Okay, it's 9:07 A.M. We 9:05
A.M. We'd like to go ahead and
start the meeting. First item
of order is the Pledge of
Allegiance. So MAY I ask you
all to please stand? I pledge
allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to
the Republic for which it
stands. One nation under GOD,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Thank you all.
MR. Villalobos, do you mind
reading to us the tv coverage
announcement? Yes. Thank you,
MR. Chair, and good morning to
the Commission. Planning
Commission hearings are
televised live on the County of
Santa Barbara Television
Kswb-tv, channel 20, at 9 A.M.
In the South Coast, Lompoc
Valley area and areas.
Rebroadcast of Planning
Commission hearings on Fridays
at 5 P.M. On Kswb-tv channel 20.
Today's hearing will also be
streamed live on the county's
website, as well as the
county's YouTube channel, and
will be available for download
in a day or two. Should I move
on to roll call? Yes, please.
Thank you. Great. Commissioner.
Mayor Connor here, here. Thank
you. Commissioner Ford here.
Commissioner Martinez here and
chair Guy here. And then
Commissioner Park will be
joining us shortly. Yes. Okay.
The agenda status report. Good
morning, chair. Members of the
commission. Looking at the
status of our agenda today, we
have one item on consent which
is a government code
consistency. And then we have
I'm sorry, we have four items
on our agenda. My understanding
is applicants and staff are
ready to present on all those
items. Okay, MR. Wilson, I'm
going to ask that we make a
change. And I know there's
quite a few people here in the
room. Unfortunately, I'm going
to ask that we move the second
item, which is the t mobile
telecommunications facility, to
the end. Unfortunately,
Commissioner Park is not here
at the moment, but he's he's in
process. He's been delayed. And
it's important that he's here
for this item. If we could do
so, then I would like you to
move up. I believe it's the
Wollover llc. So. Yeah. MR.
Chair. Sorry, Mel. Move. Yes.
Go ahead. What would be the
best order for us? So, MR.
Chair and Commissioners, if I
MAY, provide a recommendation
in concert, we're talking with
staff. The recommendation is we
move item number one off the
Senate agenda, which is t
mobile, to the last item on the
agenda. And then the order
would be as follows. The first
item on the agenda would be the
mammoth tentative parcel map,
followed by the Wollover llc
lot line adjustment. And then
the third item would be the
land in equestrian arena and
small scale event. And then
we'll end the day with the t
mobile communication facility.
That sounds fantastic. Thank
you. So moving on to the
projection report. Thank you,
MR. Chair. And commissioners,
looking at upcoming hearings,
we canceled the SEPTEMBER 2nd
hearing and then the next
hearing after that would be on
SEPTEMBER 9th. And we have one
item on consent. And then we
have one item on the standard
agenda, which is a track map,
and that is located in the
Saint Louis area. And I'm just
for the commission. SEPTEMBER
9th will be in Santa Maria, and
then moving further down on our
agendas is looking at. Some.
After SEPTEMBER 9th, we will
meet again on SEPTEMBER 30th
and that is when we will have
the Ministerial Streamlining
Amendment Workshop. And just so
the commissioners just. You do
have the agenda, but looking at
that, the start time for the
SEPTEMBER 30th date is going to
be at 1 P.M. And that will be
here in Santa Barbara. And then
because in the morning, the
Montecito Planning Commission
will be having the same
workshop, and theirs is going
to start at nine. So SEPTEMBER
30th, we'll be here in Santa
Barbara at 1:00. And we did add
one other item from long range
planning, which is the Eastern
Goleta Valley Community Plan
circulation elements. So after
the workshop, we'll have
another item from long range
planning. And then following
that, we canceled the OCTOBER
7th hearing to allow for an
alignment of hearings between
the Montecito Planning
Commission and the County
Planning Commission. So we will
not meet again until OCTOBER
21st. And then OCTOBER 21st is
when we'll have the first
hearing on the ministerial
streamlining amendments
adoption. And then we'll also
have one other item on that
date, which is a lot split or
lot line adjustment. That's
another from long range
planning, which is a
ministerial processing of lot
splits. And then on OCTOBER
28th, we have three items. We
have a second hearing from
ministerial streamlining
amendments in case we need it.
And then we also have a couple
items from long range planning,
not I'm sorry, development
Review Division, which is a
hotel expansion in Los Olivos.
And then another housing
development, Isla Vista. Then
on NOVEMBER 4th, we are looking
at having a hearing where we're
bringing the actual completed
ordinance amendments, general
plan amendments on the
Recreation Master Plan to the
County Planning Commission, and
then following NOVEMBER 4th,
because of holidays. We do have
a tbd on there, but I don't
think we're going to be able to
make that, because I think
that's actually. A holiday.
It's Veterans Day, it's
Veterans Day. So we can talk at
another hearing if we want to
reschedule it. But I think
following that, we have things
Thanksgiving. And so I don't
know if we want to have a
hearing right before
Thanksgiving due to staff
availability and commissioners
availability. So I'll work with
MR. Villalobos and staff to see
if we have another hearing for
NOVEMBER. But when we looked at
it, we didn't hadn't identified
another date, so that would put
us no more hearings in NOVEMBER,
and then that would bring us
back in DECEMBER for another
hearing on the recreation,
recreation Master Plan
amendments. And then we also
have another item from long
range planning, which is the
moderate income density bonus,
Special Needs and Housing
Ordinance amendments. So there
are a number of other items, I
think, that are. Being looked
at and being placed on the
projection report as well. And
so at our next hearing you'll
probably see more items on
there as well. So the at the
end of the year, there's a
number of items that are going
to be showing up on the
projection report. So that's
the current status of right now.
MR. Chair. Thank you, MR.
Wilson, for the update on the
projection report. We
appreciate it. The public
comment. Yes. Thank you, MR.
Chair. So for those of you here
today, this is a time that we
allow for public comment on
items, not on today's agenda. I
have not received any speaker
slips, but if anyone would like
to speak, just rise. Or if
you're online, raise your
virtual hand and I'll call on
you. And so of course, this is
again for not related to items
on today's agenda, seeing no
one rise, do we have one person
out here? Do you have an item
that's not on the agenda? Okay.
Thank you. Then I believe that
means no speakers at this time.
Okay. Thank you, MR. Villalobos.
Planning commissioners,
informal reports. Individual
commissioners MAY present
briefly reports on planning
issues such as seminars,
meetings and literature that
would be of interest to the
public and the Commission as a
whole. Do any commissioner,
mayor Connor? No. Okay. Thank
you. Any any comments? Okay.
Well, we're going through this
fast. And and next would be the
minutes from the AUGUST 12th
meeting. So. So at this point,
you would just ask if anyone
has any amendments to the
minutes. And if no, then a
motion. So I have read the
minutes from the AUGUST 12th
meeting. Does anybody have any
objections to the minutes as
presented. No objections. Okay.
Anybody want to make a motion
to accept the minutes as
presented. Thank you,
Commissioner Connor. Thank you,
Commissioner Ford. All in favor?
Aye. Any opposed? None. Passes
four zero. Next is director's
report and Board of Supervisors
hearing summary. Good morning,
MR. Chair. And members of the
Commission. I have a few
announcements that I want to
repeat. I had made them at our
last meeting when you were in
Santa Maria, but Farm Day is
the 19th of SEPTEMBER, and if
you have never been to it, I
really recommend attendance.
It's really very, very
informative just about what's
happening in the Santa Maria
Valley, issues that the
agricultural families and
companies deal with, struggles
that they MAY have. And then
there's. Some guest speakers
that you go on a tour and you
just it's really amazing how
much you learn about things
that you had no idea. Like one
of the farming families there
developed an entire piece of
equipment. It's like a, it's a
truck, basically that comes
into the field. They put their
romaine lettuce on it. It goes
through it packages, it comes
out and it's packaged, ready,
stamped with a date and ready
to go to a store. It's amazing,
you know, and that how quickly
berries get into the market,
that kind of thing. So it's
just really, really an
informative day and I've
enjoyed it each time I've gone.
So they motivated me to do a
garden bed and they gave me a
some kale to start and it's
just really cool. So I
recommend it if you, if you can
make it. And then Commissioner
Park talked about this, but
there is an ag tourism summit
that's going to be held in Paso
Robles, and that is on the 23rd
through the 25th of SEPTEMBER.
We are looking at having
somebody from the county attend
to talk about the ag Enterprise
ordinance and sort of the
lessons that we've learned as
we've implemented that program
and realizing some of the
tweaks we have needed to make.
We did come back with one
already. So they've asked us to
attend, and we're going to work
to try and make that happen.
And then just recent board
actions, the Hagfors rezone in
Santa Ynez Valley went from c2
to c3. That was approved by the
board on the 18th. Their first
hearing back from the break.
And then future board actions.
I wanted to update the
commission on something that
the second and third district
are bringing on the 1st of
SEPTEMBER, and it is tied to
retail firearms shops. And I
don't know if you were tracking
some of the issues that came
out of a retailer going into a
space next to a child care
facility in the city of Goleta,
but there was a lot of
community concern about it. So
our two board members are
bringing an item forward to
direct the department to look
at creating an ordinance that
establishes buffers to
sensitive receptors for retail
firearm stores, so that that
item, and then they're also
bringing forward a request for
a moratorium, a temporary
moratorium, so that the county
has sufficient time to bring
that ordinance back before
additional retailers start
moving around and shifting
spaces. We will also have the
board here. The second item,
the second hearing on the
utility scale, solar, I think I
mentioned the last Planning
Commission hearing some of the
notable things that the board
did include creating an a
zoning clearance for standalone
battery energy storage systems
up to 0.25 acres, and then also
creating a zoning clearance for
agricultural operations that
are using solar on site to
allow them to have up to 15
acres of solar. Provided that
all of that power that's
generated by that solar is used
for that agricultural operation
on that particular site. And
that was a request that had
come from the Shipper Growers
Association. And we managed to
review our environmental
documents to determine that. We
thought we had it sufficiently
covered in the eir. So we're
going to move forward with that
recommendation for the board.
Then on the first, we also have
an update and a reassessment of
our Coastal Resource Mitigation
fund fees during the times that
oil and gas operators in the
coastal zone are non-operative,
their fees go down, but once
they become operative, then the
fees can be reassessed. And so
we are bringing back a
reassessment for the Sabl.
Operations at Los Flores Canyon
and then bringing oil through
the pipeline. So that will
increase the available funds
that we will have in that in
the fund that is then made
available to nonprofits and
governmental agencies that are
doing work in the coastal zone,
either for coastal restoration
or recreation. We see lots of
proposals that come in, and
later this fall, we are going
to be opening that process back
up. And so we'll we also have
money set aside for
acquisitions, coastal
acquisitions. So we've been
going on a cycle of every two
years because the fund has been
shrinking over the years as oil
and gas operations have ceased.
But we seem to have more money
now. And so there will be a
good opportunity for nonprofits
to come forward and ask for
funds for their specific
projects. We've seen some
really great things like Nature
Track, which is where this
nonprofit comes in, and they
have wheelchairs that are
basically like four wheel drive
for handicapped people to be
able to get to the beach and
explore tide pools and things
like that. We've given money to
the aquarium that they have at
Cabrillo High School, and then
kelp reforestation. So there's
a lot of really interesting
projects that get funded
through that. On the 15th of
SEPTEMBER, we have the oil and
gas item that's coming back.
It's phase one of changes to
the oil and gas provisions in
the county. Phase one is
prevention of the drilling of
new wells, and then once the
board takes action on that
phase two, which has already
been initiated, that is the
study of amortizing oil and gas
as being phased out over a
period of time so that they can
operators still achieve their
investment backed expectations.
There are other jurisdictions
that have moved forward with it.
I think County of La La city
and then Culver City all have
programs. The airport land use,
consistent land use plan,
consistency amendments. And
this is just the step the
county takes to bring our codes
into conformance with sb Kags
new airport land use plan,
which is a few years old. So
we're a little bit behind, but
that's going to be heard on the
22nd. And I believe that's
already been heard by the pc.
We have two projects going in
NOVEMBER on the 10th to the
board Constellation project,
which is in Vandenberg Village,
and that is a combination of a
hotel and residential. And then
the Malkin gpa rezone lot line
adjustment will be at the board
on the 10th of NOVEMBER, and I
am happy to answer any
questions. Thank you, MISS
Plowman. Yes. Okay. Next agenda
item. I'm sorry. Oh thank you.
Okay. Next item is the consent
agenda items and procedure, MR.
Villalobos. Thank you, MR.
Chair. The following is a
hearing on the request of Kevin
Thompson, Laguna County
Sanitation District. Consider
case number 26g0v5 for
determination that the solids
Handling phase three project
conforms with the Comprehensive
Plan of the County of Santa
Barbara. Pursuant to California
Government Code, section 65402.
And I believe both MR. Ortega
and MR. Thompson are online, if
there are any questions. Okay.
Before we go to that, is there
any ex parte communication or
site visits that anybody would
like to report on this item? Oh,
I only say that because I did
do a site visit so that I would
have a better understanding of
the of the facility. And I did
meet with Kevin Thompson. Okay.
So, MR. Chair, at this point, I
believe what you would ask the
commissioners if there are any
questions or any requests to
pull the item off of consent,
then we need to ask for public
comment. If the answer to both
is no, then we would be looking
for a motion. Okay. Thank you
very much, MR. Villalobos. So
I'm going to ask the
commissioners, does anybody
have any comment or any other
information? MR. Commissioner,
Mayor Connor no, none. So
there's no no questions or
comments from the commissioners.
So I'd like to open it up for
public comment. Is there any
public comment on the solids
Handling phase three project?
For those of us joining us
online? Raise your virtual hand
if you'd like to speak on this
item. No hands raised, no hands
raised. Okay. At this point,
I'll make a motion. I'm sorry,
I'll make a motion. Okay. I
would I'm looking for somebody
to make a motion. Commissioner
Ford, thank you so much. I'd
like to make a motion to accept
this. The phase solids handling
phase three government code
conformity determination.
Second. Second. Any discussion?
Okay. All in favor? Aye. None
opposed. Motion carries. Thank
you. At this point, we move to
the standard agenda items, MR.
Villalobos. Yes. I'm just
looking at my cheat sheet for
which one comes first. Okay.
Thank you. The following is a
hearing on the request of Bret
Jones, agent for the owner,
David Malmuth, to consider case
number 24tpm2 and to adopt the
mitigated negative declaration,
case number 25ngd4, and adopt
the Mitigation monitoring
program contained in the
conditions of approval. So I
would like to ask if there's
any ex parte communication or
site visits to share prior to.
Yes. Okay. Commissioner mayor
Connor, thank you. I visited
the site of this project with
the agent. Bret Jones had an
informative tour and he
explained the project to me and
the tentative parcel map. That
was last week. Great. Thank you.
Anybody else? Okay. I would
like to also share that I
visited the site on Monday with
Commissioner Park. We also met
with MR. MR. Jones who gave us
a comprehensive understanding
of the project. So now I would
like to do I ask the applicant
to or ask staff. Okay. I'd like
to ask staff to please report.
Good morning, Chair and
commissioners. My name is
Tatiana and I'm the assigned
planner for the Mammoth Parcel
Map project. Maybe this. Okay.
Okay, so this proposed project
is a request for a tentative
parcel map to subdivide a 9.67
acre parcel into four lots,
ranging from 2 to 2.75 acres in
size. The project site is
outlined in red on this aerial
imagery. The project is at 704
North Refugio Road in Santa
Ynez and is zoned one e one
single family residential. The
residential neighborhood to the
north is also zoned one e one
and is primarily composed of
one acre lots. The neighborhood
to the north and east are
developed with single family
residences, and the areas to
the south and west are
agriculture zoned parcels
containing Rancho Estates,
vineyards, winery and
agriculture. The project is for
subdivision of a 9.67 acre
parcel into four lots, a 28
foot wide private driveway
easement, depicted here in blue,
follows the path of an existing
driveway that currently serves
the residential development on
the site. This easement would
would allow for improvements to
the existing driveway. A 20
foot wide public utility
easement along the northern
property line, which is
depicted in orange, is also
proposed. There is an as built
guest house and garage which
are proposed to remain on
parcel one, which is has a star
here on the screen and their
proposed. The guest house is
proposed to be validated as a
single family dwelling with
approval of a separate Land Use
permit. Proposed parcels two
and four, which are highlighted
here, are currently vacant and
MAY be developed with a single
family residence in the future,
and proposed parcel three will
contain the permitted 2600
square foot single family
dwelling, a detached garage and
private septic system. Which is
also in the stars there. Next,
I want to draw your attention
to the southern property line,
where a required 100 foot
agricultural buffer is proposed.
The buffers measured from the
shared property line, which is
adjacent to the agriculture
zoned property that is under
commercial agricultural
production, low intensity
residential development such as
single family residences, are
allowed within this
agricultural buffer, so the
future proposed single family
dwellings for parcels two and
four would be could be located
in this area. Lastly, there is
a proposed 200 foot wide
development restriction area on
proposed parcel four, which is
shown in light blue, which is
proposed voluntarily to protect
private views from the existing
single family residence. The
project includes development
exclusion areas containing
slopes greater than 20% which
are depicted in red, whereas
areas with slopes less than 20%
are depicted in green. The
gentle slopes areas in green
are suitable for future
development, provided they
comply with other development
standards, such as setbacks and
the agricultural buffer
requirements and development
restriction area on parcel four.
The subdivision is consistent
with the county's comprehensive
plan. First, there are adequate
services available to serve all
four parcels. They will be
served by the Santa Ynez River
Water Conservation District, on
site wastewater treatment
systems, County Fire Department
and county sheriff. Second, the
project is compatible with
nearby agriculture. A 100 foot
agricultural buffer is included
along the southern boundary,
supported by existing terrain
that naturally separates the
site from the adjacent
agriculture. There are no known
cultural resources on the site.
Future development will require
an archeological survey and
stop work procedures if any
resources are discovered, and
that is included in the project
conditions and mitigation
measures. Next, the subdivision
meets Hillside and Watershed
protection standards. There is
no grading proposed currently,
and steep slopes. Steep slopes
are placed in development
exclusion areas. Future grading
on slopes would require
geotechnical studies and
erosion control plans. The
conditions of approval on the
map also demonstrate
consistency with these policies.
Regarding visual resources. The
subdivision will not change
existing views or introduce new
development. At this stage,
future homes will follow design
standards, including for
building materials, colors,
screening, height limits and
dark sky lighting requirements,
and the site is not located
within any designated scenic
overlay area. Next, the site
does not contain any known
sensitive biological resources.
Future development is
conditioned to follow standard
tree protection, nesting bird
avoidance requirements and is
discussed in the mitigated
negative declaration and
mitigation measures. And
finally, the project is
consistent with flood and water
quality policies. The site is
not within any floodway and
there is a setback from a man
made drainage which is on site.
The stormwater best management
practices will be required
during future construction to
protect water quality and avoid
increased runoff. Each parcel
is fully compliant and
developable. The zoning
requires minimum one acre lots
and 120ft of lot, with the four
proposed parcels range from 2.8
to 2.74 acres in size, and each
is approximately 380ft wide,
which exceeds the minimum
requirements, and the
configuration also meets all
setbacks. Parcel one does
contain unpermitted structures,
but the project requires that
these structures are validated
with permits or removed within
90 days of map Recordation
parcels two and four are
currently vacant, and parcel
three contains an existing
permitted home. All parcels
have confirmed water service
and onsite wastewater systems
are feasible. A mitigated
negative declaration was
prepared under Sequa, and it
found that all potentially
significant environmental
impacts can be reduced to less
than significant, with
mitigation for esthetics,
building materials screening
and dark sky lighting will
ensure future development
blends with the surroundings
for air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions. Dust control is
required during construction as
well as energy efficient design
and waste reduction measures to
keep emissions low for
biological resources. Tree
protection, nesting bird
surveys and sorry nesting bird
surveys will prevent impacts to
vegetation and wildlife for
fire protection, defense,
defensible space, fire, safe
construction and vegetation
management at the time of
future development will reduce
any wildfire risk for geologic
conditions. The Mapped
Development exclusion areas
avoid steep slopes and future
grading would require
geotechnical studies and
erosion control plans and for
water resources, stormwater
best management practices such
as bioswales, vegetated buffers,
use of pervious materials and
roof runoff collection protect
water quality and reduce runoff.
All mitigation measures are
included in the project's
conditions of approval and
together form the Mitigation
Monitoring program. With these
measures in place,
environmental impacts are
reduced to less than
significant. In conclusion,
staff recommends your
commission take the following
actions which are listed on the
screen. First, make the
required findings for approval,
including Sequa findings. Adopt
the negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring program
and approve the project subject
to the conditions included in
attachment b. This concludes
Stop's presentation. Staff and
the applicant are available for
questions. Thank you, MISS Cruz.
Open to public comment. For
commissioner comments. Just for
question, we'll ask some
questions. First questions from
us. Okay. About that. Are there
any questions from the
commissioners? Okay.
Commissioner Martinez, good
morning. My quick question. If
you go to slide number four.
Thank you. The 100 foot buffer
is that the dotted well not
dotted but the line on the
bottom. The yellow line or is
it the entire yellow area?
Commissioner Martinez the
agricultural buffer is the
highlighted area in yellow. And
that's 100ft from the shared
property line with the property
that has agriculture. Okay. So
so the property that start or
the, the structure that has
that that large yellow star is
just outside the buffer.
Correct? Sorry, Commissioner
Martinez. So on parcel three,
the the star closest to the
buffer is the existing single
family residence. A portion of
it is within the buffer, and
part of it is outside the
buffer. And on parcel one. That
structure is entirely within
the buffer. Okay, that's that's
what's bringing my confusion.
So what's the purpose of the
buffer? If we already have a
residence within the buffer?
Chair Martinez the purpose of
the buffer really impacts
non-habitable structures. So
single family residences like
the two that are located in the
buffer are typically allowed
because they're considered low
intensity development in the
buffer area. It would just
require certain. Garages,
carports, parking areas to be
located outside the buffer, or
just have different
requirements than the single
family dwellings. And it would
also require specific
landscaping plans, which is
included as a condition if
future landscaping is proposed.
Okay, so if if I'm that owner
and I want to turn that garage
into an Adu, nothing's going to
stop me. Correct? That's
correct. ADUs would also be
allowed within that buffer.
Okay. So the property that has.
So I imagine below that this
buffer is a commercial
agricultural area, am I wrong?
Am I right? Just from me
looking at the overlay, it
looks like yes, that's correct.
I can go back to the site. So
yes, directly south it's the ag
two property. There's currently
pasture land and then about
580ft from the shared property
line, which is that dark green.
If you can kind of see on on
this vicinity aerial, that's
where the crops are grown. So
there's already also kind of a
natural setback, even greater
than what would be required.
And we've given notice to that
owner of this hearing, correct?
Yes we have. Okay. Because. My
sense is, is that the ag buffer
is not really being utilized or
being even honored because you
already have a structure there
and you have a structure there
that can be turned into an Adu,
and therefore the 100 foot
buffer really goes into their
property. Commissioner Martinez,
thank you for your question.
It's a good question because
there is certain development
allowed in the ag buffer. So I
understand that can be a little
bit complicated. So chapter 21
and chapter 35 both have
regulations for what can be
allowed in the ag buffer. So
throughout the county there are
certain uses that are allowed
in the ag buffer. For instance,
like Tatiana mentioned, single
family dwellings, low intensity
residential development, ADUs,
residential accessory
structures MAY be allowed in
the buffer area. In contrast to
that, industrial or commercial
types of development, certain
landscaping, certain lighting,
certain non-habitable
structures are not allowed in
the ag buffer. And I also just
want to clarify that this per
consistent with the chapter 21
and chapter 35, requirements p
and d coordinated with the ag
Commissioner's Office on this
buffer, and they agreed that
the buffer was appropriate for
the proposed project. Oh no. I
can see why somebody would say
it's appropriate, but the
reality is of it is that if you
haven't, if if you have a
structure that's being lived in
and you want to do an
application as a commercial
farmer, you can't do it because
it's within a certain feet from
the application. That's why I'm
trying to say, why are we even
calling the buffer when it's
not even acting as a buffer?
That's that's my concern. I
understand what you're saying
by the codes. You're saying we
can't do this, you can't do
that. But the realities of its
interaction with with the
commercial farm below it or
next to it is that person can't
because there is somebody
living within that 100 foot
area. If my buffer is 200ft
from a plant for making an
application, I can't make it
unless I get permission. And
they can appeal and they can
appeal to the ag commissioner
and all that. That's that's my
concern. But if they're not
here and they're not going to
object to it, I just want to
make sure that they were
noticed. And if they're saying,
hey, I'm not here to agree and
nod my head with Martinez about
the commissioner, Martinez
about this. Okay. But I just
want to make sure I'm aware of
it. And they have the
opportunity to be doing
something about it. Okay. Thank
you. Commissioner Ford. Thanks.
I just have a couple clarifying
questions on that same slide
for well, how is the
development or the decision
around the 200 foot development
restriction made? Yes.
Commissioner Ford, so that 200
foot development restriction
area was voluntarily proposed
by the applicant. So I think I
could let them speak to that
some more. That is not required
by county code. Okay. Thank you.
I'll wait for that. And then
you referred to the validation
process. What's involved in
that? Commissioner Ford so the
applicant has submitted for a
land use permit to validate the
unpermitted structures
following, you know,
recordation of this map. Once
it gets approved, that will be
parcel one will be a legal lot,
and that would allow them to
move forward with their
application to have any single
family dwelling. So that would
the process would be the land
use permit and their building
permit. So they just fill
submit a form to say, now that
this has passed, let's make
this building valid. A real
building, a house, a residence.
Yes. Commissioner Ford, so as I
mentioned, they did apply for
the land use permit. So if we
were to, for example, if that
was not an existing structure,
that would still be the permit
path. And since it's
unpermitted, we would consider
it as a new structure. So
they're going through the
process, which is the land use
permit application. They've
submitted the required plans
and we'll need to also meet
building code requirements.
Thank you. Okay. I have a
follow on question to something
Commissioner Ford asked
relative to the 200ft
development restriction, I
understand that the applicant
is requesting it. Great. The
parcel will eventually be sold.
The new buyer buys the parcel.
How is the new buyer informed
where they can and cannot put
development on that parcel? No.
They will have to look at the
map. Yeah. Commissioner guy. So
the development restriction
area is being recorded with the
map. So this information will
be available to potential
buyers because it's it's shown
and described. And it will be a
recorded document that will be
available. Commissioner guy if
I can add to that. So and then
when a future person comes in
to develop that house staff
will. They'll have to get a
permit. Staff will look at the
approved permits, look at the
conditions on the map and see
that there's a development
restriction zone on there. Okay.
Thank you. Yeah. I'm familiar
with exclusion zones, but I
haven't seen the development
restrictions. So thank you for
the for the answers. I
appreciate it. Sure. Any other
questions from commissioners.
Okay. At this point, do I open
it up to public comment? MR.
Chair, I believe at this point
you should ask the applicant if
they have a presentation. Oh
thank you. I would like to ask
the applicant if they have a
presentation. And I see MR.
Jones moving forward. Good
morning, MR. Chair and Planning
Commissioners. My name is Brett
Jones. I'm a private land use
consultant in this valley with
my associate, Angela Jones. And.
I haven't met a few of you. I
appreciate the site visits I
was able to have with three of
you, and I'm really just here
to answer any questions. I
don't have a presentation per
se. There have been some
questions I'd like to address
so far through the chair.
Commissioner Ford, the 200 foot
setback was voluntarily
proposed by the applicants,
David and Jill Sorensen. They
are currently living in the
residence on parcel three.
There's extraordinary views to
the east, and they've stated
they MAY not even sell the
parcel. But if they did, they
wanted to put that in there to
protect their views. In the
future of looking to the
Figueroa and Santino's
Mountains. Perfect. That's very
helpful. Thanks. Regarding the
validation of the guest house,
we are aware of those
conditions as all of the
conditions in the project and
agree to those I did have. I
would like a little bit of
clarification on the 200 foot,
excuse me, the hundred foot
buffer. It's my understanding
that doesn't affect the
property owner to the south. Is
that correct? That they they
could do development. It really
just affects our parcels. So
this is two through the chair
Do Commissioner Martinez. Does
that make sense? I know it
doesn't restrict their
development. It's about the
ability to utilize the
agricultural purposes of the
southern portion of of the
person below them on the South.
And as my example indicated,
it's, you know, it's the the
process, as I'm aware from I'm
very well aware of it is, is
that if I make a crop
application, I have 100 foot
buffer. It starts from my
boundary line and it goes over
to the other person's, the
north part of it. And then if
there's in there, if anyone's
living in there, then I have to
send them a notice. And if that
notice that gives them the
ability, that person that's
living there to appeal or, or
object to it, then it goes to
the ag commissioner, who then
has a hearing regarding whether
or not the application is
permissible or not. But
typically when you when I see
an ag buffer, it's there's no
development whatsoever within
that. So there is no appeal
process to even worry about a
no notice process to go about a
lot in regards to these things.
And that's why that's the
center of my question. So
whether they develop it into
houses or whatever, that that
has nothing to do with the ag
buffer as far as as far as I
know and as far as I'm
concerned. But thank you, thank
you. I have nothing further.
I'm here to answer any further
questions you might have. Okay.
It doesn't look like there's
any other questions. So thank
you, MR. Jones. Now we get to
open to public comment. Thank
you very much. Please, for give
me all of you out there. This
is only my second meeting. I'm
I'm learning as we go. So any
public comment on this project.
And seeing no hands raised
online. Okay. If there's no
request, then we will close
public comment. At this point.
Are there any other questions
from the commissioners? Any
other comments actually refer
to it as deliberation and move
into okay, we will move into
deliberation. I'll start. Thank
you, Commissioner Martinez. Oh,
I would make it known that I've
made my concerns aware and and
my concerns are being addressed
by the fact that I understand
notice has been given to the
person who's to the south of
this. And if that person isn't
going to come and be active in
something. And that's the
purpose of giving notices. And
I really wanted to make sure my
comments were on the record, or
at least noted within the
record, because it's at least
if there's ever something in
the future about this property,
it's going to be, well, that
was brought up. There was an
opportunity to be addressed and
you didn't come and address it.
If that person would have
showed up and made something of
it, I would have really paid
attention to it. But from what
I have in front of me and from
the development itself, I would
be supportive of this project.
Commissioner Mayor Connor and I
concur with Commissioner
Martinez. I'm supportive of
this project. Commissioner Ford
yes, I'm really pleased with
the concerns that Commissioner
Martinez brought up and. And
see no other reason for concern
at this time. I can support
this action. Okay. And I also
appreciate the work that was
done by staff because this was
this is very valuable and it
makes things very clear for us
to understand. So thank you for
that. So I'm looking for a
motion. I'll move the staff
recommendation. And a I'll
second. Okay. Any discussion?
All in favor? I. None. Opposed.
Motion carries. At this point,
we will move on to the next
item on the agenda. I'm sorry,
can we just give staff a moment
to to come up? But I'm sorry.
Could you clarify who made the
first motion for the mayor?
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Because
these guys change places. Okay.
Everything is. Yeah.
Okay. Okay.
MR. Villalobos, the next item
on the agenda. Thank you, MR.
Chair. Next item following is a
hearing on the request of Ross
Dorman wal over llc to consider
case number 24lla7 and to
determine the project is exempt
from environmental review
pursuant to section 15183 of
the State guidelines for the
implementation of the
California Environmental
Quality Act. Okay. At this
point, we'd like to ask staff
to share their presentation. Oh,
sorry. Any ex parte comments.
Any ex. Any visits. I'm trying
to see which project. Okay, I
don't have any either. Yes. So
now we move on to staff
presentation. Good morning, MR.
Chair and Commissioners. My
name is Veronica King and I
will be presenting the Wollover
llc Lot Line Adjustment Project.
A request for a lot line
adjustment between two existing
parcels. The project site is
located in a rural agricultural
area and the Goleta Valley
north of highway 101, and
involves two parcels. Parcel
one and read is addressed as
901 Verda Linda and is 602.42
acres. Parcel two in blue is
34.34 acres and does not yet
have an address. Both parcels
are currently in agricultural
production with lemon and
avocado orchards. The lot line
adjustment will transfer
approximately 78 acres from
parcel one to parcel two. This
increases parcel 2 to 112 acres,
bringing it into conformance
with the minimum parcel size
for the zone district. No
development is proposed and
existing access and utilities
will remain unchanged. Here you
can see the existing parcel
configuration on the left and
the proposed configuration on
the right. Parcel two, shown in
blue, expands primarily to the
south, while parcel one shown
in red is reduced accordingly.
For some background on the
existing site conditions,
parcel two is currently
undeveloped, while parcel one
contains all existing
development including
residential development,
agricultural support facilities,
water infrastructure and on
site wastewater treatment. As
discussed, the project adjusts
the parcel boundaries but does
not change any existing access,
easements or utilities. The lot
line adjustment would bring
parcel two into conformance
with the minimum lot size
requirement, while also adding
areas with gentler slopes to
the parcel. This would provide
more suitable land for
continued agricultural use and
more appropriate areas for any
future development. Importantly,
the adjustment would not create
any additional parcels or
increase the allowable density.
The project is consistent with
all applicable comprehensive
Plan and Goleta Community Plan
policies. Chapter 21 Land
Division Requirements and the
County Land Use and Development
Code. Existing development
would continue to be adequately
served by private water and
wastewater systems, and the
adjusted parcel configuration
would provide adequate area to
avoid steep slopes and
sensitive biological resources,
such as creeks and
environmentally sensitive
habitat. Additionally, the
adjustment would not create any
zoning, non-conformities or
violations. Existing
development would continue to
meet applicable setbacks and
parcel uses. Existing
nonconforming lot size would be
resolved by increasing the
parcel to more than 100 acres,
consistent with the ag two
minimum parcel size requirement.
For environmental review. The
project qualifies for a Ceqa
guidelines section 15183
exemption because the potential
environmental impacts were
previously analyzed as part of
the Goleta Community Plan eir.
The project would be compliant
with the Goleta Community Plan
policies, and the project would
not result in impacts beyond
those previously evaluated in
the eir. Staff recommends that
your commission make the
required findings for approval.
Determine the project is exempt
from Sequa, and approve the
project subject to the
conditions of approval. That
concludes my presentation and
I'm available for questions.
Thank you. Are there any
questions? Okay. There are no
questions. The applicant is the
applicant present and prepared
to speak. Thank you. Chair
commissioners. Alan McLeod,
agent for the for the owners.
I'm here just to answer any
questions that you MAY have.
Just out of curiosity. Why why
why why the lot line adjustment.
The families own the property.
For 50 years they've been
ranching. The the avocados and
the lemons. There's no plan to
sell the property at this point,
but at any given time in the
future, they want the option to
maybe retain a piece of it if
they choose to put it on the
market. So they've been
connected to the property for a
long time. So that's the main
reason why they're wanting to
do this lot line adjustment.
Okay. Thank you. Any other
questions from the
commissioners? No questions. So
at this point I'm looking for a
motion to accept. So oh public
comment. Thank you. Open it up
for public comment. Anybody
from the public here to speak
on this issue. Anybody online
MR. Villalobos? No. Hands
raised online. Okay. We'll give
them just a moment here. And if
there's no questions then we're
going to close public comment.
And then we're going to look
for a motion to accept or
deliberation or deliberation. I
move the staff recommendation.
I would second that. Okay. Any
further discussion? Okay. All
in favor? I. I. I. I. None
opposed. Motion carries. Thank
you very much to all of you.
And we will take a moment here
before we move on to the next
item. We are going to take a
five minute break and we will
return momentarily.
Here we go.
Okay. We're coming back on. So
the next item on the agenda. Go
ahead, MR. Villalobos. Thank
you. Thank you. The following
is a hearing on the request of
Hayden Land, an applicant to
consider case number 24, dvp35,
as well as 25qp21, and to adopt
the mitigated negative
declaration, case number 26 d
one and the mitigation
monitoring program contained in
the conditions of approval.
Thank you very much. At this
point, I'd like to ask staff to
share their presentation. Do
you want to? Oh yes. Thank you
very much. Commissioner. Mayor
Connor, any ex parte
communication or site visits?
Yes, yes I do. I visited with
Brett Jones, the applicant's
representative, last week. Went
on a tour of the property
involved. Saw the location of
the improvements that are
proposed for the property. He
answered all my questions and I
had a very enlightening visit
with him and the property.
Thank you Commissioner mayor
Connor. I also would like to
report that I also did a site
visit with MR. Jones earlier
this week, along with
Commissioner Park. MR. Jones
showed us the pretty much the
entire parcel as well as the
parcels adjacent to it. He
showed us where the
construction would take place,
where the project would take
place, and he answered all of
our questions. So now I would
like to ask staff to please
share your report. Good morning,
commissioners and chair Guy.
I'm Steve Connor, and I'll be
presenting this project on
behalf of Planning and
development staff. The project
before you today is a request
for a proposed development plan
to allow construction of an
equestrian arena, along with a
request for a land use permit
for expansion of an existing
equestrian facility and a
request for a minor conditional
use permit to allow small scale
special events under the
Agricultural Enterprise
Ordinance. These three
entitlements are being
requested because the two main
project components trigger
different paths. The
development plan and land use
permit are requested because
the Arena Square footage
exceeds the 15,000 square foot
maximum for development in an
ag 240 zone, and an loop is
required for equestrian
facilities in ag 240 zones. The
development plan also includes
the request for modification to
allow for the required parking
spaces to be unmarked and
unpaved. The parking location
will be described and shown
later in this presentation. The
minor conditional use permit
will allow small scale special
events as an agricultural
enterprise ordinance or an eo
use. The proposed project is
located off Baseline Avenue in
the Santa Ynez Valley on the
east side of highway 154,
roughly halfway between the
towns of Los Olivos and Santa
Ynez, as shown here. Welcome,
Commissioner Park, excuse me
for just one moment here. MR.
Connor, could you please hold?
I just want to note that
Commissioner Park has joined us,
and he will also be weighing in
on this issue. So I'd ask you
now to please continue. Here's
a quick Google Earth flyover
video that gives a little more
context for the location. I
can't click on that. I guess
maybe if you click on this,
this work. No. Okay. If you.
There you go. There's a play
button at the bottom. Yeah.
There you go. Thank you. That's
important. Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you. Maybe you want to do
the other slide. I think so
because Tatiana probably this.
The subject parcel and
surrounding properties are
zoned ag two with a 40 acre
minimum lot size. These are
existing views of the site with
a view from the east showing an
existing equestrian barn
located on on the owner's
separate adjacent parcel to the
west, and a view from the south
showing an existing 900 zero
square foot garage and ag barn
on the subject property located
immediately north of the
proposed arena development area
and next to the proposed
outdoor area for the small
scale special events. Here's a
view from the west showing the
area generally proposed for
small scale events. The view
from the north was taken just
before the 900 zero square foot
garage barn was constructed in
2025. Here's the site plan
depicting the arena in a blue
outline and defined area.
Outdoor area in red outline
where the events will take
place. A new stormwater
retention basin in a private,
new private on site wastewater
treatment system will be
constructed along the southern
side of the area. The subject
property contains approximately
9.7 acres of pasture areas,
which are located to the north
and south of the arena and in
the square pins near the
southeast corner of the
property. The property also
contains approximately 20 acres
of orchard grass cultivation in
the northern northeast portion
of the subject property.
Parking for the arena and small
scale events will be arranged
in the orange areas shown here.
Existing permitted on site
development. Includes a
recently constructed garage for
single stall horse barns, a
horse breeding barn, two hay
barns, two horse stall barns,
two agricultural employee
dwellings and an agricultural
irrigation reservoir. These
elevations depict the proposed
29.5ft tall arena from the
north, south, east and west.
The Central Board of
Architectural Review conducted
a site visit and determined
that the proposed structure
could be seen from the north
along Roblar Avenue. Therefore,
the board requested that the
applicant incorporate tall
trees to screen the structure.
The board recommended the item
return for preliminary and
final approval, pending
approval by your commission.
After the staff report was
docketed last week, the
applicant requested a change to
the first sentence of the
proposed project description in
order to remove a self-imposed
limitation of number of
agricultural enterprise small
scale special events with the
within the arena to allow the
applicant more flexibility.
Staff finds that with this
change, the project remains
consistent with all applicable
policies and development
standards. The project was
thoroughly reviewed by staff
and is consistent with policies
regarding availability of
adequate surfaces, agricultural
resources, esthetics, visual
resources, and compatibility
with surrounding development,
biological resources, cultural
resources, water resources and
noise. The equestrian arena was
reviewed for compliance with
height limit setbacks and
parking regulations, including
development standards and
requirements for the ag 240
zone district Development Plans
and design review. The special
events were reviewed for safety,
noise duration, number of
events, and parking. The
project has been conditioned to
make sure it is consistent with
both the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and the
Santa Ynez Valley Community
Plan, and is consistent with
development standards in the
County Land Use and Development
Code, including the
Agricultural Enterprise
Ordinance. The project is
consistent with all standards
because the primary use of the
parcel is commercial ag,
consisting of orchard grass and
pasture. At 50 acres, the
project meets the minimum
premises size. Parking must be
located within preexisting
disturbed areas, and temporary
signage is required prior to
events to guide guests to the
designated parking area. Dust
control measures are required
to mitigate the unpaved parking,
and a parking coordinator shall
be required for events attended
by 100 or more persons.
Operations and outdoor
amplified sound are limited to
these hours, and the ag
Enterprise Operator must
provide guests with an
informational advisory to
disclose a potential minor
inconveniences from preexisting
agricultural operations, such
as noise, dust and odor.
Environmental review first
included filling out the Sequa
checklist that was created for
touring projects off the a
eopeir or Program Environmental
report. Several peir
mitigations were incorporated
into the project as conditions
of approval, including the
requirement to develop and
implement a tree protection
plan for native trees, limiting
hours for outdoor amplified
sound and development, and
implementation of a fire
protection plan. The equestrian
arena was not considered in the
a eoppeir because it exceeded
the 2500 square foot maximum
for new accessory structures,
therefore mitigated negative
declaration or nd was prepared
for analysis of impacts
associated with the arena and
circulated for a 30 day public
review. Mitigation measures
were incorporated into the
project to address impacts that
weren't included in the eopeir,
including bar approval and a
requirement to use natural
colors and building materials.
Incorporation of a new fire
protection equipment into the
fire protection plan.
Development and implementation
of a source reduction and solid
waste management plan and
animal waste management plan.
Development of an erosion and
sediment control plan and
management of construction
equipment and storage and
washout area. One comment
letter was received on the nd
from the California Department
of Conservation regarding
discussion of the conversion of
agricultural land to
Nonagricultural use and project
compatibility with the
Williamson Act or County
Agricultural Preserve contract
requirements. No other comment
letters were received. The
applicant proposes to retain
and stockpile all prime
farmland topsoils that will be
disturbed by the arena
development pad and utilize
utilize the stockpile to amend
soils elsewhere in the areas
with ongoing feed, grass and
pasture cultivation. In
conclusion, staff recommends
that you make the required
findings for approval included
in attachment a determined that
the mitigated negative
declaration is adequate and
approve the project subject to
the conditions included as
attachment b and as revised
during this presentation. This
concludes staff's presentation.
Staff and the applicant team
are available to answer any
questions. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Before we move on to
questions, I just want to ask
Commissioner Park if he's got
any ex parte communication or
site visits that he'd like to
report before we go into the
discussion. Yes, I met on what
day was it? I think it was
Monday with you, MR. Guy, and
with MR. Jones. And I also met
with MR. Connor the same day,
right? Yeah, I got down here.
He counts, but in a different
way. Thank you very much. I'd
like to open it up to questions
from the commissioners. And I
see MR. Martinez. Yes. Thank
you chair. Just for
clarification, I keep on
hearing outdoor arena, but the
reality is the arena we're
talking about is that which is
depicted in slide number nine,
correct. Commissioner Martinez
through the chair. That's
correct. It's an enclosed air
condition or climate controlled
arena. Okay. Okay. So this is
going to be utilized for.
Equestrian. Well, it's an
equestrian arena. And I guess
that's a very capitalized and
small scale special events.
What, what events are we
talking about in these small
scale special events and what
are the restrictions? What
defines a special small special
event? The number of people,
what kind of events you can
have. Commissioner Martinez
through the Chair Yes, that's
correct. The the small scale
special events are defined by
the number of attendees, the
the number of events that can
occur per year. In this case,
the applicant proposes a number
of attendees that exceed what
is allowed with the zoning and
clearance, so that the code
requires a minor conditional
use permit, which is approved
by the Planning Commission.
Okay. And that's why I'm asking
is what kind of numbers are we
talking about here? And the
number of people is it a small
event is less than 100 or less
than 200. What? Commissioner
Martinez, I'm going to read
here. Let's see. No more than
12 small scale special events
will be held per year. Each
event will have a maximum of
150. Okay, 150. And a small
scale event can be anything
from a concert to a wedding
dinner, dinner, reception,
parties. It can be equestrian
related. Yeah, the a e o kind
of lists some examples of types
of events they can have. Okay.
And I imagine the fire code is
going to be very applicable to
the kind of events you can have.
Absolutely. Yeah. They and fire
department thoroughly reviews
this because they want to make
sure people congregating in any
space, the structures are going
to meet fire code requirements
and how and with that kind of
number of people, how, how many
parkings is is planned for,
then is it 1.5 again, like we
used in the residential rooms
and. Commissioner Martinez
through the chair, I might need
to look up that exact number. I
believe it was something like
1.5. I think the number we
arrived at was 69 spaces. Okay.
That would be required for this
number of people, right. And
it's within that defined orange
area as you indicated
previously. That is correct.
Okay. Thank you. I have a
question. Okay. Commissioner
mayor Connor. A clarification,
if you would, about the small
scale special events. So we're
talking about the space inside
the new building. And we're
also talking about events
outside the new building. Am I
correct, Commissioner Connor
through the Chair Yes, that's
correct. We we had looked
originally at just the outdoor
area, but in more recent
developments and talking with
the applicant and the agent,
they expressed a desire to be
able to hold events inside the
arena as well. The condition in
attachment b two says there
will be. Events, no more than
150 people, no more than 12
small scale per year. The
change in the condition that
you put on the screen earlier
in the hearing seemed to change
that language. So if you could
put that back up on the screen
so that we could see it, it
would be helpful. Commissioner.
Mayor Connor, I want to clarify
that the change is only to the
limit to the number of events
that can happen in the arena
area, in the enclosed arena. So
previously, the project
applicant was limiting the
number of events in the arena
to 1 to 2 per year. Since the
staff report was docketed, they
would like to be able to have
more than potentially 1 to 2
per year in the arena, still
contained within the total of
12 per year. So there's no
change to the total number of
events that are being requested.
And that's within the arena.
How about outside? Is the same
limitation apply outside?
That's correct. The same limit
applies for the entire property.
The entire premise. Okay, that
clarifies it. Thank you.
Commissioner Park. Just so
we're really, really clear, if
you're confused about this,
blame me because at the site
visit, I, I, you can blame me
anyway, but I, I asked MR.
Jones, where did the limit of
two in the arena which was
originally in this and ten
outdoors come from. And he
wasn't sure. And when I asked
MR. Connor the same thing, he
wasn't sure either. So we
thought, well, you know,
somehow it landed there and and
I suggested, let's take that
out and let's make it flexible.
For example, somebody might
schedule a big birthday party
outdoors in APRIL, but
sometimes we get rain in APRIL.
And so they MAY want to move it
into the arena. And so why
limit the arena to only twice a
year? Let it be for all 12, or
maybe none of the 12, but let
them have that flexibility. It
doesn't affect the neighbors.
It the a e o says nothing about
it. There's no reason for us to
stick it in there. So let me
move on to my question, and you
MAY have answered it when you
answered. MR. I mean, yeah, MR.
Martinez, question, but but I'm
not sure I heard it right. What
I want to know is. How many
events and how many people for
a small scale event would be
allowed if there was just a
zoning clearance. So whenever I
have a conditional use permit
matter, I want to compare what
we can allow with our
discretion with what you would
be allowed to do anyway.
Commissioner, Commissioner,
Park through the chair. That's
a good question. And I have the
regs in front of me because
it's hard to remember. So the
way that the eu reads is on a
premise of 40 acres to 320
acres, which is the category
that this premise is in, they
would not be able to exceed 50
attendees at a special event
with a zoning clearance. So
that's a ministerial permit
path. And that's why this minor
this project requires a minor
cup because they're requesting
more than 50 per event. So it's
50. And and that would be how
many events if under a cc that
would still be 12 events per
year. Okay. And four days for
event days per month. So, so
really when we look at this
overall, the that the only real
change is number of people at
these 12 events, right. And I
can also, since I have the
regulations in front of me, I
know that there were some
questions about the types of
events. So the eo also lists
farm to table dinners, cooking
classes, weddings, parties,
writing or yoga workshops, and
similar gatherings. And I
wanted to also clarify I love
that word. Similar how the
lawyers can just play an
accordion. They're good
questions. And this is the
first project before your
commission. So it's good that
we're that you're asking these
questions. I also wanted to
clarify that the eo doesn't
specifically have a parking
requirement for small scale
special events. The requirement
is that there's sufficient
parking on site, and the
project is proposing 69 spaces.
Well, I have a follow up on
that. But realistically, they
could charge they could park 3
or 400 on the property. I mean,
it's if if not more, given the
size of it and the layout.
Correct. I think with the on
site roads that they have, they
do have quite a bit of parking
area. Yeah, not an issue.
Thanks. Okay. Commissioner Ford.
Oh, sorry. No problem. Any
other questions or comments
from the commissioners? Okay,
then we will go to the
applicant or or. Yes. Okay. MR.
Jones, could you please go
ahead and share with us? Good
morning. Again. I was remiss in
my first item in not thanking
staff. So I'd like to publicly
do that and thank Tatiana, Gwen
and Travis for their support of
that project. And same, I would
like to thank Steve and Gwen
and Travis for their support of
this project. I don't have a
presentation again here to
answer any questions. We
understand the conditions of
approval and look forward to
your comments and questions and
trying to answer those for you
this morning. Thank you.
Commissioner Park. Yes, MR.
Jones, I'd like to ask you
about other arenas of this size
in the Valley. I think I know
how many there are, but maybe
I'm off. But I think it's
important to illustrate to the
other commissioners that even
though this seems like a large
number of square footage, this
is what happens when you have
these covered arenas through
the chair. Commissioner Park,
I'm not a horse guy, but yes, I
have done three arenas in the
valley. All three have been at
the same size. This 45,000ft!S,
which which you know,
admittedly is large, is a 50
acre parcel. So I think that is
kind of standard practice for
horse operations to be able to
do the training required within
such a in side. So. Well, I
thought of several. And then
every once in a while I'll look
at Google Earth of the area.
And I'm always finding
something else that's hidden in
the trees or whatever else. So
it's, it's, it's the point is,
it's not an uncommon thing for
this or this kind of thing.
It's this, these arenas are two
dimensions that are useful in
the horse world for dressage
and other things. And they're
not as big as polo fields, but
it's sort of a standard size if
you're going to cover an arena.
Thanks. Any questions? No
questions. Thank you, thank you.
At this point, we'd like to
open it up to public comment.
Anybody in the room? Care to
share? MR. Villalobos? Any
online? No. Hands raised online.
Okay, then I'm going to close
public comment session.
Deliberation. We'll go to
deliberation. Commissioner Park,
you know, of course I want to
hear from the other
commissioners, but I'm prepared
to make a motion to approve
this. Big picture. If we
designed the project in a
property to fit what the o is
all about, it'd be hard to come
up with a better one than this.
Okay, it's properties well
served by a large driveway, but
it's it's entirely an interior
parcel. It's not really
fronting any roads. Hardly
anyone would ever notice
anything happening here. That
arena will absorb far more than
150 people. And there's just
really no reason to to deny
this project. It's well
designed. It's very modest in
terms of what their ask is
under the q p, so I'm ready to
support it and make the motion.
Commissioner Ford, thanks. I'm
so glad to know about
Commissioner Park's support. I
know nothing about equestrian
arenas. Well, I knew nothing
until I read this really
comprehensive report. And I
just want to say thank you
because it I think you
addressed every particular
question that was asked, and I
learned a lot. So between
Commissioner Park and this
presentation, I can certainly
support this. Okay.
Commissioner Mayor Connor and I
concur with my colleagues who
have just spoken. The staff
report was very comprehensive
and helpful. The site visit, I
thought was terrific. It gives
you a sense of the scale of the
property and its location. As
Commissioner Park pointed out.
And this to me is an easy yes.
Okay. Commissioner Martinez,
yes, I would I would completely
agree with my fellow
commissioners and especially
just reminiscing as to how this
came to be. This is the kind of
project that was envisioned
from, at least from the get go
for me. Whole new industry out
there could be a whole new
industry. And you see it out in
Arroyo Grande and so forth. And
this is what we're asking for,
and this is what's being
delivered. So I'd be in support
of it. Okay. And my comment
would be that this, after
reading the report and then
doing the site, visit the site
is a perfect location for this
type of arena. It makes sense
when you look at all of the
structures around it, and you
look at the, the property lines
and the easements around it, it
totally makes sense. So this is
also a project very easy for me
to support. So at this point
I'm going to ask for a motion.
Commissioner Park. Yes, I'm
going to move that we approve
the matter and take the
recommended actions that are on
slide 14 of the presentation
and are also in the staff
report. And that includes
making the required findings
for approval of the project,
adopting the mitigated negative
declaration, and approving the
project, including the minor
change that was made today to
the project description. Thank
you, Commissioner Park,
Commissioner Ford, thank you.
Second, all in favor? Aye, aye.
None opposed. Motion carries.
Now musical chairs again. So
we're going to just take a
moment here for us to get
regrouped for the next item on
the agenda. This is this is
going off faster than I thought.
I wasn't expecting three. Easy
one. Oh yeah. Exactly. This is
the one that's going to I'm
actually I haven't been privy.
It gives everybody opportunity.
I think. Yes sir. Okay. We have
a couple of letters we have to
bring up in the record because
they were. Yes. So if we could
just address that before we go
to. Any time between the
beginning of the war, before we
go right now, and should we do
it at the beginning of the item?
We can't if you want. It helps
me to understand because they
came in like three large groups
from you. Yeah. And the third
one, it was like, yeah. So and
there was a long one. And the
third one. Yeah. Okay. Okay,
one of them, but I understand
it's your area. Oh, we didn't
have 20, but I agree. MR.
Villalobos, I'm going to ask
that before we ask the staff to
prepare their presentation. If
you could read it, share with
us about letters that have come
in past the our time. I'm happy.
Yeah. Oh thank you. Call the
thank you. Yes, I'm happy to.
Let me just read the item into
the record first. Thank you.
Okay, great. Thank you. There's
another one again. The
following is a hearing on the
request of apc towers applicant
to consider case number 25cp23
and to determine the project is
exempt from sequel pursuant to
state secret guidelines,
section one five, 303 and 15304.
And to address your request. So
the deadline for submittal of
comment letters for the
Commission. Today's hearing was
Monday at noon for items longer
or longer than a page in length.
And we do have two items that
came in a little bit late. So
the Planning Commission can
vote to include those into the
record, but it requires a 4/5
vote. I'll just read the who
they're from. So and I
apologize in advance if I
mispronounce anyone's name. So
the first is an email from Pam
Kadlubek, and it was an email
followed by a series of photos.
And the second. And so that was
dated Monday at 4:17 P.M. And
there was one that came in, I
think was emailed overnight on
Monday. So it was received on
Tuesday. Long letter, seven
pages from Samantha Flynn. And
this one. So the one that was
on the dais this morning is
less is a page in length. So it
does not meet. It's not trigger
that requirement I gotcha. So I
think what for for these to be
included we would need a motion
to include them a second. And
then for the five commissioners
to vote yes. Okay. I'm going to
look to Commissioner Park to
begin us here. Since it's in
his district. I'm going to go
out of character here because I
always oppose these requests,
but because they irritate me,
because I don't like reading
something that's long at the
very last minute. On the other
hand, I've looked at these and
I think we should put them in
the record. I'll tell you why,
and I will move to do that one.
The first one from Pam, you
mispronounce the name so I
won't. It's it's short. It just
has some photos. And the photos
are are helpful to us. They are
photos that we don't have that
kind of a photo. The second
letter from Samantha Flynn is
long, but it's it's very well
written. And what I appreciate
about it is it's not just a
kind of a repetitious litany of
complaints. It's, it's actually
very constructive letter
because it says, okay, here's
what I recommend you do. And
this is what you should do to
properly investigate this. And
I think that that's
instructional for planning
commission. You MAY not agree
with it, but it's, it's
worthwhile having it there. And
I think it's appropriate that
it be in the record. So I would
move to admit both of those
into the record. Commissioner
Ford, I'll second that. Okay.
All in favor? I didn't ask for
deliberation. So Commissioner
o'Connor. So I tend to agree
with my colleagues on this
issue with one caveat. And that
is I would ask the question as
to whether or not the late
arrival of the letter made it
difficult or impossible for the
applicant or the staff to
respond to the letter at this
hearing. If the receipt of the
late letter causes either the
applicant or the staff to ask
for more time to be able to
deal with the issues raised in
the letter, then that lateness
has had a practical effect. And
so I would ask, before we vote
on whether to accept these
letters or not, that we hear
the staff recommendation, ask
the staff the question, not
just the staff recommendation,
but the staff report, and we
hear from the applicant as well
and ask the question, has this
letter, which I agree is, is is
long, comprehensive and and
well written? Does it cause you
to need more time to respond to
the letter? Let's ask that
question before we decide
whether or not to accept it. I
know that's a little cumbersome,
but I think the process that we
follow in deliberating on these
matters has consequences. And
we should, if we can make
decisions when we're called on
to make decisions and the
information is before us. And
let's let's see if we can do
that. So that's that's my
personal preference is to hold
off on voting on this motion
until after we've had the staff
and the staff report and the
applicant's presentation. Okay.
Thank you, Commissioner. Mayor
Connor, I'm going to ask
Commissioner Ford. I disagree
because I think once you you
know, you're asking for staff
response to it and input, then
you've accepted it. And so I
think it's still a matter of
whether this commission accepts
those two letters. I'm actually
not suggesting. Oh, MAY I
respond? Yes you MAY. I'm not
suggesting that the staff
respond to the letter. I'm just
asking whether the staff needs
additional time to respond to
the letter. That's the question
I would like to ask both the
staff and the applicant to see
if we're going to be ready to
move ahead with the decision
today. Well, it could be
semantics, but I think that
once you involve the staff,
we've accepted it. But I'll
leave that up to other people.
Yeah, I've seconded the motion.
I believe we need to go to a
roll call vote. I would say
this I completely agree with
the commissioner here in
regards to just the process
that we're here. If I'm the
applicant and we're considering
something that I have not had
the time to consider and be
prepared to address it, I think
out of ultimate fairness and
consideration to the applicant,
and that they should have the
opportunity to say, well, I've
read it. I've never I didn't
see it before today. I don't
even know if they even have it,
to tell you the truth. So if
that's going to be part of
their thing, where they're
going to be held to answer to
it, where we're considering it
and asking them questions,
maybe based upon this letter,
these photos, I think they
should be provided that
opportunity to review it and
provide it to us, because I
wouldn't want to show up to
anything. Well, it's like
showing up to a it's like
showing up to a trial and, and
not knowing what the witness is
going to say in response.
That's why we take depositions
before. So that's my only
analogous to it. I understand
the the request for it. I don't
necessarily dispute it, but I
think we should hear from the
applicant and from staff of
whether it's something that is
going to be considered and even
addressed in this matter. I
have a question. I'm wondering
if a precedent has been set in
the past as far as how we deal
with these letters that come in
afterward, because if we open
this up to staff and the
rebuttal and so forth, are we
setting a new protocol where we
might already have a protocol
in place? MAY I speak to that?
Yes, please. Commissioner Park.
I think it's totally
appropriate to ask the question
that MR. Amerikaner and MR.
Martinez are asking. I asked
the same question when I read
this letter yesterday. So
everybody's had a chance to see
it, but I, I because I normally
don't support this kind of
thing, but I made the decision
to support it. And the question
I asked was, and it's one that
we see as lawyers all the time,
is there a surprise with a
massive amount of new
information that can't be
digested? Okay. Oddly, that
often comes up when the
applicant generally brings in a
lot of new information and
somebody who's challenging it
says, well, wait, I've had no
opportunity to see this, and
sometimes I'll ask for a
continuance. But as a practical
matter, I kind of internalize
the question that they're
asking, but that it's still an
appropriate question. And if
they'd like to hear an answer
to it, I think we should,
especially since as a practical
matter, this takes four votes
to pass. So if either of the
other two commissioners that
have brought this up decides I
haven't been satisfied, the
motion is going to fail anyway.
So I think it won't take very
much effort to answer the
questions that MR. Amerikaner
has, whether it fits, protocols
or not. It's we're kind of
loose here. We do what? What
works. Okay. That helps. Let me
ask the other commissioners.
Are there any objections other
than what Commissioner Ford has
already stated? I'm sorry,
what's the question? Are there
any other objections to asking
your question of staff? Got it.
Now I understand. Okay. I am
going to go with the majority
in this case and ask
Commissioner Amerikaner, if you
don't mind me asking your
question to the staff Chair and
Commissioners, if I can just
interrupt. Yes, please. So I
have received information from
both the applicant and staff.
They haven't reviewed the
letter. They haven't reviewed
the letter. Okay. Well, in that
case, I think we can very
easily do a roll call vote. And
I think we know where this is
going to go. MAY I make a
suggestion, chair? Yes, please.
I think the question is, is
whether even if they how do I
put this? Are we are we to
allow them the opportunity to
review it and say, hey, I need
some time to review this thing?
And then it does have an impact
because then in a way, we are
kind of putting the cart before
the horse, in a sense, is what
it's coming down to. So if we
accept the letter, then are we
saying let's accept, if we
accept the motion, then the
letter goes in front of the
staff and the applicant, and
then they have the opportunity
to say, we need more time to
address it. We need to come
back and address the questions
within it. Are we doing it that
way or are we doing it the way
we're we're going to have them
look at this, which is really
considering it. MR. Chair, it's
my motion. I'd like to table
the motion to accept the letter
until we have proceeded with
the hearing, because it it MAY
very well be moot. And I don't
want to spend a lot of time and
create a little conflict about
it, when it MAY be moot anyway.
In fact, I predict it will be.
So. Okay, let's just table it.
Any objections to tabling it?
No. No objection. Okay. In this
case, we're going to table that.
And before we go on to the
presentation, I do want to ask
if there's any ex parte
communication or site visits
from the commissioners. I can't
recall any ex party
communications. I made an
extensive site visit this
morning. I got up really early
and drove all around the
neighborhood and made some
circles and. And then I had the
opportunity to do it all over
again, driving back from Santa
Maria. So I'm reporting all
that. Okay, I, I'd also like to
share that when I saw this item
on the agenda, I asked for
permission to view the site. By
the time I had received
permission to review the site,
I had. I had already been there.
So I have seen the site. I have
driven around the streets and
I've drove into the driveway.
But I did not get out of my car
because I didn't have
permission. So I didn't go very
far into the property. So I've
seen a bit, but it's solely on
my own. Okay. And no other
comments. So now we'll go ahead
and open it up to the staff
presentation. Good morning
commissioners. My name is
Francisco Vargas, County
Planner. I will be providing a
grant overview of the proposed
t mobile tier for a telecom
project. Case number 25qp-00023.
This project is a request for a
conditional use permit. The
project includes a
telecommunications facility
designed as a faux eucalyptus
that is 6 to 8ft tall in the
agriculture 110 zone district.
District. The project site,
outlined in yellow, is a ten
acre parcel zoned agriculture
110, located off 1626 Calzada
Avenue, Santa Ynez, within the
Third Supervisorial District.
The location of the facility
within the subject parcel is
identified with a yellow circle
on the eastern side of the
parcel. The general area
consists of large agricultural
parcels over five acres and
some up to 40 acres in size.
The area is characterized by
rural, farm, residential and
agricultural. Equestrian uses.
The subject parcel is
relatively flat. Located
approximately 1400ft west of
Edison Street and approximately
1930ft west of highway 154.
This slide shows the project
site in red within the
agriculture one zoning note.
All adjacent nearby parcels in
the general vicinity are zoned
agriculture as well, with some
single family residential shown
in yellow. Located
approximately 700ft southwest
of the proposed facility area.
This is the overall site plan
which shows the location of the
facility within the project
site. Note the facility is
proposed away from the nearest
road on the east side of the
ten acre parcel. The tower
itself is proposed to be
approximately 1221ft east of
Calzada Avenue, and the
perimeter fenced area would be
approximately 1205ft east of
Calzada Avenue. The site
contains existing overhead
power lines, which run east or
west to east along the northern
property line and terminate
near the center of the site, as
shown in the dashed orange line
at the top. The proposed. The
project proposes to tie into
the existing utility utility
pole infrastructure by routing
new underground lines from the
proposed facility area to the
existing lines, one new utility
pole will be required to be
installed on site. The location
of that pole will be noted on
the next slide. So this is a
close up of the lease area. It
also shows other components of
the proposed facility,
including the eight foot
perimeter fence, adjacent
transformer required to be
enclosed. The new utility line
configuration location of the
37.5ft utility pole, and the
proposed fire turnaround
required for emergency access.
This slide includes the west
and south elevations. The
proposed height of the
telecommunications facility is
68ft tall. The height is
measured from the existing
grade to the tallest branch.
The design is that of a
eucalyptus tree. This design
addressed input received from
the Central Board of
Architectural Review, referred
to as c bar, and is conditioned
to return to c bar after
approval of the cup. The
fencing proposed includes an
eight foot tall corrugated
non-reflective metal fence
design, as recommended by c bar.
This is the east elevation of
both, showing both the telecom
and the 37.5ft utility pole. To
give you a better understanding
of the scale of both structures.
So the following few slides
include the photo simulations
provided by the applicant, so
you can better understand what
the facility will look like.
Once constructed. The left
image shows the existing view
without the facility, and the
right image shows the same view
and identifies the proposed
facility with a call out. This
first elevation shows the
project site looking southeast
from Calzada Avenue. The second
slide compares the view looking
northwest from Edison Street,
and this third slide compares
the view looking southwest from
highway 154. This is an exhibit
prepared by the applicant or
provided by the applicant,
which compares the existing
service coverage versus the
updated coverage. As a result
of the project, red represents
poor coverage, yellow
represents fair coverage and
green represents good coverage.
The image to the left shows the
existing coverage, and the
image on the right shows the
new. In other words, proposed
coverage. The applicant
prepared. An alternative site
analysis included with
attachment f of the staff
report. The analysis indicated
over 15 sites in the vicinity
were considered for the telecom
site. However, in all cases,
either the property owners were
not interested or it was
determined that the location
did not fully meet the needs to
address the gap in coverage.
The project will meet all
applicable development
standards, comprehensive plan
and federal requirements. For
example, the project meets the
required setbacks, the height
limitation of 100ft since it is
a 68 foot tower, and also
incorporates design
recommendations provided by c
bar. Last fall of 2025. It also
includes other The
recommendations, such as the
corrugated fencing and natural
colors for the branches and
leaves. The applicant also
provided an electro magnetic
energy compliance report,
otherwise referred to as an rf
report, and was prepared by a
third party consultant, which
is also included with
attachment f of the staff
report. The report indicates
the project will comply with
the relevant federal compliance
fcc standards and will require
specific safety signage at the
perimeter of the lease area.
Staff determined that the
project is exempt from Sequa
pursuant Ceqa exemption 15303,
which applies to new
construction or conversion of
small structures and in this
case applies to the monopole.
The ground level equipment
cabinets and the fencing staff
also determined that the
project is exempt from sequa
pursuant Ceqa exemption 1530
for minor alterations to land
and is applicable in this case
based on the minor minimal
grading required. With this,
staff recommends the following
to the Planning Commission.
Number one make the required
findings for approval of the
project specified in attachment
a of the staff report,
including sequel findings.
Number two determine the
project is exempt from Sequa to
exempt from Sequa pursuant to
state sequel guidelines.
Section one, five, three, oh
three and 15304. Number three
approve the project case number
25qp-00023, subject to the
conditions of approval included
as attachment b. This concludes
staff's presentation, and we're
happy to answer any questions.
Okay. I believe there are going
to be quite a few questions,
but just before we we open with
the questions I'm going to ask
that we take a short break. Any
objections to a short break?
Okay. Five minute break and
we'll be right back. Thank you.
Have you taken care of all the
business you need to take care
of? What do you mean, business?
Okay, we are coming back from
our break now, and I would like
to start by opening up for
questions from the
commissioners. And so,
Commissioner Park. Yes. MR.
Vargas, thank you for your
staff report. Very complete, as
always. A few things. One,
could you go back to I think it
was slide nine, and it was the
the coverage map. There you go
on the on the after. Well,
actually it's on all of them.
We see sort of a, a slash
starting near the lower right
hand corner, and it goes almost
right past this. The site is
that highway 154. Just so we
can put this map in context,
Commissioner Park through the
chair. Correct. That is highway
154 on the right hand side and
in the. If we look at the
afters, it shows an area area
in green kind of surrounding
the the site. And that's where
there would be good coverage,
you know, improved coverage.
That's kind of the point of
this. Correct. Okay. And it
shows a lot of land that's on
the other side, east side of.
154 correct? Correct. Okay. And
in this coverage map, it's.
It's in the electromagnetic
report just so that people can
follow where these maps are.
That is correct. Part of
attachment f. Okay, I want to
ask you about other antennae
that are located in what's
often called the heart of the
valley. And it's not just
locals that call it that. It's
in it's in the Valley community
plan, which is, you know, more
or less a flat area that's
bounded by 154 there on the
east and by 246 on the bottom
and and to the left, Alamo
Pintado Road. And it's all
generally flat, usually ag one
properties or even residential
zone properties. They're all ag
one tens, ag one fives, things
like that. Are there any other
antennae of this size in the
heart of the valley, to your
knowledge? To my knowledge, I
don't. I would have to look
that up honestly. Okay. I, I
don't recall any, but what I do
recall hearing and approving
was one that I thought was at
least 50ft and it was disguised
as a water tower as opposed to
a eucalyptus tree or, or a
Disneyland ride or whatever,
you know, it's just that's what
it was. But does that ring a
bell with any of you? I guess
it's so well camouflaged, I
can't remember where it is
anymore. Okay. Commissioner
Park, we're not. We're looking.
We're not finding it. We did
see some withdrawn water tower
cases. We do recall the one in
Lompoc, but we're not finding
an exact one in Swat Valley.
But we'll keep scanning our
records to see if we can find
anything. I have some other
questions. That I'll ask of MR.
Ambrose. Well, actually, first
let me ask, is there a separate
alternative site study here? I
see language in the in the same
report we've been referring.
But is there a separate site
study? I couldn't find one in
the record. I'm sorry.
Commissioner Park through the
chair. Would you mind repeating
the question? Is there.
Sometimes we'll see. Site
studies be labeled a site study,
and they'll. And they'll review
alternative sites and why they
did this one. And at first I
couldn't find it because I
couldn't see anything labeled
that. But I do see about a page
of language to that effect that
I think is in the. I can't
remember what you call this,
the irc report or whatever.
That's correct. It's in the rf
report, which is attachment f
to the staff report, and we
have it prepared. If there's
any information you want to
bring up on the screen in that
report. Okay. And also I'm, I'm
used to seeing a separate
coverage maps as exhibits, but
here we've, we basically got
that, but it's in that same
report, right? That's correct.
Okay. Well, I MAY ask you more
questions later, but I'm, I'm
going to try them with MR.
Ambrose first because I think
he'll probably know better.
Thank you. And I been
researching our permit records
about your question about other
telecommunications facilities,
a full water tank. There was an
application for a full water
tank on Robles Avenue. So I
think that's. That's what
you're discussing. It's 50ft
tall. Whatever happened to it?
I'm looking at I can't remember
ever having these denied. They
get fiddled with but rarely
denied. I'll keep researching
and it's okay. It's not central
to this. Thanks. Oh well, there
is one someone told me last
night on reservoir gets
installed. Yeah. There you go.
I think so too. Okay. Thank you
for the record because he's not
on a microphone, so maybe you
want to repeat it. You need me
to stand up? No. You know, I
just repeat that someone from
the audience has pointed out
that I have excellent memory.
And, I mean, that's implied,
not explicitly stated, and that
we do, in fact, have an
installation on Robles Avenue
of a approximately 50 foot Fo
water tank. Thanks. Okay. I
also have a few questions. I'm
going to ask you to go back to
slides nine, ten, and 11, if
you don't mind. And I'm looking
at the proposed eucalyptus tree
on the after side of each of
the slides. So. I'm trying to
figure out the size of the tree.
I understand we said 68ft and
but I don't have a point of
reference. So I want to ask a
few questions. In this part of
the Santa Ynez Valley is the
maximum height of a building
35ft. Is it the same as it is
for other parts of Santa
Barbara County? Chairperson Guy.
So the maximum height for a
regular building would be 35ft.
However, for telecoms it is a
different threshold. Under a
cup, they are allowed to have
up to 100 foot tower. Okay.
Thank you. I'm just trying to
figure perspective. So so a
single family house would have
about a 15ft to 20ft high roof
and a two story. But but we're
limited in Santa Barbara County
at 35ft. Okay, I understand
that. Then my next my next
question is the trees around it.
I'm having a hard time telling
from the photos what types of
trees. And I know a eucalyptus
was accepted, and I think it's
easiest to tell, perhaps on
slide ten, again, I'm trying to
get the perspective because
looking at slide ten, the tower
looks tiny, but the trees to
the right look huge. So if that
tower is 68ft, I would assume
that those trees are going to
be about 250ft tall or, or it's
about perception. And I'm just
curious because because of the
impact to the neighborhood,
having a sole tree versus a,
you know, how visible, how
visible it is. So the question
then becomes, do we have any
other 68ft or 100ft poles or
concealed towers? Not the water
tower. I'm talking about poles,
just the pole by itself or the
concealed pole disguised as a
tree. Do we have any others
that are 68ft to 100ft tall in
the Santa Ynez Valley?
Chairperson guy. I'm not aware
of any other facilities in the
area that that tall. Okay. But
chair guy, we should. As a
caveat to that, we're not aware
of any off the top of our head.
That doesn't mean there haven't
been any approved. We just.
Okay, we would need to really
dig into. I mean, we have
dozens and dozens and dozens of
wireless projects we've
approved. So it would take some
work for us to dig up that info.
Okay. Well, I'm I'm curious
because of the site location,
going back to what Commissioner
Park was saying, the site seems
to be the site location seems
to be critical for t mobile
because of the range. What I'm
trying to figure out is the
height of the concealed tower
versus other concealed towers
that might be providing
services in the other areas.
I'm trying to understand,
because there's there are some
concerns about the height and
there's other concerns as well.
So I'm just trying to I'm
trying to understand in my mind,
do any of the other
commissioners have any
questions? I do, thank you. A
couple of questions. First of
all, can you explain the
Commission's authority with
respect to rf issues? In in
deciding this, this matter from
the letters we've received,
there are community concerns
about rf issues. And I just
want to understand the scope of
the Commission's authority to
deal with rf factors in making
our decision. Yeah. Chair Guy
and Commissioner Amerikaner,
there is a significant amount
of preemption when it comes to
rf emissions for telecom
facilities. So as long as
facility complies with the fcc
requirements pertaining to rf
emissions, then your board is
unable to to regulate the
facility on that factor. Okay,
that's a clear answer to the
question. Let me ask a second
question. And. Branches off, no
pun intended. The chair's
question about about other
towers in the in the valley.
Are there other trees that are
68ft or taller within the. And
I'll just say the relevant area
and I. I'll let you all define
what the relevant area is. But
are there other trees that. Are
that tall or taller in the
valley or in the Central Valley
to use Commissioner park's
phrasing, Commissioner Mayor
Connor, tough question for us.
I do. We just do not know. Like
we do not have a survey of
trees. I don't know if
Commissioner Park would want to
weigh in. I, I suspect just
from visiting that there are
trees that are that tall, but I
can't tell you with, you know,
right here, right now where
those are or anything like that,
I just can't it's just
something we don't have data on.
I appreciate I see a lot of
really big trees in the valley.
Okay. I appreciate your candor,
Commissioner Park. I can
address that in detail. I don't
know if this is the time to do
it, but I certainly will at
some point today. Okay. Thank
you. That's why I did so much
driving around. Not not why I
did it the second round of
inspections, but the first
round. That's exactly what I
was looking at. Okay. By
species, height and location.
Good. Commissioner Ford, thanks
a lot. I don't know if I'm
overstating it, but I think
maybe almost everyone has a
concern about the height itself.
And so I asked my favorite
friend Chatgpt for some help.
And to answer your question,
68ft pretty much translates
into six and a half to seven
stories tall. When I asked the
question about other trees in
the area that are 68ft. Chatgpt
only came up with a few
examples from the Santa Barbara
area. Not that part of this
part of the county. And so
that's just for information
sake. But mostly I'm interested
in really what was done about
establishing that this had no
issues or concerns around the
archeological location of it,
and the tribal cultural
resource area. Commissioner,
Court Commissioner Ford, to the
Chair We do have a standard
condition. Whenever there is
grading, we apply this
condition in the event that any
discoveries are made during
grading, they would have to,
you know, inform the proper
agencies for that. So there is
a condition on there to cover
that. Do you have any sense for
whether any other. Developments
or buildings in the area have
had concerns or have found
resources? There are no known
resources as far as we know.
Okay. Thanks. Any other
questions from the
commissioners? Okay. You ready
David? MR. Villalobos, are you
ready for us to open it up to
the public comment? I think we
need to ask the applicant if
they have a presentation first.
Oh. The applicant. Yes. Okay.
Sorry about that. I'd like to
ask the applicant if you have a
presentation, please. I think
so, please come up and
introduce yourself. Good
morning CHAIRMAN Commissioners.
Excuse me. I'm cold. My name is
Jerry Ambrose. I'm here on
behalf of apc towers. I do not
have a formal presentation
above and beyond what staff has
presented. I think it's a very
detailed, comprehensive. I'll
do my best to, I guess, address
your. Some. You have some
comments and some questions. No
particular order. You mentioned
about the. A number of comments
or questions about the height
and the perception of the
height. So to start, the
proposed tower is a quarter
mile, approximately a quarter
mile from Calvada. So when
you're looking at it from the
street, it should look at it
from that perspective. Also, if
you've if you've been to the
property, you know that from
Calzada, it goes, the property
kind of goes down. And then at
where the house is, it goes up
and then it kind of goes back
down to where the site where
the sites are located. Also, if
you were on site and you were
looking directly to where the
tower is going to be located,
the trees that are immediately
adjacent, I mean, within about
50 to 75ft, the tallest tree
right there is about 50ft high.
So this would be, you know, 50,
you know, again, 18ft taller
than the tallest tree that's
only about 70ft away. And when
you're back on Calzada, if
you're looking to the back of
the property, that 50 foot tree
is, is somewhat barely visible.
If you're standing there,
you're not going to say, wow,
that's a 50 foot tree standing
above everything else. So
that's just a perspective on
that. Also, I believe some of
the the neighbors were
questioning the validity of
these photo mock ups, photo
simulations. We do hire an
engineering firm to do these,
you know, precisely. We've had
them do them for years. We've
presented them to the county
for years. So they they are
accurate. Another question came
up about, I believe, the
reference or the questions
about, hey, are there any
existing towers? I believe
you're probably asking about,
hey, are there co-location
opportunities in this
particular case? T-Mobile is
contracted with a pc towers. A
pc towers is a what we refer to
as a tower company that they
market towers for for
co-location. So because
t-Mobile has an exclusive
contract with a pc towers,
t-Mobile is not looking or
cannot co-locate with any other
tower in the vicinity. So we
had to look for a location
where a pc could build a new
tower. And again, if this gets
approved, it will be marketed
essentially to t-Mobile. I'm
sorry. Sorry. Verizon and at&t.
Also, I did read the letter.
The letters that I could read
or did read had an opportunity
to read. There were a lot again,
a lot of questions. Back to the
question about views and views
from essentially from private
property. So when we go out and
we look for for a site location,
one of the factors we consider
is minimizing public views. The
county county code, almost
every city or county code has
statements or findings about
minimizing views from public
roadways. So in this case,
again, we're we're
approximately a quarter mile
from from the nearest public
road. So in our opinion, and as
staff supports the project, we
are meeting that that that goal
of the county to minimize
visual views or views from a
public roads and excuse me also,
I just have a question about
the item of tabling the letters
that came in late. Is there an
opportunity for the person who
wrote that letter to, I guess,
speak, speak those concerns in
public testimony today that
would that way everyone can
hear what they are and we can
react accordingly as long as
they're here. Yes. Oh, okay.
Online or online. Yes. Thank
you. Yeah. That's all I had.
For now. I'm here to answer any
additional questions you MAY
have. Okay, I see Commissioner
Martinez has lit up and I also
have some questions, but
Commissioner Martinez. Yes.
Good morning. My question is in
regards to the height of the
tower, how is that arrived at?
Is there is there a
topographical geographical
concerns that that dictates the
height? There's a ton of
different things. Yeah. All all
of those combined. So t-Mobile
has a what we call a
significant gap in coverage, a
hole in their network, and they
determine the height that's
needed to close. We call close
that significant gap in
coverage. Sometimes it's 50ft,
sometimes it's. I have a
project in slo County right now.
It's 120ft. So it's contingent
on a bunch of factors. But the
idea is to close that that gap
in coverage. And in this case,
although it's 68ft, the
antennas are a little bit lower
than that. Also remember, also
remember the antennas are the
antennas are eight feet high.
So they're tall antennas so
that the center or whatever is
going to be lower than the the
68ft. Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Park. I'm going to
ask some questions about
location, MR. Ambrose. Normally
I'll see a site study and it'll
address other alternatives and
why they work or don't work.
Yeah. That's in the staff
report and it's in and it's in
the it's in the electromagnetic
report. It's more abbreviated
than I'm used to seeing, but at
least it has that. And I
noticed that all of those
addresses, as far as I could
determine, were to the west of
highway 154. They were
basically all similar
properties in terms of zoning,
because in that what we call
the heart of the Valley, it's
mostly ag one. There's maybe 1
or 2 ag two parcels, but it's
all ag one. They're smaller.
And that's probably why you got
rejected is on those sites
because people would say, well,
I don't want it next to my
house and I've got a house
that's on ten acres or five
acres. But I also noticed on
the coverage map that a great
deal of what would be improved
in service is, in fact, on the
east side of highway 154, where
the zoning is quite different.
It's all ag to much larger
parcels, little hillier, and it
has. Very few houses in terms
of the density. And in answer
to the question about the trees,
there are other eucalyptus
trees. They're more on the east
side of 154 than the west side.
They're tend to be in the huge
right of way that Caltrans has
or next to it. Okay, so more or
less lining the highway. And
but once you get into the
interior of the valley, it's of
course dominated by oak trees
and, and as, as MR. Ambrose
testified, you know, some of
the really large ones, some of
the, the, the valley oaks can
hit 50ft high, but they don't
reach the heights of the
eucalyptus. So I, I believe I
was not measuring them with the
tape, but that there are trees
of this magnitude that are
eucalyptus, but they're not
where this is oddly, I think
the gold property. Just to the
south of this property, there
is one tall tree that sort of
sticks out. It's a palm tree. I
don't know how it got there,
but it happens. So my my
question for you, MR. Ambrose,
is given that. An antenna on
the east side would affect the
same coverage area per your
maps and. Could be located on
on a hill instead of down in a
ravine, and could be grouped
with large trees of the nature
of this one. Why didn't you
look at alternative sites on
that east side on those larger
parcels? So. The way you
present that is a very like a
simple, you know, looking at
looking at the map and say, put
it here, put it there, put it.
But that's it's, it's way more
complicated than that. It's an
engineering design. This tower
also has to communicate with
existing towers that are also
on the map. You also have
density of population needs. So
this side of the highway is a
lot more dense. And you
probably know t-Mobile has a
direct to home internet service,
which means they're going to
need to be close to, to where
the the residences are. So if
we followed that, if that were
to go, let's go look on the
other side of the highway. Well,
then we're going to need a
second tower on the west side
of the highway then. Probably.
So, you know, I don't know. I'm
just speculating like I think
you are because yeah, I know
it's if it's on the east side,
it's going to be on a hill. So
you'll, you'll have an
advantage in coverage that way.
Yeah. But if it's only a few
hundred yards away, it's not
that simple. I'm not an
engineer, but it's just not
that simple. Like we can't have
counties or cities dictating
where towers should go based on
it's, it's not like it's an
engineered determination. But,
you know, I think that we more
or less have to approve a site
somewhere. That's just how
these things work out. And I've
been doing this for several
years, but we have some
latitude on just where they are
and what they look like. And,
and, you know, I can look at
the people in the audience, I
can look at the letters and say,
folks, we're going to have to
approve one somewhere. That's
just how it's going to work.
But, but I got to do my job and
ask on their behalf, understood
why we couldn't revise the
height or the location or
whatever. And I'm familiar with
the apc easement in property it
has on what was the brand Kino
Ranch on Foxen and, and and 154,
which has a large congregation
of co-located towers. So I get
all that stuff, but I but I got
to ask these questions and, and
I've got to determine, I've got
to make a finding that there's
a compatibility in the
neighborhood. And if no one's
even asked whether one of these
other sites is suitable, it's
hard for me to make that
finding. So that's why I asked.
Understood. Yeah, totally. Okay.
I appreciate your candor and
thank you. Also, just a quick
comment on that. So if counties
and cities were dictating where,
where, you know, just on a map
where sites should go, there's
no nothing saying that if the
county thinks it should go over
here now, there's other
neighbors or people over here
who have concerns with that
location. Why don't you go back
to that location? So it's a
slippery slope, I guess, if it
is. And that's why I think if
we go to the west and we stay
in the heart of the valley with
all five acre and ten acre
zoning, you're going to get the
same answer. And and if we move
it there, there's going to be
people that object. But that's
why I think we should look on
the East side. And I think
that's what the latitude of
what we can do, where there are
much larger parcels. Yeah.
Again, our direction where they
would be hidden by trees and
hills. And I would think your
engineers would love the fact
that they're there. But this is
not for us to have a dialog, an
official hearing. So let's
proceed. Okay. We're going to
move on to Commissioner Ford's
questions. And then I also have
a few questions. Sure. Thanks.
I just want to maybe you
addressed it, but if once again,
you could say why it has to be
68ft. I'm concerned about the
height. So again, it's you know,
there's thousands of towers
right everywhere. Yes, I
understand, but not in that
area. It's not that high. It's
all dictated by the gap in
coverage, geography, trees,
structures, hills. A number of
different factors go into what
the height is. There's towers
that are 50ft. There's towers
that are 45ft. I mentioned I
have one in Nipomo now. It's
120ft. Based on the specifics
of of the given area. I mean,
there's cell sites on top of
this roof that I'm guessing
that's 45ft, something like
that. Hi. So it's a very case
by case, project specific
location contingent. And that's
evidence. The evidence for that
is the propagation maps that
show how the signal propagates.
If we had a lower height, you
would see that the gap in
coverage would not be filled.
You would still have this
periphery of, you know,
basically no coverage zone. And
there's no point in building a
tower leaving, leaving more
gaps in coverage within that
area. So, well, there's still
even when it goes in, there'll
be some zones that are not
covered. Right. I'm sorry, I'm
sorry. The red. Service area
will not still meet the needs
of every area in no. The way
technology works today, you
know, your coverage area is
about a mile and a quarter mile
and a half. That's just with
the new technology, everything
has to be more dense, more
closer. You can't just put one
tower on a hill and cover, you
know, five miles anymore. It
doesn't work like that. It's
very, very condensed in terms
of the technology and how how
close the towers need to be to
where the people that are being
served live and work. Okay. I
just think it would have been
interesting to see what a 50
foot tower would have covered.
We we can certainly run a
propagation map at a lower
height and show that to to the
county or to your commission.
Thanks. Okay. MR. Ambrose, I
have one comment relative to
the 120 foot tree in Nipomo. I
also know that there are lots
of eucalyptus trees of that
same height, so getting it to
blend in with the eucalyptus
eucalyptus grove is much easier
than the problem that we have
here in the Santa Ynez Valley.
Because as the pictures had
showed us, there aren't a lot
of trees around it, so it's
going to stand out on its own.
I, I didn't quite understand
something you said, so I'm just
going to ask you if you could
clarify for me relative to this,
this location being a t mobile
site, Verizon and at&t could
also utilize service. Now,
would they use the same pole or
would they add additional poles?
They. So a pc towers would
market this tower. If it were
approved and built, they would
market it to the other carriers
and the idea would be the
carriers would join on to this
pole. Okay, so the neighbors
wouldn't have to worry about
you adding two more additional
poles on the same piece of
property to create a three pole
site. Would they correct. Yeah.
The they're going to market
this particular tower. And
again, it's up to it's up to
Verizon and at&t if they can
make it work for them. If not
that, they would have to go
somewhere else. Our. If you'll
notice, our lease area at the
bottom of the tower is much
larger than you're used to
seeing. Yes, 30ft by 30ft. And
the purpose of that is to allow
other carriers equipment within
that fenced area. Okay.
Equipment, but not additional
towers, correct? Yes. Okay.
Then the last question that I
have, just out of curiosity,
have you met with the neighbors
by any chance to get any input
about what would work or what
doesn't work for them? We have
not met with the neighbors.
Okay. And also the owner of the
property is the owner of the
property here, or are you just
here representing them? I'm
curious just because one of the
letters stated that I don't
owner of the property rents out
the home. So if they don't live
in this area, they might not
have the same concerns they
live in. She lives in Santa
Ynez, but she does not live on
the property. Correct. Okay.
They've owned it for like 150
years. Some some very long time.
Okay. Thank you. Are there any
other questions before we open
up for public comment? No. Okay.
Thank you. MR. Thank you.
Appreciate it. MR. Villalobos.
Thank you, MR. Chair. So I have
one, two, four speaker slips
and then one request online. So
if you wanted to speak and you
have a slip, just make sure it
gets up here. We'll go to our
in person speakers first. The
first speaker will be Darren
Friedman to be followed by, I
believe that says Michael
McConnell. And then, MR. Chair,
I think before we start, we
should just indicate like how
much time each speaker will be
receiving. Each person will
receive three minutes to speak.
Okay, so, MR. Friedman, if you
could come to the microphone.
Good morning. Thank you. My
name is Darren Friedman. I live
at 1475 Edison Street, which is
less than half a mile from the
proposed site. And I'm here to
strongly oppose this case. I'd
like to add, just for
clarification, that because
these properties are big
rectangles, the perspective
from Calzada, from Edison is
not actually accurate because
the back property line, the
rear property line of both, is
much closer to where the tower
is. So these are literally in
our backyard. I'd specifically
like to address the impact on
the broader neighborhood, the
terrain, the open sightlines,
and why the visual impact of
this tower extends well beyond
the properties immediately
surrounding the site. I should
also say, for the record, that
I do have concerns about long
term rf exposure, particularly
when these facilities are
placed near homes and families.
But I understand the
limitations of the county's
authority in that area. And so
this meeting is more about the
other effects. One of the
defining characteristics of
this area is its openness, the
terrain and relatively low
density of development create
long, uninterrupted views from
across the valley. Many of us,
including me, moved to the
valley from la or other cities
expressly for this reason, from
my property, I have a direct
and open rural sightline
towards the proposed site.
There simply are not any
buildings or any other
structures or trees between us
that would meaningful screen
something of this height.
That's why I believe the
Commission needs to look well
beyond the immediate Calzada
area when evaluating the visual
impact. A 68 foot structure
does not stop affecting the
landscape at the property line.
Because of the terrain and the
open sightlines, its visual
footprint potentially extends
well beyond to the existing
community. My concern is that
the the record before you does
not adequately demonstrate the
broader impact. I've not seen
objective elevations,
topographic sightline analysis,
or accurate visual simulations
like a balloon test that would
show what this would actually
look like from Edison. I
brought a photograph, or I sent
in a photograph via email of my
property, looking directly
towards the proposed area. What
it shows, essentially, is that
what we value about living here
open land, mature properties,
mountains and sky. Period. Our
community is asking a very fair
and serious question as to
whether this particular
location at this particular
height and scale is appropriate,
and whether a less intrusive
location or design or height
have truly been evaluated.
Sandy and Sandy remains special
because we've been careful
about what we put into this
landscape. Once a structure of
this scale enters a rural site
line that changes effectively,
permanent, and as the gentleman
said, they will lease this to
other companies. And this will
continue forward. In closing,
because our agenda item was
moved back to the end of the
day, I've had the opportunity
to listen to the Commission
carefully, consider and
deliberate relatively minor
changes to properties such as a
horse arena, an agricultural
setback. We're discussing how
the construction of a 60 foot
telecommunications tower in our
literal backyard will affect us.
Let's just keep that in
perspective. Thank you, thank
you. Moving on to our next
speaker. Again, I believe it
says Michael McConnell to be
followed by Tom McConnell. And
then Kirsten Muster. And then.
Next. Come on. Thank you so
much. Good morning. My name is
Michael McConnell. My family
owns property on Calzada Avenue
near the proposed site. I want
to pick up on a point that
Commissioner Martinez mentioned
this morning about the the
mammoth case or matter. The
commissioner discussed the
significance of neighboring
property owners having been
notified and not showing up to
oppose or appeal the project.
Our situation is very different.
We did show up. We are showing
up. We're here. 25 neighboring
households are now represented
in opposition to the cell tower.
We informally pulled them
yesterday and asked whether
they had received notice from
the county. Only two of those
25 households reported
receiving direct county notice.
The others learned about this
product through neighbors or
community outreach, and once
they learned what was being
proposed, they became engaged
and opposed it. Some are here
in person today. Some are
participating by Zoom. Others
who could not attend have
submitted their opposition. If
the neighbors here today are in
opposition to this project,
would you please stand up?
Thank you. I'd also note that
this this item was originally
scheduled first on the standard
agenda and was moved to the end
of this morning. Some neighbors
who intended to participate MAY
not have been able to stay and
remain for this additional time,
but the important number isn't
simply how many people are
still in this room. 25
neighboring households are now
represented in opposition to
this project, and only two of
those households reported
receiving something from the
county. I want to be clear, I'm
not alleging that the county
failed to comply with its legal
noticing requirements. This is
an 8110 rural area character
buys large parcels, a 300 foot
notification radius, therefore
reaches remarkably few property
owners. That could be a
property and a half. And just
just very few people. And what
happened here demonstrates
exactly why this this
distinction matters. Once
neighbors beyond the immediate
notification area learned of
this project, they showed up.
So I respectfully, respectfully
ask the Commission not to
interpret the initial limited
response from surrounding
residents as community
acceptance. The contrast with
the matter you considered
earlier today is important.
There you discussed how
neighbors who were notified and
did not show up to oppose the
project here. Once the broader
neighboring community learned
about this project, we did show
up. We are here, we are opposed,
and we respectfully ask you to
not deny this case. Thank you
so much. Thank you. Our next
speaker will be Tom McConnell,
to be followed by Kirsten
Messer. Good morning. My name
is Tom McConnell. And myself
and my family own three
properties on Calzada Avenue.
We've been there 38 years. It's
1540 calls out of 1568 calls
out and 1590 calls out of. We
are one property south of the
cell tower site. Proposed site.
But I do realize that what I am
focusing on on my. My comments
today are just the rf emissions
that can come from cell tower
like this and ongoing
compliance, and I know that I
have significant concerns about
potential health effects of
long term rf exposure from a
telecommunications facility
located near homes and families
in our community. But I also
understand the federal law that
substantially limits what this
Commission can consider
regarding the environmental
effects of rf emissions. When a
wireless facility complies with
the fca sorry fcc standards,
but that raises an important,
very practical question who
verifies that the facility
actually complies after it's
built and operating? If fcc
compliance is the legal line
that limits this commission's
consideration of rf concerns,
then actual compliance should
not simply be presumed, it
should be independently
measured and continually
enforceable. There's an
important distinction between
predicted compliance before a
construction, and measured
compliance afterwards before a
facility exists. Compliance
necessarily relies on
engineering calculations and
assumptions about antennas,
equipment, power levels and
operating conditions. Once a
facility is actually operating,
however, actual rf level levels
can be measured, and Santa
Barbara County's own wireless
regulations provide mechanisms
for doing exactly that. The
county ordinance allows permit
conditions requiring rf field
testing after installation by a
qualified professional,
acceptable to the county and
independent of the Permittee.
It also provides for continued
compliance, testing and
enforcement, if applicable.
Applicable standards are
exceeded. That is particularly
important here because this
facility is also completed
contemplated for future
co-location. The equipment and
operating configuration MAY
therefore change during the
life of this facility.
Compliance should be ongoing
and ongoing obligation, not
simply a calculation made when
the project is approved. So, if
this commission ultimately
approves this project, which I
hope you do not, I respectfully
request that you impose the
strongest permissible rf
compliance conditions available
under the county ordinance.
Specifically, I asked for
independent Post-installation
rf field testing. Once the
facility is operational,
periodic independent compliance
testing at an interval
established by the county.
Additional testing following
applicable equipment, power,
antenna or co-location changes
and, where appropriate, actual
measurements in nearby
inhabited areas so that
compliance reflects what
neighboring residents are
actually exposed to, not merely
what was predicted on paper.
And if the actual measurements
demonstrate that the facility
exceeds applicable federal rf
standards, the county's
enforcement provisions should
be used, including cessation of
commercial operation, until the
facility is brought back into
compliance. I want to be clear
about what I'm asking. I'm not
asking this commission to
resolve the larger scientific
debate surrounding long term rf
exposure. I'm asking for
something much more
straightforward. If compliance
with fcc limits in is the
standard upon which this
facility is allowed to operate,
then verify that compliance
after it begins operating and
continue verifying it as a
facility. Facility changes over
time. If the project is denied,
this issue becomes moot and a
lot of my neighbors will be
very happy. MR. McConnell,
we're going to have to ask you
to wrap it up, please. Okay. If
you approve it, please make
independent measurements and
continuing rf compliance
explicit with enforceable
conditions of that approval.
Thank you very much. Thank you,
thank you. So we have three
additional speakers in house,
and then we'll go to our online
speaker. Our next speaker is
Kirsten Muster, to be followed
by Jim Rodemaker. I believe
that is. And then Matt McKinney.
And then we'll move on to our
online speaker after that. Good
morning. My name is Kirsten. I
live at 1627 Castle Avenue, and
we purchased our home there 15
years ago. And that is we plan
on that being our forever home.
I am opposed to this cell tower.
I'm worried about our property
values going down, and I'm also
worried about the health of the
long term radiation. Children
absorb. Higher rates of cell
tower radiation, are
biologically more vulnerable to
the rf radiation emitted by
cell towers, a fact that has
been long acknowledged by
medical authorities. And I have
children and I'm concerned
about their health. Thank you,
thank you. Jim Rodemaker to be
followed by Matt McKinney.
Thank you for your time. To my
residents. 1637 Calzada was not
provided with notice. We share
an easement that follows
clearly within the purview of
and scope. Other neighbors were
provided with. Notice we
haven't had an adequate
opportunity to investigate all
of this. We asked for
additional time in that regard.
As far as the esthetics of the
project are concerned, they're
not palatable to myself nor my
neighbors. We are concerned
about environmental impacts,
ecological, Geographic, so on
and so forth. And we don't feel
that a sufficient amount of
studies have been performed,
nor have they been provided to
us to date due to the defective
notice provided of this matter.
So I have nothing further at
this time. Thank you. How you
doing? How you doing? My name
is Matt McKinney and a little
taller. Adjust this here. My
mother, Leanne McKinney and I.
Or I'm representing my mom. But
we moved to the Santa Ynez
Valley 32 years ago, and we
specifically moved from
Woodland Hills to escape Los
Angeles. And many of the
commercial and just big city
life and look and feel. And
Santa Ynez Valley has been such
an incredible place to move to
that is so special to us. And
we didn't know about this as
well. If it wasn't for Michael
McConnell, I wouldn't have
known. And my mom and I are
very opposed to the cell tower
going in from a natural scenic
beauty standpoint. And also the
emf concern to our health. And
yeah, we are strongly opposed.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
That's okay. And now we go to
our online speaker, Kelly
McConnell. MR. McConnell, you
have to unmute yourself. Can
you hear me? Your little your
little light? Can you hear me
better now? Can you get a
little bit closer to your mic,
please? Sure, sure. Let me try
a headset. Just one second. Is
that any better? Much better.
Okay. My name is Kelly
McConnell. My family owns three
properties on Calzada Avenue,
immediately south of this
project, I submitted extensive
written comments and
photographs. So I'm just going
to focus on what we've learned
in this hearing today. I think
today's testimony has actually
raised more questions about
whether the required
compatibility finding can be
made, not fewer. We learn from
the applicant that the tallest
tree immediately adjacent to
the proposed facility is
approximately 50ft tall. This
faux eucalyptus would be 68ft
tall, approximately 18ft taller
than the very trees it is
supposedly intended to blend
with. We also heard
Commissioner Park identify an
entirely different area east of
highway 154, with larger
parcels, different topography,
fewer residences, and
substantial eucalyptus trees
that apparently was not
evaluated evaluated in the
applicant's alternative
analysis, Commissioner Park
made the issue very clear if
potentially suitable
alternatives haven't even been
evaluated, how can you make the
required finding that this
location is compatible? And we
learned something else today
that I think deserves careful
consideration. The applicant
testified that t mobile cannot
co-locate on certain other
existing infrastructure because
of its exclusive contractual
relationship with apc towers. I
respectfully ask you to
distinguish between an
alternative that is technically
infeasible and an alternative
that wasn't pursued because of
a private, contractual or
leasing restriction. Those are
not the same thing. Then
there's the fundamental
question of height.
Commissioner. Commissioner Ford
asked what coverage a lower
height tower would provide. The
applicant told us that they can
run a propagation map at a
lower height and provide it to
this commission. My question is
very simple why wasn't that
done before asking you to
approve 68ft. A 50ft won't work.
Show us if 60ft won't work.
Show us. But please don't
assume that 68ft is necessary.
68ft is necessary. When the
applicant has acknowledged
today that the comparative
evidence can actually be
produced. And finally, we don't
need to speculate about what
the 68ft will actually look
like in this landscape. Put a
balloon crane mounted marker or
equivalent full height
demonstration at the actual
proposed location. I spoke
directly with property owner
Anne Twig this week. We had a
very respectful conversation,
and she told me she would
support a balloon test herself
and in fact said she would
communicate that to MR. Ambrose.
Think about that for a moment.
The neighbors want to see it.
The property owner is willing
to do it. And multiple
commissioners today have
expressed concern about the
height. If the applicant
simulations accurately show
that the 68 foot structure will
blend into the landscape, a
full height demonstration
should confirm them. If it
doesn't, we all deserve to know
that before, not after, and
especially before you make a
decision. A permanent land use
decision. I respectfully ask
you to deny a case 2500023. If
you're not prepared to deny it
today, then please continue
this matter rather than approve
it. There's no reason to guess
when the unanswered questions
identified in this very hearing
can be answered. Run the lower
height propagation analysis.
Evaluate the additional
alternatives Commissioner Park
identified, and show us what
68ft actually looks like at
this location. Then make your
decision on a complete record.
We are all opposed. The fact
that we have 25 landowners who
are vehemently opposed to this
should speak volumes. Thank you,
thank you. So I would like to
ask staff if there's any
rebuttals. Oh, sorry, did we
MISS You? I was not aware. I
didn't read it in the letter
that I needed to submit. I had
submitted a letter. My name is
Elizabeth McGovern. I feel like
I had to also submit. Okay,
well, please go ahead. Come up
to the microphone so that we
can so that everybody can hear
you. Thank you. I have no
opposition to giving you three
minutes to speak, so thank you.
Thank you very much. My name is
Elizabeth McGovern. I live at
1680 Calzada, which is on slide
nine. I believe it's basically
that photo is taken from
Calzada facing my house, and
the installation will be right
next to my house because my
house is at the end of my
property, the same location
that tower is going to be put
on. So I want to address, oh, I
want to address property
devaluation for all of those
around us in this cell tower
zone. I work in a family
business. I'm in real estate,
and I understand about
enhancing property values and
diminishing property values.
And if you put a 68 foot tall
telecommunications tower right
there, it is going to diminish
my property greatly. There's a
real question of buyer
perception, the fear of what
that tower will do, property
desirability and marketability.
And when a property is listed,
it falls under California's
broader disclosure law, it
states sellers must disclose
known facts that materially
affect the value or
desirability of the property.
It further states in regards to
a tower, if it is clearly
visible from the home, close to
the home, affects the view,
creates equipment or generator
noise. Those are four questions
that I believe I will have to
say yes to that, and I will
have to disclose that when I
sell my property. If I put my
property on the market,
potential buyers will ask, what
are the emissions, how much
radio frequency rf can a body
sustain? We have the Federal
Communications Board mandating
what's acceptable, but they do
have a cap on those emissions.
So this will lead me to believe
that there are negative effects.
And the commission believes
this, and that's why they put a
cap on these emissions. Next, I
ask, how many of you in this
room would be willing to
purchase a house right next to
a 68 foot tall eucalyptus tree
that's camouflaging a
telecommunications tower? I
wouldn't I wouldn't subject my
children to it or my family. So
that's going to affect my sale
price. It's going to affect the
purchase pool. I spoke to a
broker. He said you can look at
2 to 20% reduction in purchase
price when you are next to a
tower. He said that that
percentage is based off of the
response to those four
questions. So I understand
t-Mobile needs to put a tower
in, but I request that they put
it into an area that is more
commercial. I think you have a
great idea, you know, put it to
on the other side of the 154
where the the properties are
bigger. You have numerous
people around there. That's all
I need. Thank you so much for
your time. And so can I please
ask the speaker to submit a
speaker slip before you leave
today? Sorry. Could you please
fill out and submit a speaker
slip before you leave today?
Yes. Thank you. And I believe
that is our last speaker. Okay.
Thank you very much. To all of
the speakers. I'd like to ask
if there's a rebuttal from the
county staff. Thank you,
chairperson Guy Francisco
County planning. So I'm going
to try and provide a brief
response to most of the
comments that we received. I'll
start off with the the notices.
So we do send out notices at
two different stages of these
types of projects, including a
completeness notice that was
sent out to neighbors within
300ft back in JUNE of this year.
And then we also send a follow
up notice. You know, prior to
hearing. So that's also sent
out to neighbors within 300ft.
And we included both the
occupants and the owners of
each property within 300ft. As
far as the question about how a
fake eucalyptus tree is
compatible and the esthetics of
it, the short answer is the
county does not have specific
design standards for Fox for
faux towers. Therefore,
compatibility is very
subjective and up to discretion
by the commissioners today. In
this particular case, staff
considered the rural setting
and other large trees in the
general area as a basis for
compatibility. And there was a
lot of questions about the rf
report. So the short answer is
the rf reports are prepared by
a third third party consultant.
They required for all telecom
projects. Upon receipt of those,
you know, we review them to
make sure to confirm what sort
of mitigations or
recommendations are being
recommended by that third party.
We do also condition projects
such as this telecom project to
condition compliance. So there
is regular monitoring and site
visits from our county staff,
making sure that equipment is
running appropriately. It still
looks, you know, the way we
approved it. So that's, you
know, for the life of the
project that continues. There
was a question about, you know,
private views. As you MAY be
aware, we don't protect private
views. We evaluate public views
such as those that I showed on
my slides from Carlsbad Avenue,
highway 154, etc. And I believe
that I try to cover everything.
Let me know if you have any
other questions. Thank you. I
just want to add one more thing.
Thank you Francisco. That's
good. To add on to what he said
about no design standards. You
know, the department leans on
the bars when we do not have
design standards. So this is a
project that did go to the bar.
I believe that they recommended
the design. And so that's how
this got to where it is. I just
wanted to add that information.
Thank you. I do have one
question relative to the 300ft.
Looking at the size of the
properties around this piece of
property, it MAY very well just
have been that the neighbors
that have property lines that
touch this property might have
been the only ones notified.
And the case when we're dealing
with much more rural areas, do
we have an allowable to go
outside of the 300ft? Chair guy
to to clarify, we looked at how
many notices were sent out for
this, and there were 24
different properties that were
within the buffer area. And as
Francisco mentioned, two
separate notices were mailed
for each of those 24 sites, one
to the site itself. So that's
for the occupant and one to the
mailing address. And that's a
mailing address that we have
from the county assessor
records. The county can send
out additional notices that are
for a larger buffer area. In
this case, we did also email
notice as a courtesy to
interested parties who had
reached out to us. Well thank
you. 24 is greater than what I
had understood, so thank you
for that. Also, was there a
sign put out at the property
showing that there was
something that was going to
happen? I mean, driver's by,
would they have seen a sign?
Chairperson guy yes, there is
signage and it's required to
stay up during the review
process. So it should still be
up today. Okay. Thank you, I
appreciate that. Any questions
from the commissioners?
Commissioner Americana thank
you. A couple of questions for
staff. You mentioned that the
county will, on occasion
monitor compliance for cell
phone towers or other
installations. So first, let me
ask county counsel, do the
federal regulations allow a
local jurisdiction to monitor
and then enforce federal
standards for rf propagation?
Chair Guy Commissioner. Mayor
Connor, to the extent that our
requirements are consistent
with the fcc limits, yes, I
believe we would be able to.
And that's reflected in the
conditions of approval. When
you review the the compliance
monitoring condition. And do we
have the follow on question?
I'm glad to hear that, by the
way. But the follow on question
is, do we have the equipment or
the contractors available to us
to do this kind of compliance
monitoring of rf emissions? And
have we done it before with
other kinds of cell phone
towers? Francisco County
planning here. Yes. Our permit
compliance staff does have the
equipment to go out to the
sites and verify compliance.
And the experience in using the
equipment, obviously, and I
want to add to that that as you
can see in the condition of
approval, I'm looking at the
condition numbers here. It's
condition number 13. It's our
standard condition Tel oh eight.
Fcc compliance that the
operator is required to provide
regular testing results to
compliance staff. They're also
required to provide testing
after everything is installed
to confirm that it matches the
compliance report that was
received prior to decision
maker action. And what's the
frequency of the rf testing
after the cell phone tower has
been installed and is
operational? I'm going to
review the condition here. I
interject here so the the
federal requirements there, the
reporting is required at least
every five years unless it's
deemed necessary to be more or
I guess sooner by permanent
compliance staff. But it's a
minimum of five years every
five years. That's that's the
federal standard. Does our
condition impose a frequency
requirement? Does it say
anything about how often there
will be a test of rf emissions?
Yes, the condition does. I just
add it here every five years
following the initial
installation verification. Okay.
If we wanted to make that every
three years, could we do it?
We'd have commissioners. We'd
have to check and see if
there's any limit from on the
federal level to doing that.
Okay? Okay. All right. And then
I want to switch subjects to
the view impacts of the project.
And I think staff touched on
this when you said that the
county. Looks at the view
impacts from public property,
not private property. Did I
understand you to say that? Did
I understand that correctly?
Commissioner? Mayor Connor
through the chair Yes, that is
our standard. We evaluate
public views, Viewsheds and the
county's standards. The land
use standards require that the
county or the Commission look
at the impacts from public
property, streets, highways,
that sort of thing. Is that
right? That's correct. Okay.
The fact that a tower might
have an impact on private
property. And one of our
speakers spoke about having a
house on a nearby property and
was worried about the impact of
the view from her house. Is
that something that the county
can consider? And deciding
whether or not this is an
appropriate project? Yeah,
commissioners, I will I will
say this to you, this is a Cup
and you have broad discretion
in terms of cup compatibility
findings, in terms of specific
standards for private views, we
do not have that. But you do
have the ability to look at the
Cup findings and really take
the project as a whole.
Comments. Everything with the
cup and compatibility, and you
have broad discretion. Okay.
Thank you. Commissioner Park.
So in other words, if we're
applying some of our county
view policies or sign
ordinances and all the
different things where we look
to what we can see from the
public road. We wouldn't
discuss public private views,
but if we're applying the broad
discretion, we have to
determine whether this is
compatible with the
neighborhood. And I'm
oversimplifying what finding
2.185 says, or 115, whatever it
is, we can in fact include
those and and so many other
things as long as we're acting
in good faith. Correct.
Commissioners, I believe so. I
mean, it's always helpful to
provide supporting evidence for
the findings. You know, why
you're making that connection
to compatibility. But I believe
so, yeah. Okay. I was wondering
if we could go, can we go back
to slide three and get off
slide ten for just a second?
This is based upon one of the
comments that one of the
speakers had. Is there a chance
to blow that up? Because the
location of homes and the
potential for rf frequency
transmission, I understand it's
a concern with the homeowners.
So I'm just trying to
understand how close the homes
are to this station or the what
do we call it, a transmission
tower. One thing that seems odd
to me is that some of the
neighboring homes are actually
closer to the tower than the
home that's located on this
parcel. Yeah, yeah. And I'm
just trying to get an
understanding again. I wasn't
able to drive all the way. MR.
Amoroso wasn't able to drive
all the way in in order to see
the location, because I hadn't
received approval at the time.
I did the site visit. But I'm
just trying to understand
there's a lot of comments about
radio frequencies, and there's
a lot of comments about the
views and so forth, and I'm
just trying to get a better
understanding of that. And then
there was there was one comment
that I that was in one of the
letters that I felt was worthy,
that I wrote it down and it
said, the rural character is
not incidental to this
neighborhood. It's one of the
primary reasons that people
choose to live here. And lots
of comments. But that was the
one that that really struck me
relative to the location of the
homes and the tower.
Chairperson guy. Is there a do
you know, do you know the
distance of the homes, the
adjacent on the adjacent
properties as well as the home
on the property, the distance
from the tower to those to
those homes? Chairperson guy I
don't I didn't measure every
single residence, but the
closest residence, according to
our records, is approximately
450ft to the northeast. So I
don't have a I don't know that
I have a you said 450ft, 450ft,
correct. Yeah. Approximately
where that cursor is. Okay, I
don't have any further
questions. Any of the other
commissioners. Any questions or
comments? Commissioner Martinez,
my question is, is okay. Q p is
because this is not actually
zoned for cell tower. Am I
thinking right here?
Commissioner Martinez I
wouldn't quite word it that way.
It is. It's a permitted use in
the zone, but it it's
conditionally permitted. Okay.
And what kind of zones would
you not need a qpi believe
towers this tall need a q p in
every zone. Okay. So no matter
where it goes, it's going to
have to come before us for a
correct. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
So I believe that we at some
point should give MR. Ambrose
rebuttal time. And we still
have the unresolved issues of
the two letters. Okay, let's
start off with MR. Ambrose with
your rebuttal time. Good
morning again. I didn't hear
any or any of the new issues
that that that the. Folks spoke
about a staff staff addressed
pretty well. So I don't really
have anything to add to what
what staff has provided your
Commission now, in regard to
your CHAIRMAN, your last
comment about the location of
the tower in relation to homes,
etc. Please remember that the
county recommends minimizing
visual impacts from public
roads. So in this case, just
the logical solution is going
to be as far back off the
public road as possible. So
that's so the tower could work
right at the front of the
property in the middle of the
property. It could function
anywhere on the property. But
again, we're following county
guidance trying to keep it off
the public road as far as
possible. So again, that's the
reason it's at the at the back
of the property. Okay. Thank
you. The reason for my question
was rf emissions relative to
residents versus transients,
these residents will be living
near those towers. So I was
just trying to understand how
they would be impacted. So so I
understand what you're saying
relative to visual impact, but
I think in much greater than
visual impact. Well, I just
want to remind the commission
that I think Francisco
presented it. We did do an rf
study. And the worst case
scenario, which is standing
right below the tower, is 45.6%
of the fcc standard. The
further you move away from the
tower, that just goes down. So
we're already at least 50%
below the fcc standard right
under the tower. So if you're
expressing a concern about, you
know, exposure to rf, there's
no issue just based on the
evidence that's provided and
also the fcc standards. Yeah,
actually, I was just trying to
understand the concern from the
speaker's point of view. Oh,
okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay.
Understood. No, I understand
the perception. I understand
that part of it. Okay. Any
questions? No. Okay. Thank you,
MR. Ambrose. Okay. MR.
Villalobos, we'd like to go
back to the emails that were
received after the cutoff. You
know, I'd like to address them
in deliberations because, like
I said, I think they MAY be
muted and it would be an undue
use of time to belabor that
point. So I don't have any
objections to that. Any other
commissioners? If that's the
case, then we'll go to
deliberations. Okay. MAY I
speak first? Commissioner Pak,
would you please speak first?
Yeah. I've thought about this a
lot, and I've been here before.
We've had you might you might
think that we lived on cannabis
cases, but in fact, we've
actually had more fun cases
than cannabis cases over the
years. And most of the time
they just simply get approved.
But sometimes neighbors bring
things up and we have to spend
some time digging into it. And,
and this is one of those. And
that's where we get these
tension between what's
preempted by federal government
on rf. But what are what can we
look at? And we can, in fact,
look at. Because it's a cup, we
have very broad discretion to
look at such things as
compatibility with the
neighborhood. And there's a
specific finding on it, and it
appears in every single finding.
I would like to make a motion,
and then I would like to
explain why making that motion
and that motion is not a motion
for approval, because right now
I can't do what former
Commissioner Cooney taught me
to do, and that is focus on the
findings and decide whether I
can make those findings. And I
can't make the finding that's
part of every cup. In fact,
it's what makes a cup a cup,
and that is the compatibility
finding. We just don't have the
information. I don't want to
make the motion to deny the
project because after seeing so
many of these over the years,
with the constraints we have
with the federal government and
such, there's going to be
approval of some site somewhere.
That's just what has to happen.
So if I told all the folks out
there, I can make a motion to
deny this and that's going to
kill the project, I would be
lying to you. Honestly, what's
going to happen is we should do
what we can to make it the best
project possible for the whole
neighborhood, but realize we
have to attend to that. And
that's why my motion is a
motion to continue this matter
to the next available hearing
that staff can suggest for us.
And during that time, I want to
afford MR. Ambrose, an apc, the
opportunity to explore
alternate sites and go beyond
what you've looked at already,
which we've listed by by
addresses, and look on the east
side of 154. Why would you do
that? Because your own service
map shows that sites within 154
are within that same service
area, and would have similar
coverage. If we look at
topography sites on the other
side of one, 54 are elevated
compared to the project site,
which is more or less in a hole.
I have not been on the project
site. I've been to the very
western end, the end adjacent
to the project site of the
Cheney property. You know, the
Cheney property. And it's the
it's it's the next one to the
right of that. And I've seen
the hole in property. I've seen
others. Yes. There are
substantial improvements that
are much closer to this site
than the house on the twig
property is in fact, the the
Cheney property has got things
right near there. The distance
from the antenna to the Cheney
property is 54ft per the
exhibits we've seen today,
which is less than the height
of the structure. So yes, there
there are impacts, but it sits
in a hole. It would just stand
a reason to me that we should
explore those sites on the
other side of 154 that are
elevated and would have more
coverage, and they do not have
the problem of being near
people's homes or on small
parcels, or on much bigger
parcels, where there are all
sorts of other odd things. And
you can even see from this
picture, it's tree lined,
especially on the east side.
And many of those trees are
very tall eucalyptus trees, and
some are sitting on hills and,
and it seems much more
appropriate to site over there
where it would not bother
people and would give us
similar coverage. I believe
then then this site, this
should be explored. We owe it
to these people to explore that.
And that's why I want to afford
apc the opportunity to explore
other sites. There are sites
that are on the Chumash
Triangle, and there are sites
at a very large one, that apc
has an easement for at the
corner of Fox and. And. 154 so
they they know the area they
can explore in between. And we
will answer any other questions
that that people can think of.
One that I have is if 68ft
seems really tall, because it
is where that is, would 240ft
in ten. I achieve the same
amount of coverage with much
less disturbance to the
neighbors. But these are things
we need to explore further
before we can vote on this. So
that's my motion. So chair and
members of the commission,
there's two things that we need
to address because there's two
motions on the floor. There's a
motion about the letters that
was tabled by Commissioner Park.
And now there's another motion
that we can refine. That's a
continuance motion. Well, and
the continuance motion moots
the other motion because we
don't need those letters today.
Those letters can be submitted.
They've already been submitted.
And they'll be in time for the
next hearing. So we just don't
need just to rephrase that, I'm
hearing that the motion makers
withdrawing that motion on
those letters, because
otherwise it was tabled. Yeah,
because it is mute by
continuing it, but conditional
on the passage of the motion to.
To continue the matter, because
I don't want to have that
motion fail. And then my other
motion has been withdrawn. So
that's why I've now stated for
the third time, I want to
consider it after the motion I
bring up in deliberations. Okay.
So we'll table that discussion
further. Chair the other items
to consider on the motion for
continuance is that this
particular project is mandated
to be heard in a certain period
of time, which is commonly
referred as a shot clock that
expires on OCTOBER 13th. So if
it isn't heard by OCTOBER 13th
or decision made, then it's
automatically approved. So we
would need to ask the applicant
if he's willing to. Consider a
tolling agreement, which would
extend that time period out.
And that's where we need to
maybe take a break, talk to the
applicant and staff on what
that date would look like.
Staff is whispering and giving
me hand signals about later in
this year, but we need to hear
from the applicant, if that's
even feasible, to come back
with information that is being
requested. So if we could take
a short break so we can get
that information, we can come
back and address the motion. Is
it is it possible to take a
short break and have us remain
here so that we don't have to
hurt everybody back together
again, chair and commissioners,
that is correct. Okay. And I
would certainly favor that as
part of my motion because, you
know, if if the shot clock
applies and we can't possibly
have a hearing before OCTOBER
13th, then we're forced to vote
to approve or deny the the
matter today. And the applicant
risks denial. Okay, let's go
ahead and take that short break
so that the applicant can speak
with staff. Thank you. Please,
everybody else, if you can stay
close by. Okay. Thank you.
Okay.
We're returning back from our
short break. MR. Wilson. Chair,
members of the commission.
We've met with staff and the
applicant, and he's willing to
continue this to DECEMBER 9th.
So for the motion maker, it
would be to continue this item
to DECEMBER 9th to give him
enough time to prepare the
required studies and then come
back on the ninth and present
that to the commission. But we
do want to have invite the
applicant to come forward and
get that on the record. For him
to say that he's agreeing to
continue it to the ninth. Okay.
Applicant, please
come forward
so we can get that on the
record. Yes, we're in agreement.
Thank you, MR. Ambrose. We
appreciate it, MR. Chair.
Commissioner o'Connor, while
the applicant is standing at
the microphone, it MAY help to
answer both the Commission's
questions and the neighbors
questions. If there were an
independent analysis of the
expected rf emissions from this
facility in connection with any
nearby residences. And when I
say independent, I mean a
consultant selected by county
staff and reporting to county
staff. But then, of course, the
applicant would pay for that
additional study. And my
question, first of all to staff,
is that something that you
would undertake and support?
And if the answer there is yes,
is that something that the
applicant would be willing to
pay for as part of the work
that's being done between now
and DECEMBER 9th, is your
question? We would run a report.
Essentially exposure levels at
House a, b and c, that kind of
a report, correct? Sure. Okay.
I would I would add that to as
a friendly amendment to the
motion to continue this matter,
assuming there's a motion on
the floor, is there a motion on
the floor? Yes, yes, yes. And
we would have we would rely on
staff to give us a specifics. I
would ask the maker of the
motion if he agrees with my
friendly amendment. So Chair
and commissioners, we I think
staff has some comments and
concerns about that condition.
Okay. So we're not in alignment
with that condition. All right.
So we don't know if we could
actually implement that. So we
would we would say that
wouldn't be something that we'd
want to entertain at this
moment without doing further
research, analysis on what
you're asking, because we don't,
according to what's being
reported by staff, is that
we're having a difficult time
getting the peer reviewers to
take on that liability to do
that. Currently, my
understanding is that the
applicant does submit the rf
studies to the county, and then
we have them peer reviewed. Oh,
okay. The study is peer
reviewed by an independent
expert to determine whether or
not the study is reliable. Is
that what we do? Commissioners,
we are having trouble finding
someone to peer review. So I, I,
I don't think staff has any
issues with you asking for them
to do the report. Whether we
have the ability to find
someone to peer review it in
the time frame, we can try, we
can try again, reach out to
some different people. But I
think due to a lot of the legal
issues around wireless and
federal laws, there's been a
reluctance of people to take
that on. So just heads up, but
certainly okay to ask for it
for the okay, so maybe my
friendly amendment is to try to
do this without it necessarily
being a condition of this
continuance. You know, it, it
fits right in. And I'll tell
you why I've done this enough
times to know that I should
keep my motions pretty simple.
And so I think the motion here
simply is to continue to this
next date, which we now hear is
DECEMBER 9th to explore
alternatives. And that can take
many manifestations.
Alternatives in what you've
asked for is, is part of that.
And and now that the applicant
has heard you express your own
interest in that, I'm sure that
they will pay attention to that
during this hiatus. Okay. I'm
happy with that. Thank you.
Okay. Commissioner Martinez? Oh,
sorry about that. Okay. I don't
know if this is the proper way
to do it, but along with that
continuance, I would also like
to see, as one of the residents
recommended a height test at
that location, putting
something up in the air at 68ft
high so that there's a better
representation. When we look
from the private, the private
properties as well as public
properties, is is there an
opportunity to do something
along those lines? Sure.
Commissioners like story polls.
Is that what you're asking?
Maybe your story poll, the
recommendations were a balloon,
a crane, a boom, something so
that so that we can actually
see how high 68ft is from
public property, as well as
from the private property. We
will work with the applicant to
try and figure something out.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. MAY I
speak, Commissioner Ford? Thank
you. Well, I would like to
second the motion, but first, I
just wanted to say a couple of
things. I want to thank MR.
Vargas because you really
helped me understand this issue
and you walked me through it.
But I am also just as grateful,
if not more, to the community
that showed up and wrote to us
and spoke. The comments were
considered, they were
thoughtful, they were measured,
and they might be boiling and
furious inside, but they were
so compelling that I do think
we need to respond and validate
those concerns. So my second
would be in in the interest of
compatibility, one of the
things that our commission can
address. So I'll second it. So
we have a first and second. Any
other discussion before we vote?
Commissioner Martinez, I would
I would just say this for for
this sake of of future avoiding
future dispute, if there is
going to be such a thing such
as a balloon out there to, to
provide for the observation of
the height and what it would
look like, I would, I would
hope that we we on the
Commission, would be informed
of the date and time that that
would happen. Because if that
happens and it's just based on
photos, we all know what photos
can do. I can zoom in, zoom out,
make it whatever I want, and
make it bigger or smaller. If
that happens, I would say, and
I'm looking forward to seeing
just the the technical coverage
from 40ft to 50ft. I think
somebody even said that and say,
show me if if you show them,
that would be really helpful to
me. And I'm supportive of the
continuance to allow these
answer to get these questions
answered. Thank you.
Commissioner Ford, did you have
any. Oh, no sir. Okay. So we've
got a first and a second. So
we're ready to vote. Do we do a
roll call or do you can we just
do individual votes for this?
Okay. So we're going to do
individual votes. All in favor
I aye. Any opposed. None. Okay.
The continuance will proceed.
Thank you chair. Thank you all
I. Okay let's go to.