Jan 21, 2020 Special City Council

[00:00:02]

LIKE TO CALL OUR STUDY SESSION TO ORDER.

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[4. The City Council will meet in a study session regarding the recent developments in wireless communications and small cell sites.]

THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, I THINK, THAT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN INTERESTED IN, AS WELL AS INFORMATION FROM THE COMMUNITY OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY AT THAT TIME.

I KIND OF SHARE WITH THE COUNCIL.

WE WANTED TO FIND AN AUTHORITY THAT WE FEEL WE COULD BRING IN TO HELP TO BETTER ADDRESS AND ANSWER SOME OF THOSE AREAS THAT WE FELT YOU HAD OPPORTUNITIES AND WHERE YOU FRANKLY DIDN'T. FORTUNATELY, WITH THE RECENT MERGER OF OUR CITY ATTORNEYS FIRM WITH JONES MAYOR, WE DID FIND SOMEBODY WHO'S HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THAT WITHIN THE PHONE FIRM.

AND THAT IS SCOTT PORTER, WHO WOULD BE DOING THAT PRESENTATION TONIGHT.

AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE PROMPTED THAT OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, I WOULD SAY, OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS THAT HAVE OCCURRED.

THE FIRST IS THE FCC HAS PROVIDED SOME FURTHER DECISION ON WHAT, IF ANYTHING, LOCAL JURISDICTIONS HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO, WHICH FRANKLY ISN'T MUCH MORE.

BUT CERTAINLY THERE'S BEEN SOME CLARIFICATION IN THAT REGARD.

THE FIRM THAT WE HAD ENGAGED XG TO KIND OF PROCESS OUR APPLICATIONS REGARDING 5G AND WIRELESS. THEY NOTIFIED US LAST MONTH THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE EXPIRING THAT CONTRACT.

SO WE NEED TO REVISIT WHAT OUR PROCESS WILL BE.

SO THIS WILL HELP TO AT LEAST GIVE GUIDANCE TO THAT.

AND THEN THIRD, WE'VE HAD SOME INTEREST EXPRESSED FROM CARRIERS THAT THEY WANT TO START LOOKING AT, ASKING ABOUT WHAT OUR PROCESS IS REGARDING ROLLOUT.

SO WE ARE CERTAINLY GOING TO HAVE TO START ADDRESSING SOME OF THAT.

SO WE FELT THE FIRST STEP WAS TO BRING BACK THIS INFORMATION IN THE STUDY SESSION AND FOR THE CLARIFICATION OF THE VIEWING AUDIENCE AS WELL AS THOSE HERE, THERE IS NO ACTION THAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE TAKING TONIGHT.

THIS IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF GATHERING INFORMATION.

WE CAN CERTAINLY GIVE FURTHER DIRECTION FROM HERE.

BUT THIS IS JUST ABOUT GIVING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND BETTER AS FAR AS A STAFF LEVEL, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE COME TO UNDERSTAND.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND MAYBE TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU AND THEN MR. PORTER CAN GET UP AND GIVE HIS PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. AS OUR CITY MANAGER SAID, WE ARE HERE GATHERING INFORMATION.

IT'S A STUDY SESSION FOR EVERYBODY TO TO GAIN INFORMATION.

AND THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME TIME SET ASIDE AFTERWARDS FOR COMMENTS THAT YOU'RE WELCOME TO MAKE. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GET STARTED WITH MR. PORTER. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, FIRST OF ALL.

ABSOLUTELY. IT'S A IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.

I FEEL EXCITED.

APPARENTLY, I AM THE FIRST CHOSEN MAYOR ATTORNEY TO COME VISIT YOU.

OTHER THAN MR. KRESS.

SO ON BEHALF OF THIS FIRM.

HELLO. SO TODAY I'M GOING TO SPEAK FOR MAYBE 15 MINUTES ABOUT WIRELESS SITING AND WHAT AUTHORITY WE DO AND DO NOT HAVE.

AND I SHOULD SAY, I'VE BEEN PRACTICING MUNICIPAL LAW FOR ROUGHLY 20 YEARS.

AND DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, I'VE SEEN AN EVER INCREASING EROSION OF MUNICIPAL POWER TO REGULATE WIRELESS FACILITIES, AND THAT HAS CONTINUED UNABATED.

SO WHAT I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT AS THIS PROCEEDS ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THREE DIFFERENT THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE REAL WORLD? WHAT IS DO WE EXPECT IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS RELATING TO 5G? SECOND OF ALL, WHAT IS THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK? WHAT AUTHORITY DO WE HAVE? AND THEN THIRD WOULD BE PRACTICAL, PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS, ITEMS THAT YOU AS A CITY COUNCIL MAY CONSIDER AS PART OF YOUR OPTIONS.

SO THE FIRST THING IS WE KNOW THAT THE NEXT STEP IN THE EVOLUTION WILL BE TO 5G FIFTH GENERATION TECHNOLOGY.

IT'S NOT HAPPENING YET.

YES, I REALIZE AT&T IS TELLING THE WORLD THAT THEY HAVE 5G, BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE.

WHAT? THEY'RE MARKETING IT AS 5G.

BUT THE REALITY IS IT'S JUST 4G THAT THEY'RE CALLING 5G.

WE CAN GET INTO THE TECHNICAL TECHNICALITIES AND THE SPECIFICS, BUT IT MAY BE A FEW YEARS YET UNTIL YOU SEE AN ACTUAL DEPLOYMENT AND 5G TURNING ON.

YES. SO I SHOULD SAY IN A NUMBER OF CITIES, OUR FIRM REPRESENTS A NUMBER OF CITIES.

AS OF YET, I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY ACTUAL 5G REQUESTS TO INSTALL FACILITIES OTHER THAN AT MOST. I'VE I'VE HEARD DISCUSSION ABOUT MAYBE SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE SOON WE WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL SOME INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WOULD ALLOW BOTH 4G AND 5G.

BUT AS OF YET, NOT HAPPENING.

SO THE SHORT VERSION IS IT'S GOING TO BE A FEW YEARS.

YES, THERE ARE TEST MARKETS THROUGHOUT.

LITTLE COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA.

BUT THE REALITY IS WIDE SCALE.

[00:05:03]

I DON'T KNOW. SO A TYPICAL SMALL SO PART OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.

SO THE MAIN BENEFIT FROM THAT THE TELECOM PROVIDERS SEE A 5G TECHNOLOGY IS ESSENTIALLY THAT IT'S FASTER. SO ROUGHLY SPEAKING, 10 TIMES FASTER, SOMETIMES FIVE, SOMETIMES 20.

BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THE IDEA IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY FASTER.

AND THE WAY THAT THIS OCCURS IS DIFFERENT THAN CURRENT TECHNOLOGY RIGHT NOW.

THE PROBLEM THAT YOU HAVE IS NOT THAT YOU'RE UNABLE TO GET PHONE CALLS EVERYWHERE IN ALMOST EVERY MAJOR LOCATION THROUGHOUT AMERICA.

YOU CAN RECEIVE A TELEPHONE CALL.

YES. JUST LIKE THERE IS A ROAD IN EVERY MAJOR LOCATION THROUGHOUT AMERICA.

BUT THE QUESTION IS, HOW WIDE OF A ROAD IS IT? IS THERE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC, TOO, FOR THE ROADS TO HANDLE? AND AT CERTAIN PEAK HOURS, YOU TELECOM PROVIDERS SAY, OH, MY GOSH, WE NEED AN EIGHT LANE FREEWAY AND WE ONLY HAVE A TWO LANE ROAD.

IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SPEED THE TRAFFIC, BUT IT'S JUST THEY HAVE SO MUCH TRAFFIC, IT ENDS UP WORK. THE SYSTEM NEEDS TO WORK FOR EVERYTHING.

FOR ALL THE TRAFFIC TO GET THROUGH.

SO THE WAY THE TELECOM PROVIDERS ARE PROPOSING TO SOLVE THIS CONUNDRUM IS BY 5G TECHNOLOGY. IT'S NOT EVEN NECESSARILY 5G.

SMALL CELL TECHNOLOGY CAN BE 4G.

AND INSTEAD OF HAVING ONE LARGE SCALE MACRO CELL, WHICH YOU MIGHT SEE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN WHERE A TYPICAL MACRO CELL OF AN ANTENNA MIGHT BE 45 FEET TALL, MIGHT HAVE A 40 WATT RADIO FOR 40 WATT RADIO TRANSMISSION WITH 1000 METERS RADIUS.

SO ROUGHLY HALF A MILE RADIUS.

SO COULD BE A MILE ACROSS.

INSTEAD, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS A TYPICAL SMALL CELL ANTENNA WOULD BE 25 FEET WITH FIVE WATT RADIO COVER COVERAGE OF ONLY 160 METERS TRANSLATION 500 FEET RADIUS.

SO IT MIGHT BE A THOUSAND FEET APART FOR THE DIAMETER.

NOW, YES.

CAN THEY COVER MORE TERRITORY THAN THAT? YES. BUT AS A GENERAL RULE, THAT'S WHAT THEY AIM TO DO BECAUSE THEY WANT A LITTLE BIT OF OVERLAP, BECAUSE AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, NOT IF YOU LINE UP ALL THE CIRCLES ON A MAP.

IF YOU'RE TRYING TO COVER EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY, YOU NEED SOME OF THOSE CIRCLES TO OVERLAP SOME. OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SPOTS THAT YOU'RE NOT COVERING.

SO THEY DESIGN THEM FOR, ROUGHLY SPEAKING, FIVE HUNDRED FOOT RADIUS.

BUT FROM THERE THEN, YOU KNOW, PLUS OR MINUS, DEPENDING ON GEOGRAPHY, HOW HIGH THE POLE IS, HOW TALL BUILDINGS ARE IN THE WAY.

ARE THERE LOTS OF TREES IN THE WAY? THERE'S ANY NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT CAN GO INTO HOW FAR THEY ACTUALLY TRANSMIT.

BUT A GOOD RULE OF THUMB IS ROUGHLY 500 FEET RADIUS OR A THOUSAND FEET DISTANCE DIAMETER.

AND AS I'M PRESENTING, IF THERE QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN.

SO WHAT DO THESE LOOK LIKE, THE TYPICAL.

THESE ARE TYPICAL INSTALLMENTS.

SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT.

IT'S DISGUISED TO LOOK LIKE A TYPICAL LIGHT, BUT YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE ANTENNA IS AT THE VERY TOP OF THE STRUCTURE.

AND THEN ON THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT, YOU WOULD SEE THE RADIO EQUIPMENT WOULD BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE POLE ITSELF.

AN ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE WHAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE WHERE THE RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE IS ATTACHED AT THE GROUND AND IT'S DISGUISE TO BE AS A LIGHT POLE WITH THE ANTENNA ON TOP WITH THE DESIGN ON THE LEFT.

IT'S ALMOST IDENTICAL TO ANY STREET LIGHT POLE.

THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IN THAT DESIGN IS JUST THAT IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT TALLER.

SO HERE'S SOME OTHER EXAMPLES WITH THE ANTENNA AND THE RADIO.

YOU CAN THEY HAVE A LOT OF ABILITY TO CHANGE WHERE ON THE POLE THE RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE ACTUALLY IS. HERE'S HERE'S A MORE TYPICAL EXAMPLE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON THE LEFT.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT.

I HAVEN'T CONFIRMED WITH STEPH IS WHAT IS ON THE LEFT GENERALLY BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT DESIGN. OK, SO OUR CURRENT POLICY WOULD BE ENCOURAGING SOMETHING TO LOOK LIKE WHAT'S ON THE LEFT AND THEN ON THE RIGHT IS A SIMILAR DESIGN.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S HARD TO TELL IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR, YOU WOULD JUST THINK OF THE STREET LIGHT POLE.

OTHER TYPES OF DEPLOYMENT THAT IS FAR LESS FREQUENT BUT DOES OCCUR IS WHAT IS CALLED A STRAND MOUNTED SMALL CELL AND THE POLE THAT'S ON THE FAR LEFT.

THAT'S MAYBE A COUPLE FEET TALL, THAT'S THE ANTENNA.

AND THOSE WOULD BE ATTACHED TO EXISTING WIRES IN THE COMMUNITY TO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, AT AN

[00:10:02]

AND. SO HERE ARE LA VERNE ALREADY HAS PREFERRED SMALL CELL DESIGN.

AND THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF YOUR POLICY.

SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE ENCOURAGING CURRENTLY THROUGH THE POLICY AND YOU CAN SEE THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT. AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC STAFF CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS.

AND THEN EDISON LIKEWISE HAS ITS STANDARD DESIGN.

SO IF EDISON SAYS IF YOU ARE A TELECOM PROVIDER AND YOU WANT TO INSTALL ON THEIR FACILITY, WELL, THERE ARE CERTAIN PRE APPROVE DESIGNS AND IT NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE THIS BECAUSE THIS IS OUR EQUIPMENT AND THIS IS WHAT IT NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE.

AND THEY'RE FAIRLY SIMILAR TO WHAT LAVERNE'S DESIGNS ON.

SO ON THE RIGHT SHOWS YOU THAT'S AN ARMY DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA THAT LOOKS LIKE THE BATON.

SO THAT'S FOR ALL DIRECTIONS, WHEREAS WHAT'S ON THE RIGHT IS A UNIT DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA.

SO SOMETIMES WHEN PROVIDERS WILL INSTALL A FACILITY, SOMETIMES WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS YOU'LL HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FACILITIES THAT ARE QUITE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.

AND THERE'S CONCERN IN THE COMMUNITY SAYING I'M GETTING A DOUBLE DOSE OF RADIATION WHEN THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE, THAT YOU'RE GETTING THE SAME AMOUNT OF EMISSIONS BECAUSE INSTEAD THEY JUST HAVE TWO ANTENNAS THAT ARE FACING OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS RATHER THAN HAVING ALL OF IT ON ONE ANTENNA FACING MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS.

SO IT'S IT'S A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO SAY.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE NUMBER OF FACILITIES.

IT'S RATHER IT'S BASED ON THE TYPE OF FACILITY IN HOW IT'S DESIGNED.

SO LEGAL FRAMEWORK, I SAID THAT CITIES ARE LOSING THEIR ABILITY TO REGULATE.

IN 1996, THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 WAS ADOPTED AND THAT ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT FEDERAL LAW CONTROLS WITH RESPECT TO RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS.

PERIOD. END OF STORY. SO IF A CITY WANTS TO ESTABLISH ITS OWN REGULATIONS ABOUT WHETHER A PARTICULAR FACILITY IS DANGEROUS OR NOT, WE CANNOT DO THAT.

AND THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT IS THEN YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE TO IF YOU OR SPRINT OR VERIZONS OR AT&T, IF EVERY SINGLE CITY THAT YOU WENT TO HAD ITS OWN STANDARDS FOR WHAT WAS AND WHAT WAS NOT LEGAL AS FAR AS THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO INSTALL. YOU WOULD HAVE 10000 DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DEPLOY.

INSTEAD, THE IDEA IS THAT THERE IS ONE OVERARCHING SET OF RULES.

IF YOU COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL RF EMISSION REQUIREMENTS, THEN A CITY CANNOT DO MORE.

WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN ENSURE THAT THEY ARE IN FACT COMPLYING WITH THOSE GUIDELINES SO WE CAN REQUIRE TESTING IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONSTRUCTION.

THAT'S A PRETTY COMMON REQUIREMENT.

I SHOULDN'T SAY IT'S INCREASINGLY COMMON.

LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. SO ANOTHER RULE IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN THE LAW SINCE 1996.

IS THAT A CITY CANNOT, QUOTE, EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT THE DEPLOYMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

HERE'S THE EXACT RULE A CITY MAY THE REGULATION OF THE PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES, IN OTHER WORDS, WIRELESS FACILITIES BY ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT PROHIBIT OR HAVE THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING THE PROVISION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES.

SO IF WE ADOPTED A RULE THAT SAID NO CELL PHONE TOWERS WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL. WHY? BECAUSE THERE'S SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT.

RIGHT. ACTUALLY, LET ME COME UP WITH A MORE EGREGIOUS ANSWER.

EXAMPLE 1000 FEET FROM ANY HOUSE.

WELL, WE HAVE HOUSES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

AND IF WE HAD SUCH A RULE, THEN WE WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE SAYING YOU CAN NEVER COME INTO OUR CITY. NOW, SOME CITIES GET AROUND THIS AND THEY SAY, OK, WELL, THE RULE IS A THOUSAND FEET, BUT THEN WE HAVE AN EXCEPTION THAT SAYS, WELL, IF IF FOR SOME REASON THAT WOULD VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW, THEN IT IS ALLOWED.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE NOT REGULATING ANYTHING BECAUSE IT WILL ALWAYS BE VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW. IF YOU HAVE SOME STANDARDS SUCH AS THAT, BECAUSE EFFECTIVELY YOU COULD NEVER DEPLOY ANYTHING THAT ISN'T WITHIN AT LEAST A THOUSAND FEET OF A HOUSE.

SO NOW, OF COURSE, THEN IT BECOMES A GRAY AREA AND JUDGMENT CALLS AND ALL THIS SORT OF THING. AT WHAT POINT HAVE YOU EFFECTIVELY PROHIBITED SOMETHING? SO THE ANSWER IS WE MUST ALLOW DEPLOYMENTS OF WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT, HOW CAN WE REGULATE IT AND ENCOURAGE IT TO GO TO PLACES THAT WE WANT AND IN THE MANNER THAT WE WANT RATHER THAN IN THE PLACES THAT WE REALLY DON'T WANT. AND IN THE MANNERS, WE REALLY DON'T WANT.

THE STANDARD FOR EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION RECENTLY CHANGED.

[00:15:02]

WELL, BECAME EFFECTIVE IN NOVEMBER OF 2018.

IT BECAME ENTIRELY EFFECTIVE IN APRIL 14TH.

TWENTY NINETEEN A DAY THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY.

THAT'S MY LAME ATTEMPT AT A JOKE.

SO AT ANY RATE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IT DID WAS THAT IT CHANGED THE STANDARD FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES AN EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION.

AND NOW THE STANDARD, INSTEAD OF BEING THE SIGNIFICANT GAP TEST, WHICH WAS SOMETHING THAT TELECOM PROVIDERS DID NOT LIKE, THEY CHANGED IT TO THE MATERIAL LIMITS TEST.

A TEST. THE TELECOM PROVIDERS DO LIKE.

SO NOW THE TEST IS WHETHER IT MATERIALLY LIMITS OR INHIBITS THE ABILITY OF ANY COMPETITOR OR POTENTIAL COMPETITOR TO COMPETE IN A FAIR AND BALANCED LEGAL AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT. SO IF OUR REGULATIONS GO SO FAR AS TO ESSENTIALLY GO TOO FAR, IF WE HAVE MATERIALLY LIMITED THEIR ABILITY TO COMPETE IN A FAIR ENVIRONMENT, THEN THAT IS CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

SO ADDITIONALLY, WE MUST ACT WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.

THIS IS ALWAYS BEEN THE LAW SINCE 1996 THAT A CITY NEEDS TO ACT IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. HOWEVER, STARTING IN 2000 AND MOST RECENT AND AGAIN IN 2014 AND AND AGAIN IN 2018, THE FCC HAS ESTABLISHED MORE PRECISE RULES ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME THE MOST.

SO THERE ARE WHAT ARE CALLED SHOT CLOCKS.

A CITY MUST APPROVE CERTAIN TYPES OF APPLICATIONS WITHIN CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF TIME.

IT MIGHT BE 60 DAYS.

THAT'S A SHORT TIMEFRAME.

IT MIGHT BE 90 DAYS. IT MIGHT BE 150 DAYS DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF FACILITY.

IF IT IS A, QUOTE, SMALL CELL FACILITY AS DEFINED BY THE FCC, THE CITY MUST NUMBER ONE.

WELL, WE'LL GET TO IT A BIT, BUT WE MUST ACT ON THE APPLICATION WITHIN 60 OR 90 DAYS, DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF APPLICATION.

AND THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF ISSUING BUILDING PERMITS, GETTING THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT EVERY TYPE OF REVIEW. NOT JUST SPEAKING TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS TO BE FROM COMPLETE FROM APPLICATION TILL COMPLETION.

SO HERE ARE THE AS YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS FCC DECISIONS.

2009. WELL, I TALKED ABOUT EACH ONE.

SO THERE ARE DEEMED GRANTED REMEDIES IF WE DON'T ACT WITHIN CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF TIME.

SO IF THE CITY DECIDES TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT ON THE ONE HAND, WE WANT THE ABILITY TO ALLOW APPEALS, BECAUSE QUITE OFTEN THAT'S THERE ARE BENEFITS TO ALLOWING APPEALS IF PEOPLE ARE AGGRIEVED OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF WE DON'T ACT WITHIN THE TIMEFRAMES, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE WILL BE A DEEMED GRANT GRANTED REMEDY.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S APPROVED AUTOMATICALLY, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE.

SO QUITE OFTEN WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS PEOPLE THAT ARE OPPOSED TO A PARTICULAR FACILITY APPEAL REQUESTING THE CITY TAKE ACTION ON BECAUSE THEY REALLY DON'T WANT IT.

BUT THOSE SAME PEOPLE ALSO WANT A REALLY LONG TIME FRAME IN WHICH TO APPEAL, WHICH IS THE ACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT OPPONENTS SHOULD BE ARGUING FOR.

THEY WANT A SHORT APPEAL PERIOD, BECAUSE OTHERWISE PROJECTS WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE GOOD OR BAD.

SO IT'S IT'S A FINE IT'S A NARROW PATH THAT WE HAVE TO TREAD.

IF WE'RE GOING TO BE REGULATING AND REGULATING A MANNER THAT IS BOTH GOOD FOR THE THAT'S GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC. SO RF EMISSIONS WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT A CITY CANNOT REGULATE RF EMISSIONS BASED, BUT WE CAN.

THE FCC SAID WE CANNOT REGULATE THE ONGOING OPERATION OF FACILITIES.

CITIES CAN ADOPT REGULATIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.

THE CITY COULD REQUIRE TESTING TO CONFIRM RF COMPLIANCE OF THE NEW FACILITY, SAYING YOU REALLY DID COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW LIKE YOU PROMISED YOU'RE GOING TO.

SO RIGHT OF WAY, A TELEPHONE CORPORATION, ESSENTIALLY A RISE IN CROWN CASTLE MAY USE THE GROUND OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR FREE WITHOUT PAYING ANNUAL RENT.

NOW, IF THEY INSTALL THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE ON OUR PROPERTY AND THE RIGHT OF WAY, SUCH AS POLES THAT WE OWN AND WE OWN, WHAT, 80 PLUS PERCENT OF THE POLES IN THE CITY, IF THEY INSTALL ON OUR EQUIPMENT, THEN WE CAN CHARGE ANNUAL RENT.

NOW, THE FCC HAS SAID THAT THEY'VE LIMITED HOW MUCH WE CAN CHARGE AS FAR AS RENT.

WE'LL SEE WHETHER THAT STANDS THE TEST OF TIME.

THERE'S CURRENTLY A LEGAL CHALLENGE ON IN THAT REGARD, BUT WE'LL SEE.

SO WE CANNOT CHARGE RENT, BUT WE CAN CHARGE FOR THE RENT OF POLES OR WHATEVER EQUIPMENT

[00:20:04]

SO WE HAVE TO SET THE BAR AS LOW AS FAR AS WHAT WE CAN CHARGE.

IT'S JUST THE MARKET ECONOMICS.

IT'S HARD TO CHARGE. IT'S TOO HARD TO COMPETE WITH.

FREE CITIES MAY REGULATE FACILITIES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IN TWO WAYS AS LANDLORD.

SO WE CAN REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, WHICH IS OUR CURRENT POLICY, IS THAT WE SAY YOU CANNOT INSTALL ANYTHING IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY UNLESS YOU HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM THE CITY.

BUT ADDITIONALLY, AS A REGULATOR, WE CAN USE OUR ZONING POWERS TO SAY THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALLOWED TO LOOK LIKE. IT CAN'T BE TALLER THAN THIS.

IT CAN'T. IT NEEDS TO BE THIS FAR AWAY FROM OTHER FACILITIES.

YOU CAN HAVE VARIOUS PERMITTING PROCESSES.

THE FCC HAS SAID THAT IS REQUIRED THAT FOR SMALL CELL FACILITIES YOU HAVE A MINISTERIAL PROCESS, WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CANNOT ALSO HAVE A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS.

BUT MINISTERIAL MEETING THIS CATEGORY OF FACILITIES MUST BE APPROVED, PERIOD, END OF STORY. NO CHOICE COMPARED TO A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS, WHICH IS WHOEVER THE DECISION MAKING DECISION MAKER IS TAKES VARIOUS THINGS INTO ACCOUNT AND TO REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE AS TO WHETHER IT SHOULD BE APPROVED.

AND THEN WHOEVER IS MAKING THAT DECISION MAKES THE DECISION.

SO I TALKED ABOUT THIS QUICKLY.

SO IN 2018, THERE IS THE FCC DECISION.

THE MAIN POINTS OF THAT WERE NUMBER ONE IS WE NEED TO HAVE A MINISTERIAL PROCESS FOR SMALL CELLS. NUMBER TWO, TO ESTABLISH THE SHOT CLOCK OF 60 OR 90 DAYS.

IT ESTABLISHED THE MATERIALLY INHIBIT STANDARD AND IT LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF FEES THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO CHARGE.

WHAT IT DID SAY IS IT IS IT DIDN'T MAKE A FLAT PROHIBITION ON CHARGING MORE THAN HUNDRED DOLLARS PER APPLICATION.

BUT WHAT IT DID SAY WAS IT'S A SAFE HARBOR IF YOU CHARGE ONLY ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER APPLICATION. WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT THAT IS REASONABLE.

BUT IF YOU GO ABOVE THAT, THEN IT'S PROBABLY MAYBE YOU STARTING TO LOOK LIKE IT'S UNREASONABLE. SO THAT IS AN INCREDIBLY LOW NUMBER.

SO THAT IS BEING CHALLENGED IN COURT.

IT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE THE 9TH CIRCUIT.

IT'S THE ONLY IT'S THE SINGLE CASE IN AMERICA THAT IS DISCUSSING THIS MATTER BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS HANDLED THERE.

WE'LL SEE WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING.

IT'S BEEN BRIEFED. I DON'T RECALL THE CURRENT STATUS OF IT.

THE LAST I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN BRIEFED AND NOT YET BEEN ARGUED.

SO AT ANY RATE, IT'LL BE A NUMBER OF MONTHS YET.

AND IT'S CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE WITHIN THE NINTH CIRCUIT, WHICH IS THE CALIFORNIA CIRCUIT, AMONG OTHERS. SO LA VERNE HAS DESIGN STANDARDS, THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW POLICY.

CONSIDER THE SMALL CELL DESIGNS POLICY STANDARDS POLICY.

AND THEN ON APRIL 10TH, TWENTY NINETEEN PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FCC DECISION JUST UNDER THE WIRE BY FOUR DAYS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE POLICY TO ESTABLISH. SO THIS IS YOUR CURRENT POLICY.

IT HAS A LOCATIONAL PREFERENCE HIERARCHY SAYING WE WOULD PREFER THAT THEY BE IN PARTS OF TOWN THAT ARE NOT SO BAD COMPARED TO THE PARTS OF TOWN THAT WE REALLY WANT TO PRESERVE.

SO IT HAS A HIERARCHY SAYING THE MOST PREFERRED LOCATIONS ARE CO-LOCATING AND THEN LESS PREFERRED WOULD BE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IN PUBLIC LAND IN NON RESIDENTIAL AREAS COMPARED TO THE RIGHT OF WAY IN PUBLIC LAND, IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS COMPARED TO UTILITY OR JOINTLY OWNED DISTRIBUTION POLES COMPARED TO NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND THERE WAS A RIGHT OF WAY.

YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE NEW POLLS CLUTTERING UP THE STREETS.

THAT'S THE IDEA. AND THEN THERE ARE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THAT IT HAS PREFERRED PULL DESIGNS. WE PREFER THAT THE POLL LOOKS LIKE THIS RATHER THAN LOOKING LIKE THAT.

SO CURRENTLY WE'VE BEEN ACTIVE, THE CITY'S BEEN ACTING UNDER A POLICY AS OPPOSED TO AS OPPOSED TO AN ORDINANCE. I SAID IT THAT THE TWO GROUNDS THAT WE HAVE TO ENFORCE OUR RULES POLICIES WHICH ARE OUR INTERNAL PROCEDURES AS LANDLORD, BUT ALSO AND WE'VE BEEN INTERPRETING OUR CODE BASED ON THOSE POLICIES OR WE CAN HAVE AN AUDIENCE THAT EXPRESSLY STATES WHAT WE HAVE BEEN LONGSTANDING PRACTICE.

SO IF YOU WANTED TO ADD OPT IN ORDINANCE, THEN WE WOULD NO ONE FCC WOULD REQUIRE SOME SORT OF A MINISTERIAL PROCESS FOR SMALL CELLS AND THAT'S A DEFINED TERM.

IT'S ACTUALLY TECHNICALLY A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY.

SO THE MINISTERIAL PROCESS COULD BE DESIGNED TO INCENTIVISE FAVORED LOCATIONS AND TO REDUCE THE STAFF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL RULES.

THE IDEA AND THEN ALSO MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THOSE DESIGNS THAT WE DON'T LIKE.

SO MY RIGHT.

SO THAT'S SO WHAT YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT IS THE EXAMPLE THAT I GAVE OF IMAGINE IF WE HAD A A FLAT RULE THAT SAID NOPE, NO WIRELESS FACILITIES ANYWHERE IN TOWN.

[00:25:04]

WELL, WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION.

SO THEREFORE EVERYTHING WOULD BECOME DISCRETIONARY.

AND THEREFORE, YOU WOULD NOT BE INCENTIVIZING EVERYTHING.

EVERYTHING WOULD BE GOING THROUGH THIS LABORIOUS PROCESS.

SO TYPICALLY WHAT CITIES LIKE TO DO IS THEY'LL ESTABLISH A MINISTERIAL PROCESS CONSISTENT WITH FCC REQUIREMENTS TO SAY WE'LL MAKE THESE EASY OR.

SO THAT WILL ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THESE RATHER THAN THESE, AND WE'RE GONNA MAKE THAT PROCESS DIFFICULT.

AND IF THAT PROCESS IS DIFFICULT, THEN PEOPLE THEN PROVIDERS WILL BE FAR LESS LIKELY TO PROPOSE THE THINGS THAT ARE DIFFICULT.

THEY'LL DO THE THINGS THAT ARE EASY THAT WE CAN LIVE WITH.

THE DISCRETIONARY PROCESS COULD ALSO BE DESIGNED TO ALLOW AD HOC DETERMINATIONS.

BUT THEN WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE APPEAL TIMES.

YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A SHORT APPEAL TIME TO NOT VIOLATE FEDERAL FCC RULES. AND ALSO ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF A MINISTERIAL PROCESS IS IT BECAUSE IT'S PRE-DESIGNED. AND THEN YOU CAN ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE SHORT SHOT CLOCKS.

THE ORDINANCE COULD IF YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS, YOU CAN FLESH OUT PROCESSING PROCEDURES SAYING FOR YOUR APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE. HERE IS EVERYTHING THAT IS REQUIRED AND THEN YOU COULD ESTABLISH COMPREHENSIVE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU THINK IS IMPORTANT.

A LOT OF CITIES BELIEVE THAT PROTECTING RELATING TO RF EMISSIONS IS IMPORTANT.

CIVIL ESTABLISH A NUMBER OF PROCEDURES RELATING TO THAT.

YOUR ORDINANCE COULD ALSO LAY OUT A HIERARCHY OF DESIGNS, HIERARCHY OF LOCATIONS.

ESSENTIALLY, THE THINGS THAT YOUR POLICY ALREADY DOES, IT WOULD JUST FLUSH IT OUT.

AND THEN. SO THERE'S MY COMIC STRIP THAT I LIKE.

IT SAYS AT LEAST THEY NO LONGER LOOK LIKE CELL PHONE TOWERS, SO YOU CAN DEMAND THAT THEY LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO LOOK LIKE.

IF YOU WANT THEM TO LOOK LIKE CARROTS, YOU CAN OR YOU CAN GO WITH YOUR STANDARD DESIGNS, WHICH IS PROBABLY MORE TYPICAL.

ARE THERE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THE DISTANCE THAT THESE RADIO WAVES TRAVEL.

FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU WANTED TO BLOCK ONE SIDE OF IT TO KEEP IT FROM, SAY, ENTERING INTO A SCHOOL GROUND, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO THAT? SO SO THERE ARE A FEW THINGS.

NUMBER ONE IS, AS YOU'RE AWARE, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REGULATE BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE FACILITY.

SO WE CANNOT SAY, OH, WE THINK THAT'S DANGEROUS.

WELL, WE CAN'T DO IS IT'S CLEAR THAT WE CAN REGULATE HOW THEY APPEAR AND WE CAN MANDATE THAT THEY COMPLY WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.

SO WHATEVER THOSE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ARE, WE HOLD THEM TO THAT.

THANK YOU. YES. THE EXISTING TECHNOLOGY ON OUR CELL TOWERS IS A 40 WANT HALF MILE RADIUS IN A TYPICAL EXAMPLE.

THAT'S TRUE. AND THEN WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR CELL PHONE, YOU JUST HOPE IT REACHES UP TO THE HEIGHT THAT WHEREVER THAT THAT REACHES SO YOU CAN CONNECT THIS.

AND THEN THE NEW NEWER IS IS 5 WATTS WITH A RANGE OF FIVE HUNDRED YARDS.

HERE'S A FIVE FIVE HUNDRED FEET.

OK. SO ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID WAS CO-LOCATING I THINK WAS THE TERM USED.

YES. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU PUT HIM BACK TO BACK WHERE YOU ONE GOES THIS WAY AND ONE GOES THIS WAY OR SO? SO HOW DID 80 DEGREES.

I ALMOST REGRET POINTING THAT OUT BECAUSE THAT IS THE RARE INSTANCE.

THAT IS. NINETY NINE PERCENT OF THE TIME THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

OF COURSE, THE THINGS THAT SPARKED MY INTEREST ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT.

SO A TYPICAL EXAMPLE WOULD IF A SMALL CELL FACILITY IS GOING TO BE INSTALLED, A TYPICAL FACILITY MIGHT BE ESSENTIALLY YOU PUT IN ALONG THE STREET, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU THEY WOULD PROPOSE TO PUT IN A NEW LIGHT POLE WITH WITH THE ANTENNAS ON TOP.

AND IT WOULD LOOK JUST LIKE ANY OTHER LIGHT POLE UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS A REALLY DISCERNING EYE. AND I'VE I'VE BEEN DOING WIRELESS MATTERS FOR A LONG TIME.

AND I QUIZZED MY CHILDREN ON THIS.

AND EVEN THEY HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME FINDING THE WIRELESS FACILITY.

SO THEY KIND OF KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR NOW.

AND IT'S NO LONGER MUCH OF A GAME, BUT STILL.

SO AS FAR AS THE DESIGN, SO THERE'S WHAT'S CALLED THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.

ESSENTIALLY THE IF YOU DOUBLE THE DISTANCE, IF YOU IF YOU DOUBLE THE DISTANCE, YOU'RE

[00:30:02]

SO IF THE CONCERN IS RF EMISSIONS, ONCE YOU'RE A FEW FEET AWAY, YOU IF YOU'RE AT ONE FOOT AWAY COMPARED TO TWO FEET AWAY, YOU HAVE THE RADIATION, YOU'RE EIGHT FEET, FOUR FEET AWAY, EIGHT FEET AWAY, CETERA.

SO THE GREATEST CONCERN, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT RF EMISSION SAFETY.

BUT FRANKLY, THE GREATEST THREAT IS IF YOU'RE RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE POLE COMPARED TO IF YOU'RE 500 FEET AWAY. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A CELL TOWER THAT USUALLY THE ANTENNA IS 35, 40, 45 FEET IN THE AIR ON THE CELL TOWER.

CORRECT. AND THEN IT GOES OUT PRETTY MUCH ON A STRAIGHT LINE THAT IT DOESN'T RADIATE TO THE GROUND. AND.

AND HOW ACCURATE IS THAT? WELL, IT IT'S IT DOES GO TO THE GROUND, OBVIOUSLY.

OTHERWISE, YOUR CELL PHONE WOULDN'T WORK, RIGHT.

BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO THE TOWER UNLESS YOU HAVE ENOUGH POWER IN YOUR CELL PHONE TO GET IT UP TO 40 FEET.

RIGHT. SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, THESE ARE CLOSER AND THERE THEY'RE LESS POWERFUL.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AS POWERFUL.

YOU YOU PACK THEM IN AND ESSENTIALLY THEN THEY ALLOW THE TELECOM PROVIDERS TO FILL IN GAPS IN THEIR NETWORK. THIS AREA IS THE LOCATION WHERE WE SEE THE MOST DROPPED CALLS.

WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE ONE.

ANOTHER HUGE FACILITY COVERING EVERYTHING.

AGAIN, THOSE WILL STILL BE THERE.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THE UMBRELLA COVERAGE.

BUT RATHER, IT'S NOW THAT THIS IS WHERE THE HOLE IS.

LET'S FILL IN THAT HOLE. THANK YOU.

MOST OF THE RESIDENTS THAT I'VE TALKED TO ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE RADIOFREQUENCY AND THE SAFETY FACTOR. YES.

AND ALSO THE FACT WHERE THE ANTENNAS ARE AND HOW YOU CAN PLACE THEM.

SOUNDS LIKE THE GOVERNMENT IS JUST BASICALLY THERE, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANIES TAKING AWAY ALL OF OUR RIGHTS AS A LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES.

WHAT YOU'VE STATED AND NOW IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OPTIONS WHERE YOU CAN DO THE ORDINANCE AND YOU CAN DO SOME OTHER THINGS THAT YOU CAN MAKE A DUBSTEP PROGRAM TO WHERE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS, WHETHER IT BE THE CHILDREN OR SENIORS, AND THEN ALL OF US IN THE MIDDLE.

OF COURSE, I'M A SENIOR, SO WHATEVER.

BUT THAT'S THE FACT.

AND THEN ALSO OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE MOSTLY CONCRETE POLES, MOSTLY CONCRETE POLES IN OUR AREA THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE THAT IS JUST THE FACT THAT THE SAFETY, THE WIND FACTOR, WE DON'T GET A LOT OF WIND BEGNAUD SHEAR AND STRENGTH AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT THEY SUPPORT THOSE MECHANISMS. THE BIGGEST THING IS THE SAFETY FACTOR WHERE THEY'RE POPULATED, WHETHER IT BE SCHOOLS, WHETHER IT BE MOBILE HOME COMMUNITIES OR WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE BIGGEST CONCERN. HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THAT TO PUT AN ORDINANCE IN EFFECT THAT'S, FIRST OF ALL, LEGAL AND AND AND THEN BASIS OF THE SHOT CLOCK ALSO.

SO NOT A BUNCH OF FACTORS HERE.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE WE'VE GOT SOME REAL CONCERNED CITIZENS.

I'VE READ UP ON IT. IT'S A SCARY PROPOSITION.

THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT, ESPECIALLY THE FCC AND REGULATIONS.

AND WE'VE GOT SOME BIG CONCERNS.

SO WHAT YOU CAN DO IS YOU YOU CAN'T PROHIBIT THEM OUTRIGHT.

SO BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER IS YOU CAN DESIGN YOUR HIERARCHY TO MAKE IT SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DIFFICULT IN THE LOCATIONS IN TOWN WHERE YOU REALLY DON'T WANT THEM AND TO AND TO MAKE IT EASIER IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN.

NOW THAT THAT'S THE TRADEOFF, IF TO MAKE IT LESS APPEALING SOMEWHERE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT MORE APPEALING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO THE QUESTION IS, WHERE ARE YOU? OKAY. MAKING IT MORE APPEALING? THAT'S THAT'S THE TRADEOFF.

BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE NO PREFERENCES, THEN EVERYTHING'S THE SAME AND THEY'RE JUST GOING TO PUT THEM WHEREVER THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THEM.

SO WHAT A LOT OF CITIES WILL DO IS THEY WILL HAVE A HIERARCHY IN THE CITY ALREADY HAS ONE WHICH YOU MAY WANT TO TWEAK OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL ABOUT WHAT AREAS IN TOWN WOULD BE THE BEST TO PRESERVE.

TYPICALLY, IT'S COMMON PRACTICE THAT THE MOST PROTECTED AREAS ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, NEIGHBORHOODS, BECAUSE AESTHETICALLY IT'S JUST DISCORDANT TO HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON THAT.

AND IT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE.

AND TO BE CLEAR THAT IT'S BASED ON AESTHETICS.

WE CANNOT BE REGULATING.

WE CANNOT BE MAKING OUR DETERMINATIONS BASED ON WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THE RESIDENTS. SO THEREFORE, WE WANT TO HAVE IT IN A COMMERCIAL AREA INSTEAD OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA. BUT CLEARLY, WE CAN DO IT BASED ON AESTHETIC REASONS AND IT TRULY NEEDS TO BE BASED ON AESTHETIC REASONS. IT CAN'T BE.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS FOR US STATICS.

NO, BECAUSE COURTS SEE RIGHT THROUGH THAT.

[00:35:02]

WELL, WHAT THEY REALLY MET IS THE PERCEIVED HEALTH EFFECTS OF RF EMISSIONS LEAD TO BY DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES.

SO COURTS HAVE SAID THAT THAT IS NOT A BASIS WHERE YOU CAN REGULATE IS BASED ON AESTHETICS. AND IT'S COMPLETELY REASONABLE TO SAY CERTAIN TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE IN A RIGHT OF WAY IN A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE RATHER THAN IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. ABSOLUTELY.

WELL, THAT'S THE THING. MY BIGGEST THING IS THE FACT THAT I'M NOT AGAINST TECHNOLOGY AT ALL, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL BASED ON TECHNOLOGY.

I MEAN, WE DO THINGS NOW THAT WE NEVER COULD DO BEFORE.

10 YEARS AGO AND 15 YEARS AGO, I USED A TYPEWRITER.

WELL, THAT'S LIKE THAT'S GONE NOW.

BUT THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

WORKING WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT WORKS WITH OUR CITY.

SO. SCOTT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HIERARCHY.

I MEAN BY CELL PHONE COMPANY, I MEAN, COME IN AND SAY, WELL, THE PROBLEM AND LA VERNE IS THE FAR FLUNG RESIDENCES THAT WANT TO CONNECT.

AND THAT'S THAT'S WHERE WE NEED OUR SIGNAL BOOST.

THERE MAY BE SOME INDUSTRIAL AREAS WHERE THESE THINGS MIGHT BE PRETTIER, BUT IF THEY HAD A RANGE OF FIVE HUNDRED FEET, THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S GOING WELL.

AND THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHY WE CAN'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT FLAT OUT PROHIBITS THEM. BECAUSE REMEMBER, THE OVERARCHING RULE IS WE CANNOT EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT THE DEPLOYMENT OF THESE SERVICES.

NOW WE CAN ENCOURAGE THEM TO GO OTHER PLACES.

WE CAN MAKE THEIR LIFE MORE DIFFICULT, BUT WE CANNOT EFFECTIVELY HAVE PROHIBITED THEM FROM PROVIDING SERVICE.

SO WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN FIGURE OUT WAYS TO WORK WITHIN THAT.

SO YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A HARD AND FAST.

OVER MY DEAD BODY. NEVER, EVER WILL WE EVER ALLOW THESE IN THIS X ZONE.

BUT YOU CAN SAY, BUT EVERY OTHER ZONE PUT IT THERE FIRST.

AND IF EVERYTHING ELSE FAILS, OK, FINE.

THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO. WELL, SO TO CLARIFY, IN THE END, THE LOOKING AT THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES, IF THAT IS IN FACT IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE OUR TOPOGRAPHY CHALLENGES EXIST, WE'VE GOT BETTER LINE OF SIGHT AND A LOT OF OUR COMMERCIAL AREA AND THROUGH THE WHOLE TOWN. BUT WHERE WE HAVE THE FOOTHILLS AND A LOT OF THAT AREA IS IN THE RESIDENTIAL.

SO LIKELY IF THERE'S GOING TO BE APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED, EVEN IF WE PAVED THIS PATH, THAT REALLY MAKES IT EASY.

YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE STILL HAVE TO LEAVE THAT DOOR OPEN IF THEY SAY THIS IS WHERE OUR COVERAGE ISSUES ARE, LIKE BOB WAS SAYING, WE HAVE TO LEAVE A PATH FOR THAT, EVEN IF IT'S GOT A LOT OF CHALLENGES AND CORRECT WHEEDLED, WE LEAVE A PATH AND WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. HOPEFULLY THEY TAKE A DIFFERENT PATH.

WE HAVE TO ALLOW THE PATH IN IN THAT PATH IS FAIRLY SHALLOW IN THE SENSE THAT WHILE YOU WERE SAYING THAT WE COULD ENTICE THEM WITH LOWER FEES IN CERTAIN AREAS, THE CEILING'S STILL GOING TO BE A HUNDRED BUCKS.

WELL, AND IT'S 100 BUCKS, SOME OF A FACILITY AT THAT MOST EXPENSIVE PLACES, AND THEN WE JUST HAVE TO REDUCE IT FROM 100 TO SOMETHING SO ATTRACTIVE, I THINK, TO DRAW THEM TO WHERE WE WANT THEM TO BE.

SO THERE MAY BE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FINANCIALLY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR DRIVER BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S SUCH A SMALL DOLLAR VALUE. AND PRESUMABLY I WOULD EXPECT THAT OUR FEES, FRANKLY, WILL BE MORE THAN HUNDRED DOLLARS BECAUSE WE'RE ALLOWED TO CHARGE OUR ACTUAL REASONABLE COSTS.

AND SO THEN THE FCC PRESUMES THAT IF IT'S MORE THAN A HUNDRED DOLLARS, THAT'S UNREASONABLE OF FURTHER APPLICATION FEES, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN RENT.

BRAGGING ABOUT APPLICATION PROCESSING FEES.

BUT FOR RENT, AGAIN, THEY HAVE VERY LOW NUMBERS.

AND OFFHAND, I WANT TO SAY IT'S $270 PER YEAR, I BELIEVE IS THE NUMBER.

I CAN DOUBLE CHECK IF YOU CARE.

BUT SO RENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS COULD BE HIGHER OR DISCOURAGES THEM TOO.

BUT THAT'S STILL SO AGAIN, STILL GOING TO COMPETE WITH THEIR DESIRE FOR COVERAGE VERSUS SO DOLLAR INCENTIVES WILL NOT BE MUCH IN THE WAY OF INCENTIVES, RIGHT? [INAUDIBLE] CORRECT EITHER WAY.

BUT WHAT.

IS USEFUL, THE CARROT AND STICK APPROACH IS YOU STREAMLINE THROUGH A MINISTERIAL PROCESS, STAFF IS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO APPROVE DESIGNS THAT LOOK LIKE THIS IN LOCATIONS THAT MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.

POOF, DONE.

AND MAYBE THAT WILL SAVE THEM, AT LEAST ON SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS AND THEN THE OTHER APPLICATIONS, WHICH QUITE FRANKLY, SOME WILL BECOMING FOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND NO MATTER WHAT WE MAY WANT TO DO, THERE ARE GOING TO COME.

CORRECT. SO THE WAY TO ENSURE THAT AT LEAST WE HAVE SOME REGULATION IS TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE.

[00:40:29]

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE NOW TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO MAKE COMMENTS.

[5. PUBLIC COMMENTS/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - This is the time set aside for anyone wishing to address the City Council on items not listed in any other place on the agenda. Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the legislative body is prohibited from talking or engaging in discussion on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. However, your concerns may be referred to staff or set for discussion at a later date. Any person desiring to speak should complete a ‘Speaker Card,’ located at the podium, and hand it to the Assistant City Clerk. When addressing the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address for the record. The Mayor reserves the right to place limits on duration of comments.]

SO CAN I SEE A SHOW OF HANDS? WHO'S WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TO ANYBODY ELSE? OK, SO THREE.

OK, SO MAYBE ABOUT SIX MINUTES APIECE.

HAVE FUN. IF YOU CAN.

AND THEN SO WILL IF YOU COME TO THE PODIUM AND I SAW YOUR HAND UP FIRST SEARCH, I WANTED TO COME ON UP. AND MR. MAYOR, IF I COULD POINT OUT, SINCE WE ARE WEBCASTING, WE ONLY HAVE ONE MIKE THAT KIND OF WORKS IN THAT AREA. SO WE WILL BE ALLOWING COMMENT IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS AFTER WE'RE DONE WITH ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND WE HAVE TIME. WE'LL CERTAINLY ASK STAFF TO ANSWER OTHERWISE.

IT'S JUST TAKING INPUT FOR YOU AT THIS POINT.

GREAT. THANK YOU. YES.

YOUR NAME, SIR.

IT WAS ONLINE THAT WE.

HE CALLED THE NAME OF THE COMPANY.

THERE THERE WERE IT WAS THERE WAS A PLANNING COMMISSION THAT HAD A HEARING AND IT WAS APPROVED. AND THEN IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CELL TOWER COMPANY WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION. SO ALONG WITH THAT.

THE NEW CELL TOWERS WILL BE.

SO THAT'S OFF THE TABLE NOW.

YES, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PULLED THEIR APPLICATION.

OH, YEAH, THAT'S WHY THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WHY I BY THERE AND WORKING ON THAT.

SO WHY ARE THEY ON MY ANKLE? THIS IS ABOUT HELP.

THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE.

AND I ACTUALLY DID SOME RESEARCH TODAY ON.

I WANT YOU GUYS TO TAKE THIS PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH AND MAYBE SOMETIME READ IT AND SEE WHAT THE ACTUAL HEALTH BENEFITS ARE.

HEALTH HAZARDS ARE.

I KNOW I CAME BE HERE EARLIER.

ONE GENTLEMAN SAID I WAS WASTING MY TIME ON THIS, BUT I STILL FEEL BETTER NOT SAY THAT.

AND FINALLY GAVE THAT TO YOUR ANNUAL LEASE.

LOOK AT IT AND READ IT AND SEE MOST OF THE RESEARCH IT SAYS.

NO PROBLEMS COME FROM COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

ONLY DEAL WITH THE HEAT THAT'S COMING FROM THE RADIATION.

BUT EUROPE, INDIA, SAUDI ARABIA, THEY'RE COMING UP WITH A LOT BETTER RESEARCH ON HUMANS ON THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF THESE RADIATIONS AND THIS ARTICLE HERE.

THE FIRST PART'S A LITTLE DRY.

THERE'S MORE SCIENTIFIC.

BUT ACTUALLY GET INTO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO THE STUDIES.

YOU'LL GET AN IDEA ON SCIENCE ONE AFTER THE GENTLEMEN'S FALL.

I THOUGHT LOTS OF HEALTH HAZARDS AND THAT WOULD HELP THE JOB WITH THE CITY COUNCILS WOULD BE HELPING TO HELP TAKE CARE OF THOSE MEMBERS OF THE CITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

DRESS UP SHOP.

I SAY THAT MY.

THANK YOU.

SPEAK UP A LITTLE, PLEASE.

[00:45:02]

WE ALREADY HAVE THAT.

5G IS FOR THE INTERNET OF THINGS, SMART CITIES, SELF-DRIVING CARS, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, ALL OF THAT.

WE DON'T NEED THAT SO BAD TO RISK OUR HEALTH FOR.

AND 5G IS NOT LIKE 4G.

5G IS BEAM FORMING.

IT IS A MIL MILLIMETER WAVE TECHNOLOGY THAT IS USED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR ACTIVE DENIAL SYSTEM.

THAT IS A MILITARY GRADE WEAPON.

SO HERE'S IS NOT.

IN 1986, PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNED A TELECOMMUNICATION ACT INTO LAW.

WHEN THESE GUIDELINES WERE DEVELOPED, THE CELL PHONE WAS THE SIZE OF A BRICK AND ONLY FOR VOICE CALLS. THE TIMES HAVE CHANGED, BUT THE LAWS HAVE NOT.

SECTION 7 0 4 THE TELECOMMUNICATION ACT STATES NO HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN CAN INTERFERE WITH THE PLACEMENT OF TELECOM EQUIPMENT.

THIS IS HOW OUR RIGHTS WERE TAKEN AWAY BY THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY.

WHAT THE LEGISLATION DOES DOES IS GIVE THE POWER TO REGULATE WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES TO THE FCC. THE FCC IS A SPECTRUM AUCTIONING AGENCY.

IT IS NOT A HEALTH AGENCY.

THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE ONE BIOMEDICAL PERSON ON THEIR TEAM.

IT IS IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT THE FCC IS DOMINATED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY. THERE IS A REVOLVING DOOR BETWEEN THE INDUSTRY AND THE REGULATORS, LIKE THE FOX GUARDING THE HENHOUSE.

SECTION 7 0 4 TOOK THE POWER FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE THE LOCATION OF CELL TOWERS BASED ON HEALTH.

THAT MEANS THAT IF WE WON'T IF THEY WANT TO PUT A CELL TOWER IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE, WE CAN'T SAY WE DON'T WANT IT.

WE CAN'T SAY I'M WORRIED BECAUSE I'M NEGATIVE HEALTH RISKS.

WE CAN'T COME HERE TO YOU GUYS.

AND BECAUSE IF YOU DENY IT, BASED ON THE HEALTH, THE CITY WILL GET SUED BY THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY. HOWEVER, WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH CONCERNS.

WE'RE NOT HERE FOR ANY OTHER REASON, BUT THE HEALTH CONCERNS AND THERE ARE WITH THE RF RADIATION BEAM FORMING AT US 24/7.

WE ARE ALL AWARE OF THE NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS.

AND IF YOU ARE NOT, THERE'S PLENTY OF MEDICAL RESEARCH OUT THERE TO PROVE IT.

AND IF IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED, YOU CAN REACH OUT TO ME AND I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SEND YOU ALL THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE BASED ON THE HEALTH CONCERNS.

SO WE ARE HERE AND WE ARE LOOKING AT YOU AS OUR CITY LEADERS.

AND WE'RE ASKING YOU, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO FOR US? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE SURE OUR COMMUNITY IS SAFE FROM THIS TECHNOLOGY? WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT THIS TECHNOLOGY IN, LA VERNE? LET'S START WITH MUNICIPAL CODE RESOLUTION OR AN ORDINANCES THAT WILL PROTECT US, AT LEAST WHEN THE WIRELESS COMPANIES COME IN.

THEY DON'T HAVE A FREE FOR ALL AND GET TO PUT THE CELL TOWER WHEREVER THEY WANT.

LET'S LOOK AT FIBER OPTIC CABLE CONNECTION.

DON'T WE ALREADY HAVE THAT TECHNOLOGY? WHAT HAPPENED TO US? COPPER LANDLINES THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SWITCHED OVER TO FIBER OPTIC TO THE HOME. THE TRUTH IS THAT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO MOVE DATA FROM POINT A TO POINT B IS BY FIBER OPTIC CABLE.

THE INTERNET CONNECTION WILL BE SAFER, BETTER, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, NO HEALTH RISKS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH FIBER OPTIC CABLE.

IF WE TRULY CANNOT APPROACH THIS TECHNOLOGY WITH FIBER OPTIC CABLE, WE NEED TO HAVE AN OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR WHO IS NOT INDUSTRY MOTIVATED TO SHOW SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS THAT PROVES THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT GAP IN COVERAGE.

THE SIGNIFICANT GAP IN COVERAGE MUST BE ONLY FOR VOICE CALLS IF RESIDENTS CAN CURRENTLY MAKE A CALL WHERE THE ANTENNAS ARE PROPOSED.

THEN THERE IS NO GAP ONCE A SIGNIFICANT GAP IN COVERAGE IS PROVEN.

THEN THE WIRELESS COMPANY LOOKS AND PUTS THE ANTENNA IN THE AREAS THAT ARE NOT PROHIBITED BY OUR LOCAL LAWS AND RESOLUTIONS ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2019.

THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN CASE 18 DASH 1 0 5 1.

THE RULING MEANS THAT FCC NO LONGER REGULATES THE INTERNET, WEB PAGES, VIDEO MUSIC STREAMING, ONLINE GAMING AND OTHER INFORMATION SERVICES.

THEREFORE, BIG WIRELESS HAS NO PREEMPTION TO INSTALL OR OPERATE PERSONAL WIRELESS FACILITIES THAT EMIT WIRELESS INFORMATION SERVICES TRANSMISSIONS IN ANY IMMEDIATE MUNICIPALITY IN THE UNITED STATES.

THIS ALSO MEANS THAT THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY ONLY HAS PREEMPTION TO PLACE, CONSTRUCT AND MODIFY PERSONAL WIRELESS FACILITIES FOR WIRELESS TRANSMIT.

MEETING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, VOICE TRANSMISSIONS.

A PROVEN LACK OF SIGNIFICANT COVER GAP IN VOICE TRANSMISSION COVERAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR IN WHETHER OR NOT TO SIGN AN UNNECESSARY ACCOMMODATION AGREEMENT.

BECAUSE RESIDENTS CAN CURRENTLY MAKE CALLS WHERE THE ANTENNAS ARE PROPOSED, THEN THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS, LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS.

IS THE WIRELESS SITE LOCATION AND DESIGN? THAT MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS TO THE LOCAL VALUES AND STILL FILLS IN THE SIGNIFICANT,

[00:50:03]

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND EPA REQUIRES AN ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS.

ANYONE WISHING TO CONSTRUCT A FACILITY THAT USES AN FCC LICENSE MUST SUBMIT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO THE FCC OR CERTIFICATION THAT THE FACILITY IS CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED. HERE IS A FACT SHEET.

I HAVE A FACT SHEET HERE FOR YOU FROM THE FCC REGARDING THE NBPA ON JANUARY 17 THAT YOU REGULATORS APPEARED BEFORE THE U.S.

DISTRICT COURT IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

TO ARGUE THE FCC HAS PURSUED IT, FACILITATED ONE OF THE BIGGEST ACCOUNTING SCANDALS IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS CASE COULD RESULT IN RECONSTRUCTING THE DOT COM INDUSTRY AND SHAPING THE CURRENT PUSH FOR 4G 5G DENSIFICATION IN NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. PUBLIC WIDE AWAKE CONTRACTS SHOULD BE CONDITIONAL AND TERMINATE IF LITIGATION RESULTS IN TERMINATING NEW FCC RULES.

WIRELESS FACILITY CONTRACTURES SAID TWO BARS, ONE FOR FCC RULES AND ONE IF FCC RULES DO NOT. SUSAN, ARE YOU GETTING CLOSE TO BEING COMPLETED? NO. GREAT. THANK YOU.

WHAT'S THE REASON THE CITY PURCHASED LIGHT POLES FROM EDISON? THE LIABILITY IS HUGE FOR THE CITY TO ALLOW A PRIVATE ANTENNA ON THEIR PRIVATE ON THEIR PROPERTY. YOU SHOULD NEVER ALLOW A PRIVATE ANTENNA TO BE INSTALLED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.

ALSO, EXTRA COMMUNITIES THEY PULLED OUT FROM THE CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.

SO DOES THAT MEAN WE ARE NO LONGER IN CONTRACT WITH THEM? WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY MARKETING OUR CITY FOR.

THAT'S GOOD. ONE LAST THING.

DO WE HAVE A APPLICATION FOR OUR CITY THAT WE USE FOR THESE CARRIERS TO APPLY OR DO THEY JUST SEND AN EMAIL SAYING WE WANT TO PUT A CELL TOWER IN THE CITY? AND AND THAT'S IT.

I RIGHT. ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

SUSAN, THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

I APPRECIATE IT. YOU HAVE WELL-BEHAVED KIDS.

YOUR KIDS ARE WELL BEHAVED, SUZANNE.

NICE JOB. OK.

SO IF WE COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED.

THE MIKE IS GETTING MOVE BACK.

I'LL ASK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE FOR ME AND THEN I'LL THROW IT BACK OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU.

AS IT RELATES TO PROBABLY THE LAST FOUR QUESTIONS THAT ARE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR ME AS IT RELATES TO THE REASON FOR THE DIPOLES, WE WE STARTED PURSUING THAT MORE THAN SIX YEARS AGO AS AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY EFFORT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THEM TO LOWER THE THE ELECTRICITY COSTS BY PUTTING THEM UNDER OUR RESPONSIBILITY OVER BEING WITH EDISON AND THEN ALSO CONVERTING THEM TO L.E.D..

THIS OPPORTUNITY OR THE WHOLE FIVE G._P._S JUST KIND OF CAME INTO PLACE.

WHILE THAT PROCESS WAS GOING ON, WASN'T EVEN CONTEMPLATED AS PART OF THE REASON EXCUSE ME, AS YOU MENTIONED AND YES, IN THE BEGINNING, THAT CONTRACT HAS BEEN EXPIRED BY X G.

AT THIS POINT WE DO NOT HAVE AN APPLICATION PROCESS BECAUSE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE OUR CONDUIT FOR PROCESSING APPLICATIONS.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO IS DECIDE WHAT PROCESS IS IT THAT WE WANT TO DO? SHOULD WE GET THE REQUEST FOR AN APPLICATION? BECAUSE THAT SHOT CLOCK IS LIMITED AND WE HAVE HAD THAT ENQUIRY, NOT AN APPLICATION.

WE HAVE NO APPLICATION SUBMITTED AT THIS POINT.

BUT IT WAS WHAT PROMPTED THE NEED FOR THIS STUDY SESSION TO GET SOME GENERAL DIRECTION ON HOW WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD.

THE CURRENT POLICY DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A LOT OF THE OPPORTUNITIES OR ABILITIES WE HAVE TO RESTRICT, BUT NONETHELESS, WE WANTED TO ALSO GET INPUT.

SHOULD WE BE PURSUING AN ORDINANCE THAT KIND OF MIRRORS A LOT OF THAT, BUT PUTS A LOT MORE TEETH INTO IT? WITH THAT, I WILL THROW IT OVER AND ASK TO RESPOND TO A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT MISS MORALES HAD REGARDING THE COURT RULINGS, FIBER OPTICS, THE GAP IN COVERAGE BEING APPLICABLE ONLY TO VOICE. AND SCOTT, IF YOU COULD.

SO IT'S NOT ON.

[00:55:04]

STEP NUMBER ONE. IS THERE A SIGNIFICANT GAP IN COVERAGE? AND IF SO.

AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD US.

YEAH. STEP NUMBER TWO IS.

THE LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS THAT WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IS THE LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS OF FILLING THAT GAP. THAT IS NO LONGER THE TEST.

THE TEST IS NOW WHAT I DISCUSSED VISITATION.

THE TEST IS WHETHER IT'S HERE EARLY IN A DEPLOYMENT.

WE SERVE. SO ALTHOUGH IT'S CERTAINLY BENEFICIAL TO UNDERSTAND THE BACKGROUND, I WAS TRYING TO NOT TALK ABOUT THE SECOND TEST.

AND SHE'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT RIGHT NOW TELECOM PROVIDERS ARE NOT.

THEY DON'T HAVE A WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE A SIGNIFICANT GAP IN THEIR OWN COVERAGE IN THE SENSE OF. YES, YOU CAN GET TELEPHONE COVERAGE, BUT NOW.

NOW WE'VE GOT SO SO NOW IT'S WORK.

AND SHE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THESE ARE THESE OTHER SERVICES.

THEREFORE, THINGS OTHER THAN JUST ONCE.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR REGULATION IS ANY DIFFERENT.

IT'S STILL COVERED BY FEDERAL LAW.

AND, YOU KNOW, TONIGHT I COME AWAY FROM THESE MEETINGS AND SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THINK THAT I'M THE BEARER OF BAD, YOU KNOW, SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

YOU KNOW, I'M JUST THE MESSENGER.

THIS IS WHAT THE LAW IS NOT GOOD OR BAD.

IT'S THE LAW. COVER EVERYTHING? I BELIEVE SO, AND THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT BLOWING OFF THE SAFETY CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED, AND I WANT TO AT LEAST ASSURE THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE HAVE WE HAVE TO PUT A PROCESS IN PLACE.

WE CANNOT USE SAFETY AS A REASON TO TO DENY THESE IS WHAT I THINK WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH.

I HEAR A LOT OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS SAYING, BUT THAT'S OUR CONCERN, ECHO, THAT WE JUST HAVE BEEN TOLD. YOU DON'T GET THE ABILITY TO REGULATE THAT.

AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIND WHAT IS THAT BALANCE? LISTENING TO THOSE CONCERNS.

AND WE HAVE TO KEEP IT KIND OF WITHIN THE AESTHETICS.

IS THE PRIMARY AREA THAT I'M HEARING.

WE HAVE OUR BEST OPPORTUNITY, BUT NOT DENIAL.

JUST TO DESIGN, CRAFT YOUR ORDINANCE, YOU CAN JUST MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CLEAN.

FRANKLY, THE CITY WILL BE BETTER PROTECTED WITH AN ORDINANCE THAN YOU ARE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE CAN BUILD OUT SOME OF THOSE RF COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE DON'T HAVE SIMPLY BY WITH OUR CURRENT POLICY.

OK. ANYTHING.

ANYTHING ELSE, ERIC? [LAUGHING] IF THAT'S THE GOAL.

YES. I HAVE SUGGESTED IN DISCUSSIONS, SCOTT, THAT I THINK THE CITY WANTS AS TOUGH AN ORDINANCE RETAINING AS MUCH DISCRETION AND JURISDICTION AS WE CAN WITHOUT GETTING OURSELVES INTO EXPENSIVE LITIGATION.

GOOD. OKAY.

IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING.

A LOT OF THE LAWS ARE COMING DOWN FOR LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES LIKE US THAT THEY TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS AS A CITY TO TO CONTROL THINGS.

AND WHETHER IT'S STATE OR FEDERAL MANDATED, I THINK THE BIGGEST THING IS THE SAFETY CONCERN. AND I REALLY, AS RESIDENTS OF THIS GREAT UNITED STATES, THAT THE LOBBYISTS THAT COME IN WITH THESE TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANIES HAVE ONE THING IN MIND, AND THAT'S SPLATTERING THEIR INFORMATION SO THEY CAN SELL THEIR PRODUCTS BASICALLY AND PUSH, PUSH INFORMATION. SO AS RESIDENTS, WE NEED TO STAND UP AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING HEARD THAT THE SAFETY OF US AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE END UP BEING.

I YOU KNOW, WE WE HAVE A PRIMARY ELECTION COMING.

I MEAN, YOU HAVE LOCAL CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS THAT THAT DO LISTEN TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES. AND I THINK THIS IS A HOT BUTTON.

IT'S NOT JUST HERE IS LIKE AS YOU STATED, IT'S NOT THE UNITED STATES OR LITTLE QUIET ON IT. BUT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, IT'S A BIG ISSUE.

IT'S A VERY BIG ISSUE. AND THAT CONCERNS ME.

BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE PERSON, TWO PEOPLE, THREE PEOPLE, YOU NEED TO TALK TO YOUR LOCAL LOCAL CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS AND SAY, HEY, WE HAVE AN ISSUE.

THEY'RE TAKING AWAY A LOT OF OUR RIGHTS AS OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES HERE.

[01:00:02]

MIC] STATE, LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IMPOSES THEIR WILL ON CITY COUNCILS AND THEN WE HAVE TO.

EXCUSE ME. I'M TALKING TO YOU AND TELLING YOU THAT WE CAN'T FIGHT STATE WITH ALL THE DEMOCRATS THAT ARE IN POWER RIGHT NOW.

IT'S A SUPER MAJORITY.

THEY ONLY COME TO US TO VOTE.

THAT'S ALL I'M TELLING YOU.

WE'RE RIGHT AT THE MERCY OF THAT GOVERNMENT.

AND WHEN IT COMES TO US, WE JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY TELL US WE HAVE.

OK. ONE MORE THING THAT AND THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN THIS STUDY SESSION IS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CELL PHONES AND AND NOT HAVING A LANDLINE. SO I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE THINGS IS SAFETY, BUT ALSO THE HEALTH OF OUR RESIDENTS THAT CALL 9-1-1.

WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTACT THE 9-1-1 CARRIERS.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS.

SO THE STUDY SESSION IS OVER.

THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6:30.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.