City Council - Special Meeting

Thank you. All right. Yeah.

It is 7.02 p.m., and I'll now open this public hearing on file number AP1-26 and AP2-26, two consolidated appeals regarding SmartLink LLC's request for conditional use permit for wireless telecommunication facility Cottage Grove, F11 number CUP1-26.

Will the recorder please call the roll. Councillor Irvin.

Here.

Councillor Heinke. Here. Councillor Lammerman.

Here.

Councillor Merida. Here. Councillor Settlemyer.

Here.

Councillor Wilson.

Here.

Mayor Soulsby.

Here. The City Council will make a final decision on the appeal based on the complete record, including the testimony received at tonight's public hearing. This hearing will be held in accordance with the land use procedures required by the City and State of Oregon. At the beginning of the public hearing tonight, staff will identify the applicable substantive criteria from the Cottage Grove Development Code. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per person. The time will go off at the end of three minutes. Each person may testify only once unless called back to the podium by the request of a counselor. The appellants will first have an opportunity to present the proposal and the address of any issues raised by the staff report and recommendations. The council will hear the public comment in favor, including applicant, then neutral comments, and will conclude with comments opposed to the application request. City staff may then present additional material and recommendations based on public testimony. The applicant and appellant will be given the opportunity for a rebuttal. After each presentation, I will ask for questions from the council. Those wishing to speak should be signed up on the comment sheet and be waiting on the phone. When called upon to speak, please step up to the podium. We are recording this hearing, so please also clearly state your name and address when you're called to speak. This will help in preparing accurate written minutes of the hearing and to assist with mailing copies of the decision to all interested parties. If you have written testimony or any other evidence to submit, please give that to staff so it can be entered into the records. Council members are required to disclose any conflicts of interest, bias, or ex parte contacts that we have with the proposal of an applicant. That is whether we have any financial or other personal interests in the proposal and whether we have spoken with anybody about the proposal outside of this hearing. Thank you. That was a struggle. Counselors may only participate if they can do so without undue bias for or against the application. Do any counselors wish to make a disclosure? Counselor Hink.

A few weeks ago, I had coffee with Ryan Birdsey when we briefly discussed cell towers. maybe three minutes long, and it wasn't anything that's not in the packet, less than that, actually. Just cell towers and what they can look like, basically.

Anyone else? Councillor Wilson?

Well, as instructed by... esteemed counselor, disclosing that I did have a discussion. I met with two citizens, Janice Metz and Carol Woodman at the WAOE fairgrounds, ostensibly to promote the meeting tonight. And we did say, I did say that the meeting was about cell towers. No opinions were raised. were given and i did also state that i could not discuss any details about the proceedings at all i didn't want to enter that into the records council merida thank you mayor uh first and foremost i do not and have never owned a cell phone

I did attend the January 6 neighborhood meeting as the cell phone tower was going in my ward and I did sign the sign-in sheet. I listened to what was presented and spoke to several citizens there that were concerned about the proposed tower. I've had informal meetings with I did not attend either of the planning commission meetings because I had conflicts. One was, I was at the country fair and I can't remember what the other one. So I didn't attend either planning commission. I did have informal conversations with commissioner Birdsey and commissioner Burback, who I ran into both just socially. And it was the extent of the conversation. Whoa, how'd that go? And I was more interested in whether the dyno was approved actually. for the, after the January, the July 15th meeting.

Counselor Sotomayor.

I don't know if this counts either, but Monday before our meeting when we were told and explained all of this thing, my wife and I ended our bike ride by riding down our street heading towards there and viewed signage in the road that talked about distances to the cell tower and how it would negatively impact. I can't remember the wording and I thought it better that I didn't go back and get that wording for sure.

Councilor Irvin.

Thank you, Mayor.

I don't know the date of the first beeper show where I believe Cindy Wildreier was discussing and she had called to attention that the overall height of the proposal was somewhere similar to what's at the city shop. But that was my first hearing of this issue. On July 16th, I received a call from a constituent who was expressing concerns about the procedures. of the Planning Commission meeting. And during that call, I said, I believe this is, I think it was scheduled already to have this meeting tonight. I said, I can't talk about those things. And I'm going to have to disclose this call as ex parte contact. And then on the 25th, I guess two days ago, I was listening to the beeper show again and it got brought up where there was a discussion about a bet about whether or not the council approves tonight. So those are the seemingly unavoidable contacts that I've had.

And I would just disclose that I have known that there was some Facebook chatter, but I did not get on and read, and that just this evening someone asked me as I was passing by, what is that meeting about? And I simply said we couldn't discuss it. So that's all I have. So now we have announced the conflicts, apparent bias, and ex parte for the record. Are there any challenges from the audience as to conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts, or bias related to any member of the city council?

Thank you.

Is there a motion to allow or not allow? No, never mind. State law requires me to tell you a number of things at the beginning of the hearing. First, the applicable substantive criteria that apply to this application are contained in the written staff report and will be identified and discussed in the oral staff report. Second, your testimony, arguments, and evidence must be redirected towards these criteria or other criteria in the development code that you believe apply to this application. Third, failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker or other people an opportunity to respond may preclude appeal of the decision on this application based on that issue. Finally, to the applicant, failure to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the city to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in the circuit court. May we please hear from the staff.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. So before you is a consolidation of Cottage Grove file numbers AP 1-26 and AP 2-26, an appeal of the Planning Commission final order for conditional use permit file number CUP 1-26, which approved with conditions a wireless transmission facility, or WTF, on the west end of an industrially zoned parcel located at map and tax lot 20-03-32-44-00400, and is addressed as 2070 South Bar Street. The proposed WTF will utilize an undeveloped portion of this parcel and will be situated in a 50 foot by 50 foot space located approximately 100 feet away from South Bar Street. There is an existing training tower located on the west end of this parcel, which would abut the proposed driveway. The applicant proposes a tower that is 100 feet tall with a six foot lightning rod at the top and proposes a mutual gray color. The City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission held a public hearing on this conditional use application on June 17th. At the close of that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing until July 15th, so the applicant could submit additional documentation addressing the visual impacts of the proposed wireless transmission facility, specifically the self option. At the close of the continued hearing on July 15th, the Planning Commission voted to conditionally approve the application, subject to modified findings that address visual impacts, changing condition of approval number two to read, quote, the wireless transmission facility and associated mounts shall be constructed with stealth technology as well as be the proposed neutral gray color, end quote. The final order and notice of decision were mailed on July 22nd, which started the mandatory two-week appeal period that ran from July 22nd to August 5th. On August 5th, two appeals were filed, one from Johanna Z, AP 1-26, and one from Kevin Solonsky, AP 2-26, with the appropriate fee, both of whom testified during the quasi-judicial hearing process. A supplemental document was received from Kevin Slonsky on August 26th and additional comments were received from Johanna Z on August 27th and an email response regarding stealth technology was received from the applicant on August 27th. Before you is a revised staff report addressing these three submittals that were received on August 26th and 27th. A summary of the appeals are as follows. Johanna Zee appealed based on the Cottage Grove Municipal Code section 14.41.400 sub F conduct of the public hearing. Her appeal alleges that the three planning commissioners who did not attend the first hearing but participated in the second and voted did not state on the record at the July 15th meeting continued hearing that they had reviewed the application materials and public testimony from the June 17th hearing. Ms. Zee alleges that this deprived participants of a full and fair hearing, quarantine council reversal, and remand to the Planning Commission. On August 27th, she stated that the documents were not available on the website anymore as the hyperlink on the agenda was removed. The application, staff report, and all appropriate exhibits were placed on the calendar item on Thursday, August 20th, and have remained there since. She also stated that she felt it was important that the links to the recordings of the planning commission hearings were sent to the city counselors. As these recordings are not part of the record and are available through a public records request, staff did not send the recordings of the hearing unless requested. Kevin Slonsky appealed based on the Cottage Grove municipal code section 14.23.180 sub C, wireless telecommunication uses and facilities and sub C nine, visual impacts. He alleges that the code requires that the proposed WTF to be one, located at a site where its visual impact is minimized and two, designed in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. The appeal discusses potential options that could, quote, minimize the visual impacts. Taken from that document, quote, minimization could occur if a proposed tower were discreetly attached to a light utility or flagpole, a building, or a water tower, end quote. This appeal also states that the original application was incomplete due to the applicant omitting a study that justified the location of the proposed WTF. On August 26th, Mr. Solansky submitted additional documentation providing analysis from SCM advisors with eight findings regarding tower height, coverage and capacity, the lack of an alternatives analysis, emissions of the two future co-location of additional providers and lack of stealth design. There is also mention of signage maintenance and the functional classification of South R Street as it collects. Additional comments were received by email during the appeal period on August 4th, 2026 from Misty and Sean Burris prior to the submission of an actionable appeal and are included as exhibits. So staff responses regarding the first one, AP 1-26. Staff sent out the agenda, staff report, and item summary to the Planning Commission on June 3rd, June 12th, July 1st, and July 9th, prior to both work sessions and the regular meeting. These documents were also posted online seven days prior to both hearings. Ms. Z's allegation is correct. The three Planning Commissioners did not attend the first hearing on June 17th, but did attend and vote on the application at the continued July 15th hearing. She correctly notes that the city attorney identified on the record an assumption that all three had familiarized themselves with the record, including the underlying hearing minutes, and the chair confirmed that assumption. Any procedural mishap caused by these planning commissioners not affirmatively and individually stating that they had reviewed submissions and listened to the audio of the prior hearing which the city attorney and chair noted had occurred is cured by the council hearing the Stenovo appeal, reviewing the record and issuing a final decision on the application. Regarding the second appeal, AP 2-26. Sorry, guys. The Planning Commission determined that the conditional use criteria governing the location and design of WTFs, which is found in the SAP report on numerous pages, could be addressed by modifying the condition of approval that addressed the visual impacts of the proposed use to require the WTF to be both the proposed neutral gray color and constructed with stealth technology. As they instructed staff to do, the condition of approval now reads, quote, the wireless transmission facility and associated mounts shall be constructed with stealth technology, as well as be a neutral color that best suits the selected stealth technology instead of the proposed gray color, end quote. Addressing the eight findings that were provided in the additional documentation, staff responds as follows. So the first finding was height. The proposed facility is 106 feet, including the lightning rod, where 100 feet, including attachments, is permitted. Staff does agree with the appellant that the height of the structure should include the lightning rod, as it would be considered a, quote, attachment. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a plan set prior to construction that details the overall height of the structure, including the lightning rod, being no more than 100 feet tall as measured from the average grade adjacent to the structure to the highest point of the support structure or any attachment there to. Regarding findings two through five that covered coverage and capacity, The appellant's report identifies no criteria in the Cottage Grove Development Code that specifically requires the applicant to produce documentation of its coverage or capacity need. Objective evidence is required in section 14.23.180 sub C sub 2 that requires a minimum of 2,000 feet separation from towers. And the appellant's report notes this criterion is met. The appellant identifies that section 14.44.400 sub A sub 1 requires that, quote, the site size, dimensions, location, topography, and access are adequate for the needs of the proposed use. End quote. in justifying the need for a coverage or need analysis. The use is a wireless transmission facility as defined in section 14.14.520 that does not require a coverage or capacity analysis. Regarding finding six, the alternatives analysis, No alternatives analysis is required within the Cottage Grove Development Code. Appellant's report evaluated every vacant and industrially zoned parcel within 1,300 feet of the proposal and identified only six parcels that met this criteria. The parcels identified are solely owned by the city and of note, the appellant failed to include his own parcels in this analysis. Additionally identified in the city on parcels are three parcels that directly abut Sweet Lane. This would contradict section 14.44.400 sub A sub one by worsening visibility considerations and section 14.23.180 sub C sub nine sub B by moving the WTF closer to residential uses and public rights of way, creating a larger negative impact. Staff not only finds the alternatives analysis irrelevant to applicable criteria, staff also finds this evidence not persuasive. Regarding finding seven, collocation emissions, the code does not require an emissions report to be submitted. Rather, it simply requires that, quote, new transmission towers of a height of 80 feet or more shall be designed to accommodate collocation emissions. of a minimum of two additional providers, either outright or through future modification to the tower. This was demonstrated on the application materials. The applicant submittal exhibit O, page seven. The appellant's report indicates the application satisfies this criteria as to design, but requests additional conditions of approval. Those are a cumulative RF evaluation at full build-out, including the two co-locators the ordinance requires the tower to accommodate with the fractional contribution sum shown. They also want a post-construction audit confirming the asphalt radiation center heights the report says must be verified, as well as the signage and access control to the, signage and access control the report's own compliance conclusion is conditioned on, and a written access control protocol addressing the adjacent training structure. The appellant separately requests a condition requiring signage maintenance. Staff finds no basis for a condition regarding maintenance in the city's applicable criteria and further finds that all these requested conditions are outside the scope of the submitted appeals. Staff therefore does not recommend imposing these requested conditions, particularly where the appellant agrees the submitted design satisfy applicable criteria. The last finding is finding eight regarding self-design. As the appellant notes, the planning commission conditionally approved the conditional use permit CUP 1-26 with a revised condition of approval as I quoted earlier. The appellant does cite a court case, the American Tower Court versus City of San Diego as applicable to the city's decision. However, that case was decided under San Diego development criteria, which prohibited the city from approving the ETC's additional use applications unless the facilities would comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the land development code. Further, San Diego's development code required telecommunication facilities to, quote, be designed to be minimally invasive for the use of architecture, landscape architecture, and siting solutions. Under the controlling federal authority on least intrusive means, which is not an issue here, a carrier which quote, rejected relocation of the facilities or modifications that involve reduction in height for redesign of the towers, and insisted that the city accept its completion without offering a feasibility analysis of alternative designs, end quote, had failed to carry its burden. The applicant finds this case descriptive of this record. The applicant declined to redesign, produce no alternatives analysis, and asked the city to take its word. However, the city's code instead requires the city to approve an application which meets applicable criteria, and Cottage Grove's applicable criteria is not so exacting as San Diego's, and the applicant has offered its design for the Planning Commission's required stealth technology as demonstrated in Exhibit F in the staff report. Staff finds the cited cases neither controlling nor persuasive given the appeal record and applicable criteria. It was spoken to in the record and I wanted to address it. The additional topics included in that report include the signs. The applicant makes a statement regarding the maintenance of signage as required by the FCC. As this WTF is regulated by the FCC, the city does not have an access to require additional conditions of approval for an outside agency. Any federal or state permits are the responsibility of the applicant. The roadway functional classification of South R Street, the 2015 Transportation System Plan, or TSP, was created and adopted in conformance with Goal 12, Transportation, and OAR 660-012-045. Based on the record and findings found in the staff report, there are two proposed additions to the conditions of approval. Number one, a new condition of approval that states, quote, per section 14.42.200 sub A sub 10, a land use review will be required prior to any construction approved by this application to confirm the conditions of approval contained within the staff report have been met. The second condition is the applicant shall be required to submit a plan set prior to construction that details the overall height of the structure, including the lightning rod, being no more than 100 feet as measured from the average grade adjacent to the structure to the highest point of the support structure or any attachment there to it. Staffer recommends approving SmartLink LLC's conditional use permit, CUP 1-26, with paying commission conditions modified, discussed, and included in the staff report.

Thank you, Lenny. May we now please hear from the appellants. Johanna Z? Zipi? That's right. Shahana Zee. I was with Karen.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and counselors. Post office, my name is Shahana Zee, Post Office Box 1312, Cottage Grove. I do want to first say, I'm sorry, could you get just a little bit closer to the mic? Or the microphone, get a little bit closer to me. So Johanna Z Post Office Box 1312 Cottage Grove. So I think you had asked it before. I do want to disclose that I'm actually the one who called Councilor Ervin to ask him about procedures because I was a little thrown off about how that July 15th meeting went. And that was really what I was asking about is, is this the way it's supposed to happen? Because I was very new to listening to Planning Commission meetings. So I filed this appeal under a lack of procedural fairness. So I do want to address other specific issues here related to the code first. And one, I hear that it's already going to be addressed is the height of the tower, which was initially being allowed at 106 feet. And now because of the other appellant making a note about that is now being changed and addressed. The next is that the applicant does assert that this tower is actually for coverage and capacity, and yet they've only presented maps that deal with capacity and not coverage. And there's nothing to demonstrate that they actually need coverage. In fact, the other two towers that they have here provide coverage. If you look at that 49-page report, it shows that... it would be kind of duplicating efforts there. So there's no demonstrated need. But I do want to focus, because I know you've addressed the other ones, on how this whole process was handled. And I don't believe the people who are going to be affected by the presence of this structure nearby were given a fair opportunity to be heard. So on June 17, four commissioners listened to residents' concern during a public hearing. A motion was made for a continuance asking the applicant to present a stealth design. The public hearing was reopened and the meeting would continue in July. On July 7th, seven commissioners were present. Residents were only permitted to speak on stealth design related to the continuance. And yet there was no actual stealth design presented. So what were we speaking on? It didn't really make any sense. It was brought up by a participant that three commissioners were not present, and how do we know if they even heard the testimony from the previous meeting? Several residents had come prepared to speak but were not permitted to unless they spoke on that one particular issue, which didn't even exist because there was no design to speak on because they didn't present it. So the chair politely shut down the speaker about three times, but our city attorney interjected saying that visual impact with which he was speaking about in the time was in fact related to stealth design. And he was then allowed to continue. One commissioner made a comment indicating a lack of familiarity of the content of the first half of the public hearing. I actually kind of hollered out, did he even read the minutes? And because if he'd had, he likely would not have expressed himself the way that he had. The chair mentioned reviewing the minutes. The attorney responded that it's presumed that they have reviewed the evidence, but not one of the commissioners who were absent for the first half of the public hearing stated on record that they had heard the previous public testimony. And in fact, they had not taken the time to do so And there's not stated anywhere on the record that they actually even looked at the minutes. So it also appears that one of the commissioners had a prejudgment bias and did not, quote, rehabilitate himself prior to having, I have one more little sentence here. The minutes, by the way, are just a summary from non-objective staff and do not fully represent the evidence presented by residents. Regardless how you feel or how you interpret the code, the public hearing related to this issue was not a fair public hearing and did not give due process to those concerned about this project. Therefore, I urge you to reverse the planning commission's decision and deny the application because I think we can do better. Thanks, guys. Thank you.

Online, we have Kevin Solonsky. Kevin, can you hear us?

Can you hear me now?

We can, thank you.

Great, great. Okay, I'll start. Hello, my name is Kevin Solonsky. I own the property that borders the parcel where Verizon proposes to build a cell tower. I strongly recommend that city council deny Verizon's application because it violates Cottage Grove's visual impact minimization rule regarding cell towers. Cottage Grove 14, code 1423-180C proposes requires that the visual impact of a cell tower's location and design on the surrounding community and skyline be minimized. The visual impact requirement, in fact, is so core to Cottage Grove cell tower regulations that the code includes the requirement in two sections, a preamble and section nine. It is important to understand what this rule requires. First, it serves as a condition of approval. Second, the regulation does not simply require that telecom companies take visual impact into account in their proposal of a cell tower's location and design. For example, it's not sufficient if the visual impact is simply lessened. Rather, the visual impact of a tower must be minimized. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, minimization occurs when something is reduced to the lowest possible level or amount. Here, the proposed cell tower clearly violates the visual impact minimization rule, even if it is slightly disguised. The visual impact is substantial and has not been reduced to the lowest possible level or amount. The proposed cell tower will dominate the skyline for many of the homes and businesses in South Cottage Grove and will constitute an obvious eyesore. The tower will be 32 feet from my property and relatively close to 35 to 40 homes on Sweet Lane, 500 to 600 feet from the closest home. The visual impact is substantial because of the proposed tower's size, its close proximity to homes and businesses, and its location in the middle of an open field. The proposed tower will also not be disguised or hidden in any meaningful way. It will not be camouflaged as a tree located within a grove of trees. It will not be discreetly attached to a utility pole, a building, or a water tower. In fact, it is hard to imagine a more visually impactful location. Ask yourself the question, is visual impact minimized, that is reduced to the lowest possible level, where a 100-foot self-tower is 32 feet away from bordering property? A 49-page expert report has been submitted by the opposition here. The report explains in more detail how Verizon's application violates the visual impact rule. Implicit in this rule is a requirement that telecom companies consider alternative locations and designs, and only submit an application where the visual impact is minimized. The report identifies multiple alternative locations that would have minimal or no visual impact on the surrounding community based on Verizon's stated needs. Verizon, however, never considered any alternatives. In fact, at the public meeting with Verizon in January, in response to the question as to whether they considered alternative locations, Verizon said, not really. The report also details how the proposed cell tower violates other regulations. The report was written by SEM Advisors, one of the most highly regarded companies that analyzes whether cell tower applications are compliant with local ordinances. If you haven't read the report and aren't convinced that the application should be denied based on the testimony today and the records and evidence, I urge you to read the report before issuing a decision. I have like one more paragraph. Is that okay?

Go ahead.

I would also like to highlight why we are here. Verizon chose this location because it had connections to the property's owner. It was a cheap and easy option for them. When Verizon met with local residents in January, the community told Verizon about their visual impact concerns. Verizon ignored the concerns and never looked at alternative locations. Hopefully after this application is denied, Verizon will look at the many alternatives where visual impact is minimized, and work with the city and community to choose a location that satisfies the visual impact rule and complies with Cottage Grove Code.

Okay, Kevin, we're going to have to wrap it up. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We will now hear public comment on this matter. I will begin with the applicant.

Oh, this is Josh Hamilton. Can you hear me?

We can hear you. Thank you.

Hello. I just have a general response. The applicant appreciates public comment. Proposed facility was designed and submitted to comply with the applicable Cottage Grove development code criteria. City planning staff recommends approval based on the findings that the application satisfies applicable state and local standards. And I request that you guys approve the application.

All right. Thank you. Craig Olson. Thank you. Misty Burris.

Good evening, mayor and counselors. My name is Misty Burris.

Sergeant Sean P. Burris, U.S. Army, retired.

We are 471 Sweet Lane. We represent the residents and affected neighbors. We asked the City Council to reverse the approval of CUP 1-26. Our concern is not only the tower, it's also the public process. During the door-to-door outreach, we gathered 33 signatures from the residents opposing the proposed tower. Every resident we spoke to with spoke with had little or no prior awareness that this 100 foot tower was being proposed or moving towards approval at the follow up planning Commission meeting. Public comment was limited to stealth design that prevented newly informed residents from speaking about the broader issues location. Neighborhood compatibility, Sweet Lane and R street impacts, county resident impacts, alternatives, visual impacts, future co-location, and whether the conditions actually protect the nearby residents. Sweet Lane is in county jurisdiction, but we are directly affected by a city decision. Industrial zoning does not erase residential impact. We also ask council to consider the technical record now before you. The expert report raises serious questions about height, need, capacity data, existing Verizon coverage, lack of alternative analysis, and whether the application is complete. We are not asking council to decide this based on RF health effects. We're asking council to require a complete record, meaningful notice, a full public testimony, and clear findings before approving a 100-foot tower near homes and school serving areas. Please reverse or reopen the matter for full fair process. I also, we are the ones that put the signs out to give awareness. And the last thing I did this week was went out to take pictures. I'm an economic development. I want to know what does it say on the 99 coming in or from the other main place we received so much visitors on the high school field. It was striking to me how obvious and huge it would be at the entrance of our city and at the place our kids play. So I ask you to reconsider.

Thank you. Stephanie Brugger.

Hi, my name is Stephanie Brugger. I live at 916 South R Street with my fiance and stepson. And I'm opposed to the cell tower being built just down the road. We see a lot of kids and high schoolers walking on our street all the time. And yeah, I just think that we received zero notice about this cell tower getting constructed. And the only way that I heard about this initially was on Facebook. And yeah, this is really disappointing. And yeah. i'm really worried about our home and the impact on our community and and um yeah i would like this to be reconsidered so that um this does not impact the students that go to high school right there the elementary school just down the street and all the residents that live within 500 feet of this tower which includes us and Yes, I also was at the last hearing and was not given an opportunity to speak. So thanks for inviting me to speak tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Lucas Wise.

Hello, my name is Lucas Weiss. I live just off South R Street, 916 South R Street. Just on a personal note, one of the reasons we chose to purchase that house, specifically one of the deciding factors, was because it wasn't close to any cell towers. So building that cell tower is going to be a reason that we're going to consider moving from that area. But my main point and what I hope might persuade the council to reconsider this particular location is that Cottage Grove's own wireless facility standards say that to the greatest extent practicable, an application must demonstrate that the facility is sited in a location having the least impact on residential uses in districts. Verizon has demonstrated a need for improved coverage in the general area, but demonstrating why a tower is needed somewhere in the area is not the same thing as demonstrating why it should be placed on this particular parcel. From what I was seeing available on information online, I have not found in the public record a comparative analysis of alternative sites demonstrating that this particular parcel satisfies that standard of having the least impact. If that analysis exists, I respectfully ask the applicant or staff to identify where it appears in the record. Because if that standard is least impact, how can we determine that without comparing the impact of other practicable locations? So the proposed solution is like a stealth design, and that answers a different question. Stealth changes what the tower looks like. It doesn't change where the tower is. So if the applicant did not provide an analysis of other sites, what evidence allows the city to conclude that this particular location has the least impact on residential uses? What other practicable parcels, existing structures, rooftops, utility structures or locations within the required service area were evaluated? And if they weren't evaluated, how can we know that this is the least impact location? So I'm not asking you to reject wireless service, I'm asking you to apply the cities on standard. And before approving a permanent 100 foot tower, just 600 feet from my home, I respectfully ask the council to require the applicant to answer that fundamental question, why this location? All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Lewis Howell.

Good evening, Council. My name is Lewis Howell. I own the property at 2100 R Street, which is was just purchased in July of this year, approximately 150 feet from the proposed 100-foot cell tower at 2070 R Street. Because of its proximity, this proposal has a direct impact on my property, and I ask the council to carefully consider whether this is an appropriate location for a structure of this size. My concerns go beyond simply whether the tower can be made to look more attractive through the stealth design. A 100-foot telecommunication structure located roughly 150 feet from my property raises legitimate questions about the visual impact, the compatibility with neighboring properties, and property use issues. that we enjoy and the potential for future expansion or additional equipment and antennas that they may choose or wish to have. I also believe residents and property owners this close to the proposed facility deserve clear information about the facility itself. What equipment will ultimately be installed? What provisions exist for future co-location or additional antennas? What alternatives were considered that could place the facility further from homes and neighboring properties? And what enforceable conditions will ensure that the facility does not substantially change in the future without appropriate review? I also have concerns regarding radio frequency exposure because of how close my property is to the proposed tower. I understand that the wireless facilities are subject to federal FCC exposure standards and that local governments have limitations regarding how RF concerns can be considered. I'm not asking the council to make a decision based on speculation. I'm asking that before approving a tower this close to neighboring property, the record clearly demonstrates that the proposed facility, including its anticipated equipment and configuration, will comply with all applicable RF exposure requirements. Most importantly, industrial zoning should not mean that impacts on neighboring property owners are disregarded. A 100 foot cell tower does not stop having an impact at the zoning boundary. And at approximately 150 feet away, I'm not discussing a hypothetical neighborhood concern. I am one of the immediate affected property owners, and I respectfully ask the city council to remand or reopen this matter so that the complete impacts of the proposed location, reasonable alternatives, and future expansion. and the applicable compliance requirements be fully evaluated before final approval is granted. Thank you.

Thank you. So, Sylvia. Selina. Selina.

I just beg you guys to please reconsider. We purchased this property. We've put a lot of money into making it beautiful. I know you guys, you have businesses and stuff like that. How would you feel if a tower was going up right in front? You know, I've got all these beautiful flowers out in front. Besides all the neighbors that have to look at it. Cottage Grove is really pretty. We've got all kinds of bicyclists. We let, we want that here. You know, what are they going to go to look at? You've got the beautiful winery thing right next door and two giant, beautiful fields there. Now we're going to have this giant tower to look at. Please reverse your decision.

Yeah.

All right. Thank you to our commenters. Do any counselors have further questions of individuals who just gave testimony?

Thank you.

Finally, the applicant and appellants may present its final rebuttal.

Carrie, who should proceed first? Are either of those, the appellants or the applicants, do you desire to make further statements or provide any rebuttal?

Counselor Sotomayor?

You should have done. Yeah, you can ask. That's when she just asked, are there any questions? That's the time for questions. Yes. So that you can elicit information from.

I guess I have a question to Johanna Z. If you wouldn't mind.

Second home. Yeah.

I understand your issue with if we divided this night into two nights and it wasn't continuous. And I also, do you understand at least, I believe it's stated that now we totally opened it up. And my question is, Did this feel like we all got the correct amount of information?

No, actually, we didn't open it all up. We're only allowed to speak on issues related to the appeal, right? So people could not speak on any issue that wasn't related to the appeal that I made or the appeal that the other appellant made. So that is one. And my thought is, if you come into a meeting halfway through and then you are allowed to vote, that doesn't make sense to me. And you haven't reviewed the evidence. If you're quasi-judicial as a semi-judge, right? your role is to, and the planning commission's role was to review the evidence. I feel they did not review the evidence. So how could they be qualified to even make a decision? And I even inquired if the three commissioners, they had not reviewed the recordings because that would give them a full understanding of how everything went. They could review the minutes, but it wasn't on record that they had reviewed the minutes. So, because obviously a pile of paper, you don't get to read everything but the minutes were pretty important but it still didn't convey the, you know, really, what was behind, you know, the residents coming in and speaking, it's different from being present and observing to getting a staff summary of what people had said, because I do don't think that's objective. Does that answer. Yeah. So had you had the opportunity to?

I read the minutes. I watched the videos. And there were differences. But when we talk about the major things, the one concerning thing was during counselor time, one sounding like essentially the chair said, you should have read the minutes. but that's but that's one out of three and maybe the one has a memory like I have some time and he read the minutes and didn't remember the point that he was that he questioned so thank you so there was also one uh no vote on that and then there were two unknowns and as well um

You know, Ms. Connolly's thorough explanation of the quasi-judicial stated right in here that if there was a bias, that would be reason for, you know, looking for her exact words on here. I don't want to misquote, but if it's effective failure to disclose, decision invalidated, right? So that's another, that's one right there. The whole thing was fraught with, and I think many of you know that that's what I'm always watching for is procedure. Are we following the rules? Do the rules make sense? And throughout the whole thing, it just didn't, people wanted to speak. They weren't allowed to speak. But even during that, They were allowed to speak on stealth design and visual impact, but there was no stealth design presented. So there was nothing to really speak on. So it should have shut that down. When the applicant said, no, I don't think that we have to present this. Your code doesn't say we have to do stealth design. It says and or. That should have shut the meeting down right there, in my opinion. I mean, that's my humble opinion. I'm not a lawyer. But how can you ask the public to speak on a stealth design that didn't even exist at the time because the applicant didn't want to present it? Does that make sense?

It does. But that was the only reason why at the end of the first meeting, they said we should have a second meeting. So the people at that point chose not to vote because the only thing that they wanted to hear about was the stealth.

And they didn't get to hear about the stealth.

And so other people not being able to talk about more than the stealth. It doesn't seem like it was a procedural problem. It was just, you're right, we should have just quit, but there wasn't a lot of give and take that damaged the case during the second meeting that I heard. I mean, essentially, they just went and said, well, they didn't tell us about stealth. And then they voted and they voted six to one that we should still hold them to talk about stealth.

And there's a lot of speculation that sounds like here, you know, with all due respect, you know, and I'm, you know, what we're looking at is three commissioners who came in who hadn't reviewed the evidence. Three, three were not present and they hadn't reviewed the evidence. There's nothing on record to show that they reviewed the evidence from the first one. They should have been disqualified from, you know, from voting. And also the bias, having a bias stating that right off, you know, showed unfamiliarity with any of the evidence. And secondly, to expressing a bias, which I didn't know about, but until, you know, Kerry spoke about it on Monday.

I heard nothing that made me think anybody but one of the commissioners possibly misspoke about not knowing that. But you're saying three, and I saw no evidence that everybody else wasn't versed and didn't feel comfortable, and we appoint people from our community to be commissioners, and They were there when our lawyer said, you know, this is what we assume and they did their duty.

It's an assumption doesn't mean that it was on record that they actually reviewed the evidence. It was an assumption. It was an assumption. And it's not disparaging the individuals. This is an opportunity to do better, right? This is all, this is an educational time to say, look at this process. And I understand that, for instance, our code, which can be addressed later on, has nothing to do with this right now, that people are only, they're only required to notify within, I think, 300 feet. So anybody beyond that wasn't notified because of that. So that people not being notified is not really an issue. It's, you know, something to address in the future. But what I'm talking about is procedurally, they weren't given a fair hearing. You know, a speaker was disrupted a few times and then other people wanting to speak on this issue. And it was brought up that how do we know that they have that information? We don't know. And they didn't acknowledge it. If I was a commissioner, I'm thinking I would say, I just want to let you know that I reviewed that information in summary. Nobody said anything. There was nothing there on record. And it needs to be on the record because this is what it's about on the record in writing. And it wasn't there. This is not, you know, a handshake type of thing. Everything's got to be in writing. This is, you know, it's got to be there.

Thank you, Miss C. All right. Elser Lammerman.

Quick question. It's more for our city planner than the other individuals. In regards to the, uh, The code issues on overall height and then the RF reports and analysis. It had said, and you had stated it too, that the applicant basically said, take our word for it, that we'll fix it or remedy those issues like the height and all that. Can you kind of elaborate on that a little bit?

Yeah, absolutely. So Mayor, Councilor Lammerman. So with the staff report, there are conditions of approval. So we take the proposal and then we tell them what it needs to be. So with this revised change, they need to have it at 100 feet, including the lightning rod. Does that make sense? Yes.

Okay. So would this need to go back to the Planning Commission until they fix those issues?

No. No. this is now within your jurisdiction, you're going to make the decision with regard to the application. And that will be the final decision for the city that then is potentially appealable to LUBA. So there isn't, there's not enough time to remand it. I mean, while your code might provide that as an alternative, were there enough time to go back to the planning commission for them to rehear it and then potentially to have another appeal up to the council for a final decision? you don't have that time right now. The city's final district needs to be issued by Tuesday.

So what kind of action do we put into place as a body to ensure that the applicant is meeting these requirements?

So the motion, when you get to that point, talks about if were you to want to affirm the planning commission's decision, you would do that And if you wanted to adopt staff's recommended modified conditions of approval to address the additional evidence, the motion says affirm planning commission's decision with modified conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report and discussed this evening. All right.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Mr. Solonsky. Mr. Solonsky, can you hear us?

Mayor, may I? Mr. Swanski, could you raise your hand in the attendance list if you're wanting to speak, please? So the indication is he's declined to be promoted to panelists, which would allow him to speak. Thank you.

Thank you. Does the applicant want to speak in a rebuttal? No. Mr. Solonsky, did you want to speak?

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you. Proceed.

Okay, sorry. There was low bandwidth, and so I lost the connection for a second. Apologize for that. So I just wanted to state one thing with regard to the visual impact issue. So I just received from Lenny like about a couple hours ago, an email from Josh Hamilton, and it says, did Craig let you know we plan to propose a monopine tower? I hope that will alleviate some of the visual concerns. So I'm guessing that their proposal with regard to the monopole and making it acceptable and in a stealth manner would be to disguise it somehow as a pine tree. I just want to say that I don't think that would remotely be acceptable. This would not be a tree within like a grove of trees that you wouldn't be able to tell was a cell tower. I mean, it's like putting lipstick on a pig. This would be a 100-foot pole out in the middle of a field that everybody's going to know is a cell tower that may look a little bit different than a completely undisguised cell tower, but it will still be obviously to everyone and from everyone driving on Highway 99 and in that area, a cell phone tower. So I just wanted to make that point. And again, this, yeah, that's it. Thanks.

Would the applicant like to do a final rebuttal?

Hello, can you hear me?

We can hear you, proceed.

I don't have anything else to say besides my general response stated before. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Thank you. Now, may we please hear from staff?

Yes, sorry. Thank you, Mayor and Council. So regarding the testimony tonight, I did try to take notes. Misty and Sean Burris at 471 Sweet Lane did mention the lack of notice and it was expressed a couple of times tonight. Per code, we do 300 feet. and surrounding properties to give a notice that is mailed. We also do an onsite posting of that and we place it in the newspaper as well, bringing attention to the hearing. Those affidavits are in the packet, I had to think for a second, for both of the hearings. So notice was provided, staff does not go door to door on applications. So we do provide more notice than even the state does require. I appreciate Kevin mentioning the tree. It is something that I failed to mention in my verbal staff report, so I apologize for that. But the applicant did propose that to meet the condition of approval. provided by the Planning Commission. Mr. Slonsky mentioned there are better locations addressed in the report, and that has also come up a little bit tonight. And I do hope that you had a chance to read it. I passed it along as soon as I saw it. But again, the proposed locations are actually closer to residential neighborhoods rather than further away. I will give credit to the fact that they said the best location is the industrial parcel across the highway. It abuts the river. However, those are also close to homes. So I do acknowledge that effort. There was a mention of compliance and making sure that these conditions are met regarding the radio frequencies and other things. I will not speak to the radio frequencies. However, as far as meeting the conditions of approval, that is the thing that I had mentioned earlier today. It is on the second to last page of the staff report, page 54. that does say per section 14.42.200 sub A sub 10, a land use review will be required prior to any construction approved by this application to confirm the conditions of approval contained within the staff report have been met. Land use reviews are a measure for us to make sure that the applicant does actually build the thing that they have proposed. So any conditions of approval will be confirmed at that point prior to start a construction. As far as the comments from Missy regarding the planning commission and putting it on the record that the planning commissioners did actually read or listen to the initial hearing. As I said before, we do provide the documentation to these planning commissioners. As you mentioned, Councillor Settlemyer, they are an appointed body. One would assume and expect that if you are on the Planning Commission, you would read. We do not confirm with the Planning Commissioners that, hey, have you read the entire staff report? As you folks know, you just got a 760-something page staff report. So I did want to acknowledge that I understand the frustration on that. But it's an expectation of being on the Planning Commission. And I just wanted to say thank you to everybody who has testified and provided comment and for sticking around this evening. Thank you. Councilor Sotomayor.

And it's interesting that we were given this list of six better places. And when you say that they're closer to residences, I was looking and trying to figure out how could they come up with these six better. And all of a sudden they were talking about how close they were to buildings. And it wasn't a residence, it was a building that those six better ones were. And I appreciate that you were able to go ahead and see, well, there is a difference between buildings and residences for us for this.

If I may, Mayor and Councillor Sattelmeyer, I thank you. It is not in our code to look at those impacts, but as a planner, you have to look at the impacts to adjacent properties and uses, right? And those uses are homes. And so, yes, they are further away from structures themselves, but the uses that surround it, it is exceptionally closer than what is proposed. So thank you.

Councilor Irvin.

Thank you, Mayor. On that point, um, I'm not seeing anywhere in the code proximity to other buildings being a factor that we're coming into play with. So if there are alternative potential sites, would not the governing criteria still be visual impact?

Yes, that is the criteria, Councillor, that we would be addressing, specifically 14.44, sub 400, and then as well as the 14.23.18.

Any other questions? Councillor Sotomayor.

Hold on. Not yet.

But I'll come back.

All right. Counselor Wilson.

We have two appeals. Are we addressing them individually or are we addressing them jointly? Jointly.

Staff's recommended motion. So the appeals were consolidated for purposes of the hearing. You are free to talk about each of them individually. The recommended motion combines them in a consolidated motion. If there is.

We don't have to actually use that motion.

You don't have to use that motion. Nope. You can address them separately.

Thank you.

Councillor Merida.

Thank you mayor, city attorney. It was my understanding that by the council deciding this issue that would cure any deficiency of the procedural lack of participation by commissioners in the first hearing, correct?

That's my, yes, there's a significant case law, Luba case law. that holds even, so in this case, I don't know if there was procedural error, if there was with regard to lack of familiarity with the record or bias, it is cured by a de novo hearing at the council level, which is what you're holding. And I just wanna say further, anyone could have expanded the scope of the appeals. There were certain issues that were raised in the appeals They could have been broader. They could have raised other criteria. Other people could have appealed. You have two, there could have been five. So I just wanted to make sure that you understand that sort of background in addition to, yes, you're curing the, if there were errors, they're being cured at this hearing.

And then the second part would be whether the any of the criteria are not met in approval, there would be any objection to approval based on our code.

I think what you're saying is you're able to deny if approval criteria isn't met. That's yes. So if the applicable criteria is met, it's approved. If it can be met, it's conditionally approved. If it cannot be met, based on your interpretation of the applicable criteria, you deny. Even if there's one criteria that's not met, it would be a denial. But then staff is going to need an explanation and clear direction on your findings and interpretations.

Thank you for translating.

Yeah.

OK. Councilor Evan.

I'm trying to understand the bounds of the conditions. Is this application inextricably linked to the location? Yes.

It is an application for this tower at this site, this subject parcel.

Any other questions? All right, I will now close the public hearing at 816. And the record for this appeal on CUP 1-26. The city council will now proceed with deliberations on these appeals. At this point, council may only deliberate and discuss amongst itself with staff and no other party members or of the public may participate. Councilor Rubin.

Thank you, Mary. So as I understand it, this is where we respond with our kind of opinions and toss them around and see how they work. So trying to zoom back, understand this context is we've got building code. A former council would put this forward, adopted it, put in conditions. And our task here is to say, does this application meet that requirement? code and where there's ambiguity, what was trying to be, what was thought of, what was trying to be communicated and affected through that code. For me, almost, I agree with staff in almost every aspect of the code review and its applicability, except in the visual impact. I have to ask myself, I think it was a strong evidence presented convincing for me that is it minimized? And I don't find that this design in this place is minimizing that impact. I appreciate that the applicant was willing to, you know, in this round, come back with a stealth option. As I was reading the record, I thought, what possible stealth, unless it was invisibility, could remedy the visual impact in this location? And So that's for me, this is I find it deficient in this location. This applications.

Councilor Sotomayor.

The idea of a cell tower going up, I haven't heard anybody say was a really bad idea. And when the people who brought us this professional, um, plan that said we should deny this went and identified six possible places that are within that ring. Every single one of those places that the professional rebuttal was closer to residents than the one that we're currently talking about. I know that it's going to impact somebody who is very nearby, but somebody very nearby that is their business during the day, is a whole lot better than any one of the other that the experts said were possible differences being closer to residences. And the one that they identified is absolutely the best. We hope there's a whole bunch of houses around that pretty soon, because I think they're talking about across the river by where we live. have planned houses all over the place. So unless we're saying no to cell towers, even their expert people found nothing better than the one that's recommended.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor, just to respond to that. So that's why I was... looking in the criteria about its proximity to residents um one of the conditions it's not so we're really i'm trying to frame this within the visual impact space it's conceivable uh so long as the you know we're not the rf emissions past the the standards that something uh in closer proximity to a residence within the you know allowable uh standards could have a almost no visual impact, especially when it's incorporated some of the ideas that were ways that you could meet this requirement. If it was attached to other buildings, if it was maybe cloaked within a grove of trees, it's not so much the proximity to residents or other businesses. It's the visual impact. It's the right out in the open. There's a giant tower. That's how I'm understanding the intent of this, why we have a section on visual impact. You know, we have other pieces about this saying, if at all possible, bury your structure, right? So make it so it's not immediately identifiable as this thing. So people, you know, as they're traveling along their way, they're not going, oh, giant tower. And I don't think a tree design remedies that because it's, oh, there's a giant tree tower. but there are ways to minimize the impact. You can mount the technology in other ways that minimize the visual impact. And I don't know where necessarily there would be, and I don't think that's part of our process is to determine what's a better location. Is this application in this location minimizing the impact? And I think that it fails that test is how I understand it.

Councillor Lammerman.

So I basically have to agree with Councillor Urban on the visual impact of the location that it's going to. And from the sounds of it, as been mentioned a little bit already with the other possible site would be over on the other side of the highway near the river. I think a faux tree would probably blend in a little bit more. near that area um i know councilor settlemeyer talked about uh potential home development in that area there's pros and cons to that for me at least because they're not there yet so their property values aren't going to be impacted as much as the ones that are already existing that are going to be built under they're going to be underneath a new tower essentially um I know we're kind of limited on what all we could talk about in regards to that. But I know if I had a cell phone tower pop up in my backyard, I'd be extremely pissed. And I wouldn't, I'd probably be in the same boat. But unfortunately, the applicant, there's nothing in there that's against the rules or violates anything. us legally to deny him other than the visual aspect of it um but i'm not for cell phones or cell phone towers in general uh so that's just my opinion on it also they interject you just said you're not in favor of cell towers and

To me, that indicates a possible personal bias. Would you like to state on the record that you're able to make a decision based on the record and only the record?

I think I kind of did that by saying that the applicant is within the confines of the law, so there's nothing to stop them from doing it.

I just would love to hear you say on the record that you can make a decision based on the criteria.

I can make an unbiased decision on the application.

Based on the criteria in the record.

based on the criteria of the record i appreciate that thanks counselor hank um i just wanted to say that i too agree with counselor urban um visually speaking this is not appealing i too would be pretty upset if one popped up in my backyard um but um I think I'd like to know more about the alternatives. I've seen some bad trees and I've seen some good trees. And without knowing what this is going to look like, it's hard for me to make a decision.

Councilor Wilson.

Yes. Based off of code, the minimization of visual impact I don't think is met. I have seen numerous cell towers that look like trees. And being out in the middle of a field, that's not stealth. It does not in any way, shape, or form meet standards. minimizing visual impact, which is what we are asked to apply that code to this application. I don't think that the applicant is satisfying that criteria. I think that based off of some of the expert testimony on the need for the tower, that the height of the tower is not necessary to be 100 feet. So that possibly could be a remedy, that it could be a shorter tower. There is... been considerable advancement in technology and their coverage needs, which they stated and demonstrated to a degree on the applicant's own paperwork was that it's not the coverage right now of the current towers is actually adequate for the current situation. that it's almost doubling up the effort, and it may be projecting future needs, but the need for it to be a 100-foot tower was not actually addressed, that they could possibly be a shorter tower, but that was never analyzed. which could impact the minimization of the visual impact, which is what we have to apply to this is the code. I think everything else has been met. I do have a problem with the procedural aspect in the two planning commission meetings that it wasn't stated on record that the three commissioners that did not attend the first meeting, they should have stated on record and should have been asked specifically on record, did you review the minutes of the first meeting? Did you familiarize yourself with the issue? They may have, but it's not on record. And that is a legal requirement because they were not at the first meeting. So they did not have an opportunity to hear the testimony of the public. So I do have a problem with that aspect as well as the appeal.

Ms. Conley, can you confirm, would that be a legal requirement for them to state on record?

It's certainly a best practice for them to have said that and So that will probably be a practice moving forward.

I mean, it was stated by you in the chair that you assumed they did. But that's an assumption.

That wasn't contradicted.

Right. It wasn't affirmed or contradicted.

That's what I'm saying.

Can I just ask our senior planner Crow to respond to some of what the group is talking about, about what went on in your mind again, about what minimizing the visual impact with this particular application meant and why you said it was okay?

Absolutely. Mayor Counselor Settlemyer. So with the code, there are two areas that are called out that speak to the minimization of negative impacts, right? We've got 14.44.400 sub one, which is making sure it's adequate for the needs. And then we've got the 14.23.180 sub C sub nine. Our code with the specific wireless transmission facility section is very specific. Let me pull it up. Very specific on the visual impacts that it says it has to have been incorporated or can demonstrate to have, right? So it's the on-site vegetation preserved and disturbance to existing topography is minimized. Check. Currently it's a grassy field. The WTF is cited on a location which has the least impact on residential uses in districts and public rights of way. It is located off of the right of way. It is in the industrial park surrounded by industrially zoned parcels. I will say the other cell tower that's in town is surrounded by residential uses and zones. So this made more sense being located in the industrial zoned area of town.

One, I'll serve him.

is, because I had a question on this too, it's under the heading of visual impacts and then it doesn't restate visual impact here. Is it to be understood the WTF is cited in a location which has the least impact? Can that be understood as visual impact or is that a different kind of impact that's supposed to be considered?

For this one, I would assume it would be visual impact. That is how I took it as that. Okay. Really, it lists the ways that it can mitigate those visual impacts, right? And so the reason why staff found that they had originally met it and after discussion and direction from planning commission changed the condition of approval is it states that the telecommunication facility incorporates stealth technology or is a neutral color. They had the neutral color. They met the criteria. Staff agreed. didn't argue with that, it was there. Planning commission decided after testimony that additional impact minimization was required, right? And so that's why they required the stealth technology as well as a neutral color that has morphed into a neutral color that compliments the stealth. So that is where staff found the nexus there. they met the criteria that they had proposed and have imposed additional commissions to change them to satisfy public testimony.

Ms. Conway, on that piece right there, can you give us a legal opinion on the way you read that and if it would meet?

Okay, so we're talking about the stealth and 23-180-C. What I'm hearing from several counselors is they're finding... They believe that in C9 visual impacts, they're looking at the end of the first paragraph, the first full paragraph before it breaks into those subsections and that it's to the greatest extent practicable. The application demonstrates the following items have been incorporated in the proposal.

That's pretty mealy.

But what I'm hearing is that to the greatest extent practicable, the application doesn't demonstrate that the WTF is cited in a location which has the least impact on residential uses and districts and public rights of way. I'm not able to analyze whether there's substantial evidence in the record that supports that interpretation. First, it's your choice to direct us on how you want it to be interpreted. And I do. There was a lot in the recent report that was submitted last night. And I didn't receive any rebuttal from the applicant to that evidence. So were the counsel to find that's the substantial evidence that you want staff to rely on, you can direct us to do that. Whether or not that's going to stand up in a LUBA appeal, it's very hard to say.

Councillor Marietta.

Thank you, Mayor. So I'm hearing a number of objections among council to the proposed stealth technology. Is there another alternative stealth technology that would be more appealing? Leonard Crowe, do you know of any other stealth technology besides a monopine?

Yes, absolutely. If there's other stealth technology that's known. I mean, I'm not in the industry, right?

I do travel around. There are various options available. You've seen there's one in our bell tower in Eugene. Obviously, the tree's kind of a small, nine-in-one slack hole. There's a lot of options available. And I'm not 100% familiar with them because that's not my job, but there are other options in just a tree that I've been exposed to. And this is, if I may, Carrie, this is a chance for council to confirm or change the staff reporting conditions.

That's right, based on these deliberations, I expect to have some direction from the council on what they want this final decision to look like to be signed. And I can help craft a motion to that effect. But I'm not sure that we're there yet.

Thank you, Mayor.

The location, which is section B, subsection B of nine visual impacts, is really what's at issue here. There are a multitude of stealth technologies that would lend themselves to a different location and have the effect that I think the code is trying to have. That seems to be the, there is, what can you do when you're just out in the open in a flat area to conceal the visual and to minimize the visual impact? Given the location, there's, you know, kudos to the applicant. They're willing to try something, but as testimony was given tonight, it's like, it has, it actually has no effect on minimizing the impact. And so that's, I would love to see an application in a more optimal site or planning commission at that point. But that's the main issue. And the evidence that was presented tonight, I think, supports that. And I think we should direct our council to cite that.

Councilor Sotomayor.

I think you hit the nail on the head as to what it is that where I couldn't align. And I'm not sure that you are looking at it the same way I am. When they talked about we need a cell tower in this area. Boom, we're in south of town. We need it somewhere. I heard residence is important. And so somewhere in that land area that we're talking about. and then identified as a plot that takes care of the residence issue, the best one is the one proposed. So if that's the best one proposed for land, now how do we minimize it out in the middle of the field?

I definitely considered that, and I wondered if that was how the framing in which we were supposed to be looking at this. I certainly... I landed on, no, what's the purpose of building code? Why did a council establish this in the first place? A council is looking after the overall livability and delivery of services and quality of life within the city limits. and therefore established code to ensure that, to ensure safety, to ensure a certain aesthetic. So I couldn't narrow my scope to for this application, was it minimizing that? But the whole point of this operation of having a code was for everyone within the city limits. And of course it has an impact on adjacent county. So that's how I went down that path and that's where I landed on. If council or staff is direct and said, no, only the scope of which we're supposed to conceptualize the criteria be met is within the confines of the location only, then I would probably, I would land on a different outcome.

Yeah, you can ask that. Stop.

Right. So is there one before the other? Or I mean, this particular application, we're only talking about that plot. So when we say minimize the visual, we're looking at their efforts to make something sit on that plot that is the minimum that they can.

Specific to this parcel misproposal.

So I think the question, though, is there's two ways to interpret this criteria and the way that staff has interpreted it, which is, I think, a conservative, safe approach would be on this site, on the subject parcel, is this located in a way to minimize impacts? What I'm hearing from the council is they're exploring interpreting in a different way more broadly, which is the way that the appellant is urging you to interpret it, which is look at the larger area and in that larger area, is this the location that will minimize visual impacts? We honestly cannot tell you. We've already told you what the staff's recommendation is. You get to tell us that doesn't make sense to us. And I can't say sitting here how defensible it is. I can tell you, you have arguments in front of you that say it's a fair interpretation to interpret it more broadly. And it's your job to weigh those arguments. There's one case that was cited, the San Diego case that was cited in the experts report that essentially was saying you can take a broader look. The criteria as senior planner Crowe outlined earlier, I don't think it's spot on. I don't think that case is, I mean, it's certainly not controlling for you. It could be persuasive. but the criteria there was different than what you're looking at here. That does, I'm not telling you, you can't interpret your criteria the way you want, but that's your decision. I'm not going to make, you know, I'm not going to balance that for you.

Councilor Lamberman.

Madam Mayor. So, City Attorney, would we be fine to make the motion based off the suggested staff motion at this current time, or do we need to amend this motion or come up with a new one?

It depends on what you want to do. So if you want to adopt staff's recommended approval of the CUP with the additional conditions of approval and modifications to the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report, you would make the suggested motion that's been provided to you. If instead you wanted staff, you wanted to direct staff to draft a final order that denies the CUP based on failure to meet 1423.180 . You would tell us to do that. You would direct staff to do that and bring it back for signature by the mayor by Tuesday.

I'll float one.

I move that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission's approval of conditional use permit CUP 126 with modifications to the conditions of approval as outlined and modified in today's staff report for the proposed wireless transmission facility located at 2070 South R Street.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second with an amendment.

You have a friendly amendment?

Just to his motion, for the permit CUP, just need to amend it to 1-26, because the way you stated it was 126 as a whole number.

All right. We have a motion with a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, will the recorder please call the roll. Councillor Heinke?

Yes. Councillor Merida?

Aye.

Councillor Lammerman?

Aye.

Councillor Wilson?

No.

Councillor Settlemyer? I. Councillor Irvin.

May.

Mayor souls be.

A.

Vote is 43 in the affirmative.

I'll now close this meeting. At 8.46, we are adjourned.

The hardest part was parsing the technical stuff of that.

I'm doing good.