Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah.

Okay. Um, I'd ask it everyone uh quiet for a moment. I want to call the uh meeting to order. Calling the meeting of the uh planning regular planning commission to order. I want to welcome all you here tonight. It's nice to see a full chamber. That's always nice. Uh can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Albourne here. Commissioner Allen here. Commissioner Carco here. Commissioner Lock here. And Chair Leage here.

Okay, let me just get over here to the agenda. Okay. Uh, first item on the agenda tonight are the public appearances. Um, at this time I want to invite anybody from the public who would like to speak to the planning commission on any items of municipal concern which are not on our agenda tonight. You may do so at this time. I want to remind you that all of your comments are governed by the Brown Act and we expect you to abide by that. So, uh, I'd like to invite anybody who would like to speak to the planning commission tonight to come up about any matters of municipal concern which are not on our agenda tonight. This is the time you can do that. Don't see anybody in the chamber. Do we have anybody online, Shelby?

Yes.

Okay, we will move on from the public appearances. Uh, we don't have any announcements tonight that I know of. Okay, that brings us to the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are considered to be routine in nature and may be passed in one motion. But uh if are any questions there any questions from the commissioners? Okay, I see. Let let me announce what they are first. The items on the ag consent agenda. Uh any members from the commission or the public may ask that any item be pulled for further discussion. We have four items on the consent agenda tonight. We have the u first three items, excuse me, the first two items are the planning commission's uh regular meeting minutes. Third item is the monthly activity report and the fourth item item is design study 25153 the van ceilo project. Um commissioner uh Alurn you have a question or

um yeah chair I had a question regarding item number three the monthly activity report. Okay. Uh what's your question? Um my question has to do with this is directed to staff. It would be directed to staff. Yes sir. Go ahead.

Thank you. Uh so the monthly activity report um is for the month of December 2025 and there were um 11 there were about 33 applications for planning and 11 of them were incomplete. That's 33%. Um, now three of those were, I believe, a multi-lot project and I believe involve an historic evaluation. So, if we pull those out, um, we're still looking at eight incomplete applications out of a total of 33. So, that's almost 25%. So, I realize this isn't a question that can be answered tonight, but I think it it might be worth a look at to see if there's a commonality about what might be incomplete about those applications and see if we can provide a little bit better service to the applicants so that we can streamline the process.

It um Stephan will note that down. Um, I I know that you did present a a form of a draft checklist and hopefully this will that will be helpful in terms of getting a complete submission so we can process permits. Sounds quicker. Thank you. Okay. Um, any further questions about any items on the consent agenda from the commissioners? Any questions from the public about any items on the consent? We have a hand up. We will have to um pull item number four uh as we have a recusal. We'll have to pull item number four for a recusal.

Oh, that's right. We are. Yeah. Okay. So, uh I believe Commissioner Albourne has to recuse herself from item number four. So, um I'm going to make a motion to accept items uh one, two, and three. I'll second that. Okay. Uh can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Alour? Yes. Commissioner Allen. Yes. Commissioner Pereekco. Yes. Commissioner Lockach. Yes. And Chair Leage. Yes. Okay. Uh Commissioner Alurn, she can leave the chamber while we And I'll make a motion to accept item number four on the consent agenda. I'll second that. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Carco, yes. Commissioner Lockach,

yes. And Chair Leage, yes. Okay. Commissioner Alburn, you can come back now. Thank you. Yeah, Chair, this is um Brian Purik, the city attorney. Um yes, the re the reason for the recusal needs to be stated on the record. Okay. The reason for the recusal is because Commissioner Alberin lives within 300 feet or 500 ft. 500. Do I hear five? 500 feet of the project. That was the reason for the recusal. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, let's move on to orders of business. Uh we have one item on the orders of business tonight. This is a director referral continued from the October 8th, 2025 and December uh 2025 planning commission meeting hearings. Uh we're going to receive a referral to discuss the permanent operations history of AW. Shucks um considering uh consideration of amendment to the use permit, but I believe the director has an announcement she wants to make about this or a request.

Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Um staff was advised by um our city attorney that this matter be continued to a date uncertain to allow um further analysis and exploration in in terms of moving forward. Um and Mr. Perrick is here if you have technical questions or legal questions as to the continuence. Okay. And this is this is new information that came up or it's or it's just questions that have to do with the the uh existing recommendations that the uh planning commission made at the last meeting.

I will I'll defer to to Mr. Perrick so we can answer that question. Oh, the the city attorney's here. Yes. Okay. You want to give a little further explanation of that? Yeah. Yeah. We did we did just recently receive some new information and um also I believe that um the director um also has uh um some possible modifications to um the potential modifications to the staff report and the resolution. So it's not uh it's our recommendation that it be continued. Okay. All right. Um, do we have we have to allow comments from the public prior to the motion to continue

on the continuence? Yeah. Okay. All right. At this time, I want to open it up to the public for any comments that they may want to make regarding the continuation. This isn't about the use. It's just about the continuation. Okay. I don't see anybody. Any hands online? Yes. Okay. I will make a motion. Oh. Well, come on up. Come on up. Thank you, chair, commissioners. I'm completely confused. They want to postpone this. I understand. Is is that is that what what the the motion is to continue this?

Uh the the motion is to continue it and and the reason uh was just given by the city attorney and uh I'm not I mean, as far as I understand, there's been new information. Is that correct? Is that new information that can be shared? I mean, let me let me let me just let me uh let the city attorney answer that for you again. Could you restate the reason for the continuation again? We'd appreciate that.

Yes. The the city received correspondence from I I believe it's in the record. uh the Hudson Martin Law Firm raising some questions, presenting some information, and then also there's um uh I believe the director um believes that there's um a need to possibly make some modifications to the resolution. Okay. But so there's no interesting information that's available to the public. Yes, it should be. Okay. It's part of the public record. So you can you can get that specific information from the planning department.

Okay. Well, I mean, while I'm here, I'd like to say we've already reviewed decades of business licenses and and permits and and we've gathered all this information. I I think that we're ready to vote on on on the issue. What What new secret information is there? I I I hope we can continue. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Uh staff has requested I make a motion for continuation. So I'm going to make that motion. Second. All right. Do we have any further discussion?

Um my only question is um we can't specify a date at this point. Uh staff said a date uncertain. A date uncertain depending on on when we'll be able to complete the analysis. I don't want to put a date too far out. Um, the only thing that would be re that would be required is that we renotice it even if it's for February 11th. Okay. Yeah, I would. So, we don't want to put next month's meeting on here. If you did if you did continue it to February 11th and the information wasn't available um for your consideration, then it would be it would require another continuence. Okay.

Okay. I'd just like to say that there's um there is some concern for immediiacy to get this resolved on the part of the public. So I would encourage staff to u bring this back to as quickly as possible. Okay. All right. U any further discussion? Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alborg, yes. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Careco, yes. Commissioner Lock, yes. And Chair Leage,

yes. Okay, the motion is passed. All right, that brings us to the public hearings. Uh we have three items of the public hearing tonight, but the first two items have been requested for continuation. So, we have to deal with um the continuation first. We need a motion on each of those. So first item on the public hearings is item number six. This is DS25357 consideration of a track one design referral study for the amendments to conditions of approval previously approved. Um so when I when I say we have a motion for continuance it's just a motion for that. There's no discussion in the continuous motion regarding the application. So is does would the director like to give a reason for the continuence?

Sure. Um staff's recommending a continuence on the Krugler application as it was not um noticed um notices weren't posted on site or hand delivered by the applicant. So in order to fulfill our requirements, we will have to renotice instead of It wasn't noticed correctly. That's correct. Okay. All right. Um, are there any questions from the public or any comments regarding the motion to continue DS25357? I don't see anybody there. Shelby, any hands up? No, sir. All right. Um, any discussion on parts of commission? All right. Roll call, please. A motion in a second.

I'll I'll second that motion. We made a motion. Thank you. Thank you for taking care of that. All right. Uh, roll call, please. Commissioner Albourne, yes. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Carropov, yes. Commissioner Lock, yes. And trailer page. Yes. Motion is carried. Okay. Uh, we also have a U recommendation to continue item number 7 DS250195, the Mcuarter project. Is it the same situation? Different situation.

Different situation. Um for the Mcuarter project, the application or the plans did not pass the volume study. Um so staff's recommending a continuence to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to redesign and then send that through for volume analysis, right? And the application's for final details. So that's they need to get that taken care of. Okay. Any any comments about this uh motion to continue the motion that I'm making right now to continue this application? I'll second. All right. Don't see any any hands going. Oh, we do have we have some here. Go. When when would it be? Pardon? When will the next meeting be?

Uh they they have it to a date uncertain, but um I would assume that uh you know because it's the volume study that needs to be completed. So soon as that's completed, I'm sure staff will put it put it back on the agenda or they will be able to you know they need that to do it. Any idea when when I just we're going to be out of town next month. I just don't know when it's going to be. I I believe the earliest it could be coming back to planning commission would be in March. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. No problem. All right. Thank you. Any more comments? All right. Roll call, please. Did I get a motion and a second? I second. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Alboard. Yes. Commissioner Allen?

Yes. Commissioner Careco? Yes. Commissioner L. Yes. And Chair Leage. Yes. Motion is carried. Okay. That brings us to the main event.

Um, which is item number eight, which is a design review uh 25313 and a use permit 25314. This is uh applied for by Verizon Sequoia deployment. consideration of a use permit, design review, and coastal development permit for the construction of a small wireless facility on a replacement Pacific uh PG& utility pole in the public rideway in front of Carmelo Street, 4 southeast of 10th Avenue in the single family residential uh district. Um before we get into this, I want to just kind of lay a few ground rules. Uh there's a lot of people here tonight that want to speak. There's also I believe the u some of the public group has a couple of attorneys or at least one attorney there in New York. So, um I'm going to allow them to speak first. As far as time, the normal time is 3 minutes to make your comments. If you need additional time, when you come up to the microphone, please ask me. Give me a reason why you think you need additional time and I will grant additional time. Typically, I grant uh five minutes for a longer speaking. And if you need time to answer, if an applicant or I mean a uh the applicant or uh the public members need any additional time to answer they think any relevant questions that came up during the comments. I will grant additional time for that but I will not grant additional time to just come up and repeat your your your particular position or argument against or for against an the application. Uh it it we did receive a large amount of information today very late and because of that uh the planning commissioners have really and staff have not had a chance to review that information. So it's very likely that I'm going to make a motion to continue this this application. uh which I think uh

benefits all parties uh the the the applicant and um the neighborhood group that have gone to a lot of effort to collect a lot of information and all this information really needs to be reviewed thoroughly. But I want all of the uh discussion to go on tonight, all the presentation by staff and all the public comments to be heard tonight because everybody's here. So, um I just wanted to get that up front so everybody knows and I believe that uh the director has some information too that she wants to relate to the public and the applicant.

Thank you. Um staff is supportive of the planning commission's approach if if that is the vote to allow testimony and um continue. Um, I do want to mention um that we received information from our attorney that um there is an agreement to extend the shot clock date to March 5th. So any continuence date, we would um uh recommend it happen around uh February 4th or early in February. That way if there is an appeal um we would be able to bring an appeal to the um city council prior to the March 5th date. So perhaps if if a continuence is um on the table then um at that time we can look at the calendar and and identify a special meeting date if necessary.

Okay. Okay. I also want to let them know that the public know if if there is a motion made to continue the project that the public and the applicant will have an opportunity to speak to that motion before any vote is taken on that tonight. Okay. With that, I would like to invite staff to give their report. Good afternoon, commissioners. As Taylor Page stated, we're here to discuss design review. There we go. Uh, design review 25313 and use permit UP25314, Verizon Sequoia deployment. This is an application that was submitted by Sequoia Deployment Services Incorporated on behalf of Verizon. Uh this is going to be our first application since the city for a a type one through four application for a conditional use permit since the adoption of the city's 2023 wireless ordinance.

Uh the proposed location for the small wireless facility is in the public right ofway in front of Carmelo Street 4 southeast of 10th. Uh the existing pole top is 38 ft 11 in roughly 39 in or 39 ft. Uh and this is a type three application which is for a small wireless facility on a replacement pole in the right of way. Uh on the screen you can see there's the three existing views that were used for the photo simulations of the facility. Um looking north, looking south and looking east. The pole itself is on the east side of the public right ofway. Here is photos of the photo simulations provided by the applicant to show what the facility should look like when it is constructed and installed or if it is constructed and installed. Uh the replacement PG pole top would be uh roughly 46 ft4 in and the proposed top of the antenna would be 49 ft 10 in. Uh this is a PD pole that would be replaced in the same location. Uh, and the antenna itself would be about uh 2.89 cubic feet with the polemounted equipment being roughly 15 cubic feet with another half a cubic foot for the meter disconnect. Uh, so I have I guess before I jump into all these slides, I have quite a few slides in the presentation. I'm going to try and move at a rapid pace through most things. Um, but a lot of them are just quotes from the code showing what the standards or from the design guidelines what the guidelines are. And I'll have the analysis on the following pages. If there is at any time you would like me to go back to review some standards or guidelines or findings, we can have them there for reference. But if I'm moving through slides quickly, it's just to get to the analysis. I tried to do some highlighting of the standards um in the code just to make it

easier for reading. Uh so Carmel Municipal Code section 1746040B uh covers the ranked location for the different tiers of locations for putting a wireless facility from least compatible tier one to most compatible tier three. Um Verizon is proposing to go in the public right of way in the single family residential zoning district. uh they provided uh justification, technical justification and alternate site analysis to show why they couldn't deploy in a tier three nor a tier 2 zone. That's attachment eight from the staff of the staff report. Um their stated reasons are that the the potential sites in a tier three or tier 2 zone wouldn't address the coverage gaps that they currently have and would offer duplicative service. Uh 174604C is for pressment preference for placement uh on public parcels on public or private parcels over in the public right of way to ensure that there's no interference with the flow of pedestrian and vehicle traffic, reasonable access for use, uh no interference with emergency services, uh maximize uh public access to the commercial districts. Um and if they applicants are proposing to place a facility in the public right ofway, they need to provide written justification for that. Uh Verizon or Sequoia deployment services on behalf of Verizon provided their technical justification and alternate sites analysis as previously referenced attachment 8 to the staff report and stated that there's no uh technically feasible alternatives on public or private property due to height restrictions and setback restrictions on these private uh on these parcels. So 1746040D structure selection for selection of uh structures in the right of way uh new non-replacement structures of any type are the least compatible and then

existing or replacement utility poles are the most compatible. So Verizon/Squoya deployment services is proposing to go on a replacement utility pole in the right of way. So that would be the preferred structures in the right of way. 174604RE E1 structure selection. Um there's highly incompatible locations uh in the public right ofway. any location that is in the single family residential zoning district, anything that would trigger the secretary of the interior standards for potential impacts to a historic resource or anything that is in the pink highlighted area in figure one uh which would be anything west of San Antonio basically or north Carmelo uh past I think that's ocean. So, Verizon Sequoa is proposing to go in the public rightway in the single family uh zoning district. Uh they have filed a location special exemption. Special exceptions covered later in the presentation. Uh E2 for structure selection is uh additional public rightway location selection standards. Uh A and B directly in front of uh the with directly in front of within 5T of the center line of a window or door on the facade of the building. So if you take a line down the center of a door or window on the facade of the building and extend it out 5 ft either side and then extend that as a vertical plane or plane going forward. So this pole does fall into within 5 ft of the center line of the facade window of the adjacent residential structure. Um it is not within 500 ft of another wireless facility. So they're requesting a special uh exception, a location special exception for placing in that center line buffer space. Um the existing pole is in that buffer space and they're proposing to replace the pole in the same location and they've provided an alternate sites analysis as the technical feasibility/justification

for why this is the least intrusive location they can go and filed for the special exception which we'll cover later in the presentation. E3 is for safety considerations. Um Sequoia deployment on behalf of Verizon. They're not proposing to add any new structures to the right of way. It'll be uh the proposed small wireless facility will go on a replacement P Gen pole where there is an existing P Gen pole. Um and it meets all the safety requirements for exposure. Uh GO95 any um safety standards that apply to wireless facilities. it is in compliance with. Uh so we're going get to get into design standards now. That's 174640F1. Um so we've listed all the design standards here. Stealth and concealment, overall height, finishes, noise, lights, trees and landscaping, signage and security measures. So we can go reference these standards as need be throughout the report. I know it's a a big blocks of text. It's also in the staff report um and in the code. um fire and safety, compliance of the laws, and view protection. So, we'll go through the analysis uh of the each of the standards, and if you guys need to reference, we can always go back. Um so, for steelthing, the uh applicant is proposing to shroud their uh accessory equipment on the pole and their antenna, and all cables and wirings will be in conduits, and all of the shrouds and conduits will be painted to match the Pen pole as depicted in the photo simulation. Uh for overall height, the replacement P Gen pole is going from a pole top height of 38 feet 11 in to 46'4 in and the antenna above the new utility pole would be 3 1/2 ft. Uh putting the top of the antenna height at 49 ft and 10 in roughly. Uh the spacing between the primary power lines at the top of the page knee pole and the bottom of the

antenna bracket is 6 feet which is the minimum required for uh the California public utilities commission general order 95 which is the safety standards and regulations for uh utility poles finishes. Uh as staff said previously they're going to be painting the uh equipment to match the Pen pole. Um, they did show that in the photo simulations, but they didn't provide a manufacturer's spec for the paint itself. So, we're just gonna have have them add a detail to the plans for what the paint color will be specifically uh prior to building permit issuance. And that's special condition number one. Uh, for noise, the I've confirmed with the applicant and their um they provided an acoustic analysis. All equipment on site will be cooled passively and won't have any fans and will not generate any noise. As for lights, the applicant is not proposing any lights as part of this application. Trees and landscaping, uh the standard says that you can't put propose a new pole within the drip line of a tree. Um but the wireless ordinance section spec uh differentiates new replacement and existing poles from each other. So in staff views that this is not a new pole in the drip line, it's an existing pole that's being replaced in the drip line. I there were still concerns about the health of the tree. So that's why special condition number three requires the applicants to provide a landscape management plan prior to building permit issuance to show um how they'll be interacting with the tree. As discussed in the field today, the pool replacement itself will be handled by P gen under a separate permit. Regarding signage, uh the applicant did provide a construction detail with the required RF signage that goes 3 ft below the antenna on the pole. Um, it includes the site ID, uh, owner information, a toll-free contact number, and gives a warning about radio frequency exposure at that height on the pole, which is again 3 ft below the antenna. Um, security measures, the equipment is going to be shrouded and enclosed and

secured so that it's not accessible to the public. It'll be 11 ft up and enclosed entirely within shroud. uh for fire safety. Um part of the standard uh references needing the plans to be prepared by a licensed engineer. The P plans were prepared by an and stamped by an engineer. Uh condition of approval number 16 provides the ability for the fire safety authority to shut down the site if there's a view that there's a threat to public safety. Um, and in addition, the property, the the site is going to be meeting all of the CPU general order 95 requirements for clearances from power lines. Compliance with the laws. Condition of approval 11 requires the applicant to comply with all federal and state requirements for wireless facilities. Additionally, the site meets all of Carmel by the sea's requirements with the approval of the two special location exceptions that the applicant has requested. Uh, view protection. Um the wireless facility has been designed to try and preserve public and private coastal views. The uh polemounted equipment will be roughly 11 ft uh above ground level. So from the public right of way for pedestrians that should be far above their eyelines. The antenna itself as stated before will be from 46 ft roughly 46 1/2 ft to 49 almost 50 ft uh which should be above uh the sight lines. We did uh visit a neighboring residents that had concerns about views being um obscured by the equipment. Next, we will be going into the administrative detailed wireless facility design guidelines. Specifically, the design guidelines for p facilities in the public right ofway. So for poles, uh that's replacement poles, they must be located as close to the roof pole as possible, aligned with the other poles on the street and designed to resemble existing uh the existing poles, including overall height. Uh they're not allowed to increase more than 10 ft or whatever height is necessary to be compliant with

the CPU GO95 requirements. Antennas, all antennas shall be um meet our placement, concealment, and volume guidelines. Uh the maximum allowed cubic footage is three. Um accessory equipment we have a preference for underground equipment. Then the next most preferable would be polemounted equipment that is 6 cubic feet or less. And then uh the cap to this would be no uh accessory equipment that is cumulatively larger than 17 cubic feet. The accessory equipment uh needs to be shrouded and painted to match the pole and shall be no lower than 8 1/2 ft on the pole. uh util utility services. Um these guidelines just speak to that all the cables and wirings must be enclosed in conduit. Uh flat rate services preferred if possible from P Gen. Um and there can't be any interruption of services down the line. So for staff's analysis uh as discussed the pole height will be increasing from 38t 11 in to 46 ft uh 4 in which is less than the 10 ft increase if you include the the increase in height of the pole plus the antenna up to 4910 uh it is increasing by more than 10 ft but the the increase that they're uh including um for the pole itself is to meet the minimum 6 ft clearance from the primary power lines at the top of the P Gen pole to the bottom of the ENT. antenna bracket. For the antenna, they're proposing a shrouded antenna that will be 2.89 cubic feet in volume, less than the three that is allowed. It'll be shrouded and painted to match the pole, so it complies with the antenna design guidelines. Um, for accessory equipment, the applicant is proposing 15 cubic feet of polemounted equipment. Um, they say this is the minimum amount of equipment needed for the site. If the planning commission um has concerns about that, we can request some more analysis from the applicants

to pro provide evidence that there's no way they could shrink the polemounted equipment to trying to bring it closer to the 6 cubic feet of polemounted accessory equipment. Uh as for undergrounding the equipment, uh there is a tree adjacent um that could potentially be disturbed for underground equipment. Additionally, underground utilities could be preserved, but I think staff's biggest concern for this would be if there was underground equipment there, it would need to be uh able to be accessed, which would take away a parking space in the public right of way. Uh which is not something that we want here. Uh as for utility services, all con all conductors will be in conduits that run the length of the pole and are painted to match the Peny utility pole. CMC section 1746080A.1 standard findings. So for wireless facilities, there's a series of findings that need to make um won't have a visual impact uh and will adhere to all the standards in this code and the design guidelines and therefore won't affect property values because it follows the standards and guidelines. Um the administrative design guidelines and standards must be followed to adhered to unless special exceptions that are outlined in the code are uh requested. The applicant is requesting two location special exceptions. Um standard finding C or three uh is that it must meet all RF exposure. Um four or D is that it has to meet the fire and safety standards. E is that there is a fall zone protection requirements in the administrative design uh or administrative detailed wireless design guidelines. Um F all public notices required for the application have been given. G all findings for required for a use permit pursuant to CMC 176410.

I think uh I've listed them here on on the screen but you guys uh see those standards more frequently so I'm not going to go through individually. uh H finding all uh all the findings for the discretionary design review approval pursuant to CMC 1758060. Similarly, these are what we review typically in these meetings. So, they're here on the screen and we can reference as need be, but I'm not going to go through one by one. Um if applicable, the project uh has to meet all the findings for a coastal development permit. Um and so that would be that the project confi complies with our local coastal program uh and is in conformity with public access and recreational policies of the coastal act. Additionally um so the applicant meets all the required findings for the wireless facility with the approval of two special location exceptions. Uh special exceptions have additional findings. The applicant has requested a special exceptions for the small wireless facility in the right of way and the single family residential zoning district and for placing a small wireless facility on a pole within 5 ft of the center line of a window of a door of the facade of an occupied residential adjacent residential building. So, the planning commission shall not grant any special exceptions unless they find the following. Uh, that the denial of the application result in an effective prohibition of or otherwise violate federal law or the denial of an application will violate state law. Uh, the special exception requested by the applicant does not compromise or excuse compliance with safety, fire or public health requirements. Uh the special exemptions are narrowly tailored such that indeviations are just what's necessary to comply with state fate federal and state law findings required 174680 C2 um the applicant so a the denial of its application will result in effective

prohibition or otherwise violate federalist law or the denial of the application will violate state law. Uh Verizon asserts the denial would violate state law and would be an effective prohibition of service under federal law. They only need to prove one, but they asserted that both would be true. Uh we had CTC was a third party engineering firm that the city contracted for reviewing of all the technical documentation that's provided by Sequoia deployment on behalf of Verizon. Uh CTC reviewed and analyzed the claims and special counsel for the city reviewed the legal arguments. The city disagrees that Verizon's demonstrated the denial of the application would violate state law. Uh the city does agree that the application proved an effective prohibition of service uh should we deny the application. So effective prohibition service under federal law. uh CTC uh they reviewed the peer con report provided by Sequoia deployment on half of Verizon showing the uh coverage gap that they were uh aiming to serve with the deployment of this facility and CTC confirmed that there is a coverage gap shown by the pure con report um staff review has reviewed the alternate sites analysis and confirmed this site is the least intrusive means to um in the search ring peercon report analyzed the tier 2 and three sites and CTC concerned uh CTC confirmed that um the findings in the Purecon report are correct and that the tier three and two sites that were reviewed would not address the significant coverage gap that is demonstrated instead report. Um Verizon has also demonstrated the facility would be used to improve service, densify service and introduce new service arguing denial would be materially uh inhibit its ability to compete in a fair and balanced regulatory environment. This is the second test for effective prohibition for small wireless facilities specifically and this test has also been met. The findings can be made because a denial would be an effective prohibition of service uh under federal law.

Uh the next uh finding required would be does not uh compromise or excuse compliance with any fire or public other public health or safety requirements. Uh, as stated previously in the presentation and in the staff report, the project conforms with the CPU's GO95 requirements for attachments to a P Gen utility pole. Uh, it meets all other design and location standards uh outlined in the code and in the guidelines. Um, and the polemounted equipment won't affect the use of the public right away or interfere with emergency services. The special exemption is narrowly tailored such that deviations from the requirement is only necessary for compliance with federal state law. Um it is narrowly tailored. It's only the two uh location standards that are being deviated from with the request for these special exceptions. Um the applicant provided all the required materials for demonstrating the need for these two special exceptions. um materials and information were vetted by the city and by the third party engineering firm and special counsel and the two deviations comply with federal law. The CTC report CTC was hired by the city to review the technical information as stated previously. They reviewed the wireless coverage provided by Verizon and created a computer model uh modeling the coverage gaps uh to develop findings. Um and their findings were thus Verizon provided credible evidence of existing wireless service deficiencies in the 700 to 850 mehertz bands due to overloaded traffic and signal interference and available signal does not deliver an acceptable quality of wireless service. The new site will offload traffic from overloaded lowband to mid-band uh reducing dropped calls, supplement 4G mid-band coverage, provide 5G coverage, increase mid-band throughput, and decrease Cband latency and site uh only provides mid-band

service. Site will comply with the radio frequency emission guidelines. So per the CTC report uh it's confirmed the data that was presented in the pure cons report provided by the applicants of a coverage gap uh and the site is needed to provide reliable 4G and 5G service. We've had quite the number of neighbors reaching out with correspondents with concerns about this site. Um, their concerns ranged uh from aesthetics, the equipment being too bulky, the pole being too tall, neighborhood character. There is many concerns regarding property values and health concerns were raised at some points. Um, that the application is requesting exceptions being placed in less referred zones uh in the public rideway in the R1 zoning district and within the center line of the facade window. Uh there's view concerns. Um res many residents stated they had good signal already and that a site was not needed in the area. Um there's many concerns raised over noise. Um and then there was others that said there is no coverage gap. This is just for um network optimization was their concern. Um, additionally, staff received four letters, um, which I believe has increased since the time of making this presentation from legal representation of the residents, this concerned neighbors, uh, last night and today, and have not had sufficient time to review the legal and engineering concerns raised. So with that, staff is recommending that the item be continued to a date a date uncertain. Sorry, not date certain. Uh because we haven't had time to review the legal and engineering information that has been provided.

Date certain. Oh, sorry. To a date certain. That was correct in my writing. We because we'll choose the date now. If we do do that, um I am available for any questions. I've also pulled up the um construction drawings, photo simulations, and alternative sites analysis. So, if we want to view the RF signage that was we uh discussed or if there's any other questions that you guys have regarding alternate sites that were viewed or anything else, I have the full package online and I can pull any documentation as need be. Thank you. Thank you. Um okay, questions from the commissioners. You want to start, Commissioner Albert?

Um I do have a question about CTC. So, um I would like to understand what we asked CTC to do, what the scope of their review is, and um uh I'd like to understand what they're billing us for. Thank you. Uh Gail, our special counsel, provided u details on the scope of work uh that was given to CTC or requested from CTC. I don't have that in front of me. Do you remember? You know, um I want to be very specific. Yeah.

Okay. I would suggest that if um if you want specific light items um perhaps um Gail or Lee Lee works for CTC. He's part of the consultant team and Gil she works for um the uh she's an attorney that works on wireless um and that's how we contracted with CTC. And are they here? And they are both here. Okay. Gail, would you be able to answer um Commissioner Ellen's questions?

Sure. Good evening. Um I don't uh so the I think the best summary of what they're u what they were asked to perform is really in the the beginning of the report. ly can comment on that as well. But uh the beginning of their report summarizes uh what their scope of work was in terms of reviewing the technical information and then and uh doing their own analysis to verify and and present a report which is also in I think in your packet. Uh the other uh activities that they would be asked to do would be obviously uh at the direction of of the um city to review additional materials that come in to um attend the the meetings on on the project, things like that. But in terms of the scope of work and and their technical review, it says they summarized at the beginning of their report.

Okay. It didn't appear to me that they went outside of the Verizon data. Is that correct? I I would uh let Lee answer that. I think that would be uh Lee Halfway back is the principal who was did the review and he is also on Okay, here I am. Good. Hi Lee. Hi. Uh yeah. Yeah. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can.

Good. All right. Good. Uh yeah, what we did is independently look at their engineering and their their rationale for how they why they wanted to build the system in the bands that they're in, what the existing problems were in communication. And then we went back and uh uh checked through all their calculations and independently went back to see what what we found in the way of coverage issues and specifically uh looked at their measurement data to show that these signals they're currently provided in the area that that is to be addressed by this site specific site uh is not receiving signal of both signal amplitude that's power level and quality in mills how much interference is in that site there. Uh so a report goes into the engineering of it and and and our findings but basically we uh we reviewed all the data they provided their rationale and then independently measured or did our own modeling. Um I'm sorry. Did you say at the end that you independently did your own model? What does what does that mean?

Uh we went back to look to see that if if the interference that they were talking about theor the theoretically was that they measured uh was in the same level and the answer was yes. So um Lee maybe you can help me with this. It's super interesting because I went on the FCC website last night and I also went on Verizon's website and both of those show complete coverage. Yes, that I see that a lot of times. I rarely see one that they don't show that kind of level. So where is it misrepresented then?

Uh let's put it this way. The measurements that they made show that the quality the qual both the quality and the amplitude of the system falls below industry standards. Okay. Uh the numbers that they put together in those models I I really have nothing to do with those. So I can't really answer that question. I do know that that we went back and measured theoretically what the interference levels would be and we got roughly the same values. So there is there is coverage issu issues there and also additionally things that were provided were uh uh drop calls other information that was provided. So the as I say our report kind of lays out specifically what what what the our findings relative to the current performance. So I think what I'm hearing is you just verified that there they had provided the information that they needed.

Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um any other questions for staff or the the uh CTC report consultants? Go ahead, Commissioner Albert. Thank Thank you, Chair. Um would you uh would you repeat when the shot clock has been agreed upon to to end? It's in March now. March 5th.

March 5th. Okay. Thank you for that. There was a mention that uh the proposed facility would not impact um it must not impact our public safety and communications and access for fire and police and so on. Um for our uh for the for our communications with our police and our fire and our ambulance. Um that's LMR, isn't it? Um, land mobile radio, not 5G or 4G,

I believe. So, I believe that emergency services operate on a different band, a different wavelength. Well, at at at at at some point before approval, I would I would like it confirmed that um that our police and fire and ambulance communication and command and control um are not affected by in one way or another by any decision we would make on this project because that would definitely impact this commission's decision.

So, that might be a to be continued question. It's um it's a good question and it's something that we keep uh take into consideration as part of the adoption of the 2023 um wireless ordinance and administrative details design guidelines. Uh there's also standard conditions that were adopted and we do have a standard condition that the site shall not interfere with the emergency services communications. So it is a u I believe condition 16 but I'm pulling up the resolution now to confirm. Go ahead. You want to jump in? Go ahead. I do. Um, sorry. Why wasn't that included in the packet? Uh, that's in the resolution. That's con condition of approval number 14.

No, the guidelines, the 2023 guidelines. Why weren't those in the packet? Oh, the actual guidelines themselves as an attachment. Uh, there all the design guidelines that are relevant to facilities in the public right ofway were included or copied into the staff report. As part of the staff analysis, I went item by item for public rightway. There's a section. Let's see. I didn't see that either. In the staff report. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

I'm going to move on. um is uh for the uh we've heard a lot in this application about um uh drive tests, telecom signal drive tests. Is is a permit needed in the city? Does does a company need to apply for a permit to do a drive test? I would say no. If there's no development, if they needed a temporary encroachment, if they had to close off a portion of the rideway, then perhaps, but for a drive test, say no. Thank you.

Um, I have a question about the equipment shroud and the size be that was confusing to me. Um, because our our guidelines speak to u an equipment volume of about six cubic feet and you mentioned that in your report. Um, what is the size that's being proposed in this application? 15 cubic feet. 15 cubic feet. And how is that how is it that you see that that isn't in conflict with our guidelines? I I definitely need help. Yeah. With with with that.

So, there's a the preference for accessory equipment for wireless facility is to have underground is the first preference. Second preference would be polemounted equipment that's 6 cubic feet or less. And then finally, no accessory equipment on the pole greater than 17 cubic feet. So they're below that 17 cubic feet threshold. And the applicant stated that they believe there is no possible way to do the 6 cubic feet for polemounted equipment to uh for this facility. I'll I can let the applicant speak more directly to what equipment is in the uh accessory equipment cabinet. Um, but that was the rationale they presented which also in the presentation that's why I stated if if the commission believes that they would like the applicant to provide a smaller accessory equipment the smaller equipment on the side of the pole if that's viable that's something that we can request from the applicant or condition the project such that prior to building permit issuance they would remove anything they can from reviewing the application. Uh the pole mounted equipment is um some radios, a fiber demark. Um

it seems pretty pretty standard for this type of application, but um yeah, if there's something if you if you would like to request the applicant reduce it or provide more justification for why it is the size that it is, that's something we can do. Thank you. Well, we'll definitely put put a a pin in that. Um can I can I uh quickly circle back to the uh design guidelines in the staff report?

Yes, sir. Of course. staff report open online on page 12 of 22. Uh I I I so section kind of three of the staff report under the staff analysis is the administrative detailed wireless facilities design guidelines facilities in the public right of way and there is a hyperl uh the header is hyperl to the design guidelines and the pertinent design guidelines are listed underneath with staff's analysis underneath. So that's what I miss. Yeah. So not as an attachment but as a link. Yeah. And then I I copied the the one the specific guidelines relating to facilities in the right way into the report. Yeah. Thank you. Note to self.

Watch the links, Erin. Me too. All right. Another question that I and I need help with. Another another question about size um and allowable height. Um I Well, actually before I even go to that, this pole is proposed to be a replacement. Yes. Oh yes. must it be replaced?

Yes. Okay. Typically, uh, P Gen replaces, uh, poles when there's a small wireless facility that is being proposed to be placed on them just for, um, structural shurness, I think, is good, uh, way to put it. And then also to meet the minimum requirements uh for clearance between power lines and the proposed antenna. I I haven't personally seen a P Gen pole for a pull top antenna that wasn't replaced to accommodate the clearance that's required. And and that's and you had stated in your report that you you feel that the height actually meets our our guidelines. Um yet that it's estimated to be all the way up at 4910,

right? The the top of the antenna. Yes. But the existing is 3811. So that's about a foot taller than 10 feet above the 3811.

The the pole top increases the from the pole to pole increase is less than 10 ft. And then the um the height including the antenna is the minimum clearance needed from the primary power lines to the top of the utility pole to the bottom of the antenna bracket. Well, I I understand that there are requirements um and specifications for locating an antenna related to other elements on the pole, but that to me is a separate item of discussion from the fact that we have guidelines that state um that and in a replacement poll. This is in our section 1A1 um the overall height shouldn't be greater than 10 ft tall. You know,

we're we're exceeding greater than 10 ft. Can we not not argue this now? I think we just ask the questions and I mean I'm those are all good points but I think we need to get into that in the discussions. I'm sure there's going to be a lot more discussion about this this pole height and in the uh you know the height of the equipment. So but at this point I just you know you're confirming the pole height requirements and what the size of the uh you know what the requirements are for the antenna above the power lines. That's I think that's you'd like me to circle back later on this. Yeah. Yeah. Because it'll it's going to come up. there's going to be a lot more discussion about

I have one more question uh and this has to do with the basis for the significant gap uh that's in the application. Um could you just briefly because this I believe will also come up in discussion and I know Commissioner Allen began uh headed towards this a little bit with her questions

um to our the CTC representative. Um, how did uh I hope I get the numbers right. Uh, towers 02 and I think it's 05 uh the two unbuilt towers, the approved and unbuilt towers, how did they figure into your analysis um and your recommendation to approve this application? And that's my last question. as part of our um completeness reviews provided to the applicant, we requested to know whether their modeling was based off those two facilities um being activated. So, as part of this um you the sites aren't on air currently, so you can't activate them to check for coverage, but they were included in the modeling and we actually requested the equipment that was on both facilities so that they could be included in the modeling that CTC did for the facilities.

Okay. Um, now the chair has told me not to discuss or or argue. Um, so we'll definitely put a a a pin in that because um, yes, we'll put a pin in that and we'll and we'll return. So, thank you and thank you chair for the floor. Can I can I ask a question to Absolutely. Go ahead.

Uh, I I have a question to CDC. Uh, Mr. Afrabach. Um, what is the conclusion of your analysis? uh how good or bad is the service in Carmel? Uh we talk about interference coverage but that's not the entire service right it is you can have coverage but when you connect your call can be of a horrible quality right you can have garbalt voice you can have other problems people don't understand you on the other side so can you draw a conclusion based on your measurement how good or bad the service is in power

well I yeah can you hear me on the on the mic uh the the answer to that is that that particular in the area where this site is is going to be where they proposing to make the site. There's a real problem there because most of the service along that uh scenic road there uh is provided by a site that's three miles away and just by definition the the typical cellside average reliable coverage is about 8/10 of a mile. But the the pro the issue there is this is a legacy site with there many years ago and in those days cell towers covered a larger larger service area. Right now this what you end up with here is is the interference from that site to other the other two sites that are in the uh in the city itself. So, uh, if you go through the report, uh, the, uh, I think they did a very good job of pointing out the interference situation there, but I we could spend a whole afternoon or evening talking about that, but the answer is it's unreliable. And it's unreliable by the point of view that the signal strength is going to vary under weather conditions. That's quite a distance. You'll notice all the other sites are much closer together, but that's the one that actually puts the strong signal into the target area for this small cell.

So, you don't doubt the necessity of additional equipment in this area. It is something that has to be done. The question is where, right?

Right. Right. Uh something needs to be done. This is a this is a uh rather novel approach here since what they're saying is we don't want to rely on the traditional low band services 700 megahertz uh service 800 MHz services which go greater distance. We want to go right and use the small cell model there. And if you'll note on the the drawings that they have there, this is what they're doing in all the area. It's not just the site we're looking at here, but it's in the neighboring areas. I guess it's in the county or neighboring communities here that these sites are being put in. And this is pretty traditional now, particularly now with 5G because there we're talking about even smaller service areas.

Thank you. Okay, any other questions for from the commission? Okay. Um, I'm going to open the public comments now. Once again, u traditionally I allow three minutes. If you need more time, please request it. So, we'll begin the public comments. Good evening, Chair Page and members of the planning commission. I'm Christie

and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Um, before I begin, I would like to thank the chair for allowing our attorneys time to speak and address the commission. Um, this proposal raises important legal and planning issues and their input will be directly relevant to your required findings. I appreciate that you're allowing Mr. Campanelli to speak first as he is in New York. Um, and Ariel Strauss uh drove from Berkeley, so um he will speak second if that's okay. And I just wanted to point out that they are happy to ask answer questions um if you have any. Mr. Campanelli is an expert in federal telecom law and Mr. Strauss is an expert in California telecom law. Um, I also wanted to sincerely thank all the neighbors and residents that are here tonight. I'm so grateful for all of you. Thank you so much. And I just wanted to have everybody raise their hand if they are here to support our cause. Thank you so much. I appreciate everyone. Okay. Your your presence matters. It speaks volumes that so many people from this area have taken the time to come forward because we do not want wireless facilities placed in our residential neighborhoods. At its core, this application is about location and the location is wrong. The proposed cell site would introduce an industrial piece of infrastructure into a charming smallcale residential neighborhood that has been carefully preserved for generations. It would severely impact views enjoyed by surrounding neighbors. Views that are not incidental, but fundamental to why people live here and why Carmemell is special. Property values are also at stake. A visible wireless facility in close proximity to homes is not benign. Buyers notice it. Appraisers notice it. And once the character of a neighborhood is compromised, the harm is real and lasting. Equally important, this proposal would

erode the unique character of Carmel by the Sea. This is a community defined by beauty, human scale, and thoughtful planning, not bulky, utilitarian installations in residential settings. Approval of this site would set a dangerous precedent that convenience for carriers outweighs the city's responsibility to protect its neighborhoods. The applicant has not de demonstrated that this specific location is necessary, nor that a less intrusive alternatives have been meaningfully pursued. Cost savings to a private company should never justify permanent visual and community harm. Once installed, this facility cannot be unseen or undone. For those reasons, I respectfully urge the planning commission to deny this application and uphold Carmemell's long-standing commitment to protecting its residential neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and service. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Okay. Um, at this time, I'm going to invite the applicant to come forward.

Thank you, Sher Le Page. Yeah, the Got it. Good evening, members of planning commission. My name is Pete Chubin. I'm with Sequoia Deployment Services, the applicant uh representative representing Verizon Wireless. Uh Jay Grenell and Jeremy Stroop with Verizon Wireless are with us as well. Uh Ron Lukatch with Purecon Solutions is available uh via Zoom if there's any specific questions regarding the coverage report. Uh, Bill Hammet with Hammet Edison who provided the uh, EM compliance discussion and noise uh, reports is also here to answer your questions. Paul Albert who's outside legal counsel is with us tonight as well available. Um, just a quick timeline, we've been working uh on this project since with the city since 2017. Uh, projects in 2019 uh, that was denied. Another one we rendered an agreement with 20 in 2020 at Carmelo south of 8th Avenue that was denied in December of 21 and then after the adoption of the new code where we're here today with this proposal for the city. Uh there were also numerous locations identified under the old code and discussed uh a walk we did with the director back in um 2017 uh comes to mind where we walked up and down streets looked at polls and then did an analysis which you have under the new code in the alternatives analysis. Uh staff discussed the design real fast. Um I

won't go through the details of it but there were some questions regarding a replacement pole. Why a replacement pole? Uh the term is used by PG and it's called betterment. If there are infractions on a pole, meaning code violations that uh do not comply with state codes, uh other safety issues, uh just happen due to age of poles or the pole is over 40 years old as part of a new attachment, they replace the pole to bring it up to current standards and clean up the existing attachments that are there. And there's also no extensions allowed anymore above the uh highest conductors. So the old way of using an existing pole with a bracket with a wood extension is no longer allowed. So you replace the pole with a taller pole. So that's the reason for it. Uh the replacement of the pole just photo sims staff already reviewed these. Uh the staff report goes into underground equipment infeas being uh infeasible. Um, I just did a graphic here for you. Shows some underground lines in the area. Uh, we could discuss this if you have any questions on why uh later on that block the vaulting. There's also a situation with PG& where any equipment that's powered uh that's on not on the utility pole requires the meter to be not on the utility pole. So by moving the equipment off the pole underground, you introduce uh street ob uh street furniture, street objects, a meter pedestal, vent stacks, curb and gutter to uh divert flow. Those types of items change the character of the street versus just leaving it on the pole. And if you have questions on that, I'll be glad to go through that with you. This map is out of the Purecon report. Uh this was also discussed with distance the existing the approved and the proposed facilities that were included in the modeling. It's important to note that those have not been built yet and they're not on air due to uh the inability of fiber being delivered to

them at this time which is why they have not been built. Also we expected to come up in discussion later on. In the lower right hand corner of this map you see a small red circle that begins to appear on the side of the map. That is a site called Carmel Cypress that is at the Barnyard Shopping Center. Uh was recently put on air uh this past year and that provides service to uh the area south of town but does not provide service uh to the area where this site is due to terrain blockage. There's a low ridge that's higher than the site that blocks the coverage to this area. This is a service gap. Ron Lukatch the Purecon is available to answer questions for you. Um what it does show is that it shows the gap generally uh about a half of a square mile in size. Uh there's,24 residents in that service gap area. And then the next slide you can see in the green how it increases the coverage and fills that gap in service. Now when we talk about location preferences um staff had mentioned the distance of the zones. This map shows that you can see to the north, east, and east those preferred zones and then those orange circles. There's already sites there providing service to that area that cannot provide the service to this neighborhood. You move into the other zone mentioned uh A1 that is the Golden Bell Playhouse. Uh that was modeled. Verizon looked at that and so did CTC the city's consultant confirmed that that's not a feasible location to fill the gap in coverage. If you look at the zones, the R1, the R4 zones, that is that sea of cream and a little bit of orange that the site sits in. And we all know Carmemell is predominantly single family zoned res uh zoning for residential and that is where the site is to provide service inside that zone.

Um 28 alternatives. Uh we walked the polls, we looked at each one of them. Uh we looked at them for feasibility. Some of them are feasible, but they would come with a request for more exceptions. Therefore, they're less preferred under the city's code, and that is a using the values expressed in the city's code to come up with that analysis. Staff confirmed that the site does comply with city standards. I don't need to go through these again, the codes referenced, but that is a uh already discussed. What is important uh with regard to the equipment size and the equipment height, the 50 ft and the 17 cubic feet allowed is that under the law, this is a small cell facility. And we could discuss more of that later and what that means if you would like. I'd like to introduce Paul Albert to come up and continue the presentation.

Uh before you leave, are there any questions for this particular the applicant? I did have some questions about the maps. If we could pull those back up because um uh so I didn't quite understand if you go back to the one with the arrows going like Yeah. Um okay. So so what you're saying is that those two that you have downtown Carmel and um uh is commissioner is that at the Okay. So, so those can't cover this area, but this proposed one can cover Pebble Beach.

Which ones are you referring? The ones that are called downtown Carmel or South and South Carmel? The ones? Yeah, cuz you have um you have you said that I'm sorry, what? Use the numbers. Okay. So 03 um do you have what's O5 isn't even on. So you don't have that one. Right. I this is a this is a very good question and what I'll do is defer that to Ron Lukatch who's the engineer who did the modeling who could answer that but specifically for you. He'd be interested.

Yeah. I am I'm super interested to know how this one that you're proposing is going to cover all the way to like you know Pebble Beach when you can't even get a few blocks away from the ones that existing. Paul outside council and I understand confusion with maps like these. What's happening is the Pebble Beach site is a big tall fake tree and it is providing service 2.7 miles into that area. Our small cell will only cover a very few blocks around the small cell. It will not cover uh Pebble Beach. If we wanted to cover Pebble Beach, we'd have to have a a great big 100 foot tower. So,

the service is coming currently coming from Pebble Beach to this area, but it's very weak and there's a lot of interference and that's why we need a a small cell, a little tiny antenna to fill in that that gap and the other little gaps we're covering with the small cells. and Ron Lucash is the RF engineer who did this who did this. Okay, so if all of this stuff is coming into that area, then don't we have coverage?

The problem, and I can let Ron speak to this, um is you have uh what's called a signal to noise problem. Uh the the principal problem, and I was trying to be very brief, but Verizon buys its frequency from the FCC, and we get certain blocks of frequency. The amount of frequency we have in low band is very small. Uh and the amount of frequency we have in mid-band is very large. So we don't have enough low band frequency to serve the entire area from a single tower like that. One two as you heard from your own consultant CTC a cell tower optimally works to about a mile. This is three miles away. So we've got a very weak signal and not very much of it. And it's so weak that other signals other interference is more than 10 dB within 10 dB of the frequency we're providing. So there's a lot of interference. It's called signal to noise ratio. And that's why the signal is it's there but it's not operational in low band. And what's missing is our mid-band which provides lots of capacity so people can use a lot of their data information. We're also missing uh 5G mid-band 5G that we would put in the area. Does that answer your question some?

Not really. But um tell me tell me why it doesn't. But the pink dots are interesting to me too because if those are were turned on, wouldn't that just solve the problem?

No. Oh, and then I'm going to let Ron speak. Uh, again, those dots that aren't turned on yet will cover a small area. They're modeled in Ron's report. You can see exactly the area that they'll cover, and they still leave a hole where we want. And it's a small cell network. We originally came in proposing five telephone poles in Carmel. We moved two of them south. We combined one at the Sunset Center and we're trying to just put in one more, but it's a patchwork. It's like

it's like it's like sprinklers on a lawn and they can only cover a limited area and that's the idea with this small cell network. And we haven't turned them on yet because frankly we need to bring it in as a network with the whole fiber connection very expensive all the all the full connection to turn on the network but it's designed to work together. Is it more expensive to do underground?

Well, you can't put antennas underground. So, we're there's there's no way that's not that's not feasible. And uh now to put the fiber the fiber underground, the fiber is brought in by another company. I I see some fiber com conduit in in the area. Uh but that the the fiber will be coming in overhead. Is that was that your question? Kind of. I'm done. Thanks. Okay. Do you want Ron Lucash to describe his Ron? Are you there? He's in the East Coast also. Yes, I am. Yes, I am.

I'll sit down. Um I I have a question. Maybe it's related to what the gentleman said. Can I ask? Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. So So you decided to solve the problem with three so small cells. One is the one that we're discussing now. One is Carmel Point and one is in the barnyard. Is it possible to solve the problem with one big antenna that is positioned somewhere in like towards the mountain towards the Santa Luchia mountain? No, it's not possible. Not possible. The it would be possible to solve it with a taller single site in that area between those three.

Okay. between those three

and that's a entirely a single family residential area. So then when we look at private properties under the city's code with the required setbacks and the height restrictions, those types of sites are not possible in that neighborhood. Even if we could find land that was put something on top of the water treatment plant, for example, which is on the river, that would not be enough to cover this area. No, the water treatment plant was a project that Verizon worked on uh well over a decade ago. Uh it went away as uh as a potential project. I believe around 2017 about the time that these small cells came into play

that Verizon and the county who owns the water treatment plant could not come to agreement on the available land uh the site design and there is also some plan to remove trees and then there was a concern from the county of if the trees were removed that the water district may have to do for some other project that they had. It was speculative at the time, but it was expected that the tower would have to come down because then it would be a very tall tower to see over the trees that were down there and then if the trees went away, that would be the predominant element uh sticking up in that entire uh area down there. So, what happened to that project is it became the Carmel Cypress site. That's why I pointed out the uh the site at the barnyard. And if you're familiar with that shopping center at the north end of it, there's a water tower.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right in the middle that that's that's full of antennas for Verizon Wireless. So, the site that was at the water treatment plant that could have provided some coverage up to cover Carmel Point moved when the water when the county's land became unavailable. We looked east to the shopping centers there. There's also a uh there's a fire station there. There's a monopole there. Um, I believe it's uh there's a hotel there. AT&T is on the roof of that hotel. Verizon talked to all of these parties. The the pole could not support uh the existing monopole there at the fire station could not support additional antennas. There wasn't space for ground equipment without blocking access to the fire station as well. And then the hotel, that's where AT&T went, took that spot on the hotel. the barnyard tower and if you look at that's just a slow march east a little bit uh is where that site ended up to provide service to that area. So the uh in short the water treatment property is not available and that's been proven to not be available.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um all right. Are are are you going to make a presentation also? No, we're we understood we had uh 10 minutes. I think we stopped at about six or seven. Um I'm going to speak to one slide and then we've got Mr. Hammet to speak to uh two slides and then we're done. So I think I think we have three more slides.

Um so again Paul Albert and outside council for Verizon Wireless and Charlie Page members of the commission thank you very much for taking the time to review this information. It was a excellent and very thorough staff report and really uh Mr. Olander covered my point, but really it is that we would consider uh that we need two exceptions. One is to go into the R1 right ofway, and that's because if you look at that area that we're trying to cover, it's all residential and it's all single family. You've got a 110% tower setback. You've got a 15 foot general rear yard setback. And we just can't fit a tower in one of those residential parcels. even if we could find a resident who was willing to for us to put a tower into their backyard. So, that leaves us with just the ride ofway. Uh the other exception is 5T in front of a window. You've got a corridor. It's actually 10 ft wide. Uh the window here is close to the 5-ft edge on one side. We didn't choose the pole location. That was PG& uh so we can't move it out of that five- foot uh location, but the the uh and that's the reason why we need that exception. So, it's two exceptions. We looked at 28 different polls as you saw and they ranged anywhere from 7 to 20 plus exceptions using your code, each of the exceptions within your code. And uh as staff said, this is the most code compliant of any of the polls we selected with two exceptions. We couldn't get below two exceptions. So in order to constitute a prohibition of service, you have to have either the ninth circuit test a significant gap which we think that CTC has confirmed from the PIRCON report and you have to show that this is the least intrusive means of of filling that gap and we think we've done that by showing this is the most code compliant of all the alternatives that we've looked at. And with that, a denial of the site under

ninth circuit court of appeals law would be a prohibition of service and under the telecommunications act uh would well comply with your code in terms of why we need an exception. The FCC has also modified the the term to something a denial that would materially inhibit our ability to provide service. And they describe that as something that doesn't allow us to densify our network, improve our service, or introduce new service. And here we're introducing 5G. We're improving our service. And we're densifying our network by filling the hole that will be filled by this small cell. As I mentioned, there's a patchwork originally with five poles now with three poles basically. and we've really been working with you for a very long time uh to try and and come up with a solution that makes sense for the community including uh a settlement agreement the location of the site at the Sunset Center and we're just down to this one poll but we do believe that the exceptions are warranted because it would be a prohibition of service. I'm going to turn it over to Bill Hammet if I may for just a moment for the last two slides. And Bill literally wrote the book on RF exposure and can answer any questions you have about noise and RF exposure.

Commissioners, good evening. My name is Bill Hammet. I'm a registered professional engineer in California. Uh my firm is located up in Sonoma County and a regular part of our practice, our professional practice is the calculation and measurement of radio frequency exposure conditions and of acoustic noise levels. This has been my principal focus for 40 years. Over that time, I've done more than 25,000 site evaluations. Um and McGra Hills has published my book. um the two issues um that uh are uh raised and I want to address both of those. Um this is uh a statement from DTEK communications who was had been hired to evaluate compliance with the federal safety exposure limits. Um I've done my own independent work and can confirm and concur with their analysis that indeed it will meet the federal safety standards. And as you know, as I'm sure your city attorney will confirm, that that is a threshold condition. If it meets the federal safety standards, then you can't use that as a basis for denial. The second uh sheet uh the second slide is going to uh have my own stamp on it because we did also did a study of the noise conditions that would uh arise from the operation here and I'm pleased to say that there are zero. The equipment is silent. It does not have uh fans in it, cooling fans. It's convectively cooled and I confirmed that uh this morning visiting another site uh very similar to what Verizon's proposing here. And indeed, it's silent. There is no moving parts. So, I want to assure you of compliance on both accounts, the RF exposure conditions and the um and the noise. Thank you. Thank you. That that concludes that concludes our

presentation. I think there's one more slide and uh we are here to answer any questions you may have. Uh there's some we have some uh appendix slides that list all the uh community concerns that that we've read and heard about and can respond to any of those questions or respond to any of the commissioners questions that had earlier or we can do that after public comment at your pleasure.

Okay. Are there any uh questions from the commission for these the applicants? Go ahead, Commissioner Albert. Uh thank you chair. I had a a question about exhibit H and drop rate. Um the graphs show a data point that is equivalent at about 1% that seems to be uh some form of standard uh that you're using. And my question is u where does that standard come from? Is that a an internal company standard? Is that a a federal standard? Uh where does that 1% cash on the line yet or no? Our expert Okay, if our expert's not on the line, that's an industry standard. Oh, Ron, you want to answer that question?

I'm here. Yes, that's an industry standard for cellular communications. Long been adopted and uh by numerous carriers of 1% as the as the target threshold. Ron, you're going to have to speak up clearly. Okay. That is that is not a Can you hear me? Not really. Not really. Can you guys crank them up? Try one more time and then answer the question. Turn up my volume. Um, the answer to the question is it's not a Verizon standard is an industry standard that has been uh in place since the earlier cellular days of 1%.

Ron, can you explain the 20% drop call peak number? So the data that's presented in that exhibit uh is is is shown for the busy hour that that occurs uh sometime within a 24-hour period. It's not always the same time every day at 7:00 etc. Uh what the the number indicates is that 20% of the time at that busy hour uh during that busy hour the drop calls uh exceed 1%. So that's a very very high rate. The carriers target 1% as the maximum. So 20% of the time during that busy hour is a very very high uh rate. It shows that the uh there's not sufficient throughput uh or quality of service to support the customer base.

Thank you. And Ron, I believe you're the person to answer my next question. Um, when will the two approved and as yet unconstructed sites be operational?

I don't know the answer to that question. I heard earlier that they're waiting on fiber delivery. So, I don't know what the uh duration. I know the plan was to bring all three sites up small cells um at one time and introduce new service, enhanced service and provide new 5G service to the area at one time. and and how is it I we've heard quite a bit about modeling and the uh the coverage that is needed by the site that is in this application and how those two sites will not be adequate to provide that coverage. Could you please speak more to that because those two sites are within what I believe about half a mile of uh the proposed site. Um so could you please speak to how you can be so certain that you have a significant gap when those two approved and yet unconstructed sites are not operational? Ron, we're going to pull up the maps on on the screen.

Yes. If you let me one second. I'm just looking at some data as well. Um I don't know if you can see the screen, but we're pulling up your map. Your network map. Well, I think I think you want the the coverage map or the network map? Did you want the network map or the coverage map? I simply want to understand why well this this proposed site is required when you have two additional and unconstructed sites that are within such a short distance of your proposed site. So Ron, do you want to speak to the maps or shall I speak to them briefly?

Yes. I'm I don't I can't see what you're what you're uh showing but exhibit J would be I think appropriate. We're showing the existing midband. No proposed. Oh, proposed midband. Sorry. With two and five turned on. Yeah, with two and five turned on. And I believe our proposed site is in green and the two and five are in blue. So our site's going to cover the green area. And the two and five that are proposed are in the blue area. So that's with the modeling of two and five and then adding our number one is what we call it and there are different locations different areas of coverage.

Did I get that right, Ron?

Yes, we can model we can model the proposed sites uh with standard modeling propagation tools. We have drive test data that's presented as a dark blue dots. So we know what existing coverage is and we can propose or we can model the uh the approved sites and show where they would be expected to provide coverage. Um and you'll see in exhibit that is K uh of the proposed site this small cell will provide coverage in green and the uh the contribution of the other sites um being SF South Carmel 2 which is the southwest and it's labeled but just really kind of half off the map there as a circle SF South Carmel 5. They have limited coverage because I believe they're in a 40 50 ft range themselves. So again they have very limited coverage at that height and these are mid-band uh frequencies within which do not travel all that far. So even with those whether they were on or or not on this is what the expected coverage would be there would still be a gap in service for midband requiring a site be placed in that area.

Thank you. So, so to to summarize your um your uh your suggestion that you have a significant gap in coverage is based not on actual data but on modeling. Is that correct? It's not based on uh drive test data but on modeling and uh you you are um projecting simply because you can't model facilities that aren't there. That's right. That's how prop that's how that's how network design is done is by computer modeling and it's been done for a very very long time.

Just just to clarify though the the blue here is the existing coverage that you've done driveby tests on this in your graphic here.

This is the the blue dots. The blue dots. I think this this is a is this this exhibit is is a combination of drive tests that was performed and modeling. We can go back to previous exhibits and that would clearly show the drive test that was conducted that clearly illustrate the gap uh that's identified by a orange polygon and that is derived from from the drive test data we performed or drive test data. So you're seeing drive test data up near the Sunset Center in those streets up there. And that's the existing service and that was the site that was put in as part of a settlement with with the city. Uh and then the and you can tell it's drive test because it's dots in a roadway and and the uh propagation models are the the solid colors that are used. And these are uh industry standard computer modeling. Uh I have to say Verizon did its own company modeling using a software called ATL. Uh Ron is an outside thirdparty engineer. Uh and they did modeling as well. And then CTC, you're a consultant.

Yeah, I I understand. I'm just trying to understand. Yeah. What represents actual driveby test? What areas in your graphic here? So the uh the SF South Carmel 002 is that is that one of them that has not been turned on yet? That's right. Two and five are not right. So So the blue graphic here does not represent drive by testing because they don't exist. That's right. Okay. I just I'm just trying to understand your question. Yeah. No, I totally get it. And the I'm not questioning the dots in a roadway authenticity or the credibility of the dots in a roadway will be that's a drive test where they went out with a scanner and they collected. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any more questions for applicants?

One more question. Go ahead. The the South Carmel side 002 is that on Valley Way Valleyway in Carmel Point. Uh yes, those are telephone poles. So we There's nothing there. I I I haven't seen anything there. You haven't? That's correct. They are not there yet. And have you have you submitted to the county for approval for that? I I'm sorry. We were I was working with staff to bring up the Purecon report to answer the the question directly. There's an exhibit in the Purecon report that has the actual drive test data with no modeling on it that will we're working to find that.

Um sir, your question was on on 002 and Z I'm just want to make sure I understand on 002 and 005. Uh 005 I understand Barnard is clear but 002 is way right is 002 and 005 are both in the county. They are both in the public rideway. They are both have the poles replaced already by PG&E. So the poles have been if you go there right now to those locations, you're going to you see the utility poles and then you're going to see a new utility pole in line with the other ones. Okay. The polls been replaced, but there's been no wireless equipment installed on them. So you can literally go to them right now and you can see that the polls there. So they're approved by the county.

They're approved by the county. We have encroachment permits. Uh that's how P Gen did their work to swap the poles. The work for to add Verizon was not done as was mentioned earlier due to the the bringing in the fiber for all three. So we received those permits from the county and then did not install the equipment yet. That's because you're waiting for the optical cable. Was that is that what I heard? Yes, sir. The connection to the greater networks through which is through the fiber optic and that that hasn't been laid yet or that is correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Does that conclude your presentation? Yes. Any more? We did conclude a presentation. Any questions? Okay. And we'll be here for more questions.

All right. Thank you. Okay. I want to ask the audience a question. Uh how many people intend to speak tonight? Okay. Um so at this time I'm going to have a fivem minute recess. And so we're going to reconvene at uh we'll reconvene at 5:45. Okay.

Can I ask everybody to sit down? We got to We got to get going again.

Snap. Snap. Snap. Huh? Uh, we're still missing a commissioner. What happened to Stephan? Anybody see what happened to Stephan? Oh, okay. Okay, I'm going to uh reconvene the meeting. Can we have roll call, please?

Commissioner Albourne, here. Commissioner Allen here. Commissioner Carropov uh here. Commissioner Lock here. And Chair Leage here. Okay. Um I'm going to open up the uh comments now to the public. So um I invite the first speaker to come up from the public.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, let's let's let's I'm sorry. My apology. Uh uh Andrew Capanelli, the uh I think it's the attorney for the opposition would like to speak first. So go ahead, Mr. Campanelli. Okay. Good evening. Can you hear me? Barely. Yeah. I don't know if you can turn up any volume on your end. It would be helpful. Let's see. Give me one moment. Seem to be having a little problem with the uh volume tonight. Is tech can tech do anything about that? Uh Shelby confirmed that it confirmed that our volume is at the maximum currently. It's at max. Okay. Well, I would just recommend uh getting as close to your microphone as you can. Yeah. Okay. How's this? Is this better? That is better. Yes.

Great. Okay. Good evening. Uh my name is Andrew Capanelli. I'm an attorney. I'm here representing 26 homerowners this evening, homeowners. Um I would ask some indulgence from the board if I may. I understand that you generally all lot three minutes. I'm going to ask for 10 minutes since I'm representing 26 homeowners. Go ahead.

Okay. Thank you. So the first issue I want to address is the easiest one and that is representations that have been made to the board that if the board was to deny this application as I submit it should and must it would somehow constitute a violation of the Telecommunications Act by being tantamount to an effective prohibition. In my opinion based upon 30 years of handling these cases under the Telecommunications Act that is patently false. And here's why. The standard for an effective prohibition is the applicant has to prove that a denial of their application to install this antenna at this location at this height would materially inhibit Verizon from competing in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment. Now the answer is however in that to to make that determination you have to make that determination based upon quote the totality of the circumstances end quote. So it's not enough to show that there's a gap in service. It's not enough to show that they want this to densify services or to remedy some gap. They must meet all of the criteria under the totality of the circumstances. And in this case, the most important one is that the applicant has to show that there are no potential less intrusive alternative locations and they absolutely cannot do that because there is in fact a highly superior alternative location. So what am I talking about? Um I've heard the applicants and their attorneys and engineers talk about looking at lots and lots of utility poles in the rights of way and that this is the most code compliant utility poll. Well, there's nothing that says it has to go in a utility pole. As it turns out, there is a far superior alternative location in the form of the Golden Bow Playhouse, which is located just a few blocks away. Now, it was my understanding when they uh made a previous application, I think it was in Lia, um Verizon represented that this

alternative location at the Playhouse would actually remedy their needs. But I looked through the Purecon Solutions report. I looked at the consultants report and quite frankly I couldn't figure out how they were going to try to claim that this tower is going to remedy Verizon's need. But the Playhouse two blocks away wouldn't. I think it's less than 500 ft. As far as the availability, um maybe some of you have seen or not seen that I submitted a memorandum in opposition on behalf of the 26 homeowners along with a separate package of exhibits in opposition. I'd like to refer to exhibit E which was attached which is a letter letter from Stephie Moore the founder and executive director of the Pacific Reparatory Theater um which owns the um the Golden Bow Playhouse and he wrote quote we understand the Verizon is currently seeking a site in Carmel by the Sea for a Cell Tower installation. Pacific Reparatory Theater would be open to discussions regarding the Golden Bow Playhouse located on Monty Vvery Street 4 Southwest of 8th fronting Kasanova Street to the west as a potential location for such installation. So they are and that's again he's founder and executive director. So he's saying we're willing to have a cell tower put on our property. Now it's two blocks away. I looked at the maps and the alleged data provided by the applicant and its consultants and there is no way that a facility on top of the playhouse which is a large building of greater elevation would not satisfy their need. So I tried to figure out how they would try to claim that they couldn't put it there. It makes absolutely no sense. Didn't take long to find out what they did. I looked at the Purecon Solutions report and this is what they claim. On page 18 of the report, they claim in this configuration, the Golden Bow site would provide reliable inbuilding coverage to 085 085 square miles, 372 residents, and address 30 per 1% of the

coverage gap. This expected coverage is 6% less area when that when compared to that expected from the proposed site. So they're saying if they put the antenna there instead of where it's proposed, it'll have 6% less coverage area. But you have to read the other part. If you go on to page 18, it says if they use a low profofile canister clover type antenna on top of the playhouse. That may be true. It's also completely and utterly absurd. I've been doing this 30 years. I've never seen any carrier or site developer put a lowprofile canister clovertype antenna on top of a building like the Playhouse. When they put transmitters on buildings like municipal buildings and libraries and churches, they are completely different installations. They can put them in behind facades. They can put them in koopalas. I've seen them put in clocks. I've seen them put in steeples. The interesting part is if it goes on top of the playhouse, it would be quite frankly invisible. It could be a complete stealth installation which would have no adverse aesthetic impact on anyone because you couldn't see it and it certainly wouldn't reduce property values. It is from every conceivable perspective a superior alternative less intrusive location. There is absolutely no reason why they can't do it. The only reason they wouldn't want to do it is because they where they if they put it on the pole it's free. They pay nothing. If they put it on the playhouse, they have to pay rent for the next 55 years, but the rent would be nominal compared to what Verizon makes annually. So the fact that they may have to pay rent and may not like it is not a grounds to say they can't use it. But the fact is it is legally and factually impossible to claim that the only app the only location it can go is where it's proposed. The alternative location is superior from every aspect under your code. Now getting to your code, they're claiming they need two exceptions.

That's false as well. They actually need three. And here's why. You may have heard of the I'm going to pull it up here. This was also exhibit submitted. You may have heard of the Stonewall Cottage. It's a property that was designated as a historic resource by Carmel some years ago. In the exhibit submitted in opposition to the application, I submitted a letter, exhibit B, which is from the owner of the Stonewall Cottage, which was built in 1932. And here's what it says. Quote, "My name is Neil Spiker, and I am the owner of the historic residence located directly behind the proposed cell tower site, Stonewall Cottage. Clearly, having a cell tower approximately 15 ft from my living room is not complimentary to the home and its historic designation. Under your code, both your planning staff representative and the attorney for the applicant cited section 174608C subsection A, which says they need a special exception because they want to put an R1 zone. and they site 1746040E where they need an exception because it's 5.1 ft from the center line of an entry door or window. What they conveniently omitted was 74608C subsection B which requires an exception if they intended to install a place which might have a potential impact on a historic structure and it is beyond argument that according to your own records the Stonewall Cottage is in fact a designated historic structure. So, they need three exceptions, not two. And clearly, this site is far more intrusive than putting it on the Playhouse. Clearly, no question about it. Um, some other indic some other issues that I wanted to address. Um, your board has asked very sophisticated questions. It's clear you guys have a pretty a better understanding than most boards of what you're dealing with. So, I want to answer some of the questions. When a board member questioned CTC telecommunications network consultant,

you asked if they obtained their own data or they made their analysis based upon the data provided by Verizon. The answer is simple. CTC acquired no data whatsoever. They simply took the data provided by Verizon, accepted it as if it was gospel and made their analysis based upon saying there was no data considered. Far more troubling is the fact that they didn't recognize the absurdity of the Piercon report, saying, "Oh, if we put it on the burrow hall, we're going to have 6% cover less coverage if we use a canister antenna, which nobody has ever put on a building in the past 30 years." With regard to aesthetics, your code is crystal clear. It h it is a smart planning provision. Your zone code zoning code provisions are not intended to prevent the installation of wireless facilities. I remember when you were drafting your code. It has very specific goals. They are to make sure number one that carriers can saturate Carmel by the sea with coverage while at the same time minimizing the number of towers you need to provide that coverage and number three avoid to the greatest extent any unnecessary adverse impacts on residential properties and residential neighborhoods. This particular installation would in would be contrary to all of those objection objectives and there's no doubt about it. um it would be basically five stories tall and by the way it is not a stealth facility and what that means is if it's built at its proposed height which is 49 feet 10 in once it's built Verizon can thereafter increase the height of that facility and the city would be powerless to stop it under the middle class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 1992 or is it 2002 but they can increase the height and you'd be powerless to stop them. So you could end up being 50 ft, 60 ft, even 68 ft, and you have no say in stopping them. Clearly, putting a fivetory right now, a five-story tower in the middle of the residential neighborhood is clearly inconsistent with having adverse

aesthetic impacts in the character of the neighborhood. Now, um, somebody asked about this 1% standard. They talk about, well, you know, we have a 1% goal. That's the standard of the industry. That's meaningless. wireless companies don't get to say that unless we have 99% success in our calls, um, we have an effective prohibition. We have a gap in service that has to be addressed. There's no federal law that says that. Not only that, merely having a 99% success rate does not mean they actually have 1% of calls where their customers, their endused customers can't get through because a percentage of those calls, the calls could fail because of the other end. In addition, it doesn't talk about the length of the calls. What if you dial the number and you can't get through for a microcond and then dial it again, it goes through. That's calculated into their 1% figure. So 1% is meaningless. Somebody asked about computer modeling. Computer modeling is pathetic. Basically uh they use a software called ATL. ATL is a software which enables someone to sit at a desktop computer and prepare maps which are not based upon any actual data. Even worse, any user can input criteria to affect the map that gets generated. So to the extent they provide maps generated by ATL software, those maps pretty much have zero probitative value. In fact, the FCC has stopped accepting FCC uh these propagation maps without hard drive test data. So they allegedly did drive the drive test and provided maps, but I would note they never actually provided the drive test data. And what is drive test data? Normally speaking, if Verizon has a significant gap in service in a jurisdiction, what they will do is they will come in and say, "Look, with your topography, the minimum signal strength we need to provide reliable wireless service is - 98 dBm. We did a drive test. We drove through all of the city

of Carmel and recorded the actual signal strength. Here is the actual signal strength data, which shows you where the signal strength drops below - 98 dBm. that shows you this board number one, the actual location of any gaps, the boundaries of the gaps, and the locations of the gaps. You haven't gotten that. You've got the maps. You've got these computerenerated maps. There are lots of things I can do to dispute the pure consolution report and the CTC report, but it's not necessary because the bottom line is there's a superior alternative location, and they can't dispute that. It's just beyond argument. Um, before I put anybody to sleep, do you have any questions so far?

Any questions? Uh, please please hold your applause. That's that's not helping. I understand you appreciate his work, but that's not helping our hearing. Go ahead. Um, I just have a quick question. So, the coverage doesn't have to be 5G, correct?

Correct. You're under no obligation to have for them to have 5G. In fact, in the uh in the uh Flower Hill case, which was one of my cases, Verizon went into a town, a village, and wanted to install small cells basically every 150 ft, and they produced maps that showed that they have gaps in 5G coverage. And so, based upon my recommendations, the village turned down the application. Verizon filed a federal lawsuit and the federal lawsuit was thrown out. And the court said this. If for argument sake you have gaps in 5G coverage, that is not a significant gap in coverage which mandates that we approve your application. And here's why. Verizon provides its coverage on at least 10 different frequencies. If you are using a five a Verizon phone and you're on 5G service, if you drive through an area where the 5G signal drops too weak to maintain the call, your phone will downshift to 4G and then 3G and whatever lower frequency is available. And so to prove an actual gap in service, the federal court said to prove a gap, Verizon has to prove that its endus customers cannot use its phone to connect to a landline. Simply showing that there's a gap in one band of your service doesn't prove that you have a significant gap in service. You don't get to say, "We want to make sure we have coverage on every single band." It doesn't work that way. And you look up, you can look up the case. It's uh Extinet versus the Incorporated Village of Flower Hill, Eastern District of New York. I think it's a 2023 decision if I'm not mistaken. June of 23. Any other questions?

Uh no other questions. Are you finished with your uh presentation?

I would just add one thing again. I've been doing this for decades. Um I must state candidly. I've I've I've been I've appeared before jurisdictions across the United States. I've represented jurisdictions across the United States, but I have to tell you something and and I'm I'm saying this in all candidness. I would say that the city of Carmel by the Sea is probably one of the most beautiful jurisdictions I've ever seen. Um, every jurisdiction wants to preserve the aesthetics of their community, but Carmel by the Sea has unparalleled beauty. And so for you to protect the city and the residents and the communities, um, you have the right to do so. You have the right to turn this down because of aesthetics. This is going to be a five-story tower with a big black box 11 ft off the ground and it's going to tower above the neighborhood and be right next to the historic home. But Carmemell, well, I'll let AI tell this to you for me. I asked AI for Google um what is the principal characteristic of Carmel by the Sea? And this is what what uh Google's AI came back with. And I'm going to quote. I think it's worth putting this on the record. Quote, "The beauty of Carmel by the Sea lies in its enchanting blend of fairy tale cottages, art galleries, and a stunning natural setting of white sand beaches, cypress trees, and dramat dramatic ocean views. All enhanced by a charming walkable village atmosphere, breathtaking sunsets, making a unique coastal gem. Its suspected distinctive architecture, artistic spirit, and dog friendly relaxed vibe offers a picturesque escape. From exploring hidden courtyards to a strolling along an iconic beach, you have a character and a natural beauty that is unparalleled from my perspective. And I've been everywhere except perhaps the Amalfi Coast in Italy. um protecting that aesthetic resource. Um you have a right to do so under your code and denying this application based upon the constraints of the code as you should um is what you should do because granting this application would not only violate the terms of your code, it would inflict

upon the surrounding structures and the community the precise types of adverse impacts you wanted to prevent, which was the reason why you adopted the permit requirement in the first place. And the truth is, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, you have the power to do so if for no other reason that there currently exists a superior, alternative, less intrusive location. And accordingly, it is impossible for the applicant to claim and prove that a denial of this facility would materially inhibit Verizon from competing in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment under the totality of the circumstances. So, I thank you for affording me the time and again if anybody has any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them.

Uh, Commissioner Alurn has a question for you. Mr. Capanelli. Mr. Campelli. Thank you. Um, the Could could you please uh provide us with some form of reference or citation? This is the first uh that I have heard that um should should this particular application be approved that this would open the door for I believe I heard you say a fivetory edition. Uh

okay. So the the proposed facility they want to build the finished height as I understand it is 49 ft 10 in which would be essentially five stories. However, it is a non-stalth facility. What that means is um under the middle class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Once it's built, the owner of this poll can increase the height up to a maximum of an additional 20 ft and they would not require any additional approvals from the city of Carell Carmel. They can actually apply for approvals, but the middle class tax relief and job creation act legally prohibits you from denying that application. So they can unilaterally diss until he increase the height. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Campellen. All right. Um so at this time, I'm going to invite any other members of the public, the other uh the other attorney if he'd like to come first.

Thank you. Pleasure to be here. Okay. Just want to make sure I'm heard. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. So, uh, Mr. Campanelli said much of, I think, what you need to hear from the standpoint of federal law, but I want to make sure that we're orienting oursel in the right history here for this specific site, which is that in December 2021, the city council denied an application for a small cell in on the LLA in front of Lia property a few blocks from this proposed site. And Verizon raised many of the same arguments that they raised today. And in fact, the conclusion that was reached was that the Golden Bow Playhouse would offer 85% of low BL band coverage and 33% overlap. At the time, they are seeking to provide low band coverage. So that was one of the bands that was at issue. And of course, they threatened to sue. And ultimately, they did sue. But that suit, I'm sure you probably know this, was actually about the timing of the approval. And when that suit was filed, Verizon did not raise whatsoever the contention that there was a significant gap or material inhibition and that the city had violated the telecommunications act 1986. That was not raised in court. That was basically a bluff that they pushed on the planning commission on the city council and it didn't follow through with it. Happens to be also that the city won that lawsuit and that their timing was adequate. But that's besides the point. I think that what we're looking at here is a situation where there is not a material inhibition because the significance that you could of the service you can obtain from the golden bow facility is so virtually equipment equip sorry equivalent. Now um there's been some focus on the number of exceptions are needed but it's not a numerical question. You don't just add them up. The issue that you have to address here is whether you can meet all the fines that are required in the

wireless ordinance plus a use permit ordinance uh require and so that is a a totality of the circumstances type of question because you want to understand issues of welfare issues of whether there will be an incremental effect they'll be detrimental to the city that's under the use permit and you also have to consider whether it's in fact compliant with all the provisions of the ordinance and so I'd like to focus first on um four or maybe you could call it five different issues that have to be resolved for the project to be approved and I'll explain why they're not met here. You the first one we've been hearing somewhat about I think not in the staff report application but um with some of the comments from the residents and also we heard Mr. Companelli mention it as well that this is a historic property right next door. So under SQA, if there's an impact, potential impact to a historic property, you cannot use the four class 4 and class 5 exemptions that are identified in the staff report. So that would require additional seeker review. It similarly would also require compliance with the general plan provision. So the general plan itself states that when there is an impact to a historic property that is presumed to be environmentally significant and that SQA should be performed in order to understand uh ramifications of that impact. Similarly, the California guidelines in complying with the National Historic Preservation Act dictates that when there are cell towers or otherwise facilities in the vicinity, it should be evaluated to understand how that affects the context of that historic property. None of that is presently in the record. The next piece is that uh a facility on a pole cannot be more than 17 cubic feet of accessory equipment. Um and that's under the design guidelines that the city has established. It's not in the ordinance. Um what's shown in the plans is that the total um volume of the accessory equipment is

16.48 or 42 if I I don't remember which one it is frankly but good enough I'd say uh cubic feet of accessory equipment. Now uh that happens to be that what's not tallied in there are two things and you can see the different items that are identified there in sheet D3 or D4 and that is the brackets. So there's the large box we've been talking about on the side about 11 ft up. That box is attached with brackets and Pen requires that it be offset approximately 6 feet from the pole so they can expect the pole quality if there's rod or other issues. So, uh, but in order that the bulk is more seamless, there aren't gaps there. Those gaps actually cover what's known as wings. So, there's actually from the standpoint of the people who are seeing it additional bulk that is between the pole and that cabinet, that bulk is approximately 6 cubic feet. That pushes it way over. But even if you just would encount the brackets themselves that are holding that attachment as well as the brackets that attach to the top of uh the antenna that likely would also cover that additional half cubic foot. So that is um just a per se prohibition under the design guidelines. Uh second prohibition is a situation where there is um an injury to roots based on a new structure. Uh we understand from the staff reports the interpretation is that a new structure means uh a non-replacement structure. But if you look at the provisions there in that section of the ordinance um and that's uh 17464E3D that section lists a number of different issues that you would clearly not want to limit to only situations where there is a non-replacement pole. There are things like interference with traffic signage, um interference with drainage. So in this instance, it actually is a new structure. There's a prior pole. It had a footing of only 5 1/2 ft and it

was uh it roughly 7 ft lower. The pole itself I'm talking about that structure was taken away or will be taken away if it's approved and replaced with a taller pole. That taller taller pole will be have to be uh excavated or in order to be also in placed deeper adjacent within 48 in of a tree. um and that also needs to be remedied in order for a project like this to be approved. Now, um there are also other provisions in the general plan that are specific to protection of tree roots and native trees like that oak tree and uh those will apply regardless whether you consider this to be a new structure or a replacement structure and that also is not addressed sufficiently. Instead, it's addressed in a um after approval landscape plan. But a landscape plan may not enable you to actually protect the tree because you already approve the project. And I'd assume that Ryzen would not be amendable to saying, "Oh, we're not going to do the project now that you have stepped in and enforced the general plan conditions to maintain the urban forest and the health of that tree." There also are other violations that have been discussed to some extent and that's the question of the height of this uh facility. So there is a requirement under the ordinance that the wireless facility not exceed more than 10 ft compared to the pre-existing pole. The language there is comparing pole as in the existing pole to the wireless facility not pole to pole. And that makes sense because what we're actually concerned about is how tall is this uh intrusion. And the reason why we're seeing this topping out at 49 ft of 10 in. It's not because of CPU general order 95. It's because the maximum height that Verizon can um build and still use the provisions for a small cell is 50 ft. So you're just you're not going to go over 50 ft in order to

maintain that regulatory structure. But there are many instances I'm just several months ago I was involved in a number of um replacements for a contractor for Verizon in Samonteo where they placed them on poles. They did not replace the pole. They simply moved the wires to make the requisite amount of space. And if you were to look at GO95 um the separation distance are in table two and this would be um case 21. And in that situation, the total distance that's required for separation from if you look at the individual changes from one pull to the next is dramatically overstated. So for instance, there is a separation distance of 6 ft from the top of the uh canister for the accessory equipment and the communication lines and that's stated on the plans as a GO 95 requirement. The actual separation distance under case 21 of table 2 is only 2 feet. There are a number of examples like that. The from a standpoint of GO95 ignoring whether the pole needs to be replaced because of any structural issues. But from a standpoint of the separation distances, this pole is roughly 7 ft taller than it needs to be. And so I think that is largely a propagation decision. meaning Verizon wants to have a higher facility, which is a understandable thing to do, but let's make sure that we're thinking about it in the right context. Now, the other issue we've heard is this question of what is stealth and what's not stealth. Um, stealth means, and this is in code as well, as well as basically mapping on to what uh the FCC regulations say. Stealth is a situation where the facility does not appear to a normal person to be a wireless facility. It doesn't mean that the wireless equipment is hidden under a shroud. It means it does not appear to be a wage facility. So if you have it in a steep or a a rooftop or a anything else like that, but in this situation, it's obvious. It's plain to everybody that it's a wage facility. It just happens to not have all the wires hanging out in

it. And so once you have taken that step, once you've decided this is a site where the city says we are accepting of having facility there, you have seated your authority to the to the federal government. You don't have and the language of the statute is shall approve and shall not deny. That's 47 USC1455 that was discussed by Mr. Campanelli as well. That's a language of the federal statute. And so in you have basically, you know, kind of two options. If you don't want a larger facility, you deny it or you make it stealth. It's impossible to make this facility stealth. And so you end up implicating a lot of other secret related questions. For instance, you have to consider all the foreseeable anticipatable actions from your specific action today or whenever you decide to make a determination on this facility. Um, and given how much the apparent demand there is for 5G, it makes all the sense in the world that other applicants will show up and they'll say, "We're just going to slap it on this and you can't stop us." Your height zoning height restrictions don't apply. Your design criteria don't apply. Only, uh, engineering and safety standards apply. So, if someone's unhappy with this, you know, uh, refrigerator box in front of a historic property right now, I the allowance are for additional up to four cabinets, ground mounted cabinets, not just mounted on the pole, but ground mounted cabinets, uh, if that's needed for the type of silly that's being installed. There's no volume cap for the size of these antennas. And what that means is because this pole is a class one pole, meaning the strongest type of wood pole that's used for utilities, and it's now in place eight and a half feet down, the potential to increase the weight bearing on that pole also just went up. So, it's very important to be forward thinking about that and consider the general plan and values ramifications of that choice. I'd like to talk for a little bit about the issue of of the gap um and just an understanding of sort of the federal state interplay and that's sort of it's just a very unusual conversation I think we're having. Typically a business does not show up and say we're going to tell

you that we're going to do it and you can't say no. That's not the typical relationship that we want to have. We expect to have between the regulators for land use development and the industry. But it happens to be that under the federal law, there is uh a scenarios in which Verizon is essentially cloaked with federal authority that overrides your typical local land use authority. But that is limited. That is for a specific type of situation where there is an effective prohibition of personal wireless services. It's not just to sell anything happen to come out of an antenna. And so if it happens to be the most profitable thing to do is to buy mid-band because that's what the FCC is is, you know, has on sale right now versus low band or if it happens to be that the ultimate desire is to uh sell more bandwidth because that's what the customers want of Verizon. Uh that is not uh something that entitles a business to override and preempt your your ordinance. But let's turn specifically to these issues of gap and what how the uh peer con report reads and what we've done is um Robert Beagle I sent you also uh so unfortunately it was just last night um a analysis from him he is a engineer an expert who's involved in uh expert testimony a number of cases of these types of issues and he did an evaluation as well of the Purecon RF report and so I'm uh I'm sort of trying to channel what he's uh saying in his uh report that you have as And we're just going to focus on a small number of uh very critical errors in the comparison that makes it very much not apples to apples. So what you would want to see is because we all agree and it's obvious that Golden Bow is a superior alternative from the standpoint of the values and requirements that the city has and what you want to see is how well can Verizon make that work. Did they do everything that they have in their expertise power to try to make that work or did they basically not do that? And so we had a couple of one was quite

strange. So for instance, you look at the maps. Can we pull up the uh can we pull up uh on the um Excuse me. How much more time do you think you're going to need? Is five good? How much? Five. Five minutes. Okay. Could you I think you need to kind of make this a little more concise. Sure thing. You're really getting down in the weeds and um I'm not sure it's it's really clear. Okay. Okay. So anyway, just

well um can you pull up uh exhibit K on on the uh on the Piercon report? Thanks. So what I'm going to show you here is that the mo the modeled height that's described is 20 ft for the golden bow. Let's just get all the way down there. Thank you. One more. G. Um.

Yeah. And next one, please. Uh L. So you see here, go to let's see. Yes. So you see this says ultimate small cell at 20 ft. The alternative small small cell is the modeling of an alternative on the golden bow at 20 ft. But that building is 24 ft and the zoning ordinance allows an additional 10t of height. So that that's just inexplicable. Um what we're also seeing here if you were to compare all these models and it's the same thing if you look at the next uh map as well which is where the modeling is of the macro cell on the rooftop also at 20 ft. Obviously the coverage is going to be significantly worse. The next piece that we're going to we see here is that there's no variability in all the blue. So the blue is a combination of the modeled sites are not operational plus the drive data. Now, you see the blue dots follow the street grid up towards the north. And that's because those are actual data points, but it shouldn't give the impression there's actually white in between them. They just don't have data, of course, aside from on the street. But what you what you'll notice is if you were to compare these, and you'll see this in the answer that Piercon gave to NOI number two, they use the exact same parameters. And perhaps you could ask a peer con engineer as well. They use the exact same parameters for all the existing and modeled antennas in all the scenarios. But we also heard from Mr. Albrin that this is a network and a patchwork designed to work together. But from everything I can see and from what our expert is telling us and what this map is telling you is that there is no adjustment in the existing facilities and the proposed facilities in order to steer those bands so that there is the best coverage interplaying and optimized with what you could get at golden bow. So what should be happening is is that wherever the golden bow is not focused

those other antennas should be refocused in that direction and if there are issues of overlap that too should be minimized but that is not happening and so that makes the outcome and the results you're seeing incredibly unreliable. The other thing that we're seeing is, and this is reported in the pure car report, is that the proposed site is reaching 63% of the target area versus 56% for uh the Golden Bow site, meaning that even their proposed site is not covering most of their alleged gap, meaning that they're going to need a second facility anyway at some point or some other solution for much of that gap. And I'll perhaps just pick uh one more critical point which is that the only so you see how on the top of this table it says here this is a 21 mehz midband. So this all these facilities the the proposed facility and alternative facility is uh intend is op uh intended to operate with two mid-band frequencies at 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz. But we don't see any modeling of how the 1900 MHz option would compare. And in 2023, an example exactly like this where uh AT&T was had modeled just one of their types of gap and not another. That case against West Cabina which was thrown out in favor of the city because the question is functionally operationally how well can the users do what they want to do with the phone? How well can they make phone calls? And it's not predicated on 2100 MHz. It's predicated on all the different bands that are available including what the what Verizon is reporting to the FCC and their certified reports that uh happen to show that there's 4G LTE everywhere and those are certified under penalty of perjury to the FCC. So of course I can go on but it's a very detailed application and I think there are a lot of issues with it. But let's

just stop here because I understand you have all the authority you need. Frankly and I agree with Mr. Camp. This is not a complicated case. This is a case where there is a desired site and the model is essentially built around it ignoring what the actual situation is and even admission that the only difference is 10 to 11 what 6 to 11% and the only thing that they are entitled to do is substantially cover a significant gap. I what is substantial if not that the ninth circuit is explicit that that when if an applicant says that they don't get everything that they want or that would be unal that you that they can't force the city to allow it. That's exactly what this is. 90% 80 whatever 6% that is exactly what not ideal is but potentially would be functional. So I appreciate your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions and I very much appreciate uh all your questions and all your involvement in trying to understand and take the right action for this application.

Any questions for the speaker? Thank you. Good evening. It's evening, isn't it now? Uh my name is Ned Speaker and I own the subject home on uh on Carmelo. I purchased that home in 2002. So been there quite quite some time. Uh when I purchased the home, it had significant uh deferred maintenance. I came to the city and the first thing the city asked me to do was to hire and pay for an historian. I did that and in 2005 the house was declared historic and I I supported all all that effort. But let me tell you a little little story. Little did I know that that historian would become my partner in development. I had a lot of windows in the house. Those windows had rotted and I had to replace them. In replacing them, I was going to order windows and have them replaced. But the historian had other ideas. I couldn't buy an offtheshelf window. I had to buy a window that had a two, excuse me, a half inch mullion. The only way you can get a half inch mullion is to have it custom made. So I had it uh I had it all made. Um so it was it was an expensive proposition redoing the house. Now the proposed tower would be located approximately 20 ft from my living room window. The uh box as you know would also be uh

attached right to that um to that uh pole. What do you think the historian that was concerned about an eighth of an inch would think if they knew that this was going to be 20 ft from my house? There's a tree 4 feet away from the utility pole. The tree itself engulfs the utility pole. I am told that they're going to just slip it right in and slip it out with only 8 feet more of depth and it won't disturb much except it's going right through the root zone of the oak. What are the chances that that oak is going to survive this? because not only will they have to dig out around it, they will have to prune, they said, 2 feet away from the box. So, they'll have to probably eliminate a third of the tree. How do oaks do with that kind of surgery? I don't think very well. The staff uh recommended the approval of this site for the Verizon permit because quote, "The proposed wireless facility will not resort in uh not result in adverse visual effects or have adverse impact on property values. I will let you to be the judge about adverse visual effects, but we have letters in the file from Tim Allen and from Mitchell, expert in real estate that says a cell tower adjacent to a home has a very substantial dimmunition of value.

I will leave you with this. I live in that house. I am a Verizon user. I get excellent service on my Verizon phone. Two bars minimum. I have no problem. I don't need a tower right outside my front door. I would ask you then with this one question. Would you vote to approve a Verizon tower right outside your front door? Thank you.

Thanks for your comments. Good evening. Um, I would like to thank the the members of the city council, the commissioners for their insightful and important questions and to to the applicant and I would like to thank Andrew Campanelli for his excellent presentation. Um, my name is Jeannie Ferrara. I am a realtor with Coldwell Banker and um the National Association of Realtors has done research showing that property values can decrease up to 20%. Uh if there is a sale tower nearby and a cell tower is a mandatory disclosure on every home sale in California. The lowest price house in Carmel is at least 2 million. 20% of that is $400,000. Um I that is just a ridiculous decrease in value and should not be imposed on any caramel residents. Um most 5G equipment is made in China and poses significant national security risks recognized by many countries around the world. The applicant said that they couldn't uh put the uh two um towers that were approved. they couldn't um make them operational because the fiber optic cable was not laid yet. Fiber optic cable is secure. It can't be hacked. Um it's uh it operates at the speed of light and it doesn't present a fire hazard. And so why not just put in the fiber optic cable and skip the 5G small cell towers which are anything but small. They you know uh as everyone has mentioned this evening no exceptions should be made um for the applicant the three exceptions that they are asking

for and um there is no effective prohibition. I can call, talk, text and play video in that entire area around um around the U proposed site. Um I I know what I'm supposed to talk about um about health hazards, but I just want to say that um the two largest insurance companies in the world, Lloyds of London and Swiss Swiss Reinsurance Company, um position EMF radiation in the same dangerous health hazard category as asbestos and smoking. And they refuse to pay any claims for conditions caused by or exacerbated by EMF or ADH. So, um I don't think you want to expose the Carmel residents to that type of u safety hazard and and please please don't ruin the beauty of Carmel. It's a very special place. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I have a model.

One more. Are there gifts in there? Yeah. No.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen of the planning commission. My name is Tasha Wit. For years, I worked with the city on cell tower location standards and newly adopted wireless ordinance, which requires applicants to propose the least intrusive designs and locations to protect our community character. I urge you to deny the stellar proposal in front of a historic home in a residential neighborhood and our least preferred tier one residential and public rights away zones. Approving the sensitive location sets a dangerous precedent that threatens protections across Carmel. Consider the visual impact demonstrated by this mockup of the equipment cabinet shroud measuring 1T 10 in wide, 2'1 in deep, and 6 ft tall to be mounted on a pole between 11 to 17 ft high with a volume of 22.93 cubic feet. Perhaps subtracting a 4-in deep bracket for this model. But a rough estimate of the mass and clearly above the six cubic feet still design preferred for preferred for polemounted structures per code are larvingly positioned just 15 20 ft from Ned speaker's living space violating 5ft centerline window setbacks and compromising his view placing it in front of Stonewall Cottage historic 1932 home destroying is the aesthetic integrity of our neighborhood. This inongruent mass adds visual clutter and ne negatively impacts both private and public views. The overall height of the massive 49 ft 10-in cell tower negatively impacts views from residents on upper commamino realal and exceeds height limits for the residential and

public rights of way zones as not to be over 10 ft over an existing pole in the vicinity. The massive height violates public rights of way safety code concerning fall zones and the safety code not to be on the drop line of a tree. The 8t 8 in underground trench required to support the massive replacement pole and structure is also non-compliant as do not affect tree root structures. Furthermore, Verizon has provided no credible evidence of a significant gap at this location. I need to go off my speech a bit. After listening to Verizon and seeing the map in the last application on their map, there was a 001 node tower southeast Lobos Ridge which was dropped off the map. And I noticed that the Pebble Beach large tower through the terrain and the Barnyard large tower like the Pebble Beach Tower. And I wanted to mention AT&T has one lowband frequency over 20 mi away to cover our entire area. Don't tell me there are not other bands that you can use to cover your service using selective high data bands and not the full spectrum of low, mid, and high band in studies. Uh and no data of our most compatible tier three zones in the commercial service areas as less intrusive location alternative. There's ex exists a clearly more feasible and less intrusive alternative in the golden bath theater zone uh which we have a precedent at the sunset and theater zone and they've yet to install two other cell towers nearby already approved by the city. If there was a genuine genuine need for coverage, why in the last 5 years have they not installed these already approved sites? I'm disappointed that the city consultant did not do drive tests and simply analyze what Verizon submitted. There was no independent study. The planning

commission has the authority to exercise discretionary design review and is not obligated to grant special exceptions. No evidence supports their service game gap claim at this location. The cell tower location is the most intrus intrusive and will negatively impact a aesthetics and property values and does not comply with design standards or safety codes. Aesthetic impact findings do not prohibit service and more compellable location alternatives remain in the city. I urge you to uphold our aesthetic laws and preserve the beauty and character of Carmel for future generations. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The next speaker, please.

Good evening, uh, commissioners and chair. Thank you for your service. Y'all deserve medals for tonight. Uh, I feel like I'm in kindergarten and you're already talking at the college level, but I'll go ahead. My name is Rebecca Lee and I came here to ask you to vote no on this and deny this permit tonight. In hearing everything that's gone on before, what I would really like are the directional addresses of the places that have these supposed gaps. I think your obligation is to provide for the residents that that service is available to them. And I would volunteer to go and take a Verizon phone into those homes and and test it because that is I think the extent of our obligation here. Um, I grew up in the big yellow house next door to the proposed site, just one to the south. My family and I are used to peace, quiet, tranquility, and of course, the beauty. We've invested much time, effort, and money into creating the gorgeous home it is now. Because we had faith in the city to maintain and protect the quality of life in terms of noise control, maintaining the natural beauty, and protecting our property values. Please don't forsake us. Now, the general plan that describes your duties states that the preservation of the residential character is central to all land use issues and there is residential focus of the community and to not make decisions detrimental to Carmel's residents residential character. And lastly, that you are to preserve the unique character of the residential district. I know you know all that, but that's just like in the first page, right? So, this tower violates those charges. It's too large. It's going to make constant noise, whether it's a hum, a vibration, a wine. Um, it it's it's going to be there. It's very unsightly. Um,

very industrial looking and would be like in the oak tree. Uh, so it would obviously be a fire hazard. I agree. I think it's going to kill the oak. And if you kill the oak, when the roots of the oak disintegrate, it could actually destabilize the tower. It's 15 ft from our property. Um, I can hear our property values crashing now. It can be seen from every room in the home except the bathrooms. Please protect us and do not allow this. It isn't necessary. Um, I have testimonials of people who used the phone in our house and uh and had perfect coverage. I even lassued a tourist and brought them in the house. Um, that is all. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. My name is David Nassau. I live at 4 Southeast, which is the address of the facility. Ned speaker and I have found out through all of this that we have the same address apparently. So, thank you for for that. Um, the u uh Verizon folks congratulated you on a great report and I can't do the same, but I can thank you for all the hard work. I understand this is the third time you've been through this, I think. So, but you did make a statement that um uh that the uh property values are not affected because I believe you said it conforms to regulations. If you didn't say that, please correct me. One of the required findings for the project is that property values won't decrease because it meets all the design standards and administrative detailed design guidelines specifically. That's the the reference in the code. So I did say that.

Okay. So uh we've submitted uh research uh both nationally and locally uh to the contrary and uh I just want to make sure that that what we submitted is entered in in the record. Otherwise, thank you very much. And I was happy to have you in my home. You you were there, too. So were these nice guys. And uh I hope that spoke for itself. Finally, I think it's wonderful. I'm 83 that people our age can get still get involved in in things and that Verizon even hires people with my kind of hair. So, thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please. Hello everybody. Thank you again. I'll be fast. I know you want to get out of here. It's it's late. But uh my name is Doug Hollbeck. I live just down the street from the from the project. And I want to begin with a simple fact. I have a Verizon phone. In fact, I was streaming the meeting walking in here and walking the street. Four bars, three bars. That's what minus 79 dBm or better. And I I had great service. So, and I um so I use that cell phone today. Now this proposal is not about filling a coverage gap. It's about place placing an industrial scale equipment in the middle of a charming village. We've all heard that where it doesn't belong. I have personally visited all these sites. In fact, I was on a deck to northwest Carmino Rial. Uh yesterday deck faces that tower. They have a beautiful sight of that tower and Martha had one northwest to Camino Rial. She has a perfect view of that tower too. So, it's it's such a view impact for that street and the neighboring streets. I've seen the photo simulations from Ned's house, speaker's house, and across the street from that twotory. Um, once again, the view impacts are are pretty bad. This is not a minor installation. It's a utility pole rising 50 ft with roughly 20 cubic feet. We saw the boxes of equipment mounted on the side. Uh the visual impact is substantial and unavoidable and it will degrade the character and the views from uh every surrounding property. Uh Verizon application includes no photo simulations from the perspective of the homeowners looking through their windows out to the project uh the very places that are affected. We have expert testimony from real estate uh from realtors that prices will diminish and you just heard that too. I I've submitted uh multiple papers and Ariel did a great job. The attorney uh describing how it violates so many parts

of the uh of the ordinance. I won't get into that. And Purecon itself identified the golden bow as a viable alternative. Uh it's not perfect. Uh but placing a facility in front of someone's historic home is definitely uh not the place to go either. Finally, I want to emphasize this approval does not stop with one antenna. I just want to emphasize this point. Once the poll's approved, additional antennas can be placed on that. Uh so you got to think about the project in totality. What what more can they put on this thing? You know, it's not just one antenna. It could be multiple antennas, multiple equipment around the site. For these reasons, I respectfully uh urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Are there any other Here we go.

Hi, thank you all of you very much for your time. Um, uh, I'm Susan Sigkin. I live at Carmelo, two southeast of 10th, um, which is two and a half doors from Ned's lovely residence. And uh this is conducive to meeting your neighbors as are many other things like uh lost packages and whatnot, but really not the way I wanted to meet Ned. Um I can see the top of that telephone pole from my front yard, my deck, my front door, my living room, and my bedroom where I'm about eyeballing it kind of dead on. Uh no one wants to look at this. But what I'd like to say is we really need to think about not kicking the can anymore. This can has been kicked from San Antonio and 10th over to Llaya now to us. We've got to stop doing that. We have to find a solution for what is at least a perceived need for these carriers, not just Verizon, but also AT&T and whoever else wants it to put their their communications equipment in a safe non-residential place that satisfies as best as is possible our needs. That is not this telephone pole. It's not telephone poles on Camino Royale. It's not the telephone pole that already has a bunch of box boxes on it down um at the Surfhang at 11th and Carmelo. So, we got to stop kicking the can, please. Like, let's find a solution for this and make it better for for the res. Let's at least allow the rest of us residents to stop worrying about it. That's what I would implore is that I don't have to read about it in the paper anymore. I don't have to worry about my poll or my neighbor's poll or um hopefully make it go away. It just it we should find a better solution. So, thank

you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Sorry.

Hi, I'm Bob Cavner. Um, and I was involved in the last uh cell tower uh issue. I just want to illuminate one thing that I see going on tonight. Um, the residents hired attorneys, we hired consultants all with healthy skepticism. We looked at the application and we asked tough questions and we tested it. I would encourage the planning commission, the city to have a staff capability and it may be a funding issue and I think we could solve a funding issue to have healthy skepticism when applications like this come in. Right now, what you have from the staff, from your telecommunications attorney, from the engineer that the telecommunications attorney hired, they read the report submitted by Verizon and its consultants and they said, "Oh, what they say makes sense. It conforms and we're going to recommend it." We, on the other hand, said, "No, we're going to first principle. We're going to look at every one of these suggested facts and find out if they're true or not. And I think what you heard tonight is that there are a lot of things that are in this application that deserve to be turned down. We I do think we need to stop this process where the citizens go hire their own attorneys and do their own staff work and you land up having two staffs, the citizen staff and your own staff. Somehow we got to bring this together. It's we if this gets turned down, which I expect it's going to get turned down. We need to have a much better cohesive process to evaluate these things. It's very very different than someone's roof

or someone's square footage or the other normal things you deal with. This is very technical and it's very complicated and it gets muddied because of the way they present it and it needs to be dissected. And I encourage you to think about how you have your support staff give you original information and not just what they read in the report from Verizon. Thank you.

Thanks for your comments. Okay, next speaker, please. Uh, do we have any more speakers in the uh chamber that want to come forward? Shaking their heads. Okay. All right. Any hands online? No, sir.

Okay. Uh, last call. Oh, I'm gonna So, okay. Is there any more speakers to from the opposition? All right. And then I'm going to give uh the Verizon application uh representatives a chance to answer some questions. There was there was there's been a lot of challenges to uh a lot of things. So maybe you can kind of uh state what state what you're answering and then give your uh the additional information or what you your uh comments on.

I am a lawyer, but I will try to be more brief than the other lawyers. Um, and I appreciate it. I think can we get our slide up? We uh we actually anticipated the issues that came up. We have a slide that reviews each of the issues, I think, fairly succinctly. Um, you know, it's interesting to hear I've been a planning commissioner. I've been a mayor. All those things, uh, the the the last commenter who was a former planning commissioner about this process. It's it is very interesting. But what you have is you have uh Verizon complying with your ordinance and providing every piece of information that was required under your ordinance which was very detailed, more detailed than any community that I've ever had to deal with. And the ordinance that Mr. Campanelli in required all this drive test information. We had to do it three decibel integrals based on our threshold based on a link budget we prepared that showed what signal strength we need for each frequency. And we did provide all of the spreadsheets with all of the data despite what Mr. Campanelli was saying. And so we repeat what we're asked to provide in the application. And you have professional staff and you have your lawyers that you pay for and you have your consultants that you pay for. Actually, we put a deposit down and pays pay for that. And and so then you hear me lawyers and you hear lawyers from the other side. But I really would um encourage you to pay attention to and and I'm sure you will talk to your lawyers about what these other lawyers are saying. Talk to your consultants about because you're paying for their expertise and they're not the our staff. They're your staff and and uh we do try and comply with the ordinance in every possible way that we can above and beyond. It's taken us a year, tens of thousands of dollars to do the reports that we're talking about, noise studies, RF studies, drive tests, all that sort sorts of things. And if it's the system is is broken, then then something does

does need to be need to be done. Did our slide of uh of it's an appendix slide otherwise I I'll just do it from memory if you wish. Um and uh I have many many objections to what uh Mr. Campanelli said and what Ariel said and and the boxes that were three foot square and were only 18 in by 24 in. But let's first go quickly to property values. That's always an issue that comes up. Um that has uh been litigated 2003 in California. Any e any claim that the uh decline in property values is due to ARF uh health concerns or fear of hear concerns is uh is preempted by federal law which leaves you strictly with aesthetics and the impact of any kind of aesthetics on property values. In this case, as you know, you've got an existing telephone pole increasing by 10 ft in height with a 6ft box that's 18 in x 24 in. And it if you think that aesthetic impact is going to have this terrible impact on the real estate value, then you need to look at the six sites that we built in the northern part of town, need to look at the sites that we built in the southern part of town. And I think you'll find there's no impact on property values in the Silicon Joint Venture. uh did a a study of small cells in the in the Silicon Valley area including parts of this area uh and showed that in fact small cells and connectivity can have the effect of improving property values uh because most home buyers today are young and they want connectivity. So the the property value studies that talk about 20% go back to studies that were done in New Zealand in the early as and and the authors of those are say they're irrelevant to California. So that's the property value uh uh issue uh future sites. Um there's a discussion of section 6409 of the uh job creation and

telecom job creation act of 2012. They're ignoring one Mr. Campanelli and Ariel are ignoring one very important fact. We have a landlord and that landlord is PG&E and PG&E is subject to enormous California Public Utility Commission rules about what they can do with that pole. And we have to follow all of these distance and structural requirements and everything else. And you won't find a pole that has multiple carriers stretched up and down for one reason. You can't put a pole through our cylinder antenna. Uh so uh the concept that this poll will be expanded with all kinds of other carriers is is wrong. It just can't happen. PG& rules, PG& uh won't won't allow that. And there's another very simple answer. Uh AT&T uh why would they hassle with modifying this poll that they can go to the next pole over if that's the case? And you'll the next issue was oh well this will open a floodgate. We're going to have all these small cells all over town. A they're not here. B, they have to go through an eight-year process like we did. Submit all of the materials that we've provided. Show a significant gap with the data that's required under your code and have and prove that to your third party engineer. And Mr. Affleck is a professional engineer. He's very knowledgeable. Uh Mr. Campanelli and and the council are not professional. The the uh consultant that they hired, Mr. Beagle, is not a professional engineer. In fact, in testimony, Mr. Beagle has stated that network. Um, so that uh with respect to this future scare, it it doesn't really exist. Um, reading quick. Oh, the historical impact. The code says there has to be an significant impact in the on the historic structure. We're not affecting the structure. And staff's right. uh adding a telephone equipment on a telephone pole 20 ft away from a

historic structure uh out in the ride of way is uh doesn't fall within the secretary of interior standards for affecting a historic site and uh and staff came to the right conclusion on that issue. Um then there was the whole discussion of the network itself. Uh my phone works. Uh why can't you use the golden bow? What about two and the sites two and five? why aren't they on? Um, and can't you just upgrade the sites that you already have? The the frequencies that we have have limitations, and those limitations don't allow us to just crank up one of our other towers and uh provide uh service. Yes, your phone will work. We've talked about this in circumstances uh when there's low usage of the facility of the overall capacity within the town. There's low throughput required uh but the the network is broken. Uh your consultant confirmed that, our consultant confirmed that. And in times of crisis when you've got high demand, you're going to have search situations where you've got one out of five calls not getting through. And that's going to be which of the five 911 calls do you not want to go through? Um there was uh Mr. Campanelli uh I think Mr. Be Mr. Beagle I won't go into that argument. Mr. Campanelli focused on the golden bow. Now Mr. Strauss was clear and he said there's a 6% difference in coverage area and but he also said there's a 33% overlap. In other words, twothirds, a large portion of anything we put on the Golden Bow is going to overlap with what we already have and it's going to cause interference. So, it's going to impact the signal that's coming off the Sunset Center and everywhere else. It's going to make that service worse. And your CTC

confirms that and Purecon confirms that that it's a lousy location. He mentioned 20 ft. Building height is 24. They're using the center line of the antenna. what's the center line of the antenna in terms of determining their propagation maps. Mr. Campanelli is just dead wrong. The golden bow is not a viable alternative. Your consultant says that. Our consultant says that. Uh and it it makes sense. And I I can't I I can promise you if we propose it at the Golden Bow, they're going to be neighbors across the street. They're not going to be happy uh with an antenna uh going in across the street. um can't read my own writing. Uh did I did I miss any points that you guys want me to cover? I uh and I'll just uh again, Mr. Campidanelli says he's never seen a canister antenna on top of a rooftop. That's what we have at the Sunset Center right now. Uh that's what we're using. The modeling, he said the modeling was not done with uh separate antennas, sectorized antennas, but Mr. Strauss pulled up a map that showed where we'd modeled it that with sectorized antennas the golden bow to show that it would not work.

My excuse me Pete Chub and Seo deployment services. There was a a comment made with regard to GO95 and attachment points on the pole in changing attachment points on the pole, lowering them so you could uh not have such a high sight or a tall site. Um many things come into play uh GO95 but also PG as the pole owner. P Gen has what's called the green book uh which is just uh shorthand for their rule book their interpretation and practical application of GO95. Then they also have standards documents that they issue that is the application material for GO 95. And what those show you is they take the code in GO95 the verbal code and they put it into graphic form and understandable form. Um how a site is developed is you go to P Genie and say I want to attach uh to that pole. They take a look at the poll, they'll take a look at planned attachments and they come up with heights and those heights are a bunch of combination of a bunch of things. Uh where are things now on the pole? Where are the neighboring pole attachment heights? Um what is planned for the pole? Maybe things you don't see now. And then they take their standards documents and they apply that. And what they do is they give us back per G95 and P Gen standards, these are the attachment heights for individual items. And that's done for a lot of different things, the things you can't see, but also if you took a pole going down the street and all the lines are attached at the same height, you say, "We're going to lower this one 7 ft." All things come down, they dive down, they dive back up to the next pole. So those rules and those P Genie attachment heights are designed to prevent those types of situations.

So what we do is we take it we tell P Genie this we give a survey of the pole all the attachment heights they look at their plans they give us back the new attachment heights and position that's where you come up with the attachment heights. If you look in the plans you have existing and proposed. You can see crossarms being replaced and things. All of that information comes from PG& as part of that betterment process to ensure the pole is safe to ensure all the users and by users the fiber company the cable company PG& power everything that's on that pole has room works together and is safe and complies with the rules. So that was something that um was mentioned that was a misinterpretation of how it works to engineer a pole attachment. if you'd like more information on that. I know it's not very exciting stuff, but I'd be glad to continue on with that if you'd like.

I'll wrap up because I know you guys been very very patient and and I appreciate that. Um, I'm going to circle back to the original point uh that we we fulfilled the application requirements. uh we we met the code and c according to the staff review we've met the uh gap requirements according to your own consultant and we've met the legal requirements according to your own attorney uh Mr. Campanelli Mr. Strauss Mr. Beagle their expert. We have seen in multiple jurisdictions coming up with the same issues and from our perspective same misinformation uh in in different realms. I don't know that you need to be continuously subjected to that. And I would just want you to know that we really have done in the last eight years as best we can to come up with a solution that has minimal impact to the community. you know, rather than macro sites or multiple sites, we entered into a settlement agreement with the city with the city and then we've got we're just trying to fulfill actually what was in the settlement agreement in a way that we could provide Verizon wireless service reliable for the people when they need it uh in a in a discreet fashion. uh if indeed there were a pole or something that was feasible and could be produc could be built that would provide service and you suggested to it us it it to us we would absolutely look at it but we think we found the poll we found the solution and we hope you do too. So that's our is our

Can I ask a question? Sure. Uh yes.

Okay. So, um, so you just mentioned that you're open to other solutions. Um, and you've seen the community come out. Um, and I've sat on the planning commission for several years, and the projects that come up in front of us that have this much opposition from the community generally end up in a better place if the applicant is willing to look at different solutions. And so you mentioned that you're open to looking at different solutions. Is that true?

We're on our seventh poll. Does that answer your question? No, it doesn't because you keep going to the most like the actual least compatible situations. And I I don't understand that. Um, and then are you we entered into a settlement agreement with the city council. Are you open to turning on the approved sites before we make a decision on this? You know, the I think Mayor Potter asked me that same question several years ago and and I gave him the same answer. Um,

no,

they it's a it's a company, you know, definitely a company decision, but these fiber contracts are are seven figures. So, uh, they want to make sure that the network they're going to build is the network that's going to be there uh before they pull that trigger. And I I think that's a reasonable business position to be in. um you know if if this fails uh we have a gap and and we've you know the solution that comes back may not may be worse uh for all I know but I and I do not think so uh we were talking about hair color I've been doing this for 40 years and we used to come in with big you probably still see them monopole towers with great big antennas on top uh that we would put into communities to provide service uh And it the clamor was to come up with small cells, something you could put on existing utility poles, like a two and a half foot antenna on existing utility pole. Wouldn't that be terrific because it would have such little impact on the community? And then once we come in with small cells, there's well, why can't you do something else? And the antennas have to be able to see the users. They have to be able to see the homes. They have to be able to see the users. And uh Mr. Campanelli, Mr. child said, "Oh, just buy a different frequency." We can only buy the frequency that the federal government sells us. And there's been a moratorium on frequencies for the last two years. So, we can we have to use the real estate that we have and the frequencies that we have. So, I know from your impression it looks like, oh my god, this is a monstrosity. But in the grand context of how cell networks are built out, this is really uh the latest and greatest. The the latest and greatest beyond this would be what we have in San Francisco and Oakland and elsewhere where we were using street lights and putting little tiny antennas on street lights. We don't have that opportunity here. So, we're using existing infrastructure, existing

towers, which means we have minimalist aesthetic and and uh environmental impact because the pole is already there. It's creating an aesthetic impact and it is we are merely expanding expanding it. So the answer to my question is no.

No. The law is that if we come up with a solution and uh you are able to come up with a feasible less intrusive alternative that provides the coverage that we need uh that we have to look at that uh because that would that would blow our federal lawsuit. We're not and by the way we're not putting that information together for a lawsuit. we're putting that information in because it's required by your ordinance that we show that it would be a federal violation in order to get those exceptions. So the answer is yes. If you had a solution that was feasible and that provided the service that we wanted, it has to be uh feasible includes economics as well. Um I mean there's lots of case law on this. Um then we would absolutely look at at that solution. that that uh it can't be a madeup solution like the golden bow uh or you know some or putting uh you know if we can't go in the residential rightway that we're going to put a tower on somebody's house. I mean, it's just it has to be shown by you to be feasible, provide the service that we need, and uh and then we we absolutely would, but as you can tell, it takes years and years to get to where we are today. And uh most jurisdictions just obviously don't have the resources to do all that. So, I I know it's uh I don't mean to uh I don't not disrespectful at all. I'm very sincere in saying our objective is to to provide service with the least impact to the community. There's always going to be objections. Been doing this for 40 years. There's always going to be objections to wireless facilities. There's a fear of radiation that can't really be explained. And nobody wants anything uh in there next to them. uh whether it's an address, it's a red curb, it's a stop sign, you must know that that that people um uh will always

object to change that's in uh right in their backyard. So, I'm sorry. I have a question, too. Just a sec. Um you just mentioned that in San Francisco they put tiny antennas on street lights. Yes. 600 of them. So, what's the gap between the tiny antennas and where is the equipment that you have in the 6-ft box?

Sure. So, in San Francisco, we're using uh the 5G that some people are concerned about. It's called ultra wideband 5G, and it is very high speed. Can get up. I've actually gotten two gigabit downloads from my Verizon. Um the the antennas on the block around my office, there are uh three on one block. Uh they're they're relatively close together. We've mounted them 5 ft out of people's windows. Um and they're they're low wattage. Um but and there we're using existing infrastructure. Uh rarely we can put a standalone pole that's allowed under your code to put our own standalone pole up. Uh but that's disfavored under your code. That's certainly something we could do. Put a you know a standalone pole with an antenna on it. Um but that's uh that's how that that network works. Uh there's also approximately 50 macro towers in San Francisco about 600 small cells and we're putting in small cells and there's small cells in Oakland and San Jose and uh in the East Bay throughout the East Bay you've got these telephone pole installations. uh we worked with the board of supervisors over there for those to be uh approved, John Joya and others and uh and that's the majority of of how the small cell networks work. We're working with uh similar in in Berkeley and elsewhere. A lot of jurisdictions have actually adopted ordinances that allow for the small cells with simply an encroachment permit or in San Francisco on those light standards, no permit is required at all because because it's not a licensed

would be possible to do such an installation to address the gap in Carmel. If you wanted a standalone pole, we could certainly do it. Okay. But how about using these these types of um the tiny antennas? You may find you get more objection to those than you do. Well, I'm just curious like if you put tiny antennas on existing PG& poles, could you You'd have to have a lot more of them. Well, I understand that, but they're also tiny, right? Yeah. Yeah. Well, they're two they're two feet like like to tubes. And then they've got little uh polemounted radios that are about uh

You guys can help me out. They're about seven by 13 inches by 17 seven inches and they stick on the on the pole. How big is the supportive equipment for something like that? Uh, yeah. Well, it depends on it depends on the frequencies you're using. They're about the same size right now. The antennas

depends which frequencies you're using in the rest of the network. I am not a network designer. So you have a RF engineer design, but you're talking about my the my experience is this uh every poll you propose is going to have this many neighbors that are around it that are opposing it. So if you add the number of polls, you can add the number of people objecting um to uh just because of the nature of the beast. But if that's if that's if standalone polls is something I I think I think we got we got this. Just why don't you let your come up? He's got maybe he's got some hard data he wants to tell us. Come on. Answer her question. Please come on up. We

I I just want to answer your question though. You're saying small antennas. They are small but there's three of them, right? And our our proposal right now is just one cannon on top and it's about the same size. We're saying they're small because we put them on light poles and the light poles are much shorter than the peny poles, but there are three, right? But they also don't have the they don't have the sixoot cabinet either. I think the shroud that's true. Yeah. And I think the shroud is actually one of the one of the things that that we have a big concern about because it does have that aesthetic issue. This is Jeremy's troop. He's a municipal engagement partner. So anyway, okay. So So

so we went through the shroud actually in the in the hotel situation. Uh we proposed no shroud which is there's less volume and the and the planning commission said we want a shroud. Uh your council at the time suggested we use something called a cage which is an open air like looks like a chain link sort of shroud that you can sort of see through and we proposed that back then. So there are uh I suppose some shroud options or not?

There are shroud options or no shroud. We can take the shroud off and you've got radios with little you know conduit cables uh going between them and we you know those where we have those those are in Hillsboro. Um and uh you know we could give you examples of all those things but we're following your code which is requires the shroud. Yeah, I think we're not picking on the crow on on the the piece of metal that's covering the equipment, but rather the amount of equipment and how do you get rid of it?

If I could speak to that really quickly, uh we're putting two radios in uh along with basically two radios and there's there are five frequencies that Verizon works on. Uh and we're so we're using two of the frequencies, the AWS and PCS mid-band frequencies are radios inside the box. And then there's a uh this, correct me if I'm wrong, the Cband 3.7 frequency is actually built into the antenna. We would love to have a bigger box because we could then put the low band uh frequency in there as well, but we already shrunk the box in order to comply with your 15 cubic foot uh shroud limit and and removed equipment to make it small. So that's

So that triggers another question for me. What do you have to have all the bands in the box or can you go with just like you've talked mid-band whatnot? Do you need to have 5G and do you need to have a low band um in this box or can you just go with one which would shrink the size of the box? I'm not an RF engineer but the Verizon RF engineers accuse me of acting like one. So um the and just I want to be brief uh the RF engineer designed the radios and frequencies to be used at this location to meet the anticipated uh capacity demands. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

And and so that's that's how you end up here. If we had if we had a lot more polls then we could go back to one band in Sonteo. They've got the small 5G everywhere. Thank you. You know offline or through letters or emails. and we'd be happy to continue the conversation. Thank you. Okay. Did you have something you see seem like you had something you wanted to say?

Yes, sir. There's one thing I failed to mention when I was up here earlier was the questions regarding the tree impacts and the pole replacement that uh several residents had mentioned. Um staff could we could bring up that photo. Um this is a site that is in uh Carmelwoods just north of town. And this was actually I moved the poll the the the picture back up please because I want to get that the Thank you. Um I stopped by here today just to take a look. Uh this is one we had built. Uh it's providing service right now. This is in the canopy of an oak tree that was trimmed for the equipment and you could see you can still see the scar of the bore hole on the ground. So when we were talking about impacts to the tree that replacing a pole would kill the tree that would have to be trimmed too much for the equipment. This demonstrates uh not in Carmel by the sea but just uh north of town a couple of blocks a pole replacement that did not kill an oak tree. That's the pole replacement's in its canopy and the extent of the ground disturbance necessary for a pole replacement. I thought this would be useful to you to understand the the minimal scope of work that actually goes involved on the ground in replacing a utility pole and that would find useful and keen and I would notice that this is a smaller shroud. Uh if you do this has half the radios. Uh the terrain up there does not allow for as much service out of the area. So if you look at the map that showed the site density, you have a lot more sites in that neighborhood to provide service to the same area. So that's a direct connection to the well, can you make it smaller? You make it smaller, you lose radios. It's like, well, I wish I had a smaller car, then you can't carry as many people. You can't carry as much stuff. Um, it's a direct correlation. So that's why those are smaller up there. That's a it's a

much hillary more hilly area as we know. It's a different but I was showed that for you for the the pole replacement impact. Okay. Thank you. One more question. I do. Um just following on what both Commissioner Allen and Commissioner Lockach said. Um it it you've you've demonstrated to us that there are ways to make the footprint of this equipment smaller. Yet there are consequences. We need more, for instance, more sites in the immediate surrounding neighborhood. Yes.

And you've also spoken to um your reasons that uh the Golden Bow, for instance, may not be um an ideal location for you. And yet, you know, we've also heard tonight there's an opinion that that would be a good location. I'll I'll summarize. Um we the planning commission represent the town and its general plan and its local coastal plan and its wireless ordinance and also the design guidelines that accompany the wireless ordinance. So that is part of our purview and our responsibility. And I I hope from our comments that we've made tonight, you um recognize both how much we respect the work that you are doing and value your application and the services you provide here and also the seriousness with which we are we we accept the responsibility to look at what it is you are you are requesting to do in town and to find a solution that is a good partnership as especially as Commissioner Allen was saying, you read the room um and we have read the room as well. Um my my hope is that um you I recognize this has been a long hall for you, but my hope would be that uh somehow you might be interested in taking yet another look at how the aesthetics can balance the aesthetics that our city needs for a variety of reasons. not the least of which is our historic nature and so on. The our city needs the aesthetics. You need the performance. How how can we just get a little bit closer together?

I would I'd like to one thing you said you meaning Verizon needs the performance. Verizon is here because the community is using their phones and their devices to an extent that demands an increase in the improvement in service. This is driven by demand that comes out of the community be it residents, visitors, the residents, kids, their visitors, tourists. Uh that's what drives network development. So this is not uh Verizon coming forward and saying you know we're going to do this to Carmel. is Verizon coming forward and saying we are trying to serve for the last decade. We have been trying to serve the community with multiple applications with locating antennas on roofs of buildings with attorneys with compromises with moving sites with walking the neighborhoods with directors to find all of those locations. Uh, if the city could do it, I it's one thing that we offer is to walk and go, I I'd be glad to do it with you. Why not this poll? I could explain why it would work or why it wouldn't. Um, and give all those details. And the answer is we have been doing that for close to a decade since 2017 and finding everywhere we go with every design. What Mr. Albertton didn't mention is the light pole design. when the city was doing their code, there's a gap in the in the in the time frame there. And you say, well, you were denied, but then you didn't come back until 2025. Over that time period, there was a lot of work with the city over how would you do that? Well, we would put in a new poll. Where would you put that? Uh, we went out and found locations. We provided photo sims. We did those design studies with staff, gave them to the city. uh we worked with them and with the light pole design that opens up a whole different issue of you have to get

utilities to it. So if you're going to do a standalone pole you have to get underground utilities to it and in a area where roots are are obviously from discussion tonight uh tree roots are a large problem. Well you're trenching down streets and you're trenching down through tree tree roots and you have much greater impacts. you're putting in new structures and that was deemed to be a a design solution that was not desirable here and is not preferred in the code and that's why um it would be a new structure. All of those things have have been looked at commissioner over the years. They just have not been discussed tonight. This hearing has been long. It could go much longer if we were to go into all those details of what we've done with the city over the past nine years. not quite a decade since 2017.

So, I mean, I can understand um that you feel like somehow you've been trying every option and that you've just been shut down. Um I as an expert, what would you recommend aside from this? Aside aside from this, as you say, as an expert, the question that was answered, would you want this in front of your house? I was in escrow on my house when I noticed a truck installing equipment on a pole and I saw it and I was like, "Who is this for?" And I was happy. I love it.

I I know that's I know that's an exception. Um I have I have five bars. I have five bars in my living room. I think it's awesome. Um

Carmel has such a large area of single family residential with such a dense tree cover. that the solution is small cells. Unless there was a solution to put a macro cell in the middle of that neighborhood someplace, which there is not and I would not recommend it. Uh the solution is small cells, a cantenna on the top of a pole. There was a gentleman who was talking about multiple antennas. uh what he was showing and I believe it showed up in one of his letters was a picture of a what we call a midmount which is in the comm zone above the equipment space where generally the fiber lines run on a pole with an arm with panel antennas hanging off of it. Uh that is not what we're proposing. That's actually prohibited uh in the city's code. Um that is something that I would not propose here. That's happens to be what I have by my house. Um I'll accept that. uh when they designed that site in in that canyon area, that's the proper antenna solution for that area. Uh I think antennas on pole tops is good. I think a shroud that complies with the small cell rules, which this does, which allows the proper antenna count to have as few as sites as necessary to provide the service is good. I think what we have learned since 2017 and working with the city is the code now encourages this type of design and we've gone to this type of design because after looking at all the options this is the right design for Carmel by the sea.

Okay. Thank you. I see a couple minutes. Uh yeah, just couple minutes try to try to answer some specific things that have come up tonight so we don't get off the subject because there's there's been a lot of uh objections and a lot of you know both sides to it. So at this point try to add some clarity.

I'll do my best. I want to start with just pointing out Verizon is not performing a public service. Verizon is here because their shareholders dictate what they do because they have lobbyists that enable them to override the code. The people in this room are not nimi people who are preventing Verizon from doing something they're entitled to do. The code has standards. The code says we don't want them here. This is a terrible place for once we put them here. We're going to have more from other carriers. They're going to put the the midmount options which is an option you can add to a poll like this. PG would allow that type of thing if there's a right rearrangement. And I can I sent you pictures of it and I can show you more of them. Verizon is not your constituency. Obviously, our obligation is to process their application correctly, properly, and uh according to the code. However, the code says that this the least preferred location, whether it's smaller, whether it is uh you know, two antennas versus one. The only question essentially from a legal standpoint is from does Verizon have the authority to force the city to make an exception to the standards that they decided to impose that you with your input and and the city council decided to impose to maintain the special character of Carmel and whether that other site that has been identified actually substantially fills the gap whether it does that or not and if Verizon says we don't want to do that and in fact that's what they're telling you we have a specific network design we're not putting in a fiber to get exactly the network arrangement architecture we then you're going to get maps like what you're seeing now which is essentially something like 30% overlap because they didn't model reorienting the rest of their facilities to accommodate and optimize for something like golden bound because they don't want it and they're telling you we're not going to do it unless you get what you want what they want and you can decide whether you're going to play ball with that and compromise or what the situation is but it really comes down to the power that the city has under the federal or statute under your ordinance and the power that Verizon obtained through the federal statute and I don't think that ultimately there's going to be years down the road some compromise. Someone's going to have to determine whether uh

this is a situation where they are entitled to do it or not. I want to very quickly also point out that uh there was mentioned Mr. All Britain that somehow the a facility that's not on the historic building isn't essentially relevant from analysis. Uh Verizon just in December came out of a consent decree and a million dollar fine from the FCC because they did not complete historic reviews. they did not consult with historians or with tribes or others and um because they took essentially that position that if it's you can see it uh it's not bad enough unless it's being built on but if you look at the docket with the FCC there are numerous environmental assessments are done specifically because you can see an antenna from historic property and intuitively we all know that's how the historic analysis has to work and in fact it does work uh I'd say with respect to the studies about property value impacts I don't think there's a question that this is an actual aesthetic imposition that is massive. This is not your typical facility. Your typical facility has a much smaller uh attachment on the side of the pole. It's not usually 6 ft across. It's not usually this deep and it's not usually right of a historic property. This is not typical. And to somehow conrue this as uh the type of problem that will never go away and that everyone is always going to be up in arms regardless of what Verizon in all their uh good faith attempt to do, it's simply not correct. this situation where there's one alternative that's been identified by many many people and it's objectively much much better. So I do hope that um you continue to enforce the code not be cowed or intimidated by a notion of some sort of parody when in fact it doesn't exist. It's a question of enforcing the code to the best of your ability. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Um I think everybody's done here. Anybody got anything else they want to make a comment? No, no repeating. Um, you know, just we've we made all the point. If you have new points, they didn't answer my question. Come on. Come on.

I I do want to know why 002 which is I want to know about the 001 in southeast point uh Lobos Ridge, why that got dropped off the map. And and I want to know if AT&T can use a low band frequency tower 20 mi away on Mount Toro and give service to all of our community without cluttering it and you have a low band frequency from Pebble Beach. Why can't you do that from the barnyard or the roast ridge or use other bands? because and then also my other concern is the um the high band that you're using or the midband it has proven to have more diff interference with trees and we're a tree city so I'm not sure why you're even using that when low band can go through trees much easier. Thank you.

I I do promise I'll be brief. Um so the Lobos Ridge site if you were following our applications back in 2017 was was on air. It's a hybrid site, high high power hybrid site that was built maybe 20 years ago. And uh it was it in the old days uh we thought we'd cover San Francisco Bay Area with 20 towers. You know, now they're thousands. And so you began with these high towers covering the miracle of cellular is that you can use the frequency over and over again in a different cell. So when you have a big high tower like that, it runs out of capacity and it was started actually interfering with other towers that Verizon was was putting up and so they actually had to decommission that site. So you're interfering your own towers.

Interference, yes, is one is one issue. And then there's noise from other RF sources like other cell phones and everything else. So it's a it's it's the migration of the network where you know in in sorry but in before cell phones you actually had mobile phones in San Francisco. You had one antenna and you had 80 people making phone calls and that was it and that's why they were so expensive. By doubling it you you got 160 people or more. Okay. Cell cell towers do the same thing. They make the cells smaller smaller smaller so you get more calls in in each cell of the honeycomb. And that's why you go from high sites down to low sites. So the low Los Lobos ridge site uh was decommissioned. Uh I do not believe AT&T is serving this area with a tower 20 miles away. I'm sorry. That's just not wrong. That's not right. I I represented AT&T for decades,

but they're not having multiple towers within. I you know, let's I don't want to have this back and forth. It's just not really Oh, I think let me let me just say something here. You're I think we're just we're just clinging the issue here. We have speaking that way. We have specific findings that were made on this uh application and I think what's relevant is addressing those specific findings and um so you know but I appreciate your answers and I appreciate your you know getting into the technicalities of it but we've got to we've got to get this focused. So uh I'm going to uh close the public comment. I'm gonna unless there's anybody online that I didn't didn't see. Was there anybody online Shelby that I didn't?

No. Okay. And I appreciate this has been a really interesting discussion. It's been very broad, a lot of points, but uh I think we need to make a decision. First of all, I want to put it to the planning commission what I brought up to begin and which is also recommended by staff that does do the planning commissioners and I want to take you one at a time get your opinion think that we need to continue this so there's an opportunity to have uh more evaluation uh on the information that has been presented late and also a lot of the um there's been arguments made tonight on both sides of these of these issues and I think the the CTC data there's been a lot uh questions about that. There's been a lot of questions about coverage and I think uh staff would probably appreciate if they had more time to evaluate the you know the um the particular suppositions that have been made regarding both of those those those studies. So, Commissioner Alurn, what's your opinion as far as the continuation?

I'll pass or no. Pass. Okay. Mr. Al, I'd like to vote and not continue. Okay. continue. And I'd actually like to continue because I think that there's information that staff should um look at and evaluate and our attorneys should look at as well. Um and I think that um I'd actually appreciate some more time to digest everything that I've heard this evening.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner and Commissioner Cargo. Um I am full continuation. Um, first of all, we need to go deeper into this whole issue of is the service good or bad. Uh, I'm getting two conflicting messages here. There's one camp that says our service is perfect, we don't need to touch it. And there's another camp that says, including the CTC study, by the way, that says the network is not doing well. And I think it's important to have a a consensus on that issue because otherwise we cannot really make a decision. You have to understand what's the baseline. Is the service good or bad? Until we understand that we cannot really know how to move forward because the general plan tells us that we need to support any initiative that improves infrastructure in the city. Uh and it makes sense but in order to do that we need to understand what is this asis situation in the city. And right now I don't have the picture. I I see two groups of people claiming completely opposite things. And I'm not a Verizon customer. I'm an AT&T customer. So I cannot really tell you how the signal is in town. I know AT&T signal is horrible. And we suffer with a lot of disconnects and garbbled voice and I cannot do any business over the phone. And I see contractors being confused and not being able to order the right part. and then they get the wrong part and then they bring the they have to go and order something else and bring it in. We end up with additional traffic in in town. There are implications of having a bad communication service and I want to know if that is true for Verizon and if it is we need to figure out a way to fix it because it is impacting the city. It's impacting our internal communication. By the way, if I cannot explain to Commissioner Allen, for example, a problem or anybody else and I have to

spell every single single word on the phone, that is a problem. That's not how a community should work. And and the same with my contractor or my contractor calling somebody who needs to order, you know, some part.

But you you are you're in favor of continuation because you feel like we need to establish the validity of of what the reports we're receiving before we can make our decision. We have to give them some road maps for some some homework by by the way. So they use this directional antennas on sunset. If you look at the drawings and you can put it on screen, the one in the city center in in the commercial district is like a sprinkler like a 360° sprinkler that sends signal in all directions, but the one on the top of sunset is sending signal only towards the ocean. You see the two pieces there? Yeah. So it's you can deploy this antennas directionally. So what if we deploy an antenna on the Golden B and direct it towards Carmel Point? Is that going to solve the problem of providing coverage and removing that interference that you

Well, I think one of the big questions is evaluating having a better evaluation of the golden bow. I mean the uh Mr. U Kapalini, if I'm pronouncing his name correctly.

Um I think it was Capelli. I'm sorry. Capanelli, I'm sorry. uh you know he he made a very strong statement that that is the best site and I think that needs to be evaluated. I mean there has there was some evaluation and I did a little search using my AI app into the what we've the documents we have and there has been some evaluation of that but I think there needs to be a better evaluation. So I I definitely support the continuation. So, um, but I think at this time I think, um, right now it' be good if each commissioner took a moment and gave their comments before we move to I'm going to make a motion that we continue. Um, do I have a second on that motion?

Let's hold our Let's hold our comments until You don't want You don't want to have any comments? I' I'd rather wait until I've had a chance to digest all this stuff. Okay. Well, let's think. You want Are you in agreement with that? Yeah. Well, if that's the case, then I'm just going to make a motion that we continue this item. I'll second. All right. U any discussion? You come up come up forward if you have a question. Date certain. And I and I do have a question about the date. The shot clock regulates the amount of time that city has. It's going to be it's going to be a motion to a a date certain. That's what I was. Yeah. It's going to be a motion to a date certain. Just taking into account your the shot clock. Yes,

we agreed to go to the 5th. We can't go to April because Pete will be out of town, which would put us to May for the city council. So, we're right. We've agreed to a uh February 11th or February to a to a March an extension to March 5th at Shock. That's for the city council agreement. That would be that takes into account the city council appeal. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. There needs to be time in the schedule for an appeal because either side will appeal within the 90day shot clock. Okay. Yes. A little worried there.

Yes. So, um the extension was to March 5th. Um and then with that, we're looking at early February to make room for a potential appeal to the um city council. Um so, right now, the regular meeting is scheduled at um February 11th. There's a special meeting on design design traditions on the 18th. Um, which then you could have a special meeting on February 4th, which is a Wednesday, or try to hear it at your regular meeting on the 11th.

So, if we if we pass most continue it to a date certain for the planning commission, what date are we making it? It would be up to the the commission to decide whether we're gonna have a special meeting on the 14th. 14th of uh or sorry, the 4th. The 4th of February. Fourth of February. Before the next city council meeting. No. No. We just we just before the March city council for the March. Yeah. For the shot clock for appeal. When is the city council meeting in March? Second and third. March is Yes, that's correct. 2nd and third. Okay. So date certain would be to February 4th or 11th. 4th

or 11th. Okay. Um the 4th. We're going to have regular business on the 11th. Don't you think? What's that? Don't you think we're going to have regular business on the 11th? Yes, there will be. Um, the fourth just increases the the deadline and decreases the amount of time staff will have to do an analysis. But I understand water. Just looking at my calendar here for the fault and our the regular planning commission meeting for February is on the the 11th. The 11th and then we have another one on the 18th. Great. Which is uh

the following Wednesday. That's a special that's a special meeting day will be together and and the 25th the municipal code is the 25th of February. What what meeting do we have on the 18th? Uh design traditions. Oh, design traditions. Okay. And on the 25th on the 25th we have don't know what's on the 25th municipal code for the for housing. Wow. That's got to be a busy month. Is that art that that Yeah, I think that's not a planning. I saw that on the housing. Well, regardless of all that, obviously we have a full schedule, but we still we still have to have a date certain. It seems to me that February 4th is is is the best time. Yes. So,

okay. My motion is to uh continue this item to a date certain of February 4th. All second. Second one. Okay. Any more discussion? Hearing none. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alport, yes. Commissioner Allen, no. Commissioner Kekov. Uh, yes. Commissioner Lock, yes. And Chair Leage, yes. Motion is carried to continue the item. Okay. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Appreciate all your time and effort. Thank you.

Okay. Where are we? Give him a couple seconds here to clear out. I really like reading. I had a director's report and I find publishing this as a mobile. It's my largest report yet by far for sure. It was our first special meeting. I wanted

Can you uh take the discussion outside or we just we'd like to finish up our meeting. That's all. Thank you. Okay. The uh last item on our agenda tonight is the director's report. All righty. And uh yeah,

I will try to go swiftly but still speak so you can understand me. Um uh so we received a request from a commissioner um on an update for the housing element six cycle amendment. Um so to provide an update um we received a comment letter from HCD on the 13th of January. Um that letter was sent via constant contact to residents. It's also posted on our website. The letter requested or pointed out that minor clarifications or additional information was needed um such as the status of the JB Pastor project clarification um if potential housing sites um that were used in the previous cycle were um included in this cycle or the amendment and um a request to adjust the timing for completion of program actions. um like moving it forward from 2028 to 2027. Um overall staff and um our consultant found that um there aren't any um big issues with the comments and we're working on a response to resubmit to HCD. State law requires that jurisdictions submit an annual report on Reno numbers. Um so then as of the end of 2024 there were 22 above moderate um units that were created. Uh the commissioner also requested that we have a monthly update. Um and we can definitely do that. Um we'll have to figure out how to report on the Rena numbers um at a monthly basis or perhaps we can determine like a month is it's too frequent. Um, but we we um staff will work um with the commission on that. I can cover what happened at uh meetings during last week

and future meetings if you'd like. If not, um we can all go home. Cover the What was that? Um there are quite a few meetings that happened last week, so I can cover that if you'd like. Do you have any does any of the commissioners have any questions about in those meetings? Did you call? Was there anything anything you know if there was any anything you think we need that we should have? Yes. Well, um interesting. We had two board of appeals building code board of appeal hearings. We haven't had um one in the city. I think it was over eight years. Um one was for exterior fire sprinklers on a home.

Okay. I would like to know what happened with that. So, um, our building board of appeals is set up where if the building official makes a decision based off of the code, um, an applicant or someone has the ability to appeal that decision. So, based off of the building code and the fire code and the lack of uh technical supporting information from state fire marshall, um it was the the determination that the building official could not grant a request to install exterior fire sprinklers on a single family dwelling. Um there are just too many issues um that we don't have enough information on and we don't want to cause a situation where there's a draw down in water supply um if there's a is if there is um a fire. So the board of appeals denied the appeal and upheld um the building officials determination in that case. Following day, we had another board of appeals meeting on Mad Dogs and Englishmen um for the requirement of the installation of a public ADA bathroom as well as fire sprinklers. Um that item was continued. So um yet to be determined on that. There was a community workshop on objective design standards. It was really uh an ability to have the um community understand like what odds are, why why we're doing them. Um Commissioner Alurn wasn't in attendance. There will be future um future um meetings that um the consultant will go

and that was ADU.

It's going to be split, right? So it'll the focus will be ADU and then soon to follow will be the multif family. Um and then at city council they heard both the um the roofing policy and design traditions both were continued I think for a good reason. Um what I what I enjoyed hearing was they really wanted the the opinion and and buyin of the planning commission since the planning commission will be you know the experts and the users of the design tradition guidelines um for roofing materials. Um, we received direction and staff will be returning, I believe, back to the planning commission for confirmation and then back to the city council for a final adoption of the policy.

Yeah. And I would just add with the uh design tradition meetings that those will be publicly noticed and so all p all planning commissioners can attend those meetings. And and and I would encourage you to do so. So, Could you expand on the direction that you were given around material?

Sure. Um, so one of the questions um was really understanding what the policy was trying to do. Is it a policy regarding process or is it a policy regard regarding like what is an approvable roof? So that's where you know starting with that mixup just kind of snowballed because if if it really the intent was it's a procedure thing. So there are examples of colors and materials which may be helpful but you can't have a color palette that would be an automatic approval for every single type of house we have here. Um, so then I I think it's beefing up the policy language to really clearly outline this is a procedure. What is approved by staff still using our independent judgment um and what is approved by the planning commission you also using your discretion and your independent judgment. So um it's fixable.

Okay. Any other questions? Ajourn. Okay, boy.