[18:11] Okay, it's 9:07 A.M. We 9:05

[18:15] A.M. We'd like to go ahead and

[18:18] start the meeting. First item

[18:22] of order is the Pledge of

[18:25] Allegiance. So MAY I ask you

[18:29] all to please stand? I pledge

[18:32] allegiance to the flag of the

[18:35] United States of America and to

[18:38] the Republic for which it

[18:42] stands. One nation under GOD,

[18:45] indivisible, with liberty and

[18:48] justice for all. Thank you all.

[18:51] MR. Villalobos, do you mind

[18:53] reading to us the tv coverage

[18:55] announcement? Yes. Thank you,

[18:57] MR. Chair, and good morning to

[18:59] the Commission. Planning

[19:02] Commission hearings are

[19:04] televised live on the County of

[19:07] Santa Barbara Television

[19:09] Kswb-tv, channel 20, at 9 A.M.

[19:11] In the South Coast, Lompoc

[19:14] Valley area and areas.

[19:15] Rebroadcast of Planning

[19:17] Commission hearings on Fridays

[19:19] at 5 P.M. On Kswb-tv channel 20.

[19:21] Today's hearing will also be

[19:23] streamed live on the county's

[19:26] website, as well as the

[19:28] county's YouTube channel, and

[19:31] will be available for download

[19:34] in a day or two. Should I move

[19:36] on to roll call? Yes, please.

[19:38] Thank you. Great. Commissioner.

[19:40] Mayor Connor here, here. Thank

[19:43] you. Commissioner Ford here.

[19:45] Commissioner Martinez here and

[19:47] chair Guy here. And then

[19:49] Commissioner Park will be

[19:51] joining us shortly. Yes. Okay.

[19:53] The agenda status report. Good

[19:55] morning, chair. Members of the

[19:57] commission. Looking at the

[19:59] status of our agenda today, we

[20:02] have one item on consent which

[20:04] is a government code

[20:06] consistency. And then we have

[20:08] I'm sorry, we have four items

[20:10] on our agenda. My understanding

[20:13] is applicants and staff are

[20:15] ready to present on all those

[20:17] items. Okay, MR. Wilson, I'm

[20:19] going to ask that we make a

[20:21] change. And I know there's

[20:23] quite a few people here in the

[20:25] room. Unfortunately, I'm going

[20:27] to ask that we move the second

[20:29] item, which is the t mobile

[20:31] telecommunications facility, to

[20:33] the end. Unfortunately,

[20:34] Commissioner Park is not here

[20:36] at the moment, but he's he's in

[20:38] process. He's been delayed. And

[20:40] it's important that he's here

[20:42] for this item. If we could do

[20:44] so, then I would like you to

[20:45] move up. I believe it's the

[20:47] Wollover llc. So. Yeah. MR.

[20:48] Chair. Sorry, Mel. Move. Yes.

[20:50] Go ahead. What would be the

[20:52] best order for us? So, MR.

[20:55] Chair and Commissioners, if I

[20:56] MAY, provide a recommendation

[20:58] in concert, we're talking with

[21:00] staff. The recommendation is we

[21:01] move item number one off the

[21:02] Senate agenda, which is t

[21:04] mobile, to the last item on the

[21:06] agenda. And then the order

[21:07] would be as follows. The first

[21:08] item on the agenda would be the

[21:10] mammoth tentative parcel map,

[21:11] followed by the Wollover llc

[21:12] lot line adjustment. And then

[21:14] the third item would be the

[21:16] land in equestrian arena and

[21:18] small scale event. And then

[21:20] we'll end the day with the t

[21:22] mobile communication facility.

[21:24] That sounds fantastic. Thank

[21:26] you. So moving on to the

[21:28] projection report. Thank you,

[21:30] MR. Chair. And commissioners,

[21:32] looking at upcoming hearings,

[21:35] we canceled the SEPTEMBER 2nd

[21:37] hearing and then the next

[21:39] hearing after that would be on

[21:41] SEPTEMBER 9th. And we have one

[21:43] item on consent. And then we

[21:46] have one item on the standard

[21:49] agenda, which is a track map,

[21:52] and that is located in the

[21:54] Saint Louis area. And I'm just

[21:56] for the commission. SEPTEMBER

[21:58] 9th will be in Santa Maria, and

[22:02] then moving further down on our

[22:06] agendas is looking at. Some.

[22:08] After SEPTEMBER 9th, we will

[22:12] meet again on SEPTEMBER 30th

[22:15] and that is when we will have

[22:17] the Ministerial Streamlining

[22:19] Amendment Workshop. And just so

[22:21] the commissioners just. You do

[22:23] have the agenda, but looking at

[22:25] that, the start time for the

[22:26] SEPTEMBER 30th date is going to

[22:29] be at 1 P.M. And that will be

[22:32] here in Santa Barbara. And then

[22:35] because in the morning, the

[22:37] Montecito Planning Commission

[22:40] will be having the same

[22:42] workshop, and theirs is going

[22:45] to start at nine. So SEPTEMBER

[22:47] 30th, we'll be here in Santa

[22:49] Barbara at 1:00. And we did add

[22:51] one other item from long range

[22:54] planning, which is the Eastern

[22:56] Goleta Valley Community Plan

[22:59] circulation elements. So after

[23:00] the workshop, we'll have

[23:02] another item from long range

[23:04] planning. And then following

[23:06] that, we canceled the OCTOBER

[23:08] 7th hearing to allow for an

[23:10] alignment of hearings between

[23:12] the Montecito Planning

[23:14] Commission and the County

[23:16] Planning Commission. So we will

[23:19] not meet again until OCTOBER

[23:22] 21st. And then OCTOBER 21st is

[23:25] when we'll have the first

[23:27] hearing on the ministerial

[23:30] streamlining amendments

[23:33] adoption. And then we'll also

[23:36] have one other item on that

[23:38] date, which is a lot split or

[23:41] lot line adjustment. That's

[23:43] another from long range

[23:46] planning, which is a

[23:49] ministerial processing of lot

[23:51] splits. And then on OCTOBER

[23:54] 28th, we have three items. We

[23:55] have a second hearing from

[23:58] ministerial streamlining

[24:00] amendments in case we need it.

[24:03] And then we also have a couple

[24:06] items from long range planning,

[24:08] not I'm sorry, development

[24:11] Review Division, which is a

[24:13] hotel expansion in Los Olivos.

[24:16] And then another housing

[24:18] development, Isla Vista. Then

[24:20] on NOVEMBER 4th, we are looking

[24:22] at having a hearing where we're

[24:24] bringing the actual completed

[24:26] ordinance amendments, general

[24:29] plan amendments on the

[24:30] Recreation Master Plan to the

[24:33] County Planning Commission, and

[24:35] then following NOVEMBER 4th,

[24:38] because of holidays. We do have

[24:40] a tbd on there, but I don't

[24:42] think we're going to be able to

[24:45] make that, because I think

[24:46] that's actually. A holiday.

[24:49] It's Veterans Day, it's

[24:51] Veterans Day. So we can talk at

[24:54] another hearing if we want to

[24:56] reschedule it. But I think

[24:58] following that, we have things

[25:00] Thanksgiving. And so I don't

[25:02] know if we want to have a

[25:04] hearing right before

[25:07] Thanksgiving due to staff

[25:09] availability and commissioners

[25:12] availability. So I'll work with

[25:14] MR. Villalobos and staff to see

[25:17] if we have another hearing for

[25:19] NOVEMBER. But when we looked at

[25:21] it, we didn't hadn't identified

[25:23] another date, so that would put

[25:25] us no more hearings in NOVEMBER,

[25:27] and then that would bring us

[25:29] back in DECEMBER for another

[25:31] hearing on the recreation,

[25:34] recreation Master Plan

[25:37] amendments. And then we also

[25:40] have another item from long

[25:43] range planning, which is the

[25:45] moderate income density bonus,

[25:49] Special Needs and Housing

[25:52] Ordinance amendments. So there

[25:54] are a number of other items, I

[25:57] think, that are. Being looked

[25:59] at and being placed on the

[26:01] projection report as well. And

[26:03] so at our next hearing you'll

[26:05] probably see more items on

[26:07] there as well. So the at the

[26:09] end of the year, there's a

[26:11] number of items that are going

[26:13] to be showing up on the

[26:15] projection report. So that's

[26:17] the current status of right now.

[26:19] MR. Chair. Thank you, MR.

[26:21] Wilson, for the update on the

[26:23] projection report. We

[26:25] appreciate it. The public

[26:27] comment. Yes. Thank you, MR.

[26:30] Chair. So for those of you here

[26:32] today, this is a time that we

[26:34] allow for public comment on

[26:37] items, not on today's agenda. I

[26:39] have not received any speaker

[26:43] slips, but if anyone would like

[26:46] to speak, just rise. Or if

[26:48] you're online, raise your

[26:51] virtual hand and I'll call on

[26:54] you. And so of course, this is

[26:56] again for not related to items

[26:58] on today's agenda, seeing no

[26:59] one rise, do we have one person

[27:01] out here? Do you have an item

[27:04] that's not on the agenda? Okay.

[27:06] Thank you. Then I believe that

[27:08] means no speakers at this time.

[27:10] Okay. Thank you, MR. Villalobos.

[27:11] Planning commissioners,

[27:13] informal reports. Individual

[27:15] commissioners MAY present

[27:18] briefly reports on planning

[27:20] issues such as seminars,

[27:23] meetings and literature that

[27:25] would be of interest to the

[27:27] public and the Commission as a

[27:29] whole. Do any commissioner,

[27:31] mayor Connor? No. Okay. Thank

[27:33] you. Any any comments? Okay.

[27:35] Well, we're going through this

[27:38] fast. And and next would be the

[27:40] minutes from the AUGUST 12th

[27:42] meeting. So. So at this point,

[27:43] you would just ask if anyone

[27:45] has any amendments to the

[27:46] minutes. And if no, then a

[27:48] motion. So I have read the

[27:50] minutes from the AUGUST 12th

[27:52] meeting. Does anybody have any

[27:53] objections to the minutes as

[27:55] presented. No objections. Okay.

[27:56] Anybody want to make a motion

[27:58] to accept the minutes as

[28:00] presented. Thank you,

[28:02] Commissioner Connor. Thank you,

[28:03] Commissioner Ford. All in favor?

[28:05] Aye. Any opposed? None. Passes

[28:07] four zero. Next is director's

[28:08] report and Board of Supervisors

[28:10] hearing summary. Good morning,

[28:11] MR. Chair. And members of the

[28:13] Commission. I have a few

[28:15] announcements that I want to

[28:17] repeat. I had made them at our

[28:19] last meeting when you were in

[28:21] Santa Maria, but Farm Day is

[28:23] the 19th of SEPTEMBER, and if

[28:25] you have never been to it, I

[28:27] really recommend attendance.

[28:29] It's really very, very

[28:31] informative just about what's

[28:33] happening in the Santa Maria

[28:35] Valley, issues that the

[28:37] agricultural families and

[28:39] companies deal with, struggles

[28:41] that they MAY have. And then

[28:43] there's. Some guest speakers

[28:45] that you go on a tour and you

[28:48] just it's really amazing how

[28:49] much you learn about things

[28:51] that you had no idea. Like one

[28:53] of the farming families there

[28:55] developed an entire piece of

[28:57] equipment. It's like a, it's a

[28:59] truck, basically that comes

[29:00] into the field. They put their

[29:02] romaine lettuce on it. It goes

[29:04] through it packages, it comes

[29:06] out and it's packaged, ready,

[29:08] stamped with a date and ready

[29:11] to go to a store. It's amazing,

[29:13] you know, and that how quickly

[29:15] berries get into the market,

[29:17] that kind of thing. So it's

[29:19] just really, really an

[29:22] informative day and I've

[29:23] enjoyed it each time I've gone.

[29:25] So they motivated me to do a

[29:27] garden bed and they gave me a

[29:28] some kale to start and it's

[29:30] just really cool. So I

[29:32] recommend it if you, if you can

[29:35] make it. And then Commissioner

[29:37] Park talked about this, but

[29:39] there is an ag tourism summit

[29:40] that's going to be held in Paso

[29:42] Robles, and that is on the 23rd

[29:44] through the 25th of SEPTEMBER.

[29:46] We are looking at having

[29:48] somebody from the county attend

[29:49] to talk about the ag Enterprise

[29:51] ordinance and sort of the

[29:53] lessons that we've learned as

[29:54] we've implemented that program

[29:56] and realizing some of the

[29:58] tweaks we have needed to make.

[29:59] We did come back with one

[30:00] already. So they've asked us to

[30:02] attend, and we're going to work

[30:05] to try and make that happen.

[30:08] And then just recent board

[30:10] actions, the Hagfors rezone in

[30:12] Santa Ynez Valley went from c2

[30:15] to c3. That was approved by the

[30:17] board on the 18th. Their first

[30:20] hearing back from the break.

[30:23] And then future board actions.

[30:26] I wanted to update the

[30:28] commission on something that

[30:30] the second and third district

[30:32] are bringing on the 1st of

[30:34] SEPTEMBER, and it is tied to

[30:38] retail firearms shops. And I

[30:41] don't know if you were tracking

[30:42] some of the issues that came

[30:44] out of a retailer going into a

[30:46] space next to a child care

[30:48] facility in the city of Goleta,

[30:51] but there was a lot of

[30:52] community concern about it. So

[30:54] our two board members are

[30:56] bringing an item forward to

[30:58] direct the department to look

[30:59] at creating an ordinance that

[31:01] establishes buffers to

[31:04] sensitive receptors for retail

[31:07] firearm stores, so that that

[31:09] item, and then they're also

[31:10] bringing forward a request for

[31:12] a moratorium, a temporary

[31:15] moratorium, so that the county

[31:18] has sufficient time to bring

[31:20] that ordinance back before

[31:22] additional retailers start

[31:24] moving around and shifting

[31:27] spaces. We will also have the

[31:30] board here. The second item,

[31:31] the second hearing on the

[31:35] utility scale, solar, I think I

[31:37] mentioned the last Planning

[31:39] Commission hearing some of the

[31:41] notable things that the board

[31:43] did include creating an a

[31:46] zoning clearance for standalone

[31:49] battery energy storage systems

[31:53] up to 0.25 acres, and then also

[31:57] creating a zoning clearance for

[32:00] agricultural operations that

[32:02] are using solar on site to

[32:03] allow them to have up to 15

[32:05] acres of solar. Provided that

[32:07] all of that power that's

[32:09] generated by that solar is used

[32:11] for that agricultural operation

[32:13] on that particular site. And

[32:14] that was a request that had

[32:15] come from the Shipper Growers

[32:18] Association. And we managed to

[32:20] review our environmental

[32:22] documents to determine that. We

[32:24] thought we had it sufficiently

[32:25] covered in the eir. So we're

[32:27] going to move forward with that

[32:30] recommendation for the board.

[32:33] Then on the first, we also have

[32:35] an update and a reassessment of

[32:37] our Coastal Resource Mitigation

[32:40] fund fees during the times that

[32:42] oil and gas operators in the

[32:44] coastal zone are non-operative,

[32:46] their fees go down, but once

[32:49] they become operative, then the

[32:51] fees can be reassessed. And so

[32:52] we are bringing back a

[32:56] reassessment for the Sabl.

[32:58] Operations at Los Flores Canyon

[33:00] and then bringing oil through

[33:02] the pipeline. So that will

[33:04] increase the available funds

[33:06] that we will have in that in

[33:09] the fund that is then made

[33:12] available to nonprofits and

[33:16] governmental agencies that are

[33:19] doing work in the coastal zone,

[33:22] either for coastal restoration

[33:25] or recreation. We see lots of

[33:28] proposals that come in, and

[33:30] later this fall, we are going

[33:32] to be opening that process back

[33:34] up. And so we'll we also have

[33:36] money set aside for

[33:39] acquisitions, coastal

[33:41] acquisitions. So we've been

[33:43] going on a cycle of every two

[33:46] years because the fund has been

[33:48] shrinking over the years as oil

[33:51] and gas operations have ceased.

[33:53] But we seem to have more money

[33:55] now. And so there will be a

[33:56] good opportunity for nonprofits

[33:57] to come forward and ask for

[33:59] funds for their specific

[34:01] projects. We've seen some

[34:04] really great things like Nature

[34:05] Track, which is where this

[34:07] nonprofit comes in, and they

[34:08] have wheelchairs that are

[34:10] basically like four wheel drive

[34:11] for handicapped people to be

[34:13] able to get to the beach and

[34:14] explore tide pools and things

[34:16] like that. We've given money to

[34:17] the aquarium that they have at

[34:19] Cabrillo High School, and then

[34:20] kelp reforestation. So there's

[34:22] a lot of really interesting

[34:24] projects that get funded

[34:26] through that. On the 15th of

[34:27] SEPTEMBER, we have the oil and

[34:29] gas item that's coming back.

[34:31] It's phase one of changes to

[34:32] the oil and gas provisions in

[34:34] the county. Phase one is

[34:36] prevention of the drilling of

[34:40] new wells, and then once the

[34:42] board takes action on that

[34:43] phase two, which has already

[34:45] been initiated, that is the

[34:48] study of amortizing oil and gas

[34:51] as being phased out over a

[34:54] period of time so that they can

[34:56] operators still achieve their

[35:00] investment backed expectations.

[35:02] There are other jurisdictions

[35:04] that have moved forward with it.

[35:06] I think County of La La city

[35:08] and then Culver City all have

[35:12] programs. The airport land use,

[35:14] consistent land use plan,

[35:16] consistency amendments. And

[35:18] this is just the step the

[35:19] county takes to bring our codes

[35:22] into conformance with sb Kags

[35:24] new airport land use plan,

[35:26] which is a few years old. So

[35:28] we're a little bit behind, but

[35:31] that's going to be heard on the

[35:33] 22nd. And I believe that's

[35:37] already been heard by the pc.

[35:39] We have two projects going in

[35:42] NOVEMBER on the 10th to the

[35:44] board Constellation project,

[35:46] which is in Vandenberg Village,

[35:49] and that is a combination of a

[35:52] hotel and residential. And then

[35:55] the Malkin gpa rezone lot line

[35:58] adjustment will be at the board

[35:59] on the 10th of NOVEMBER, and I

[36:01] am happy to answer any

[36:04] questions. Thank you, MISS

[36:07] Plowman. Yes. Okay. Next agenda

[36:23] item. I'm sorry. Oh thank you.

[36:26] Okay. Next item is the consent

[36:30] agenda items and procedure, MR.

[36:33] Villalobos. Thank you, MR.

[36:35] Chair. The following is a

[36:38] hearing on the request of Kevin

[36:41] Thompson, Laguna County

[36:45] Sanitation District. Consider

[36:49] case number 26g0v5 for

[36:52] determination that the solids

[36:56] Handling phase three project

[36:59] conforms with the Comprehensive

[37:02] Plan of the County of Santa

[37:05] Barbara. Pursuant to California

[37:09] Government Code, section 65402.

[37:12] And I believe both MR. Ortega

[37:15] and MR. Thompson are online, if

[37:18] there are any questions. Okay.

[37:20] Before we go to that, is there

[37:24] any ex parte communication or

[37:28] site visits that anybody would

[37:32] like to report on this item? Oh,

[37:36] I only say that because I did

[37:40] do a site visit so that I would

[37:43] have a better understanding of

[37:47] the of the facility. And I did

[37:51] meet with Kevin Thompson. Okay.

[37:55] So, MR. Chair, at this point, I

[37:58] believe what you would ask the

[38:02] commissioners if there are any

[38:05] questions or any requests to

[38:08] pull the item off of consent,

[38:11] then we need to ask for public

[38:13] comment. If the answer to both

[38:16] is no, then we would be looking

[38:19] for a motion. Okay. Thank you

[38:22] very much, MR. Villalobos. So

[38:25] I'm going to ask the

[38:28] commissioners, does anybody

[38:31] have any comment or any other

[38:33] information? MR. Commissioner,

[38:37] Mayor Connor no, none. So

[38:40] there's no no questions or

[38:43] comments from the commissioners.

[38:46] So I'd like to open it up for

[38:48] public comment. Is there any

[38:50] public comment on the solids

[38:53] Handling phase three project?

[38:57] For those of us joining us

[39:00] online? Raise your virtual hand

[39:03] if you'd like to speak on this

[39:06] item. No hands raised, no hands

[39:08] raised. Okay. At this point,

[39:11] I'll make a motion. I'm sorry,

[39:14] I'll make a motion. Okay. I

[39:17] would I'm looking for somebody

[39:20] to make a motion. Commissioner

[39:23] Ford, thank you so much. I'd

[39:27] like to make a motion to accept

[39:31] this. The phase solids handling

[39:34] phase three government code

[39:38] conformity determination.

[39:41] Second. Second. Any discussion?

[39:44] Okay. All in favor? Aye. None

[39:47] opposed. Motion carries. Thank

[39:51] you. At this point, we move to

[39:54] the standard agenda items, MR.

[39:57] Villalobos. Yes. I'm just

[40:01] looking at my cheat sheet for

[40:03] which one comes first. Okay.

[40:06] Thank you. The following is a

[40:10] hearing on the request of Bret

[40:14] Jones, agent for the owner,

[40:18] David Malmuth, to consider case

[40:22] number 24tpm2 and to adopt the

[40:26] mitigated negative declaration,

[40:30] case number 25ngd4, and adopt

[40:34] the Mitigation monitoring

[40:38] program contained in the

[40:41] conditions of approval. So I

[40:44] would like to ask if there's

[40:47] any ex parte communication or

[40:50] site visits to share prior to.

[40:53] Yes. Okay. Commissioner mayor

[40:56] Connor, thank you. I visited

[40:59] the site of this project with

[41:00] the agent. Bret Jones had an

[41:03] informative tour and he

[41:06] explained the project to me and

[41:09] the tentative parcel map. That

[41:12] was last week. Great. Thank you.

[41:14] Anybody else? Okay. I would

[41:17] like to also share that I

[41:21] visited the site on Monday with

[41:24] Commissioner Park. We also met

[41:28] with MR. MR. Jones who gave us

[41:32] a comprehensive understanding

[41:35] of the project. So now I would

[41:39] like to do I ask the applicant

[41:43] to or ask staff. Okay. I'd like

[41:46] to ask staff to please report.

[41:50] Good morning, Chair and

[41:53] commissioners. My name is

[41:57] Tatiana and I'm the assigned

[42:00] planner for the Mammoth Parcel

[42:04] Map project. Maybe this. Okay.

[42:08] Okay, so this proposed project

[42:11] is a request for a tentative

[42:15] parcel map to subdivide a 9.67

[42:20] acre parcel into four lots,

[42:23] ranging from 2 to 2.75 acres in

[42:26] size. The project site is

[42:29] outlined in red on this aerial

[42:32] imagery. The project is at 704

[42:35] North Refugio Road in Santa

[42:39] Ynez and is zoned one e one

[42:41] single family residential. The

[42:45] residential neighborhood to the

[42:48] north is also zoned one e one

[42:54] and is primarily composed of

[42:58] one acre lots. The neighborhood

[43:02] to the north and east are

[43:06] developed with single family

[43:09] residences, and the areas to

[43:13] the south and west are

[43:16] agriculture zoned parcels

[43:21] containing Rancho Estates,

[43:26] vineyards, winery and

[43:31] agriculture. The project is for

[43:34] subdivision of a 9.67 acre

[43:38] parcel into four lots, a 28

[43:41] foot wide private driveway

[43:45] easement, depicted here in blue,

[43:48] follows the path of an existing

[43:51] driveway that currently serves

[43:55] the residential development on

[43:59] the site. This easement would

[44:03] would allow for improvements to

[44:06] the existing driveway. A 20

[44:09] foot wide public utility

[44:13] easement along the northern

[44:17] property line, which is

[44:20] depicted in orange, is also

[44:22] proposed. There is an as built

[44:25] guest house and garage which

[44:29] are proposed to remain on

[44:32] parcel one, which is has a star

[44:36] here on the screen and their

[44:39] proposed. The guest house is

[44:42] proposed to be validated as a

[44:45] single family dwelling with

[44:47] approval of a separate Land Use

[44:50] permit. Proposed parcels two

[44:53] and four, which are highlighted

[44:55] here, are currently vacant and

[44:58] MAY be developed with a single

[45:00] family residence in the future,

[45:03] and proposed parcel three will

[45:05] contain the permitted 2600

[45:08] square foot single family

[45:12] dwelling, a detached garage and

[45:15] private septic system. Which is

[45:19] also in the stars there. Next,

[45:22] I want to draw your attention

[45:25] to the southern property line,

[45:28] where a required 100 foot

[45:31] agricultural buffer is proposed.

[45:34] The buffers measured from the

[45:36] shared property line, which is

[45:38] adjacent to the agriculture

[45:41] zoned property that is under

[45:44] commercial agricultural

[45:47] production, low intensity

[45:50] residential development such as

[45:53] single family residences, are

[45:56] allowed within this

[45:59] agricultural buffer, so the

[46:02] future proposed single family

[46:05] dwellings for parcels two and

[46:08] four would be could be located

[46:10] in this area. Lastly, there is

[46:13] a proposed 200 foot wide

[46:15] development restriction area on

[46:18] proposed parcel four, which is

[46:21] shown in light blue, which is

[46:23] proposed voluntarily to protect

[46:25] private views from the existing

[46:27] single family residence. The

[46:29] project includes development

[46:32] exclusion areas containing

[46:34] slopes greater than 20% which

[46:36] are depicted in red, whereas

[46:38] areas with slopes less than 20%

[46:41] are depicted in green. The

[46:44] gentle slopes areas in green

[46:47] are suitable for future

[46:50] development, provided they

[46:53] comply with other development

[46:56] standards, such as setbacks and

[46:58] the agricultural buffer

[47:01] requirements and development

[47:03] restriction area on parcel four.

[47:06] The subdivision is consistent

[47:09] with the county's comprehensive

[47:11] plan. First, there are adequate

[47:13] services available to serve all

[47:16] four parcels. They will be

[47:19] served by the Santa Ynez River

[47:21] Water Conservation District, on

[47:24] site wastewater treatment

[47:26] systems, County Fire Department

[47:29] and county sheriff. Second, the

[47:32] project is compatible with

[47:34] nearby agriculture. A 100 foot

[47:37] agricultural buffer is included

[47:40] along the southern boundary,

[47:43] supported by existing terrain

[47:46] that naturally separates the

[47:50] site from the adjacent

[47:53] agriculture. There are no known

[47:56] cultural resources on the site.

[47:59] Future development will require

[48:01] an archeological survey and

[48:03] stop work procedures if any

[48:05] resources are discovered, and

[48:07] that is included in the project

[48:10] conditions and mitigation

[48:12] measures. Next, the subdivision

[48:14] meets Hillside and Watershed

[48:16] protection standards. There is

[48:19] no grading proposed currently,

[48:22] and steep slopes. Steep slopes

[48:25] are placed in development

[48:28] exclusion areas. Future grading

[48:32] on slopes would require

[48:34] geotechnical studies and

[48:37] erosion control plans. The

[48:39] conditions of approval on the

[48:43] map also demonstrate

[48:45] consistency with these policies.

[48:48] Regarding visual resources. The

[48:52] subdivision will not change

[48:55] existing views or introduce new

[48:58] development. At this stage,

[49:01] future homes will follow design

[49:03] standards, including for

[49:06] building materials, colors,

[49:10] screening, height limits and

[49:12] dark sky lighting requirements,

[49:16] and the site is not located

[49:19] within any designated scenic

[49:23] overlay area. Next, the site

[49:26] does not contain any known

[49:29] sensitive biological resources.

[49:32] Future development is

[49:35] conditioned to follow standard

[49:38] tree protection, nesting bird

[49:41] avoidance requirements and is

[49:44] discussed in the mitigated

[49:47] negative declaration and

[49:50] mitigation measures. And

[49:53] finally, the project is

[49:56] consistent with flood and water

[49:58] quality policies. The site is

[50:01] not within any floodway and

[50:04] there is a setback from a man

[50:07] made drainage which is on site.

[50:09] The stormwater best management

[50:13] practices will be required

[50:16] during future construction to

[50:19] protect water quality and avoid

[50:21] increased runoff. Each parcel

[50:24] is fully compliant and

[50:27] developable. The zoning

[50:30] requires minimum one acre lots

[50:33] and 120ft of lot, with the four

[50:36] proposed parcels range from 2.8

[50:38] to 2.74 acres in size, and each

[50:41] is approximately 380ft wide,

[50:44] which exceeds the minimum

[50:48] requirements, and the

[50:51] configuration also meets all

[50:54] setbacks. Parcel one does

[50:57] contain unpermitted structures,

[51:00] but the project requires that

[51:02] these structures are validated

[51:05] with permits or removed within

[51:07] 90 days of map Recordation

[51:10] parcels two and four are

[51:13] currently vacant, and parcel

[51:16] three contains an existing

[51:20] permitted home. All parcels

[51:23] have confirmed water service

[51:26] and onsite wastewater systems

[51:30] are feasible. A mitigated

[51:34] negative declaration was

[51:37] prepared under Sequa, and it

[51:41] found that all potentially

[51:43] significant environmental

[51:46] impacts can be reduced to less

[51:49] than significant, with

[51:52] mitigation for esthetics,

[51:54] building materials screening

[51:57] and dark sky lighting will

[52:01] ensure future development

[52:04] blends with the surroundings

[52:07] for air quality and greenhouse

[52:10] gas emissions. Dust control is

[52:14] required during construction as

[52:17] well as energy efficient design

[52:21] and waste reduction measures to

[52:24] keep emissions low for

[52:27] biological resources. Tree

[52:30] protection, nesting bird

[52:34] surveys and sorry nesting bird

[52:37] surveys will prevent impacts to

[52:40] vegetation and wildlife for

[52:44] fire protection, defense,

[52:49] defensible space, fire, safe

[52:52] construction and vegetation

[52:56] management at the time of

[53:00] future development will reduce

[53:04] any wildfire risk for geologic

[53:07] conditions. The Mapped

[53:11] Development exclusion areas

[53:15] avoid steep slopes and future

[53:20] grading would require

[53:25] geotechnical studies and

[53:29] erosion control plans and for

[53:34] water resources, stormwater

[53:38] best management practices such

[53:43] as bioswales, vegetated buffers,

[53:48] use of pervious materials and

[53:52] roof runoff collection protect

[53:56] water quality and reduce runoff.

[54:01] All mitigation measures are

[54:05] included in the project's

[54:08] conditions of approval and

[54:12] together form the Mitigation

[54:15] Monitoring program. With these

[54:18] measures in place,

[54:22] environmental impacts are

[54:25] reduced to less than

[54:29] significant. In conclusion,

[54:34] staff recommends your

[54:38] commission take the following

[54:41] actions which are listed on the

[54:45] screen. First, make the

[54:48] required findings for approval,

[54:52] including Sequa findings. Adopt

[54:56] the negative Declaration and

[54:58] Mitigation Monitoring program

[55:01] and approve the project subject

[55:04] to the conditions included in

[55:06] attachment b. This concludes

[55:09] Stop's presentation. Staff and

[55:12] the applicant are available for

[55:14] questions. Thank you, MISS Cruz.

[55:16] Open to public comment. For

[55:18] commissioner comments. Just for

[55:20] question, we'll ask some

[55:22] questions. First questions from

[55:25] us. Okay. About that. Are there

[55:27] any questions from the

[55:30] commissioners? Okay.

[55:33] Commissioner Martinez, good

[55:35] morning. My quick question. If

[55:37] you go to slide number four.

[55:40] Thank you. The 100 foot buffer

[55:42] is that the dotted well not

[55:45] dotted but the line on the

[55:47] bottom. The yellow line or is

[55:50] it the entire yellow area?

[55:52] Commissioner Martinez the

[55:55] agricultural buffer is the

[55:58] highlighted area in yellow. And

[56:00] that's 100ft from the shared

[56:02] property line with the property

[56:04] that has agriculture. Okay. So

[56:06] so the property that start or

[56:08] the, the structure that has

[56:10] that that large yellow star is

[56:11] just outside the buffer.

[56:13] Correct? Sorry, Commissioner

[56:15] Martinez. So on parcel three,

[56:17] the the star closest to the

[56:19] buffer is the existing single

[56:21] family residence. A portion of

[56:24] it is within the buffer, and

[56:27] part of it is outside the

[56:30] buffer. And on parcel one. That

[56:32] structure is entirely within

[56:33] the buffer. Okay, that's that's

[56:36] what's bringing my confusion.

[56:39] So what's the purpose of the

[56:41] buffer? If we already have a

[56:43] residence within the buffer?

[56:45] Chair Martinez the purpose of

[56:46] the buffer really impacts

[56:48] non-habitable structures. So

[56:49] single family residences like

[56:50] the two that are located in the

[56:52] buffer are typically allowed

[56:54] because they're considered low

[56:56] intensity development in the

[56:59] buffer area. It would just

[57:01] require certain. Garages,

[57:02] carports, parking areas to be

[57:04] located outside the buffer, or

[57:06] just have different

[57:08] requirements than the single

[57:10] family dwellings. And it would

[57:11] also require specific

[57:13] landscaping plans, which is

[57:15] included as a condition if

[57:17] future landscaping is proposed.

[57:18] Okay, so if if I'm that owner

[57:19] and I want to turn that garage

[57:21] into an Adu, nothing's going to

[57:22] stop me. Correct? That's

[57:24] correct. ADUs would also be

[57:26] allowed within that buffer.

[57:28] Okay. So the property that has.

[57:30] So I imagine below that this

[57:32] buffer is a commercial

[57:34] agricultural area, am I wrong?

[57:36] Am I right? Just from me

[57:39] looking at the overlay, it

[57:41] looks like yes, that's correct.

[57:42] I can go back to the site. So

[57:44] yes, directly south it's the ag

[57:46] two property. There's currently

[57:49] pasture land and then about

[57:51] 580ft from the shared property

[57:52] line, which is that dark green.

[57:54] If you can kind of see on on

[57:56] this vicinity aerial, that's

[57:57] where the crops are grown. So

[57:59] there's already also kind of a

[58:02] natural setback, even greater

[58:03] than what would be required.

[58:05] And we've given notice to that

[58:07] owner of this hearing, correct?

[58:09] Yes we have. Okay. Because. My

[58:11] sense is, is that the ag buffer

[58:13] is not really being utilized or

[58:15] being even honored because you

[58:18] already have a structure there

[58:19] and you have a structure there

[58:22] that can be turned into an Adu,

[58:24] and therefore the 100 foot

[58:26] buffer really goes into their

[58:29] property. Commissioner Martinez,

[58:32] thank you for your question.

[58:35] It's a good question because

[58:37] there is certain development

[58:40] allowed in the ag buffer. So I

[58:42] understand that can be a little

[58:45] bit complicated. So chapter 21

[58:48] and chapter 35 both have

[58:50] regulations for what can be

[58:52] allowed in the ag buffer. So

[58:54] throughout the county there are

[58:57] certain uses that are allowed

[58:59] in the ag buffer. For instance,

[59:02] like Tatiana mentioned, single

[59:04] family dwellings, low intensity

[59:06] residential development, ADUs,

[59:09] residential accessory

[59:12] structures MAY be allowed in

[59:15] the buffer area. In contrast to

[59:18] that, industrial or commercial

[59:21] types of development, certain

[59:25] landscaping, certain lighting,

[59:27] certain non-habitable

[59:30] structures are not allowed in

[59:34] the ag buffer. And I also just

[59:37] want to clarify that this per

[59:38] consistent with the chapter 21

[59:42] and chapter 35, requirements p

[59:43] and d coordinated with the ag

[59:45] Commissioner's Office on this

[59:48] buffer, and they agreed that

[59:50] the buffer was appropriate for

[59:53] the proposed project. Oh no. I

[59:55] can see why somebody would say

[59:57] it's appropriate, but the

[59:59] reality is of it is that if you

[1:00:02] haven't, if if you have a

[1:00:03] structure that's being lived in

[1:00:06] and you want to do an

[1:00:09] application as a commercial

[1:00:11] farmer, you can't do it because

[1:00:14] it's within a certain feet from

[1:00:16] the application. That's why I'm

[1:00:20] trying to say, why are we even

[1:00:22] calling the buffer when it's

[1:00:24] not even acting as a buffer?

[1:00:27] That's that's my concern. I

[1:00:29] understand what you're saying

[1:00:32] by the codes. You're saying we

[1:00:35] can't do this, you can't do

[1:00:38] that. But the realities of its

[1:00:40] interaction with with the

[1:00:43] commercial farm below it or

[1:00:46] next to it is that person can't

[1:00:48] because there is somebody

[1:00:51] living within that 100 foot

[1:00:53] area. If my buffer is 200ft

[1:00:55] from a plant for making an

[1:00:58] application, I can't make it

[1:01:00] unless I get permission. And

[1:01:03] they can appeal and they can

[1:01:05] appeal to the ag commissioner

[1:01:08] and all that. That's that's my

[1:01:10] concern. But if they're not

[1:01:13] here and they're not going to

[1:01:17] object to it, I just want to

[1:01:20] make sure that they were

[1:01:24] noticed. And if they're saying,

[1:01:27] hey, I'm not here to agree and

[1:01:30] nod my head with Martinez about

[1:01:33] the commissioner, Martinez

[1:01:35] about this. Okay. But I just

[1:01:38] want to make sure I'm aware of

[1:01:41] it. And they have the

[1:01:45] opportunity to be doing

[1:01:48] something about it. Okay. Thank

[1:01:52] you. Commissioner Ford. Thanks.

[1:01:55] I just have a couple clarifying

[1:01:58] questions on that same slide

[1:02:01] for well, how is the

[1:02:05] development or the decision

[1:02:08] around the 200 foot development

[1:02:11] restriction made? Yes.

[1:02:14] Commissioner Ford, so that 200

[1:02:16] foot development restriction

[1:02:19] area was voluntarily proposed

[1:02:22] by the applicant. So I think I

[1:02:26] could let them speak to that

[1:02:29] some more. That is not required

[1:02:32] by county code. Okay. Thank you.

[1:02:35] I'll wait for that. And then

[1:02:39] you referred to the validation

[1:02:42] process. What's involved in

[1:02:46] that? Commissioner Ford so the

[1:02:49] applicant has submitted for a

[1:02:52] land use permit to validate the

[1:02:55] unpermitted structures

[1:02:58] following, you know,

[1:03:00] recordation of this map. Once

[1:03:03] it gets approved, that will be

[1:03:05] parcel one will be a legal lot,

[1:03:08] and that would allow them to

[1:03:11] move forward with their

[1:03:15] application to have any single

[1:03:20] family dwelling. So that would

[1:03:24] the process would be the land

[1:03:28] use permit and their building

[1:03:32] permit. So they just fill

[1:03:35] submit a form to say, now that

[1:03:38] this has passed, let's make

[1:03:42] this building valid. A real

[1:03:45] building, a house, a residence.

[1:03:47] Yes. Commissioner Ford, so as I

[1:03:50] mentioned, they did apply for

[1:03:53] the land use permit. So if we

[1:03:56] were to, for example, if that

[1:04:01] was not an existing structure,

[1:04:05] that would still be the permit

[1:04:09] path. And since it's

[1:04:13] unpermitted, we would consider

[1:04:17] it as a new structure. So

[1:04:21] they're going through the

[1:04:24] process, which is the land use

[1:04:27] permit application. They've

[1:04:30] submitted the required plans

[1:04:34] and we'll need to also meet

[1:04:36] building code requirements.

[1:04:39] Thank you. Okay. I have a

[1:04:42] follow on question to something

[1:04:44] Commissioner Ford asked

[1:04:47] relative to the 200ft

[1:04:51] development restriction, I

[1:04:54] understand that the applicant

[1:04:57] is requesting it. Great. The

[1:05:00] parcel will eventually be sold.

[1:05:03] The new buyer buys the parcel.

[1:05:05] How is the new buyer informed

[1:05:08] where they can and cannot put

[1:05:11] development on that parcel? No.

[1:05:13] They will have to look at the

[1:05:15] map. Yeah. Commissioner guy. So

[1:05:17] the development restriction

[1:05:19] area is being recorded with the

[1:05:21] map. So this information will

[1:05:24] be available to potential

[1:05:27] buyers because it's it's shown

[1:05:30] and described. And it will be a

[1:05:32] recorded document that will be

[1:05:35] available. Commissioner guy if

[1:05:37] I can add to that. So and then

[1:05:39] when a future person comes in

[1:05:41] to develop that house staff

[1:05:44] will. They'll have to get a

[1:05:46] permit. Staff will look at the

[1:05:49] approved permits, look at the

[1:05:51] conditions on the map and see

[1:05:53] that there's a development

[1:05:56] restriction zone on there. Okay.

[1:05:58] Thank you. Yeah. I'm familiar

[1:06:00] with exclusion zones, but I

[1:06:03] haven't seen the development

[1:06:06] restrictions. So thank you for

[1:06:08] the for the answers. I

[1:06:11] appreciate it. Sure. Any other

[1:06:14] questions from commissioners.

[1:06:17] Okay. At this point, do I open

[1:06:19] it up to public comment? MR.

[1:06:22] Chair, I believe at this point

[1:06:24] you should ask the applicant if

[1:06:27] they have a presentation. Oh

[1:06:29] thank you. I would like to ask

[1:06:32] the applicant if they have a

[1:06:34] presentation. And I see MR.

[1:06:36] Jones moving forward. Good

[1:06:38] morning, MR. Chair and Planning

[1:06:40] Commissioners. My name is Brett

[1:06:42] Jones. I'm a private land use

[1:06:43] consultant in this valley with

[1:06:45] my associate, Angela Jones. And.

[1:06:46] I haven't met a few of you. I

[1:06:48] appreciate the site visits I

[1:06:50] was able to have with three of

[1:06:52] you, and I'm really just here

[1:06:55] to answer any questions. I

[1:06:58] don't have a presentation per

[1:07:01] se. There have been some

[1:07:04] questions I'd like to address

[1:07:05] so far through the chair.

[1:07:07] Commissioner Ford, the 200 foot

[1:07:10] setback was voluntarily

[1:07:12] proposed by the applicants,

[1:07:14] David and Jill Sorensen. They

[1:07:16] are currently living in the

[1:07:19] residence on parcel three.

[1:07:21] There's extraordinary views to

[1:07:23] the east, and they've stated

[1:07:26] they MAY not even sell the

[1:07:28] parcel. But if they did, they

[1:07:30] wanted to put that in there to

[1:07:32] protect their views. In the

[1:07:34] future of looking to the

[1:07:36] Figueroa and Santino's

[1:07:38] Mountains. Perfect. That's very

[1:07:40] helpful. Thanks. Regarding the

[1:07:42] validation of the guest house,

[1:07:45] we are aware of those

[1:07:46] conditions as all of the

[1:07:48] conditions in the project and

[1:07:51] agree to those I did have. I

[1:07:54] would like a little bit of

[1:07:58] clarification on the 200 foot,

[1:08:01] excuse me, the hundred foot

[1:08:04] buffer. It's my understanding

[1:08:07] that doesn't affect the

[1:08:09] property owner to the south. Is

[1:08:11] that correct? That they they

[1:08:14] could do development. It really

[1:08:16] just affects our parcels. So

[1:08:18] this is two through the chair

[1:08:21] Do Commissioner Martinez. Does

[1:08:24] that make sense? I know it

[1:08:27] doesn't restrict their

[1:08:29] development. It's about the

[1:08:32] ability to utilize the

[1:08:34] agricultural purposes of the

[1:08:37] southern portion of of the

[1:08:40] person below them on the South.

[1:08:42] And as my example indicated,

[1:08:45] it's, you know, it's the the

[1:08:47] process, as I'm aware from I'm

[1:08:49] very well aware of it is, is

[1:08:51] that if I make a crop

[1:08:53] application, I have 100 foot

[1:08:55] buffer. It starts from my

[1:08:57] boundary line and it goes over

[1:08:58] to the other person's, the

[1:09:01] north part of it. And then if

[1:09:03] there's in there, if anyone's

[1:09:06] living in there, then I have to

[1:09:09] send them a notice. And if that

[1:09:12] notice that gives them the

[1:09:15] ability, that person that's

[1:09:17] living there to appeal or, or

[1:09:20] object to it, then it goes to

[1:09:22] the ag commissioner, who then

[1:09:24] has a hearing regarding whether

[1:09:26] or not the application is

[1:09:28] permissible or not. But

[1:09:29] typically when you when I see

[1:09:31] an ag buffer, it's there's no

[1:09:32] development whatsoever within

[1:09:34] that. So there is no appeal

[1:09:36] process to even worry about a

[1:09:38] no notice process to go about a

[1:09:40] lot in regards to these things.

[1:09:42] And that's why that's the

[1:09:43] center of my question. So

[1:09:45] whether they develop it into

[1:09:48] houses or whatever, that that

[1:09:50] has nothing to do with the ag

[1:09:52] buffer as far as as far as I

[1:09:54] know and as far as I'm

[1:09:56] concerned. But thank you, thank

[1:09:58] you. I have nothing further.

[1:10:00] I'm here to answer any further

[1:10:02] questions you might have. Okay.

[1:10:04] It doesn't look like there's

[1:10:07] any other questions. So thank

[1:10:09] you, MR. Jones. Now we get to

[1:10:11] open to public comment. Thank

[1:10:13] you very much. Please, for give

[1:10:14] me all of you out there. This

[1:10:16] is only my second meeting. I'm

[1:10:18] I'm learning as we go. So any

[1:10:20] public comment on this project.

[1:10:21] And seeing no hands raised

[1:10:23] online. Okay. If there's no

[1:10:24] request, then we will close

[1:10:26] public comment. At this point.

[1:10:27] Are there any other questions

[1:10:29] from the commissioners? Any

[1:10:32] other comments actually refer

[1:10:34] to it as deliberation and move

[1:10:36] into okay, we will move into

[1:10:38] deliberation. I'll start. Thank

[1:10:40] you, Commissioner Martinez. Oh,

[1:10:42] I would make it known that I've

[1:10:44] made my concerns aware and and

[1:10:46] my concerns are being addressed

[1:10:48] by the fact that I understand

[1:10:50] notice has been given to the

[1:10:52] person who's to the south of

[1:10:54] this. And if that person isn't

[1:10:56] going to come and be active in

[1:10:58] something. And that's the

[1:11:00] purpose of giving notices. And

[1:11:01] I really wanted to make sure my

[1:11:02] comments were on the record, or

[1:11:04] at least noted within the

[1:11:05] record, because it's at least

[1:11:06] if there's ever something in

[1:11:08] the future about this property,

[1:11:10] it's going to be, well, that

[1:11:12] was brought up. There was an

[1:11:13] opportunity to be addressed and

[1:11:14] you didn't come and address it.

[1:11:15] If that person would have

[1:11:16] showed up and made something of

[1:11:17] it, I would have really paid

[1:11:19] attention to it. But from what

[1:11:20] I have in front of me and from

[1:11:22] the development itself, I would

[1:11:23] be supportive of this project.

[1:11:24] Commissioner Mayor Connor and I

[1:11:25] concur with Commissioner

[1:11:27] Martinez. I'm supportive of

[1:11:28] this project. Commissioner Ford

[1:11:31] yes, I'm really pleased with

[1:11:32] the concerns that Commissioner

[1:11:34] Martinez brought up and. And

[1:11:36] see no other reason for concern

[1:11:37] at this time. I can support

[1:11:40] this action. Okay. And I also

[1:11:42] appreciate the work that was

[1:11:43] done by staff because this was

[1:11:45] this is very valuable and it

[1:11:46] makes things very clear for us

[1:11:48] to understand. So thank you for

[1:11:48] that. So I'm looking for a

[1:11:50] motion. I'll move the staff

[1:11:51] recommendation. And a I'll

[1:11:52] second. Okay. Any discussion?

[1:11:53] All in favor? I. None. Opposed.

[1:11:55] Motion carries. At this point,

[1:11:56] we will move on to the next

[1:11:57] item on the agenda. I'm sorry,

[1:11:58] can we just give staff a moment

[1:12:00] to to come up? But I'm sorry.

[1:12:01] Could you clarify who made the

[1:12:02] first motion for the mayor?

[1:12:03] Okay. Thank you. Okay. Because

[1:12:04] these guys change places. Okay.

[1:12:05] Everything is. Yeah.

[1:12:05] Okay. Okay.

[1:12:06] MR. Villalobos, the next item

[1:12:07] on the agenda. Thank you, MR.

[1:12:08] Chair. Next item following is a

[1:12:09] hearing on the request of Ross

[1:12:10] Dorman wal over llc to consider

[1:12:11] case number 24lla7 and to

[1:12:12] determine the project is exempt

[1:12:13] from environmental review

[1:12:14] pursuant to section 15183 of

[1:12:16] the State guidelines for the

[1:12:17] implementation of the

[1:12:18] California Environmental

[1:12:19] Quality Act. Okay. At this

[1:12:21] point, we'd like to ask staff

[1:12:23] to share their presentation. Oh,

[1:12:24] sorry. Any ex parte comments.

[1:12:26] Any ex. Any visits. I'm trying

[1:12:28] to see which project. Okay, I

[1:12:30] don't have any either. Yes. So

[1:12:32] now we move on to staff

[1:12:33] presentation. Good morning, MR.

[1:12:35] Chair and Commissioners. My

[1:12:37] name is Veronica King and I

[1:12:39] will be presenting the Wollover

[1:12:40] llc Lot Line Adjustment Project.

[1:12:42] A request for a lot line

[1:12:44] adjustment between two existing

[1:12:46] parcels. The project site is

[1:12:49] located in a rural agricultural

[1:12:50] area and the Goleta Valley

[1:12:52] north of highway 101, and

[1:12:53] involves two parcels. Parcel

[1:12:55] one and read is addressed as

[1:12:56] 901 Verda Linda and is 602.42

[1:12:57] acres. Parcel two in blue is

[1:12:59] 34.34 acres and does not yet

[1:13:00] have an address. Both parcels

[1:13:01] are currently in agricultural

[1:13:02] production with lemon and

[1:13:04] avocado orchards. The lot line

[1:13:05] adjustment will transfer

[1:13:07] approximately 78 acres from

[1:13:09] parcel one to parcel two. This

[1:13:10] increases parcel 2 to 112 acres,

[1:13:11] bringing it into conformance

[1:13:12] with the minimum parcel size

[1:13:13] for the zone district. No

[1:13:14] development is proposed and

[1:13:15] existing access and utilities

[1:13:16] will remain unchanged. Here you

[1:13:18] can see the existing parcel

[1:13:19] configuration on the left and

[1:13:19] the proposed configuration on

[1:13:21] the right. Parcel two, shown in

[1:13:21] blue, expands primarily to the

[1:13:22] south, while parcel one shown

[1:13:23] in red is reduced accordingly.

[1:13:24] For some background on the

[1:13:25] existing site conditions,

[1:13:25] parcel two is currently

[1:13:26] undeveloped, while parcel one

[1:13:28] contains all existing

[1:13:29] development including

[1:13:29] residential development,

[1:13:30] agricultural support facilities,

[1:13:32] water infrastructure and on

[1:13:33] site wastewater treatment. As

[1:13:34] discussed, the project adjusts

[1:13:35] the parcel boundaries but does

[1:13:36] not change any existing access,

[1:13:37] easements or utilities. The lot

[1:13:39] line adjustment would bring

[1:13:40] parcel two into conformance

[1:13:41] with the minimum lot size

[1:13:42] requirement, while also adding

[1:13:43] areas with gentler slopes to

[1:13:44] the parcel. This would provide

[1:13:45] more suitable land for

[1:13:46] continued agricultural use and

[1:13:47] more appropriate areas for any

[1:13:49] future development. Importantly,

[1:13:50] the adjustment would not create

[1:13:51] any additional parcels or

[1:13:52] increase the allowable density.

[1:13:53] The project is consistent with

[1:13:54] all applicable comprehensive

[1:13:55] Plan and Goleta Community Plan

[1:13:56] policies. Chapter 21 Land

[1:13:57] Division Requirements and the

[1:13:58] County Land Use and Development

[1:13:59] Code. Existing development

[1:14:01] would continue to be adequately

[1:14:02] served by private water and

[1:14:03] wastewater systems, and the

[1:14:04] adjusted parcel configuration

[1:14:06] would provide adequate area to

[1:14:07] avoid steep slopes and

[1:14:09] sensitive biological resources,

[1:14:11] such as creeks and

[1:14:12] environmentally sensitive

[1:14:15] habitat. Additionally, the

[1:14:17] adjustment would not create any

[1:14:18] zoning, non-conformities or

[1:14:20] violations. Existing

[1:14:21] development would continue to

[1:14:22] meet applicable setbacks and

[1:14:24] parcel uses. Existing

[1:14:26] nonconforming lot size would be

[1:14:28] resolved by increasing the

[1:14:30] parcel to more than 100 acres,

[1:14:31] consistent with the ag two

[1:14:33] minimum parcel size requirement.

[1:14:35] For environmental review. The

[1:14:37] project qualifies for a Ceqa

[1:14:39] guidelines section 15183

[1:14:41] exemption because the potential

[1:14:42] environmental impacts were

[1:14:44] previously analyzed as part of

[1:14:46] the Goleta Community Plan eir.

[1:14:47] The project would be compliant

[1:14:48] with the Goleta Community Plan

[1:14:49] policies, and the project would

[1:14:50] not result in impacts beyond

[1:14:52] those previously evaluated in

[1:14:53] the eir. Staff recommends that

[1:14:53] your commission make the

[1:14:55] required findings for approval.

[1:14:55] Determine the project is exempt

[1:14:56] from Sequa, and approve the

[1:14:57] project subject to the

[1:14:58] conditions of approval. That

[1:14:58] concludes my presentation and

[1:14:59] I'm available for questions.

[1:15:00] Thank you. Are there any

[1:15:01] questions? Okay. There are no

[1:15:02] questions. The applicant is the

[1:15:02] applicant present and prepared

[1:15:03] to speak. Thank you. Chair

[1:15:04] commissioners. Alan McLeod,

[1:15:05] agent for the for the owners.

[1:15:06] I'm here just to answer any

[1:15:07] questions that you MAY have.

[1:15:09] Just out of curiosity. Why why

[1:15:10] why why the lot line adjustment.

[1:15:12] The families own the property.

[1:15:13] For 50 years they've been

[1:15:15] ranching. The the avocados and

[1:15:16] the lemons. There's no plan to

[1:15:18] sell the property at this point,

[1:15:19] but at any given time in the

[1:15:20] future, they want the option to

[1:15:21] maybe retain a piece of it if

[1:15:22] they choose to put it on the

[1:15:24] market. So they've been

[1:15:25] connected to the property for a

[1:15:27] long time. So that's the main

[1:15:28] reason why they're wanting to

[1:15:30] do this lot line adjustment.

[1:15:31] Okay. Thank you. Any other

[1:15:32] questions from the

[1:15:33] commissioners? No questions. So

[1:15:35] at this point I'm looking for a

[1:15:36] motion to accept. So oh public

[1:15:37] comment. Thank you. Open it up

[1:15:38] for public comment. Anybody

[1:15:40] from the public here to speak

[1:15:41] on this issue. Anybody online

[1:15:42] MR. Villalobos? No. Hands

[1:15:42] raised online. Okay. We'll give

[1:15:43] them just a moment here. And if

[1:15:44] there's no questions then we're

[1:15:45] going to close public comment.

[1:15:46] And then we're going to look

[1:15:46] for a motion to accept or

[1:15:47] deliberation or deliberation. I

[1:15:48] move the staff recommendation.

[1:15:49] I would second that. Okay. Any

[1:15:49] further discussion? Okay. All

[1:15:51] in favor? I. I. I. I. None

[1:15:52] opposed. Motion carries. Thank

[1:15:53] you very much to all of you.

[1:15:54] And we will take a moment here

[1:15:55] before we move on to the next

[1:15:57] item. We are going to take a

[1:15:57] five minute break and we will

[1:15:59] return momentarily.

[1:19:34] Here we go.

[1:19:38] Okay. We're coming back on. So

[1:19:44] the next item on the agenda. Go

[1:19:46] ahead, MR. Villalobos. Thank

[1:19:47] you. Thank you. The following

[1:19:49] is a hearing on the request of

[1:19:50] Hayden Land, an applicant to

[1:19:53] consider case number 24, dvp35,

[1:19:56] as well as 25qp21, and to adopt

[1:19:57] the mitigated negative

[1:19:59] declaration, case number 26 d

[1:20:00] one and the mitigation

[1:20:01] monitoring program contained in

[1:20:06] the conditions of approval.

[1:20:07] Thank you very much. At this

[1:20:10] point, I'd like to ask staff to

[1:20:12] share their presentation. Do

[1:20:15] you want to? Oh yes. Thank you

[1:20:17] very much. Commissioner. Mayor

[1:20:18] Connor, any ex parte

[1:20:20] communication or site visits?

[1:20:26] Yes, yes I do. I visited with

[1:20:30] Brett Jones, the applicant's

[1:20:33] representative, last week. Went

[1:20:36] on a tour of the property

[1:20:38] involved. Saw the location of

[1:20:40] the improvements that are

[1:20:44] proposed for the property. He

[1:20:46] answered all my questions and I

[1:20:49] had a very enlightening visit

[1:20:52] with him and the property.

[1:20:53] Thank you Commissioner mayor

[1:20:55] Connor. I also would like to

[1:20:57] report that I also did a site

[1:20:58] visit with MR. Jones earlier

[1:21:00] this week, along with

[1:21:03] Commissioner Park. MR. Jones

[1:21:05] showed us the pretty much the

[1:21:07] entire parcel as well as the

[1:21:10] parcels adjacent to it. He

[1:21:12] showed us where the

[1:21:13] construction would take place,

[1:21:14] where the project would take

[1:21:16] place, and he answered all of

[1:21:20] our questions. So now I would

[1:21:24] like to ask staff to please

[1:21:28] share your report. Good morning,

[1:21:30] commissioners and chair Guy.

[1:21:32] I'm Steve Connor, and I'll be

[1:21:33] presenting this project on

[1:21:35] behalf of Planning and

[1:21:36] development staff. The project

[1:21:38] before you today is a request

[1:21:39] for a proposed development plan

[1:21:40] to allow construction of an

[1:21:41] equestrian arena, along with a

[1:21:43] request for a land use permit

[1:21:45] for expansion of an existing

[1:21:46] equestrian facility and a

[1:21:48] request for a minor conditional

[1:21:49] use permit to allow small scale

[1:21:51] special events under the

[1:21:53] Agricultural Enterprise

[1:21:57] Ordinance. These three

[1:21:59] entitlements are being

[1:22:01] requested because the two main

[1:22:02] project components trigger

[1:22:04] different paths. The

[1:22:05] development plan and land use

[1:22:07] permit are requested because

[1:22:08] the Arena Square footage

[1:22:09] exceeds the 15,000 square foot

[1:22:11] maximum for development in an

[1:22:14] ag 240 zone, and an loop is

[1:22:16] required for equestrian

[1:22:19] facilities in ag 240 zones. The

[1:22:21] development plan also includes

[1:22:22] the request for modification to

[1:22:23] allow for the required parking

[1:22:25] spaces to be unmarked and

[1:22:27] unpaved. The parking location

[1:22:28] will be described and shown

[1:22:30] later in this presentation. The

[1:22:32] minor conditional use permit

[1:22:33] will allow small scale special

[1:22:35] events as an agricultural

[1:22:39] enterprise ordinance or an eo

[1:22:43] use. The proposed project is

[1:22:45] located off Baseline Avenue in

[1:22:47] the Santa Ynez Valley on the

[1:22:49] east side of highway 154,

[1:22:51] roughly halfway between the

[1:22:53] towns of Los Olivos and Santa

[1:22:55] Ynez, as shown here. Welcome,

[1:22:58] Commissioner Park, excuse me

[1:23:01] for just one moment here. MR.

[1:23:02] Connor, could you please hold?

[1:23:04] I just want to note that

[1:23:05] Commissioner Park has joined us,

[1:23:07] and he will also be weighing in

[1:23:09] on this issue. So I'd ask you

[1:23:17] now to please continue. Here's

[1:23:19] a quick Google Earth flyover

[1:23:20] video that gives a little more

[1:23:23] context for the location. I

[1:23:26] can't click on that. I guess

[1:23:29] maybe if you click on this,

[1:23:45] this work. No. Okay. If you.

[1:23:47] There you go. There's a play

[1:23:48] button at the bottom. Yeah.

[1:23:53] There you go. Thank you. That's

[1:23:57] important. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:24:03] Thank you. Maybe you want to do

[1:24:05] the other slide. I think so

[1:24:08] because Tatiana probably this.

[1:24:10] The subject parcel and

[1:24:12] surrounding properties are

[1:24:13] zoned ag two with a 40 acre

[1:24:17] minimum lot size. These are

[1:24:19] existing views of the site with

[1:24:20] a view from the east showing an

[1:24:22] existing equestrian barn

[1:24:23] located on on the owner's

[1:24:25] separate adjacent parcel to the

[1:24:26] west, and a view from the south

[1:24:28] showing an existing 900 zero

[1:24:30] square foot garage and ag barn

[1:24:32] on the subject property located

[1:24:33] immediately north of the

[1:24:35] proposed arena development area

[1:24:36] and next to the proposed

[1:24:38] outdoor area for the small

[1:24:41] scale special events. Here's a

[1:24:43] view from the west showing the

[1:24:44] area generally proposed for

[1:24:46] small scale events. The view

[1:24:47] from the north was taken just

[1:24:49] before the 900 zero square foot

[1:24:52] garage barn was constructed in

[1:24:56] 2025. Here's the site plan

[1:24:58] depicting the arena in a blue

[1:25:00] outline and defined area.

[1:25:01] Outdoor area in red outline

[1:25:02] where the events will take

[1:25:04] place. A new stormwater

[1:25:06] retention basin in a private,

[1:25:07] new private on site wastewater

[1:25:09] treatment system will be

[1:25:10] constructed along the southern

[1:25:13] side of the area. The subject

[1:25:15] property contains approximately

[1:25:17] 9.7 acres of pasture areas,

[1:25:18] which are located to the north

[1:25:20] and south of the arena and in

[1:25:21] the square pins near the

[1:25:22] southeast corner of the

[1:25:25] property. The property also

[1:25:26] contains approximately 20 acres

[1:25:28] of orchard grass cultivation in

[1:25:30] the northern northeast portion

[1:25:32] of the subject property.

[1:25:33] Parking for the arena and small

[1:25:34] scale events will be arranged

[1:25:37] in the orange areas shown here.

[1:25:38] Existing permitted on site

[1:25:40] development. Includes a

[1:25:42] recently constructed garage for

[1:25:45] single stall horse barns, a

[1:25:48] horse breeding barn, two hay

[1:25:51] barns, two horse stall barns,

[1:25:53] two agricultural employee

[1:25:54] dwellings and an agricultural

[1:25:59] irrigation reservoir. These

[1:26:01] elevations depict the proposed

[1:26:03] 29.5ft tall arena from the

[1:26:04] north, south, east and west.

[1:26:07] The Central Board of

[1:26:08] Architectural Review conducted

[1:26:09] a site visit and determined

[1:26:10] that the proposed structure

[1:26:12] could be seen from the north

[1:26:14] along Roblar Avenue. Therefore,

[1:26:16] the board requested that the

[1:26:17] applicant incorporate tall

[1:26:18] trees to screen the structure.

[1:26:20] The board recommended the item

[1:26:21] return for preliminary and

[1:26:22] final approval, pending

[1:26:26] approval by your commission.

[1:26:28] After the staff report was

[1:26:28] docketed last week, the

[1:26:30] applicant requested a change to

[1:26:31] the first sentence of the

[1:26:33] proposed project description in

[1:26:35] order to remove a self-imposed

[1:26:36] limitation of number of

[1:26:38] agricultural enterprise small

[1:26:39] scale special events with the

[1:26:41] within the arena to allow the

[1:26:43] applicant more flexibility.

[1:26:45] Staff finds that with this

[1:26:46] change, the project remains

[1:26:47] consistent with all applicable

[1:26:49] policies and development

[1:26:53] standards. The project was

[1:26:54] thoroughly reviewed by staff

[1:26:56] and is consistent with policies

[1:26:57] regarding availability of

[1:27:00] adequate surfaces, agricultural

[1:27:02] resources, esthetics, visual

[1:27:03] resources, and compatibility

[1:27:05] with surrounding development,

[1:27:07] biological resources, cultural

[1:27:08] resources, water resources and

[1:27:11] noise. The equestrian arena was

[1:27:11] reviewed for compliance with

[1:27:13] height limit setbacks and

[1:27:15] parking regulations, including

[1:27:16] development standards and

[1:27:17] requirements for the ag 240

[1:27:19] zone district Development Plans

[1:27:22] and design review. The special

[1:27:24] events were reviewed for safety,

[1:27:25] noise duration, number of

[1:27:27] events, and parking. The

[1:27:28] project has been conditioned to

[1:27:29] make sure it is consistent with

[1:27:31] both the policies of the

[1:27:32] Comprehensive Plan and the

[1:27:33] Santa Ynez Valley Community

[1:27:35] Plan, and is consistent with

[1:27:36] development standards in the

[1:27:38] County Land Use and Development

[1:27:39] Code, including the

[1:27:40] Agricultural Enterprise

[1:27:44] Ordinance. The project is

[1:27:46] consistent with all standards

[1:27:47] because the primary use of the

[1:27:48] parcel is commercial ag,

[1:27:50] consisting of orchard grass and

[1:27:52] pasture. At 50 acres, the

[1:27:53] project meets the minimum

[1:27:56] premises size. Parking must be

[1:27:57] located within preexisting

[1:27:59] disturbed areas, and temporary

[1:28:01] signage is required prior to

[1:28:02] events to guide guests to the

[1:28:04] designated parking area. Dust

[1:28:06] control measures are required

[1:28:07] to mitigate the unpaved parking,

[1:28:09] and a parking coordinator shall

[1:28:10] be required for events attended

[1:28:14] by 100 or more persons.

[1:28:15] Operations and outdoor

[1:28:16] amplified sound are limited to

[1:28:19] these hours, and the ag

[1:28:20] Enterprise Operator must

[1:28:21] provide guests with an

[1:28:22] informational advisory to

[1:28:25] disclose a potential minor

[1:28:27] inconveniences from preexisting

[1:28:28] agricultural operations, such

[1:28:34] as noise, dust and odor.

[1:28:35] Environmental review first

[1:28:37] included filling out the Sequa

[1:28:38] checklist that was created for

[1:28:41] touring projects off the a

[1:28:43] eopeir or Program Environmental

[1:28:46] report. Several peir

[1:28:47] mitigations were incorporated

[1:28:48] into the project as conditions

[1:28:50] of approval, including the

[1:28:51] requirement to develop and

[1:28:52] implement a tree protection

[1:28:54] plan for native trees, limiting

[1:28:56] hours for outdoor amplified

[1:28:58] sound and development, and

[1:28:59] implementation of a fire

[1:29:02] protection plan. The equestrian

[1:29:03] arena was not considered in the

[1:29:06] a eoppeir because it exceeded

[1:29:09] the 2500 square foot maximum

[1:29:12] for new accessory structures,

[1:29:13] therefore mitigated negative

[1:29:15] declaration or nd was prepared

[1:29:17] for analysis of impacts

[1:29:18] associated with the arena and

[1:29:20] circulated for a 30 day public

[1:29:22] review. Mitigation measures

[1:29:23] were incorporated into the

[1:29:25] project to address impacts that

[1:29:28] weren't included in the eopeir,

[1:29:30] including bar approval and a

[1:29:31] requirement to use natural

[1:29:33] colors and building materials.

[1:29:34] Incorporation of a new fire

[1:29:35] protection equipment into the

[1:29:37] fire protection plan.

[1:29:39] Development and implementation

[1:29:40] of a source reduction and solid

[1:29:42] waste management plan and

[1:29:44] animal waste management plan.

[1:29:46] Development of an erosion and

[1:29:47] sediment control plan and

[1:29:48] management of construction

[1:29:49] equipment and storage and

[1:29:52] washout area. One comment

[1:29:54] letter was received on the nd

[1:29:55] from the California Department

[1:29:57] of Conservation regarding

[1:29:59] discussion of the conversion of

[1:30:00] agricultural land to

[1:30:02] Nonagricultural use and project

[1:30:03] compatibility with the

[1:30:04] Williamson Act or County

[1:30:06] Agricultural Preserve contract

[1:30:08] requirements. No other comment

[1:30:10] letters were received. The

[1:30:11] applicant proposes to retain

[1:30:12] and stockpile all prime

[1:30:14] farmland topsoils that will be

[1:30:16] disturbed by the arena

[1:30:17] development pad and utilize

[1:30:19] utilize the stockpile to amend

[1:30:20] soils elsewhere in the areas

[1:30:22] with ongoing feed, grass and

[1:30:26] pasture cultivation. In

[1:30:28] conclusion, staff recommends

[1:30:29] that you make the required

[1:30:31] findings for approval included

[1:30:33] in attachment a determined that

[1:30:34] the mitigated negative

[1:30:35] declaration is adequate and

[1:30:37] approve the project subject to

[1:30:38] the conditions included as

[1:30:40] attachment b and as revised

[1:30:42] during this presentation. This

[1:30:44] concludes staff's presentation.

[1:30:45] Staff and the applicant team

[1:30:46] are available to answer any

[1:30:49] questions. Thank you. Thank you

[1:30:51] very much. Before we move on to

[1:30:52] questions, I just want to ask

[1:30:54] Commissioner Park if he's got

[1:30:55] any ex parte communication or

[1:30:57] site visits that he'd like to

[1:30:58] report before we go into the

[1:31:03] discussion. Yes, I met on what

[1:31:05] day was it? I think it was

[1:31:08] Monday with you, MR. Guy, and

[1:31:12] with MR. Jones. And I also met

[1:31:14] with MR. Connor the same day,

[1:31:17] right? Yeah, I got down here.

[1:31:19] He counts, but in a different

[1:31:23] way. Thank you very much. I'd

[1:31:25] like to open it up to questions

[1:31:26] from the commissioners. And I

[1:31:28] see MR. Martinez. Yes. Thank

[1:31:32] you chair. Just for

[1:31:33] clarification, I keep on

[1:31:37] hearing outdoor arena, but the

[1:31:38] reality is the arena we're

[1:31:40] talking about is that which is

[1:31:42] depicted in slide number nine,

[1:31:45] correct. Commissioner Martinez

[1:31:46] through the chair. That's

[1:31:48] correct. It's an enclosed air

[1:31:50] condition or climate controlled

[1:31:52] arena. Okay. Okay. So this is

[1:31:57] going to be utilized for.

[1:31:59] Equestrian. Well, it's an

[1:32:01] equestrian arena. And I guess

[1:32:04] that's a very capitalized and

[1:32:05] small scale special events.

[1:32:07] What, what events are we

[1:32:07] talking about in these small

[1:32:09] scale special events and what

[1:32:11] are the restrictions? What

[1:32:13] defines a special small special

[1:32:14] event? The number of people,

[1:32:16] what kind of events you can

[1:32:20] have. Commissioner Martinez

[1:32:22] through the Chair Yes, that's

[1:32:25] correct. The the small scale

[1:32:26] special events are defined by

[1:32:29] the number of attendees, the

[1:32:30] the number of events that can

[1:32:33] occur per year. In this case,

[1:32:35] the applicant proposes a number

[1:32:37] of attendees that exceed what

[1:32:38] is allowed with the zoning and

[1:32:41] clearance, so that the code

[1:32:42] requires a minor conditional

[1:32:44] use permit, which is approved

[1:32:45] by the Planning Commission.

[1:32:47] Okay. And that's why I'm asking

[1:32:48] is what kind of numbers are we

[1:32:49] talking about here? And the

[1:32:51] number of people is it a small

[1:32:53] event is less than 100 or less

[1:32:59] than 200. What? Commissioner

[1:33:01] Martinez, I'm going to read

[1:33:06] here. Let's see. No more than

[1:33:07] 12 small scale special events

[1:33:09] will be held per year. Each

[1:33:11] event will have a maximum of

[1:33:14] 150. Okay, 150. And a small

[1:33:15] scale event can be anything

[1:33:18] from a concert to a wedding

[1:33:21] dinner, dinner, reception,

[1:33:23] parties. It can be equestrian

[1:33:25] related. Yeah, the a e o kind

[1:33:28] of lists some examples of types

[1:33:29] of events they can have. Okay.

[1:33:31] And I imagine the fire code is

[1:33:33] going to be very applicable to

[1:33:35] the kind of events you can have.

[1:33:37] Absolutely. Yeah. They and fire

[1:33:38] department thoroughly reviews

[1:33:39] this because they want to make

[1:33:41] sure people congregating in any

[1:33:43] space, the structures are going

[1:33:44] to meet fire code requirements

[1:33:47] and how and with that kind of

[1:33:49] number of people, how, how many

[1:33:52] parkings is is planned for,

[1:33:56] then is it 1.5 again, like we

[1:33:57] used in the residential rooms

[1:34:08] and. Commissioner Martinez

[1:34:09] through the chair, I might need

[1:34:11] to look up that exact number. I

[1:34:14] believe it was something like

[1:34:16] 1.5. I think the number we

[1:34:18] arrived at was 69 spaces. Okay.

[1:34:20] That would be required for this

[1:34:21] number of people, right. And

[1:34:23] it's within that defined orange

[1:34:25] area as you indicated

[1:34:27] previously. That is correct.

[1:34:35] Okay. Thank you. I have a

[1:34:37] question. Okay. Commissioner

[1:34:42] mayor Connor. A clarification,

[1:34:43] if you would, about the small

[1:34:45] scale special events. So we're

[1:34:48] talking about the space inside

[1:34:49] the new building. And we're

[1:34:52] also talking about events

[1:34:56] outside the new building. Am I

[1:34:58] correct, Commissioner Connor

[1:34:59] through the Chair Yes, that's

[1:35:02] correct. We we had looked

[1:35:03] originally at just the outdoor

[1:35:05] area, but in more recent

[1:35:07] developments and talking with

[1:35:09] the applicant and the agent,

[1:35:11] they expressed a desire to be

[1:35:13] able to hold events inside the

[1:35:18] arena as well. The condition in

[1:35:22] attachment b two says there

[1:35:29] will be. Events, no more than

[1:35:31] 150 people, no more than 12

[1:35:37] small scale per year. The

[1:35:39] change in the condition that

[1:35:41] you put on the screen earlier

[1:35:44] in the hearing seemed to change

[1:35:46] that language. So if you could

[1:35:48] put that back up on the screen

[1:35:50] so that we could see it, it

[1:35:56] would be helpful. Commissioner.

[1:35:58] Mayor Connor, I want to clarify

[1:36:00] that the change is only to the

[1:36:02] limit to the number of events

[1:36:04] that can happen in the arena

[1:36:06] area, in the enclosed arena. So

[1:36:08] previously, the project

[1:36:10] applicant was limiting the

[1:36:11] number of events in the arena

[1:36:14] to 1 to 2 per year. Since the

[1:36:15] staff report was docketed, they

[1:36:17] would like to be able to have

[1:36:19] more than potentially 1 to 2

[1:36:21] per year in the arena, still

[1:36:23] contained within the total of

[1:36:24] 12 per year. So there's no

[1:36:26] change to the total number of

[1:36:28] events that are being requested.

[1:36:29] And that's within the arena.

[1:36:31] How about outside? Is the same

[1:36:33] limitation apply outside?

[1:36:34] That's correct. The same limit

[1:36:36] applies for the entire property.

[1:36:38] The entire premise. Okay, that

[1:36:42] clarifies it. Thank you.

[1:36:45] Commissioner Park. Just so

[1:36:48] we're really, really clear, if

[1:36:50] you're confused about this,

[1:36:52] blame me because at the site

[1:36:55] visit, I, I, you can blame me

[1:36:57] anyway, but I, I asked MR.

[1:37:00] Jones, where did the limit of

[1:37:02] two in the arena which was

[1:37:05] originally in this and ten

[1:37:07] outdoors come from. And he

[1:37:09] wasn't sure. And when I asked

[1:37:10] MR. Connor the same thing, he

[1:37:13] wasn't sure either. So we

[1:37:14] thought, well, you know,

[1:37:16] somehow it landed there and and

[1:37:20] I suggested, let's take that

[1:37:22] out and let's make it flexible.

[1:37:24] For example, somebody might

[1:37:28] schedule a big birthday party

[1:37:31] outdoors in APRIL, but

[1:37:33] sometimes we get rain in APRIL.

[1:37:35] And so they MAY want to move it

[1:37:37] into the arena. And so why

[1:37:39] limit the arena to only twice a

[1:37:42] year? Let it be for all 12, or

[1:37:43] maybe none of the 12, but let

[1:37:45] them have that flexibility. It

[1:37:47] doesn't affect the neighbors.

[1:37:49] It the a e o says nothing about

[1:37:51] it. There's no reason for us to

[1:37:54] stick it in there. So let me

[1:37:56] move on to my question, and you

[1:37:58] MAY have answered it when you

[1:37:59] answered. MR. I mean, yeah, MR.

[1:38:01] Martinez, question, but but I'm

[1:38:03] not sure I heard it right. What

[1:38:08] I want to know is. How many

[1:38:09] events and how many people for

[1:38:11] a small scale event would be

[1:38:13] allowed if there was just a

[1:38:15] zoning clearance. So whenever I

[1:38:17] have a conditional use permit

[1:38:19] matter, I want to compare what

[1:38:20] we can allow with our

[1:38:21] discretion with what you would

[1:38:26] be allowed to do anyway.

[1:38:28] Commissioner, Commissioner,

[1:38:29] Park through the chair. That's

[1:38:30] a good question. And I have the

[1:38:32] regs in front of me because

[1:38:34] it's hard to remember. So the

[1:38:37] way that the eu reads is on a

[1:38:40] premise of 40 acres to 320

[1:38:42] acres, which is the category

[1:38:45] that this premise is in, they

[1:38:47] would not be able to exceed 50

[1:38:48] attendees at a special event

[1:38:49] with a zoning clearance. So

[1:38:51] that's a ministerial permit

[1:38:54] path. And that's why this minor

[1:38:56] this project requires a minor

[1:38:57] cup because they're requesting

[1:39:00] more than 50 per event. So it's

[1:39:02] 50. And and that would be how

[1:39:05] many events if under a cc that

[1:39:06] would still be 12 events per

[1:39:08] year. Okay. And four days for

[1:39:11] event days per month. So, so

[1:39:13] really when we look at this

[1:39:16] overall, the that the only real

[1:39:19] change is number of people at

[1:39:22] these 12 events, right. And I

[1:39:23] can also, since I have the

[1:39:25] regulations in front of me, I

[1:39:26] know that there were some

[1:39:27] questions about the types of

[1:39:29] events. So the eo also lists

[1:39:30] farm to table dinners, cooking

[1:39:32] classes, weddings, parties,

[1:39:34] writing or yoga workshops, and

[1:39:39] similar gatherings. And I

[1:39:40] wanted to also clarify I love

[1:39:41] that word. Similar how the

[1:39:44] lawyers can just play an

[1:39:46] accordion. They're good

[1:39:47] questions. And this is the

[1:39:49] first project before your

[1:39:51] commission. So it's good that

[1:39:52] we're that you're asking these

[1:39:53] questions. I also wanted to

[1:39:55] clarify that the eo doesn't

[1:39:56] specifically have a parking

[1:39:57] requirement for small scale

[1:39:58] special events. The requirement

[1:39:59] is that there's sufficient

[1:40:01] parking on site, and the

[1:40:06] project is proposing 69 spaces.

[1:40:08] Well, I have a follow up on

[1:40:09] that. But realistically, they

[1:40:12] could charge they could park 3

[1:40:14] or 400 on the property. I mean,

[1:40:15] it's if if not more, given the

[1:40:18] size of it and the layout.

[1:40:19] Correct. I think with the on

[1:40:21] site roads that they have, they

[1:40:23] do have quite a bit of parking

[1:40:24] area. Yeah, not an issue.

[1:40:29] Thanks. Okay. Commissioner Ford.

[1:40:32] Oh, sorry. No problem. Any

[1:40:33] other questions or comments

[1:40:39] from the commissioners? Okay,

[1:40:41] then we will go to the

[1:40:51] applicant or or. Yes. Okay. MR.

[1:40:52] Jones, could you please go

[1:40:54] ahead and share with us? Good

[1:40:57] morning. Again. I was remiss in

[1:40:59] my first item in not thanking

[1:41:00] staff. So I'd like to publicly

[1:41:02] do that and thank Tatiana, Gwen

[1:41:04] and Travis for their support of

[1:41:07] that project. And same, I would

[1:41:09] like to thank Steve and Gwen

[1:41:10] and Travis for their support of

[1:41:13] this project. I don't have a

[1:41:15] presentation again here to

[1:41:17] answer any questions. We

[1:41:19] understand the conditions of

[1:41:22] approval and look forward to

[1:41:24] your comments and questions and

[1:41:26] trying to answer those for you

[1:41:29] this morning. Thank you.

[1:41:31] Commissioner Park. Yes, MR.

[1:41:35] Jones, I'd like to ask you

[1:41:39] about other arenas of this size

[1:41:40] in the Valley. I think I know

[1:41:42] how many there are, but maybe

[1:41:44] I'm off. But I think it's

[1:41:45] important to illustrate to the

[1:41:48] other commissioners that even

[1:41:50] though this seems like a large

[1:41:51] number of square footage, this

[1:41:53] is what happens when you have

[1:41:56] these covered arenas through

[1:41:59] the chair. Commissioner Park,

[1:42:01] I'm not a horse guy, but yes, I

[1:42:03] have done three arenas in the

[1:42:06] valley. All three have been at

[1:42:08] the same size. This 45,000ft!S,

[1:42:10] which which you know,

[1:42:12] admittedly is large, is a 50

[1:42:15] acre parcel. So I think that is

[1:42:17] kind of standard practice for

[1:42:19] horse operations to be able to

[1:42:21] do the training required within

[1:42:26] such a in side. So. Well, I

[1:42:28] thought of several. And then

[1:42:29] every once in a while I'll look

[1:42:31] at Google Earth of the area.

[1:42:32] And I'm always finding

[1:42:33] something else that's hidden in

[1:42:35] the trees or whatever else. So

[1:42:37] it's, it's, it's the point is,

[1:42:39] it's not an uncommon thing for

[1:42:41] this or this kind of thing.

[1:42:43] It's this, these arenas are two

[1:42:44] dimensions that are useful in

[1:42:46] the horse world for dressage

[1:42:48] and other things. And they're

[1:42:51] not as big as polo fields, but

[1:42:53] it's sort of a standard size if

[1:42:56] you're going to cover an arena.

[1:43:02] Thanks. Any questions? No

[1:43:06] questions. Thank you, thank you.

[1:43:07] At this point, we'd like to

[1:43:13] open it up to public comment.

[1:43:14] Anybody in the room? Care to

[1:43:18] share? MR. Villalobos? Any

[1:43:20] online? No. Hands raised online.

[1:43:23] Okay, then I'm going to close

[1:43:29] public comment session.

[1:43:31] Deliberation. We'll go to

[1:43:38] deliberation. Commissioner Park,

[1:43:39] you know, of course I want to

[1:43:40] hear from the other

[1:43:42] commissioners, but I'm prepared

[1:43:43] to make a motion to approve

[1:43:51] this. Big picture. If we

[1:43:52] designed the project in a

[1:43:56] property to fit what the o is

[1:43:58] all about, it'd be hard to come

[1:44:00] up with a better one than this.

[1:44:04] Okay, it's properties well

[1:44:06] served by a large driveway, but

[1:44:08] it's it's entirely an interior

[1:44:10] parcel. It's not really

[1:44:12] fronting any roads. Hardly

[1:44:14] anyone would ever notice

[1:44:17] anything happening here. That

[1:44:20] arena will absorb far more than

[1:44:24] 150 people. And there's just

[1:44:28] really no reason to to deny

[1:44:31] this project. It's well

[1:44:33] designed. It's very modest in

[1:44:35] terms of what their ask is

[1:44:39] under the q p, so I'm ready to

[1:44:42] support it and make the motion.

[1:44:45] Commissioner Ford, thanks. I'm

[1:44:48] so glad to know about

[1:44:49] Commissioner Park's support. I

[1:44:52] know nothing about equestrian

[1:44:54] arenas. Well, I knew nothing

[1:44:56] until I read this really

[1:44:58] comprehensive report. And I

[1:45:00] just want to say thank you

[1:45:02] because it I think you

[1:45:03] addressed every particular

[1:45:05] question that was asked, and I

[1:45:08] learned a lot. So between

[1:45:10] Commissioner Park and this

[1:45:11] presentation, I can certainly

[1:45:15] support this. Okay.

[1:45:17] Commissioner Mayor Connor and I

[1:45:19] concur with my colleagues who

[1:45:21] have just spoken. The staff

[1:45:23] report was very comprehensive

[1:45:26] and helpful. The site visit, I

[1:45:28] thought was terrific. It gives

[1:45:30] you a sense of the scale of the

[1:45:33] property and its location. As

[1:45:35] Commissioner Park pointed out.

[1:45:39] And this to me is an easy yes.

[1:45:41] Okay. Commissioner Martinez,

[1:45:43] yes, I would I would completely

[1:45:44] agree with my fellow

[1:45:46] commissioners and especially

[1:45:49] just reminiscing as to how this

[1:45:51] came to be. This is the kind of

[1:45:52] project that was envisioned

[1:45:54] from, at least from the get go

[1:45:58] for me. Whole new industry out

[1:46:00] there could be a whole new

[1:46:01] industry. And you see it out in

[1:46:04] Arroyo Grande and so forth. And

[1:46:05] this is what we're asking for,

[1:46:07] and this is what's being

[1:46:08] delivered. So I'd be in support

[1:46:11] of it. Okay. And my comment

[1:46:14] would be that this, after

[1:46:15] reading the report and then

[1:46:19] doing the site, visit the site

[1:46:21] is a perfect location for this

[1:46:24] type of arena. It makes sense

[1:46:26] when you look at all of the

[1:46:27] structures around it, and you

[1:46:29] look at the, the property lines

[1:46:31] and the easements around it, it

[1:46:33] totally makes sense. So this is

[1:46:34] also a project very easy for me

[1:46:36] to support. So at this point

[1:46:40] I'm going to ask for a motion.

[1:46:42] Commissioner Park. Yes, I'm

[1:46:44] going to move that we approve

[1:46:46] the matter and take the

[1:46:47] recommended actions that are on

[1:46:49] slide 14 of the presentation

[1:46:51] and are also in the staff

[1:46:52] report. And that includes

[1:46:53] making the required findings

[1:46:55] for approval of the project,

[1:46:57] adopting the mitigated negative

[1:47:01] declaration, and approving the

[1:47:04] project, including the minor

[1:47:06] change that was made today to

[1:47:09] the project description. Thank

[1:47:10] you, Commissioner Park,

[1:47:12] Commissioner Ford, thank you.

[1:47:17] Second, all in favor? Aye, aye.

[1:47:26] None opposed. Motion carries.

[1:47:28] Now musical chairs again. So

[1:47:30] we're going to just take a

[1:47:31] moment here for us to get

[1:47:33] regrouped for the next item on

[1:47:39] the agenda. This is this is

[1:47:43] going off faster than I thought.

[1:47:45] I wasn't expecting three. Easy

[1:47:48] one. Oh yeah. Exactly. This is

[1:47:51] the one that's going to I'm

[1:47:54] actually I haven't been privy.

[1:48:02] It gives everybody opportunity.

[1:48:05] I think. Yes sir. Okay. We have

[1:48:09] a couple of letters we have to

[1:48:10] bring up in the record because

[1:48:13] they were. Yes. So if we could

[1:48:15] just address that before we go

[1:48:18] to. Any time between the

[1:48:20] beginning of the war, before we

[1:48:24] go right now, and should we do

[1:48:26] it at the beginning of the item?

[1:48:28] We can't if you want. It helps

[1:48:29] me to understand because they

[1:48:31] came in like three large groups

[1:48:33] from you. Yeah. And the third

[1:48:35] one, it was like, yeah. So and

[1:48:37] there was a long one. And the

[1:48:41] third one. Yeah. Okay. Okay,

[1:48:45] one of them, but I understand

[1:48:51] it's your area. Oh, we didn't

[1:48:57] have 20, but I agree. MR.

[1:48:58] Villalobos, I'm going to ask

[1:49:03] that before we ask the staff to

[1:49:06] prepare their presentation. If

[1:49:08] you could read it, share with

[1:49:10] us about letters that have come

[1:49:13] in past the our time. I'm happy.

[1:49:15] Yeah. Oh thank you. Call the

[1:49:16] thank you. Yes, I'm happy to.

[1:49:18] Let me just read the item into

[1:49:19] the record first. Thank you.

[1:49:21] Okay, great. Thank you. There's

[1:49:24] another one again. The

[1:49:25] following is a hearing on the

[1:49:27] request of apc towers applicant

[1:49:30] to consider case number 25cp23

[1:49:32] and to determine the project is

[1:49:33] exempt from sequel pursuant to

[1:49:34] state secret guidelines,

[1:49:40] section one five, 303 and 15304.

[1:49:44] And to address your request. So

[1:49:47] the deadline for submittal of

[1:49:49] comment letters for the

[1:49:50] Commission. Today's hearing was

[1:49:52] Monday at noon for items longer

[1:49:54] or longer than a page in length.

[1:49:57] And we do have two items that

[1:50:00] came in a little bit late. So

[1:50:01] the Planning Commission can

[1:50:02] vote to include those into the

[1:50:05] record, but it requires a 4/5

[1:50:07] vote. I'll just read the who

[1:50:11] they're from. So and I

[1:50:12] apologize in advance if I

[1:50:14] mispronounce anyone's name. So

[1:50:19] the first is an email from Pam

[1:50:22] Kadlubek, and it was an email

[1:50:25] followed by a series of photos.

[1:50:29] And the second. And so that was

[1:50:30] dated Monday at 4:17 P.M. And

[1:50:32] there was one that came in, I

[1:50:34] think was emailed overnight on

[1:50:36] Monday. So it was received on

[1:50:39] Tuesday. Long letter, seven

[1:50:42] pages from Samantha Flynn. And

[1:50:46] this one. So the one that was

[1:50:47] on the dais this morning is

[1:50:49] less is a page in length. So it

[1:50:51] does not meet. It's not trigger

[1:50:55] that requirement I gotcha. So I

[1:50:58] think what for for these to be

[1:51:00] included we would need a motion

[1:51:02] to include them a second. And

[1:51:03] then for the five commissioners

[1:51:05] to vote yes. Okay. I'm going to

[1:51:06] look to Commissioner Park to

[1:51:08] begin us here. Since it's in

[1:51:12] his district. I'm going to go

[1:51:13] out of character here because I

[1:51:16] always oppose these requests,

[1:51:18] but because they irritate me,

[1:51:20] because I don't like reading

[1:51:22] something that's long at the

[1:51:25] very last minute. On the other

[1:51:29] hand, I've looked at these and

[1:51:30] I think we should put them in

[1:51:32] the record. I'll tell you why,

[1:51:35] and I will move to do that one.

[1:51:39] The first one from Pam, you

[1:51:40] mispronounce the name so I

[1:51:44] won't. It's it's short. It just

[1:51:47] has some photos. And the photos

[1:51:49] are are helpful to us. They are

[1:51:50] photos that we don't have that

[1:51:53] kind of a photo. The second

[1:51:57] letter from Samantha Flynn is

[1:52:01] long, but it's it's very well

[1:52:03] written. And what I appreciate

[1:52:06] about it is it's not just a

[1:52:09] kind of a repetitious litany of

[1:52:11] complaints. It's, it's actually

[1:52:12] very constructive letter

[1:52:14] because it says, okay, here's

[1:52:16] what I recommend you do. And

[1:52:17] this is what you should do to

[1:52:19] properly investigate this. And

[1:52:21] I think that that's

[1:52:23] instructional for planning

[1:52:24] commission. You MAY not agree

[1:52:25] with it, but it's, it's

[1:52:26] worthwhile having it there. And

[1:52:28] I think it's appropriate that

[1:52:32] it be in the record. So I would

[1:52:34] move to admit both of those

[1:52:37] into the record. Commissioner

[1:52:41] Ford, I'll second that. Okay.

[1:52:47] All in favor? I didn't ask for

[1:52:48] deliberation. So Commissioner

[1:52:52] o'Connor. So I tend to agree

[1:52:54] with my colleagues on this

[1:52:58] issue with one caveat. And that

[1:52:59] is I would ask the question as

[1:53:01] to whether or not the late

[1:53:04] arrival of the letter made it

[1:53:07] difficult or impossible for the

[1:53:09] applicant or the staff to

[1:53:12] respond to the letter at this

[1:53:14] hearing. If the receipt of the

[1:53:17] late letter causes either the

[1:53:18] applicant or the staff to ask

[1:53:20] for more time to be able to

[1:53:22] deal with the issues raised in

[1:53:24] the letter, then that lateness

[1:53:28] has had a practical effect. And

[1:53:29] so I would ask, before we vote

[1:53:31] on whether to accept these

[1:53:33] letters or not, that we hear

[1:53:34] the staff recommendation, ask

[1:53:37] the staff the question, not

[1:53:39] just the staff recommendation,

[1:53:41] but the staff report, and we

[1:53:43] hear from the applicant as well

[1:53:46] and ask the question, has this

[1:53:48] letter, which I agree is, is is

[1:53:50] long, comprehensive and and

[1:53:53] well written? Does it cause you

[1:53:56] to need more time to respond to

[1:53:58] the letter? Let's ask that

[1:54:00] question before we decide

[1:54:02] whether or not to accept it. I

[1:54:04] know that's a little cumbersome,

[1:54:08] but I think the process that we

[1:54:10] follow in deliberating on these

[1:54:13] matters has consequences. And

[1:54:15] we should, if we can make

[1:54:17] decisions when we're called on

[1:54:19] to make decisions and the

[1:54:21] information is before us. And

[1:54:23] let's let's see if we can do

[1:54:24] that. So that's that's my

[1:54:26] personal preference is to hold

[1:54:28] off on voting on this motion

[1:54:32] until after we've had the staff

[1:54:35] and the staff report and the

[1:54:37] applicant's presentation. Okay.

[1:54:38] Thank you, Commissioner. Mayor

[1:54:39] Connor, I'm going to ask

[1:54:42] Commissioner Ford. I disagree

[1:54:44] because I think once you you

[1:54:47] know, you're asking for staff

[1:54:50] response to it and input, then

[1:54:52] you've accepted it. And so I

[1:54:53] think it's still a matter of

[1:54:55] whether this commission accepts

[1:54:57] those two letters. I'm actually

[1:54:59] not suggesting. Oh, MAY I

[1:55:01] respond? Yes you MAY. I'm not

[1:55:03] suggesting that the staff

[1:55:04] respond to the letter. I'm just

[1:55:07] asking whether the staff needs

[1:55:09] additional time to respond to

[1:55:11] the letter. That's the question

[1:55:13] I would like to ask both the

[1:55:15] staff and the applicant to see

[1:55:17] if we're going to be ready to

[1:55:20] move ahead with the decision

[1:55:22] today. Well, it could be

[1:55:23] semantics, but I think that

[1:55:25] once you involve the staff,

[1:55:28] we've accepted it. But I'll

[1:55:32] leave that up to other people.

[1:55:38] Yeah, I've seconded the motion.

[1:55:40] I believe we need to go to a

[1:55:41] roll call vote. I would say

[1:55:43] this I completely agree with

[1:55:44] the commissioner here in

[1:55:46] regards to just the process

[1:55:48] that we're here. If I'm the

[1:55:49] applicant and we're considering

[1:55:51] something that I have not had

[1:55:52] the time to consider and be

[1:55:55] prepared to address it, I think

[1:55:58] out of ultimate fairness and

[1:56:00] consideration to the applicant,

[1:56:02] and that they should have the

[1:56:03] opportunity to say, well, I've

[1:56:05] read it. I've never I didn't

[1:56:06] see it before today. I don't

[1:56:09] even know if they even have it,

[1:56:10] to tell you the truth. So if

[1:56:12] that's going to be part of

[1:56:14] their thing, where they're

[1:56:16] going to be held to answer to

[1:56:18] it, where we're considering it

[1:56:20] and asking them questions,

[1:56:22] maybe based upon this letter,

[1:56:24] these photos, I think they

[1:56:26] should be provided that

[1:56:28] opportunity to review it and

[1:56:30] provide it to us, because I

[1:56:32] wouldn't want to show up to

[1:56:34] anything. Well, it's like

[1:56:35] showing up to a it's like

[1:56:37] showing up to a trial and, and

[1:56:39] not knowing what the witness is

[1:56:41] going to say in response.

[1:56:42] That's why we take depositions

[1:56:44] before. So that's my only

[1:56:45] analogous to it. I understand

[1:56:47] the the request for it. I don't

[1:56:49] necessarily dispute it, but I

[1:56:50] think we should hear from the

[1:56:52] applicant and from staff of

[1:56:53] whether it's something that is

[1:56:55] going to be considered and even

[1:56:56] addressed in this matter. I

[1:56:57] have a question. I'm wondering

[1:56:59] if a precedent has been set in

[1:57:02] the past as far as how we deal

[1:57:04] with these letters that come in

[1:57:06] afterward, because if we open

[1:57:08] this up to staff and the

[1:57:10] rebuttal and so forth, are we

[1:57:12] setting a new protocol where we

[1:57:15] might already have a protocol

[1:57:18] in place? MAY I speak to that?

[1:57:22] Yes, please. Commissioner Park.

[1:57:23] I think it's totally

[1:57:25] appropriate to ask the question

[1:57:27] that MR. Amerikaner and MR.

[1:57:30] Martinez are asking. I asked

[1:57:33] the same question when I read

[1:57:35] this letter yesterday. So

[1:57:37] everybody's had a chance to see

[1:57:39] it, but I, I because I normally

[1:57:41] don't support this kind of

[1:57:43] thing, but I made the decision

[1:57:46] to support it. And the question

[1:57:48] I asked was, and it's one that

[1:57:50] we see as lawyers all the time,

[1:57:51] is there a surprise with a

[1:57:53] massive amount of new

[1:57:55] information that can't be

[1:57:58] digested? Okay. Oddly, that

[1:57:59] often comes up when the

[1:58:01] applicant generally brings in a

[1:58:03] lot of new information and

[1:58:05] somebody who's challenging it

[1:58:07] says, well, wait, I've had no

[1:58:09] opportunity to see this, and

[1:58:11] sometimes I'll ask for a

[1:58:13] continuance. But as a practical

[1:58:15] matter, I kind of internalize

[1:58:17] the question that they're

[1:58:19] asking, but that it's still an

[1:58:22] appropriate question. And if

[1:58:23] they'd like to hear an answer

[1:58:25] to it, I think we should,

[1:58:27] especially since as a practical

[1:58:29] matter, this takes four votes

[1:58:30] to pass. So if either of the

[1:58:32] other two commissioners that

[1:58:34] have brought this up decides I

[1:58:36] haven't been satisfied, the

[1:58:38] motion is going to fail anyway.

[1:58:39] So I think it won't take very

[1:58:41] much effort to answer the

[1:58:43] questions that MR. Amerikaner

[1:58:45] has, whether it fits, protocols

[1:58:47] or not. It's we're kind of

[1:58:49] loose here. We do what? What

[1:58:52] works. Okay. That helps. Let me

[1:58:54] ask the other commissioners.

[1:58:55] Are there any objections other

[1:58:57] than what Commissioner Ford has

[1:59:03] already stated? I'm sorry,

[1:59:05] what's the question? Are there

[1:59:07] any other objections to asking

[1:59:10] your question of staff? Got it.

[1:59:14] Now I understand. Okay. I am

[1:59:16] going to go with the majority

[1:59:20] in this case and ask

[1:59:21] Commissioner Amerikaner, if you

[1:59:23] don't mind me asking your

[1:59:25] question to the staff Chair and

[1:59:27] Commissioners, if I can just

[1:59:28] interrupt. Yes, please. So I

[1:59:30] have received information from

[1:59:32] both the applicant and staff.

[1:59:34] They haven't reviewed the

[1:59:37] letter. They haven't reviewed

[1:59:39] the letter. Okay. Well, in that

[1:59:41] case, I think we can very

[1:59:42] easily do a roll call vote. And

[1:59:44] I think we know where this is

[1:59:46] going to go. MAY I make a

[1:59:47] suggestion, chair? Yes, please.

[1:59:49] I think the question is, is

[1:59:50] whether even if they how do I

[1:59:52] put this? Are we are we to

[1:59:53] allow them the opportunity to

[1:59:54] review it and say, hey, I need

[1:59:57] some time to review this thing?

[1:59:59] And then it does have an impact

[2:00:01] because then in a way, we are

[2:00:03] kind of putting the cart before

[2:00:04] the horse, in a sense, is what

[2:00:06] it's coming down to. So if we

[2:00:08] accept the letter, then are we

[2:00:10] saying let's accept, if we

[2:00:13] accept the motion, then the

[2:00:14] letter goes in front of the

[2:00:16] staff and the applicant, and

[2:00:18] then they have the opportunity

[2:00:19] to say, we need more time to

[2:00:21] address it. We need to come

[2:00:22] back and address the questions

[2:00:24] within it. Are we doing it that

[2:00:26] way or are we doing it the way

[2:00:28] we're we're going to have them

[2:00:29] look at this, which is really

[2:00:31] considering it. MR. Chair, it's

[2:00:34] my motion. I'd like to table

[2:00:36] the motion to accept the letter

[2:00:38] until we have proceeded with

[2:00:40] the hearing, because it it MAY

[2:00:42] very well be moot. And I don't

[2:00:44] want to spend a lot of time and

[2:00:46] create a little conflict about

[2:00:47] it, when it MAY be moot anyway.

[2:00:49] In fact, I predict it will be.

[2:00:52] So. Okay, let's just table it.

[2:00:54] Any objections to tabling it?

[2:00:56] No. No objection. Okay. In this

[2:00:58] case, we're going to table that.

[2:01:01] And before we go on to the

[2:01:02] presentation, I do want to ask

[2:01:04] if there's any ex parte

[2:01:07] communication or site visits

[2:01:13] from the commissioners. I can't

[2:01:15] recall any ex party

[2:01:19] communications. I made an

[2:01:21] extensive site visit this

[2:01:23] morning. I got up really early

[2:01:25] and drove all around the

[2:01:26] neighborhood and made some

[2:01:28] circles and. And then I had the

[2:01:29] opportunity to do it all over

[2:01:31] again, driving back from Santa

[2:01:32] Maria. So I'm reporting all

[2:01:38] that. Okay, I, I'd also like to

[2:01:40] share that when I saw this item

[2:01:43] on the agenda, I asked for

[2:01:47] permission to view the site. By

[2:01:49] the time I had received

[2:01:50] permission to review the site,

[2:01:52] I had. I had already been there.

[2:01:55] So I have seen the site. I have

[2:01:57] driven around the streets and

[2:01:59] I've drove into the driveway.

[2:02:01] But I did not get out of my car

[2:02:03] because I didn't have

[2:02:05] permission. So I didn't go very

[2:02:08] far into the property. So I've

[2:02:11] seen a bit, but it's solely on

[2:02:14] my own. Okay. And no other

[2:02:18] comments. So now we'll go ahead

[2:02:20] and open it up to the staff

[2:02:23] presentation. Good morning

[2:02:26] commissioners. My name is

[2:02:30] Francisco Vargas, County

[2:02:33] Planner. I will be providing a

[2:02:36] grant overview of the proposed

[2:02:39] t mobile tier for a telecom

[2:02:41] project. Case number 25qp-00023.

[2:02:43] This project is a request for a

[2:02:45] conditional use permit. The

[2:02:48] project includes a

[2:02:50] telecommunications facility

[2:02:52] designed as a faux eucalyptus

[2:02:54] that is 6 to 8ft tall in the

[2:02:57] agriculture 110 zone district.

[2:03:00] District. The project site,

[2:03:02] outlined in yellow, is a ten

[2:03:04] acre parcel zoned agriculture

[2:03:07] 110, located off 1626 Calzada

[2:03:09] Avenue, Santa Ynez, within the

[2:03:12] Third Supervisorial District.

[2:03:15] The location of the facility

[2:03:18] within the subject parcel is

[2:03:21] identified with a yellow circle

[2:03:24] on the eastern side of the

[2:03:27] parcel. The general area

[2:03:29] consists of large agricultural

[2:03:32] parcels over five acres and

[2:03:35] some up to 40 acres in size.

[2:03:37] The area is characterized by

[2:03:39] rural, farm, residential and

[2:03:42] agricultural. Equestrian uses.

[2:03:44] The subject parcel is

[2:03:46] relatively flat. Located

[2:03:48] approximately 1400ft west of

[2:03:50] Edison Street and approximately

[2:03:52] 1930ft west of highway 154.

[2:03:54] This slide shows the project

[2:03:56] site in red within the

[2:03:59] agriculture one zoning note.

[2:04:01] All adjacent nearby parcels in

[2:04:04] the general vicinity are zoned

[2:04:06] agriculture as well, with some

[2:04:10] single family residential shown

[2:04:12] in yellow. Located

[2:04:15] approximately 700ft southwest

[2:04:17] of the proposed facility area.

[2:04:19] This is the overall site plan

[2:04:22] which shows the location of the

[2:04:24] facility within the project

[2:04:27] site. Note the facility is

[2:04:29] proposed away from the nearest

[2:04:32] road on the east side of the

[2:04:35] ten acre parcel. The tower

[2:04:37] itself is proposed to be

[2:04:40] approximately 1221ft east of

[2:04:42] Calzada Avenue, and the

[2:04:44] perimeter fenced area would be

[2:04:46] approximately 1205ft east of

[2:04:48] Calzada Avenue. The site

[2:04:50] contains existing overhead

[2:04:52] power lines, which run east or

[2:04:54] west to east along the northern

[2:04:56] property line and terminate

[2:05:00] near the center of the site, as

[2:05:03] shown in the dashed orange line

[2:05:04] at the top. The proposed. The

[2:05:07] project proposes to tie into

[2:05:10] the existing utility utility

[2:05:13] pole infrastructure by routing

[2:05:16] new underground lines from the

[2:05:18] proposed facility area to the

[2:05:21] existing lines, one new utility

[2:05:24] pole will be required to be

[2:05:26] installed on site. The location

[2:05:28] of that pole will be noted on

[2:05:30] the next slide. So this is a

[2:05:32] close up of the lease area. It

[2:05:35] also shows other components of

[2:05:38] the proposed facility,

[2:05:40] including the eight foot

[2:05:42] perimeter fence, adjacent

[2:05:44] transformer required to be

[2:05:47] enclosed. The new utility line

[2:05:49] configuration location of the

[2:05:50] 37.5ft utility pole, and the

[2:05:52] proposed fire turnaround

[2:05:53] required for emergency access.

[2:05:56] This slide includes the west

[2:05:59] and south elevations. The

[2:06:02] proposed height of the

[2:06:04] telecommunications facility is

[2:06:07] 68ft tall. The height is

[2:06:10] measured from the existing

[2:06:12] grade to the tallest branch.

[2:06:14] The design is that of a

[2:06:17] eucalyptus tree. This design

[2:06:20] addressed input received from

[2:06:22] the Central Board of

[2:06:25] Architectural Review, referred

[2:06:27] to as c bar, and is conditioned

[2:06:30] to return to c bar after

[2:06:32] approval of the cup. The

[2:06:35] fencing proposed includes an

[2:06:38] eight foot tall corrugated

[2:06:41] non-reflective metal fence

[2:06:44] design, as recommended by c bar.

[2:06:48] This is the east elevation of

[2:06:51] both, showing both the telecom

[2:06:55] and the 37.5ft utility pole. To

[2:06:59] give you a better understanding

[2:07:02] of the scale of both structures.

[2:07:06] So the following few slides

[2:07:09] include the photo simulations

[2:07:12] provided by the applicant, so

[2:07:16] you can better understand what

[2:07:20] the facility will look like.

[2:07:23] Once constructed. The left

[2:07:27] image shows the existing view

[2:07:30] without the facility, and the

[2:07:35] right image shows the same view

[2:07:38] and identifies the proposed

[2:07:42] facility with a call out. This

[2:07:45] first elevation shows the

[2:07:47] project site looking southeast

[2:07:50] from Calzada Avenue. The second

[2:07:53] slide compares the view looking

[2:07:56] northwest from Edison Street,

[2:07:58] and this third slide compares

[2:08:01] the view looking southwest from

[2:08:03] highway 154. This is an exhibit

[2:08:06] prepared by the applicant or

[2:08:09] provided by the applicant,

[2:08:13] which compares the existing

[2:08:17] service coverage versus the

[2:08:20] updated coverage. As a result

[2:08:24] of the project, red represents

[2:08:28] poor coverage, yellow

[2:08:31] represents fair coverage and

[2:08:33] green represents good coverage.

[2:08:37] The image to the left shows the

[2:08:40] existing coverage, and the

[2:08:42] image on the right shows the

[2:08:46] new. In other words, proposed

[2:08:49] coverage. The applicant

[2:08:51] prepared. An alternative site

[2:08:54] analysis included with

[2:08:56] attachment f of the staff

[2:08:58] report. The analysis indicated

[2:09:00] over 15 sites in the vicinity

[2:09:03] were considered for the telecom

[2:09:04] site. However, in all cases,

[2:09:06] either the property owners were

[2:09:09] not interested or it was

[2:09:11] determined that the location

[2:09:13] did not fully meet the needs to

[2:09:16] address the gap in coverage.

[2:09:19] The project will meet all

[2:09:21] applicable development

[2:09:23] standards, comprehensive plan

[2:09:26] and federal requirements. For

[2:09:29] example, the project meets the

[2:09:32] required setbacks, the height

[2:09:34] limitation of 100ft since it is

[2:09:37] a 68 foot tower, and also

[2:09:39] incorporates design

[2:09:42] recommendations provided by c

[2:09:45] bar. Last fall of 2025. It also

[2:09:48] includes other The

[2:09:50] recommendations, such as the

[2:09:52] corrugated fencing and natural

[2:09:55] colors for the branches and

[2:09:58] leaves. The applicant also

[2:10:00] provided an electro magnetic

[2:10:03] energy compliance report,

[2:10:05] otherwise referred to as an rf

[2:10:08] report, and was prepared by a

[2:10:11] third party consultant, which

[2:10:13] is also included with

[2:10:15] attachment f of the staff

[2:10:17] report. The report indicates

[2:10:19] the project will comply with

[2:10:21] the relevant federal compliance

[2:10:24] fcc standards and will require

[2:10:27] specific safety signage at the

[2:10:29] perimeter of the lease area.

[2:10:31] Staff determined that the

[2:10:32] project is exempt from Sequa

[2:10:34] pursuant Ceqa exemption 15303,

[2:10:36] which applies to new

[2:10:37] construction or conversion of

[2:10:39] small structures and in this

[2:10:41] case applies to the monopole.

[2:10:42] The ground level equipment

[2:10:44] cabinets and the fencing staff

[2:10:45] also determined that the

[2:10:46] project is exempt from sequa

[2:10:47] pursuant Ceqa exemption 1530

[2:10:49] for minor alterations to land

[2:10:51] and is applicable in this case

[2:10:52] based on the minor minimal

[2:10:54] grading required. With this,

[2:10:55] staff recommends the following

[2:10:56] to the Planning Commission.

[2:10:58] Number one make the required

[2:10:59] findings for approval of the

[2:11:00] project specified in attachment

[2:11:02] a of the staff report,

[2:11:03] including sequel findings.

[2:11:05] Number two determine the

[2:11:06] project is exempt from Sequa to

[2:11:07] exempt from Sequa pursuant to

[2:11:09] state sequel guidelines.

[2:11:10] Section one, five, three, oh

[2:11:13] three and 15304. Number three

[2:11:15] approve the project case number

[2:11:16] 25qp-00023, subject to the

[2:11:18] conditions of approval included

[2:11:19] as attachment b. This concludes

[2:11:21] staff's presentation, and we're

[2:11:23] happy to answer any questions.

[2:11:25] Okay. I believe there are going

[2:11:27] to be quite a few questions,

[2:11:28] but just before we we open with

[2:11:30] the questions I'm going to ask

[2:11:32] that we take a short break. Any

[2:11:34] objections to a short break?

[2:11:36] Okay. Five minute break and

[2:11:38] we'll be right back. Thank you.

[2:22:10] Have you taken care of all the

[2:22:11] business you need to take care

[2:22:16] of? What do you mean, business?

[2:22:18] Okay, we are coming back from

[2:22:20] our break now, and I would like

[2:22:22] to start by opening up for

[2:22:23] questions from the

[2:22:25] commissioners. And so,

[2:22:30] Commissioner Park. Yes. MR.

[2:22:32] Vargas, thank you for your

[2:22:34] staff report. Very complete, as

[2:22:40] always. A few things. One,

[2:22:43] could you go back to I think it

[2:22:46] was slide nine, and it was the

[2:22:53] the coverage map. There you go

[2:22:56] on the on the after. Well,

[2:22:57] actually it's on all of them.

[2:23:00] We see sort of a, a slash

[2:23:03] starting near the lower right

[2:23:06] hand corner, and it goes almost

[2:23:07] right past this. The site is

[2:23:10] that highway 154. Just so we

[2:23:13] can put this map in context,

[2:23:14] Commissioner Park through the

[2:23:17] chair. Correct. That is highway

[2:23:19] 154 on the right hand side and

[2:23:21] in the. If we look at the

[2:23:24] afters, it shows an area area

[2:23:26] in green kind of surrounding

[2:23:28] the the site. And that's where

[2:23:30] there would be good coverage,

[2:23:32] you know, improved coverage.

[2:23:33] That's kind of the point of

[2:23:36] this. Correct. Okay. And it

[2:23:38] shows a lot of land that's on

[2:23:42] the other side, east side of.

[2:23:46] 154 correct? Correct. Okay. And

[2:23:50] in this coverage map, it's.

[2:23:53] It's in the electromagnetic

[2:23:56] report just so that people can

[2:23:58] follow where these maps are.

[2:23:59] That is correct. Part of

[2:24:02] attachment f. Okay, I want to

[2:24:07] ask you about other antennae

[2:24:09] that are located in what's

[2:24:10] often called the heart of the

[2:24:12] valley. And it's not just

[2:24:14] locals that call it that. It's

[2:24:16] in it's in the Valley community

[2:24:18] plan, which is, you know, more

[2:24:19] or less a flat area that's

[2:24:22] bounded by 154 there on the

[2:24:26] east and by 246 on the bottom

[2:24:28] and and to the left, Alamo

[2:24:31] Pintado Road. And it's all

[2:24:34] generally flat, usually ag one

[2:24:35] properties or even residential

[2:24:38] zone properties. They're all ag

[2:24:39] one tens, ag one fives, things

[2:24:43] like that. Are there any other

[2:24:45] antennae of this size in the

[2:24:46] heart of the valley, to your

[2:24:50] knowledge? To my knowledge, I

[2:24:52] don't. I would have to look

[2:24:54] that up honestly. Okay. I, I

[2:24:57] don't recall any, but what I do

[2:25:00] recall hearing and approving

[2:25:02] was one that I thought was at

[2:25:05] least 50ft and it was disguised

[2:25:08] as a water tower as opposed to

[2:25:11] a eucalyptus tree or, or a

[2:25:12] Disneyland ride or whatever,

[2:25:14] you know, it's just that's what

[2:25:16] it was. But does that ring a

[2:25:18] bell with any of you? I guess

[2:25:20] it's so well camouflaged, I

[2:25:21] can't remember where it is

[2:25:26] anymore. Okay. Commissioner

[2:25:28] Park, we're not. We're looking.

[2:25:31] We're not finding it. We did

[2:25:35] see some withdrawn water tower

[2:25:37] cases. We do recall the one in

[2:25:38] Lompoc, but we're not finding

[2:25:40] an exact one in Swat Valley.

[2:25:42] But we'll keep scanning our

[2:25:43] records to see if we can find

[2:25:45] anything. I have some other

[2:25:49] questions. That I'll ask of MR.

[2:25:51] Ambrose. Well, actually, first

[2:25:54] let me ask, is there a separate

[2:25:56] alternative site study here? I

[2:25:58] see language in the in the same

[2:26:00] report we've been referring.

[2:26:01] But is there a separate site

[2:26:03] study? I couldn't find one in

[2:26:07] the record. I'm sorry.

[2:26:08] Commissioner Park through the

[2:26:09] chair. Would you mind repeating

[2:26:12] the question? Is there.

[2:26:14] Sometimes we'll see. Site

[2:26:15] studies be labeled a site study,

[2:26:17] and they'll. And they'll review

[2:26:19] alternative sites and why they

[2:26:21] did this one. And at first I

[2:26:23] couldn't find it because I

[2:26:24] couldn't see anything labeled

[2:26:26] that. But I do see about a page

[2:26:28] of language to that effect that

[2:26:30] I think is in the. I can't

[2:26:31] remember what you call this,

[2:26:32] the irc report or whatever.

[2:26:34] That's correct. It's in the rf

[2:26:35] report, which is attachment f

[2:26:37] to the staff report, and we

[2:26:38] have it prepared. If there's

[2:26:39] any information you want to

[2:26:41] bring up on the screen in that

[2:26:43] report. Okay. And also I'm, I'm

[2:26:45] used to seeing a separate

[2:26:48] coverage maps as exhibits, but

[2:26:51] here we've, we basically got

[2:26:52] that, but it's in that same

[2:26:55] report, right? That's correct.

[2:26:56] Okay. Well, I MAY ask you more

[2:26:58] questions later, but I'm, I'm

[2:26:59] going to try them with MR.

[2:27:00] Ambrose first because I think

[2:27:02] he'll probably know better.

[2:27:04] Thank you. And I been

[2:27:05] researching our permit records

[2:27:08] about your question about other

[2:27:09] telecommunications facilities,

[2:27:12] a full water tank. There was an

[2:27:13] application for a full water

[2:27:15] tank on Robles Avenue. So I

[2:27:17] think that's. That's what

[2:27:18] you're discussing. It's 50ft

[2:27:20] tall. Whatever happened to it?

[2:27:23] I'm looking at I can't remember

[2:27:26] ever having these denied. They

[2:27:28] get fiddled with but rarely

[2:27:31] denied. I'll keep researching

[2:27:33] and it's okay. It's not central

[2:27:36] to this. Thanks. Oh well, there

[2:27:37] is one someone told me last

[2:27:39] night on reservoir gets

[2:27:42] installed. Yeah. There you go.

[2:27:45] I think so too. Okay. Thank you

[2:27:47] for the record because he's not

[2:27:49] on a microphone, so maybe you

[2:27:51] want to repeat it. You need me

[2:27:54] to stand up? No. You know, I

[2:27:55] just repeat that someone from

[2:27:57] the audience has pointed out

[2:27:59] that I have excellent memory.

[2:28:01] And, I mean, that's implied,

[2:28:03] not explicitly stated, and that

[2:28:04] we do, in fact, have an

[2:28:06] installation on Robles Avenue

[2:28:09] of a approximately 50 foot Fo

[2:28:13] water tank. Thanks. Okay. I

[2:28:15] also have a few questions. I'm

[2:28:17] going to ask you to go back to

[2:28:19] slides nine, ten, and 11, if

[2:28:22] you don't mind. And I'm looking

[2:28:24] at the proposed eucalyptus tree

[2:28:28] on the after side of each of

[2:28:38] the slides. So. I'm trying to

[2:28:40] figure out the size of the tree.

[2:28:43] I understand we said 68ft and

[2:28:45] but I don't have a point of

[2:28:47] reference. So I want to ask a

[2:28:50] few questions. In this part of

[2:28:52] the Santa Ynez Valley is the

[2:28:54] maximum height of a building

[2:28:57] 35ft. Is it the same as it is

[2:28:58] for other parts of Santa

[2:29:01] Barbara County? Chairperson Guy.

[2:29:03] So the maximum height for a

[2:29:04] regular building would be 35ft.

[2:29:06] However, for telecoms it is a

[2:29:08] different threshold. Under a

[2:29:10] cup, they are allowed to have

[2:29:11] up to 100 foot tower. Okay.

[2:29:13] Thank you. I'm just trying to

[2:29:16] figure perspective. So so a

[2:29:17] single family house would have

[2:29:21] about a 15ft to 20ft high roof

[2:29:23] and a two story. But but we're

[2:29:24] limited in Santa Barbara County

[2:29:26] at 35ft. Okay, I understand

[2:29:28] that. Then my next my next

[2:29:31] question is the trees around it.

[2:29:33] I'm having a hard time telling

[2:29:35] from the photos what types of

[2:29:36] trees. And I know a eucalyptus

[2:29:39] was accepted, and I think it's

[2:29:43] easiest to tell, perhaps on

[2:29:46] slide ten, again, I'm trying to

[2:29:48] get the perspective because

[2:29:51] looking at slide ten, the tower

[2:29:53] looks tiny, but the trees to

[2:29:55] the right look huge. So if that

[2:29:58] tower is 68ft, I would assume

[2:29:59] that those trees are going to

[2:30:02] be about 250ft tall or, or it's

[2:30:04] about perception. And I'm just

[2:30:07] curious because because of the

[2:30:09] impact to the neighborhood,

[2:30:12] having a sole tree versus a,

[2:30:14] you know, how visible, how

[2:30:16] visible it is. So the question

[2:30:20] then becomes, do we have any

[2:30:25] other 68ft or 100ft poles or

[2:30:27] concealed towers? Not the water

[2:30:30] tower. I'm talking about poles,

[2:30:31] just the pole by itself or the

[2:30:34] concealed pole disguised as a

[2:30:35] tree. Do we have any others

[2:30:38] that are 68ft to 100ft tall in

[2:30:40] the Santa Ynez Valley?

[2:30:42] Chairperson guy. I'm not aware

[2:30:44] of any other facilities in the

[2:30:50] area that that tall. Okay. But

[2:30:52] chair guy, we should. As a

[2:30:54] caveat to that, we're not aware

[2:30:56] of any off the top of our head.

[2:30:57] That doesn't mean there haven't

[2:30:59] been any approved. We just.

[2:31:01] Okay, we would need to really

[2:31:02] dig into. I mean, we have

[2:31:04] dozens and dozens and dozens of

[2:31:06] wireless projects we've

[2:31:07] approved. So it would take some

[2:31:09] work for us to dig up that info.

[2:31:11] Okay. Well, I'm I'm curious

[2:31:13] because of the site location,

[2:31:14] going back to what Commissioner

[2:31:16] Park was saying, the site seems

[2:31:18] to be the site location seems

[2:31:22] to be critical for t mobile

[2:31:23] because of the range. What I'm

[2:31:25] trying to figure out is the

[2:31:29] height of the concealed tower

[2:31:31] versus other concealed towers

[2:31:32] that might be providing

[2:31:34] services in the other areas.

[2:31:35] I'm trying to understand,

[2:31:37] because there's there are some

[2:31:39] concerns about the height and

[2:31:40] there's other concerns as well.

[2:31:42] So I'm just trying to I'm

[2:31:44] trying to understand in my mind,

[2:31:45] do any of the other

[2:31:46] commissioners have any

[2:31:51] questions? I do, thank you. A

[2:31:53] couple of questions. First of

[2:31:58] all, can you explain the

[2:31:59] Commission's authority with

[2:32:06] respect to rf issues? In in

[2:32:10] deciding this, this matter from

[2:32:12] the letters we've received,

[2:32:14] there are community concerns

[2:32:15] about rf issues. And I just

[2:32:17] want to understand the scope of

[2:32:21] the Commission's authority to

[2:32:23] deal with rf factors in making

[2:32:27] our decision. Yeah. Chair Guy

[2:32:29] and Commissioner Amerikaner,

[2:32:31] there is a significant amount

[2:32:34] of preemption when it comes to

[2:32:37] rf emissions for telecom

[2:32:41] facilities. So as long as

[2:32:45] facility complies with the fcc

[2:32:47] requirements pertaining to rf

[2:32:50] emissions, then your board is

[2:32:54] unable to to regulate the

[2:32:57] facility on that factor. Okay,

[2:32:59] that's a clear answer to the

[2:33:00] question. Let me ask a second

[2:33:05] question. And. Branches off, no

[2:33:08] pun intended. The chair's

[2:33:11] question about about other

[2:33:14] towers in the in the valley.

[2:33:19] Are there other trees that are

[2:33:23] 68ft or taller within the. And

[2:33:25] I'll just say the relevant area

[2:33:27] and I. I'll let you all define

[2:33:29] what the relevant area is. But

[2:33:35] are there other trees that. Are

[2:33:37] that tall or taller in the

[2:33:39] valley or in the Central Valley

[2:33:42] to use Commissioner park's

[2:33:45] phrasing, Commissioner Mayor

[2:33:48] Connor, tough question for us.

[2:33:51] I do. We just do not know. Like

[2:33:53] we do not have a survey of

[2:33:54] trees. I don't know if

[2:33:55] Commissioner Park would want to

[2:33:57] weigh in. I, I suspect just

[2:33:58] from visiting that there are

[2:34:02] trees that are that tall, but I

[2:34:04] can't tell you with, you know,

[2:34:05] right here, right now where

[2:34:07] those are or anything like that,

[2:34:09] I just can't it's just

[2:34:11] something we don't have data on.

[2:34:13] I appreciate I see a lot of

[2:34:14] really big trees in the valley.

[2:34:17] Okay. I appreciate your candor,

[2:34:18] Commissioner Park. I can

[2:34:19] address that in detail. I don't

[2:34:21] know if this is the time to do

[2:34:23] it, but I certainly will at

[2:34:25] some point today. Okay. Thank

[2:34:27] you. That's why I did so much

[2:34:29] driving around. Not not why I

[2:34:31] did it the second round of

[2:34:33] inspections, but the first

[2:34:35] round. That's exactly what I

[2:34:37] was looking at. Okay. By

[2:34:39] species, height and location.

[2:34:40] Good. Commissioner Ford, thanks

[2:34:44] a lot. I don't know if I'm

[2:34:46] overstating it, but I think

[2:34:47] maybe almost everyone has a

[2:34:50] concern about the height itself.

[2:34:52] And so I asked my favorite

[2:34:56] friend Chatgpt for some help.

[2:35:00] And to answer your question,

[2:35:03] 68ft pretty much translates

[2:35:05] into six and a half to seven

[2:35:08] stories tall. When I asked the

[2:35:11] question about other trees in

[2:35:17] the area that are 68ft. Chatgpt

[2:35:18] only came up with a few

[2:35:20] examples from the Santa Barbara

[2:35:22] area. Not that part of this

[2:35:26] part of the county. And so

[2:35:27] that's just for information

[2:35:30] sake. But mostly I'm interested

[2:35:32] in really what was done about

[2:35:34] establishing that this had no

[2:35:38] issues or concerns around the

[2:35:40] archeological location of it,

[2:35:42] and the tribal cultural

[2:35:50] resource area. Commissioner,

[2:35:53] Court Commissioner Ford, to the

[2:35:54] Chair We do have a standard

[2:35:55] condition. Whenever there is

[2:35:57] grading, we apply this

[2:36:00] condition in the event that any

[2:36:01] discoveries are made during

[2:36:03] grading, they would have to,

[2:36:04] you know, inform the proper

[2:36:06] agencies for that. So there is

[2:36:08] a condition on there to cover

[2:36:09] that. Do you have any sense for

[2:36:12] whether any other. Developments

[2:36:15] or buildings in the area have

[2:36:17] had concerns or have found

[2:36:22] resources? There are no known

[2:36:26] resources as far as we know.

[2:36:31] Okay. Thanks. Any other

[2:36:32] questions from the

[2:36:39] commissioners? Okay. You ready

[2:36:41] David? MR. Villalobos, are you

[2:36:43] ready for us to open it up to

[2:36:49] the public comment? I think we

[2:36:50] need to ask the applicant if

[2:36:52] they have a presentation first.

[2:36:55] Oh. The applicant. Yes. Okay.

[2:36:57] Sorry about that. I'd like to

[2:36:58] ask the applicant if you have a

[2:37:02] presentation, please. I think

[2:37:04] so, please come up and

[2:37:06] introduce yourself. Good

[2:37:07] morning CHAIRMAN Commissioners.

[2:37:09] Excuse me. I'm cold. My name is

[2:37:11] Jerry Ambrose. I'm here on

[2:37:13] behalf of apc towers. I do not

[2:37:15] have a formal presentation

[2:37:17] above and beyond what staff has

[2:37:19] presented. I think it's a very

[2:37:21] detailed, comprehensive. I'll

[2:37:23] do my best to, I guess, address

[2:37:25] your. Some. You have some

[2:37:27] comments and some questions. No

[2:37:31] particular order. You mentioned

[2:37:32] about the. A number of comments

[2:37:34] or questions about the height

[2:37:35] and the perception of the

[2:37:37] height. So to start, the

[2:37:39] proposed tower is a quarter

[2:37:41] mile, approximately a quarter

[2:37:43] mile from Calvada. So when

[2:37:45] you're looking at it from the

[2:37:46] street, it should look at it

[2:37:49] from that perspective. Also, if

[2:37:50] you've if you've been to the

[2:37:52] property, you know that from

[2:37:55] Calzada, it goes, the property

[2:37:57] kind of goes down. And then at

[2:37:59] where the house is, it goes up

[2:38:01] and then it kind of goes back

[2:38:03] down to where the site where

[2:38:05] the sites are located. Also, if

[2:38:08] you were on site and you were

[2:38:10] looking directly to where the

[2:38:11] tower is going to be located,

[2:38:14] the trees that are immediately

[2:38:17] adjacent, I mean, within about

[2:38:19] 50 to 75ft, the tallest tree

[2:38:22] right there is about 50ft high.

[2:38:25] So this would be, you know, 50,

[2:38:28] you know, again, 18ft taller

[2:38:30] than the tallest tree that's

[2:38:32] only about 70ft away. And when

[2:38:33] you're back on Calzada, if

[2:38:35] you're looking to the back of

[2:38:38] the property, that 50 foot tree

[2:38:40] is, is somewhat barely visible.

[2:38:41] If you're standing there,

[2:38:43] you're not going to say, wow,

[2:38:45] that's a 50 foot tree standing

[2:38:46] above everything else. So

[2:38:48] that's just a perspective on

[2:38:51] that. Also, I believe some of

[2:38:53] the the neighbors were

[2:38:54] questioning the validity of

[2:38:57] these photo mock ups, photo

[2:38:59] simulations. We do hire an

[2:39:01] engineering firm to do these,

[2:39:02] you know, precisely. We've had

[2:39:04] them do them for years. We've

[2:39:06] presented them to the county

[2:39:10] for years. So they they are

[2:39:14] accurate. Another question came

[2:39:16] up about, I believe, the

[2:39:17] reference or the questions

[2:39:18] about, hey, are there any

[2:39:19] existing towers? I believe

[2:39:21] you're probably asking about,

[2:39:24] hey, are there co-location

[2:39:25] opportunities in this

[2:39:28] particular case? T-Mobile is

[2:39:31] contracted with a pc towers. A

[2:39:34] pc towers is a what we refer to

[2:39:36] as a tower company that they

[2:39:38] market towers for for

[2:39:40] co-location. So because

[2:39:42] t-Mobile has an exclusive

[2:39:45] contract with a pc towers,

[2:39:47] t-Mobile is not looking or

[2:39:49] cannot co-locate with any other

[2:39:51] tower in the vicinity. So we

[2:39:53] had to look for a location

[2:39:55] where a pc could build a new

[2:39:57] tower. And again, if this gets

[2:40:00] approved, it will be marketed

[2:40:02] essentially to t-Mobile. I'm

[2:40:10] sorry. Sorry. Verizon and at&t.

[2:40:12] Also, I did read the letter.

[2:40:13] The letters that I could read

[2:40:14] or did read had an opportunity

[2:40:16] to read. There were a lot again,

[2:40:18] a lot of questions. Back to the

[2:40:20] question about views and views

[2:40:22] from essentially from private

[2:40:24] property. So when we go out and

[2:40:26] we look for for a site location,

[2:40:28] one of the factors we consider

[2:40:31] is minimizing public views. The

[2:40:33] county county code, almost

[2:40:37] every city or county code has

[2:40:39] statements or findings about

[2:40:42] minimizing views from public

[2:40:43] roadways. So in this case,

[2:40:45] again, we're we're

[2:40:47] approximately a quarter mile

[2:40:49] from from the nearest public

[2:40:52] road. So in our opinion, and as

[2:40:55] staff supports the project, we

[2:40:58] are meeting that that that goal

[2:41:01] of the county to minimize

[2:41:04] visual views or views from a

[2:41:10] public roads and excuse me also,

[2:41:12] I just have a question about

[2:41:14] the item of tabling the letters

[2:41:17] that came in late. Is there an

[2:41:19] opportunity for the person who

[2:41:21] wrote that letter to, I guess,

[2:41:23] speak, speak those concerns in

[2:41:25] public testimony today that

[2:41:28] would that way everyone can

[2:41:30] hear what they are and we can

[2:41:32] react accordingly as long as

[2:41:34] they're here. Yes. Oh, okay.

[2:41:36] Online or online. Yes. Thank

[2:41:37] you. Yeah. That's all I had.

[2:41:39] For now. I'm here to answer any

[2:41:40] additional questions you MAY

[2:41:41] have. Okay, I see Commissioner

[2:41:42] Martinez has lit up and I also

[2:41:44] have some questions, but

[2:41:45] Commissioner Martinez. Yes.

[2:41:47] Good morning. My question is in

[2:41:50] regards to the height of the

[2:41:52] tower, how is that arrived at?

[2:41:53] Is there is there a

[2:41:55] topographical geographical

[2:41:56] concerns that that dictates the

[2:41:57] height? There's a ton of

[2:41:59] different things. Yeah. All all

[2:42:01] of those combined. So t-Mobile

[2:42:03] has a what we call a

[2:42:05] significant gap in coverage, a

[2:42:07] hole in their network, and they

[2:42:08] determine the height that's

[2:42:10] needed to close. We call close

[2:42:12] that significant gap in

[2:42:14] coverage. Sometimes it's 50ft,

[2:42:16] sometimes it's. I have a

[2:42:18] project in slo County right now.

[2:42:19] It's 120ft. So it's contingent

[2:42:21] on a bunch of factors. But the

[2:42:23] idea is to close that that gap

[2:42:25] in coverage. And in this case,

[2:42:28] although it's 68ft, the

[2:42:30] antennas are a little bit lower

[2:42:31] than that. Also remember, also

[2:42:35] remember the antennas are the

[2:42:37] antennas are eight feet high.

[2:42:39] So they're tall antennas so

[2:42:41] that the center or whatever is

[2:42:43] going to be lower than the the

[2:42:47] 68ft. Okay. Thank you.

[2:42:51] Commissioner Park. I'm going to

[2:42:53] ask some questions about

[2:43:00] location, MR. Ambrose. Normally

[2:43:03] I'll see a site study and it'll

[2:43:05] address other alternatives and

[2:43:07] why they work or don't work.

[2:43:08] Yeah. That's in the staff

[2:43:10] report and it's in and it's in

[2:43:12] the it's in the electromagnetic

[2:43:14] report. It's more abbreviated

[2:43:16] than I'm used to seeing, but at

[2:43:18] least it has that. And I

[2:43:19] noticed that all of those

[2:43:21] addresses, as far as I could

[2:43:25] determine, were to the west of

[2:43:28] highway 154. They were

[2:43:29] basically all similar

[2:43:31] properties in terms of zoning,

[2:43:33] because in that what we call

[2:43:35] the heart of the Valley, it's

[2:43:37] mostly ag one. There's maybe 1

[2:43:40] or 2 ag two parcels, but it's

[2:43:41] all ag one. They're smaller.

[2:43:43] And that's probably why you got

[2:43:46] rejected is on those sites

[2:43:48] because people would say, well,

[2:43:50] I don't want it next to my

[2:43:52] house and I've got a house

[2:43:54] that's on ten acres or five

[2:43:55] acres. But I also noticed on

[2:43:57] the coverage map that a great

[2:43:59] deal of what would be improved

[2:44:01] in service is, in fact, on the

[2:44:03] east side of highway 154, where

[2:44:05] the zoning is quite different.

[2:44:07] It's all ag to much larger

[2:44:10] parcels, little hillier, and it

[2:44:15] has. Very few houses in terms

[2:44:19] of the density. And in answer

[2:44:22] to the question about the trees,

[2:44:24] there are other eucalyptus

[2:44:28] trees. They're more on the east

[2:44:31] side of 154 than the west side.

[2:44:35] They're tend to be in the huge

[2:44:37] right of way that Caltrans has

[2:44:40] or next to it. Okay, so more or

[2:44:44] less lining the highway. And

[2:44:46] but once you get into the

[2:44:47] interior of the valley, it's of

[2:44:50] course dominated by oak trees

[2:44:53] and, and as, as MR. Ambrose

[2:44:54] testified, you know, some of

[2:44:55] the really large ones, some of

[2:44:58] the, the, the valley oaks can

[2:45:00] hit 50ft high, but they don't

[2:45:02] reach the heights of the

[2:45:04] eucalyptus. So I, I believe I

[2:45:06] was not measuring them with the

[2:45:08] tape, but that there are trees

[2:45:11] of this magnitude that are

[2:45:12] eucalyptus, but they're not

[2:45:16] where this is oddly, I think

[2:45:20] the gold property. Just to the

[2:45:22] south of this property, there

[2:45:25] is one tall tree that sort of

[2:45:27] sticks out. It's a palm tree. I

[2:45:28] don't know how it got there,

[2:45:32] but it happens. So my my

[2:45:34] question for you, MR. Ambrose,

[2:45:38] is given that. An antenna on

[2:45:41] the east side would affect the

[2:45:44] same coverage area per your

[2:45:49] maps and. Could be located on

[2:45:51] on a hill instead of down in a

[2:45:55] ravine, and could be grouped

[2:45:57] with large trees of the nature

[2:46:00] of this one. Why didn't you

[2:46:02] look at alternative sites on

[2:46:05] that east side on those larger

[2:46:09] parcels? So. The way you

[2:46:10] present that is a very like a

[2:46:11] simple, you know, looking at

[2:46:13] looking at the map and say, put

[2:46:15] it here, put it there, put it.

[2:46:16] But that's it's, it's way more

[2:46:18] complicated than that. It's an

[2:46:21] engineering design. This tower

[2:46:23] also has to communicate with

[2:46:24] existing towers that are also

[2:46:28] on the map. You also have

[2:46:31] density of population needs. So

[2:46:33] this side of the highway is a

[2:46:34] lot more dense. And you

[2:46:36] probably know t-Mobile has a

[2:46:38] direct to home internet service,

[2:46:40] which means they're going to

[2:46:42] need to be close to, to where

[2:46:46] the the residences are. So if

[2:46:48] we followed that, if that were

[2:46:50] to go, let's go look on the

[2:46:52] other side of the highway. Well,

[2:46:53] then we're going to need a

[2:46:55] second tower on the west side

[2:46:56] of the highway then. Probably.

[2:46:58] So, you know, I don't know. I'm

[2:46:59] just speculating like I think

[2:47:01] you are because yeah, I know

[2:47:02] it's if it's on the east side,

[2:47:04] it's going to be on a hill. So

[2:47:05] you'll, you'll have an

[2:47:07] advantage in coverage that way.

[2:47:08] Yeah. But if it's only a few

[2:47:10] hundred yards away, it's not

[2:47:11] that simple. I'm not an

[2:47:12] engineer, but it's just not

[2:47:15] that simple. Like we can't have

[2:47:17] counties or cities dictating

[2:47:19] where towers should go based on

[2:47:22] it's, it's not like it's an

[2:47:23] engineered determination. But,

[2:47:25] you know, I think that we more

[2:47:28] or less have to approve a site

[2:47:29] somewhere. That's just how

[2:47:30] these things work out. And I've

[2:47:31] been doing this for several

[2:47:33] years, but we have some

[2:47:35] latitude on just where they are

[2:47:37] and what they look like. And,

[2:47:39] and, you know, I can look at

[2:47:40] the people in the audience, I

[2:47:42] can look at the letters and say,

[2:47:43] folks, we're going to have to

[2:47:44] approve one somewhere. That's

[2:47:46] just how it's going to work.

[2:47:48] But, but I got to do my job and

[2:47:50] ask on their behalf, understood

[2:47:53] why we couldn't revise the

[2:47:55] height or the location or

[2:47:56] whatever. And I'm familiar with

[2:47:59] the apc easement in property it

[2:48:03] has on what was the brand Kino

[2:48:10] Ranch on Foxen and, and and 154,

[2:48:12] which has a large congregation

[2:48:16] of co-located towers. So I get

[2:48:17] all that stuff, but I but I got

[2:48:19] to ask these questions and, and

[2:48:21] I've got to determine, I've got

[2:48:22] to make a finding that there's

[2:48:25] a compatibility in the

[2:48:27] neighborhood. And if no one's

[2:48:29] even asked whether one of these

[2:48:32] other sites is suitable, it's

[2:48:33] hard for me to make that

[2:48:35] finding. So that's why I asked.

[2:48:36] Understood. Yeah, totally. Okay.

[2:48:38] I appreciate your candor and

[2:48:40] thank you. Also, just a quick

[2:48:44] comment on that. So if counties

[2:48:46] and cities were dictating where,

[2:48:48] where, you know, just on a map

[2:48:49] where sites should go, there's

[2:48:51] no nothing saying that if the

[2:48:52] county thinks it should go over

[2:48:54] here now, there's other

[2:48:55] neighbors or people over here

[2:48:57] who have concerns with that

[2:48:58] location. Why don't you go back

[2:49:00] to that location? So it's a

[2:49:02] slippery slope, I guess, if it

[2:49:03] is. And that's why I think if

[2:49:05] we go to the west and we stay

[2:49:07] in the heart of the valley with

[2:49:09] all five acre and ten acre

[2:49:10] zoning, you're going to get the

[2:49:12] same answer. And and if we move

[2:49:13] it there, there's going to be

[2:49:15] people that object. But that's

[2:49:16] why I think we should look on

[2:49:18] the East side. And I think

[2:49:19] that's what the latitude of

[2:49:21] what we can do, where there are

[2:49:22] much larger parcels. Yeah.

[2:49:23] Again, our direction where they

[2:49:25] would be hidden by trees and

[2:49:26] hills. And I would think your

[2:49:27] engineers would love the fact

[2:49:30] that they're there. But this is

[2:49:32] not for us to have a dialog, an

[2:49:33] official hearing. So let's

[2:49:35] proceed. Okay. We're going to

[2:49:36] move on to Commissioner Ford's

[2:49:38] questions. And then I also have

[2:49:40] a few questions. Sure. Thanks.

[2:49:42] I just want to maybe you

[2:49:43] addressed it, but if once again,

[2:49:46] you could say why it has to be

[2:49:47] 68ft. I'm concerned about the

[2:49:50] height. So again, it's you know,

[2:49:52] there's thousands of towers

[2:49:53] right everywhere. Yes, I

[2:49:54] understand, but not in that

[2:49:56] area. It's not that high. It's

[2:49:58] all dictated by the gap in

[2:50:03] coverage, geography, trees,

[2:50:07] structures, hills. A number of

[2:50:08] different factors go into what

[2:50:09] the height is. There's towers

[2:50:11] that are 50ft. There's towers

[2:50:12] that are 45ft. I mentioned I

[2:50:15] have one in Nipomo now. It's

[2:50:18] 120ft. Based on the specifics

[2:50:21] of of the given area. I mean,

[2:50:22] there's cell sites on top of

[2:50:23] this roof that I'm guessing

[2:50:25] that's 45ft, something like

[2:50:27] that. Hi. So it's a very case

[2:50:31] by case, project specific

[2:50:34] location contingent. And that's

[2:50:36] evidence. The evidence for that

[2:50:38] is the propagation maps that

[2:50:42] show how the signal propagates.

[2:50:43] If we had a lower height, you

[2:50:45] would see that the gap in

[2:50:46] coverage would not be filled.

[2:50:48] You would still have this

[2:50:50] periphery of, you know,

[2:50:52] basically no coverage zone. And

[2:50:54] there's no point in building a

[2:50:55] tower leaving, leaving more

[2:50:57] gaps in coverage within that

[2:51:00] area. So, well, there's still

[2:51:03] even when it goes in, there'll

[2:51:05] be some zones that are not

[2:51:08] covered. Right. I'm sorry, I'm

[2:51:12] sorry. The red. Service area

[2:51:15] will not still meet the needs

[2:51:17] of every area in no. The way

[2:51:20] technology works today, you

[2:51:21] know, your coverage area is

[2:51:23] about a mile and a quarter mile

[2:51:25] and a half. That's just with

[2:51:26] the new technology, everything

[2:51:28] has to be more dense, more

[2:51:29] closer. You can't just put one

[2:51:31] tower on a hill and cover, you

[2:51:32] know, five miles anymore. It

[2:51:33] doesn't work like that. It's

[2:51:36] very, very condensed in terms

[2:51:38] of the technology and how how

[2:51:40] close the towers need to be to

[2:51:41] where the people that are being

[2:51:45] served live and work. Okay. I

[2:51:47] just think it would have been

[2:51:48] interesting to see what a 50

[2:51:50] foot tower would have covered.

[2:51:53] We we can certainly run a

[2:51:54] propagation map at a lower

[2:51:56] height and show that to to the

[2:51:58] county or to your commission.

[2:52:00] Thanks. Okay. MR. Ambrose, I

[2:52:01] have one comment relative to

[2:52:04] the 120 foot tree in Nipomo. I

[2:52:05] also know that there are lots

[2:52:07] of eucalyptus trees of that

[2:52:09] same height, so getting it to

[2:52:11] blend in with the eucalyptus

[2:52:13] eucalyptus grove is much easier

[2:52:14] than the problem that we have

[2:52:16] here in the Santa Ynez Valley.

[2:52:17] Because as the pictures had

[2:52:18] showed us, there aren't a lot

[2:52:20] of trees around it, so it's

[2:52:23] going to stand out on its own.

[2:52:25] I, I didn't quite understand

[2:52:26] something you said, so I'm just

[2:52:27] going to ask you if you could

[2:52:30] clarify for me relative to this,

[2:52:32] this location being a t mobile

[2:52:36] site, Verizon and at&t could

[2:52:39] also utilize service. Now,

[2:52:41] would they use the same pole or

[2:52:44] would they add additional poles?

[2:52:47] They. So a pc towers would

[2:52:48] market this tower. If it were

[2:52:50] approved and built, they would

[2:52:52] market it to the other carriers

[2:52:53] and the idea would be the

[2:52:55] carriers would join on to this

[2:52:56] pole. Okay, so the neighbors

[2:52:57] wouldn't have to worry about

[2:53:00] you adding two more additional

[2:53:01] poles on the same piece of

[2:53:04] property to create a three pole

[2:53:06] site. Would they correct. Yeah.

[2:53:07] The they're going to market

[2:53:09] this particular tower. And

[2:53:11] again, it's up to it's up to

[2:53:12] Verizon and at&t if they can

[2:53:14] make it work for them. If not

[2:53:15] that, they would have to go

[2:53:17] somewhere else. Our. If you'll

[2:53:19] notice, our lease area at the

[2:53:20] bottom of the tower is much

[2:53:22] larger than you're used to

[2:53:24] seeing. Yes, 30ft by 30ft. And

[2:53:26] the purpose of that is to allow

[2:53:27] other carriers equipment within

[2:53:30] that fenced area. Okay.

[2:53:32] Equipment, but not additional

[2:53:35] towers, correct? Yes. Okay.

[2:53:36] Then the last question that I

[2:53:37] have, just out of curiosity,

[2:53:39] have you met with the neighbors

[2:53:41] by any chance to get any input

[2:53:42] about what would work or what

[2:53:44] doesn't work for them? We have

[2:53:45] not met with the neighbors.

[2:53:48] Okay. And also the owner of the

[2:53:50] property is the owner of the

[2:53:51] property here, or are you just

[2:53:52] here representing them? I'm

[2:53:55] curious just because one of the

[2:53:57] letters stated that I don't

[2:53:58] owner of the property rents out

[2:54:00] the home. So if they don't live

[2:54:01] in this area, they might not

[2:54:03] have the same concerns they

[2:54:04] live in. She lives in Santa

[2:54:06] Ynez, but she does not live on

[2:54:08] the property. Correct. Okay.

[2:54:09] They've owned it for like 150

[2:54:12] years. Some some very long time.

[2:54:13] Okay. Thank you. Are there any

[2:54:15] other questions before we open

[2:54:19] up for public comment? No. Okay.

[2:54:20] Thank you. MR. Thank you.

[2:54:26] Appreciate it. MR. Villalobos.

[2:54:28] Thank you, MR. Chair. So I have

[2:54:31] one, two, four speaker slips

[2:54:33] and then one request online. So

[2:54:36] if you wanted to speak and you

[2:54:38] have a slip, just make sure it

[2:54:41] gets up here. We'll go to our

[2:54:44] in person speakers first. The

[2:54:47] first speaker will be Darren

[2:54:49] Friedman to be followed by, I

[2:54:50] believe that says Michael

[2:54:53] McConnell. And then, MR. Chair,

[2:54:54] I think before we start, we

[2:54:56] should just indicate like how

[2:54:58] much time each speaker will be

[2:55:00] receiving. Each person will

[2:55:04] receive three minutes to speak.

[2:55:07] Okay, so, MR. Friedman, if you

[2:55:12] could come to the microphone.

[2:55:14] Good morning. Thank you. My

[2:55:16] name is Darren Friedman. I live

[2:55:20] at 1475 Edison Street, which is

[2:55:22] less than half a mile from the

[2:55:23] proposed site. And I'm here to

[2:55:25] strongly oppose this case. I'd

[2:55:27] like to add, just for

[2:55:28] clarification, that because

[2:55:30] these properties are big

[2:55:32] rectangles, the perspective

[2:55:34] from Calzada, from Edison is

[2:55:35] not actually accurate because

[2:55:37] the back property line, the

[2:55:42] rear property line of both, is

[2:55:43] much closer to where the tower

[2:55:46] is. So these are literally in

[2:55:48] our backyard. I'd specifically

[2:55:50] like to address the impact on

[2:55:52] the broader neighborhood, the

[2:55:53] terrain, the open sightlines,

[2:55:54] and why the visual impact of

[2:55:56] this tower extends well beyond

[2:55:57] the properties immediately

[2:56:00] surrounding the site. I should

[2:56:01] also say, for the record, that

[2:56:03] I do have concerns about long

[2:56:05] term rf exposure, particularly

[2:56:07] when these facilities are

[2:56:09] placed near homes and families.

[2:56:10] But I understand the

[2:56:12] limitations of the county's

[2:56:14] authority in that area. And so

[2:56:15] this meeting is more about the

[2:56:17] other effects. One of the

[2:56:19] defining characteristics of

[2:56:21] this area is its openness, the

[2:56:23] terrain and relatively low

[2:56:24] density of development create

[2:56:26] long, uninterrupted views from

[2:56:28] across the valley. Many of us,

[2:56:30] including me, moved to the

[2:56:33] valley from la or other cities

[2:56:36] expressly for this reason, from

[2:56:38] my property, I have a direct

[2:56:40] and open rural sightline

[2:56:41] towards the proposed site.

[2:56:43] There simply are not any

[2:56:44] buildings or any other

[2:56:46] structures or trees between us

[2:56:48] that would meaningful screen

[2:56:50] something of this height.

[2:56:51] That's why I believe the

[2:56:52] Commission needs to look well

[2:56:54] beyond the immediate Calzada

[2:56:56] area when evaluating the visual

[2:56:58] impact. A 68 foot structure

[2:57:00] does not stop affecting the

[2:57:02] landscape at the property line.

[2:57:03] Because of the terrain and the

[2:57:05] open sightlines, its visual

[2:57:07] footprint potentially extends

[2:57:09] well beyond to the existing

[2:57:11] community. My concern is that

[2:57:12] the the record before you does

[2:57:13] not adequately demonstrate the

[2:57:16] broader impact. I've not seen

[2:57:19] objective elevations,

[2:57:21] topographic sightline analysis,

[2:57:23] or accurate visual simulations

[2:57:25] like a balloon test that would

[2:57:26] show what this would actually

[2:57:29] look like from Edison. I

[2:57:31] brought a photograph, or I sent

[2:57:33] in a photograph via email of my

[2:57:35] property, looking directly

[2:57:37] towards the proposed area. What

[2:57:40] it shows, essentially, is that

[2:57:41] what we value about living here

[2:57:44] open land, mature properties,

[2:57:47] mountains and sky. Period. Our

[2:57:49] community is asking a very fair

[2:57:51] and serious question as to

[2:57:53] whether this particular

[2:57:55] location at this particular

[2:57:56] height and scale is appropriate,

[2:57:59] and whether a less intrusive

[2:58:01] location or design or height

[2:58:03] have truly been evaluated.

[2:58:04] Sandy and Sandy remains special

[2:58:05] because we've been careful

[2:58:07] about what we put into this

[2:58:09] landscape. Once a structure of

[2:58:10] this scale enters a rural site

[2:58:12] line that changes effectively,

[2:58:14] permanent, and as the gentleman

[2:58:15] said, they will lease this to

[2:58:17] other companies. And this will

[2:58:18] continue forward. In closing,

[2:58:20] because our agenda item was

[2:58:22] moved back to the end of the

[2:58:23] day, I've had the opportunity

[2:58:25] to listen to the Commission

[2:58:26] carefully, consider and

[2:58:28] deliberate relatively minor

[2:58:30] changes to properties such as a

[2:58:33] horse arena, an agricultural

[2:58:34] setback. We're discussing how

[2:58:38] the construction of a 60 foot

[2:58:39] telecommunications tower in our

[2:58:42] literal backyard will affect us.

[2:58:44] Let's just keep that in

[2:58:47] perspective. Thank you, thank

[2:58:51] you. Moving on to our next

[2:58:53] speaker. Again, I believe it

[2:58:54] says Michael McConnell to be

[2:58:57] followed by Tom McConnell. And

[2:59:05] then Kirsten Muster. And then.

[2:59:09] Next. Come on. Thank you so

[2:59:15] much. Good morning. My name is

[2:59:16] Michael McConnell. My family

[2:59:18] owns property on Calzada Avenue

[2:59:21] near the proposed site. I want

[2:59:22] to pick up on a point that

[2:59:23] Commissioner Martinez mentioned

[2:59:26] this morning about the the

[2:59:28] mammoth case or matter. The

[2:59:30] commissioner discussed the

[2:59:31] significance of neighboring

[2:59:32] property owners having been

[2:59:34] notified and not showing up to

[2:59:36] oppose or appeal the project.

[2:59:38] Our situation is very different.

[2:59:41] We did show up. We are showing

[2:59:46] up. We're here. 25 neighboring

[2:59:47] households are now represented

[2:59:49] in opposition to the cell tower.

[2:59:51] We informally pulled them

[2:59:52] yesterday and asked whether

[2:59:53] they had received notice from

[2:59:56] the county. Only two of those

[2:59:57] 25 households reported

[3:00:00] receiving direct county notice.

[3:00:01] The others learned about this

[3:00:02] product through neighbors or

[3:00:04] community outreach, and once

[3:00:05] they learned what was being

[3:00:07] proposed, they became engaged

[3:00:09] and opposed it. Some are here

[3:00:11] in person today. Some are

[3:00:12] participating by Zoom. Others

[3:00:14] who could not attend have

[3:00:16] submitted their opposition. If

[3:00:19] the neighbors here today are in

[3:00:19] opposition to this project,

[3:00:25] would you please stand up?

[3:00:28] Thank you. I'd also note that

[3:00:30] this this item was originally

[3:00:31] scheduled first on the standard

[3:00:33] agenda and was moved to the end

[3:00:34] of this morning. Some neighbors

[3:00:36] who intended to participate MAY

[3:00:38] not have been able to stay and

[3:00:41] remain for this additional time,

[3:00:43] but the important number isn't

[3:00:44] simply how many people are

[3:00:46] still in this room. 25

[3:00:47] neighboring households are now

[3:00:48] represented in opposition to

[3:00:50] this project, and only two of

[3:00:51] those households reported

[3:00:52] receiving something from the

[3:00:54] county. I want to be clear, I'm

[3:00:55] not alleging that the county

[3:00:57] failed to comply with its legal

[3:00:59] noticing requirements. This is

[3:01:02] an 8110 rural area character

[3:01:04] buys large parcels, a 300 foot

[3:01:06] notification radius, therefore

[3:01:08] reaches remarkably few property

[3:01:09] owners. That could be a

[3:01:11] property and a half. And just

[3:01:15] just very few people. And what

[3:01:16] happened here demonstrates

[3:01:17] exactly why this this

[3:01:19] distinction matters. Once

[3:01:20] neighbors beyond the immediate

[3:01:21] notification area learned of

[3:01:23] this project, they showed up.

[3:01:26] So I respectfully, respectfully

[3:01:28] ask the Commission not to

[3:01:30] interpret the initial limited

[3:01:31] response from surrounding

[3:01:33] residents as community

[3:01:34] acceptance. The contrast with

[3:01:36] the matter you considered

[3:01:38] earlier today is important.

[3:01:39] There you discussed how

[3:01:41] neighbors who were notified and

[3:01:43] did not show up to oppose the

[3:01:45] project here. Once the broader

[3:01:46] neighboring community learned

[3:01:48] about this project, we did show

[3:01:51] up. We are here, we are opposed,

[3:01:53] and we respectfully ask you to

[3:01:55] not deny this case. Thank you

[3:02:00] so much. Thank you. Our next

[3:02:02] speaker will be Tom McConnell,

[3:02:05] to be followed by Kirsten

[3:02:20] Messer. Good morning. My name

[3:02:22] is Tom McConnell. And myself

[3:02:24] and my family own three

[3:02:26] properties on Calzada Avenue.

[3:02:29] We've been there 38 years. It's

[3:02:31] 1540 calls out of 1568 calls

[3:02:34] out and 1590 calls out of. We

[3:02:38] are one property south of the

[3:02:41] cell tower site. Proposed site.

[3:02:44] But I do realize that what I am

[3:02:47] focusing on on my. My comments

[3:02:50] today are just the rf emissions

[3:02:51] that can come from cell tower

[3:02:54] like this and ongoing

[3:02:55] compliance, and I know that I

[3:02:58] have significant concerns about

[3:02:59] potential health effects of

[3:03:02] long term rf exposure from a

[3:03:03] telecommunications facility

[3:03:05] located near homes and families

[3:03:07] in our community. But I also

[3:03:09] understand the federal law that

[3:03:11] substantially limits what this

[3:03:12] Commission can consider

[3:03:13] regarding the environmental

[3:03:15] effects of rf emissions. When a

[3:03:18] wireless facility complies with

[3:03:21] the fca sorry fcc standards,

[3:03:23] but that raises an important,

[3:03:25] very practical question who

[3:03:26] verifies that the facility

[3:03:28] actually complies after it's

[3:03:31] built and operating? If fcc

[3:03:32] compliance is the legal line

[3:03:35] that limits this commission's

[3:03:37] consideration of rf concerns,

[3:03:39] then actual compliance should

[3:03:41] not simply be presumed, it

[3:03:43] should be independently

[3:03:46] measured and continually

[3:03:47] enforceable. There's an

[3:03:49] important distinction between

[3:03:52] predicted compliance before a

[3:03:53] construction, and measured

[3:03:55] compliance afterwards before a

[3:03:57] facility exists. Compliance

[3:03:58] necessarily relies on

[3:04:00] engineering calculations and

[3:04:02] assumptions about antennas,

[3:04:03] equipment, power levels and

[3:04:06] operating conditions. Once a

[3:04:07] facility is actually operating,

[3:04:09] however, actual rf level levels

[3:04:11] can be measured, and Santa

[3:04:13] Barbara County's own wireless

[3:04:15] regulations provide mechanisms

[3:04:17] for doing exactly that. The

[3:04:19] county ordinance allows permit

[3:04:20] conditions requiring rf field

[3:04:23] testing after installation by a

[3:04:25] qualified professional,

[3:04:26] acceptable to the county and

[3:04:28] independent of the Permittee.

[3:04:30] It also provides for continued

[3:04:32] compliance, testing and

[3:04:34] enforcement, if applicable.

[3:04:36] Applicable standards are

[3:04:38] exceeded. That is particularly

[3:04:39] important here because this

[3:04:41] facility is also completed

[3:04:43] contemplated for future

[3:04:45] co-location. The equipment and

[3:04:46] operating configuration MAY

[3:04:47] therefore change during the

[3:04:49] life of this facility.

[3:04:51] Compliance should be ongoing

[3:04:53] and ongoing obligation, not

[3:04:55] simply a calculation made when

[3:04:57] the project is approved. So, if

[3:04:59] this commission ultimately

[3:05:01] approves this project, which I

[3:05:03] hope you do not, I respectfully

[3:05:05] request that you impose the

[3:05:06] strongest permissible rf

[3:05:08] compliance conditions available

[3:05:10] under the county ordinance.

[3:05:11] Specifically, I asked for

[3:05:13] independent Post-installation

[3:05:15] rf field testing. Once the

[3:05:17] facility is operational,

[3:05:19] periodic independent compliance

[3:05:20] testing at an interval

[3:05:22] established by the county.

[3:05:24] Additional testing following

[3:05:26] applicable equipment, power,

[3:05:28] antenna or co-location changes

[3:05:29] and, where appropriate, actual

[3:05:31] measurements in nearby

[3:05:33] inhabited areas so that

[3:05:34] compliance reflects what

[3:05:35] neighboring residents are

[3:05:38] actually exposed to, not merely

[3:05:40] what was predicted on paper.

[3:05:42] And if the actual measurements

[3:05:43] demonstrate that the facility

[3:05:46] exceeds applicable federal rf

[3:05:47] standards, the county's

[3:05:48] enforcement provisions should

[3:05:50] be used, including cessation of

[3:05:53] commercial operation, until the

[3:05:55] facility is brought back into

[3:05:56] compliance. I want to be clear

[3:05:59] about what I'm asking. I'm not

[3:06:00] asking this commission to

[3:06:02] resolve the larger scientific

[3:06:05] debate surrounding long term rf

[3:06:06] exposure. I'm asking for

[3:06:07] something much more

[3:06:09] straightforward. If compliance

[3:06:11] with fcc limits in is the

[3:06:12] standard upon which this

[3:06:14] facility is allowed to operate,

[3:06:16] then verify that compliance

[3:06:18] after it begins operating and

[3:06:20] continue verifying it as a

[3:06:21] facility. Facility changes over

[3:06:24] time. If the project is denied,

[3:06:26] this issue becomes moot and a

[3:06:27] lot of my neighbors will be

[3:06:29] very happy. MR. McConnell,

[3:06:31] we're going to have to ask you

[3:06:32] to wrap it up, please. Okay. If

[3:06:34] you approve it, please make

[3:06:34] independent measurements and

[3:06:36] continuing rf compliance

[3:06:38] explicit with enforceable

[3:06:40] conditions of that approval.

[3:06:41] Thank you very much. Thank you,

[3:06:48] thank you. So we have three

[3:06:50] additional speakers in house,

[3:06:51] and then we'll go to our online

[3:06:53] speaker. Our next speaker is

[3:06:56] Kirsten Muster, to be followed

[3:06:58] by Jim Rodemaker. I believe

[3:07:00] that is. And then Matt McKinney.

[3:07:02] And then we'll move on to our

[3:07:05] online speaker after that. Good

[3:07:06] morning. My name is Kirsten. I

[3:07:09] live at 1627 Castle Avenue, and

[3:07:11] we purchased our home there 15

[3:07:13] years ago. And that is we plan

[3:07:15] on that being our forever home.

[3:07:18] I am opposed to this cell tower.

[3:07:20] I'm worried about our property

[3:07:23] values going down, and I'm also

[3:07:24] worried about the health of the

[3:07:29] long term radiation. Children

[3:07:31] absorb. Higher rates of cell

[3:07:32] tower radiation, are

[3:07:34] biologically more vulnerable to

[3:07:35] the rf radiation emitted by

[3:07:37] cell towers, a fact that has

[3:07:38] been long acknowledged by

[3:07:42] medical authorities. And I have

[3:07:43] children and I'm concerned

[3:07:46] about their health. Thank you,

[3:07:53] thank you. Jim Rodemaker to be

[3:08:03] followed by Matt McKinney.

[3:08:07] Thank you for your time. To my

[3:08:10] residents. 1637 Calzada was not

[3:08:13] provided with notice. We share

[3:08:16] an easement that follows

[3:08:18] clearly within the purview of

[3:08:20] and scope. Other neighbors were

[3:08:22] provided with. Notice we

[3:08:24] haven't had an adequate

[3:08:26] opportunity to investigate all

[3:08:28] of this. We asked for

[3:08:31] additional time in that regard.

[3:08:33] As far as the esthetics of the

[3:08:35] project are concerned, they're

[3:08:37] not palatable to myself nor my

[3:08:39] neighbors. We are concerned

[3:08:43] about environmental impacts,

[3:08:45] ecological, Geographic, so on

[3:08:47] and so forth. And we don't feel

[3:08:48] that a sufficient amount of

[3:08:50] studies have been performed,

[3:08:51] nor have they been provided to

[3:08:54] us to date due to the defective

[3:08:57] notice provided of this matter.

[3:08:59] So I have nothing further at

[3:09:14] this time. Thank you. How you

[3:09:16] doing? How you doing? My name

[3:09:19] is Matt McKinney and a little

[3:09:23] taller. Adjust this here. My

[3:09:25] mother, Leanne McKinney and I.

[3:09:27] Or I'm representing my mom. But

[3:09:28] we moved to the Santa Ynez

[3:09:31] Valley 32 years ago, and we

[3:09:33] specifically moved from

[3:09:35] Woodland Hills to escape Los

[3:09:39] Angeles. And many of the

[3:09:43] commercial and just big city

[3:09:46] life and look and feel. And

[3:09:48] Santa Ynez Valley has been such

[3:09:50] an incredible place to move to

[3:09:53] that is so special to us. And

[3:09:55] we didn't know about this as

[3:09:57] well. If it wasn't for Michael

[3:09:59] McConnell, I wouldn't have

[3:10:01] known. And my mom and I are

[3:10:03] very opposed to the cell tower

[3:10:07] going in from a natural scenic

[3:10:10] beauty standpoint. And also the

[3:10:13] emf concern to our health. And

[3:10:15] yeah, we are strongly opposed.

[3:10:19] Thank you very much. Thank you.

[3:10:23] That's okay. And now we go to

[3:10:26] our online speaker, Kelly

[3:10:32] McConnell. MR. McConnell, you

[3:10:35] have to unmute yourself. Can

[3:10:37] you hear me? Your little your

[3:10:40] little light? Can you hear me

[3:10:42] better now? Can you get a

[3:10:43] little bit closer to your mic,

[3:10:45] please? Sure, sure. Let me try

[3:10:56] a headset. Just one second. Is

[3:10:58] that any better? Much better.

[3:11:01] Okay. My name is Kelly

[3:11:03] McConnell. My family owns three

[3:11:05] properties on Calzada Avenue,

[3:11:06] immediately south of this

[3:11:08] project, I submitted extensive

[3:11:09] written comments and

[3:11:11] photographs. So I'm just going

[3:11:12] to focus on what we've learned

[3:11:14] in this hearing today. I think

[3:11:16] today's testimony has actually

[3:11:17] raised more questions about

[3:11:18] whether the required

[3:11:20] compatibility finding can be

[3:11:22] made, not fewer. We learn from

[3:11:23] the applicant that the tallest

[3:11:24] tree immediately adjacent to

[3:11:26] the proposed facility is

[3:11:29] approximately 50ft tall. This

[3:11:31] faux eucalyptus would be 68ft

[3:11:34] tall, approximately 18ft taller

[3:11:35] than the very trees it is

[3:11:37] supposedly intended to blend

[3:11:39] with. We also heard

[3:11:40] Commissioner Park identify an

[3:11:42] entirely different area east of

[3:11:44] highway 154, with larger

[3:11:46] parcels, different topography,

[3:11:47] fewer residences, and

[3:11:48] substantial eucalyptus trees

[3:11:51] that apparently was not

[3:11:52] evaluated evaluated in the

[3:11:53] applicant's alternative

[3:11:55] analysis, Commissioner Park

[3:11:57] made the issue very clear if

[3:11:58] potentially suitable

[3:11:59] alternatives haven't even been

[3:12:01] evaluated, how can you make the

[3:12:03] required finding that this

[3:12:05] location is compatible? And we

[3:12:06] learned something else today

[3:12:08] that I think deserves careful

[3:12:09] consideration. The applicant

[3:12:11] testified that t mobile cannot

[3:12:12] co-locate on certain other

[3:12:14] existing infrastructure because

[3:12:16] of its exclusive contractual

[3:12:19] relationship with apc towers. I

[3:12:20] respectfully ask you to

[3:12:21] distinguish between an

[3:12:23] alternative that is technically

[3:12:25] infeasible and an alternative

[3:12:26] that wasn't pursued because of

[3:12:28] a private, contractual or

[3:12:30] leasing restriction. Those are

[3:12:32] not the same thing. Then

[3:12:32] there's the fundamental

[3:12:34] question of height.

[3:12:35] Commissioner. Commissioner Ford

[3:12:37] asked what coverage a lower

[3:12:39] height tower would provide. The

[3:12:40] applicant told us that they can

[3:12:42] run a propagation map at a

[3:12:43] lower height and provide it to

[3:12:45] this commission. My question is

[3:12:47] very simple why wasn't that

[3:12:48] done before asking you to

[3:12:51] approve 68ft. A 50ft won't work.

[3:12:53] Show us if 60ft won't work.

[3:12:55] Show us. But please don't

[3:12:57] assume that 68ft is necessary.

[3:12:59] 68ft is necessary. When the

[3:13:00] applicant has acknowledged

[3:13:02] today that the comparative

[3:13:03] evidence can actually be

[3:13:05] produced. And finally, we don't

[3:13:06] need to speculate about what

[3:13:07] the 68ft will actually look

[3:13:09] like in this landscape. Put a

[3:13:12] balloon crane mounted marker or

[3:13:14] equivalent full height

[3:13:15] demonstration at the actual

[3:13:17] proposed location. I spoke

[3:13:18] directly with property owner

[3:13:19] Anne Twig this week. We had a

[3:13:21] very respectful conversation,

[3:13:22] and she told me she would

[3:13:24] support a balloon test herself

[3:13:26] and in fact said she would

[3:13:28] communicate that to MR. Ambrose.

[3:13:29] Think about that for a moment.

[3:13:30] The neighbors want to see it.

[3:13:32] The property owner is willing

[3:13:33] to do it. And multiple

[3:13:34] commissioners today have

[3:13:36] expressed concern about the

[3:13:37] height. If the applicant

[3:13:38] simulations accurately show

[3:13:41] that the 68 foot structure will

[3:13:42] blend into the landscape, a

[3:13:43] full height demonstration

[3:13:45] should confirm them. If it

[3:13:47] doesn't, we all deserve to know

[3:13:50] that before, not after, and

[3:13:51] especially before you make a

[3:13:53] decision. A permanent land use

[3:13:55] decision. I respectfully ask

[3:13:59] you to deny a case 2500023. If

[3:14:00] you're not prepared to deny it

[3:14:01] today, then please continue

[3:14:03] this matter rather than approve

[3:14:04] it. There's no reason to guess

[3:14:05] when the unanswered questions

[3:14:07] identified in this very hearing

[3:14:08] can be answered. Run the lower

[3:14:10] height propagation analysis.

[3:14:11] Evaluate the additional

[3:14:13] alternatives Commissioner Park

[3:14:14] identified, and show us what

[3:14:16] 68ft actually looks like at

[3:14:17] this location. Then make your

[3:14:19] decision on a complete record.

[3:14:20] We are all opposed. The fact

[3:14:23] that we have 25 landowners who

[3:14:25] are vehemently opposed to this

[3:14:28] should speak volumes. Thank you,

[3:14:34] thank you. So I would like to

[3:14:36] ask staff if there's any

[3:14:43] rebuttals. Oh, sorry, did we

[3:14:46] MISS You? I was not aware. I

[3:14:48] didn't read it in the letter

[3:14:50] that I needed to submit. I had

[3:14:51] submitted a letter. My name is

[3:14:52] Elizabeth McGovern. I feel like

[3:14:54] I had to also submit. Okay,

[3:14:56] well, please go ahead. Come up

[3:14:57] to the microphone so that we

[3:14:59] can so that everybody can hear

[3:15:02] you. Thank you. I have no

[3:15:03] opposition to giving you three

[3:15:04] minutes to speak, so thank you.

[3:15:07] Thank you very much. My name is

[3:15:09] Elizabeth McGovern. I live at

[3:15:12] 1680 Calzada, which is on slide

[3:15:14] nine. I believe it's basically

[3:15:16] that photo is taken from

[3:15:19] Calzada facing my house, and

[3:15:20] the installation will be right

[3:15:22] next to my house because my

[3:15:24] house is at the end of my

[3:15:25] property, the same location

[3:15:27] that tower is going to be put

[3:15:30] on. So I want to address, oh, I

[3:15:32] want to address property

[3:15:34] devaluation for all of those

[3:15:36] around us in this cell tower

[3:15:39] zone. I work in a family

[3:15:40] business. I'm in real estate,

[3:15:41] and I understand about

[3:15:44] enhancing property values and

[3:15:45] diminishing property values.

[3:15:49] And if you put a 68 foot tall

[3:15:50] telecommunications tower right

[3:15:52] there, it is going to diminish

[3:15:54] my property greatly. There's a

[3:15:57] real question of buyer

[3:15:58] perception, the fear of what

[3:16:02] that tower will do, property

[3:16:03] desirability and marketability.

[3:16:05] And when a property is listed,

[3:16:06] it falls under California's

[3:16:09] broader disclosure law, it

[3:16:11] states sellers must disclose

[3:16:13] known facts that materially

[3:16:16] affect the value or

[3:16:17] desirability of the property.

[3:16:20] It further states in regards to

[3:16:23] a tower, if it is clearly

[3:16:25] visible from the home, close to

[3:16:28] the home, affects the view,

[3:16:30] creates equipment or generator

[3:16:33] noise. Those are four questions

[3:16:35] that I believe I will have to

[3:16:37] say yes to that, and I will

[3:16:38] have to disclose that when I

[3:16:40] sell my property. If I put my

[3:16:42] property on the market,

[3:16:44] potential buyers will ask, what

[3:16:47] are the emissions, how much

[3:16:50] radio frequency rf can a body

[3:16:52] sustain? We have the Federal

[3:16:54] Communications Board mandating

[3:16:56] what's acceptable, but they do

[3:16:57] have a cap on those emissions.

[3:16:59] So this will lead me to believe

[3:17:01] that there are negative effects.

[3:17:02] And the commission believes

[3:17:04] this, and that's why they put a

[3:17:06] cap on these emissions. Next, I

[3:17:10] ask, how many of you in this

[3:17:12] room would be willing to

[3:17:14] purchase a house right next to

[3:17:18] a 68 foot tall eucalyptus tree

[3:17:20] that's camouflaging a

[3:17:21] telecommunications tower? I

[3:17:23] wouldn't I wouldn't subject my

[3:17:25] children to it or my family. So

[3:17:27] that's going to affect my sale

[3:17:30] price. It's going to affect the

[3:17:32] purchase pool. I spoke to a

[3:17:35] broker. He said you can look at

[3:17:37] 2 to 20% reduction in purchase

[3:17:39] price when you are next to a

[3:17:41] tower. He said that that

[3:17:43] percentage is based off of the

[3:17:44] response to those four

[3:17:47] questions. So I understand

[3:17:49] t-Mobile needs to put a tower

[3:17:51] in, but I request that they put

[3:17:54] it into an area that is more

[3:17:55] commercial. I think you have a

[3:17:57] great idea, you know, put it to

[3:17:59] on the other side of the 154

[3:18:00] where the the properties are

[3:18:02] bigger. You have numerous

[3:18:04] people around there. That's all

[3:18:06] I need. Thank you so much for

[3:18:08] your time. And so can I please

[3:18:09] ask the speaker to submit a

[3:18:10] speaker slip before you leave

[3:18:12] today? Sorry. Could you please

[3:18:13] fill out and submit a speaker

[3:18:15] slip before you leave today?

[3:18:20] Yes. Thank you. And I believe

[3:18:22] that is our last speaker. Okay.

[3:18:24] Thank you very much. To all of

[3:18:26] the speakers. I'd like to ask

[3:18:28] if there's a rebuttal from the

[3:18:32] county staff. Thank you,

[3:18:33] chairperson Guy Francisco

[3:18:34] County planning. So I'm going

[3:18:36] to try and provide a brief

[3:18:38] response to most of the

[3:18:41] comments that we received. I'll

[3:18:45] start off with the the notices.

[3:18:46] So we do send out notices at

[3:18:48] two different stages of these

[3:18:50] types of projects, including a

[3:18:51] completeness notice that was

[3:18:53] sent out to neighbors within

[3:18:56] 300ft back in JUNE of this year.

[3:18:58] And then we also send a follow

[3:19:02] up notice. You know, prior to

[3:19:03] hearing. So that's also sent

[3:19:05] out to neighbors within 300ft.

[3:19:07] And we included both the

[3:19:09] occupants and the owners of

[3:19:12] each property within 300ft. As

[3:19:14] far as the question about how a

[3:19:15] fake eucalyptus tree is

[3:19:17] compatible and the esthetics of

[3:19:18] it, the short answer is the

[3:19:19] county does not have specific

[3:19:22] design standards for Fox for

[3:19:24] faux towers. Therefore,

[3:19:25] compatibility is very

[3:19:28] subjective and up to discretion

[3:19:31] by the commissioners today. In

[3:19:33] this particular case, staff

[3:19:34] considered the rural setting

[3:19:36] and other large trees in the

[3:19:38] general area as a basis for

[3:19:41] compatibility. And there was a

[3:19:42] lot of questions about the rf

[3:19:45] report. So the short answer is

[3:19:47] the rf reports are prepared by

[3:19:50] a third third party consultant.

[3:19:52] They required for all telecom

[3:19:54] projects. Upon receipt of those,

[3:19:55] you know, we review them to

[3:19:58] make sure to confirm what sort

[3:19:59] of mitigations or

[3:20:01] recommendations are being

[3:20:03] recommended by that third party.

[3:20:06] We do also condition projects

[3:20:09] such as this telecom project to

[3:20:11] condition compliance. So there

[3:20:13] is regular monitoring and site

[3:20:16] visits from our county staff,

[3:20:17] making sure that equipment is

[3:20:18] running appropriately. It still

[3:20:20] looks, you know, the way we

[3:20:22] approved it. So that's, you

[3:20:23] know, for the life of the

[3:20:26] project that continues. There

[3:20:28] was a question about, you know,

[3:20:30] private views. As you MAY be

[3:20:32] aware, we don't protect private

[3:20:35] views. We evaluate public views

[3:20:37] such as those that I showed on

[3:20:40] my slides from Carlsbad Avenue,

[3:20:45] highway 154, etc. And I believe

[3:20:47] that I try to cover everything.

[3:20:49] Let me know if you have any

[3:20:50] other questions. Thank you. I

[3:20:52] just want to add one more thing.

[3:20:53] Thank you Francisco. That's

[3:20:56] good. To add on to what he said

[3:20:58] about no design standards. You

[3:21:00] know, the department leans on

[3:21:02] the bars when we do not have

[3:21:04] design standards. So this is a

[3:21:06] project that did go to the bar.

[3:21:09] I believe that they recommended

[3:21:11] the design. And so that's how

[3:21:12] this got to where it is. I just

[3:21:15] wanted to add that information.

[3:21:16] Thank you. I do have one

[3:21:20] question relative to the 300ft.

[3:21:21] Looking at the size of the

[3:21:24] properties around this piece of

[3:21:26] property, it MAY very well just

[3:21:27] have been that the neighbors

[3:21:29] that have property lines that

[3:21:30] touch this property might have

[3:21:32] been the only ones notified.

[3:21:34] And the case when we're dealing

[3:21:36] with much more rural areas, do

[3:21:38] we have an allowable to go

[3:21:45] outside of the 300ft? Chair guy

[3:21:48] to to clarify, we looked at how

[3:21:49] many notices were sent out for

[3:21:51] this, and there were 24

[3:21:52] different properties that were

[3:21:55] within the buffer area. And as

[3:21:57] Francisco mentioned, two

[3:21:58] separate notices were mailed

[3:22:00] for each of those 24 sites, one

[3:22:02] to the site itself. So that's

[3:22:05] for the occupant and one to the

[3:22:06] mailing address. And that's a

[3:22:07] mailing address that we have

[3:22:09] from the county assessor

[3:22:12] records. The county can send

[3:22:15] out additional notices that are

[3:22:17] for a larger buffer area. In

[3:22:20] this case, we did also email

[3:22:22] notice as a courtesy to

[3:22:23] interested parties who had

[3:22:26] reached out to us. Well thank

[3:22:28] you. 24 is greater than what I

[3:22:30] had understood, so thank you

[3:22:31] for that. Also, was there a

[3:22:33] sign put out at the property

[3:22:34] showing that there was

[3:22:36] something that was going to

[3:22:37] happen? I mean, driver's by,

[3:22:41] would they have seen a sign?

[3:22:42] Chairperson guy yes, there is

[3:22:43] signage and it's required to

[3:22:46] stay up during the review

[3:22:47] process. So it should still be

[3:22:51] up today. Okay. Thank you, I

[3:22:55] appreciate that. Any questions

[3:22:59] from the commissioners?

[3:23:00] Commissioner Americana thank

[3:23:03] you. A couple of questions for

[3:23:07] staff. You mentioned that the

[3:23:09] county will, on occasion

[3:23:13] monitor compliance for cell

[3:23:15] phone towers or other

[3:23:17] installations. So first, let me

[3:23:19] ask county counsel, do the

[3:23:22] federal regulations allow a

[3:23:24] local jurisdiction to monitor

[3:23:27] and then enforce federal

[3:23:34] standards for rf propagation?

[3:23:36] Chair Guy Commissioner. Mayor

[3:23:41] Connor, to the extent that our

[3:23:43] requirements are consistent

[3:23:45] with the fcc limits, yes, I

[3:23:47] believe we would be able to.

[3:23:50] And that's reflected in the

[3:23:51] conditions of approval. When

[3:23:54] you review the the compliance

[3:23:57] monitoring condition. And do we

[3:23:58] have the follow on question?

[3:24:00] I'm glad to hear that, by the

[3:24:02] way. But the follow on question

[3:24:04] is, do we have the equipment or

[3:24:07] the contractors available to us

[3:24:10] to do this kind of compliance

[3:24:13] monitoring of rf emissions? And

[3:24:15] have we done it before with

[3:24:16] other kinds of cell phone

[3:24:20] towers? Francisco County

[3:24:22] planning here. Yes. Our permit

[3:24:24] compliance staff does have the

[3:24:25] equipment to go out to the

[3:24:29] sites and verify compliance.

[3:24:30] And the experience in using the

[3:24:32] equipment, obviously, and I

[3:24:35] want to add to that that as you

[3:24:36] can see in the condition of

[3:24:38] approval, I'm looking at the

[3:24:40] condition numbers here. It's

[3:24:43] condition number 13. It's our

[3:24:46] standard condition Tel oh eight.

[3:24:49] Fcc compliance that the

[3:24:52] operator is required to provide

[3:24:55] regular testing results to

[3:24:56] compliance staff. They're also

[3:24:59] required to provide testing

[3:25:01] after everything is installed

[3:25:05] to confirm that it matches the

[3:25:06] compliance report that was

[3:25:08] received prior to decision

[3:25:10] maker action. And what's the

[3:25:12] frequency of the rf testing

[3:25:14] after the cell phone tower has

[3:25:16] been installed and is

[3:25:19] operational? I'm going to

[3:25:26] review the condition here. I

[3:25:31] interject here so the the

[3:25:34] federal requirements there, the

[3:25:35] reporting is required at least

[3:25:37] every five years unless it's

[3:25:40] deemed necessary to be more or

[3:25:42] I guess sooner by permanent

[3:25:44] compliance staff. But it's a

[3:25:45] minimum of five years every

[3:25:49] five years. That's that's the

[3:25:52] federal standard. Does our

[3:25:54] condition impose a frequency

[3:25:55] requirement? Does it say

[3:25:57] anything about how often there

[3:26:01] will be a test of rf emissions?

[3:26:03] Yes, the condition does. I just

[3:26:06] add it here every five years

[3:26:07] following the initial

[3:26:11] installation verification. Okay.

[3:26:12] If we wanted to make that every

[3:26:24] three years, could we do it?

[3:26:25] We'd have commissioners. We'd

[3:26:26] have to check and see if

[3:26:28] there's any limit from on the

[3:26:30] federal level to doing that.

[3:26:32] Okay? Okay. All right. And then

[3:26:35] I want to switch subjects to

[3:26:38] the view impacts of the project.

[3:26:40] And I think staff touched on

[3:26:42] this when you said that the

[3:26:46] county. Looks at the view

[3:26:49] impacts from public property,

[3:26:51] not private property. Did I

[3:26:52] understand you to say that? Did

[3:26:55] I understand that correctly?

[3:26:56] Commissioner? Mayor Connor

[3:26:57] through the chair Yes, that is

[3:26:59] our standard. We evaluate

[3:27:03] public views, Viewsheds and the

[3:27:05] county's standards. The land

[3:27:07] use standards require that the

[3:27:08] county or the Commission look

[3:27:11] at the impacts from public

[3:27:13] property, streets, highways,

[3:27:15] that sort of thing. Is that

[3:27:17] right? That's correct. Okay.

[3:27:20] The fact that a tower might

[3:27:22] have an impact on private

[3:27:23] property. And one of our

[3:27:25] speakers spoke about having a

[3:27:28] house on a nearby property and

[3:27:31] was worried about the impact of

[3:27:33] the view from her house. Is

[3:27:35] that something that the county

[3:27:36] can consider? And deciding

[3:27:38] whether or not this is an

[3:27:41] appropriate project? Yeah,

[3:27:42] commissioners, I will I will

[3:27:45] say this to you, this is a Cup

[3:27:47] and you have broad discretion

[3:27:50] in terms of cup compatibility

[3:27:52] findings, in terms of specific

[3:27:54] standards for private views, we

[3:27:56] do not have that. But you do

[3:27:58] have the ability to look at the

[3:28:02] Cup findings and really take

[3:28:03] the project as a whole.

[3:28:06] Comments. Everything with the

[3:28:07] cup and compatibility, and you

[3:28:11] have broad discretion. Okay.

[3:28:21] Thank you. Commissioner Park.

[3:28:25] So in other words, if we're

[3:28:26] applying some of our county

[3:28:29] view policies or sign

[3:28:30] ordinances and all the

[3:28:33] different things where we look

[3:28:34] to what we can see from the

[3:28:40] public road. We wouldn't

[3:28:41] discuss public private views,

[3:28:43] but if we're applying the broad

[3:28:45] discretion, we have to

[3:28:46] determine whether this is

[3:28:47] compatible with the

[3:28:48] neighborhood. And I'm

[3:28:52] oversimplifying what finding

[3:28:54] 2.185 says, or 115, whatever it

[3:28:56] is, we can in fact include

[3:28:59] those and and so many other

[3:29:00] things as long as we're acting

[3:29:02] in good faith. Correct.

[3:29:03] Commissioners, I believe so. I

[3:29:04] mean, it's always helpful to

[3:29:06] provide supporting evidence for

[3:29:08] the findings. You know, why

[3:29:10] you're making that connection

[3:29:13] to compatibility. But I believe

[3:29:16] so, yeah. Okay. I was wondering

[3:29:19] if we could go, can we go back

[3:29:20] to slide three and get off

[3:29:22] slide ten for just a second?

[3:29:23] This is based upon one of the

[3:29:25] comments that one of the

[3:29:26] speakers had. Is there a chance

[3:29:29] to blow that up? Because the

[3:29:31] location of homes and the

[3:29:36] potential for rf frequency

[3:29:37] transmission, I understand it's

[3:29:38] a concern with the homeowners.

[3:29:40] So I'm just trying to

[3:29:42] understand how close the homes

[3:29:44] are to this station or the what

[3:29:46] do we call it, a transmission

[3:29:53] tower. One thing that seems odd

[3:29:55] to me is that some of the

[3:29:57] neighboring homes are actually

[3:29:59] closer to the tower than the

[3:30:00] home that's located on this

[3:30:03] parcel. Yeah, yeah. And I'm

[3:30:05] just trying to get an

[3:30:06] understanding again. I wasn't

[3:30:08] able to drive all the way. MR.

[3:30:09] Amoroso wasn't able to drive

[3:30:11] all the way in in order to see

[3:30:12] the location, because I hadn't

[3:30:14] received approval at the time.

[3:30:16] I did the site visit. But I'm

[3:30:18] just trying to understand

[3:30:21] there's a lot of comments about

[3:30:22] radio frequencies, and there's

[3:30:24] a lot of comments about the

[3:30:25] views and so forth, and I'm

[3:30:27] just trying to get a better

[3:30:28] understanding of that. And then

[3:30:29] there was there was one comment

[3:30:31] that I that was in one of the

[3:30:33] letters that I felt was worthy,

[3:30:35] that I wrote it down and it

[3:30:36] said, the rural character is

[3:30:38] not incidental to this

[3:30:39] neighborhood. It's one of the

[3:30:40] primary reasons that people

[3:30:43] choose to live here. And lots

[3:30:44] of comments. But that was the

[3:30:48] one that that really struck me

[3:30:50] relative to the location of the

[3:30:57] homes and the tower.

[3:31:02] Chairperson guy. Is there a do

[3:31:04] you know, do you know the

[3:31:06] distance of the homes, the

[3:31:07] adjacent on the adjacent

[3:31:09] properties as well as the home

[3:31:11] on the property, the distance

[3:31:12] from the tower to those to

[3:31:16] those homes? Chairperson guy I

[3:31:17] don't I didn't measure every

[3:31:18] single residence, but the

[3:31:19] closest residence, according to

[3:31:22] our records, is approximately

[3:31:25] 450ft to the northeast. So I

[3:31:26] don't have a I don't know that

[3:31:29] I have a you said 450ft, 450ft,

[3:31:37] correct. Yeah. Approximately

[3:31:39] where that cursor is. Okay, I

[3:31:40] don't have any further

[3:31:42] questions. Any of the other

[3:31:44] commissioners. Any questions or

[3:31:47] comments? Commissioner Martinez,

[3:31:51] my question is, is okay. Q p is

[3:31:52] because this is not actually

[3:31:55] zoned for cell tower. Am I

[3:31:58] thinking right here?

[3:31:59] Commissioner Martinez I

[3:32:00] wouldn't quite word it that way.

[3:32:02] It is. It's a permitted use in

[3:32:04] the zone, but it it's

[3:32:06] conditionally permitted. Okay.

[3:32:07] And what kind of zones would

[3:32:11] you not need a qpi believe

[3:32:13] towers this tall need a q p in

[3:32:15] every zone. Okay. So no matter

[3:32:16] where it goes, it's going to

[3:32:18] have to come before us for a

[3:32:27] correct. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

[3:32:30] So I believe that we at some

[3:32:31] point should give MR. Ambrose

[3:32:33] rebuttal time. And we still

[3:32:34] have the unresolved issues of

[3:32:37] the two letters. Okay, let's

[3:32:42] start off with MR. Ambrose with

[3:32:47] your rebuttal time. Good

[3:32:50] morning again. I didn't hear

[3:32:52] any or any of the new issues

[3:32:56] that that that the. Folks spoke

[3:32:58] about a staff staff addressed

[3:32:58] pretty well. So I don't really

[3:33:00] have anything to add to what

[3:33:02] what staff has provided your

[3:33:05] Commission now, in regard to

[3:33:06] your CHAIRMAN, your last

[3:33:08] comment about the location of

[3:33:11] the tower in relation to homes,

[3:33:13] etc. Please remember that the

[3:33:17] county recommends minimizing

[3:33:19] visual impacts from public

[3:33:21] roads. So in this case, just

[3:33:23] the logical solution is going

[3:33:25] to be as far back off the

[3:33:28] public road as possible. So

[3:33:29] that's so the tower could work

[3:33:31] right at the front of the

[3:33:32] property in the middle of the

[3:33:34] property. It could function

[3:33:35] anywhere on the property. But

[3:33:37] again, we're following county

[3:33:38] guidance trying to keep it off

[3:33:40] the public road as far as

[3:33:41] possible. So again, that's the

[3:33:43] reason it's at the at the back

[3:33:45] of the property. Okay. Thank

[3:33:47] you. The reason for my question

[3:33:49] was rf emissions relative to

[3:33:52] residents versus transients,

[3:33:54] these residents will be living

[3:33:56] near those towers. So I was

[3:33:57] just trying to understand how

[3:34:00] they would be impacted. So so I

[3:34:01] understand what you're saying

[3:34:02] relative to visual impact, but

[3:34:04] I think in much greater than

[3:34:06] visual impact. Well, I just

[3:34:07] want to remind the commission

[3:34:09] that I think Francisco

[3:34:11] presented it. We did do an rf

[3:34:13] study. And the worst case

[3:34:14] scenario, which is standing

[3:34:18] right below the tower, is 45.6%

[3:34:22] of the fcc standard. The

[3:34:23] further you move away from the

[3:34:25] tower, that just goes down. So

[3:34:27] we're already at least 50%

[3:34:29] below the fcc standard right

[3:34:32] under the tower. So if you're

[3:34:34] expressing a concern about, you

[3:34:37] know, exposure to rf, there's

[3:34:40] no issue just based on the

[3:34:41] evidence that's provided and

[3:34:43] also the fcc standards. Yeah,

[3:34:45] actually, I was just trying to

[3:34:46] understand the concern from the

[3:34:47] speaker's point of view. Oh,

[3:34:49] okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay.

[3:34:50] Understood. No, I understand

[3:34:51] the perception. I understand

[3:34:55] that part of it. Okay. Any

[3:34:57] questions? No. Okay. Thank you,

[3:35:10] MR. Ambrose. Okay. MR.

[3:35:11] Villalobos, we'd like to go

[3:35:12] back to the emails that were

[3:35:15] received after the cutoff. You

[3:35:16] know, I'd like to address them

[3:35:18] in deliberations because, like

[3:35:20] I said, I think they MAY be

[3:35:23] muted and it would be an undue

[3:35:25] use of time to belabor that

[3:35:28] point. So I don't have any

[3:35:29] objections to that. Any other

[3:35:31] commissioners? If that's the

[3:35:32] case, then we'll go to

[3:35:34] deliberations. Okay. MAY I

[3:35:37] speak first? Commissioner Pak,

[3:35:39] would you please speak first?

[3:35:43] Yeah. I've thought about this a

[3:35:45] lot, and I've been here before.

[3:35:48] We've had you might you might

[3:35:51] think that we lived on cannabis

[3:35:52] cases, but in fact, we've

[3:35:54] actually had more fun cases

[3:35:56] than cannabis cases over the

[3:35:57] years. And most of the time

[3:35:59] they just simply get approved.

[3:36:02] But sometimes neighbors bring

[3:36:03] things up and we have to spend

[3:36:05] some time digging into it. And,

[3:36:07] and this is one of those. And

[3:36:09] that's where we get these

[3:36:10] tension between what's

[3:36:11] preempted by federal government

[3:36:14] on rf. But what are what can we

[3:36:16] look at? And we can, in fact,

[3:36:19] look at. Because it's a cup, we

[3:36:20] have very broad discretion to

[3:36:22] look at such things as

[3:36:23] compatibility with the

[3:36:24] neighborhood. And there's a

[3:36:26] specific finding on it, and it

[3:36:28] appears in every single finding.

[3:36:31] I would like to make a motion,

[3:36:32] and then I would like to

[3:36:35] explain why making that motion

[3:36:37] and that motion is not a motion

[3:36:41] for approval, because right now

[3:36:44] I can't do what former

[3:36:45] Commissioner Cooney taught me

[3:36:47] to do, and that is focus on the

[3:36:50] findings and decide whether I

[3:36:52] can make those findings. And I

[3:36:54] can't make the finding that's

[3:36:56] part of every cup. In fact,

[3:36:58] it's what makes a cup a cup,

[3:37:00] and that is the compatibility

[3:37:03] finding. We just don't have the

[3:37:07] information. I don't want to

[3:37:09] make the motion to deny the

[3:37:11] project because after seeing so

[3:37:14] many of these over the years,

[3:37:16] with the constraints we have

[3:37:17] with the federal government and

[3:37:20] such, there's going to be

[3:37:22] approval of some site somewhere.

[3:37:24] That's just what has to happen.

[3:37:27] So if I told all the folks out

[3:37:30] there, I can make a motion to

[3:37:32] deny this and that's going to

[3:37:33] kill the project, I would be

[3:37:36] lying to you. Honestly, what's

[3:37:38] going to happen is we should do

[3:37:41] what we can to make it the best

[3:37:43] project possible for the whole

[3:37:44] neighborhood, but realize we

[3:37:46] have to attend to that. And

[3:37:49] that's why my motion is a

[3:37:52] motion to continue this matter

[3:37:55] to the next available hearing

[3:37:58] that staff can suggest for us.

[3:38:01] And during that time, I want to

[3:38:05] afford MR. Ambrose, an apc, the

[3:38:07] opportunity to explore

[3:38:09] alternate sites and go beyond

[3:38:11] what you've looked at already,

[3:38:14] which we've listed by by

[3:38:16] addresses, and look on the east

[3:38:19] side of 154. Why would you do

[3:38:23] that? Because your own service

[3:38:27] map shows that sites within 154

[3:38:28] are within that same service

[3:38:30] area, and would have similar

[3:38:33] coverage. If we look at

[3:38:35] topography sites on the other

[3:38:39] side of one, 54 are elevated

[3:38:40] compared to the project site,

[3:38:43] which is more or less in a hole.

[3:38:44] I have not been on the project

[3:38:47] site. I've been to the very

[3:38:49] western end, the end adjacent

[3:38:51] to the project site of the

[3:38:53] Cheney property. You know, the

[3:38:54] Cheney property. And it's the

[3:38:56] it's it's the next one to the

[3:38:57] right of that. And I've seen

[3:38:59] the hole in property. I've seen

[3:39:01] others. Yes. There are

[3:39:02] substantial improvements that

[3:39:04] are much closer to this site

[3:39:06] than the house on the twig

[3:39:07] property is in fact, the the

[3:39:09] Cheney property has got things

[3:39:12] right near there. The distance

[3:39:15] from the antenna to the Cheney

[3:39:19] property is 54ft per the

[3:39:20] exhibits we've seen today,

[3:39:22] which is less than the height

[3:39:24] of the structure. So yes, there

[3:39:26] there are impacts, but it sits

[3:39:28] in a hole. It would just stand

[3:39:30] a reason to me that we should

[3:39:31] explore those sites on the

[3:39:33] other side of 154 that are

[3:39:35] elevated and would have more

[3:39:37] coverage, and they do not have

[3:39:39] the problem of being near

[3:39:40] people's homes or on small

[3:39:42] parcels, or on much bigger

[3:39:43] parcels, where there are all

[3:39:45] sorts of other odd things. And

[3:39:46] you can even see from this

[3:39:48] picture, it's tree lined,

[3:39:50] especially on the east side.

[3:39:52] And many of those trees are

[3:39:54] very tall eucalyptus trees, and

[3:39:57] some are sitting on hills and,

[3:39:58] and it seems much more

[3:40:00] appropriate to site over there

[3:40:01] where it would not bother

[3:40:03] people and would give us

[3:40:06] similar coverage. I believe

[3:40:08] then then this site, this

[3:40:10] should be explored. We owe it

[3:40:11] to these people to explore that.

[3:40:14] And that's why I want to afford

[3:40:16] apc the opportunity to explore

[3:40:20] other sites. There are sites

[3:40:24] that are on the Chumash

[3:40:26] Triangle, and there are sites

[3:40:29] at a very large one, that apc

[3:40:32] has an easement for at the

[3:40:36] corner of Fox and. And. 154 so

[3:40:37] they they know the area they

[3:40:41] can explore in between. And we

[3:40:43] will answer any other questions

[3:40:45] that that people can think of.

[3:40:48] One that I have is if 68ft

[3:40:50] seems really tall, because it

[3:40:55] is where that is, would 240ft

[3:40:57] in ten. I achieve the same

[3:40:59] amount of coverage with much

[3:41:01] less disturbance to the

[3:41:02] neighbors. But these are things

[3:41:03] we need to explore further

[3:41:06] before we can vote on this. So

[3:41:09] that's my motion. So chair and

[3:41:10] members of the commission,

[3:41:12] there's two things that we need

[3:41:14] to address because there's two

[3:41:15] motions on the floor. There's a

[3:41:16] motion about the letters that

[3:41:18] was tabled by Commissioner Park.

[3:41:20] And now there's another motion

[3:41:22] that we can refine. That's a

[3:41:24] continuance motion. Well, and

[3:41:27] the continuance motion moots

[3:41:30] the other motion because we

[3:41:32] don't need those letters today.

[3:41:33] Those letters can be submitted.

[3:41:34] They've already been submitted.

[3:41:36] And they'll be in time for the

[3:41:38] next hearing. So we just don't

[3:41:40] need just to rephrase that, I'm

[3:41:42] hearing that the motion makers

[3:41:43] withdrawing that motion on

[3:41:45] those letters, because

[3:41:47] otherwise it was tabled. Yeah,

[3:41:48] because it is mute by

[3:41:51] continuing it, but conditional

[3:41:57] on the passage of the motion to.

[3:41:58] To continue the matter, because

[3:42:00] I don't want to have that

[3:42:02] motion fail. And then my other

[3:42:04] motion has been withdrawn. So

[3:42:06] that's why I've now stated for

[3:42:08] the third time, I want to

[3:42:10] consider it after the motion I

[3:42:12] bring up in deliberations. Okay.

[3:42:15] So we'll table that discussion

[3:42:18] further. Chair the other items

[3:42:20] to consider on the motion for

[3:42:23] continuance is that this

[3:42:25] particular project is mandated

[3:42:26] to be heard in a certain period

[3:42:27] of time, which is commonly

[3:42:30] referred as a shot clock that

[3:42:33] expires on OCTOBER 13th. So if

[3:42:35] it isn't heard by OCTOBER 13th

[3:42:36] or decision made, then it's

[3:42:39] automatically approved. So we

[3:42:41] would need to ask the applicant

[3:42:46] if he's willing to. Consider a

[3:42:47] tolling agreement, which would

[3:42:50] extend that time period out.

[3:42:52] And that's where we need to

[3:42:53] maybe take a break, talk to the

[3:42:55] applicant and staff on what

[3:42:57] that date would look like.

[3:42:58] Staff is whispering and giving

[3:43:00] me hand signals about later in

[3:43:02] this year, but we need to hear

[3:43:03] from the applicant, if that's

[3:43:04] even feasible, to come back

[3:43:08] with information that is being

[3:43:09] requested. So if we could take

[3:43:11] a short break so we can get

[3:43:12] that information, we can come

[3:43:14] back and address the motion. Is

[3:43:15] it is it possible to take a

[3:43:17] short break and have us remain

[3:43:19] here so that we don't have to

[3:43:20] hurt everybody back together

[3:43:22] again, chair and commissioners,

[3:43:23] that is correct. Okay. And I

[3:43:25] would certainly favor that as

[3:43:27] part of my motion because, you

[3:43:29] know, if if the shot clock

[3:43:30] applies and we can't possibly

[3:43:32] have a hearing before OCTOBER

[3:43:34] 13th, then we're forced to vote

[3:43:37] to approve or deny the the

[3:43:39] matter today. And the applicant

[3:43:44] risks denial. Okay, let's go

[3:43:47] ahead and take that short break

[3:43:50] so that the applicant can speak

[3:43:53] with staff. Thank you. Please,

[3:43:54] everybody else, if you can stay

[3:44:13] close by. Okay. Thank you.

[3:50:03] Okay.

[3:50:05] We're returning back from our

[3:50:09] short break. MR. Wilson. Chair,

[3:50:10] members of the commission.

[3:50:13] We've met with staff and the

[3:50:14] applicant, and he's willing to

[3:50:16] continue this to DECEMBER 9th.

[3:50:18] So for the motion maker, it

[3:50:20] would be to continue this item

[3:50:22] to DECEMBER 9th to give him

[3:50:24] enough time to prepare the

[3:50:26] required studies and then come

[3:50:27] back on the ninth and present

[3:50:30] that to the commission. But we

[3:50:32] do want to have invite the

[3:50:33] applicant to come forward and

[3:50:35] get that on the record. For him

[3:50:37] to say that he's agreeing to

[3:50:39] continue it to the ninth. Okay.

[3:50:40] Applicant, please

[3:50:41] come forward

[3:50:43] so we can get that on the

[3:50:48] record. Yes, we're in agreement.

[3:50:49] Thank you, MR. Ambrose. We

[3:50:53] appreciate it, MR. Chair.

[3:50:55] Commissioner o'Connor, while

[3:50:57] the applicant is standing at

[3:51:01] the microphone, it MAY help to

[3:51:03] answer both the Commission's

[3:51:04] questions and the neighbors

[3:51:07] questions. If there were an

[3:51:10] independent analysis of the

[3:51:13] expected rf emissions from this

[3:51:15] facility in connection with any

[3:51:17] nearby residences. And when I

[3:51:19] say independent, I mean a

[3:51:21] consultant selected by county

[3:51:23] staff and reporting to county

[3:51:26] staff. But then, of course, the

[3:51:28] applicant would pay for that

[3:51:31] additional study. And my

[3:51:33] question, first of all to staff,

[3:51:34] is that something that you

[3:51:38] would undertake and support?

[3:51:40] And if the answer there is yes,

[3:51:42] is that something that the

[3:51:43] applicant would be willing to

[3:51:44] pay for as part of the work

[3:51:46] that's being done between now

[3:51:49] and DECEMBER 9th, is your

[3:51:53] question? We would run a report.

[3:51:55] Essentially exposure levels at

[3:51:57] House a, b and c, that kind of

[3:52:02] a report, correct? Sure. Okay.

[3:52:06] I would I would add that to as

[3:52:08] a friendly amendment to the

[3:52:11] motion to continue this matter,

[3:52:12] assuming there's a motion on

[3:52:14] the floor, is there a motion on

[3:52:15] the floor? Yes, yes, yes. And

[3:52:17] we would have we would rely on

[3:52:20] staff to give us a specifics. I

[3:52:21] would ask the maker of the

[3:52:23] motion if he agrees with my

[3:52:26] friendly amendment. So Chair

[3:52:28] and commissioners, we I think

[3:52:30] staff has some comments and

[3:52:31] concerns about that condition.

[3:52:34] Okay. So we're not in alignment

[3:52:36] with that condition. All right.

[3:52:37] So we don't know if we could

[3:52:42] actually implement that. So we

[3:52:43] would we would say that

[3:52:44] wouldn't be something that we'd

[3:52:46] want to entertain at this

[3:52:48] moment without doing further

[3:52:49] research, analysis on what

[3:52:53] you're asking, because we don't,

[3:52:55] according to what's being

[3:52:55] reported by staff, is that

[3:52:56] we're having a difficult time

[3:52:58] getting the peer reviewers to

[3:52:59] take on that liability to do

[3:53:01] that. Currently, my

[3:53:02] understanding is that the

[3:53:04] applicant does submit the rf

[3:53:05] studies to the county, and then

[3:53:08] we have them peer reviewed. Oh,

[3:53:09] okay. The study is peer

[3:53:11] reviewed by an independent

[3:53:12] expert to determine whether or

[3:53:14] not the study is reliable. Is

[3:53:18] that what we do? Commissioners,

[3:53:20] we are having trouble finding

[3:53:24] someone to peer review. So I, I,

[3:53:25] I don't think staff has any

[3:53:27] issues with you asking for them

[3:53:30] to do the report. Whether we

[3:53:32] have the ability to find

[3:53:33] someone to peer review it in

[3:53:35] the time frame, we can try, we

[3:53:36] can try again, reach out to

[3:53:38] some different people. But I

[3:53:42] think due to a lot of the legal

[3:53:43] issues around wireless and

[3:53:45] federal laws, there's been a

[3:53:47] reluctance of people to take

[3:53:50] that on. So just heads up, but

[3:53:52] certainly okay to ask for it

[3:53:56] for the okay, so maybe my

[3:54:00] friendly amendment is to try to

[3:54:02] do this without it necessarily

[3:54:06] being a condition of this

[3:54:09] continuance. You know, it, it

[3:54:10] fits right in. And I'll tell

[3:54:12] you why I've done this enough

[3:54:13] times to know that I should

[3:54:15] keep my motions pretty simple.

[3:54:17] And so I think the motion here

[3:54:19] simply is to continue to this

[3:54:21] next date, which we now hear is

[3:54:23] DECEMBER 9th to explore

[3:54:26] alternatives. And that can take

[3:54:28] many manifestations.

[3:54:29] Alternatives in what you've

[3:54:32] asked for is, is part of that.

[3:54:33] And and now that the applicant

[3:54:36] has heard you express your own

[3:54:37] interest in that, I'm sure that

[3:54:39] they will pay attention to that

[3:54:44] during this hiatus. Okay. I'm

[3:54:48] happy with that. Thank you.

[3:54:52] Okay. Commissioner Martinez? Oh,

[3:54:55] sorry about that. Okay. I don't

[3:54:57] know if this is the proper way

[3:54:59] to do it, but along with that

[3:55:01] continuance, I would also like

[3:55:03] to see, as one of the residents

[3:55:06] recommended a height test at

[3:55:07] that location, putting

[3:55:09] something up in the air at 68ft

[3:55:13] high so that there's a better

[3:55:14] representation. When we look

[3:55:16] from the private, the private

[3:55:18] properties as well as public

[3:55:20] properties, is is there an

[3:55:21] opportunity to do something

[3:55:26] along those lines? Sure.

[3:55:27] Commissioners like story polls.

[3:55:29] Is that what you're asking?

[3:55:32] Maybe your story poll, the

[3:55:33] recommendations were a balloon,

[3:55:36] a crane, a boom, something so

[3:55:38] that so that we can actually

[3:55:42] see how high 68ft is from

[3:55:44] public property, as well as

[3:55:47] from the private property. We

[3:55:49] will work with the applicant to

[3:55:51] try and figure something out.

[3:55:54] Okay. Thank you. Okay. MAY I

[3:55:57] speak, Commissioner Ford? Thank

[3:55:59] you. Well, I would like to

[3:56:01] second the motion, but first, I

[3:56:03] just wanted to say a couple of

[3:56:05] things. I want to thank MR.

[3:56:06] Vargas because you really

[3:56:08] helped me understand this issue

[3:56:10] and you walked me through it.

[3:56:12] But I am also just as grateful,

[3:56:14] if not more, to the community

[3:56:16] that showed up and wrote to us

[3:56:18] and spoke. The comments were

[3:56:19] considered, they were

[3:56:20] thoughtful, they were measured,

[3:56:22] and they might be boiling and

[3:56:25] furious inside, but they were

[3:56:28] so compelling that I do think

[3:56:31] we need to respond and validate

[3:56:33] those concerns. So my second

[3:56:36] would be in in the interest of

[3:56:37] compatibility, one of the

[3:56:39] things that our commission can

[3:56:43] address. So I'll second it. So

[3:56:45] we have a first and second. Any

[3:56:48] other discussion before we vote?

[3:56:50] Commissioner Martinez, I would

[3:56:52] I would just say this for for

[3:56:55] this sake of of future avoiding

[3:56:57] future dispute, if there is

[3:56:58] going to be such a thing such

[3:57:02] as a balloon out there to, to

[3:57:03] provide for the observation of

[3:57:05] the height and what it would

[3:57:06] look like, I would, I would

[3:57:08] hope that we we on the

[3:57:09] Commission, would be informed

[3:57:10] of the date and time that that

[3:57:12] would happen. Because if that

[3:57:14] happens and it's just based on

[3:57:15] photos, we all know what photos

[3:57:17] can do. I can zoom in, zoom out,

[3:57:18] make it whatever I want, and

[3:57:20] make it bigger or smaller. If

[3:57:23] that happens, I would say, and

[3:57:25] I'm looking forward to seeing

[3:57:27] just the the technical coverage

[3:57:30] from 40ft to 50ft. I think

[3:57:31] somebody even said that and say,

[3:57:34] show me if if you show them,

[3:57:35] that would be really helpful to

[3:57:37] me. And I'm supportive of the

[3:57:39] continuance to allow these

[3:57:41] answer to get these questions

[3:57:46] answered. Thank you.

[3:57:47] Commissioner Ford, did you have

[3:57:50] any. Oh, no sir. Okay. So we've

[3:57:51] got a first and a second. So

[3:57:53] we're ready to vote. Do we do a

[3:57:56] roll call or do you can we just

[3:57:58] do individual votes for this?

[3:58:01] Okay. So we're going to do

[3:58:03] individual votes. All in favor

[3:58:07] I aye. Any opposed. None. Okay.

[3:58:11] The continuance will proceed.

[3:58:14] Thank you chair. Thank you all

[3:58:35] I. Okay let's go to.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript