[18:11] Okay, it's 9:07 A.M. We 9:05
[18:15] A.M. We'd like to go ahead and
[18:18] start the meeting. First item
[18:22] of order is the Pledge of
[18:25] Allegiance. So MAY I ask you
[18:29] all to please stand? I pledge
[18:32] allegiance to the flag of the
[18:35] United States of America and to
[18:38] the Republic for which it
[18:42] stands. One nation under GOD,
[18:45] indivisible, with liberty and
[18:48] justice for all. Thank you all.
[18:51] MR. Villalobos, do you mind
[18:53] reading to us the tv coverage
[18:55] announcement? Yes. Thank you,
[18:57] MR. Chair, and good morning to
[18:59] the Commission. Planning
[19:02] Commission hearings are
[19:04] televised live on the County of
[19:07] Santa Barbara Television
[19:09] Kswb-tv, channel 20, at 9 A.M.
[19:11] In the South Coast, Lompoc
[19:14] Valley area and areas.
[19:15] Rebroadcast of Planning
[19:17] Commission hearings on Fridays
[19:19] at 5 P.M. On Kswb-tv channel 20.
[19:21] Today's hearing will also be
[19:23] streamed live on the county's
[19:26] website, as well as the
[19:28] county's YouTube channel, and
[19:31] will be available for download
[19:34] in a day or two. Should I move
[19:36] on to roll call? Yes, please.
[19:38] Thank you. Great. Commissioner.
[19:40] Mayor Connor here, here. Thank
[19:43] you. Commissioner Ford here.
[19:45] Commissioner Martinez here and
[19:47] chair Guy here. And then
[19:49] Commissioner Park will be
[19:51] joining us shortly. Yes. Okay.
[19:53] The agenda status report. Good
[19:55] morning, chair. Members of the
[19:57] commission. Looking at the
[19:59] status of our agenda today, we
[20:02] have one item on consent which
[20:04] is a government code
[20:06] consistency. And then we have
[20:08] I'm sorry, we have four items
[20:10] on our agenda. My understanding
[20:13] is applicants and staff are
[20:15] ready to present on all those
[20:17] items. Okay, MR. Wilson, I'm
[20:19] going to ask that we make a
[20:21] change. And I know there's
[20:23] quite a few people here in the
[20:25] room. Unfortunately, I'm going
[20:27] to ask that we move the second
[20:29] item, which is the t mobile
[20:31] telecommunications facility, to
[20:33] the end. Unfortunately,
[20:34] Commissioner Park is not here
[20:36] at the moment, but he's he's in
[20:38] process. He's been delayed. And
[20:40] it's important that he's here
[20:42] for this item. If we could do
[20:44] so, then I would like you to
[20:45] move up. I believe it's the
[20:47] Wollover llc. So. Yeah. MR.
[20:48] Chair. Sorry, Mel. Move. Yes.
[20:50] Go ahead. What would be the
[20:52] best order for us? So, MR.
[20:55] Chair and Commissioners, if I
[20:56] MAY, provide a recommendation
[20:58] in concert, we're talking with
[21:00] staff. The recommendation is we
[21:01] move item number one off the
[21:02] Senate agenda, which is t
[21:04] mobile, to the last item on the
[21:06] agenda. And then the order
[21:07] would be as follows. The first
[21:08] item on the agenda would be the
[21:10] mammoth tentative parcel map,
[21:11] followed by the Wollover llc
[21:12] lot line adjustment. And then
[21:14] the third item would be the
[21:16] land in equestrian arena and
[21:18] small scale event. And then
[21:20] we'll end the day with the t
[21:22] mobile communication facility.
[21:24] That sounds fantastic. Thank
[21:26] you. So moving on to the
[21:28] projection report. Thank you,
[21:30] MR. Chair. And commissioners,
[21:32] looking at upcoming hearings,
[21:35] we canceled the SEPTEMBER 2nd
[21:37] hearing and then the next
[21:39] hearing after that would be on
[21:41] SEPTEMBER 9th. And we have one
[21:43] item on consent. And then we
[21:46] have one item on the standard
[21:49] agenda, which is a track map,
[21:52] and that is located in the
[21:54] Saint Louis area. And I'm just
[21:56] for the commission. SEPTEMBER
[21:58] 9th will be in Santa Maria, and
[22:02] then moving further down on our
[22:06] agendas is looking at. Some.
[22:08] After SEPTEMBER 9th, we will
[22:12] meet again on SEPTEMBER 30th
[22:15] and that is when we will have
[22:17] the Ministerial Streamlining
[22:19] Amendment Workshop. And just so
[22:21] the commissioners just. You do
[22:23] have the agenda, but looking at
[22:25] that, the start time for the
[22:26] SEPTEMBER 30th date is going to
[22:29] be at 1 P.M. And that will be
[22:32] here in Santa Barbara. And then
[22:35] because in the morning, the
[22:37] Montecito Planning Commission
[22:40] will be having the same
[22:42] workshop, and theirs is going
[22:45] to start at nine. So SEPTEMBER
[22:47] 30th, we'll be here in Santa
[22:49] Barbara at 1:00. And we did add
[22:51] one other item from long range
[22:54] planning, which is the Eastern
[22:56] Goleta Valley Community Plan
[22:59] circulation elements. So after
[23:00] the workshop, we'll have
[23:02] another item from long range
[23:04] planning. And then following
[23:06] that, we canceled the OCTOBER
[23:08] 7th hearing to allow for an
[23:10] alignment of hearings between
[23:12] the Montecito Planning
[23:14] Commission and the County
[23:16] Planning Commission. So we will
[23:19] not meet again until OCTOBER
[23:22] 21st. And then OCTOBER 21st is
[23:25] when we'll have the first
[23:27] hearing on the ministerial
[23:30] streamlining amendments
[23:33] adoption. And then we'll also
[23:36] have one other item on that
[23:38] date, which is a lot split or
[23:41] lot line adjustment. That's
[23:43] another from long range
[23:46] planning, which is a
[23:49] ministerial processing of lot
[23:51] splits. And then on OCTOBER
[23:54] 28th, we have three items. We
[23:55] have a second hearing from
[23:58] ministerial streamlining
[24:00] amendments in case we need it.
[24:03] And then we also have a couple
[24:06] items from long range planning,
[24:08] not I'm sorry, development
[24:11] Review Division, which is a
[24:13] hotel expansion in Los Olivos.
[24:16] And then another housing
[24:18] development, Isla Vista. Then
[24:20] on NOVEMBER 4th, we are looking
[24:22] at having a hearing where we're
[24:24] bringing the actual completed
[24:26] ordinance amendments, general
[24:29] plan amendments on the
[24:30] Recreation Master Plan to the
[24:33] County Planning Commission, and
[24:35] then following NOVEMBER 4th,
[24:38] because of holidays. We do have
[24:40] a tbd on there, but I don't
[24:42] think we're going to be able to
[24:45] make that, because I think
[24:46] that's actually. A holiday.
[24:49] It's Veterans Day, it's
[24:51] Veterans Day. So we can talk at
[24:54] another hearing if we want to
[24:56] reschedule it. But I think
[24:58] following that, we have things
[25:00] Thanksgiving. And so I don't
[25:02] know if we want to have a
[25:04] hearing right before
[25:07] Thanksgiving due to staff
[25:09] availability and commissioners
[25:12] availability. So I'll work with
[25:14] MR. Villalobos and staff to see
[25:17] if we have another hearing for
[25:19] NOVEMBER. But when we looked at
[25:21] it, we didn't hadn't identified
[25:23] another date, so that would put
[25:25] us no more hearings in NOVEMBER,
[25:27] and then that would bring us
[25:29] back in DECEMBER for another
[25:31] hearing on the recreation,
[25:34] recreation Master Plan
[25:37] amendments. And then we also
[25:40] have another item from long
[25:43] range planning, which is the
[25:45] moderate income density bonus,
[25:49] Special Needs and Housing
[25:52] Ordinance amendments. So there
[25:54] are a number of other items, I
[25:57] think, that are. Being looked
[25:59] at and being placed on the
[26:01] projection report as well. And
[26:03] so at our next hearing you'll
[26:05] probably see more items on
[26:07] there as well. So the at the
[26:09] end of the year, there's a
[26:11] number of items that are going
[26:13] to be showing up on the
[26:15] projection report. So that's
[26:17] the current status of right now.
[26:19] MR. Chair. Thank you, MR.
[26:21] Wilson, for the update on the
[26:23] projection report. We
[26:25] appreciate it. The public
[26:27] comment. Yes. Thank you, MR.
[26:30] Chair. So for those of you here
[26:32] today, this is a time that we
[26:34] allow for public comment on
[26:37] items, not on today's agenda. I
[26:39] have not received any speaker
[26:43] slips, but if anyone would like
[26:46] to speak, just rise. Or if
[26:48] you're online, raise your
[26:51] virtual hand and I'll call on
[26:54] you. And so of course, this is
[26:56] again for not related to items
[26:58] on today's agenda, seeing no
[26:59] one rise, do we have one person
[27:01] out here? Do you have an item
[27:04] that's not on the agenda? Okay.
[27:06] Thank you. Then I believe that
[27:08] means no speakers at this time.
[27:10] Okay. Thank you, MR. Villalobos.
[27:11] Planning commissioners,
[27:13] informal reports. Individual
[27:15] commissioners MAY present
[27:18] briefly reports on planning
[27:20] issues such as seminars,
[27:23] meetings and literature that
[27:25] would be of interest to the
[27:27] public and the Commission as a
[27:29] whole. Do any commissioner,
[27:31] mayor Connor? No. Okay. Thank
[27:33] you. Any any comments? Okay.
[27:35] Well, we're going through this
[27:38] fast. And and next would be the
[27:40] minutes from the AUGUST 12th
[27:42] meeting. So. So at this point,
[27:43] you would just ask if anyone
[27:45] has any amendments to the
[27:46] minutes. And if no, then a
[27:48] motion. So I have read the
[27:50] minutes from the AUGUST 12th
[27:52] meeting. Does anybody have any
[27:53] objections to the minutes as
[27:55] presented. No objections. Okay.
[27:56] Anybody want to make a motion
[27:58] to accept the minutes as
[28:00] presented. Thank you,
[28:02] Commissioner Connor. Thank you,
[28:03] Commissioner Ford. All in favor?
[28:05] Aye. Any opposed? None. Passes
[28:07] four zero. Next is director's
[28:08] report and Board of Supervisors
[28:10] hearing summary. Good morning,
[28:11] MR. Chair. And members of the
[28:13] Commission. I have a few
[28:15] announcements that I want to
[28:17] repeat. I had made them at our
[28:19] last meeting when you were in
[28:21] Santa Maria, but Farm Day is
[28:23] the 19th of SEPTEMBER, and if
[28:25] you have never been to it, I
[28:27] really recommend attendance.
[28:29] It's really very, very
[28:31] informative just about what's
[28:33] happening in the Santa Maria
[28:35] Valley, issues that the
[28:37] agricultural families and
[28:39] companies deal with, struggles
[28:41] that they MAY have. And then
[28:43] there's. Some guest speakers
[28:45] that you go on a tour and you
[28:48] just it's really amazing how
[28:49] much you learn about things
[28:51] that you had no idea. Like one
[28:53] of the farming families there
[28:55] developed an entire piece of
[28:57] equipment. It's like a, it's a
[28:59] truck, basically that comes
[29:00] into the field. They put their
[29:02] romaine lettuce on it. It goes
[29:04] through it packages, it comes
[29:06] out and it's packaged, ready,
[29:08] stamped with a date and ready
[29:11] to go to a store. It's amazing,
[29:13] you know, and that how quickly
[29:15] berries get into the market,
[29:17] that kind of thing. So it's
[29:19] just really, really an
[29:22] informative day and I've
[29:23] enjoyed it each time I've gone.
[29:25] So they motivated me to do a
[29:27] garden bed and they gave me a
[29:28] some kale to start and it's
[29:30] just really cool. So I
[29:32] recommend it if you, if you can
[29:35] make it. And then Commissioner
[29:37] Park talked about this, but
[29:39] there is an ag tourism summit
[29:40] that's going to be held in Paso
[29:42] Robles, and that is on the 23rd
[29:44] through the 25th of SEPTEMBER.
[29:46] We are looking at having
[29:48] somebody from the county attend
[29:49] to talk about the ag Enterprise
[29:51] ordinance and sort of the
[29:53] lessons that we've learned as
[29:54] we've implemented that program
[29:56] and realizing some of the
[29:58] tweaks we have needed to make.
[29:59] We did come back with one
[30:00] already. So they've asked us to
[30:02] attend, and we're going to work
[30:05] to try and make that happen.
[30:08] And then just recent board
[30:10] actions, the Hagfors rezone in
[30:12] Santa Ynez Valley went from c2
[30:15] to c3. That was approved by the
[30:17] board on the 18th. Their first
[30:20] hearing back from the break.
[30:23] And then future board actions.
[30:26] I wanted to update the
[30:28] commission on something that
[30:30] the second and third district
[30:32] are bringing on the 1st of
[30:34] SEPTEMBER, and it is tied to
[30:38] retail firearms shops. And I
[30:41] don't know if you were tracking
[30:42] some of the issues that came
[30:44] out of a retailer going into a
[30:46] space next to a child care
[30:48] facility in the city of Goleta,
[30:51] but there was a lot of
[30:52] community concern about it. So
[30:54] our two board members are
[30:56] bringing an item forward to
[30:58] direct the department to look
[30:59] at creating an ordinance that
[31:01] establishes buffers to
[31:04] sensitive receptors for retail
[31:07] firearm stores, so that that
[31:09] item, and then they're also
[31:10] bringing forward a request for
[31:12] a moratorium, a temporary
[31:15] moratorium, so that the county
[31:18] has sufficient time to bring
[31:20] that ordinance back before
[31:22] additional retailers start
[31:24] moving around and shifting
[31:27] spaces. We will also have the
[31:30] board here. The second item,
[31:31] the second hearing on the
[31:35] utility scale, solar, I think I
[31:37] mentioned the last Planning
[31:39] Commission hearing some of the
[31:41] notable things that the board
[31:43] did include creating an a
[31:46] zoning clearance for standalone
[31:49] battery energy storage systems
[31:53] up to 0.25 acres, and then also
[31:57] creating a zoning clearance for
[32:00] agricultural operations that
[32:02] are using solar on site to
[32:03] allow them to have up to 15
[32:05] acres of solar. Provided that
[32:07] all of that power that's
[32:09] generated by that solar is used
[32:11] for that agricultural operation
[32:13] on that particular site. And
[32:14] that was a request that had
[32:15] come from the Shipper Growers
[32:18] Association. And we managed to
[32:20] review our environmental
[32:22] documents to determine that. We
[32:24] thought we had it sufficiently
[32:25] covered in the eir. So we're
[32:27] going to move forward with that
[32:30] recommendation for the board.
[32:33] Then on the first, we also have
[32:35] an update and a reassessment of
[32:37] our Coastal Resource Mitigation
[32:40] fund fees during the times that
[32:42] oil and gas operators in the
[32:44] coastal zone are non-operative,
[32:46] their fees go down, but once
[32:49] they become operative, then the
[32:51] fees can be reassessed. And so
[32:52] we are bringing back a
[32:56] reassessment for the Sabl.
[32:58] Operations at Los Flores Canyon
[33:00] and then bringing oil through
[33:02] the pipeline. So that will
[33:04] increase the available funds
[33:06] that we will have in that in
[33:09] the fund that is then made
[33:12] available to nonprofits and
[33:16] governmental agencies that are
[33:19] doing work in the coastal zone,
[33:22] either for coastal restoration
[33:25] or recreation. We see lots of
[33:28] proposals that come in, and
[33:30] later this fall, we are going
[33:32] to be opening that process back
[33:34] up. And so we'll we also have
[33:36] money set aside for
[33:39] acquisitions, coastal
[33:41] acquisitions. So we've been
[33:43] going on a cycle of every two
[33:46] years because the fund has been
[33:48] shrinking over the years as oil
[33:51] and gas operations have ceased.
[33:53] But we seem to have more money
[33:55] now. And so there will be a
[33:56] good opportunity for nonprofits
[33:57] to come forward and ask for
[33:59] funds for their specific
[34:01] projects. We've seen some
[34:04] really great things like Nature
[34:05] Track, which is where this
[34:07] nonprofit comes in, and they
[34:08] have wheelchairs that are
[34:10] basically like four wheel drive
[34:11] for handicapped people to be
[34:13] able to get to the beach and
[34:14] explore tide pools and things
[34:16] like that. We've given money to
[34:17] the aquarium that they have at
[34:19] Cabrillo High School, and then
[34:20] kelp reforestation. So there's
[34:22] a lot of really interesting
[34:24] projects that get funded
[34:26] through that. On the 15th of
[34:27] SEPTEMBER, we have the oil and
[34:29] gas item that's coming back.
[34:31] It's phase one of changes to
[34:32] the oil and gas provisions in
[34:34] the county. Phase one is
[34:36] prevention of the drilling of
[34:40] new wells, and then once the
[34:42] board takes action on that
[34:43] phase two, which has already
[34:45] been initiated, that is the
[34:48] study of amortizing oil and gas
[34:51] as being phased out over a
[34:54] period of time so that they can
[34:56] operators still achieve their
[35:00] investment backed expectations.
[35:02] There are other jurisdictions
[35:04] that have moved forward with it.
[35:06] I think County of La La city
[35:08] and then Culver City all have
[35:12] programs. The airport land use,
[35:14] consistent land use plan,
[35:16] consistency amendments. And
[35:18] this is just the step the
[35:19] county takes to bring our codes
[35:22] into conformance with sb Kags
[35:24] new airport land use plan,
[35:26] which is a few years old. So
[35:28] we're a little bit behind, but
[35:31] that's going to be heard on the
[35:33] 22nd. And I believe that's
[35:37] already been heard by the pc.
[35:39] We have two projects going in
[35:42] NOVEMBER on the 10th to the
[35:44] board Constellation project,
[35:46] which is in Vandenberg Village,
[35:49] and that is a combination of a
[35:52] hotel and residential. And then
[35:55] the Malkin gpa rezone lot line
[35:58] adjustment will be at the board
[35:59] on the 10th of NOVEMBER, and I
[36:01] am happy to answer any
[36:04] questions. Thank you, MISS
[36:07] Plowman. Yes. Okay. Next agenda
[36:23] item. I'm sorry. Oh thank you.
[36:26] Okay. Next item is the consent
[36:30] agenda items and procedure, MR.
[36:33] Villalobos. Thank you, MR.
[36:35] Chair. The following is a
[36:38] hearing on the request of Kevin
[36:41] Thompson, Laguna County
[36:45] Sanitation District. Consider
[36:49] case number 26g0v5 for
[36:52] determination that the solids
[36:56] Handling phase three project
[36:59] conforms with the Comprehensive
[37:02] Plan of the County of Santa
[37:05] Barbara. Pursuant to California
[37:09] Government Code, section 65402.
[37:12] And I believe both MR. Ortega
[37:15] and MR. Thompson are online, if
[37:18] there are any questions. Okay.
[37:20] Before we go to that, is there
[37:24] any ex parte communication or
[37:28] site visits that anybody would
[37:32] like to report on this item? Oh,
[37:36] I only say that because I did
[37:40] do a site visit so that I would
[37:43] have a better understanding of
[37:47] the of the facility. And I did
[37:51] meet with Kevin Thompson. Okay.
[37:55] So, MR. Chair, at this point, I
[37:58] believe what you would ask the
[38:02] commissioners if there are any
[38:05] questions or any requests to
[38:08] pull the item off of consent,
[38:11] then we need to ask for public
[38:13] comment. If the answer to both
[38:16] is no, then we would be looking
[38:19] for a motion. Okay. Thank you
[38:22] very much, MR. Villalobos. So
[38:25] I'm going to ask the
[38:28] commissioners, does anybody
[38:31] have any comment or any other
[38:33] information? MR. Commissioner,
[38:37] Mayor Connor no, none. So
[38:40] there's no no questions or
[38:43] comments from the commissioners.
[38:46] So I'd like to open it up for
[38:48] public comment. Is there any
[38:50] public comment on the solids
[38:53] Handling phase three project?
[38:57] For those of us joining us
[39:00] online? Raise your virtual hand
[39:03] if you'd like to speak on this
[39:06] item. No hands raised, no hands
[39:08] raised. Okay. At this point,
[39:11] I'll make a motion. I'm sorry,
[39:14] I'll make a motion. Okay. I
[39:17] would I'm looking for somebody
[39:20] to make a motion. Commissioner
[39:23] Ford, thank you so much. I'd
[39:27] like to make a motion to accept
[39:31] this. The phase solids handling
[39:34] phase three government code
[39:38] conformity determination.
[39:41] Second. Second. Any discussion?
[39:44] Okay. All in favor? Aye. None
[39:47] opposed. Motion carries. Thank
[39:51] you. At this point, we move to
[39:54] the standard agenda items, MR.
[39:57] Villalobos. Yes. I'm just
[40:01] looking at my cheat sheet for
[40:03] which one comes first. Okay.
[40:06] Thank you. The following is a
[40:10] hearing on the request of Bret
[40:14] Jones, agent for the owner,
[40:18] David Malmuth, to consider case
[40:22] number 24tpm2 and to adopt the
[40:26] mitigated negative declaration,
[40:30] case number 25ngd4, and adopt
[40:34] the Mitigation monitoring
[40:38] program contained in the
[40:41] conditions of approval. So I
[40:44] would like to ask if there's
[40:47] any ex parte communication or
[40:50] site visits to share prior to.
[40:53] Yes. Okay. Commissioner mayor
[40:56] Connor, thank you. I visited
[40:59] the site of this project with
[41:00] the agent. Bret Jones had an
[41:03] informative tour and he
[41:06] explained the project to me and
[41:09] the tentative parcel map. That
[41:12] was last week. Great. Thank you.
[41:14] Anybody else? Okay. I would
[41:17] like to also share that I
[41:21] visited the site on Monday with
[41:24] Commissioner Park. We also met
[41:28] with MR. MR. Jones who gave us
[41:32] a comprehensive understanding
[41:35] of the project. So now I would
[41:39] like to do I ask the applicant
[41:43] to or ask staff. Okay. I'd like
[41:46] to ask staff to please report.
[41:50] Good morning, Chair and
[41:53] commissioners. My name is
[41:57] Tatiana and I'm the assigned
[42:00] planner for the Mammoth Parcel
[42:04] Map project. Maybe this. Okay.
[42:08] Okay, so this proposed project
[42:11] is a request for a tentative
[42:15] parcel map to subdivide a 9.67
[42:20] acre parcel into four lots,
[42:23] ranging from 2 to 2.75 acres in
[42:26] size. The project site is
[42:29] outlined in red on this aerial
[42:32] imagery. The project is at 704
[42:35] North Refugio Road in Santa
[42:39] Ynez and is zoned one e one
[42:41] single family residential. The
[42:45] residential neighborhood to the
[42:48] north is also zoned one e one
[42:54] and is primarily composed of
[42:58] one acre lots. The neighborhood
[43:02] to the north and east are
[43:06] developed with single family
[43:09] residences, and the areas to
[43:13] the south and west are
[43:16] agriculture zoned parcels
[43:21] containing Rancho Estates,
[43:26] vineyards, winery and
[43:31] agriculture. The project is for
[43:34] subdivision of a 9.67 acre
[43:38] parcel into four lots, a 28
[43:41] foot wide private driveway
[43:45] easement, depicted here in blue,
[43:48] follows the path of an existing
[43:51] driveway that currently serves
[43:55] the residential development on
[43:59] the site. This easement would
[44:03] would allow for improvements to
[44:06] the existing driveway. A 20
[44:09] foot wide public utility
[44:13] easement along the northern
[44:17] property line, which is
[44:20] depicted in orange, is also
[44:22] proposed. There is an as built
[44:25] guest house and garage which
[44:29] are proposed to remain on
[44:32] parcel one, which is has a star
[44:36] here on the screen and their
[44:39] proposed. The guest house is
[44:42] proposed to be validated as a
[44:45] single family dwelling with
[44:47] approval of a separate Land Use
[44:50] permit. Proposed parcels two
[44:53] and four, which are highlighted
[44:55] here, are currently vacant and
[44:58] MAY be developed with a single
[45:00] family residence in the future,
[45:03] and proposed parcel three will
[45:05] contain the permitted 2600
[45:08] square foot single family
[45:12] dwelling, a detached garage and
[45:15] private septic system. Which is
[45:19] also in the stars there. Next,
[45:22] I want to draw your attention
[45:25] to the southern property line,
[45:28] where a required 100 foot
[45:31] agricultural buffer is proposed.
[45:34] The buffers measured from the
[45:36] shared property line, which is
[45:38] adjacent to the agriculture
[45:41] zoned property that is under
[45:44] commercial agricultural
[45:47] production, low intensity
[45:50] residential development such as
[45:53] single family residences, are
[45:56] allowed within this
[45:59] agricultural buffer, so the
[46:02] future proposed single family
[46:05] dwellings for parcels two and
[46:08] four would be could be located
[46:10] in this area. Lastly, there is
[46:13] a proposed 200 foot wide
[46:15] development restriction area on
[46:18] proposed parcel four, which is
[46:21] shown in light blue, which is
[46:23] proposed voluntarily to protect
[46:25] private views from the existing
[46:27] single family residence. The
[46:29] project includes development
[46:32] exclusion areas containing
[46:34] slopes greater than 20% which
[46:36] are depicted in red, whereas
[46:38] areas with slopes less than 20%
[46:41] are depicted in green. The
[46:44] gentle slopes areas in green
[46:47] are suitable for future
[46:50] development, provided they
[46:53] comply with other development
[46:56] standards, such as setbacks and
[46:58] the agricultural buffer
[47:01] requirements and development
[47:03] restriction area on parcel four.
[47:06] The subdivision is consistent
[47:09] with the county's comprehensive
[47:11] plan. First, there are adequate
[47:13] services available to serve all
[47:16] four parcels. They will be
[47:19] served by the Santa Ynez River
[47:21] Water Conservation District, on
[47:24] site wastewater treatment
[47:26] systems, County Fire Department
[47:29] and county sheriff. Second, the
[47:32] project is compatible with
[47:34] nearby agriculture. A 100 foot
[47:37] agricultural buffer is included
[47:40] along the southern boundary,
[47:43] supported by existing terrain
[47:46] that naturally separates the
[47:50] site from the adjacent
[47:53] agriculture. There are no known
[47:56] cultural resources on the site.
[47:59] Future development will require
[48:01] an archeological survey and
[48:03] stop work procedures if any
[48:05] resources are discovered, and
[48:07] that is included in the project
[48:10] conditions and mitigation
[48:12] measures. Next, the subdivision
[48:14] meets Hillside and Watershed
[48:16] protection standards. There is
[48:19] no grading proposed currently,
[48:22] and steep slopes. Steep slopes
[48:25] are placed in development
[48:28] exclusion areas. Future grading
[48:32] on slopes would require
[48:34] geotechnical studies and
[48:37] erosion control plans. The
[48:39] conditions of approval on the
[48:43] map also demonstrate
[48:45] consistency with these policies.
[48:48] Regarding visual resources. The
[48:52] subdivision will not change
[48:55] existing views or introduce new
[48:58] development. At this stage,
[49:01] future homes will follow design
[49:03] standards, including for
[49:06] building materials, colors,
[49:10] screening, height limits and
[49:12] dark sky lighting requirements,
[49:16] and the site is not located
[49:19] within any designated scenic
[49:23] overlay area. Next, the site
[49:26] does not contain any known
[49:29] sensitive biological resources.
[49:32] Future development is
[49:35] conditioned to follow standard
[49:38] tree protection, nesting bird
[49:41] avoidance requirements and is
[49:44] discussed in the mitigated
[49:47] negative declaration and
[49:50] mitigation measures. And
[49:53] finally, the project is
[49:56] consistent with flood and water
[49:58] quality policies. The site is
[50:01] not within any floodway and
[50:04] there is a setback from a man
[50:07] made drainage which is on site.
[50:09] The stormwater best management
[50:13] practices will be required
[50:16] during future construction to
[50:19] protect water quality and avoid
[50:21] increased runoff. Each parcel
[50:24] is fully compliant and
[50:27] developable. The zoning
[50:30] requires minimum one acre lots
[50:33] and 120ft of lot, with the four
[50:36] proposed parcels range from 2.8
[50:38] to 2.74 acres in size, and each
[50:41] is approximately 380ft wide,
[50:44] which exceeds the minimum
[50:48] requirements, and the
[50:51] configuration also meets all
[50:54] setbacks. Parcel one does
[50:57] contain unpermitted structures,
[51:00] but the project requires that
[51:02] these structures are validated
[51:05] with permits or removed within
[51:07] 90 days of map Recordation
[51:10] parcels two and four are
[51:13] currently vacant, and parcel
[51:16] three contains an existing
[51:20] permitted home. All parcels
[51:23] have confirmed water service
[51:26] and onsite wastewater systems
[51:30] are feasible. A mitigated
[51:34] negative declaration was
[51:37] prepared under Sequa, and it
[51:41] found that all potentially
[51:43] significant environmental
[51:46] impacts can be reduced to less
[51:49] than significant, with
[51:52] mitigation for esthetics,
[51:54] building materials screening
[51:57] and dark sky lighting will
[52:01] ensure future development
[52:04] blends with the surroundings
[52:07] for air quality and greenhouse
[52:10] gas emissions. Dust control is
[52:14] required during construction as
[52:17] well as energy efficient design
[52:21] and waste reduction measures to
[52:24] keep emissions low for
[52:27] biological resources. Tree
[52:30] protection, nesting bird
[52:34] surveys and sorry nesting bird
[52:37] surveys will prevent impacts to
[52:40] vegetation and wildlife for
[52:44] fire protection, defense,
[52:49] defensible space, fire, safe
[52:52] construction and vegetation
[52:56] management at the time of
[53:00] future development will reduce
[53:04] any wildfire risk for geologic
[53:07] conditions. The Mapped
[53:11] Development exclusion areas
[53:15] avoid steep slopes and future
[53:20] grading would require
[53:25] geotechnical studies and
[53:29] erosion control plans and for
[53:34] water resources, stormwater
[53:38] best management practices such
[53:43] as bioswales, vegetated buffers,
[53:48] use of pervious materials and
[53:52] roof runoff collection protect
[53:56] water quality and reduce runoff.
[54:01] All mitigation measures are
[54:05] included in the project's
[54:08] conditions of approval and
[54:12] together form the Mitigation
[54:15] Monitoring program. With these
[54:18] measures in place,
[54:22] environmental impacts are
[54:25] reduced to less than
[54:29] significant. In conclusion,
[54:34] staff recommends your
[54:38] commission take the following
[54:41] actions which are listed on the
[54:45] screen. First, make the
[54:48] required findings for approval,
[54:52] including Sequa findings. Adopt
[54:56] the negative Declaration and
[54:58] Mitigation Monitoring program
[55:01] and approve the project subject
[55:04] to the conditions included in
[55:06] attachment b. This concludes
[55:09] Stop's presentation. Staff and
[55:12] the applicant are available for
[55:14] questions. Thank you, MISS Cruz.
[55:16] Open to public comment. For
[55:18] commissioner comments. Just for
[55:20] question, we'll ask some
[55:22] questions. First questions from
[55:25] us. Okay. About that. Are there
[55:27] any questions from the
[55:30] commissioners? Okay.
[55:33] Commissioner Martinez, good
[55:35] morning. My quick question. If
[55:37] you go to slide number four.
[55:40] Thank you. The 100 foot buffer
[55:42] is that the dotted well not
[55:45] dotted but the line on the
[55:47] bottom. The yellow line or is
[55:50] it the entire yellow area?
[55:52] Commissioner Martinez the
[55:55] agricultural buffer is the
[55:58] highlighted area in yellow. And
[56:00] that's 100ft from the shared
[56:02] property line with the property
[56:04] that has agriculture. Okay. So
[56:06] so the property that start or
[56:08] the, the structure that has
[56:10] that that large yellow star is
[56:11] just outside the buffer.
[56:13] Correct? Sorry, Commissioner
[56:15] Martinez. So on parcel three,
[56:17] the the star closest to the
[56:19] buffer is the existing single
[56:21] family residence. A portion of
[56:24] it is within the buffer, and
[56:27] part of it is outside the
[56:30] buffer. And on parcel one. That
[56:32] structure is entirely within
[56:33] the buffer. Okay, that's that's
[56:36] what's bringing my confusion.
[56:39] So what's the purpose of the
[56:41] buffer? If we already have a
[56:43] residence within the buffer?
[56:45] Chair Martinez the purpose of
[56:46] the buffer really impacts
[56:48] non-habitable structures. So
[56:49] single family residences like
[56:50] the two that are located in the
[56:52] buffer are typically allowed
[56:54] because they're considered low
[56:56] intensity development in the
[56:59] buffer area. It would just
[57:01] require certain. Garages,
[57:02] carports, parking areas to be
[57:04] located outside the buffer, or
[57:06] just have different
[57:08] requirements than the single
[57:10] family dwellings. And it would
[57:11] also require specific
[57:13] landscaping plans, which is
[57:15] included as a condition if
[57:17] future landscaping is proposed.
[57:18] Okay, so if if I'm that owner
[57:19] and I want to turn that garage
[57:21] into an Adu, nothing's going to
[57:22] stop me. Correct? That's
[57:24] correct. ADUs would also be
[57:26] allowed within that buffer.
[57:28] Okay. So the property that has.
[57:30] So I imagine below that this
[57:32] buffer is a commercial
[57:34] agricultural area, am I wrong?
[57:36] Am I right? Just from me
[57:39] looking at the overlay, it
[57:41] looks like yes, that's correct.
[57:42] I can go back to the site. So
[57:44] yes, directly south it's the ag
[57:46] two property. There's currently
[57:49] pasture land and then about
[57:51] 580ft from the shared property
[57:52] line, which is that dark green.
[57:54] If you can kind of see on on
[57:56] this vicinity aerial, that's
[57:57] where the crops are grown. So
[57:59] there's already also kind of a
[58:02] natural setback, even greater
[58:03] than what would be required.
[58:05] And we've given notice to that
[58:07] owner of this hearing, correct?
[58:09] Yes we have. Okay. Because. My
[58:11] sense is, is that the ag buffer
[58:13] is not really being utilized or
[58:15] being even honored because you
[58:18] already have a structure there
[58:19] and you have a structure there
[58:22] that can be turned into an Adu,
[58:24] and therefore the 100 foot
[58:26] buffer really goes into their
[58:29] property. Commissioner Martinez,
[58:32] thank you for your question.
[58:35] It's a good question because
[58:37] there is certain development
[58:40] allowed in the ag buffer. So I
[58:42] understand that can be a little
[58:45] bit complicated. So chapter 21
[58:48] and chapter 35 both have
[58:50] regulations for what can be
[58:52] allowed in the ag buffer. So
[58:54] throughout the county there are
[58:57] certain uses that are allowed
[58:59] in the ag buffer. For instance,
[59:02] like Tatiana mentioned, single
[59:04] family dwellings, low intensity
[59:06] residential development, ADUs,
[59:09] residential accessory
[59:12] structures MAY be allowed in
[59:15] the buffer area. In contrast to
[59:18] that, industrial or commercial
[59:21] types of development, certain
[59:25] landscaping, certain lighting,
[59:27] certain non-habitable
[59:30] structures are not allowed in
[59:34] the ag buffer. And I also just
[59:37] want to clarify that this per
[59:38] consistent with the chapter 21
[59:42] and chapter 35, requirements p
[59:43] and d coordinated with the ag
[59:45] Commissioner's Office on this
[59:48] buffer, and they agreed that
[59:50] the buffer was appropriate for
[59:53] the proposed project. Oh no. I
[59:55] can see why somebody would say
[59:57] it's appropriate, but the
[59:59] reality is of it is that if you
[1:00:02] haven't, if if you have a
[1:00:03] structure that's being lived in
[1:00:06] and you want to do an
[1:00:09] application as a commercial
[1:00:11] farmer, you can't do it because
[1:00:14] it's within a certain feet from
[1:00:16] the application. That's why I'm
[1:00:20] trying to say, why are we even
[1:00:22] calling the buffer when it's
[1:00:24] not even acting as a buffer?
[1:00:27] That's that's my concern. I
[1:00:29] understand what you're saying
[1:00:32] by the codes. You're saying we
[1:00:35] can't do this, you can't do
[1:00:38] that. But the realities of its
[1:00:40] interaction with with the
[1:00:43] commercial farm below it or
[1:00:46] next to it is that person can't
[1:00:48] because there is somebody
[1:00:51] living within that 100 foot
[1:00:53] area. If my buffer is 200ft
[1:00:55] from a plant for making an
[1:00:58] application, I can't make it
[1:01:00] unless I get permission. And
[1:01:03] they can appeal and they can
[1:01:05] appeal to the ag commissioner
[1:01:08] and all that. That's that's my
[1:01:10] concern. But if they're not
[1:01:13] here and they're not going to
[1:01:17] object to it, I just want to
[1:01:20] make sure that they were
[1:01:24] noticed. And if they're saying,
[1:01:27] hey, I'm not here to agree and
[1:01:30] nod my head with Martinez about
[1:01:33] the commissioner, Martinez
[1:01:35] about this. Okay. But I just
[1:01:38] want to make sure I'm aware of
[1:01:41] it. And they have the
[1:01:45] opportunity to be doing
[1:01:48] something about it. Okay. Thank
[1:01:52] you. Commissioner Ford. Thanks.
[1:01:55] I just have a couple clarifying
[1:01:58] questions on that same slide
[1:02:01] for well, how is the
[1:02:05] development or the decision
[1:02:08] around the 200 foot development
[1:02:11] restriction made? Yes.
[1:02:14] Commissioner Ford, so that 200
[1:02:16] foot development restriction
[1:02:19] area was voluntarily proposed
[1:02:22] by the applicant. So I think I
[1:02:26] could let them speak to that
[1:02:29] some more. That is not required
[1:02:32] by county code. Okay. Thank you.
[1:02:35] I'll wait for that. And then
[1:02:39] you referred to the validation
[1:02:42] process. What's involved in
[1:02:46] that? Commissioner Ford so the
[1:02:49] applicant has submitted for a
[1:02:52] land use permit to validate the
[1:02:55] unpermitted structures
[1:02:58] following, you know,
[1:03:00] recordation of this map. Once
[1:03:03] it gets approved, that will be
[1:03:05] parcel one will be a legal lot,
[1:03:08] and that would allow them to
[1:03:11] move forward with their
[1:03:15] application to have any single
[1:03:20] family dwelling. So that would
[1:03:24] the process would be the land
[1:03:28] use permit and their building
[1:03:32] permit. So they just fill
[1:03:35] submit a form to say, now that
[1:03:38] this has passed, let's make
[1:03:42] this building valid. A real
[1:03:45] building, a house, a residence.
[1:03:47] Yes. Commissioner Ford, so as I
[1:03:50] mentioned, they did apply for
[1:03:53] the land use permit. So if we
[1:03:56] were to, for example, if that
[1:04:01] was not an existing structure,
[1:04:05] that would still be the permit
[1:04:09] path. And since it's
[1:04:13] unpermitted, we would consider
[1:04:17] it as a new structure. So
[1:04:21] they're going through the
[1:04:24] process, which is the land use
[1:04:27] permit application. They've
[1:04:30] submitted the required plans
[1:04:34] and we'll need to also meet
[1:04:36] building code requirements.
[1:04:39] Thank you. Okay. I have a
[1:04:42] follow on question to something
[1:04:44] Commissioner Ford asked
[1:04:47] relative to the 200ft
[1:04:51] development restriction, I
[1:04:54] understand that the applicant
[1:04:57] is requesting it. Great. The
[1:05:00] parcel will eventually be sold.
[1:05:03] The new buyer buys the parcel.
[1:05:05] How is the new buyer informed
[1:05:08] where they can and cannot put
[1:05:11] development on that parcel? No.
[1:05:13] They will have to look at the
[1:05:15] map. Yeah. Commissioner guy. So
[1:05:17] the development restriction
[1:05:19] area is being recorded with the
[1:05:21] map. So this information will
[1:05:24] be available to potential
[1:05:27] buyers because it's it's shown
[1:05:30] and described. And it will be a
[1:05:32] recorded document that will be
[1:05:35] available. Commissioner guy if
[1:05:37] I can add to that. So and then
[1:05:39] when a future person comes in
[1:05:41] to develop that house staff
[1:05:44] will. They'll have to get a
[1:05:46] permit. Staff will look at the
[1:05:49] approved permits, look at the
[1:05:51] conditions on the map and see
[1:05:53] that there's a development
[1:05:56] restriction zone on there. Okay.
[1:05:58] Thank you. Yeah. I'm familiar
[1:06:00] with exclusion zones, but I
[1:06:03] haven't seen the development
[1:06:06] restrictions. So thank you for
[1:06:08] the for the answers. I
[1:06:11] appreciate it. Sure. Any other
[1:06:14] questions from commissioners.
[1:06:17] Okay. At this point, do I open
[1:06:19] it up to public comment? MR.
[1:06:22] Chair, I believe at this point
[1:06:24] you should ask the applicant if
[1:06:27] they have a presentation. Oh
[1:06:29] thank you. I would like to ask
[1:06:32] the applicant if they have a
[1:06:34] presentation. And I see MR.
[1:06:36] Jones moving forward. Good
[1:06:38] morning, MR. Chair and Planning
[1:06:40] Commissioners. My name is Brett
[1:06:42] Jones. I'm a private land use
[1:06:43] consultant in this valley with
[1:06:45] my associate, Angela Jones. And.
[1:06:46] I haven't met a few of you. I
[1:06:48] appreciate the site visits I
[1:06:50] was able to have with three of
[1:06:52] you, and I'm really just here
[1:06:55] to answer any questions. I
[1:06:58] don't have a presentation per
[1:07:01] se. There have been some
[1:07:04] questions I'd like to address
[1:07:05] so far through the chair.
[1:07:07] Commissioner Ford, the 200 foot
[1:07:10] setback was voluntarily
[1:07:12] proposed by the applicants,
[1:07:14] David and Jill Sorensen. They
[1:07:16] are currently living in the
[1:07:19] residence on parcel three.
[1:07:21] There's extraordinary views to
[1:07:23] the east, and they've stated
[1:07:26] they MAY not even sell the
[1:07:28] parcel. But if they did, they
[1:07:30] wanted to put that in there to
[1:07:32] protect their views. In the
[1:07:34] future of looking to the
[1:07:36] Figueroa and Santino's
[1:07:38] Mountains. Perfect. That's very
[1:07:40] helpful. Thanks. Regarding the
[1:07:42] validation of the guest house,
[1:07:45] we are aware of those
[1:07:46] conditions as all of the
[1:07:48] conditions in the project and
[1:07:51] agree to those I did have. I
[1:07:54] would like a little bit of
[1:07:58] clarification on the 200 foot,
[1:08:01] excuse me, the hundred foot
[1:08:04] buffer. It's my understanding
[1:08:07] that doesn't affect the
[1:08:09] property owner to the south. Is
[1:08:11] that correct? That they they
[1:08:14] could do development. It really
[1:08:16] just affects our parcels. So
[1:08:18] this is two through the chair
[1:08:21] Do Commissioner Martinez. Does
[1:08:24] that make sense? I know it
[1:08:27] doesn't restrict their
[1:08:29] development. It's about the
[1:08:32] ability to utilize the
[1:08:34] agricultural purposes of the
[1:08:37] southern portion of of the
[1:08:40] person below them on the South.
[1:08:42] And as my example indicated,
[1:08:45] it's, you know, it's the the
[1:08:47] process, as I'm aware from I'm
[1:08:49] very well aware of it is, is
[1:08:51] that if I make a crop
[1:08:53] application, I have 100 foot
[1:08:55] buffer. It starts from my
[1:08:57] boundary line and it goes over
[1:08:58] to the other person's, the
[1:09:01] north part of it. And then if
[1:09:03] there's in there, if anyone's
[1:09:06] living in there, then I have to
[1:09:09] send them a notice. And if that
[1:09:12] notice that gives them the
[1:09:15] ability, that person that's
[1:09:17] living there to appeal or, or
[1:09:20] object to it, then it goes to
[1:09:22] the ag commissioner, who then
[1:09:24] has a hearing regarding whether
[1:09:26] or not the application is
[1:09:28] permissible or not. But
[1:09:29] typically when you when I see
[1:09:31] an ag buffer, it's there's no
[1:09:32] development whatsoever within
[1:09:34] that. So there is no appeal
[1:09:36] process to even worry about a
[1:09:38] no notice process to go about a
[1:09:40] lot in regards to these things.
[1:09:42] And that's why that's the
[1:09:43] center of my question. So
[1:09:45] whether they develop it into
[1:09:48] houses or whatever, that that
[1:09:50] has nothing to do with the ag
[1:09:52] buffer as far as as far as I
[1:09:54] know and as far as I'm
[1:09:56] concerned. But thank you, thank
[1:09:58] you. I have nothing further.
[1:10:00] I'm here to answer any further
[1:10:02] questions you might have. Okay.
[1:10:04] It doesn't look like there's
[1:10:07] any other questions. So thank
[1:10:09] you, MR. Jones. Now we get to
[1:10:11] open to public comment. Thank
[1:10:13] you very much. Please, for give
[1:10:14] me all of you out there. This
[1:10:16] is only my second meeting. I'm
[1:10:18] I'm learning as we go. So any
[1:10:20] public comment on this project.
[1:10:21] And seeing no hands raised
[1:10:23] online. Okay. If there's no
[1:10:24] request, then we will close
[1:10:26] public comment. At this point.
[1:10:27] Are there any other questions
[1:10:29] from the commissioners? Any
[1:10:32] other comments actually refer
[1:10:34] to it as deliberation and move
[1:10:36] into okay, we will move into
[1:10:38] deliberation. I'll start. Thank
[1:10:40] you, Commissioner Martinez. Oh,
[1:10:42] I would make it known that I've
[1:10:44] made my concerns aware and and
[1:10:46] my concerns are being addressed
[1:10:48] by the fact that I understand
[1:10:50] notice has been given to the
[1:10:52] person who's to the south of
[1:10:54] this. And if that person isn't
[1:10:56] going to come and be active in
[1:10:58] something. And that's the
[1:11:00] purpose of giving notices. And
[1:11:01] I really wanted to make sure my
[1:11:02] comments were on the record, or
[1:11:04] at least noted within the
[1:11:05] record, because it's at least
[1:11:06] if there's ever something in
[1:11:08] the future about this property,
[1:11:10] it's going to be, well, that
[1:11:12] was brought up. There was an
[1:11:13] opportunity to be addressed and
[1:11:14] you didn't come and address it.
[1:11:15] If that person would have
[1:11:16] showed up and made something of
[1:11:17] it, I would have really paid
[1:11:19] attention to it. But from what
[1:11:20] I have in front of me and from
[1:11:22] the development itself, I would
[1:11:23] be supportive of this project.
[1:11:24] Commissioner Mayor Connor and I
[1:11:25] concur with Commissioner
[1:11:27] Martinez. I'm supportive of
[1:11:28] this project. Commissioner Ford
[1:11:31] yes, I'm really pleased with
[1:11:32] the concerns that Commissioner
[1:11:34] Martinez brought up and. And
[1:11:36] see no other reason for concern
[1:11:37] at this time. I can support
[1:11:40] this action. Okay. And I also
[1:11:42] appreciate the work that was
[1:11:43] done by staff because this was
[1:11:45] this is very valuable and it
[1:11:46] makes things very clear for us
[1:11:48] to understand. So thank you for
[1:11:48] that. So I'm looking for a
[1:11:50] motion. I'll move the staff
[1:11:51] recommendation. And a I'll
[1:11:52] second. Okay. Any discussion?
[1:11:53] All in favor? I. None. Opposed.
[1:11:55] Motion carries. At this point,
[1:11:56] we will move on to the next
[1:11:57] item on the agenda. I'm sorry,
[1:11:58] can we just give staff a moment
[1:12:00] to to come up? But I'm sorry.
[1:12:01] Could you clarify who made the
[1:12:02] first motion for the mayor?
[1:12:03] Okay. Thank you. Okay. Because
[1:12:04] these guys change places. Okay.
[1:12:05] Everything is. Yeah.
[1:12:05] Okay. Okay.
[1:12:06] MR. Villalobos, the next item
[1:12:07] on the agenda. Thank you, MR.
[1:12:08] Chair. Next item following is a
[1:12:09] hearing on the request of Ross
[1:12:10] Dorman wal over llc to consider
[1:12:11] case number 24lla7 and to
[1:12:12] determine the project is exempt
[1:12:13] from environmental review
[1:12:14] pursuant to section 15183 of
[1:12:16] the State guidelines for the
[1:12:17] implementation of the
[1:12:18] California Environmental
[1:12:19] Quality Act. Okay. At this
[1:12:21] point, we'd like to ask staff
[1:12:23] to share their presentation. Oh,
[1:12:24] sorry. Any ex parte comments.
[1:12:26] Any ex. Any visits. I'm trying
[1:12:28] to see which project. Okay, I
[1:12:30] don't have any either. Yes. So
[1:12:32] now we move on to staff
[1:12:33] presentation. Good morning, MR.
[1:12:35] Chair and Commissioners. My
[1:12:37] name is Veronica King and I
[1:12:39] will be presenting the Wollover
[1:12:40] llc Lot Line Adjustment Project.
[1:12:42] A request for a lot line
[1:12:44] adjustment between two existing
[1:12:46] parcels. The project site is
[1:12:49] located in a rural agricultural
[1:12:50] area and the Goleta Valley
[1:12:52] north of highway 101, and
[1:12:53] involves two parcels. Parcel
[1:12:55] one and read is addressed as
[1:12:56] 901 Verda Linda and is 602.42
[1:12:57] acres. Parcel two in blue is
[1:12:59] 34.34 acres and does not yet
[1:13:00] have an address. Both parcels
[1:13:01] are currently in agricultural
[1:13:02] production with lemon and
[1:13:04] avocado orchards. The lot line
[1:13:05] adjustment will transfer
[1:13:07] approximately 78 acres from
[1:13:09] parcel one to parcel two. This
[1:13:10] increases parcel 2 to 112 acres,
[1:13:11] bringing it into conformance
[1:13:12] with the minimum parcel size
[1:13:13] for the zone district. No
[1:13:14] development is proposed and
[1:13:15] existing access and utilities
[1:13:16] will remain unchanged. Here you
[1:13:18] can see the existing parcel
[1:13:19] configuration on the left and
[1:13:19] the proposed configuration on
[1:13:21] the right. Parcel two, shown in
[1:13:21] blue, expands primarily to the
[1:13:22] south, while parcel one shown
[1:13:23] in red is reduced accordingly.
[1:13:24] For some background on the
[1:13:25] existing site conditions,
[1:13:25] parcel two is currently
[1:13:26] undeveloped, while parcel one
[1:13:28] contains all existing
[1:13:29] development including
[1:13:29] residential development,
[1:13:30] agricultural support facilities,
[1:13:32] water infrastructure and on
[1:13:33] site wastewater treatment. As
[1:13:34] discussed, the project adjusts
[1:13:35] the parcel boundaries but does
[1:13:36] not change any existing access,
[1:13:37] easements or utilities. The lot
[1:13:39] line adjustment would bring
[1:13:40] parcel two into conformance
[1:13:41] with the minimum lot size
[1:13:42] requirement, while also adding
[1:13:43] areas with gentler slopes to
[1:13:44] the parcel. This would provide
[1:13:45] more suitable land for
[1:13:46] continued agricultural use and
[1:13:47] more appropriate areas for any
[1:13:49] future development. Importantly,
[1:13:50] the adjustment would not create
[1:13:51] any additional parcels or
[1:13:52] increase the allowable density.
[1:13:53] The project is consistent with
[1:13:54] all applicable comprehensive
[1:13:55] Plan and Goleta Community Plan
[1:13:56] policies. Chapter 21 Land
[1:13:57] Division Requirements and the
[1:13:58] County Land Use and Development
[1:13:59] Code. Existing development
[1:14:01] would continue to be adequately
[1:14:02] served by private water and
[1:14:03] wastewater systems, and the
[1:14:04] adjusted parcel configuration
[1:14:06] would provide adequate area to
[1:14:07] avoid steep slopes and
[1:14:09] sensitive biological resources,
[1:14:11] such as creeks and
[1:14:12] environmentally sensitive
[1:14:15] habitat. Additionally, the
[1:14:17] adjustment would not create any
[1:14:18] zoning, non-conformities or
[1:14:20] violations. Existing
[1:14:21] development would continue to
[1:14:22] meet applicable setbacks and
[1:14:24] parcel uses. Existing
[1:14:26] nonconforming lot size would be
[1:14:28] resolved by increasing the
[1:14:30] parcel to more than 100 acres,
[1:14:31] consistent with the ag two
[1:14:33] minimum parcel size requirement.
[1:14:35] For environmental review. The
[1:14:37] project qualifies for a Ceqa
[1:14:39] guidelines section 15183
[1:14:41] exemption because the potential
[1:14:42] environmental impacts were
[1:14:44] previously analyzed as part of
[1:14:46] the Goleta Community Plan eir.
[1:14:47] The project would be compliant
[1:14:48] with the Goleta Community Plan
[1:14:49] policies, and the project would
[1:14:50] not result in impacts beyond
[1:14:52] those previously evaluated in
[1:14:53] the eir. Staff recommends that
[1:14:53] your commission make the
[1:14:55] required findings for approval.
[1:14:55] Determine the project is exempt
[1:14:56] from Sequa, and approve the
[1:14:57] project subject to the
[1:14:58] conditions of approval. That
[1:14:58] concludes my presentation and
[1:14:59] I'm available for questions.
[1:15:00] Thank you. Are there any
[1:15:01] questions? Okay. There are no
[1:15:02] questions. The applicant is the
[1:15:02] applicant present and prepared
[1:15:03] to speak. Thank you. Chair
[1:15:04] commissioners. Alan McLeod,
[1:15:05] agent for the for the owners.
[1:15:06] I'm here just to answer any
[1:15:07] questions that you MAY have.
[1:15:09] Just out of curiosity. Why why
[1:15:10] why why the lot line adjustment.
[1:15:12] The families own the property.
[1:15:13] For 50 years they've been
[1:15:15] ranching. The the avocados and
[1:15:16] the lemons. There's no plan to
[1:15:18] sell the property at this point,
[1:15:19] but at any given time in the
[1:15:20] future, they want the option to
[1:15:21] maybe retain a piece of it if
[1:15:22] they choose to put it on the
[1:15:24] market. So they've been
[1:15:25] connected to the property for a
[1:15:27] long time. So that's the main
[1:15:28] reason why they're wanting to
[1:15:30] do this lot line adjustment.
[1:15:31] Okay. Thank you. Any other
[1:15:32] questions from the
[1:15:33] commissioners? No questions. So
[1:15:35] at this point I'm looking for a
[1:15:36] motion to accept. So oh public
[1:15:37] comment. Thank you. Open it up
[1:15:38] for public comment. Anybody
[1:15:40] from the public here to speak
[1:15:41] on this issue. Anybody online
[1:15:42] MR. Villalobos? No. Hands
[1:15:42] raised online. Okay. We'll give
[1:15:43] them just a moment here. And if
[1:15:44] there's no questions then we're
[1:15:45] going to close public comment.
[1:15:46] And then we're going to look
[1:15:46] for a motion to accept or
[1:15:47] deliberation or deliberation. I
[1:15:48] move the staff recommendation.
[1:15:49] I would second that. Okay. Any
[1:15:49] further discussion? Okay. All
[1:15:51] in favor? I. I. I. I. None
[1:15:52] opposed. Motion carries. Thank
[1:15:53] you very much to all of you.
[1:15:54] And we will take a moment here
[1:15:55] before we move on to the next
[1:15:57] item. We are going to take a
[1:15:57] five minute break and we will
[1:15:59] return momentarily.
[1:19:34] Here we go.
[1:19:38] Okay. We're coming back on. So
[1:19:44] the next item on the agenda. Go
[1:19:46] ahead, MR. Villalobos. Thank
[1:19:47] you. Thank you. The following
[1:19:49] is a hearing on the request of
[1:19:50] Hayden Land, an applicant to
[1:19:53] consider case number 24, dvp35,
[1:19:56] as well as 25qp21, and to adopt
[1:19:57] the mitigated negative
[1:19:59] declaration, case number 26 d
[1:20:00] one and the mitigation
[1:20:01] monitoring program contained in
[1:20:06] the conditions of approval.
[1:20:07] Thank you very much. At this
[1:20:10] point, I'd like to ask staff to
[1:20:12] share their presentation. Do
[1:20:15] you want to? Oh yes. Thank you
[1:20:17] very much. Commissioner. Mayor
[1:20:18] Connor, any ex parte
[1:20:20] communication or site visits?
[1:20:26] Yes, yes I do. I visited with
[1:20:30] Brett Jones, the applicant's
[1:20:33] representative, last week. Went
[1:20:36] on a tour of the property
[1:20:38] involved. Saw the location of
[1:20:40] the improvements that are
[1:20:44] proposed for the property. He
[1:20:46] answered all my questions and I
[1:20:49] had a very enlightening visit
[1:20:52] with him and the property.
[1:20:53] Thank you Commissioner mayor
[1:20:55] Connor. I also would like to
[1:20:57] report that I also did a site
[1:20:58] visit with MR. Jones earlier
[1:21:00] this week, along with
[1:21:03] Commissioner Park. MR. Jones
[1:21:05] showed us the pretty much the
[1:21:07] entire parcel as well as the
[1:21:10] parcels adjacent to it. He
[1:21:12] showed us where the
[1:21:13] construction would take place,
[1:21:14] where the project would take
[1:21:16] place, and he answered all of
[1:21:20] our questions. So now I would
[1:21:24] like to ask staff to please
[1:21:28] share your report. Good morning,
[1:21:30] commissioners and chair Guy.
[1:21:32] I'm Steve Connor, and I'll be
[1:21:33] presenting this project on
[1:21:35] behalf of Planning and
[1:21:36] development staff. The project
[1:21:38] before you today is a request
[1:21:39] for a proposed development plan
[1:21:40] to allow construction of an
[1:21:41] equestrian arena, along with a
[1:21:43] request for a land use permit
[1:21:45] for expansion of an existing
[1:21:46] equestrian facility and a
[1:21:48] request for a minor conditional
[1:21:49] use permit to allow small scale
[1:21:51] special events under the
[1:21:53] Agricultural Enterprise
[1:21:57] Ordinance. These three
[1:21:59] entitlements are being
[1:22:01] requested because the two main
[1:22:02] project components trigger
[1:22:04] different paths. The
[1:22:05] development plan and land use
[1:22:07] permit are requested because
[1:22:08] the Arena Square footage
[1:22:09] exceeds the 15,000 square foot
[1:22:11] maximum for development in an
[1:22:14] ag 240 zone, and an loop is
[1:22:16] required for equestrian
[1:22:19] facilities in ag 240 zones. The
[1:22:21] development plan also includes
[1:22:22] the request for modification to
[1:22:23] allow for the required parking
[1:22:25] spaces to be unmarked and
[1:22:27] unpaved. The parking location
[1:22:28] will be described and shown
[1:22:30] later in this presentation. The
[1:22:32] minor conditional use permit
[1:22:33] will allow small scale special
[1:22:35] events as an agricultural
[1:22:39] enterprise ordinance or an eo
[1:22:43] use. The proposed project is
[1:22:45] located off Baseline Avenue in
[1:22:47] the Santa Ynez Valley on the
[1:22:49] east side of highway 154,
[1:22:51] roughly halfway between the
[1:22:53] towns of Los Olivos and Santa
[1:22:55] Ynez, as shown here. Welcome,
[1:22:58] Commissioner Park, excuse me
[1:23:01] for just one moment here. MR.
[1:23:02] Connor, could you please hold?
[1:23:04] I just want to note that
[1:23:05] Commissioner Park has joined us,
[1:23:07] and he will also be weighing in
[1:23:09] on this issue. So I'd ask you
[1:23:17] now to please continue. Here's
[1:23:19] a quick Google Earth flyover
[1:23:20] video that gives a little more
[1:23:23] context for the location. I
[1:23:26] can't click on that. I guess
[1:23:29] maybe if you click on this,
[1:23:45] this work. No. Okay. If you.
[1:23:47] There you go. There's a play
[1:23:48] button at the bottom. Yeah.
[1:23:53] There you go. Thank you. That's
[1:23:57] important. Yeah. Thank you.
[1:24:03] Thank you. Maybe you want to do
[1:24:05] the other slide. I think so
[1:24:08] because Tatiana probably this.
[1:24:10] The subject parcel and
[1:24:12] surrounding properties are
[1:24:13] zoned ag two with a 40 acre
[1:24:17] minimum lot size. These are
[1:24:19] existing views of the site with
[1:24:20] a view from the east showing an
[1:24:22] existing equestrian barn
[1:24:23] located on on the owner's
[1:24:25] separate adjacent parcel to the
[1:24:26] west, and a view from the south
[1:24:28] showing an existing 900 zero
[1:24:30] square foot garage and ag barn
[1:24:32] on the subject property located
[1:24:33] immediately north of the
[1:24:35] proposed arena development area
[1:24:36] and next to the proposed
[1:24:38] outdoor area for the small
[1:24:41] scale special events. Here's a
[1:24:43] view from the west showing the
[1:24:44] area generally proposed for
[1:24:46] small scale events. The view
[1:24:47] from the north was taken just
[1:24:49] before the 900 zero square foot
[1:24:52] garage barn was constructed in
[1:24:56] 2025. Here's the site plan
[1:24:58] depicting the arena in a blue
[1:25:00] outline and defined area.
[1:25:01] Outdoor area in red outline
[1:25:02] where the events will take
[1:25:04] place. A new stormwater
[1:25:06] retention basin in a private,
[1:25:07] new private on site wastewater
[1:25:09] treatment system will be
[1:25:10] constructed along the southern
[1:25:13] side of the area. The subject
[1:25:15] property contains approximately
[1:25:17] 9.7 acres of pasture areas,
[1:25:18] which are located to the north
[1:25:20] and south of the arena and in
[1:25:21] the square pins near the
[1:25:22] southeast corner of the
[1:25:25] property. The property also
[1:25:26] contains approximately 20 acres
[1:25:28] of orchard grass cultivation in
[1:25:30] the northern northeast portion
[1:25:32] of the subject property.
[1:25:33] Parking for the arena and small
[1:25:34] scale events will be arranged
[1:25:37] in the orange areas shown here.
[1:25:38] Existing permitted on site
[1:25:40] development. Includes a
[1:25:42] recently constructed garage for
[1:25:45] single stall horse barns, a
[1:25:48] horse breeding barn, two hay
[1:25:51] barns, two horse stall barns,
[1:25:53] two agricultural employee
[1:25:54] dwellings and an agricultural
[1:25:59] irrigation reservoir. These
[1:26:01] elevations depict the proposed
[1:26:03] 29.5ft tall arena from the
[1:26:04] north, south, east and west.
[1:26:07] The Central Board of
[1:26:08] Architectural Review conducted
[1:26:09] a site visit and determined
[1:26:10] that the proposed structure
[1:26:12] could be seen from the north
[1:26:14] along Roblar Avenue. Therefore,
[1:26:16] the board requested that the
[1:26:17] applicant incorporate tall
[1:26:18] trees to screen the structure.
[1:26:20] The board recommended the item
[1:26:21] return for preliminary and
[1:26:22] final approval, pending
[1:26:26] approval by your commission.
[1:26:28] After the staff report was
[1:26:28] docketed last week, the
[1:26:30] applicant requested a change to
[1:26:31] the first sentence of the
[1:26:33] proposed project description in
[1:26:35] order to remove a self-imposed
[1:26:36] limitation of number of
[1:26:38] agricultural enterprise small
[1:26:39] scale special events with the
[1:26:41] within the arena to allow the
[1:26:43] applicant more flexibility.
[1:26:45] Staff finds that with this
[1:26:46] change, the project remains
[1:26:47] consistent with all applicable
[1:26:49] policies and development
[1:26:53] standards. The project was
[1:26:54] thoroughly reviewed by staff
[1:26:56] and is consistent with policies
[1:26:57] regarding availability of
[1:27:00] adequate surfaces, agricultural
[1:27:02] resources, esthetics, visual
[1:27:03] resources, and compatibility
[1:27:05] with surrounding development,
[1:27:07] biological resources, cultural
[1:27:08] resources, water resources and
[1:27:11] noise. The equestrian arena was
[1:27:11] reviewed for compliance with
[1:27:13] height limit setbacks and
[1:27:15] parking regulations, including
[1:27:16] development standards and
[1:27:17] requirements for the ag 240
[1:27:19] zone district Development Plans
[1:27:22] and design review. The special
[1:27:24] events were reviewed for safety,
[1:27:25] noise duration, number of
[1:27:27] events, and parking. The
[1:27:28] project has been conditioned to
[1:27:29] make sure it is consistent with
[1:27:31] both the policies of the
[1:27:32] Comprehensive Plan and the
[1:27:33] Santa Ynez Valley Community
[1:27:35] Plan, and is consistent with
[1:27:36] development standards in the
[1:27:38] County Land Use and Development
[1:27:39] Code, including the
[1:27:40] Agricultural Enterprise
[1:27:44] Ordinance. The project is
[1:27:46] consistent with all standards
[1:27:47] because the primary use of the
[1:27:48] parcel is commercial ag,
[1:27:50] consisting of orchard grass and
[1:27:52] pasture. At 50 acres, the
[1:27:53] project meets the minimum
[1:27:56] premises size. Parking must be
[1:27:57] located within preexisting
[1:27:59] disturbed areas, and temporary
[1:28:01] signage is required prior to
[1:28:02] events to guide guests to the
[1:28:04] designated parking area. Dust
[1:28:06] control measures are required
[1:28:07] to mitigate the unpaved parking,
[1:28:09] and a parking coordinator shall
[1:28:10] be required for events attended
[1:28:14] by 100 or more persons.
[1:28:15] Operations and outdoor
[1:28:16] amplified sound are limited to
[1:28:19] these hours, and the ag
[1:28:20] Enterprise Operator must
[1:28:21] provide guests with an
[1:28:22] informational advisory to
[1:28:25] disclose a potential minor
[1:28:27] inconveniences from preexisting
[1:28:28] agricultural operations, such
[1:28:34] as noise, dust and odor.
[1:28:35] Environmental review first
[1:28:37] included filling out the Sequa
[1:28:38] checklist that was created for
[1:28:41] touring projects off the a
[1:28:43] eopeir or Program Environmental
[1:28:46] report. Several peir
[1:28:47] mitigations were incorporated
[1:28:48] into the project as conditions
[1:28:50] of approval, including the
[1:28:51] requirement to develop and
[1:28:52] implement a tree protection
[1:28:54] plan for native trees, limiting
[1:28:56] hours for outdoor amplified
[1:28:58] sound and development, and
[1:28:59] implementation of a fire
[1:29:02] protection plan. The equestrian
[1:29:03] arena was not considered in the
[1:29:06] a eoppeir because it exceeded
[1:29:09] the 2500 square foot maximum
[1:29:12] for new accessory structures,
[1:29:13] therefore mitigated negative
[1:29:15] declaration or nd was prepared
[1:29:17] for analysis of impacts
[1:29:18] associated with the arena and
[1:29:20] circulated for a 30 day public
[1:29:22] review. Mitigation measures
[1:29:23] were incorporated into the
[1:29:25] project to address impacts that
[1:29:28] weren't included in the eopeir,
[1:29:30] including bar approval and a
[1:29:31] requirement to use natural
[1:29:33] colors and building materials.
[1:29:34] Incorporation of a new fire
[1:29:35] protection equipment into the
[1:29:37] fire protection plan.
[1:29:39] Development and implementation
[1:29:40] of a source reduction and solid
[1:29:42] waste management plan and
[1:29:44] animal waste management plan.
[1:29:46] Development of an erosion and
[1:29:47] sediment control plan and
[1:29:48] management of construction
[1:29:49] equipment and storage and
[1:29:52] washout area. One comment
[1:29:54] letter was received on the nd
[1:29:55] from the California Department
[1:29:57] of Conservation regarding
[1:29:59] discussion of the conversion of
[1:30:00] agricultural land to
[1:30:02] Nonagricultural use and project
[1:30:03] compatibility with the
[1:30:04] Williamson Act or County
[1:30:06] Agricultural Preserve contract
[1:30:08] requirements. No other comment
[1:30:10] letters were received. The
[1:30:11] applicant proposes to retain
[1:30:12] and stockpile all prime
[1:30:14] farmland topsoils that will be
[1:30:16] disturbed by the arena
[1:30:17] development pad and utilize
[1:30:19] utilize the stockpile to amend
[1:30:20] soils elsewhere in the areas
[1:30:22] with ongoing feed, grass and
[1:30:26] pasture cultivation. In
[1:30:28] conclusion, staff recommends
[1:30:29] that you make the required
[1:30:31] findings for approval included
[1:30:33] in attachment a determined that
[1:30:34] the mitigated negative
[1:30:35] declaration is adequate and
[1:30:37] approve the project subject to
[1:30:38] the conditions included as
[1:30:40] attachment b and as revised
[1:30:42] during this presentation. This
[1:30:44] concludes staff's presentation.
[1:30:45] Staff and the applicant team
[1:30:46] are available to answer any
[1:30:49] questions. Thank you. Thank you
[1:30:51] very much. Before we move on to
[1:30:52] questions, I just want to ask
[1:30:54] Commissioner Park if he's got
[1:30:55] any ex parte communication or
[1:30:57] site visits that he'd like to
[1:30:58] report before we go into the
[1:31:03] discussion. Yes, I met on what
[1:31:05] day was it? I think it was
[1:31:08] Monday with you, MR. Guy, and
[1:31:12] with MR. Jones. And I also met
[1:31:14] with MR. Connor the same day,
[1:31:17] right? Yeah, I got down here.
[1:31:19] He counts, but in a different
[1:31:23] way. Thank you very much. I'd
[1:31:25] like to open it up to questions
[1:31:26] from the commissioners. And I
[1:31:28] see MR. Martinez. Yes. Thank
[1:31:32] you chair. Just for
[1:31:33] clarification, I keep on
[1:31:37] hearing outdoor arena, but the
[1:31:38] reality is the arena we're
[1:31:40] talking about is that which is
[1:31:42] depicted in slide number nine,
[1:31:45] correct. Commissioner Martinez
[1:31:46] through the chair. That's
[1:31:48] correct. It's an enclosed air
[1:31:50] condition or climate controlled
[1:31:52] arena. Okay. Okay. So this is
[1:31:57] going to be utilized for.
[1:31:59] Equestrian. Well, it's an
[1:32:01] equestrian arena. And I guess
[1:32:04] that's a very capitalized and
[1:32:05] small scale special events.
[1:32:07] What, what events are we
[1:32:07] talking about in these small
[1:32:09] scale special events and what
[1:32:11] are the restrictions? What
[1:32:13] defines a special small special
[1:32:14] event? The number of people,
[1:32:16] what kind of events you can
[1:32:20] have. Commissioner Martinez
[1:32:22] through the Chair Yes, that's
[1:32:25] correct. The the small scale
[1:32:26] special events are defined by
[1:32:29] the number of attendees, the
[1:32:30] the number of events that can
[1:32:33] occur per year. In this case,
[1:32:35] the applicant proposes a number
[1:32:37] of attendees that exceed what
[1:32:38] is allowed with the zoning and
[1:32:41] clearance, so that the code
[1:32:42] requires a minor conditional
[1:32:44] use permit, which is approved
[1:32:45] by the Planning Commission.
[1:32:47] Okay. And that's why I'm asking
[1:32:48] is what kind of numbers are we
[1:32:49] talking about here? And the
[1:32:51] number of people is it a small
[1:32:53] event is less than 100 or less
[1:32:59] than 200. What? Commissioner
[1:33:01] Martinez, I'm going to read
[1:33:06] here. Let's see. No more than
[1:33:07] 12 small scale special events
[1:33:09] will be held per year. Each
[1:33:11] event will have a maximum of
[1:33:14] 150. Okay, 150. And a small
[1:33:15] scale event can be anything
[1:33:18] from a concert to a wedding
[1:33:21] dinner, dinner, reception,
[1:33:23] parties. It can be equestrian
[1:33:25] related. Yeah, the a e o kind
[1:33:28] of lists some examples of types
[1:33:29] of events they can have. Okay.
[1:33:31] And I imagine the fire code is
[1:33:33] going to be very applicable to
[1:33:35] the kind of events you can have.
[1:33:37] Absolutely. Yeah. They and fire
[1:33:38] department thoroughly reviews
[1:33:39] this because they want to make
[1:33:41] sure people congregating in any
[1:33:43] space, the structures are going
[1:33:44] to meet fire code requirements
[1:33:47] and how and with that kind of
[1:33:49] number of people, how, how many
[1:33:52] parkings is is planned for,
[1:33:56] then is it 1.5 again, like we
[1:33:57] used in the residential rooms
[1:34:08] and. Commissioner Martinez
[1:34:09] through the chair, I might need
[1:34:11] to look up that exact number. I
[1:34:14] believe it was something like
[1:34:16] 1.5. I think the number we
[1:34:18] arrived at was 69 spaces. Okay.
[1:34:20] That would be required for this
[1:34:21] number of people, right. And
[1:34:23] it's within that defined orange
[1:34:25] area as you indicated
[1:34:27] previously. That is correct.
[1:34:35] Okay. Thank you. I have a
[1:34:37] question. Okay. Commissioner
[1:34:42] mayor Connor. A clarification,
[1:34:43] if you would, about the small
[1:34:45] scale special events. So we're
[1:34:48] talking about the space inside
[1:34:49] the new building. And we're
[1:34:52] also talking about events
[1:34:56] outside the new building. Am I
[1:34:58] correct, Commissioner Connor
[1:34:59] through the Chair Yes, that's
[1:35:02] correct. We we had looked
[1:35:03] originally at just the outdoor
[1:35:05] area, but in more recent
[1:35:07] developments and talking with
[1:35:09] the applicant and the agent,
[1:35:11] they expressed a desire to be
[1:35:13] able to hold events inside the
[1:35:18] arena as well. The condition in
[1:35:22] attachment b two says there
[1:35:29] will be. Events, no more than
[1:35:31] 150 people, no more than 12
[1:35:37] small scale per year. The
[1:35:39] change in the condition that
[1:35:41] you put on the screen earlier
[1:35:44] in the hearing seemed to change
[1:35:46] that language. So if you could
[1:35:48] put that back up on the screen
[1:35:50] so that we could see it, it
[1:35:56] would be helpful. Commissioner.
[1:35:58] Mayor Connor, I want to clarify
[1:36:00] that the change is only to the
[1:36:02] limit to the number of events
[1:36:04] that can happen in the arena
[1:36:06] area, in the enclosed arena. So
[1:36:08] previously, the project
[1:36:10] applicant was limiting the
[1:36:11] number of events in the arena
[1:36:14] to 1 to 2 per year. Since the
[1:36:15] staff report was docketed, they
[1:36:17] would like to be able to have
[1:36:19] more than potentially 1 to 2
[1:36:21] per year in the arena, still
[1:36:23] contained within the total of
[1:36:24] 12 per year. So there's no
[1:36:26] change to the total number of
[1:36:28] events that are being requested.
[1:36:29] And that's within the arena.
[1:36:31] How about outside? Is the same
[1:36:33] limitation apply outside?
[1:36:34] That's correct. The same limit
[1:36:36] applies for the entire property.
[1:36:38] The entire premise. Okay, that
[1:36:42] clarifies it. Thank you.
[1:36:45] Commissioner Park. Just so
[1:36:48] we're really, really clear, if
[1:36:50] you're confused about this,
[1:36:52] blame me because at the site
[1:36:55] visit, I, I, you can blame me
[1:36:57] anyway, but I, I asked MR.
[1:37:00] Jones, where did the limit of
[1:37:02] two in the arena which was
[1:37:05] originally in this and ten
[1:37:07] outdoors come from. And he
[1:37:09] wasn't sure. And when I asked
[1:37:10] MR. Connor the same thing, he
[1:37:13] wasn't sure either. So we
[1:37:14] thought, well, you know,
[1:37:16] somehow it landed there and and
[1:37:20] I suggested, let's take that
[1:37:22] out and let's make it flexible.
[1:37:24] For example, somebody might
[1:37:28] schedule a big birthday party
[1:37:31] outdoors in APRIL, but
[1:37:33] sometimes we get rain in APRIL.
[1:37:35] And so they MAY want to move it
[1:37:37] into the arena. And so why
[1:37:39] limit the arena to only twice a
[1:37:42] year? Let it be for all 12, or
[1:37:43] maybe none of the 12, but let
[1:37:45] them have that flexibility. It
[1:37:47] doesn't affect the neighbors.
[1:37:49] It the a e o says nothing about
[1:37:51] it. There's no reason for us to
[1:37:54] stick it in there. So let me
[1:37:56] move on to my question, and you
[1:37:58] MAY have answered it when you
[1:37:59] answered. MR. I mean, yeah, MR.
[1:38:01] Martinez, question, but but I'm
[1:38:03] not sure I heard it right. What
[1:38:08] I want to know is. How many
[1:38:09] events and how many people for
[1:38:11] a small scale event would be
[1:38:13] allowed if there was just a
[1:38:15] zoning clearance. So whenever I
[1:38:17] have a conditional use permit
[1:38:19] matter, I want to compare what
[1:38:20] we can allow with our
[1:38:21] discretion with what you would
[1:38:26] be allowed to do anyway.
[1:38:28] Commissioner, Commissioner,
[1:38:29] Park through the chair. That's
[1:38:30] a good question. And I have the
[1:38:32] regs in front of me because
[1:38:34] it's hard to remember. So the
[1:38:37] way that the eu reads is on a
[1:38:40] premise of 40 acres to 320
[1:38:42] acres, which is the category
[1:38:45] that this premise is in, they
[1:38:47] would not be able to exceed 50
[1:38:48] attendees at a special event
[1:38:49] with a zoning clearance. So
[1:38:51] that's a ministerial permit
[1:38:54] path. And that's why this minor
[1:38:56] this project requires a minor
[1:38:57] cup because they're requesting
[1:39:00] more than 50 per event. So it's
[1:39:02] 50. And and that would be how
[1:39:05] many events if under a cc that
[1:39:06] would still be 12 events per
[1:39:08] year. Okay. And four days for
[1:39:11] event days per month. So, so
[1:39:13] really when we look at this
[1:39:16] overall, the that the only real
[1:39:19] change is number of people at
[1:39:22] these 12 events, right. And I
[1:39:23] can also, since I have the
[1:39:25] regulations in front of me, I
[1:39:26] know that there were some
[1:39:27] questions about the types of
[1:39:29] events. So the eo also lists
[1:39:30] farm to table dinners, cooking
[1:39:32] classes, weddings, parties,
[1:39:34] writing or yoga workshops, and
[1:39:39] similar gatherings. And I
[1:39:40] wanted to also clarify I love
[1:39:41] that word. Similar how the
[1:39:44] lawyers can just play an
[1:39:46] accordion. They're good
[1:39:47] questions. And this is the
[1:39:49] first project before your
[1:39:51] commission. So it's good that
[1:39:52] we're that you're asking these
[1:39:53] questions. I also wanted to
[1:39:55] clarify that the eo doesn't
[1:39:56] specifically have a parking
[1:39:57] requirement for small scale
[1:39:58] special events. The requirement
[1:39:59] is that there's sufficient
[1:40:01] parking on site, and the
[1:40:06] project is proposing 69 spaces.
[1:40:08] Well, I have a follow up on
[1:40:09] that. But realistically, they
[1:40:12] could charge they could park 3
[1:40:14] or 400 on the property. I mean,
[1:40:15] it's if if not more, given the
[1:40:18] size of it and the layout.
[1:40:19] Correct. I think with the on
[1:40:21] site roads that they have, they
[1:40:23] do have quite a bit of parking
[1:40:24] area. Yeah, not an issue.
[1:40:29] Thanks. Okay. Commissioner Ford.
[1:40:32] Oh, sorry. No problem. Any
[1:40:33] other questions or comments
[1:40:39] from the commissioners? Okay,
[1:40:41] then we will go to the
[1:40:51] applicant or or. Yes. Okay. MR.
[1:40:52] Jones, could you please go
[1:40:54] ahead and share with us? Good
[1:40:57] morning. Again. I was remiss in
[1:40:59] my first item in not thanking
[1:41:00] staff. So I'd like to publicly
[1:41:02] do that and thank Tatiana, Gwen
[1:41:04] and Travis for their support of
[1:41:07] that project. And same, I would
[1:41:09] like to thank Steve and Gwen
[1:41:10] and Travis for their support of
[1:41:13] this project. I don't have a
[1:41:15] presentation again here to
[1:41:17] answer any questions. We
[1:41:19] understand the conditions of
[1:41:22] approval and look forward to
[1:41:24] your comments and questions and
[1:41:26] trying to answer those for you
[1:41:29] this morning. Thank you.
[1:41:31] Commissioner Park. Yes, MR.
[1:41:35] Jones, I'd like to ask you
[1:41:39] about other arenas of this size
[1:41:40] in the Valley. I think I know
[1:41:42] how many there are, but maybe
[1:41:44] I'm off. But I think it's
[1:41:45] important to illustrate to the
[1:41:48] other commissioners that even
[1:41:50] though this seems like a large
[1:41:51] number of square footage, this
[1:41:53] is what happens when you have
[1:41:56] these covered arenas through
[1:41:59] the chair. Commissioner Park,
[1:42:01] I'm not a horse guy, but yes, I
[1:42:03] have done three arenas in the
[1:42:06] valley. All three have been at
[1:42:08] the same size. This 45,000ft!S,
[1:42:10] which which you know,
[1:42:12] admittedly is large, is a 50
[1:42:15] acre parcel. So I think that is
[1:42:17] kind of standard practice for
[1:42:19] horse operations to be able to
[1:42:21] do the training required within
[1:42:26] such a in side. So. Well, I
[1:42:28] thought of several. And then
[1:42:29] every once in a while I'll look
[1:42:31] at Google Earth of the area.
[1:42:32] And I'm always finding
[1:42:33] something else that's hidden in
[1:42:35] the trees or whatever else. So
[1:42:37] it's, it's, it's the point is,
[1:42:39] it's not an uncommon thing for
[1:42:41] this or this kind of thing.
[1:42:43] It's this, these arenas are two
[1:42:44] dimensions that are useful in
[1:42:46] the horse world for dressage
[1:42:48] and other things. And they're
[1:42:51] not as big as polo fields, but
[1:42:53] it's sort of a standard size if
[1:42:56] you're going to cover an arena.
[1:43:02] Thanks. Any questions? No
[1:43:06] questions. Thank you, thank you.
[1:43:07] At this point, we'd like to
[1:43:13] open it up to public comment.
[1:43:14] Anybody in the room? Care to
[1:43:18] share? MR. Villalobos? Any
[1:43:20] online? No. Hands raised online.
[1:43:23] Okay, then I'm going to close
[1:43:29] public comment session.
[1:43:31] Deliberation. We'll go to
[1:43:38] deliberation. Commissioner Park,
[1:43:39] you know, of course I want to
[1:43:40] hear from the other
[1:43:42] commissioners, but I'm prepared
[1:43:43] to make a motion to approve
[1:43:51] this. Big picture. If we
[1:43:52] designed the project in a
[1:43:56] property to fit what the o is
[1:43:58] all about, it'd be hard to come
[1:44:00] up with a better one than this.
[1:44:04] Okay, it's properties well
[1:44:06] served by a large driveway, but
[1:44:08] it's it's entirely an interior
[1:44:10] parcel. It's not really
[1:44:12] fronting any roads. Hardly
[1:44:14] anyone would ever notice
[1:44:17] anything happening here. That
[1:44:20] arena will absorb far more than
[1:44:24] 150 people. And there's just
[1:44:28] really no reason to to deny
[1:44:31] this project. It's well
[1:44:33] designed. It's very modest in
[1:44:35] terms of what their ask is
[1:44:39] under the q p, so I'm ready to
[1:44:42] support it and make the motion.
[1:44:45] Commissioner Ford, thanks. I'm
[1:44:48] so glad to know about
[1:44:49] Commissioner Park's support. I
[1:44:52] know nothing about equestrian
[1:44:54] arenas. Well, I knew nothing
[1:44:56] until I read this really
[1:44:58] comprehensive report. And I
[1:45:00] just want to say thank you
[1:45:02] because it I think you
[1:45:03] addressed every particular
[1:45:05] question that was asked, and I
[1:45:08] learned a lot. So between
[1:45:10] Commissioner Park and this
[1:45:11] presentation, I can certainly
[1:45:15] support this. Okay.
[1:45:17] Commissioner Mayor Connor and I
[1:45:19] concur with my colleagues who
[1:45:21] have just spoken. The staff
[1:45:23] report was very comprehensive
[1:45:26] and helpful. The site visit, I
[1:45:28] thought was terrific. It gives
[1:45:30] you a sense of the scale of the
[1:45:33] property and its location. As
[1:45:35] Commissioner Park pointed out.
[1:45:39] And this to me is an easy yes.
[1:45:41] Okay. Commissioner Martinez,
[1:45:43] yes, I would I would completely
[1:45:44] agree with my fellow
[1:45:46] commissioners and especially
[1:45:49] just reminiscing as to how this
[1:45:51] came to be. This is the kind of
[1:45:52] project that was envisioned
[1:45:54] from, at least from the get go
[1:45:58] for me. Whole new industry out
[1:46:00] there could be a whole new
[1:46:01] industry. And you see it out in
[1:46:04] Arroyo Grande and so forth. And
[1:46:05] this is what we're asking for,
[1:46:07] and this is what's being
[1:46:08] delivered. So I'd be in support
[1:46:11] of it. Okay. And my comment
[1:46:14] would be that this, after
[1:46:15] reading the report and then
[1:46:19] doing the site, visit the site
[1:46:21] is a perfect location for this
[1:46:24] type of arena. It makes sense
[1:46:26] when you look at all of the
[1:46:27] structures around it, and you
[1:46:29] look at the, the property lines
[1:46:31] and the easements around it, it
[1:46:33] totally makes sense. So this is
[1:46:34] also a project very easy for me
[1:46:36] to support. So at this point
[1:46:40] I'm going to ask for a motion.
[1:46:42] Commissioner Park. Yes, I'm
[1:46:44] going to move that we approve
[1:46:46] the matter and take the
[1:46:47] recommended actions that are on
[1:46:49] slide 14 of the presentation
[1:46:51] and are also in the staff
[1:46:52] report. And that includes
[1:46:53] making the required findings
[1:46:55] for approval of the project,
[1:46:57] adopting the mitigated negative
[1:47:01] declaration, and approving the
[1:47:04] project, including the minor
[1:47:06] change that was made today to
[1:47:09] the project description. Thank
[1:47:10] you, Commissioner Park,
[1:47:12] Commissioner Ford, thank you.
[1:47:17] Second, all in favor? Aye, aye.
[1:47:26] None opposed. Motion carries.
[1:47:28] Now musical chairs again. So
[1:47:30] we're going to just take a
[1:47:31] moment here for us to get
[1:47:33] regrouped for the next item on
[1:47:39] the agenda. This is this is
[1:47:43] going off faster than I thought.
[1:47:45] I wasn't expecting three. Easy
[1:47:48] one. Oh yeah. Exactly. This is
[1:47:51] the one that's going to I'm
[1:47:54] actually I haven't been privy.
[1:48:02] It gives everybody opportunity.
[1:48:05] I think. Yes sir. Okay. We have
[1:48:09] a couple of letters we have to
[1:48:10] bring up in the record because
[1:48:13] they were. Yes. So if we could
[1:48:15] just address that before we go
[1:48:18] to. Any time between the
[1:48:20] beginning of the war, before we
[1:48:24] go right now, and should we do
[1:48:26] it at the beginning of the item?
[1:48:28] We can't if you want. It helps
[1:48:29] me to understand because they
[1:48:31] came in like three large groups
[1:48:33] from you. Yeah. And the third
[1:48:35] one, it was like, yeah. So and
[1:48:37] there was a long one. And the
[1:48:41] third one. Yeah. Okay. Okay,
[1:48:45] one of them, but I understand
[1:48:51] it's your area. Oh, we didn't
[1:48:57] have 20, but I agree. MR.
[1:48:58] Villalobos, I'm going to ask
[1:49:03] that before we ask the staff to
[1:49:06] prepare their presentation. If
[1:49:08] you could read it, share with
[1:49:10] us about letters that have come
[1:49:13] in past the our time. I'm happy.
[1:49:15] Yeah. Oh thank you. Call the
[1:49:16] thank you. Yes, I'm happy to.
[1:49:18] Let me just read the item into
[1:49:19] the record first. Thank you.
[1:49:21] Okay, great. Thank you. There's
[1:49:24] another one again. The
[1:49:25] following is a hearing on the
[1:49:27] request of apc towers applicant
[1:49:30] to consider case number 25cp23
[1:49:32] and to determine the project is
[1:49:33] exempt from sequel pursuant to
[1:49:34] state secret guidelines,
[1:49:40] section one five, 303 and 15304.
[1:49:44] And to address your request. So
[1:49:47] the deadline for submittal of
[1:49:49] comment letters for the
[1:49:50] Commission. Today's hearing was
[1:49:52] Monday at noon for items longer
[1:49:54] or longer than a page in length.
[1:49:57] And we do have two items that
[1:50:00] came in a little bit late. So
[1:50:01] the Planning Commission can
[1:50:02] vote to include those into the
[1:50:05] record, but it requires a 4/5
[1:50:07] vote. I'll just read the who
[1:50:11] they're from. So and I
[1:50:12] apologize in advance if I
[1:50:14] mispronounce anyone's name. So
[1:50:19] the first is an email from Pam
[1:50:22] Kadlubek, and it was an email
[1:50:25] followed by a series of photos.
[1:50:29] And the second. And so that was
[1:50:30] dated Monday at 4:17 P.M. And
[1:50:32] there was one that came in, I
[1:50:34] think was emailed overnight on
[1:50:36] Monday. So it was received on
[1:50:39] Tuesday. Long letter, seven
[1:50:42] pages from Samantha Flynn. And
[1:50:46] this one. So the one that was
[1:50:47] on the dais this morning is
[1:50:49] less is a page in length. So it
[1:50:51] does not meet. It's not trigger
[1:50:55] that requirement I gotcha. So I
[1:50:58] think what for for these to be
[1:51:00] included we would need a motion
[1:51:02] to include them a second. And
[1:51:03] then for the five commissioners
[1:51:05] to vote yes. Okay. I'm going to
[1:51:06] look to Commissioner Park to
[1:51:08] begin us here. Since it's in
[1:51:12] his district. I'm going to go
[1:51:13] out of character here because I
[1:51:16] always oppose these requests,
[1:51:18] but because they irritate me,
[1:51:20] because I don't like reading
[1:51:22] something that's long at the
[1:51:25] very last minute. On the other
[1:51:29] hand, I've looked at these and
[1:51:30] I think we should put them in
[1:51:32] the record. I'll tell you why,
[1:51:35] and I will move to do that one.
[1:51:39] The first one from Pam, you
[1:51:40] mispronounce the name so I
[1:51:44] won't. It's it's short. It just
[1:51:47] has some photos. And the photos
[1:51:49] are are helpful to us. They are
[1:51:50] photos that we don't have that
[1:51:53] kind of a photo. The second
[1:51:57] letter from Samantha Flynn is
[1:52:01] long, but it's it's very well
[1:52:03] written. And what I appreciate
[1:52:06] about it is it's not just a
[1:52:09] kind of a repetitious litany of
[1:52:11] complaints. It's, it's actually
[1:52:12] very constructive letter
[1:52:14] because it says, okay, here's
[1:52:16] what I recommend you do. And
[1:52:17] this is what you should do to
[1:52:19] properly investigate this. And
[1:52:21] I think that that's
[1:52:23] instructional for planning
[1:52:24] commission. You MAY not agree
[1:52:25] with it, but it's, it's
[1:52:26] worthwhile having it there. And
[1:52:28] I think it's appropriate that
[1:52:32] it be in the record. So I would
[1:52:34] move to admit both of those
[1:52:37] into the record. Commissioner
[1:52:41] Ford, I'll second that. Okay.
[1:52:47] All in favor? I didn't ask for
[1:52:48] deliberation. So Commissioner
[1:52:52] o'Connor. So I tend to agree
[1:52:54] with my colleagues on this
[1:52:58] issue with one caveat. And that
[1:52:59] is I would ask the question as
[1:53:01] to whether or not the late
[1:53:04] arrival of the letter made it
[1:53:07] difficult or impossible for the
[1:53:09] applicant or the staff to
[1:53:12] respond to the letter at this
[1:53:14] hearing. If the receipt of the
[1:53:17] late letter causes either the
[1:53:18] applicant or the staff to ask
[1:53:20] for more time to be able to
[1:53:22] deal with the issues raised in
[1:53:24] the letter, then that lateness
[1:53:28] has had a practical effect. And
[1:53:29] so I would ask, before we vote
[1:53:31] on whether to accept these
[1:53:33] letters or not, that we hear
[1:53:34] the staff recommendation, ask
[1:53:37] the staff the question, not
[1:53:39] just the staff recommendation,
[1:53:41] but the staff report, and we
[1:53:43] hear from the applicant as well
[1:53:46] and ask the question, has this
[1:53:48] letter, which I agree is, is is
[1:53:50] long, comprehensive and and
[1:53:53] well written? Does it cause you
[1:53:56] to need more time to respond to
[1:53:58] the letter? Let's ask that
[1:54:00] question before we decide
[1:54:02] whether or not to accept it. I
[1:54:04] know that's a little cumbersome,
[1:54:08] but I think the process that we
[1:54:10] follow in deliberating on these
[1:54:13] matters has consequences. And
[1:54:15] we should, if we can make
[1:54:17] decisions when we're called on
[1:54:19] to make decisions and the
[1:54:21] information is before us. And
[1:54:23] let's let's see if we can do
[1:54:24] that. So that's that's my
[1:54:26] personal preference is to hold
[1:54:28] off on voting on this motion
[1:54:32] until after we've had the staff
[1:54:35] and the staff report and the
[1:54:37] applicant's presentation. Okay.
[1:54:38] Thank you, Commissioner. Mayor
[1:54:39] Connor, I'm going to ask
[1:54:42] Commissioner Ford. I disagree
[1:54:44] because I think once you you
[1:54:47] know, you're asking for staff
[1:54:50] response to it and input, then
[1:54:52] you've accepted it. And so I
[1:54:53] think it's still a matter of
[1:54:55] whether this commission accepts
[1:54:57] those two letters. I'm actually
[1:54:59] not suggesting. Oh, MAY I
[1:55:01] respond? Yes you MAY. I'm not
[1:55:03] suggesting that the staff
[1:55:04] respond to the letter. I'm just
[1:55:07] asking whether the staff needs
[1:55:09] additional time to respond to
[1:55:11] the letter. That's the question
[1:55:13] I would like to ask both the
[1:55:15] staff and the applicant to see
[1:55:17] if we're going to be ready to
[1:55:20] move ahead with the decision
[1:55:22] today. Well, it could be
[1:55:23] semantics, but I think that
[1:55:25] once you involve the staff,
[1:55:28] we've accepted it. But I'll
[1:55:32] leave that up to other people.
[1:55:38] Yeah, I've seconded the motion.
[1:55:40] I believe we need to go to a
[1:55:41] roll call vote. I would say
[1:55:43] this I completely agree with
[1:55:44] the commissioner here in
[1:55:46] regards to just the process
[1:55:48] that we're here. If I'm the
[1:55:49] applicant and we're considering
[1:55:51] something that I have not had
[1:55:52] the time to consider and be
[1:55:55] prepared to address it, I think
[1:55:58] out of ultimate fairness and
[1:56:00] consideration to the applicant,
[1:56:02] and that they should have the
[1:56:03] opportunity to say, well, I've
[1:56:05] read it. I've never I didn't
[1:56:06] see it before today. I don't
[1:56:09] even know if they even have it,
[1:56:10] to tell you the truth. So if
[1:56:12] that's going to be part of
[1:56:14] their thing, where they're
[1:56:16] going to be held to answer to
[1:56:18] it, where we're considering it
[1:56:20] and asking them questions,
[1:56:22] maybe based upon this letter,
[1:56:24] these photos, I think they
[1:56:26] should be provided that
[1:56:28] opportunity to review it and
[1:56:30] provide it to us, because I
[1:56:32] wouldn't want to show up to
[1:56:34] anything. Well, it's like
[1:56:35] showing up to a it's like
[1:56:37] showing up to a trial and, and
[1:56:39] not knowing what the witness is
[1:56:41] going to say in response.
[1:56:42] That's why we take depositions
[1:56:44] before. So that's my only
[1:56:45] analogous to it. I understand
[1:56:47] the the request for it. I don't
[1:56:49] necessarily dispute it, but I
[1:56:50] think we should hear from the
[1:56:52] applicant and from staff of
[1:56:53] whether it's something that is
[1:56:55] going to be considered and even
[1:56:56] addressed in this matter. I
[1:56:57] have a question. I'm wondering
[1:56:59] if a precedent has been set in
[1:57:02] the past as far as how we deal
[1:57:04] with these letters that come in
[1:57:06] afterward, because if we open
[1:57:08] this up to staff and the
[1:57:10] rebuttal and so forth, are we
[1:57:12] setting a new protocol where we
[1:57:15] might already have a protocol
[1:57:18] in place? MAY I speak to that?
[1:57:22] Yes, please. Commissioner Park.
[1:57:23] I think it's totally
[1:57:25] appropriate to ask the question
[1:57:27] that MR. Amerikaner and MR.
[1:57:30] Martinez are asking. I asked
[1:57:33] the same question when I read
[1:57:35] this letter yesterday. So
[1:57:37] everybody's had a chance to see
[1:57:39] it, but I, I because I normally
[1:57:41] don't support this kind of
[1:57:43] thing, but I made the decision
[1:57:46] to support it. And the question
[1:57:48] I asked was, and it's one that
[1:57:50] we see as lawyers all the time,
[1:57:51] is there a surprise with a
[1:57:53] massive amount of new
[1:57:55] information that can't be
[1:57:58] digested? Okay. Oddly, that
[1:57:59] often comes up when the
[1:58:01] applicant generally brings in a
[1:58:03] lot of new information and
[1:58:05] somebody who's challenging it
[1:58:07] says, well, wait, I've had no
[1:58:09] opportunity to see this, and
[1:58:11] sometimes I'll ask for a
[1:58:13] continuance. But as a practical
[1:58:15] matter, I kind of internalize
[1:58:17] the question that they're
[1:58:19] asking, but that it's still an
[1:58:22] appropriate question. And if
[1:58:23] they'd like to hear an answer
[1:58:25] to it, I think we should,
[1:58:27] especially since as a practical
[1:58:29] matter, this takes four votes
[1:58:30] to pass. So if either of the
[1:58:32] other two commissioners that
[1:58:34] have brought this up decides I
[1:58:36] haven't been satisfied, the
[1:58:38] motion is going to fail anyway.
[1:58:39] So I think it won't take very
[1:58:41] much effort to answer the
[1:58:43] questions that MR. Amerikaner
[1:58:45] has, whether it fits, protocols
[1:58:47] or not. It's we're kind of
[1:58:49] loose here. We do what? What
[1:58:52] works. Okay. That helps. Let me
[1:58:54] ask the other commissioners.
[1:58:55] Are there any objections other
[1:58:57] than what Commissioner Ford has
[1:59:03] already stated? I'm sorry,
[1:59:05] what's the question? Are there
[1:59:07] any other objections to asking
[1:59:10] your question of staff? Got it.
[1:59:14] Now I understand. Okay. I am
[1:59:16] going to go with the majority
[1:59:20] in this case and ask
[1:59:21] Commissioner Amerikaner, if you
[1:59:23] don't mind me asking your
[1:59:25] question to the staff Chair and
[1:59:27] Commissioners, if I can just
[1:59:28] interrupt. Yes, please. So I
[1:59:30] have received information from
[1:59:32] both the applicant and staff.
[1:59:34] They haven't reviewed the
[1:59:37] letter. They haven't reviewed
[1:59:39] the letter. Okay. Well, in that
[1:59:41] case, I think we can very
[1:59:42] easily do a roll call vote. And
[1:59:44] I think we know where this is
[1:59:46] going to go. MAY I make a
[1:59:47] suggestion, chair? Yes, please.
[1:59:49] I think the question is, is
[1:59:50] whether even if they how do I
[1:59:52] put this? Are we are we to
[1:59:53] allow them the opportunity to
[1:59:54] review it and say, hey, I need
[1:59:57] some time to review this thing?
[1:59:59] And then it does have an impact
[2:00:01] because then in a way, we are
[2:00:03] kind of putting the cart before
[2:00:04] the horse, in a sense, is what
[2:00:06] it's coming down to. So if we
[2:00:08] accept the letter, then are we
[2:00:10] saying let's accept, if we
[2:00:13] accept the motion, then the
[2:00:14] letter goes in front of the
[2:00:16] staff and the applicant, and
[2:00:18] then they have the opportunity
[2:00:19] to say, we need more time to
[2:00:21] address it. We need to come
[2:00:22] back and address the questions
[2:00:24] within it. Are we doing it that
[2:00:26] way or are we doing it the way
[2:00:28] we're we're going to have them
[2:00:29] look at this, which is really
[2:00:31] considering it. MR. Chair, it's
[2:00:34] my motion. I'd like to table
[2:00:36] the motion to accept the letter
[2:00:38] until we have proceeded with
[2:00:40] the hearing, because it it MAY
[2:00:42] very well be moot. And I don't
[2:00:44] want to spend a lot of time and
[2:00:46] create a little conflict about
[2:00:47] it, when it MAY be moot anyway.
[2:00:49] In fact, I predict it will be.
[2:00:52] So. Okay, let's just table it.
[2:00:54] Any objections to tabling it?
[2:00:56] No. No objection. Okay. In this
[2:00:58] case, we're going to table that.
[2:01:01] And before we go on to the
[2:01:02] presentation, I do want to ask
[2:01:04] if there's any ex parte
[2:01:07] communication or site visits
[2:01:13] from the commissioners. I can't
[2:01:15] recall any ex party
[2:01:19] communications. I made an
[2:01:21] extensive site visit this
[2:01:23] morning. I got up really early
[2:01:25] and drove all around the
[2:01:26] neighborhood and made some
[2:01:28] circles and. And then I had the
[2:01:29] opportunity to do it all over
[2:01:31] again, driving back from Santa
[2:01:32] Maria. So I'm reporting all
[2:01:38] that. Okay, I, I'd also like to
[2:01:40] share that when I saw this item
[2:01:43] on the agenda, I asked for
[2:01:47] permission to view the site. By
[2:01:49] the time I had received
[2:01:50] permission to review the site,
[2:01:52] I had. I had already been there.
[2:01:55] So I have seen the site. I have
[2:01:57] driven around the streets and
[2:01:59] I've drove into the driveway.
[2:02:01] But I did not get out of my car
[2:02:03] because I didn't have
[2:02:05] permission. So I didn't go very
[2:02:08] far into the property. So I've
[2:02:11] seen a bit, but it's solely on
[2:02:14] my own. Okay. And no other
[2:02:18] comments. So now we'll go ahead
[2:02:20] and open it up to the staff
[2:02:23] presentation. Good morning
[2:02:26] commissioners. My name is
[2:02:30] Francisco Vargas, County
[2:02:33] Planner. I will be providing a
[2:02:36] grant overview of the proposed
[2:02:39] t mobile tier for a telecom
[2:02:41] project. Case number 25qp-00023.
[2:02:43] This project is a request for a
[2:02:45] conditional use permit. The
[2:02:48] project includes a
[2:02:50] telecommunications facility
[2:02:52] designed as a faux eucalyptus
[2:02:54] that is 6 to 8ft tall in the
[2:02:57] agriculture 110 zone district.
[2:03:00] District. The project site,
[2:03:02] outlined in yellow, is a ten
[2:03:04] acre parcel zoned agriculture
[2:03:07] 110, located off 1626 Calzada
[2:03:09] Avenue, Santa Ynez, within the
[2:03:12] Third Supervisorial District.
[2:03:15] The location of the facility
[2:03:18] within the subject parcel is
[2:03:21] identified with a yellow circle
[2:03:24] on the eastern side of the
[2:03:27] parcel. The general area
[2:03:29] consists of large agricultural
[2:03:32] parcels over five acres and
[2:03:35] some up to 40 acres in size.
[2:03:37] The area is characterized by
[2:03:39] rural, farm, residential and
[2:03:42] agricultural. Equestrian uses.
[2:03:44] The subject parcel is
[2:03:46] relatively flat. Located
[2:03:48] approximately 1400ft west of
[2:03:50] Edison Street and approximately
[2:03:52] 1930ft west of highway 154.
[2:03:54] This slide shows the project
[2:03:56] site in red within the
[2:03:59] agriculture one zoning note.
[2:04:01] All adjacent nearby parcels in
[2:04:04] the general vicinity are zoned
[2:04:06] agriculture as well, with some
[2:04:10] single family residential shown
[2:04:12] in yellow. Located
[2:04:15] approximately 700ft southwest
[2:04:17] of the proposed facility area.
[2:04:19] This is the overall site plan
[2:04:22] which shows the location of the
[2:04:24] facility within the project
[2:04:27] site. Note the facility is
[2:04:29] proposed away from the nearest
[2:04:32] road on the east side of the
[2:04:35] ten acre parcel. The tower
[2:04:37] itself is proposed to be
[2:04:40] approximately 1221ft east of
[2:04:42] Calzada Avenue, and the
[2:04:44] perimeter fenced area would be
[2:04:46] approximately 1205ft east of
[2:04:48] Calzada Avenue. The site
[2:04:50] contains existing overhead
[2:04:52] power lines, which run east or
[2:04:54] west to east along the northern
[2:04:56] property line and terminate
[2:05:00] near the center of the site, as
[2:05:03] shown in the dashed orange line
[2:05:04] at the top. The proposed. The
[2:05:07] project proposes to tie into
[2:05:10] the existing utility utility
[2:05:13] pole infrastructure by routing
[2:05:16] new underground lines from the
[2:05:18] proposed facility area to the
[2:05:21] existing lines, one new utility
[2:05:24] pole will be required to be
[2:05:26] installed on site. The location
[2:05:28] of that pole will be noted on
[2:05:30] the next slide. So this is a
[2:05:32] close up of the lease area. It
[2:05:35] also shows other components of
[2:05:38] the proposed facility,
[2:05:40] including the eight foot
[2:05:42] perimeter fence, adjacent
[2:05:44] transformer required to be
[2:05:47] enclosed. The new utility line
[2:05:49] configuration location of the
[2:05:50] 37.5ft utility pole, and the
[2:05:52] proposed fire turnaround
[2:05:53] required for emergency access.
[2:05:56] This slide includes the west
[2:05:59] and south elevations. The
[2:06:02] proposed height of the
[2:06:04] telecommunications facility is
[2:06:07] 68ft tall. The height is
[2:06:10] measured from the existing
[2:06:12] grade to the tallest branch.
[2:06:14] The design is that of a
[2:06:17] eucalyptus tree. This design
[2:06:20] addressed input received from
[2:06:22] the Central Board of
[2:06:25] Architectural Review, referred
[2:06:27] to as c bar, and is conditioned
[2:06:30] to return to c bar after
[2:06:32] approval of the cup. The
[2:06:35] fencing proposed includes an
[2:06:38] eight foot tall corrugated
[2:06:41] non-reflective metal fence
[2:06:44] design, as recommended by c bar.
[2:06:48] This is the east elevation of
[2:06:51] both, showing both the telecom
[2:06:55] and the 37.5ft utility pole. To
[2:06:59] give you a better understanding
[2:07:02] of the scale of both structures.
[2:07:06] So the following few slides
[2:07:09] include the photo simulations
[2:07:12] provided by the applicant, so
[2:07:16] you can better understand what
[2:07:20] the facility will look like.
[2:07:23] Once constructed. The left
[2:07:27] image shows the existing view
[2:07:30] without the facility, and the
[2:07:35] right image shows the same view
[2:07:38] and identifies the proposed
[2:07:42] facility with a call out. This
[2:07:45] first elevation shows the
[2:07:47] project site looking southeast
[2:07:50] from Calzada Avenue. The second
[2:07:53] slide compares the view looking
[2:07:56] northwest from Edison Street,
[2:07:58] and this third slide compares
[2:08:01] the view looking southwest from
[2:08:03] highway 154. This is an exhibit
[2:08:06] prepared by the applicant or
[2:08:09] provided by the applicant,
[2:08:13] which compares the existing
[2:08:17] service coverage versus the
[2:08:20] updated coverage. As a result
[2:08:24] of the project, red represents
[2:08:28] poor coverage, yellow
[2:08:31] represents fair coverage and
[2:08:33] green represents good coverage.
[2:08:37] The image to the left shows the
[2:08:40] existing coverage, and the
[2:08:42] image on the right shows the
[2:08:46] new. In other words, proposed
[2:08:49] coverage. The applicant
[2:08:51] prepared. An alternative site
[2:08:54] analysis included with
[2:08:56] attachment f of the staff
[2:08:58] report. The analysis indicated
[2:09:00] over 15 sites in the vicinity
[2:09:03] were considered for the telecom
[2:09:04] site. However, in all cases,
[2:09:06] either the property owners were
[2:09:09] not interested or it was
[2:09:11] determined that the location
[2:09:13] did not fully meet the needs to
[2:09:16] address the gap in coverage.
[2:09:19] The project will meet all
[2:09:21] applicable development
[2:09:23] standards, comprehensive plan
[2:09:26] and federal requirements. For
[2:09:29] example, the project meets the
[2:09:32] required setbacks, the height
[2:09:34] limitation of 100ft since it is
[2:09:37] a 68 foot tower, and also
[2:09:39] incorporates design
[2:09:42] recommendations provided by c
[2:09:45] bar. Last fall of 2025. It also
[2:09:48] includes other The
[2:09:50] recommendations, such as the
[2:09:52] corrugated fencing and natural
[2:09:55] colors for the branches and
[2:09:58] leaves. The applicant also
[2:10:00] provided an electro magnetic
[2:10:03] energy compliance report,
[2:10:05] otherwise referred to as an rf
[2:10:08] report, and was prepared by a
[2:10:11] third party consultant, which
[2:10:13] is also included with
[2:10:15] attachment f of the staff
[2:10:17] report. The report indicates
[2:10:19] the project will comply with
[2:10:21] the relevant federal compliance
[2:10:24] fcc standards and will require
[2:10:27] specific safety signage at the
[2:10:29] perimeter of the lease area.
[2:10:31] Staff determined that the
[2:10:32] project is exempt from Sequa
[2:10:34] pursuant Ceqa exemption 15303,
[2:10:36] which applies to new
[2:10:37] construction or conversion of
[2:10:39] small structures and in this
[2:10:41] case applies to the monopole.
[2:10:42] The ground level equipment
[2:10:44] cabinets and the fencing staff
[2:10:45] also determined that the
[2:10:46] project is exempt from sequa
[2:10:47] pursuant Ceqa exemption 1530
[2:10:49] for minor alterations to land
[2:10:51] and is applicable in this case
[2:10:52] based on the minor minimal
[2:10:54] grading required. With this,
[2:10:55] staff recommends the following
[2:10:56] to the Planning Commission.
[2:10:58] Number one make the required
[2:10:59] findings for approval of the
[2:11:00] project specified in attachment
[2:11:02] a of the staff report,
[2:11:03] including sequel findings.
[2:11:05] Number two determine the
[2:11:06] project is exempt from Sequa to
[2:11:07] exempt from Sequa pursuant to
[2:11:09] state sequel guidelines.
[2:11:10] Section one, five, three, oh
[2:11:13] three and 15304. Number three
[2:11:15] approve the project case number
[2:11:16] 25qp-00023, subject to the
[2:11:18] conditions of approval included
[2:11:19] as attachment b. This concludes
[2:11:21] staff's presentation, and we're
[2:11:23] happy to answer any questions.
[2:11:25] Okay. I believe there are going
[2:11:27] to be quite a few questions,
[2:11:28] but just before we we open with
[2:11:30] the questions I'm going to ask
[2:11:32] that we take a short break. Any
[2:11:34] objections to a short break?
[2:11:36] Okay. Five minute break and
[2:11:38] we'll be right back. Thank you.
[2:22:10] Have you taken care of all the
[2:22:11] business you need to take care
[2:22:16] of? What do you mean, business?
[2:22:18] Okay, we are coming back from
[2:22:20] our break now, and I would like
[2:22:22] to start by opening up for
[2:22:23] questions from the
[2:22:25] commissioners. And so,
[2:22:30] Commissioner Park. Yes. MR.
[2:22:32] Vargas, thank you for your
[2:22:34] staff report. Very complete, as
[2:22:40] always. A few things. One,
[2:22:43] could you go back to I think it
[2:22:46] was slide nine, and it was the
[2:22:53] the coverage map. There you go
[2:22:56] on the on the after. Well,
[2:22:57] actually it's on all of them.
[2:23:00] We see sort of a, a slash
[2:23:03] starting near the lower right
[2:23:06] hand corner, and it goes almost
[2:23:07] right past this. The site is
[2:23:10] that highway 154. Just so we
[2:23:13] can put this map in context,
[2:23:14] Commissioner Park through the
[2:23:17] chair. Correct. That is highway
[2:23:19] 154 on the right hand side and
[2:23:21] in the. If we look at the
[2:23:24] afters, it shows an area area
[2:23:26] in green kind of surrounding
[2:23:28] the the site. And that's where
[2:23:30] there would be good coverage,
[2:23:32] you know, improved coverage.
[2:23:33] That's kind of the point of
[2:23:36] this. Correct. Okay. And it
[2:23:38] shows a lot of land that's on
[2:23:42] the other side, east side of.
[2:23:46] 154 correct? Correct. Okay. And
[2:23:50] in this coverage map, it's.
[2:23:53] It's in the electromagnetic
[2:23:56] report just so that people can
[2:23:58] follow where these maps are.
[2:23:59] That is correct. Part of
[2:24:02] attachment f. Okay, I want to
[2:24:07] ask you about other antennae
[2:24:09] that are located in what's
[2:24:10] often called the heart of the
[2:24:12] valley. And it's not just
[2:24:14] locals that call it that. It's
[2:24:16] in it's in the Valley community
[2:24:18] plan, which is, you know, more
[2:24:19] or less a flat area that's
[2:24:22] bounded by 154 there on the
[2:24:26] east and by 246 on the bottom
[2:24:28] and and to the left, Alamo
[2:24:31] Pintado Road. And it's all
[2:24:34] generally flat, usually ag one
[2:24:35] properties or even residential
[2:24:38] zone properties. They're all ag
[2:24:39] one tens, ag one fives, things
[2:24:43] like that. Are there any other
[2:24:45] antennae of this size in the
[2:24:46] heart of the valley, to your
[2:24:50] knowledge? To my knowledge, I
[2:24:52] don't. I would have to look
[2:24:54] that up honestly. Okay. I, I
[2:24:57] don't recall any, but what I do
[2:25:00] recall hearing and approving
[2:25:02] was one that I thought was at
[2:25:05] least 50ft and it was disguised
[2:25:08] as a water tower as opposed to
[2:25:11] a eucalyptus tree or, or a
[2:25:12] Disneyland ride or whatever,
[2:25:14] you know, it's just that's what
[2:25:16] it was. But does that ring a
[2:25:18] bell with any of you? I guess
[2:25:20] it's so well camouflaged, I
[2:25:21] can't remember where it is
[2:25:26] anymore. Okay. Commissioner
[2:25:28] Park, we're not. We're looking.
[2:25:31] We're not finding it. We did
[2:25:35] see some withdrawn water tower
[2:25:37] cases. We do recall the one in
[2:25:38] Lompoc, but we're not finding
[2:25:40] an exact one in Swat Valley.
[2:25:42] But we'll keep scanning our
[2:25:43] records to see if we can find
[2:25:45] anything. I have some other
[2:25:49] questions. That I'll ask of MR.
[2:25:51] Ambrose. Well, actually, first
[2:25:54] let me ask, is there a separate
[2:25:56] alternative site study here? I
[2:25:58] see language in the in the same
[2:26:00] report we've been referring.
[2:26:01] But is there a separate site
[2:26:03] study? I couldn't find one in
[2:26:07] the record. I'm sorry.
[2:26:08] Commissioner Park through the
[2:26:09] chair. Would you mind repeating
[2:26:12] the question? Is there.
[2:26:14] Sometimes we'll see. Site
[2:26:15] studies be labeled a site study,
[2:26:17] and they'll. And they'll review
[2:26:19] alternative sites and why they
[2:26:21] did this one. And at first I
[2:26:23] couldn't find it because I
[2:26:24] couldn't see anything labeled
[2:26:26] that. But I do see about a page
[2:26:28] of language to that effect that
[2:26:30] I think is in the. I can't
[2:26:31] remember what you call this,
[2:26:32] the irc report or whatever.
[2:26:34] That's correct. It's in the rf
[2:26:35] report, which is attachment f
[2:26:37] to the staff report, and we
[2:26:38] have it prepared. If there's
[2:26:39] any information you want to
[2:26:41] bring up on the screen in that
[2:26:43] report. Okay. And also I'm, I'm
[2:26:45] used to seeing a separate
[2:26:48] coverage maps as exhibits, but
[2:26:51] here we've, we basically got
[2:26:52] that, but it's in that same
[2:26:55] report, right? That's correct.
[2:26:56] Okay. Well, I MAY ask you more
[2:26:58] questions later, but I'm, I'm
[2:26:59] going to try them with MR.
[2:27:00] Ambrose first because I think
[2:27:02] he'll probably know better.
[2:27:04] Thank you. And I been
[2:27:05] researching our permit records
[2:27:08] about your question about other
[2:27:09] telecommunications facilities,
[2:27:12] a full water tank. There was an
[2:27:13] application for a full water
[2:27:15] tank on Robles Avenue. So I
[2:27:17] think that's. That's what
[2:27:18] you're discussing. It's 50ft
[2:27:20] tall. Whatever happened to it?
[2:27:23] I'm looking at I can't remember
[2:27:26] ever having these denied. They
[2:27:28] get fiddled with but rarely
[2:27:31] denied. I'll keep researching
[2:27:33] and it's okay. It's not central
[2:27:36] to this. Thanks. Oh well, there
[2:27:37] is one someone told me last
[2:27:39] night on reservoir gets
[2:27:42] installed. Yeah. There you go.
[2:27:45] I think so too. Okay. Thank you
[2:27:47] for the record because he's not
[2:27:49] on a microphone, so maybe you
[2:27:51] want to repeat it. You need me
[2:27:54] to stand up? No. You know, I
[2:27:55] just repeat that someone from
[2:27:57] the audience has pointed out
[2:27:59] that I have excellent memory.
[2:28:01] And, I mean, that's implied,
[2:28:03] not explicitly stated, and that
[2:28:04] we do, in fact, have an
[2:28:06] installation on Robles Avenue
[2:28:09] of a approximately 50 foot Fo
[2:28:13] water tank. Thanks. Okay. I
[2:28:15] also have a few questions. I'm
[2:28:17] going to ask you to go back to
[2:28:19] slides nine, ten, and 11, if
[2:28:22] you don't mind. And I'm looking
[2:28:24] at the proposed eucalyptus tree
[2:28:28] on the after side of each of
[2:28:38] the slides. So. I'm trying to
[2:28:40] figure out the size of the tree.
[2:28:43] I understand we said 68ft and
[2:28:45] but I don't have a point of
[2:28:47] reference. So I want to ask a
[2:28:50] few questions. In this part of
[2:28:52] the Santa Ynez Valley is the
[2:28:54] maximum height of a building
[2:28:57] 35ft. Is it the same as it is
[2:28:58] for other parts of Santa
[2:29:01] Barbara County? Chairperson Guy.
[2:29:03] So the maximum height for a
[2:29:04] regular building would be 35ft.
[2:29:06] However, for telecoms it is a
[2:29:08] different threshold. Under a
[2:29:10] cup, they are allowed to have
[2:29:11] up to 100 foot tower. Okay.
[2:29:13] Thank you. I'm just trying to
[2:29:16] figure perspective. So so a
[2:29:17] single family house would have
[2:29:21] about a 15ft to 20ft high roof
[2:29:23] and a two story. But but we're
[2:29:24] limited in Santa Barbara County
[2:29:26] at 35ft. Okay, I understand
[2:29:28] that. Then my next my next
[2:29:31] question is the trees around it.
[2:29:33] I'm having a hard time telling
[2:29:35] from the photos what types of
[2:29:36] trees. And I know a eucalyptus
[2:29:39] was accepted, and I think it's
[2:29:43] easiest to tell, perhaps on
[2:29:46] slide ten, again, I'm trying to
[2:29:48] get the perspective because
[2:29:51] looking at slide ten, the tower
[2:29:53] looks tiny, but the trees to
[2:29:55] the right look huge. So if that
[2:29:58] tower is 68ft, I would assume
[2:29:59] that those trees are going to
[2:30:02] be about 250ft tall or, or it's
[2:30:04] about perception. And I'm just
[2:30:07] curious because because of the
[2:30:09] impact to the neighborhood,
[2:30:12] having a sole tree versus a,
[2:30:14] you know, how visible, how
[2:30:16] visible it is. So the question
[2:30:20] then becomes, do we have any
[2:30:25] other 68ft or 100ft poles or
[2:30:27] concealed towers? Not the water
[2:30:30] tower. I'm talking about poles,
[2:30:31] just the pole by itself or the
[2:30:34] concealed pole disguised as a
[2:30:35] tree. Do we have any others
[2:30:38] that are 68ft to 100ft tall in
[2:30:40] the Santa Ynez Valley?
[2:30:42] Chairperson guy. I'm not aware
[2:30:44] of any other facilities in the
[2:30:50] area that that tall. Okay. But
[2:30:52] chair guy, we should. As a
[2:30:54] caveat to that, we're not aware
[2:30:56] of any off the top of our head.
[2:30:57] That doesn't mean there haven't
[2:30:59] been any approved. We just.
[2:31:01] Okay, we would need to really
[2:31:02] dig into. I mean, we have
[2:31:04] dozens and dozens and dozens of
[2:31:06] wireless projects we've
[2:31:07] approved. So it would take some
[2:31:09] work for us to dig up that info.
[2:31:11] Okay. Well, I'm I'm curious
[2:31:13] because of the site location,
[2:31:14] going back to what Commissioner
[2:31:16] Park was saying, the site seems
[2:31:18] to be the site location seems
[2:31:22] to be critical for t mobile
[2:31:23] because of the range. What I'm
[2:31:25] trying to figure out is the
[2:31:29] height of the concealed tower
[2:31:31] versus other concealed towers
[2:31:32] that might be providing
[2:31:34] services in the other areas.
[2:31:35] I'm trying to understand,
[2:31:37] because there's there are some
[2:31:39] concerns about the height and
[2:31:40] there's other concerns as well.
[2:31:42] So I'm just trying to I'm
[2:31:44] trying to understand in my mind,
[2:31:45] do any of the other
[2:31:46] commissioners have any
[2:31:51] questions? I do, thank you. A
[2:31:53] couple of questions. First of
[2:31:58] all, can you explain the
[2:31:59] Commission's authority with
[2:32:06] respect to rf issues? In in
[2:32:10] deciding this, this matter from
[2:32:12] the letters we've received,
[2:32:14] there are community concerns
[2:32:15] about rf issues. And I just
[2:32:17] want to understand the scope of
[2:32:21] the Commission's authority to
[2:32:23] deal with rf factors in making
[2:32:27] our decision. Yeah. Chair Guy
[2:32:29] and Commissioner Amerikaner,
[2:32:31] there is a significant amount
[2:32:34] of preemption when it comes to
[2:32:37] rf emissions for telecom
[2:32:41] facilities. So as long as
[2:32:45] facility complies with the fcc
[2:32:47] requirements pertaining to rf
[2:32:50] emissions, then your board is
[2:32:54] unable to to regulate the
[2:32:57] facility on that factor. Okay,
[2:32:59] that's a clear answer to the
[2:33:00] question. Let me ask a second
[2:33:05] question. And. Branches off, no
[2:33:08] pun intended. The chair's
[2:33:11] question about about other
[2:33:14] towers in the in the valley.
[2:33:19] Are there other trees that are
[2:33:23] 68ft or taller within the. And
[2:33:25] I'll just say the relevant area
[2:33:27] and I. I'll let you all define
[2:33:29] what the relevant area is. But
[2:33:35] are there other trees that. Are
[2:33:37] that tall or taller in the
[2:33:39] valley or in the Central Valley
[2:33:42] to use Commissioner park's
[2:33:45] phrasing, Commissioner Mayor
[2:33:48] Connor, tough question for us.
[2:33:51] I do. We just do not know. Like
[2:33:53] we do not have a survey of
[2:33:54] trees. I don't know if
[2:33:55] Commissioner Park would want to
[2:33:57] weigh in. I, I suspect just
[2:33:58] from visiting that there are
[2:34:02] trees that are that tall, but I
[2:34:04] can't tell you with, you know,
[2:34:05] right here, right now where
[2:34:07] those are or anything like that,
[2:34:09] I just can't it's just
[2:34:11] something we don't have data on.
[2:34:13] I appreciate I see a lot of
[2:34:14] really big trees in the valley.
[2:34:17] Okay. I appreciate your candor,
[2:34:18] Commissioner Park. I can
[2:34:19] address that in detail. I don't
[2:34:21] know if this is the time to do
[2:34:23] it, but I certainly will at
[2:34:25] some point today. Okay. Thank
[2:34:27] you. That's why I did so much
[2:34:29] driving around. Not not why I
[2:34:31] did it the second round of
[2:34:33] inspections, but the first
[2:34:35] round. That's exactly what I
[2:34:37] was looking at. Okay. By
[2:34:39] species, height and location.
[2:34:40] Good. Commissioner Ford, thanks
[2:34:44] a lot. I don't know if I'm
[2:34:46] overstating it, but I think
[2:34:47] maybe almost everyone has a
[2:34:50] concern about the height itself.
[2:34:52] And so I asked my favorite
[2:34:56] friend Chatgpt for some help.
[2:35:00] And to answer your question,
[2:35:03] 68ft pretty much translates
[2:35:05] into six and a half to seven
[2:35:08] stories tall. When I asked the
[2:35:11] question about other trees in
[2:35:17] the area that are 68ft. Chatgpt
[2:35:18] only came up with a few
[2:35:20] examples from the Santa Barbara
[2:35:22] area. Not that part of this
[2:35:26] part of the county. And so
[2:35:27] that's just for information
[2:35:30] sake. But mostly I'm interested
[2:35:32] in really what was done about
[2:35:34] establishing that this had no
[2:35:38] issues or concerns around the
[2:35:40] archeological location of it,
[2:35:42] and the tribal cultural
[2:35:50] resource area. Commissioner,
[2:35:53] Court Commissioner Ford, to the
[2:35:54] Chair We do have a standard
[2:35:55] condition. Whenever there is
[2:35:57] grading, we apply this
[2:36:00] condition in the event that any
[2:36:01] discoveries are made during
[2:36:03] grading, they would have to,
[2:36:04] you know, inform the proper
[2:36:06] agencies for that. So there is
[2:36:08] a condition on there to cover
[2:36:09] that. Do you have any sense for
[2:36:12] whether any other. Developments
[2:36:15] or buildings in the area have
[2:36:17] had concerns or have found
[2:36:22] resources? There are no known
[2:36:26] resources as far as we know.
[2:36:31] Okay. Thanks. Any other
[2:36:32] questions from the
[2:36:39] commissioners? Okay. You ready
[2:36:41] David? MR. Villalobos, are you
[2:36:43] ready for us to open it up to
[2:36:49] the public comment? I think we
[2:36:50] need to ask the applicant if
[2:36:52] they have a presentation first.
[2:36:55] Oh. The applicant. Yes. Okay.
[2:36:57] Sorry about that. I'd like to
[2:36:58] ask the applicant if you have a
[2:37:02] presentation, please. I think
[2:37:04] so, please come up and
[2:37:06] introduce yourself. Good
[2:37:07] morning CHAIRMAN Commissioners.
[2:37:09] Excuse me. I'm cold. My name is
[2:37:11] Jerry Ambrose. I'm here on
[2:37:13] behalf of apc towers. I do not
[2:37:15] have a formal presentation
[2:37:17] above and beyond what staff has
[2:37:19] presented. I think it's a very
[2:37:21] detailed, comprehensive. I'll
[2:37:23] do my best to, I guess, address
[2:37:25] your. Some. You have some
[2:37:27] comments and some questions. No
[2:37:31] particular order. You mentioned
[2:37:32] about the. A number of comments
[2:37:34] or questions about the height
[2:37:35] and the perception of the
[2:37:37] height. So to start, the
[2:37:39] proposed tower is a quarter
[2:37:41] mile, approximately a quarter
[2:37:43] mile from Calvada. So when
[2:37:45] you're looking at it from the
[2:37:46] street, it should look at it
[2:37:49] from that perspective. Also, if
[2:37:50] you've if you've been to the
[2:37:52] property, you know that from
[2:37:55] Calzada, it goes, the property
[2:37:57] kind of goes down. And then at
[2:37:59] where the house is, it goes up
[2:38:01] and then it kind of goes back
[2:38:03] down to where the site where
[2:38:05] the sites are located. Also, if
[2:38:08] you were on site and you were
[2:38:10] looking directly to where the
[2:38:11] tower is going to be located,
[2:38:14] the trees that are immediately
[2:38:17] adjacent, I mean, within about
[2:38:19] 50 to 75ft, the tallest tree
[2:38:22] right there is about 50ft high.
[2:38:25] So this would be, you know, 50,
[2:38:28] you know, again, 18ft taller
[2:38:30] than the tallest tree that's
[2:38:32] only about 70ft away. And when
[2:38:33] you're back on Calzada, if
[2:38:35] you're looking to the back of
[2:38:38] the property, that 50 foot tree
[2:38:40] is, is somewhat barely visible.
[2:38:41] If you're standing there,
[2:38:43] you're not going to say, wow,
[2:38:45] that's a 50 foot tree standing
[2:38:46] above everything else. So
[2:38:48] that's just a perspective on
[2:38:51] that. Also, I believe some of
[2:38:53] the the neighbors were
[2:38:54] questioning the validity of
[2:38:57] these photo mock ups, photo
[2:38:59] simulations. We do hire an
[2:39:01] engineering firm to do these,
[2:39:02] you know, precisely. We've had
[2:39:04] them do them for years. We've
[2:39:06] presented them to the county
[2:39:10] for years. So they they are
[2:39:14] accurate. Another question came
[2:39:16] up about, I believe, the
[2:39:17] reference or the questions
[2:39:18] about, hey, are there any
[2:39:19] existing towers? I believe
[2:39:21] you're probably asking about,
[2:39:24] hey, are there co-location
[2:39:25] opportunities in this
[2:39:28] particular case? T-Mobile is
[2:39:31] contracted with a pc towers. A
[2:39:34] pc towers is a what we refer to
[2:39:36] as a tower company that they
[2:39:38] market towers for for
[2:39:40] co-location. So because
[2:39:42] t-Mobile has an exclusive
[2:39:45] contract with a pc towers,
[2:39:47] t-Mobile is not looking or
[2:39:49] cannot co-locate with any other
[2:39:51] tower in the vicinity. So we
[2:39:53] had to look for a location
[2:39:55] where a pc could build a new
[2:39:57] tower. And again, if this gets
[2:40:00] approved, it will be marketed
[2:40:02] essentially to t-Mobile. I'm
[2:40:10] sorry. Sorry. Verizon and at&t.
[2:40:12] Also, I did read the letter.
[2:40:13] The letters that I could read
[2:40:14] or did read had an opportunity
[2:40:16] to read. There were a lot again,
[2:40:18] a lot of questions. Back to the
[2:40:20] question about views and views
[2:40:22] from essentially from private
[2:40:24] property. So when we go out and
[2:40:26] we look for for a site location,
[2:40:28] one of the factors we consider
[2:40:31] is minimizing public views. The
[2:40:33] county county code, almost
[2:40:37] every city or county code has
[2:40:39] statements or findings about
[2:40:42] minimizing views from public
[2:40:43] roadways. So in this case,
[2:40:45] again, we're we're
[2:40:47] approximately a quarter mile
[2:40:49] from from the nearest public
[2:40:52] road. So in our opinion, and as
[2:40:55] staff supports the project, we
[2:40:58] are meeting that that that goal
[2:41:01] of the county to minimize
[2:41:04] visual views or views from a
[2:41:10] public roads and excuse me also,
[2:41:12] I just have a question about
[2:41:14] the item of tabling the letters
[2:41:17] that came in late. Is there an
[2:41:19] opportunity for the person who
[2:41:21] wrote that letter to, I guess,
[2:41:23] speak, speak those concerns in
[2:41:25] public testimony today that
[2:41:28] would that way everyone can
[2:41:30] hear what they are and we can
[2:41:32] react accordingly as long as
[2:41:34] they're here. Yes. Oh, okay.
[2:41:36] Online or online. Yes. Thank
[2:41:37] you. Yeah. That's all I had.
[2:41:39] For now. I'm here to answer any
[2:41:40] additional questions you MAY
[2:41:41] have. Okay, I see Commissioner
[2:41:42] Martinez has lit up and I also
[2:41:44] have some questions, but
[2:41:45] Commissioner Martinez. Yes.
[2:41:47] Good morning. My question is in
[2:41:50] regards to the height of the
[2:41:52] tower, how is that arrived at?
[2:41:53] Is there is there a
[2:41:55] topographical geographical
[2:41:56] concerns that that dictates the
[2:41:57] height? There's a ton of
[2:41:59] different things. Yeah. All all
[2:42:01] of those combined. So t-Mobile
[2:42:03] has a what we call a
[2:42:05] significant gap in coverage, a
[2:42:07] hole in their network, and they
[2:42:08] determine the height that's
[2:42:10] needed to close. We call close
[2:42:12] that significant gap in
[2:42:14] coverage. Sometimes it's 50ft,
[2:42:16] sometimes it's. I have a
[2:42:18] project in slo County right now.
[2:42:19] It's 120ft. So it's contingent
[2:42:21] on a bunch of factors. But the
[2:42:23] idea is to close that that gap
[2:42:25] in coverage. And in this case,
[2:42:28] although it's 68ft, the
[2:42:30] antennas are a little bit lower
[2:42:31] than that. Also remember, also
[2:42:35] remember the antennas are the
[2:42:37] antennas are eight feet high.
[2:42:39] So they're tall antennas so
[2:42:41] that the center or whatever is
[2:42:43] going to be lower than the the
[2:42:47] 68ft. Okay. Thank you.
[2:42:51] Commissioner Park. I'm going to
[2:42:53] ask some questions about
[2:43:00] location, MR. Ambrose. Normally
[2:43:03] I'll see a site study and it'll
[2:43:05] address other alternatives and
[2:43:07] why they work or don't work.
[2:43:08] Yeah. That's in the staff
[2:43:10] report and it's in and it's in
[2:43:12] the it's in the electromagnetic
[2:43:14] report. It's more abbreviated
[2:43:16] than I'm used to seeing, but at
[2:43:18] least it has that. And I
[2:43:19] noticed that all of those
[2:43:21] addresses, as far as I could
[2:43:25] determine, were to the west of
[2:43:28] highway 154. They were
[2:43:29] basically all similar
[2:43:31] properties in terms of zoning,
[2:43:33] because in that what we call
[2:43:35] the heart of the Valley, it's
[2:43:37] mostly ag one. There's maybe 1
[2:43:40] or 2 ag two parcels, but it's
[2:43:41] all ag one. They're smaller.
[2:43:43] And that's probably why you got
[2:43:46] rejected is on those sites
[2:43:48] because people would say, well,
[2:43:50] I don't want it next to my
[2:43:52] house and I've got a house
[2:43:54] that's on ten acres or five
[2:43:55] acres. But I also noticed on
[2:43:57] the coverage map that a great
[2:43:59] deal of what would be improved
[2:44:01] in service is, in fact, on the
[2:44:03] east side of highway 154, where
[2:44:05] the zoning is quite different.
[2:44:07] It's all ag to much larger
[2:44:10] parcels, little hillier, and it
[2:44:15] has. Very few houses in terms
[2:44:19] of the density. And in answer
[2:44:22] to the question about the trees,
[2:44:24] there are other eucalyptus
[2:44:28] trees. They're more on the east
[2:44:31] side of 154 than the west side.
[2:44:35] They're tend to be in the huge
[2:44:37] right of way that Caltrans has
[2:44:40] or next to it. Okay, so more or
[2:44:44] less lining the highway. And
[2:44:46] but once you get into the
[2:44:47] interior of the valley, it's of
[2:44:50] course dominated by oak trees
[2:44:53] and, and as, as MR. Ambrose
[2:44:54] testified, you know, some of
[2:44:55] the really large ones, some of
[2:44:58] the, the, the valley oaks can
[2:45:00] hit 50ft high, but they don't
[2:45:02] reach the heights of the
[2:45:04] eucalyptus. So I, I believe I
[2:45:06] was not measuring them with the
[2:45:08] tape, but that there are trees
[2:45:11] of this magnitude that are
[2:45:12] eucalyptus, but they're not
[2:45:16] where this is oddly, I think
[2:45:20] the gold property. Just to the
[2:45:22] south of this property, there
[2:45:25] is one tall tree that sort of
[2:45:27] sticks out. It's a palm tree. I
[2:45:28] don't know how it got there,
[2:45:32] but it happens. So my my
[2:45:34] question for you, MR. Ambrose,
[2:45:38] is given that. An antenna on
[2:45:41] the east side would affect the
[2:45:44] same coverage area per your
[2:45:49] maps and. Could be located on
[2:45:51] on a hill instead of down in a
[2:45:55] ravine, and could be grouped
[2:45:57] with large trees of the nature
[2:46:00] of this one. Why didn't you
[2:46:02] look at alternative sites on
[2:46:05] that east side on those larger
[2:46:09] parcels? So. The way you
[2:46:10] present that is a very like a
[2:46:11] simple, you know, looking at
[2:46:13] looking at the map and say, put
[2:46:15] it here, put it there, put it.
[2:46:16] But that's it's, it's way more
[2:46:18] complicated than that. It's an
[2:46:21] engineering design. This tower
[2:46:23] also has to communicate with
[2:46:24] existing towers that are also
[2:46:28] on the map. You also have
[2:46:31] density of population needs. So
[2:46:33] this side of the highway is a
[2:46:34] lot more dense. And you
[2:46:36] probably know t-Mobile has a
[2:46:38] direct to home internet service,
[2:46:40] which means they're going to
[2:46:42] need to be close to, to where
[2:46:46] the the residences are. So if
[2:46:48] we followed that, if that were
[2:46:50] to go, let's go look on the
[2:46:52] other side of the highway. Well,
[2:46:53] then we're going to need a
[2:46:55] second tower on the west side
[2:46:56] of the highway then. Probably.
[2:46:58] So, you know, I don't know. I'm
[2:46:59] just speculating like I think
[2:47:01] you are because yeah, I know
[2:47:02] it's if it's on the east side,
[2:47:04] it's going to be on a hill. So
[2:47:05] you'll, you'll have an
[2:47:07] advantage in coverage that way.
[2:47:08] Yeah. But if it's only a few
[2:47:10] hundred yards away, it's not
[2:47:11] that simple. I'm not an
[2:47:12] engineer, but it's just not
[2:47:15] that simple. Like we can't have
[2:47:17] counties or cities dictating
[2:47:19] where towers should go based on
[2:47:22] it's, it's not like it's an
[2:47:23] engineered determination. But,
[2:47:25] you know, I think that we more
[2:47:28] or less have to approve a site
[2:47:29] somewhere. That's just how
[2:47:30] these things work out. And I've
[2:47:31] been doing this for several
[2:47:33] years, but we have some
[2:47:35] latitude on just where they are
[2:47:37] and what they look like. And,
[2:47:39] and, you know, I can look at
[2:47:40] the people in the audience, I
[2:47:42] can look at the letters and say,
[2:47:43] folks, we're going to have to
[2:47:44] approve one somewhere. That's
[2:47:46] just how it's going to work.
[2:47:48] But, but I got to do my job and
[2:47:50] ask on their behalf, understood
[2:47:53] why we couldn't revise the
[2:47:55] height or the location or
[2:47:56] whatever. And I'm familiar with
[2:47:59] the apc easement in property it
[2:48:03] has on what was the brand Kino
[2:48:10] Ranch on Foxen and, and and 154,
[2:48:12] which has a large congregation
[2:48:16] of co-located towers. So I get
[2:48:17] all that stuff, but I but I got
[2:48:19] to ask these questions and, and
[2:48:21] I've got to determine, I've got
[2:48:22] to make a finding that there's
[2:48:25] a compatibility in the
[2:48:27] neighborhood. And if no one's
[2:48:29] even asked whether one of these
[2:48:32] other sites is suitable, it's
[2:48:33] hard for me to make that
[2:48:35] finding. So that's why I asked.
[2:48:36] Understood. Yeah, totally. Okay.
[2:48:38] I appreciate your candor and
[2:48:40] thank you. Also, just a quick
[2:48:44] comment on that. So if counties
[2:48:46] and cities were dictating where,
[2:48:48] where, you know, just on a map
[2:48:49] where sites should go, there's
[2:48:51] no nothing saying that if the
[2:48:52] county thinks it should go over
[2:48:54] here now, there's other
[2:48:55] neighbors or people over here
[2:48:57] who have concerns with that
[2:48:58] location. Why don't you go back
[2:49:00] to that location? So it's a
[2:49:02] slippery slope, I guess, if it
[2:49:03] is. And that's why I think if
[2:49:05] we go to the west and we stay
[2:49:07] in the heart of the valley with
[2:49:09] all five acre and ten acre
[2:49:10] zoning, you're going to get the
[2:49:12] same answer. And and if we move
[2:49:13] it there, there's going to be
[2:49:15] people that object. But that's
[2:49:16] why I think we should look on
[2:49:18] the East side. And I think
[2:49:19] that's what the latitude of
[2:49:21] what we can do, where there are
[2:49:22] much larger parcels. Yeah.
[2:49:23] Again, our direction where they
[2:49:25] would be hidden by trees and
[2:49:26] hills. And I would think your
[2:49:27] engineers would love the fact
[2:49:30] that they're there. But this is
[2:49:32] not for us to have a dialog, an
[2:49:33] official hearing. So let's
[2:49:35] proceed. Okay. We're going to
[2:49:36] move on to Commissioner Ford's
[2:49:38] questions. And then I also have
[2:49:40] a few questions. Sure. Thanks.
[2:49:42] I just want to maybe you
[2:49:43] addressed it, but if once again,
[2:49:46] you could say why it has to be
[2:49:47] 68ft. I'm concerned about the
[2:49:50] height. So again, it's you know,
[2:49:52] there's thousands of towers
[2:49:53] right everywhere. Yes, I
[2:49:54] understand, but not in that
[2:49:56] area. It's not that high. It's
[2:49:58] all dictated by the gap in
[2:50:03] coverage, geography, trees,
[2:50:07] structures, hills. A number of
[2:50:08] different factors go into what
[2:50:09] the height is. There's towers
[2:50:11] that are 50ft. There's towers
[2:50:12] that are 45ft. I mentioned I
[2:50:15] have one in Nipomo now. It's
[2:50:18] 120ft. Based on the specifics
[2:50:21] of of the given area. I mean,
[2:50:22] there's cell sites on top of
[2:50:23] this roof that I'm guessing
[2:50:25] that's 45ft, something like
[2:50:27] that. Hi. So it's a very case
[2:50:31] by case, project specific
[2:50:34] location contingent. And that's
[2:50:36] evidence. The evidence for that
[2:50:38] is the propagation maps that
[2:50:42] show how the signal propagates.
[2:50:43] If we had a lower height, you
[2:50:45] would see that the gap in
[2:50:46] coverage would not be filled.
[2:50:48] You would still have this
[2:50:50] periphery of, you know,
[2:50:52] basically no coverage zone. And
[2:50:54] there's no point in building a
[2:50:55] tower leaving, leaving more
[2:50:57] gaps in coverage within that
[2:51:00] area. So, well, there's still
[2:51:03] even when it goes in, there'll
[2:51:05] be some zones that are not
[2:51:08] covered. Right. I'm sorry, I'm
[2:51:12] sorry. The red. Service area
[2:51:15] will not still meet the needs
[2:51:17] of every area in no. The way
[2:51:20] technology works today, you
[2:51:21] know, your coverage area is
[2:51:23] about a mile and a quarter mile
[2:51:25] and a half. That's just with
[2:51:26] the new technology, everything
[2:51:28] has to be more dense, more
[2:51:29] closer. You can't just put one
[2:51:31] tower on a hill and cover, you
[2:51:32] know, five miles anymore. It
[2:51:33] doesn't work like that. It's
[2:51:36] very, very condensed in terms
[2:51:38] of the technology and how how
[2:51:40] close the towers need to be to
[2:51:41] where the people that are being
[2:51:45] served live and work. Okay. I
[2:51:47] just think it would have been
[2:51:48] interesting to see what a 50
[2:51:50] foot tower would have covered.
[2:51:53] We we can certainly run a
[2:51:54] propagation map at a lower
[2:51:56] height and show that to to the
[2:51:58] county or to your commission.
[2:52:00] Thanks. Okay. MR. Ambrose, I
[2:52:01] have one comment relative to
[2:52:04] the 120 foot tree in Nipomo. I
[2:52:05] also know that there are lots
[2:52:07] of eucalyptus trees of that
[2:52:09] same height, so getting it to
[2:52:11] blend in with the eucalyptus
[2:52:13] eucalyptus grove is much easier
[2:52:14] than the problem that we have
[2:52:16] here in the Santa Ynez Valley.
[2:52:17] Because as the pictures had
[2:52:18] showed us, there aren't a lot
[2:52:20] of trees around it, so it's
[2:52:23] going to stand out on its own.
[2:52:25] I, I didn't quite understand
[2:52:26] something you said, so I'm just
[2:52:27] going to ask you if you could
[2:52:30] clarify for me relative to this,
[2:52:32] this location being a t mobile
[2:52:36] site, Verizon and at&t could
[2:52:39] also utilize service. Now,
[2:52:41] would they use the same pole or
[2:52:44] would they add additional poles?
[2:52:47] They. So a pc towers would
[2:52:48] market this tower. If it were
[2:52:50] approved and built, they would
[2:52:52] market it to the other carriers
[2:52:53] and the idea would be the
[2:52:55] carriers would join on to this
[2:52:56] pole. Okay, so the neighbors
[2:52:57] wouldn't have to worry about
[2:53:00] you adding two more additional
[2:53:01] poles on the same piece of
[2:53:04] property to create a three pole
[2:53:06] site. Would they correct. Yeah.
[2:53:07] The they're going to market
[2:53:09] this particular tower. And
[2:53:11] again, it's up to it's up to
[2:53:12] Verizon and at&t if they can
[2:53:14] make it work for them. If not
[2:53:15] that, they would have to go
[2:53:17] somewhere else. Our. If you'll
[2:53:19] notice, our lease area at the
[2:53:20] bottom of the tower is much
[2:53:22] larger than you're used to
[2:53:24] seeing. Yes, 30ft by 30ft. And
[2:53:26] the purpose of that is to allow
[2:53:27] other carriers equipment within
[2:53:30] that fenced area. Okay.
[2:53:32] Equipment, but not additional
[2:53:35] towers, correct? Yes. Okay.
[2:53:36] Then the last question that I
[2:53:37] have, just out of curiosity,
[2:53:39] have you met with the neighbors
[2:53:41] by any chance to get any input
[2:53:42] about what would work or what
[2:53:44] doesn't work for them? We have
[2:53:45] not met with the neighbors.
[2:53:48] Okay. And also the owner of the
[2:53:50] property is the owner of the
[2:53:51] property here, or are you just
[2:53:52] here representing them? I'm
[2:53:55] curious just because one of the
[2:53:57] letters stated that I don't
[2:53:58] owner of the property rents out
[2:54:00] the home. So if they don't live
[2:54:01] in this area, they might not
[2:54:03] have the same concerns they
[2:54:04] live in. She lives in Santa
[2:54:06] Ynez, but she does not live on
[2:54:08] the property. Correct. Okay.
[2:54:09] They've owned it for like 150
[2:54:12] years. Some some very long time.
[2:54:13] Okay. Thank you. Are there any
[2:54:15] other questions before we open
[2:54:19] up for public comment? No. Okay.
[2:54:20] Thank you. MR. Thank you.
[2:54:26] Appreciate it. MR. Villalobos.
[2:54:28] Thank you, MR. Chair. So I have
[2:54:31] one, two, four speaker slips
[2:54:33] and then one request online. So
[2:54:36] if you wanted to speak and you
[2:54:38] have a slip, just make sure it
[2:54:41] gets up here. We'll go to our
[2:54:44] in person speakers first. The
[2:54:47] first speaker will be Darren
[2:54:49] Friedman to be followed by, I
[2:54:50] believe that says Michael
[2:54:53] McConnell. And then, MR. Chair,
[2:54:54] I think before we start, we
[2:54:56] should just indicate like how
[2:54:58] much time each speaker will be
[2:55:00] receiving. Each person will
[2:55:04] receive three minutes to speak.
[2:55:07] Okay, so, MR. Friedman, if you
[2:55:12] could come to the microphone.
[2:55:14] Good morning. Thank you. My
[2:55:16] name is Darren Friedman. I live
[2:55:20] at 1475 Edison Street, which is
[2:55:22] less than half a mile from the
[2:55:23] proposed site. And I'm here to
[2:55:25] strongly oppose this case. I'd
[2:55:27] like to add, just for
[2:55:28] clarification, that because
[2:55:30] these properties are big
[2:55:32] rectangles, the perspective
[2:55:34] from Calzada, from Edison is
[2:55:35] not actually accurate because
[2:55:37] the back property line, the
[2:55:42] rear property line of both, is
[2:55:43] much closer to where the tower
[2:55:46] is. So these are literally in
[2:55:48] our backyard. I'd specifically
[2:55:50] like to address the impact on
[2:55:52] the broader neighborhood, the
[2:55:53] terrain, the open sightlines,
[2:55:54] and why the visual impact of
[2:55:56] this tower extends well beyond
[2:55:57] the properties immediately
[2:56:00] surrounding the site. I should
[2:56:01] also say, for the record, that
[2:56:03] I do have concerns about long
[2:56:05] term rf exposure, particularly
[2:56:07] when these facilities are
[2:56:09] placed near homes and families.
[2:56:10] But I understand the
[2:56:12] limitations of the county's
[2:56:14] authority in that area. And so
[2:56:15] this meeting is more about the
[2:56:17] other effects. One of the
[2:56:19] defining characteristics of
[2:56:21] this area is its openness, the
[2:56:23] terrain and relatively low
[2:56:24] density of development create
[2:56:26] long, uninterrupted views from
[2:56:28] across the valley. Many of us,
[2:56:30] including me, moved to the
[2:56:33] valley from la or other cities
[2:56:36] expressly for this reason, from
[2:56:38] my property, I have a direct
[2:56:40] and open rural sightline
[2:56:41] towards the proposed site.
[2:56:43] There simply are not any
[2:56:44] buildings or any other
[2:56:46] structures or trees between us
[2:56:48] that would meaningful screen
[2:56:50] something of this height.
[2:56:51] That's why I believe the
[2:56:52] Commission needs to look well
[2:56:54] beyond the immediate Calzada
[2:56:56] area when evaluating the visual
[2:56:58] impact. A 68 foot structure
[2:57:00] does not stop affecting the
[2:57:02] landscape at the property line.
[2:57:03] Because of the terrain and the
[2:57:05] open sightlines, its visual
[2:57:07] footprint potentially extends
[2:57:09] well beyond to the existing
[2:57:11] community. My concern is that
[2:57:12] the the record before you does
[2:57:13] not adequately demonstrate the
[2:57:16] broader impact. I've not seen
[2:57:19] objective elevations,
[2:57:21] topographic sightline analysis,
[2:57:23] or accurate visual simulations
[2:57:25] like a balloon test that would
[2:57:26] show what this would actually
[2:57:29] look like from Edison. I
[2:57:31] brought a photograph, or I sent
[2:57:33] in a photograph via email of my
[2:57:35] property, looking directly
[2:57:37] towards the proposed area. What
[2:57:40] it shows, essentially, is that
[2:57:41] what we value about living here
[2:57:44] open land, mature properties,
[2:57:47] mountains and sky. Period. Our
[2:57:49] community is asking a very fair
[2:57:51] and serious question as to
[2:57:53] whether this particular
[2:57:55] location at this particular
[2:57:56] height and scale is appropriate,
[2:57:59] and whether a less intrusive
[2:58:01] location or design or height
[2:58:03] have truly been evaluated.
[2:58:04] Sandy and Sandy remains special
[2:58:05] because we've been careful
[2:58:07] about what we put into this
[2:58:09] landscape. Once a structure of
[2:58:10] this scale enters a rural site
[2:58:12] line that changes effectively,
[2:58:14] permanent, and as the gentleman
[2:58:15] said, they will lease this to
[2:58:17] other companies. And this will
[2:58:18] continue forward. In closing,
[2:58:20] because our agenda item was
[2:58:22] moved back to the end of the
[2:58:23] day, I've had the opportunity
[2:58:25] to listen to the Commission
[2:58:26] carefully, consider and
[2:58:28] deliberate relatively minor
[2:58:30] changes to properties such as a
[2:58:33] horse arena, an agricultural
[2:58:34] setback. We're discussing how
[2:58:38] the construction of a 60 foot
[2:58:39] telecommunications tower in our
[2:58:42] literal backyard will affect us.
[2:58:44] Let's just keep that in
[2:58:47] perspective. Thank you, thank
[2:58:51] you. Moving on to our next
[2:58:53] speaker. Again, I believe it
[2:58:54] says Michael McConnell to be
[2:58:57] followed by Tom McConnell. And
[2:59:05] then Kirsten Muster. And then.
[2:59:09] Next. Come on. Thank you so
[2:59:15] much. Good morning. My name is
[2:59:16] Michael McConnell. My family
[2:59:18] owns property on Calzada Avenue
[2:59:21] near the proposed site. I want
[2:59:22] to pick up on a point that
[2:59:23] Commissioner Martinez mentioned
[2:59:26] this morning about the the
[2:59:28] mammoth case or matter. The
[2:59:30] commissioner discussed the
[2:59:31] significance of neighboring
[2:59:32] property owners having been
[2:59:34] notified and not showing up to
[2:59:36] oppose or appeal the project.
[2:59:38] Our situation is very different.
[2:59:41] We did show up. We are showing
[2:59:46] up. We're here. 25 neighboring
[2:59:47] households are now represented
[2:59:49] in opposition to the cell tower.
[2:59:51] We informally pulled them
[2:59:52] yesterday and asked whether
[2:59:53] they had received notice from
[2:59:56] the county. Only two of those
[2:59:57] 25 households reported
[3:00:00] receiving direct county notice.
[3:00:01] The others learned about this
[3:00:02] product through neighbors or
[3:00:04] community outreach, and once
[3:00:05] they learned what was being
[3:00:07] proposed, they became engaged
[3:00:09] and opposed it. Some are here
[3:00:11] in person today. Some are
[3:00:12] participating by Zoom. Others
[3:00:14] who could not attend have
[3:00:16] submitted their opposition. If
[3:00:19] the neighbors here today are in
[3:00:19] opposition to this project,
[3:00:25] would you please stand up?
[3:00:28] Thank you. I'd also note that
[3:00:30] this this item was originally
[3:00:31] scheduled first on the standard
[3:00:33] agenda and was moved to the end
[3:00:34] of this morning. Some neighbors
[3:00:36] who intended to participate MAY
[3:00:38] not have been able to stay and
[3:00:41] remain for this additional time,
[3:00:43] but the important number isn't
[3:00:44] simply how many people are
[3:00:46] still in this room. 25
[3:00:47] neighboring households are now
[3:00:48] represented in opposition to
[3:00:50] this project, and only two of
[3:00:51] those households reported
[3:00:52] receiving something from the
[3:00:54] county. I want to be clear, I'm
[3:00:55] not alleging that the county
[3:00:57] failed to comply with its legal
[3:00:59] noticing requirements. This is
[3:01:02] an 8110 rural area character
[3:01:04] buys large parcels, a 300 foot
[3:01:06] notification radius, therefore
[3:01:08] reaches remarkably few property
[3:01:09] owners. That could be a
[3:01:11] property and a half. And just
[3:01:15] just very few people. And what
[3:01:16] happened here demonstrates
[3:01:17] exactly why this this
[3:01:19] distinction matters. Once
[3:01:20] neighbors beyond the immediate
[3:01:21] notification area learned of
[3:01:23] this project, they showed up.
[3:01:26] So I respectfully, respectfully
[3:01:28] ask the Commission not to
[3:01:30] interpret the initial limited
[3:01:31] response from surrounding
[3:01:33] residents as community
[3:01:34] acceptance. The contrast with
[3:01:36] the matter you considered
[3:01:38] earlier today is important.
[3:01:39] There you discussed how
[3:01:41] neighbors who were notified and
[3:01:43] did not show up to oppose the
[3:01:45] project here. Once the broader
[3:01:46] neighboring community learned
[3:01:48] about this project, we did show
[3:01:51] up. We are here, we are opposed,
[3:01:53] and we respectfully ask you to
[3:01:55] not deny this case. Thank you
[3:02:00] so much. Thank you. Our next
[3:02:02] speaker will be Tom McConnell,
[3:02:05] to be followed by Kirsten
[3:02:20] Messer. Good morning. My name
[3:02:22] is Tom McConnell. And myself
[3:02:24] and my family own three
[3:02:26] properties on Calzada Avenue.
[3:02:29] We've been there 38 years. It's
[3:02:31] 1540 calls out of 1568 calls
[3:02:34] out and 1590 calls out of. We
[3:02:38] are one property south of the
[3:02:41] cell tower site. Proposed site.
[3:02:44] But I do realize that what I am
[3:02:47] focusing on on my. My comments
[3:02:50] today are just the rf emissions
[3:02:51] that can come from cell tower
[3:02:54] like this and ongoing
[3:02:55] compliance, and I know that I
[3:02:58] have significant concerns about
[3:02:59] potential health effects of
[3:03:02] long term rf exposure from a
[3:03:03] telecommunications facility
[3:03:05] located near homes and families
[3:03:07] in our community. But I also
[3:03:09] understand the federal law that
[3:03:11] substantially limits what this
[3:03:12] Commission can consider
[3:03:13] regarding the environmental
[3:03:15] effects of rf emissions. When a
[3:03:18] wireless facility complies with
[3:03:21] the fca sorry fcc standards,
[3:03:23] but that raises an important,
[3:03:25] very practical question who
[3:03:26] verifies that the facility
[3:03:28] actually complies after it's
[3:03:31] built and operating? If fcc
[3:03:32] compliance is the legal line
[3:03:35] that limits this commission's
[3:03:37] consideration of rf concerns,
[3:03:39] then actual compliance should
[3:03:41] not simply be presumed, it
[3:03:43] should be independently
[3:03:46] measured and continually
[3:03:47] enforceable. There's an
[3:03:49] important distinction between
[3:03:52] predicted compliance before a
[3:03:53] construction, and measured
[3:03:55] compliance afterwards before a
[3:03:57] facility exists. Compliance
[3:03:58] necessarily relies on
[3:04:00] engineering calculations and
[3:04:02] assumptions about antennas,
[3:04:03] equipment, power levels and
[3:04:06] operating conditions. Once a
[3:04:07] facility is actually operating,
[3:04:09] however, actual rf level levels
[3:04:11] can be measured, and Santa
[3:04:13] Barbara County's own wireless
[3:04:15] regulations provide mechanisms
[3:04:17] for doing exactly that. The
[3:04:19] county ordinance allows permit
[3:04:20] conditions requiring rf field
[3:04:23] testing after installation by a
[3:04:25] qualified professional,
[3:04:26] acceptable to the county and
[3:04:28] independent of the Permittee.
[3:04:30] It also provides for continued
[3:04:32] compliance, testing and
[3:04:34] enforcement, if applicable.
[3:04:36] Applicable standards are
[3:04:38] exceeded. That is particularly
[3:04:39] important here because this
[3:04:41] facility is also completed
[3:04:43] contemplated for future
[3:04:45] co-location. The equipment and
[3:04:46] operating configuration MAY
[3:04:47] therefore change during the
[3:04:49] life of this facility.
[3:04:51] Compliance should be ongoing
[3:04:53] and ongoing obligation, not
[3:04:55] simply a calculation made when
[3:04:57] the project is approved. So, if
[3:04:59] this commission ultimately
[3:05:01] approves this project, which I
[3:05:03] hope you do not, I respectfully
[3:05:05] request that you impose the
[3:05:06] strongest permissible rf
[3:05:08] compliance conditions available
[3:05:10] under the county ordinance.
[3:05:11] Specifically, I asked for
[3:05:13] independent Post-installation
[3:05:15] rf field testing. Once the
[3:05:17] facility is operational,
[3:05:19] periodic independent compliance
[3:05:20] testing at an interval
[3:05:22] established by the county.
[3:05:24] Additional testing following
[3:05:26] applicable equipment, power,
[3:05:28] antenna or co-location changes
[3:05:29] and, where appropriate, actual
[3:05:31] measurements in nearby
[3:05:33] inhabited areas so that
[3:05:34] compliance reflects what
[3:05:35] neighboring residents are
[3:05:38] actually exposed to, not merely
[3:05:40] what was predicted on paper.
[3:05:42] And if the actual measurements
[3:05:43] demonstrate that the facility
[3:05:46] exceeds applicable federal rf
[3:05:47] standards, the county's
[3:05:48] enforcement provisions should
[3:05:50] be used, including cessation of
[3:05:53] commercial operation, until the
[3:05:55] facility is brought back into
[3:05:56] compliance. I want to be clear
[3:05:59] about what I'm asking. I'm not
[3:06:00] asking this commission to
[3:06:02] resolve the larger scientific
[3:06:05] debate surrounding long term rf
[3:06:06] exposure. I'm asking for
[3:06:07] something much more
[3:06:09] straightforward. If compliance
[3:06:11] with fcc limits in is the
[3:06:12] standard upon which this
[3:06:14] facility is allowed to operate,
[3:06:16] then verify that compliance
[3:06:18] after it begins operating and
[3:06:20] continue verifying it as a
[3:06:21] facility. Facility changes over
[3:06:24] time. If the project is denied,
[3:06:26] this issue becomes moot and a
[3:06:27] lot of my neighbors will be
[3:06:29] very happy. MR. McConnell,
[3:06:31] we're going to have to ask you
[3:06:32] to wrap it up, please. Okay. If
[3:06:34] you approve it, please make
[3:06:34] independent measurements and
[3:06:36] continuing rf compliance
[3:06:38] explicit with enforceable
[3:06:40] conditions of that approval.
[3:06:41] Thank you very much. Thank you,
[3:06:48] thank you. So we have three
[3:06:50] additional speakers in house,
[3:06:51] and then we'll go to our online
[3:06:53] speaker. Our next speaker is
[3:06:56] Kirsten Muster, to be followed
[3:06:58] by Jim Rodemaker. I believe
[3:07:00] that is. And then Matt McKinney.
[3:07:02] And then we'll move on to our
[3:07:05] online speaker after that. Good
[3:07:06] morning. My name is Kirsten. I
[3:07:09] live at 1627 Castle Avenue, and
[3:07:11] we purchased our home there 15
[3:07:13] years ago. And that is we plan
[3:07:15] on that being our forever home.
[3:07:18] I am opposed to this cell tower.
[3:07:20] I'm worried about our property
[3:07:23] values going down, and I'm also
[3:07:24] worried about the health of the
[3:07:29] long term radiation. Children
[3:07:31] absorb. Higher rates of cell
[3:07:32] tower radiation, are
[3:07:34] biologically more vulnerable to
[3:07:35] the rf radiation emitted by
[3:07:37] cell towers, a fact that has
[3:07:38] been long acknowledged by
[3:07:42] medical authorities. And I have
[3:07:43] children and I'm concerned
[3:07:46] about their health. Thank you,
[3:07:53] thank you. Jim Rodemaker to be
[3:08:03] followed by Matt McKinney.
[3:08:07] Thank you for your time. To my
[3:08:10] residents. 1637 Calzada was not
[3:08:13] provided with notice. We share
[3:08:16] an easement that follows
[3:08:18] clearly within the purview of
[3:08:20] and scope. Other neighbors were
[3:08:22] provided with. Notice we
[3:08:24] haven't had an adequate
[3:08:26] opportunity to investigate all
[3:08:28] of this. We asked for
[3:08:31] additional time in that regard.
[3:08:33] As far as the esthetics of the
[3:08:35] project are concerned, they're
[3:08:37] not palatable to myself nor my
[3:08:39] neighbors. We are concerned
[3:08:43] about environmental impacts,
[3:08:45] ecological, Geographic, so on
[3:08:47] and so forth. And we don't feel
[3:08:48] that a sufficient amount of
[3:08:50] studies have been performed,
[3:08:51] nor have they been provided to
[3:08:54] us to date due to the defective
[3:08:57] notice provided of this matter.
[3:08:59] So I have nothing further at
[3:09:14] this time. Thank you. How you
[3:09:16] doing? How you doing? My name
[3:09:19] is Matt McKinney and a little
[3:09:23] taller. Adjust this here. My
[3:09:25] mother, Leanne McKinney and I.
[3:09:27] Or I'm representing my mom. But
[3:09:28] we moved to the Santa Ynez
[3:09:31] Valley 32 years ago, and we
[3:09:33] specifically moved from
[3:09:35] Woodland Hills to escape Los
[3:09:39] Angeles. And many of the
[3:09:43] commercial and just big city
[3:09:46] life and look and feel. And
[3:09:48] Santa Ynez Valley has been such
[3:09:50] an incredible place to move to
[3:09:53] that is so special to us. And
[3:09:55] we didn't know about this as
[3:09:57] well. If it wasn't for Michael
[3:09:59] McConnell, I wouldn't have
[3:10:01] known. And my mom and I are
[3:10:03] very opposed to the cell tower
[3:10:07] going in from a natural scenic
[3:10:10] beauty standpoint. And also the
[3:10:13] emf concern to our health. And
[3:10:15] yeah, we are strongly opposed.
[3:10:19] Thank you very much. Thank you.
[3:10:23] That's okay. And now we go to
[3:10:26] our online speaker, Kelly
[3:10:32] McConnell. MR. McConnell, you
[3:10:35] have to unmute yourself. Can
[3:10:37] you hear me? Your little your
[3:10:40] little light? Can you hear me
[3:10:42] better now? Can you get a
[3:10:43] little bit closer to your mic,
[3:10:45] please? Sure, sure. Let me try
[3:10:56] a headset. Just one second. Is
[3:10:58] that any better? Much better.
[3:11:01] Okay. My name is Kelly
[3:11:03] McConnell. My family owns three
[3:11:05] properties on Calzada Avenue,
[3:11:06] immediately south of this
[3:11:08] project, I submitted extensive
[3:11:09] written comments and
[3:11:11] photographs. So I'm just going
[3:11:12] to focus on what we've learned
[3:11:14] in this hearing today. I think
[3:11:16] today's testimony has actually
[3:11:17] raised more questions about
[3:11:18] whether the required
[3:11:20] compatibility finding can be
[3:11:22] made, not fewer. We learn from
[3:11:23] the applicant that the tallest
[3:11:24] tree immediately adjacent to
[3:11:26] the proposed facility is
[3:11:29] approximately 50ft tall. This
[3:11:31] faux eucalyptus would be 68ft
[3:11:34] tall, approximately 18ft taller
[3:11:35] than the very trees it is
[3:11:37] supposedly intended to blend
[3:11:39] with. We also heard
[3:11:40] Commissioner Park identify an
[3:11:42] entirely different area east of
[3:11:44] highway 154, with larger
[3:11:46] parcels, different topography,
[3:11:47] fewer residences, and
[3:11:48] substantial eucalyptus trees
[3:11:51] that apparently was not
[3:11:52] evaluated evaluated in the
[3:11:53] applicant's alternative
[3:11:55] analysis, Commissioner Park
[3:11:57] made the issue very clear if
[3:11:58] potentially suitable
[3:11:59] alternatives haven't even been
[3:12:01] evaluated, how can you make the
[3:12:03] required finding that this
[3:12:05] location is compatible? And we
[3:12:06] learned something else today
[3:12:08] that I think deserves careful
[3:12:09] consideration. The applicant
[3:12:11] testified that t mobile cannot
[3:12:12] co-locate on certain other
[3:12:14] existing infrastructure because
[3:12:16] of its exclusive contractual
[3:12:19] relationship with apc towers. I
[3:12:20] respectfully ask you to
[3:12:21] distinguish between an
[3:12:23] alternative that is technically
[3:12:25] infeasible and an alternative
[3:12:26] that wasn't pursued because of
[3:12:28] a private, contractual or
[3:12:30] leasing restriction. Those are
[3:12:32] not the same thing. Then
[3:12:32] there's the fundamental
[3:12:34] question of height.
[3:12:35] Commissioner. Commissioner Ford
[3:12:37] asked what coverage a lower
[3:12:39] height tower would provide. The
[3:12:40] applicant told us that they can
[3:12:42] run a propagation map at a
[3:12:43] lower height and provide it to
[3:12:45] this commission. My question is
[3:12:47] very simple why wasn't that
[3:12:48] done before asking you to
[3:12:51] approve 68ft. A 50ft won't work.
[3:12:53] Show us if 60ft won't work.
[3:12:55] Show us. But please don't
[3:12:57] assume that 68ft is necessary.
[3:12:59] 68ft is necessary. When the
[3:13:00] applicant has acknowledged
[3:13:02] today that the comparative
[3:13:03] evidence can actually be
[3:13:05] produced. And finally, we don't
[3:13:06] need to speculate about what
[3:13:07] the 68ft will actually look
[3:13:09] like in this landscape. Put a
[3:13:12] balloon crane mounted marker or
[3:13:14] equivalent full height
[3:13:15] demonstration at the actual
[3:13:17] proposed location. I spoke
[3:13:18] directly with property owner
[3:13:19] Anne Twig this week. We had a
[3:13:21] very respectful conversation,
[3:13:22] and she told me she would
[3:13:24] support a balloon test herself
[3:13:26] and in fact said she would
[3:13:28] communicate that to MR. Ambrose.
[3:13:29] Think about that for a moment.
[3:13:30] The neighbors want to see it.
[3:13:32] The property owner is willing
[3:13:33] to do it. And multiple
[3:13:34] commissioners today have
[3:13:36] expressed concern about the
[3:13:37] height. If the applicant
[3:13:38] simulations accurately show
[3:13:41] that the 68 foot structure will
[3:13:42] blend into the landscape, a
[3:13:43] full height demonstration
[3:13:45] should confirm them. If it
[3:13:47] doesn't, we all deserve to know
[3:13:50] that before, not after, and
[3:13:51] especially before you make a
[3:13:53] decision. A permanent land use
[3:13:55] decision. I respectfully ask
[3:13:59] you to deny a case 2500023. If
[3:14:00] you're not prepared to deny it
[3:14:01] today, then please continue
[3:14:03] this matter rather than approve
[3:14:04] it. There's no reason to guess
[3:14:05] when the unanswered questions
[3:14:07] identified in this very hearing
[3:14:08] can be answered. Run the lower
[3:14:10] height propagation analysis.
[3:14:11] Evaluate the additional
[3:14:13] alternatives Commissioner Park
[3:14:14] identified, and show us what
[3:14:16] 68ft actually looks like at
[3:14:17] this location. Then make your
[3:14:19] decision on a complete record.
[3:14:20] We are all opposed. The fact
[3:14:23] that we have 25 landowners who
[3:14:25] are vehemently opposed to this
[3:14:28] should speak volumes. Thank you,
[3:14:34] thank you. So I would like to
[3:14:36] ask staff if there's any
[3:14:43] rebuttals. Oh, sorry, did we
[3:14:46] MISS You? I was not aware. I
[3:14:48] didn't read it in the letter
[3:14:50] that I needed to submit. I had
[3:14:51] submitted a letter. My name is
[3:14:52] Elizabeth McGovern. I feel like
[3:14:54] I had to also submit. Okay,
[3:14:56] well, please go ahead. Come up
[3:14:57] to the microphone so that we
[3:14:59] can so that everybody can hear
[3:15:02] you. Thank you. I have no
[3:15:03] opposition to giving you three
[3:15:04] minutes to speak, so thank you.
[3:15:07] Thank you very much. My name is
[3:15:09] Elizabeth McGovern. I live at
[3:15:12] 1680 Calzada, which is on slide
[3:15:14] nine. I believe it's basically
[3:15:16] that photo is taken from
[3:15:19] Calzada facing my house, and
[3:15:20] the installation will be right
[3:15:22] next to my house because my
[3:15:24] house is at the end of my
[3:15:25] property, the same location
[3:15:27] that tower is going to be put
[3:15:30] on. So I want to address, oh, I
[3:15:32] want to address property
[3:15:34] devaluation for all of those
[3:15:36] around us in this cell tower
[3:15:39] zone. I work in a family
[3:15:40] business. I'm in real estate,
[3:15:41] and I understand about
[3:15:44] enhancing property values and
[3:15:45] diminishing property values.
[3:15:49] And if you put a 68 foot tall
[3:15:50] telecommunications tower right
[3:15:52] there, it is going to diminish
[3:15:54] my property greatly. There's a
[3:15:57] real question of buyer
[3:15:58] perception, the fear of what
[3:16:02] that tower will do, property
[3:16:03] desirability and marketability.
[3:16:05] And when a property is listed,
[3:16:06] it falls under California's
[3:16:09] broader disclosure law, it
[3:16:11] states sellers must disclose
[3:16:13] known facts that materially
[3:16:16] affect the value or
[3:16:17] desirability of the property.
[3:16:20] It further states in regards to
[3:16:23] a tower, if it is clearly
[3:16:25] visible from the home, close to
[3:16:28] the home, affects the view,
[3:16:30] creates equipment or generator
[3:16:33] noise. Those are four questions
[3:16:35] that I believe I will have to
[3:16:37] say yes to that, and I will
[3:16:38] have to disclose that when I
[3:16:40] sell my property. If I put my
[3:16:42] property on the market,
[3:16:44] potential buyers will ask, what
[3:16:47] are the emissions, how much
[3:16:50] radio frequency rf can a body
[3:16:52] sustain? We have the Federal
[3:16:54] Communications Board mandating
[3:16:56] what's acceptable, but they do
[3:16:57] have a cap on those emissions.
[3:16:59] So this will lead me to believe
[3:17:01] that there are negative effects.
[3:17:02] And the commission believes
[3:17:04] this, and that's why they put a
[3:17:06] cap on these emissions. Next, I
[3:17:10] ask, how many of you in this
[3:17:12] room would be willing to
[3:17:14] purchase a house right next to
[3:17:18] a 68 foot tall eucalyptus tree
[3:17:20] that's camouflaging a
[3:17:21] telecommunications tower? I
[3:17:23] wouldn't I wouldn't subject my
[3:17:25] children to it or my family. So
[3:17:27] that's going to affect my sale
[3:17:30] price. It's going to affect the
[3:17:32] purchase pool. I spoke to a
[3:17:35] broker. He said you can look at
[3:17:37] 2 to 20% reduction in purchase
[3:17:39] price when you are next to a
[3:17:41] tower. He said that that
[3:17:43] percentage is based off of the
[3:17:44] response to those four
[3:17:47] questions. So I understand
[3:17:49] t-Mobile needs to put a tower
[3:17:51] in, but I request that they put
[3:17:54] it into an area that is more
[3:17:55] commercial. I think you have a
[3:17:57] great idea, you know, put it to
[3:17:59] on the other side of the 154
[3:18:00] where the the properties are
[3:18:02] bigger. You have numerous
[3:18:04] people around there. That's all
[3:18:06] I need. Thank you so much for
[3:18:08] your time. And so can I please
[3:18:09] ask the speaker to submit a
[3:18:10] speaker slip before you leave
[3:18:12] today? Sorry. Could you please
[3:18:13] fill out and submit a speaker
[3:18:15] slip before you leave today?
[3:18:20] Yes. Thank you. And I believe
[3:18:22] that is our last speaker. Okay.
[3:18:24] Thank you very much. To all of
[3:18:26] the speakers. I'd like to ask
[3:18:28] if there's a rebuttal from the
[3:18:32] county staff. Thank you,
[3:18:33] chairperson Guy Francisco
[3:18:34] County planning. So I'm going
[3:18:36] to try and provide a brief
[3:18:38] response to most of the
[3:18:41] comments that we received. I'll
[3:18:45] start off with the the notices.
[3:18:46] So we do send out notices at
[3:18:48] two different stages of these
[3:18:50] types of projects, including a
[3:18:51] completeness notice that was
[3:18:53] sent out to neighbors within
[3:18:56] 300ft back in JUNE of this year.
[3:18:58] And then we also send a follow
[3:19:02] up notice. You know, prior to
[3:19:03] hearing. So that's also sent
[3:19:05] out to neighbors within 300ft.
[3:19:07] And we included both the
[3:19:09] occupants and the owners of
[3:19:12] each property within 300ft. As
[3:19:14] far as the question about how a
[3:19:15] fake eucalyptus tree is
[3:19:17] compatible and the esthetics of
[3:19:18] it, the short answer is the
[3:19:19] county does not have specific
[3:19:22] design standards for Fox for
[3:19:24] faux towers. Therefore,
[3:19:25] compatibility is very
[3:19:28] subjective and up to discretion
[3:19:31] by the commissioners today. In
[3:19:33] this particular case, staff
[3:19:34] considered the rural setting
[3:19:36] and other large trees in the
[3:19:38] general area as a basis for
[3:19:41] compatibility. And there was a
[3:19:42] lot of questions about the rf
[3:19:45] report. So the short answer is
[3:19:47] the rf reports are prepared by
[3:19:50] a third third party consultant.
[3:19:52] They required for all telecom
[3:19:54] projects. Upon receipt of those,
[3:19:55] you know, we review them to
[3:19:58] make sure to confirm what sort
[3:19:59] of mitigations or
[3:20:01] recommendations are being
[3:20:03] recommended by that third party.
[3:20:06] We do also condition projects
[3:20:09] such as this telecom project to
[3:20:11] condition compliance. So there
[3:20:13] is regular monitoring and site
[3:20:16] visits from our county staff,
[3:20:17] making sure that equipment is
[3:20:18] running appropriately. It still
[3:20:20] looks, you know, the way we
[3:20:22] approved it. So that's, you
[3:20:23] know, for the life of the
[3:20:26] project that continues. There
[3:20:28] was a question about, you know,
[3:20:30] private views. As you MAY be
[3:20:32] aware, we don't protect private
[3:20:35] views. We evaluate public views
[3:20:37] such as those that I showed on
[3:20:40] my slides from Carlsbad Avenue,
[3:20:45] highway 154, etc. And I believe
[3:20:47] that I try to cover everything.
[3:20:49] Let me know if you have any
[3:20:50] other questions. Thank you. I
[3:20:52] just want to add one more thing.
[3:20:53] Thank you Francisco. That's
[3:20:56] good. To add on to what he said
[3:20:58] about no design standards. You
[3:21:00] know, the department leans on
[3:21:02] the bars when we do not have
[3:21:04] design standards. So this is a
[3:21:06] project that did go to the bar.
[3:21:09] I believe that they recommended
[3:21:11] the design. And so that's how
[3:21:12] this got to where it is. I just
[3:21:15] wanted to add that information.
[3:21:16] Thank you. I do have one
[3:21:20] question relative to the 300ft.
[3:21:21] Looking at the size of the
[3:21:24] properties around this piece of
[3:21:26] property, it MAY very well just
[3:21:27] have been that the neighbors
[3:21:29] that have property lines that
[3:21:30] touch this property might have
[3:21:32] been the only ones notified.
[3:21:34] And the case when we're dealing
[3:21:36] with much more rural areas, do
[3:21:38] we have an allowable to go
[3:21:45] outside of the 300ft? Chair guy
[3:21:48] to to clarify, we looked at how
[3:21:49] many notices were sent out for
[3:21:51] this, and there were 24
[3:21:52] different properties that were
[3:21:55] within the buffer area. And as
[3:21:57] Francisco mentioned, two
[3:21:58] separate notices were mailed
[3:22:00] for each of those 24 sites, one
[3:22:02] to the site itself. So that's
[3:22:05] for the occupant and one to the
[3:22:06] mailing address. And that's a
[3:22:07] mailing address that we have
[3:22:09] from the county assessor
[3:22:12] records. The county can send
[3:22:15] out additional notices that are
[3:22:17] for a larger buffer area. In
[3:22:20] this case, we did also email
[3:22:22] notice as a courtesy to
[3:22:23] interested parties who had
[3:22:26] reached out to us. Well thank
[3:22:28] you. 24 is greater than what I
[3:22:30] had understood, so thank you
[3:22:31] for that. Also, was there a
[3:22:33] sign put out at the property
[3:22:34] showing that there was
[3:22:36] something that was going to
[3:22:37] happen? I mean, driver's by,
[3:22:41] would they have seen a sign?
[3:22:42] Chairperson guy yes, there is
[3:22:43] signage and it's required to
[3:22:46] stay up during the review
[3:22:47] process. So it should still be
[3:22:51] up today. Okay. Thank you, I
[3:22:55] appreciate that. Any questions
[3:22:59] from the commissioners?
[3:23:00] Commissioner Americana thank
[3:23:03] you. A couple of questions for
[3:23:07] staff. You mentioned that the
[3:23:09] county will, on occasion
[3:23:13] monitor compliance for cell
[3:23:15] phone towers or other
[3:23:17] installations. So first, let me
[3:23:19] ask county counsel, do the
[3:23:22] federal regulations allow a
[3:23:24] local jurisdiction to monitor
[3:23:27] and then enforce federal
[3:23:34] standards for rf propagation?
[3:23:36] Chair Guy Commissioner. Mayor
[3:23:41] Connor, to the extent that our
[3:23:43] requirements are consistent
[3:23:45] with the fcc limits, yes, I
[3:23:47] believe we would be able to.
[3:23:50] And that's reflected in the
[3:23:51] conditions of approval. When
[3:23:54] you review the the compliance
[3:23:57] monitoring condition. And do we
[3:23:58] have the follow on question?
[3:24:00] I'm glad to hear that, by the
[3:24:02] way. But the follow on question
[3:24:04] is, do we have the equipment or
[3:24:07] the contractors available to us
[3:24:10] to do this kind of compliance
[3:24:13] monitoring of rf emissions? And
[3:24:15] have we done it before with
[3:24:16] other kinds of cell phone
[3:24:20] towers? Francisco County
[3:24:22] planning here. Yes. Our permit
[3:24:24] compliance staff does have the
[3:24:25] equipment to go out to the
[3:24:29] sites and verify compliance.
[3:24:30] And the experience in using the
[3:24:32] equipment, obviously, and I
[3:24:35] want to add to that that as you
[3:24:36] can see in the condition of
[3:24:38] approval, I'm looking at the
[3:24:40] condition numbers here. It's
[3:24:43] condition number 13. It's our
[3:24:46] standard condition Tel oh eight.
[3:24:49] Fcc compliance that the
[3:24:52] operator is required to provide
[3:24:55] regular testing results to
[3:24:56] compliance staff. They're also
[3:24:59] required to provide testing
[3:25:01] after everything is installed
[3:25:05] to confirm that it matches the
[3:25:06] compliance report that was
[3:25:08] received prior to decision
[3:25:10] maker action. And what's the
[3:25:12] frequency of the rf testing
[3:25:14] after the cell phone tower has
[3:25:16] been installed and is
[3:25:19] operational? I'm going to
[3:25:26] review the condition here. I
[3:25:31] interject here so the the
[3:25:34] federal requirements there, the
[3:25:35] reporting is required at least
[3:25:37] every five years unless it's
[3:25:40] deemed necessary to be more or
[3:25:42] I guess sooner by permanent
[3:25:44] compliance staff. But it's a
[3:25:45] minimum of five years every
[3:25:49] five years. That's that's the
[3:25:52] federal standard. Does our
[3:25:54] condition impose a frequency
[3:25:55] requirement? Does it say
[3:25:57] anything about how often there
[3:26:01] will be a test of rf emissions?
[3:26:03] Yes, the condition does. I just
[3:26:06] add it here every five years
[3:26:07] following the initial
[3:26:11] installation verification. Okay.
[3:26:12] If we wanted to make that every
[3:26:24] three years, could we do it?
[3:26:25] We'd have commissioners. We'd
[3:26:26] have to check and see if
[3:26:28] there's any limit from on the
[3:26:30] federal level to doing that.
[3:26:32] Okay? Okay. All right. And then
[3:26:35] I want to switch subjects to
[3:26:38] the view impacts of the project.
[3:26:40] And I think staff touched on
[3:26:42] this when you said that the
[3:26:46] county. Looks at the view
[3:26:49] impacts from public property,
[3:26:51] not private property. Did I
[3:26:52] understand you to say that? Did
[3:26:55] I understand that correctly?
[3:26:56] Commissioner? Mayor Connor
[3:26:57] through the chair Yes, that is
[3:26:59] our standard. We evaluate
[3:27:03] public views, Viewsheds and the
[3:27:05] county's standards. The land
[3:27:07] use standards require that the
[3:27:08] county or the Commission look
[3:27:11] at the impacts from public
[3:27:13] property, streets, highways,
[3:27:15] that sort of thing. Is that
[3:27:17] right? That's correct. Okay.
[3:27:20] The fact that a tower might
[3:27:22] have an impact on private
[3:27:23] property. And one of our
[3:27:25] speakers spoke about having a
[3:27:28] house on a nearby property and
[3:27:31] was worried about the impact of
[3:27:33] the view from her house. Is
[3:27:35] that something that the county
[3:27:36] can consider? And deciding
[3:27:38] whether or not this is an
[3:27:41] appropriate project? Yeah,
[3:27:42] commissioners, I will I will
[3:27:45] say this to you, this is a Cup
[3:27:47] and you have broad discretion
[3:27:50] in terms of cup compatibility
[3:27:52] findings, in terms of specific
[3:27:54] standards for private views, we
[3:27:56] do not have that. But you do
[3:27:58] have the ability to look at the
[3:28:02] Cup findings and really take
[3:28:03] the project as a whole.
[3:28:06] Comments. Everything with the
[3:28:07] cup and compatibility, and you
[3:28:11] have broad discretion. Okay.
[3:28:21] Thank you. Commissioner Park.
[3:28:25] So in other words, if we're
[3:28:26] applying some of our county
[3:28:29] view policies or sign
[3:28:30] ordinances and all the
[3:28:33] different things where we look
[3:28:34] to what we can see from the
[3:28:40] public road. We wouldn't
[3:28:41] discuss public private views,
[3:28:43] but if we're applying the broad
[3:28:45] discretion, we have to
[3:28:46] determine whether this is
[3:28:47] compatible with the
[3:28:48] neighborhood. And I'm
[3:28:52] oversimplifying what finding
[3:28:54] 2.185 says, or 115, whatever it
[3:28:56] is, we can in fact include
[3:28:59] those and and so many other
[3:29:00] things as long as we're acting
[3:29:02] in good faith. Correct.
[3:29:03] Commissioners, I believe so. I
[3:29:04] mean, it's always helpful to
[3:29:06] provide supporting evidence for
[3:29:08] the findings. You know, why
[3:29:10] you're making that connection
[3:29:13] to compatibility. But I believe
[3:29:16] so, yeah. Okay. I was wondering
[3:29:19] if we could go, can we go back
[3:29:20] to slide three and get off
[3:29:22] slide ten for just a second?
[3:29:23] This is based upon one of the
[3:29:25] comments that one of the
[3:29:26] speakers had. Is there a chance
[3:29:29] to blow that up? Because the
[3:29:31] location of homes and the
[3:29:36] potential for rf frequency
[3:29:37] transmission, I understand it's
[3:29:38] a concern with the homeowners.
[3:29:40] So I'm just trying to
[3:29:42] understand how close the homes
[3:29:44] are to this station or the what
[3:29:46] do we call it, a transmission
[3:29:53] tower. One thing that seems odd
[3:29:55] to me is that some of the
[3:29:57] neighboring homes are actually
[3:29:59] closer to the tower than the
[3:30:00] home that's located on this
[3:30:03] parcel. Yeah, yeah. And I'm
[3:30:05] just trying to get an
[3:30:06] understanding again. I wasn't
[3:30:08] able to drive all the way. MR.
[3:30:09] Amoroso wasn't able to drive
[3:30:11] all the way in in order to see
[3:30:12] the location, because I hadn't
[3:30:14] received approval at the time.
[3:30:16] I did the site visit. But I'm
[3:30:18] just trying to understand
[3:30:21] there's a lot of comments about
[3:30:22] radio frequencies, and there's
[3:30:24] a lot of comments about the
[3:30:25] views and so forth, and I'm
[3:30:27] just trying to get a better
[3:30:28] understanding of that. And then
[3:30:29] there was there was one comment
[3:30:31] that I that was in one of the
[3:30:33] letters that I felt was worthy,
[3:30:35] that I wrote it down and it
[3:30:36] said, the rural character is
[3:30:38] not incidental to this
[3:30:39] neighborhood. It's one of the
[3:30:40] primary reasons that people
[3:30:43] choose to live here. And lots
[3:30:44] of comments. But that was the
[3:30:48] one that that really struck me
[3:30:50] relative to the location of the
[3:30:57] homes and the tower.
[3:31:02] Chairperson guy. Is there a do
[3:31:04] you know, do you know the
[3:31:06] distance of the homes, the
[3:31:07] adjacent on the adjacent
[3:31:09] properties as well as the home
[3:31:11] on the property, the distance
[3:31:12] from the tower to those to
[3:31:16] those homes? Chairperson guy I
[3:31:17] don't I didn't measure every
[3:31:18] single residence, but the
[3:31:19] closest residence, according to
[3:31:22] our records, is approximately
[3:31:25] 450ft to the northeast. So I
[3:31:26] don't have a I don't know that
[3:31:29] I have a you said 450ft, 450ft,
[3:31:37] correct. Yeah. Approximately
[3:31:39] where that cursor is. Okay, I
[3:31:40] don't have any further
[3:31:42] questions. Any of the other
[3:31:44] commissioners. Any questions or
[3:31:47] comments? Commissioner Martinez,
[3:31:51] my question is, is okay. Q p is
[3:31:52] because this is not actually
[3:31:55] zoned for cell tower. Am I
[3:31:58] thinking right here?
[3:31:59] Commissioner Martinez I
[3:32:00] wouldn't quite word it that way.
[3:32:02] It is. It's a permitted use in
[3:32:04] the zone, but it it's
[3:32:06] conditionally permitted. Okay.
[3:32:07] And what kind of zones would
[3:32:11] you not need a qpi believe
[3:32:13] towers this tall need a q p in
[3:32:15] every zone. Okay. So no matter
[3:32:16] where it goes, it's going to
[3:32:18] have to come before us for a
[3:32:27] correct. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
[3:32:30] So I believe that we at some
[3:32:31] point should give MR. Ambrose
[3:32:33] rebuttal time. And we still
[3:32:34] have the unresolved issues of
[3:32:37] the two letters. Okay, let's
[3:32:42] start off with MR. Ambrose with
[3:32:47] your rebuttal time. Good
[3:32:50] morning again. I didn't hear
[3:32:52] any or any of the new issues
[3:32:56] that that that the. Folks spoke
[3:32:58] about a staff staff addressed
[3:32:58] pretty well. So I don't really
[3:33:00] have anything to add to what
[3:33:02] what staff has provided your
[3:33:05] Commission now, in regard to
[3:33:06] your CHAIRMAN, your last
[3:33:08] comment about the location of
[3:33:11] the tower in relation to homes,
[3:33:13] etc. Please remember that the
[3:33:17] county recommends minimizing
[3:33:19] visual impacts from public
[3:33:21] roads. So in this case, just
[3:33:23] the logical solution is going
[3:33:25] to be as far back off the
[3:33:28] public road as possible. So
[3:33:29] that's so the tower could work
[3:33:31] right at the front of the
[3:33:32] property in the middle of the
[3:33:34] property. It could function
[3:33:35] anywhere on the property. But
[3:33:37] again, we're following county
[3:33:38] guidance trying to keep it off
[3:33:40] the public road as far as
[3:33:41] possible. So again, that's the
[3:33:43] reason it's at the at the back
[3:33:45] of the property. Okay. Thank
[3:33:47] you. The reason for my question
[3:33:49] was rf emissions relative to
[3:33:52] residents versus transients,
[3:33:54] these residents will be living
[3:33:56] near those towers. So I was
[3:33:57] just trying to understand how
[3:34:00] they would be impacted. So so I
[3:34:01] understand what you're saying
[3:34:02] relative to visual impact, but
[3:34:04] I think in much greater than
[3:34:06] visual impact. Well, I just
[3:34:07] want to remind the commission
[3:34:09] that I think Francisco
[3:34:11] presented it. We did do an rf
[3:34:13] study. And the worst case
[3:34:14] scenario, which is standing
[3:34:18] right below the tower, is 45.6%
[3:34:22] of the fcc standard. The
[3:34:23] further you move away from the
[3:34:25] tower, that just goes down. So
[3:34:27] we're already at least 50%
[3:34:29] below the fcc standard right
[3:34:32] under the tower. So if you're
[3:34:34] expressing a concern about, you
[3:34:37] know, exposure to rf, there's
[3:34:40] no issue just based on the
[3:34:41] evidence that's provided and
[3:34:43] also the fcc standards. Yeah,
[3:34:45] actually, I was just trying to
[3:34:46] understand the concern from the
[3:34:47] speaker's point of view. Oh,
[3:34:49] okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay.
[3:34:50] Understood. No, I understand
[3:34:51] the perception. I understand
[3:34:55] that part of it. Okay. Any
[3:34:57] questions? No. Okay. Thank you,
[3:35:10] MR. Ambrose. Okay. MR.
[3:35:11] Villalobos, we'd like to go
[3:35:12] back to the emails that were
[3:35:15] received after the cutoff. You
[3:35:16] know, I'd like to address them
[3:35:18] in deliberations because, like
[3:35:20] I said, I think they MAY be
[3:35:23] muted and it would be an undue
[3:35:25] use of time to belabor that
[3:35:28] point. So I don't have any
[3:35:29] objections to that. Any other
[3:35:31] commissioners? If that's the
[3:35:32] case, then we'll go to
[3:35:34] deliberations. Okay. MAY I
[3:35:37] speak first? Commissioner Pak,
[3:35:39] would you please speak first?
[3:35:43] Yeah. I've thought about this a
[3:35:45] lot, and I've been here before.
[3:35:48] We've had you might you might
[3:35:51] think that we lived on cannabis
[3:35:52] cases, but in fact, we've
[3:35:54] actually had more fun cases
[3:35:56] than cannabis cases over the
[3:35:57] years. And most of the time
[3:35:59] they just simply get approved.
[3:36:02] But sometimes neighbors bring
[3:36:03] things up and we have to spend
[3:36:05] some time digging into it. And,
[3:36:07] and this is one of those. And
[3:36:09] that's where we get these
[3:36:10] tension between what's
[3:36:11] preempted by federal government
[3:36:14] on rf. But what are what can we
[3:36:16] look at? And we can, in fact,
[3:36:19] look at. Because it's a cup, we
[3:36:20] have very broad discretion to
[3:36:22] look at such things as
[3:36:23] compatibility with the
[3:36:24] neighborhood. And there's a
[3:36:26] specific finding on it, and it
[3:36:28] appears in every single finding.
[3:36:31] I would like to make a motion,
[3:36:32] and then I would like to
[3:36:35] explain why making that motion
[3:36:37] and that motion is not a motion
[3:36:41] for approval, because right now
[3:36:44] I can't do what former
[3:36:45] Commissioner Cooney taught me
[3:36:47] to do, and that is focus on the
[3:36:50] findings and decide whether I
[3:36:52] can make those findings. And I
[3:36:54] can't make the finding that's
[3:36:56] part of every cup. In fact,
[3:36:58] it's what makes a cup a cup,
[3:37:00] and that is the compatibility
[3:37:03] finding. We just don't have the
[3:37:07] information. I don't want to
[3:37:09] make the motion to deny the
[3:37:11] project because after seeing so
[3:37:14] many of these over the years,
[3:37:16] with the constraints we have
[3:37:17] with the federal government and
[3:37:20] such, there's going to be
[3:37:22] approval of some site somewhere.
[3:37:24] That's just what has to happen.
[3:37:27] So if I told all the folks out
[3:37:30] there, I can make a motion to
[3:37:32] deny this and that's going to
[3:37:33] kill the project, I would be
[3:37:36] lying to you. Honestly, what's
[3:37:38] going to happen is we should do
[3:37:41] what we can to make it the best
[3:37:43] project possible for the whole
[3:37:44] neighborhood, but realize we
[3:37:46] have to attend to that. And
[3:37:49] that's why my motion is a
[3:37:52] motion to continue this matter
[3:37:55] to the next available hearing
[3:37:58] that staff can suggest for us.
[3:38:01] And during that time, I want to
[3:38:05] afford MR. Ambrose, an apc, the
[3:38:07] opportunity to explore
[3:38:09] alternate sites and go beyond
[3:38:11] what you've looked at already,
[3:38:14] which we've listed by by
[3:38:16] addresses, and look on the east
[3:38:19] side of 154. Why would you do
[3:38:23] that? Because your own service
[3:38:27] map shows that sites within 154
[3:38:28] are within that same service
[3:38:30] area, and would have similar
[3:38:33] coverage. If we look at
[3:38:35] topography sites on the other
[3:38:39] side of one, 54 are elevated
[3:38:40] compared to the project site,
[3:38:43] which is more or less in a hole.
[3:38:44] I have not been on the project
[3:38:47] site. I've been to the very
[3:38:49] western end, the end adjacent
[3:38:51] to the project site of the
[3:38:53] Cheney property. You know, the
[3:38:54] Cheney property. And it's the
[3:38:56] it's it's the next one to the
[3:38:57] right of that. And I've seen
[3:38:59] the hole in property. I've seen
[3:39:01] others. Yes. There are
[3:39:02] substantial improvements that
[3:39:04] are much closer to this site
[3:39:06] than the house on the twig
[3:39:07] property is in fact, the the
[3:39:09] Cheney property has got things
[3:39:12] right near there. The distance
[3:39:15] from the antenna to the Cheney
[3:39:19] property is 54ft per the
[3:39:20] exhibits we've seen today,
[3:39:22] which is less than the height
[3:39:24] of the structure. So yes, there
[3:39:26] there are impacts, but it sits
[3:39:28] in a hole. It would just stand
[3:39:30] a reason to me that we should
[3:39:31] explore those sites on the
[3:39:33] other side of 154 that are
[3:39:35] elevated and would have more
[3:39:37] coverage, and they do not have
[3:39:39] the problem of being near
[3:39:40] people's homes or on small
[3:39:42] parcels, or on much bigger
[3:39:43] parcels, where there are all
[3:39:45] sorts of other odd things. And
[3:39:46] you can even see from this
[3:39:48] picture, it's tree lined,
[3:39:50] especially on the east side.
[3:39:52] And many of those trees are
[3:39:54] very tall eucalyptus trees, and
[3:39:57] some are sitting on hills and,
[3:39:58] and it seems much more
[3:40:00] appropriate to site over there
[3:40:01] where it would not bother
[3:40:03] people and would give us
[3:40:06] similar coverage. I believe
[3:40:08] then then this site, this
[3:40:10] should be explored. We owe it
[3:40:11] to these people to explore that.
[3:40:14] And that's why I want to afford
[3:40:16] apc the opportunity to explore
[3:40:20] other sites. There are sites
[3:40:24] that are on the Chumash
[3:40:26] Triangle, and there are sites
[3:40:29] at a very large one, that apc
[3:40:32] has an easement for at the
[3:40:36] corner of Fox and. And. 154 so
[3:40:37] they they know the area they
[3:40:41] can explore in between. And we
[3:40:43] will answer any other questions
[3:40:45] that that people can think of.
[3:40:48] One that I have is if 68ft
[3:40:50] seems really tall, because it
[3:40:55] is where that is, would 240ft
[3:40:57] in ten. I achieve the same
[3:40:59] amount of coverage with much
[3:41:01] less disturbance to the
[3:41:02] neighbors. But these are things
[3:41:03] we need to explore further
[3:41:06] before we can vote on this. So
[3:41:09] that's my motion. So chair and
[3:41:10] members of the commission,
[3:41:12] there's two things that we need
[3:41:14] to address because there's two
[3:41:15] motions on the floor. There's a
[3:41:16] motion about the letters that
[3:41:18] was tabled by Commissioner Park.
[3:41:20] And now there's another motion
[3:41:22] that we can refine. That's a
[3:41:24] continuance motion. Well, and
[3:41:27] the continuance motion moots
[3:41:30] the other motion because we
[3:41:32] don't need those letters today.
[3:41:33] Those letters can be submitted.
[3:41:34] They've already been submitted.
[3:41:36] And they'll be in time for the
[3:41:38] next hearing. So we just don't
[3:41:40] need just to rephrase that, I'm
[3:41:42] hearing that the motion makers
[3:41:43] withdrawing that motion on
[3:41:45] those letters, because
[3:41:47] otherwise it was tabled. Yeah,
[3:41:48] because it is mute by
[3:41:51] continuing it, but conditional
[3:41:57] on the passage of the motion to.
[3:41:58] To continue the matter, because
[3:42:00] I don't want to have that
[3:42:02] motion fail. And then my other
[3:42:04] motion has been withdrawn. So
[3:42:06] that's why I've now stated for
[3:42:08] the third time, I want to
[3:42:10] consider it after the motion I
[3:42:12] bring up in deliberations. Okay.
[3:42:15] So we'll table that discussion
[3:42:18] further. Chair the other items
[3:42:20] to consider on the motion for
[3:42:23] continuance is that this
[3:42:25] particular project is mandated
[3:42:26] to be heard in a certain period
[3:42:27] of time, which is commonly
[3:42:30] referred as a shot clock that
[3:42:33] expires on OCTOBER 13th. So if
[3:42:35] it isn't heard by OCTOBER 13th
[3:42:36] or decision made, then it's
[3:42:39] automatically approved. So we
[3:42:41] would need to ask the applicant
[3:42:46] if he's willing to. Consider a
[3:42:47] tolling agreement, which would
[3:42:50] extend that time period out.
[3:42:52] And that's where we need to
[3:42:53] maybe take a break, talk to the
[3:42:55] applicant and staff on what
[3:42:57] that date would look like.
[3:42:58] Staff is whispering and giving
[3:43:00] me hand signals about later in
[3:43:02] this year, but we need to hear
[3:43:03] from the applicant, if that's
[3:43:04] even feasible, to come back
[3:43:08] with information that is being
[3:43:09] requested. So if we could take
[3:43:11] a short break so we can get
[3:43:12] that information, we can come
[3:43:14] back and address the motion. Is
[3:43:15] it is it possible to take a
[3:43:17] short break and have us remain
[3:43:19] here so that we don't have to
[3:43:20] hurt everybody back together
[3:43:22] again, chair and commissioners,
[3:43:23] that is correct. Okay. And I
[3:43:25] would certainly favor that as
[3:43:27] part of my motion because, you
[3:43:29] know, if if the shot clock
[3:43:30] applies and we can't possibly
[3:43:32] have a hearing before OCTOBER
[3:43:34] 13th, then we're forced to vote
[3:43:37] to approve or deny the the
[3:43:39] matter today. And the applicant
[3:43:44] risks denial. Okay, let's go
[3:43:47] ahead and take that short break
[3:43:50] so that the applicant can speak
[3:43:53] with staff. Thank you. Please,
[3:43:54] everybody else, if you can stay
[3:44:13] close by. Okay. Thank you.
[3:50:03] Okay.
[3:50:05] We're returning back from our
[3:50:09] short break. MR. Wilson. Chair,
[3:50:10] members of the commission.
[3:50:13] We've met with staff and the
[3:50:14] applicant, and he's willing to
[3:50:16] continue this to DECEMBER 9th.
[3:50:18] So for the motion maker, it
[3:50:20] would be to continue this item
[3:50:22] to DECEMBER 9th to give him
[3:50:24] enough time to prepare the
[3:50:26] required studies and then come
[3:50:27] back on the ninth and present
[3:50:30] that to the commission. But we
[3:50:32] do want to have invite the
[3:50:33] applicant to come forward and
[3:50:35] get that on the record. For him
[3:50:37] to say that he's agreeing to
[3:50:39] continue it to the ninth. Okay.
[3:50:40] Applicant, please
[3:50:41] come forward
[3:50:43] so we can get that on the
[3:50:48] record. Yes, we're in agreement.
[3:50:49] Thank you, MR. Ambrose. We
[3:50:53] appreciate it, MR. Chair.
[3:50:55] Commissioner o'Connor, while
[3:50:57] the applicant is standing at
[3:51:01] the microphone, it MAY help to
[3:51:03] answer both the Commission's
[3:51:04] questions and the neighbors
[3:51:07] questions. If there were an
[3:51:10] independent analysis of the
[3:51:13] expected rf emissions from this
[3:51:15] facility in connection with any
[3:51:17] nearby residences. And when I
[3:51:19] say independent, I mean a
[3:51:21] consultant selected by county
[3:51:23] staff and reporting to county
[3:51:26] staff. But then, of course, the
[3:51:28] applicant would pay for that
[3:51:31] additional study. And my
[3:51:33] question, first of all to staff,
[3:51:34] is that something that you
[3:51:38] would undertake and support?
[3:51:40] And if the answer there is yes,
[3:51:42] is that something that the
[3:51:43] applicant would be willing to
[3:51:44] pay for as part of the work
[3:51:46] that's being done between now
[3:51:49] and DECEMBER 9th, is your
[3:51:53] question? We would run a report.
[3:51:55] Essentially exposure levels at
[3:51:57] House a, b and c, that kind of
[3:52:02] a report, correct? Sure. Okay.
[3:52:06] I would I would add that to as
[3:52:08] a friendly amendment to the
[3:52:11] motion to continue this matter,
[3:52:12] assuming there's a motion on
[3:52:14] the floor, is there a motion on
[3:52:15] the floor? Yes, yes, yes. And
[3:52:17] we would have we would rely on
[3:52:20] staff to give us a specifics. I
[3:52:21] would ask the maker of the
[3:52:23] motion if he agrees with my
[3:52:26] friendly amendment. So Chair
[3:52:28] and commissioners, we I think
[3:52:30] staff has some comments and
[3:52:31] concerns about that condition.
[3:52:34] Okay. So we're not in alignment
[3:52:36] with that condition. All right.
[3:52:37] So we don't know if we could
[3:52:42] actually implement that. So we
[3:52:43] would we would say that
[3:52:44] wouldn't be something that we'd
[3:52:46] want to entertain at this
[3:52:48] moment without doing further
[3:52:49] research, analysis on what
[3:52:53] you're asking, because we don't,
[3:52:55] according to what's being
[3:52:55] reported by staff, is that
[3:52:56] we're having a difficult time
[3:52:58] getting the peer reviewers to
[3:52:59] take on that liability to do
[3:53:01] that. Currently, my
[3:53:02] understanding is that the
[3:53:04] applicant does submit the rf
[3:53:05] studies to the county, and then
[3:53:08] we have them peer reviewed. Oh,
[3:53:09] okay. The study is peer
[3:53:11] reviewed by an independent
[3:53:12] expert to determine whether or
[3:53:14] not the study is reliable. Is
[3:53:18] that what we do? Commissioners,
[3:53:20] we are having trouble finding
[3:53:24] someone to peer review. So I, I,
[3:53:25] I don't think staff has any
[3:53:27] issues with you asking for them
[3:53:30] to do the report. Whether we
[3:53:32] have the ability to find
[3:53:33] someone to peer review it in
[3:53:35] the time frame, we can try, we
[3:53:36] can try again, reach out to
[3:53:38] some different people. But I
[3:53:42] think due to a lot of the legal
[3:53:43] issues around wireless and
[3:53:45] federal laws, there's been a
[3:53:47] reluctance of people to take
[3:53:50] that on. So just heads up, but
[3:53:52] certainly okay to ask for it
[3:53:56] for the okay, so maybe my
[3:54:00] friendly amendment is to try to
[3:54:02] do this without it necessarily
[3:54:06] being a condition of this
[3:54:09] continuance. You know, it, it
[3:54:10] fits right in. And I'll tell
[3:54:12] you why I've done this enough
[3:54:13] times to know that I should
[3:54:15] keep my motions pretty simple.
[3:54:17] And so I think the motion here
[3:54:19] simply is to continue to this
[3:54:21] next date, which we now hear is
[3:54:23] DECEMBER 9th to explore
[3:54:26] alternatives. And that can take
[3:54:28] many manifestations.
[3:54:29] Alternatives in what you've
[3:54:32] asked for is, is part of that.
[3:54:33] And and now that the applicant
[3:54:36] has heard you express your own
[3:54:37] interest in that, I'm sure that
[3:54:39] they will pay attention to that
[3:54:44] during this hiatus. Okay. I'm
[3:54:48] happy with that. Thank you.
[3:54:52] Okay. Commissioner Martinez? Oh,
[3:54:55] sorry about that. Okay. I don't
[3:54:57] know if this is the proper way
[3:54:59] to do it, but along with that
[3:55:01] continuance, I would also like
[3:55:03] to see, as one of the residents
[3:55:06] recommended a height test at
[3:55:07] that location, putting
[3:55:09] something up in the air at 68ft
[3:55:13] high so that there's a better
[3:55:14] representation. When we look
[3:55:16] from the private, the private
[3:55:18] properties as well as public
[3:55:20] properties, is is there an
[3:55:21] opportunity to do something
[3:55:26] along those lines? Sure.
[3:55:27] Commissioners like story polls.
[3:55:29] Is that what you're asking?
[3:55:32] Maybe your story poll, the
[3:55:33] recommendations were a balloon,
[3:55:36] a crane, a boom, something so
[3:55:38] that so that we can actually
[3:55:42] see how high 68ft is from
[3:55:44] public property, as well as
[3:55:47] from the private property. We
[3:55:49] will work with the applicant to
[3:55:51] try and figure something out.
[3:55:54] Okay. Thank you. Okay. MAY I
[3:55:57] speak, Commissioner Ford? Thank
[3:55:59] you. Well, I would like to
[3:56:01] second the motion, but first, I
[3:56:03] just wanted to say a couple of
[3:56:05] things. I want to thank MR.
[3:56:06] Vargas because you really
[3:56:08] helped me understand this issue
[3:56:10] and you walked me through it.
[3:56:12] But I am also just as grateful,
[3:56:14] if not more, to the community
[3:56:16] that showed up and wrote to us
[3:56:18] and spoke. The comments were
[3:56:19] considered, they were
[3:56:20] thoughtful, they were measured,
[3:56:22] and they might be boiling and
[3:56:25] furious inside, but they were
[3:56:28] so compelling that I do think
[3:56:31] we need to respond and validate
[3:56:33] those concerns. So my second
[3:56:36] would be in in the interest of
[3:56:37] compatibility, one of the
[3:56:39] things that our commission can
[3:56:43] address. So I'll second it. So
[3:56:45] we have a first and second. Any
[3:56:48] other discussion before we vote?
[3:56:50] Commissioner Martinez, I would
[3:56:52] I would just say this for for
[3:56:55] this sake of of future avoiding
[3:56:57] future dispute, if there is
[3:56:58] going to be such a thing such
[3:57:02] as a balloon out there to, to
[3:57:03] provide for the observation of
[3:57:05] the height and what it would
[3:57:06] look like, I would, I would
[3:57:08] hope that we we on the
[3:57:09] Commission, would be informed
[3:57:10] of the date and time that that
[3:57:12] would happen. Because if that
[3:57:14] happens and it's just based on
[3:57:15] photos, we all know what photos
[3:57:17] can do. I can zoom in, zoom out,
[3:57:18] make it whatever I want, and
[3:57:20] make it bigger or smaller. If
[3:57:23] that happens, I would say, and
[3:57:25] I'm looking forward to seeing
[3:57:27] just the the technical coverage
[3:57:30] from 40ft to 50ft. I think
[3:57:31] somebody even said that and say,
[3:57:34] show me if if you show them,
[3:57:35] that would be really helpful to
[3:57:37] me. And I'm supportive of the
[3:57:39] continuance to allow these
[3:57:41] answer to get these questions
[3:57:46] answered. Thank you.
[3:57:47] Commissioner Ford, did you have
[3:57:50] any. Oh, no sir. Okay. So we've
[3:57:51] got a first and a second. So
[3:57:53] we're ready to vote. Do we do a
[3:57:56] roll call or do you can we just
[3:57:58] do individual votes for this?
[3:58:01] Okay. So we're going to do
[3:58:03] individual votes. All in favor
[3:58:07] I aye. Any opposed. None. Okay.
[3:58:11] The continuance will proceed.
[3:58:14] Thank you chair. Thank you all
[3:58:35] I. Okay let's go to.