►
From YouTube: City Council Meeting - 10/27/2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
Well,
as
you
can
see,
we
don't
have
our
masks
on
and
that's
because
there's
just
three
of
us
up
here
at
the
diocese,
our
city
manager,
our
city
attorney
and
my
fellow
con
council
members
are
video
conferencing
in
and
we're
going
to
start
with
our
usual
covet
19
update
with
mr
powers.
D
Thank
you
so
much
mayor
adam.
Just
a
few
brief
comments
tonight
my
covid
update
today,
just
26
new
cases
were
reported
out
of
710
additional
tests
that
were
conducted
27
folks
in
the
hospital
and
of
those
eight
of
them
are
in
the
intensive
care
unit.
D
D
Our
focus
here
in
the
city
remains
on
business,
support
and
trying
to
work
within
the
confines
of
the
state
system
and
have
businesses
be
able
to
get
back
up
and
running
as
quickly
and
as
efficiently
as
possible
when
they
have
the
ability
to
do
so.
Based
on
those
guidelines,
I
wanted
to
remind
everyone
that
the
city
of
thousand
oaks
rental
assistance
program.
It's
now
open
and
live
started
yesterday.
We
already
have
over
50
applications
in
for
those
that
are
interested.
D
It's
teocs.org
rent,
teox.org
rent
and
you
can
find
out
more
information
about
how
to
qualify
and
apply
through
that
site.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
those
that
are
experiencing
financial
difficulty
as
a
result
of
kovid
in
relation
to
rent.
That
is
a
program
that
we
would
encourage
you
to
take
a
look
at.
D
D
Mr
mark
town,
as
our
next
community
development
director
and
as
I
look
to
my
right,
those
gentlemen
are
already
placed
on
the
diocese
as
they
have
a
couple
of
items
this
evening
and
I
used
to
joke,
we
had
mark
was
part
of
what
was
called
the
60
plus
club
j,
spurgeon,
barry,
mccomb
and
mark
town,
our
theater
director,
our
public
works
director
and
community
development.
Director
he's
the
last
of
the
60
plus
club
to
enter
enter
retirement.
D
But
anyone
that
knows
mark
knows
what
enormous
shoes,
those
are
to
fill
and
and
what's
really
become.
A
hallmark
of
our
organization
mark,
gave
me
an
opportunity
to
have
a
long
runway
here,
and
this
long
runway
gave
us
the
ability
to
to
plan
for
the
future,
and
so
we
have
calvin
actually
assuming
the
duties
of
community
development
director.
D
D
Just
a
just
an
amazing
thing
to
be
able
to
plan
strategically
for
these
types
of
leadership
shifts
and
have
them
occur
so
organically.
So
my
hats
off
in
appreciation
to
mark
for
are
giving
us
the
ability
to
do
that.
E
Great
thank
you
drew.
I
just
want
to
say
a
few
words
about
about
kelvin.
It
really
gives
me
great
pleasure
to
introduce
him
as
your
new
community
development
director
kelvin
was
hired
as
the
city's
deputy
community
development
director
about
two
and
a
half
years
ago,
at
which
time
he
brought
over
20
years
of
planning
experience
to
the
city,
including
experience
with
the
cities
of
westminster,
pasadena
and
santa
clarita.
E
Prior
to
that,
kelvin
earned
his
undergraduate
degree
at
the
university
of
california
irvine
and
later
earned
a
master
of
public
administration
degree
from
california
state
university.
At
fullerton,
his
deputy
director
kelvin
has
been
responsible
for
all
aspects
of
development
planning,
building
and
safety,
counter
operations
and
code
compliance
and
has
also
been
involved
in
the
general
plan.
E
D
And
as
kelvin
jumps
in,
I
want
to
stress
to
everyone
city
council
mark's
not
going
anywhere
so
right
now
we
are
he's
going
to
be
with
us
and
you'll,
see
him
here
and
on
the
on
the
diocese,
even
working
through
various
items,
but
working
very
closely
with
the
city
council
as
well.
So
we'll
have
we'll
have
a
proper
opportunity
to
give
mark
a
send-off.
Later
this
year,
kelvin.
F
Thank
you
both
drew
and
mark.
You
know.
I
was
excited
to
join
the
city
two
and
a
half
years
ago,
because
this
is
a
great
place
has
a
high
quality
of
life.
I
consider
it
a
privilege
to
serve
as
the
community
development
director
here.
Community
involvement
is
key
to
any
city,
I'm
just
very
happy
and
excited
to
continue
to
work
on
the
projects
that
mark
mentioned
in
terms
of
e-permitting
and
the
general
plan.
I'm
truly
looking
forward
to
working
for
the
city
and
serving
the
community
going
forward.
B
All
right,
that's
very
good!
Thank
you,
mr
powers
and
calvin.
Congratulations.
Looking
forward
to
working
with
you,
your
knowledge
and
professionalism
is
already
quite
evident
and
you're
going
to
be
a
great
community
development
director.
Congratulations
all
right!
We
have,
and
mr
town
as
as
mr
powers
said,
we're
going
to
have
a
formal
send-off
for
you
later
in
the
year
for
the
wonderful
time
that
you've
spent
with
our
city
all
right.
We
have
a
couple
of
presentations.
B
One
is
arbor
day
which
was
actually
april
24th,
but
thanks
to
covet
we're
getting
around
to
it
here
in
close
to
november,
we
celebrate
it
every
year
and
we
preserve
a
clean
and
healthy
environment
and
it's
a
very
important
role
that
the
trees
play
in
that
environment
for
the
past
22
years,
the
city
of
thousand
oaks
has
annually
recognized
arbor
day,
and
this
has
allowed
the
city
to
achieve
tree
city
status
by
meeting
arbor
day
foundation
standards
for
sound
urban
forestry
management.
In
fact,
we
I
was
just
talking
to
mr
town.
B
We've
been
a
tree
city
now
for
25
straight
years.
That's
a
great
record
and
shows
the
commitment
to
our
environment
that
the
city
has.
We
do
continue
to
develop
policies
and
programs
that
conserve
natural
resources,
that
save
energy,
that
reduce
air
pollution,
promote
sustainable
land
use
and
encourage
clean
transportation
options,
and
this
includes
the
city's
most
recent
action
to
reduce
the
use
of
single-use
plastics.
B
So
happy,
elated
arbor
date.
Everyone-
and
we
have
one
other
presentation
this
evening-
and
this
is
for
the
national
arts
and
humanities
month,
and
that
is
for
october.
B
B
B
C
This
is
a
time
and
place
for
public
comments
for
those
wishing
to
address
the
city
council
regarding
items
on
the
agenda
or
on
the
subject
within
the
city's
jurisdiction.
All
remarks
should
be
addressed
to
the
council
as
a
whole.
Speakers
are
requested
to
state
their
name
and
community
of
residents
for
the
record
under
state
law.
Public
comment
matters
may
not
be
considered
by
the
council
unless
listed
on
the
agenda,
but
may
be
referred
to
the
city
manager
for
administrative
follow-up.
C
G
G
Our
mission
is
dedicated
to
empowering
poor
women
to
work
their
way
out
of
poverty,
and
our
organization
believes
that
compassion
has
no
boundaries.
So
how
do
we
do
this
work?
We
provide
business
skills,
training,
we
provide
literacy
training
and
we
provide
peer
mentoring
to
impoverished
women
in
uganda,
so
they
can
lift
themselves
out
of
poverty
following
the
business
skills
training.
G
And
I
love
getting
the
stories
back
from
uganda
where
a
woman
says
I'm
so
thrilled,
because
I
can
now
feed
my
family
more
than
one
meal
a
day
or
a
woman
is
able
to
send
her
children
to
school.
For
the
first
time
in
many
years
we
have
a
wonderful
story
of
a
woman
who
was
selling
small
amounts
of
baked
goods,
but
she
wasn't
making
a
living.
G
She
joined
our
program
she
saved
diligently
and
was
able
to
buy
a
sewing
machine
because
she
loved
to
sew,
and
so
then
she
repaid
that
loan.
She
qualified
for
a
second
loan
again
saved
diligently
bought
fabric
thread
and
other
materials
again.
Third
time
around
bought
sewing
lessons
for
herself
and
now
has
an
established
business,
and
so
it's
wonderful
that
these
women
are
able
to
create
businesses
that
lift
them
out
of
poverty,
but
also
allow
them
to
do
meaningful
work.
That's
important
to
them
and
thank.
B
You
coming
down
or
appearing
by
video,
I
should
say
next
up.
We
have
dave
salt
marsh
by
phone.
I
believe,
are
you
with
us
dave.
H
Okay,
thank
you.
Thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
address
city
council,
my
name
is
dave.
Saltmarsh
and
I've
been
a
resident
in
thousand
oaks
for
24
years.
As
a
part
of
my
wife's
and
my
retirement
plan
and
financial
security,
we
invested
in
thousand
oaks
in
some
single
family
rental
property,
and
I
think
you
know
this
kind
of
investment
will
take
many
years
to
try
to
get
anything
out
of,
and
the
reason
I'm
speaking
with
the
council
tonight
is.
H
H
So
I
would
like
to
say
that
common
sense
would
demonstrate
the
city
should
not
attempt
to
hold
us
responsible
for
legal
agreements
or
contracts
they
have
entered
into
with
these
independent
adult
residents,
and
I
said
this
type
of
overreach
certainly
doesn't
extend
to
our
tenants
gas,
their
electrical
bills,
their
grocery
bills,
their
fuel,
their
car
payments,
cable,
insurance,
etc.
It
would
be
illegal.
I
think
it
would
set
kind
of
a
weird
and
quite
an
overreach
precedent.
I
think
you
could
probably
understand
my
point
with
that.
H
We
could
not
get
a
judgment
from
a
civil
or
small
claims
court
for
money
that
was
owed
to
the
city,
so
the
kind
of
boxes
in
the
corner
where
we
just
cannot
recoup
this
kind
of
money
and,
unfortunately,
in
january
of
2019,
we
learned
that
the
finance
department
follows
through
with
their
threats
on
this
on
our
very
first
tenant
that
we
had
in
thousand
oaks.
H
They
stopped
paying
their
rent
and
unfortunately,
they
stopped
paying
their
utility
bills.
So
ultimately
it
cost
us
over
ten
thousand
dollars.
We
have
not
recouped
any
of
that,
and
on
top
of
that
we
got
the
sting
of
a
256
dollar
bill
from
the
city
of
thousand
oaks,
and
the
finance
department
did
say
they
would
follow
up
with
standard
billing
and
collecting.
H
But
no
finance
representative
has
ever
gotten
back
to
us
about
any
reimbursement
they
had
me
received
and
I
feel
like,
why
should
they
they
lost
their
motivation
once
we
paid
their
bill,
we
understand
the
city's
need
to
appropriately
and
ethically
generate
funds
and
collect
funds,
but
this
is
just
wrong,
and
I
doubt
this
is
a
big
revenue
collector
for
the
city,
but
it
does
carry
with
it
the
ability
to
significantly
impact
business.
People
like
us
that
are
trying
to
reach
our
financial
obligations.
Thank.
B
I
Yes,
hello.
Thank
you,
hello,
my
name
hi
there,
so
my
name
is
gus
gress
and
I'm
a
student
at
newbury
park
high
school.
I
live
here
in
thousand
oaks
and
I
am
also
the
community
liaison
student
officer
for
the
local
organization
miller,
youth
and
government,
which
is
through
the
ymca
and
I'm
here
just
to
represent
that
group
and
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
we've
been
doing
with
respect
to
youth
engagement
in
our
community
in
politics
and
government
during
this
coronavirus
time
period.
I
So
recently,
the
miller
youth
and
government
delegation,
along
with
our
other
sister
ymcas
locally,
the
kaneho
ymca
and
yara
ymca.
We
had
our
first
virtual
youth
and
government
conference
of
the
year
where
we
discussed
proposals
presented
for
both
proposals
and
debated
them
on
local
county
level
issues.
Things
were
discussed
from
smoking
to
environmental
justice,
to
sex
education,
all
types
of
issues
that
are
on
the
minds
of
students
here
in
ventura
county
and
for
your
information,
the
proposal
that
one
was
that
we
should
have
a
community
garden.
So
that
could
be
something
to
consider.
I
Also
in
recent
times,
we
had
a
candidate
forum
in
which
we
heard
from
both
assembly
member
jackie
irwin
and
her
opponent
in
the
state
assembly
district,
44,
race,
denise
pedro.
They
met
with
us
at
our
weekly
zoo
meeting
and
we
got
to
we
asked
them.
We
had
some
questions
that
were
asked
from
our
youth
delegates
and
we
also
got
to
hear
them
talk
about
themselves
as
candidates
and
why
they're
running
and
what
for
and
so
essentially
the
youth
and
government
delegation,
the
miller
using
government
delegation.
I
So,
if
y'all
are
ever
in
the
need
of
or
interested
in,
youth
voices
with
respect
to
local
politics
and
what's
going
on
in
the
world
and
would
like
our
insight
or
would
like
us
to
volunteer
for
an
event.
Please
reach
out
to
miller
youth
and
government
and
you
can
find
us
online
or
on
social
media.
D
Thank
you,
mayor
adam.
I
appreciate
it
and
appreciate
the
speakers
this
evening
just
wanted
to
follow
up
on
one
of
those
items.
Certainly
sympathize
with
the
resident.
That's
having
some
difficulty
with
his
tenants
as
it
relates
to
to
rent
our
finance
team
has
been
in
correspondence
with
with
him
on
a
number
of
occasions,
just
for
the
broader
public,
it's
common
practice,
municipalities
to
collect
back
payment
for
utilities
like
water
and
wastewater
which
live
with
the
property.
D
Policy
and
the
reason
for
that
is
not
it's
not
a
revenue
question.
This
is
a
question
on
subsidy
by
other
rate
payers.
So
essentially,
what
what
happens
if
you
write
off
those
types
of
things,
you're
asking
the
other
rate
payers
to
subsidize
those
issues,
so
that's
oftentimes!
Why
we'll
see
landlords
roll
the
water
and
wastewater
into
the
rent
and
or
deal
with
different
types
of
security
deposits,
and
things
like
that
and
to
try
to
shield
themselves
from
such
things?
It's
certainly
very
unfortunate
and
do
sympathize
with
them.
D
B
If
not
and
get
a
motion,
please
I'd
I'd,
move
to
to
pass
the
consent
calendar.
Thank
you.
Councilmember
angler.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
vote.
Please.
J
C
And
mayor
that
motion
carries
four
to
zero
and
I
have
an
ordinance
title
to
read
into
the
record:
it's
an
ordinance
amending
title
six
and
adding
chapter
six
to
thousand
oaks
municipal
code,
prohibiting
use,
distribution
and
sale
of
designated
polystyrene
products
and
limiting
distribution
of
plastic
utensils
and
beverage
straws
and
that's
ordinance.
Number
1680
ns.
B
C
F
That
is
correct.
Thank
you,
mayor
all
right,
good
evening,
members
of
council-
I
will
be
taking
this
through
the
first
portion
of
the
presentation
for
the
item
asks
introduced
by
the
clerk.
It's
a
request
to
reverse
the
planning
commission
decision
to
deny
a
upgrade
to
a
wireless
facility.
That's
existing
at
one
amgen
center
drive
to
give
you
an
idea
of
the
vicinity
of
the
project.
It
is
located
north
of
hillcrest
drive,
east
of
rancho,
conejo
boulevard
and
south
of
ventu
parkway.
F
The
subject
site
is
identified
with
the
red
asterisk.
Just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
where
it's
located
as
we
zoom
in
to
get
more
specific,
the
project
site
is
located
within
the
blue
box
in
the
center
of
your
screen.
This
is
actually
the
headquarter.
Building
on
the
amgen
campus,
most
of
the
equipment
is
located
within
an
existing
equipment,
shelter
located
in
the
center
of
the
roof,
with
a
ray
of
antennas
located
just
north
on
the
penthouse
of
that
subject:
property.
F
K
F
F
M
Thank
you,
mr
parker,
and
good
evening,
mayor
adam
members
of
city
council,
the
next
few
slides
I'm
going
to
go
over
the
project
details
themselves,
as
well
as
the
appeal
statements
and
staff
response
to
those
appeals.
M
The
proposed
project
itself,
as
mentioned,
is
an
upgrade
to
an
existing
facility.
So
this
is
not
a
new
facility.
There's
an
existing
enclosure
on
top
of
the
carpet
center.
The
corporate
headquarter
building,
which
is
not
going
to
change
the
upgrade
itself,
is
to
keep
up
with
the
capacity
in
that
area
as
well
as
provide,
what's
called
firstnet
technology,
which
is
technology
used
by
first
responders.
M
This
involves
replacement
of
existing
antennas
and
actually
there's
a
decrease
in
the
number
from
12
antennas,
which
is
currently
at
the
top
of
the
building
to
10
antennas,
an
increase
in
the
remote
radio
units
from
9
units
to
12,
removal
of
all
12
of
the
tower
mounted
amplifiers
and
install
three
base
band
units
and
the
entire
facility.
What
you
see
there
today
as
far
as
enclosure
is
what
you'll
see
if
the
approval
is
granted
for
the
upgrade.
M
M
This
is
an
elevation
before
and
after
and
as
you'll
note,
what
you
see
in
the
top
image
is
what
what
exists
and
what
you
see
in
the
below
image
is
what
you'll
see
after
the
the
upgrade
and
again
this
is
the
east
elevation
showing
the
before
and
after
and
no
notable
change.
M
M
Now
the
grounds
for
a
pill
from
the
appellant
state,
basically,
the
city
may
not
issue
a
license
to
a
non-existent
entity.
This
statement
was
brought
up
at
the
administrative
hearing
portion
of
this
process,
at
which
time
this
staff
acknowledged
that
the
entity
on
the
application
was
a
brand,
a
t
and
not
the
actual,
the
applicant.
So
we
did
change.
The
application
have
submitted
a
new
application
with
new
singular
wireless
as
the
entity.
M
M
In
addition,
the
municipal
code
does
allow
third
parties
to
apply
for
applications
on
behalf
of
owners
or
lessees,
and
the
approval
documents
reflected
reflects
the
name
of
the
applicant
itself,
which
is
new,
singular
wireless,
pscs
and
then
the
applicant
will
be
responsible
for
all
condition.
Compliance,
including
the
indemnification
of
the
city.
M
M
The
consultant
from
the
applicant
concluded
that
the
facility
has
no
significant
effect
on
nine
special
interests
listed
in
that
cscfr
section,
although
nepa
analysis,
because
this
is
not
a
federally
funded
project
or
on
federal
land,
it's
not
required.
However.
Sql
analysis
was
performed
and
was
found
to
be
exempt
from
the
california
environmental
quality
act.
M
B
O
Mr
mayor
bob
engler
here
go
ahead.
Bob
part
of
the
documentation
that
was
sent
over
by
the
applicant
for
this
appeal
mentioned
that
there
was
a
recent
san
francisco
ruling
having
that
with
some
some
mitigating
evidence
for
them,
can
you
go
a
little
bit
into
the
san
francisco
ruling
and
is
it
does
it
overturn
any
of
the
fcc
guidance
from
1996.
B
P
Hi
there,
san
francisco
case
it
was
significant
for
the
city
in
the
sense
of
it,
did
allow
in
very
unique
circumstances,
in
very
specific
circumstances,
to
consider
the
aesthetic
operations
how
the
how
the
wireless
facility
would
look
aesthetically
that
case,
even
though
it
has
some
good
language
for
cities
in
a
certain
circumstance,
it's
inapplicable
in
this
situation,
and
that's
simply
because
aesthetics
is
really
not
an
issue
in
this
matter.
P
This
truly
is
a
modification
of
a
wireless
facility
already
there
on
top
of
a
building
that
is
not
seen
by
the
public
from
the
public
street
or
the
public
right-of-way.
So
again,
while
that
case
has
some
very
minor
good
language
for
cities.
In
some
circumstances,
it's
really
not
applicable
in
this
kind
of
case,
and
dr
kramer
might
have
some
more
information,
as
he
was
a
part
of
that
case.
O
I
was
actually
the
testifying
expert
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
san
francisco
good
evening
council,
mr
mayor,
the
case
is
not
applicable
because
it
deals
with
cell
sites
in
the
right
of
way.
This
is
not
a
sell
side
in
the
right-of-way.
Therefore,
the
question
that
was
answered
by
the
california
supreme
court
has
no
impact
on
the
outcome
of
this
case
tonight.
O
Okay,
I'm
sorry
just
a
little
follow-up
that
we're
guided
then
by
in
terms
of
any
health
issues,
we're
still
still
guided
by
the
fcc
guidance
from
1996.
B
All
right,
dr
cramer,
mr
heeher,
thank
you
any
further
questions.
Before
we
move
on
to
our
council
mayor
pro
tem
go
ahead.
J
Thank
you.
The
question
I
have
from
for
me
is
for
dr
kramer.
Perhaps
the
the
grounds
of
the
appeal
would
they
pass
muster
in
court.
P
P
Member,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
what
you
mean
by
past
semester
in
court.
They
do
have
four
for
this
appeal.
They
actually
have
four
positions,
as
mr
kearns
articulated,
and
certainly
we
believe,
as
you
can
see
in
the
staff
report,
and
our
position
is
that
none
of
those
arguments
that
they
made
those
four
arguments
really
establish
any
grounds
to
affirm
or
to
grant
their
appeal.
In
fact,
it
actually
is.
P
It
would
be
inappropriate
to
do
that
based
on
those
grounds,
so,
in
other
words,
we're
asking
that
you
actually
approve
the
project
and
deny
the
appeal
I
can
go
through
each
one.
If
you
want
to
I'm
not
sure
which
one
you're,
you
think
might
are
concerned
that
my
past
muster
but
I'll
be
happy
to
articulate
that
in
more
detail.
If
I
get
some
more
clarity
from
you,.
J
Q
Yeah,
I
I
I'm
good.
Now
I
was
asking
for
I
was
where
patrick
was.
I
was
asking
for
clarification
by
mayor
pro
tem's
original
question,
but
it's
all
good.
He
answers.
P
Sure,
so
let
me
try
that
let
me
try
to
get
a
little
bit
in
more
detail,
so
they
have.
They
have
four
points
as
to
what
they're
making
attorneys
can
argue
anything
I
can
argue
one
way
or
the
other
way.
The
fact
is
that
they
might
have
a
passion
or
a
reason
to
say,
hey
I
want
to.
I
have
a
position
here.
I
don't
want
wireless
facilities,
and
so
I'm
going
to
make
any
argument
that
I
think
is
appropriate
to
make.
So
when
we
get
this
appeal,
we're
looking
at
okay.
P
What
is
your
basis
for
your
argument?
What
is
what
are
your
reasons
for
on
your
appeal
and
we
look
at
those
and-
and
we
articulate
those
in
the
staff
report
and
then
we
respond
to
them
and
say:
does
this
have
merit
or
not,
and
our
position
is
those
arguments
do
not
have
merit,
and
you
might
hear
from
the
representative
from
att
tonight
and
as
mr
curran
said,
they
don't
have
merit
for
a
number
of
reasons
for
each
one
of
them.
For
example,
the
comment
that
we
we
named
att
we
did
clarify.
P
It
was
new,
singular
wireless
pcs.
They
are
a
entity,
that's
licensed
to
do
business
in
california.
They
are
current
licensed
to
do
business
in
california,
and
that
is
the
name
of
the
applicant
for
the
for
the
project.
The
next
comment
was
about
uconn.
As
a
consultant,
we
allow
consultants
to
follow
applications.
P
P
So,
in
this
case,
the
city
is
prohibited
again,
as
you
well
know,
prohibited
from
evaluating
the
rf
emissions
right,
the
amount
of
our
commissions
are
being
produced
as
long
as
we
establish
as
long
as
we
establish
that
they
meet
the
federal
standards
our
own,
dr
kramer,
our
consultant.
We
review
that
to
make
sure
this
project
meets
those
standards,
but
if
it
does
in
this
case
we
use,
we
do
say
it
does
our
obligation,
then
you
cannot
no
longer
the
council's
prohibited
from
from
looking
at
that
any
longer
it
just
can't.
P
It
can't
weigh
that
anymore
and
that's
the
federal
law
that
we
have
to
comply
with.
So
the
very
basis
of
appellants
argument
when
it
comes
to
the
ada
is
that
any
wireless
facility
because
of
the
image
rf
emissions,
would
affect
her
and
and
would
be
a
violation
of
her
rights
under
the
ada.
And
we
just
couldn't
do
that
because
we
would
never
have
any
wireless
facilities
plus
our
defense
is
that
we're
complying
with
the
federal
law
under
the
1996
federal
telecom
telecommunications
act,
we're
following
that
law
and
that's
the
basis
why.
Q
Thank
you
if
I
just
had
a
couple
of
clarifying
comments
that
again
when
we're
considering
wireless
projects,
as
you
are
well
aware
of
the
1996
federal
telecommunications
act,
significantly
limits
what
cities
can
look
at
what's
within
our
jurisdiction.
What
isn't
within
our
jurisdiction
ada
is
one
of
those
issues
where
we
have
very
discreet
and
limited
ability
to
look
at
that's
because,
once
we've
established
through
our
expert
that
the
application
complies
with
the
fcc
regulations,
we
are
not
allowed
to
go
any
further.
Q
Ada
in
and
of
itself,
however,
applies
to
whoever
builds
the
project.
We
are
not
building
the
project.
The
wireless
company
is
building
the
project.
So
mayor
pro-tem
to
your
question
with
respect
to
other
law
firms
who
raise
issues,
you
know
it's
it's
perfectly
fine
and
perfectly
valid
to
raise
legal
concerns
that
they
have.
But
from
our
perspective,
we
do
not
believe
any
of
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
by
the
appellant
rise
to
the
level
of
giving
us
the
authority
to
legally
overturn
the
approval
of
this
wireless
facility.
B
We're
good
all
right
any
further
questions,
if
not
I'm
going
to
turn
to
our
appellant
team,
and
you
have
a
total
of
15
minutes
to
speak
and
I
believe
the
speaker
will
be
mark
pollock.
The
appellate
attorney.
R
Good
evening
sounds
to
me
like
you've,
made
up
your
mind
folks,
so
I
submitted
a
a
brief
to
you,
which
it
certainly
sounds
like
no
one
has
read
and
in
my
brief
on
page
four,
I
specifically
delineate
the
way
that
the
telecommunications
act
of
1996
needs
to
be
dovetailed
with
the
terms
of
the
ada
and
the
fhaa.
R
The
ada
requires
simply
that,
once
I
have
established
on
the
record
that
my
client
has
ems
electromagnetic
sensitivity
and
that
she's
being
impacted
by
the
emanations
of
electromagnetic
field
from
the
proposed
facility,
then
at
that
point
the
council
has
to
consider
prior
to
issuing
the
permit
whether
or
not
reasonable
mitigation
can
be
effectuated
with
the
applicant
here
that
hasn't
been
done,
and
the
broad
statement
from
mr
kramer
or
dr
kramer
and
others
that
somehow
the
1996
telecommunications
act
precludes
the
council
from
considering
mitigation
for
the
purposes
of
the
ada
is
just
wrong.
R
I've
cited
you
both
epic
systems
corporation
versus
lewis,
a
2018
case,
138
supreme
court
1612..
In
this
case
it
says,
when
confronted
with
two
acts
of
congress,
allegedly
touching
on
the
same
topic.
The
court
is
not
at
liberty
to
pick
and
choose
among
congressional
enactments
and
must
give
effect
to
both.
R
I'm
suggesting
that
we
put
the
matter
over
and
sit
and
meet
and
confer
city
attorney.
Perhaps
mr
dr
kramer,
myself
and
a
representative
from
new
singular
wireless
pcs
who
now
is
identified
as
the
applicant
to
determine
whether
or
not
there's
a
methodology
for
limiting
the
amount
of
wattage
that
this
facility
will
emit,
so
that
it
can
accomplish
its
primary
goal,
but
at
the
same
time
avoid
spillover
into
the
neighboring
residential
neighborhood.
R
This
city
council
has
received
a
signed
petition
from
1900
residents
of
this
community.
That
don't
want
this
thing.
There
are
other
people
in
the
community
suffering
from
ems.
Besides,
my
client,
the
fhaa
and
the
ada
require
that
there
be
some
reasonable
accommodation
of
their
disability
in
granting
the
application
for
this
process
to
go
forward
for
this
antenna
system
to
go
up.
What
hasn't
been
presented
to
you
at
all
is
what
will
be
the
comparative
radiation
levels
from
the
new
facility
versus
the
old
facility.
R
You
haven't
been
told
that
you
haven't
been
told
what
the
need
is
for
this
upgrade,
what
technology
will
be
dependent
upon
it
and
why
it
needs
to
happen
other
than
it
needs
to
be
upgraded
to
perhaps
keep
up
with
the
times.
R
But
att
was
identified
as
the
applicant
by
the
the
representative
for
the
applicant
and
that
a
tnt
is
simply
a
brand
name.
It's
not
a
legal
entity.
So
after
some
careful
examination
of
this
by
staff,
they
required
a
new
application
to
be
filed
by
new,
singular
wireless
pcs,
instead
of
under
the
name
of
att
that
begins
the
shot
clock
again.
It
starts
the
time
running
anew,
and
this
was
after
the
zoning
administrator
had
already
issued
the
permit
to
the
wrong
entity.
R
R
So
now
we're
dealing
with
the
ada
issue,
and
I
would
submit
to
you
that
I'm
not
here
to
make
trouble
for
the
applicant,
I'm
not
here
to
make
trouble
for
the
city,
I'm
here
to
work
out,
an
accommodation
that
protects
the
health
of
my
client
and
the
fact
that
jonathan,
dr
jonathan
cramer
or
others
have
said
that
you're
precluded
from
considering
the
health
effects
of
emf
under
the
terms
of
the
telecommunications
act
does
not
prevent
you
from
considering
the
health
effects
of
the
radiation
from
the
facility
under
the
ada.
R
So,
in
a
in
a
nutshell,
without
taking
all
the
time,
I
believe
that
I've
supplied
you
with
more
than
enough
material
in
the
record
to
support
my
position
that
you
have
the
authority
to
make
inquiry
about
how
broad
the
scope
of
the
emanation
will
come
out
of
this
facility
when
it's
done.
What's
the
comparison
between
the
levels
now
and
the
levels
before
or
the
levels
after
the
upgrade,
why
is
the
upgrade
necessary?
R
What
are
the
potential
health
effects
of
this
in
relationship
to
the
ada
and
the
fha,
and
I
would
submit
to
you
that
there
may
be
a
way
to
work
out
something
with
the
applicant
to
simply
power
down
the
facility
for
purposes
of
ongoing
operation
so
that
there
won't
be
spillover
into
the
residential
neighborhood
causing
harm
to
innocent
people,
and
on
that
basis
I
would
submit
it,
and
I
thank
you
for
considering
my
position.
R
B
Q
Adam,
I
believe
that
mandy
jacob
is
also
part
of
the
appellate
team
and
there
was
an
additional
six
minutes.
B
B
S
S
I
have
no
problem.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
you
know
you
you've
recognized
me.
I've
been
coming
to
you
guys
for
a
year
and
a
half,
and
it's
so
unfortunate
that
we've
landed
in
this
situation,
because,
over
a
year
ago
I
did
submit
to
the
city
attorney
an
ada
request,
not
an
ada
request
to
be
accommodated
at
your
meetings,
which
they
have
done,
but
an
ada
request
to
be
accommodated
in
my
home.
Should
an
issue
like
this
arise.
S
S
We
have
had
dr
kramer
tell
you
that
on
numerous
occasions
they
meet
with
the
telecoms
and
the
site
developers
and
unfortunately,
we
haven't
been
able
to
sit
down
with
anyone
who
makes
these
plans,
and
it's
really
disheartening
to
know
that.
It's
not
only
me,
there's
another
person,
two
people
here
in
the
community
that
we're
going
to
be
radiated
and
that
have
been
diagnosed
by
two
different
doctors
and
then
again
other
residents
outside
of
the
community.
Not
one
is
being
contacted.
S
It
should
be
noted
that
in
the
fda
was
employed
by
the
fcc
to
study
the
health
effects
and
the
fda
after
88
pages
said
that
there
are,
you
know,
a
small
group
of
emf,
sensitive
people
that
actually
do
need
to
be
accommodated,
and
I
can
send
you
that
documentation,
the
nih.
It
came
out
in
2019
january,
saying
that
one
in
three
people
are
actually
sensitive
and
the
thousand
dollars
knows
that
in
the
80s
you
were
sued
under
the
ada
and
you
did
as
a
city
have
to
pay
out.
S
S
Do
the
telecoms
or
the
applicants
have
coverage
and
they
have
coverage,
and
I
can
resubmit
that
again,
I
was
able
to
make
a
phone
call
on
an
att
phone
in
four
different
locations
and
I
recorded
it.
So
why
do
they
need
the
upgrade?
I
don't
understand
why
they
have
to
give
more
radiation.
Make
me
sicker
when
it
doesn't
matter
that
they're
decreasing
it
by
two
antenna.
The
radiation
is
going
to
be
worse
for
me
and
I
just
don't
understand
for
what
perspective
do
they
need
this
again?
S
The
nepa
review
was
from
2015
and
the
district
court
of
appeal
from
2019
august
9th
said
that
nipper
has
to
be
done
and
mr
kramer
is
going
to
tell
you
that
I'm
wrong,
but
it's
not
for
federal
land.
It's
for
everything.
So
this
their
need
per
report
is
is
wrong.
It's
well
not
wrong.
It's
outdated
and
it
needs
to
be
updated
and
may
approach
him.
You
just
you
ask
the
perfect
question
you
know:
can
this
go
forward
to
litigation?
I
hated
to
go
forward
to
litigation.
S
Can't
we
just
sit
and
talk
and
have
my
lawyer
represent
me
and
just
say:
look
I'm
sick
and
I'm
gonna
get
way
sicker.
I
don't
want
to
have
to
people
die
from
this
disease,
and
I
know
your
hearts.
I
know
especially
you
claudia
you.
I
mean
who
wants
to
visit
him
to
die,
I'm
just
asking
to
sit
and
talk
to
you
guys.
Logically,
we've
got
lots
of
technicians.
Unfortunately,
mr
kramer
he's
he's
applying
the
ieee,
which
is
an
engineering
they
don't
they
don't
look
at
people
who
are
sick.
S
They
look
at
thermal,
they
look
and
see
if
your
body's
being
heated
up,
I'm
not
talking
about
thermal.
I
I'm
just
talking
about
being
sick
and
I
don't
know
what
else
to
say
I
did
submit
from
the
city
of
malibu.
They
it's
for
your
public
record.
I'd
love
you
to
look
at
that
about
all
the
misinformation
that
kramer
has
supplied
to
them
and
they
are
looking
for
a
new
consultant.
S
So
I
I'd
really
beg
you
to
look
at
the
information
from
malibu
ordnance
suggestions
of
getting
a
new
consultant
because,
as
you
can
see,
he
already
handed
over
the
information
as
soon
as
he
said.
It's
not
technical.
He
gave
it
to
mr
heeher,
so
I
don't
know
why
we're
deferring
to
him
on
a
technical
issue
when
you're
talking
about
me
in
in
being
sick
being
disabled,
it's
totally
irrelevant
what
the
medical
you
know
for
him.
S
It's
totally
irrelevant
what
the
medical
condition
is
because
he's
only
looking
at
the
thermal
heating
effects
and
anyway,
that's
all
I
want
to
say.
Please
do
just
I
mean
we're
just
asking
for
five
ten
minutes
of
your
time.
This
will
determine
whether
or
not
I
have
to
leave
the
city
of
thousand
oaks,
and
I've
been
here
for
20
years
and
yeah.
B
L
Okay,
great
good
evening,
honorable
members
of
the
city
council
and
mr
mayor,
my
name
is
melissa.
Keep,
and
I
am
here
on
behalf
of
uconn
group.
I
first
of
all
like
to
say
thank
you
for
giving
us
the
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
appeals
brought
forth
for
att's
modification
project
over
at
one
and
then
center
drive.
L
My
name
is
melissa
keith,
and
I
am
here
on
behalf
of
yukon
group,
an
sfc
communications
inc
company,
representing
a
proposed
wireless
modification
project
located
at
one
amgen
center
drive
thousand
oaks.
California
91320
the
wireless
company
applying
for
the
modification
is
att
otherwise
known
as
new
singular
wireless
pcs,
llc,
a
delaware,
limited
liability
company
by
a
t,
mobility
corporation,
its
manager
att,
is
proposing
to
modify
their
existing
facility
by
removing
nine
antennas
and
replacing
with
seven
new
antennas,
removing
six
rrus
and
replacing
with
12
new
rrus
and
removing
12
dmas
on
the
existing
building's
rooftop.
L
The
scope
of
work
also
consists
of
removing
two
existing
baseband
units
noted
as
dus-41s
and
replacing
with
three
new
base
band
units
referred
to
as
bbu-6630
within
the
site's
existing
equipment
room.
Additionally,
one
new
dc-12
surge
suppressor
will
be
installed.
Also
within
the
existing
equipment
room.
L
L
Each
sector
is
located
behind
frp
screening
material
designed
to
blend
the
antennas
into
the
building's
existing
aesthetics
for
this
modification
at
t
would
like
to
utilize
this
opportunity
to
reduce
the
amount
of
materials
on
site
by
removing
antennas
and
equipment
that
are
no
longer
necessary
for
meeting
current
technological
needs.
In
doing
so,
all
antennas
and
equipment
will
continue
to
remain
behind
the
site's
existing
frp
screens.
The
facility's
leasing
dimensions
will
not
change
in
any
aspect.
The
height
of
the
wireless
facility
and
the
height
of
the
overall
building
will
remain
the
same.
L
The
site
will
not
undergo
any
substantial
change
in
appearance.
This
is
evidenced
by
the
plans
and
photo
simulations
that
have
been
submitted
for
the
subject.
Application
swapping
out
antennas
and
equipment
is
a
fairly
standard
procedure
for
existing
wireless
facilities,
as
this
ensures
that
sites
remain
up
to
date
and
meeting
technological
needs.
In
this
case,
att's
update
is
required
to
improve
the
overall
4g
user
experience
by
installing
technology
designed
to
meet
capacity
needs
in
this
area
of
the
city.
L
I
would
like
to
emphasize
that
this
is
an
existing
site
and
the
modifications
purpose
will
serve
to
offload
capacity
for
at
t
users
instead
of
building
an
entirely
new
facility.
It
is
a
preference
to
modify
sites
with
existing
entitlements
and
lease
agreements
in
which
antennas
and
equipment
are
swapped
out.
L
I
would
also
like
to
highlight
that
this
upgrade
will
include
firstnet
technology,
which
is
a
network
designed
to
provide
first
responders
with
access
to
fast
and
reliable
communications
whenever
needed.
This
modification
will
help
first
responders
to
stay
safe
throughout
their
work,
as
they
help
others
in
their
daily
operations,
and
it
will
also
help
them
in
addressing
disaster
response
and
recovery
situations
in
a
timely
manner.
L
As
the
applicant
representatives,
we
have
worked
closely
with
our
planner
wilfredo
chua
to
ensure
that
the
site
and
its
proposal
complies
with
jurisdictional
requirements
maintained
by
the
city
and
federal
government
by
modifying
an
existing
facility,
removing
any
unneeded
equipment
and
ensuring
that
the
site
does
not
undergo
any
substantial
change
in
appearance.
We
believe
that
a
due
diligence
effort
has
been
made
to
meet
the
city
of
thousand
oaks
requirements
for
properly
updating
telecommunication
facilities.
L
Thank
you
so
much
and
appreciate.
We
appreciate
your
time
consideration
and
assistance
throughout
the
permitting
process,
and
I
would
also
just
like
to
clarify
one
item
we
actually
didn't
have
to
reapply
when
we,
when
the
legal
name
was
incorporated
into
the
project
that
was
done
so
at
the
stage
of
the
administrative
approval
and
the
formal
administrative
approval
documentation.
L
That's
when
the
names
were
amended,
so
the
this
application
still
corresponds
with
the
march
application
that
was
submitted
earlier.
This
year
now,
I
would
like
to
pass
on
the
remaining
amount
of
my
time
to
att's
legal
associate
andrew
dye,
who
will
just
briefly
touch
on
some
of
the
appellants
points
that
have
been
brought
up.
H
The
firstnet
is
a
pretty
important
need
for
first
responders
and
basically
what
this
technology
does.
Is
it
prioritizes
access
to
that
specific
frequency
or
spectrum,
and
it
gives
those
first
responders
precedence
over
all
of
their
users,
which
may
not
require
such
precedence
for
that
use?
So
that
is
a
important
need.
We
feel
that
it
benefits
the
safety
of
the
general
public
and
the
first
responder
team,
so
that
is
a
position
that
18t
would
will
always
maintain
and
response
to
items.
I
believe
one
and
two
of
the
appellants
appeal
regarding
name
changes.
H
I
think
that's
been
discussed
pretty
thoroughly
tonight
and
there's
not
much
more.
We
need
to
add.
I
did
include
a
number
of
exhibits
in
our
response
and
those
will
be
that
shows
evidence
that
we
do
comply.
Att
new,
singular
wireless
and
yukon
group
all
comply
with
the
requirements
to
proceed
with
this
application.
H
In
response
to
the
requirement,
the
the
supporting
the
legal
supporting
support
that
was
provided,
I
believe
that
does
not.
Quite.
H
It
is
not
quite
on
point
with
what
we
are
doing
here
for
18
t's
modification,
that
that
support
is
based
on
a
categorical
exemption
for
small
cell
facilities,
basically,
and
that
exemption
is
what
is
defined
as
a
major
federal
action.
So
there
is
no
other
major
federal
action
here
that
would
apply
in
this
instance
to
a
municipal
permit,
a
discretionary
permit
from
a
municipality.
So
with
that
respect
and
and
as
dr
kramer
had
indicated,
that
this
project
is
not
federally
funded
or
on
federal
lands.
So
that
is
additional
support.
H
Why
the
nepa
analysis
is
not
needed,
but
having
said
that,
a
t
did
perform
a
nepa
and
there's
nothing
in
that
document
or
the
study
to
show
that
there's
any
significant
impact
and-
and
it
does
not
trigger
any
further
review
or
approvals
from
the
fcc
and
with
regards
to
appellant
ada
claim,
and
I
believe
there
was
that
fh
aaa
claimed
that
was
submitted
late
friday.
H
If
the
address
that's
on
the
the
appeal
form
is
correct,
we
show
that
her
residence
is
about
4
800
feet
away
from
this
facility.
It's
an
existing
facility
and
from
that
distance
I
I
believe
melissa
can
correct
me,
but
it
radiates
out
about
2
000
feet,
melissa.
L
Yeah
I
mean,
generally
speaking,
about
1000
feet.
So
it's
a
quarter
of
the
radius
yeah.
H
Yeah,
so
we're
we're
almost
a
mile
away
from
miss
jacob's
home,
and
we
do
not
feel
that
this
will
have
any
effect
on
on
that
area
and
with
that
said,
thank
you
for
your
time
and
based
on
those
reasons.
We
we
request
that
the
appellant
appeal
be
denied
and
the
permit
approved
appellate.
B
Thank
you,
mr
dye,
and
miss
keith
and
staff.
Do
you
have
any
response
that
you
care
to
make.
M
I
believe
many
of
the
items
are
brought
up
by
mr
pollock
and
miss
jacob
were
addressed
by
the
the
att
team,
including
their
attorney,
particularly
with
the
ada
requirements,
and
the
reasons
for
this
installation
being
upgraded.
The
the
fact
that
they're
upgrading
it
to
assist
first
responders
does
provide
a
public
benefit.
It
is
important
to
have
that
ability
for
them
to
drop
other
services
or
other
uses
on
that
facility,
so
they
can
have
priority
and
respond
and
perform
their
duties.
M
And
I
think,
basically
that's
the
reason
for
the
upgrade
which
was
articulated
by
mr
dye
so
other
than
that
staff
does
not
have
any
other
comment.
All.
P
All
right
just
a
couple
of
comments
because
for
the
record
we
need
to
make
sure
the
record
is,
is
clear
and
accurate.
One
of
them
is,
you
heard
miss
jacob
mentioned
that
the
city
attorney's
office
did
not
respond
to
her
and
her
ada
complaints
or
concerns.
P
We
in
fact
have
responded
to
her
at
least
two
occasions.
The
latest
one
was
by
our
office
in
may
of
this
year,
in
which
we
very
specifically
responded
to
her
ada
issue
and
respon
and
again
for
her
to
say
that
we
did
not
respond
is
just
not
true.
It's
inaccurate.
P
So,
no
matter
how
you
argue
or
how
you
state
concerns
about
it.
It
comes
back
down
to
the
rf
mission
level
and
no
matter
what
we
do
as
long
as
that
are
in
those
guidelines,
the
city,
any
local
entity,
any
state
entity
cannot
address
it.
For
that
reason,
so,
no
matter
how
you
argue
it,
it
really
has
comes
down
to
the
our
missions
and
in
this
case,
as
dr
kramer
has
stated,
those
meet
the
federal
guidelines
and
therefore
on
that
basis.
P
For
that
reason,
it's
not
a
reason
to
deny
the
project,
so
that
just
needs
to
be
very
clear
to
you.
I
think.
Q
Of
course,
before
we
move
on
to
council
deliberation,
just
a
couple
of
comments-
and
I
don't
know
if
dr
kramer
has
any
additional
comments.
O
O
So
this
is
a
technical
issue
which
is
fundamental
to
the
the
way
that
radio
operates.
There
is
no
way
of
of
tuning
down
the
emissions
to
stop
at
a
particular
place.
O
O
The
red
hearing
on
this
is
that
the
federal
communications
commission,
the
agency
delegated
by
the
fcc
to
set
standards,
has
set
those
standards,
and
the
question
is
not
what
is
the
difference
between
the
old
emissions
and
the
new
missions?
It's
whether
the
new
emissions
comply
with
the
fcc's
rules,
and
I
have
certified
by
doing
the
review
of
the
information
provided
by
18t
on
their
on
their
emissions,
but
it
will
so
that's
really
the
end
of
that.
O
From
a
from
a
legal
standpoint,
what
technology
is
being
used
is
another
red
hearing,
because
it's
outside
of
our
control
to
control
a
wireless
company's
technology,
as
I've
said
before
and
I'll
say
it
again
tonight
we're
basically
in
the
aesthetics
business,
how
things
look
and
we're
also
in
the
compliance
business,
to
determine
whether
a
wireless
facility
complies
with
safety
codes,
including
the
rf
safety
codes.
At
the
federal
level,
the.
O
I'll
move
on
to
miss
jacob's
comments,
she's
concerned
that
that
I
side
with
the
telecoms
I
side
with
the
law,
so
to
the
extent
that
the
law
is
clear,
and
it
is
I
that's.
That
really
is
what
I'm
concerned
about.
I
I
am
I
am.
O
I
wish
that
the
law
were
different,
but
it
isn't-
and
in
fact
the
fcc
just
completed
about
a
year
ago-
a
review
of
its
standards
and
elected,
not
to
change
it.
That
was
a
multi-year
process
where
the
public
was
involved
in
providing
information
as
to
whether
the
standards
that
were
originally
adopted
back
in
1997
were
adequate
or
did
they
have
to
be
changed,
and
the
commission
determined
that
there
was
no
evidence
in
the
record
that
suggested
that
as
to
sell
sites,
they'd
have
to
be
changed
in
terms
of
the
question
about
and
by
the
way.
O
I'm
sorry
just
for
a
side
note,
my
firm
does
not
work
for
the
telecom
companies
and,
interestingly,
one
of
the
documents
that
was
put
into
the
record
tonight
from
mr
scott
mccullough
by
the
app
by
the
appellant
actually
he's
an
industry
attorney
it's
on
his
website,
so
that
was
kind
of
strange.
O
G
There
seems
to
be
such
a
differentiation
between
the
statements
we
just
heard
from
dr
kramer
and
the
professed.
G
Danger
that
the
appellant
sees
in
her
distance
from
the
site
that
we're
speaking
of
is
this
an
exact
science?
You
made
the
statement
or
somebody
did
that
she's
a
mile
approximately
a
mile
away
and
any
radiation
effects
would
travel
only
about
a
quarter
of
a
mile
is.
G
O
O
So
that's
its
service
area
in
terms
of
the
fcc
compliance,
there
is
no
place
that
a
human
being
can
be
in
front
of
the
antennas
that
will
exceed
the
maximum
permitted
for
uncontrolled
24
7.
You
don't
even
know
that
the
cell
site's
there
exposure
so
you've
got
to
break
apart
the
rules
from
the
service
area
and
that's
why,
when
we
talk
about
the
service
area,
that's
roughly
a
thousand
foot
diameter
and
that's
why
the
fcc
rf
safety
standards
are
different
than
the
proposed
coverage
area.
O
G
Yeah,
in
other
words,
you're
differentiating
between
the
coverage
of
the
site,
in
other
words,
what
it
can
achieve
and
the-
and
I
don't
understand
all
the
nomenclature
here,
but
but
the
whatever
dangerous
radiation
effects
might
be
a
byproduct
of
that.
Is
that
what
you're
saying.
O
Well,
we
don't
use
the
word
dangerous
because
in
fact
it
complies
with
the
fcc
rules
to
the
extent
that
it
does.
It
is
a
legal
level
of
emissions.
It's
it's
well,
the
the
city
doesn't
answer
the
question
about
whether
something
is
dangerous
because
that's
not
within
the
city's
purview.
The
city's
purview
is
very
limited,
as
the
city
attorney
and
the
assistant
city
attorney
have
told
you
to
determine
compliance
with
the
fcc
rules,
which
the
city
does
on.
O
Essentially
every
single
project
for
exactly
this
purpose,
and
some
projects
in
the
past
have
never
made
it
forward
out
of
the
planning
stage
because
they
didn't
comply
and
they
got
shut
down.
So
every
project
that
you
see
that
comes
before
a
decision
maker
has
been
evaluated
for
compliance
with
the
fcc
rules
so
again,
fcc
compliance
is
public
exposure.
O
Well,
I
helped
put
together
in
fact,
co-edited
and
co-authored
the
fcc's
local
officials
guide
to
government
to
transmitting
safety.
That
is
still
the
the
gold
standard
book.
That's
on
the
fcc's
website
today,
so
I
can
tell
you
back
at
the
time
how
those
rules
were
developed
and
they
were
developed
in
conjunction
with
the
fcc
talking
to
other
government
agencies
to
radiological
health
organizations
to
public
groups.
They
looked
at
standards
from
other
countries
and
they
basically
said
okay.
This
is
what
we
think
is
correct
for
the
us.
O
O
At
the
fcc
level,
the
answer
is
yes:
radiological
health
officers
mds,
who
are
expert
at
at
radiological
effects
from
rf
emissions,
they're
part
of
the
the
group
that
advises
the
fcc.
So
yes,
all
right.
B
J
Thank
you.
I
do
have
a
question
actually
from
mr
dye.
If,
if
he's
so
with
us,
I
would
imagine
he
is
you
mentioned
in
one
of
your
statements
that
the
emission
or
the
antenna
are
about
a
mile
away
and
that
you
feel
that
it
will
have
no
effect
on
the
neighborhood
or
on
the
applicant's
home.
When
you
say
you
feel
that
it
won't
have
an
effect.
What
are
you
basing
that,
on.
H
I
think
feels
probably
an
incorrect
word,
but,
based
on
what
dr
kramer
is
saying,
you
know
the
emissions
that
are
as
long
as
we
are
compliant
with,
with
the
are
with
the
fcc
guidelines.
They
are
deemed
safe
if
you
want
to
use
that
word,
but
they
are
deemed
safe.
So
my
my
point
was
just
to
show
a
distance
between
the
facility
and
where
miss
jacobs,
home
is
and
as
melissa
and
dr
kramer
had
indicated.
H
The
radius
for
for
coverage
is
about
a
thousand
feet,
so
it
does
not
stop
the
radiation
from
immediate
emitting
beyond
that,
but
as
as
the
report
from
dr
kramer
indicates
that
we
are
compliant
and-
and
it
is
safe
from
that
perspective,.
J
Thank
you.
I
also
have
a
question
for
dr
kramer,
perhaps
or
maybe
even
a
city
attorney
the
appellant
or
the
applicant's
attorney
has
made
several
points
regarding
accommodation
and
yes,
as
mr
heeher
states,
everything
comes
down
to
health
hazards
and
we
really
can't
base
decisions
on
health
hazards
if
the
frequencies
within
the
permissible
range
ems
emf
sensitivity
is,
is
an
actual
health
problem.
J
People
have
ems
sensitivity,
it's
been
proven,
there
is
absolutely
no
doubt,
and
it
is
difficult
to
live
with
ems
emf
sensitivity
when,
when
you
are
completely
surrounded
by
this
all
day,
long
24
hours
a
day,
and
it
is
tough
for
persons
who
who
have
that
and
it
I
imagined,
will
only
get
worse
as
technology
advances
and
people
are
moving
away
from
5g
going
into
6g
7g.
Perhaps,
nonetheless,
the
laws
have
not
changed.
Q
Q
When
you
look
at
the
1996
telecommunications
act,
it
explicitly
delegates
the
health
and
safety
components
of
wireless
facilities
to
the
fcc
and
basically
delegated
to
the
fcc,
the
ability
to
promulgate
rules
that
set
thresholds
for
public
health
and
safety
once
that
is
done,
the
city
does
not
have
the
authority
to
interject
itself
and
conclude
that
those
standards
are
not
sufficient
from
a
public
health
and
safety
perspective
with
respect
to
reasonable
accommodation
requests.
Q
You
know,
as
mr
heeher
also
explained,
we
did
in
fact
respond
to
miss
jacobs,
in
particular
on
at
least
two
occasions,
inviting
her
to
have
further
discourse.
There
was
no
further
discourse,
however,
requested
we've
responded
to
other
people
as
well
from
an
ada
perspective.
However,
the
project
applicant,
the
conditions
of
approval
required
that
the
project
applicant
comply
with
all
laws,
federal
state
and
local
laws.
O
No,
I
actually
city
attorney
noon
and
said
exactly
what
I
was
going
to
say,
which
is
this
is
something
between
the
applicant
and
the
I'm
sorry,
the
appellant
and
the
applicant.
So
that's
all.
J
Q
Well,
I'm
certainly
not
going
to
give
them.
You
know
tell
them
how
to
you
know
how
to
move
forward
with
any
type
of
litigation.
But
again
when
you,
when
you
look
at
ada
compliance,
cities
comply
with
the
ada
with
respect
to
our
sidewalks,
because
we
are
the
ones
that
construct
those
projects,
but
if
there's
a
private
building
that
is
constructed
by
a
private
developer
and
there
are
ada
violations
in
that
building.
The
city
is
not
sued.
Based
on
that,
the
private
developer
the
building
owner
is
sued
based
on
those
ada
violations.
Q
P
I
would
have
to
actually
check
to
see.
I
know
that
we
reached
out
to
a
t,
because
we
did
have
a
shot
clock.
A
shot
clock
can
be
modified.
The
timeline
can
be
modified
with
the
permission
of
the
applicant,
which
would
be
a
t
in
this
case
in
the
city
we
certainly
knew
and
we've
again,
it's
usually
a
cooperative
type
of
process
to
ensure
that
we
are
are
going
through
the
permit
process
in
a
timely
manner.
P
Again,
this
is
not
a
small
wireless
facility,
one
where
there's
a
very
short
time
shot
clock
that
we
have
to
deal
with.
This
is
a
macro
site.
So,
even
though
we've
had
these
again,
this
is
a
third
basically
hearing
on
this
matter.
I
think
we're
okay
with
the
shot
clock
right
now,
because
we
are
processing
this
and
we're
doing
our.
N
P
To
process
this
application
and
again
it's
it's
with
a
shot
clock.
It's
just
it's
hard
to
say
that
there's
a
there's,
certainly
no
change
from
the
shot
clock
based
on
the
change
of
the
name,
because
it
was
always
been
processed
as
a
t
and
any
subsidiary,
and
the
consultant
is
part
of
that
team.
So
that's
really
not
a
an
issue
for
us
to
consider
and
again
since
we're
having
this
hearing
and
we're
moving
this
matter
forward.
Q
Thank
you.
I
will
note,
however,
that,
with
respect
to
the
project
the
process
of
this
particular
project,
there
was
a
continuance
requested
by
the
appellant
at
the
planning
commission
level
that
also
extended
that
time.
G
Yeah
a
matter
of
attorney,
therefore,
if
we
say
we're
in
compliance
with
the
fcc
on
any
of
these
matters,
does
that
mean
that
we
are
then
not
liable
in
any
lawsuit
for
anything
that
we
approve.
Q
Well,
the
position
that
I
have
is
first
of
all,
the
city
is
issuing
a
permit
if
the
city
did
something.
For
example,
let's
assume
that
the
city
went
through
the
sequa
process,
you
know
and
and
prepared
a
secret
document,
and
it
was
legally
deficient
if
we
were
sued
on
that.
Q
That's
one
thing
with
respect
to
this
case,
however,
if
this
permit
is
approved,
first
of
all,
the
applicant
defends
and
indemnifies
the
city
and
second
of
all,
the
issues
that
are
being
raised,
particularly
the
ada
issue,
are
more
should
be
attributed
to
the
project
applicant
and
not
the
city.
The
city
will
definitely
be
named
in
a
lawsuit
because
it's
the
issuance
of
the
permit,
but
with
respect
to
the
actual
project
and
who
defends
and
indemnifies
it,
it
would
be
the
applicant
that
would
indemnify
the
city.
R
G
R
Q
Before
we
move
on
to
the
rebuttal,
I
just
needed
to
correct
one
other
area
of
the
record.
I
believe
mr
pollock
indicated
that
a
petition
with
1900
signatures
opposed
to
this
project
had
been
presented.
Staff
did
not
receive
that
and
it
is
not
a
part
of
the
record.
B
Yeah,
thank
you
for
clarifying
that.
I
didn't
see
that
either
as
a
matter
of
fact,
so
if,
for
some
reason
this
permit
were
to
be
denied,
the
city
would
be
subject
to
litigation
most
probably,
would
it
not
miss
noonan.
Q
Well,
in
these
types
of
situations,
to
be
very
blunt,
the
city
would
be
subject
to
litigation
under
either
under
either
analysis.
If
we
approve
it,
obviously
the
appellant
might
choose
to
sue
the
city.
If
we
deny
the,
if
we
approve
the
appeal
and
deny
the
project,
then
we
would
probably
be
subject
to
litigation
by
the
applicant.
Q
B
A
R
Much,
mr
mayor,
briefly,
addressing
the
points
that
have
been
made.
I
believe
it
was
melissa
keith
who
said
that
there
was
not
a
new
application
filed,
but
that
there
was
a
modification
of
an
existing
application.
R
R
Specifically
identify
the
accurate
att
entity
who
will
be
responsible
for
the
permit
conditions
and
management
responsibilities
for
the
facility.
That
was
a
question.
The
staff
asked
the
applicant.
The
applicant
responded
that
quote
new
singular
wireless.
Pcs
llc
is
the
correct
name
for
the
applicant,
and
yet,
throughout
this
entire
evening,
all
of
the
staff,
all
of
the
people
involved
in
opposing
my
appeal,
have
continued
to
reference.
A
t,
as
the
applicant
at
t
is
not
an
existing
entity
in
california.
R
R
R
Moving
on
to
the
ada
issue,
when
I
talk
about
reasonable
accommodation,
I'm
not
talking
about
the
necessity
for
this
body
in
any
way
to
control
the
level
of
emissions
by
which
this
facility
would
impact
the
neighboring
residential
neighborhood
that
could
be
accomplished
with
shielding
with
additional
shielding
to
protect
the
neighborhood.
That
would
be
reasonable
accommodation
and
the
city
could
require
such
if
it
was
properly
engineered
and
submitted
as
mitigation
by
the
applicant,
so
as
to
downplay
the
impact
of
the
radiation
on
the
residential
neighborhood.
R
The
k
the
the
city
has
the
ability
to
comply
with
both
laws,
as
I
think
it
was.
Mr
here
mice
might
have
been
mr
dai
pointed
out
that
the
condition
of
of
the
permit
requires
that
the
applicant
shall
apply
with
all
laws.
R
S
I
really
want
to
thank
each
and
every
one
of
you
for
taking
all
these
questions
to
heart.
I
know
it's
taking
a
lot
of
time
and
I
just
want
to
say
something
cramer
says
that
it's
his
definition
of
the
law.
When
he's
talking
about
his
definition
of
the
law
he's
talking
about
the
fcc,
he
knows
nothing
about
the
ada.
This
is
why
you
need
to
defer
to
mark
pollock
when
he's
talking
about
medical
doctors
in
the
ieee,
the
ieee
is
written
is
run
by
engineers.
They
only
look
at
the
thermal
heating.
S
Migraines
and
when
I'm
throwing
up
and
when
I
can't
get
out
of
bed,
I
have
no
thermal
effects
happening
to
me.
The
radiation
is
coming
to
me
so
to
just
defer
and
say:
oh
because
kramer
says
that
that's
fine,
that's
not
fine!
It's
like
mr
pollock.
In
his
briefer
said
there
are
two
federal
laws
that
need
to
be
here
and
the
city
has
gone
and
had
to
pay
out
an
ada.
I
don't
want
to
go
that
way.
All
I'm
asking
for
when
mr
hiro.
S
This
is
the
second
time
you've
said
you've
contacted
me,
but
because
I
don't
get
to
sit
and
talk
to
you
face
to
face,
I
don't
know
when
you
contacted
me,
could
you
contact
me
again?
I'd
love
to
talk
to
you.
I've
spent
three
thousand
dollars
and
I
would
love
to
talk
to
someone.
We
don't
have
to
make
a
decision
tonight.
Can
we
just
sit
and
talk
person
to
person?
I
don't
want
the
city
out
of
business.
I've
been
asking
for
a
year
and
a
half.
I
can't
keep
begging,
I'm
I'm
literally
begging.
S
I've
had
to
employ
a
lawyer
for
me
to
come
and
beg
for
my
health
and
to
be
in
a
situation
that
we
didn't
want
happening.
We've
been
asking
for
the
ordinance
to
take
this
ada
into
account
and
kramer's
definition
of
law
is
his
definition
from
an
engineering.
It
is
not
an
ada
well-versed
person.
He
even
didn't
know
that
the
ada
was
referenced
in
the
tsa.
Thank.
B
H
Thank
you.
The
only
rebuttal
I'd
like
to
make
is
regarding
the
entity
information
it.
It
appeared
that
mr
pollock's
main
concern
was
the
indemnity
obligation
from
a
t
to
the
city.
As
long
as
the
the
approval
is
in
the
correct
entity
name
then,
then
we
do
satisfy
that
requirement.
We
have
an
obligation
att,
that
is,
to
indemnify
the
city
for
anything
related
to
the
permanent
approval.
H
And
with
respect
to
the
the
further
discussions
and
and
the
eme
emissions,
we'll
we'll
wrestle
with
what
we
had
previously
stated.
B
Thank
you
all
right.
Thank
you,
mr
dye.
All
right,
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
we'll
open
it
up
for
council
discussion
and
yes.
J
J
Okay,
great
thank
you.
Mr
pollock
mentioned
the
the
legalities
of
the
application
that
the
company
is
really
not
licensed
or
permitted
to
operate
in
california.
Can
you
can
mr
heeher
speak
to
that.
P
Absolutely
so,
in
my
hand,
here
is
a
secretary
of
state
certificate
of
status.
This
is
something
we
pulled.
I
personally
pulled
this
weeks
ago,
probably
months
ago,
because
of
the
administrative
hearing.
This
is
for
new,
singular
wireless
pcs,
llc
licensed
to
do
business
in
california.
P
They
have
the
right
to
do
business
in
california.
That
is
the
name
of
the
applicant
and
the
permit.
This
will
be
the
one
that
will
be
responsible
for
identifying
the
city.
It
is
a
subsidiary
of
a
t
and
again
we
say
verizon,
we
say
at
t
we
say
frontier,
we,
we
do
use
those
words
because
we're
thinking
the
general
group
of
att
or
the
body
of
a
corporation
that
that
size.
P
So
it's
not
infrequent
that
people
do
that,
but
when
it
comes
to,
like
you
said
the
legality,
we
make
sure
that
we
actually
have
the
that
who's
going
to
be
responsible.
Who
is
licensed
and
certified
in
the
state
of
california,
by
the
secretary
of
state
to
do
business.
B
I
will
go
ahead
council
member
angler.
Thank
you.
O
O
I
mean
I've
read
the
guidance
just
as
a
layman
and
it's
pretty
explicit
that
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
look
at
medical
impacts
at
all
that
they
have
determined
that
this
is
safe
and
that
doesn't
diminish
at
all
the
the
feel,
the
feelings
and
and
the
illness
that
people
like
mandy
feel
I
I
I
don't
like
being
having
our
hands
tied
this
tightly,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
fcc
is
the
guiding
principle
here
and
because
of
that,
we're
going
to
have
to
go
with
that.
O
That
guidance
I
would
like
I
would
like
to
given
that.
I
would
like
to
move
that.
We
deny
the
appeal,
but
I'd,
love,
to
hear
more
of
what
my
fellow
councilmen
have
to
say.
B
All
right,
we
have
a
motion.
Any
comment
to
the
motion.
J
Thank
you,
mr
mayor.
As
I
have
stated,
there
are
many
persons,
not
only
this
country
but
elsewhere,
who
have
emf
sensitivities
and
their
lives
are
impacted
by
emissions
radiation,
not
only
from
telecommunications
antennas
but
from
telephones,
microwaves.
I
mean
other
equipment
in
our
in
our
homes
and
I
will
say
that
as
terrible
as
that
is.
J
J
J
So
I
I
have
to
agree
with
with
mr
with
mr
engler,
my
colleague,
and
I
I
just
hope
that
perhaps
a
new
congress
will
take
up
this
issue.
We
have
appealed
to
our
federal
representatives.
We
have
appealed
to
the
fcc
and
we
do
need
a
change
in
this
law
in
the
telecommunications
act.
We
do
it's
outdated,
but
unfortunately,
a
change
does
not
come
early
enough
for
this
particular
case.
B
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
Yes,
if
the
rf
emissions
meet
the
requirements,
there's
that
we
just
don't
have
any
grounds
to
grant
this
appeal
and,
as
dr
kramer
said,
we're
really
that
leaves
us
in
the
aesthetics
business
and
is
there
any
aesthetically
any
aesthetic
problems
with
this?
B
No,
it's
looks
the
same
as
it
did.
It
would
look
the
same
as
it
did
before
it
was
modified,
so
there's
just
nothing
really
that
we
could
base
a
denial
of
the
project.
On
that
I
see
and
I
am
sympathetic
to
miss
jacob's
plight.
B
D
D
B
C
Hearing
advertised,
as
required
by
law,
is
open
to
consider
agenda
item
8b
regarding
the
expansion
of
the
existing
helipad
atlas
robles,
regional
medical
center,
sumn
2020-70422
and
speakers
are
requested
to
state
their
name
and
community
of
residence.
For
the
record.
Five
individuals
have
presented
speaker
cards
and
pursuant
to
council
standards,
each
speaker
will
have
five
minutes.
F
F
An
application
for
a
minor
modification
was
originally
submitted
in
august
of
2019.
This
was
going
through
staff
processing
when
a
letter
of
objection
was
received
which
required
staff
to
schedule
an
administrative
hearing
on
may
28.
That
hearing
was
held
at
which
time
the
application
was
approved,
and
the
decision
itself
was
not
appealed
by
anyone.
F
F
M
Thank
you,
mr
parker
depicted
on
this
slide
is
actually
the
site
plan
of
the
hospital
facility
hospital.
Is
this
bigger,
l-shaped
type
building
to
the
top
of
the
image?
The
existing
parking
structure
is
at
the
bottom
left
of
the
the
image
and
the
helipad
is
located
centrally
on
the
rooftop
shown
in
this
area.
Here.
M
M
M
And
the
proposal
involves
expanding
the
existing
50
by
50
foot
helipad
to
65
foot
by
68
feet,
which
increases
about
1900
square
feet.
The
extension
will
extend
south
to
from
the
existing
location
and
cantilever
over
the
parking
space.
Existing
parking
area
and
it'll
be
structurally
upgraded
to
support
the
additional
weight
of
the
firehawk
helicopters.
M
Now
the
expansion
and
the
structural
upgrade
will
allow
these
these
firehawks
to
land
in
the
event
of
a
catastrophic
event
such
as
the
woolsey
fire
which
we
recently
experienced
and
for
transporting
injured
firefighters
or
airlift
victims.
During
a
search
and
rescue
mission,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
las
robles
hospital
is
the
only
level
2
trauma
center
in
east
ventura
county
and
the
helipad
is
an
integral
part
of
the
trauma.
Center's
operations.
M
D
M
Decimal
ratings,
but
what's
more
important
to
note
here
is
that
the
municipal
code
actually
anticipates
noise
from
emergency
events
occurring
and
exempts
noise.
These
noise
sources
from
the
noise
ordinances
and
the
noise
ordnance
is
the
implementation
tool
for
the
noise
element
of
our
general
plan,
and
this
tool
is
not
applicable
for
these
types
of
operations.
M
So
this
project
was
evaluated
in
accordance
with
seqa
and
was
found
to
be
a
class
one
exemption,
since
it
involves
a
negligible
expansion
of
the
use,
the
use
itself
will
remain
predominantly
the
same.
The
operations
will
not
change
significantly
and
only
during
catastrophic
events
will
the
firehawk
helicopter
visit
this
helipad.
M
So,
in
conclusion,
the
current
helicopter
operations
since
the
current
helicopter
operations
remain
the
same
and
since
timely
care
is
critical
in
medical
emergencies,
there
is
a
public
benefit
to
the
community
and
region
which
outweighs
the
minimal
noise
impacts
from
the
uc
helicopter
from
the
usa.
Helipad
by
these
firehawk
helicopters,.
M
J
So,
city
approval
just
to
clarify
city
approval,
would
be
required
in
order
for
this
project
to
move
forward.
D
And
I'll
I'll
just
add
to
that,
as
said
patrick,
he
her
can
speak
to
it
as
well,
because
he
had
countless
conversations
with
caltrans
on
this
issue,
and
you
know
we
viewed
as
a
bit
of
a
technicality.
D
Caltrans
has
a
strict
reading
of
the
way
their
policy
indicates
and
they
have
a
very
strict
interpretation
of
how
the
body
has
to
act
and
in
what
manner
they
have
to
act.
So
it's
much
more
technicality.
But
yes,
mr
currents
is
correct
that,
from
their
perspective,
it's
affirmative
action
by
the
council
is
required.
S
J
G
Just
one
question:
are
the
fire
hawk
helicopters
going
to
be
used
only
in
case
of
fires,
of
evacuating
people
from
fires?
Is
that
their
only
use.
M
D
Yeah,
I
believe
so
councilmember
jones,
I'm
just
looking
at
the
speaker
list
tonight.
We
do
have
sheriff
bill
ayoob
and
fire
chief
john
speicherman,
along
with
steve
carroll,
the
head
of
ems
for
the
county.
They,
I
would
imagine
they'll
during
their
comments,
will
likely
speak
to
that
issue.
J
One
more
question:
thank
you.
If
we,
I
know,
we've
had
a
complaint
or
two
about
concerns
regarding
noise.
Should
the
noise
become
a
problem?
What
would
be
the
what
what
mitigation
could
be
taken.
M
Well
again,
I
think
it's
important
to
clarify
that
we're
not
looking
at
the
existing
operation
or
discussing
whether
or
not
the
helic
pad
will
operate
as
it's
been
operating.
What
we're
looking
at
in
this
application
is
expansion
of
an
actual
physical
surface
to
accommodate
a
larger
helicopter
in
the
event
of
an
emergency.
M
O
M
Yes,
as
presented
to
staff,
the
firehawk
helicopters
will
only
be
used
during
catastrophic
events
again
wildfire
or
search
and
rescue
mission.
So
these
will
not
become
part
of
the
op.
The
daily
operation
of
the
facility
and
the
transport
of
trauma
victims
will
be
through
the
the
bell
huey,
the
smaller
helicopters.
O
G
Good
evening,
I'm
austin
manning
and
the
chief
operating
officer
here
at
los
robles
health
system.
I
want
to
thank
you
all
for
taking
time
this
evening
to
hear
hear
this
request.
We
appreciate
you
all
previously
approving
this
project
and
bearing
with
us
as
we
address
this
technicality
with
caltrans.
G
Mr
kearns
has
done
a
nice
job
of
introducing
this
project,
so
I
won't
spend
much
time
on
the
details
other
than
to
point
out
that
these
two
new
helicopters
being
brought
on
by
the
ventura
county
air
unit,
as
stated
previously,
will
be
primarily
focused
on
firefighting
and
search
and
rescue.
G
That
being
said,
we
do
anticipate
that
there
may
be
situations
where
our
first
responders
would
need
to
bring
either
a
firefighter
or
someone
from
a
search
and
rescue
mission
directly
to
the
hospital,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
positioning,
los
robles
health
system
to
be
in
the
in
the
best
place
to
be
able
to
support
the
community
and
to
support
our
first
responders
next
slide.
Please.
G
Here
you
can
see
the
overall
campus
of
the
health
system
and
the
existing
helipad
that
we
will
be
upgrading,
as
has
been
previously
stated.
We
are
the
level
two
trauma
center
in
the
eastern
part
of
ventura
county
and
given
the
increase
that
we
seem
to
be
seeing
over
the
last
couple
of
years
around
wildfire
activity,
we
believe
it's
in
the
best
interest
of
our
community
that
los
robles
be
allowed
to
upgrade
the
existing
helipad
to
ensure
that
we
can
accommodate
our
first
responders
next
slide.
G
I
I
I
In
order
to
assess
noise
levels
at
different
barriers
and
heights,
a
3d
noise
modeling
software
was
used
to
assess
current
conditions
and
future
noise
levels.
This
addresses
the
comment
questioning
the
use
of
the
model
as
opposed
to
the
previous
outdated
and
not
recommended
inm
model
that
is
mainly
used
to
assess
regional
impacts
and
lacks
certain
capabilities.
I
This
model
takes
into
account
factors
such
as
topography,
vegetation,
propagation
from
buildings
and
existing
noise
barriers
to
provide
a
localized
assessment
of
the
project
vicinity
and
surrounding
neighborhoods
to
verify
our
modeling
assumptions
are
accurate.
The
current
conditions
were
also
modeled
to
compare
the
results.
The
real-time
data
that
was
gathered
as
we
found
our
modeling
assumptions,
yielded
to
approximately
two
decibels
higher
than
what
the
real-time
data
gathered
provided
us
proving
that
our
assumptions
are
accurate
and
the
analysis
provides
a
conservative
and
worst
case
scenario.
I
Conclusion,
this
noise
study
assesses
daily
impacts,
as
the
event
occurs,
not
weekly,
not
monthly.
That
being
said,
the
noise
study
clearly
states
the
unlikely
scenario
and
conservative
assumption
of
a
flight
occurring
within
every
hour
during
the
entire
24-hour
period
extrapolated
to
720
flights
in
a
month.
I
G
This
is
austin
manning
speaking
again,
I
would
just
like
to
indicate
that
there
were
a
number
of
letters
submitted
from
our
first
responders,
including
the
ventura
county
sheriff's
office,
the
ventura
county,
public
health,
our
ems
administrators
and
the
fire
as
well
supporting
this
as
well
as
several
members
of
the
community,
and
so
those
I
believe
have
been
made
available
to
the
city
council,
if
not
we're
happy
to
provide
those
and
I'll.
Just
conclude
by
saying,
thank
you
again
for
your
time
this
evening.
B
T
Well,
good
evening,
mayor
adam
council
members,
mr
powers,
thank
you
for
having
me
here
this
evening.
I
did
want
to
talk
about
the
potential
upgrade
to
the
helipad
at
las
robles
regional
medical
center.
As
I
believe
you
know,
the
sheriff's
office,
in
collaboration
with
the
ventura
county
fire
department,
operates
an
aviation
public
safety
unit
in
ventura
county,
and
we
are
the
only
public
safety
aviation
unit
in
the
county.
T
The
unit
currently
uses
four.
A
T
For
a
number
of
years
now
we
have
been
looking
for
successor
aircraft,
the
huey
aircraft
are
our
vietnam
conflict,
vintage,
so
they're,
50
plus
years
of
age
and
while
they're
in
excellent
operating
condition,
they're
becoming
more
and
more
difficult
to
operate
about
two
to
three
years
ago,
the
military
started
surplusing
the
sikorsky
uh-60
aircraft.
That's
what
most
of
us
know
is
the
blackhawk
helicopter
tried
and
true
military
workhorse
helicopter
that
actually
replaced
the
huey
as
a
primary
medium
to
large
utility
helicopter.
T
The
military
surplusing
those
helicopters
created
some
opportunities
for
public
safety
organizations
to
capitalize
on
that
aircraft
and
acquire
them
at
a
at
a
reasonable
price
and
the
county
fire
department
has
acquired
three.
Such
aircraft,
two
are
being
upfitted
for
service
life,
primarily
as
firefighting
aircraft,
but
there
is
a
very
high
likelihood
that
they
will
see
service
as
rescue
helicopters,
medevac
helicopters,
as
we
see
our
huey
aircraft
being
harder
and
harder
to
maintain.
T
As
time
goes
on
so
at
present,
the
blackhawk
helicopter
is
significantly
longer
than
the
huey
it's
about
seven
feet
longer
and
significantly
heavier,
and
what
makes
it
even
more
different
than
the
huey
is
that
it
sits
on
wheels
two
wheels
at
the
front
of
the
fuselage
one
at
the
rear
of
the
tailbone,
which
makes
it
a
very
large
profile
for
any
type
of
landing
pad.
T
The
helipad
at
our
trauma,
centers
one
being
at
las
robles,
the
other
at
the
venture
county
medical
center
are
too
small
to
accommodate
the
blackhawk
and,
if
they're
not
upgraded
the
likelihood
of
us
being
able
to
use
those
as
an
emergency
trauma
center
with
the
air
rescue
ships
is
very
small.
We
would
have
to
land
at
some
off-site
location
and
transfer
transfer
a
patient
via
a
ground
ambulance
which
could
cost
cost
lives.
T
So
this
is
truly
about
public
safety.
The
likelihood
of
the
use
of
the
helipad
at
the
hospital
is
not
not
likely
to
change
the
air
unit
delivered
14
people
to
las
robles
medical
center.
Last
year,
we've
delivered
eight
this
year.
Most
of
those
flights
are
mid-day
to
late
afternoon
and
that's
a
pattern.
That's
continued
over
time
as
most
of
the
people
that
we
transfer
are
people
that
have
suffered
traumatic
injuries
in
the
back
country
and
they
need
to
get
to
a
trauma
center
immediately
for
life-saving
efforts.
T
So
I
fully
support
the
idea
of
expanding
the
helipad.
I
understand.
There's
there's
concerns
with
noise
in
the
neighborhood.
I
don't
see
that
changing
much
with
the
the
blackhawks
coming
in
versus
the
hueys.
Well,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
I
appreciate
it.
N
Good
evening,
mayor
city
council,
on
behalf
of
the
fire
chief
mark,
lorenzon.
N
To
express
his
full
support
of
the
project
to
upgrade
the
helipad
for
our
mission,
the
upgrade
will
be
necessary
to
accommodate
the
new
firehawk
helicopters.
N
Like
I
think,
sheriff
you've
said,
there's
only
two
trauma
centers
in
ventura,
county
and
las
robles
hospital
is
the
one
located
in
the
east
county
and
the
other
is
vcmc
which
is
located
in
the
city
of
ventura.
So
any
trauma
type
calls
on
the
east
county
are
going
to
go
to
las
robles
hospital.
We
don't
see
any
increase
in
any
calls
or
trauma
calls
going
to
the
hospital
just
based
on
improving
the
helipad.
You
know
the
calls
will
will
be
the
calls.
N
If
there's,
if
it's
a
trauma,
call
and
the
blackhawk
is
used,
then
that
would
be
critical
for
the
for
the
citizens.
You
know
care,
but
when
a
citizen
of
ventura
county
does
require
a
trauma
center,
we
need
to
be
able
to
land.
Whatever
helicopter
is
available,
there
are
mechanical
pieces
of
machinery
they
do
break
down,
they
do
have
to
go
down
for
maintenance.
N
I've.
I
heard
a
couple
of
concerns
that
were
being
addressed
and
the
fire
hawks
are
bigger.
They
are
heavier,
they
can
drop
a
lot
more
water,
but
our
research
shows
the
help.
The
helicopter
itself
is
actually
quieter
than
one
of
the
hueys.
So
hopefully
that
will
help
with
some
of
that
noise.
If
we
have
to
bring
in
the
blackhawk
they
increase.
Noise
should
not
be
because
of
that.
Firehawk
helicopter,
as
some
of
the
safety
and
performance
features,
they're
they're,
a
dual
engine
aircraft,
which,
for
safety
reasons
flying
over
homes.
N
They
are
mechanical
piece
of
machinery
and
it
does
have
two
engines,
so
that
does
add
a
safety
margin
when
we
have
to
fly
over
neighborhoods
to
perform
those
emergencies
so
for
the
fire
department.
Upgrading
the
helipad
will
allow
us
to
meet
our
commitment
to
the
to
the
public
and
that's
why
we're
in
support
of
the
upgrade
to
the
helipad,
and
that's
it
for
me
tonight.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
chief
spikerman,
steve
carroll.
He
is
here
with
us
from
ventura
county
ems,
steve.
E
Hi
mayor
adam
council
members,
mr
powers
good
evening,
I'm
steve
carroll,
emergency
medical
services,
administrator
for
the
county
on
behalf
of
our
county
ems
system.
I
would
like
to
add
our
support
to
los
robles
regional
medical
center's
proposal
to
upgrade
their
helipad
as
one
of
the
two
trauma
centers
as
chief
speicherman
and
and
the
other
speakers
have
have
mentioned.
E
E
So
it's
not
a
not
a
desirable
alternative.
We
don't
expect
these
larger
helicopters
to
be
the
primary
ship
as
they've
as
they've
mentioned
previously.
The
smaller
helicopters
are
our
primary
transport
for
medical
and
rescue
calls,
but
there
is
a
potential
that
these
larger
helicopters
will
need
to
be
able
to
safely
evacuate
a
patient
and
be
able
to
transport
to
one
of
our
trauma.
Centers
and-
and
this
is
highly
important,
so
appreciate
your
consideration
for
this
public
safety
improvement
to
our
county.
Thank
you.
B
N
Thank
you,
mr
mayor,
and
I'd
like
to
thank
all
the
council
for
this
opportunity.
This
hits
close
to
me.
I
want
to
thank
all
the
aviation
first
responders
having
spent
13
years
working
in
that
helicopter
landing
at
the
hospital.
I
know
the
effects
that
has
over
the
last
40
and
50
years
of
residents
in
the
canal
valley.
N
You
know
getting
ready
for
the
hueys
in
the
1970s
that
we're
currently
using
today
and
expansion
has
to
occur.
But
what
doesn't
have
to
change
is
that
our
our
support
for
maybe
the
next
40
years
of
bringing
life-saving
equipment?
First,
responding
equipment
for
trauma
for
people
in
the
canal
valley
by
the
sky
as
rapidly
and
safely
as
possible
to
the
surgeon
and
nurses
at
las
robles
hospital.
These
are
our
own
canelo
valley
residents
that
are
hauled
to
the
hospital
here
in
life-saving
manner.
N
B
G
G
I
learned
in
2008
that
noise
levels
exceeded
the
conditionally
acceptable
accepted
levels
for
residential
zones
during
public
hearing
for
the
hospital
expansion
since
becoming
a
level
two
trauma.
Center
noise
levels
have
increased
due
to
low
flying
helicopter
traffic
day
and
night
and
increased
street
traffic.
I've
made
many
calls
to
the
hospital
in
the
faa.
I've
gotten
no
response
from
los
robles
over
the
past
years,
but
the
faa
suggested.
I
do
a
video
log
and
I
use
flight
radar
24
to
document
the
air
traffic.
G
The
reason
for
a
noise
study
is
required.
The
reason
the
noise
study
is
required
for
the
helipad
enlargement
is
to
evaluate
the
impact
on
the
community.
This
study
is
so
poorly
executed.
It
had
to
be
amended
before
the
administrative
hearing,
because
it
failed
to
include
data
for
the
noise
impact
of
the
new
firehawk
helicopter.
Seriously.
G
Planning
tells
us
there
will
be
no
increase
in
the
number
of
flights.
The
number
was
initially
five
per
month.
My
number,
based
on
a
hard
count,
was
nine
per
month
and
most
recently
lori
young,
says
three
to
four
per
week.
At
this
point,
it
feels
like
they're,
just
making
up
numbers,
we
are
told
ventura
county
will
only
use
the
black
hawk
in
extreme
emergency.
G
When
isn't
a
medical
airlift,
not
an
emergency.
Here's
a
fun
fact:
only
20
percent
of
the
flights
into
los
robles
are
from
the
sheriff's
department.
The
other
80
percent
are
from
reach
and
mercy
air.
No
information
was
given
about
the
makeup
of
their
fleet
or
any
promises
that
they're
not
going
to
be
bringing
in
a
lot
more
helicopters.
G
G
It
would
appear
the
church
sits
above
the
helipad,
and
noise
isn't
as
loud
if
you're
above
it,
timing
and
duration
of
the
baseline
noise
level
is
also
questionable.
It
was
done
one
day
on
winter
break.
First,
during
the
clu
and
lorena,
so
traffic
was
less.
A
meteor
was
placed
in
the
northwest
flight
path,
but
not
in
the
western
flight
path.
My
house
lennon
jans.
This
is
where
the
highest
noise
levels
were
recorded
during
2008..
G
You
don't
want
the
neighborhood
to
know
how
loud
it
is
here.
The
planning
commission
told
us
there
will
be
no
increase
in
vibration.
There
is
no
information
in
this
study
concerning
vibration.
That
would
require
a
c
weighted
study.
How
can
they
make
a
statement
with
nothing
to
validate
it,
saying
it
doesn't
make
it
so
the
planning
commission
tells
us
it
won't
affect
our
property
values
again.
How
do
you
make
this
promise?
Maybe
because
our
proximity
to
the
hospital
has
already
affected
the
worth
of
our
homes?
I'd
like
to
see
some
realtors
give
comparison.
G
My
doctoral
training
taught
me
to
question
research,
and
I
see
a
lot
of
holes
in
their
data.
More,
concerning
is
the
fact
that
the
planning
commission,
who
is
appointed
by
city
council,
seems
to
be
defending
the
applicant
instead
of
addressing
my
concerns.
Their
job
is
to
be
sure,
projects
are
in
accordance
with
local
ordinances.
G
G
Remember
who
you
serve
and
delay
this
project
request
a
legitimate
study.
Instead
of
this
myopic
attempt
no
mitigation
needed,
you
have
to
be
kidding.
I
would
love
to
see
a
study
that
actually
has
some
data
in
it.
That
is
affecting
our
lives
here
now,
I'm
a
veterinarian.
I
have
an
understanding
of
emergency.
G
I
also
have
an
understanding
that
they've
been
landing
black
hawks
there.
My
video
data
log,
I
understand
that
it
needs
to
be
safe.
What
I'm
asking
for
is
mitigation
for
the
neighborhood.
I
don't
want
to
know
what
it's
going,
what
we're
going
to
mitigate
after
it
happens.
It's
already
bad.
It's
already
been
bad.
G
G
B
All
right,
very
good,
we'll
go
to
the
staff
and
that's
the
end
of
our
public
speakers
by
the
way
and
staff.
Do
you
have
any
response.
M
Yes,
thanks
mayor
adam,
there
has
been
some
inconsistency
in
the
numbers
we
provided
for
the
number
of
trips
that
helicopter
trips
to
the
hospital
and
partially
that's
that
number
it's
because
that
number
is
very
dynamic.
It
only
occurs
when
there's
a
trauma
victim
being
transported
to
the
hospital.
M
The
latest
data
that
we
receive
from
the
hospital
is
about
three
to
four
helicopter
trips
per
week,
but
I
could
I
could
refer
that
to
the
to
the
hospital
staff
to
respond
more
with
more
clarity
as
to
what
the
actual
number
is.
But
again
it
is
a
very
dynamic
number.
This
is
not
static.
These
aren't
planned
trips.
These
happen
when
there's
a
trauma
vector
need
to
be
transported.
M
With
regard
to
the
noise
study,
the
noise
study
was
prepared
to
demonstrate
the
noise
that
exists
from
the
existing
operation.
However,
again
I
just
want
to
make
it
abundantly
clear
that
the
thousands
municipal
code
exempts
noise
from
emergency
activities,
which
this
is
considered
an
emergency
activity.
This
is
for
a
public
benefit.
These
are
it's
a
life-saving
operation
visiting
the
hospital
from
contract
services
of
the
city
for
fire
department
and
by
police
department
using
this
facility
to
potentially
save
lives.
B
J
M
We
have
not
received
any
any
complaint
from
anyone
in
the
neighborhood
directly
at
the
administrative
hearing.
A
few
people
did
attend
and
address
the
noise
at
that
hearing,
but
no
correspondence
was
submitted
to
staff.
G
Good
evening
again,
this
is
austin
manning
with
the
health
system.
Two
comments,
one
I'd
like
to
for
the
record
indicate
that
we
have
been
in
contact
repeatedly
with
dr
martin
to
address
her
questions
throughout
this
process
and
then,
secondarily
as
to
the
question
of
flight
numbers,
there
was
some
initial
confusion
caused.
G
I
Good
evening,
chris
currican,
here
again,
as
far
as
regarding
the
comments,
the
comments
stating
that
the
fire
hawk
was
not
assessed.
That
is
simply
not
true.
The
fire
hawk
was
assessed
in
the
noise
study.
The
comment
regarding
the
barriers
and
the
height
of
the
meter.
I
This
is
why
we
use
the
3d
noise
modeling
software
that
I
mentioned,
because
it
does
take
into
consideration
the
different
elevations
and
heights
of
different
receivers,
and
so
in
that
aspect
of
it,
the
way
the
noise
bounces
off
from
the
ground
to
the
sky,
that
is,
that
is
shown
in
the
3d
noise
model
that
we
utilized
regarding
the
noise
measurements
that
we
took
during
the
break.
We
base
the
data
based
on
other
readings
that
we
take
that
are
typical
of
certain
areas
and
so
based
on
what
we
were
able
to
see.
I
I
J
I
do
have
another
question:
are
there
two
other
helipads
available
in
thousand
oaks,
one
in
at
the
east
county
sheriff's
station
and
one
in
hidden
valley
are
those
the
only
ones
that
we
have
in
the
east
county.
D
N
The
only
place
that
is
designated
and
steve
carroll
can
chime
in
because
he
knows
a
little
bit
more
about
this
than
me,
but
we've
been
discussing
it
recently
because
of
all
the
remote
rescues
is
in
wildwood,
some
of
the
places
in
wildwood,
it's
very
steep
terrain
and
there
might
be
a
bls
depending
on
different
criteria,
and
I
don't
know
exactly
what
the
criteria
steve
steve
will
probably
know
that
we
can
fly
directly
from
wildwood
only
to
las
robles
hospital,
not
to
delay
care.
E
O
I
will
I'll
make
a
motion
that
we
approve
the
the
teleport
improvements.
O
O
To
me,
I
try
to
separate
the
ongoing
issue
of
any
noise
problems
in
that
neighborhood
to
simply
this
helicopter,
which,
according
to
the
to
the
study,
if
I
remember
right,
the
the
the
noise
was
almost
the
same
according
to
the
fire
chief,
it's
actually
less,
but
I
think
it
was
a
slight
increase
in
noise.
If
I
remember
reading
it
right,
two
to
three
decibels
above
what
the
current
hueys
are,
so
the
the
need
to
get
people
to
the
hospital
in
an
exit
circumstance
using
this
helicopter,
I
think,
is
very
important.
B
G
J
Mr
mayor,
I
asked
I
too
will
support
the
motion,
given
that
there
really
hasn't
been
any
widespread
concern
in
the
neighborhood.
Regarding
this,
I
think
that
the
concern
for
noise
that
the
need
for
medical,
transportation
or
or
airlift
transportation
for
medical
reasons
outweighs
the
the
other
concerns
at
the
moment.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
mayor,
pro-tem,
yeah
and
I'll
support.
The
motion
as
well
I
mean
public
safety,
has
always
got
to
be
our
number
one
priority,
and
this
is
a
significant
upgrade
to
public
safety.
I
believe
the
noise
study
said
that
the
noise
there
was
no
significant
impact
there
and
regardless
of
what
it
said,
our
municipal
code
exempts
emergency
activities
from
the
noise
situation,
so
this
is
a
great
addition
to
our
emergency
response
system.
B
C
B
C
K
K
K
K
The
proposed
water
connection
fee
is
a
385
decrease
per
equivalent
meter
unit.
So
this
means
that
a
new
single-family
residential
connection
with
a
three-quarter
or
five-eight
by
three-quarter
meter
would
pay
eight
thousand
two
hundred
and
fifteen
dollars
other
water
modif.
Other
water
fee
modifications
include
our
annual
fire
flow
surcharge
fees,
which
are
adjusted
annually
to
reflect
changes
in
the
construction
cost
index.
K
K
Another
proposed
adjustment
due
to
the
annual
change
in
the
construction
cost
index
is
for
the
special
facility
surcharge
fees.
Currently,
there
are
three
special
facility
surcharges,
all
of
which
are
imposed
upon
new
connections
in
certain
water
reservoir
zones.
These
are
the
kelly,
ventu,
wilder,
grissom
and
rolling
oak
service
zones
and
are
being
collected
to
recover
early
construction
costs
that
the
city
incurred
to
expand
the
water
system
or
water
storage
capacity
requirements
to
serve
private
developments
for
the
kelly,
ventu
and
wilder
grissom
zones.
K
K
K
B
All
right,
I'm
not
hearing
any
so
the
net
effect
of
this
when
you
take
into
consideration
the
decrease
in
the
water
fee
and
the
increase
in
the
wastewater
fee
is
about
57
bucks,
which
is
less
than
one
percent
increase.
I
wish
my
cable
bill
would
go
up
by
that
little
so
pretty
good
deal.
I
think
if
there
aren't
any
further
questions
or
discussion,
may
I
get
a
motion
please.
B
All
right,
thank
you
and
make
a
vote.
Please.
B
C
B
E
E
E
The
performance
review
for
these
two
employees
that
report
to
the
city
council
for
fiscal
year
1920,
was
completed
by
the
city
council
on
august
25th
of
this
year.
The
city
manager
and
city
attorney
both
requested
a
deferral
of
any
salary
adjustment.
This
year,
due
to
the
pandemic
response,
the
city
has
been
facing.
E
However,
the
council
authorized
the
mayor
to
negotiate
a
one-time
allocation
of
leave
in
recognitions
of
the
efforts
of
the
city
manager
and
city
attorney
to
achieve
council
goals
over
the
prior
year.
The
amendments
to
adopt
the
negotiated
30-hour
leave
allocation
are
presented
for
your
approval.
Again.
These
are
two
separate
items
and
you
will
need
to
take
up
the
items
and
take
action
on
them
separately,
and
I
am
available
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
Also.
J
Mr
mayor,
yes,
I
don't
have
any
questions
for
mr
giles.
I
did
review
the
contracts,
of
course,
and
having
discussed
this
as
well
with
council
colleagues
as
agendized,
I
feel
very
confident
in
the
performance
of
both
the
city
attorney
as
well
as
the
city
manager,
and
it
is
to
be
commended
that
they
are
foregoing
a
salary
increase
given
the
economic
downturn
and
the
pandemic.
B
B
All
right,
can
you
give
us
one
and
then
the
other
please
mayor,
potem,.
J
We
can
move
with
the
city
manager
first,
followed
by
the
city
attorney
all.
C
D
Thank
you,
mayor,
adam,
just
a
reminder
that
our
next
regular
city
council
meeting
will
be
on
the
10th
of
november.