Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

very much okay great thank you I'd like to call this meeting of the Valdez Planning and Zoning Commission for Wednesday July 22nd to order let the record show that all commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Fagerberg and we have commissioners Wade and Moulton on the phone we also have Sierra Larson and Michael gobble from New Horizons on online First item of order of business is the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes for May 13th, 2026. Can I get a motion on that? Motion to approve.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Goodrell, seconded by Commissioner Matroka. Any comments or changes to that? None that I can see. All right, then those are approved. NEXT ITEM IS PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR. THIS IS FOR ANYONE WHO CAME TO ADDRESS US ON A NON-AGENDED ITEM. WE'LL HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THIS. SO DID ANYONE COME TO ADDRESS US ON OTHER ISSUES? ALL RIGHT. AND WE'LL MOVE RIGHT INTO PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING OR THE ONLY PUBLIC HEARING IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 26-03, AN APPLICATION FROM THE CITY OF VALDEZ FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWER And I'd like if the applicant could come up to the mic, state your name for the record. And we'll do five minutes each, since we have a rather large crowd, try and get everybody out of here in a timely manner. Is the red light on?

all right uh thank you commission i'm nate devon the city manager uh in a former life i was actually the project manager for this project and so that's how i get to inherit some of this what i'd like to talk about are just a couple of highlights briefly and then when you all go into discussion if you have any questions like i said we have new horizons online or myself that can answer any questions that we're able to So this tower is a component of a major project related to upgrading and replacing the public safety radio system. Right now we're on the state ALMR, Alaska Land Mobile Radio System. It has issues where it's run by the state but housed by the federal government. It's in Anchorage. We don't have access to it. It ties in with our 911 system. There's a lot of problems with it. It's aging. We have some existing infrastructure in town that the installation date is unknown, 80s, 90s, vintage, original type equipment. We've gone through the process of replacing certain things, but we've come to a point where we can no longer put Band-Aids on it. It's due for replacement, and we have to make those changes. You may have seen the assessment that was in the packet. It talks about some of those issues that we have. As it pertains to this tower, it's one of a series. So there's upgrades that are going to have to happen at dispatch at City Hall, the inclusion of this tower at Fire Station 1, upgrades and or potential tower at the grain silos, and then something out of town, anticipate to be at the top of the ski hill. So that would, it eliminates our challenging infrastructure now, and it sets us up at 10 Mile and out into the canyon. This specific tower does not provide coverage out of town. But without this tower, that piece of communication doesn't serve much value because they all have to link back together to make it work. It is redundant to what's at City Hall presently, but the intent is that it would replace City Hall once the entire system is built out. I guess just to kind of go into some of the highlights of conscientious questions if you'll indulge me I'll plug in our GIS map to kind of walk through the thought process but as you look at town some of the criteria we're looking for for this emergency services communications and just emergency service and critical infrastructure in general outside the tsunami inundation zone is a key factor when it comes to this so essentially that cuts off about a third of town describe it for you basically from the hospital to the tank farm in the diagonal motion essentially cuts off all of that area you can see here on the on the map the little red line is the maximum inundation for any any of one of specific events okay the next piece is on city property blue markers on the map there are city parcels. And so as we examine those parcels that are outside of the inundation zone, there are relatively few. So as we contemplate where to put this thing, schools were not appropriate. Park strips also didn't seem appropriate. More or less leaving you with the fire station as the best available option from strictly a location perspective. There are some other considerations that we took into account. Location to the Emergency Operations Center, which is the fire station, Fire Station 1, is critical and necessary. In the event of an emergency, we need to have access to that infrastructure to be able to maintain it, make sure it's in working order, and access it. It's going to contain equipment that has SECURITY REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE OF THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SEGIS IS THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITY. SO WHEN YOU BOIL DOWN TO IT, THERE IS A TOWER THAT IS NEARBY, COPPER VALLEY TOWER. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROXIMITY TO THE INUNDATION LINE, IT'S PRETTY CLOSE. The challenges with security and access to that site, co-locating and sharing on private property, some of this infrastructure has to be kept secure and locked, is somewhat impractical. I did put in the application, we did not formally request co-location, but I had multiple conversations with various representatives from Copper Valley Telecom, and their response in each and every case was, you should just build your own tower, because it's probably not going to work on ours. So admittedly, in full disclosure, we did not seek that formal approval. However, in informal conversation, that was the result. So in the spirit of my five minutes, that's the Reader's Digest version. But should you have any further questions, we can answer those when they come.

Very good. You cut it off right at five minutes. I appreciate that. All right. Anybody else? If you would, please come forward to the mic. State your name for the record. This is being recorded.

Good evening. My name is Jessica Elder. I'm here today to express my opposition of the location of the proposed telecommunications tower on West Clutina. I'm fully aware of the need for more radio communications for emergency services and fully support expanding our emergency services communications just in another location. Putting this location the tower in this location will affect my family as we have a home where we reside full-time Directly adjacent on West Cantina Our house faces this lot many of our windows and a deck We used to admire the mountains across the port look directly through it this lot It's a large part of what we love about our home, so when we go to sell our home in the future, I believe there will be a This will be something buyers will see and will affect their home's property value, either directly from the unsightliness of a cellular communications tower or through perceived fears of adverse health effects. And we aren't the only ones who are in this area admiring the views. From Hazlet, we have tourists bussing and walking to the Whitney Museum, Monroe Creek Trails, and other recreational destinations in town. We have residents who walk, run, bike, jog, and drive down the West Clutina thoroughfare to get to their homes and the schools. It would be incredibly disappointing to place such an unappealing structure in the heart of our town, especially in the densely populated residential area, where people value their views, in a beautiful place like Valdez. Sorry, I'm nervous. I understand the need for emergency response infrastructure to come before aesthetics, but in a town with a commission with the sole intent of beautifying, this is surely not setting a leading example by the city. I do have additional concerns about this project. In the application and addendums provided to the public, the submitters have expressed the ability of the towers to use to be added to in the future. And I am concerned that this could be done in a way that is less visibly advertised than this commission meeting here, unless they're paying specific attention to agenda items. And I'm concerned about additional signal frequencies being added without full understanding by residents of the scope of these future projects. So I'm urging the commission to push for a more suitable location for this Comstar.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And you did a great job. Anyone else? All right. Please come forward.

Good evening. I'm Linda Elder. And I just wanted to ask a question. Have they surveyed for any dead spots that could be better served by placing the tower in a different location? And so who's done the dead spot surveys?

This is a public hearing. This is not a time for us to talk back and forth.

Yeah, I guess that's a general question.

Go ahead and throw that question out. It's something we could discuss at our discussion time.

Yeah, that's kind of what I want to do is just throw that out because I certainly understand that you need good public safety communications. So that's all I wanted to say.

Wonderful. Thank you. Who's next? All right, seeing none, we will move, or we'll close the public hearing and move on to new business. And item number one is approval of the Conditional Use Permit 2603, the request from the City of Valdez for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless communication tower on block five, block, or what do you think this, block five, block 20, block five, lot 20, number two, plat 79-7. Can I get a motion on this?

Second.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Goodrow, seconded by Commissioner Matroka. Who wants to start the discussion?

I guess my question is, I went through this whole packet. And I love the pictures that you had showing what the views were from the rest of the town. No matter where you're at in town, that is there sticking up. And going through it also, the group that you hired to do this mentioned that the dock, the city dock, the grain silos were your, I think the police band is now. I think, I know you've got, there's some tolerance there or some signals there. Would, why wouldn't that work? I guess that's my question. Moving it there.

I'd ask Mr. Wall or if Mr. Duvall would want to come back.

Yeah, Nate Duvall, City Manager. Great question. And I'll leave some of the technical answers to New Horizons, perhaps. But the short answer is to cover town, we need something in town. And right now, it's service at PD here. We also need the grain silos to repeat out of town. So what we're doing at Fire Station 1, the location and height of it is twofold. One is it has to be line of sight to the grain silos, because we need that one as well. But it's also intended that at the ski hill, a height and location such that if, in the event that grain silos is unavailable or taken out, it can bypass the grain silos and come into town. We can still feed in town and out of town. So it's a hub and spoke where the hub is in town. So that's the reasoning for not omitting this tower, but needing it in addition to it.

So you're saying if the tower was at the grain silos, it could not communicate out the road?

You need both, I guess, is what I'm saying. The redundancy is that if, in the event, grain silos is not available, you could still communicate without having the repeater on the grain silos out.

But if it was at the grain silos, you would be able to communicate?

You still have to have something in town to receive. So then in the scenario which I believe you're describing, the grain silos would then be the hub. So essentially what we're doing is removing the hub from the grain silos to Fire Station 1.

Why can't the grain silo be the hub then?

So its proximity to the tsunami inundation zone is quite problematic. The modeling that comes from that is Ammunition Island and the duck flats are probably the worst area for liquefaction and tsunami potential. So that's why we don't really want to put all our eggs in the basket of the BCT. In addition to that, it is proximity to the EOC that is necessary.

What is the benefit of it being by the EOC versus the grain turmoil? And I understand our sensitivity to tsunamis, but also there'll be probably a lot to worry about versus on the everyday, day-to-day people living here and having it out there. The grain silo is going to be less invasive than it being right in the middle of the majority of the population.

Sure. Good question. So the necessity of being at the EOC is access to that infrastructure, right? So you're going to have, in addition to your radio infrastructure, you've got a bunch of the city network that ties into the computer system, the 911. I'm not going to pretend to be the IT guy and not answer some of that, but that comm hut is going to house all of that data and all that information. connection from that tower to that comm hut is best suited with a physical connection with a cable and so running cable and conduit out to the VCT is difficult at best it's also problematic we've had a number of cables both electrical and fiber that have had issues with broken movement from the bridge abutments and from the land someone on the works here. Basically, that line going out, it's a single point of failure. Whereas if it's in town, we have a network of fiber that can tie back into that comm hut that ties to that tower. And so it's Again, I'm not doing it justice because I'm not a technical expert on this specific subject, but the location being in town and the actual physical infrastructure being tied to that facility and being tied to the radio tower is what makes it critical for that specific location.

I'm thinking of other communities having something so, what would I consider to be an industrial area where a tower like that would go. to have that in the middle of their town where every house is going to see that in their viewpoint. I just feel like there should be another way because it's unmistakable that it's going to affect everybody, not just even across the street, but I think across the whole populated area.

To speak to that, I don't want to be so bold as to say that there is no other solution. That's clearly not true. But from a cost perspective, from a maintenance perspective, you have to have something at fire station one. Regardless of what it is, you have to have something. And so if the main tower's not there, you then need an additional tower somewhere else. So what went from one tower obviously not ideal from a viewshed perspective, now becomes two towers. And so from both a cost and an aesthetic, I now have two battles, so to speak, to overcome instead of one singular. And I've said this comment today multiple times. If I were to take the aesthetics of a 100-foot tower versus the natural beauty of Valdez, we all know who the winner is in that one. But the unfortunate reality is in a two-square-mile city center, it really just It's not Fairbanks where you could have 30 miles of potential area where you could put this thing and you might be able to tuck it in somewhere and still be able to get the same coverage. We're just bound by the mountains and the ocean and it's just, it's under a microscope because it's so compact into a single area.

I know that on that report also, the report from 2021 was about the vehicle maintenance shop city over there and I understand there's the big hillside I imagine is probably a little bit of a barrier but would that be able to be the main one that goes to the grain silo, that goes out the road, that's more in an industrial area where people are used to that? I read everything in here. And I know that was talked about in there. But it's 100 feet up. I'm just not understanding why that wouldn't be a good location either.

So some of it is the challenge of the hillside. You lose some coverage, but it's not, again, your coverage outward in this way is not as impacted, right? It's towards the sound where you'd have issues, but if you hit the grain silos, you can still cover some of that, right?

Yeah.

You will have blank spots where on the backside of Meals Hill that you're not going to be able to cover because the grain silos angle and this angle, you're going to have some challenges there, but nominal. From the perspective of the site and what's on the public worksite or the building maintenance site across the street, between the snow storage, the vehicle activity, and the buildings themselves, there's really just not enough room to make it function appropriately. So when you look at all things, consider the Venn diagram of what's good, better, best. In our opinion, adjacency to the fire station, the close proximity, there's nothing else necessarily around it. That is what superseded some of the criteria as it relates to the BMF or building maintenance shops, in addition to some of the coverage concerns, et cetera. with all the multiple colors is that the same as a dead zone or it was a coverage so that so that's a coverage study yeah so that was similar to what a dead zone study would be more or less so we did we do have a preliminary study that shows where our existing infrastructure doesn't cover it doesn't have adequate coverage but what is in the packet shows what the coverage at these locations would be as it pertains to in town A LOT OF THE COVERAGE ISSUES IN TOWN ARE REALLY JUST BASED ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE HERE AT CITY HALL JUST NOT BEING ADEQUATE.

Yeah, thanks. So I know it would be most convenient to have it right there at the fire station and close, but going through everybody's comments, and it is right dead center in the middle of an industrial zone and close to a school and stuff there. And you talked a little bit about the public works area and stuff over there, which seems... maybe a little bit more muddy or whatever, like it could happen. But what about areas like down at the end, Kelsey Dock over there or over towards the end of the New Harbor where serves and stuff have that's already kind of industrial zones and kind of out of the general public areas? Or over even behind like the city shops and the hospital over in that area, kind of away from the residential areas.

So I guess I touched on a couple of those. The Kelsey Dock is kind of a non-starter because Meals Hill gets in the way. It completely covers you, your coverage in town. The hospital, when the DOT put in that tower over there, I think their foundations are like 25 feet deep. So soils are no good. Again, the whole inundation zone thing, that kind of scratches out that northeast side of town. As it relates to the harbor, I'm trying to think what conversations we had around the harbor. I think most of it surrounded the conversation about future land uses of those properties and parcels which does lead to some of why we chose the snow lot being that In most municipalities, snow storage is not the highest and best use of five acres of land. Whereas in Valdez, it is valuable. But it is a tower use, and the snow use can coexist in this same scenario. Whereas at the harbor, it would be significantly more difficult to maintain a tower and a fish processor or restaurant or hotel. And so it's a little bit more complicated from a land use perspective.

Just out of curiosity, is anyone on staff where you know, how tall are the light poles in the harbor? Just for reference. Is there 120 feet, if I remember right? I don't remember. It doesn't seem to me that this power would be any more inclusive than those light poles, especially if it's not light. Just throwing that out there.

To be at the harbor? Is the temperature at the harbor?

Those, when they first were installed, they were isoars. I remember thinking, oh, man, I suspect the tower may have the same effect after we're used to it. I remember the tower going next to the water tower hill. We had a bunch of people say that they didn't want to see that. But once it's there, and you've seen it a few times, it just becomes part of the background, in my opinion. It's still a nice tower.

Okay. If I could even talk, so that was part of the conversation, why not on the top of Mills Hill, or why not on up by the water tower? And frankly, it was based on the conversations of what occurred with the water tower. And so the thought was, is it better to have it buried in the developed part of town versus this anomaly that sticks up through the skyline on a ridge line? So that was some of the conversation that occurred at the time. And the opposition of that tower was absolutely taken into consideration.

QUESTION FOR YOU, NATE. I JUST WANT TO DISCLOSE THAT I WORK FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, SO THIS DOES AFFECT ME IN MY WORK SOMEWHAT. BUT IF THIS WAS NOT APPROVED TONIGHT, WHAT WOULD THE CITY BE DOING MOVING FORWARD TO KIND OF SCRAP THE WHOLE PROJECT? I KNOW WE DO HAVE SEVERE COMMUNICATION ISSUES, SO WHAT IS YOUR BACKUP, I GUESS, OR THOUGHT ON HOW YOU WOULD HANDLE IT IF THIS DOESN'T GET APPROVED?

GOOD QUESTION. I WOULD FOLLOW THE CUP PROCESS AND APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL.

NEW SPEAKER I WAS THINKING THAT THERE'S ALSO LIKE MAYBE THERE COULD BE A HOCKEY RINK AROUND IT AND THEN IT WOULD GET MORE FAVORABLE FROM THE COMMUNITY OR SPACE NEEDLE OR SOMETHING, A BIG RESTAURANT UP THERE OR SOMETHING BECAUSE IT'S NOT You know, I know that they kind of tried to justify, they tried to make it look nice, but it doesn't.

It's not going to look nice.

I mean, I always brag that Valdez, even from people's basements, have a mountain view. And now that wouldn't really, I think, impact them. And also my other concern is technology is changing rapidly. I'm no expert in technology, but this report was done five years ago, and we're going to put this big 100-foot tower up, and then in five years we're going to have this different technology. We don't even need those towers. Then you have this tower up there. I just think it's for the future, and maybe the Verizon people could speak to this better than me, but it just seems like we have this big, huge tower that costs a lot of money and time and effort. And then it's outdated already. Where if it's on the green side, well, the green side was already ugly. And we're used to that. We like to make fun of it. And so it's like, put something else ugly over there.

I guess I would perhaps defer to Sierra or Mike on answering that. But I would say that my experience, again, I'm no subject matter expert on this. I've had to get schooled up on it through the course of the project. think the reality is that part of the reason these radios and this infrastructure are the way they are, they've got updated technology, but it still harkens back to the old stuff because it works. And it's an analog type system. It's got digital components, but it works when the internet's not down. It works when cell phones don't work. And so that's some of why I would say, yes, there have been advances, but for the most part, a lot of it's still the same kind of stuff. I would say the pagers, they got brand new pagers at the fire station, I don't know, five years ago, something like that. And they were the exact same looking pagers as they were getting rid of that were 15 years old.

It's interesting you brought up the Space Needle. I thought of the Eiffel Tower as well, and I looked it up. It's 1,000 feet tall, so 10 times as big. And that's just as industrial-looking as one of these towers, and people complained about that when it was built. And it's covered with, it's bristling with communication equipment, just like one of these towers. Oh, yes, Sierra, if you have some questions that you could answer or add some light to.

Yeah, I just wanted to address the question concerning future technologies and whether, you know, towers were kind of going to be obsolete in the future. And from my experience, while the technology and equipment on a tower likely changes over time, the need for elevated infrastructure has remained consistent for decades and I believe will long into the future. Towers are specifically designed to adapt to new technologies without having to build a new structure each time. That's why we design it with extra capacity on the tower so that it can accommodate equipment upgrades and additions without having to put up a new tower each time. You see a lot of communities where there isn't a lot of zoning regulation and there's tower farms that have multiple towers next to each other. And so as As it's evolved, we've gotten better about designing for future capacity, and I don't see the need for towers going away anytime soon.

Thank you. Any other discussion? As this is written, I can't support it for only one reason. And I appreciate the letter that you submitted in the packet because I had a bunch of reasons why I couldn't support it until I read that. And number one being that you had discussions about co-location and that you had technical reasons why you couldn't use the KCHU tower. That's too short. So you answered several of my questions in that, and I appreciate that. But the one problem that I do have is our code says that a fence with a minimum height of eight feet must be placed around the perimeter. And I agree with Mr. Wall's assessment that your video coverage and manned 24 hours and anti-climbing devices on the tower meet that technicality. Still, it doesn't meet what's actually written in our code. So for me to support this, I would have to either change the condition to be that a fence would be allowed

change our code and I'd be okay with adding that condition then you can come back later and ask to remove the condition or if you're okay with putting a fence around it that would be enough for me before the Nate speaks as the applicant to your question about potentially adding a fence I'd just like to add some color to the procedural so when when this was proposed and you know it was identified that as the code specified specifically the requirement for the eight-foot fence, that they would not be meeting that requirement exactly the way it is written in the code. We had a conversation with the city attorney about whether or not the proposed alternative meets the code requirement that is written in the code and the intent. And the city attorney's assessment was that a variance would not be required to satisfy this code provision as written. So I just want the commission to know that that's something that we immediately went to the city attorney with that question. And New Horizons, on behalf of the city, had actually initially included a variance application. But because it was determined by the city attorney that a variance wouldn't be required in this place, we had them amend their application based on the response from the city attorney. Procedurally, I want you to know that that process happened, and we did get a legal opinion about it. So that's why it's here as just a conditional use permit application. But I will let Nate speak to the question of whether a fence could be added regardless.

So going forward, if Copper Valley wanted to put up a tower or AT&T came in or Horizons, if somebody else wanted to, this would no longer be a requirement then?

They would have to demonstrate that they meet the same requirements the same requirement as the city, that there's an alternative method in place that meets the same intent for security.

Could we write that into code?

We sure could. Yeah, we've got some Title 17 revisions that we're drafting right now, so we can take a look at clarification.

I'm just wary of saying this is okay for the city, but not for the citizen.

Sure. Yeah, no, I absolutely understand that, and I think it is important for the record that that legal interpretation would apply to other applicants as well. Okay. Like the scenario you presented. Very good. Yeah.

To answer that question, I'd prefer not to have the fence simply because it's a snow removal impediment, and I think there are alternatives that can be better suited. Having said that, if the Commission has stronger feelings than I do, it's not the end of the world to install a fence.

Yeah, I totally get that, and I could see it from the start that it would be in the way of snow removal, it would be in the way of quick access if you had an emergency. There's all kinds of reasons not to have it. And I agree that the equipment you're putting on there does meet what the intent of the code was. So hearing what the director said, I'm good with it. And I've heard what the public has said, and especially reading what was written. To me, yes, it will be an eyesore, but I think it's outweighed by the benefits that we gain by having this tower. So I am in favor of supporting this. I guess I'd give everybody one last chance to counter what I've said.

I did have another question about code because there was something in this packet that said it needs to be rezoned. It hasn't been rezoned yet.

My record my recommendation so it's still presently zoned residential so some of the question was why is this in a residential area? Yeah, and frankly I'd pull up the map and you click the zoning overlay Everything in town is residential zone and so it's almost impossible to find a spot It's not having said that the current uses on that property are not residential uses and It was not rezoned at the time of the construction of the fire station because we're waiting on Title 17 rewrite. Now that that's completed, I would still advocate for rezoning this property to public lands instead of a residential land.

And that's what I think. I think we could wait for that process. Because right now, we're making exceptions to the zoning, but why don't we wait until It is rezoned before we do something like that.

But we're not making exceptions. It's a conditional use in this stuff.

So can I just add some info to be clear about that? So with this conditional use specifically for telecommunication towers, this one is a little bit different, and we actually went through a code revision in advance of the Title 17 full revision. I can't remember the exact year that it was adopted, but We rewrote the tower code prior to that and then refined it a bit during the Title 17 revision. And the intent of that was to remove the tie of this use to being allowed in specific districts because the way that technologies have advanced, there were more requests for towers in a variety of different districts and areas. So we had a really in-depth conversation with the commission at that time and then city council who ultimately approved the code revision. And we changed the approach. We said that telecommunication towers are allowed in any zoning district. However, they have to follow this specific conditional use process. And so that's why you see the criteria for your approval that I put in front of you all or emailed to the commissioners online. It has both the standard criteria for approval of any conditional use permit, and then it also has the specific use standards for a telecommunication tower, because that's where in Title 17 it outlines some additional application requirements and then some additional specifics of how the commission should look at any tower application. That was a long-winded way of just saying I want to clarify that telecommunication towers are allowed in any district. So this application doesn't require a rezone. And that was from the city as the applicant suggesting that they might bring forward a rezone request in the future. But it doesn't. MAKE A MATERIAL CHANGE TO THE DECISION YOU MAKE TONIGHT ON THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST. THE CRITERIA ARE LAID OUT IN THE CODE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE THE DRAFT FINDINGS THAT STAFF PREPARED FOR YOU. SO JUST AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A PROCEDURAL REMINDER AS WELL, THE DECISION YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS PREPARED BY STAFF OR IF YOU SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AND WOULD DICTATE A DIFFERENT DECISION FOR YOU TONIGHT, THEN THAT CONVERSATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MULTMAN.

YOU READ MY MIND. WAS THERE, EXCUSE ME IF IT WAS IN THE PACKET, I DIDN'T SEE IT. HAS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION ON THE OPTIONS OF BEAUTIFYING THE TOWER? Seattle Tacoma area, they're disguised as pine trees, you know, maybe not a hundred feet tall, but Arizona, LA, they look like palm trees. Um, we keep talking about a big, shiny metallic structure. Is there camouflage options or anything as such?

Yeah, good question. We did look into that. There are the PIDA tower options. They're significantly more expensive, about three times the cost. There's some question about what that looks like with the snow load and the wind load and whatnot in Valdez. Maybe not wind load from an engineering calculation, but the practicality of fake arms on a tree with the wind and snow that we get here in town. Some of the bigger challenges are that right now it's a lattice tower. If you go to the fake tree options, it's a monopole. It's a giant light pole situation. They're more difficult to install, more difficult to maintain, and you're limited on what attachments you may be able to put on them in the future. They're ideally suited for cell towers more so than radio towers, just because the antenna are different. Again, I'm getting out of my realm here, but... Attachments are different and they don't necessarily hide as well with the fake spruce tree. Sometimes to hide them more appropriately you actually need a taller tower so that as the tree gets wider you can hide the stuff within the body of the tree and so you may actually end up with a taller tower. Aesthetically Yes, it probably looks better, but I think it would equally look out of place, a single 100-foot-tall Sitka spruce in a snow lot next to a bunch of alders and cottonwoods as it would a cell tower.

Well, see, I don't think you're thinking broad enough, Nate, because I think if you had a single 100-foot palm tree, people would be taking pictures of that.

So it becomes an attraction rather than a nuisance.

Yeah, I mean, bam, right there, selling tickets, right? Um, and blood inundation aside, the reason, so like, you know, like KVAKs, I believe it's the FM and AM tower out by, uh, the old pipe yards. And so aside from inundation issues, putting a tower out there, not looking at those locations is because you have to build a second tower regardless at station one or in town somewhere. I think I lost you guys. Yes. Yes. He said, correct. Oh, sorry. Oh, okay. Good. Sorry. I'm working off sat internet. Okay. Yeah. It's unfortunate. I just, and not, not trying to be, you know, I try to tell employees that work for me too, is, you know, come with solutions, not problems. I guess I haven't heard any other solution except station one.

All right. Commissioner Wade.

Yeah. Hi. I just had residual thoughts on I know a couple of them were eliminated on site locations, but I didn't really get any clear reasons for at the end of the new harbor between like serves in the new harbor in that area. um it seems to me like you have coverage looking back over town you have clear line of sight to vct it also provides more coverage over to the sound for um you know any any marine communications because you're not tucked back behind the hill and stuff there um or even towards elieska or whatever um so i guess just before i make a final decision and you know i'm listening to all the residents. And even if that specific lot is changed, you know, it's surrounded by residents. So I want to give them their due consideration and just make sure that that area was thoroughly assessed for a possibility.

Sure. And I guess the initial limiting factor on that was just the tsunami invasion zone. And so being on the waterfront and within that zone, that's the initial limiting checkbox, if you will, that puts it out of consideration for us.

Yes, please.

I know when we originally built the hospital, the inundation zone at the time, it was not in it. And now it is an inundation zone. But we're not going to move the hospital. And so there is inundation zones that are at risk. I just think the long term of that is an okay risk.

I think I completely understand what you're thinking. It's a line on a piece of paper. Yes, there's modeling and science behind it, but similarly, the tsunami in Japan, they had an inundation map, and they exceeded it by two miles. And so I think the mapping that we have now is better than the lines that were on paper then for Japan. But I can completely empathize with the fact that we haven't seen it and experienced it, so we don't. We don't know what that reality is. And that line does not mean one tsunami of any flavor floods that whole area. That is not what that means. That means the aggregate of all potential tsunamis, this is the worst case scenario for everything. Part of the challenge we have when it comes to when we're looking for grants, there are some specific questions that say, is it outside of hazard areas? And so because we have a line on paper, regardless of the value of that line, you're not eligible for federal funding in many cases if you ignore that line. And so that's, again, that was kind of a starting point. We have received $5.5 million for this project as a federal earmark. And so there are some limitations and factors that coincide with the project in its entirety. And so I think ignoring that criteria would potentially make some of that funding problematic.

But is the grain silo considered an inundation zone, too?

It is. But the reason it's less problematic for the grain silo is because if you have Station 1 that can reach Ski Hill, the infrastructure at the grain silos is not as critical.

All right. Any other comments?

The only comment I have is looking at the signal coverage. Grain silo is pretty close to the one in town. And Nate made a statement. It'd be the easiest thing to do is to put it there. You've got power there. I'm talking about the fire station. It'd just be easier, simpler. But I'm wondering if there's a way that we could Look some more. If there's a way that we can get it out to the grain silo and have a smaller tower sending the signal from the fire station to silo.

Basically, that's what I've got to say. That's probably a good question for the technical people at New Horizons. Did you guys look at setting something at the grain silo? How much shorter would the tower be at the fire station? The receiver?

Well, I think what Nate was saying there is they work as a system together. So there would be a microwave shot from the grain silo to the fire station tower. And our analysis was focused on a 100-foot tower, and that was just based on the desired coverage area and the ability to leave room and capacity for future equipment. Some of the antennas that are being put on are the Omni whip antennas, which are pretty tall. You'll see a diagram in the application packet, but just mostly the ability to accommodate reserve capacity in the future. So we didn't specifically do an analysis for heights significantly lower than what's in our application packet.

All right. Thank you. Fair enough.

Did you have something to add to that? Yeah, Matthew Osborne, IT Director. Just to give some technical information on the location and why, we also looked at other frequencies, including answering your question about modern technology. The 800 megahertz range, we would actually take more towers because of the building density. Their penetration is really poor. We went through the work of FCC licensing a new range, which has best coverage at this location. The other important thing about this tower's location is the fire station is our EOC, Emergency Operations Center. And in a worst case scenario, that's where we operate all city functions out of after another 64 quake. So in that scenario, every foot matters. And in a worst case scenario, we could actually run a cable along the ground from the fire station to the tower equipment to get dispatch up and running. There's all kinds of books about it. Cam radio was hit. The phones were down. Everything else. Fiber can only do so much stretching. There's different routes. Also, from a historical perspective, the grain silos have been problematic. Again, every foot matters. It's a really long line out there, and we've had contractors, accidental hits, take that down. So it's a crucial part of getting coverage out there that glacier, it's not ideal. There's also some long-term costs to consider. The fire station has a generator that's brand new, brand new building. It makes the most sense to invest in that area. We're not doing a separate generator in other locations. There's people on site, easier to maintenance for long-term.

I guess if I could add anything. Commissioner Gutierrez makes a fair point. My words were, it's easier. That might trivialize the analysis, perhaps. So in the analysis of what we're doing, you all have the council goal qualifiers next to you. And so as we're building this project out, their top five goal qualifiers are number of people impacted, cost to build, cost to maintain, impact on staff, impact on I said make it. So that's when I say easier, it meets those criteria easier because of those specific parameters. Okay, thank you.

Just lastly, we also visited other locations in the lower 48 that have come through this. Would ideally like to move closer and they've talked about their limitations and what's going on with their limitations. Everything from natural disasters to Code down there says you have to have an emergency power off switch. And they have a problem with that. So these are all part of the consideration.

Thank you. Valdez is a very beautiful place to live. We don't want to ruin or spoil what we've got. But it's also a very dangerous place to live. So we need to keep that in mind. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR ARE WE READY TO VOTE? ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS ONLINE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ANY POTENTIAL CHANGES OR OTHER ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS? Just kind of think through your mind if there's anything that could make it better. All right. Then let's go ahead and have our vote.

Okay. Mr.

Chair? Yes. I'm sorry, Commissioner Moulton. I didn't see your hand come up.

No, it's all right. Last minute. I ended saying that we haven't been provided with any other option. So, I mean, the option tonight is yes, move forward with this or no. I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I think after a while, it'll just be a fixture. People will see it. And we also look across the bay at an oil terminal. And we kind of forget that that's there when you're looking across the bay. It's not perfect, but without being provided, I think I said this on council a lot too, without being provided any other option, you know, we're between a yes or no vote to get something that's also crucial. If we don't do it and something happens and, you know, then it's mud in our face that we didn't get a communications tower established for the bad times, you know, um, and pushed it off. I totally understand everyone that lives around there. I don't live all that far away from there. Um, I'll probably see it from my windows as well down on Shoop. Um, So, yeah, I mean, I wish it would be easier if we could choose amongst different locations, but we're provided with one tonight, fortunately.

That's all. With that, we will proceed to vote. Thank you very much.

Okay, so just to clarify, I'm going to call the vote first just a voice vote like we normally do. So for those in the room and online, please state your vote. And then if I need to do any clarification, just to make sure that I heard everyone correctly, we'll go. go that way. So just for the folks online, just call your vote like you're in the room. So all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed? Aye. Okay. Those opposed, please say nay.

Nay.

Okay. So with that, I have four yays, two nays, Commissioner Goudreau, Commissioner Ratatitch, one absent, Commissioner Fagerberg. Is that correct?

That's what I heard.

OK. So with that, we have four yeas, two nays, one absent. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. All right. Moving on to reports. The community development director has told me she has no report. We don't have questions for her. OK. Commission business from the floor. We'll start online. Commissioner Wade.

Yeah, maybe this is a question for Kate. I think it was last weekend or maybe the weekend before last. Out on the airport road, it looked like somebody was putting on like a bike race or there was quite a few people and stuff out there. And I was just kind of curious about if there was a permit or something issued for that. It just seemed like a very odd place. There was a lot of bicycle traffic, a lot of these racers out there going down towards the glacier and turning around at the range and coming back. And there's like no shoulder on the road out there. There was trucks, people going, you know, to and from the range to and from the glacier RVs. Uh, and, and, and the bicycles out weaving, cause there's a lot of potholes on that road too. So you're, you're trying to pass them and then they're like weaving in front of you and stuff. Um, and it just seemed, you know, with 20, 20 miles or plus a bicycle paths. Um, I was just wondering, uh, what that was and if they had to get a permit for that or just curious. Didn't seem like a very safe spot for it.

Commissioner Wade, just to clarify, you said this was this past weekend on Airport Road?

I think it was, yeah, like the 11th or 12th, something like that, I think.

Okay. So just immediate answer, no, we didn't permit any bike event activities. on airport roads specifically. So there was a temporary land use permit for the Fireweed 400, which is a bike race that happens on Richardson Highway. And they utilized the ball fields for their ending. This is a permit that we've issued for multiple years in a row. So I'll definitely look into it. But we didn't specifically have a temporary land use permit or anything that would have come to my department for the airport road area.

Okay yeah it just it seems like that's not the safest spot because like I said there's no shoulder out there lots of potholes windy road so if you're trying to pass them and then you have oncoming traffic going to the glacier you have trucks going to the rock pit and people of the range and and I was surprised there wasn't you know, issues as it was, but I did see him running along the highway too and on the shoulder and stuff, which, you know, at least there's safe zone there, but just seemed like not the best spot to be doing that. So that's all I have. Thanks.

Just a comment on that. There's a company, I think it's called Backcountry Tours that does bike tours. I think they're out of Anchorage. It's that van that has like 20 bicycles on top and they just do road bikes all over the place. So they were out biking Dayville Road today. I'm guessing it was that group. I've seen them all around town and up in the past too.

Well, they were coming down. They had race monitors and vans and cones. And I mean, they were racing because they were, you know, you try to go past them and then they'd swerve off and trying to miss potholes and stuff. And, you know, you're almost hitting a biker. So it looked to me like it was pretty aggressive. And there was like 20 or 30 of them probably.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Moulton.

Nope, just pining to be back in Valdez and see those beautiful mountains I've been talking about. Otherwise, I have no business.

Very good. Thank you. I've got nothing.

I WANT TO JUST MENTION THAT THE CITY IS HOSTING THIS CITIZEN ACADEMY PROGRAM AND IT'S I THINK IT'S TEN WEEKS AND I'VE BEEN ATTENDING THAT EVERY THURSDAY AND IT'S SUPER AWESOME AND EVERYBODY'S PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO SHARING INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE CITY WORKS AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT PROGRAM AND JUST THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.

When does it meet?

It's Thursdays at 6.15 to 8. Sherry Pierce, it was like you register for it, I think, but I don't know how flexible, you know, they had some already happen. I think that there's been like 12, 18 people come and depending on each week, it's really good turnout. And I think she'd do it again because they have a different schedule. topics each time, and people from the different departments talk, and we can get a little tour. And it's really a really proactive and very inclusive, including the citizens, to come and get some information.

Great. Thanks for bringing that up. Mission good, Rob.

I haven't heard about that. Where did you find out about it?

Can I give a little plug to just add on to Commissioner Radich? Yeah, so this is a really awesome program that the city clerk started. There's an existing program in Fairbanks that she was kind of inspired by, but really put in a lot of work with the clerk's department and city administration to develop this program. So part of the goal is to help get folks who may be interested in serving on a board or commission or running for council in the future to help give them kind of the baseline understanding of city operations to be prepared to serve in that way. So I will say that from just the preliminary positive feedback, I think that Sherry is planning to do another cohort. So it is a program that you apply for, and it will be happening again in the future. So please watch out for that. And we're going to be doing... OUR SESSION ABOUT LAND USE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN AUGUST. SO THERE'S DEFINITELY OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FUTURE IF YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO MIGHT WANT TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION OR ANY OTHER COMMISSION, IT'S A GREAT IDEA TO RECOMMEND THAT THEY PARTICIPATE.

THANK YOU. IS THAT ALL YOU HAVE? NO, THE OTHER THING I HAVE IS BATHROOMS OUT AT ROBE LAKE. IS THERE ANY UPDATE?

YEAH, I DON'T HAVE MUCH SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU OTHER THAN THAT I MET WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR And the capital facility is director. So we're definitely going to be bringing something forward to you and the Parks and Rec Commission so that that can be voted on and ultimately passed on to city council. So we'll have that on a future agenda.

Thank you. Thank you. And all I want to do is thank everybody for being here and for the robust discussion. Appreciate that. And appreciate staff's hard work. Made a very good report. And especially Mr. Duvall.