[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:17] This to a significant exposure litigation where the facts and circumstances giving rise to such exposure are believed to be unknown to the punitive plaintiff. The authority to meeting closed session is government code section 54956.92. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. We will now recess back to the far side. Thank you very much.
[0:35] Thank you very much.
[1:06:26] 8 p.m., we get roll call, please. Councilmember Bradley. Councilmember Ferraro. Councilmember Lewis. Here. Mayor Pro Tempere-Stam. Here. Mayor Sao. Here.
[1:06:39] We have a quorum, mayor. Our next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Can we have the Director of Finance, the Pledge of Allegiance?
[1:07:06] Our next item is the mayor's announcement, and we have our participants available via Zoom? Well, before we need to do a closed session report. Madam Clerk.
[1:07:16] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, ladies and gentlemen, the City Council
[1:07:19] met tonight in closed session to discuss the facts and circumstances which could give
[1:07:24] rise to an exposure litigation.
[1:07:27] The City Council received a privilege and confidential briefing on a litigation avoidance strategy.
[1:07:33] After discussion of the same, the Council adopted a privilege and confidential litigation
[1:07:38] avoidance strategy with councilmember Lewis abstaining and councilmember for our voting. No thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. Next item are the mayor's announcements and we have our participants available to zoom.
[1:07:52] Okay. Who do we have on zoom?
[1:07:58] We have Dr. Feinstein and I believe one other attended.
[1:08:02] Alright, awesome. So this evening we have we have one announcement and this is for Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.
[1:08:12] So the mayor and the City Council of City Ranch of Pathways on behalf of the entire community recognize September as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.
[1:08:20] Now we have a proclamation here, so I'll read that. It says whereas the American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids of Cancer Connection Report Cancer is a leading cause of death by disease among U.S.
[1:08:32] children between infancy and age 15. This tragic disease is detected in more than 16,000 of our
[1:08:38] country's young people every year. An estimated 400,000 children and adolescents are diagnosed
[1:08:43] globally with cancer each year and whereas one in five of our nation's children loses his or her
[1:08:49] battle with cancer. Many infants, children and teens will suffer from long-term effects of
[1:08:54] comprehensive treatment including secondary cancers and whereas founded over 30 years ago by Steven
[1:09:00] in Firestein, a member of the philanthropic branch
[1:09:03] of the Max Factor Cosmetics family,
[1:09:06] the American Cancer Fund for Children
[1:09:07] Incorporated Kids Cancer Connection Incorporated
[1:09:10] and Lions Club International,
[1:09:12] are dedicated to helping these children and their families.
[1:09:15] And whereas the American Cancer Fund for Children
[1:09:17] and Kids Cancer Connection provide a variety
[1:09:20] of vital patient cycle social services to children
[1:09:23] undergoing cancer treatment at Children's Hospital LA,
[1:09:26] a city of Hope National Medical Center,
[1:09:28] Mattel Children's Hospital, UCLA, LA General Medical Center, Miller Children's and Women's
[1:09:34] Hospital Long Beach, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Cedar Sinai Medical Center, as well as
[1:09:39] participating hospitals throughout the country, thereby enhancing the quality of life for
[1:09:44] these children and their families.
[1:09:45] And whereas the American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection also sponsor
[1:09:50] hospital toy distributions, home and hospital instruction, family sailing, pet assistive therapy,
[1:09:55] It's magic, nothing is impossible.
[1:09:58] Music is medicine.
[1:10:00] The afternoon, laughter is healing, KCC supercar experience, family counseling, and hospital celebrations,
[1:10:05] in honor of a child's determination, bravery, to fight the battle against childhood cancer.
[1:10:10] Now, therefore, be it resolved that in recognition of childhood cancer awareness month, the
[1:10:15] month of September, 20, 26, is hereby proclaimed childhood cancer awareness month in the city
[1:10:20] of Rancho Palo 30s, and in so doing, we urge the residents of our community and the communities
[1:10:26] around the world to join in raising awareness of childhood cancer. Thank you everyone.
[1:10:37] Next item, please.
[1:10:38] Our next item is by acclimation to move approval of recycle and emergency personal preparedness kit drawing winners Richard Smith and Don Limb.
[1:10:45] Thank you. So moved.
[1:10:49] And next item is the approval of the agenda.
[1:10:52] Can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please?
[1:10:54] Moved to approve the agenda.
[1:10:56] Okay, a second.
[1:10:57] Second.
[1:10:57] Roll call.
[1:10:59] Councilmember Ferraro? Yes. Councilmember Lewis? Yes.
[1:11:04] Councilmember Ferraro, forgive me, Bradley.
[1:11:08] Bradley. Oh, yes. I'll use it for our. Sorry,
[1:11:11] I started with Mayor Prattem, Paris-Dame. Yes. Mayor Sale. Yes. Motion passes. That we
[1:11:16] can move to our public comments for non-agenda items. And I have Madison Young Award.
[1:11:29] Good evening.
[1:11:29] How are you? I'm doing well. How are you? Good, good. All right. Well, hello, everyone. Thanks
[1:11:34] for the opportunity to speak. Let me figure out this button.
[1:11:36] Do me a favor, just pull that mic a little bit closer to you.
[1:11:40] Is this good?
[1:11:42] Uh-uh.
[1:11:43] Yeah.
[1:11:43] Like here?
[1:11:44] There we go.
[1:11:45] Okay. I'm good. Um, okay.
[1:11:51] Oh, you do? Okay. Well, I'm, so I just start speaking and you guys
[1:11:54] do it. Okay. Great. Thanks, everyone. Okay.
[1:11:57] I support efforts to increase public safety and I respect our police and recognize their
[1:12:02] resources are often spread then. And yet I strongly oppose the presence of
[1:12:07] flock cameras on the hill. On August 18th you held an information session on
[1:12:11] these cameras presented with flock itself. I would like to make a key
[1:12:15] distinction between our Albert providers. Flock should not be compared to
[1:12:18] motor roller solutions because it is not publicly traded.
[1:12:22] Since their contracts have been made with HOAs, they are not subject to FOIA,
[1:12:26] public records request, or virtually any accountability mechanism.
[1:12:29] As for the rest of their presentation, I would not base my knowledge on claims from anyone
[1:12:34] with a reputation as tainted as theirs.
[1:12:37] This April flocks chief information security officer lied to a city council in Wisconsin
[1:12:43] about whether their system created heat maps of an individual's movement by tracking their
[1:12:47] vehicle.
[1:12:48] Once caught, they called this a minor nuance.
[1:12:51] Flocks data is purely based on internal research that independent experts have found incomplete
[1:12:56] and methodologically weak.
[1:12:58] For example, the company claimed to reduce all crimes in San
[1:13:01] Moreno by 70% after installing its cameras.
[1:13:04] The broader trend actually shows it's remained flat, and
[1:13:07] residential burglaries have increased by 5% overall.
[1:13:11] These are not isolated incidents.
[1:13:13] Flot consistently lies to local government and the public
[1:13:16] to serve its own interests.
[1:13:18] That is the company you invited here, with whom you are
[1:13:21] entrusting your constituents personal data.
[1:13:24] And although Flot insists its customers own that data,
[1:13:26] they still store and use it.
[1:13:29] The LAPD recently suspended its contract,
[1:13:31] finding agreements allowing flock to,
[1:13:34] retain all collected data for five years
[1:13:36] to use for any purpose at its sole discretion,
[1:13:39] and allowing use of anonymized footage
[1:13:42] for the training of machine learning algorithms.
[1:13:44] Those algorithms help train its new OS investigate model,
[1:13:48] capable of behavioral tracking via AI prompting
[1:13:51] and somehow able to determine who a driver has traveled with.
[1:13:55] But if one thing about this company is transparent, it's that its surveillance aspirations extend
[1:14:00] far beyond license plates.
[1:14:02] You all took an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of this office.
[1:14:06] Public safety is one of them.
[1:14:09] Yet you take no legal responsibility for these contracts and effectively sweat them under
[1:14:13] the rug until these recent lawsuits were filed.
[1:14:16] As public officials, you bypassed the democratic process of public approval of these devices
[1:14:21] in favor of the judgment of a few well-organized interest groups.
[1:14:26] Public surveillance should not fall under the purview of private associations and companies
[1:14:30] that do not represent the interests of RPV more broadly.
[1:14:34] Every resident on the hill passing these cameras is having their data collected and stored
[1:14:39] without having ever given consent.
[1:14:41] I urge you to hold another information session not reliant on bias sources.
[1:14:46] I urge you to allow the public a better opportunity to weigh in on whether we want to be
[1:14:51] is prevailed by a company who believes that Americans need to compromise on our constitutional
[1:14:57] rights to privacy.
[1:14:58] Thank you for your time.
[1:15:00] Thank you, Madison. Do you live in R.P.V.? I do not. I live in Pell's for existing.
[1:15:07] P.V., thank you. Do we have any other public comments? Actually, Mayor, Dr. Feinstein, from our earlier proclamation, would like to speak if you don't mind. Oh, yes, please.
[1:15:33] Dr. Feinstein, are you there? Would you accept the transfer on the Zoom?
[1:15:50] Are you there? Yes, I am here. How are you? Good. I'd like to thank the City of Rancho Pell's Verde.
[1:15:57] may or say oh, may or pro-10 parastam and the Rancho Pellas Verde City Council and staff
[1:16:03] for supporting Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. Children with cancer need a lot of support
[1:16:08] via their families, medically and from the community. Raising awareness about childhood cancer
[1:16:14] is a large part of this support and that's what you guys are doing for these kids today.
[1:16:20] These children are brave, strong and determined as are their families and loved ones
[1:16:24] and they have to be to face the battle against childhood cancer.
[1:16:28] Through our work at Kids Cancer Connection, American Cancer Fund for Children, and in association
[1:16:33] with the support of government, we're able to further assist these amazing children
[1:16:37] in their families.
[1:16:38] This year we'd like to accept this proclamation on behalf of Domingo Otolia and his wife
[1:16:43] Dorothy Otolia Burns for their support of Kids Cancer Connection and all of the incredible
[1:16:48] work they have done and continue to do to support these children with cancer.
[1:16:52] So, again, thank you so much for honoring these children and offering your support in the
[1:16:56] battle against childhood cancer, and we can all only hope that one day we will no longer
[1:17:00] need to issue this type of proclamation.
[1:17:03] Thank you so much for allowing us here today.
[1:17:06] Thank you very much Dr. Fonson.
[1:17:08] Thank you.
[1:17:12] Our next item then is the lamina station report.
[1:17:15] Okay.
[1:17:16] Good evening, Kevin.
[1:17:17] Greg, how are you?
[1:17:18] I'm good.
[1:17:18] How are you?
[1:17:19] Good.
[1:17:19] Thank you for coming.
[1:17:20] Thank you, Mayor.
[1:17:21] Good evening, mayors, the council members and our PV residents.
[1:17:25] The latest crime data for our PV since our last report, which was on July 21st, which
[1:17:30] is a little over a month ago.
[1:17:32] I'm happy to report that our PV has zero homicides to report, no rapes and zero robberies as of my
[1:17:40] last report.
[1:17:41] There have been three assaults that all have been domestic-related.
[1:17:44] There were 10 burglaries reported and four of them were residential burglaries.
[1:17:48] There were 14 larceny thefts reported, two stolen vehicles and no arson cases.
[1:17:54] So far this year we've had 172 part 1 crimes reported compared to 257 at this time last
[1:18:00] year.
[1:18:01] That is a 33% decrease for the city, so I'm happy to report out on that.
[1:18:08] Some notable arrests from our deputies to report.
[1:18:11] There was an arrest at Teranere Resort that a suspect was arrested for using a credit card
[1:18:18] and an ID that was not his charging approximately $5,000.
[1:18:26] So after a thorough investigation, he was arrested for fraud and ID theft.
[1:18:30] I'm sure you're familiar with the individual from Trump Golf Course, a suspicious person
[1:18:36] that was arrested and on the news and the media.
[1:18:39] What our deputies recovered was a 16-round magazine containing 17 hollow-point rounds of 9mm,
[1:18:47] and they also recovered a 9mm automatic pistol.
[1:18:52] Our major crimes is on that case as we speak.
[1:18:56] In August, we know Donald Trump visited Trump National Golf Club.
[1:19:00] We did have a peaceful protest, so to say there was one incident, but there were no arrests
[1:19:06] or injuries reported from that protest.
[1:19:09] As far as residential burglaries,
[1:19:11] like I said, we did have four residential burglaries.
[1:19:15] We had one burglary where the suspect made entry
[1:19:18] through an unlocked window.
[1:19:20] There was no surveillance footage that we recovered.
[1:19:24] There was another where there was great video surveillance
[1:19:28] on the ring camera, and the victim actually saw the crime
[1:19:32] in progress and didn't report it.
[1:19:35] he didn't report it until about seven hours later. So that's very concerning for us. We did speak
[1:19:42] with him afterwards about that. In August, there were deputies who responded to Margarit Drive.
[1:19:50] They arrested two individuals who were what they did was they broke into the lockbox, sold the key,
[1:19:57] the spare key and entered the resident.
[1:20:00] They actually burglarized that home twice, stealing approximately $70,000 worth of merchandise. And that merchandise was recovered. And those individuals were arrested, like I said, and charged.
[1:20:16] One thing I do want to remind residents is to ensure that they check the doors and windows of their homes when they leave. And definitely the video surveillance, such as the ring camera, is it great.
[1:20:29] thing to have nowadays with the residential burglaries, they're on the rise,
[1:20:36] luckily for here, RPV, they have been a significant decrease, and that is
[1:20:42] because the residents out there are being very proactive, but we do want to
[1:20:46] remind them to ensure that their windows are checked and their doors.
[1:20:53] And also
[1:20:54] to call the station immediately. If you see something, you know, it's best, especially
[1:21:00] something suspicious, it's best to definitely call the station immediately and not wait
[1:21:05] so long to report the crime. Our operations that we've had, we've had very successful operations
[1:21:12] our surveillance apprehension team detectives have been working hard. If you do recall, there
[1:21:19] was a residential burglary that occurred on Fondilock street and that suspect was identified
[1:21:25] and the vehicle was identified and they're in the process of surveilling that individual
[1:21:32] and arresting him here in the next week or so. So we're happy to report out on that.
[1:21:37] There was a traffic operation, very successful on Hawthorne and Valin. We had five deputies on scene
[1:21:44] working that operation. They scanned 800 vehicles. They made 59 traffic stops, and 54 drivers were
[1:21:53] sighted during that operation. Our core team, happy to report out, have been very busy. They
[1:22:01] celebrated National Night Out. Thank you very much for the support for National Night Out.
[1:22:06] They attended the Mirror Verda HOA meeting via Zoom.
[1:22:12] They met with RPV, TV, and in regards to a lithium battery PSA reel.
[1:22:22] They also met with RPV staff and assisted with the back-to-school social media posts for
[1:22:27] traffic safety tips and drop-off and pick-up, so they've been very busy here in RPV.
[1:22:34] They also participated in that traffic operation.
[1:22:38] We celebrated our station's first annual car show,
[1:22:40] which was this past Saturday.
[1:22:42] It was extremely hot, but nonetheless,
[1:22:45] there were so many people that came out.
[1:22:48] It was a huge success.
[1:22:49] We did have to close up early because it was hot.
[1:22:54] And
[1:22:57] there was a few people who had issues with the heat,
[1:23:00] so we had to close it down, but it was a huge success,
[1:23:03] less than the less.
[1:23:06] Upcoming events for us, September 3rd through the 6th, the Portuguese Ben Horshow at Ernie
[1:23:11] Hall at Park.
[1:23:12] Our mounted posse will be conducted traffic control on Hawthorne and at the entrance of
[1:23:17] the park and landfill area across from the park.
[1:23:21] And we have vertical tournament on the 28th of September, so we're happy to report and hopefully
[1:23:28] get our social media post out there to the residents who want to participate.
[1:23:34] And last but not least, I did want to mention our DFR pilot program that is in the works
[1:23:41] as we speak. Our department is in the process of implementing the drone as a first responder
[1:23:46] program at all the stations. It is in its infancy stages and being implemented as part of
[1:23:52] of a pilot program at our West Hollywood,
[1:23:55] Compton and Cerrito stations.
[1:23:59] Flock is one of the three companies
[1:24:01] that the department is currently evaluating
[1:24:03] through this pilot program.
[1:24:05] They are aware of the issues that are stemming
[1:24:08] from Flock and so that is under consideration
[1:24:11] and has backed up the program just a little bit here.
[1:24:16] Our Bodymore and Cameron Unit
[1:24:18] unit oversees this drone program.
[1:24:20] So the difference between the DFR program and the program that we're involved in is the
[1:24:26] DFR program is the drones actually are operated by a deputy who is at the station and the drones
[1:24:36] are sent out from a substation or the station without actually an operator with that drone
[1:24:44] in the light or in the line of their site.
[1:24:48] So it's actually going off or taking off from the station
[1:24:51] or a substation around,
[1:24:54] which we would have to create a substation here
[1:24:56] if it goes through or not.
[1:24:59] We do know.
[1:25:00] I know the issues with that, so that's why we're going ahead with the program that we have, which is the operator that's on scene and has that drone in the line in the line of sight.
[1:25:11] But I just wanted to give you guys a heads up and to just be very transparent with this program that is starting up. I did meet with the city managers and public safety directors just to give them an insight as to the DFR pilot program and to let them know that it is in the works. It is far from actually landing here.
[1:25:31] here at Moemita Station because, like I said, the infrastructure is very expensive that
[1:25:38] goes along with that DFR program.
[1:25:40] So I don't foresee it here for probably the next couple of years if that, if it even
[1:25:46] goes through, like I said, they are having issues with flock and we'll get updates on Thursday,
[1:25:53] myself and R.O.
[1:25:54] We'll be on a phone call and we'll get, not updates, but we'll get more information
[1:25:58] as to that DFR program and pass that on to you if there's any additional information.
[1:26:04] But I just wanted to give you guys some insight as to where that program is headed.
[1:26:08] And that's my report.
[1:26:12] Thank you very much.
[1:26:13] Next item, please.
[1:26:14] Is the City Managers' report?
[1:26:16] Yes, good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council and our viewing audience.
[1:26:22] Two things in response to the captain's report this evening.
[1:26:27] I was fortunate enough to actually observe the traffic operation that occurred on Hawthorne
[1:26:36] Boulevard.
[1:26:37] And I'm not going to get into the details of that operation for obvious reasons, but
[1:26:42] it was very impressive in how the team and the deputies were conducting that operation
[1:26:48] to make sure that those who were speeding were stopped and were cited.
[1:26:54] And so thank you for your team who did that and for them showing me what's going on.
[1:26:59] And then just to add to what the captain said, what the DFR, the first responders,
[1:27:06] it's a pilot program that is being launched by the department, the Sheriff's Department.
[1:27:13] And right now this pilot program is going to occur as a captain said at the West Hollywood,
[1:27:19] Doritos and Compton stations, it is different than the program that we are launching at the
[1:27:26] Lumida station between the four cities.
[1:27:29] They're different.
[1:27:30] As the captain mentioned, the pilot program that the department is exploring is going
[1:27:36] to be manned from the station, not actually from a vehicle or a deputy car.
[1:27:43] I thought this was a pilot list program.
[1:27:50] Thank you. So anyway, I just wanted to add that to just the context. We are still moving
[1:27:58] forward with our drawing program in the limited station. In fact, I believe limited tonight
[1:28:04] is going to consider the MOU that the council approved at the August 18th. So with that,
[1:28:10] I'm going to begin my report and my first slide, it is September 1st. I wanted to wish all of you
[1:28:17] for how many parcels are counted in the tax role. So this is, this number is very important
[1:28:23] for the council. Remember, we have 15,000 single-family residences. We have with residential
[1:28:29] income, like multi-family 43 that are counted as part of the tax role. Commercial is 216 for total
[1:28:37] of 15,315 assessed properties in the city, and that's important because sometimes we'll
[1:28:44] talk about how many households, how many properties we have. This is based on the tax
[1:28:48] role, and it's a good sign, and by the way, if you're curious, the highest growing city
[1:28:56] in LA County for 2026 in terms of compared to 2025, 2026 was Vernon, and they have a large
[1:29:03] commercial property, they're assessed value in up by 13%.
[1:29:07] And the lowest is somewhere around 2%, and we're the highest of the four cities on the peninsula.
[1:29:12] But that could be because we have more properties than the other three cities that are being assessed.
[1:29:18] And by the way, for the 2026 role for the entire county, it's $2.3 trillion in terms of assessed value.
[1:29:30] So just some context there.
[1:29:32] Next slide.
[1:29:37] So the community development department is in the process of updating their conservation
[1:29:43] and open space element, which is one of the seven elements of the general plan.
[1:29:49] And so they're in the process of asking residents to fill out a survey.
[1:29:53] This is a very important element for the city because it represents all of our open space
[1:29:58] areas and what the
[1:30:00] The goals and the policies should be or will be for those open space areas. So if you're interested, you want to have a say in what the future of our open space areas look like as well as the conservation. Go to the city's website and fill out that survey so we can understand what to include in that update to the element, which will eventually come to the city council for adoption. Next slide.
[1:30:25] And I know this was mentioned in the past, but I just wanted to use this as another opportunity to remind folks
[1:30:31] that are residents that the four peninsula cities in the first time worked together to form a hazard mitigation plan.
[1:30:41] It was something that we had always wanted to do and we were able to align it so that all four cities are able to do that.
[1:30:47] It was approved by FEMA in record time.
[1:30:50] And what that means to us is not only does this plan identify that disasters don't know jurisdictional boundaries and so we're planning it as a peninsula.
[1:30:59] But it also helps all four cities in its eligibility to seek federal grant funding.
[1:31:06] So this is a very important, if you don't have an adopted and certified has a mitigation
[1:31:12] plan and there's a natural disaster in your community, you are not eligible for any state
[1:31:18] or federal disaster dollars.
[1:31:20] So we got this approved quickly and we are in a good place for the next several years.
[1:31:26] Next slide.
[1:31:30] In speaking of emergency preparedness and being prepared, the peninsula village as well
[1:31:36] as the city are partnering in conducting a Beyond the Go bag disaster preparedness for
[1:31:42] older adults, it's going to be held at the peninsula library on Tuesday, September 8th,
[1:31:49] and that's from 11 to 12 p.m., this is really important because there's a lot, especially
[1:31:54] in our older demographics to understanding and being prepared for our emergency.
[1:31:59] So this is designed to address the needs for being prepared for our older demographics.
[1:32:08] So if you know somebody, you want to spread the word, this is coming up.
[1:32:11] It's next week, and it'll be from 11 to noon at the library.
[1:32:16] So all of you will need to attend.
[1:32:19] The city attorney said that, not me for the viewing audience, next slide.
[1:32:23] And tomorrow evening the Chamber of Commerce is conducting a community business expo, the city is going to be participating if you're interested in finding out about opportunities, job opportunities, part time employment opportunities, what businesses are doing here on the peninsula, there is that expo is going to be held at the Norse pavilion, and that's tomorrow from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Next slide.
[1:32:55] And I announced this at the August 18th meeting, but finally, after almost 15 years in the
[1:33:01] works, we have released the Giraffe Trail's network plan.
[1:33:07] It is available to the public for review.
[1:33:10] When I was in the planning department, I actually started working on the Trail's network
[1:33:15] plan.
[1:33:16] That was even before I was director.
[1:33:17] I was working on it.
[1:33:18] So that just tells you how long we've been working on it.
[1:33:21] But it's a great plan we brought it in house the recreation parks department took it to the finished line
[1:33:26] It's out there right now circulating we need public comments
[1:33:30] We want to understand from the public what their their thoughts are we're going to conduct two workshops before we present the plan to the planning
[1:33:38] Commission the first workshop is going to be next a Thursday September 10th
[1:33:43] It'll be here at has park from 6 p.m. It is a hybrid meeting
[1:33:47] So those who want to participate in person, or virtually you can do that, we'll have another meeting at La Dera Linda on September 24th, and I'll make that announcement at the September 15 meeting.
[1:33:59] But just know that the trail plan is, the draft is done, it's circulating, we're asking for public comments.
[1:34:07] Next slide.
[1:34:07] And as you know, we are in the election season and so I just wanted to remind our community
[1:34:15] that if you want information on the candidates that are running for elected office as well
[1:34:20] as other information including information on the city's measure RS, you can go to the
[1:34:27] city's website under the election page to gather some more information and I also wanted
[1:34:33] through remind residents and let the public know that we're going to conduct two candidate
[1:34:39] forums. One will be on Thursday, September 17th. Here it has parked from 7 to 9 and the
[1:34:44] other will be on Wednesday, October 7th, and that's from 7 to 9 as well. And there'll be more
[1:34:50] announcements and you can go to the city's website under the election page to get more information
[1:34:54] on who's hosting and moderating those two candidate forums.
[1:35:00] Next slide.
[1:35:03] And we have one last movie in the park before summer is officially over. It will be on Saturday, September 19th. It will be at East View Park, not at Candidative Center, but East View Park. And it's going to feature Disney's Lion King. The pre-movie activity start around 6 p.m., and the film will start at dusk, bring your chairs, your blankets, we'll have food, and a lot of good family entertainment.
[1:35:32] and as you can watch this movie in the park.
[1:35:35] Next slide.
[1:35:38] And Monday, which actually happens to be Labor Day,
[1:35:41] but it also is the city's 53rd anniversary.
[1:35:45] We incorporated on September 7th, 1973.
[1:35:50] We are now at our 53rd anniversary.
[1:35:53] And so do we look good.
[1:35:55] And we sure do.
[1:35:56] We haven't even had work done.
[1:35:58] And so we are going to conduct our open house on,
[1:36:02] And it's our annual open house to allow the public come by and meet staff, meet with
[1:36:09] the council that's going to be held on Thursday, September 10th from 4 to 6 p.m.
[1:36:13] And we'll have refreshments and remarks around 5 p.m.
[1:36:18] Next slide.
[1:36:21] And for those who are observing on Friday, September 11th is the beginning of Rosh Hashanis.
[1:36:27] We want to wish everyone a very happy Rosh Hashanis or a new year.
[1:36:30] next slide and of course the same day is September 11th and it's really hard
[1:36:37] to believe that it's been 25 years since the attacks on the United States and
[1:36:43] it is Patriots Day and I just we will not forget and I just wanted to make
[1:36:47] sure we put that message out there to the community and last for the last
[1:36:53] slide conclude my report is Monday is Labor Day and City Hall will be closed
[1:36:59] construction because it is a federal holiday construction is not permitted unless you have a special construction permit and
[1:37:06] Parks will be open but City Hall will be close and that concludes my report for this evening.
[1:37:11] Thank you very much. Next item. Our next item is the consent calendar. We did have a speaker for item letter A
[1:37:17] But we've been unable to make contact so if it pleases the council we can move with approval of the consent calendar.
[1:37:23] I can I get a motion to
[1:37:25] You approval to consider calendar. Thank you. Can I get a second?
[1:37:29] Okay.
[1:37:33] Roll call, please.
[1:37:36] Forgive me, Mayor. May I have the seconder?
[1:37:39] Thank you.
[1:37:45] Councilmember Bradley. Yes.
[1:37:47] Councilmember Ferraro. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes.
[1:37:51] Mayor Pro Tem, Paris-Dame. Yes. Mayor Stale. Yes. Motion passes. With that we can move to
[1:37:56] our regular business item number one.
[1:37:59] All right. Can we get a staff report, please?
[1:38:02] Certainly. Consider amendments to chapter 12.18 of the Rancho Pellas-Rudy's Municipal Code,
[1:38:06] pertaining to wireless telecommunication facilities in the public right of way.
[1:38:10] Late correspondence was distributed earlier and I have two requests to speak. Thank you.
[1:38:15] Thank you.
[1:38:20] And Mr. Mayor, while we're queuing up the PowerPoint presentation, I just want to remind the
[1:38:26] the City Council and the viewing audience that this item is coming back to the City Council's last
[1:38:31] last heard in I believe it was May and at that time the council was considering amendments
[1:38:38] to both Title 17, 17 as well as Title 12, which happened to do with wireless facilities
[1:38:46] on private property as well as in the public right of way.
[1:38:49] That evening the council did not adopt any amendments to both of those code sections and we've
[1:38:57] We've gone back and we've worked with the carriers and we're bringing back tonight just those amendments to chapter 12-18, which has to do with the public right of way.
[1:39:10] Before I hand it over to public works to give the detailed presentation, I just want to remind the council that there were no changes made to the ordinance between the original hearing in this evening.
[1:39:23] what we've had a chance to do is spend some more time with the carriers explaining what's
[1:39:27] in the ordinance and what's what the amended language focuses on. And what it's focusing
[1:39:33] on is how to streamline the permitting process. So I want you to remember this. It's how we're
[1:39:39] streamlining the permit process to incentivize carriers to install more facilities. What it does
[1:39:46] not do is compromise or make changes to the aesthetics and the quality of life requirements
[1:39:54] in the ordinance and that we felt was very important for the community.
[1:40:00] And our residents. And so with that, I'm going to hand it over to our engineering department. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of council. My name is Brandon Messker. So she'd engineer with the public work department and tonight I'll be presenting on the proposed amendments to chapter 12.18 wireless telecommunications facilities in the public right away. Staff have invited the wireless carriers and other members of the telecommunications space. Tonight in person, we have Miss McKenzie Neely right from AT&T.
[1:40:30] And it appears that we have no other speakers online at this time.
[1:40:34] As Aura mentioned, this is just for the modifications to public right away.
[1:40:39] Modifications to private property will be brought to council at a later date.
[1:40:46] A quick chronology of the events that got us here today.
[1:40:50] Council made a goal to increase wireless coverage in the city in order to address residents' concerns regarding coverage and safety.
[1:40:56] Between December 2024 and June 2025, staff meant with the cellular telecommunications industry association to discuss how the municipal code could be amended to encourage installation in the city.
[1:41:08] In January of 2026, staff completed their review of the amendments proposed by the wireless carriers.
[1:41:13] In February 2026, the carriers provided additional feedback on the proposed amendments and council provided direction and initiated the amendments.
[1:41:24] In May, 2026, the amendments were brought before Council for the first reading at this meeting.
[1:41:29] The motion to adopt failed and Council directed staff to review the amendments and return it a later date.
[1:41:38] A quick overview of the presentation tonight.
[1:41:40] Council has been asked to reconsider the amendments proposed at the May 5th, 2026 City Council meeting.
[1:41:46] After an additional review of the proposed amendments, staff made no salient changes since the Council meeting on May 5th, 2026.
[1:41:52] During this presentation, I will go over 10 topics which cover the most impact for significant
[1:41:57] amendments. Also, as Aram mentioned, we would like to respond to the residents' concerns
[1:42:04] and clarify that the amendments will change sections of the code, but it will not result
[1:42:07] in a significant change or loss in the static values or quality of life within the city. For
[1:42:13] every new site proposed in any modification to an existing site, staff have a hands-on
[1:42:18] on a very detailed review of each application we receive.
[1:42:24] In total, the carriers proposed over 120 amendments
[1:42:27] and after an end-up review by staff and city attorney,
[1:42:29] staff recommend excepting 85 and rejecting 39.
[1:42:32] The proposed amendments can be found in the ordinance.
[1:42:35] Exhibit A is a clean copy and exhibit B is a red line version
[1:42:37] that will better show the proposed amendments.
[1:42:43] Topics shown on this slide represent
[1:42:44] the 10 most significant modifications proposed
[1:42:46] by the wireless carriers of pre-fexalination
[1:42:48] shall be given for each topic.
[1:42:50] The following slides will follow the layout of the staff report with the current code on the left, followed by the proposed change and the impact on the right.
[1:42:59] Also for some of these topics, staff may have recommended no change. If no change was proposed, it is because staff felt the carrier proposed amendment went against the city's goals or standards.
[1:43:08] Starting
[1:43:13] off with master deployment plans, these are maps which show the anticipated installations and covered zones.
[1:43:21] Staff have repeatedly requested these maps from carriers, but the carriers consider these maps proprietary information,
[1:43:29] and since it is not required by the FCC to provide us with them, they do not typically provide us these plans.
[1:43:35] Our current code requires that they be included in the application package.
[1:43:39] the proposed change would no longer make this a requirement.
[1:43:42] And there is no impact to the city because we are currently not getting these plans.
[1:43:48] For equipment size, this pertains to the equipment on the support structure, which is often times the utility pole.
[1:43:54] The current code states that for a major wireless telecommunications facilities, the equipment on a support structure shall not exceed for cubic feet.
[1:44:01] Staff proposed no change because of the carrier proposed amendment, which was to increase it to 28 cubic feet, would go against the goals and aesthetic values of the city.
[1:44:11] There is no impact to the city because we are not making any change.
[1:44:18] For equipment separation, this pertains to the distance between a small wireless facility
[1:44:22] and overhead electric lines.
[1:44:24] Current code states that the minimum separation requirements between a small wireless facility
[1:44:28] and overhead electric lines of a minimum-safe distance plus four feet.
[1:44:33] The proposed change would increase it from four feet to six feet, so the proposed code would
[1:44:37] read at a minimum-safe distance plus six feet.
[1:44:41] The impact would be limited, and increasing the separation would improve safety, and make the site look less cluttered.
[1:44:50] For equipment height, this pertains to how high a small wallet wireless facility can extend past the top of the pole.
[1:44:57] Current code states that a small way of facility may not exceed.
[1:45:00] We need four feet above the support structure. The proposed change would increase this to a height of six feet above the structure. The impact would be limited as allowing taller sites may include increase installation without a significant impact to the view envelope of the site. And again, as noted, staff do have an in-depth and hands-on review of the wireless application. Staff do our best to limit the impact to views.
[1:45:28] For under-grounding, this pertains to placing aspects of the wireless site underground,
[1:45:32] which can be quite costly.
[1:45:34] The current code requires that all cables, connectors,
[1:45:37] and utility meters must be routed underground.
[1:45:39] The proposed change would add the language
[1:45:41] to the extent feasible.
[1:45:43] The impact would be limited.
[1:45:44] This allows for some flexibility to the carriers
[1:45:47] which may incentivize installation.
[1:45:49] And again, staff do have a hands-on in detailed review
[1:45:54] of the sites, and we ensure that the sites do look
[1:45:56] aesthetically pleasing when we can.
[1:45:58] We do push for a better design from the carriers.
[1:46:00] For location, this pertains to where small wireless facilities can be placed.
[1:46:06] Current code states that a small wireless facility may not be placed on a decorative pole,
[1:46:11] traffic pole, or cabinet.
[1:46:13] Staff originally proposed no change, but after receiving direction from council, the proposed
[1:46:18] change would allow small wireless facilities to be placed on decorative poles, traffic
[1:46:22] poles and cabinets.
[1:46:23] The impact would be limited, decorative poles, and installations and intersections would
[1:46:28] to allow for another installation location
[1:46:30] and may incentivize installation.
[1:46:35] For landscaping plans, this involves using plants
[1:46:37] and other methods to help beautify and obscure a site.
[1:46:41] Current code states it is required for every application.
[1:46:44] Staff proposed to change this to when required by the director
[1:46:47] and that no trees may be removed
[1:46:50] without consulting the city arborist.
[1:46:52] Impact would be limited.
[1:46:53] Staff still have the ability to require the plan when needed.
[1:47:00] For acoustic analysis, this involves study,
[1:47:02] should the site will not make more noise than what is allowable by the city.
[1:47:07] Current code requires that the analysis be prepared by an acoustic engineer.
[1:47:11] The proposed change would change the proposed change.
[1:47:15] Would modify the code so that it may be prepared by a licensed engineer.
[1:47:20] We expect no impact on this as the analysis will be still certified by a licensed professional engineer.
[1:47:28] For photo simulations these are basically just photo renderings of what the site will look like.
[1:47:33] Current code requires a 360-degree view of proposed facility.
[1:47:38] The proposed change would require a minimum of 180-degree view, the maximum of 360.
[1:47:44] We're expecting limited impact to 180-degree view is sufficient to get a full understanding
[1:47:50] of what the site will look like in the event we need additional viewpoints.
[1:47:53] The director may request a 360-degree view.
[1:48:00] For public notification, the current code states that a mailing list must be submitted
[1:48:04] for properties within 500 feet of a proposed site, carriers proposed to decrease this range,
[1:48:10] but staff felt that the range was not unreasonable and in line with our other limits,
[1:48:14] so staff proposed no change. Since there is no change, there is no impact.
[1:48:20] This concludes my presentation. At this time, if there are any questions,
[1:48:23] please feel free to ask. Any questions from City Council?
[1:48:27] Council. Councilman Braley.
[1:48:30] Yeah, on page five of the staff report or the master development plan portion of it.
[1:48:38] You make a statement that we cannot legally require a development plan.
[1:48:45] Is that true, Mr. City Attorney?
[1:48:48] We can't legally ask for one.
[1:48:51] I don't know the answer to that.
[1:48:53] Well, the statement says we cannot legally require such a map to be submitted.
[1:49:01] That came from staff, not from us.
[1:49:05] It's not part of the FCC regulations, but it says we can't legally ask for such a map.
[1:49:12] And this has always been one of my issues is I want to see the plan for
[1:49:18] the vertical infrastructure and see how these things are being rolled out and
[1:49:23] where they're being put as an integrated plan.
[1:49:26] I still don't understand why something like that would never be proprietary.
[1:49:29] It's going to be out there in the public right away at some point.
[1:49:33] So I'm still,
[1:49:37] Dave, do we have a reason why we said that it's not, we can't legally require it?
[1:49:43] Could that have been a typo and it meant because the FCC doesn't require it.
[1:49:47] There's not a legal basis to require it.
[1:49:50] That's correct, okay.
[1:49:51] but it's it's primarily due to the proprietary natures claimed by the wireless facilities.
[1:49:55] So it's not the proprietary nature that a cell tower is going to be
[1:50:00] We're sitting in the right of way in six months. It's obviously not proprietary. Once that cell tower is installed, right? So what has happened in the past is the carriers will show you the plan, but they will not submit it to the city where it becomes a discoverable or public document.
[1:50:24] So, Verizon, in fact, Verizon has had, I've been in meetings where they did show their plan and there's a footnote that says it's a proprietary document and they will not turn it in so it becomes a public document but they will show it to you.
[1:50:43] I've asked for that for years and I don't think we've ever seen it in a closed session or the council's ever been given that type of information.
[1:50:51] So in that case, unless they meet on one-on-one with the council, they will show you the plan, but they won't turn it into the city.
[1:51:02] It can't be part of any city document because they don't want from what's been conveyed to me, they don't want other industry competition to know what their long-term plans are.
[1:51:17] and that may be a question you want to ask the carriers, but we can't make it a
[1:51:23] submittal requirement because it's considered a confidential proprietary
[1:51:27] information. So Mr. City Attorney, we would in that case have to do a serial
[1:51:34] meeting and each individually meet with a carrier and then not be able to
[1:51:40] to discuss that as a body?
[1:51:42] We wouldn't want to do that, would we?
[1:51:44] No, we wouldn't.
[1:51:46] So I'm a little perplexed at this.
[1:51:50] This is a question for the carrier to answer,
[1:51:55] but if you want a legal opinion on it,
[1:51:57] we'll be more than happy to give you one.
[1:51:59] Okay, I'll ask it out there.
[1:52:02] Of the carrier later.
[1:52:04] Sorry, any other questions?
[1:52:09] Do we have anything else, Brenna?
[1:52:13] Could it include my report?
[1:52:16] We have two speakers, right?
[1:52:18] Okay, let's move on to speakers.
[1:52:20] Charles, next is our first speaker.
[1:52:22] Thank you.
[1:52:23] Hey, Charles.
[1:52:25] Hey, guys.
[1:52:26] Good evening.
[1:52:27] Good evening.
[1:52:29] Good evening.
[1:52:31] Members of the council, mayor and fellow residents.
[1:52:35] Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
[1:52:37] I'm here because I care deeply about our city.
[1:52:40] and want to ensure the infrastructure remains safe, modern, and accountable.
[1:52:45] Wireless telecommunication facilities are essential to our daily connectivity,
[1:52:50] but to serve our community responsibly, we need sensible oversight on how they are maintained
[1:52:55] and monitored.
[1:52:57] First, we need clear standards for non-functional equipment, recently during an installation
[1:53:01] of 2931 Gold and Metal Drive, an employee from A3M, Crown Castle mentioned that the equipment
[1:53:07] on-site had been non-functional for two years.
[1:53:10] If equipment has since dead for years,
[1:53:12] it no longer serves the public,
[1:53:14] it simply becomes obsolete clutter in our neighborhood.
[1:53:18] I propose practical standards,
[1:53:19] if a facility stopped working,
[1:53:22] the operator must repair or remove it within 30 to 60 days.
[1:53:25] Not be hidden from the public that it doesn't work.
[1:53:29] If it isn't repaired,
[1:53:30] the site permit should be terminated,
[1:53:32] and in a future upgrade or installation require
[1:53:34] a brand new permit complying with all current codes, regulations, and updated safety standards.
[1:53:40] Second, we need transparency regarding environmental and safety compliance.
[1:53:44] Just as our city provides accessible water quality reports, we should require EMF and
[1:53:50] RMF RF emissions to be measured and monitored annually.
[1:53:54] To ensure complete impartiality, this testing should be conducted by an independent business,
[1:54:01] and funded directly by the city with the results published online and made free to our residents.
[1:54:07] The FCC does have regulations that it can't exceed X, but if nobody measures it and there's never report nobody can tell.
[1:54:16] And it's not the responsibility of the residents to do the testing, that's not right.
[1:54:20] By implementing these measures, you will give our city the exact framework it needs to hit.
[1:54:25] And the ever moving target of balancing the public good, neighborhood, aesthetic safety
[1:54:30] and community trust.
[1:54:33] And councilmember Bradley, you are correct.
[1:54:38] Everything that has been presented has been, what can we do?
[1:54:42] We're working with the wireless carriers.
[1:54:45] We want to have more, and what are the wireless carriers want us to do, and how can we modify
[1:54:50] it for the wireless carriers?
[1:54:52] Well, what about the resident?
[1:54:53] What are the residents want?
[1:54:55] How are you? I don't see anybody coming out to the resident or a court.
[1:55:00] I'm sharing them to get their feedback. Yes, you published some articles and some obscure newspaper, like PV News, but to get the real resident, somebody should walk around and say, what do you think? What would you like? Do you want wireless towers? And why is it hidden? Like you said, it's public policy where they all are. It should be mapped. Public works should give us that. Thank you for your time and dedication to our city. I appreciate it.
[1:55:29] What was that address that you gave two nine three one one golden meadow and this one that we went out to
[1:55:35] Yeah, you know
[1:55:37] It comes across he's talking about
[1:55:41] Wireless facilities being capped at four cubic feet, but small wireless facilities don't have that
[1:55:46] And I have a twenty three point four cubic foot cabinet that was just put in
[1:55:53] replacing a
[1:55:54] 6 cubic foot cabinet that was there and it should have been a substantial change and there should have been some notification, but nobody was notified and it's great that you have a list of 500 residents, they have to be, you know, pre-addressed envelopes, they can be notified, but nobody was notified of any changes.
[1:56:16] So there's a discrepancy between, you know, what should and is being done.
[1:56:22] Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you.
[1:56:26] MPT, you got a question. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:56:28] Sir, I have a question.
[1:56:30] Yes.
[1:56:32] If that address, there was the August 11th installation for the installed upgrade.
[1:56:38] Yes. Did the service level change?
[1:56:41] No, nobody has a Verizon or AT&T and the antenna that was put in is at the end of the
[1:56:52] whole neighborhood, whole neighborhood to it.
[1:56:54] It actually services Palisbury's estate.
[1:56:57] It was turned, so it was closer to Palisbury's estate from where it was.
[1:57:02] So it really isn't supporting the RPV infrastructure.
[1:57:06] And all the surrounding neighbors have a T-mobile.
[1:57:12] Because it was better at the time when they all moved in.
[1:57:15] So none of the residents were asking for this.
[1:57:18] I understand you have competing providers, but along that corridor of gold and meadow there are at least eight wireless facilities and those wireless facilities are on gold and meadow.
[1:57:34] They're not in the middle of the neighborhood, they're right along the border of RPV and PV estate.
[1:57:41] Now, assuming that they are servicing PV estates as well as RPV,
[1:57:47] It goes back to Councilmember Bradley's point of where's the plan and why do we have so
[1:57:55] many in one area.
[1:57:57] I almost think the resident would be, if you ask them, they'd say put a giant tower
[1:58:03] on the elementary school's property, you know, something that one tower instead of eight
[1:58:12] along the whole corridor, it just, I don't know, is different, but I appreciate your thing.
[1:58:20] I'm really, it's the aesthetics that really get me.
[1:58:23] So, yeah, we're tracking.
[1:58:25] Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
[1:58:26] Thank you.
[1:58:27] Thank you.
[1:58:27] Or do you want to say something about $29.3101?
[1:58:31] Well, I think just generally speaking, aesthetics, as I mentioned in the introductory remarks,
[1:58:38] are not being changed here.
[1:58:40] The facility that the speaker was referring to has been there for years.
[1:58:47] And according to federal law, it's considered an eligible facilities, a request where the
[1:58:54] carriers can come in by federal law and do certain changes.
[1:58:58] They can increase the size, the height and so forth without having any city input on that
[1:59:05] change because it's considered eligible for enhancements. So that's why it was
[1:59:12] in perpetuation. Yes. Yes. So just because it's disturbed ground that piece
[1:59:18] of ground now in perpetuity can be modified. They can abandon any
[1:59:24] infrastructure they want for whatever amount of time and they and then they can
[1:59:29] come back and upgrade it at a later date. So we have no redress. Not not the
[1:59:34] abandonment, in which, by the way, our code does address that, and there is bonding that's required.
[1:59:40] But they are able to make improvements to an example, was non-functional for three years.
[1:59:50] What would be our definition of being abandoned?
[1:59:54] Councilman, I don't know what those ramifications are, but I know we
[2:00:00] I spoke to our consulting firm who said that this facility actually qualified as an EFR. Sure, I was eligible. I wasn't aware that that facility had been inoperable for years. And I've always said, I know that things get abandoned and then the city is left to remediate them. And I'm not sure we are in the right people to be eligible.
[2:00:31] policing which sites have been abandoned, which cabinets have been abandoned? That's a lot of
[2:00:36] infrastructure. I just don't understand. I'm struggling with our checks and balances here.
[2:00:43] Yeah, you know, just to clarify that point, we've talked about that specific road and that specific
[2:00:50] property for a while now, and I know we've been going back and forth on it. And this is the first I've
[2:00:54] heard that it was not working for three years. So let's clarify and make sure that if that's the case,
[2:00:59] we need to have a legitimate conversation with these guys, but let's before I start knocking
[2:01:04] on doors and start flaming people up for things not working. Let's actually verify that.
[2:01:09] Yes, and I could turn to the public works department and see if they have any added information that I
[2:01:13] may not be aware of.
[2:01:19] I mean, so in terms of how long they'll disturb the site, after speaking with
[2:01:26] They will, and this is their pretty much exact words, they will continue to upgrade the site until the poll cannot hold anymore.
[2:01:36] As long as they stay within, I believe the limit is 28 cubic feet, they will essentially keep loading up the poll.
[2:01:42] As newer technology comes out, it may get smaller.
[2:01:45] They may not want to focus on the 3G, 4G, and might just focus on 5G, so it may get smaller.
[2:01:52] But they have told us point blank that they will continue to load up the poll, especially
[2:01:56] the wood utility polls until they cannot hold anymore and I believe they go to about
[2:02:01] a hundred to a hundred and three percent of the capacity of the poll.
[2:02:05] Brandon, just to clarify what I'm asking is I want to know if that facility was not working
[2:02:10] for three years.
[2:02:12] So let's-
[2:02:13] We can't have an answer for that now, let's just go back and ask them.
[2:02:17] Yeah, it's okay because he meant that gentleman right there had just mentioned that that the technical whoever said and told him that it wasn't working
[2:02:23] If it's not working, they're paying somebody's paying for it, and we're not getting the services we need, right?
[2:02:29] So that's the main point more than anything else we can confirm that with their aim, please any other questions?
[2:02:39] Gentlemen next speaker
[2:02:41] Nothing that concluded our public comment. I didn't know if our carrier was going to speak next
[2:02:46] I'm Kenzie.
[2:02:53] Fancy meeting you here.
[2:02:55] I do my best.
[2:02:57] So, good evening.
[2:03:00] City of Rancho Palsburg is mayor,
[2:03:02] City Council and staff.
[2:03:03] You all see me before.
[2:03:04] I'm a Kenzie nilly right.
[2:03:05] I do external legislative affairs for AT&T supporting the
[2:03:09] South Bay cities, which includes Rancho Palsburg is.
[2:03:11] I just want to highlight.
[2:03:12] I'm not an engineer.
[2:03:14] So, if you ask me certain questions,
[2:03:16] I'm going to have to defer to a later time.
[2:03:19] That's not in my notes,
[2:03:19] but I'm just putting that out there based on what I've already heard, but there are some things I can't answer.
[2:03:24] We are pleased that the city has eliminated some of the overly burdensome requirements that would have prevented our discourage deployments
[2:03:31] and we understand that the city wants to encourage responsible deployments to improve wireless service coverage in the city.
[2:03:38] We previously submitted a letter and there was a crime of kind of a timeline of kind of the engagement with industry.
[2:03:46] and we're grateful for that and hope that we can continue the conversation with the city to further strengthen our collaboration going forward.
[2:03:53] And in conclusion, AT&T just thanks the city for investing time and energy and working on these ordinances and we remain committed to assisting the city
[2:04:02] in developing regulations that do not include burdensome requirements and preventing future wireless built.
[2:04:10] Should I state answer questions or how do you all want to do this?
[2:04:13] The City Council have questions. Yes.
[2:04:16] Would AT&T be willing to come before a closed session and show us the master deployment
[2:04:22] plan for Rancho Palace Verde's and the coverage map that you are working towards
[2:04:28] and proposing?
[2:04:30] So what your city manager said was pretty accurate.
[2:04:35] I don't know if there is a challenge with coming and providing the plan.
[2:04:41] I just don't know like how many people can be in the room before it's like an official meeting so I just need to get this would be official meeting
[2:04:49] But it would be a closed session. It would be not open to the public and not open to public records work
[2:04:57] Sure, so I can confirm that but typically
[2:05:00] We could do that just we could do that, correct? Maybe.
[2:05:07] The only conceivable basis that I can think of off the top of my head would be real property negotiations. We would be we are negotiating real property access rights within the city. That's a possibility willing
[2:05:26] to explore that possibility. Okay. So I guess it's not this is not this more of a statement.
[2:05:32] Mackenzie, so you've seen those proprietary maps so high. In terms of the Verizon and AT&T
[2:05:39] and it's out there, they just can't share it publicly and widely because how it's explained
[2:05:43] to me at least was, it shows the coverage maps for each carrier which is proprietary and
[2:05:49] that's basic competition. That's how it's explained to me at least. So that's why it's so secret,
[2:05:54] quote unquote. In my opinion, it should be out there because they're going to put it up
[2:06:00] anyway. So for me at least we've seen it. I'm satisfied with that. I know other City Councils have
[2:06:06] not seen it. But Mackenzie if you're willing to do a sit down with our City Council with your
[2:06:11] guys you know outside a closed session so they can see the maps and actually give you guys some
[2:06:15] inputs that would be great. I mean the issue I have always have had on the coverage map is we say
[2:06:23] we want to improve service for our residents and it's a public safety issue. Well unless we
[2:06:29] improve service for every carrier, then there's always going to be somebody that's not going
[2:06:35] to have a phone that's able to work, whether you're on AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, you know,
[2:06:44] name your carrier. So it is, I mean, it's not like another piece of public infrastructure
[2:06:53] where it's a single carrier, whether, you know, it's Cox has a certain, this is multiple carriers that have to be compatible for everyone to be able to actually get our desired state.
[2:07:07] So that's why I think the coverage maps and looking at how this is going to, these are, is so important to be able to see how this is going to be implemented for the city,
[2:07:17] for all of the major carriers that most of our residents use on a daily basis.
[2:07:24] I get drop calls every day.
[2:07:26] Is it annoying?
[2:07:27] Absolutely.
[2:07:27] Would I like not to?
[2:07:29] Absolutely.
[2:07:30] But, you know, I'm one carrier, by the way, I am AT&T.
[2:07:37] Can I add something?
[2:07:39] There are options for us and we do cold locate like on towers.
[2:07:45] So because we understand also, you can't have a whole bunch of towers and sites within a city, that's not aesthetically pleasing either.
[2:07:57] But it's very difficult to do that on smaller sites.
[2:08:02] And you have more smaller sites because of the aesthetics piece.
[2:08:07] So it's like we do this dance because we know what we need.
[2:08:11] We, and we know where are coverage like we there are people that come out every so often and you should
[2:08:18] Know about this because they're just doing their job, but they're tracking the coverage of the area
[2:08:24] And so they know hey if we had something here is somewhere in this area that would help improve coverage
[2:08:30] The problem is though I think for the question that you're asking is about the deployment plan
[2:08:36] We don't necessarily just have locations off hand that we say we're going to deploy to because you as a city have to tell us we can.
[2:08:46] We have to get approval. It might be a public right away. It might be a private property.
[2:08:50] So we'll have like a general location of where we know we should put something and then there's a whole separate site acquisition process that happens.
[2:08:58] Yeah, so we could tell you and that's part of that's also the proprietary piece because it's like we know where we need to go and
[2:09:07] We'll make recommendations
[2:09:09] But we also have to that psych acquisition piece takes quite a bit of time and money and it's not a fast like to put up a site
[2:09:16] Just like for understanding it takes about three years
[2:09:21] Yeah, and they's one of the things that I think we have control over is we know exactly where we're going to approve the site
[2:09:27] right, when it comes down to it. So when we're dealing with Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile
[2:09:33] or any of these carriers, we know from the permitting process exactly where we're going
[2:09:36] to put it. So in that sense, we know exactly what the plan is going to be for us at least,
[2:09:41] because if they have their plan, but it doesn't collaborate with what we want in the views,
[2:09:46] sort of view ordinance or if it affects a view for somebody aesthetically, we can say no
[2:09:50] to that. So we have control, we have positive control exactly where it goes and where we
[2:09:55] In ultimately I think the end of the day we as a city would like to know
[2:10:00] So what that deployment plan is, and we will ask, but we can't legally require them as a submittal requirement to deem their application incomplete because they're not giving us what they consider proprietary information. They may share it with us and take it back, but we can't use it as a submittal requirement. And by the way, the city on the city's website has a map and interactive
[2:10:29] map that shows the location of all existing facilities for all the carriers. So you can go to
[2:10:37] the city's website under the telecommunications page, click see where all the facilities are,
[2:10:42] and you can sort of deduce where there's coverage and where there isn't coverage based on
[2:10:47] where the antennas are located.
[2:10:52] Any other questions on McKenzie?
[2:10:57] I'm going to deliberation, but I may as part of that, ask a question.
[2:11:01] You can have a seat, McKenzie.
[2:11:03] Thank you.
[2:11:03] Thank you.
[2:11:05] Thank you.
[2:11:07] Deliberations.
[2:11:08] I have a question, staff, on this.
[2:11:14] What was the last time we got to receive an application from either Verizon or AT&T or any
[2:11:19] other carriers for a new location.
[2:11:24] We actually had a representative from Verizon stop into public works today and discuss five upcoming applications.
[2:11:34] They are sites that are currently working on. They've made modifications to slim them down. And then we also talked about another five locations that were just under location review.
[2:11:45] you. It just happened today. We're very lucky. And you were startled or that's ordinary.
[2:11:53] It depends. It seems like they really come in a burst. We don't really get one every
[2:11:59] month. It seems like when we get them, we get a lot.
[2:12:01] To frame this and not trap you at our last meeting, we had a lot of discussion around this topic.
[2:12:06] And I thought we kind of came to a general consensus that the world of carriers were not beating
[2:12:12] down our doors to fully cover our area. We're a low-density mountainous terrain, very difficult
[2:12:20] to serve us. And so when I go back to our last discussion on this, and I think about tonight,
[2:12:27] we have to balance a couple things, right? The one thing is we, of course, want to maintain our
[2:12:32] standards and protect our city aesthetics and all that. We also want coverage. And while it's
[2:12:41] appealing to Huff and Puff and say, well, you must do this.
[2:12:45] You could say, we can require them.
[2:12:46] I think we established that we can require them to submit this map.
[2:12:49] They just won't do it and we won't get any coverage.
[2:12:51] So I think a really interesting topic came out of this tonight, which is, how do we assure
[2:12:59] that the equipment that's put in is continuing to work?
[2:13:02] That's where I would have a question for our guests and say, what is an ordinary process
[2:13:08] us for assuring that to staff do it, to we have them do it.
[2:13:13] That's something we can work on.
[2:13:14] But for tonight, this measure, this is a narrow list of minor tweaks and improvements,
[2:13:22] none of which staff has found to be to the city's detriment, the citizens' detriment.
[2:13:27] We should not let the great, the perfect be the enemy of the good, and we should just pass
[2:13:31] this and move on.
[2:13:33] That's my opinion.
[2:13:36] Mayor Patel.
[2:13:37] I'm going to have to follow up a question of these 10 sites that you discussed.
[2:13:42] How many were new for upgrades, how many were the, what was the discussion and what was
[2:13:50] the character of these new applications or discussion today?
[2:13:53] So five of these sites were originally, they're all new sites.
[2:13:57] Five of the sites they had originally submitted, but they basically came back and said, hey,
[2:14:02] we made some modifications.
[2:14:04] Can you wave us through?
[2:14:05] So we obviously said no, we're going to look into these and conduct a full review.
[2:14:10] You know, you're changing the equipment entirely.
[2:14:13] The sites were slimmed down, they're looking to focus more on 5G instead of 3G and 4G.
[2:14:18] But I'm treating them as new sites, essentially, they're just at the same location.
[2:14:22] So they're going to get a full review just as a new site would.
[2:14:25] These other five sites, these are going to be new sites as well.
[2:14:29] So right now they're just in the location.
[2:14:32] Hey, is it cool if we install here?
[2:14:36] Yeah, hey, what's the, you know,
[2:14:38] what are your thoughts on moving down the street?
[2:14:39] This straddles a property line.
[2:14:40] This isn't, this is behind a tree.
[2:14:42] This isn't in someone's, you know, view line.
[2:14:44] So we're really in that process right now.
[2:14:46] We have a few alternatives.
[2:14:48] And yeah, we're pretty much just working together
[2:14:50] to see what they're willing to do
[2:14:53] and, you know, what we're willing to do.
[2:14:54] Okay, follow up on that also as much as you can tell from a-
[2:15:00] As far as you went today, if we pass this tonight, is there any impact on those discussions specifically?
[2:15:10] Meaning that it would delay the installation there? No, no. I mean, I mean, I'm the criterion of qualifications that they're coming with to you to, to, to add decites. Is this, is this a detriment before this, if this is not passed tonight? And you're in your conversation.
[2:15:31] Did it matter directly at effect that conversation?
[2:15:37] Mayor Brotein, I'll take this question.
[2:15:39] Thank you.
[2:15:40] Because there are under review, I think it would be premature to determine how these changes
[2:15:44] would affect the review, having not completed the review process, is that fair to say?
[2:15:49] So I think at this point in Junkshire, we're not entirely sure.
[2:15:52] But for future ones, potentially.
[2:15:55] Let me just clarify something.
[2:15:57] Brand, the ones, the five that you mentioned that they wanted to slim down, were those are the
[2:16:03] approved ones that were waiting on SE. Yeah, I believe so. They came back with different plans,
[2:16:10] saying they still need to submit to SE. And these were the original sites that we approved the
[2:16:16] while ago. Correct. Okay. So they came and said, hey, we want to modify those.
[2:16:20] Yeah, but they were never installed. So I'm treating it as a new application, the same thing.
[2:16:25] Yes, so those came into while they got these sites.
[2:16:28] Yes, so the SC didn't power it yet, then they modified it, that's what you're saying.
[2:16:33] And then for, just to clarify, Mayor Pro Temps' question, if we pass tonight, I think this
[2:16:38] is more direct than I'm McKenzie too, what is the passage of these ordinances or tweaks
[2:16:43] these ordinances do for AT&T McKenzie?
[2:16:52] The long and short of it is it gives us the ability, us as an external legislative affairs
[2:16:57] and the construction and engineering team, the opportunity to advocate to get more sites in the city.
[2:17:04] Because how it has been in the past, it has been a cumbersome and expensive.
[2:17:10] So while they know that there are coverage areas, they won't prioritize it because leadership will say,
[2:17:17] if we have to do all of these things, then we might as well go where we're given the opportunity to build.
[2:17:25] And it takes, like I said, three years because there's a city component, there's a federal
[2:17:31] component, there's quite a bit of things that we do in being in compliance to build
[2:17:36] a site.
[2:17:37] So if there's a huge roadblock or time constraint from that process, you're wearing the business
[2:17:46] of making money.
[2:17:47] And so they'll just say, well, that's not worth the investment.
[2:17:49] But if I'm saying the city is working with us, they're trying to make it easier for us to build, then that puts the city back in rotation to support.
[2:17:59] Thank you, McKenzie.
[2:18:01] Any other questions?
[2:18:05] Good.
[2:18:06] Mayor Pratton.
[2:18:07] Thank you, of course.
[2:18:08] On the abandonment topic, what's our current situation with that?
[2:18:14] And is that something that in this revision of our ordinance, was that addressed?
[2:18:18] First,
[2:18:21] we have always had a code to collect bonding, however staff have not currently been
[2:18:29] or historically done so, moving forward that will be the standard to collect bonding and
[2:18:35] ensure that it is adequate for the removal of the site.
[2:18:40] Absolutely.
[2:18:41] I mean, that has always been one of mine is for abandoned infrastructure.
[2:18:46] I mean, there's a box that was put in 10 years ago on PV Drive East that has never been utilized.
[2:18:55] I mean, it has sat there for literally decades at this point.
[2:19:03] And I know it's abandoned because there's nothing in it.
[2:19:08] But, you know, another site could be equipment in it.
[2:19:13] And I'm not going to bring out a RF snapper to see if that site is active or not.
[2:19:17] I mean, there is a lot of vertical infrastructure that could be abandoned and we would never
[2:19:23] know for years potentially.
[2:19:25] And that concerns me as technology evolves and things become obsolete, that it's cheaper
[2:19:34] to abandon them in place than actually remove them and put in the new system.
[2:19:39] So that continues to concern me in our ordinance and how we would do compliance of that.
[2:19:48] because we're just not set up to drive the city with a sniffer truck saying okay
[2:19:54] that one's not working okay that one's just that's never gonna happen for us
[2:20:00] But as indicated by the associated engineer, a masquer, it is currently codified that we are required to obtain a bond and keep that active. So we just need to make sure we are implementing that requirement. That's on us. Okay.
[2:20:21] I'm good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. If we're done deliberating, I'll entertain a motion for staff recommendation.
[2:20:30] So moved.
[2:20:30] I get a second, please.
[2:20:32] Second.
[2:20:33] Okay, we'll call.
[2:20:34] Friendly amendment?
[2:20:34] Yes.
[2:20:35] I would like to add a provision that City Attorney worked with the City Manager and the
[2:20:41] carriers to try to get us the coverage, deployment maps and the propagation maps for us to review
[2:20:50] and close session as a body so we can deliberate on how it's being deployed throughout the city
[2:20:57] and the adequacy of that deployment.
[2:20:59] that works. Should we ask if that's doable? Well, it's an act we have them to go see if it is doable.
[2:21:08] But for us to make the motion to do. It's just directing staff as part of the motion to
[2:21:15] go do it. If they come back and say there's no legal precedent for them to be able to give us the
[2:21:20] information on the deployment in our own city, we'll have to deliberate that at that point.
[2:21:27] Second, so amended.
[2:21:28] With the amendment, roll call, please.
[2:21:31] As amended.
[2:21:32] Thank you.
[2:21:33] Council Member Lewis.
[2:21:35] Yes.
[2:21:35] Council Member Ferraro.
[2:21:37] Yes.
[2:21:37] Council Member Bradley.
[2:21:38] Yes.
[2:21:39] Mayor Prattin, Paris-Dames.
[2:21:40] Yes.
[2:21:40] Mayor Sao.
[2:21:41] Motion cap passes.
[2:21:42] Without we can move to item number two.
[2:21:44] Consider a report on the feasibility of developing a joint powers authority to provide landslide
[2:21:49] insurance coverage to individuals.
[2:21:51] I have no request to speak.
[2:21:52] Thank you, staff report, please.
[2:21:53] Good
[2:21:57] evening, Mayor, members of the City Council.
[2:21:59] Tonight you'll receive and file a report regarding the possibility of developing a joint
[2:22:05] powers authority or JPA to provide individuals with insurance coverage for landslide-related
[2:22:11] property damages, and if Council so wishes, Council will consider directing staff to submit
[2:22:18] a letter to state legislators and the insurance commissioner requesting the state to consider
[2:22:22] programs such as the California earthquake authority or fair plan as a way to provide
[2:22:28] landslide insurance to individuals.
[2:22:31] For some background in 2023, then former Councilmember Crookshank and now Mayor Seo requested
[2:22:38] information about forming a JPA that can provide individuals with basic landslide insurance.
[2:22:44] This was partially in response to understanding that homeowner's insurance does not cover
[2:22:49] damages caused by non-earthquake in news land movement, which creates a coverage gap.
[2:22:55] Also, in September, 2024, the city conducted a survey of landslide area residents, none
[2:23:01] of the 62 who answered a question regarding their homeowner's insurance indicated that
[2:23:06] their policies covered landslide damage.
[2:23:10] Brief overview on JPAs in general, they are legally created entities with two or more
[2:23:15] more public agencies that jointly exercise powers they have in common.
[2:23:21] JPAs cannot exercise powers that they do not currently have.
[2:23:25] The benefit is to allow agencies to combine resources and services and
[2:23:30] achieve economies of scale with greater financial and operational impacts.
[2:23:35] Some common JPAs that you may be familiar with and that the city is a member of is the California JPA and SCAC.
[2:23:44] JPA, CJPA is a prime example of how an agency can pull risk and through self-insurance
[2:23:56] and risk sharing.
[2:23:57] Some of those risks that are covered include liability, workers comp, property damage,
[2:24:03] and other losses that each agency would otherwise manage on its own.
[2:24:09] Please note, JPA self-insurance risk pools are authorized by state law and are not considered
[2:24:16] traditional insurance.
[2:24:19] In addition, as you all know, RPV and most other cities don't possess the authority to
[2:24:24] issue traditional insurance, and therefore I can't form a JPA with other agencies to issue
[2:24:30] landslide policies to individuals.
[2:24:31] And so staff did a bit of research and looked at two other existing mechanisms that could potentially serve as an alternate model for landslide insurance and none of them are JPAs.
[2:24:43] And as you can see, they are the California earthquake authority and the California Fair Plan.
[2:24:49] So model one is CEA or California earthquake authority.
[2:24:53] It was formed after the North Ridge Quakes that caused $20 billion in damages and only half were cut.
[2:25:00] As an in response, the state legislature created CEA to provide earthquake insurance, which is optional, and it is a nonprofit public entity of the state, not a JPA, that is publicly managed and privately funded by policyholder premiums and other sources or resources. All homeowner insurers in California are required to offer you earthquake insurance every other year, either through themselves,
[2:25:29] A third party, or CEA, and CEA is the preferred option for most insurers.
[2:25:35] They represent about two thirds of the entire earthquake, residential earthquake market in California.
[2:25:42] Insurance who participate in CEA must service the policies, claim adjustments,
[2:25:47] billing, most of the administrative work behind the insurance.
[2:25:51] Whereas CEA is the one that writes the policy and
[2:25:53] generally assumes the bulk of the risk.
[2:25:57] CEA typically covers damage from earthquake-induced landslides with some limitations.
[2:26:05] However, they exclude landslides caused by rainwater, groundwater intrusion and other conditions
[2:26:10] which includes our landslide here.
[2:26:14] In addition, CEA's authority is limited to offering earthquake insurance only, and so expanding
[2:26:21] that authority to include landslide insurance would definitely, or likely, require state legislation.
[2:26:29] Our second model is the fair plan, which the city is also very familiar with.
[2:26:33] It was established in 1968 due to difficulties obtaining insurance in high risk areas that mostly are
[2:26:41] threatened by wildfire. It is California's insure of last resort, so essentially a resident can only
[2:26:48] get a fair plan as long as they've gone out into the market and had little to no success
[2:26:53] getting appropriate coverage for their homes.
[2:26:58] The fair plan is different than CEA. All
[2:27:01] insurers doing businesses in California are required to participate in fair, so it is not optional.
[2:27:07] It is a private association of insurers and not a JPA who manage and share in the plan's underwriting,
[2:27:14] the expenses, the profits, the losses, and fair is really the entity that just issues
[2:27:20] the policies on behalf of these insurers.
[2:27:24] Fair like CEA does not generally ensure landslides unless they are caused by a covered
[2:27:30] peril-like wildfire.
[2:27:32] However, we noted that the California Insurance Code authorizes fair to include other insurance
[2:27:38] coverage is, quote, with the approval of the insurance commissioner. So that vagueness
[2:27:44] may be cracks open a door for us to determine if maybe fair could be amended to include
[2:27:51] non-sysmic landslide coverage, further evaluation with the Department of Insurance, Legal Council,
[2:27:59] and Legislatures is probably the likely next step.
[2:28:04] So before considering either model, there
[2:28:06] There are a few considerations and caveats, mandating insurers to ensure a small subset
[2:28:12] of landslide residents through fair, for example, could place financial pressures on the
[2:28:16] entire insurance market, possibly leading to increased premiums for the whole, so that
[2:28:22] is a consideration to be had.
[2:28:24] There are still questions that need to be answered, such as can landslide insurance encourage
[2:28:29] individuals to continue living on active landslides?
[2:28:31] and also could ensure exclude damage caused by pre-existing or known landslides such as Portuguese
[2:28:38] Ben, just like a medical insurer would exclude pre-existing health conditions. And with that
[2:28:45] additional research and discussions are really needed to further vet these considerations. And so
[2:28:50] for tonight we're asking Council to receive and file this report and possibly consider directing staff
[2:28:56] to go and make those explorations by submitting a letter to state legislators and
[2:29:02] the insurance commissioner to consider creating a program similar to CEA or
[2:29:07] fair to provide basic landslide insurance to individuals.
[2:29:11] And that concludes my report.
[2:29:13] Thank you very much.
[2:29:14] Any questions of staff, Mayor Pro Temp?
[2:29:18] A question, and it may be difficult to answer this.
[2:29:21] But, naturally, we have a floodplain insurance program, people living floodplains, they have an event, they get paid, they rebuild in the floodplains, they have an event, they get paid, they rebuild in a floodplain.
[2:29:43] How, what we're asking for here, is that, is that different than our national floodplain policy?
[2:29:52] I can answer that.
[2:29:54] Okay.
[2:29:54] We're preparing to advocate for what's called a perverse incentive, which is a time tested
[2:30:00] Forgive anyone for having me. I would like to thank the legislature for the practice of citizens, lobbyists and governments all across this great country.
[2:30:06] I just wanted to make sure I understand some of the options and we're asking for and it'd be who would run to help us. And in fact, it is restricted. You can't have individual insured policies here so a pool of interested parties here is obviously limited but there is precedent for this.
[2:30:26] I mean, absolutely.
[2:30:27] No, absolutely.
[2:30:29] And in fairness, it's the benefit of our constituents.
[2:30:33] And it's not just our city, right?
[2:30:35] Landslides happen all up and down, the coastline,
[2:30:37] and on the interior mountains.
[2:30:40] So it's a California issue, legitimately.
[2:30:43] So question for staff real quick.
[2:30:44] In terms of, I don't know if you guys know this or not,
[2:30:46] but in the state of California, how many cities?
[2:30:50] Because I know we talked about getting other cities on board
[2:30:52] and when it comes to putting the word landside in the legislation,
[2:30:55] How many cities in the state of California actually experience landsides, mountains,
[2:31:00] coastline that we know of?
[2:31:03] There are numerous cities, but when we put out the request to form a landslide coalition,
[2:31:11] I believe we got about 13, or was it 20?
[2:31:15] A little over 20.
[2:31:17] These aren't, yeah, these are significant cities.
[2:31:19] And it's not just local, this is Northern California,
[2:31:23] Central California, and going far down is San Diego area.
[2:31:29] So there's an interest.
[2:31:32] Any other questions from staff right now?
[2:31:37] Then I'll move to approve staff recommendation with the-
[2:31:41] Do we have speakers?
[2:31:43] Do we have speakers?
[2:31:44] Second.
[2:31:45] With a little tweak, what I would ask is if we're going to submit a letter,
[2:31:49] let's wait till after the elections,
[2:31:51] Because we're not going to have a new insurance commissioner.
[2:31:56] So it has to be-
[2:31:57] Wait.
[2:31:58] Because it's going to-
[2:31:59] How would we-
[2:32:00] It's not going to go anywhere.
[2:32:01] Because they're literally changing out the insurance commissioner in two months.
[2:32:05] So we don't know who the new insurance commissioner is going to be.
[2:32:08] So I don't want them to drop a letter and it sits somewhere.
[2:32:10] Second.
[2:32:12] I have a little more discussion.
[2:32:15] Can we suggest that we reach out to our coalition of 13, or maybe it's still broader,
[2:32:22] that may express some interest in this, and to see if we could also see there's a joint
[2:32:29] letter.
[2:32:30] It's a good idea.
[2:32:31] Because we'll be a little louder, hopefully, and I think that would make sense.
[2:32:35] I also agree with the mayor, we're going to have a new legislature, legislature, we're
[2:32:40] going to have a New Assurance Commissioner, we're going to have a new opportunity.
[2:32:45] Is there any value of doing it today versus waiting to the new group of people take off
[2:32:52] There might be, you know, we've heard we had some, we had this discussion this morning and sometimes at the very end, a representative will want to sort of take a lead on something and maybe pass it on to their predecessors.
[2:33:10] So there might be sessions over.
[2:33:23] Yeah, okay. So I'd like to I mean you already have a motion a second join. Yeah, let's do a joint letter after
[2:33:29] Okay, after the election. Thank you
[2:33:35] So after the election, but a joint letter with all the other cities and then ask
[2:33:41] So you don't want to do it before
[2:33:43] Well, I don't think it even creates that much to lay.
[2:33:46] It's going to take a certain number of weeks to actually answer some of the questions, isn't it?
[2:33:50] Sure.
[2:33:52] I'm just trying to save the staff some time.
[2:33:58] Rural call.
[2:33:59] Yeah, let's see where we'll call on that one.
[2:34:01] Okay, restate the motion.
[2:34:03] So staff recommendation as is with the amendment for, well, Mayor Pro Tem wanted to send a letter,
[2:34:09] joint letter with the other cities, but after November election is over.
[2:34:18] Second.
[2:34:21] Roll call, please.
[2:34:22] Certainly.
[2:34:22] Mayor, forgive me.
[2:34:23] I had you as the maker of the motion.
[2:34:25] Please.
[2:34:25] Barbara, as the seconder.
[2:34:26] All right.
[2:34:27] I'll make the motion.
[2:34:28] Let me ask one point of order.
[2:34:32] Can we vote to send something when we're sending it on the new council?
[2:34:42] It'll be after our election as well, and we will be entirely new body as well.
[2:34:47] So we can say, we can say, we're going to send a letter on the behalf of the Regiapalist
[2:34:52] 30 City Council in the future when we're no longer the City Council, but of course that
[2:34:57] City Council could rescind that decision.
[2:35:00] So, would it come before them? You make decisions right now that you're giving us direction to do things that may not come back to you, but may. Right, but this is something that will be done. We're saying, send a letter the day after the new, the new body is seated, and we will, by definition, not be the body in place when that letter goes out. So, send it before, before we leave office. This is December. Correct. And the election is November 3rd. You don't change seats.
[2:35:29] until December, so there's a period of time where we can set it until the after the election.
[2:35:37] We understand the directive. The idea is make sure you get the letter to the new elected
[2:35:44] legislators and state commissioners. That's fine. Yeah, I was thinking myself, I'm not going to be here.
[2:35:59] Thank you. Councilmember Bradley. Yes. Councilmember Ferraro. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Mayor
[2:36:08] Proto-Paris-Dan. Yes. Mayor Stale. Yes. Motion passes. With that we can move to our future agenda items.
[2:36:13] Future agenda items for December. Councilmember Bradley.
[2:36:16] the central letter.
[2:36:19] Any future gen items? Yes, Council member of this. Yes, I didn't articulate
[2:36:24] myself totally clearly. I'm going back to the cell phones towers, right? So this can be viewed
[2:36:30] as a future agenda item, or you could view this as a belated amendment to go along with former
[2:36:37] Mayor Bradley's idea to do a little bit more research and present this at the same time as you come
[2:36:43] back with that. It's good that we have bonds in place, that's nice, but what I was missing
[2:36:50] in this discussion tonight, because we weren't prepared to have this discussion tonight,
[2:36:54] it was hearsay from a speaker that some unit died two or three years ago. We don't know
[2:37:00] if that's true or not. We have to find out. But I think it's a question worth asking. What
[2:37:05] are the procedures in place? Not just that we have a bond, so in sense we have compensation
[2:37:10] if we had to take an action, but how would we know to take an action?
[2:37:14] Do we have a complete inventory of all these items?
[2:37:16] Do we know how many of them are working and how many are not working?
[2:37:19] Who would know?
[2:37:20] Would we know?
[2:37:21] Or would the, you don't have to answer this.
[2:37:23] It's just a bundle of questions to consider.
[2:37:24] Or would the carriers know?
[2:37:26] Do we ask the carriers to report on that?
[2:37:28] If one is found to be not working, do we send them a letter?
[2:37:31] What is our process for notifying them to comply?
[2:37:34] Like, let's fill out how this works.
[2:37:37] works, you know, what do we do now and maybe what we would do to improve those processes
[2:37:43] to ensure that if it was true, what we heard tonight, that there is debt equipment, that
[2:37:47] that would be remedied going forward. So I add that as a future item that could be bundled
[2:37:52] with the existing request from earlier in just for clarification. I mean, this could just
[2:37:57] be a directive for us for staff to go back and do unless you're asking for an agenda item
[2:38:02] and where we bring that information
[2:38:04] to the council for consent.
[2:38:06] So you're discretion, I just think this needs to be,
[2:38:09] the question's gonna come up again.
[2:38:11] So let's have a detailed answer of like,
[2:38:13] how do we actually ensure that everything works?
[2:38:17] And then if something doesn't work,
[2:38:18] that there's a process, a structured process
[2:38:20] in place that we follow that take care of it.
[2:38:22] So I'm gonna take it as a directive for staff
[2:38:25] to go back and assess and do an inventory
[2:38:28] of its equipment based on what we,
[2:38:30] And if there is something, then we'll bring it to the council.
[2:38:34] But I'm not going to add it as a future agenda item.
[2:38:36] I think it's more of an operational matter that we would handle.
[2:38:41] And if there is an issue, I'll bring it back.
[2:38:43] Good idea.
[2:38:44] Thank you.
[2:38:45] Anything else, guys?
[2:38:46] Nope.
[2:38:47] All right.
[2:38:47] Next item.
[2:38:50] City Council, oral reports.
[2:38:51] Anyone have oral reports?
[2:38:52] Yes.
[2:38:53] Councilor Bradley.
[2:38:54] Yeah.
[2:38:56] Last Friday, the 28th of August, I had the opportunity to become
[2:39:01] window dressing for the mayor's state of the city address, and the mayor did a phenomenal job
[2:39:08] in presenting the state of the city and going through all of the successes we've had over the last
[2:39:14] year, as well as all the challenges we have to go forward. So, well done mayor Sam. Thank you very
[2:39:21] much. I thought I was better when addressing. You are. I didn't say I was the best. I just said I was
[2:39:29] This is dressing.
[2:39:32] Chicken.
[2:39:33] Any other work report?
[2:39:35] I remember that.
[2:39:36] Thank you.
[2:39:36] I was also in attendance there, and I'll agree with the dressing discussion.
[2:39:41] Also, I had the opportunity to participate in the South Bay Cog executive meeting last week.
[2:39:52] And the only thing to report there is there was some discussion on how to support or
[2:39:58] propose some of
[2:40:00] The propositions on a statewide basis, and I don't want to go through that there, but that was the only thing that really was any relevance on taking the South Bay's position on that. That was discussed. Thank you. I did have one of the things that thank you for reminding me on the South Bay cut. I was approached by the city of Palisbury's estates. They're sending a letter to the governor to oppose the current, and I'm drawing a blank on the number.
[2:40:29] But that's going before the governor for his signature for pension changes.
[2:40:40] I don't believe that we have time to agendize it and make an official position.
[2:40:48] But I am concerned by that and the potential for the negative impact on city finances for
[2:40:58] that change to the pension reform act?
[2:41:01] Yeah, I think specifically for public safety, I think for fire and police officer
[2:41:04] retirement ages from 57 to 55, based on their metrics and what they're having now.
[2:41:11] So, yeah.
[2:41:12] Mr. Mayor, we have sent a comment letter.
[2:41:15] We said one on that one, and so we could follow, yes, we did, based on our legislative.
[2:41:20] Okay, if we did, then we should send another one to the governor's, because it passed the Senate
[2:41:24] and then passed the legislature,
[2:41:26] and I believe it is on the governor's desk for signature.
[2:41:29] I think the one that we did is different.
[2:41:31] It's not the public safety one.
[2:41:33] Yeah, I thought I didn't think there's a position
[2:41:35] on this one.
[2:41:36] I know it is affecting Palsbury's estate dramatically
[2:41:39] because of their police department
[2:41:42] and their contract with fire,
[2:41:44] but I believe it would also negatively affect us
[2:41:47] for our future contract with LA County Sheriff.
[2:41:50] I will double check as we're discussing
[2:41:53] what's on our legislative corner on our website.
[2:41:56] Okay.
[2:41:57] Any other?
[2:41:58] Yeah.
[2:41:58] We're on this topic now.
[2:42:00] So let's have the discussion a little bit.
[2:42:02] There was on our CalCities representative identified last week at South Bay Cog, five bills
[2:42:11] that were pending at the time.
[2:42:13] And asking if any presenters should lean into those bills.
[2:42:17] And mostly they were in opposition.
[2:42:19] That was one, the pension reform bill was one that was, they posed.
[2:42:23] And one that does directly impact us is goat herding, and it sounds like it's, and the conversation, it sounds silly.
[2:42:35] It is silly, but there was something that expired back in, I think, June 30th that it was an exemption for goat herding.
[2:42:55] As of the weekend, the information was still that it would be resolved, the session closed today.
[2:43:03] I don't know how that was resolved, so there's those items there that I know that the city has received from CalCities and Direction.
[2:43:11] And what to do if in fact, it's a problematic bill in reaching governor and some, and some position that they've taken on that.
[2:43:18] So that was the rest of the rest of the process.
[2:43:21] It would eliminate the GOP program if that was led to expire.
[2:43:25] It would eliminate GOP State of California.
[2:43:27] Correct, it would be too costly.
[2:43:28] Thank you.
[2:43:29] Yeah, yeah, the, I think the letter that I saw that we sent before it was not the public safety warrant.
[2:43:35] Or I don't, not that I remember at least.
[2:43:37] may or if I can jump in you're correct. We actually I was
[2:43:40] misspoke it with it is AB 1383 McKinner. We are still
[2:43:46] watching that bill at this time, but it does have an impact
[2:43:50] on pepper employees and it increases the pensionable cap for
[2:43:54] those employees, which we have a large number of pepper
[2:43:58] employees here. Yeah, I have a different position on it.
[2:44:03] And yeah, that's going to be an interesting topic if we're
[2:44:06] to have a discussion on it, but it is at the governor's desk, and I think we did get
[2:44:10] to reach out from PVE in regards to it, so any other reports? Yes, Council Member Lewis?
[2:44:16] Yeah, real quick. I don't often give these, but you know, you love to report
[2:44:21] booming successes with once in a while. You have one where you tried and it just didn't work out,
[2:44:26] and so it was on one of my assignments, the PVE Transit Board, where I co-serve with former Mayor
[2:44:33] Bradley and one of the notions I had almost a year ago was to try to extend
[2:44:39] service further down to San Pedro because we had a line that goes down there
[2:44:44] and that would be able to bring more kids up to mirror last day intermediate
[2:44:48] and when I mentioned that to the administrator of the program he said oh yeah
[2:44:53] that could really work we could we I think there might be enough support there for
[2:44:56] align. This would benefit the school district because enrollment
[2:45:00] Is key. And anyway, I got them in touch with the right people at PVP USD. They crunched all the numbers. They looked at the anonymized data of where the students are. And we came to the conclusion that it was completely insufficient enrollment to support extending the line. So I was disappointed. But we tried. We tried to make a public service more available and more useful. It just wasn't apt at this time.
[2:45:25] So, all right. Barbara. Finally, I get to talk. Is you previously indicated we were all at the
[2:45:38] meeting the other day for your speech. And I just wanted to say that I thought you gave a great
[2:45:46] speech. Thank you. And you wrote it yourself.
[2:45:53] But it was it was great to hear all the things
[2:45:57] that it got on this year. Yeah. We are city staff and our city has been doing amazing
[2:46:02] work given what we've had. So I'm very proud of our city. Yeah. And we're proud of our
[2:46:08] staff. All right. Thank you guys. I'll adjourn this meeting at 848.