Hazard policy two and three, is that right? 1575 01:46:24,224 --> 01:46:28,424 >> There is different SLR numbers being presented. 1576 01:46:28,441 --> 01:46:32,337 >> They're saying 4.5ft of sea level rise but the sea life rise 1577 01:46:32,337 --> 01:46:35,937 management area uses the 21 immediate -- 1578 01:46:36,410 --> 01:46:38,441 2100 immediate high which is 5.5. 1579 01:46:39,401 --> 01:46:46,100 >> We will synthesize those to go to the more recent number. 1580 01:46:58,792 --> 01:47:01,192 >> Immediate high 2100 should be 5.5. 1581 01:47:05,593 --> 01:47:07,301 >> If it is the desire of the commission, 1582 01:47:07,301 --> 01:47:09,507 which I can't imagine it not being, 1583 01:47:09,507 --> 01:47:12,507 we will make those consistent. 1584 01:47:12,881 --> 01:47:15,281 >> I'm seeing head nods. 1585 01:47:18,195 --> 01:47:19,737 >> Those were my remaining questions. 1586 01:47:19,737 --> 01:47:22,801 And I feel like staff's responses 1587 01:47:22,801 --> 01:47:25,801 to comments covered everything else. 1588 01:47:27,601 --> 01:47:31,416 >> Am I remembering correctly that you also wanted to go over 1589 01:47:31,416 --> 01:47:36,816 definitions before I opened public comment on this item? 1590 01:47:37,401 --> 01:47:39,801 >> We can do definitions. 1591 01:47:40,481 --> 01:47:44,281 >> Why don't we take public comment and if there's issues 1592 01:47:44,281 --> 01:47:48,401 with definitions, we can get those along the way. 1593 01:47:48,401 --> 01:47:49,378 >> Great. 1594 01:47:49,378 --> 01:47:52,362 What we're going to do now is we're 1595 01:47:52,362 --> 01:47:56,153 going to open up public comment on the Samoa Town Master plan. 1596 01:47:56,153 --> 01:47:59,114 As a reminder, if you're just tuning in, 1597 01:47:59,114 --> 01:48:01,966 we are doing two different public comments 1598 01:48:01,966 --> 01:48:03,289 for this workshop. 1599 01:48:03,289 --> 01:48:07,281 One that is focused on the Samoa Town Master plan and the changes 1600 01:48:07,281 --> 01:48:09,169 that staff just proposed. 1601 01:48:09,169 --> 01:48:11,681 And then we will do a second one where 1602 01:48:11,681 --> 01:48:15,241 we are going to go back to the rest of the document 1603 01:48:15,241 --> 01:48:17,241 and then do another comment. 1604 01:48:17,241 --> 01:48:19,409 And you can comment in both public comment periods 1605 01:48:19,409 --> 01:48:20,991 if you would like to. 1606 01:48:20,991 --> 01:48:23,811 This is simply to make sure that folks 1607 01:48:23,811 --> 01:48:26,961 who are concerned with the Samoa Town Master plan 1608 01:48:26,961 --> 01:48:29,161 changes have an opportunity early on 1609 01:48:29,161 --> 01:48:32,543 to directly address those while we are talking about it. 1610 01:48:32,543 --> 01:48:35,140 And then we will move to the document as a whole. 1611 01:48:35,140 --> 01:48:38,161 Just to reminder, you can comment 1612 01:48:38,161 --> 01:48:41,321 during both opportunities tonight if you would like to. 1613 01:48:41,321 --> 01:48:47,189 Please adjust your comments to the Samoa Master Town Plan 1614 01:48:47,189 --> 01:48:50,789 and what was discussed in it. 1615 01:48:51,541 --> 01:48:54,410 >> If you would like to comment, please approach the podium. 1616 01:48:54,410 --> 01:48:56,665 If you're online, please raise your hand. 1617 01:48:56,665 --> 01:48:58,270 Star nine if you're calling in. 1618 01:48:58,270 --> 01:49:00,412 As a reminder, there can be a little bit of a lag 1619 01:49:00,412 --> 01:49:03,831 so if you're online, raise your hand now so that I can see you 1620 01:49:03,831 --> 01:49:09,677 and know to call you -- call on you when we move to the online 1621 01:49:09,677 --> 01:49:11,681 portion of the comments. 1622 01:49:11,681 --> 01:49:15,841 >> I'm commenting on everything I can think of. 1623 01:49:15,841 --> 01:49:18,441 I wanted to thank very much the county 1624 01:49:18,441 --> 01:49:23,980 for creating that meeting for us to all hear about this in Samoa. 1625 01:49:23,980 --> 01:49:25,121 I am a Samoa resident. 1626 01:49:25,121 --> 01:49:26,554 Don't forget that. 1627 01:49:26,554 --> 01:49:29,451 So I appreciate the open communication. 1628 01:49:29,451 --> 01:49:33,810 And I do appreciate the expressed concern 1629 01:49:33,810 --> 01:49:36,601 that we maintain a historical character 1630 01:49:36,601 --> 01:49:40,670 of our quirky little neighborhood down there. 1631 01:49:40,670 --> 01:49:43,667 So that was my primary concern. 1632 01:49:43,701 --> 01:49:46,250 I really don't think any of my neighbors 1633 01:49:46,250 --> 01:49:48,393 or I have any concern about not having 1634 01:49:48,393 --> 01:49:52,970 to get a Coastal Commission permit to change our paint 1635 01:49:52,970 --> 01:49:54,580 or put on a new roof. 1636 01:49:54,580 --> 01:49:57,225 So I appreciate the changes that are being made. 1637 01:49:57,225 --> 01:49:59,641 And again thank you for your concern 1638 01:49:59,641 --> 01:50:01,961 and care for our little tiny community. 1639 01:50:01,961 --> 01:50:03,961 Thank you. 1640 01:50:05,801 --> 01:50:08,594 >> If anybody else would like to comment in the room, 1641 01:50:08,594 --> 01:50:09,937 please approach the podium. 1642 01:50:09,937 --> 01:50:11,911 And if you're online, I'm not seeing 1643 01:50:11,911 --> 01:50:14,244 any hands raised currently so please raise your hand now 1644 01:50:14,244 --> 01:50:19,440 if you'd like to comment on this item. 1645 01:50:19,401 --> 01:50:22,447 >> I'm not seeing anybody else here in the room approach 1646 01:50:22,447 --> 01:50:25,241 the podium and I'm not seeing any hands online so we are going 1647 01:50:25,241 --> 01:50:26,686 to move back to the commission. 1648 01:50:26,686 --> 01:50:30,787 And sometimes it's going to be a confusing process so bear with 1649 01:50:30,787 --> 01:50:35,561 me while double Dutch we will be opening another public comment 1650 01:50:35,561 --> 01:50:38,817 period later again -- we will be opening another public comment 1651 01:50:38,817 --> 01:50:40,147 period later on this item. 1652 01:50:40,147 --> 01:50:41,961 With that, let's take it back. 1653 01:50:41,961 --> 01:50:46,174 Can you remind me, you're now looking for a direction? 1654 01:50:46,174 --> 01:50:48,294 >> I think we've heard the direction. 1655 01:50:48,294 --> 01:50:51,980 Unless there's something else you want to add. 1656 01:50:51,980 --> 01:50:54,601 But I think we know what changes we 1657 01:50:54,601 --> 01:50:58,481 want to move towards making and the things that we need to do. 1658 01:50:58,481 --> 01:51:04,741 And so the next step will be to bring back a document reflecting 1659 01:51:04,741 --> 01:51:07,141 those changes to you. 1660 01:51:12,214 --> 01:51:15,214 >> Your number is off again. 1661 01:51:16,587 --> 01:51:20,787 It says 5.3 by 2100 but it should be 5.5. 1662 01:51:38,548 --> 01:51:40,798 >> Okay come on I'm not seeing any other comments from 1663 01:51:40,798 --> 01:51:42,199 the commission. 1664 01:51:42,199 --> 01:51:45,344 >> I just want to acknowledge that at our first public hearing 1665 01:51:45,344 --> 01:51:48,299 we did have a lot of concerns expressed from the residents 1666 01:51:48,299 --> 01:51:49,779 of the town of Samoa. 1667 01:51:49,779 --> 01:51:52,912 Thank you to staff for taking the time 1668 01:51:52,912 --> 01:51:56,712 to meet with the community and help bring everybody up 1669 01:51:56,712 --> 01:51:59,507 to speed on where we are. 1670 01:51:59,507 --> 01:52:04,619 Any comments tonight, and the lack of comments tonight -- 1671 01:52:04,619 --> 01:52:07,399 the lack of comments tonight reflect on that. 1672 01:52:07,399 --> 01:52:09,399 I appreciate it. 1673 01:52:14,756 --> 01:52:17,339 >> To clarify, are we wrapping up section seven and then going 1674 01:52:17,339 --> 01:52:18,539 back to the beginning? 1675 01:52:18,539 --> 01:52:21,539 Or are we wrapping up? 1676 01:52:21,699 --> 01:52:22,982 >> I wanted to clarify. 1677 01:52:22,982 --> 01:52:23,582 Thank you. 1678 01:52:23,582 --> 01:52:26,647 I think we are bringing it back to staff 1679 01:52:26,647 --> 01:52:30,171 to present on the changes made to the document 1680 01:52:30,171 --> 01:52:32,955 since the last time we had a workshop 1681 01:52:32,955 --> 01:52:37,755 beyond chapter seven, the Samoa Town Master plan. 1682 01:52:45,812 --> 01:52:51,550 >> So the first proposed change will be on page five. 1683 01:52:51,550 --> 01:52:54,479 And that is an update to the table of contents. 1684 01:52:54,479 --> 01:52:58,679 It is changing section 3.2 from General Description 1685 01:53:00,990 --> 01:53:02,990 to non structures. 1686 01:53:02,419 --> 01:53:04,676 I can elaborate a little bit more on that 1687 01:53:04,676 --> 01:53:05,979 once we get to that section. 1688 01:53:05,979 --> 01:53:08,859 It was just a duplicate section. 1689 01:53:08,859 --> 01:53:14,259 So I'm going to just start scrolling and announcing 1690 01:53:14,619 --> 01:53:16,619 some changes. 1691 01:53:16,619 --> 01:53:18,599 After a meeting with the Coastal Commission, 1692 01:53:18,599 --> 01:53:23,190 we decided to remove the rural subdivision requirements 1693 01:53:23,190 --> 01:53:27,219 because that is explicitly discussed in the zoning code. 1694 01:53:27,219 --> 01:53:32,899 So that is why we are suggesting removing that section. 1695 01:53:32,899 --> 01:53:38,299 That would conclude changes to the table of contents. 1696 01:53:45,459 --> 01:53:50,259 Maps will be updated for the public hearing. 1697 01:54:04,899 --> 01:54:07,959 These changes were made by the Coastal Commission 1698 01:54:07,959 --> 01:54:12,163 just to elaborate which section of the Coastal Act. 1699 01:54:12,163 --> 01:54:16,559 And just further, add a little bit more description. 1700 01:54:16,559 --> 01:54:22,559 And that would conclude the changes made in chapter one. 1701 01:54:26,499 --> 01:54:33,990 Moving on to chapter two, we did revise the land acknowledgment 1702 01:54:35,149 --> 01:54:38,749 based on a planning commissioner suggestion. 1703 01:54:41,699 --> 01:54:46,435 >> There was one that I would either strike or modify, 1704 01:54:46,435 --> 01:54:50,419 and that was the stray heights Indian community with long 1705 01:54:50,419 --> 01:54:52,619 standing ties to the area. 1706 01:54:52,619 --> 01:54:56,219 Or just dropped that whole paragraph. 1707 01:54:57,139 --> 01:55:01,339 Where it says Tree Heights Indian community, 1708 01:55:01,559 --> 01:55:04,190 the Trinidad Rancherie located north of Trinidad 1709 01:55:04,190 --> 01:55:07,190 includes Yurok and other native descendants. 1710 01:55:07,190 --> 01:55:10,119 There are Wiyot descendants there also in that community. 1711 01:55:10,119 --> 01:55:12,683 But their ties to the area and not necessarily 1712 01:55:12,683 --> 01:55:15,830 to the coastal zones. 1713 01:55:19,916 --> 01:55:20,416 >> Okay. 1714 01:55:20,416 --> 01:55:24,485 So would the commission like us to strike that through? 1715 01:55:24,485 --> 01:55:26,699 >> You could take the whole paragraph out. 1716 01:55:26,699 --> 01:55:31,259 Because you took out the bear River paragraph. 1717 01:55:31,259 --> 01:55:35,459 >> I appreciate Commissioner O'neill having worked with 1718 01:55:37,590 --> 01:55:39,699 tribes and sharing your knowledge. 1719 01:55:39,699 --> 01:55:44,499 I still would really love for the tribes 1720 01:55:45,499 --> 01:55:50,299 to be able to provide language about themselves 1721 01:55:50,439 --> 01:55:52,176 and speak for themselves. 1722 01:55:52,176 --> 01:55:55,819 And I know that you have reached out and you've asked, 1723 01:55:55,819 --> 01:55:59,469 and in the absence of that, Commissioner O'neill 1724 01:55:59,469 --> 01:56:00,739 has provided her expertise. 1725 01:56:00,739 --> 01:56:03,827 I think that's where I'm having hesitation. 1726 01:56:03,827 --> 01:56:09,990 I appreciate the commentary and I don't have a solution beyond 1727 01:56:09,990 --> 01:56:11,990 just asking . 1728 01:56:13,887 --> 01:56:15,120 >> We will continue to ask. 1729 01:56:15,120 --> 01:56:16,532 We did get a response from the Wiyot 1730 01:56:16,532 --> 01:56:19,939 and they said that they will get us language. 1731 01:56:19,939 --> 01:56:23,159 But they were concerned about being able to get it 1732 01:56:23,159 --> 01:56:25,405 to us by this meeting. 1733 01:56:25,405 --> 01:56:28,129 >> I tried to reach out to them too and I found a hard time 1734 01:56:28,129 --> 01:56:30,659 finding emails for anybody on their website. 1735 01:56:30,659 --> 01:56:34,779 Because I was going to send them my draft. 1736 01:56:34,779 --> 01:56:36,245 >> We did. 1737 01:56:36,245 --> 01:56:37,579 >> Okay. 1738 01:56:37,579 --> 01:56:39,611 >> And I almost said, do you have any emails? 1739 01:56:39,611 --> 01:56:42,659 Because I couldn't find them on their website. 1740 01:56:42,659 --> 01:56:45,659 >> We can get you contacts. 1741 01:56:45,685 --> 01:56:48,969 >> I just know that there's other groups within the Trinidad 1742 01:56:48,969 --> 01:56:54,582 area that have ancestral ties to the community and I don't want 1743 01:56:54,582 --> 01:56:57,752 to start the back and forth there. 1744 01:56:57,752 --> 01:57:02,123 >> So is the concern here that by calling out heights 1745 01:57:02,123 --> 01:57:06,923 in particular, that we may be omitting some? 1746 01:57:09,590 --> 01:57:10,312 >> Yes. 1747 01:57:10,312 --> 01:57:13,949 In that, because it's not historical going back 1748 01:57:13,949 --> 01:57:17,190 to the beginning of time, that the people that are there now 1749 01:57:17,190 --> 01:57:18,489 had those connections. 1750 01:57:18,489 --> 01:57:22,665 Those people that are there now came there in the 1950s. 1751 01:57:22,665 --> 01:57:28,310 So the people that do have those long standing historical ties -- 1752 01:57:28,310 --> 01:57:30,779 and you know who you are, because you've heard from them 1753 01:57:30,779 --> 01:57:34,979 before, might feel that they were omitted. 1754 01:57:35,179 --> 01:57:38,803 Either take that out and don't bring the subject up. 1755 01:57:38,803 --> 01:57:40,619 You already took out bear River. 1756 01:57:40,619 --> 01:57:43,365 We're add to the area instead of the coastal area. 1757 01:57:43,365 --> 01:57:45,899 Do you see what I'm saying? 1758 01:57:45,899 --> 01:57:47,291 >> I do. 1759 01:57:47,291 --> 01:57:49,291 Thank you. 1760 01:57:58,481 --> 01:58:00,939 >> We still have some work to do on this so we will do that 1761 01:58:00,939 --> 01:58:02,899 and come back to you. 1762 01:58:02,899 --> 01:58:04,899 >> Thank you. 1763 01:58:10,391 --> 01:58:12,433 >> Would we like to say on tribal history or move 1764 01:58:12,433 --> 01:58:14,833 on to environmental justice? 1765 01:58:15,819 --> 01:58:21,219 >> I'm thinking about time and thinking about public comment 1766 01:58:21,499 --> 01:58:26,550 and wanting to make sure that we we have a time for public 1767 01:58:26,550 --> 01:58:26,555 comment. 1768 01:58:26,555 --> 01:58:31,590 Yeah and I see six people online and a couple folks in the room. 1769 01:58:31,590 --> 01:58:35,947 So I'd love to continue with you talking briefly 1770 01:58:35,947 --> 01:58:38,590 about the changes that have been made. 1771 01:58:38,590 --> 01:58:40,500 We will go to public comment. 1772 01:58:40,500 --> 01:58:42,227 And then we will bring it back to the Commission 1773 01:58:42,227 --> 01:58:46,831 for a more in-depth discussion about language and policy. 1774 01:58:46,831 --> 01:58:49,123 >> So we're going to try to go through this really fast 1775 01:58:49,123 --> 01:58:51,990 to accomplish that. 1776 01:58:51,990 --> 01:58:53,990 >> Thank you. 1777 01:58:57,126 --> 01:58:59,376 >> The next change will be in environmental justice is 1778 01:58:59,376 --> 01:59:04,776 the addition of one policy to address public comment. 1779 01:59:05,229 --> 01:59:09,692 And I'm gonna keep moving forward for the sake of time. 1780 01:59:09,692 --> 01:59:11,435 Please stop me if you have any questions. 1781 01:59:11,435 --> 01:59:15,190 So we did remove general description 1782 01:59:15,190 --> 01:59:19,405 because it is previously referenced in chapter one. 1783 01:59:19,405 --> 01:59:21,405 It's now 1.2. 1784 01:59:22,265 --> 01:59:26,299 We are recommending changing it to nonconforming structures 1785 01:59:26,299 --> 01:59:29,315 because that applies to the whole area, 1786 01:59:29,315 --> 01:59:33,987 as it was previously under urban, I believe. 1787 01:59:33,987 --> 01:59:38,672 And then going into standards for land use designations, 1788 01:59:38,672 --> 01:59:42,369 that one paragraph has been moved to housing. 1789 01:59:42,369 --> 01:59:46,569 It was more appropriate in that section. 1790 01:59:49,779 --> 01:59:56,379 Urban development -- the policy was added to address a public 1791 01:59:56,699 --> 01:59:58,699 comment. 1792 02:00:00,259 --> 02:00:07,925 Urban limit line -- >> I have a question on the policy that was 1793 02:00:07,925 --> 02:00:08,592 added. 1794 02:00:08,592 --> 02:00:13,632 I was curious if that was intentionally added only 1795 02:00:13,632 --> 02:00:15,445 to the urban section? 1796 02:00:15,445 --> 02:00:18,395 Or is it an intention that it does not 1797 02:00:18,395 --> 02:00:23,795 apply to areas outside of an urban limit line? 1798 02:00:29,644 --> 02:00:32,190 >> It currently is under urban development so it would be 1799 02:00:32,190 --> 02:00:35,190 within a urban limit line. 1800 02:00:35,539 --> 02:00:41,539 >> Can I ask why only within the hermit limit line? 1801 02:00:45,247 --> 02:00:47,372 >> I'm not recalling the comment that was received. 1802 02:00:47,372 --> 02:00:49,805 But one of the things that makes sense 1803 02:00:49,805 --> 02:00:54,947 is that the focus of development was in the hermit limit lines. 1804 02:00:54,947 --> 02:00:58,745 So we're not encouraging development outside of that. 1805 02:00:58,745 --> 02:01:04,539 So when it comes to vehicle miles traveled and smaller 1806 02:01:04,539 --> 02:01:08,319 development where you can do energy efficient design, 1807 02:01:08,319 --> 02:01:14,267 a lot of this is going to come back -- 1808 02:01:14,267 --> 02:01:18,467 come out of the cap work anyway. 1809 02:01:19,459 --> 02:01:20,925 >> I understand that. 1810 02:01:20,925 --> 02:01:23,300 It just seems like it's something 1811 02:01:23,300 --> 02:01:25,979 that would be generally good to strive for rather than only 1812 02:01:25,979 --> 02:01:28,805 within an urban limit area. 1813 02:01:28,805 --> 02:01:34,624 >> We can relocate that into the rural requirements as well. 1814 02:01:34,624 --> 02:01:41,224 Or put it up as a general policy somewhere up above. 1815 02:01:42,139 --> 02:01:45,379 >> That would be my preference if other commissioners are okay 1816 02:01:45,379 --> 02:01:47,379 with that. 1817 02:02:16,654 --> 02:02:18,290 >> Moving on to urban limit line, 1818 02:02:18,290 --> 02:02:21,942 we did receive a public comment regarding this section. 1819 02:02:21,942 --> 02:02:25,343 I'm just going to go to the appropriate section 1820 02:02:25,343 --> 02:02:27,343 for that first. 1821 02:02:30,699 --> 02:02:34,899 So we've received a public comment requesting 1822 02:02:35,299 --> 02:02:39,579 that additional criteria be added to the list 1823 02:02:39,579 --> 02:02:43,109 for identifying an urban limit line, 1824 02:02:43,109 --> 02:02:45,964 changing urban limit lines and development within urban limit 1825 02:02:45,964 --> 02:02:46,464 lines. 1826 02:02:46,464 --> 02:02:48,900 The additional criteria requested 1827 02:02:48,900 --> 02:02:51,389 is to have consistency with the adopted Regional Climate Action 1828 02:02:51,389 --> 02:02:53,765 Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan 1829 02:02:53,765 --> 02:02:56,635 and potential for reasonable access 1830 02:02:56,635 --> 02:02:59,979 by bike, transit, or pedestrian means. 1831 02:02:59,979 --> 02:03:05,979 We are not proposing to modify the criteria for identifying 1832 02:03:05,989 --> 02:03:10,206 an urban limit line, which is why we did not add that 1833 02:03:10,206 --> 02:03:13,806 as part of the public comment. 1834 02:03:13,994 --> 02:03:20,594 Urban limit line is more tied to identifying areas where -- 1835 02:03:21,887 --> 02:03:24,554 that are generally suitable for urban development or development 1836 02:03:24,554 --> 02:03:28,395 that is greater than one unit per acre where public sewer, 1837 02:03:28,395 --> 02:03:32,595 water and road improvement services are available. 1838 02:03:34,419 --> 02:03:39,219 And that's the current criteria for urban limit >> 1839 02:03:42,598 --> 02:03:43,931 And I'll just add another thing. 1840 02:03:43,931 --> 02:03:46,459 Changed urban limit line requires a modification 1841 02:03:46,459 --> 02:03:49,459 to the Humboldt area plan. 1842 02:03:50,750 --> 02:03:53,643 So there's not criteria there that staff could follow 1843 02:03:53,643 --> 02:03:55,211 and arbitrarily -- 1844 02:03:55,211 --> 02:03:57,485 I shouldn't say arbitrarily. 1845 02:03:57,485 --> 02:03:59,664 But change without a public hearing. 1846 02:03:59,664 --> 02:04:01,331 Without going to the planning Commission 1847 02:04:01,331 --> 02:04:02,963 or going to the board. 1848 02:04:02,963 --> 02:04:07,763 So the focus where urban limit lines are 1849 02:04:07,912 --> 02:04:11,512 are very much structured around utilities. 1850 02:04:24,434 --> 02:04:25,892 >> Moving on from urban limit line, 1851 02:04:25,892 --> 02:04:30,919 this was moved from urban limit line to general as it applies 1852 02:04:30,919 --> 02:04:35,419 to areas outside of the urban limit line as well. 1853 02:04:35,419 --> 02:04:38,859 The second public comment we received 1854 02:04:38,859 --> 02:04:43,291 was the discussion of the residential high density land 1855 02:04:43,291 --> 02:04:44,750 use designation. 1856 02:04:44,750 --> 02:04:50,750 We did previously discuss this at the first public workshop. 1857 02:04:53,619 --> 02:04:58,419 And we were planning on the initial -- 1858 02:04:58,907 --> 02:05:03,459 the initial thought of removing it was because there is no 1859 02:05:03,459 --> 02:05:08,107 concurrent lands that are even proposed to be rezoned to that 1860 02:05:08,107 --> 02:05:09,675 land use designation. 1861 02:05:09,675 --> 02:05:15,750 So that's why we have not added it back. 1862 02:05:16,779 --> 02:05:20,939 >> I would also say there's no zoning for the high density 1863 02:05:20,939 --> 02:05:21,875 residential. 1864 02:05:21,875 --> 02:05:27,275 And so if there ever is a future desire 1865 02:05:27,752 --> 02:05:31,149 to rezone land to high density residential 1866 02:05:31,149 --> 02:05:34,959 or modify the local coastal plan to include high density 1867 02:05:34,959 --> 02:05:37,752 residential, that could all be done as part of one action. 1868 02:05:37,752 --> 02:05:40,765 But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't exist in the zoning 1869 02:05:40,765 --> 02:05:41,819 right now. 1870 02:05:41,819 --> 02:05:46,190 And it doesn't exist on the map. 1871 02:05:50,200 --> 02:05:52,419 >> I think I would appreciate a little bit more discussion 1872 02:05:52,419 --> 02:05:56,419 on that, but maybe that could come after public comment. 1873 02:05:56,419 --> 02:06:00,190 >> I think that's a good >> Okay, 1874 02:06:04,339 --> 02:06:06,131 moving back on to the document and changes. 1875 02:06:06,131 --> 02:06:12,731 And those were the only public comments since we've received -- 1876 02:06:16,692 --> 02:06:21,899 Si comments we've received since the publication of the agenda. 1877 02:06:21,899 --> 02:06:26,699 Adding relevant Coastal Act policies for rural development, 1878 02:06:27,459 --> 02:06:30,509 removing the rural subdivision requirements as 1879 02:06:30,509 --> 02:06:34,395 discussed earlier per discussion with the Coastal Commission. 1880 02:06:34,395 --> 02:06:38,595 We did decide with the Coastal Commission 1881 02:06:39,279 --> 02:06:41,259 to add the policy of the permitting 1882 02:06:41,259 --> 02:06:43,379 and inciting of septic systems. 1883 02:06:43,379 --> 02:06:46,125 Noting the qualified combining zone 1884 02:06:46,125 --> 02:06:48,525 within Fairhaven for consistency. 1885 02:06:55,968 --> 02:06:56,843 >> I have a question. 1886 02:06:56,843 --> 02:06:59,139 As I recall, the Coastal Commission 1887 02:06:59,139 --> 02:07:01,619 had some pretty stringent requirements 1888 02:07:01,619 --> 02:07:03,515 around water supply. 1889 02:07:03,515 --> 02:07:07,115 Were you able to mitigate those? 1890 02:07:07,211 --> 02:07:09,611 Or were they here? 1891 02:07:10,952 --> 02:07:14,749 >> I believe they were here when we met with coastal Commission, 1892 02:07:14,749 --> 02:07:19,723 we discussed them and came to the consensus that they 1893 02:07:19,723 --> 02:07:23,779 aren't needed to be discussed in this plan. 1894 02:07:23,779 --> 02:07:25,779 >> Thank you 1895 02:07:34,126 --> 02:07:34,918 >> Let's see, here. 1896 02:07:34,918 --> 02:07:36,779 I believe page 32. 1897 02:07:36,779 --> 02:07:43,559 Was there an amendment or a fix that was done in here? 1898 02:07:43,559 --> 02:07:48,359 I was noticing there was (Indiscernible) business part. 1899 02:07:49,990 --> 02:07:53,190 >> That was a note for staff based on our discussion with 1900 02:07:53,190 --> 02:07:55,190 the Coastal Commission. 1901 02:07:55,227 --> 02:08:00,589 We are working on getting the commercial residential ordinance 1902 02:08:00,589 --> 02:08:04,765 that was approved -- getting that approved with the Coastal 1903 02:08:04,765 --> 02:08:05,640 Commission right now. 1904 02:08:05,640 --> 02:08:07,209 There was discussion that we still 1905 02:08:07,209 --> 02:08:10,885 need to revisit with them on updating the business park 1906 02:08:10,885 --> 02:08:15,850 section of the humble Bay Area Plan. 1907 02:08:16,179 --> 02:08:21,923 However, we're still working with them on if that's needed. 1908 02:08:21,923 --> 02:08:24,923 Same with tiny house villages. 1909 02:08:25,179 --> 02:08:28,990 So there's some further discussion 1910 02:08:28,990 --> 02:08:30,499 needed about those ordinances. 1911 02:08:30,944 --> 02:08:35,819 So it's not directly to the Humboldt Bay area plan. 1912 02:08:35,819 --> 02:08:39,205 However, if we do get comments back from the Coastal Commission 1913 02:08:39,205 --> 02:08:46,159 saying that something needs to be added to the section by -- 1914 02:08:46,159 --> 02:08:49,722 in order to approve them for the ordinance for the Humboldt Bay 1915 02:08:49,722 --> 02:08:50,222 area plan. 1916 02:08:50,222 --> 02:08:52,939 Then we could bring that up as a change discussed most 1917 02:08:52,939 --> 02:08:55,939 likely at the public hearing. 1918 02:09:08,859 --> 02:09:12,459 Moving on to coastal dependent development, 1919 02:09:13,139 --> 02:09:17,339 per the workshops at the planning Commission, 1920 02:09:18,939 --> 02:09:21,611 there was a request to add more on county commitment 1921 02:09:21,611 --> 02:09:23,910 to renewable energy. 1922 02:09:23,910 --> 02:09:26,691 And that is added right here. 1923 02:09:28,339 --> 02:09:31,779 I'm just going to scroll past unless commission 1924 02:09:31,779 --> 02:09:34,779 would like to read it. 1925 02:09:39,990 --> 02:09:43,590 At the workshops, we had some discussion 1926 02:09:43,590 --> 02:09:46,379 on this section of policy so we did update that 1927 02:09:46,379 --> 02:09:48,779 to adjust those discussions. 1928 02:09:52,419 --> 02:09:55,279 We removed the reference explicitly 1929 02:09:55,279 --> 02:10:00,790 about offshore wind and updated that policy further. 1930 02:10:09,339 --> 02:10:12,939 Referencing the impact of wildfire risk. 1931 02:10:20,499 --> 02:10:24,990 Added some new policies for recreation. 1932 02:10:26,539 --> 02:10:31,272 They were borrowed from Arcata's local coastal plan. 1933 02:10:31,272 --> 02:10:37,272 But they also do address public comments from attachment three. 1934 02:10:38,259 --> 02:10:44,670 And then there was some redundancy so we did remove that 1935 02:10:44,670 --> 02:10:48,867 policy as It is in 3.8.2(c), right here. 1936 02:10:57,650 --> 02:11:00,579 This was added based on discussion with the Coastal 1937 02:11:00,579 --> 02:11:04,179 Commission, just clarifying about incentives, concessions. 1938 02:11:07,399 --> 02:11:11,315 The county may require any deed restricted affordable units. 1939 02:11:11,315 --> 02:11:13,405 The affordable life of development, 1940 02:11:13,405 --> 02:11:18,232 which is consistent with some of the density bonuses. 1941 02:11:18,232 --> 02:11:20,232 Similarly, updating this. 1942 02:11:21,419 --> 02:11:24,792 It was moved from an above section. 1943 02:11:24,792 --> 02:11:29,123 It was more appropriate to be within the policies for housing. 1944 02:11:29,123 --> 02:11:32,723 And that statement again, discussing incentives. 1945 02:11:34,699 --> 02:11:38,299 Changing the section from explicitly saying 1946 02:11:38,619 --> 02:11:40,619 archeological to cultural. 1947 02:11:42,179 --> 02:11:46,187 This was a discussion point at our workshops. 1948 02:11:46,187 --> 02:11:50,898 So we did change this more to have a cultural focus 1949 02:11:50,898 --> 02:11:55,109 and reference cultural resources as recommended from both 1950 02:11:55,109 --> 02:11:59,739 the Coastal Commission and our planning position -- 1951 02:11:59,739 --> 02:12:01,955 Planning Commission workshop on the sixth. 1952 02:12:01,955 --> 02:12:07,355 So these are more policies based on that discussion. 1953 02:12:20,190 --> 02:12:22,718 Minor changes made to Timberlands, just 1954 02:12:22,718 --> 02:12:24,718 for clarity purposes. 1955 02:12:30,459 --> 02:12:36,459 Adding a section for aquaculture as requested by public comments. 1956 02:12:36,531 --> 02:12:43,131 And I believe we discussed it at the workshop as well. 1957 02:12:44,138 --> 02:12:49,218 So this section is new based on comments and the workshop 1958 02:12:49,218 --> 02:12:51,218 discussing aquaculture . 1959 02:13:09,491 --> 02:13:13,691 Revision to a policy address public comment. 1960 02:13:17,259 --> 02:13:23,259 This was an outdated paragraph so instead of revising it, 1961 02:13:24,472 --> 02:13:27,240 we ultimately decided to delete it 1962 02:13:27,240 --> 02:13:32,424 as it was no longer needed for that section. 1963 02:13:35,978 --> 02:13:41,378 Revising Esha related policies, and based on Planning Commission 1964 02:13:43,939 --> 02:13:47,659 comment from previous workshops, we broke down the policies 1965 02:13:47,659 --> 02:13:51,599 stating that these ones are related to Esha. 1966 02:13:51,599 --> 02:13:55,539 And later on referencing a wetland-related policy just so 1967 02:13:55,539 --> 02:13:58,990 it breaks down that lengthy policy section 1968 02:13:58,990 --> 02:13:59,292 a little bit more. 1969 02:13:59,292 --> 02:14:01,209 Because right here would be the identification 1970 02:14:01,209 --> 02:14:05,409 of wetland and traditional agriculture related policies. 1971 02:14:08,739 --> 02:14:12,339 We deleted per coastal Commission comments . 1972 02:14:17,599 --> 02:14:21,872 This was an outdated site, so no longer applicable. 1973 02:14:21,872 --> 02:14:24,272 So we deleted that. 1974 02:14:29,979 --> 02:14:32,979 Additions per coastal Commission guidance . 1975 02:14:43,203 --> 02:14:45,404 Updating the minimum ratio from 1 to 1 to 2 to 1. 1976 02:14:45,404 --> 02:14:49,604 And that is for wetlands and Esha. 1977 02:14:53,190 --> 02:14:56,190 Additions per coastal Commission comment. 1978 02:14:56,739 --> 02:15:00,363 Received a comment from Fish and Wildlife. 1979 02:15:00,363 --> 02:15:03,323 So we did update riparian corridors 1980 02:15:03,323 --> 02:15:06,512 to make it simpler and consistent with fish 1981 02:15:06,512 --> 02:15:08,512 and Wildlife recommendation. 1982 02:15:42,699 --> 02:15:47,125 This was removed and moved up to a previous section 1983 02:15:47,125 --> 02:15:49,939 as it was more consistent there and didn't just apply 1984 02:15:49,939 --> 02:15:56,539 to Esha and wetlands and was more relevant to rural areas. 1985 02:15:58,219 --> 02:16:01,219 Deleted per Coastal Commission comments. 1986 02:16:02,291 --> 02:16:07,691 And then moving on to scenic and visual Resources. 1987 02:16:11,179 --> 02:16:13,579 Updating exterior lighting references 1988 02:16:14,290 --> 02:16:17,179 to reference the Outdoor Lighting ordinance now 1989 02:16:17,179 --> 02:16:21,379 that it's approved in the Coastal zone. 1990 02:16:23,379 --> 02:16:26,379 Moving on to chapter five. 1991 02:16:38,859 --> 02:16:41,259 Updating the tsunami rate. 1992 02:16:50,942 --> 02:16:53,150 >> In this sea level section that we're on right now, 1993 02:16:53,150 --> 02:16:56,859 there were a couple of comments where there were inconsistent 1994 02:16:56,859 --> 02:16:59,875 use with the capitulation of the term sea level rise. 1995 02:16:59,875 --> 02:17:02,275 And same with GHG. 1996 02:17:02,470 --> 02:17:08,865 And you have a little paragraph justifying your use of 21 dash 1997 02:17:08,865 --> 02:17:11,566 2100, because the design life of the building 1998 02:17:11,566 --> 02:17:13,316 would be longer which is good but then you 1999 02:17:13,316 --> 02:17:15,619 jump to using 2100 intermediate high 2000 02:17:15,619 --> 02:17:18,619 and you don't explain why you use intermediate high versus 2001 02:17:18,619 --> 02:17:19,209 intermediate. 2002 02:17:19,209 --> 02:17:22,939 As I understand, the obesity guidance intermediate high 2003 02:17:22,939 --> 02:17:24,792 is for critical infrastructure. 2004 02:17:24,792 --> 02:17:26,872 It's fine whichever we want to do, 2005 02:17:26,872 --> 02:17:31,672 but I think making that distinction is important. 2006 02:17:45,462 --> 02:17:46,379 >> I did screen share. 2007 02:17:46,379 --> 02:17:48,379 >> Okay. 2008 02:17:52,400 --> 02:17:54,400 [Ambient conversation] 2009 02:17:59,348 --> 02:18:01,348 >> (Indiscernible) 2010 02:18:07,998 --> 02:18:09,998 >> Okay, I see. 2011 02:18:13,196 --> 02:18:13,738 >> Thank you. 2012 02:18:13,738 --> 02:18:15,959 And the previous version was proposing 2013 02:18:15,959 --> 02:18:19,885 high instead of intermediate high, is that correct? 2014 02:18:19,885 --> 02:18:21,121 >> That is correct. 2015 02:18:21,121 --> 02:18:23,312 And the reason we went away from high, 2016 02:18:23,312 --> 02:18:26,830 and I think it's right there on the screen, 2017 02:18:26,830 --> 02:18:31,199 is because there's a 0.1% chance that it would ever be exceeded. 2018 02:18:31,199 --> 02:18:35,999 And so that is maybe an unrealistic chance 2019 02:18:39,139 --> 02:18:41,779 that it would happen intermediate by itself 2020 02:18:41,779 --> 02:18:45,179 has a fairly low chance of ever being exceeded. 2021 02:18:45,179 --> 02:18:48,179 As I recall, that's at 20%. 2022 02:18:49,851 --> 02:18:53,307 And so intermediate high is still 2023 02:18:53,307 --> 02:18:55,707 a very conservative projection. 2024 02:19:06,260 --> 02:19:07,802 >> And we're going with intermediate? 2025 02:19:07,802 --> 02:19:09,802 >> High. 2026 02:19:20,823 --> 02:19:22,948 >> We may need to work on the language a little bit 2027 02:19:22,948 --> 02:19:23,733 if it's not clear. 2028 02:19:23,733 --> 02:19:26,675 I know the person that wrote it was 2029 02:19:26,675 --> 02:19:29,675 scrambling to get it modified. 2030 02:19:30,325 --> 02:19:35,499 >> Are you okay if we circle back to this one after public 2031 02:19:35,499 --> 02:19:37,399 comment? 2032 02:19:37,399 --> 02:19:39,885 >> I had one more comment in this section. 2033 02:19:39,885 --> 02:19:43,887 When you get to the part in policy they believe it is -- 2034 02:19:43,887 --> 02:19:46,841 can we go back up to that? 2035 02:19:46,841 --> 02:19:49,595 To where we made the changes. 2036 02:19:49,595 --> 02:19:51,559 Down a little bit now. 2037 02:19:51,559 --> 02:19:55,819 It says new development will have a lifespan beyond 2050, 2038 02:19:55,819 --> 02:20:00,190 so longer span appropriate 2100 is being chosen. 2039 02:20:00,419 --> 02:20:03,419 >> That's the part I like. 2040 02:20:07,727 --> 02:20:10,190 >> The level of projected looks to remain conservative. 2041 02:20:10,190 --> 02:20:11,519 I thought in there we said that this 2042 02:20:11,519 --> 02:20:15,719 would be the intermediate to high >> Right. 2043 02:20:17,872 --> 02:20:20,247 On a recent public document I worked on, there was pushed 2044 02:20:20,247 --> 02:20:22,519 for use of intermediate and not intermediate high, 2045 02:20:22,519 --> 02:20:25,790 because the distinction of intermediate high is only -- 2046 02:20:25,790 --> 02:20:28,595 >> If the commission wants to go back to intermediate, 2047 02:20:28,595 --> 02:20:31,190 we are fine with that. 2048 02:20:31,190 --> 02:20:33,539 We understood the direction to be conservative. 2049 02:20:33,539 --> 02:20:35,992 And that's where we went. 2050 02:20:35,992 --> 02:20:36,865 >> That's fine. 2051 02:20:36,865 --> 02:20:40,799 So the last section in asset protection, 2052 02:20:40,799 --> 02:20:43,579 we don't give any examples. 2053 02:20:43,579 --> 02:20:47,779 But then we specifically call out Murrayfield. 2054 02:20:53,379 --> 02:20:56,990 >> Coastal commission asked us to. 2055 02:20:56,990 --> 02:20:56,819 >> Okay. 2056 02:20:56,819 --> 02:21:00,595 My opinion is that it feels like there's a target on a location 2057 02:21:00,595 --> 02:21:04,267 because that should be all county facilities. 2058 02:21:04,267 --> 02:21:06,667 But that's my comment. 2059 02:21:08,339 --> 02:21:10,245 >> 100% I agree with you. 2060 02:21:10,245 --> 02:21:12,619 There is a target. 2061 02:21:12,619 --> 02:21:14,619 >> Anyway. 2062 02:21:19,398 --> 02:21:21,565 >> But if coastal Commission asks the county to, you 2063 02:21:21,565 --> 02:21:22,645 don't have to. 2064 02:21:22,645 --> 02:21:24,419 Right? 2065 02:21:24,419 --> 02:21:25,904 >> We don't have to. 2066 02:21:25,904 --> 02:21:29,299 But don't forget, this has to go to the Coastal Commission. 2067 02:21:29,299 --> 02:21:32,987 And the staff gets to have another thought added. 2068 02:21:32,987 --> 02:21:37,672 So it's better for us to adjust their concerns now. 2069 02:21:37,672 --> 02:21:40,319 >> My suggestion would be to copy that exact same language 2070 02:21:40,319 --> 02:21:45,739 and put it in asset protection in section A. Because you should 2071 02:21:45,739 --> 02:21:48,739 be allowed to do that. 2072 02:22:25,820 --> 02:22:27,749 >> These are mostly changes that were recommended by the Coastal 2073 02:22:27,749 --> 02:22:31,349 Commission as we go through here. 2074 02:22:46,166 --> 02:22:50,966 >> Those are also changes from the Coastal Commission. 2075 02:23:03,116 --> 02:23:05,699 >> Moving on to public access , addition of pedestrian bicycle 2076 02:23:05,699 --> 02:23:08,279 equestrian and public transit or vehicle. 2077 02:23:08,279 --> 02:23:11,619 This was in response to a public comment. 2078 02:23:11,619 --> 02:23:15,219 Similarly, adding explicitly, bicycle and vehicle 2079 02:23:15,839 --> 02:23:17,299 parking for public comment. 2080 02:23:17,299 --> 02:23:20,299 In response to public comment. 2081 02:23:24,939 --> 02:23:29,739 We added some more policies that were consistent 2082 02:23:30,355 --> 02:23:35,155 with the appropriate sections and addressed public comments. 2083 02:23:45,990 --> 02:23:47,499 Coastal Commission recommended we 2084 02:23:48,119 --> 02:23:51,890 removed the southern from the Eureka area 2085 02:23:51,890 --> 02:23:52,447 for the public access. 2086 02:23:52,447 --> 02:23:58,110 And then I am going to jump to definitions since we already 2087 02:23:58,110 --> 02:24:04,110 went through the Samoa Town Master plan at this meeting. 2088 02:24:14,259 --> 02:24:17,409 We added the definition for aquaculture 2089 02:24:17,409 --> 02:24:20,409 as requested by public comment. 2090 02:24:22,939 --> 02:24:26,539 Similarly, coastal dependent food production as 2091 02:24:28,159 --> 02:24:30,559 requested by public comment. 2092 02:24:35,859 --> 02:24:40,720 A lot of the changes were just appropriate capitalization 2093 02:24:40,720 --> 02:24:43,672 or fixing typos in this section. 2094 02:24:48,859 --> 02:24:52,459 And that would conclude the document. 2095 02:24:59,319 --> 02:24:59,861 >> Thank you. 2096 02:24:59,861 --> 02:24:59,868 Quite a large document so it's always 2097 02:24:59,868 --> 02:25:02,639 a feat to review all of the changes you've made. 2098 02:25:02,639 --> 02:25:07,939 The tracked changes is very much appreciated in the comments our. 2099 02:25:07,939 --> 02:25:09,939 >> Is coastal dependent food production -- 2100 02:25:09,939 --> 02:25:14,899 is that human grade food or any food like animal fodder? 2101 02:25:14,899 --> 02:25:17,299 And does that matter? 2102 02:25:17,432 --> 02:25:20,190 >> The intent there was really to address the fact that 2103 02:25:20,190 --> 02:25:23,331 there's a lot of human grade food that is produced 2104 02:25:23,331 --> 02:25:25,331 in Humboldt Bay. 2105 02:25:30,718 --> 02:25:33,930 >> If we are producing seaweed that is fodder for abalone 2106 02:25:33,930 --> 02:25:38,619 or something, I just want to make sure -- yeah. 2107 02:25:38,619 --> 02:25:40,919 >> I believe the intent is for human consumption. 2108 02:25:40,919 --> 02:25:44,635 It's the water dependent cultivation and processing 2109 02:25:44,635 --> 02:25:49,435 of marine foods bivalves, algae and sea salt. 2110 02:25:49,739 --> 02:25:54,539 So I believe intent is the primary audience 2111 02:25:56,823 --> 02:25:59,640 would be for human consumption. 2112 02:25:59,640 --> 02:26:01,640 But possibly. 2113 02:26:04,990 --> 02:26:07,583 We got that definition from the public comment 2114 02:26:07,583 --> 02:26:10,739 and checked it with other areas, but they 2115 02:26:10,739 --> 02:26:13,547 requested that it be in here so that they would 2116 02:26:13,547 --> 02:26:17,147 be able to get more grants. 2117 02:26:17,819 --> 02:26:21,432 >> Thank you for being attentive to that. 2118 02:26:21,432 --> 02:26:24,659 >> With that, we're gonna move back to public comments again. 2119 02:26:24,659 --> 02:26:26,963 We've had a lot of folks who have been hanging 2120 02:26:26,963 --> 02:26:29,255 in there with us and I want to make sure that everybody 2121 02:26:29,255 --> 02:26:30,685 has time to talk. 2122 02:26:30,685 --> 02:26:33,719 So we're going to start with folks in the room. 2123 02:26:33,719 --> 02:26:36,521 If you could please approach the podium and line up and then 2124 02:26:36,521 --> 02:26:39,325 we will move to folks who are calling in online. 2125 02:26:39,325 --> 02:26:41,771 As a reminder, if you're calling in online, 2126 02:26:41,771 --> 02:26:44,930 please raise your hand now so that you 2127 02:26:44,930 --> 02:26:48,790 are ready when I move over to the online public comment 2128 02:26:48,790 --> 02:26:48,789 portion. 2129 02:26:48,789 --> 02:26:50,632 Star nine to raise your hand. 2130 02:26:50,632 --> 02:26:53,419 Would anybody in the room like to make a public comment? 2131 02:26:53,419 --> 02:26:55,819 Please approach the podium. 2132 02:27:00,579 --> 02:27:02,979 You have three minutes. 2133 02:27:04,319 --> 02:27:05,335 >> Thank you so much. 2134 02:27:05,335 --> 02:27:08,619 Good evening commissioners and staff, my name is Amy Jester 2135 02:27:08,619 --> 02:27:11,685 and I'm a resident of Eureka. 2136 02:27:11,685 --> 02:27:15,779 I'm here tonight on the behalf of the Redwood Region climate 2137 02:27:15,779 --> 02:27:17,599 and Community Resilience Hub. 2138 02:27:17,599 --> 02:27:21,110 We want to thank you all for working to update and modernize 2139 02:27:21,110 --> 02:27:22,879 the Bay Area Plan and considering 2140 02:27:22,879 --> 02:27:24,565 our comments to date. 2141 02:27:24,565 --> 02:27:29,299 My comment tonight is on section B1F on Coastal dependent 2142 02:27:29,299 --> 02:27:33,929 Industrial regarding the port overlay zone and heavy lift 2143 02:27:33,929 --> 02:27:37,592 marine terminal -- for heavy lift marine terminals. 2144 02:27:37,592 --> 02:27:42,992 We support clarifying the use of a port overlay 2145 02:27:43,685 --> 02:27:46,539 zone for heavy lift a terminals and additions that 2146 02:27:46,539 --> 02:27:49,199 were made to that section and also recommend 2147 02:27:49,199 --> 02:27:53,311 adding language that requires proposed port overlay 2148 02:27:53,311 --> 02:27:57,990 zones to be evaluated through an environmental justice lens. 2149 02:27:57,990 --> 02:28:00,299 Because the overlaying may modify standards related 2150 02:28:00,299 --> 02:28:04,939 to height, lighting, noise and other health based concerns, 2151 02:28:04,939 --> 02:28:08,179 it has the potential to disproportionately affect 2152 02:28:08,179 --> 02:28:11,678 existing and also planned affordable housing plans 2153 02:28:11,678 --> 02:28:13,925 in the community of Samoa. 2154 02:28:13,925 --> 02:28:18,450 You guys already spent time on the Samoa Town Master Plan. 2155 02:28:18,450 --> 02:28:21,405 And I know that you're tracking the additional affordable 2156 02:28:21,405 --> 02:28:24,405 housing is planned out there. 2157 02:28:24,819 --> 02:28:30,219 And also, effects on tribal and culturally significant areas. 2158 02:28:30,939 --> 02:28:33,469 So specifically, we suggest a text 2159 02:28:33,469 --> 02:28:36,405 that states establishment of a port overlay zone 2160 02:28:36,405 --> 02:28:39,239 shall include an environmental justice evaluation 2161 02:28:39,239 --> 02:28:42,859 to identify and avoid minimize or mitigate 2162 02:28:42,859 --> 02:28:45,859 disproportionate impacts to disadvantaged communities, 2163 02:28:46,779 --> 02:28:49,419 existing and planned affordable housing, 2164 02:28:49,419 --> 02:28:53,579 tribal cultural resources and culturally significant areas. 2165 02:28:53,579 --> 02:28:55,714 That addition would reinforce the plan's commitment 2166 02:28:55,714 --> 02:28:58,239 to equitable development and the new addition 2167 02:28:58,239 --> 02:29:03,893 of the Environmental Justice section at the top of the plan. 2168 02:29:03,893 --> 02:29:06,589 Thanks for consideration our comments. 2169 02:29:06,589 --> 02:29:10,195 Last chance, anybody in the room want to make a public comment 2170 02:29:10,195 --> 02:29:12,195 on this item? 2171 02:29:22,353 --> 02:29:24,561 >> I'm James Madison back again, same Samoa resident. 2172 02:29:24,561 --> 02:29:29,139 I just wanted to comment on Miss Jester's comment and second 2173 02:29:29,139 --> 02:29:33,211 our motion that we considered environmental and social justice 2174 02:29:33,211 --> 02:29:37,411 when we're making a Bay area Plan. 2175 02:29:43,290 --> 02:29:45,529 >> Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else on the audience approach 2176 02:29:45,529 --> 02:29:46,671 the podium so we're gonna go ahead and move to online. 2177 02:29:46,671 --> 02:29:48,379 I'm calling in public commenters. 2178 02:29:48,379 --> 02:29:50,139 As a reminder, please raise your hand now 2179 02:29:50,139 --> 02:29:52,739 if you would like to comment on this item 2180 02:29:52,739 --> 02:29:54,843 and we will move down the list. 2181 02:29:54,843 --> 02:29:57,843 Caller 2888, you have the floor. 2182 02:29:59,147 --> 02:30:01,547 You have three minutes. 2183 02:30:10,824 --> 02:30:17,424 >> And it is star six to unmute if you're having trouble 2184 02:30:18,299 --> 02:30:20,299 unmuting yourself. 2185 02:30:20,459 --> 02:30:22,299 >> Can you hear me now? 2186 02:30:22,299 --> 02:30:24,190 >> Yes. 2187 02:30:24,190 --> 02:30:25,527 >> Okay come on thank you. 2188 02:30:25,527 --> 02:30:28,652 My name is Francis Ternstrom and I just 2189 02:30:28,652 --> 02:30:30,152 wanted to say thank you for allowing 2190 02:30:30,152 --> 02:30:33,752 me to make a quick comment. 2191 02:30:34,779 --> 02:30:41,379 My family has a parcel at the bottom of Humboldt Hill. 2192 02:30:41,731 --> 02:30:45,219 And we are included in the Humboldt Bay 2193 02:30:45,219 --> 02:30:47,500 plan for that reason. 2194 02:30:47,500 --> 02:30:52,405 We have been trying to get a project done 2195 02:30:53,285 --> 02:30:57,199 with the county for about eight years now. 2196 02:30:57,199 --> 02:31:01,779 And because our parcel is wrapped up in this Humboldt Bay 2197 02:31:01,779 --> 02:31:07,442 plan, we have been limited on what we can do to move forward. 2198 02:31:07,442 --> 02:31:11,990 So I just wanted to comment to the commissioners 2199 02:31:11,990 --> 02:31:13,472 that we would really appreciate it 2200 02:31:13,472 --> 02:31:19,325 if you could do whatever you can to get this plan finalized 2201 02:31:19,325 --> 02:31:25,590 and to get it approved because it's been eight years for us 2202 02:31:25,590 --> 02:31:27,239 for a project that we have not been 2203 02:31:27,239 --> 02:31:31,750 able to move forward on because of the location of our parcel. 2204 02:31:31,750 --> 02:31:37,150 So I just want to make the commissioners aware 2205 02:31:38,449 --> 02:31:40,809 that there are people that are being held up 2206 02:31:40,809 --> 02:31:45,610 by doing things on the ground because the plan has not 2207 02:31:45,610 --> 02:31:46,630 been completed. 2208 02:31:46,630 --> 02:31:50,863 So thank you very much, I appreciate it. 2209 02:31:57,307 --> 02:31:57,849 >> Thank you. 2210 02:31:57,849 --> 02:31:57,856 The next person I see is epic. 2211 02:31:57,856 --> 02:31:58,195 You have three minutes. 2212 02:31:58,195 --> 02:32:00,152 As a reminder, please raise your hand now 2213 02:32:00,152 --> 02:32:02,219 if you would like to speak. 2214 02:32:02,219 --> 02:32:03,827 >> Good evening, commissioners. 2215 02:32:03,827 --> 02:32:09,900 First I want to -- that was my fault. 2216 02:32:09,900 --> 02:32:10,465 >> We're gonna restart your time. 2217 02:32:10,465 --> 02:32:14,779 If you could start at the top again, please. 2218 02:32:14,779 --> 02:32:16,779 >> How about now? 2219 02:32:16,939 --> 02:32:18,310 >> We can hear you now. 2220 02:32:18,310 --> 02:32:20,219 Sorry about that. 2221 02:32:20,219 --> 02:32:22,972 >> Good evening commissioners, my name is Matt Simmons. 2222 02:32:22,972 --> 02:32:25,339 I'm the climate attorney at epic. 2223 02:32:25,339 --> 02:32:28,299 First of all, I would like to thank the commission and staff 2224 02:32:28,299 --> 02:32:30,879 for making many of the changes suggested 2225 02:32:30,879 --> 02:32:34,479 by epic, Humboldt Waterkeeper and CRB 2226 02:32:34,827 --> 02:32:36,562 in our joint comment letter. 2227 02:32:36,562 --> 02:32:39,681 I do want to focus in to changes that were made 2228 02:32:39,681 --> 02:32:42,619 and why I feel they should be made. 2229 02:32:42,619 --> 02:32:46,739 As I'm sure the Commission is aware, 2230 02:32:46,739 --> 02:32:48,429 Humboldt County has two documents 2231 02:32:48,429 --> 02:32:51,759 demanding quite a lot of the county over the coming years. 2232 02:32:51,759 --> 02:32:54,710 There's the housing element, which 2233 02:32:54,710 --> 02:32:57,779 I don't know if you guys have seen your regional housing needs 2234 02:32:57,779 --> 02:33:01,349 numbers but we're going to need to build a lot of new housing. 2235 02:33:01,349 --> 02:33:03,149 There's also a climate action plan 2236 02:33:03,149 --> 02:33:05,499 which requires us to develop in certain ways 2237 02:33:05,499 --> 02:33:08,364 in order to reduce our emissions, 2238 02:33:08,364 --> 02:33:12,219 building close to jobs and schools that people can walk 2239 02:33:12,219 --> 02:33:17,601 or bike or even just drive less than if we were to sprawl out. 2240 02:33:17,601 --> 02:33:21,139 And I will say that one is particularly important to me 2241 02:33:21,139 --> 02:33:25,130 because I am a climate attorney and because just two days ago, 2242 02:33:25,130 --> 02:33:29,179 the UN announced that we were definitely going to pass the 1.5 2243 02:33:29,179 --> 02:33:33,659 degree threshold that they set as the Paris Climate Agreement. 2244 02:33:33,659 --> 02:33:36,307 And every bit of warming after that just 2245 02:33:36,307 --> 02:33:39,390 further makes the future a scarier 2246 02:33:39,390 --> 02:33:41,179 place for us all to live. 2247 02:33:41,179 --> 02:33:43,339 Getting to the point of this document, 2248 02:33:43,339 --> 02:33:45,739 the two changes that we asked for. 2249 02:33:45,739 --> 02:33:47,952 One was to allow residential zoning 2250 02:33:47,952 --> 02:33:52,439 to continue to exist as a possible thing for the county 2251 02:33:52,439 --> 02:33:54,739 to adopt in the future. 2252 02:33:54,739 --> 02:33:59,990 I know planner Ford said that we could do that in the future 2253 02:33:59,990 --> 02:34:02,691 if we ever decide to rezone an area as residential high. 2254 02:34:02,691 --> 02:34:06,860 If that's true, then why take it out? 2255 02:34:06,860 --> 02:34:10,460 (Indiscernible) and it's not affecting anything. 2256 02:34:10,655 --> 02:34:12,697 I think if you look at the map of Humboldt County 2257 02:34:12,697 --> 02:34:14,114 and really want to put new housing 2258 02:34:14,114 --> 02:34:16,499 and how we're going to read the regional housing needs, 2259 02:34:16,499 --> 02:34:18,919 we're going to need some residential high development 2260 02:34:18,919 --> 02:34:19,939 in the future. 2261 02:34:19,939 --> 02:34:24,485 And hopefully some of that can be in the Myrtletown area which 2262 02:34:24,485 --> 02:34:28,304 is in the coastal zone but above the sea level rise area 2263 02:34:28,304 --> 02:34:34,285 but it has access to transit and jobs and bike lanes now. 2264 02:34:34,285 --> 02:34:37,715 Andy, it just feels like we shouldn't 2265 02:34:37,715 --> 02:34:40,539 be cutting this out just to have to put it back in. 2266 02:34:40,539 --> 02:34:43,867 The second request was about the urban limit lines. 2267 02:34:43,867 --> 02:34:49,267 So obviously that comes from the Coastal Act language . 2268 02:34:51,899 --> 02:34:54,190 Sorry, I moved my cursor. 2269 02:34:54,190 --> 02:34:54,923 20505. 2270 02:34:54,923 --> 02:34:56,923 I'm sorry, 30250. 2271 02:34:57,635 --> 02:35:00,566 But the current draft already goes 2272 02:35:00,566 --> 02:35:02,399 beyond what the Coastal Commission describes 2273 02:35:02,399 --> 02:35:05,891 in terms of what is required for urban limit lines. 2274 02:35:05,891 --> 02:35:08,699 And so if Humboldt County wants to, 2275 02:35:08,699 --> 02:35:11,403 we can add additional criteria for what 2276 02:35:11,403 --> 02:35:13,205 we consider urban limit line. 2277 02:35:13,205 --> 02:35:18,759 And so we had asked for that to consider walkability, access 2278 02:35:18,759 --> 02:35:24,759 to jobs and services, the things that you think of. 2279 02:35:24,899 --> 02:35:29,990 >> I'm sorry, your time is >> Thank you. 2280 02:35:31,190 --> 02:35:33,311 And I don't see any other folks with their hand raised, 2281 02:35:33,311 --> 02:35:35,478 so we are going to go ahead and close public comment 2282 02:35:35,478 --> 02:35:40,878 and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. 2283 02:35:47,220 --> 02:35:47,689 >> Commissioner. 2284 02:35:47,689 --> 02:35:49,606 >> Just because we heard it in public comment, 2285 02:35:49,606 --> 02:35:52,626 I think we had briefly discussed this at one of the previous 2286 02:35:52,626 --> 02:35:55,669 workshops but I am still in support of allowing 2287 02:35:55,669 --> 02:35:58,690 the residential high zoning. 2288 02:36:09,960 --> 02:36:11,513 >> You bring up a point that I would also like to discuss. 2289 02:36:11,513 --> 02:36:14,759 But to think about process before we get into discussion 2290 02:36:14,759 --> 02:36:17,100 of items and what makes sense for us, 2291 02:36:17,100 --> 02:36:19,496 we have a little less than an hour 2292 02:36:19,496 --> 02:36:22,295 to try to make some progress. 2293 02:36:22,295 --> 02:36:28,485 In the past, we've gone through the documents page by page 2294 02:36:28,485 --> 02:36:30,539 and had staff stop when we wanted 2295 02:36:30,539 --> 02:36:32,992 to stop and discuss items. 2296 02:36:32,992 --> 02:36:36,699 I know that there are a couple of topics that we've already 2297 02:36:36,699 --> 02:36:40,179 tabled from interest a little bit earlier in our discussion 2298 02:36:40,179 --> 02:36:40,819 this evening. 2299 02:36:40,819 --> 02:36:43,779 What feels like a productive way to get 2300 02:36:43,779 --> 02:36:47,850 through this document that also meets 2301 02:36:47,850 --> 02:36:48,859 the needs of the commissioners that they 2302 02:36:48,859 --> 02:36:52,300 are discussing the plans that they want to address. 2303 02:36:52,300 --> 02:36:56,790 Would you like -- >> Didn't we just do that? 2304 02:36:56,790 --> 02:37:00,590 We pretty much went through the whole thing. 2305 02:37:00,590 --> 02:37:02,590 >> Yeah, we did. 2306 02:37:02,996 --> 02:37:07,590 And maybe it would be worthwhile just 2307 02:37:07,590 --> 02:37:11,259 having each commissioner identify the major topic 2308 02:37:11,459 --> 02:37:14,590 concerns they have and just going there and talking 2309 02:37:14,590 --> 02:37:15,332 through those. 2310 02:37:15,332 --> 02:37:18,932 I think we just need 3 or 4 2311 02:37:20,619 --> 02:37:21,536 >> I agree. 2312 02:37:21,536 --> 02:37:23,469 I think there's 3 or 4 areas where 2313 02:37:23,469 --> 02:37:27,619 we need to do a deeper dive. 2314 02:37:27,619 --> 02:37:28,771 >> That sounds good. 2315 02:37:28,771 --> 02:37:34,139 With that, I guess we will let it rip on this first topic with 2316 02:37:34,139 --> 02:37:37,739 the higher density residential designation -- 2317 02:37:38,739 --> 02:37:40,739 land use designation. 2318 02:37:43,499 --> 02:37:46,850 >> If it pleases the commission, we can put that back in. 2319 02:37:46,850 --> 02:37:49,819 I mean, it's almost a meaningless discussion 2320 02:37:49,819 --> 02:37:51,819 at this point. 2321 02:37:52,165 --> 02:37:54,795 >> I did have several questions around it. 2322 02:37:54,795 --> 02:37:57,592 You had noted that it's not in the zoning. 2323 02:37:57,592 --> 02:38:02,707 And it's been a while since I've worked directly in planning. 2324 02:38:02,707 --> 02:38:06,835 My of standing was that this document was 2325 02:38:06,835 --> 02:38:10,435 a higher level than the zoning. 2326 02:38:11,696 --> 02:38:13,363 And the next time you update the zoning, 2327 02:38:13,363 --> 02:38:16,959 you could attend to the fact that there was this land use 2328 02:38:16,959 --> 02:38:18,779 designation that's not currently zoned for 2329 02:38:18,779 --> 02:38:20,979 and add in the zone at that time. 2330 02:38:20,979 --> 02:38:22,479 >> We could. 2331 02:38:22,479 --> 02:38:27,952 I think the question is, I know Mr. Simmons mentioned 2332 02:38:27,952 --> 02:38:29,399 Myrtletown. 2333 02:38:29,399 --> 02:38:33,195 And perhaps there are a couple of parcels in Myrtletown 2334 02:38:33,195 --> 02:38:36,955 that would be appropriate to apply this to. 2335 02:38:36,955 --> 02:38:38,569 I haven't evaluated that. 2336 02:38:38,569 --> 02:38:41,989 I don't know if that's true or not. 2337 02:38:41,989 --> 02:38:45,615 But we can certainly add it back in. 2338 02:38:45,615 --> 02:38:47,323 Next time we update the zoning ordinance, 2339 02:38:47,323 --> 02:38:50,179 we can certainly do that. 2340 02:38:50,179 --> 02:38:52,579 Medium density residential currently 2341 02:38:54,445 --> 02:38:56,845 allows 30 units per acre. 2342 02:38:56,927 --> 02:39:02,925 And if you go with the density bonus, you can go higher. 2343 02:39:02,925 --> 02:39:04,520 >> I hear that. 2344 02:39:04,520 --> 02:39:07,187 I think when I think about going with the higher density housing, 2345 02:39:07,187 --> 02:39:11,211 I look at some of the more recent buildings in Eureka 2346 02:39:11,211 --> 02:39:15,227 and that those are 30 units on much less than an acre. 2347 02:39:15,227 --> 02:39:18,539 And everybody has different opinions on what a four story 2348 02:39:18,539 --> 02:39:21,279 building feels like, and I think we will have public process 2349 02:39:21,279 --> 02:39:23,739 to hear from Myrtletown and other areas 2350 02:39:23,739 --> 02:39:25,199 where this would be proposed. 2351 02:39:25,199 --> 02:39:31,799 But to me, 30 units on an acre is not that dense. 2352 02:39:32,139 --> 02:39:35,563 And there are parts of unincorporated Humboldt County 2353 02:39:35,563 --> 02:39:40,410 where I think that something along the lines of a four story 2354 02:39:40,410 --> 02:39:43,479 building on a third of an acre is what I see in Eureka. 2355 02:39:43,479 --> 02:39:46,305 I think that may feel appropriate. 2356 02:39:46,305 --> 02:39:49,899 And currently, as I understand, the medium 2357 02:39:49,899 --> 02:39:51,429 density, that that would not really 2358 02:39:51,429 --> 02:39:54,527 work even if you had your bonuses. 2359 02:39:54,527 --> 02:39:57,510 So that's where I'm coming from and advocating 2360 02:39:57,510 --> 02:40:01,851 for just the option of having higher density. 2361 02:40:09,976 --> 02:40:10,976 >> It's a policy called. 2362 02:40:10,976 --> 02:40:13,376 It's fine with us. 2363 02:40:19,456 --> 02:40:20,373 >> I completely agree. 2364 02:40:20,373 --> 02:40:22,540 It sounds like staff is okay with putting it back in 2365 02:40:22,540 --> 02:40:26,330 and I would like to see that as well. 2366 02:40:26,330 --> 02:40:32,633 And I agree with signaling the interest of considering our H 2367 02:40:32,885 --> 02:40:40,685 in future zoning updates. -- r h in future zoning >> I don't have 2368 02:40:45,226 --> 02:40:46,590 a big issue with it. 2369 02:40:46,590 --> 02:40:49,209 Are you talking about aligning that anywhere? -- 2370 02:40:49,209 --> 02:40:52,411 aligning that anywhere in the Bay area plan? 2371 02:40:52,411 --> 02:40:55,919 Or specifically, when I think about it, 2372 02:40:55,919 --> 02:41:00,719 it seems like that area of Myrtle Harris 2373 02:41:01,399 --> 02:41:05,599 and Harrison kind of triangle that might 2374 02:41:05,612 --> 02:41:09,212 some day be suitable for that. 2375 02:41:10,290 --> 02:41:12,915 >> My understanding is that we are just putting the opportunity 2376 02:41:12,915 --> 02:41:14,670 back in. 2377 02:41:14,670 --> 02:41:19,499 We are not actually allocating the land use onto the parcel. 2378 02:41:19,499 --> 02:41:21,299 >> Got it. 2379 02:41:21,299 --> 02:41:22,979 >> That's where I come from. 2380 02:41:22,979 --> 02:41:25,899 I don't want to eliminate -- limited right now but I want 2381 02:41:25,899 --> 02:41:27,239 that opportunity in the future. 2382 02:41:27,239 --> 02:41:31,475 As I understand, there will be a public participation opportunity 2383 02:41:31,475 --> 02:41:34,390 in the future when zoning was updated 2384 02:41:34,390 --> 02:41:38,281 in when it was proposed in Mckinleyville or Myrtle Town 2385 02:41:38,281 --> 02:41:41,881 to be a more robust discussion. 2386 02:41:50,293 --> 02:41:52,541 >> This would be in the Humboldt area. 2387 02:41:52,541 --> 02:41:55,249 >> All this would be doing in my opinion is sending a signal that 2388 02:41:55,249 --> 02:41:57,207 it could happen someday which is probably okay. 2389 02:41:57,207 --> 02:41:58,459 >> It doesn't close the door. 2390 02:41:58,459 --> 02:41:59,751 >> So we will add that back in? 2391 02:41:59,751 --> 02:42:03,951 Is that the consensus of the Commission? 2392 02:42:05,339 --> 02:42:07,339 >> Yes. 2393 02:42:07,379 --> 02:42:09,859 >> I had a question more that a comment section. 2394 02:42:09,859 --> 02:42:12,787 We had a quick commenter who noted 2395 02:42:12,787 --> 02:42:15,651 that they are waiting on working on their property 2396 02:42:15,651 --> 02:42:18,651 until this plan is updated. 2397 02:42:22,179 --> 02:42:26,379 And that is because it's an expensive and challenging 2398 02:42:26,379 --> 02:42:27,819 process to go through. 2399 02:42:27,819 --> 02:42:31,619 I'm assuming they're waiting on a rezone. 2400 02:42:31,619 --> 02:42:32,642 >> Correct. 2401 02:42:32,642 --> 02:42:35,590 >> And it's a challenging process to do that independently 2402 02:42:35,590 --> 02:42:37,807 so they are waiting on the plan to do it so they don't have 2403 02:42:37,807 --> 02:42:39,459 to spend the money? 2404 02:42:39,459 --> 02:42:40,979 >> Correct. 2405 02:42:40,979 --> 02:42:43,611 >> So you can in fact do this without waiting on us, 2406 02:42:43,611 --> 02:42:47,352 but it's much more cost effective to have the plan 2407 02:42:47,352 --> 02:42:50,952 adopted and have the change done. 2408 02:42:51,419 --> 02:42:53,419 >> That is correct. 2409 02:42:54,133 --> 02:42:54,883 >> Understandable. 2410 02:42:54,883 --> 02:42:57,190 And that is not to -- 2411 02:42:57,190 --> 02:42:59,389 I hear that neighbors concern and appreciate 2412 02:42:59,389 --> 02:43:03,259 that it's quite expensive to do a zone update. 2413 02:43:03,259 --> 02:43:06,750 We are trying to do our due diligence on this plan 2414 02:43:06,750 --> 02:43:08,672 and understand what folks would like to see -- 2415 02:43:08,672 --> 02:43:11,219 that folks would like to see the updates. 2416 02:43:11,219 --> 02:43:14,219 Thank you for the clarification. 2417 02:43:14,819 --> 02:43:15,525 Okay. 2418 02:43:15,525 --> 02:43:20,910 What are some of the other topics folks 2419 02:43:20,910 --> 02:43:22,491 wanted to talk about? 2420 02:43:23,499 --> 02:43:26,539 >> I think we wanted to revisit the intermediate versus 2421 02:43:26,539 --> 02:43:28,539 intermediate-high discussion. 2422 02:43:34,179 --> 02:43:37,779 Where did we settle on that? 2423 02:43:38,739 --> 02:43:42,750 >> I was fine with what Director Ford said. 2424 02:43:42,750 --> 02:43:44,160 I found some of the language a little bit 2425 02:43:44,160 --> 02:43:46,950 confusing in that one section you had on screen. 2426 02:43:46,950 --> 02:43:49,867 But the general intent, if that's the policy decision 2427 02:43:49,867 --> 02:43:53,467 to use intermediate high, that's fine. 2428 02:43:54,720 --> 02:43:56,472 >> We can use intermediate. 2429 02:43:56,659 --> 02:43:58,487 That's fine. 2430 02:43:58,487 --> 02:44:03,887 I did not see the article that you evidently 2431 02:44:04,499 --> 02:44:06,899 just read advising that. 2432 02:44:08,691 --> 02:44:17,910 What I read was that they picked two at the end in the range 2433 02:44:17,131 --> 02:44:21,523 that that were equally likely or unlikely to happen. 2434 02:44:21,523 --> 02:44:25,852 And then really gave that range in the middle. 2435 02:44:25,852 --> 02:44:32,790 And so , just based upon that and based upon being a little 2436 02:44:32,790 --> 02:44:36,769 bit more conservative, I think their work did take into account 2437 02:44:36,769 --> 02:44:37,359 subsidence. 2438 02:44:37,359 --> 02:44:42,123 So we don't need to overcompensate for subsidence. 2439 02:44:42,123 --> 02:44:46,323 So in scale wouldn't be damaging. -- 2440 02:44:50,731 --> 02:44:53,845 and intermediate scale would it be damaging. 2441 02:44:53,845 --> 02:44:56,921 I could be wrong but that's my recollection of where 2442 02:44:56,921 --> 02:44:58,525 we ended up in our last discussion 2443 02:44:58,525 --> 02:45:01,325 was intermediate, when we had the discussion about subsidence 2444 02:45:01,325 --> 02:45:04,299 and I was all confused about that. 2445 02:45:04,299 --> 02:45:06,809 And we recognized that subsidence 2446 02:45:06,809 --> 02:45:08,874 was included in their. 2447 02:45:08,874 --> 02:45:12,219 I thought we ended up intermediate. 2448 02:45:12,219 --> 02:45:15,227 >> That's also what I remembered because of the open public 2449 02:45:15,227 --> 02:45:18,320 policy documents in the area that include that. 2450 02:45:18,320 --> 02:45:20,825 But I couldn't remember if maybe we mentioned it. 2451 02:45:20,825 --> 02:45:23,759 So if there's a strong reason to go the other way, 2452 02:45:23,759 --> 02:45:29,159 I'm not for or against one or the other. 2453 02:45:37,197 --> 02:45:39,364 >> I know they do but this is the county's document. 2454 02:45:39,364 --> 02:45:39,374 >> They are always going to support the more drastic. 2455 02:45:39,374 --> 02:45:40,115 I guess, coming from another place, 2456 02:45:40,115 --> 02:45:42,629 we've pushed back on that because the higher scenario, 2457 02:45:42,629 --> 02:45:46,183 the more cost associated with building that adaptation. 2458 02:45:46,183 --> 02:45:48,925 And that's so far out in the science 2459 02:45:48,925 --> 02:45:51,425 that the uncertainty dropped so much that you're potentially 2460 02:45:51,425 --> 02:45:53,292 adding in some cases millions of dollars 2461 02:45:53,292 --> 02:45:59,687 to a project for some threat that may or may not be realized. 2462 02:45:59,687 --> 02:46:01,479 >> This is the same argument that you made. 2463 02:46:01,479 --> 02:46:02,492 We had this discussion. 2464 02:46:02,492 --> 02:46:05,619 That's why I thought we settled earlier. 2465 02:46:05,619 --> 02:46:07,139 >> I missed that. 2466 02:46:07,139 --> 02:46:09,539 I apologize for that. 2467 02:46:10,720 --> 02:46:12,472 >> I don't remember settling. 2468 02:46:12,579 --> 02:46:15,609 I think it is a murky conversation. 2469 02:46:15,609 --> 02:46:19,119 We went around quite a bit on it. 2470 02:46:19,119 --> 02:46:23,144 I think I still lean intermediate-high but I remember 2471 02:46:23,144 --> 02:46:26,239 I was on the fence and -- 2472 02:46:26,239 --> 02:46:29,239 I think that's where we were. 2473 02:46:29,239 --> 02:46:32,231 That may be part of the problem. 2474 02:46:32,231 --> 02:46:34,439 >> I personally don't think that the science is there 2475 02:46:34,439 --> 02:46:35,719 for the immediate-high. 2476 02:46:35,719 --> 02:46:39,792 I'm more comfortable around the medium area. 2477 02:46:39,792 --> 02:46:45,192 Not only for the cost basis but, I mean, 2478 02:46:45,363 --> 02:46:47,819 I personally don't see the science 2479 02:46:47,819 --> 02:46:50,219 to justify the immediate-high. 2480 02:46:58,611 --> 02:46:59,111 the 2481 02:46:59,111 --> 02:46:59,122 >> You could also go with intermediate now so that we 2482 02:46:59,122 --> 02:47:00,689 don't financially overburden a project that's on the immediate 2483 02:47:00,689 --> 02:47:01,189 horizon. 2484 02:47:01,189 --> 02:47:04,443 But when OPC comes out with their next round of updates, 2485 02:47:04,443 --> 02:47:05,952 you could update the table in here 2486 02:47:05,952 --> 02:47:08,430 and decide based on the civil overrides 2487 02:47:08,430 --> 02:47:15,243 that we have or haven't seen to change it at that point. 2488 02:47:29,909 --> 02:47:30,133 >> I'm seeing inclination to move towards intermediate. 2489 02:47:30,133 --> 02:47:32,633 Bam did you have a comment about it? 2490 02:47:32,633 --> 02:47:35,790 >> I think I struggle a bit with the speculation. 2491 02:47:35,790 --> 02:47:38,671 I just feel like there's a lot of speculation that we are 2492 02:47:38,671 --> 02:47:39,820 trying to -- 2493 02:47:39,820 --> 02:47:43,420 I guess there isn't enough information. 2494 02:47:44,270 --> 02:47:48,926 Again, the argument was that we are putting in infrastructure 2495 02:47:48,926 --> 02:47:53,126 that is here for a long time. 2496 02:47:53,687 --> 02:47:58,487 And I heard staff talk about percent probabilities. 2497 02:48:01,227 --> 02:48:05,933 And I think it might be useful to ground a decision based off 2498 02:48:05,933 --> 02:48:11,423 of something a little bit more numeric rather than feeling like 2499 02:48:11,423 --> 02:48:16,307 whether or not the science -- we're feeling like whether 2500 02:48:16,307 --> 02:48:19,527 or not the cost will be higher or not. 2501 02:48:19,527 --> 02:48:22,150 We are trying to protect property 2502 02:48:22,150 --> 02:48:25,340 but we don't want to limit development. 2503 02:48:25,340 --> 02:48:27,179 It's challenging. 2504 02:48:27,179 --> 02:48:29,120 But I feel like there's a lot of speculation 2505 02:48:29,120 --> 02:48:31,955 so I guess I am still on the fence. 2506 02:48:31,955 --> 02:48:37,955 I'm leaning a bit more towards Commissioner West as well. 2507 02:48:37,967 --> 02:48:39,509 >> It's a hard one. 2508 02:48:39,509 --> 02:48:43,520 And I always spend a lot of time on it. 2509 02:48:43,520 --> 02:48:48,452 You make a very good point that the costs 2510 02:48:48,991 --> 02:48:52,591 are an important consideration, particularly when 2511 02:48:53,340 --> 02:48:55,570 we're thinking about building housing 2512 02:48:55,570 --> 02:48:57,980 and balancing that with safety. 2513 02:48:57,980 --> 02:49:02,780 And we can down the road change things. 2514 02:49:05,727 --> 02:49:10,527 Working in government, I loathe to say this 2515 02:49:11,700 --> 02:49:17,247 but we don't always change things as often as we should. 2516 02:49:17,247 --> 02:49:20,627 I do lean towards being more conservative 2517 02:49:20,627 --> 02:49:23,127 and so I do lean towards being more 2518 02:49:23,127 --> 02:49:25,535 conservative for that reason and loosening things 2519 02:49:25,535 --> 02:49:28,677 if needed instead of going the other direction of tightening 2520 02:49:28,677 --> 02:49:32,207 things if needed down the road. 2521 02:49:32,207 --> 02:49:36,687 >> If I could, chair, I don't know if this helps or not pure 2522 02:49:36,687 --> 02:49:38,467 Mike maybe it makes it worse. 2523 02:49:38,467 --> 02:49:43,263 But in response to commissioners comment about grounding it, 2524 02:49:43,263 --> 02:49:46,607 part of the struggle is the variability 2525 02:49:46,607 --> 02:49:52,700 relating to the global ability to address climate change. 2526 02:49:56,127 --> 02:50:00,967 And so on the one hand, we could be extremely optimistic 2527 02:50:00,967 --> 02:50:04,351 and go to the very low side, because we're 2528 02:50:04,351 --> 02:50:07,127 going to tackle this thing and make a difference. 2529 02:50:07,127 --> 02:50:14,327 Or we could look and see and have a more sober view 2530 02:50:14,791 --> 02:50:18,991 and recognize that even though we (Indiscernible) 2531 02:50:20,464 --> 02:50:23,487 and the rest of the world has great ideas and objectives, 2532 02:50:23,487 --> 02:50:28,887 that they are not necessarily as easy to implement. 2533 02:50:28,887 --> 02:50:32,399 And I think that's where from a staff perspective, 2534 02:50:32,399 --> 02:50:35,999 we lean towards the intermediate high. 2535 02:50:36,607 --> 02:50:39,687 Because recognizing the difficulty of doing all 2536 02:50:39,687 --> 02:50:45,620 that we need to do to curtail the carbon emissions, 2537 02:50:45,620 --> 02:50:48,327 curtail the greenhouse gas emissions 2538 02:50:48,327 --> 02:50:53,351 so that the things that are causing the rise 2539 02:50:53,351 --> 02:50:55,351 begin to change. 2540 02:51:01,636 --> 02:51:02,136 >> Yeah. 2541 02:51:02,136 --> 02:51:05,351 And I want to point out that intermediate is sort of defined 2542 02:51:05,351 --> 02:51:07,197 as roughly 50% chance. 2543 02:51:07,197 --> 02:51:11,397 So intermediate is really flipping a coin. 2544 02:51:14,986 --> 02:51:15,986 >> Commissioner O'neill. 2545 02:51:15,986 --> 02:51:17,591 >> I'm not a scientist. 2546 02:51:17,591 --> 02:51:19,760 This is out of my wheelhouse on this. 2547 02:51:19,760 --> 02:51:24,430 But when we talk about tsunami, we went with the presentation 2548 02:51:24,430 --> 02:51:25,231 that we had. 2549 02:51:25,231 --> 02:51:31,231 We went with a very conservative threat level, I thought. 2550 02:51:32,607 --> 02:51:35,607 That's all I'm looking at. 2551 02:51:35,973 --> 02:51:38,559 You have two different main threats here. 2552 02:51:38,559 --> 02:51:41,553 You have the salami threat and you have sea level. 2553 02:51:41,553 --> 02:51:46,520 And you should be about equal with both of those 2554 02:51:46,520 --> 02:51:49,520 in terms of the probability. 2555 02:51:49,703 --> 02:51:52,147 And I don't know where that falls 2556 02:51:52,147 --> 02:51:55,147 on the medium high, whatever. 2557 02:51:55,387 --> 02:51:58,567 But you should be consistent, I think. 2558 02:51:58,567 --> 02:51:59,307 >> I understand. 2559 02:51:59,307 --> 02:52:02,327 And I will say, with respect to tsunami, 2560 02:52:02,327 --> 02:52:04,575 we did not go for the most conservative. 2561 02:52:04,575 --> 02:52:07,380 We went for the recommended value. 2562 02:52:07,380 --> 02:52:07,973 >> Not you. 2563 02:52:07,973 --> 02:52:13,373 When I was listening to the scientist explain -- 2564 02:52:13,647 --> 02:52:17,785 they take a more conservative role and than we follow 2565 02:52:17,785 --> 02:52:18,702 their recommendations. 2566 02:52:18,702 --> 02:52:21,687 I don't think the county deviated. 2567 02:52:21,687 --> 02:52:26,607 But just in the way I heard that explanation, 2568 02:52:26,607 --> 02:52:29,667 and I don't want to go into all of that. 2569 02:52:29,667 --> 02:52:31,940 I'm just saying that we should be 2570 02:52:31,940 --> 02:52:36,530 equal in looking at where we fall on the scale for threats 2571 02:52:36,530 --> 02:52:39,342 and not make one more than the other. 2572 02:52:39,342 --> 02:52:40,717 >> That's what I'm trying to say. 2573 02:52:40,717 --> 02:52:44,917 Even the Geological society identified the maximum 2574 02:52:44,967 --> 02:52:48,567 theoretical tsunami, which was a 2475 event . 2575 02:52:55,653 --> 02:52:58,823 They did not recommend the use of that number. 2576 02:52:58,823 --> 02:53:02,647 Except when you're designing public facilities, emergency 2577 02:53:02,647 --> 02:53:06,700 facilities or things that needed to be able to sustain 2578 02:53:06,700 --> 02:53:08,735 through anything that happened, that's 2579 02:53:08,735 --> 02:53:11,735 where the 975 thing came from. 2580 02:53:13,687 --> 02:53:15,527 >> And that's fine. 2581 02:53:15,527 --> 02:53:17,951 I'm not trying to Rediscuss that. 2582 02:53:17,951 --> 02:53:19,799 I'm just saying that I think we should 2583 02:53:19,799 --> 02:53:24,903 fall within the same amount of caution or lack of caution 2584 02:53:24,903 --> 02:53:28,767 or whatever, for all threats so that we wouldn't 2585 02:53:28,767 --> 02:53:30,247 rate one higher than the other. 2586 02:53:30,247 --> 02:53:33,486 And I like what you said about, there's 2587 02:53:33,486 --> 02:53:35,411 things that are outside of our control. 2588 02:53:35,411 --> 02:53:39,407 With a tsunami, you have more control of how you address it 2589 02:53:39,407 --> 02:53:43,687 and sea level rise because we can't change what 2590 02:53:43,687 --> 02:53:46,687 people do across the world. 2591 02:53:52,385 --> 02:53:54,930 >> I'm seeing a split commission on this. 2592 02:53:54,930 --> 02:53:57,559 Would it be an appropriate tool to use in alternative 2593 02:53:57,559 --> 02:54:00,559 or present us with alternatives? 2594 02:54:01,927 --> 02:54:03,767 >> There are no alternatives. 2595 02:54:03,767 --> 02:54:06,767 There's intermediate, intermediate-high, and high. 2596 02:54:08,305 --> 02:54:10,347 >> When we've had a split discussion they present 2597 02:54:10,347 --> 02:54:13,727 the whole document and then alternative A is intermediate 2598 02:54:13,727 --> 02:54:16,223 high, alternative B is intermediate. 2599 02:54:16,223 --> 02:54:19,673 And as part of our motion making -- 2600 02:54:19,673 --> 02:54:22,673 >> That's actually in the document. 2601 02:54:22,887 --> 02:54:25,163 >> I'm not saying with go with one or the other. 2602 02:54:25,163 --> 02:54:27,860 I'm just saying that there are public documents that 2603 02:54:27,860 --> 02:54:31,870 use intermediate simply because it's the logistics of the cost. 2604 02:54:31,870 --> 02:54:34,847 Because the science is uncertain for intermediate high and it 2605 02:54:34,847 --> 02:54:36,959 costs so much more to build to that. 2606 02:54:36,959 --> 02:54:39,271 That counterargument is what Director Ford said. 2607 02:54:39,271 --> 02:54:43,471 I'm happy to go with either one. 2608 02:54:43,767 --> 02:54:48,967 I'm just putting that caution and that awareness out there. 2609 02:54:48,967 --> 02:54:54,113 >> And the challenge is, the science is not that accurate. 2610 02:54:54,113 --> 02:54:57,617 And the difference in these ranges is significant. 2611 02:54:57,617 --> 02:54:59,617 Okay? 2612 02:55:00,687 --> 02:55:06,103 So we are talking about moving from 3.9ft to 5.5ft. 2613 02:55:06,103 --> 02:55:08,967 And that's a completely different, 2614 02:55:08,967 --> 02:55:13,167 from a cost perspective and development standard, 2615 02:55:14,367 --> 02:55:18,567 you're talking about millions if not billions. 2616 02:55:24,757 --> 02:55:26,215 >> Roads and public infrastructure, 2617 02:55:26,215 --> 02:55:28,387 you're talking tens of millions of dollars. 2618 02:55:28,387 --> 02:55:30,887 You can speak better to the cost of residential development 2619 02:55:30,887 --> 02:55:32,887 with those differences. 2620 02:55:34,287 --> 02:55:37,860 >> It will take areas out of residential development. 2621 02:55:37,860 --> 02:55:42,624 It's not like it's going to change -- 2622 02:55:42,624 --> 02:55:46,753 it would take areas out of residential development. 2623 02:55:46,753 --> 02:55:48,927 And maybe that's okay. 2624 02:55:48,927 --> 02:55:52,447 But I think that's what it would potentially do. 2625 02:55:52,447 --> 02:55:56,127 Because trying to address it in residential development is going 2626 02:55:56,127 --> 02:56:00,438 to certainly -- you're just going to impact the cost 2627 02:56:00,438 --> 02:56:03,400 of housing to the extent that it would take it out. 2628 02:56:03,400 --> 02:56:05,567 >> Can you just write into the plan that it would be 2629 02:56:05,567 --> 02:56:09,418 automatically updated instead of having it be someplace and then 2630 02:56:09,418 --> 02:56:10,719 you have to bring it back up? 2631 02:56:10,719 --> 02:56:15,470 But that it'll be automatically updated as these numbers change? 2632 02:56:15,470 --> 02:56:18,427 Without having to go back and do a whole revision? 2633 02:56:18,427 --> 02:56:20,427 Of the plan? 2634 02:56:21,447 --> 02:56:28,647 >> I don't think the revision to these numbers is that >> Can it 2635 02:56:29,442 --> 02:56:31,817 be an internal thing that happens at a staff level rather 2636 02:56:31,817 --> 02:56:34,327 than a whole public hearing? 2637 02:56:34,327 --> 02:56:36,135 >> I don't think anybody wants that. 2638 02:56:36,135 --> 02:56:39,735 There's got to be complete transparency. 2639 02:56:40,237 --> 02:56:43,700 There's got to be a public process. 2640 02:56:43,700 --> 02:56:48,247 Nobody wants backroom deals or even the appearance of them. 2641 02:56:48,247 --> 02:56:51,137 >> I meant based on the scientific data that 2642 02:56:51,137 --> 02:56:55,492 you're relying upon not just, it'll just happen. 2643 02:56:55,492 --> 02:56:57,617 >> I think what they're trying to say is can we put 2644 02:56:57,617 --> 02:57:01,260 in a sentence that says we're using the OPC 2024 guidance. 2645 02:57:01,260 --> 02:57:07,260 If this guidance is updated, the new guidance will substitute. 2646 02:57:07,447 --> 02:57:09,897 So we're not changing the decision of use 2647 02:57:09,897 --> 02:57:11,653 on intermediate or intermediate high, 2648 02:57:11,653 --> 02:57:15,253 we're just using the new numbers. 2649 02:57:15,327 --> 02:57:17,827 >> But you're taking the ability of the Board of Supervisors 2650 02:57:17,827 --> 02:57:19,900 and the planning Commission. 2651 02:57:19,900 --> 02:57:23,639 You're removing their ability to consider whether or not that 2652 02:57:23,639 --> 02:57:26,167 is something they want to do. 2653 02:57:26,167 --> 02:57:27,407 >> I agree. 2654 02:57:27,407 --> 02:57:30,330 I agree because you don't know. 2655 02:57:30,330 --> 02:57:33,290 Maybe you get a different group of scientists in there 2656 02:57:33,290 --> 02:57:34,487 that are extremely and they came up 2657 02:57:34,487 --> 02:57:36,567 with something radical or whatever 2658 02:57:36,567 --> 02:57:39,228 and it's like come on wait a minute, that's not us. 2659 02:57:39,228 --> 02:57:41,200 We don't want to do that because maybe they 2660 02:57:41,200 --> 02:57:44,200 go in the wrong direction. 2661 02:57:53,187 --> 02:57:55,687 >> Just to address if we're taking areas out of development, 2662 02:57:55,687 --> 02:58:00,959 if we're taking some areas out of development presumably in any 2663 02:58:00,959 --> 02:58:04,505 of these levels, but we don't really understand how much we 2664 02:58:04,505 --> 02:58:06,255 are potentially taking out of development. 2665 02:58:06,255 --> 02:58:10,407 I think one way to think about it is the sea level 2666 02:58:10,407 --> 02:58:16,407 rise is happening and the least desirable thing to do 2667 02:58:18,458 --> 02:58:20,447 is develop right on the ocean edge. 2668 02:58:20,447 --> 02:58:25,753 So we are talking about -- we are kind of getting at how far 2669 02:58:25,753 --> 02:58:27,727 are we pulling back? 2670 02:58:27,727 --> 02:58:34,927 >> We won't even have a highway 101 if it goes up that high. 2671 02:58:36,170 --> 02:58:37,870 >> You can, but costs. 2672 02:58:37,870 --> 02:58:41,287 >> The higher we go, the more cost. 2673 02:58:44,207 --> 02:58:46,487 >> We're not getting at the setback. 2674 02:58:46,487 --> 02:58:51,887 We're getting at the setback in low elevated >> Correct, 2675 02:58:53,367 --> 02:58:54,367 where this is impacting. 2676 02:58:54,367 --> 02:58:55,950 >> It's helpful for me to think about, 2677 02:58:55,950 --> 02:58:59,263 this is really a discussion on how far we're pulling back. 2678 02:58:59,263 --> 02:59:03,463 Would it be helpful to have maps? 2679 02:59:03,700 --> 02:59:07,567 Is there a way that staff can provide additional information 2680 02:59:07,567 --> 02:59:09,967 for us to visualize? 2681 02:59:11,167 --> 02:59:15,770 >> We will attempt to develop maps showing intermediate 2682 02:59:15,770 --> 02:59:19,700 and intermediate high, to show the difference in land that is 2683 02:59:19,700 --> 02:59:22,700 affected by the two scenarios. 2684 02:59:29,323 --> 02:59:31,730 >> So maybe we will table this discussion? 2685 02:59:31,730 --> 02:59:33,313 >> I'm just listening to the heavy sigh. 2686 02:59:33,313 --> 02:59:35,313 Sorry. 2687 02:59:35,607 --> 02:59:39,920 >> I think someone would like to make a comment. 2688 02:59:39,920 --> 02:59:41,383 If I may comment this is a living document. 2689 02:59:41,383 --> 02:59:48,570 So I'm not seeing the issue with not going with the intermediate. 2690 02:59:48,570 --> 02:59:51,507 And should things change like numbers or signs, 2691 02:59:51,507 --> 02:59:54,640 then we can readdress this at a later date 2692 02:59:54,640 --> 02:59:55,993 should it be necessary. 2693 02:59:55,993 --> 03:00:03,793 But if we start way high, it's kind of hard to go backwards. 2694 03:00:03,887 --> 03:00:07,367 >> And it's true the other way around. 2695 03:00:07,367 --> 03:00:10,257 >> You can tell the document is updated and we have development 2696 03:00:10,257 --> 03:00:11,991 and all that development is there, 2697 03:00:11,991 --> 03:00:16,730 but then you don't have any continued development. 2698 03:00:16,730 --> 03:00:19,387 >> I think looking at a map is a good idea because then you go, 2699 03:00:19,387 --> 03:00:23,600 wow, I didn't realize that if we were on intermediate high 2700 03:00:23,600 --> 03:00:26,447 but that takes out the whole Bay area or something. 2701 03:00:26,447 --> 03:00:33,487 The map will help you extend the land of that is impacted 2702 03:00:33,487 --> 03:00:36,849 but what it won't you -- what it won't help you understand is 2703 03:00:36,849 --> 03:00:39,391 the level of water in areas that are impacted no matter what. 2704 03:00:39,391 --> 03:00:40,974 And that affects the level that you 2705 03:00:40,974 --> 03:00:42,807 have to build your wastewater treatment plan 2706 03:00:42,807 --> 03:00:45,823 or your gas pipeline or your road. 2707 03:00:45,823 --> 03:00:49,970 And that's where the magnitude of the tens of millions 2708 03:00:49,970 --> 03:00:50,132 can come in. 2709 03:00:50,132 --> 03:00:52,340 >> It's the same thing in a flood zone where you have 2710 03:00:52,340 --> 03:00:54,740 to build up higher. 2711 03:00:55,700 --> 03:00:58,420 >> If you would like, we can put the two options up on the screen 2712 03:00:58,420 --> 03:01:00,420 right now. 2713 03:01:03,167 --> 03:01:07,867 I have the sea Level Rise viewer from Noah. 2714 03:01:07,867 --> 03:01:13,350 But we will start with the four foot which is closest to 3.9. 2715 03:01:13,350 --> 03:01:17,235 And then we can jump to 5.5ft. 2716 03:01:19,647 --> 03:01:23,847 And I'm going to share my screen. 2717 03:01:45,928 --> 03:01:48,328 >> Are you seeing this? 2718 03:01:53,855 --> 03:01:56,855 >> So here's the four foot. 2719 03:02:07,545 --> 03:02:09,670 >> For folks who may not have seen this map before, 2720 03:02:09,670 --> 03:02:11,607 the green is current? 2721 03:02:11,607 --> 03:02:17,700 What are the colors that we are looking at? 2722 03:02:21,241 --> 03:02:24,241 >> I don't know the number. 2723 03:02:26,500 --> 03:02:28,167 >> Those look like the former tidelands. 2724 03:02:28,167 --> 03:02:31,167 >> Those are the former tidelands. 2725 03:02:32,470 --> 03:02:35,663 >> I'm working on confirming the color scheme right now but based 2726 03:02:35,663 --> 03:02:39,287 on my personal and previous experience with this, 2727 03:02:39,287 --> 03:02:42,991 I believe the highlight green is stuff that's normally flooded 2728 03:02:42,991 --> 03:02:44,575 out during a King tide. 2729 03:02:44,575 --> 03:02:47,447 So that's just anything highlighted green 2730 03:02:47,447 --> 03:02:52,759 is currently likely to flood out due to King 2731 03:02:52,759 --> 03:02:55,159 tide or heavy rainfall. 2732 03:02:56,287 --> 03:02:57,873 >> That's helpful. 2733 03:02:57,873 --> 03:03:02,673 >> I'm going to go to the four foot. 2734 03:03:17,500 --> 03:03:19,500 >> This is intermediate. 2735 03:03:21,407 --> 03:03:23,807 And this is intermediate-high. 2736 03:03:31,700 --> 03:03:33,283 >> And just to complicate things more, 2737 03:03:33,283 --> 03:03:36,700 this is a bathtub model so it's not going to take into account 2738 03:03:36,700 --> 03:03:36,907 dynamic processes. 2739 03:03:36,907 --> 03:03:39,615 If you pull up the cosmos adapt model, 2740 03:03:39,615 --> 03:03:41,657 you're going to see something slightly different. 2741 03:03:41,657 --> 03:03:47,657 So take the bathtub model with a grain of salt. 2742 03:03:49,531 --> 03:03:52,239 >> The blue areas are areas that would be permanently underwater? 2743 03:03:52,239 --> 03:03:54,567 Is that what we're talking about? 2744 03:03:54,567 --> 03:03:56,567 >> Yes. 2745 03:03:57,700 --> 03:04:01,207 >> Well that would be the whole highway. 2746 03:04:05,776 --> 03:04:11,984 >> Back out so we can see around the northern end of the bay. 2747 03:04:11,984 --> 03:04:13,317 >> This is off of their website. 2748 03:04:13,317 --> 03:04:15,887 Water levels are relative to the local mean 2749 03:04:15,887 --> 03:04:18,287 higher high water data. 2750 03:04:19,151 --> 03:04:21,337 Areas are connected to Hydrologically 2751 03:04:21,337 --> 03:04:24,167 to the ocean are shown in shades of blue. 2752 03:04:24,167 --> 03:04:26,143 Darker blue equals greater depth. 2753 03:04:26,143 --> 03:04:28,827 And low lying areas displayed in green 2754 03:04:28,827 --> 03:04:33,323 are Hydrologically unconnected areas that may also flood. 2755 03:04:33,323 --> 03:04:37,831 So as sea level rises, the ocean or areas 2756 03:04:37,831 --> 03:04:42,940 connected to the ocean that are somehow hydrologically connected 2757 03:04:42,940 --> 03:04:44,393 are in blue. 2758 03:04:44,393 --> 03:04:48,207 And the darker the blue, the deeper the water. 2759 03:04:48,207 --> 03:04:50,383 Proposed water depth is. 2760 03:04:50,383 --> 03:04:53,247 And then the green would be areas 2761 03:04:53,247 --> 03:04:57,567 that aren't connected directly to the ocean Hydrologically 2762 03:04:57,567 --> 03:04:59,967 however may still flood. 2763 03:05:05,581 --> 03:05:08,767 >> Can you go back, to four feet, please? 2764 03:05:08,767 --> 03:05:12,967 >> I can Zoom in if you want. 2765 03:05:21,414 --> 03:05:23,826 >> I'm assuming other jurisdictions (Indiscernible) 2766 03:05:23,826 --> 03:05:25,326 lengthy discussions on this as well. 2767 03:05:25,326 --> 03:05:30,487 Do we have any perspective from what they've done? 2768 03:05:30,487 --> 03:05:32,887 >> We can research that. 2769 03:05:50,534 --> 03:05:51,951 >> Again, this is very high level. 2770 03:05:51,951 --> 03:05:53,487 I think it's helpful. 2771 03:05:53,487 --> 03:05:58,287 But I'm not seeing a dramatic difference, personally. 2772 03:05:59,927 --> 03:06:02,427 >> For me, I'm having a hard time. 2773 03:06:02,427 --> 03:06:05,607 I appreciate staff pulling this up and putting 2774 03:06:05,607 --> 03:06:08,649 this in front of us but I personally 2775 03:06:08,649 --> 03:06:12,200 am not going to be able to follow this well enough 2776 03:06:12,200 --> 03:06:15,410 and look at all the areas to be able to make 2777 03:06:15,410 --> 03:06:19,841 any sort of substantive decision about it tonight. 2778 03:06:25,476 --> 03:06:26,351 >> I will stop share. 2779 03:06:26,351 --> 03:06:27,607 >> How can we help with this? 2780 03:06:27,607 --> 03:06:29,673 >> It's a great question. 2781 03:06:29,673 --> 03:06:34,120 I think maybe even, if this is the data that you think is 2782 03:06:34,120 --> 03:06:37,887 the data to use, then sharing that data -- 2783 03:06:37,887 --> 03:06:42,892 I just need time to look at it and play with it in a way that 2784 03:06:42,892 --> 03:06:44,935 makes me digest it, personally. 2785 03:06:44,935 --> 03:06:48,815 But then I also heard that Commissioner Farland 2786 03:06:48,815 --> 03:06:51,860 noted that there was another model that showed something 2787 03:06:51,860 --> 03:06:53,860 slightly different. 2788 03:06:53,900 --> 03:06:57,867 >> Yes, but neither model is going to get to the cost concern 2789 03:06:57,867 --> 03:06:59,867 that was mentioned. 2790 03:07:00,287 --> 03:07:01,959 Because the area is going to be flooded 2791 03:07:01,959 --> 03:07:03,707 in intermediate or intermediate high. 2792 03:07:03,707 --> 03:07:05,487 It's the amount of flooding which 2793 03:07:05,487 --> 03:07:08,506 dictates the road that has to be built 2794 03:07:08,506 --> 03:07:10,506 or the gas line height that has to be raised to. 2795 03:07:10,506 --> 03:07:13,687 And the higher you go, the more cost. 2796 03:07:13,687 --> 03:07:17,303 >> I feel like I understand what you are articulating around 2797 03:07:17,303 --> 03:07:22,103 the cost and the difference between the two. 2798 03:07:22,287 --> 03:07:24,575 I'm curious to the rest of the commission, 2799 03:07:24,575 --> 03:07:27,201 my sense on this item is that I don't 2800 03:07:27,201 --> 03:07:31,800 know that there's more progress to be made on it tonight. 2801 03:07:31,800 --> 03:07:35,827 And that we've double Dutch and that we come back to it again. 2802 03:07:35,827 --> 03:07:41,929 -- and that we come back to it >> We will try to bring back 2803 03:07:41,929 --> 03:07:44,471 some better illustrations that will be in your packet to take 2804 03:07:44,471 --> 03:07:46,180 a look at. 2805 03:07:46,180 --> 03:07:48,177 >> Okay. 2806 03:07:48,177 --> 03:07:49,677 >> Did you have any other questions? 2807 03:07:49,677 --> 03:07:52,320 You had mentioned that you needed more information. 2808 03:07:52,320 --> 03:07:54,727 Does that meet your needs? 2809 03:07:54,727 --> 03:07:55,591 >> It does. 2810 03:07:55,591 --> 03:07:57,591 Thank you. 2811 03:07:58,487 --> 03:08:05,495 >> I wanted to quickly note the miss gesture from Core Hub had 2812 03:08:05,495 --> 03:08:08,127 made a suggestion about adding language about environmental 2813 03:08:08,127 --> 03:08:09,113 justice concerns. 2814 03:08:09,113 --> 03:08:11,991 And I would be in support of adding 2815 03:08:11,991 --> 03:08:13,767 in that language, personally. 2816 03:08:13,767 --> 03:08:17,587 I was curious to see if other commissioners were 2817 03:08:17,587 --> 03:08:19,987 in support of that. 2818 03:08:28,400 --> 03:08:29,775 >> I think it's already in there. 2819 03:08:29,775 --> 03:08:32,870 I heard the concerns about environmental justice 2820 03:08:32,870 --> 03:08:36,639 but when I went back and looked at the section 2821 03:08:36,639 --> 03:08:39,351 on environmental Justice, it cites 2822 03:08:39,351 --> 03:08:42,279 all of the existing policies we have 2823 03:08:42,279 --> 03:08:44,727 to comply with around environmental justice 2824 03:08:44,727 --> 03:08:48,927 so, I'm not sure what other modification 2825 03:08:49,167 --> 03:08:51,270 we necessarily can make. 2826 03:08:51,270 --> 03:08:55,827 I think the document already reflects a commitment . 2827 03:09:02,400 --> 03:09:04,373 >> What I heard in that comment was that it was specific 2828 03:09:04,373 --> 03:09:06,773 to the port overlay. 2829 03:09:07,927 --> 03:09:12,167 Similar to me, as the conversation was had around 2830 03:09:12,167 --> 03:09:16,607 noise where we wanted the idea of calling out that specifically 2831 03:09:16,607 --> 03:09:24,407 as a part of the port or were they consideration so that when 2832 03:09:25,920 --> 03:09:28,420 -- so that we're adding it in specifically to make sure that 2833 03:09:28,420 --> 03:09:33,820 it's considered as part of the port overlay process. 2834 03:09:36,745 --> 03:09:38,953 >> Yeah, I appreciate Commissioner West bringing that 2835 03:09:38,953 --> 03:09:39,900 up. 2836 03:09:39,900 --> 03:09:41,193 I feel it with our time left that was a comment -- 2837 03:09:41,193 --> 03:09:43,193 topic I really wanted to address as well. 2838 03:09:43,193 --> 03:09:47,600 I don't feel like the environmental justice section 2839 03:09:47,600 --> 03:09:51,260 necessarily fully addresses either comment we've received 2840 03:09:53,207 --> 03:09:59,207 to date one of my fundamental concerns that I've been 2841 03:09:59,431 --> 03:10:04,231 wrestling with where we have deeply important indigenous 2842 03:10:05,367 --> 03:10:08,231 lands that have a lot of meeting -- meeting. 2843 03:10:08,231 --> 03:10:12,743 And we have residential zoned areas all next 2844 03:10:12,743 --> 03:10:15,559 to this very industrial area. 2845 03:10:15,559 --> 03:10:19,757 And I feel like it's really within the purview 2846 03:10:19,757 --> 03:10:23,935 of this planning document to try to reconcile the known 2847 03:10:23,935 --> 03:10:26,471 challenges that are already there 2848 03:10:26,471 --> 03:10:31,227 and help to provide some direction during a port overlay 2849 03:10:31,227 --> 03:10:36,627 process or even to future commissioners down the road. 2850 03:10:37,353 --> 03:10:42,153 And I don't feel like it quite addresses 2851 03:10:43,839 --> 03:10:46,839 the view shed well enough. 2852 03:10:48,240 --> 03:10:50,647 I don't feel like it addresses decommissioning 2853 03:10:50,647 --> 03:10:52,897 and the potential issues we historically 2854 03:10:52,897 --> 03:10:56,627 see from industry when they force that decommissioning 2855 03:10:56,627 --> 03:10:59,270 work onto the community. 2856 03:10:59,317 --> 03:11:04,607 We've also talked about -- it's been mentioned about anti 2857 03:11:04,607 --> 03:11:07,270 displacements and concerns for missing, 2858 03:11:07,270 --> 03:11:08,647 murdered indigenous people. 2859 03:11:08,647 --> 03:11:14,470 I really appreciate the suggestion of the comment around 2860 03:11:14,455 --> 03:11:18,262 -- instead of trying to tackle each one of those individually, 2861 03:11:18,262 --> 03:11:23,620 really calling out that environmental justice effort be 2862 03:11:23,319 --> 03:11:27,519 made when the port overlay is pursued. 2863 03:11:28,840 --> 03:11:31,240 I appreciate that comment. 2864 03:11:31,817 --> 03:11:36,617 I would like to see that addressed here. 2865 03:11:41,537 --> 03:11:43,370 >> I'm seeing a couple of head nods. 2866 03:11:43,370 --> 03:11:46,700 >> So you're identifying areas that you feel need to be added 2867 03:11:46,700 --> 03:11:48,700 or modified? 2868 03:11:54,253 --> 03:11:56,670 >> What I heard and what I'm proposing is that rather than 2869 03:11:56,670 --> 03:11:59,100 trying to tackle those individual areas here because it 2870 03:11:59,100 --> 03:12:04,760 is a daunting task, do put that onto the port overlay. 2871 03:12:04,760 --> 03:12:06,967 We are allowing a port overlay process 2872 03:12:06,967 --> 03:12:09,780 but then there's a whole process to actually establish it. 2873 03:12:09,780 --> 03:12:14,700 And so it is pushing that down the road a little bit, 2874 03:12:14,700 --> 03:12:17,867 but we are still acknowledging that we 2875 03:12:17,867 --> 03:12:20,867 are aware of those conflicts. 2876 03:12:21,215 --> 03:12:23,517 For me, I really clearly acknowledging 2877 03:12:23,517 --> 03:12:25,399 that we are aware of those conflicts 2878 03:12:25,399 --> 03:12:30,199 and that they need to be thought through. 2879 03:12:34,892 --> 03:12:36,309 >> Are you in agreement with that? 2880 03:12:36,309 --> 03:12:37,851 >> I share the same sentiment as you. 2881 03:12:37,851 --> 03:12:41,572 I'm trying to gauge where the commission is at as a whole 2882 03:12:41,572 --> 03:12:42,961 with this topic. 2883 03:12:42,961 --> 03:12:45,477 I saw a shake of the head no. 2884 03:12:45,477 --> 03:12:49,770 I saw a couple of yeses . 2885 03:12:55,787 --> 03:12:57,970 >> (Indiscernible) sorry. 2886 03:12:57,970 --> 03:13:01,897 I just feel like this document has sufficiently 2887 03:13:02,327 --> 03:13:04,799 addressed the environmental justice issues. 2888 03:13:04,799 --> 03:13:07,247 It calls out just about everything 2889 03:13:07,247 --> 03:13:09,407 you can possibly think of. 2890 03:13:09,407 --> 03:13:15,770 I think we are getting to a point where -- 2891 03:13:15,770 --> 03:13:19,627 I feel that this document is adequate in the environmental 2892 03:13:19,627 --> 03:13:20,657 justice concerns. 2893 03:13:20,657 --> 03:13:24,119 It's laid everything out here including 2894 03:13:24,119 --> 03:13:27,447 the Coastal Commission's definition of an environment 2895 03:13:27,447 --> 03:13:29,447 justice policy. 2896 03:13:36,930 --> 03:13:39,970 >> I have a couple of commissioners I haven't really 2897 03:13:39,970 --> 03:13:40,430 seen a yes or a no from on this. 2898 03:13:40,430 --> 03:13:45,267 I'm curious, since we have a little bit of division. 2899 03:13:45,267 --> 03:13:48,867 Is this where you guys land? 2900 03:13:48,967 --> 03:13:53,870 >> Again, I thought I said that I read the environmental justice 2901 03:13:53,870 --> 03:13:56,687 section here, the environmental justice policy. 2902 03:13:56,787 --> 03:13:59,247 I fully support the environmental justice statements 2903 03:13:59,247 --> 03:14:01,127 that are in here. 2904 03:14:01,127 --> 03:14:04,320 And I don't see how the port overlay 2905 03:14:04,320 --> 03:14:08,892 zone is going to be able to walk away from the statements 2906 03:14:08,892 --> 03:14:12,338 that we've already made in the Humboldt Bay area plan. 2907 03:14:12,338 --> 03:14:16,203 So I just didn't see a need to repeat that again 2908 03:14:16,203 --> 03:14:19,470 in the port overlay section. 2909 03:14:19,470 --> 03:14:21,447 >> It's part of this plan that has a whole section 2910 03:14:21,447 --> 03:14:24,917 on our environmental justice and our policies around that. 2911 03:14:24,917 --> 03:14:27,687 If there's some policy language in the environmental justice 2912 03:14:27,687 --> 03:14:30,677 section that doesn't address something, 2913 03:14:30,677 --> 03:14:34,187 then maybe that's where it belongs. 2914 03:14:34,187 --> 03:14:38,847 But I didn't see a need to restate it again 2915 03:14:38,847 --> 03:14:41,247 in the port overlay. 2916 03:14:41,567 --> 03:14:46,367 Port overlay is a part of this plan. 2917 03:14:53,860 --> 03:14:55,586 >> My thought is that there are some missing policy elements 2918 03:14:55,586 --> 03:14:58,127 in the environmental Justice section that I think would be 2919 03:14:58,127 --> 03:15:02,195 very difficult and time consuming to try to tackle here 2920 03:15:02,195 --> 03:15:03,292 and now. 2921 03:15:03,292 --> 03:15:08,870 And I think a lot of that has to do mostly specifically with 2922 03:15:08,870 --> 03:15:12,870 the port overlay area and what might potentially happen in that 2923 03:15:12,870 --> 03:15:15,380 area rather than the Humboldt Bay -- 2924 03:15:15,380 --> 03:15:19,471 the entire Humboldt Bay area scope as a whole. 2925 03:15:19,471 --> 03:15:25,687 And so I think it makes sense to me to signal that in some way, 2926 03:15:25,687 --> 03:15:29,295 that there are really no intentions between the -- 2927 03:15:29,295 --> 03:15:33,230 no known tensions between the residential zoning and the Samoa 2928 03:15:33,230 --> 03:15:36,570 area and the indigenous lands that are immediately adjacent 2929 03:15:36,570 --> 03:15:37,700 to that area. 2930 03:15:37,700 --> 03:15:40,367 >> So what you're saying is that you don't think we'll get there 2931 03:15:40,367 --> 03:15:44,347 by this policy of ensuring fair treatment and meaningful 2932 03:15:44,347 --> 03:15:48,470 involvement of all people by considering environmental 2933 03:15:48,470 --> 03:15:52,487 justice and encouraging an inclusive and meaningful public 2934 03:15:52,487 --> 03:15:54,517 engagement into the decision making process? 2935 03:15:54,517 --> 03:15:57,820 Like, we're taking all the steps in the environmental justice 2936 03:15:57,820 --> 03:16:02,375 policy to address the things that you want 2937 03:16:02,375 --> 03:16:04,891 to make sure that we address. 2938 03:16:04,891 --> 03:16:08,607 The process is defined in the environmental justice policy 2939 03:16:08,607 --> 03:16:10,439 to achieve environmental justice. 2940 03:16:10,439 --> 03:16:14,653 We don't know what all the issues are yet 2941 03:16:14,653 --> 03:16:17,237 because we haven't done a port overlay plan 2942 03:16:17,237 --> 03:16:19,362 or start to think about all the issues our. 2943 03:16:19,362 --> 03:16:22,359 But we're going to hear about them through a process 2944 03:16:22,359 --> 03:16:25,547 that we've described in the Environmental Justice 2945 03:16:25,547 --> 03:16:28,807 section of including that, having those hearings, 2946 03:16:28,807 --> 03:16:32,975 making sure we bring all those people in. 2947 03:16:32,975 --> 03:16:38,975 That's what I'm saying, I think it's already in here . 2948 03:16:40,517 --> 03:16:42,527 We don't know how else to do that unless we 2949 03:16:42,527 --> 03:16:44,927 get into the process. 2950 03:16:45,327 --> 03:16:49,415 >> Where I'm coming from is that I think we do already know some 2951 03:16:49,415 --> 03:16:51,625 of those conflict points. 2952 03:16:51,625 --> 03:16:56,410 We know that Tuluwat is a very important place to we out 2953 03:16:56,410 --> 03:16:57,637 to people and we know that there's 2954 03:16:57,637 --> 03:17:00,839 significance and concerns with viewshed impacts on development. 2955 03:17:00,839 --> 03:17:05,513 We also know that we are zoning residential immediately adjacent 2956 03:17:05,513 --> 03:17:07,513 to industrial . 2957 03:17:10,346 --> 03:17:14,546 We also know that historically there has 2958 03:17:15,130 --> 03:17:16,297 been decommissioning issues. 2959 03:17:16,297 --> 03:17:19,300 We see that with the pulp mill and the property 2960 03:17:19,300 --> 03:17:21,238 that the Harbor District has been willing to take on. 2961 03:17:21,238 --> 03:17:23,507 And we could potentially see those impacts again. 2962 03:17:23,507 --> 03:17:26,511 I feel like we already have some perspective 2963 03:17:26,511 --> 03:17:30,111 of the tensions that are there. 2964 03:17:30,639 --> 03:17:36,591 And it was feeling lacking to just not acknowledge that. 2965 03:17:36,591 --> 03:17:39,967 But I was also concerned about trying to tackle 2966 03:17:39,967 --> 03:17:42,920 each one of those here. 2967 03:17:42,920 --> 03:17:47,492 And so I do think the suggestion of acknowledging 2968 03:17:48,860 --> 03:17:53,927 those tensions are known and we want to make sure that those are 2969 03:17:53,927 --> 03:17:56,607 addressed during a port overlay process 2970 03:17:56,607 --> 03:17:59,307 rather than turning a blind eye and saying 2971 03:17:59,307 --> 03:18:02,571 that we have the process and we hope that it will be tackled. 2972 03:18:02,571 --> 03:18:06,771 We are aware of these tensions now. 2973 03:18:12,987 --> 03:18:13,487 >> Okay. 2974 03:18:13,487 --> 03:18:15,887 Again, we are aware. 2975 03:18:17,993 --> 03:18:22,270 I don't know how to get at what I'm trying to say. 2976 03:18:22,270 --> 03:18:24,740 I agree with you that we are aware. 2977 03:18:24,740 --> 03:18:26,117 And we're facing them. 2978 03:18:26,117 --> 03:18:31,517 And we are committing to a process of inclusion 2979 03:18:35,570 --> 03:18:37,653 through our environmental justice policies in here 2980 03:18:37,653 --> 03:18:39,653 to address those. 2981 03:18:39,927 --> 03:18:44,727 Restating them in advance of getting to them, 2982 03:18:45,270 --> 03:18:49,927 I don't know how that adds to the Bay area plan. 2983 03:18:49,927 --> 03:18:54,727 But I understand your concern is that you 2984 03:18:54,807 --> 03:18:59,653 don't want us to whitewash them or walk away from them like they 2985 03:18:59,653 --> 03:19:00,273 don't exist. 2986 03:19:00,273 --> 03:19:05,567 But I don't think the process is going to allow us to do that. 2987 03:19:05,567 --> 03:19:11,470 >> Yes, I think that's what I would have to agree with 2988 03:19:11,470 --> 03:19:11,787 the commissioner. 2989 03:19:11,787 --> 03:19:14,160 You would use the term and you hope 2990 03:19:14,160 --> 03:19:16,947 that they would be addressed prior Mark the policy basically 2991 03:19:16,947 --> 03:19:19,517 says that those issues shall be addressed. 2992 03:19:19,517 --> 03:19:23,847 Anything outside of that would be a violation of policy, 2993 03:19:23,847 --> 03:19:25,847 correct? 2994 03:19:31,626 --> 03:19:33,959 >> I'm hoping to hear how you would address this concern 2995 03:19:33,959 --> 03:19:39,959 but I'm just saying that I think it's already covered. 2996 03:19:49,445 --> 03:19:52,487 >> I think we lay out a process to listen to environmental 2997 03:19:52,487 --> 03:19:59,730 justice issues while at the same time ignoring comments we are 2998 03:19:59,730 --> 03:20:02,730 hearing about environmental justice issues. 2999 03:20:10,127 --> 03:20:12,564 What I'm struggling with is how to move forward 3000 03:20:12,564 --> 03:20:17,964 with allowing a port overlay area, which I think 3001 03:20:18,395 --> 03:20:24,395 has a lot of importance for all sorts of reasons. 3002 03:20:26,327 --> 03:20:30,527 But it's in a really tough spot. 3003 03:20:31,767 --> 03:20:35,470 For a lot of reasons that we know now. 3004 03:20:35,470 --> 03:20:39,247 And it doesn't feel genuine to me 3005 03:20:40,767 --> 03:20:46,850 to flesh that out a bit more about what we know now, 3006 03:20:46,850 --> 03:20:52,127 to signal that we know about it and we need to think about it. 3007 03:20:52,127 --> 03:20:57,327 And make sure that we're paying attention to it. 3008 03:20:57,327 --> 03:20:59,957 Rather than we simply have a policy 3009 03:20:59,957 --> 03:21:04,407 and we hope that set of policies will 3010 03:21:04,407 --> 03:21:06,377 capture all the public comments and everything 3011 03:21:06,377 --> 03:21:08,777 we've heard to date. 3012 03:21:10,127 --> 03:21:13,700 >> I just have a question. 3013 03:21:13,700 --> 03:21:16,657 It seems like we're having a conversation right now 3014 03:21:16,657 --> 03:21:21,431 between a process that is already spelled out 3015 03:21:21,431 --> 03:21:25,835 and wanting to identify policies for how these things will 3016 03:21:25,835 --> 03:21:28,835 be treated in the future. 3017 03:21:29,727 --> 03:21:34,409 One of the things I hear on the one hand is 3018 03:21:34,409 --> 03:21:38,793 is that the process will address how those are treated. 3019 03:21:38,793 --> 03:21:42,807 But what I hear being said on the other hand 3020 03:21:42,807 --> 03:21:47,607 is wanting to predetermine how those are addressed. 3021 03:21:50,247 --> 03:21:56,463 Because I think, really, the way to get off this is to decide, 3022 03:21:56,463 --> 03:21:59,887 are we talking about imposing policies 3023 03:21:59,887 --> 03:22:04,727 on how some of these EJ issues are addressed now 3024 03:22:04,727 --> 03:22:07,991 rather than allowing the process to address it? 3025 03:22:07,991 --> 03:22:11,591 Or is this something I'm missing? 3026 03:22:12,827 --> 03:22:17,627 I think there's two different conversations happening here. 3027 03:22:19,447 --> 03:22:22,527 >> Is it the choice of words that you use in the policy like 3028 03:22:22,527 --> 03:22:23,207 shall? 3029 03:22:23,207 --> 03:22:29,807 Because when you say minimize or promote, those are vague words. 3030 03:22:31,359 --> 03:22:33,530 Well, we tried. 3031 03:22:33,530 --> 03:22:35,967 Or, we shall do this. 3032 03:22:35,967 --> 03:22:38,560 Is that where we're going with this? 3033 03:22:38,560 --> 03:22:42,227 Because I'm not sure I'm getting what we 3034 03:22:42,227 --> 03:22:45,487 can do right now in this plan. 3035 03:22:45,487 --> 03:22:48,577 And I agree with what you're saying. 3036 03:22:48,577 --> 03:22:52,114 But how do we put it in the plan? 3037 03:22:52,114 --> 03:22:53,447 Or should we put it in the plan? 3038 03:22:53,447 --> 03:22:56,577 And is it through the use in the environmental justice 3039 03:22:56,577 --> 03:22:58,577 of stronger words? 3040 03:23:05,517 --> 03:23:07,892 >> I think my biggest struggle is that there was a choice 3041 03:23:07,892 --> 03:23:13,292 to integrate into this section two language around history 3042 03:23:15,127 --> 03:23:18,727 of injustice and environmental justice issues. 3043 03:23:23,807 --> 03:23:27,487 But we've chosen to also not include some of the history 3044 03:23:27,487 --> 03:23:32,887 and information and feedback that we've received to date. 3045 03:23:34,967 --> 03:23:39,937 So maybe the -- and I appreciate the discussion because clearly 3046 03:23:39,937 --> 03:23:42,820 I'm not coming with a solution here. 3047 03:23:42,820 --> 03:23:48,870 But maybe an approach is to flesh out and include 3048 03:23:48,870 --> 03:23:52,507 acknowledgment -- more direct acknowledgment of the comments 3049 03:23:52,507 --> 03:23:56,381 we achieved in the conflicts we are aware of so far 3050 03:23:56,381 --> 03:24:01,563 in the background of -- in the background section of 2.2. 3051 03:24:01,563 --> 03:24:07,717 That helps to inform when the policies part B is implemented. 3052 03:24:07,717 --> 03:24:11,317 It has that background to it. 3053 03:24:16,810 --> 03:24:19,352 >> Do you think you could tackle that and come back with some 3054 03:24:19,352 --> 03:24:21,352 recommendations? 3055 03:24:29,794 --> 03:24:32,127 >> I think we maybe are coming a little bit full circle. 3056 03:24:32,127 --> 03:24:37,767 The goal was to get this Humboldt Bay area plan approved 3057 03:24:37,767 --> 03:24:43,747 knowing that we also have this potential big project going on 3058 03:24:43,747 --> 03:24:47,407 out in the industrial area next to Samoa. 3059 03:24:47,407 --> 03:24:50,403 So we said, we're not going to be able to tackle all 3060 03:24:50,403 --> 03:24:53,860 of the issues with that right now so we're going to create -- 3061 03:24:53,860 --> 03:24:56,687 we're going to push that off to the future in the port overlay 3062 03:24:56,687 --> 03:24:57,218 zone. 3063 03:24:57,218 --> 03:25:02,240 And we want to make sure when we do get into the port overlay 3064 03:25:02,240 --> 03:25:05,240 zone that we do dig into all of those issues. 3065 03:25:05,240 --> 03:25:08,113 And to do that, we need a lot more technical information 3066 03:25:08,113 --> 03:25:11,207 about what the project is all about. 3067 03:25:11,207 --> 03:25:15,887 And we need to hear about the community's specific concerns 3068 03:25:15,887 --> 03:25:17,887 about that. 3069 03:25:18,687 --> 03:25:24,870 Maybe we haven't done quite a good enough job 3070 03:25:25,863 --> 03:25:30,213 in describing the need for the port overlay zone, 3071 03:25:30,213 --> 03:25:33,359 even up front early on in this document, 3072 03:25:33,359 --> 03:25:36,230 to explain what this document is all about, 3073 03:25:36,230 --> 03:25:41,140 explain that we know there is a potential large project going 3074 03:25:41,140 --> 03:25:45,407 to occur on the bay in the future that's in the development 3075 03:25:45,407 --> 03:25:47,407 stages now. 3076 03:25:48,127 --> 03:25:53,177 And that we are going to utilize this document 3077 03:25:53,177 --> 03:25:58,407 but support it by more detailed documents in the port overlay 3078 03:25:58,407 --> 03:26:03,807 zone that addresses those specific issues such as noise, 3079 03:26:06,327 --> 03:26:09,887 visual, whatever other specific impacts that we've heard 3080 03:26:09,887 --> 03:26:12,680 about that people are concerned about that those will 3081 03:26:12,680 --> 03:26:16,239 be addressed in the port overlay zone document in more detail. 3082 03:26:16,239 --> 03:26:21,390 And that we will follow the Social justice 3083 03:26:21,447 --> 03:26:25,470 policies outlined in section two again 3084 03:26:25,492 --> 03:26:30,892 as a part of that port overlay zone development. 3085 03:26:31,470 --> 03:26:33,687 Maybe we can somehow expand on that description 3086 03:26:33,687 --> 03:26:36,674 because you do have to read into this document for a long time 3087 03:26:36,674 --> 03:26:39,700 before you actually get to the word support overlay zone 3088 03:26:39,700 --> 03:26:40,937 to really understand it. 3089 03:26:40,937 --> 03:26:44,387 And people that do have those concerns probably 3090 03:26:44,387 --> 03:26:50,387 aren't going to get to page 120 and I understand that. 3091 03:26:52,623 --> 03:26:55,397 So maybe we could build that up front somehow. 3092 03:26:55,397 --> 03:26:57,797 I'm just proposing ideas. 3093 03:26:57,887 --> 03:26:59,727 I hear what you're saying. 3094 03:26:59,727 --> 03:27:02,587 I'm just trying to figure out -- 3095 03:27:02,587 --> 03:27:04,991 I'm trying to bring that forward in this document 3096 03:27:04,991 --> 03:27:07,147 so that the people wherever raise 3097 03:27:07,147 --> 03:27:11,980 those concerns understand that we are going to get to them. 3098 03:27:11,980 --> 03:27:16,230 And it's not going to be detailed in the segment 3099 03:27:16,230 --> 03:27:19,230 and in the future document. 3100 03:27:19,393 --> 03:27:21,375 >> I appreciate that. 3101 03:27:21,375 --> 03:27:24,258 I feel like that's going in the direction I want it to go. 3102 03:27:24,258 --> 03:27:28,967 A point of clarification, while the EIR process is formulaic 3103 03:27:28,967 --> 03:27:31,200 and it does tackle some of those issues 3104 03:27:31,200 --> 03:27:35,470 that we are aware of that create this conflict, 3105 03:27:35,470 --> 03:27:38,991 I can also see the formula process missing 3106 03:27:38,991 --> 03:27:41,991 some of the issues here. 3107 03:27:45,207 --> 03:27:48,277 And so maybe some reinforcing language 3108 03:27:48,277 --> 03:27:51,631 that you're talking about, that the process of assessing 3109 03:27:51,631 --> 03:27:54,271 the impacts of the port overlay zone 3110 03:27:54,271 --> 03:27:58,527 are ensured to follow this process if I'm 3111 03:27:58,527 --> 03:28:00,607 capturing what you're saying. 3112 03:28:00,607 --> 03:28:03,700 >> I'm proposing to that. 3113 03:28:04,700 --> 03:28:06,443 >> So we're coming up on 9:30 p.m. 3114 03:28:06,443 --> 03:28:12,443 It sounds like we have next steps for this item. 3115 03:28:12,527 --> 03:28:14,735 >> Yeah, I think we can bring some language back 3116 03:28:14,735 --> 03:28:16,735 for your consideration. 3117 03:28:18,127 --> 03:28:23,547 >> That begs the question of, do we have other topics do we need 3118 03:28:23,547 --> 03:28:24,833 to continue this workshop? 3119 03:28:24,833 --> 03:28:30,833 Or can we move this forward into the hearing stage? 3120 03:28:39,636 --> 03:28:41,386 >> I'm happy to move to the hearing stage. 3121 03:28:41,386 --> 03:28:45,727 >> I think I'm feeling a tremendous amount of work has 3122 03:28:45,727 --> 03:28:48,470 happened and public comments have been integrated 3123 03:28:48,470 --> 03:28:50,413 and our comments have been integrated. 3124 03:28:50,413 --> 03:28:52,800 And I saw that there is still a bit more 3125 03:28:52,800 --> 03:28:57,480 to be integrated that we have yet to see. 3126 03:29:04,261 --> 03:29:05,928 >> I think I'm in favor of that as well. 3127 03:29:05,928 --> 03:29:05,937 I would like to throw out an initial request 3128 03:29:05,937 --> 03:29:09,150 to staff to clarify a bit more why they declined 3129 03:29:09,150 --> 03:29:12,887 to integrate the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District 3130 03:29:12,887 --> 03:29:14,767 requests. 3131 03:29:14,767 --> 03:29:20,167 Yanagi's in light of going back to Commissioner McFarland's 3132 03:29:20,917 --> 03:29:22,987 point about Murray Fields. 3133 03:29:22,987 --> 03:29:25,644 And it feels a bit awkward to me for me 3134 03:29:25,644 --> 03:29:28,487 to call it Mary Field as a particular asset 3135 03:29:28,487 --> 03:29:33,657 while declining the just the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water 3136 03:29:33,657 --> 03:29:36,657 districts concerns about their assets. 3137 03:29:37,140 --> 03:29:38,559 >> I think that's fair. 3138 03:29:38,559 --> 03:29:40,670 We can respond to that. 3139 03:29:40,670 --> 03:29:43,927 I think we looked at Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District 3140 03:29:43,927 --> 03:29:46,207 and in the bigger context. 3141 03:29:46,207 --> 03:29:48,447 And they were looking at very specific issues 3142 03:29:48,447 --> 03:29:50,670 on the peninsula. 3143 03:29:50,670 --> 03:29:55,823 But there are utilities all over the Humboldt area plan. 3144 03:29:55,823 --> 03:30:00,270 And so either the overall arching policies are 3145 03:30:00,270 --> 03:30:03,544 adequate to address it or not. 3146 03:30:03,544 --> 03:30:08,700 I know that the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District 3147 03:30:08,700 --> 03:30:10,337 has particular struggles that they're 3148 03:30:10,337 --> 03:30:14,833 having with how to address future potential issues 3149 03:30:14,833 --> 03:30:19,633 particularly on the peninsula with maintenance and service. 3150 03:30:20,547 --> 03:30:26,547 We can write things into the plan to facilitate that. 3151 03:30:26,991 --> 03:30:33,310 But I'm not sure that we need to have specific language in that. 3152 03:30:33,310 --> 03:30:36,167 I'd frankly prefer to leave Marie Field alone. 3153 03:30:36,167 --> 03:30:39,807 I don't think we need to specifically call out 3154 03:30:39,807 --> 03:30:41,807 a county facility. 3155 03:30:42,231 --> 03:30:45,129 I don't want to exaggerate but we 3156 03:30:45,129 --> 03:30:47,870 heard it at least three consecutive discussions 3157 03:30:47,870 --> 03:30:49,487 with the Coastal Commission. 3158 03:30:50,672 --> 03:30:52,672 Will do it. 3159 03:31:02,368 --> 03:31:03,201 >> That makes sense. 3160 03:31:03,201 --> 03:31:03,212 Maybe I'm just on the hearing -- maybe including addressing it 3161 03:31:03,212 --> 03:31:04,347 one more time. 3162 03:31:04,347 --> 03:31:06,547 >> I'd be happy to. 3163 03:31:06,547 --> 03:31:08,639 >> Do you need a motion from us? 3164 03:31:08,639 --> 03:31:11,390 You have our direction. 3165 03:31:11,127 --> 03:31:14,167 >> We have direction and I'm understanding in the question 3166 03:31:14,167 --> 03:31:18,727 that our next step would be to advertise for a public hearing, 3167 03:31:18,727 --> 03:31:23,267 which I believe is going to be October 14th -- 3168 03:31:23,267 --> 03:31:24,727 15th. 3169 03:31:24,727 --> 03:31:26,199 >> Okay. 3170 03:31:26,199 --> 03:31:27,671 October 15th. 3171 03:31:27,671 --> 03:31:28,803 Sounds good. 3172 03:31:28,803 --> 03:31:32,815 With that, we will end the public workshop 3173 03:31:32,815 --> 03:31:37,150 and move on to report from planner. 3174 03:31:39,927 --> 03:31:43,807 >> I don't think I have anything tonight. 3175 03:31:43,807 --> 03:31:48,447 >> That brings us to planning commission discussion items. 3176 03:31:48,447 --> 03:31:53,730 I'll start off with, this isn't a discussion item 3177 03:31:53,730 --> 03:31:56,567 but it seems like the most appropriate place to note it. 3178 03:31:56,567 --> 03:32:01,870 The next meeting on September 17th is my daughter's first 3179 03:32:01,870 --> 03:32:07,687 birthday so if we have a quorum and commissioner Curiosi -- 3180 03:32:07,879 --> 03:32:10,279 I'm blanking on words. 3181 03:32:11,799 --> 03:32:16,657 As Vice chair would step in, I will not be in attendance 3182 03:32:16,657 --> 03:32:18,227 at our next meeting. 3183 03:32:18,227 --> 03:32:19,587 Just a heads up. 3184 03:32:19,587 --> 03:32:22,430 But if we need quorum, I will come. 3185 03:32:22,430 --> 03:32:24,830 It's been a year? 3186 03:32:24,843 --> 03:32:26,843 Yes. (Laughs). 3187 03:32:28,972 --> 03:32:30,972 Thank you. 3188 03:32:31,302 --> 03:32:34,902 Any other planning commission discussion items? 3189 03:32:35,870 --> 03:32:36,680 >> I won't be here on October 15th. 3190 03:32:36,680 --> 03:32:41,480 Maybe I could call in because (Indiscernible) I 3191 03:32:44,367 --> 03:32:45,992 don't think you would need to hear much 3192 03:32:45,992 --> 03:32:47,242 more from me on the area plan. 3193 03:32:47,242 --> 03:32:49,242 So it's okay. 3194 03:32:55,706 --> 03:32:58,248 >> I have a conflict with the October 1st meeting in October. 3195 03:32:58,248 --> 03:32:58,481 I don't know if it's the first or the second. 3196 03:32:58,481 --> 03:33:00,967 So that's the first meeting in October? 3197 03:33:00,967 --> 03:33:02,407 >> Yes. 3198 03:33:02,407 --> 03:33:03,138 >> Okay. 3199 03:33:03,138 --> 03:33:06,738 I'll be here for the hearing. 3200 03:33:07,927 --> 03:33:11,327 >> Is that the first or second? 3201 03:33:11,327 --> 03:33:13,327 >> Yeah. 3202 03:33:13,833 --> 03:33:15,150 >> Okay. 3203 03:33:15,150 --> 03:33:16,468 Anything else? 3204 03:33:16,468 --> 03:33:19,455 Great, then we are going to adjourn to our next meeting 3205 03:33:19,455 --> 03:33:23,655 on September 17th, 2026 at 6:00 in these chambers.