A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was called to order on August 27, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Fountain Room at the Community Center, 12501 Alcosta Boulevard, Mayor Tatarka presiding.

PRESENT: Councilmembers Cambra, Dickey, Hudson, Wilson and Mayor Tatarka

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Randall, City Attorney Tom Curry, Police Chief Brian Lindblom, Parks and Community Services Director Jeff Eorio, Senior Planner Charlie Mullen, Program Manager Kevin Carunchio, District Engineer Maria Robinson, and City Clerk Judy Macfarlane

* * * *

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Cub Scout Pack 841 from Walt Disney School led Council, staff and those present in the audience in the pledge of allegiance.

* * * *

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

Vice Mayor Wilson presented proclamations to former employees, April Gray and Don Rhoades, thanking them for their many years of service to the City.

Mayor Tatarka presented plaques to San Ramon businesses; SBC Pacific Bell, for achieving high commute alternative participation rates for the Citywide Employer Transportation Survey.

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM GENERAL PERMIT PROPOSED REVISION

The District Engineer introduced Don Freitas, Contra Costa Clean Water Program Manager.

Mr. Freitas said in 1972 the Federal Government created the Federal Clean Water Act with the purpose of ensuring that the waters of the United States were both "swimable" and fishable. During this time the Federal Government has spent tens of billions of dollars primarily focused on municipal sewage as well as industrial discharge. After several decades the waters are continually tested and there is still pollution. It was determined the pollution was coming from urban runoff and storm water discharge with most of the urban pollution coming from the residents. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency mandated that all municipalities across the nation begin to address urban runoff. Mr. Freitas reviewed how municipalities were able to radically reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to storm water drainage systems through best management practices. He concluded by saying the proposed amendments were significant and they would occur for all development activities and redevelopment activities and San Ramon would be very much involved because of its development.

* * * *

CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

The Parks and Community Services Director introduced a recommendation by the Parks and Community Services Commission to ratify the proposed Teen Council composed of 25 voting and 10 non voting alternate members.

Cm. Dickey’s motion to ratify the Teen Council roster and the non voting members was seconded by Cm. Cambra and passed 5-0.

The City Manager said at a previous Council meeting the Council had indicated as the City Center project proceeded under the new design team it wished to establish an oversight committee comprised of two City Councilmembers, the City Manager, the Project Manager and other appropriate staff as needed. He said the project was getting to the point where it was necessary to convene the committee and it was recommended to appoint the two Councilmembers to the committee. He said the selection of the project position was in progress, the consultant was reviewing the applications that had been received and information on those applicants would be available soon.

Cm. Dickey’s nomination of Mayor Tatarka to be on the Oversight Committee was seconded by Vice Mayor Wilson and approved 5-0

Vice Mayor Wilson nominated Cm. Hudson for the second position on the committee.

Cm. Cambra nominated Cm. Dickey.

The nomination was seconded by Mayor Tatarka.

By majority vote Cm. Dickey was selected to serve on the committee.

The City Manager said he would anticipate that the additional staff members that would be working with the Oversight Committee would probably be doing it on an as needed basis. The personnel involved would be the Development Services Director and the Administrative Services Director. He said the initial meeting would probably occur within the next two weeks.

Cm. Cambra said one of his concerns would be with the communication between the committee and the three Councilmembers that were not on the committee and he would like to have something drafted to show that level so that everyone could stay in the loop.

The City Manager said that he would expect that there would be detailed notes taken at all of the committee meetings, distributed to all of the Council and made available to the public as well.

Vice Mayor Wilson said that he would like Cm. Hudson to serve as the committee alternate in case one of the Councilmembers could not make the meetings.

* * * *

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dressed in period costume Gayle Studt and Sue Cofer spoke about the Third Annual Victorian Tea to be held at the Community Center on September 15 from 1:00 to 4:00 .m.

Mayor Tatarka read a speaker card from Pat York that stated she did not feel the speakers at the Council meetings should give their address because the meetings were broadcast on television and you could be putting yourself and your family in danger.

Jack Robinson encouraged everyone to come to the September 10 Council meeting and support the appeal regarding the Pine Valley Middle School gymnasium and parking lot. He said it was a project implemented by the City on school property.

Karla Robinson said the gym and parking lot project had greatly impacted her home and family. She said there were many changes that could be made to improve the many nuisances that they had been forced to endure. She asked her fellow residents to help support the appeal to the Council on September 10.

Donna Kerger said she had recently heard the Teen Council’s Annual Report at a recent Parks and Community Services Commission meeting. She said at that meeting she had reminded the student members that a previous Council had promised to look into temporary quarters for a Teen Center. She said this has not been done and she would encourage this Council to go forward and find a temporary facility for the teens in the community. She suggested that the money being presented before the Council in item 8.6, agreement to conduct a forensic audit of travel and related expenses, be used to fund a temporary center and conduct the audit in-house.

Ms. Kerger said she was shocked at the condition of the house on Pine Valley Road that had recently been in a fire. She stated that school has started and it was definitely a safety issue.

Rosalind Rogoff said Pat York had called her to express concern about people giving their address at meetings. She said while she did not mind giving out her address she understood Ms. York’s concern. She asked what the City policy was regarding this issue and felt it should be optional. She also asked that item 8.6, agreement to conduct an audit, be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

Del Nagel said that she and her husband had been long time gardeners at the community gardens and earlier this year she had mentioned to staff that the green waste container was missing by the preschool at Crow Canyon Gardens. She said if the City expects to cut down on solid waste, containers must be made accessible. She asked the Council to clarify the statement made by the Chair of the Parks Commission that containers would be made available to everyone and that they would be placed on the street for pickup when full. She also said with consolidation of positions on the Crow Canyon Institute staff she felt they should be required to provide an accurate accounting of the actual costs to operate the community gardens.

Elizabeth Monroe said she had been thinking about the requests by Diane Schinnerer, Mary Lou Oliver and others for the disclosure of the reasons why their good friend, Herb Moniz, was fired. She said the voters feel this is a big issue and we need to know why. She said given the restraint verbiage in the separation agreement she challenged the City Council to waive this section and she challenged all of Mr. Moniz’s friends to contact him and urge him to waive this section of the agreement so we can at last all learn the truth.

Jim Monroe said he was commenting in response to several comments to the City Council and letters appearing in local newspapers blaming the current Council for the expense of removing Mr. Moniz from his job as City Manager. He said at this time last year the City was preparing for an election in the fall of 2001. The politically active group in San Ramon that supported a "slower growth – smart growth" agenda was supporting three strong candidates in an effort to finally gain control of the City Council after 18 years of continuous control by a pro development majority. Then City Manager Moniz was definitely an issue in the election as the slow "growthers" believed he had unfairly directed City staff to favor developers in staff reports and administrative decisions. Mr. Moniz was in the middle of a 27 month contract that was to expire on March 9, 2002. At that time the controlling majority of the Council led by Mayor Hudson decided to renegotiate Mr. Moniz’s contract nine months before his current contract was to expire. In two closed sessions in July and August the details were worked out and the contract was approved on the consent calendar at the City Council meeting this same week last year. The Council majority consisting of Mayor Dave Hudson, Cms. Curt Kinney, Abram Wilson and Jim Livingstone, over the objection of Cm. Tatarka, gave Mr. Moniz a new contract. In that contract Mr. Moniz’s salary was increased 33% in the time of fiscal tightness and a recession with no change in job title or duties. The premature renegotiation of this employment contract that had nine months to run was an attempt to use City money to make Mr. Moniz too expensive to fire. This contract was the sole reason that the City was forced to pay more than $280,000 in tax payer money to terminate Mr. Moniz’s contract otherwise it would have expired on May 9, 2002 with no further payment. It was unconscionable abuse of public trust and public funds to support a controversial public policy and subvert the will of the citizens who were to vote for the candidates for City Council in only two months. Mr. Hudson and the other three members who voted for this should be properly held accountable for the outrageous expense to remove Mr. Moniz.

Cm. Hudson said he would respond when there was an attack in public. He said he wanted to know how Mr. Monroe knows what took place in a closed session.

Mayor Tatarka said excuse me Dave, please, and called on Pat Boom to speak.

Pat Boom said very rarely has a city had the opportunity where it is given 16 acres for a historical park. She said someone has to speak for Ruth Boone, who had given the City the property and she had known her fairly well. Of all the areas in this City a historical park should never be politicized. It is being used as a political football, shame on you. Ruth would be furious if she were alive. She continued to say knowing her as well as I do she would want to take her property back and she would not hesitate to let you know how she felt. She never really trusted politicians and you are proving her feelings correct. You, the City Council and the City Manager have cancelled advisory committee meetings for Forest Home Farms for the past three months. You are doing a disservice to this community, to the residents of this community, to the volunteers, to the docents and especially to Ruth’s legacy. The restoration of the David Glass house is delayed. The third and fourth grade education program for the site is being delayed. The improvements to the Boone house are being delayed and so on and so on.  She concluded by saying please leave politics out of Forest Home Farms and let it continue now.

Sam Lemon said right after the Council took office he had written them a letter that stated, based on his experience, it was bad news to allow this part of the agenda to degenerate into political attacks on City Council people who had no choice but to sit there and take it. He said either give them the opportunity to reply or shut down people who are going to distort this kind of a meeting. We are here to listen to what citizens have to say about the way this city is being managed. It is not a forum to indulge in personal attacks. He said he had advised the Council that what goes around comes around and he wouldn’t feel any differently if the attacks were directed at the Council. He thought it was a bad way to conduct the public comment part of the agenda and it should be shut down.

Greg Carr said he appreciated Ms. York’s concern for his physical and perhaps mental well being and that of his family. He said he had been at this for a long time and there was something he believed and would like to express to the audience. When a speaker speaks before the Council he felt it was incumbent to know where that speaker lives. Perhaps you do not have to tell them the exact address, but if people are truly after you they will find you. He said in listening to the previous speakers he marveled at the fact that something that are forefathers did truly does work. He did not believe that a speaker should be shut down. If they were angry and threatening then ok but if they want to express their view against a person, a politician, then he believed it was incumbent upon the Council to sit there and take it. Yes, Mr. Hudson should have been gaveled out and he appreciated that Mayor Tatarka had done that. Please lets keep this an open forum, something where people express many different views can come here just like Ms. Boom did and get it off their chest. You might call it a pressure relief valve. He said whatever you want to title it, lets keep this a place where that can happen. He said he was not going to fear terrorists, guys on planes, or guys in his town who don’t like him. He said he was not ever going to ever live that way and he hoped that no one else had that fear either.

* * * *

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

After amending the minutes Cm. Hudson made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2002 meeting as amended.

Cm. Cambra seconded the motion and it passed 5-0.

* * * *

CONSENT CALENDAR

Mayor Tatarka said there had been two requests to remove item 8.6, the agreement for a forensic audit.

Cm. Hudson asked that item 8.1, Register of Demands also be removed from the consent calendar.

Vice Mayor Wilson said on item 8.5, agreement for community and youth resource program counseling, he would like to request a quarterly report be submitted to the Council.

Cm. Cambra’s motion to approve the following Consent Calendar was seconded by Cm. Dickey and passed 5-0.

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-91
Authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with ALTRANS, Transportation Management Association, Inc., for the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Carpool to School Ridematching Program in the amount of $24,250

Set public hearing for Resolution No. 2002-93
Establishing fees and charges for various municipal services and repealing Resolution No. 2002-33

City of San Ramon Quarterly Investment Report
Period ending June 30, 2002

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-94
Authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Ricki Wagner For Community and Youth Resource Program counseling and assessment services in an amount not to exceed $34,560

* * * *

Teen Council Annual Report

Lisa Mueller, Parks and Community Services Commission Student Member 2002/03 introduced the Teen Council Annual Report, gave the charge and talked about the Council’s web site and some of their programs. She described the Teen Council’s fund raising activities and reviewed the upcoming events.

Ambert Ho, Parks and Community Services Commission Student Member 2001/02 told about the history of the Council and reviewed the Council makeup and goals. He talked about the need for a Teen Center and the Council’s research into a location for a permanent center. He urged a location for the Teens be included in the plans for the new City Center.

The Council thanked Ms. Mueller and Mr. Ho for all their work with the Teen Council and their very comprehensive annual report.

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka said there would be a 15 minute break.

All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened.

* * * *

APPEAL – BISHOP RANCH HELIPORT APPROVAL

The Senior Planner introduced an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Sunset Land Company’s Land Use Permit proposal to establish a heliport landing/take- off pad on the top of the existing south 3-story parking structure of the Bishop Ranch 3 office complex at 2641 Camino Ramon. He said the site was surrounded by Central Park and Community Center, the 11-acre City Center, the Pac Bell Office Complex and the Bishop Ranch 3 Office Complex. He discussed the previous heliport that existed in Bishop Ranch that began operations in 1989 and operated without incident and in compliance without conditions of approval for nine years to 1998 when the Bishop Ranch 3 project began construction. He talked about the previous application for a heliport that had been considered and approved by the Planning Commission last year and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant and re-filed for a heliport on the three story parking structure of Bishop Ranch 3.

History of the site and the history of the actions of the Planning Commission with respect to the subject application which came to the Planning Department on February 12 and was approved by the Planning Commission on June 18 subject to findings contained in Resolution No. 08-02. He reviewed the conditions added by the Planning Commission which included; six months review of the project operating status, a limitation of a maximum of two flights per day with a maximum of ten per week, a limitation on the weekday flight hours between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., specific items as listed in the Bishop Ranch operator rules and regulations become specific conditions of approval to ensure the operation was conducted in an appropriate manner. He said subsequent to the appeal filed on June 27, staff analyzed the 147 page appeal. He summarized some key issues that were identified in the staff report stating the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the heliport was done in accordance and does not conflict with State law, the California Environmental Quality Act, or any City applicable regulations. The Planning Commission felt the Air Quality, Noise Impacts, safety hazards and visual impacts were thoroughly studied and analyzed in the initial study communicated in the negative declaration and concluded that the proposal heliport would not have a significant impact on the environment. The Planning Commission decision to approve the heliport did include consideration of all written and oral testimony presented by the public, the School District, PG&E, and the Fire District in reaching a decision. He said the City Attorney concurs that the decision of the Planning Commission were without their discretion as empowered and are legally defensible. It was staff’s recommendation that the City Council allow the appellant and the applicant to make a presentation and answer any questions from by the Council, consider the issues raised by the appellant and the applicant in information in the staff report, including the attachment, take public testimony and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution.

Appellant, Melody Lundgren, gave a description of each issue in the appeal filed in opposition to the heliport. She said the new 2020 General Plan designates the entire area of Bishop Ranch 3, the new City Center site and all the property along the north side of Bollinger Canyon Road as mixed use. Mixed Use is defined as the integrated mix of non residential and residential uses to be divided equally. In addition Bishop Ranch 2 is designated as a Housing Opportunity site. The Zoning Ordinance states that no airport shall be allowed within 1,000 feet of residential area unless specifically intended for emergency use. Over half of Bishop Ranch 2 area is within this 1,000 foot limit and all of Bishop Ranch 2 would be directly under the flight path. There are no emission controls on any aircraft simply because the levels of emissions falls between the Federal Aviation Administration threshold for an airport one should not jump to the conclusion that the affects will be insignificant to those people enjoying the park, the Iron Horse Trail, or the City Center. According to the California Air Resources Board each flight event would distribute 13.4 pounds of pollutants over the area or 7,000 pounds per year for the 520 proposed flights. The California Air Resources Board informed them that for the entire time the helicopter is operating in this area it would be the same as operating 268 leaf blowers or 136 automobiles. You cannot numerically predict what is inherently unpredictable. Helicopters have an accident rate 10 times higher than commercial airliners. She reviewed and showed pictures in a power point presentation of composite profiles of helicopter mishaps. Upon receiving a complaint, the FFA said there are no restrictions on what airspace or how low a helicopter can fly, therefore even with all the promises there would be nothing that the residents could do if the pilots coming into the proposed heliport don’t abide by the rules. She said the residents did not want even one corporate flight in this location and believe it is an incompatible use for the parking garage. No other cities in the area have private use executive heliports. The most difficult issue regarding this proposal is that the applicants have attempted to ride on the coat tails of emergency use and described loss of community benefit and even threatened loss of life if this heliport is not approved. The reality is when there is a major emergency the EMS helicopters will land at the site of the emergency and this was born out with the last two instances in San Ramon. After the appeal was filed a letter was received by attorney’s for Sunset Development which that included the following issues, the appeal did not address legal issues – the report was absolutely right, they believe this is a quality of life issue. The mixed use designation allows significantly more uses then were allowed before, therefore compliance with the old zoning designation necessarily means the uses allowed under the new. Obviously they have not taken into consideration the residential element of the mixed use zoning designation that requires a 50-50 mix of residential and non residential . The report said no complaints were received regarding the original heliport and she was not at all surprised at that since the original heliport was used approximately 8 to 12 times a year and that is their own estimate given early on in this process and it was in an area more or less by itself with nothing surrounding it except for the last year and a half. Since the current request is for 520 flights per year and would be surrounded by many community facilities. The report states in any event the noise must continue for an hour before there is any risk of hearing damage. I didn’t realize that actual hearing damage was their criterion. Stating that no other location for a heliport is possible is not justification for having a heliport at this location. Bishop Ranch has had many years of development to plan for a more suitable location for this use. She said regarding indirect impact, the attorneys had misinterpreted their appeal, stating they were trying to refer to the future impact the heliport would have on the proposed City Center site. She concluded by saying Sunset Development and the residential community of San Ramon are neighbors and as neighbors each should be sensitive to the needs of the other. She said they had never objected to any project developed by Sunset and they appreciate the professional manner in which they run the business park. They are asking that Sunset understand that they believe in this one instance their request for this heliport in this location puts too much of a burden on the community for all of the reasons described in the appeal. She asked the Council to give the residents of San Ramon the gift of a downtown, free of the noise and impacts of this heliport.

Rena Waterson, appellant, talked about a petition, circulated in San Ramon signed by over 400 San Ramon residents stating they were against the approval of a Land Use Permit allowing Sunset Development to install on the top of the parking structure in Bishop Ranch 3. The petition was presented to the Planning Commission for review when they were discussing this issue.

Peter Oswald, Sunset Development Company, said the land for the proposed location of the heliport is in the new General Plan as mixed use, however the Zoning Ordinance still has it as administrative office. The Bishop Ranch 3 complex was finished two years ago and he doubted within the next 40 years there will be any housing on the particular complex. He said John Wagstaff, Wagstaff and Associates would address the emissions issue. The bottom line is no matter how you measure it, they were still under the threshold of any government, whether it is State, Federal or Local. Regarding noise, there is a charge that we did not look at single events, which we did in the noise study. Al Rosen who conducted that noise study from the firm of Salter and Associates who can answer your questions regarding measurements. In terms of compatibility, the City Center, there is some impact at that corner, the northwest corner just as there is some on our Bishop Ranch 3 building which is close. In the design of the City Center what you have outlined you are going to be building there is going to take a lot of supplies that come in, materials, lumber for sets for the performing arts theatre, books, food supplies and with all of that activity you are going to have to be able to get rid of trash and waste products. In the last City Center plan that particular ingress and egress was the point where there was a loading dock and that was where all of the trash and supplies and everything came in. I don’t think you are going to plan for that activity to be put along Bollinger Canyon Road, the front door of the City Center nor near the Iron Horse Trail. While I don’t know what you are going to do, I suspect because we have been in the development business for a long time and you are going to have to plan for that, that that is where that will occur. It was mentioned that there are no other private use heliports in the Bay Area. I queried Mr. Brian Beatty, because he in the business, there are some 27 heliports in the Bay Region, four of those are government and there are a number of private ones and there are two that involved with office centers. In terms of emergency use, we have had PG&E, the hospital, the fire department, Cal Star all testify at the Planning Commission in this regard and there are some representatives from PG&E, the hospital and Cal Star that can speak to that. The whole business of the ambulance going up, the parking garages are limited to vehicles of seven feet, however the elevators are deliberately by code made large to accept gurneys and so transport to the top whether you are going up or down would almost exclusively be by these elevators. The only time it would be a problem is if there was a power outage. Now if there is a power outage that is going to last for more than a couple of hours, Sunset would employ emergency generators just like it would do on any other office building. I will not speak to the right to impartial hearings. I don’t view that for the purview of Sunset and ask you to query your attorney Tom Curry regarding that issue. The appellants, although not in their appeal, stated here, and I would like to set the record straight that they have never objected to anything Sunset has done. Sunset was a subject of a suit by the Vista San Ramon Homeowners Association on our Bishop Ranch 15 project. One final point and then I would like Mr. Dan Curtin to come up here. It was stated in the appeal that we had no companies or corporations within Bishop Ranch there were supporting this heliport and I would like to submit for the record some letters of support from Chevron/Texaco, which is a large tenant in Bishop Ranch and New York Life, a smaller tenant. And then a tenant Nextel which had a specific emergency use of which a helicopter was brought in. I would like the Council to get these letters. With that I would like Mr. Dan Curtin to come up and address the issues of compliance with CEQA, zoning and the General Plan.

Dan Curtin, Bingham and McCutchen Law Firm, Walnut Creek, you have before as mentioned by the appellant, our 10 page letter which starts on page B1 of your agenda staff report. Obviously that letter with attachments by the consultant is in favor of Sunset. It answers the various issues raised by the appellant, however I think the most important thing is the answer to the appeal made by your impartial planning staff. There spelled out in great detail in the staff report, one by one by one. That is an impartial analysis by the Planning Department and as you in the staff report on page three and again on page eight and elsewhere those responses, prepared by your own City staff, are supported fully by the City Attorney after his impartial analysis. So rather than going through my 10 page letter which obviously is an advocacy piece you ought to go through one by one the staff analysis answers. This is not really a legal issue before you it is a policy issue. Whether this City Council wants to grant a Land Use Permit for a heliport. We believe, and strongly believe and supported by the staff and your esteemed City Attorney that the City has crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s and now it up to the five of you after listing to everybody having the complete record in front of you to make your decision. When the appeal was filed, the appellants did a great service because they made all of us, the staff, the City Attorney, Sunset, our office and our consultants "relook" at everything to make sure that the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed, to make sure the initial study, the mitigated negative dec was done correctly so that this matter be before you legally. In my 44 years of land use practice I always hate to see good policy decisions go down to defeat because of some illegal procedure. I don’t think that is before you tonight. I sincerely believe that the City staff has complied with all aspects of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the California Environmental Quality Act and the matter is legally before you to make a policy decision. Just a few remarks and then I will turn it over to the consultant. There was this issue of consistency with the land use raised by the appellant. I think that is very adequately discussed in pages three and four of the City staff report. They are your experts and they say there is no such inconsistency. As to the noise issues that is discussed by the staff report and will be discussed more by Mr. Rosen. As to whether or not there was a fair and impartial hearing before the Planning Commission, that has been answered by your own City Attorney that there was not. I am somewhat pleased that somebody took time to ready my 1981 paper. However the laws do change and are updated and so forth. But the matter is now in front of the City Council and not in front of the Planning Commission. Again, we believe that no recirculation is required. This matter is properly before you. There is no inconsistency with the General Plan or Zoning and that has all been determined by your independent staff. We fully concur. I learned a long time ago that never to disagree with the legal advice of the City Attorney at a public hearing and thereby strongly support his legal opinions as this matter is before you. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them.

Alan Rosen, acoustical consultant with Charles Salter Associates in San Francisco,: We prepared the noise analysis for the proposed heliport. What I can do is briefly go over the analysis and findings and maybe respond to some of the comments from the appellant that came up later in the process. But basically we performed our analysis through a test flight where we measured the noise of the helicopter. Along with that we made measurement of existing noise levels in the community. The applicable standards that we compared to were both the City of San Ramon Noise Element and then County separate land use plan which has some guidelines. The noise levels are evaluated in terms of the daily average noise level and the way that the noise level impact is determined by comparing the noise on an average basis from that heliport with what is out there now, the existing noise levels. That is the County’s approach in determining the impact and what we found basically is that due to low number of flights on an average basis the noise level is fairly low. So you compare the noise from the heliport with the existing daily noise, traffic, existing aircraft, whatever is out there, is that the increase is about zero to one decibels, very insignificant in terms of noise impacts. Therefore we made the finding that there was no significant impact based on the applicable standards. There was mentioned there was no single event addressed in the analysis. We did look at single event noise. There is no governmental agency that have any standards that specifically identify single event noise levels in their thresholds for impacts. But just to help the City and the decision makers to understand how loud things were when we talked about single event noise and we found that for example in certain areas at night if there were helicopter fly overs there is the potential for some sleep disturbance for a small percentage of the population. Similarly we talked about speech interference potential. So we did address single event noise but no impacts findings were based on that because there are no adopted standards. Another issue came up about hearing damage. There is a little, some misinformation regarding that. Our finding was that the levels that the helicopter would generate in terms of potential hearing damage because that is what I understood the concern to be, it going to be really loud and potentially damage people. The levels that would be present close to the heliport would need to be there eight hours minimum continuous to even have the potential for hearing damage. When we are talking about 20 minutes, 40 minutes or an hours these levels that are present from that are well below those that would have the potential to cause hearing damage. With that I will conclude my comments and answer your questions.

Vice Mayor Wilson asked if the helicopters that were used to evaluate noise levels were two-seaters or four-seaters, were they the helicopters that you were proposing to use.

Mr. Rosen said we evaluated the A Star 350 for the business operations and it was the larger, I think it was the Bell, that we evaluated for the emergency flights.

Cm. Cambra said his question was in regard to actual test flights itself, which I believe was done on the north parking structure. And the results in your appendix B where it says Iron Horse Middle School, was that conducted at the building or on the field at Iron Horse Middle School. It doesn’t really give a determination there.

Mr. Rosen said the measurements were conducted outside the building I believe. There were actually two locations at Iron Horse Middle School. We measured at the north property line which is near the play fields I believe. And also in a second floor classroom. So there were two locations where we measured.

Cm. Cambra said the Appendix B gives a statement on trying to equate impacts, decibel impacts. Is it fair to assume that if the heliport on the north side is relative to the Iron Horse Middle School and the heliport that goes on the south side relative to baseball diamond that the impact would be relatively the same provided the distances were the same.

Mr. Rosen: That is correct.

Cm. Cambra: And if the distance were more the impact would be less than if the distance were shorter and I think you said by a factor of two it would increase the decibel rate by approximately six decibels, is that correct.

Mr. Rosen: That is correct.

Cm. Hudson: For clarification of what you said, I think I heard it the opposite of where you are going with that. If the distance were doubled the decibel rate would increase

John Wagstaff, Wagstaff and Associates, address the emissions issue, it would decrease.

Mr. Rosen: I may have misspoke. If the distance is greater the sound will decrease.

John Wagstaff, Wagstaff and Associates, we are a firm of urban and environmental planners,: Our office is in Berkeley, 2512 9^th Street in Berkeley. We have been providing urban and environmental documentation services to cities and counties throughout the state since 1979. In the northern California area, particularly in the Bay region, over the last 15 we prepared some 20 large scope EIRs and Mitigated Declarations for communities throughout the region including San Ramon, as well as communities of Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Orinda and communities in the county, other communities in the Bay Area, Palo Alto, Berkeley and so on. At the request of Sunset we were asked to look specifically at the air quality component of the appeal on the Mitigated Neg Dec. So I will be essentially supplementing Mr. Curtin’s comments and staff’s comments about that. To give our opinion in that regard. To do that we in turn retained another consultant, Don Ballotti, who is a air quality management consultant and certified meteorologist. We brought in Don because he has specifically prepared a number of air quality analyses in the county in again, including San Ramon and he also prepared a number of air quality components for the airport planning efforts, specifically the Visalia Municipal Airport Master Plan which is going on now, the north Las Vegas airport runway extension project, the Newark International Airport extension project and the Burbank International Airport Master Plan. So we wanted to bring that experience to bear on the issue of your emissions question. I hope this isn’t overkill and I will try to keep this brief. As you have been hearing there are no Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards with respect to helicopters. And there is a reason for this. The reason is for natural emissions, the source of natural emissions perhaps 2% of the source of total natural emissions of carbon dioxide come from aviation activity, military and civilian combined. A very small portion of that 2%, I would say a minute portion, comes from military and civilian helicopters. It is for that reason that the Bay Area Quality Management District hasn’t gotten around to regulating helicopters – there isn’t a high level of concern relative to automobiles in particular. So the standard that does apply, the standards that we applied in our office is that applied in his analysis which is documented in a August 2 report that is in your packet are the FFA standards. FFA does have emission standards for helicopters and they happen to be really similar, almost they are identical as a matter of fact in standard to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards for stationary sources. And that standard is 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide that is the emissions part that folks have about. 550 pounds sounds like to a lay person like a really high number, and it is a high number. But the reason why it is so high is CO carbon dioxide is the principal component of air emissions and the country and the Bay Area both from natural sources and man made sources and by far the vast amount of that comes from automobile emissions. So in terms of the differences between what the appellant came up with and what we came up with- the appellant used the same model that we did but using that model they came up with, they have been telling you, I think it is roughly around 30 pounds per day of CO and that translates into 7,000 to 10,000 pounds per year of CO. Don computation using the same model came up with about a pound a day of carbon monoxide which translates into about 300 pounds per year. So with that difference between figures that we are coming up with What explains the difference. Well we believe the explanation of the difference is that the helicopter, I don’t want to bore you too much, but the helicopter that , the default helicopter if you will, that was used in the appellants’ computations is this Robinson 22 that you have been hearing about. That is a two-seater gasoline powered piston engine helicopter. It is an extraordinarily dirty helicopter. If you really wanted to with the helicopter models that they were given from the agencies they contacted it tends to really maximize the results. In ours we used the default helicopter that is particularly used the by California Air Quality Resources Board and that is called an IH1, it is the type of helicopter a default helicopter,. Is a true helicopter, two-seater, aviation fuel and it has much more sophisticated electronic ignition systems and it is much cleaner and it also happens to be much more typical of what is truly now used in the private sector and is indicative of the kind of helicopters that I have seen attached opined in the use permit. So I think that accounts largely for the staff difference. We say a pound a day, 300 pounds a year and they are saying 30 pounds a day, almost up to 10,000 pounds a year. I do know that the bottom line is, set aside our recommendation and accept theirs, accept the 30 pounds a day which we think is distorted substantially and the 7,000 to 10,000 pounds per year, you are still way under the 550 pounds per day threshold. The threshold of the FFA for helicopters and the significant threshold for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for stationary emissions. So the impact is well under, it is safely under the CEQA or State threshold for significant air quality impacts. I would like to mention one more thing. The Commission asked for comparisons between helicopter and leaf blowers and automobiles and we want to point out that that is really not a valid comparison because it is an apples and oranges situation. Automobiles are very high emitters of carbon dioxide. They emit those pollutants at ground level where people breathe. Helicopters emit their emissions from 0 to about 3000 feet, sometimes 5,000 feet. 3,000 feet is the feeling of the air shed and the helicopter penetrates that usually because they fly about 5,000 feet. So that explains I think of why that comparison is really not a valid comparison. Again though if you accept the comparison and even if the comparison if 10 flights per day, that was brought today you are still well under the 550 pound threshold. So in summary, the air quality component of the mitigating neg dec in our opinion is valid and is not challengeable.

Mayor Tatarka: Questions?

Cm. Cambra: I have one real quick. I just want to make sure I have got it straight because a couple of times you went back and forth between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

Mr. Wagstaff: I beg your pardon it is carbon monoxide.

Cm. Cambra: And carbon monoxide is a pollutant and if I remember correctly in Chem 1A, it readily combines with oxygen, so in essence it is sort of a robber of oxygen in the local area that it is being emitted. Is that correct.

Mr. Wagstaff: Right. You can also use the principle that of all the criteria pollutants, it is by far the principal contributor.

Cm. Cambra: And any emissions from a helicopter would have an added effect to the emissions that in the area already, by auto or leaf blowers or what ever. It would be over and above that. Is that correct.

Mr. Wagstaff: Yes

Cm. Cambra: and you had said that this is also under the threshold, is that a legal threshold or is that a I am not sure what the threshold is.

Mr. Wagstaff: CEQA is a state law so we look for state criteria to apply. The source for state criteria for air quality is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. They have guidelines for preparing their own documents. They do not as I mentioned for the reasons that I gave you have not bothered with helicopters. So as a result we look for other significant criteria that is reasonable and will hold up. We looked at the criteria in the modeling, the same one the appellant looked at the FFA based EMM MF model. The same model and the FFA criteria for helicopters happens to be the pounds per day the same as the Bay Area Air Quality District criteria for stationary sources. And we are still far under those criteria we believe we have found basis for a conclusion the impact is not significant.

Cm. Cambra: If you are under the threshold does that mean there are no adverse health effects and if you are over the threshold, is that the establishment of that threshold

Mr. Wagstaff: The threshold is based on health effects.

Cm. Cambra: So there are none under the threshold.

Mr. Wagstaff: I wouldn’t say that, no – there are no significant health effects.

Brian Beatty: President of Harris Helicopters, we are a helicopter based at San Jose International Airport. We currently operate a fleet of seven helicopters. We operate that fleet in excess of about 3,500 hours per year. I have been involved with Harris Helicopters for 2-1/2 years and Harris has been in existence since 1972. In that time we have never had an engine failure on a helicopter the resulted in a crash or an injury or an accident. I think that is a fairly important statistic when we start talking about crashes. But the event of an engine failure is very rare event and even when it does happen it doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to crash and have fatalities. So I would like to start there. Three or four things that I think are really important to bring to light is this is a private use heliport. You can only land there with prior permission which will be granted by Sunset Development. In order to get our permission you have to agree to all of their conditions which you have listed in here. Of those conditions the approach and departure path are part of those conditions. So the inadvertent flights over the neighborhoods or over the park should not occur simply because everybody will be told that those are sensitive areas and as helicopter operators we want to be good neighbors and not impact the neighborhood so we want to have heliports so the best way to keep them is to act in a neighborly fashion so everyone will comply with the regulations because they want to continue to use the heliport. They will know that Sunset will not allow people to operate if they will not operate in compliance with their rules and regulations. Due to the approach and departure paths that are outlined in the drawings, those do preclude flights over the park and the power lines themselves pretty much preclude flights over parks because they would be in the direct landing or departure path so nobody would be coming or going from that direction. And if they did come or go from that direction they would have to be so high over the park to clear the power lines they would have to do a U turn and it would take them practically to I-680 before they could get back to the helipad. Again engine failures are extremely rare and as I have discussed in Harris’ history and when you look at the critical moment in an engine failure that would result in a helicopter either having to return to the pad or going to an alternate landing spot, that is a very minimal amount of time. It is estimated at 20 minutes per turn and the amount of time you would actually in a critical position for an engine failure would be less than 30 seconds. And again we have operated in excess of 3,500 hours the last three years and have not had an incident or accident or even a failure. I think that pretty much sums up my comments. If you have any questions or would like me to speak directly to any accidents or anything of that nature I would be happy to.

Cm. Dickey: Could I get a clarification on the flight. When we speak about a flight operation that is one flight incoming and one flight outgoing, right.

Mr. Beatty: That is correct.

Cm. Dickey: So there is the potential of not just two flights a day, we are looking at four flights, literally. In and out and in and out.

Peter Oswald: The FFA definition of an operation is a landing and/or takeoff.

Cm. Dickey: Obviously you are going to land then leave. That is the whole purpose of this. So we are literally looking at In the roundtrip issue you are going to come in and you are going to leave. So by definition it one thing and in actuality you are literally coming in with a flight and leaving with a flight. If you were going to come at another time during the day come in and leave so we are not looking at two flights, you are literally looking at four flights. I don’t care what the definition is, we are looking at four separate flights in and out.

Mr. Beatty: That is correct. You would have two approaches and two departures and the approach would terminate at the heliport and then the departure would leave from there very shortly thereafter because there we are not supposed to park there for extended periods of time.

Cm. Dickey: I do have a second question if I may. You are guaranteeing that no one, you are hoping that no one will deviate from the flight path.

Mr. Beatty: We are hoping that

Cm. Dickey: Who monitors that in case they do.

Mr. Beatty: Bishop Ranch monitors that.

Cm. Dickey: There is no other monitoring force.

Mr. Beatty: No

Peter Oswald: Sunset Land Company which is an affiliate of Sunset Development Company, One Annabel Lane. Just to conclude I did find my sheet on heliports in the Bay Area. There are 27, 12 are hospitals, 4 are government. There are some private ones, the San Rafael private heliport, the Commodore Center in Sausalito, the Oakland Convention Center heliport, Canyon Creek heliport in Morgan Hill and then there are two at office complexes, McCanlif Towers Airport in Santa Clara and the First Interstate Operation Center heliport in Fremont. To conclude this heliport is important Bishop Ranch and to Sunset. We operated a previous heliport for about nine years without incident, without a single complaint. I might also say that I provided you letters. We do have support from some of the corporations including one of the largest corporations in the world, which is now in San Ramon. I want to reiterate that it is very important to use as shown in Alex’s letter to each of you and just as an aside and we didn’t do this deliberately, it just happened, we needed to bring a helicopter into Bishop Ranch in June, late June, we had some financial people coming from New York. That helicopter was flown into Bishop Ranch and there was not a single complaint nor I don’t think anybody ever was aware of it. In conclusion we would ask you to uphold the unanimous approval of the Planning Commission and to deny the appeal.

Cm. Dickey: Mr. Oswald could I just ask if this is a true comment from a letter that you sent on August 13 and I think it was included with the negative declaration and it states "A location on the roof the BR 3 south garage is a possibility but there are some draw backs. Some portion but less than BR1 of the approach departure path would be over Inverness Park homeowners. Another factor is the future of the City Center. Adjacent land use from the City Center site is unknown at this point. We don’t know the placement or height of the buildings that will be at the City Center, therefore it is difficult to ascertain by BR 3 south parking structure heliport on City Center. BR3 and north parking garage is the superior site. I guess if the superior site is unacceptable then this site is even less acceptable.

Mr. Oswald: No when I wrote that we had done a thorough analysis of any alternative sites. At that time we were proposing the north parking garage at BR3. When it was subsequently appealed, and it was appealed on the primary basis of the proximity to the school and at time we met with the City and we met with the appellant also at that time regarding the school. The City asked us to relocate it. At that time, Sunset decided to take a closer at the south parking garage. When I wrote that my concern was when you relocate a heliport you are not simply just relocating the landing area, the circle, but you are also relocating those two approach/departure pads which are 4,000 feet long and it was always our objective to try and put those over just the Business Park and not to impact any residential areas. And quite frankly we are able to shoe horn it in to the south parking garage site. I think that the north site, is a good site with the exception of the school. And at that time we withdrew it because of the school issue. So this would be our next choice. In terms of City Center addition there is a small diagram on the plan. That approach/departure path is just not a wide swath at ground level, basically is a U or V shaped approach and when you see that marking that goes over on to the City Center that is high end of the top of the V or the top of the U and you would have to have a building 139 feet tall in order to infringe into that approach/departure path out of City Center site in that corner. Now a 139 feet building is nine stories. So it be our estimate that we don’t foresee a nine story building in City Center. If you do I don’t think it would be in that particular corner. It probably would be a signature building at the corner of Bollinger and Camino Ramon. And again we ask you to deny the appeal.

Melody Lundgren: I think we are always concerned about the term significant. Significant to whom. I think of the people who are going to using the areas around the heliport would find that the single event noise of the helicopter landing and taking off to definitely be. There was a comment about Bishop Ranch 3 being a new building. We are not concerned about BR3 what we addressed was Bishop Ranch 2. There have been considerable discussions that BR2 was going to be redone in the not too distant future. BR2 is the one that is not only zoned in the mixed use in the General Plan but is also designated a housing opportunity site. To abide by the General Plan if this is designed in accordance with that you would have an airport within 1,000 feet of a residential area and you would have a flight path directly over that. So it is BR 2 not BR3 that we were addressing. Mr. Oswald said that when we first jumped around first 10,000 pounds and then we had 7,000. The first number of 10,000 pounds because originally the resolution was going to be for three flights or 780 flights a year. That is 10,000 pounds. They changed it after the Planning Commission meeting to drop it to an average of two flights a day, so we dropped the pounds per year down to 7,000 pounds. All of the heliports that were depicted in the pictures that we showed up there where they had the accidents were all performing to code, so in spite of the fact that parapet might be right and the little fence around might be ok, accidents still happen even if these things are done appropriately. One of the reasons that the staff report said that there was no conflict with the zoning or with the General Plan was because when they did the staff report and the negative dec, they stated that it was in conformance because all of the area was zoned OA. That is no longer true. So that was a mistake. I have here a copy of the sheet of the noise study that was done. There was no single event noise listed for the new City Center site, for Iron Horse Trail, nor for the southwest portion of Central Park. If anybody needs to see it we can make copies. We believe that the expedience of saying that only addressed on an average level is just not realistic for the people that are going to be impacted by it. Further, the nearest sound measurement that they took from the original study that was done by Iron Horse School, at that parking garage, the nearest monitor they had was at Bishop Ranch which is 350 feet away. The current heliport site is within 150 feet of the new City Center. So if their single event level was 83 to 95 decibels we can be certain that at 150 feet it is going to be noisier than that and one of the documents we submitted to Council estimated the helicopter as high as 105 decibels. I am pleased that the gentleman has not had any problems with his helicopter company but I think we have to look and know that this is a limited experience. I just recently received a report from Aviation Today and it is talking about the insurance on helicopters and it describes a lot about how insurance rates for helicopters have gone for many years now they are starting to climb. And it says in this report however rates are climbing and three factors are fueling this trend. The first is that an alarming number of accidents occurred in the past year and helicopter operators have more filed claims and more premium dollars were paid as losses. So I think anybody saying that we can just negate and just ignore the possibility of accidents is not realistic. And especially when you consider that any accident in this area is going to impact children. This is not a business park within a business park. This is not an open field or pasture. This is next to a city park, the Iron Horse Trail and a City Center that is going to encourage children to come to a museum and a library. Again the information about emissions, all I can say is that we don’t have attorneys, we don’t have consultants, so we have to work very , very closely with the California Air and the Resources Board and with people at the FAA. These are people who gave us these numbers, they represented them as true numbers. They came from particular engines. They may be below a threshold but I think it not fair to say that they won’t have any impact on the children or on the people who are out there using those facilities. And as far as a complaint on one helicopter, I think we have to be realistic and know that we have helicopters flying around this area a lot. What we are saying is yes, a flight event is 520, we will have 520 flight events. We will have 1,040 operations and I think the whole point is we do not need another 1,040 flight operations in the middle of San Ramon.

Rena Waterson: And briefly I just wanted to comment on Mr. Oswald’s comment regarding a lawsuit from Vista San Ramon. It is just a coincidence that Melody and I both live in Vista San Ramon. This is not a fight between Sunset and Vista San Ramon. This is a community effort. We are trying to represent the community of San Ramon and it is just a coincidence that we happen to live in Vista San Ramon.

Mayor Tatarka: Are there any questions of Melody Lundgren and Rena Waterson from the Council. It is approaching 10:30 p.m. and I think it is the policy of this Council for us to continue, correct, past 10:30 p.m. or was it 11:00 p.m.

Cm. Dickey: we have to make a motion when we choose to continue and I think it would be advisable to do that.

Mayor Tatarka: Absolutely

Cm. Dickey: I move that we continue.

Cm. Hudson: I would disagree. I think that what you have is a good time to stop and reflect a minute and let people come back on this. We did this once before and it was 1:00 a.m. when we were trying to make the decision. And nobody made one iota’s worth of sense. I am certain that Melody Lundgren is not going to go away. If we could get back in here. How many cards do you have to listen. You are going to have to make decision on discussion afterwards. Do you really want to do this at 1:00 a.m. and break our own policy.

Cm. Dickey: That is not breaking our policy. That is a policy that we set up so that we could continue. It is just a review to see if we do want to continue. It is not a breaking of policy.

Mayor Tatarka: ok I want it to come from the Council so is there a consensus on moving forward.

Cm. Cambra: well I seconded the motion so I guess I am in favor of it.

Mayor Tatarka: ok all those in favor of moving forward say aye.

The motion passed 4-1 (Cm. Hudson dissenting).

Mayor Tatarka: ok we are moving on. ok I am now going to open up the public comment period. I have several speaker cards on this issue as Mr. Hudson has reiterated. And I am requesting that each of you please keep your comments to three or four minutes if you possibly could to allow for each of these people to speak. We also have several emails that have been received. I am not sure exactly how many but it looks to me over 40 or 50 and I would like the opportunity for those specifically to not be read by the City Clerk into the record although many have been said they want to be read and so I would like to put those in the record.

Cm. Cambra: I would like to request this again if you have a public comment and you want to speak to this and it is something that has been said before please say that you agree with the previous speaker and maybe try to keep your comments to a minute or two. We don’t want to take your right away to speak but I think maybe it could be done in a minute or two.

Cm. Dickey: If you are not reading the letters in entirety could we at least acknowledge the people who have taken the time to write the address and whether they are for or against please.

Mayor Tatarka: I am having Mr. Wilson do that. Ok I would like to begin. First of all the people who do not wish to talk.

Mayor Tatarka said that speaker cards had been received from Phil Otis, Ann Otis, Debbie Bluestein, David Bluestein, Cherie Bell, and Jim Bell, stating that they did not wish to speak but were against the heliport.

Mayor Tatarka also read the following speaker cards from Robert and Barbara Gear, stating they were against the heliport with concerns of safety – close to children’s museum, power lines, sports fields and Judi and Ken Mordoff stating "we are against a business heliport. In favor of a heliport for emergency services only.

Elizabeth Monroe: I didn’t come planning to speak on this but after listening to the comments I decided I needed to. The first comment – people sort of glossed over the old airport and said we didn’t have many flights, it didn’t impact. But let me tell you, I was around and there may be a few people here, who were around when we fought that helicopter bitterly. I live in Vista San Ramon and it was right across the street on the north end of neighborhood and we fought it and we were shut down and they had their heliport and we lived with it for eight or nine years. And every time it was used we knew it. And if anyone was told to approach from the north or the south, they didn’t do it. The helicopter pilots wouldn’t do it. The wind here goes from east to west or west to east. I think it is from west to east. I should know. But anyhow, helicopters tend to want to land facing the wind is what I have told. So the idea with our lovely wind, gusting 20 –25 miles an hour very frequently, no helicopter pilot in their right mind is going to approach from the north or the south. So. almost every flight that comes in and out of that old heliport, and in fact almost every flight that goes in and out of the park for all those wonderful demonstration things that we have and yes going in and out of Bishop Ranch, you can not hide a helicopter from our neighborhood. We hear it. They wake us up. They wake up our children in the middle of the day. They get our dogs barking. The birds in the neighborhood go nuts. It impacts our neighborhood. Now grant you there are only 162 homes, maybe 500 people. We don’t have phalanxes of lawyers and specialists and the money to pay them. But we live here unlike those guys. We have to live with this all the time. The next point I wanted to make was how many people here remember when they were the helicopter…the helicopter yes, the hospital. And one of the things that they proposed was to put in a heliport there because they wanted to have a trauma center. Well a lot of us really liked the idea of the hospital. The hospital is a great asset to any community. And they are actually a very good neighbor. They live the end of the north kind of east side of our neighborhood. And they are a very good neighbor. They really are. We were worried about the sirens and all and yes we do have impact with sirens, but overall they have been wonderful neighbors. They wanted to put in this heliport and so we had a big hearing over at the old "emergi" center and right in the middle of the hearing an empty helicopter landed like outside in the parking lot over there. The whole meeting had to stop. We couldn’t hear each other. The building vibrated and the people who were for it just stood there and said ah, no we can’t have this the impact, and this is an emergency helipad coming in at the hospital and they said no, we can’t have this it impacts too many people around.

Mayor Tatarka: Could you please wrap up.

Ms. Monore: Ok – helicopters fly where they want to. Complaining, we didn’t know we should complain to Bishop Ranch, we thought we were supposed to complain to the FAA. We would call Livermore Airport. Livermore Airport would say, you got to get the tail number as well. Like we are going to get those. So we didn’t know. That is why there were no complaints. Finally a helicopter landing helipads in the middle of our park with concerts and children and library and all kinds … Can you imagine this building rattling throughout the day. No. It is not consistent with the planned use of that land. Thank you…

Greg Boyle: I am very new to this process so forgive me. But a, I would just ask the City Council and Mayor to protect from the large powerful corporations. My house is just on the other side of the freeway on the north access route, or proposed access route and one thing when I look at that, is the helicopter is not to disappear right there, it is going to continue on its path and it is going to loud. And we just don’t want to have to put up with that. I appreciate your support. One other comment. And I am not that quick on the update but was the gentleman from Sunset threatening the City to make the City store its garbage on Bollinger Canyon Road if we don’t approve this. I didn’t catch that but is that what his intention was.

Mayor Tatarka: Just direct your comments to the subject sir. There will be clarification for us.

Greg Carr: Sometimes you just have to go by gut level and this one takes back a long way. I want to just very quickly illustrate how I feel about this. I have a brother who is three years younger than me and on April 4, 1971 he was in his first of second of two tours in Vietnam in UH1Hs, 135^th…….. A guy named Michael John Harvey, a young kid, wanted to take his flight because they were going to do a search in south of

He said sure to ahead. As they came in about 1000 feet the rotor head on my brother’s UHIH which was a very new model, parted company from the shaft and it spun out of control and Brian of Harris should know and probably does, it strewed filters all over the rice paddies, it crushed three of the crew in the cockpit. And my brother came in on a CH47, just to take that thing and to sling it out, but they couldn’t find Harvey. As they slung it out and it rose from the rice paddy, Harvey peeled off the underside. So every time I go to Washington, D.C. I find Harvey’s name and put my hand on it and I say thanks Harvey. Ok, that is kind of the emotional side of me, but I don’t want that to happen to a kid. And Peter, this is not about business. Just like Mr. Curtin said it is not a land use issue, it is a policy issue. And Brian, failure of an engine doesn’t always necessarily mean you will have an accident. As was very succinctly pointed out in that diagram if there was a failure going off the top of that thing it might land on some kid, and maybe even you Peter walking around the Civic Center. It is an illustration of how I feel about this. I don’t think we need this here. Thank you.

Joseph Cook: My name is Joseph Cook and I am the president of………. For the past 15 I have been the president and CEO of Shock Trauma Air Rescue, known as Calstar. We are a non profit, public benefit corporation. We have been providing helicopter ambulance, in the Bay Area specifically to San Ramon, since 1984. In that time we have transported over 20,000 patients. We have responded to over 30,000 requests. We have spent over 25,000 hours providing service to the northern California community. We have done that without accident or incident. I here, one, as president of Calstar to express our support a helipad. We see it as a valuable resource to the community. We would use it for training, to assist us in law enforcement, the police department, the fire department in how to use this resource. It would also provide us with a resource, that in the event there were no other units available we could go to some place and rendezvous with a ground ambulance for transportation. But it is true, we would be able to land and are brought in frequently to the scene. We train people to do that. One of the reasons that I am speaking here is for the past 15 years I have watched our ability to pick up patients at hospitals and deliver patients to hospitals diminish as a company and it is really frustrating to me. Because every minute that it takes us to pick up that patient results in a poor outcome for that patient. If we have to pick up the patient instead of at the hospital, at some remote site, that patient isn’t going to have as positive of an outcome. EMS sites are available, but there really aren’t good sites available here. I would also like us to consider that, we are talking about a concern for children, we transport kids everyday. One of the major transport areas is transporting to pediatric intensive care units. This area is becoming highly congested and as the area grows and more and more into this area and the infrastructure gets worse and worse every year. Our ability to deliver patients by ground to Children’s Hospital in Oakland is becoming very, very limited. Our ability now to pick up patients at hospitals to take them to the PIC unit at Children’s is limited.

Mayor Tatarka: sir, your time is up.

Mr. Cook: Again I would like to state our support of the helipad. Thank you.

Robert and Betsy Syms: Hi we are Robert and Betsy Syms. I am a new resident in San Ramon and I have been very concerned about the helicopter flights that now wake us up. I have heard them at 6:10 a.m., 6:08 this morning. They are not 7:30 a.m., they are very early. They are waking us up, our dog. So the entire house vibrates, our windows shake, our dogs wake up and bark. They are very agitated as we are as well. As a new resident of San Ramon I am also concerned about our property values. We just paid $500,000 for our house. We want to make sure 10 years on down the line, we can recoup that back and then some. We do not San Ramon to become another Los Angeles where helicopters hover in flight, which is commonplace. I don’t oppose helicopter flights for emergencies. Where a flight means somebody’s life or their death. This issue is not about life and death. It merely about convenience of a few at the expense of many. Thank you.

Robert Syms: I want to add a little. I was listening to Allen speak. We are in the flight path, and you can see where I point at that. We are right at the end of that. And like the other fellow mentioned, it doesn’t stop there. They curve down 680 and it on both sides. And the sound measurements, and that is very vague, it is so vague. I do a lot of measurements in the field and to say well it is averaged over a day. I can average a water fall but it cuts off in five minutes, averaged over a day it is only like a couple drops a minute. That is nothing. I want to see the sound measurements at my residence. I want to see every house that is affected to have sound measurements. The impact when the helicopter comes overhead, is when I want to know what the sound measurement is. Speaking of sound measurement, he measured it from a school, he said the background noise, it was just slightly over background, anybody to go to a high school and listen to the background at the high school. That’s the background. It is extremely high noise level. Frequency range, it is probably just the audible frequency range, talking maybe 20 hertz up to 15 kilohertz. Most helicopters have an extremely high pressure, low frequency noise, that is what vibrates your window. You hear the window shake. That is not mentioned in the report I am sure. It doesn’t show the low pressure. That is basically it on the noise measurements. I think you guys need to look into the noise measurements that he is doing a little bit better. Maybe have a specialist look at it. I think it is very vague.

Ms. Syms: We strongly oppose the heliport.

Amelie Gannon, PG&E, Manager of Corporate Emergency Planning,: I am here just to clarify for your purposes, our interest and support of the heliport is because we have an emergency operations center located at 3301 Crow Canyon Road. It is our intention in the worst case scenario, which is probably a seismic event in the Bat Area, to relocate emergency management personnel from San Francisco to San Ramon. And the most expeditious means of doing that, in our opinion, is to do that by helicopter. And we have been supportive of a helicopter location here in San Ramon to that end for the past 10 years. Our position has not been divided or unclear in any fashion. We do believe that the seismic issue that was addressed earlier has been evaluated by the Planning Commission and feel comfortable that the location that has been proposed is adequate. We in emergency planning are committed to provide gas and electric service to two-thirds of the State of California and given this large scale disaster it would be very important for us to provide that service, that management level oversight as quickly as we possibly can to restore that service. And it is emergency services as well that would be dependent on gas and electric restoration. Thank you.

Michelle Cowles: I would like to thank Melody and Rena for the countless hours of dedication to ensure the quality of life for San Ramon residents. These two women are just average residents who felt the need to speak out against a project they believe would be a detriment to the citizens of San Ramon. If it weren’t for them this heliport would have been a done deal. They have jumped in to this with both feet and know more about emission, safety and noise than any of us including members of the Planning Commission and I thank you. I attended the Planning Commission meeting when this was passed unanimously and I was shocked at the way two well prepared concerned citizens attempted to voice their objection to this project, were treated. Clearly the commissioners had made their decision before the public hearing. Their rude and dismissive attitude was an embarrassment to the City. These citizens could have given up at that point but because of their passion and commitment they appealed the decision and that is why we are here tonight. I oppose this heliport for many reasons but I will only mention a few. First off, it is not needed. Sunset was asked by the Planning Commission why do you need a heliport. Mr. Oswald rattled off a few reasons, one of which was to deliver documents. Another was to attract new tenants. No other business park in the region need this to attract tenants. Surely Sunset can be more creative in attracting tenants without asking the community to suffer. Secondly, safety. This location, as well as any other its use to apply for puts residents at risk. I have heard that our City is approximately 2-1/2 miles wide. We have mountains to the west and we have mountains to the east. If a helicopter is allowed to fly in and out of the proposed landing site, just think where these emissions will settle. These emissions will be there while our children are at soccer practice and at little league games and while our children are riding their skateboard at the skate park. In a time when San Ramon residents are being encouraged to "save the air" by using public transportation the logic of executive helicopter trips in and out of Bishop Ranch escapes me. Noise – this landing site is adjacent to our future City Center that will have a library and performing arts center. What is needed for both, silence. This won’t happen with 1,045 flights a year. The proposed flights will run along the freeway asking residents in our corridor to put up with even more noise than they already have to. In closing, I would like to borrow a phrase Vice Mayor Wilson uses quite often "that’s not San Ramon, we are better than that". I can’t think of a better time for the City Council to put that thought into action. We are better than that. Thank you.

Patric Davis: Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Patric Davis. Much of what I have to say has been discussed. I am opposed to the heliport and I don’t have a slide presentation. I don’t have a lot of data, but I have a lot of common sense that tells me that when my windows rattle and I can not speak to the person sitting next to me on my patio, that is going to disrupt my life. 1,040 flights throughout the year is just a thing that any of us should have to deal with. I have experienced episodes of helicopter landings where I am in my home, windows closed, doors closes, TV on and it is very disruptive. I can’t even imagine conducting a class at school. It is hard to keep their attention. If they are subjected to this. It is just something that we shouldn’t encourage... as far as emergencies and daily flights. I think those are two separate issues. If there is an emergency you are free to land in my backyard or actually on top of my house. I think we are talking about two different issues and they shouldn’t be confused. I don’t to have to choose between trash over noise. I live here and I think that you should understand that we deserve quality of life. Last but not least, not only do we have the school we have people who enjoying our parks. We have encouraged them to come for our wind festival and a lot of other events that we have throughout the year. It is not something that is compatible by any means. Last but not least, I really resent the fact of the petition and I spent my time, was rejected and disregarded. I went door to door, talked with several people and presented them with information that was mailed to me by the City, which I thought was complete. And I from time to time have signed petitions. I take it very seriously. That is why I am here tonight. And feel that anyone that signed that petition was intelligent enough to recognize what the impact was. That is all I have to say.

Kim Burch: My name is Kim Burch and I represent San Ramon Regional Medical Center. I will be brief. I am here tonight to speak in favor of the construction of a heliport in the City of San Ramon and therefore in opposition to the appeal before you tonight. As you are aware we do not access to a heliport for emergency medical transportation at this time. We did for a number of years, of course, use the facility that was adjacent to us in Bishop Ranch, and it did come in handy when you had a critical transport. I should clarify that most of our use of this facility would be for transport of critically ill patients, generally children out of our facility. It would not be used too frequently for transport into the facility. But at those times when we are able to use ground transport that is due to the time that it takes to get a patient to another facility, a helicopter is generally the only means for us. I have been asked by many members, actually some of you sitting here tonight, how often would we use such a facility, and it not real frequent, maybe four to five, six times a year. We did do two critical transports to Children's Hospital over the 4^th of July weekend and used the field in Toyota to do that. In daylight, in good weather, that has worked for us. It isn’t necessarily very easy for the Fire Department. But in nighttime or poor weather, it does represent a real challenge to transport a critical patient. Given those circumstances and given the fact that we don’t have any other facility close enough to use, I would urge you to deny this appeal tonight.

Craig Bowen: My name is Craig Bowen and I am the Fire Chief for the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. As members of the Council know the Fire Protection District here cover 155 square miles of southern Contra Costa County. We are the suppression, prevention, as a paramedic transporting services for the area. So we had written a letter back in 2001 in support of a heliport. Our position is still the same. While it true we will land anywhere we need to, and the people here have mentioned we may land at an emergency and with a heliport in place we will still at times have to land at an emergency scene and not use that heliport. It is still a resource we are looking forward to having. When we had the two heliports in San Ramon in the past we used them infrequently, but when we did use them it was very important to us. So we are here to speak in favor of a heliport in the City of San Ramon.

Ellen Pyle: Quite honestly, I didn’t plan on speaking. I didn’t fill the card out correctly. But now that I am up here. I’m actually quite confused and that is why I would like to bring some questions up. All along I have been listening to all of the studies stating that there is going to be approximately 1,040 flights per year in and out. So far in the last 15 minutes that has grown to the hospital using it an additional four to six times per year and the gentleman that wants to use it as a training facility. So I am not really sure that we have the accurate information as to how much this heliport is going to actually be used. So I would personally before I would want to vote on it, I would feel that it would be necessary to have better documentation on exactly who is going to use it and how often. It kind of reminds me of the old saying "If you give them an inch, they will take a mile". And like I say, within the last 15 minutes it has already been proven to us. The other thing that I really am not that adverse to as to what is happening with the helicopter and the heliport, but the gentleman stated that the helicopter comes in and then it flies out, it is not parked there. So if in a time of emergency, if that helicopter is that at that heliport, where is it and how quickly can it respond to that emergency. So these are just a couple questions that I would have if I were you, the Council, I would want clarification on.

Mayor Tatarka: Before we proceed any further, I know we have some additional comment cards and several letters to read. I would like the Council’s consensus that we continue and it has been requested by some people in the public to continue items that were 8.6 to 12.3 and to continue the other item of 12.2 and I would like the consensus of the Council to continue those items until the next City Council meeting. Is there a consensus of this Council to continue those items and just listen to this issue?

Cm. Cambra: Mayor Tatarka, I just want to make sure, are we saying those items will be at the next meeting and off the calendar tonight.

Mayor Tatarka: That is correct, and we will continue them. We are talking about all the other items and the new business that we had earlier said we would put on, which was 12.3 which was 8.6 and also Item 12.2 to the next Council meeting. Is everyone in concurrence?

Vice Mayor Wilson: Are there any financial ramifications to any of them?

City Manager: I don’t believe so, no.

Mayor Tatarka: Ok, because there are people in the audience for those items and I don’t want them to stay any longer. It is already 11:00 p.m. and we will definitely continue those items to the next City Council meeting. Is it the consensus of this Council to do that?

Vice Mayor Wilson: Wait, one question, we are talking about - which one was that? We are talking about Resolution No. 2002-95. On 8.1, Register of Demands, by the City Treasurer. How will that be affected?

City Manager: We would just bring the warrant register back at the next meeting.

Vice Mayor Wilson: Ok, that's what I wanted to make sure.

Mayor Tatarka: ok, moving on, public comment, Christy Winter.

Christy Winter: My name is Christy Winter and I am Chairman of the Board of Directors of the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce. And I am here this evening to speak in opposition to the appeal. We are in support of this heliport in Bishop Ranch. Having the ability to use the heliport would be a tremendous advantage to the business community in San Ramon. Firstly – this heliport is an amenity that differentiates the San Ramon business community from our neighbors in Dublin, Pleasanton, and other near by communities. This comes at a time when communities are vying for ever smaller numbers of businesses to come to their communities and conduct business. And this would give San Ramon a competitive advantage over these neighboring communities, which these other communities do not have. Second of all – it adds to the positive business climate that generally improves the economic vitality of the community and the quality of life. Since that is the specific mission statement of the Chamber of Commerce we feel very comfortable supporting this because it is in direct line with our mission statement. Finally – it sends a very definite message to all businesses, those inside and outside of San Ramon, that San Ramon is a good place to do business. It is a community that effectively integrates the needs of its residents, those people who are the customers for businesses as well as the needs of those businesses. The Chamber of Commerce continues to support this heliport and we urge you to follow the recommendations of your staff and deny the appeal.

Rosalind Rogoff: I thought that the arguments by Melody Lundgren were very good. However, over the weekend on Saturday afternoon I was sitting at my desk in my back room. I was working on the San Ramon Observer, www.sanramonobserver.org, Melody did not mention the name of the infamous web site in which the infamous Planning Commissioner had his letter published, but that was it. Well anyway, I was working on the Observer, I have to get my plug in and I heard a helicopter nearby and it was quite loud. And I looked out the window and there was this helicopter. It was flying in and it appeared to be flying fairly low, directly over the Iron Horse Trail. By the way, it's probably important to give my address, **** Mangos Drive, because I back up to the creek, which is right across from the Iron Horse Trail. I am on the east side. This helicopter was flying pretty much right over the trail. And over the houses along Kittery and Riviera and I found out later it was going to the swim center for a rescue. It was about 3 o’clock Saturday afternoon. It landed at the swim center because there was a little girl had to be pulled out of the water. The noise was a little annoying. It lasted 20 or 30 seconds is how noticeable it was. My neighbor across the street when he is working on his motorcycles is a lot more annoying than that. The helicopter after all is flying. If it flying over your house, it is there for many 20 or 30 seconds and then it is gone. I didn’t hear it landing or taking off, but it did make me worried because it was coming in fairly low because it was going in for a ground landing, in the middle of the swim center. You want to talk about danger, you want to talk about children, you want to talk about the risk of an accident. If that helicopter had had an accident there were power lines all over the place. It was right in between a row of houses, including my house, which it could have fallen on. It probably would have cheered up a lot of people around here, but there was some real risk there. Where they are putting this heliport is in probably the least populated area of San Ramon. It is in the middle of the business park. Right now you keep saying it is next to the City Center. There is no City Center. It is next to vacant lots. We don’t know what is going to be on those vacant lots or when there is going to be something on them. So I am going to say give them a permit for a year or two or some time frame for a heliport and then when you decide to build something on one of those vacant lots, you can have them renew it, or change it or remove it. But I think it would be a lot safer to have a heliport there then landing at the swim center or I have been told that sometimes they have to clear the soccer fields when they have to have an emergency.

Mayor Tatarka: This was asked to be read by Karla Robinson. "I am not opposed to a heliport in our community if it is located in an area where it is needed. If the City is to approve a heliport it should be located at the hospital. A heliport can easily be constructed on top of San Ramon Regional Center. There are a great many nuisances that come with a heliport use, air pollution, noise and safety issues. However, if it is to save a life, then these nuisances are tolerable. In the location by the Community Center, Park, Iron Horse Trail and future Civic Center is not good for the community. I am deeply concerned the residents are not being heard by City staff. Although I am not surprised that the City is not listening to the residents. This is happening without any regard to the nuisances I am enduring over the Pine Valley Middle School gym and parking lot. And I will be appealing my request to the City Council on September 10 asking the City Council to listen to their residents. For Sunset Development to propose this for executive private use would greatly the City. The residents do deserve better than this. Sincerely, Karla Robinson."

Mayor Tatarka: This one also asked to be read into the record. "Opposition to Bishop Ranch heliport. I am one of the many residents of San Ramon who are not opposed to a heliport. But once again, I feel it should not be located at dense place of public gathering. The suggested site would be a mere 150 feet away from our City Center. The building and design for the proposed City Center states buildings are to be designed with a strong in door, out door relationship. Buildings provide use and access to surrounding open spaces, plazas and patios spaces. The City has designated San Ramon Tree City USA and adopted a Green Building policy for the City Center project. With helicopters hovering overhead and landing near by follow that decision. I think not ..."

Mayor Tatarka: Card from Susan Garaventi: "I do not wish to speak, but I urge, gentlemen I urge you not to approve the proposed heliport. And the primary reason we are opposed to the heliport is the affect it will have on the quality of life for San Ramon residents. We have not always, with the projects that have been allowed by the City of San Ramon. Over all in all, we think that the City has done a terrific job in making a wonderful place to live. San Ramon has invested a significant amount of money constructing and maintaining beautiful parks. Parks are used differently by different people but essentially serve to improve our quality of life. Our parks are used by thousands of people every year. We are very appreciative that San Ramon has made parks a high priority . If the heliport is approved, much of what the City has done to improve our lives will be negated. I can’t imagine being in Central Park and having to listen to helicopters landing and taking off. Approximately a year ago when we sitting outside at the Hop Yard Grill and during our dinner a helicopter circled over the area several times. It was very noisy. Each time it flew over we had to interrupt our conversation and wait for the noise to pass. At a heliport meeting last August we were told by Sunset Development’s hired consultant that the Bishop Ranch’s heliport noise will be no louder than normal conversation noise level. Our response to that is "do you think we are stupid". At the very least we in the City deserve to be given accurate information. We really enjoy the market place and dine there frequently. If the helicopter noise were a regular occurrence we would not continue to do so. We would be compelled to go to restaurants outside San Ramon. We are also concerned about negative impacts the heliport will have on property values. We have been told that homes along the helicopter route will be adversely affected. For most people their residence is their largest investment. They could suffer a devastating financial blow. It is not prudent for the City to allow some people to be harmed for the few who will benefit from that heliport. Please do not let this happen. Thank you for consideration. Ted and Susan Garaventi"

Jeff Rhoton: I will be brief. I think Melody Lundgren did a great job on what she presented. I think that the reason we are really here in this heliport, in the previous location, in this location believe it or not is for long term and that’s specifically intended. And I think it is the misuse of that term. Melody touched on it a bit but this is not specifically intended for emergency and that is the reason it is being allowed. It was allowed within 700 feet of Iron Horse School and it is being allowed within the proposed residential component that the new General Plan requests. Now, you know, this is specifically intended for corporate use with occasion emergency use. That is the bottom line. Thank you.

Richard Moser: Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers, my name is Richard Moser and I live at 2020 Wineberry Drive, a little east of here right behind Club Sport. I purchased my home three years ago and the decision for this purchase was based primarily on the environment. My wife and I have been content and proud of our new purchase. Unfortunately we have been gone for the last two years and missed the majority of the events relating to the heliport project. Upon returning to the U.S. I hadn’t heard anything about the future location of the heliport which was near the Iron Horse School so I had assumed that the project was eliminated from all discussion. Then in yesterday’s San Ramon newspaper a written article stated there was a proposal to create a heliport on building three of Bishop Ranch for the purpose of transporting executives and that we can expect about 1,000 + flights a year. And I pondered that and I had a lot of questions but I didn’t have the answers. At this point I must say that I am against the installation of a heliport at the corners of Bollinger Canyon and Camino Ramon for that purpose. But after listening to the conversation here tonight, we have the other element about emergency use of a helicopter. And upon thinking about that for a few moments I as an individual am not opposed to seeing a child have their life saved due to an emergency. But I have not addressed that issue here tonight but that is an important issue and I think maybe we have to compromise on something like that if we can save a child’s life I think I can tolerate some rumbling in my house for two or three minutes if I know that child will be saved or has a good chance of being saved. But I also think we have the option of calling over to Walnut Creek at the Muir Hospital because they have a service for that purpose. So I think hopefully the City Council will think of those options. My immediate concerns for not recommending the project are obvious. They include the noise factor and the very realistic possibility of the devaluation of our home. I sincerely believe that person entitled to peace and quiet on their property no matter where we live. I have the recent report of the City Council report that we had the opportunity of obtaining. I obtained one this afternoon about 3 o’clock. I took it home, as in all report I started reading it. I think I got to page about 82 and I said I will never be able to tackle this and formulate my thoughts in a couple of hours. But I singled out two things that may be important to me. So basically I think we have to re-evaluate the noise factor. That didn’t work out in the report from what I interpret it to be. The valuation of the home according to the impact study of the L.A. airport states the state found an average of 18.6 % property value in a quiet neighborhood. So at $100,000 your property would be valued $ 18,600 more than mine would. So I think that I would be safe to assume that the value of our property would decline as a result of a heliport in the area. If so who would be willing to pay or compensate us for its decline in value. That hasn’t been discussed. And I don’t even know if it is an option for us. But it is something that would affect me. There are options for a heliport. I understand there is one in Blackhawk. I haven’t had an opportunity to check it out. I don’t see why we can not use Concord or Livermore or Oakland if it is to provide transportation for executives. I would like to go back to emergency I think we should think about that if it would save a child and see what options we can arrive at.

Keith Britto: I will try to be brief. I know it is late. I do believe Mr. Oswald you are very lucky that we got this notice a little late in the game that this was happening because you would have had probably a room twice this size full of people that would have been angry they could have able to make it here tonight. Item number one, with the Planning Department it ended with this issue of being non significant. Now this seems to me to be about, I am a businessman too as well as many other people in this room. I understand the importance of making money and financial decisions are all about. What infuriates me is this thing is about big money, this is for big money, this is all about money. Now with the exception of the Fire Department who I understand needs this issue for rescuing, it is also a money issue with the hospital to as well. I do believe though again like some other people up here tonight, if we do need this for emergencies, yes I am not opposed to the heliport at the medical center and the folks out here I want to thank you for transporting my son a year ago to John Muir and saved his life albeit that it was done in an ambulance. But thank you. These people, this gentleman, you don’t live here this is our community, this is our neighborhood and many of us are definitely opposed to this. Because it is our quality of life. It is not yours. It is about your pocketbooks. A friend of mine Barry Harrington, like this gentlemen over here, the Harringtons that own the Country Club out in Pleasant Hill, were friends of mine many years ago and I went to Barry’s funeral because Barry served in the armed forces. Barry was in North Carolina as well in training and he was going to be a journalist. And he wanted to go out on a story with a friend of his. And here is the problem. It was a foggy morning. The picture that described the helicopter being caught up in the telephone wires is exactly what happened to Barry and I am going into any more details. But God rest his soul at this point. So I this point all I want to say is that you know, in the case of saving a life, I am very much in support of this but not for financial gains.

Joyce Manni’s card said she was against the heliport.

Jim Blickenstaff: Good evening Mayor and City Council. Jim Blickenstaff, Talavera Drive. I don’t think we should confuse two factors involved here. One is emergency rescue which is, to my mind, separate from a business helipad in the Bishop Ranch location. If there an issue of an emergency need or some kind of hospital need for a helicopter pad at the hospital, that is a separate issue and maybe we can look at that and satisfy the hospital’s needs at some point. The nature of this helipad is private use for business executives for their purposes and their clients. I won’t take the strong language that some used earlier, but there is a component of it for people who are executives that don’t live in the community, for their benefit. Now I have to look at things, I don’t have to but I do in terms of what is good for the residents of the City. I try to do that and families that live here and is there an ultimate benefit to them. Quick answer – no. There is not. And at this point I don’t like the way the process went either. I don’t like the way to me it was rammed through in spite of legitimate concerns by people I just tip my hat to who have had to spend hours on this and residents of the community coming up with all this information to try to demonstrate why it is a real concern to them and those concerns need to be answered. And it almost dismissive in the planning process until this point. I hope that changes, of their legitimate concerns. The Planning Commission just amazes me on how they treated the legitimate concerns of the residents of the community came down there and took the time to explain their issues. That is slightly a separate issue, but the bottom line right now is, your noise mitigations are negligible because you don’t what the noise is going to be. The average noise over the whole day it becomes virtually meaningless. It is like somebody wanted to put a rifle range in next to house and saying well if you average the sounds of the 30ot6s and the 45 magnums over the whole day, it is really not that loud. It doesn’t matter the average, it matters when it is happening right then. So the noise that matters is the 20 minutes it is going to be next to the Civic Center. And the noise that matters is when it hovering in that area. We don’t have any studies on that. And we need studies on that. At the very minimum we need to know that. We need to have meters in the Civic Center. We need to have meters along 680. We need to have meters of noise along Alcosta. All these things have not been done. And I think I know why they haven’t been done. I think the decibels once you get there would be very disturbing. There is pollution from this. We don’t have any studies on that. In terms of the Civic Center, is there going to be a pollution factor there. It is 100 and some feet from the landing pad. We don’t know that either. There is a matter of danger. But basically what I would like say is, my study of the approvals, there is a permanence to this. The original one and then this extension, there is a permanence to it. It is not like every year you can kill it, the entitlement. So I just say it is premature to look at this and the modifications they can do to the Civic Center and Bishop Ranch 2 in terms of what we want to do there. We should do it the other way around. We should put those things in place and then decide if we can still have a helicopter pad that can be compatible.

Cm. Dickey: It is now 11:30 p.m., I make a motion that we continue the meeting. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Wilson and passed 4-1 (Cm. Hudson dissenting).

Mayor Tatarka: Ms. Manning’s card said on the back " our freeway and Alcosta Boulevard noise from autos is enough. Please put this somewhere else.

Mayor Tatarka: Jane E. Potter does not wish to speak. Her letter states" I am adamantly opposed to the installation of a heliport in San Ramon. I am particularly opposed to the proposed heliport location near San Ramon Central Park and Iron Horse Middle School.

Please do not approve this project.

Mayor Tatarka: Carolyn Vindum does wish to speak. Her letter states "I am opposed to the establishment of an executive heliport in San Ramon. Not only do I perceive noise and emissions from helicopters as a problem, I also feel our property values will be compromised. The real estate agents I spoke with recently at ERA, Fox and Pacific Union confirmed my suspicions that our property values would indeed suffer as a result of the proposed heliport. When we list our homes for sale we will have to disclose that we live within a certain radius of an airport. The realtors also stated that if a home is on the helicopter’s planned flight path (for example the 680 corridor) that information would also have to be disclosed. All things being equal, a prospective homebuyer would be more likely to choose the home NOT adjacent to an airport. I’m certain the executives who will be using this heliport wouldn’t want helicopters flying over their homes, or more importantly, lowering their property values. This proposed heliport does nothing to improve our quality of life in San Ramon; it only hurts the residents of our city and the many thousands of individual homeowners. Please vote NO on the heliport."

Mayor Tatarka: "City Council – today I read in the paper about the final vote to allow, to disallow the heliport at Bishop Ranch 3. We would like to put in our two cents worth and ask that you vote not to allow the heliport at Bishop Ranch 3. We remember several years ago when there was a heliport close by and the noise was most disturbing. We feel the heliport will be too noisy for neighborhoods and for the upcoming Civic Center. Thank you for your time and all the great work you do for the City of San Ramon". – Karen and Phil Slep.

Judi Mordoff: Hi, I live on Woodview Terrace Drive. I live on Woodview Terrace Drive. I am half asleep myself. I was at the Commissioners meeting as well as this meeting this evening and I am opposed to having a business heliport in San Ramon. I guess I have only one question, after listening to everybody that has gotten up and spoken on both sides and that is, it obvious that an emergency heliport is needed since the old heliport was closed. And I know there is a financial end to this, but why hasn’t the City done anything themselves to try and provide this service as opposed to relying on a developer to do this with his terms.

Karen Lee: Hi I am Karen Lee. First I would like to thank Bishop Ranch for bringing this forward because you have succeeded in bringing the whole town together and we have been accused of being departmentalized and "nimbus". So I congratulate you for bringing one project forward that brought us all together. I feel that if this. I really don’t have an opinion if this is needed or not needed. Even in my own household we are not in agreement. But this I do feel, if it is a good idea now, it will be a good idea after the City Center is built.

Silvia Alioto: I am opposed to the heliport. When I moved here two years ago I wrote Mr. Hudson and all the other Councilmembers stating my dismay at the noise and the air pollution in the area. So not only am I asking that you vote against it, I am also asking you to find ways to reduce the current air pollution and the noise that is just out of control. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Deborah Yoeman: I only have a quick comment based on personal experience. Two and a half years ago, my grandson was born severely disabled and we have lived through two and a half years of absolute hell. Five different times he has had to be transported to numerous different hospitals, mostly Stanford and Children’s Hospital. And in the five times, never once has he had to be heliported or helicoptered to go to these sites. They stabilize him in an ambulance and bring him to the hospital. It is the quickest way, it is the clearest way and it is the way that I have known for two and a half years.

David M...: Dear City Councilmembers. San Ramon does not need a heliport. It will create noise and safety risks to residents and others using the Iron Horse Trail, Central Park and the community at-large and transform our city into a quasi airport. One of the wonderful qualities of San Ramon is that so far there has always been a healthy mix of business and residential interests. Including a heliport risks upsetting the balance. As an alternative to a heliport in San Ramon I suggest that a better alternative might be locating a heliport in central Blackhawk. Then those executives most likely to use the heliport may not even leave their own community to catch the chopper to Oakland, San Jose or San Francisco airports. During the test trial of helicopter noise for this project the noise was very loud. I communicated this to each of you on the City Council at that time by email. The fact that the residents of San Ramon did not want a heliport should not be news to all of you. We say, excuse me… Hell no, no heliport.

Mayor Tatarka: Town Councilmembers I understand there is a meeting tonight where the town is considering a long extension to the heliport in San Ramon. I would strongly be against this type of approval on the grounds that the few that would benefit is not worth the many that would have to put up with the increased noise and intrusion to the quiet enjoyment that we expect in our homes and backyards in San Ramon. Not to mention the risk of a helicopter crash in the community. Please vote this request down. Regards Kathy and John Taylor.

Mayor Tatarka: This was a letter that was received many days ago. It was directed to the Board of Supervisors but I think that they meant it to come to us the City Council, so I will read it. :Dear Sirs and Madam. This letter is in response to the consideration of a proposal to build a heliport in San Ramon on top of a parking structure. I also want to express my concern about the increase in air traffic in my neighborhood and describe my frustrations in trying to get something done about it. I have lived in the Tri-Valley for almost 15 years, seven of which have been in San Ramon. I have been very concerned about the increase in air traffic especially over my neighborhood over the past six to nine months. On a number of occasions there have been two to three non emergency helicopter flyovers in less than two hours with the average being about six to eight per day. I would estimate the frequency of winged aircraft flyovers as three or four per hour from early morning until late afternoon on a daily basis. I have called to complain about unusually noisy or low aircraft I have been directed to call the FAA and to register complaints with Livermore and Concord airports, which I have done. In most instances I was offered to take a report that would be put in a file. Clearly nothing else has been done. I have learned that there is no law requiring helicopters to maintain a minimum altitude as there is for fixed wing aircraft. Even with very specific descriptions of an aircraft I have been unable to find it took off or landed because the identifying number is often difficult or impossible to read. This makes it difficult to talk to the aircraft pilot or owner. At just after 6:00 a.m. today I was awakened by the sound of a low flying helicopter. As I lay there gradually becoming aware that I was not going to be able to fall back to sleep I began to wonder if it was a police matter as it had been several weeks ago when they were looking for a lost elderly person. I got up to look outside and was able to recognize it as a helicopter that I had been seeing flying low overhead usually before 7:30 a.m. on at least ten occasions. When I called the police department to see if it was search and rescue work I was told it was a commercial helicopter. Later in the day one of the police officers told me that he thought it was being used to replace an air conditioner at Costco in Danville. Today when I was leaving a voicemail message for the Mayor about this incident (Mayor Tatarka – that is why I am reading this letter because he asked me to read it) an airplane flew overhead. It was so loud I had to stop speaking while it passed. I couldn’t help but notice the irony of having this occur while I was making a complaint about another aircraft. At this point there doesn’t seem to be any effective avenue for dealing with low flying helicopters. The onus seems to be on citizens to collect detailed information and when this is done the most we can do is report it so it can be filed somewhere. It definitely appears that the City of San Ramon has minimum altitude established for helicopters which have I learned is a viable option for managing this problem. So unless it is reported the police cannot issue citations and no one at city hall is in a position to respond to citizen complaints. At the same time we are being asked to approve a heliport for commercial use, in its current iteration it is to be positioned by the City Center and take a parking space which will probably become more scarce as the center is developed and the economy improves. We are being asked to indulge the developers wish to increase his revenue stream. I am sure no one rides for free and expect even more noise employed on the ambience that air traffic contributes. The claim that the helip