* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          GOOD 
          [00:00:01]
EVENING. 
          WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING JUNE 8TH, 2021. 
          UH, DUE TO COVID, UH, REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN LIEU OF ATTENDING THE MEETING IN PERSON MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS VIA EMAIL OR ADDRESS OR ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY TELEPHONE. 
          USING METHODS DESCRIBED BELOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE CITY CLERK VIA EMAIL AT PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT WEST COVINA. 
          I'M SORRY@PLANNING_DEPTATWESTCOMINA.ORG. 
          THE SUBJECT LINE SHOULD SPECIFY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS DASH THREE SLASH 25 SLASH 2021. 
          PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS IN YOUR EMAIL. 
          ALL EMAILS RECEIVED BY 5:00 PM. 
          ON THE DAY OF THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE POSTED TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE UNDER CURRENT MEETINGS, AGENDAS AND PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          PRIOR TO THE MEETING, NO COMMENTS WILL BE READ OUT LOUD DURING THE MEETING. 
          ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE START OF THE MEETING WILL BE MADE PART OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE MEETING. 
          UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS, ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION, ANY PERSON WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER LISTED ON THE AGENDA OR ON ANY MATTER WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION IS ASKED TO COMPLETE A SPEAKER CARD THAT IS PROVIDED ON THE SPEAKER PODIUM AND SUBMIT THE CARD TO A PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF MEMBER. 
          PLEASE IDENTIFY ON THE SPEAKER CARD, WHETHER YOU ARE SPEAKING ON THE AGENDA ITEM ON OR NON-AGENDA ITEM REQUEST TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE HEARD DURING THE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF THE AGENDA, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ARE LIMITED TO 30 MINUTES. 
          GENERALLY, GENERALLY COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES PER SPEAKER, UNLESS UNLESS TIME IS GRANTED TO THE CHAIRPERSON, THE CHAIR PERSON MAY ALSO AT HIS OR HER DISCRETION FURTHER LIMIT THE TIME OF EACH SPEAKER IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE A LARGE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS AND OR TO ENSURE THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS EFFECTIVELY CONDUCTED ANY TESTIMONY OR COMMENTS REGARDING THE MATTER SET FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HEARD DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT ITEM. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING, SO WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AND WE WILL TAKE A MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER OR MEDITATION, UM, FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 
           PLEASE LEAVE. 
           THANK YOU. 
          PAULINA, WILL YOU ROLL CALL, UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ COMMISSIONER, HANG UP. 
          TARA LEWIS. 
          YEAH, KARA BESERA. 
          YEAH. 
          [1. Regular meeting, May 25, 2021]
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES OF MAY 25TH TO 2021 HEARING NONE? THE MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2021 ARE APPROVED AND SUBMITTED. 
          THIS IS THE TIME WHEN ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER WITHIN THE SCOPE OF DUTIES ASSIGNED TO THE COMMISSION RELATING TO NON AGENDIZED OR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS. OTHER MATTERS INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA MAY BE ADDRESSED WHEN THAT ITEM IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, THE CHAIRPERSON MAY IMPOSE REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON PUBLIC COMMENTS TO 
          [00:05:01]
ASSURE AN ORDERLY AND TIMELY MEETING THE RALPH AND BROWN ACT LIMITS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF ABILITY TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS MEETING. 
          THUS, YOUR COMMENTS MAY BE AGENDIZED FOR A FUTURE MEETING OR REFER TO STAFF. 
          THE COMMISSION MAY ASK FOR CLARIFICATION IF DESIRED AT THIS TIME BY POLICY OF THE COMMISSION OR COMMUNICATIONS AT THIS TIME ON THE AGENDA IS LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES PERSONS WHO ARE NOT AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME MAY DO SO UNDER CONTINUATION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS LATER ON THE AGENDA. 
          AND THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS TO SEE. 
          UM, 
          [2. FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2021-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FILING OFCONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN]
SO WE WILL GO STRAIGHT TO NON-HEARING ITEMS. PAULINA WILL REPRESENT THE FIRST NON-HEARING ITEM, UH, PHYSICAL YEAR, 2020, 2021, 2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, VIOLIN OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, UH, CHAIR SARAH, UM, UH, UH, JOANNE WILL BE PRESENTING THE STAFF REPORT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE WAS NO PUBLIC, UH, CARDS PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND NO ONE ON THE PHONE. 
          GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ALSO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IDENTIFIES THE PROPOSED PROJECTS OR PURCHASES, UM, OVER FISCAL YEAR 2021 THROUGH 2022, IN ORDER FOR THIS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS, UM, FOR THE CITY'S BUDGET, A DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST BE MADE THAT THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN. 
          AND BEFORE YOU, I WILL PRESENT THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UNDER THE CATEGORY OF BUILDING. 
          UM, THIS IS THE FIVE-YEAR FUNDING SCHEDULE, BY THE WAY, UM, UNDER THE CATEGORY OF BUILDINGS, UM, THE NEW PROJECTS INCLUDE THE 88 PUBLIC FACILITIES, THE DISPATCH CENTER, NEW ROOF, AND THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT, AND THE FUNDING FOR THAT IS IN THIS CATEGORY, UM, THAT I'M, AND I'M POINTING TO THIS THE 2021, 2022 ROW. 
          AS FAR AS THE GENERAL, THE GENERAL CATEGORY IS CONCERNED. 
          THE NEW PROJECTS, UM, WOULD INCLUDE THE SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS OF SCUBA POLICE AND FIRE PORTABLE AND MOBILE RADIOS, THE EKG, HEART MONITORS, AND THE, UM, AND SOME PROJECTS THAT ARE TO BE DETERMINED, UM, AND ALSO FINANCIAL SOFTWARE OR PARKS, THE GROUNDS AND FIELDS. 
          THE NEW PROJECTS WOULD BE THE LARK ELLEN PARK, UH, LARK ELLEN HOUSE DESIGN IN DEMOLITION SHADOW, OAK PARK, RESTROOM GALSOR PARK, PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS, THE FRIENDSHIP PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND THE WALNUT MOVADO PARK, NEW RESTROOMS. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT UNDER, UM, THERE'S AN ERROR IN THIS LIST INSTEAD OF ORANGE WOOD PARK GAS SHOULD BE WALMART AUTO PARK AND BE SHADOW OAK PARK AND P D E F IMPROVEMENTS OR REGIONAL. 
          THE NEW PROJECTS ARE ELOQUENT THAT ROAD FORECASTLE NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH. 
          UM, THIS IS IN, IT IS ENJOYING COOPERATION WITH THE CITY OF WALNUT AND THE LARK ALLEN AND GROVE CENTER, PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT WITH THE CITY OF OR SEWER. 
          THE NEW PROJECTS WOULD INCLUDE THE SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE THIS, THE IPP LINING PROGRAM, 
          [00:10:01]
THE SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT PORTIONS OF GLENVIEW ROAD, MICHELLE STREET, AND AZUSA AVENUE, THE SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT PORTIONS OF A AVENUE. 
          THE SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENTS INCLUDE PORTIONS OF CITRUS STREET IN THE SEWER SYSTEM CONTROLS AND POWER PROGRAM OR STREETS AND SIDEWALK. 
          THE NEW PROJECTS INCLUDE THE ANNUAL CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR PROGRAM, ANNUAL CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND STAMPED, CONCRETE REPLACEMENT, MEDIA AND LANDSCAPING, ADA CURB ACCESS RAMP PROGRAM, SIDEWALK ASSESSMENTS, AND REPAIR RESIDENTIAL STREET REHABILITATION, WHICH HAS AN ANNUAL PROGRAM, RESIDENTIAL SEAT, CDBG STREET IMPROVEMENTS, CATCH BASIN, CLEANING, AND STREET LIGHTS, LEDS CONVERSION PROGRAM, OR TRAFFIC SIGNALS. 
          THE NEW PROJECTS INCLUDE THE VIDEO DETECTION, WHICH IS GOING TO BE CITYWIDE, TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL REPLACEMENT, AND BACKUP BATTERY AND INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 
          AND THESE ARE THE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE IN CON FORMANTS WITH, UM, UM, ARE UNDER OUR PROSPEROUS COMMUNITY ACTION. 
          2.3 A AND POLICY 2.4 UNDER ACCESSIBLE COMMUNITY ACTION, 4.2 B UNDER OUR RESILIENT COMMUNITY ACTIONS, FIVE, A B FIVE AC AND POLICY 5.9 UNDER OUR ACTIVE COMMUNITY POLICY 8.8 ACTION, 8.88 AND ACTION, 8.8. 
          OKAY. 
          A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITIES AND ENGINEERING DIVISION IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO ANSWER ENGINEERING RELATED QUESTIONS, UNRELATED TO THE CIP WITH THIS. 
          UM, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION 21 DASH SIX ZERO EIGHT THREE, DETERMINING THAT THE FISCAL YEAR 2021, WHEN HE 22 CIP IS IN CORFU IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN. 
          IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS, STAFF IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER, WE WILL OPEN COMMISSION DISCUSSION. 
          OH, CAN YOU TELL CHAIR FOR SARAH? I DON'T KNOW IF HE WOULD LIKE TO, IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. 
          OKAY. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          UM, IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS MATTER, PLEASE COME FORWARD. 
          OH, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO. 
          WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU, YOU BROUGHT YOUR CHANCE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. 
          UM, AND I'M HOPING THAT IN THIS PROCESS, SOMEONE WILL ELABORATE ON THE PROPERTY ON BARK ALLEN, THAT THE STREET THAT WAS IDENTIFIED WITH THAT PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE PARK, THERE'S A CAMERA. 
          IN ANY CASE, JUST THE PR THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE CAMERON PARK. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS ON THAT MATRIX. 
          AND I WASN'T QUITE SURE AS TO WHAT THE PLAN IS. 
          IF IN FACT THIS IS RELATED TO ANY SORT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PARCEL, UM, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RESPOND, BUT IF SOMEONE CAN PLEASE TAKE UP THAT AMOUNT OF, I APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OPEN DISCUSSION. 
          ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. 
          UM, SO JUST, UH, ECHOING OFF THE, UH, THE SPEAKERS, UH, INQUIRY ABOUT THE AWARD L IN HOUSE DESIGN AND DEMO. 
          UM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SPECIFICALLY PUT IN MOTION OR IS THAT JUST THE PROPOSED EXPENDITURE? WHAT W WHAT IS THAT EXACTLY? UM, OH, CON TWO CV CAN RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          JOHN, CAN YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF PLEASE? YES. 
          PARK, UH, HOW DESIGN AND DEMO IS A NEW PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR. 
          SO THIS IS A NEW PROPOSAL, UH, THAT 
          [00:15:01]
IS GOING TO BE UNDERTAKEN, UH, WITH THE NEW FISCAL YEAR CIP PROGRAM. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S JUST, UH, IT'S JUST A PROPOSAL. 
          SO WHO MADE THIS PROPOSAL, OR WHERE, WHERE DID THIS ORIGINATE? AND THIS IS A LIST OF, UM, CEPI PROJECTS THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON DEVELOPING. 
          UM, AND SO THIS IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE, IT COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE THEY GO TO THE, UH, GET APPROVED AS PART OF THIS CIP BUDGET THAT IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE NEXT, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 
          I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHERE DID THIS ORIGINATE, THIS ORIGINATE WITH STAFF? DID THIS ORIGINATE WITH THE COUNCIL REQUESTS? DID THIS ORIGINATE WITH A SPECIFIC LARK ELLEN, UM, ALCON, IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT? UH, MY UNDERSTANDING FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT WAS AFTER THE CONSENSUS, UH, WITH DISCUSSION WITH CITY STAFF OUT, THIS PROJECT WAS PROPOSED BASICALLY BASED ON THE INPUT RECEIVED, UH, FROM STAFF AND FROM, FROM COMMUNITY AS WELL. 
          DO WE KNOW, DO WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING THERE OR PARKING LOT, OR, UH, THE INTENT IS TO DO AN EXPANSION, UH, THE DESIGN AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FACILITY PORTION OF IT. 
          SO, UH, LIKE I SAID, IT'S A NEW PROPOSED PROJECT. 
          THERE IS NO DESIGN PREPARED AT THIS TIME. 
          SO, UH, THIS WILL BE PART OF THE NEW FISCAL YEAR PROGRAM. 
          SO DOES THAT COVER, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE, THE PLANNING PROCESS AND PLANS AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND STUFF LIKE THAT, IS THAT WHY IT'S, I GUESS THE PUBLIC'S COMMENT WAS ABOUT WHY IS IT THAT COSTS? CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY IT'S THAT COSTS THE PROJECT AS IT IS PROPOSED INCLUDES THE DESIGN AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COST AS WELL? IT COULD BE DEMOLITION, SO IT IS NOT NECESSARILY JUST ENGINEERING OR PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS, BUT ALSO INCLUDES THE ACTUAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION, EQUALLY DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW IMPROVEMENTS. 
          GREAT. 
          BOUNCERS, MICROSCOPE, UM, QUESTION THAT I HAVE, UM, DID THE CITY LOOK AT PERHAPS RELOCATING THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE? I, I WILL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. 
          I AM NOT SURE, UH, IF THAT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT, BUT WE WILL, CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          BECAUSE THE REASON WHY I ASKED THAT, UM, I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR THAT THERE IS A SIMILAR SITUATION NEAR COVINA PARK, WHERE THEY HAVE AN HOUSE THAT'S KIND OF CLOSE IN PROXIMITY OF COVINA PARK. 
          AND SO WHEN YOU SPEAK OF THE LARK ELLEN AND THAT LARK ELLEN HOUSE, IT SEEMED TO BE OF A SIMILAR AGE AND DESIGN. 
          SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS SOME HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE PROPERTY. 
          DO WE KNOW OF ANYONE OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORY TO THE CITY OF WEST COVINA EITHER BUILT IT, OR THIS IS IT, THIS IS THE, SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, NO PROBLEM. 
          NO, I'LL LET YOU FINISH I'LL CIRCLE BACK ON THAT AND GET BACK TO YOU. 
          I THINK I CAN HELP ANSWER THAT. 
          SO THAT'S THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE PARK, RIGHT? SO THAT PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY, UM, PURCHASED WITH, UH, MONEY THAT WAS SPECIFIC TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARK SPACE. 
          UM, SO AS PART OF THE SALE FOR THE SUNSET FIELD BEHIND, UM, QUEEN OF THE VALLEY, THE, UH, BUT WE, IT WAS TAKEN TO THE VOTERS. 
          AND PART OF THAT PROPOSITION WAS THAT THE MONEY, THE PROCEEDS FROM THAT SALE HAD TO GO FOR PARK ACQUISITION. 
          AND SO THAT IS WHY THAT, THAT PROPERTY WAS I THINK, PURCHASED. 
          AND THAT'S PART OF THE IMPROVEMENT CENTER, UM, TO ACQUIRE THAT PROPERTY, TO INCREASE PARK SPACE FOR THE CITY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          I WAS JUST ASKING SOME TIMES, UM, THEY WILL ASK OR SEE IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO PAY TO RELOCATE THE HOUSE, AS OPPOSED TO JUST, UM, ACTUALLY I'M NOT CLEAR PAULINE IN TERMS OF, IT SAID, IT SAID HERE, SET DESIGN AND DEMO, I GUESS FOLLOWING PERSPECTIVE IS THAT, ARE YOU GOING PLAN TO KEEP THE HOUSE WE MODEL IT, OR, I MEAN, THE $200,000, I MEAN, IS THAT JUST TO DEMO IT, IS THAT JUST 
          [00:20:01]
FOR PLANNING ONLY, OR YOU'RE GOING TO REMODEL THE HOUSE, LIKE INTEND TO KEEP THE HOUSE WE MODELED IT AND I THOUGHT, ARE THE FEE FOUR FOR 200,000? WELL, I THINK O'CONNOR CAN SPEAK TO THAT. 
          I THINK THAT IF HE DOES INCLUDE THE DESIGN, UM, AND, AND, OR DEMOLITION OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, BUT, UM, THE INTENT WAS TO INCREASE PARK SPACE WITHIN THE CITY. 
          SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO REMODEL THE HOME. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE LOOKED AT OPTIONS TO, UH, HAVE SOMEONE PAY FOR IT TO BE TRANSFERRED. 
          I THINK THAT THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN, UH, LEASED BACK, UM, TO THE INDIVIDUALS, UH, THEY HAD A DAYCARE FACILITY OUT OF THAT FACILITY. 
          SO THAT HAS, I THINK BEEN CLOSED AND NO LONGER OPERATING OUT OF THAT SPACE. 
          AND SO THE INTENT IS TO INCREASE PARK SPACE AND NOT IN ANOTHER WORRY MODEL, A HOME. 
          SO IN ANOTHER WORD IS THAT THIS $200,000 IS MAINLY JUST TO GET RID OF THE HOUSE AND DESIGN, WE'LL PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE OF IT. 
          I MEAN, IT DIDN'T SAY CONSTRUCTION COSTS IS JUST SAID DESIGN, AND I WILL DEFER THAT QUESTION TO O'CONNOR THE PROJECT INCLUDES ON THE DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING DEMOLITION AS WELL. 
          SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT INCLUDE REMODELINGS, LIKE PAULINA EXPLAINED, UH, IT WOULD INCLUDE THE DESIGN AND, UH, THE, THE PARKING LOT, UH, WORK. 
          THAT IS BASICALLY THAT POINT. 
          I MENTIONED JUST THAT THAT'S THE KIND OF THE WORK, INCLUDING, UH, SOME DEMOLITION ON THE PARKING LOT AS WELL. 
          AND THEN ALSO JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THAT WAS PART OF, UM, IT WAS CALLED MEASURE H IT WAS ON THE NOVEMBER OF 2016 ELECTION. 
          AND, UM, IT WAS A PROPOSITION, A MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SUNSET FIELD WAS ON, UH, OKAY. 
          IT WAS A SUNSET THAT SOUNDS THAT FAILED, RIGHT? SUNSET FIELD, THE CITY PARK SPACE EMINENT. 
          OH YEAH. 
          SO IT WAS A MEASURE AUTHORIZING A SALES SINCE THEIR FIELD WAS ON THE BALLOT FOR RESCUE AND THE VOTERS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ON NOVEMBER EIGHT, 2016, AND VOTERS VOTED, YES. 
          VOTE WAS A VOTE IN FAVOR OF AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO SELL SUNSET FIELD TO THE QUEEN OF THE VALLEY HOSPITAL, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS PART OF THEIR EXPANSION IN BUILDING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING NOW. 
          AND IN RETURN, THEY GAVE FUNDING TO THEM TO HELP THEM THINK THAT THEY BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY IN RETURN TO GIVE THE CITY BACK SOME PARK SPACE. 
          WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THIS PARTICULAR PARK, WHAT THIS PARTICULAR SINGLE LOT THE PURCHASE, WHICH IS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND, WHICH IS WHAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT WHICH WE SOLD IN HAD A FEW MILLION DOLLAR IN TERMS OF PARK MONEY THAT WAS TAKEN AND PURCHASE THIS LAND ALREADY. 
          WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT PART, WHICH WE DO UNDERSTAND, WHICH IS GREAT, THAT WE HAD THE MONEY FROM SUNSET PARK AND WE BUYING A LITTLE CHUNK OF LAND, WHICH IS ONE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOME AND ADDED TO THE LAND FOR THE PARK. 
          ANYWAY, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LAND OR THE MONEY TO PURCHASE THE HOUSE FOR THE PARK. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE $200,000 BUDGET, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND. 
          AND IT SAID TO DESIGN AND TO DEMO. 
          AND I GUESS, UH, SUPPOSEDLY I TAKE IT IT'S, I'M GOING TO JUST TO DEMO THE HOUSE, MAYBE TURN IT INTO A PARKING SPACE AND WHAT HAVE YOU IN THAT DESIGN PORTION. 
          AND THE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THAT INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION PORTION THAT ADD UP TO THE $200,000 FOR THAT SINGLE LAP. 
          I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF IT'S EVEN 10,000 SQUARE FOOT. 
          YEAH, I'M SORRY. 
          I CAN CHIME IN HERE JUST WITH REGARD TO THIS, THE CIP RECOMMENDATIONS, WHY UNDERSTANDING IS THESE ARE BASICALLY, UM, BASICALLY A LAUNDRY LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE FUNDED DOWN THE LINE AND POTENTIALLY CONSIDERED. 
          THIS IS NOT THE CONSIDERATION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL THING. 
          THE QUESTION I THINK BEFORE US TONIGHT IS WHETHER OR NOT THESE PRIORITIES ARE PRIORITIES THAT WE SHOULD PUT ON OUR MASTER LIST OF PRIORITIES FOR FUNDING IN THE NEXT FIVE FISCAL YEARS EFFECTIVELY. 
          AND SO I THINK WITH REGARD TO THE, THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT OR PROPOSED PROJECT, I THINK IF, IF, IF, IF THERE'S A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT $200,000 IS THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER. 
          WELL, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE'LL QUITE FRANKLY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE GET TO IT. 
          THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE'RE NOT PRIORITIZING ANYTHING FOR 
          [00:25:01]
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER WITHIN THE TIMELINE. 
          AND, AND IF MEMORY SERVES ME, RIGHT, WHAT IS THE, UH, WHAT IS THE PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR THE DESIGN AND DEMOS TO IT WOULD BE THIS YEAR 2021, 22 WOULD BE THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR COMING UP, UH, JUNE 30TH, THE ENDS OF OUR FISCAL YEAR HERE. 
          SO I GUESS, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT, THAT, TO THAT, THAT $200,000 IS, IS, IS ASSIGNED FOR, AND IT SEEMS LIKE, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S JUST A NUMBER AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE, UM, PROPOSED WITH THAT. 
          NOW, ULTIMATELY, I GUESS, I GUESS ONE OF US COULD ARGUE, WELL, $200,000 ISN'T ENOUGH, OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE US AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          SO, I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT IT. 
          UM, ULTIMATELY THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT GOES THROUGH COMMUNITY AND SENIOR SERVICES, AS WELL AS, UH, AS, AS WELL AS, AS COUNCIL AND POTENTIALLY US, DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS. 
          UM, BUT I MEAN, ULTIMATELY I THINK WE'RE JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS LAUNDRY LIST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          UM, THERE ARE SOME THINGS ON HERE. 
          I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE APPROPRIATE, UM, AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          AND I'LL ASK THOSE QUESTIONS SHORTLY, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF WENT OUT WITH THE SCOPE OF THIS IS BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DO HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS TOO, REGARDING THE BUILDING SECTIONS AS WELL. 
          SO I GUESS THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS, WHICH IS LIKE THE 2.8 MILLIONS, I MEAN, WHAT IS THAT PROJECT IS ACTUALLY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, IF NOT A MONTH AGO. 
          AND IT'S AN ENERGY AND SOLAR PROJECT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE UPDATING, UM, VARIOUS, UM, EQUIPMENT THROUGH DIFFERENT FACILITIES THROUGH, UM, UH, CITY FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, UM, INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF SOLAR HERE AT CITY HALL, UM, CHANGING LIGHTS TO ENERGY, EFFICIENT LIGHTS, UM, UPDATING SOME TRANSFORMERS, UM, UPDATING, UM, AC UNITS TO BE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT. 
          SO THAT'S THE ENERGY EFFICIENT PROJECT. 
          SO THAT WAS, I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE BEEN SLATED TO HAVE STARTED LAST YEAR, BUT WE WILL BE STARTING IN THE UPCOMING, OH, WE'RE GETTING STARTED NOW AS WE SPEAK. 
          SO, UM, THAT PROJECT IS UNDERWAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO I, I HAVE, UH, I HAVE A FEW OTHER QUESTIONS FOR SOMEBODY ELSE QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT, UM, WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, UH, THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASPECT OF THINGS, I GUESS IT'S A SUBSECTION HERE. 
          UM, WHAT IS THE VIDEO DETECTION CITYWIDE? WHAT IS THAT? OH, KHAN. 
          CAN YOU HELP ANSWER THAT? UH, UNDER TRAFFIC SIGNALS, MEDIA DETECTION, CITYWIDE, UH, UH, SECURITY UPGRADES, THE FIBER LINE INSTALLATION, UH, THAT MAY INCLUDE, UH, LICENSE TAG READERS, UH, AN INTER INTERCONNECT SYSTEM BASICALLY, BUT THAT, THAT IS, UH, LIKE A PLANNING LEVEL, LIKE A HIGH LEVEL PROJECT AT THIS TIME. 
          SO IT HAS NOT BEEN INITIATED YET. 
          UH THAT'S FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS WAS PROPOSED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY UPDATES AT CITYWIDE FOR THE MEDIA DETECTION. 
          UH, SO I, I GUESS I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS PROPOSED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS HOW IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN? I THINK IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS, UM, IS THAT RE IN REGARDS TO THE THING THAT CHIEF SPOKE ABOUT LAST TIME, MAYBE TO CONSOLE DURING COUNCIL MEETINGS TO GO GO ABOUT THE SYSTEM THEY'RE GOING TO PUT ON CERTAIN AREAS OF ENTRY INTO THE CITY THAT ONLY READS LICENSE PLATES. 
          AND IT'S A HIGH-TECH TECHNOLOGY THAT DOES NOT SCAN FACES, BUT IT ACTUALLY DETECTS LICENSE PLATES ZONING, AND IT WAS GONNA HELP, UM, FIGHT CRIME IN OUR CITY BECAUSE OF THE, AND I THINK THAT THOSE INITIALLY, BECAUSE OF THE INCIDENT IN MURDERED THE MURDER OF AN INNOCENT YOUNG WOMAN THAT DIED ON A SUICIDE EMR, UH, IN THAT SHOPPING COMPLEX, AND UNFORTUNATELY THERE WAS NO CAMERAS TO CATCH, UH, THOSE SUSPECTS. 
          UM, SO IF I'M WAS STICKING SET THE SAME PROGRAM THAT'S RELATING TO THIS, I BELIEVE IT COULD BE, UM, THAT, THAT APPROVAL THAT, UM, COUNSEL PROVIDED WAS FOR THE FLOCK SYSTEM. 
          AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY, AS YOU MENTIONED, IT'S FOR CAMERAS AT VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT WORKS WITH, UM, OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE THAT SAME 
          [00:30:01]
PROGRAM IN DETECTING THE LICENSE PLATE OF VEHICLES ENTERING AND LEAVING THE CITY. 
          UM, SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SPECIFICALLY THE SAME PROGRAM THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT INSTALLING AT THESE, UM, TRAFFIC LIGHTS, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THEY'D WANT SOMETHING THAT'S COMPATIBLE. 
          SO I GUESS, I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS WHAT IS THE VIDEO DETECTION CITYWIDE? IS IT, IS IT THAT PROGRAM OR IS IT SOMETHING ELSE I'D HAVE TO CONFIRM WITH PD GOING BACK TO MY QUESTION, WHICH WAS DIRECTED TO STAFF? WHAT IS THE, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE FINDING THAT WOULD HAVE THIS BE, I GUESS, CONSISTENT WITH A GENERAL PLAN, IF, IF IT IS, UM, REGARDING THE, THE, UM, THE VIDEO DETECTION SYSTEM THAT, UM, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS PROPOSING, THE GENERAL PLAN DOES HAVE A SAFETY COMPONENT. 
          AND, UH, AND IF THIS IS THAT SYSTEM THAT THE PD WAS PROPOSING, THE, THIS SYSTEM WOULD, WOULD HELP INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          SO JOANNE, THIS WOULD BE FOR SECURITY, NOT FOR TICKET WRITING, IT WOULD BE FOR SECURITY. 
          YES. 
          I, I GUESS, I GUESS MY PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT VERY, VERY VAGUE. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW FOR, FOR THIS TO BE CONSIDERED A PRIORITY OF THE CITY THAT THAT IS UNDER, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. 
          I I'M, I'M SUSPECT OF, OF SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, WHICH WOULD HAVE THE PROPENSITY TO UNDERMINE OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. 
          AND SO I, I DON'T, I'M, I'M, I'M VERY RETICENT TO APPROVE THAT AS A PRIORITY, WITHOUT CERTAIN STIPULATIONS ON THAT, HOW THAT IS USED, HOW THAT IS UTILIZED BY OUR POLICE. 
          I LIKELY, I, I, I WAS, I, I WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE LACK OF SAFEGUARDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS DOING THE WHOLE OP SYSTEM OR WHATEVER, UM, ON, UNFORTUNATELY IT LEAVES TOO MUCH TO THE IMAGINATION. 
          AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE FACT IS WE DON'T HAVE BODY CAMS IN OUR CITY. 
          I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S INSANE TO ME FROM A, A, A PUBLIC SAFETY STANDPOINT THAT WE DON'T PARTICULARLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE WHERE ULTIMATELY THESE ARE, THESE ARE DECISIONS THAT ARE COSTING OUR CITY MONEY AND LITIGATION LITIGATION THAT REALISTICALLY WE SHOULD PROBABLY WIN GOING AWAY IN MOST CIRCLES. 
          BUT UNFORTUNATELY YOU HAVE ABSENCE OF THAT. 
          AND WE'RE W WE'RE BASICALLY TACITLY SAYING, OH, GREAT. 
          WE SHOULD SPEND MONEY SURVEILLING OUR CITIZENS, AS OPPOSED TO MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THROUGH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE. 
          I, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN'T HAVE BOTH. 
          WE SHOULD HAVE BOTH AND BOTH SHOULD BE A PRIORITY. 
          I MEAN, IN THAT SENSE, YOU KNOW, NOT TO GET TOO MUCH ON MY SOAP BOX HERE, BUT SERIOUSLY, I, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PRIORITY. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          AND I THINK BOTH SHOULD, JOANNE, CAN YOU TELL ME, UH, HOW FAR THESE, UH, CAMERAS, HOW FAR THEY CAN RECORD A BLOCK WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET? I MEAN, HOW FAR, WHAT DISTANCE SHE, SHE JUST SAID THAT SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHICH, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WELL, I, I CAN TELL YOU, I HAVE CAMERAS IN MY HOME. 
          I HAVE CCTV. 
          AND, UM, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL INCIDENTS WHERE THE POLICE ACTUALLY COME AND ASK ME FOR MY FOOTAGE. 
          SO, UM, I'M, I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, OPPOSING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IN SOME INSTANCES IT COULD BE HELPFUL. 
          I COMPLETELY AGREE, COMPLETELY AGREE. 
          UH, JARON, UH, COMMISSIONERS THAT BARON BENTON, THE HOUSING CITY ATTORNEY, UH, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THE COMMISSIONER LEWIS HAS, UH, COMMENTS FROM A LITTLE BIT OF A GO, THE OVERARCHING INTENT TONIGHT IS, UH, JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THESE PROJECTS AND WHETHER THEY COULD FORM WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          I THINK THESE ARE VALUABLE DISCUSSIONS. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          BUT TONIGHT WE'RE, UH, WE ARE NOT HERE TO APPROVE THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. 
          UM, UH, ACTUALLY, THAT'S A GOOD POINT THAT YOU MENTIONED. 
          YOU SAID THAT WE'RE NOT HERE TO APPROVE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT, BUT THE ITEMS ARE HERE AND WE DO NEED TO, I MEAN, IT'S A GOOD POINT THAT WE NEED TO BRING IT UP AND TALK ABOUT WHAT IS IT THAT WE'RE DOING, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, IF HE DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTIONS, I MEAN, $50,000 ON AN ITEM OF VIDEOTAPE FOR THE CITY OF 130 SOMETHING THOUSAND, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S JUST A LITTLE TEST PILOT THAT MAYBE PUT ON ONE SECTION OF A CORNER OF A STREET TO TEST TO SEE IF IT'S WORKING OR NOT, OR WHAT HAVE YOU. 
          WE DON'T KNOW. 
          I, I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT. 
          AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ISN'T A LINE ITEM THAT, UM, IT'S GOOD TO FIND OUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          SO MAYBE CAN THERE BE SOME LIMITATIONS, HUH? WELL, MY 
          [00:35:01]
RECOMMENDATION IT, IF THERE IS THE MAJORITY OF THE, COMMISSION'S CONCERNED ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUAL ITEM THAT WE, YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY APPROVE WITHOUT THAT ITEM. 
          SO YOU'RE APPROVING THE PROJECTS. 
          IF YOU DON'T LIKE ONE PARTICULAR PROJECT OR HAVE A CONCERN THAT IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLAN, YOU APPROVE IT WITHOUT THAT PROJECT. 
          OR CAN YOU, CAN SOMEONE JUST CALL WHO WOULD HAVE THE DETAILS ON THIS PROJECT? BUT I ACTUALLY LIKE TO HEAR WHAT, WHAT THE QUESTION, WHAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE, OUR CONCERN, WHETHER IT'S LINE ITEM WAS THE WHOLE THING. 
          I MEAN, I, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE A, OH, IF I CAN, I, I I'M, I'M MERELY CHIMING IN HERE, NOT BECAUSE I'M NECESSARILY AGAINST, OR FOR A PARTICULAR PROJECT, IT'S MERELY A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS SHOULD BE IN OUR LIST OF PRIORITIES. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S MY POINT. 
          I, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS BECAUSE THOSE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS ARE NOT BEFORE US. 
          I MEAN, THAT IS, THAT IS FACTUALLY INACCURATE STATEMENT. 
          AND I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. 
          HOWEVER, IF WE ARE TO PRESENT THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS IF IT IS A PRIORITY OR SHOULD BE A PRIORITY, I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE THE CONCERNS AND WHETHER OR NOT IT CONFORMS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT HERE TO MICROMANAGE EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. 
          IT'S MORE OF, OKAY. 
          OVERALL, DOES THIS CONFORM WITH WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN IS? AND I THINK THAT'S MY CONCERN OUTSIDE OF THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THAT THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE OUR BIGGER POLICY DISCUSSIONS THAN WHAT A PLANNING COMMISSION IS HERE TO DO. 
          MY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE AFFIRMATIVELY RECOMMENDING SOMETHING THAT, AGAIN, VIDEO DETECTION WIDE, I DON'T KNOW. 
          NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          SO I JUST, I LOOK AT IT AND I'M LIKE, OKAY, VIDEO DETECTION, CITYWIDE, THAT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO TURN INTO LONDON. 
          RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT OUR RESIDENTS WANT US TO GO IN, WELL, I MIGHT THINK ABOUT MOVING, BUT I DOUBT THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT THEY WANT US TO GO. 
          SO QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK, I THINK WE GOTTA W WHEN WE'RE DESCRIBING THESE THINGS AND WE'RE SETTING THESE AS PRIORITIES, I THINK THAT'S THE CONCERN I HAVE. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE OUTSIDE OF THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION AND, AND HAS A POLICY BASIS FOR DOING SO, TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I RESPECT THAT. 
          I MEAN, WE'RE ALL APPOINTED OFFICIALS IN THIS REGARD. 
          SO TO THAT END, WE DO HAVE TO RESPECT THAT. 
          BUT WHEN WE'RE JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SPEAKING IN GENERALITIES AND WE DON'T KNOW GENERALITIES, WE'RE SPEAKING TOWARD, AND WE'RE, WE'RE SAYING WE SHOULD ALLOCATE $50,000 A YEAR FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE FUNDING YEARS. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY QUESTION. 
          IT'S A LOT OF LINE ITEMS TO GO THROUGH. 
          I MEAN, IT'S QUITE INTERESTING. 
          IT'S, EYE-POPPING AS WELL, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE GENERAL AREA, WHICH IS THE SECOND COLUMN OR THE SECOND SECTIONS, IT'S, UM, LIKE PROJECTS TO BE DETERMINED, TB D ON BALANCE OF 20 MILLION. 
          I BELIEVE THAT IT'S $15 MILLION, AND I I'M SURE BUT RECOMMENDING THIS FOR THE CITY COUNCILS TO, TO MOVE ON, BUT, BUT WHAT IS THIS SECTION? IS THAT THE, I GUESS, UM, WE'RE ASKING STAFF REALLY TO HELP US EXPLAIN. 
          SO WE ALSO CAN, WHAT, I MEAN, I GUESS THE ADDITIVES TO THAT WHOLE SECTION FOR THE GENERAL AREA, THAT $20 MILLION, I BELIEVE THAT IS A FUN THAT WE GOT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, JUST ADDRESS PART OF WHAT YOU SAID. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          NO WAY DO WE MEAN TO HINDER DISCUSSION? I MEAN, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF WHY WE'RE HERE. 
          WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A RUBBER STAMP. 
          UM, BUT, BUT TO CLARIFY, ONE THING YOU DID SAY THIS TONIGHT, ISN'T EVEN A RECOMMENDATION OF THESE PROJECTS. 
          IT'S JUST A FINDING OR NOT FROM THE COMMISSION, WHETHER IT CONFORMS WITH THE OVERALL PROJECT AS DESCRIBED, WHETHER IT CONFORMS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE POLICIES THAT STAFF HAS LAID OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          AND IF YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT FINDING, THAT'S TOTALLY FINE TOO. 
          CAN THE CITY ATTORNEY OR OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, I MEAN, MAYBE WE COULD TAKE A BREAK AND THEN A CITY STAFF WOULD GET THAT INFORMATION AS THAT. 
          I JUST WANT US TO CONTINUE TO SEE IF WE CAN HAVE MORE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS. 
          AND MAYBE LATER DOWN ON THE LINE, WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION AND PERHAPS GATHER SOME MORE INFORMATION IF WE CAN. 
          I MEAN, PART OF, UH, PART OF THE SUCTIONS, LIKE I WAS SAYING THAT THIS IS A PACKAGE AND $50 MILLION IS BASICALLY TO BE DETERMINED. 
          AND I GUESS AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, IF WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO, OR, OR LOOKING AT THE CIP, HOW 
          [00:40:01]
DO WE MAKE A, I GUESS WHETHER IT FIT THE GENERAL PLAN OR NOT, WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT'S TO BE DETERMINED, THAT'S A BIG CHUNK AND AN ON TOP OF THAT. 
          I MEAN, THESE ARE LINE ITEMS BY LINE ITEMS. THE INTERESTING PART IS THAT THIS IS FOR FISCAL YEAR 21, 22, WHERE ARE THE MONEY COMING FROM? I AM SEEING ALL THIS NUMBER, BUT THERE'S NO, AT THE END OF THE DAY, ALL THESE NUMBERS, IT DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A TOTAL, LIKE WE'RE SPINNING, YOU KNOW, 15 HERE, 3 MILLION THERE, YOU KNOW, 200,000, 400,000, WHAT IS THE TOTAL? AND DO WE HAVE MONEY? I THINK EVERYONE IS ASKING FOR MORE OF A DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND WHAT THE NECESSITY IS AND HOW IT WOULD BE SPENT. 
          I JUST ASSUMED THAT THE PARK SECTION MIGHT BE COMING FROM REVENUES THAT WAS VOTED ON THE OTHER MEASURES THAT A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK FOR MONEY TO, TO IMPROVE FRIENDSHIP PARK IMPROVEMENTS LIKE THAT MILLION DOLLAR. 
          IS THAT MONEY FROM SUNSET SAIL, OR IS THAT MONEY FROM THE MEASURE SHADOW OAK PARK, THE NPD E IMPROVEMENTS AS ANOTHER EIGHT, LIKE TOTAL 1,000,007 50, 3,800,000. 
          SO I GUESS IS THAT MONEY THAT WE HAVE IN A GENERAL PLAN AND THEN GENERAL BUDGET THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY KIND OF PUSHING THROUGH OR ARE THESE MONEY THAT IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM A IN IT'S SET ASIDE FOR LIKE, I MEAN, IF IT'S SET ASIDE RIGHT, FOR, FOR A PARK, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR PARK FRIENDSHIP, PARK IMPROVEMENT, THAT $1 MILLION, IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, BUT SET ASIDE FOR THAT PARK, I MEAN, LOOK AT THE SPREADSHEET. 
          A LOT OF THE FUNDING FOR THE CIP PROJECTS IS SPECIAL FUNDS. 
          YOU LOOK WHERE THE ONE, TWO, THREE FOURTH, FOURTH COLUMN IN IT SAYS FUNDING SOURCES, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT'S SHOWING YOU WHERE THE FUNDING IS COMING FROM FOR THAT PROPOSED PROJECT ARE I BELIEVE BT IS, UM, YEAH, IT DOES INDICATE, UM, IN THE ATTACHMENT WHERE THE PROPOSED FUNDING IS COMING FROM FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT. 
          AND I DO SEE THE LARK ELLEN HOUSE ON THEIR, UH, FUNDING SOURCE PARK, ACCURATE, UH, EXCUSE ME, I'LL JUST SAY I, WHATEVER IT'S CALLED ACCURACY EFFICIENT. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IF I'M ALMOST THINKING DEPTHS MONEY THAT WOULD HAVE CAME FROM THE SALE, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH, IT DOES. 
          I SAID FOR FISCAL YEAR 21, 22, ALL CIP PROJECTS WILL BE FUNDED FROM SPECIAL FUNDS EXCEPT FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIRED BY SB ONE. 
          UM, SO THE GENERAL FUND AMOUNT FOR A CIP FOR THIS UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR WILL BE APPROXIMATELY HALF A MILLION, A LITTLE BIT OVER HALF A MILLION. 
          AND THERE'S SO BASICALLY ON THAT ITEM, IF WE LOOK AT IT FOR PARK PURPOSE IS ALMOST 4.908, MAN. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          WHERE ARE YOU LOOKING? UM, EACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS, UH, CATEGORIZED PARKS, PLAYGROUND AND FIELDS. 
          THAT WOULD BE PAGE THREE 94. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE TOTAL COST OF IT IS FOUR POINT SOMETHING MILLION DOLLAR, AND THEN IT HAS A LIST OF ALL THE FUNDINGS, ALL THESE MONEY'S COMING FROM SOMEWHERE. 
          AND THEN IT HAS, UM, PROJECTED 20, 20 TO 2021 IT'S LISTED AT $470,000. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THEN FROM 2021 TO 2026, ANOTHER, ANOTHER $340,000. 
          SO THE PROJECTED FOR 2020, 21 WOULD BE THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. 
          SO AS SOME PROJECTS HAVE STARTED THIS YEAR, THEY'VE ALREADY EXPENDED FUNDS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S THE MONEY THAT COMES FROM PARKS AND IT'S IT'S IT'S UM, SORRY. 
          SO UNDER FUNDING SOURCES, THAT'S WHERE THE FUNDING COMES FROM THE F UH, FISCAL YEAR PROJECTED 2020, UH, 2020 DASH 2021. 
          THAT'S WHAT IT'S BEEN EXPENDED THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR WE'RE IN THEN 2021 DASH 2022 WOULD BE THE, UH, WHAT'S PROJECTED FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR, STARTING JULY 1ST. 
          SO FOR THE FUN, UH, I ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT, IT'S INTERESTING HOW IT'S THIS FIVE-YEAR FUNDING SCHEDULE. 
          SO WE ONLY GET THE MONEY FOR 20, 21 AND NOTHING ELSE FOR THE FIVE, THE REST OF THE FIVE YEARS EXCEPT 2024. 
          UM, I THINK THE FUNDING SOURCE INDICATES WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM. 
          NOT NECESSARILY WHEN THE MONEY IS ALLOCATED. 
          WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          BUT, UM, IF WE 
          [00:45:01]
LOOKING AT, IT SEEMS LIKE IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE PARKS SECTION CORRECTLY, 20 OR 21 TO 2022, IT'S 3.7, FIVE EIGHT MILLIONS. 
          AND THEN ANY YEAR AFTER THAT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY MONEY. 
          WE'RE BASICALLY JUST GETTING MONEY THIS YEAR. 
          THOSE ARE MONIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED. 
          UM, IF, IF, IF IT'S BLANK, UM, THAT MEANS THAT X IT EXPECTED IT'S EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED, UM, WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR UNDER DUB, UNDER DAD BUDGET. 
          YEAH. 
          BASED ON THE PROJECT. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THESE, THESE PROJECTS WOULD BE THEN COMPLETED NEXT YEAR. 
          SO LIKE DELMARK, THEY PARK, WE HAVE A, THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING DOG PARK RENOVATION, AND THAT FUNDING SOURCE WILL BE COMING FROM THE ALLEY COUNTY PARK SLASH PROP A. 
          AND, UH, UH, SO THEN YOU HAVE A COST OF ITEM. 
          SO THE USING THE PR, IF WE FRY PROJECTED FOR 20, 21 TO 2022, THAT WERE THOSE, UH, IT'S EITHER GROUNDS OR, OR THOSE FUNDING SOURCES, IF YOU COMBINE IT, IT COVERS THAT SPECIFIC PRODUCT PROJECT. 
          WELL, THE PROJECT, UH, COMMISSIONING GUTIERREZ MENTIONED THE THIRD COLUMN, THEN IT SAYS COST OF ITEM. 
          SO FOR THE DOG PARK RENOVATION, IT'S 80,000, THE FUNDING SOURCE IS LA COUNTY, UM, PARK FINES, AND PROP A FUNDS. 
          THE MONIES THAT WERE SPENT THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, 10,000 AND THE PROJECTED FUNDS TO BE EXPENDED THIS UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR 17. 
          SO THAT TOTALS THE 80,000 FOR THE TOTAL PROJECT COSTS. 
          SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF WE WAITED UNTIL NEXT YEAR, THERE'S NO MONEY FOR THAT FOR THE DOG PARK ANYMORE, OR FILL WE'VE EXPENDED IT PROJECTED TO EXPEND 10,000 THIS FISCAL YEAR. 
          AND THEN THAT THE, THE, THE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE PROJECT WAS STARTED, UH, AT THE END OF THIS YEAR, OR, YOU KNOW, UH, TOWARDS THE END UNTIL ONLY 10,000 WAS EXPENDED, THE FULL 70,000 REMAINING WILL BE EXPENDED IN THE UPCOMING YEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THEN AFTER THAT, I GUESS MY, AFTER THAT, HOPEFULLY THE PROJECTS COMPLETED AND WE WON'T BE DOING, UH, THERE WON'T BE A NEED FOR DOG PARK RENOVATION FOR THAT PARTICULAR PARK WHERE THERE'LL BE MORE MONEY KILLER PROJECT AT THE PARK. 
          SO THERE COULD BE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PARK, BUT THE PARK, THE DOG RENOVATION SHOULD BE COMPLETED NEXT YEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          I GUESS, UM, I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HERE. 
          SO THE MONEY IS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PRODUCT, THE TOTAL $80,000 PROJECT, THE PROJECT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WILL THERE BE MORE MONEY COMING FOR PROJECTS, THEN WE WOULD FIND FUNDING SOURCES FOR THOSE, WHICH COULD BE THE SAME FUNDING SOURCES THAT WE HAVE LISTED HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THE MEASURE OR HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE EXPECTING TO GET EVERY YEAR OR SO. 
          I THINK WE, I GUESS MY, MY, MY THINKING IS AS IF WE ONLY HAVE $80,000 AND WE'RE SPINNING ALL AT ONE LOCATION, THEN WE'RE, DO WE HAVE MORE MONEY SOMEWHERE TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE? OR IS THIS LIKE A STREAM OF INCOME COMING IN ON AN ANNUAL BASIS? ALL RIGHT. 
          WHY DON'T YOU CHIME IN? I WAS GOING TO, I WAS GOING TO JUST MENTION, IN REGARD TO CIP, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, I'VE, I'VE WORKED ON PREVIOUSLY, UH, WITH THE COMMUNITY AND SENIOR SERVICES COMMISSION. 
          AND SO THE IP IS BASICALLY JUST THOUGHT OF JUST A GIANT LAUNDRY WISHLIST EFFECTIVELY OF THINGS THAT, THAT MAY EVENTUALLY BE DONE SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE VARIOUS COMMISSIONS, AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          SO THE QUESTION OF FUNDING SHOULDN'T REALLY BE GUIDING OUR DISCUSSION. 
          THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE GUISE OF THE, OF THE GENERAL PLAN, MEANING IS, IS THIS CONSISTENT? IS THIS LIST, IS EVERYTHING IN THIS LIST CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIORITIES THAT WE'VE SET FORTH IN THE GENERAL PLAN? NOT, NOT WHETHER OR NOT THE FUNDING IS THERE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE FUNDING ALLOCATION DECISIONS, THAT'S THE CITY COUNCILS PROVINCE. 
          THAT'S NOT OUR PROVINCE, WHETHER THIS PROJECT IS, IS PERIPHERAL TO ANOTHER, THAT'S THE CITY COUNCILS PROVINCE. 
          THAT'S NOT OUR PROVINCE. 
          SO I THINK, I THINK WE'RE GETTING, UM, I THINK WE'RE GETTING SORT OF BOGGED DOWN INTO, INTO A NUMERICAL DISCUSSION WHEN IT, WHEN IT'S NOT REALLY A NUMERICAL DISCUSSION THAT WE SHOULD, THAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON, WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON A DISCUSSION OF WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THESE PROJECTS ARE, ARE AT ODDS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          AND IF, IF THEY ARE, WE SHOULD EITHER SAY, WELL, THIS NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO BE SLIGHTLY MORE SPECIFIC. 
          [00:50:01]
SO IT'S IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OR ALTERNATIVELY, WELL, IT'S NOT IN CONFORMANCE, SO WE APPROVE SUBJECT TO WINE. 
          ITEMING THAT OUT? I THINK THAT THAT IS THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I'VE ALWAYS HAD WITH REGARD TO HOW CIP LISTS. 
          AND I I'LL, I'LL LET THE CITY ATTORNEY MAYBE CHIME IN ON THAT, AND MAYBE I'M A LITTLE OFF BASE, BUT TH THAT IS CORRECT. 
          UH, THE AUTHORITY COMMISSION IS DERIVED, UH, FROM THE COUNCIL SPECIFIC TO LAND USE IN THE SENSE THAT THOUGH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL PLAN AND IN VIEW OF THE LAND USE, AS HE MENTIONED, THE GENERAL PLAN WILL HAVE A POLICY IN IT SAY WE WANT CLEAN AND HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          SO THE QUESTION TONIGHT IS LOOKING AT THIS LINE ITEM PROJECT, DOES THAT COMPLY WITH THAT POLICY OR ANY OF THE OTHER NUMBER OF POLICIES IN THE, IN THE GENERAL PLAN? UH, AGAIN, THE BUDGET IS WHERE THE DISCUSSION, BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY ONE FOR GUIDING THE DECISION FOR TONIGHT. 
          AND IT IS CERTAINLY A QUESTION WHICH WILL COME UP IN THE FUTURE AS THESE PROJECTS, BUT DESCRIBING IT AS A WISHLIST IS A VERY GOOD WAY TO DESCRIBE IT. 
          WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION HAVING THAT, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE GENERAL TALKING ABOUT THE BALANCE OF 15 MILLION, AND IT SAYS PROJECTS TO BE DETERMINED. 
          WE DON'T HAVE, UM, ANY UNDERSTANDING, ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN LINE WITH SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED ALREADY IN THE GENERAL PLAN OR WHAT TYPE OF PROJECTS WHAT'S THE BREADTH AND SCOPE? CAN YOU POINT ME TO WHICH SECTION YOU'RE ON? OKAY. 
          THAT ONE'S ON PAGE THREE 93, AND IT'S G FOR PROJECTS TO BE DETERMINED BALANCE OF 20 MILLION, BUT FOR THIS YEAR, THE COST IS 15 MILLION AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE CIP AND THEN THEY HAVE LRB THREE 93 G FOUR. 
          AND SO I'M ALSO BRIAN, SORRY, ALSO WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT, UH, I THINK, UH, I THINK MORE WE'RE VOTING ON, WHICH I THINK EXPLAINS IT ON PAGE THREE 89, SAYS THE CITY OF WESTWIND DEVELOPS A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THAT CONSISTS OF AN EXTENSIVE LIST OF PROJECTS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN AND APPROVE THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          THE CITY DEFINES THE CIP AS HAVING ONE, A CAPITAL ASSET WITH A MINIMUM DOLLAR VALUE OF $45,000. 
          AND NUMBER TWO, AN ESTIMATED USEFUL LIFE OF THREE YEARS OR MORE IN MULTI-YEAR CIP IS NOT, IS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FUND ALL CAPITAL PROJECTS IMMEDIATELY IN ORDER TO MEET THE CITY'S NEEDS IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE CITY CONTINUES TO PLAN AND STRATEGIZE HOW IT WILL ALLOCATE LIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS. 
          AND THEN I'D SAY IT'S A CIP SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PER THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET REPRESENTS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE CIP THAT IS REVIEW AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY CONSOLE. 
          IT AUTHORIZES SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND APPROPRIATE SPECIFIC FUNDING FOR THOSE PROJECTS, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND 2020 TO PROVIDE STURDY 7.7 MILLION FOR NEW PROJECTS, PROJECTS, AND FUNDING SOURCES LISTED IN THE CIP FOR YEARS, OTHER THAN THE YEAR ONE COMMONLY CALLED OUT EARS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THOSE YEARS IS ADOPTED BY THE CITY CONSOLE. 
          THE OUT YEARS SERVE ONLY AS A GUIDE FOR FEATURE PLANNING ON OUR SUBJECTS FOR, FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND MODIFICATION. 
          IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS THE FIVE-YEAR CIP EACH RIGHT STANDARD BY WHICH TO PRIORITIZES AND INCREASES THE NEEDS OF THE CITY. 
          ANALYZES VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES MATCHES APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS TO VARIOUS NEEDS PLAN TO MEET THE CITY'S CAPITAL NEEDS OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME AS FUNDING BECOMES AVAILABLE. 
          SO IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN OR MORE OF WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT A KIND OF LIKE A, LIKE A, LIKE COMMISSIONER LEWIS SAID A COLON, UH, A LAUNDRY LIST OF PRIORITIES THAT, UH, THE CITY STAFF AND ITS CONSOLE WANT TO ADDRESS. 
          AND THAT IN THAT PROCESS IN CREATING A LAUNDRY LIST OR A RECOMMENDATION LIST, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, HELPS IN INSANE. 
          THIS IS IN OTHER WORDS, A GREAT 
          [00:55:01]
LIST TO FOCUS ON, OR IF NOT, OR SO FORTH, IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, I, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, UM, COMMISSIONED BRYANT TIA'S POINT OF VIEW. 
          I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED AND SPENT THE MONEY THAT THE CITY HAS. 
          I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT ALSO HAVING US TO DO SOME TYPE OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO COME UP WITH A LIST OF THINGS TO SPEND IS, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK INTO AN OIL EVEN ASK, HOW DID THIS LIST COME ABOUT? WHAT, LIKE COMMISSIONER NICK LEWIS HAS MENTIONED, LIKE NOT ONLY THAT, HOW DOES ZEALOUS LISTS COME ABOUT? IS THIS IMPORTANT TO THE WHOLE WHAT'S COMING INTO POPULATIONS, THIS PARTICULAR, THESE ITEMS, AND I GUESS COMING FROM FINANCE FINANCIAL BACKGROUNDS, I GUESS THE QUESTION COMES IN IS I CAN'T REALLY WELL NOT CAMP, BUT IT'S JUST HARD TO MAKE A WISHLIST WITHOUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT TO WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IT. 
          YES, IT IS A WISHLIST IT'S LIKE, OKAY, LET'S DO THIS MANY DOLLARS. 
          OR WE DON'T EVEN HAVE LIKE A, WE JUST PULL IT UP FOR THE CLOUD THAT THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, BUT THEN YET WE DON'T HAVE, I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF HARD FOR ME TO NOT LOOK AT THE FUNDING SOURCE OF WHERE THE COMING FROM. 
          I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ARE SPINNING OR SPENT, SPENT THE MONEY THAT WEST COVINA. 
          AND THEY DO MAKE THE LAST DECISION AND THE ULTIMATE DECISIONS THAT WE GOT IN THIS PLAN. 
          BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO LIKE, HOW DOES THIS, THIS COME ABOUT? THIS IS, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME. 
          AND I'M SURE THE PUBLIC ARE ALSO LOOKING AT IT WITH THE STAFF. 
          I MEAN, STAFF IS ANSWERING IN THE ENGINEER WHO IS BEHIND THE, ON THE PHONE IS ALSO ANSWERING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW HOW THIS LIST COME ABOUT. 
          AND I, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO KNOW, I MEAN, IF THIS LIST LIKE, LIKE EARLIER REGARDING THE $15 MILLION, I MEAN, OKAY, IF WE MAKE A WISHLIST THIS YEAR, I GET IT THAT WE'RE DOING THIS FISCAL YEAR, BUT WE HAVE ANOTHER 15 MILLIONS NEXT YEAR OR SO, OR THIS IS JUST THE COVID FUNDING THAT WE'RE GETTING. 
          AND 50 MILLION TO BE DETERMINED IS LIKE, WE'RE MAKING A BANK MANDATION. 
          ARE WE MAKING ANY RECOMMENDATIONS? IF THAT IS THE CASE? I DON'T KNOW. 
          YEAH. 
          SINCE IT'S A NON-HEARING ITEM, WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE DOING TODAY WITH THIS? I THINK I'LL LET THE ATTORNEY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO AGAIN, TONIGHT IS FOR YOU TO MAKE A FINDING WHETHER THIS LIST, ALL OF IT, OR MOST OF IT, OR SOME OF IT THAT'S UP TO YOU IS CONFORMS WITH THE POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, COMMISSIONER, UH, IF I COULD CIRCLE BACK TO COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, YOU RAISED A SPECIFIC LINE ITEM THAT YOU HAD CONCERNS WITH, YOU KNOW, AND I DID JUST TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT, IT SOUNDS VAGUE IN THAT LINE ITEM. 
          SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING YOURSELF, HOW DO I KNOW IF THIS CONFORMS WITH THE POLICIES AS I'M LOOKING AT THEM? THAT'S EXACTLY THE QUESTION WE'RE ASKING OF YOU TONIGHT IS FOR YOU, FOR YOU TO RAISE IT TO THAT EXACT QUESTION AND DECIDE CAN I VOTE? UM, AND ULTIMATELY THAT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE, UH, COMMISSIONER HANG. 
          UM, I'M SORRY. 
          I PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY. 
          AND, UM, GOOD QUESTIONS. 
          I MEAN, UH, THE SOURCE OF FUNDING IS SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CITY, UM, TO THE COUNCIL, OF COURSE, BUT ALSO TO STAFF. 
          I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WANT TO BRING FORWARD A PROJECT. 
          WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR, I THINK OUR POINT TONIGHT IS WE'RE VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS TO BE DISCUSSING THAT. 
          AND WE WERE LOOKING AT A FIVE-YEAR PLAN TONIGHT. 
          STEP IS BASICALLY THE FIRST STEP. 
          UM, WE CAN'T GET TO THAT DISCUSSION OF FUNDING UNTIL WE MEET THE, UM, THE HOOP THAT WE HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH TONIGHT, WHICH IS HAVING OUR PLANNING AGENCY SAY THESE PROJECTS, CONFORM WITH THE POLICIES WE'VE PUT IN THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          THIS IS BASICALLY THE FIRST STEP. 
          SO THOSE BUDGETARY DISCUSSIONS WHERE THE MONEY'S GOING TO COME FROM IMPORTANT. 
          UH, BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT, WE'RE JUST NOT ABLE TO ANSWER THEM BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE LIST IN HAND YET APPROVED THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS LIST APPROVED IN HAND YET. 
          OKAY. 
          SO CAN I ASK JUST ONE REAL FINAL QUESTION? UH, AND, AND I, I JUST DID WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS SORT OF A, IT LOOKS LIKE SORT OF A GRAB BAG TO BE DETERMINED $21 MILLION KIND OF THING. 
          SO CA CAN YOU ANSWER UNDER IT'S ON PAGE THREE 91? IT'S IT SAYS, UH, UH, FUND NUMBER ONE 79, AND IT SAYS, UH, CIP DASH LRB, 2020, AND THEN THERE'S A, THERE'S A LITTLE NOTE THERE THAT SAYS $21 MILLION, 
          [01:00:01]
AND THEN IT SAYS GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS. 
          SO IS THIS IS, THIS IS THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE, UH, THE RECOVERY ACT AND, AND, AND GETTING ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT ARE, THAT ARE ALLOCATED TO THAT. 
          OR I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT ASPECT OF IT. 
          WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT? THREE 91? YEAH, THREE 91. 
          AND IT'S, UH, IN THE SECOND TABLE, AND THEN IT SAYS FUN, NUMBER ONE 79, AND THEN UNDER FUND DESCRIPTION, IT SAYS CIP DASH LRB 2020. 
          I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ITEM ONE 79. 
          I THINK WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW IS WHAT, WHAT IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THAT MONEY AFTER TODAY? IT WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CIP BUDGET, UM, ALONG WITH THE BUDGET AND THE CIP BUDGET, AND THAT'S WHAT THERE'LL BE APPROVING. 
          AND THEN AS WE, YOU KNOW, JUST AS THE OPERATIONS BUDGET WE HAVE TO STICK WITH AND HOW THE MONEY'S BEEN ALLOCATED AND FOR WHAT PROJECTS FOR FUTURE ALLOCATIONS, WILL WE BE ABLE TO, TO VOTE ON THAT? NOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WILL BE THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I GUESS FOR  WE HAVE, SO WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHERE WHERE'S YOUR, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS DETERMINE IF THE GENERAL PLAN MATCHES THE PROPOSAL PROJECTS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO SAY IF THERE'S A BUDGET OR NOT, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A IDEALIST KIND OF THING, AND THERE'S STILL, I THINK, TOWN HALL MEETINGS GOING ON FOR THE ANNUAL NEXT YEAR, NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET AND SO FORTH. 
          SO THIS IS NOT EVEN A BUDGE. 
          IT'S NOT EVEN A BUDGET, IT'S JUST A CAPITAL, UH, JUST A SUMMARY OF PROJECT STAT. 
          THE CITY CONSOLE IS GOING TO VOTE ON, UH, IF, IF THEY DO OBVIOUSLY WHAT THE PUBLIC'S INPUT AND SO FORTH, UH, IF, IF THIS IS GOING TO BE PROJECTS THAT CONFINED WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          SO NOT NECESSARILY ARE WE APPROVING THE MONETARY AMOUNTS NEXT TO IT, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE CITY CONSOLE'S AUTHORITY, BUT SOME OF THE PROJECTS LIKE, AND JUST FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE HOME LISTENING IN, THEY DON'T DOWNLOAD THE PARK. 
          THERE'S GOING TO BE A PROPOSAL IDEAS. 
          THERE'S A DOWNLOAD THE PARK, DARK PARK RENOVATION, UM, POUR AND PLAY PLAYGROUNDS. 
          UH, NO. 
          SO THERE'S DOG PARK RENOVATION AT DEL NORTE, THE PARK THERE'S SHUTTLE, OAK PARK, UH, SHADOW OAK PARK PLAYGROUND. 
          IT WASN'T THAT PROJECT ALREADY COMPLETED, BUT THE SHADOW OAK PLAY PARK PLAYGROUND, SO THAT ONE'S ALREADY DONE. 
          SO THEN WE HAVE, UM, THE LARK AND THE LARK ALLEN PARK, UH, LOCKOUT IN HOUSE DESIGNING DEMO, CORTEZ SENIOR CENTER, REPLACING SIGHTING SLIDING DOORS AT SENIOR CENTER FOR OUR SENIORS. 
          WE HAVE A SHUTTLE PARK SHADOW, OAK PARK RESTROOMS, UH, UPGRADE AND RENOVATION. 
          WE HAVE A GALA STIR PARK, PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS, FRIENDSHIP PARK, PARK IMPROVEMENTS, ORANGE WARD PARK, NEW RESTROOMS, SHADOW PARK, UH, N P D E S IMPROVEMENTS AND STAFF CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          AND THEN GREENWICH PARK TAUGHT LAWN REPLACEMENT, CALIFORNIA PARK, TOT LOT REPLACEMENT. 
          SO I KNOW A LOT OF THE, THE RESONANCE LIVING IN THOSE PARK AREAS AND, AND BASEBALL, MY, A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE RESIDENTS. 
          I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE VERY HAPPY. 
          AND I, THIS IS GREAT THAT STAFF AND THE CITY, MAJORITY OF THE CITY CONSOLE IS FOCUSING ON THESE IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE I KNOW THE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO BE REALLY HAPPY TO SEE ALL THESE IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR PARKS. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, YES. 
          ON THE ONE HAND, WE'RE SAYING NOT TO LOOK UP THE NUMBERS, BUT THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, WE'RE SAYING, OH, THESE ARE THE ALIGN ITEMS THAT WE'RE GOING TO WORK OR BUILT ON OR SPENT ON. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          LET'S SO IF YOU'RE SAYING ONE DOES NOT MESH WITH THE OTHER AND WE'RE MAKING A DECISIONS ON, OKAY, LET'S LOOK AT THESE LINE ITEMS TO SEE IF IT FIT ON THAT. 
          I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PARKS, THOSE MONIES ARE FUNDED THROUGH ALL THE MEASURES THAT THE PEOPLE VOTED ON. 
          OKAY. 
          THOSE MAYBE THAT'S A MUST. 
          THAT'S A MUST DO. 
          SO WE, WE IT'S, IT'S, IT'S EARMARK FULL PARK, SO YOU CAN'T REALLY USE THE MONEY FOR ANYTHING ELSE, BUT PARK. 
          SO, WHICH IS THAT'S THAT PORTION. 
          ARE WE REALLY LOOKING AT, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, THE PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS. 
          IF YOU TAKE ALL THAT OUT, I MEAN, HOME, HOW AND WHAT ARE WE WORKING ON? THE, THE IMPROVEMENT. 
          WE TAKE OUT ALL THE PARKS. 
          WE REALLY LOOKING AT THE SEWAGE SYSTEM, THE 
          [01:05:01]
STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, AND A LITTLE BIT OF LIKE A HUNDRED, LESS THAN 150,000 ON VIDEO SIGNALS STUFF, WHICH IS THE VIDEO DETECTION, THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL INSTALLATION, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE. 
          SO IT WOULD BE TAKE ALL THE PARK MONEY OUT, WHICH IS, LIKE I SAID, AGAIN, IT'S NOT SO MUCH OF A CONCERN OF, BECAUSE A PARK, THOSE A MEASURE THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO GET THE MONEY AND THAT IS EARMARKED FOR PARK. 
          SO THAT'S THAT. 
          NOW, IF WE LOOK FURTHER, FURTHER INTO THIS, I MEAN, A LOT OF THE MONEY THAT WE GET WAS, WELL, THE GENERAL, WHICH IS $1.2 MILLION FOR SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS. 
          AND I BELIEVE MAYBE ALL THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE COVID LEASE AND FIRE PORTABLE AND MOBILE RADIOS, EKG, HEART MONITORING SYSTEM, OF COURSE, THE 15 MILLION SOMETHING, WHICH IS THE TOTAL OF THE $20 MILLION. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY IS THE BULK OF THE ITEM PUTTING MUCH AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS YOU CAN SAY THAT, OKAY, DON'T LOOK AT THE PRICE. 
          OKAY, DON'T LOOK AT THE COST. 
          WE HAVE YOU HAVE THAT FUNDING ALREADY, BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION COMES IN, IS THAT OKAY IF WE TAKE ALL THAT OUT THE PARK AND ALL THAT STUFF, REALLY THE MONEY IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE SOAR, THE STREET, AND EVEN THE SEWER IN THE STREET, EVEN THAT I THINK THOSE ARE MONEY THAT ALSO COME YOUR MARK FROM, FROM, FROM THE GENERAL. 
          I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THOSE MONEY, I BELIEVE IS BEING TAXED. 
          I'M REMEMBER PAYING THE TAX BILL AND THERE'S A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT GO TO SEWER. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT MONEY MIGHT GO TO THOSE ITEMS. AND THEN I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE STREET AND SIDEWALK, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THAT. 
          SO REALLY YOU ADD IT UP, TAKE OUT THE PARK, TAKE OUT THE SEWER, THE STREET AND SIDEWALK. 
          I'M NOT QUITE SURE, BUT YOU KNOW, ALL THE LITTLE DETECTIONS AND THIS AND THAT, IT'S REALLY ON 140,000 PLUS THE $22 MILLION. 
          I MEAN, $20 MILLION. 
          THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. 
          SO I GUESS OUT OF THAT, WHAT'S IMPORTANT $15 MILLION IT'S TO BE DETERMINED. 
          SO WE REALLY LOOKING AT, I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S NOT TO TALK ABOUT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, BUT IT'S KIND OF HARD NOT TO TALK ABOUT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT. 
          IT'S LIKE, WHAT ARE WE APPROVING SOME EXTENT. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S TALK ABOUT THE LINE ITEMS THAT WERE WERE SO CITY ATTORNEY, CAN YOU EXPLAIN ONCE AGAIN, ONCE AGAIN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROW ON US. 
          SO ARE, SO AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, WE ARE LOOKING AT OVER BEING PRESENTED WITH JUST SAY THOSE, THESE LINE ITEMS, CONFINE WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA REGARDS THROUGH THE BUDGET THAT IS THE CITY CONSOLE'S JOB TO ALLOCATE AND FUND A GENERAL BUDGET FOR THE CITY. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          GOVERNMENT CODE 65, FOUR OH ONE REQUIRES THE COMMISSION OR THE CITY TO BRING TO THE COMMISSION, A LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. 
          HAVING THE NUMBERS ON THERE IS A BIT OF A RED HERRING FOR YOU GUYS. 
          IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE ON THERE. 
          UM, CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK AT. 
          IT JUST W IT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK AT THE LIST OF PROJECTS AND SAY, YEAH, THIS MATCHES UP WITH WHAT WE SAY IN OUR GENERAL PLAN, WHICH IS CLEAN AND SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS OR HEALTHY AIR OR WHATEVER THE POLICY MAY BE IN THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          SO THE NUMBERS ON THERE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD YOU, I THINK WERE WE, THEY WERE PUT ON THERE FOR CONVENIENCE BECAUSE THE NEXT STEP AFTER YOU APPROVE IT IS, IT GETS BUNDLED IN WITH THE BUDGET. 
          AND THEN THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT NUMBERS GETS HAD AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL. 
          AND OF COURSE, STAFF WILL MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BUDGET THAT'S COMING FORWARD. 
          THE MONEY'S THERE, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST STEP. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND IT'S A BIT OF A HURDLE I'M STUMBLING BLOCK, BUT IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE, I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IF I CAN. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 21 DASH THREE, UH, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION TO, UH, PROJECT NUMBER TWO ONE ZERO TWO, THREE, UH, AS ATTACHED IN EXHIBIT B, PAGE THREE 98, UH, TO INDICATE THAT, UH, VIDEO DETECTION, UM, OR, UH, OR, UH, PUBLIC PARK, CRIME HOTSPOTS AND BODY CAMS. UM, AND, UH, I, I THINK THAT COVERS, UM, TWO DIFFERENT ASPECTS HERE THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT DESCRIPTION ADEQUATELY COVERS AND, UH, AS, AS A RESULT OF THAT, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, 
          [01:10:01]
ONE, UH, UNDER ACTION, 2.3 A THE SECOND SECTION IMPROVING THE PUBLIC REALM, I THINK THE BODY CAM CERTAINLY DO THAT. 
          AND A POLICY 8.8 IN INCREASING SAFETY IN PUBLIC PARKS. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. 
          AND I WOULD, I WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THAT MODIFICATION SURGE IS THAT IF CITY STAFF COULD PLEASE FIND OUT WHAT THAT MEANS, BECAUSE IF THAT VIDEO DETECTION SYSTEM IS WHAT THE CHIEF PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL HAD ALREADY APPROVED THAT PROJECT. 
          AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO PLEASE LET STAFF MAKE A PHONE CALL FIRST, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE MOTION. 
          BECAUSE IF THAT IS A LIFE SAVING CAMERA, BECAUSE I WAS HERE IN THIS CONCERT, MANY WHEN A FAMILY WAS CRYING BECAUSE THEIR YOUNG DAUGHTER DIED ON A SUICIDE NAME OR IN A PARKING LOT. 
          AND, UH, I MEAN, IT GIVES ME CHILLS, UM, BECAUSE NO ONE SHOULD DIE IN THIS SULLY BY ANY GANG. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE WE ELIMINATE THAT, UH, TO MAKE SURE WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE WE HAD A FAMILY IN HERE CRYING BECAUSE I, ONCE AGAIN ON THE SUSAN EMAR, SOMEONE DIED AND WE DIDN'T HAVE, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY DETECTION SYSTEM TO CATCH LICENSE PLATE WHO COMMITTED THAT MURDER. 
          SO ALSO, OH, I'M SORRY. 
          UM, COMMISSION, GOOD TEARS. 
          UM, I GUESS THE WHOLE, WHAT COMMISSION, UM, NICK LEWIS IS TRYING TO, TRYING TO DO HERE IS, IS HE'S ADDING THE BODY CAM INTO, INTO HIS MOTION. 
          AND I, AND, AND THAT, THAT BASICALLY IS IN THAT, WELL, I COULD HAVE SWORE I COULD SWEAR THAT OUR OFFICERS DO HAVE BODY CAMS. THEY DON'T HAVE BODY COUNTS. 
          I COULD, I COULD HAVE, SORRY, I SEE THEM WEAR BODY CAMS AND IT, AND YOU SAID IT YOURSELF IS ALSO, IT'S A WISHLIST. 
          HE MAY NOT GET IT. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT WE'RE ELIMINATING. 
          IF WE ELIMINATE THAT, THEN WE'RE DELETING THAT WISHLIST. 
          SO I WILL URGE SUDDENLY IF THAT WAS A MATTER OF THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED ON THE COMMISSION, DOESN'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO ELIMINATE SOMETHING. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED ON ALREADY. 
          WAIT. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS DOCUMENT CAME FROM THE ELIMINATING. 
          ANYTHING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS VOTING ON BY MAKING SUCH A MOTION, EVEN IF APPROVED THAT MOTION WOULD NOT MODIFY ANYTHING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY PUT IN PLACE. 
          SO COMMISSIONER LEWIS, YOU'RE ASKING FOR IT. 
          AND SO ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IF WE WANT TO HAVE A CLEAR AND COHERENT POLICY THAT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, I BELIEVE THAT MODIFICATION IS APPROPRIATE. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT YOU NEED TO SAY, OH, WE'RE W W WE ONLY GET TO HAVE ONE OR THE OTHER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          WE, WE CAN HAVE BOTH THE CITY COUNCIL CAN SET FORTH THEIR PRIORITIES. 
          IF THEY BELIEVE THAT ONE IS, IS A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN ANOTHER, THEY ARE CERTAINLY WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO DO THAT. 
          AND MR. CITY ATTORNEY, I BELIEVE YOU WILL CONFIRM THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE THESE DESCRIPTIONS IN A SORT OF, THEY HAVE WIDE LATITUDE IN TERMS OF UTILIZATION OF THESE DESCRIPTIONS. 
          AND, AND SO ULTIMATELY PUTTING IN THAT DESCRIPTION OR PROVIDING THAT DIRECTION AS, AS, AS IT BEING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN IS NOT. 
          SO ARE YOU ADDING TO IT? AND YOU'RE SAYING ABSOLUTELY ONE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WERE SENT, SO VIDEO OF DETECTOR SYSTEMS PLUS, OR, OR RECOMMENDATIONS WE'LL LOOK INTO ADDITIONAL SPECIFICALLY THAT, THAT THE, THE VIDEO PROGRAM, THE CITY-WIDE VIDEO PROGRAM I'M SEEING SPECIFICALLY FOR, FOR, UH, CRIMINAL HOTSPOTS IN PUBLIC PARKS, WHICH IS, AGAIN, SET FORTH AS A, AS A PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATION UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN SECTION 8.8, AS WELL AS THE SECOND PORTION OF 2.8, UH, 2.3 A, UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S CONSISTENT, IMPROVING, IMPROVING RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WORTH, UH, WORTH DOING AND MAKING THAT THERE IS THAT THERE IS PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IS ALSO CERTAINLY WORTH DOING. 
          WE CAN HAVE BOTH YOU SHOULDN'T WE COMMISSIONER THAT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          SO ARE YOU SEEING CAMERAS AT PARKS SO THAT THAT'S UNDER, UM, UFP ON PAGE THREE 94, IT'S UNDER THE UNFUNDED PROJECTS, WHICH IS CALLED PARKS, SECURITY CAMERAS AND LINING LIGHTING. 
          I, I, I THINK THAT WITH REGARD TO THE, SO CAN WE ADD ON SECTION CITYWIDE? I DON'T THINK I, SO CAN WE, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL. 
          I THINK THERE'S TWO, THERE'S ONE. 
          THEY, BUD, WE'RE NOT BUDGETING A CERTAIN PROJECT. 
          IF IT'S FOUR.CAMERA SYSTEM FOR THE LIGHT BULB FOR THE CERTAIN INTERSECTIONS, THEN THAT'S THE ONE BUDGET, BUT THEN TALKING ABOUT PARKS, THERE'S ANOTHER 
          [01:15:01]
UNFUNDED PROJECT HERE. 
          SO CAN THE CITY CONSOLE, I'M SORRY, THAT'S KIND OF A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT AN UNFUNDED PROJECT, WE LOOK INTO PART OF THIS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. 
          UH, YOU CAN MAKE ANY MOTION YOU LIKE IN DIRECTING STAFF, BUT AGAIN, THE ITEM FOR TONIGHT IS AS WHETHER YOU'RE FINDING THESE PROJECTS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          AND IF YOU WANT TO AMEND, IF YOU WANT TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS WRITTEN WITH AMENDMENTS, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL. 
          BUT IF YOU ARE, IF YOU'RE WANTING TO DIRECT US STAFF TO LOOK INTO SOMETHING, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT BE A SEPARATE MOTION. 
          UM, AND I WANTED TO ASK COMMISSIONER LEWIS, IF WE COULD GET CLARIFICATION ON WHAT YOUR MOTION IS ON THE TABLE AND AFTER WHICH IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHAIR TO CALL IT, TO SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR THAT. 
          SO MY MOTION WAS, AND I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THIS. 
          UH, MY MOTION WAS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER TWO, ONE DASH SIX ZERO EIGHT THREE, WITH THE MODIFICATION OF, UH, OF EXHIBIT A PAGE THREE 98, PROJECT NUMBER, UH, 21 ZERO TWO THREE SAVE VIDEO DETECTION IN THE DESCRIPTION VIDEO DETECTION, UH, FOR, UH, CRIMINAL HOTSPOTS IN PUBLIC PARKS AND BODY CAMS FOR POLICE IN ADDITION, OR YOU SPECIFICALLY WANT THAT ADDING, THAT WILL REPLACE. 
          SO YOUR THAT'S MY MOTION. 
          SO YOU'RE, SO YOU'RE, YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY SAYING THOSE TWO ITEMS, THEN I AM SPECIFICALLY STATING THOSE TWO ITEMS. SO WHAT HAPPENS IF IT, IF IT MEANS ABOUT THOSE, HOW ABOUT THE OTHER PROGRAM WE'RE ELIMINATING AND WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT THEN, OR ELIMINATING ANYTHING YOU'RE SEEING THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING TWO ITEMS THAT YOU WANT TO AMEN ON THAT SING. 
          MY DESCRIPTION IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT DESCRIPTION AS CONSTITUTED IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. 
          I DO NOT. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT PROJECT IS NOT MERITORIOUS. 
          I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING. 
          OKAY. 
          I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. 
          I AM, I AM MODIFYING THE DESCRIPTION SOLELY SO THAT IT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH WHAT I VIEW TO BE THE TERMS OF THE GENERAL. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE'S WRONG WITH THAT. 
          I'M JUST SAYING THAT, UH, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE CLARIFICATION ON THAT, I THINK WE NEED TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND ASK STAFF TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT MEANS BEFORE WE SPECIFY SOMETHING. 
          THAT'S NOT MEANT FOR THAT. 
          I WOULD JUST URGE MY FELLOW. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          UM, YOU MENTIONED LOUIS, LET ME ASK FOR CLARIFICATION. 
          SO ON PAGE THREE 98, TWO ONE ZERO TWO THREE, IT BASICALLY JUST STATED VIDEO DETECTION, CITYWIDE, BUT YOU JUST WANTED TO CHANGE OR AMEND THAT PORTION TO HAVE THE VIDEO DETECTION AT PARKS AND ALSO WITH A BODY CAM FOR THE POLICE OFFICER. 
          RIGHT? SO THOSE ARE THE TWO ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE VERSUS TO HAVING VIDEO ALL OVER THE CITY. 
          I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          I MEAN, FOR $50,000, WE CAN'T HAVE IT ALL OVER THE CITY. 
          I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD FIND OUT. 
          AND ULTIMATELY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT STAFF IS IN A POSITION TO GIVE US ANY FURTHER INFORMATION. 
          IT'S JUST CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL HAS FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS. 
          THEY ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS THAT THEY NEED TO DO. 
          UM, I'M SURE IF WE TAKE A FAST RECESS, I'M SURE THEY COULD CALL OUR CHIEF OR OUR CHIEF OF POLICE OR OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR AND GET THAT ANSWER. 
          I'M JUST URGING MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO PLEASE LET'S DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT SAY JUST FOR TWO THINGS WHILE IT MIGHT BE MEANT FOR THAT MURDER ON A SUICIDE EMAR. 
          SO I'M JUST SAYING, WELL, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE CITY COUNCIL STILL MAKE THE LAST DECISION. 
          NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. 
          HONESTLY, THIS, THIS IS KIND OF GETTING RIDICULOUS. 
          SO STAFFS ARE FINE. 
          I'M BEING VERY CLEAR. 
          THE COUNCIL HAS WIDE LATITUDE. 
          THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST CONFIRMED THAT THIS, THAT, THAT THE COUNCIL HAS WIDE LATITUDE AND INTERPRETATION OF THESE PROJECTS. 
          ULTIMATELY, IF THERE'S NO SECOND, I THINK THIS MOTION FAILS. 
          SO IT IS WHAT IT IS. 
          UM, I'LL SECOND. 
          IT, I WANT TO KNOW VIDEO DETECTION. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          DID YOU HEAR IT? THE SPEAKER IS OFF. 
          SO COMMISSION LEWIS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND PAGE THREE, NINE, EIGHT WITH A TWO ONE PROJECT NUMBER TWO, ONE ZERO TWO, THREE WITH A VIDEO DETECTION INSTEAD OF CITYWIDE AT PARK AND T1 BODY CAM. 
          SO 
          [01:20:01]
IT'S A WISHLIST AND, UM, I'LL WE'LL SECOND THAT THANK YOU. 
          AND SO CHAIR AT THIS MOMENT, IF THERE'S NO, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CALL FOR A VOTE. 
          YES. 
          A COMMITMENT. 
          ARE WE CALLING FOR THE VOTE? OKAY. 
          YES. 
          DO YOU KNOW WILLIAMS? YES. 
          MICHELLE GUTIERREZ. 
          I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE MY ROLE, SO I WOULD JUST URGE MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS ONCE AGAIN, LET'S FIND OUT WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE YOU'RE TYPICALLY CHANGING THE WORDING TO TWO SPECIFIC ITEMS. AND ONCE AGAIN, BE BY CHANGING IT TO TWO SPECIFIC ITEMS, YOU MAY BE ELIMINATING A PROJECT THAT WAS INTENDED TO CATCH CRIMINALS, UH, SUCH CRIMINALS AS THE MURDER ON A SUZANNE EMAR. 
          AND I DON'T THINK IT'S HARD ENOUGH FOR CITY STAFF TO GET ON THE PHONE AND CALL OUR CITY MANAGER OR CHIEF OF POLICE, WHICH I KNOW WILL ANSWER THEIR PHONE. 
          UH, SO I WILL VOTE NO ON THAT MOTION COMMISSIONER. 
          UH, MR. CHAIR LEWIS, VICE CHAIR LEWIS AT CHAIR VISCERA. 
          UH, NO, MY OPINION IS THAT IT, I THINK IT SHOULD BE PUT IN ADDITION TO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING. 
          MOTION PASSES REAL. 
          IT WAS THREE. 
          YEAH, THREE, TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY, THREE, TWO. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          UM, I'M SORRY. 
          I, I, I KNOW WE VOTED ALREADY, BUT I DO LIKE TO ADD THE FACT THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN ALSO WHEN IT COMES TO SPENDING, WHEN IT COMES TO SPENDING THE CITY'S MONEY, WE AS COMMISSIONER, AS A BODY OF COMMISSIONERS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SAY IN THAT, ON THAT PART. 
          BUT, UM, THIS IS A, THIS IS A LIST. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHETHER THERE'S BUDGET OR NOT, OR WHETHER THE COUNCIL, THEY ALSO NEED A BODY OF FIVE, THEY ALSO NEED TO VOTE IT ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS AS WELL. 
          ONE NEVER COMES IN FRONT OF THEM TO WHEN THE TIME COMES FOR THEM TO MAKE A DECISION, WHETHER IT'S TO MOVE AHEAD, BUT SOME OF THESE ITEMS THAT WE RECOMMENDED TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT SET IN STONE AND IT'S NOT FINALIZED IN A SENSE THAT IT'S A DONE DEAL. 
          IT'S JUST, YOU CAN SAY IT'S A WISHLIST AND IT'S A RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE, UM, PLANNING, COMMISSIONS, UM, AGAIN, COMMISSION LAWS. 
          I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT CITY AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY SPENT THE MONEY FOR THE CITY OF WEST COVINA AND THEY ULTIMATELY MAKE THE DECISIONS. 
          I MEAN, YES, WE ARE ASKING FOR BODY CAM, SO VIDEO, WHAT HAVE YOU THAT LINE ITEM VERY WELL NOT BE, IT MAY NOT COME UP OR IT MAY COME UP. 
          IT DEPENDS BY HOW THESE CITY COUNCIL ALLOCATE THEIR MONEY IN HOW THEY WANT TO SPEND THEIR MONEY. 
          SO ULTIMATELY AT THE END OF THE DAY, LIKE I SAID, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, YES, WE ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AND THAT IS THE COMMISSION'S WISHLIST. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT'S NOT ULTIMATELY THE END OF, OR, OR, OR THE ULTIMATE DECISIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING. 
          WELL, I AGREE, BUT MR. CITY ATTORNEY, IT'S YOUR JOB TO KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, BECAUSE IF THAT'S AN ITEM, THE CITY CONSOLE ALREADY VOTED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DOESN'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE THE CITY CONSOLE AND SO FORTH FOR YOU NOT TO STATE THAT THAT'S KIND OF GIVEN, LEAVING US INTO A, A VOTE THAT, OKAY, WHATEVER. 
          BUT YEAH, IT'S, IT IS WHAT IT IS, BUT I WILL URGE, UH, YOU NEXT TIME TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE VOTING ON SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A VERY ALREADY VOTED BY THE CITY CONSOLE. 
          AND THIS COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT AUTHORITY TO AMEND SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CONSOLE WHERE YOU VOTED ON. 
          BUT YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GIVE ME ONE SEC COMMISSIONER, JUST GIVE ME ONE SEC. 
          THIS IS LIKE THE THIRD TIME I HEARD IT TONIGHT REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. 
          THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE SEEN IT, BUT COMMISSION LOU BRIAN GUTIERREZ HAD MENTIONED QUITE A FEW TIMES THROUGHOUT THIS EVENING STATING THE FACT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAD APPROVED THIS ALREADY. 
          I MEAN, I WAS ASKING THROUGHOUT THIS MANY, IF THAT WAS THE PROJECT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAD ALREADY APPROVED THIS, THESE ITEMS, IT MAY BE ONE OR TWO ITEMS OR THE WISHLIST OF SOME OF THE CITY COUNCILS, BUT IT MAY NOT BE ALL UNIFORM BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING 
          [01:25:01]
RIGHT NOW, THIS IS, IT STARTED INITIAL WITH STAFF AND THEN IT WILL COMES TO THIS BODY AND THEN IT GETS FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          THEY WILL MAKE THE ULTIMATE AND THEY CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENT IN AMENDMENT TWO TO THIS THING. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT, IT MAY GET CHANGED BY THE TIME THEY GET MOVES TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEY HAVE NOT MAKE THE DECISION YET. 
          THIS IS NOT THE END. 
          OH, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          SO W WHEN WE'RE RECOMMENDING THIS TO THE CITY COUNCILS, IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THEY ALSO CITY COUNCILS ALSO, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          SO, UH, I, I WOULD, I WOULD MOTION THAT, UH, THAT WE MOVE ON THIS, UH, THIS PARTICULAR ITEM HAS BEEN CONCLUDED. 
          I AGREE. 
          OKAY. 
          [3. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SMALL WIRELESSFACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY]
LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. 
          I AGREE. 
          RESOLUTION ADOPTING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 
          UM, IS ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS MATTER IF ANYONE COME FORWARD WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO CALL FOR THE STAFF REPORT FIRST. 
          OKAY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND START OFF WITH A BIT OF HISTORY REGARDING THIS, UM, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR WIRELESS. 
          SO THE COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, UM, THIS START, THIS ALL STARTED OFF WITH AN FTC IF WITH AN FCC ORDER THAT LIMITED LOCAL MANAGEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THAT FCC ORDER. 
          UM, IT STATED THAT THE CITIES MAY REVIEW THE AESTHETICS OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES. 
          HOWEVER, IT DOES, THE, THE STANDARDS WOULD HAVE TO BE REASONABLE, NOT BURDENSOME IN PUBLISH AND ADVANCED. 
          UM, THE FCC ORDER ALSO LIMITED FEES THAT COULD BE CHARGED, BUT, UM, OR PROCESSING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES. 
          AND IT ALSO ENACTED A 60 DAY SHOCK CLOCK WHERE, UM, WHEN, WHEN THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, UH, THE, THE PROJECT OR THE, THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED OR DECIDED UPON WITHIN 60 DAYS. 
          UM, AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE SUPPER, UM, IN 2019, THERE WAS ALSO A SUPREME COURT RULING THAT, THAT STATED THAT CITIES ARE ALLOWED TO REGULATE THE AESTHETICS. 
          UM, WITH THAT IN APRIL OF 2019, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE CITY'S FIRST DESIGN GUIDELINES, UH, FOR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN JULY, 2019, THE CITY RECEIVED FIVE APPLICATIONS OR, OR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES PLACEMENTS ON TOP OF LIGHT POLES. 
          THESE APPLICATIONS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. 
          SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD TO HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE IT. 
          EVENTUALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED IT. 
          HOWEVER, IT WAS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL HAD DENIED THE APPLICATION FOLLOWING, FOLLOWING, UM, THE DECISION OF THESE APPLICATIONS, THE, THE CITY UPDATED THE, THE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO WIRELESS SELECT COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IT WAS REVIEWED, UM, AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY, 2020. 
          AND IT WAS, UH, UH, IT WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY, 2020 FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION. 
          THE PLANNING, UM, CONDUCTED TWO STUDY SESSIONS, ONE IN JULY, 2020, AND ONE IN AUGUST, 2020, UH, TO RE UM, TO REVIEW THE CITY'S ADOPTED DESIGN GUIDELINES AND TO AMEND IT SO THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S CURRENT CODE. 
          UM, DURING THE STUDY SESSIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT INCLUDED, I HA A HIERARCHY OF PREFERENCE AND SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD STAFF. 
          UM, AND AS A GUIDE, AS THE MAIN GUIDELINE OR BASE FOR THE DESIGN GUIDE, THE REVISED DESIGN GUIDELINES, WE UTILIZE THE CITY'S EXISTING DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ELIMINATED SECTIONS THAT ARE ALREADY COVERED BY THE MUNICIPAL 
          [01:30:01]
CODE STANDARDS THAT ARE ALREADY STATED IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE IN THESE STANDARDS, OR THESE ITEMS INCLUDED LOCATION. 
          UM, IN THE GUIDELINES, THE LOCATION WAS PREVIOUSLY 100 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. 
          HOWEVER, WITH THE ADOPTED MUNICIPAL CODE, IT IS NOW, UM, IT CAN BE LOCATED WITHIN A 15 TO 22, I'M SORRY, 15 TO 30 FEET FROM ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL USE PROVIDED THAT, UM, DEPENDING ON THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THE SITE, CAUSE IN SOME ZONING DESIGNATIONS, UM, THE REQUIRED SETBACK IS, IS 10 FEET FOR RESIDENTIAL AND IN SOME AREAS IT'S 30 FEET, OR I'M SORRY, 25 FEET. 
          YUP. 
          JOANNE REAL, REAL QUICK. 
          CAN YOU CLARIFY ON THAT LOCATION 100 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT WAS ADOPTED, BUT IT, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN NO LONGER WE CAN NO LONGER REQUIRE IS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          YEAH, CORRECT. 
          UM, THIS WAS, UM, IN THE PREVIOUS DESIGN GUIDELINES, SO IT WAS ELIMINATED BECAUSE IT NOW IS COVERED UNDER THE, THE MUNICIPAL CODE FELLOWS, UM, IN THE CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE. 
          UM, IT IS SPECIFICALLY ESTABLISHED AS THE LOCATION OF, UH, PERTAINING TO HOW FAR IT CAN BE FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. 
          SO, UM, IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE, IT STATES, UM, IT'S, IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 15 TO 30 FEET AWAY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. 
          UM, DEPENDING ON THE ZONING, IT'S 15 FEET FROM SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN THE PCD, ONE ZONE AND 30 FEET FROM SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES IN THE R ONE OR R A ZONE. 
          NOW, NOW WITH REGARD TO THAT, THAT DISTANCE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE CAN, UH, WE CAN MODIFY? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, WE'RE LIMITED TO UNDER THE SCOPE OF THE, UH, THE NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON THIS? UM, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MODIFY IT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THE ORDINANCE. 
          UM, I'M JUST SAYING HYPOTHETICALLY, IF WE SAID, IF WE MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT SAY, YOU KNOW, WE THINK 15 FEET IS TOO, TOO SMALL, WE WANT IT TO BE 30 FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, WE'RE LIMITED TO UNDER THE, UH, UNDER THE FCC REGS OR, UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S WHAT CHAIR COMMISSIONED. 
          UH, I HAVE TO START BY SAYING, WELL, WIRELESS, IT COULD BE A FULL EIGHT HOUR SEMINAR WITHOUT COVERING ALL OF IT. 
          THE REGULATIONS HERE HAVE BECOME SO EXTENSIVE, UH, BUT JOINED DOESN'T MIND. 
          I'LL JUMP IN TO ANSWER THAT. 
          UM, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT FIRST, THIS IS SPECIFIC TO SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 
          THIS IS NOT COVERING, UH, FACILITIES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH IS A SEPARATE PERMITTING PROCESS. 
          AND THESE ARE DESIGNED GUIDELINES. 
          WE'RE ASKING FOR AN ADVANCE. 
          SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE A HUNDRED FEET. 
          THERE IS A PROVISION THAT WE PUT INTO THE MUNICIPAL CODE. 
          UM, IF ANY PORTION OF THESE REGULATIONS CREATE AN EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION. 
          AND, AND I USE THOSE TERMS INTENTIONALLY BECAUSE THAT'S A FEDERAL TERM USED IN FEDERAL LAW, WE CANNOT EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT A WIRELESS SERVICE. 
          SO IF A CARRIER COMES TO US AND SAYS, IF YOU'RE MAKING ME GO OUT A HUNDRED FEET, THAT'S AN EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION, THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR THE CITY. 
          SO WE HAVE A MECHANISM, HOWEVER, TO WHERE WE'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT WORK. 
          RIGHT. 
          KNOW WHAT, WHAT I WAS GETTING AT IS LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A SCENARIO IN WHICH THERE IS A CORNER WALL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TECHNICALLY YOUR, YOUR IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, BUT YOU MAY BE EFFECTIVELY BEHIND A STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          UM, AT LEAST AS IT PERTAINS TO THAT RESIDENCE, THERE'S PLENTY OF RESIDENCES THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY THAT HAVE A LIGHT POLE OR SOME UTILITY POLE NEARBY. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. 
          UH, JUST SO I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE REGULATIONS WORK AND WHAT OUR LIMITATIONS IN TERMS OF GUIDELINES AND EVERYTHING. 
          YOU HAVE A COPY OF, OF THAT IN OUR BOOKS FOR THE PATRONS AND ON THE LOCATIONS ARE LISTED AS A PREFERENCE BECAUSE THEY COULD THEORETICALLY COME IN AND ASK OR APPLY FOR A BRAND NEW POLL IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          AND OUR AUTHORITY IS LIMITED OVER THAT. 
          WE HAVE SOME, BUT IT'S BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICTED BY THE FEDERAL 
          [01:35:01]
GOVERNMENT. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO IN THIS ORDINANCE, AND THESE DESIGN GUIDELINES IS PRESERVE AS MUCH LOCAL AUTHORITY AS WE CAN. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO. 
          I'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS CELL SITE CELL TOWER FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS. 
          AND IT IS TRUE THAT THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE SOME GUIDELINES, BUT ULTIMATELY AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVEN THOUGH THE FCC IN THE LAWS THAT WAS CREATED IN 30 SOMETHING YEARS AGO, I FORGOT WHAT THE DATE WAS, HAS BEEN. 
          THAT IT'S A LONG TIME AGO. 
          THE FIRST THING, THE FIRST THING THAT EVEN THOUGH THE FCC, SOME OF THEM TOOK SOME LOCAL CONTROL FROM IT, BUT GOVERNING BODY OF WEST COVINA ALSO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE FIRST THING THE FCC GIVE TO, TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF OUR CITY IS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE IN TERMS OF DECIDING WHERE TO PUT THIS, THESE EQUIPMENT. 
          THAT'S ONE, HOW AESTHETICALLY, HOW IT LOOKS, HOW IT LOOKS. 
          AND THEN ALSO, I BELIEVE THE THIRD THING WAS THE MODIFICATIONS. 
          SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, YES, THE FCC HAD COME UP WITH EVERY YEAR OR SO. 
          THEY COME UP WITH NEW CODE, VERY RESTRICTIVE, BUT ALSO THE COURT, THE SUPREME COURT HAD JOANNE HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, WHICH IS ALL CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, THAT SAN FRANCISCO IS SAN FRANCISCO, THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO. 
          I BELIEVE SUE ALL IN. 
          I FORGOT WHICH COMPANY IT WAS. 
          AND IT TOOK ALL THE WAY TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT. 
          AND BASICALLY THE SUPREME COURT CAME BACK AND SAY, YES, THE CITY CAN AESTHETICALLY DETERMINE HOW, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW TALL THEY SHOULD BE, HOW FAT THE SURPI, HOW IT LOOKS, WHETHER IT'S LOOK, YOU KNOW, WHAT THIS ITEM LOOKS NICE FOR OUR CITY OR NOT. 
          SO THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH IS ALL CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, DID SAY THAT THE CITY, THE CITY, WHICH IS US RIGHT NOW, WE'RE MAKING CODES FOR THE CITY THAT WE CAN, THERE'S CERTAIN ITEMS THAT WE CAN DO IS TO HELP KEEP THE CITY AESTHETICALLY, AESTHETICALLY. 
          NICE. 
          BASICALLY WE CAN'T JUST BE CAN IF WE CHOOSE TO LET ALL OUR GOVERNING BODY RIGHT NOW, US WE'RE DOING THE PLANNING, PLANNING IS THAT ONE WE CAN'T DECIDE TO LET WHATEVER THE COMPANY WANTS TO DO, JUST COME IN AND INSTALL WHATEVER THEY WANT, OR WE CAN SET CERTAIN PARAMETERS IN TERMS OF WHERE THEY CAN PUT THIS ITEMS IN CITY ZONES. 
          WE HAD LIKE OVER 20 DIFFERENT TYPES OF ZONES THROUGHOUT THE CITIES. 
          WE CAN CHOOSE WHAT ZONE WE CAN ALLOW THESE THINGS OR NOT. 
          AND THEN ALSO THE DISTANCE. 
          THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE CAN'T DO, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COAT AND THE LAW IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVERY SO MANY YEARS OR SO, IT, THEY ALWAYS COME UP WITH NEW REGULATIONS. 
          AND IN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS CORRECT, BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME, EVEN GOING BACK 30 YEARS, THEY HAD ALWAYS TOLD US THAT WE JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I MEAN, LIKE YOU SAID, TO TALK ABOUT THIS CELL SITE, IT CAN, IT'S AN EIGHT HOUR SEMINAR OR LONGER, OR A LOT LONGER. 
          I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS ITEMS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW. 
          IT'S NOT JUST YESTERDAY OR TODAY, BUT IT'S QUITE INTERESTING HOW I'M SITTING HERE TODAY. 
          AND SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS ARE NEW IN TERMS OF HOW AND WHERE WE CAN PLACE THESE ITEMS. LIKE I SAID, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT FCC SAID THAT WE CAN DO AS A, AS A GOVERNING BODY IS THE LOCATIONS WHERE, AND WE DECIDE, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PUT IT? NUMBER TWO IS THE AESTHETICS. 
          HOW, IN WHAT SIZE IN THE HALL, HOW TALL IT IS, THOSE MODELS, THOSE TYPE OF ITEMS. WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. 
          AND ALSO MODIFICATION TO THERE'S QUITE A FEW THINGS THAT THE FCC HAD CAME OUT SINCE THEN, SINCE THEN, THAT BASICALLY WE CAN'T, ONCE WE GAVE AN ALLOWED THE BASE, THERE'S A LAW THAT WAS STARTED DOING THE OMAN OBAMA, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, BASICALLY SAYING THAT THEY CAN GO UP 20% OR 10%. 
          I FORGOT HOW MUCH IT WAS SO MANY FEET ONCE WE GIVE THEM THE BASE. 
          SO THEY CAN GO UP SO MANY FEET AND CITY AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IF WE ALLOW THOSE THINGS TO HAPPEN, THE MINUTE THAT THEY INCREASE, THEN WE WILL NOT HAVE A SAY IN IT. 
          BUT TO SOME EXTENT, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO SAY THAT WE CAN, THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN'T DO. 
          AND I LIKE FOR YOU TO HELP US GUIDE THROUGH THAT, WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN NOT DO. 
          I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT YES, OUR CURRENT CODE 
          [01:40:01]
IN THE BOOK, I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE ALL THESE YEARS, FIVE, SIX YEARS NOW. 
          BUT FOR SOME REASON I DID NOT KNOW THAT I'LL CODE RIGHT NOW HAS A 15 TO 20 FEET FROM THE HOUSE. 
          THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. 
          A LOT OF TIME, WE RUSHED THROUGH THESE THINGS. 
          WE HAVE LESS THAN SOMETIME. 
          I SWEAR IT WAS LIKE THIS LAW AND THIS CODE IT'S AFFECTING EVERY HOME OWNERS AND EVERY PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA. 
          BUT YET WE SPEND VERY LITTLE TIME HAVING A DISCUSSION, EVEN THOUGH EVERY TIME IT COME UP, IT'S LIKE A RUSH THROUGH IT. 
          OH, WE HAVE TO COMPLY TO THIS CODE. 
          SO LET'S RUSH THROUGH IT. 
          LET'S GET THIS GO THROUGH. 
          AND EVERY TIME WE DO THAT, BUT LIKE I SAID, AS A CITY ATTORNEY, THERE ARE THINGS THAT OUR CITY CAN DO TO HELP RESIDENT, PLEASE HELP GUIDE US THROUGH THE PROCESS, THROUGH OUR NEW COMMISSIONER AS WELL. 
          BECAUSE THE LAST SIX YEARS WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS, NONE OF THOSE COMMISSIONERS ARE SITTING HERE. 
          AND LIKE I SAID, THESE WERE REVOLTING REALLY HARD. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR HELPING AS WELL. 
          AND THEN ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, SO WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON TONIGHT FOR THIS ITEM? I WAS, I WAS ACTUALLY, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, I, I, I APOLOGIZE. 
          I THINK I KIND OF SIDETRACKED THIS WITH THIS QUESTION. 
          I THINK JOANNE WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STAFF REPORT AND I, HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET BACK TO THAT. 
          AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS LATER ON THAT I APOLOGIZE FOR CO-OPTING THIS. 
          I CERTAINLY DIDN'T INTEND TO DO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          NO PROBLEM. 
          THANKS. 
          UM, AND THE OTHER SECTION THAT WAS REMOVED FROM, FROM THE, UH, RECOMMENDED FOR REMOVAL, UM, FROM THE EXISTING DESIGN GUIDELINES IS THE HEIGHT BECAUSE IN THE CURRENT CODE, THE HEIGHT STANDARDS ARE, ARE ALREADY IN PLACE, WHICH IS THE, UM, W UM, T WIRELESS LACK OF TELOMERE TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES CANNOT BE MORE THAN FIVE FEET TALLER THAN THE EXISTING, UH, LIGHT POLE THAT IT'S REPLACING, OR THE EXISTING POLES, UM, AROUND THE SAME, AROUND THE AREA, ON THE SAME BLOCK, AS FAR AS THE HIGHER, HE IS CONCERNED REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING LIGHT POLES ARE THE MOST PREFERRED. 
          AND AS FAR AS THE LOCATION HIERARCHY IS CONCERNED, THE MOST PREFERRED IS, UM, NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES ARE MORE, ARE PREFERABLE. 
          UM, AND RESIDENTIAL SONES ARE LESS PREFER REFERRED. 
          AND WITHIN THE NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES, INDUSTRIAL ZONES LOCATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES ARE MOST PREFERRED, UM, IN COMPARISON TO AREAS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL ZONES IN ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL ZONES OR A DAYCARE, HI, MARY SCHOOL OR SECONDARY SCHOOL IS THE LEAST PREFERRED. 
          AND FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES, THE, UM, OR AREAS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, THE MOST PREFERRED IS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES ON PRINCIPAL ALTERIAN STREETS IN THE LEAST PREFER PREFERRED LOCATION IS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO SINGLE FENDERS INITIALS ZONES, OR A DAYCARE PRIMARY SCHOOL OR SECONDARY SCHOOL. 
          AND THIS, WE ALSO, UM, ADOPTED, UM, OR THE STAFF ALSO INCLUDED AUTOGRAPHS OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT IS NOT, OR MINISTRY MINISTERIAL APPROVAL MINISTERIAL APPROVALS. 
          UM, DO NOT HAVE TO GO TO PLANNING. 
          COMMISSIONING CAN JUST BE APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE COUNTER. 
          UM, AS LONG AS IT, THEY COMPLY WITH A SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL GUIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND WITH, WITH THE CODE STANDARDS, AND IT IS DONE THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS. 
          SO IF THE ANTENNAS IN OUR, OUR USE ARE CONTAINED ABOVE THE POLE WITHIN A SHROUD, UM, THE, THE VERTICAL ALIGNMENT IS AT A ONE-TO-ONE RATIO AND THE WIRES ARE ENCLOSED AND ALL THE EQUIPMENT IS UNDERGROUNDED. 
          THEN THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE APPROVED MINISTERIAL MINISTERIALLY, UM, AND IN 
          [01:45:01]
PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DIRECTION, UM, PREVIOUS DIRECTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTED TO SEE THAT THE DESIGN WOULD, UM, IS STREAMLINED IT, UM, AS STREAMLINED. 
          AND THERE IS, UM, THERE IS A TRANSITION FROM THE WIDTH OF THE, THE SHROUD TO THE WIDTH OF THE POLE. 
          AND IT'S T THE DESIGN IS TAPERED. 
          UM, IF THE POLE IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN THE SHROUD, THE PROPOSED SHROUD AND TENNIS SHOT ABOVE IT. 
          SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN ACCEPTABLE TAPERED DESIGN OR A STREAMLINED TRANSITION. 
          AND FOR DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS NOT GOING TO BE APPROVED MINISTERIALLY AND IT WOULD RE AND THE DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL PROCESS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE NOTICED AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN A P IF APPEALED WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          SO IF THE SHROUD IS TOO LARGE, THERE'S NO TAPERING, UH, THE, OUR, OUR USE, UM, IS INDEPENDENT IS ON THE SIDE, AND IT'S INDEPENDENT FROM THE ANTENNA SHROUD, AND OR IF THE UTILITY BOX OR METERING IS ABOVE GROUND, THEN IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS. 
          AND TH THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT AN ANTENNA SHROUD ABOVE A POLE WITH NO TRANSITION IN NO TAPERING LOOKS LIKE. 
          SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD, OR THE DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          UM, WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT A RESOLUTION, UM, UPDATING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 
          IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS, STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER, OKAY, NOW WE'LL OPEN DISCUSSIONS CHAIR, I'M SORRY. 
          IT'S NOT A PUBLIC. 
          AGAIN, ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS MATTER, THAT CAN BE LONG WINDED. 
          IS THAT THE CRACK 15 MINUTES? I'M NOT GOING TO SAY 15 MINUTES, BUT YOU USE TWO PHRASES THAT I GUESS CAME FROM THE COURT HEARING OR FROM THE AGENCY, UH, AND IT KINDA IMPLIED, OR WHAT I REFERRED WAS THAT THEY CAN CHALLENGE THE DISTANCE, BUT I ALSO HEARD THAT THE DISTANCE IS BEING DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          UM, I SEE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DISTANCE AND THE AESTHETICS. 
          SO I REALLY I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER CITY COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GO BACK TO THAT HUNDRED FEET, OR THEY'RE RE THEY'RE LIMITED TO THE 1530 RANGE AS BEING PROPOSED HERE TONIGHT, BECAUSE I, I HONESTLY FEEL THAT IT'S GOING TO IMPACT SOME RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          I LIVE ON A ARTERIAL, UH, AREA. 
          UM, SO POSSIBLY I CAN END UP WITH ONE IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. 
          I LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER I OKAY, AND BE ADJUSTED TO THAT HUNDRED FEET AWAY FROM RESIDENTS, AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OF 1530 OR 15 TWENTY-FIVE DEPENDING ON THE AREA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. CITY ATTORNEY, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, UM, AND MAYBE I MISHEARD THIS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT PLANNING PREVIOUSLY MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AND HAD GUIDELINES THAT WERE AT A HUNDRED FEET. 
          SUBSEQUENTLY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A, AN ORDINANCE THAT, UH, HAS IT AT 30 OR 15, UM, SO THAT THEY ARE IN LINE WITH THE, UH, WITH THE EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION LANGUAGE, UM, OR, OR EXCUSE ME, NOT, NOT FALLING INTO THE TRAP OF BEING AN EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION, I GUESS, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE LANGUAGE FROM THE CASE. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? SO, COMMISSIONER, WHAT, WHAT IS THE QUESTION? OKAY. 
          SO MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT, SO BACK IN, WHAT WAS IT, 2018? I THINK THE, UH, OR EXCUSE ME, IN 2019, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED GUIDELINES SAYING A HUNDRED FEET, ULTIMATELY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE THAT, THAT, UH, BACK IN MAY OF 2020, THAT, UH, THAT, THAT 
          [01:50:01]
HAS THE, UH, UH, THE, THE LIMITATION AT 15 TO 30 FEET, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE STRUCTURE I'VE HEARD OF JOANNA ON DANCE. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UM, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT. 
          UM, IF YOU LOOK IN PAGE 25 OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT'S ATTACHED ORDINANCE UNDER LOCATION, UM, IT SAYS SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 15 FEET FROM ANY STRUCTURE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES IN THE ECD ONE ZONE. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UM, AND OUTSIDE OF THE PD PCD, ONE ZONE, IT'S 30, 30 FEET. 
          GOT IT. 
          UM, AND THEN I HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO THE STANDARD UTILITY POLE, UH, NOT, NOT THE LIGHT POLE EXAMPLE THAT, UM, WAS GOING TO BE GIVEN, UH, MINISTERIAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL TO THAT, UH, THAT SLOT. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          YOU SEE ON THE, UH, ARE YOU AN ANTENNA AND THEN THE STREAMLINED SHROUD, AND THEN BELOW THAT, UM, THERE'S NOTHING, UH, REQUIRING ENCLOSURE OF WIRES OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES. 
          UM, WHY IS THERE, IS THERE NO SPECIFICITY THERE? UM, IT SHOULD, UM, IT IS INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. 
          IT DOES SAY THAT THE WIRES WOULD HAVE TO BE ENCLOSED. 
          IT WAS JUST NOT JOHN AND IN, IN THEIR STANDARD PHOTOGRAPH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT'S IN THE PROPOSED, UH, RECOMMENDED ORDER. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          AND YOU SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE THAT'S AT. 
          UM, IT IS IN ATTACHED TO THE, UM, THE RESOLUTION, IF YOU, UM, SO B H H TO THE FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES, RIGHT? WHERE IS THAT WHERE IT SAYS IF WIRING CANNOT BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE POLE, ALL WIRING SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN A CONDUIT THAT IS SUBDUED OR MATCHES THE ADJACENT SURFACE AND IS UV PROTECTED. 
          IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR? UM, YES. 
          UM, IN MY, UM, IN MY COPY, THAT WAS, UM, TWO PAGES WAS, SO I DON'T, I HAVE A QUESTION IS THIS FAR, UH, SO VERIZON WIRELESS HELPED, UM, RECOMMEND THIS PROPOSAL. 
          I SEE THERE, WE HAVE AN EMAIL FOR, FROM HORIZON. 
          I DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM HORIZON WIRELESS, UM, IN WHICH THEY RECOMMENDED A FEW, YOU, UM, THEY HAD A FEW CONCERNS AND THEY RECOMMENDED A FEW, UM, LANGUAGE CHANGES. 
          IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THEM COME TO A MEETING TO PRESENT? UM, SHE, THEY, THEY, UM, THEY SENT AN EMAIL RATHER THAN COMING TO THE MEETING. 
          UM, BUT IN THE PAST CROWN CASTLE, UM, IN, IN OTHER WIRELESS FACILITY, PROVIDERS HAVE, HAVE, UM, ATTENDED THE MEETING. 
          THAT'S GREAT. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE BRING THIS BACK TO THE NEXT COMMISSION OR THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING OR MEETING AFTER, DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM, UH, COMCAST OR, OR THE LOCAL PROVIDERS TO GIVE US SOME MORE DETAIL ON THE BACKGROUND. 
          CAUSE I KNOW A TENT POLES IS A BIG CONCERN FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE OBVIOUSLY A RECOMMENDATION. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          AND, UM, I'M SORRY, WHAT'S YOUR MOTION AGAIN? COMMISSIONED GOOD. 
          HE WANTS TO TABLE. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS TO EITHER THE NEXT METER TO MEAN THE AFTER, DEPENDING ON COMCAST AND OR REVISE, I'M SURE CITY HAS CONTACT LISTS DEPENDING ON THEIR AVAILABILITY TO COME PRESENT TO US AND GO OVER SOME OF THE GUIDELINES. 
          AND, AND BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS A BIG ISSUE, UH, I KNOW IN THE SOUTH HILLS AREA TOO, THERE WAS A BIG ISSUE OVER THERE TOO. 
          AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE, AS THE COMMISSION HEAR FROM SOME OF THE EXPERTS ON THIS TOO. 
          UM, I'LL SECOND THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION. 
          SO I LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS OR EXAMPLE FOR TONIGHT, THE DESIGN REVIEW, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE ONE, WHICH IS, 
          [01:55:01]
UH, UH, THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, THIS, THE DESIGN REVIEW, THIS IS BASICALLY, IT'S AN ADDITIONS TO WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE CODE AS WELL. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT A, WHICH IS, THERE'S A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF ON PAGE ONE, BUT ON PAGE TWO, IF YOU LOOK AT ITEM A, IT SAID FACILITY AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT FOR A THROUGH F IT'S KIND OF IMPORTANT FOR US TO LOOK AT THESE ARE THE ITEMS PRACTICALLY IN FRONT OF US. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE APPROVING IS THEIR DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES AND A IT'S A FACILITY AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT. 
          NOW THEY WANT A 16 INCH DIAMETER. 
          NOW ALL THIS CODE FROM EIGHT F WE CAN MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THIS. 
          SO DOES CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL ALSO CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENT TV, CAUSE THESE ARE BASICALLY OUR CODE. 
          I'LL TAKE THE BIBLE FOR EVERYONE TO FOLLOW. 
          SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK FROM ITEM A, TO F A BASICALLY SAYING THAT IT'S 16 INCHES IN DIAMETER NOW, 16 INCH IN DIAMETER, IF EVERYONE KNOWS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 12 INCHES. 
          SO I'LL TELEPHONE POLE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY THAT WE PAID GOOD MONEY OR YEARS AGO, I BELIEVE, I DON'T KNOW TO GET A MATCHING LIGHT POLES OR WHAT HAVE YOU THEY'RE ROUGHLY ABOUT, I WOULD SAY EIGHT INCHES OR SO IN A TAPER TO ABOUT FOUR INCHES OR SO ON TOP. 
          SO THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, IF WE'RE SAYING THAT, OKAY, EVERY 200 FEET, SOME COMPANY WANT TO PUT SOMETHING, ULTIMATELY THEY CAN COME IN AND CHANGE ALL THE LIGHT POLE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND HAVE SOMETHING ELSE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. 
          NOW THIS IS SOMETHING ALSO WE CAN ACTUALLY SET. 
          OKAY. 
          WE ONLY WANT SOMETHING TO MATCH WHAT WE HAVE EXISTING BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT CHANGING ONE BY ONE OR, YOU KNOW, 500 OR 10 A PIECE. 
          AND THEN I'LL LIGHT POLE IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE LOOKING LIKE WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, IF THAT HAPPENS. 
          RIGHT? THE OTHER THING IS THAT IF WE CURRENTLY HAVE A LIGHT POLE OR A TELEPHONE, CURRENTLY, THEY CAN SAY, WELL, IF THIS POLE DOESN'T WORK, WE CAN ADD AN ADDITION NEXT TO IT, THREE FEET. 
          SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, HOW IS THAT GOING TO LOOK A 16 FOOT DIAMETER, WHICH IS A GIANT ONE NEXT TO WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, UH, AESTHETICALLY PLEASING RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THE CITY IS, WE HAVE THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND WE'RE USED TO IT. 
          SO HOW IS THAT GOING TO LOOK IF WE ALLOW THEM AND EVERY COMPANY IS GOING TO COME AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. 
          WHATEVER YOU GOT, WE'RE GONNA PUT A NEW ONE. 
          AND WHAT HAVE YOU. 
          SO LET'S GO TO B THE VERTICAL PORTION, THE NARROW VERTICAL PORTION. 
          THEY SAY ONE-TO-ONE, BUT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, ONE-TO-ONE HERE. 
          IT IS SOME EXTENT IT'S ONE-TO-ONE IF THEY WERE TO PUT 16 INCHES, ONE-TO-ONE RIGHT. 
          THEY ANTENNA ON THE TOP. 
          HOW BIG IS IT? IS THAT 16 FEET? HOW HIGH IS IT? HOW HIGH CAN IT GO? THEN ON TOP OF THAT, YES, WE MIGHT BE GIVING THEM THIS LOCATION, THIS SIZE, BUT THERE'S A FEDERAL LAW DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ALSO SAID THE FEDERAL LAW, ONCE YOU HAVE THE BASE, THEY CAN GO UP 20% AND WHATEVER SIZE UP FIT THEIR NEED OR THE ONE THEY NO LONGER NEED ALL CITY COUNCILS OR ALL PLANNING COMMISSION TO DECIDE THAT THAT'S THAT'S, THAT'S ON THEIR SIDE. 
          THAT'S A FEDERAL LAW NUMBER C WIRELESS AND CABLES. 
          YES. 
          SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE, IT'S A MUST BE UNDERGROUND. 
          THAT'S A MUST BE. 
          THERE'S NO EXCEPTION ABOUT THAT. 
          IF THEY WANT TO BE ABOVE GROUND, HOW BIG IS IT? THESE ARE THE SIDES THAT WE HAVE TO DETERMINE IS THE SIZE OF THE FRIDGE, SMALL ENOUGH FOR US, OR IS IT BIGGER? AND HOW MANY, IF THEY DECIDED LIKE EACH COMPANY COMES IN AND THEY WANTED DIFFERENT CORNERS, DIFFERENT, I MEAN, SOMEONE'S FRONT YARD CAN BE STACKED WITH ALL THESE EQUIPMENT ITEMS INSTEAD OF HAVING ADMINISTRATIVE. 
          YES. 
          SOME OF THE ITEMS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE, BUT SOME OF THE ITEMS ARE CONDITIONED ON USEFUL MINT. 
          WE CAN ACTUALLY, AT THIS POINT IN TIME STATED, SAY, IT'S NOT ALLOW ABOVE GROUND. 
          SO AESTHETICALLY, IT COULD BE PLEASING SO THAT THIS WAY WE CAN PREVENT CONFETTI ISSUES OR JUST THE LOOK OF IT. 
          I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE IF SOMEONE HAD 50 SQUARE FEET, 50 FEET OF LOT FRONTAGE AND EVERY FIVE OR 10 FEET, THEY HAD ONE OF THESE EQUIPMENT IN FRONT OF THEIR HEALTH PLAN. 
          I'M SORRY, THE SIGNAGE. 
          AND THEN THE, UM, THE SIGNAGE IS NOT THAT BAD BECAUSE YOU KIND OF HAVE TO MAKE IT SMALL. 
          AND THEN F IS TO CONSTRUCTION APPROACH OR MEETING AND METERING 
          [02:00:01]
AND ALL THAT STUFF. 
          I'LL AMEND MY MOTION. 
          UH, THAT ALSO OVERCASTS THE PRESENTERS PRE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN EACH OF THOSE SUBJECT LINES AND MAYBE PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES AND SOME MORE, A LITTLE MORE DETAILS ON EACH OF THESE SUBJECT LINES. 
          SO THE COMMISSION HAS MORE INFORMATION ABOUT W UH, SPECIFICALLY, UH, DIFFERENT DESIGNS AND, AND, AND, UH, FACILITY AND SUPPORTING EQUIPMENT AND THEIR OWN VERTICAL ALIGNMENT AND 10, UH, AND R R R U WIRELESS CABLE, SIGNAGE, AND CONSTRUCTION. 
          THERE'S JUST A LITTLE MORE SAMPLES. 
          AND I'M SURE, UH, THE PHONE COMPANIES OR INTERNET COMPANIES HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO SHARE IF I MAY, UH, COMMISSION, UH, WE'RE OF COURSE WE'RE HAPPY TO DO AS THE COMMISSION DIRECTS, BUT I DO WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TONIGHT. 
          UM, LET ME START WITH WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DOING TONIGHT. 
          WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT MAC WHAT WE CALL MACRO SITES, WHICH ARE THE BIG TOWERS. 
          WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT WIRELESS FACILITIES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
          WE'RE NOT EVEN LOOKING AT THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY WHERE THEY'RE INSTALLING THEIR OWN POLE. 
          WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, W WHAT WE CALL SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES. 
          THEY'RE KIND OF THE NEWEST TECHNOLOGY, UM, AT HIS LARGEST, THE SIZE OF A REFRIGERATOR, A SINGLE SIDE REFRIGERATOR, WHICH SEEMS LARGE TO US, BUT WHICH IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE ORIGINAL TECHNOLOGY, IF YOU THINK A GIANT TOWER. 
          SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. 
          AND WE'RE, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS, AS THE, AS THE COMMISSIONER HANG MENTIONED WAS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL IS PART OF THAT ORDINANCE. 
          UH, AND AS PART OF THE FCC ORDER, WHICH CAME OUT IN 2019 CITIES CAN IMPOSE STANDARDS. 
          SO WE PUT OUR ORDINANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES AND LIMITATIONS IN PLACE. 
          PART OF THAT ORDINANCE, WE ALSO SAID THAT WE'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH AESTHETIC STANDARDS, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT BY A RESOLUTION. 
          SO WE'RE NOT CHANGED. 
          WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE AESTHETIC STANDARDS THAT COMMISSIONER HANGING BROUGHT UP EARLIER, THAT THE WE CAN'T IMPOSE, UH, THEY HAVE TO BE, UM, THEY HAVE TO BE PUBLISHED IN ADVANCE TO BE ENFORCEABLE, AND THEY HAVE TO BE REASONABLE. 
          AND OF COURSE, AS I DISCUSSED EARLIER, THEY CANNOT PROHIBIT OR EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT. 
          AND WHAT THAT MEANS IN PRACTICE, WE CAN'T PUT STANDARDS, WHICH ARE SO ONEROUS THAT IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THEM TO PUT IT, PUT IT WHERE THEY NEED TO PUT IT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT IS, IS WHAT ARE THOSE STANDARDS? WHAT IS THE AESTHETIC STANDARDS? SO WE CAN PUT THEM IN ADVANCE. 
          SO THE WIRELESS COMPANIES KNOW. 
          YEAH, PERFECT. 
          SO I'LL, I'LL AMEND MY MOTION, UH, TO SAY, ARE WE TABLED IT SORT OF NEXT MEETING, DEPENDING ON THE SCHEDULES OF THE PHONE TO COMCAST OR ONE OF THE COMPANIES, UH, AND THAT THEY COULD GO OVER SOME EXAMPLES OF THE AESTHETIC, UH, ASPECT OF WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO BE, WHERE WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I SECOND THAT MOTION ROLL CALL NEWPORT, THE COMMISSION. 
          DID WE NEED TO CLARIFY, OR IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? OH YEAH. 
          UM, SO IT'S CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS RIGHT NOW. 
          AND THEN, OR DO YOU WANT TO DO ROLL CALL? WE CAN DO ROLL CALL. 
          IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DO DISCUSSION BEFORE THE VOTE. 
          REALLY. 
          I, I, I GUESS I'M, I GUESS I'M A BIT LOST IN TERMS OF WHAT, IN PARTICULAR WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE PHONE COMPANY ON, UM, OR I, I I'M, I'M, I DON'T KNOW, LOST IN TERMS OF WHAT INPUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE. 
          I MEAN, IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE QUITE CLEAR, AND I THINK THE ANSWER TO THIS IS, UM, HAS THIS PARTICULAR SET OF GUIDELINES BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN ANY OTHER CITY? YES, YES. 
          THEN I DON'T REALLY SEE WHAT INPUT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE FROM, FROM THE, THE PHONE COMPANY ON THIS. 
          I MEAN, ULTIMATELY IF IT'S A FEASIBILITY ISSUE AS THEY CLAIM, UM, I IMAGINE WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE VICTIMS OF, OF ONE HECK OF A LAWSUIT DOWN THE LINE, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING REALITY. 
          IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE CARRIERS CERTAINLY WANT TO MAKE EVERYTHING AS CHEAP AS POSSIBLE, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO INNOVATE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I MEAN, ULTIMATELY THAT IS, THAT IS THEIR PROVINCE. 
          THEY HAVE TO ANSWER TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS. 
          AND QUITE FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ARE IN A CITY WHERE THERE IS EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE AND, AND, AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS GOING ON WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN THINGS. 
          UH, VERIZON IS EFFECTIVELY, 
          [02:05:02]
UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF A SMALL OLIGOPOLY THAT RUNS, UH, WIRELESS PHONE SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES. 
          AND THEN ULTIMATELY, I, I ASSUME THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT MINIATURIZING THINGS. 
          UM, AND, AND THAT'S FINE IF THEY WERE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IT, THEY'D BE HERE AND THEY'RE NOT. 
          SO THAT SAYS IT ALL TO ME. 
          SO I'M IN A MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          SO IN THE LETTER FROM OUR VERIZON, IT STAYS THERE FOR FACILITIES BEING PROPOSED IN THE PUBLIC. 
          RIGHT-AWAY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES WITH SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENCES, DAYCARES, AND SCHOOLS ARE BECOME MORE COMMON. 
          WHEN YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DESIGN THAT. 
          UM, I CAN GO, WE CAN GO OVER THE LETTER. 
          UM, AS FAR AS THE HIERARCHY IS CONCERNED, UM, THAT, THAT, UM, THE HIERARCHY PARTICULARLY JUST PARTICULARLY MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T SAY IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY, UM, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO, TO, UM, BUILD A ADJACENT OR NEAR RESIDENTIAL ZONES IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. 
          IT'S JUST THAT THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS FOR EVERY SINGLE LINE IN THE HIERARCHY, UM, STATING WIDE. 
          THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO, TO MEET OR, OR, UM, TO, TO PUT THE POLE IN THE LOCATION, UM, IN THE HEIGHT OF, UM, IN THE AREAS ABOVE THAT PARTICULAR, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, IF SEE, IF THEY WANTED TO PUT IT IN, UM, IN RESIDENTS, IF THEY WANTED TO PUT IT WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES IN, UH, IN AN RESIDENTIAL AREA, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UM, PUT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT WRITTEN JUSTIFICATIONS. 
          I, UM, STATING WHY THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO PUT IT IN ADJACENT TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS ON COLLECTOR STREETS, WHY THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO PUT IT IN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES ON MINOR MATERIAL, UM, AND SO FORTH. 
          SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO PUT, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THE CITY WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION. 
          SO AS I WAS TALKING ABOUT COSMETIC DESIGNS, IS THIS THE ONLY DESIGN THAT'S THE, THIS IS, UM, THIS IS THE MOST PREFERRED, UM, DESIGN THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE. 
          SO IS THERE OTHER DESIGNS BEING USED IN OTHER CITIES? UM, THERE ARE OTHER DESIGNS THAT, THAT, UM, DOES NOT NECESSARILY FIT WITHIN OUR CITY. 
          UM, AND THERE ARE OTHER DESIGNS THAT ARE WORSE, SUCH AS THE ONES PHOTOGRAPHED WITHOUT THAT, WITHOUT THE TRANSITION. 
          JOANNE, SINCE HER COMMISSIONS HERE HAS NOT SEEN SOME OF THESE DESIGN OR DO YOU KNOW, WITHIN NOW CITY OR WITHIN OUR SURROUNDING CITY, THAT HAS SOME OF THESE DESIGNS THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DRIVE THERE AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY TONIGHT WE'RE PROVING A DESIGN STANDARDS THAT IT'S ULTIMATELY AFFECTING EVERY SINGLE HOME OWNERS IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA. 
          AND ALSO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ACTUALLY GO TO SOME PLACES THAT LOOK AT SOME OF THESE ITEMS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO FOR ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE THREE FOOT NEXT TO ANOTHER POLE, OR NEXT TO A LAMP POLES. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, TO SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO LOOK PHYSICALLY, NOT IN, JUST IN PICTURES OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE SIZE, THE HEIGHTS AND THE, YOU KNOW, ON TOP OF IT, WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE LARGE SHROUD OR THE RNR AND ANTENNA. 
          HOW LONG DOES IT HAS TO BE? HOW BIG DOES IT HAS TO BE? I MEAN, 16 INCHES, OBVIOUSLY THE POLE ONE TO ONE IS AT 16 INCHES. 
          HOW DOES THAT LOOK? DOES ANY ONE OF US KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BEFORE WE APPROVED ANY OF THESE ITEMS TO BE SYSTEMATICALLY GOING THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY? BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WHATEVER WE APPROVE, THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT IN OUR CITY. 
          THE LEAST THAT WE CAN DO IS CONTINUE THIS, TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT ARE WE PROPOSING TO BUILD, WHETHER IT'S UNDERGROUND ITEMS, WHETHER IT'S ABOVE GROUND ITEMS, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? ALL THESE ITEMS? YES. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO NEED THIS, AND YES, BELIEVE ME, I'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS FOR THE LAST SIX OR SEVEN OR EIGHT TIMES, THIS TYPE OF MEETING. 
          SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE OUR TIME, TAKE A LOOK AT IT. 
          THERE'S A REASON WHY CITY COUNCIL DID NOT APPROVE A PROJECT THAT WAS TRYING TO CH HOW LONG AGO, JOANNE, THAT THEY WERE TRYING 
          [02:10:01]
TO PUT FIVE OR SO CELL TOWERS ON THE, UM, CLOSE TO EMAR. 
          AND AS SOON AS OUR AREA, I'M SORRY, ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF, ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, THERE'S A REASON WHY, BUT THIS CURRENT PLAN THAT THEY'RE NOT APPROVING, AND THAT WAS 15 MINUTES AND FRONT OF SOMEONE'S HOME, 15 OR 20 FEET. 
          CAUSE SOME OF THE PUD HOMES ON A STREET, IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO THEIR HOME. 
          AND SOME OF THEM WAS PUTTING IN FRONT OF THE WINDOW WITH THE SIZE OF THESE ITEMS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT AS A, AS A COMMISSION AND AS SOMEONE THAT WE ARE MAKING RULES FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, WE SHOULD AT LEAST TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT AND, AND WHERE, WHERE IN OUR CITY HAS THESE ITEMS. AND ALSO IF IT'S NOT IN WEST COVINA, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT SOME CLOSE BY CITIES, BUT TYPE OF DESIGN THAT WE LIKE AND WHAT WE DON'T LIKE AT LEAST PHYSICALLY TAKE A LOOK AT IT. 
          AND I'M SURE SINCE WE'RE APPROVING THIS, THERE MUST BE SOME WORK CLOTHES THAT WE HAVE THIS TO LOOK AT. 
          SURE. 
          THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS I NEED TO ADDRESS IN THAT. 
          UM, YOU MENTIONED UNDERGROUNDING, WHICH WE CANNOT REQUIRE FOR SMALL CELLS. 
          IT, THE, THE FCCS, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE UNDERGROUND AT THE SMALL, SO I'M SORRY IF I MISSPOKE, IT'S THE EQUIPMENT, IT'S THE EQUIPMENT ITEMS THAT WE CAN REQUEST TO BE UNDERGROUND. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I MUST HAVE MISSPOKE, BUT IT'S NOT. 
          YOU ALSO MENTIONED LOCATING WITHIN THREE FEET OF ANOTHER POLE. 
          IF THEY WERE PROPOSING THAT WE WOULD, WE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO PUT ONTO THE EXISTING POLL. 
          OR IF, IF EXISTING POLL DIDN'T SUPPORT IT TO REPLACE THAT POLE, DO YOU FIND THE VIEW AND NUMBER A, IT SAID, IF YOU READ IT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROVING FACILITY AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT FACILITY, SHALL PEOPLE POSE AN EXISTING POSE? SHALL PEOPLE POSE A B PLACEMENT LIGHT POLE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN THREE FEET FROM THE EXISTING POLE LOCATION? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          SO, FIRST, FIRST WE SAY, WE WANT YOU TO GO ONTO AN EXISTING POLE. 
          SO YOU'RE NOT PUTTING A BRAND NEW POLE IN OUR, IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE FIRST PREFERENCE THERE. 
          NOW, MAYBE WE NEED IT ANYMORE. 
          IF THEIR EQUIPMENT WEIGHS TOO MUCH FOR THE EXISTING POLE, WE REQUIRE THEM TO REPLACE THE POLE TO SUPPORT THEIR EQUIPMENT. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, A STREETLIGHT. 
          SO WE SAY YOU GOT TO REPLACE THAT ENTIRE STREETLIGHT TO MAKE SURE IT'S ENGINEERED TO BE SAFE AND WE'LL SUPPORT YOUR EQUIPMENT. 
          THAT THAT IS WHAT THAT'S REFERRING. 
          SO IN SOME SITUATIONS, BUT WE ALSO HAD TO COMPLY. 
          I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE ALSO HAD TO COMPLY TO THE AESTHETICS FOR ALL RESONANT AS WELL. 
          LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILL, I ACTUALLY MET SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY ONLY DESIGNED FOR THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILL. 
          THEY BE CHOIR. 
          SOME OF THE ITEM IS SMALL ENOUGH, STILL ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IT. 
          AND THEY EVEN SAID, IT'S CITY OF CERTAIN CITIES HAVE CERTAIN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS THAT FIT THEIR NEED. 
          AND I THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL FOR ALL COMMISSIONS TO ACTUALLY TAKE A LOOK AND SEE WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING LIKE A HUNDRED FEET IS THAT ABNORMAL, SOME CITY MIGHT HAVE 500 FEET. 
          THE CITY MIGHT HAVE MORE, I WOULD STRONGLY IN AT LEAST PICK THE TIMES TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THESE THINGS. 
          WHY, WHY IN SUCH A RUSH, BECAUSE THE NEXT MEETING IS GOING TO BE A MONTH FROM NOW. 
          THERE'S NO BENEFICIAL, IT'S BENEFICIAL FOR ALL RESIDENTS AND ALSO BENEFICIALS FOR ALL NEW COMMISSIONS TO ACTUALLY GET TO KNOW WHAT THESE THINGS LOOK LIKE AND WHAT WE'RE PROVING FOR WHICH THE ENTIRE CITY. 
          SIMILARLY, I LIKE TO RECALL MY EMOTION AND MAKE A NEW MOTION SAYING THAT WE BRING THIS BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING AND RETRAIN THAT TIME STAFF PROVIDES THE COMMISSION, UH, EXAMPLES OF CURRENT POLLS IN OUR CITY TO HAVE THAT AND SOME DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT THE COMMISSION COULD LOOK AT IN, IN MAKING A DECISION ON THE MATTER AT THE NEXT COMMISSIONER. 
          MAYBE IS THERE A SECOND SECOND THERE, I HAVE THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW. 
          IF, IF THERE'S A SECOND. 
          SO CAN WE DO A WORLD CALL? NO, I'D LIKE TO ADD. 
          I ALSO WOULD LIKE INFORMATION. 
          I MEAN, AESTHETICS IS, YOU KNOW, YOU GET PICKED SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, DECENT LOOKING. 
          IT WILL, EVERYBODY WILL BE HAPPY WITH. 
          BUT MY CONCERN AS A RESIDENT, AS A, AS A RESIDENT, IS THAT FROM CELL PHONE TOWERS, IT'S RECOMMENDED NOT EVEN TO LIVE WITHIN THREE TO 400 FEET. 
          I MEAN, WHAT ARE THE EMISSIONS FROM THESE MANY TIMES? I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER, LUCY. 
          WE CANNOT BRING IN. 
          WE CANNOT BRING IN THE RADIATION PORTION. 
          SO SAY AS A COMMISSION HERE, WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IF SHE MISSPOKE OR WHAT HAVE YOU, WE SHOULD NOT LET HIM ANSWER. 
          SO I, I DO HAVE TO, BECAUSE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, I JUST NEED TO PUT INTO THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR. 
          THE FCC DOES NOT ALLOW US TO CONSIDER A HUMAN THE IMPACT ON HUMAN SAFETY WHEN IT COMES TO RFE MISSIONS, BECAUSE THE FCC REGULATES AND THEY ISSUE CERTIFICATES. 
          SO AS MY ADVICE THAT, UM, THIS COMMISSION DOES NOT CONSIDER THAT AND 
          [02:15:01]
INTO THE RECORD THAT, UM, IT WILL NOT BE PART OF THE DECISION BE MADE BY THE COMMISSION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND ALSO AS A FOLLOW COMMISSIONERS TOO, I LIKE TO ADD THE FACT THAT WE WILL NOT MAKE DECISIONS ON RF RADIATIONS, AND ALSO WE CAN ONLY MAKE DECISIONS ON THE LOCATIONS OF WHERE WE CAN PUT THESE THINGS. 
          IT IS VERY CLEAR, ALSO THE AESTHETICS OF HOW IT LOOKS. 
          WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE DECISIONS ON THAT. 
          AND ALSO THE MODIFICATIONS WE CAN DO SOME OF THOSE THINGS ITEMS. SO I JUST WANTED TO ADD ON THAT AS A COMMISSIONERS, WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING DECISIONS ON RF OR RADIATIONS, BUT WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS IN TERMS OF LOCATION, WHICH MEAN IT'S WHETHER IT'S A HUNDRED FEET, 30 FEET, 50 FEET, 500 FEET, THOSE WE CAN MAKE DECISIONS ON A WAY FROM RESIDENTIAL AREA OR THE SIZE OF THESE ITEMS. IF WE DICTATE IN TERMS OF HOW BIG THIS THING CAN BE, THEN THAT'S HOW BIG THE COMPANY HAD TO COMPLY. 
          IT'S NOT SO MUCH SOMETIME WHAT THE COMPANY WANTS, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT BENEFITS OUR CITY AS WELL. 
          AND CHAIR, JUST TO FURTHER EXPLAIN IT, IF THERE IS ANY CONVERSATION, EVEN IF IT'S TO SAY THIS IS NOT A PART OF IT, A CARRIER COULD SUE THE CITY. 
          AND EVEN IF WE PUT IN PLACE GOOD REGULATIONS FOR GOOD REASONS, COURTS HAVE OVERTURNED ON THAT BASIS, WHICH IS WHY I'M PUTTING INTO THE RECORD, THAT THE DECISION CAN'T BE ON THAT BASIS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO YOU MIGHT HAVE EMOTIONS. 
          UM, BEN, CAN WE DO ROLL CALL? I'M SORRY, JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER QATARIS TO TABLE THE, OR TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, UM, AND PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES IN WEST COVINA AND TO PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE AESTHETICS THAT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED INTO THE GUIDELINES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHAIR HANG. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? NO, UH, COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ. 
          YES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER HING. 
          YES. 
          UH, VICE CHAIR LEWIS. 
          OH, UM, CHAIR BESERA YES. 
          OCEAN PASSES THREE, ZERO OR THREE, TWO. 
          WOULD 
          [COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ]
ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO MAKE A REPORT OR A COMMENT? I THINK WE'VE PASSED THAT. 
          I ACTUALLY LIKE TO ADD ON TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS DONE. 
          THIS WAS DONE, I GUESS, TWO SESSIONS AGO. 
          THIS IS REGARDING THE PLANNING FOR OUR CITY. 
          UM, WE HAD, I FORGOT HIS NAME WAS DAVID, ALL THE CITY COUNCILS AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS WITH HERE, HOUSING UPDATE, UH, STUDY SESSION. 
          YES. 
          WHICH IS COMING UP. 
          I LIKE TO ADD ON THE FACT THAT THE HOUSING ELEMENTS IT'S, IT'S, UM, IMPORTANT. 
          IT'S ALSO QUITE INTERESTING. 
          AND I THINK ALSO WE, AS A EMISSIONS, UM, WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE STATE IS AFFECTING HOW WE BUILT HOMES IN OUR CITY. 
          UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THE STATE IS WISHING OR WANT US TO BUILD 5,300 AND SOME HOME UNITS FOR THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS. 
          AND I WANTED TO ADD THE FACT THAT YES, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE IS WISHFUL THOUGHT THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. 
          BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE LAND OWNERS IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ARE ALL SINGLE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL HOME OWNERS. 
          SO CITY DON'T REALLY OWN ANY OF THESE LANDS BECAUSE IT BELONGS TO THE RESIDENTS OR IT BELONGS TO COMMERCIAL OWNERS. 
          SO THERE ARE THREE PARTIES IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS WHOLE WISHLIST 5,300 HOMES WORK. 
          AND ONE OF THE PARTY IS THE STATE. 
          THE STATE IS BASICALLY COMING DOWN ON CITIES TO SAY, HEY, LOOK, YOU GUYS NEED TO WORK IT OUT AND COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF ALLOWING, ALLOWING THE RESIDENT BECAUSE A HOME OWNERS OWN SOME LAND. 
          HOWEVER, THE CITY, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T OWN THE LAND, WE REGULATE ALL LAND USE JUST LIKE TONIGHT, WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          WE'RE REGULATING ALL LAND USE WHERE WE'RE TELLING WHETHER THE CITY OR THE S UM, WHETHER THE COMPANY CAN DO CERTAIN THINGS OR CANNOT DO CERTAIN THINGS. 
          AND THE SAME THING AS IN THIS, IN TERMS OF PLANNING FOR HOUSING ELEMENT IS THE SAME THING. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW TOO, TO REINSTATE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE THREE PARTIES THAT NEED TO MAKE THIS THING HAPPEN. 
          ONE OF THE PARTIES, THE STATE THEY'RE, THEY'RE PUTTING PRESSURES ON THE CITY AND THE OTHER IS THAT THE RESIDENT, THE RESIDENT MAY OWN LANDS. 
          BUT IF THE, 
          [02:20:01]
IF THE CITY OR NOT ALLOW AN OPEN UP, YOU KNOW, TO LET, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THE STATE WISHES TO DO THEN BASICALLY, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE LAND OWNER, YOU CANNOT BUILD. 
          SO IT TAKES THREE. 
          I LIKE TO LIKE TO SAY THAT IT TAKES THREE PARTIES TO MAKE THIS THING WORK. 
          ONE STATE WANTS IT 5,300 HOMES, AND THEY'RE LETTING US, THEY'RE TELLING US IN TOWN CITY THAT, HEY, LOOK, GO AND WORK AT IT AND DECIDE WHERE YOU WANT TO ALLOW THIS 5,300 HOME. 
          BUT YET AT THE SAME TIME, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S THE LAND OWNER AND LAND OWNERS ARE HOMEOWNERS JUST LIKE YOU AND I, THAT WE OWN EACH LOT OF PARCELS. 
          AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S UP TO THE LAND OWNERS TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL HOME AND ALSO EVEN COMMERCIAL LAND OWNERS. 
          THEY ALSO NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO STAY WITH A COMMERCIAL OR DEVELOP INTO SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOME. 
          AND, AND THEN IT WON'T HAPPEN IF US, AS A CITY WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. 
          SO REALLY IT TAKES THREE PARTIES TO MAKE THIS THING HAPPEN. 
          I MEAN, UM, AS SITTING COMMISSIONS HERE AND THEN THE OTHER MEET THE OTHER NIGHT'S MEETING, IT WAS QUITE INTERESTING. 
          AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO SPEND QUITE A FEW MORE SESSIONS TO COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF, UH, WHAT ARE YOU SAY, CODE JUST LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT COLD TO ALLOW CERTAIN AREAS OF OUR CITY, UM, WEATHERS TO CONSTRUCT AND COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF NUMBER, JUST BECAUSE WE COME UP WITH THE NUMBER OF 5,300 HOME THAT THE STATE WISHES THAT WE COME UP WITH, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE HOUSES WILL BE BUILT. 
          HOPEFULLY IT WILL AT LEAST IF WE ARE ALL HOPEFULLY, AND THAT ULTIMATELY AT THE END OF THE DAY, GOES BACK TO THE HOMEOWNER OR THE LAND OWNERS, WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL LAND OWNERS OR SINGLE RESIDENTIAL LAND LAND OWNERS, THAT'S APPLIES TO ALL THE RESIDENTS IN THE CITY OF WEST COVINA. 
          UM, ANOTHER ITEM THAT I LIKE TO TALK ABOUT, I'M SORRY, I'M TAKING TOO MUCH TIME HERE IS THAT WE GUARDING 80 YOU NOW, 80, YOU HAS OPENED UP 20 YEARS AGO AND THAT'S ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY, THE STATE WOULD LIKE US OR CITIES TO GUIDE THIS THING THROUGH IN TERMS OF BUILDING MORE. 
          AND THEY FIGURE PRIVATE IT'S CHEAPER. 
          I GUESS MY CONCERN IS OKAY. 
          IT'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW SINCE THE STATE ACTUALLY MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE TO WRITE JOANNE, WE HAVE TO APPROVE WHEN THE ADU COMES IN. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHEN THAT HAPPENS, I GUESS MY CONCERN AS A RESIDENT IS, OR AS A CITY PLANNING AND SITTING IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS THAT OKAY? WE ARE ALLOWING THIS AND THIS HAS TO GO IN A GO THROUGH. 
          THEN MY CONCERN IS SOME AREA OF THE CITY IS THAT WE NEED TO REVISIT HOW WE CAN ENCOURAGE RESIDENTS TO BUILT GARAGES. 
          IF YOU'RE TAKING THE GARAGE AND TURN IT INTO A HOME. 
          SO NOW THE HOME, THE ORIGINAL HOME DON'T HAVE A GARAGE TO PARK THEIR TWO CARS OR THEREFORE CARS RIGHT NOW POTENTIALLY HAVE TWO ADULTS LIVING IN THE FIRST HOME TO ADULT LIVE IN THIS ADU. 
          THEN YOU POTENTIALLY HAVE FOUR CAR. 
          WHERE DO YOU PUSH THESE CARS OUT TO THE STREET? SO EVERY OTHER HOUSE BUILT LIKE THAT, THEN HOW IS THAT HELPING THE PARKING ISSUE THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT? NOW, AGAIN, WE, AS A CITY CANNOT CANNOT SAY, YOU CAN'T DO THE ADU. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT IS TRUE. 
          SO IF THAT IS TRUE, THEN HOW CAN WE HELP ELIMINATE SOME OF THE PARKING ISSUE? AND I LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN SCHEDULE SOMETHING, I'M SORRY, IT'S A LONG POINT. 
          BUT I LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN SCHEDULE SOMETHING AND MAYBE HAVE A STUDY SESSIONS AND GO OVER THIS. 
          I MEAN, SOME AREA OF THE CITY MAY NOT NEED PARKING, BUT THERE ARE SOME AREAS OF THE CITY THAT MAY NEED PARKING. 
          AND HOW CAN WE COME UP WITH CREATIVE IDEAS AND TO WORK, WORK, AND WORK TOWARD FINDING A SOLUTION INSTEAD OF RUBBER STAMPING, WHATEVER THE STATE HAS COME UP WITH. 
          I DON'T HAVE AN IDEAS, BUT I LIKE TO WORK WITH RESIDENTS. 
          AND I ALSO LIKE TO WORK WITH ALL OUR COMMISSIONERS TO SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S THE TWO ITEMS AND ULTIMATELY THE TWO ITEMS AFFECT CITYWIDE CODE THAT THAT WILL BE COMING UP. 
          AND I'M SORRY, PAULINE, WHEN WILL THE CITY CODE COMING UP FOR THE 5,300 HOME THAT WE HAVE TO, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE STUDY? YEAH, THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE STUDIES THAT WE HAVE TO, WHEN ALL THAT HAPPENED, UM, SHARON, WHEN WILL WE BE BRINGING BACK ELEMENT TO COMMISSION? UM, BEFORE, UH, 
          [02:25:01]
BEFORE WE BRING THE HOUSING ELEMENT, UH, WE, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE WOULD HAVE TO, UM, UM, CURRENTLY, OR OUR GIS, OUR GIS STAFF IS WORKING ON IDENTIFYING AREAS IN THE CITY WHERE, WHERE RESIDENTIAL CAN POTENTIALLY BE LOCATED. 
          AND ONCE WE, ONCE WE OUT WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE, THEN THE, THE CONSULTANTS WILL DRAFT, UH, WELL, JAFTA, UM, WE'LL DRAFT UP A DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT, UM, DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND ALSO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. 
          AND AFTER THAT, THAT WE WILL GO AHEAD AND SCHEDULE MEETING. 
          ONCE WE RECEIVED, UM, COMMENTS, WE WILL SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH THE, UM, WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THE HOUSING ELEMENT. 
          SO THAT WON'T BE UNTIL YOU WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE, IT WOULDN'T BE UNTIL LATER THIS SUMMER OR THE SUMMER. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT]
OKAY. 
          SO NEXT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS REPORT. 
          YES. 
          GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, JUST A COUPLE PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING UP, UM, OR ITEMS THE MOC PROJECT FOR THE TOWNHOMES ON CAMERON WILL BE BROUGHT TO YOU, UM, BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 22ND. 
          UM, AND THEN ALSO JUST AS, UM, JUNE 15TH IS APPROACHING AND THE STATE IS OPENING UP. 
          CITY HALL NOW IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, UM, FIRE, UM, PLANNING, BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT, UM, AND ENGINEERING ARE ALL BY APPOINTMENT. 
          ONLY THE REST OF CITY HALL. 
          YOU CAN COME IN WITHOUT AN APPOINTMENT. 
          UH, ENTRY IS THROUGH THE BASEMENT LEVEL, UM, WHERE WE DO HAVE STAFF THAT WILL CHECK IN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. 
          UM, BUT HAVING SAID THAT, UM, WE WILL ALSO START ADJUSTING OUR COUNCIL MEETINGS AND OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. 
          SO, UM, WE HAVE REMAINED OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. 
          WE WILL NO LONGER BE DOING PARTICIPATION VIA PHONE, STARTING JUNE 15TH AT THE PLANNING AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. 
          SO, UM, P INDIVIDUALS CAN STILL EMAIL THEIR COMMENTS. 
          THEY WON'T BE, UH, READ DURING THE MEETING, BUT THEY WILL BE MADE PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD. 
          WILL MASKS BE REQUIRED ON JUNE 15TH? I BELIEVE THEY STILL WILL BE. 
          YES. 
          IS THAT IT, THEN THAT PROCEDURE DOESN'T MEAN, OKAY. 
          WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY NOT ONLY THIS COUNTY, BUT OSHA AS WELL. 
          SO IS THAT IT FOR THE REPORT? UM, THAT'S IT FOR THE REPORT AND THEN THERE'S NO PRESIDENTIAL COUNCIL ACTIONS, GRAND OPENING. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          YES. 
          UM, ON THURSDAY, THANK YOU, JOANNE. 
          WE HAVE SOME MORE ALLERGY THAT IS OPENING UP, UM, THEIR FIRST BRICK AND MORTAR LOCATION HERE IN WEST COVINA. 
          UM, I BELIEVE THEY'RE ONE OF THE VENDORS THAT'S MORTGAGE BOARD IN THE ARTS DISTRICT IN DOWNTOWN LA. 
          SO WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO WELCOME THEM TO OUR CITY. 
          UM, AND THOUGH THAT GRAND OPENING WILL BE THIS THURSDAY, UM, JUNE 10TH AT 11:00 PM OR SORRY, 11:00 AM. 
          AND IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM RIO'S, UM, BURRITO ON WEST COVINA PARKWAY. 
          SO YOU GUYS ARE INVITED TO ATTEND. 
          IS THAT IT? AND THAT'S IT FOR ME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO CONSIDER THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT NINE 32.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.