Public Hearing to Consider an Application for Design Review Approval for a New Enclosure on the Rooftop of an Apartment Building to House 12 New Panel Antennae and Other Associated Equipment for an AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility. The project is located within an R-3-PD (Garden Residential Planned Development) zoning district. PLN14-0731 - 1777 Shoreline Drive; and Public Hearing to Consider an Application for Design Review Approval for a New Enclosure on the Rooftop of an Apartment Building to House Nine New Panel Antennae and Other Associated Equipment for an AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility. The proposed facility will be collocated with an existing T-Mobile facility. The project is located within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. PLN14-0729 - 1538 Saint Charles Street. (Community Development 481001)
The proposed facility will be co-located with an existing T-Mobile facility. The project is located within our four neighborhood residential zoning district and adoption of related resolution. The location is 1538 St James Street. Think Charles St James. Charles Franco. She plays Monopoly too much. Here's St. Andrew again. There's not much to add after that. Yeah. Right, Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mayor Spencer. Vice Mayor Matt Tracy, members of the council. My name's Andrew Thomas. I'm your city planner. Tonight we're here or you're here acting as your in your role as land use regulator. We have two applications before you tonight, two separate applications. These are design review applications. One, as the clerk so ably described as on Shoreline Drive. The other is on Saint Charles Street. These are two totally separate applications, but we're going to handle them together because the issues are all very similar. These are antennas by wireless telecommunication facilities for essentially cell phones and data transmission here in Alameda. These projects, these two individual projects, both came to the city at around the same time. City staff reviewed the applications. And through our role as essentially a surrogate for the planning board, we approved design review applications for small projects around the city US. These wireless communications facilities are examples of the kinds of things that are approved at the staff level fairly regularly. We approve approximately 2 to 3 design reviews every week downstairs in the planning department. These all occur with though with public notice, the neighbors who have an opportunity to comment on the applications before we take action . And then what we do is we report our actions to the planning board at their next meeting. Both of these applications generated a number of comments from the neighbors. We went ahead and approved them anyway and then with conditions. And then the planning board, because of concerns raised by the neighbors, called it for review. So the planning board held a public hearing in April, at which time they considered the merits of these two applications, and after their public hearing, they went ahead and re-approved them also with conditions. Then the City Council, you exercised your right to call that decision for review. So this is the third time we'll be looking at these these items. Both of these applications are the result of a decision by the Alameda Unified School District to discontinue cell towers and cell facilities on school facilities on the school district as a property owner made the decision that they did not want to have these types of facilities on their on their buildings. So they have to be shut down and they have to be moved by these cell tower operators. And in this case, we're talking about AT&T as the applicant and owner of both facilities. So on the left, you have the word middle school. You can see where the playing fields are and the where the existing location of the antenna. So that antenna needs to be removed. And you can see where they're proposing to move. It is nearby at 1777 Shoreline Drive. And this as the slide shows, there's already another wireless facility on the adjacent building. So we have these facilities are scattered all around around the city. And then on your right, you see the existing myelin elementary school. So that facility has to be closed down. And the proposal is to put the replacement facility at 1538 St Charles Street, approximately four blocks away. Maya Lin School. As you can see, these are coverage maps. These are provided by AT&T. And what this basically these two maps show you is that today, this whole central area of Alameda, there's cell phone service. So people are using their cell phones in these neighborhoods. Many households have actually eliminated their landlines. So they just live with cell phones. And as you can see, it's the areas fairly well covered. When you remove the facility from the mail in school, the map looks like the map on the right. And what you're seeing there is a large swath of the interior portions of of Alameda where self cell phone service is going to end and it's going to end in September of this year. That is for us, you know, down in the planning department. That was a major factor here. We wanted to get these projects approved and get them approved quickly because we didn't want to start getting the phone calls from the residents in that central part of Alameda saying, what happened to my cell service ? So that's a really a major concern for us. Here's what the would. Schools are before you move on when you're getting your information as to what it will look like without those without coverage information. Can can you clarify that? We did not the city did not independently gather this information? You're absolutely right. These maps are provided to us by AT&T. Thank you. So next map. Oh, this is the next map. Okay, good. So, same. Same basic storyline. All the people living along Shoreline today have cell service. You can see little spots of light where it's cell service a little shaky. Once the facility shuts down in September at would school, the gaps you can see on the slide on the right, they're going to they're going to be big. So what we do downstairs and what the planning board did in April is they had to make a decision about whether the project should be approved, whether these facilities should be approved, and the and the land use regulation that is at play here is our design review ordinance, but we are also governed by federal regulations dealing with these types of facilities. And what the federal regulations basically say is that in our review of these applications, we cannot base our decisions on issues related to the potential health effects of RF emissions, essentially that we cannot discriminate between divider providers. So if there's, you know, Sprint has a facility on the roof for the building, we can't say, oh, AT&T, you can't have one that we cannot use our regulations to essentially prohibit services to certain areas, certain neighborhoods, if a coverage gap exists. And then particularly this last issue and this really plays into Saint Charles Street, where there's already a cell phone antenna on the roof of Saint Charles for another provider, and that's called co-location, where it's where the provider says, oh, look, I want to just go on the same roof as the other provider. We have almost no discretion to say to say no. Under federal law. Federal law also establishes what they call the shot clock. It's a basically a time limit for cities to take action. It's shorter for co-location facilities. So ST, the St Charles facility has 90 days to take action. We are because of the all the calls for review, we are very quickly hitting the end of our 90 day period. We have a little bit more time on Shoreline. But frankly, from staff's perspective, the issue here is not so much these federal deadlines for action. It's that September deadline when those neighborhoods go dark. Maybe if I move. If you could go back the 150 days on the shoreline property, you know what that day is. Yeah, that takes us to about mid-June. Thank you. You know, the issue there is if we hold our decision until mid-June, then they still need to build the new facilities. So we question is, depending on where the new facility ends up being, will they have time to build a new facility and get it online in time to . Before the September deadline for getting the old facility shut down. You. So what federal law does say is essentially you can use your design review process when looking at the city of Alameda. You can focus your discretion on the appearance of the structures and the physical placement of the facility. So that's essentially what we do in design review. We use the design review ordinance for everything from the review of these wireless facilities to second story additions to, you know, the new Walgreens on Park Street. That's all the same regulatory structure. And these are the findings for two approved design reviews that the design is consistent with the general plan zoning and design review manual, that the project is compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the surrounding area, and that the proposed design of the structure and existing materials are visually compatible with the surrounding development. So those are the basic findings. If the answer is yes to everything, then presumably the answer is yes to the application of the answer is no to any one of those questions, and presumably the answer is no. So here's some examples we have. As I said, we have these facilities all over town. They've been through various design review. Applications over the years. These are three examples of facilities on the roofs of existing residential buildings. You can see they are we pointed them out with the arrows. In some cases we tried to. In many cases we tried to screen them, you know, hide them. Like you can see that the big building on the left with the fake little arches. It was really designed. I mean, that's essentially that structure is for one purpose. It's screening a set of antennas. And then you see these other are some of the other ones less ornate on the right. We also have some like the corner of Santa Clara and Park over here, the big tall building that's called the Oddfellows Building. Is that the name of it on the corner? If you look up there, we've there the the the antennas are unscreened. And in that case, it felt like putting a box on top of a boxy building. It just looked bad. So in that case, the decision was to to keep them without the screening. So the one on the left, the shoreline property or. No, no, no. So these are just examples around town, right? This is shoreline. So existing photo, if you go out there today and stand in the parking lot on the left, existing elevator housing, you see a little arrow pointing down. There is an elevator in that building and it creates this little box on the roof. So what AT&T is proposing is, well, let's just make that box a little bit bigger. So you see the drawing on the right. That's a simulation of what it will look like in the future. So that the idea was, let's just make that box a little bigger and it'll house the elevator housing and the antennas. So that is the design review application. We determined that it was consistent with the zoning and general plan, that it was compatible with the design and architecture of the building and that it should be approved. So we approved that design review application and the planning board concurred and also approved it with some additional conditions. The height, the same is wider. What's the difference? It's a it's a bill. It's a little higher. Um. I can give you the exact date on that. The screening structure will extend 11 feet from the top of the roof to a height of 38 feet and six inches. What is it currently? I that I do not have. May I ask? Probably the typical elevator thing is probably around 9 to 10 feet. So, Mr. Thomas, with the proposed extension in height and length, would that still be within the city's height limit for this particular area? The city's height limit actually provides a very large exception for antennas. Yeah. So you can actually go 25 feet above the height limit for the antennas. Thank you. And it's not 25 feet, obviously. No. No. So what is the and if if we didn't extend the box, do you know how what the antenna would look like? Is it possible to do it without extending the box? Just having the antenna. I mean, just have the antennas adjacent. AT&T would like can follow, would like to follow was also present some of this and maybe they can oh some ideas with their slides what what these antennas look like they're not in a box. Let's just go to the next I've got two more quick slides and then I can sit down and let AT&T answer some of these questions. So here's Saint Charles. Apartment building on the left and what it looks like today with the existing roofline. You can see there's already a little you can barely see it there with the lights on. But there's a there's already a screening, an antenna on the roof. So this is the co-location one. So you see some things sticking up on the roof there. So that's another provider with a screened in antenna. And then the AT&T facility would be set further back on the roof. And you can see the arrow. You can barely see the little box sticking up over the edge of the parapet there. So once again, this is the other reason why we felt the design review application could be approved. We approved it. In the end, the planning board upheld that decision. So our recommendation is that you uphold the Planning Board's approval of both of these applications at both Shoreline Drive and St Charles Street. We also just one more slide. We also this whole experience over the last three meetings has really made us talk sort of internally and with the neighbors and with the providers that we need. Well, we have very little control. We have very little discretion over these, but we need to have a better process. This has not been a very satisfactory process or experience for anyone. It's been frustrating for the neighbors. It's been frustrating for the planning board. They sat through a big, long hearing and then felt like, well, there's nothing they really could do about it, and that the real issues were being, you know, just weren't available to be discussed. So some of the quick ideas that we have been talking about doing and that we've been talking about this for a while, actually is trying to work with not only the city, the new city council, but the other agencies around the city who own property. You know, the park district, the the the Navy, the, you know, even the school district might have some sites like Thompson Field and create a citywide list of preferred sites so that when we were that and for those agencies who want to put properties on the list, it's an opportunity for revenue, of course, as well. But if they if the providers want to use their their land for these facilities. So the idea would be create a list of preferred sites and that would be the first choice. So providers, when they said, hey, we're trying to fill a gap, we would say, well, we want you to go to one of our preferred sites. It may be a city site, it might be a school district site, it might be a park district site. Who knows? But basically, it would be our way as working as a community to identify where we would prefer these things to go. And then we would establish sort of standard procedures, conditions for that for those sites. We could work with the various agencies on that. And hopefully essentially also the third piece would be creating some sort of an expedited process for the approval of those on those sites. Now, if, of course, this does not make these other applications necessarily go away in the future, a provider might look at those lists and say, it just doesn't fill our gap. It doesn't work, in which case then we'll have to entertain other sites because under federal law, we have to allow them to fill a gap. But the idea of this process would be two things. One, if we as a community can identify preferred sites, that would be great because as many of these future facilities that we can direct to those sites, so much the better. The other piece is the sort of the expedited review. What was very frustrating about this is we send out notices to neighbors like our typical notice, hey, we're we got an application we're considering. It sort of implies that you can have some input and shape the project on these situations with all the FCC regulations. What's happening is we're sending out notices and then we're basically telling people, Yeah, but you actually have no say in this process at all because the FCC says this and this and this and this and this , and there's very little discretion. So I think part of our idea on this is that we really do need to think about if we can get providers to go to preferred sites, it would be nice to have an expedited process where we get those approved rather than sending out notices telling people you can have input and then really not give them a whole lot of input. So that's just something we've been thinking about. If the council wants to direct us sort of down that path, that's certainly something we would support. And with that, I am available to answer questions for Ashcraft. Thank you. I have one. Do you want to tell us a little bit about a meeting that was held last week with them? Absolutely. We met briefly with a representative of Congresswoman. Barbara Lee. Barbara Lee's office, who is here meeting with constituents. And we invited a couple of the residents who have been active, Ms.. Jessica Reed, who I think is yes, I know she's here tonight and will be speaking. And another neighbor, unfortunately, was on fairly short notice. So there wasn't a lot of time. But it was helpful to be able to talk through these issues with both the OH and AT&T team as well. So it was it was helpful to talk through not only this idea, but just some of the pros and cons and frustrations that we all have with the sort of the situation. On one hand, we're all using cell phones, so we all kind of get it. We need cell phones, but we'd like to have a little bit more control over where these things go and how we place them. And so it was it was helpful to talk that through with the with both the residents and AT&T. AT&T was very encouraging to us about this kind of process. If we as a community can can pull together and do that because they think not just AT&T, but the other providers as all as well, would be very interested in. Working through this kind of process with us. They are doing it with other communities. You know, we're not the only community struggling with these kinds of issues. So they offered their help and encouragement to sort of proceed along these lines. Remember, they suck. While the equipment that we're discussing tonight is AT&T. Is it correct to say that cell phone users generally will benefit not just people who have phones that are AT&T? You know, I'm not an expert on that. But can I hold can we hold that question for the experts? AT&T, you actually would like to continue this presentation with some of their information. This is a field that it's a little technical, and I'm not. Frankly, for other member questions at this point. Any more questions for me? I'll be available to answer any. More later on in regards to. So we had received a correspondence suggesting that we consider not not allowing, I think, the box so that the skyline would not be disrupted. Is that something that counsel can say that we don't want. Absolute. Box out of? Absolutely. You know, it's an interesting question. We've debated that for a number of different sites and projects around the city over the years. There's sort of an ongoing debate just downstairs among the planners, like, you know. What looks worse, the actual antenna, which is an antenna or the box that we're putting around it. In some cases on historic buildings, we've always pushed for the box and we've tried to put a lot of ornamentation on it. In other cases, we've sort of leaned away from that. Obviously what we're talking about tonight are facilities sitting on roofs on existing buildings. We also approve, you know, the freestanding poles. We have some would allow me to point there's one going in a yacht club. Typically, we don't try to screen those, although there is one recently going in that was approved by the planning board. We'll have our first fake tree in town. It's going to be at the Alien Yacht Club. It's basically a cell phone tower. It's a council tonight. Says we don't want the the a box. Just put the antennas. That's certainly within your discretion. And we say is the one property and not estate, or do they both have boxes or only one of them? We are proposing boxes on both. You could do both. None. One. You know, it's that's they do have some discretion. Okay. And also at the planning board, I think that when when one of these projects is approved, they this one of them, they said they wanted notices given to residents. Yeah. Let me if you'd like. I just the planning board added a couple conditions to our conditions. One was that the because this permit is going to AT&T and the owner of the property, the permit actually goes with the property, as with all of our design review. But when you sell your property, the city approval stays with the property. You don't take it with you. They said, look, the one requirement, the property owner and AT&T must notify everybody in the building about what's going on the roof. Just basic disclosure. If somebody doesn't want to live in a building with those things on the roof, they should at least know what's up there. The other thing was that there are limitations in terms of for workmen and people like that up on the roof around this facility that do it, certain types of maintenance, the facility should be turned off. So there was just some basic safety information that they they imposed, which we think we're going to use now as standard conditions on all such facilities. All right. Two points. The idea about noticing the residents, I think is a good idea. Perhaps we should make that a regular policy or a city across. The second issue is so there's already one next door. So why why on on the Shoreline Avenue? So if there's already one on the roof of next door, why aren't they co-locating there and pointing at it in whatever direction? If it's okay with you? I mean, I. Push that question to the to AT&T. They do a what they call alternative site selection so that they can talk a little bit about what worked and what didn't work for those facilities in high school. If that's okay with you. So if it's all right with the council, can I invite AT&T to sort of finish the presentation? Good evening, Mr. Spencer and members of Council appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this evening. My name is Ken Mintz. I'm the area manager of external affairs here in the East Bay for eternity. I have some prepared remarks. I'm going to go through them quickly. I don't want to repeat too much of what staff has already brought forward, but I want to put in some context about the process that we go through to help your understanding. And finally, I'd like to then invite up a third party engineer that we utilize for our emissions studies, which I think is also central to a lot of questions have been coming to us from the community as stated by staff, the applications before the Council or due to the loss of long term leases at two school sites within the city. Normally applications are brought forward as gaps in wireless coverage are identified. In the case of these applications, however, we are under extreme pressure to fill gaps that will exist once AT&T can no longer depend upon the existing antennas at the mile in Inwood schools. The school board has terminated our leases these sites and identified late September as the termination date for both leases. As the Council is well aware, that demand for wireless services has been growing in an extraordinary pace. The school sites have been in place for more than ten years each. During that time, many people have come to depend on services in their homes as they've discontinued the use of landline phones and now expect the same level of reliability when needing to communicate through wireless devices. This is especially true for many lower income households who gave up landlines to increase their disposable income, as well as millennials who never had landlines in the first place. You may know some 20 year olds like that also across the United States. Approximately 44% of households have given up traditional landline service and now depend entirely on wireless service. Any loss of service for even a short period of time could affect public safety, as well as all the other ways that households now utilize our network, including children's education, home businesses, entertainment, etc.. Let me take a moment to explain how we identified the locations for the internment applications. When we identify a gap in coverage, our engineers identify a search area within which they look for potential candidate sites. These must meet certain requirements. First, they must be able to fill the identified gap. This is dependent on the topography of the sites and by topography, it's not just hills. We don't have a whole lot of that here on the island. However, foliage can have an impact. Size of buildings around the antenna sites can have an impact. The number of antennas underneath and also the height of the antennas are another couple of requirements that we need to look at. Second, the site must be constructed all and have sufficient space not only for the intended structure, but the associated equipment that needs to be placed in the same general vicinity by construct ability. There are a number of sites that we looked at that have heavily sloped roofs, for instance, very hard to place equipment on those type of facilities. Third, we also need a willing landlord. The two school sites met all of these criteria for many years until the school district decided it not wanted antennas on their properties and thereby no longer being liveaboard. Our search of the two neighborhoods resulted in examining quite a number of possible locations. Ultimately, we were looking for the least intrusive means for filling the coverage gap, and that is something that's directed to us by the FCC, at least intrusive means for filling a significant gap in coverage. We also consider properties that already contain one or more cell providers in order to co-locate at the same location where another wireless carrier already has facilities. Keep in mind, however, that a site may that may work for one provider does not necessarily work for another, given where each provider's other antennas are that say they create honeycombs and each honeycomb is different for each of the providers. You go to that next slide. This shows the area around our proposed site on St Charles Street. The yellow pushpins are a number of the alternative sites that we looked at. If you notice all of those, there are commercial sites. When we talk about the preference list that we currently go through, we look for there are things like public properties, city owned properties, school district churches, that type of thing. We also look for commercial sites and co-location of existing antennas that we could also utilize. So sites. A number of sites were rejected due to the lack of suitable space since many of the surrounding locations, particularly around 1530 in Charles, were too low to meet the coverage gap. We particularly looked at a mastic senior center which sits adjacent to the 1538 property. To build on that site would have required erecting an antenna over 60 feet in height, as well as taking up at least three parking spaces for the ground based equipment. If we switch to the next slide, I think you've seen this one. This is the roof of 1538 St Charles. On the other hand, three storey apartment building that already houses T-Mobile antennas and has sufficient space for the ground equipment as well, actually in the garage unit. Our plan calls for stealth in our antennas. There's some discussion of that with the staff to minimize the visual impact. Again, to create the least intrusive means, go quickly to the next one. You've seen these. Things. You move on when you look at the stealth and yeah, do you know how much higher or wider this box will be than what's currently there? Yes, let me pull it up. I can. Okay. So the existing height of the top of the penthouse is 47 feet ten inches, and the top of the antenna enclosure would be 50 feet, three inches. So about less than three additional feet. So it's currently 47 feet high. 47, 47 feet ten inches high. Right. And it would be expanded to 50 feet, three inches. So two and three inches, two and a half feet higher, wider than the existing, because we would be placing the antennas inside that enclosure, enclosing it of making it the same color and feel of the building itself. So it would blend in. And do you know how much wider it will be with the current with this? In terms of. Width of the enclosure. That was in the report. Is not an exhibit 315 feet by 14 feet, six inches by ten feet tall. Is that the current? That's this. From what I understand, not speaking as an expert, that's the approved. Yeah. Right now there is no box on top. No box at all. Right. So I'm sorry. I'm thinking of the other side. Appreciate that. On this one, there is another structure which is the team mobile antenna site closer to the front of the building. When you look at that picture, you can actually see and that one T mobile did not enclosed area tenants they sit around the box and you can actually see their antennas hanging off the side of box. Our enclosure would have the antennas inside and then they would be surrounded by by that enclosure. All right. So do you have pictures of what it currently is that shows what the antenna looks like and what the proposed will look like if we don't have a box? And can I just interject that I know that this this item was brought to our attention by some of our residents, and I believe at least one of them is going to speak maybe more. I'm also under the impression that the Saint Charles location actually is not the controversial one because it's not in proximity to the school in the park. So I just for the sake of time, because I know, Mayor, you want to move this along because of the length of the agenda. I just thought I'd point that out. Thank you. It sits about three blocks away from the Maitland School. But there's currently not a box near proposing adding a. Box, adding a box to a co-location site, which under the FCC is. Almost a done deal type of situation. Thank you. I just. You've seen the propagation maps or flipped through those. The application for 1777 Shoreline Drive will replace the antennas currently situated at Woods School. How we cover the gap in service that will exist with the loss of the Woods site is very important in that leaving gaps in coverage will mean a loss of service area residents in reviewing potential sites and buildings in the neighborhood. We found several that would be much more visible and thus more intrusive, such as if we were to erect a freestanding pole at Riddler Park, for instance, on the other side of the school. This is a view of, again, the alternative site analysis that we did. You'll note that we looked as far to the east as the shopping center, as far to the north, I'm sorry, west their shoreline court. These sites, unfortunately, do not provide that level of coverage within the needed area, which means that residents with no longer have service who have it today. If we were to construct that those sites. As you get closer to the school site, that's where we start looking at other factors. So for instance, there were three well, there are other three story buildings in the vicinity. The placement of certain roofs creates what's known as a shadowing effect, which means that a higher antenna would be needed to get the same level of coverage. So if we were to move to one of the other buildings that sit and place it closer to Shoreline Drive, for instance, it would have to be a much larger intended to get that same level of coverage and not lose service for some of your residents. This is also an area that's very land constrained, as much of the available open ground space is devoted to parking, which makes placement of our ground equipment very difficult. We don't have underground garages in this area. If we were to look at several of them, we did look at a number of the other apartment buildings in that vicinity. And unfortunately, there just isn't the amount of space that would be required. That's two, three, four parking spaces, very difficult for these apartment buildings to give up and even a question of city code given requirements of what they need to maintain. There was a question asked early, and I have the answer here in terms of we did consider the building adjacent to 1777 shoreline, which is 1801. That's the site that currently houses the T-Mobile. Again, parking became an issue on the 1777 Shoreline Drive site. We're actually looking to put the ground equipment into an enclosure that's kind of like a patio on the side of the building. So we're not taking up parking spaces at 1801. T-Mobile's ground equipment is in a like enclosure. So for us to go onto that facility would require us placing it someplace else on the property. And the landlord was not interested in us doing that. So it was on their suggestion. We move to what is another one of his buildings. However, it's a separate parcel and that's why it didn't qualify as a location, even though the adjacent parcel has an antenna. So many. So the question that I have still the other question that I have is so do people who are non AT&T cell phone users, do they benefit by from this new AT&T tower equipment that you're putting on? Not directly, because each its cellular provider has their own service. Now, there is a certain amount of of what's known as roaming where other providers might lease our service to provide their customers service within a certain area. If you're if you're a T-Mobile customer and you live in the area. I don't know what the numbers, but near Shoreline Court. Right. Your service is integrated? No. No. But if you consider how large each of these companies are, the number of folks that, you know, have our services, you can imagine there's quite a number of folks that, you know, would be our customers in this area. The other thing about the shoreline site is because it is the beach right there. That whole beach area is covered by by these. So intent is to and while there should still be coverage outdoor. It's a question of reliability of the service at that point too. So particularly the summer months, you have a lot of extra traffic all over that island. You know, it's not just the residents who are affected. It's everyone who's passing through the area as well. So in closing on my remarks, we believe that the rooftops at 1538 St Charles and 1777 Shoreline Drive provide the best possible and least intrusive means to cover the significant gaps that we are expecting to see in coverage. And your planning staff and planning board have recognized that as well. With me today, five representatives from AT&T, from our engineering team, as well as our site acquisition team. So between us, we can answer any questions you might have. Well, what I'd like to do now is invite up to the podium Mr. Bill Hammett. He's an independent third party professional engineer from the firm of Hammett Anderson to discuss radio frequency emissions. Since this has been a major topic of interest in turning our existing license. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council members. My name is Bill Hammett. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of California. I manage a firm of 20, relocated up in Sonoma, and a regular part of our practice is the calculation or the measurement of radio frequency exposure conditions. We do this work for for AT&T, for AT&T competitors, for cities, for landlords. As engineers, our job is really straightforward. What are the exposure levels, either by measurement or by calculation? How do they compare to the standards? In this case, we've done that analysis. My reports are a matter of record for these two applications, and I can state with assurance that these facilities will meet the federal safety standards. That's the threshold condition, as you've heard earlier, to take that issue off the table. I did want to make one comment about the siting of these on apartment houses. The carriers have to site their facilities within the area that they're trying to serve. They can't go outside and leap into a place. They have to be in an area where they serve in San Francisco. San Francisco, as an example. They're on apartment houses all over. And so they have a rule that anybody who lives within 25 feet has to be offered measurements. So we were in and out of apartments quite a bit in San Francisco, and I put the meter together, I hand it to the resident, let them go wherever they want, and they're always surprised at how low the levels actually are, even if they're directly below. This is a high roof, but even directly below the facilities, as some people would be in this case, the levels are very low for a couple of reasons. One is that the antennas are not. They have a physical dimension. If they were a point source, like the microphone or like a light bulb, the energy would go equally out in all directions. But they're not there, oh, probably eight or ten inches wide, which allows them to put them in groups focused in one general direction. And this proposal, if you've seen it inside, they have antennas in three different directions to serve all the way around. It's more efficient just to reuse those frequencies. But what's interesting is the antennas stand four feet tall and that allows the energy to be focused down and pushed out toward the horizon is a thousand times less energy that goes down and goes out. So that's why directly underneath the facilities, the levels are very low. The other factor is that the energy doesn't like to go through something you can't see through. And if you'd like in a moment or two, I can show you what the whole spectrum looks like the electromagnetic spectrum, all the different frequencies and their positions. But what that means is that there's a thousand times less going down and what little goes down can't get through the roof. So the service provided is actually bounced off other buildings, comes back in through the windows. And that's a very easy thing to demonstrate. And as I always like to do that for the people in the in the apartments is in great assurance that indeed it's really not an issue for them. The spectrum that I mentioned goes from 60 hertz. That's power line frequencies. So coming out of the plug over here, plus, minus, plus, minus plus, -60 times a second, that's 60 hertz is extremely low frequency. And that's where the power lines run on a wavelength. There is 5000 kilometers here in New York, very low frequency. Above that, there's a big chunk of frequencies that are called radio frequencies used for radio and TV and taxicab paging and police and fire aeronautical frequencies is packed with different users in in that band above radio frequencies is infrared that we use to control our TV's or I have one in my shower I stand under it when I get out above that is a tiny sliver of the spectrum we call it light is our eyes are sensitive to it. This is all one big continuous electromagnetic spectrum. Above light is ultraviolet. And what is ultraviolet do? If your sunburn. The waves are so short, they can get into a molecule and break off an electron. That's called ionization. Above above ultraviolet is x rays. When you go to the dentist and get an x ray, what do they do? They put LED shield on you. And where does the operator stand when the times cut and they stand behind another shield? Because these are acknowledged as ionizing frequencies. They're the wavelength is so short, will get in and break off electronic causes. There's a little bit of damage over time. But what AT&T is doing is not x rays, it's not ultraviolet, it's not light, it's not infrared. It's down in this big chunk in the middle called radio frequencies. So there's nothing inherently dangerous about radio frequencies. They don't cause ionization. It's just a question of magnitude. And in this case, the magnitudes are tiny as a result. So I wanted to share those two concepts with you. I'm happy to talk about any aspect of the science or the standards that might be of interest to you. But I thought those are would be useful points to raise. And so comments. All right. Thank you very. Thank you. And I'm going to go ahead and call our speakers. And you each get 3 minutes. Jessica Reed breaks a bond. Sarah Cruz. Oh, yes. And on the slip. It's on in Charlotte. Are there any other students? And. Yeah, so. Thank you. Hi, I'm Anita Hughes. And I just want to say that evil didn't move down the list because because that they wanted really good cell phone reception, but they wanted to move down there because they have because it's a safe environment for the for the families. And also, I think that cell towers look really ugly on top of buildings, because if they're just hiding them, I don't think it's really good for other people because people might not know about the cell towers. And if they move into somewhere that they don't know the cell towers and they can get affected by it. And that's just all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you. On the slip. It also has Charlotte. Um, she's not here. All right. Thank you. Jessica Reed. Honorable Member and council, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Jessica Reed and I am a resident of Alameda and have two sons. One currently attends violin school and another who will do so in little over a year, and both of whom who participate in Little League at Riddler Park. And the title of my comments is Location, Location, Location. Thank you for considering the appeal of the installation of an AT&T cell antenna atop 1777 Shoreline Drive. This is not an FTC tower, as some have stated. This is a private commercial moneymaking enterprise. While the FCC says that we must assume emissions levels are safe and are not a basis for your decision, that's that's it. This is a private development over which you can determine its appropriateness to the location. Please note that I am not against cell antennas or cell phones. I'm against bad locations for cell antennas. Please also note that any reference to the need for the antenna for emergency services, calls or safety is a red herring. All cell phone carriers are obligated to transmit emergency calls regardless of the caller specific carrier. For them. This is about keeping customers and making more money, not about anything else. And no, I don't believe that is unwarranted criticism. Cynicism. Director Thomas has questioned how can he deny the antenna when he has approved others that he showed examples of? I again say not all locations are the same. A cell antenna in the business areas of the city is still ugly, but it is different than one in the direct line of sight from a very popular and well used park. Even one building over is different and less visible from the park and less disruptive of the skyline from that park. This will double the size of that elevator shaft, double it in width and in height. To my knowledge, they have not provided renderings from the park, and I think this is because they know what it will look like and it won't be good. While they have added alternatives since the Planning Board decision, most of these alternatives are not meaningful. They know the schools are not options and they use those. And nor is the beach. And now they have added three alternatives that would not fulfill their needs because they either already have antennas there or it is at the end of their stated service gap. I ask you to question the statement excuse me that the antenna cannot be co-located even one building over on 1801 shoreline. I have heard various conflicting reasons. AT&T said that it can't be there because there is no room for the ground equipment, and now it's because the property owner doesn't want it there. It just. It's just not clear to me. AT&T was told that they needed to come here tonight and tell you why none of the other buildings further south worked, including ones like Kitty Hawk and Franciscan Way. They haven't done that. Alameda Municipal Code states that the provisions of the zoning plan shall be held to the minimum are the minimum requirements for the promotion and protection of public safety, health and general welfare. This means that you can go beyond what the Planning Department decided. You can decide that our enjoyment of our open spaces and skylines is part of what adds to our general welfare. You have the authority and discretion to say that based upon the testimony, your own investigation, and upon weighing all the evidence. This is a bad location for the residents of Alameda and other visitors to Riddler Park. Please consider the wishes of the community and use your authority to say that this is a bad location. Thank you. Thank you. Craig's on. And then Sarah Cruz. And Kerry. Sure. Oh. All right. There are crews. And then carry share it. And then Lester Cabral. You mean Mayor Spencer and council members? Okay, that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for hearing us tonight. And thank you for postponing your decision until you can get more input. We appreciate we appreciate that. Just a brief history of our experience with AT&T and cell phone towers. I work at myelin. Many of our families here are from myelin. When we found out that AT&T had a cell phone phone tower on myelin, we were concerned. We did some fact finding. Even my students did inquiry because of their concerns. I figured this was a good teachable opportunity to teach navigating technology and inquiry based learning. And the concerns grew not just from our students, but from our parents. We met months and months and months with the school board meeting over a year. It started about a year and a half ago and together we worked with the school board to create this plan. And so I'm I'm asking you that you honor this man that we worked so hard to create based on the concerns of our neighborhood citizens. I question the trustworthiness of AT&T because of our experience with them. They tried saying that our school district was legally binded to them in a contract for 20 to 25 years, when legally the contract could last five years and it was expired. So we had legal precedent to end that contract. I'm concerned about their maps. They seem pretty drastic about a gap in coverage. I wonder if there could be maybe a map from a neutral party to present some fact finding information to you about a gap in coverage. And I could be wrong, but my understanding is that legally they have to prove that this will be a gap in coverage first. But I could be wrong about that. Again, like Jessica said, legally, it's not an issue of public safety. If people need to make a911 call than any other company can put that 911 call through. So all in all, I'm asking you to just respect and honor our students feelings and concerns. I'm not asking you to deny AT&T s proposal, but deny their proposal for 1777 shoreline. It's really a slap in the face to if you're moving it right around the corner from where you're supposed to be taking it off. I feel like that's disrespectful and insulting. The fact that the alternative site analysis was on U.S. schools, too, it's just really disrespectful to me. So I encourage you to encourage them to find someplace further away from schools. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is. Elizabeth Kerry, shared by Kerry. Good evening, Mayor Spencer and council members. I don't have too much to add to what Jessica Reed and Sarah Cruz had to say, but I do want to just be here because I currently can. I'm not restricted in my speech by federal, state or local law in being here to say I'm opposed to the proposed installation at 1777 Shoreline. I do appreciate the planning board directors reminders on the restrictions that we have on our speech regarding these types of installations and issues. And I do want to say I appreciate all of the detail that he went into regarding all of the efforts that the planning board has gone through so far in what is something that they do all the time. But just because we do something all the time doesn't mean that it's a good idea. I agree with Jessica in saying location. The location for this is wrong. I agree with Sarah in saying that it's disrespectful to say, Oh, I can't have it in your yard. Well, how about over here? I'll stand right here. It's a not a reasonable way to engage the community. I understand that Awasthi is part of the county and part of the state, not part of the city governance. If the city departments can all work together, please do take into consideration what Awasthi and the county have also come to a conclusion about after input from the community in which we all exist. So I thank you for your time. You. Lester Carroll. And then Andy Barr leaving. And then Dennis Wong. Good evening, Mayor. Council Members. Lester Cabral, resident of Alameda, 1538 St Charles. I own the property to the side and to the rear of that particular 80 year old apartment building. Now, there are residents in that building there and I assume some of them there. It has been in the past anyway. Are you through the Housing Authority or section eight program of some type? They live on the third floor up there. Now, T-Mobile has already put in a unit up there. Of course, they didn't notify anybody. They said we don't have to. I guess so. Well, I never heard anything anyway. And on the back side of the building, if you want, if you look at the back side, you'll notice that there's a big chute that runs down the side of the building. And I assume that's the encasement for all the electrical wires. They're running down the building into the basement. Now. I believe we have a real safety issue here. You know, there's an old structure there. You know, there are people that are living there. You know, I know the. FCC says, hey, trust. Me, you know, we're going to do a good job here for you. Yeah, right. At the same time saying, look. We're only going to shoot radio frequency signals. Well, maybe today, but maybe next week, they may say, hey, now we have to use this type of signal in order to get an even broader base out there. I think we need to have some conditions put here, mainly on the property owner. You're not going to tell AT&T what to do. You know, they're going to do what they're going to do. But the property owner, I believe, you know, he has a business license here in EL. I mean, he just like I do, I rent apartments. He rents apartments. And, you know, I mean, I can't put a a Hoosier in on top of one of my buildings there. Why should he be able to put a. You know, a this type of antenna set up on his. You know, I think I think he has a limit and. And a liability to what should be going on there. We shouldn't just allow these guys to pop all around and say, hey, look, you know, we'll give you so many dollars and let us put this up on your roof. No, we need to control it. And the way I see it is through the business license saying, hey, you know, if you rent out apartments in their apartments, they're not for this other use. Anyway, I'm against this. Hopefully we can. Come up with something here. It'll benefit everybody. Thank you. Thank you. And about 11. And then Dennis Wong. Good evening again. I'm now just speaking on my own behalf and Bartoli Bien. I'm a resident here in Alameda, and I actually attended many, many, many, many of the meetings that went on with our school board related to this same topic. And along the way, I learned a few things and and I didn't speak up at the time because I I've always sort of felt that, you know, when parents are involved with their children, there's a certain level of of. I don't know if respects or sensitivity that I wanted to propose, but I think for one thing that I happened to learn along the way is what many folks don't understand is that the the activity that we have in our own home, our own homes right now, actually exceeds many of what we're at least this is what I've heard. I'm not an expert on. The wireless systems we have in our home is giving off the same thing. And you're much closer and much stronger. One letter that I read that was written by a resident that is an engineer then I thought was fascinating. So that's one way of looking at this, is these antennas have been up for at least the last past ten years. Plus the level of use of of cell phones has increased dramatically in that time and also the type of use with more of the streaming and whatnot. So not only do we have more actual cell phones out there, but the use of them has increased that much of the concern here is related to cancer. And they that if you go back throughout anywhere, there's there's no correlation of an increased rate of cancer. And I know we want to be careful, but there's also a point of wanting to look at the facts. I think the gentleman that spoke previously that is an expert and talked about these things that, again, I try to understand, made it pretty clear that that it really is quite a limited level. Now, should there be a way to find a better place on Shoreline then? I certainly would support that. But I also have noticed a very large change in lifestyle, said many people don't have home phones anymore, they just have their cell phones and that's what they use for their day to day life, day in and day out . So by eliminating an entire area for a specific carrier, you're then putting our local residents in a situation that would be quite difficult. They may not be able to use their phones at all. They may or may not be able to make a change. It may be a costly change to them. So I'll put myself out on the limb and say if there is no other solution with the homework being done that I would support the presentation made. Thank you. You Dennis Wong. Then that's the last speakership I have on this item. Good evening, Mayor Council. I actually came here to you to just visit. I'm from out of state. I'm a proud alumni of what? School and also a proud wildcat. The young lady you spoke earlier kind of inspired me as well as AT&T. And I just have a number of questions that I think may be helpful for counsel and for also the citizens. One is there was a comment about discretion. Mr. Thomas made a comment that there is a little bit of discretion. Where where is that discretion? And and again, I I'm I'm coming into this kind of dry, but I don't know if your city attorney actually reserves the federal and also state guidelines to see if you actually have some discretion. I would think that if 18 to G tells you that you need a certain area, you're not required. To go ahead and ratify a specific location. There must be some type of a arrange. And I don't understand why we're spending so much time talking about this if indeed you have no discretion. And I don't understand why they would have a consultant from Sonoma at 830 in the evening and three or four other employees here, if you had no discretion. And I have I also don't understand why. We'll see. Will, what school and the other school would pull their lease and possibly subject themselves to litigation if you had no discretion and there was not a safety issue and I was in Ms.. Ramsey's, I think it was rooms three, three, 16, math, and I can't imagine a parent sending a child to Room 316. It was we'll see what school with a tower right above there. And again, given the number and the volume of cell phone use, and it's going to be increasingly in that magnitude. So what I would suggest is that counsel and the city attorney actually look to see where you have discretion. And I would try to draft actually legislation to kind of put an end to this and say, hey, look, similar to to 90 registrations for sexual offenders, not near children or schools or high density areas, something like that. And find out exactly what that parameter is that allows you to maybe put it in a in a more palatable place. So thank you. Thank you. He was our last speaker on this issue. Council members. I'm ready. Madam Mayor, I just want to quickly begin by saying, you know, I. I called for review the matter of the 1777 Shoreline Drive item. Not for any particular reason, but because, you know, a member of the rest of the community misread, I believe it was asked for it to be reviewed so that we can get more information and to give them an opportunity. So and also, you know, I think it it saved like $300 or so. So I'm glad that we're having this discussion tonight and the incredible amount of information that we had to go through as part of the reviewing the planning board's analysis. The package alone, I don't know if you saw is like 350 pages. There's more pages on on this thing than what we're dealing with on site. Tonight, it was incredibly large and it's so complex in terms of the science, federal laws and the and the limited space that local governments have on matters like this. And. You know, it's a process has been put in place by the federal government and and the information was put through. And, you know, I think this is a good discussion that we're having tonight. Want to leave it at that for now. Any other member. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. Mary Spencer and I also communicated by email with the residents and the teacher, Ms.. Cruz, who communicated with me. And I also arranged the meeting with Joseph Camacho, who is the director of constituent services for our congresswoman Barbara Lee, in her Oakland district office. And he came last week to our library and met with Mr. Thomas and AT&T staff and some of the concerned residents. And I do appreciate everyone's concerns, but I also appreciate the law and the law that applies and the difference just to distinguish for them, for the gentleman, the word school is with regard to, say, sex offenders and not being able to locate near a school or a playground. That's state law. But when we're talking about the Federal Communications Commissions, that's federal, which is another reason that I set up the the meeting with the gentleman from the congresswoman's office, because that deals with federal law. And if laws are to be changed in this type of law, it's going to come from the federal government. But what we're doing is we're considering the appeal of a design review approval from the planning board. And I do not see the criteria from anything we've heard tonight to to overturn what the planning board, I think, very thoroughly considered and also did have their own conditions, which were sound like very reasonable ones. I was told that and I was out of town last week when this meeting occurred, so I didn't get to attend. But I understand from speaking to Mr. Thomas, who was there, that AT&T was to consider a possible alternative location on Shoreline Drive if if both the the site looked feasible in terms of filling that, addressing the coverage gap and also if you had a willing landlord, because those are the criteria that have to be met. And I, I understand that no attempt or no an attempt was made, but the building owner wasn't reached. But yes, I think the mayor would allow. You to begin the mike. I'm sorry. She's asking you. Thank you. Out of the meeting that we had last Thursday, we Verizon's question came up about this is Reed brought up a question of a an apartment complex on Kitty Hawk, about 700 feet to the east of of our proposed site. We've done some evaluation of that site. We were not able to connect with the landlord. So that was one aspect we weren't able to connect with. However, on the analysis, we found that that site would provide 16% less coverage. So a gap of residents who would not be able to get service if we were to locate on that particular site. The other issue that we found and I made quickly in my remarks about the the lack of of space for ground equipment, which could take up, as I mentioned, about three or even four parking spaces. That particular site is very constrained. Just about every inch outside of their their buildings and their inner courtyard is taken up with parking spaces right at the edge of the property. So that's why we with that one. All right. Well, thank you for that clarification. Okay. So I think we take that one off the table. It doesn't sound feasible. But I also want to go back to what Mr. Thomas mentioned in the beginning, or I guess it's in one of his slides that the. The city is also recommending or staff is recommending for all carriers who wish to locate a cell phone equipment. Sites in our city, that is our city wide site of preferred locations be established because some will surely be less controversial than others and establish standard design and disclosure conditions for wireless facilities. Develop an expedited administrative approval procedure for while wireless facilities on preferred sites, you know, once they've been located. And then I was struck by something that came out of the meeting with Congresswoman Lee's staff. Was that and it was it was reiterated here today from, I think, the teacher, Miss Cruz, and misread that they felt that it was an affront that here they had worked so hard in this committee with the school district to get these antennae off of school roofs, and then they turn around and find it just on an adjacent property. Apparently, there's been a change in the personnel who are working on this issue when it came before the school board, as I understand. But I do think we could use better communication between our school board, among, I will say, for the English teachers in the room among the city, AT&T and the school board. So we should I mean, I would assume that we know where the schools are, but, you know, maybe some other sites where children go, parks or whatever. But it should be in all this city we could in the future, you know, find some some sites that could have some mutual agreement on them. So I know we have a standing committee, right. And a representative of the council. Seated of. This council. Okay. Well, at some point, we when we do, I think this is just an issue that could be an issue for discussion at some point. So that said, I appreciate everyone's input. I think we learn every time we have public input like this. I cannot find a reason to overturn the planning board decision. Thank you, Mayor. Q Any other member already? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll try to be brief. So in the staff report, there was kind of an explanation about the difference between the city in our regulatory role and the school board as a landlord. So that the decision that the school board made was not a regulatory decision. It was a decision they made as a landlord and as a property owner. And my understanding is, if there was an application to put a similar tower on city property, that we'd have similar discretion as a landlord and a property owners would do that as well. So I concur with both Councilmember De Saag and thank him and the mayor for bringing this to the council, because I understand there's been a lot of discussion going on. And I think it's important that those that who were opposed to this had an opportunity to have a public hearing. And I think they appreciate not having to, you know, put up the $300 each. So I thank them for that. And I also want to pretty much echo what my my colleague, Councilmember Ashcroft, said. You know, we look at the design review findings and, you know, one, the proposed design is consistent with the general plan zoning ordinance and our design review manual. And I haven't seen anything in the presentation to show me otherwise. You know, two of the project is compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the surrounding area. You know, one of them is an apartment complex, apartment building in a complex that has these type of of boxes on it, you know, one for the elevator, another building for another tower. And then the St Charles one, you know, there's already a similar structure or box enclosure for antenna, you know, I mean, we could debate whether it should be inside an enclosure or outside. But, you know, I'm not quite sure. You know, I guess it's, you know, whether you think one is more attractive or one is more appealing. And, you know, personally, you know, I don't really want to see a cell tower. I think looking at them is kind of unappealing and I'd rather have them hidden, but that's kind of my thought. And then the third one, the proposed design of the structure and exterior materials are visually compatible with the surrounding development and design elements have been incorporated to ensure the compatibility that goes on and on. And, you know, the fact that it's, you know, it's concealed and it kind of looks like the building, you know, I don't see anything that I've heard today that would make me want to overturn the planning board's decision. Everyday stuff. Oh, actually, I think I. Council member. Vice Mayor. Yes. I think the most valuable thing we can do out of that of this discussion is exactly what the planning director suggested is to take a strategic look at where. There would be acceptable locations for cell towers because it is a fact of life. And until we all give up our cell phones, regardless of who are carrier is. We can't complain about cell phone towers and cell phone coverage and drop calls at the at the same time or even participate in carrying this little radio device with us. And I agree with council member Otis assessment, having been on the planning board or sitting in a judicial or regulatory role right now and. I don't see the criteria for overturning the Planning Board's decision based on the three conditions that are laid out. And that is because this is a very narrow topic that we're deliberating on tonight. We have to meet those conditions and it is a permit taken by private individuals within the law, regardless of what happened outside, if they followed the law and met the city's criteria. Oh. We don't have discretion, I believe, to deny. Member data. Madam Mayor. In terms of my opinion on either of the towers, I think, you know, reading the materials, the 350 pages or so of materials, you know, the thing that crosses my mind is simply that the 1777 Shoreline Drive does not has not prepared a complete application, as a staff report says. The FCC mandates that wireless facility providers conduct radiofrequency electromagnetic RF modeling for each site to ensure compliance with FCC exposure limits. That's in our Starfleet F report. The Planning Board Materials does not have an RF study for 1777 Shoreline Drive. Um, three. Andrew Do you want to respond to that? Or maybe somebody from AT&T? It's not. I'm unclear about what was in your packet, but it was submitted to the city. Not in the planning work on the website. He. Was submitted to the city. I don't know why it wasn't in your packet. And someone look at the package. What is on the pub or what is on the website is you could be is an RC study or 1801 Shoreline Drive. There is not another study or 1777 shoreline. I'm not arguing with you. I know we received it. Why? It's not on the website. I don't. Know. It's not a complete application. Well, I think there's a difference between a complete application and what was on the agenda. So I think what we're hearing is that it was a complete application, but that it may not have made it into the packet. Not on what matters. The the material was submitted to the city of Alameda. What I don't know is what actually went in your packet or what was what is currently posted on the website? I'm not. And Mr. Thomas, you're saying that that that study was done for 1777, not just eight, you know, one for. Both. Of us. Right. So I'd like to ask, does one of the speakers referred to, does the provider have to prove that there is a gap in coverage in order to add an antenna? They have to prove a gap in coverage. And can we require that that be and if so, can we require that be an independent analysis? We could, we could hire a third party to evaluate that, I presume? Yes. Is it something, though, that they have that has to be approved by the cellphone provider in order to have an antenna? No, they're a step. I believe that we could question a gap analysis and hire a third party to analyze that analysis. In this case, we did not passionate nor hire the third party to evaluate it. But it was provided. Oh, it was provided absolutely. By the. By. A third party, though an independent analysis in the city require that the provider provide an independent analysis. We certainly. Would in the future require. The issue. I mean, for future applications, if if we want a if the council says, look, in the future, we want to have the. A third party verify, basically go through and verify each submittal because they are technical. That's certainly something we could do. It we do as part of either approving either of these applications. The issue that I'm seeing is just a one of timing. I mean, you can't if you approve it. I guess I guess what I'm trying to get my brain around is if you're saying you don't want to approve it because you want to do the third party analysis, I think what we're going to run into is a time problem both with the shot clock and 13, 1538. But more importantly, I'm thinking about the September deadline because we would have to delay the approval. Then you let's assume that the analysis comes back and verifies the gap. Then we approve it. They need to get the thing up and constructed. They have to submit for building permits. We have to issue the building permits, have to build the thing. And that all has to happen before September. And that's on the shoreline property. It's a cause that votes on both, but one of them has a longer date. Yeah, that's I guess what there is on the shoreline property. You have a little bit more time. We all have a little bit more time under the federal regulation deadline. But the real deadline that's on our mind is not the federal regulation deadline, but. The deadline effectively to get these things approved and then built before the September shut down of the existing facilities. We're just concerned about the the the users of these cell phones who are going to lose service in September. I don't know the exact number. So that's what I'm concerned about. What about requiring a business license to have these antennas because they are making money off of them? Yeah, the. I'm sorry. I'm thinking it. I'm thinking maybe it would qualify as a business out of someone's home. It's actually a significant amount of money or off their property. I think it is a it's an interesting. Well, the interesting it's an interesting business license. The apartment complexes already have a business license. They have business license. Here's the issue. Federal regulations don't allow us to adopt land use regulations that effectively prevent. The providers from covering the gaps. So let's say we you know, city planner Andrew recommends we say no antennas in residential neighborhoods. Well, if the providers can show. Right. But that's what I'm asking. I'm asking, can the city charge a fee as as a business license to have a cell phone antenna. And just. A no fee. A fee as a business license if you're going to have a cell phone antenna on your private building, because, I mean, they are making money. That's like another third. Or another unit. It's actually a significant amount of money. I don't believe that it's in our current business license tax list of fees. We could certainly look at that and potentially amend bring forward an amendment to do that. But at this point in time, I don't believe it's in there. Okay. So I understand. So can you tell me how much the property owner what's the monthly amount of money being paid to the property owners on these properties as part of this arrangement? So I, I just is are we getting I'm just concerned a little bit about the Brown Act and Sunshine and all this good things because I believe it's the design review and those specific criteria that Mr. Thomas listed about the appearance. And so I think, you know, you're raising some valid points, Mary Spencer, but I'm wondering whether that needs to come back to us for, for instance, for consideration of amending our business tax license. But I do think we're getting far afield of the matter before us. I'm sorry. Sorry. It's not appropriate for you to speak at this time because we already had our public comments. However, I would think that so. So I appreciate that. And I'm not sure if I. That's what I would like to know. If it's something we could do. We can come back and look at that. You want staff to do that? Okay. Another issue that was raised is this. On the St Charles building, there's safety with the existing electronic electrical wires and the impact of having adding this antenna to an old building. Does city staff investigate and ensure that it would not interfere with the existing old wires or old building? Of these. I'm sorry I keep interrupting you that all these facilities go through the building permit, electrical permit process. So, yes. So as part of the process of adding the antenna, does that get inspected if it impacts the wires? Yes, it does. It requires an electrical. Permit for someone goes up there and sees how it impacted. Okay. Any other questions, comments, and we have two separate resolutions. So we for motion if your if someone wants to move to accept these if we get up two separate motions, one for resolution. We should do two should. Okay. So I will. Start with Charlotte, with Saint Charles. I will move a resolution upholding the Planning Board Resolution PB 15.03 Approving Design Review Application to install telecommunications facilities at 1538 St Charles Street. Madam Chair, I will second the motion because that application is complete. All right. Any comments, questions on that one? All those in favor. I. I oppose abstention motion passed unanimously on the St Charles. Second one. Do you have a motion? I'll make a motion to uphold the Planning Board's decision on 1777 Shoreline Drive. And as part of that motion to have staff come back to us with an analysis of. Preferred cell phone, location sites and other criteria based on the community input and the input that was put forward by the council and the mayor tonight on how we manage that inventory of acceptable locations. All right. So I'll second that one. Or any discussion on that one. My quick comment is that application is not complete because it lacks a 17 RS report for 1777 Shoreline Drive. There was an RF report for 1801 Shoreline Drive if you bother to read the 350 page report. But that is not the topic at hand. And I have a question in regards to the motion. I'd prefer I prefer if we separated out the things we're going to be directing staff to do separate from approve the resolution. So that the results of the motion in regards to approving the resolution speaks to this property and that the additional things be separate. Correction. Are you making a substitute motion? Yes, Madam Mayor. And this is a major one. Too long as the wording doesn't change. I'm right. I think it makes it clearer. And then we can have two separate votes and address. Sounds good. All right. So are you making an amended motion? Yes. I'll amend the motion to split the motion into upholding the planning board decision as one motion. And then I'll wait for the second most. All right, I'll. Still second that. All right. And discussion. And on that one member day. So I could have made some comments in regards to the RF. Model. Your call report. All right, all those in favor. I, I. Oppose. I oppose motion passes. 3 to 2. And then the. Third motion motion to, as I stated before, to direct staff to come back to us with an inventory of acceptable and preferred cell phone location sites with consideration of the input from the members of the community and the input given at this Council tonight. As their second. I'll second that one. All those in favor. I know that motion carries unanimously. Thank you. The backstory her. All right. Next agenda item is very. We moved a. 66.