►
From YouTube: Planning Commission - 11/18/2019
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
D
A
Thank
you
now
is
the
time
for
public
comment.
At
this
time,
any
person
may
address
the
commission
regarding
a
city
planning
matter.
That
is
not
on
this
evening's
agenda.
Should
the
commission
wish
to
discuss
an
issue
raised
by
a
member
of
the
public?
The
issue
will
be
referred
to
staff
for
scheduling
on
a
future
agenda.
A
Anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
under
public
comments
must
complete
a
speaker
card
and
file
it
with
the
recording
secretary
before
the
public
comments.
Portion
of
the
agenda
is
called.
The
speaker's
remarks
should
be
addressed
to
the
commission
as
a
whole
and
not
to
an
individual
commissioner
or
staff
member
unless
otherwise
provided
by
the
commission.
Speakers
are
limited
to
five
minutes.
The
monitor
in
front
of
you
will
show
you
the
remaining
time
you
have.
A
I
have
not
been
handed
any,
so
I'm
going
to
assume
we
do
not
have
any
next.
Do
we
have
the
consent
calendar
with
the
minutes?
Next,
we
have
the
consent
calendar
with
the
minutes
of
november
4th
2019..
Do
any
of
my
fellow
commissioners
have
any
comments
or
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes?
F
A
Okay,
item
number:
seven:
will
the
clerk
please
open
the
public
hearing.
C
C
A
You
presenting
on
on
behalf
of
staff
is
associate
planner
will
chua.
G
G
The
project
this
project
was
processed
as
an
administrative
review
in
accordance
with
resolution
97
197,
which
is
the
city's
guidelines
and
standards
for
installation
of
wireless
communications
facilities.
G
G
G
Excuse
me
on
july,
27
2017
notifications
were
no
weren't
mailed
to
property
owners
within
500
feet
of
the
project
in
accordance
with
the
thousand
oaks
municipal
code
notification
requirements,
staff
received
25
opposition
letters
and,
as
I
said
earlier,
an
an
administrative
hearing
was
conducted
during
the
administrative
hearing.
The
administrative
hearing
officer
found
that
the
project
is
consistent
with
resid
resolution
97
197.
G
G
G
G
The
the
this
is,
this
shows
the
the
site
plan
for
the
project.
The
north
or
the
top
of
the
screen
is
a
newberry
road
giant
oak
to
the
left
side
of
the
screen,
and
the
project
is
located
right,
where
the
mouse
pointer
is
showing
on
the
on
the
east
side
of
the
project
within
the
self
storage
facility,
the
the
antennas
would
be
contained
inside
a
tower
feature,
an
extension
of
the
tower
feature
on
one
of
the
buildings.
G
This
is
a
picture
taken
from
the
east
from
the
west
side.
Looking
east,
this
picture
shows
the
tower
feature
that
would
be
increased
where
my,
where
my
the
pointers
hovering
that
extended
feature
will
be
10,
feet
high
and
will
be
compatible
with
the
existing
structure.
It
will
contain
nine
panel
antennas
that
will
not
be
visible
from
members
of
the
public.
G
This
slide
shows
the
existing
in
the
proposed
north
and
south
elevations.
As
you
can
see,
the
the
north
elevation
is
on
the
top
of
the
picture
and
the
tower
and
the
tower
extension
would
be
on
top
of
the
existing
tower,
which
is
which
is
proportional
in
dimension
compared
to
the
existing
tower
feature.
G
G
In
this
case
is
the
the
the
project
site
is
zoned
c2,
section
5
of
the
resolution
pertains
to
standards
in
evaluating
wireless
facilities,
staff
evaluated
the
project
against
the
applicable
sections,
which
is
5b.
I
j,
k
and
l.
G
Section
5v
requires
that
the
project
avoid
altering
the
vin
scenic
view
shed.
The
101
freeway
is
a
scenic
view
shed.
The
facility
is
located
600
feet
from
the
scenic
corridor
to
minimize
its
visibility
from
the
101
freeway
view
shed.
The
tower
is
designed
to
architecture
to
be
architecture
compatible
with
the
existing
building
section.
5I
prohibits
artificial
lighting
and
there's
no
lighting
proposed
to
illuminate
the
facility.
G
G
Section
5
l
requires
that
wireless
communications
facilities
be
integrated
into
the
existing
buildings,
the
as
as,
as
mentioned
previously,
the
antennas
would
be
housed
within
an
extension
of
the
existing
tower,
that's
already
there,
which
will
not
or
prevent
its
view
from
public
this.
There
will
be
no
exposed
antennas.
As
far
as
the
this
facility
is
concerned,.
G
This
picture
shows
the
location
this
picture
is
taken
from
google
maps
and
it's
the
red
circle
on
the
screen
shows
the
location
of
the
the
proposed
tower.
This
is
behind
in
between
several
buildings.
So
there
is
another
tower.
That's
a
tower
feature:
that's
located
through
the
building
just
to
the
south
of
the
in
and
out
burger
building.
G
The
project
complies
with
the
applicable
sections
of
the
city's
wireless
guidelines
and
standards
for
wireless
communications
facilities.
It
demonstrates
compliance
with
applicable
fcc
guidelines
and
it
qualifies
for
a
class
one
exemption
under
sql.
G
Statement
number
two
excuse
me:
maps
of
areas.
A
request
was
made.
Excuse
me
by
by
a
member
of
the
public
during
the
meeting
asking
for
maps
of
location
of
all
verizon
sites
in
the
city,
and
it's
a
maid
was
also
made.
A
claim
was
also
made
on
that.
The
that
verizon
has
coverage
in
that
area
based
on
individual
cell
coverage
staff
response
is
the
city
does
not
maintain
a
map
depicting
all
active
cell
sites
in
the
city.
G
However,
based
on
our
resident
resolution,
97
197,
the
applicant
is
required
to
provide
a
propagation
map
propagation
map,
which
is
an
attachment
to
this
staff
report.
Attachment
number
10.
G
statement
number
three,
mr
kramer's
evaluation
is
unreliable
and
not
accepted
by
federal
circuit
court.
Dr
kramer
may
be
able
to
explain
that
later
dr
kramer
has
been
qualified
as
an
expert
witness
on
rf
emissions
emission
requirement
and
was
not
disqualified
as
an
appellant
or
expert.
I'm
sorry,
my
apology
statement
number
four,
mr
kramer's
statement
that
ada
does
not
recognize
rf
as
ada
covered
event
was
incomplete
and
misleading
and
at
the
same
time,
the
applicant
quoted
usab
united
states
access
board
staff
response.
G
G
Staff
response
is
that
the
decision
on
case
referred
to
by
the
applicant
does
not
bear
or
does
not
have
a
bearing
on
this
project
statement
number
seven.
The
hearing
officer
should
not
have
accepted
mr
kramer's
summary
that
residents
complaints
regarding
are
be
directed
to
u.s
congress
staff.
Response
comments
were
made.
Asking
denial
based
on
health
concerns
on
rf
emission
denial
based
solely
on
rf.
Concern
is
prohibited
if
the
project
complies
with
fcc
guidelines,
excessive
appeal
fee.
This
appeal
fee
is
set
this
the
fee
amount
is
set
by
the
city
council.
G
The
planning
commission
is
not
authorized
to
waive
or
refund
any
filing
fees.
In
addition,
the
filing
fee
has
been
set
well
below
cost
recovery
statement.
Number
nine
is
a
general
statement
asking
that
the
planning
commission
reversed
the
hearing
office
approval
due
to
health
concern
staff
response.
The
project
approval
is
based
in
compliance
with
federal
standard
federal
regulations
and
city
standards.
G
G
As
for
conclusion,
the
proposed
wireless
communications
facility
complies
with
fcc
rf
emission
standards,
as
well
as
the
city's
policy
and
guidelines
contained
in
the
city's
wireless
application,
communications
facilities,
guidelines
and
standards.
Resolution
97-197.
G
A
Are
many
issues
aimed
towards
me
so
the
one
that
was
referring
to
you
and
the
court?
I'm.
H
H
H
I
gave
expert
testimony
in
a
case
that
att
brought
against
the
city
of
carlsbad,
and
the
judge
in
that
case
declined
to
accept
my
testimony.
He
did
not
disqualify
me
as
an
expert,
but
he
said
he
gave
my
testimony
a
little
weight
and
the
interesting
thing
is
that
over
all
those
years
later,
the
process
that
he
was
unhappy
with
has
been
the
process
that
I
and
everybody
else
who
does
this
work
uses.
H
So
I
was
not
disqualified
as
an
expert,
but
the
judge
and
his
prudent
in
his
prudent
authority
decided
not
to
give
my
my
testimony
any
weight
and
that's
fine.
H
Disqualified
as
an
expert
and
in
fact,
probably
the
most
important
case
in
recent
history
of
the
t-mobile
versus
san
francisco
case
that
went
all
the
way
up
to
the
san
francis
that
went
all
the
way
up
to
the
california
supreme
court.
I
was
the
city's
expert
in
san
francisco
on
that.
So
I
understand
that
you
know
as
an
expert
you
put
yourself
out
there
and
you
give
opinions,
and
sometimes
the
experts
get
it
wrong
and
sometimes
the
judges
get
it
wrong.
But
that's
why
we
have
an
appellate
system
as
well.
F
H
F
F
G
G
For
that
matter,
a
special
use
permit
to
be
reviewed
by
the
planning
commission
is
required
for
that
for
application
in
such
in
such
zones
for
this
matter,
the
for
for
for
wireless
communications
facilities
in
industrial
and
commercial
zones,
since
they
are
commercial
in
nature,
the
the
policy
finds
that
it's
compatible
use
and
only
requires
an
administrative
processing
through
a
minor
modification
of
an
existing
or
an
active
special
use.
Permit
special
use
or
development
permit.
B
If
I
make
sure
mr
here,
commissioner
newman,
as
mr
chua
said,
just
to
explain
it
for
the
public
as
well,
so
our
97
187
policy
in
section
four-
is
two
sections.
One
is
four
a
and
one
is
four
b
when
we
have
a
commercial
setting
industrial
setting.
It
goes
to
4a
and
4a
is
a
development
permit
in
this
case,
because
this
location
is
proposed
in
a
commercial
zone.
B
So
in
this
case
initially
went
to
just
a
standard
and
it
checked
all
the
boxes
of
our
policy
for
the
requirements,
as
mr
true
went
through
all
those
five,
a
through
m
or
l
or
whatever
he
said.
But
what
happened
in
this
case
is
because
we
did
the
notice
someone
asked
for
a
hearing.
B
F
Here
we
are-
and
here
we
are
thank
you
for
that
explanation.
So
is
it
an
accurate
statement,
then
that
for
areas
that
are
zoned
at
commercial
or
industrial,
these
generally
policy
is
to
hear
them
administratively
first
and
for
residential
areas.
They
would
go
straight
to
the
planning
commission.
Is
that
an
accurate
statement
generally.
F
Mr
chua,
what
are
the
height
limits
for
zone?
T
z,
c2,
we're
we're
dealing
with
a
application
for
a
45
foot
tower
here.
G
Okay,
just
a
matter
of
clarification,
the
zoning
limit
height
limit
for
c2
zone
is
35
feet.
However,
under
section
25
of
the
initial
code
has
an
it
has
an
exemption
on
height
on
height
limits.
Architectural
features
such
as
these
towers
can
exceed
that
height
limit.
F
And
in
fact,
I'm
familiar
with
previous
cases
in
which
this
commission
has
approved
I'm
thinking
of
the
assisted
living
facility,
I
believe,
has
towers
that
went
up
to
49
feet.
Something
like
that
is
there.
Is
there
an
absolute
limit
on
height
for
towers
or
not.
G
Necessarily
it's
being
processed
individually
and
it's
through
its
own
merit.
An
example
of
an
example
of
a
architectural
feature
that
was
extended
as
part
of
an
application
for
wireless
site
would
be
a
church.
That's
located
on
kimber
drive
next
to
the
fire
fire
station
in
that,
in
that
case,
the
the
staple
was
increased
in
height
that
exceeds
the
limit
for
that
residential
zone
area.
G
Another
case
would
be
the
one
on
wendy
drive
the
church
on
wendy
drive,
which
is
also
in
in
a
which,
where
the
antennas
are
also
installed
within
a,
I
would
say,
an
architectural
feature.
F
So
just
so
we're
clear,
you're
saying
there
are
existing
cell
towers
camouflaged
or
not
in
the
city
in
that
exceed
35
feet
in
height.
F
F
G
No,
no
I
apologize
there
are
there
are.
Let
me
show
you
the
side
plan
just
to.
G
G
Just
to
give
you
an
idea,
but
exactly
how
far
I
don't
know,
but
these
are
actually
on
top
of
the
the
facility
and
dr
kramer
may
be
able
to
give
you
the
federal
requirements
as
far
as
distances
or
the
control
zone
for
this
facility.
F
H
The
fcc
rules
there
are
no
emissions.
Basically
all
of
the
emissions
go
out
towards
the
horizon.
Virtually
none
go
down.
Virtually
none
go
up,
so
I've
been
quoted
as
saying
if,
if
you're
concerned
about
cell
towers,
actually
the
best
place
to
stand
is
directly
below
one.
F
F
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you,
mr
chua,
for
your
report.
As
usual,
commissioner
newman
goes
through
most
of
the
questions
that
I
actually
had.
So
I'm
just
going
to
ask
a
few
follow-up,
and
this
is
actually
probably
for
dr
kramer.
Is
there
anything
in
the
fcc
guidelines
that
allow
an
evaluation
of
an
ada
issue
as
part
of
the
determination.
H
I
H
I
Okay
and
I
notice
mr
chu
in
your
report,
you
indicated
that
the
dc
case
that
was
cited
was
not
relevant.
Why.
I
So,
just
to
be
clear
that
the
ruling
had
to
do
something
with
indian
land,
specifically.
H
B
Really
quick,
if
I
may
just
to
follow
up
dr
kramer,
dr
kramer's,
his
point
is
well
taken.
It's
also
important
to
know
for
that
that
case
it
is
ketu,
alvar
band
of
cherokee,
indians,
oklahoma
in
oklahoma,
at
all
versus
federal
communications,
commission,
one
of
the
big
focuses
and
and
we
did
receive
a
a
presentation
form
from
the
appellant
today.
B
Mr
marshall
talks
about
nepa,
so
we
have
in
california,
have
sequa
and
then
there's
nepa,
which
is
a
national
environmental
policy
act,
and
that
case
was
focused
on
some
of
the
things
that
the
fcc
did
as
far
as
how
they
reviewed
the
nepa
application,
and
there
was
some
criticism
of
that
application
by
the
fcc,
and
so
when
the
case
came
down,
there
was
some
interesting
language
that
the
sixth
circuit
court
had
regarding
that
analysis
or
lack
thereof,
and
that
might
be
something
that
we
could
use
in
the
future.
B
B
So
we
don't
have
that
situation
in
this
case,
so
nipah
would
never
apply
in
this
kind
of
this
particular
situation
and
again,
the
other
important
thing
is
that
this
wireless
facility
is
set
on
a
commercial
private
facility.
A
G
Just
like
to
make
an
addition
to
one
of
the
questions
that
was
asked
by
commissioner
newman,
please.
A
G
This
is
regarding
question
was
asked
about
the
height
of
what?
How
high
can
a
facility
be?
There's
no
limit
on
the
section
on
on
the
97
197.
However,
under
our
municipal
code.
A
Thank
you
are
those
all
the
questions
that
we
have.
Okay,
thank
you,
and
now
we
will
ask
for
the
applicant
or
the
applicant's
representative
to
speak.
You'll
have
15
minutes.
Can
you
please
come
to
the
podium?
J
J
J
J
J
Nobody
from
the
city
staff
nor
from
the
planning
commission
has
called
me
to
discuss
any
of
the
issues
I
raised
in
my
appeal
for
the
record.
We've
only
had
one
day
to
consider
the
city
staff
report.
It
doesn't
seem
to
properly
address
any
of
the
issues
I
raised
and
it
makes
some
significant
mistakes.
J
You
see,
as
my
appeal
clearly
explains
everything
changed
on
august,
the
9th
2019
when
the
dc
circuit
court
of
appeals
handed
down
a
decision
that
the
fcc
must
comply
with
the
national
environmental
protection
act
nepa
further,
and
this
is
important.
They
made
it
absolutely
clear
that
considerations
of
human
health
have
to
be
taken
into
account
in
the
analysis
and
chastised
the
fcc
for
not
having
adequately
upgraded
its
radiation
guidelines.
J
J
J
Indeed,
an
october
2000
fcc
docket
docket
w9
t9217
expressly
disclaimed
any
attempt
to
preempt
local
authority
from
making
decisions
on
human
health,
and
I
don't
have
time
today
to
discuss
why
these
statements
are
being
made
about
local
authorities
not
having
can't
make
any
health
related
claims.
That's
a
fiction,
very
good
fiction
by
industry.
I
might
add
in
an
attempt
to
answer
the
points
from
the
dc
circuit
decisions
which
I
raised
in
my
appeal.
The
staff
report
dismisses
them.
Thus
appellant
six
basis
of
his
appeal
is
nonsensical.
J
The
city
is
aware
of
a
decision,
a
united
kiwatowa
band
of
cherokee
indians
versus
fcc.
I
have
abbreviated
that.
However,
the
decision
on
said
case
does
not
have
any
bearing
on
the
subject
project
nor
factors.
The
planning
commission
should
rely
upon
in
making
a
decision
to
try
and
help.
The
commission
understand
whether
I
or
the
staff
are
nonsensical.
J
J
J
The
ground
rules
have
changed
yet
this
city
keeps
plowing
forward
as
if
nothing
has
happened
recklessly,
torturing
our
citizens
with
chronic
disease
and
killing
them
with
cancers,
strong
words,
but
believe
me,
I
can
back
them
up,
but
not
in
15
minutes,
so
to
help
the
city
staff.
I've
written
a
simplified
summary
here
it
is,
the
fcc
has
been
defanged.
J
A
large
part
of
its
regulations
have
been
struck
down
until
you
know
what
nepa
issues
currently
have
to
be
considered,
and
until
you
know
what
fcc
regulations
are
still
in
force,
you
need
to
be
really
careful
when
you
decide
to
end
your
residence
by
allowing
potentially
non-compliant
tower
operations
and
remember
the
city
does
have
control
over
the
operation
of
cell
towers
that
was
specifically
put
in
after
the
first
reading
in
congress
there
were
five
mentions
denying
operation
and
that
was
cut
out
in
the
final
law.
You
can,
you
can
determine
the
operations.
J
I
will
not
bother
you
all
with
the
errors
in
the
staff
response
briefing
I'll.
Just
note
that
each
point
in
my
written
appeal
stands
inadequately
answered
by
city
staff.
In
my
opinion,
the
city
blindly
follows
telecom
regulations
which
are
not
law,
just
interpretations
of
law,
and
we
just
saw
that
the
dc
circuit
rule
a
large
part
of
those
fcc
regulations
actually
violate
the
law
and
it
struck
them
down.
J
J
J
In
particular,
this
city
continues
to
shirk
its
responsibilities
under
the
americans
with
disabilities
act
and
the
1968
civil
rights
act,
fair
housing.
This
city
has
the
capability
and
the
duty
to
comply
with
fda
in
fair
housing.
Yet
staff
try
to
make
the
disabled
jump
through
hoops
in
order
to
assert
our
rights.
For
example,
city
attorney
said:
there's
no
way
she
can
turn
the
wi-fi
off
in
this
room
and
run
cabled
internet
to
to
the
desks
here.
J
The
dc
right
circuit
told
the
fcc
that
radio
frequency
radiation
was
something
which
had
to
be
examined
in
all
nepa
analyses.
They
used
those
words:
radio
frequency
radiation,
the
bio
initiative
working
group,
which
was
also
cited.
A
group
of
scientists
and
physicians
with
whom
I
am
affiliated,
can
help
when
examining
nepa
compliance.
J
Bioinitiative
identified
a
safety
standard
based
on
3800,
peer-reviewed
studies,
medical
studies,
biological
studies,
we
identified
-37
dbm,
there's
a
level
of
exposure
which
should
be
used
above,
which
studies
have
been
have
shown.
I'm
sorry,
I'm
starting
to
scatter
already
minus
37
dbm
is
a
level
of
exposure
above
which
studies
have
shown.
Repeated
studies
have
shown
that
humans
have
been
made
ill
and
-47
dbm,
which
should
be
used
at
the
precautionary
level.
J
This
safe
level
is
still
10
000
times
stronger
than
the
signal
needed
to
give
five
bars
of
signal
strength
on
a
cell
phone.
But
there
is
a
lot
more
to
routing
a
telephone
call
than
just
having
a
strong
signal
from
lots
and
lots
of
towers.
You
also
have
to
have
a
computer
network
to
back
it
up.
You
have
to
have
a
switching
network
to
switch
the
calls
between
towers.
So
when
you
drop
a
cell
phone
call,
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
there's
no
signal
there.
J
In
this
case,
if
the
city
continues
to
accept
the
industry's
fiction
that
they
have
prevented
from
looking
after
the
the
city's
health
and
going
beyond
the
health
to
people
who
are
coming
to
the
city
council
and
saying
my
doctor
says,
I'm
being
made
ill,
I
am
sick.
I
am
being
made
ill,
it's
not
nothing
to
do
with
health,
which
is
some
vague
factor
in
the
future.
J
This
is
right
now
right
here
and
the
fiction
that
the
city
has
prevented
from
regulating
health
effects
by
332
c7b4,
which
managed
to
slip
through
congress
without
anybody
noticing,
although
it
was
discussed,
although
the
health
issues
were
discussed
in
in
committee
and
and
there
was
no
preemption
at
that
point,
then
insolvency
of
the
telco
is
not
even
necessary,
as
a
telco
would
likely
use
a
city's
error
to
deny
any
a
liability.
J
Thus,
all
financial
burdens
from
cellular
injury
are
shifted
to
taxpayers.
That
is
what
the
planning
commission
is
risking
today,
millions,
perhaps
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
in
compensation
and
legal
fees.
Residents
have
come
forward
at
council
meetings
and
at
planning
meetings.
Ever
since
we
had
this
step
up
to
5g
and
the
20
times
increase
in
power
due
to
crest
factor
that
the
telcos
used
and
hid
from
us
when
they
stepped
to
4g,
did
I
say,
4g,
I
meant
4g
what
we
have
now.
J
J
A
Thank
you,
please
do
we
have
any
questions
of
this
applicant
or
the
appellant
commissioner
boss.
E
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
presentation,
sir.
I
just
had
one
question:
are
you
aware
of
any
planning
department
planning,
commission
city
council
in
the
united
states?
That's
taken
advantage
of
the
appellate
court
decision.
You
referenced
out
of
the
appellate
court
in
d.c
to
deny
a
claim
for
a
cellular
facility.
E
J
K
E
The
reason
I'm
asking
is
because
we're
being
told
that
obviously
this
isn't
part
of
our
purview
and
as
part
of
a
planning
commission,
we
sometimes
evaluate
construction
of
various
buildings
and
one
of
the
things
we
take
into
consideration.
We
do
that
is
the
number
of
parking
spaces
available,
and
I'm
thinking
that
I
think
about
people
who
have
copd
asthma,
lung
cancer,
people
that
potentially
get
lung
cancer
from
cars
driving
by.
J
Well,
the
dc
court
of
appeals
referred
to
the
bioinitiative
working
group
who
have
safety
standards
that
are
still
ten
thousand
times
higher
than
what
a
cell
phone
needs
to
operate
at.
I
understand
that.
J
J
F
More
thing
I
I
want
to
follow
up
on
commissioner
buss's
question.
He
asked
if
you're
aware
of
any
municipal
government
taking
action
as
a
result
of
the
d.c
circuit
case
that
you
referred
to,
and
you
replied
that
in
california
you
were
not
aware
of
any
such
case
are.
Are
you
aware
of
any
such
case
outside
california?.
J
Well
in
california,
I'm
actually
aware
that
dr
kramer's
law
firm
has
given
the
same
advice
to
the.
J
There's
no
change
here.
No,
there
are
a
number
of
cases
elsewhere
in
the
in
this
in
the
country.
But
at
this
point
I
know
of
nobody
that
has
managed
to
figure
out
exactly
what
we
should
be
doing
october.
The
first,
which
was
the
second
appeal
hearing,
send
everybody
back
a
second
dc
circuit
court
of
appeals.
J
I
have
no
idea
what
municipal
governments
nationwide
are
doing.
I
only
hear
when
cases
are
resolved
one
way
or
the
other
and
then
not
very
well.
I
don't
have
the
network
that
dr
kramer
does,
for
example,
and
in
fact
maybe
mandy
jacob
from
the
ventura
county
issues.
Reform
who
is
in
contact
with
a
lot
more
groups
than
than
me
may
be
able
to
give
you
a
better
reading
on
that.
F
J
Determinations
this
is
one
of
the
first
actions
that
has
been
made
subsequent
to
the
fcc
actions.
I
know
that
napa
someone
up
in
napa
is
is
also
looking
into
this
issue
and
in
fact
dr
kramer's
colleague
was
up
there
two
weeks
ago.
So
there
are
others
again.
My
question
is
no:
no,
there
is
no
prison.
J
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you,
dr
marshall,
for
your
presentation
just
want
to
clarify.
I
I
I
understand
your
arguments
with
regard
to
the
cases
in
the
fcc.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
crossing
off
the
boxes.
Your
appeal
doesn't
appear
to
cite
any
violation
of
city
code
with
regard
its
application.
Is
that
correct.
J
If
the
city
is
allowed
to
make
its
residents
sick,
that
would
be
correct,
but
you
know
if
the
federal
government
told
you
to
hurt
up
for
every
everybody
who
lived
on
hill
canyon
avenue
and
then
throw
them
into
jail.
You
wouldn't
do
that.
J
I
I
Second
question:
we've
been
talking
about
ada
application.
Are
you
aware
of
any
case
where
a
applicant
filed
an
ada
claim?
Because
they
were
denied
web
accessibility,
because
a
cell
tower
was
not
put
up.
J
No,
but
I
am
aware
of
cases
where
electromagnetic
sensitivity
have
given
a
have
caused
cells
to
be
removed
and
moved
back
from
people
whose
physicians
certified
that
they
were
sensitive
and
being
made
ill
by
those.
So.
J
There
are,
there
are
several
of
them.
Yes,
there's
one
in
oregon.
I'd
have
to
really
sit
down
and
write
them
all
out.
I'm
not
100
cogent
right
now,
but
but
I'd
be
happy
to
send
you
a
list
of
them.
It's
not
something
that
is
really
new.
A
At
this
time,
we'll
now
bring
up
the
applicant
and
state
your
name
and
city
of
residence
for
the
record,
please.
M
L
C
L
All
right,
so
here
is
kind
of
an
overview
of
the
area.
Here's
where
the
proposed
kelly
road
site
is
we've
got
kind
of
a
coverage
objective
in
this
general
area
and
you'll
see
later
there's
really
a
coverage
gap
in
an
area
about
that
large.
L
L
Here
is
a
kind
of
a
general
topo
map
again
showing
the
proposed
facility
about
right.
Here
you
can
see
there
are
some
topo
lines
there.
The
commercial
area,
that's
just
to
the
north
of
our
facility,
but
south
of
101
is
approximately
25
to
30
feet
lower
than
the
ground
elevation
of
our
site
and
that's
important,
because
a
rooftop
facility
at
the
higher
elevation
allows
us
to
get
up
higher
to
propagate
a
signal
and
to
reach
a
larger
coverage.
Footprint.
L
More
than
half
of
u.s
homes
are
wireless
only
for
their
telephone
communications,
they're,
dropping
their
their
landlines
and
about
90
percent
of
u.s
homes
use
wireless
service,
including
for
access
to
emergency
9-1-1,
and
next
is
some
information
about
9-1-1
calls
so
right
now
the
data
is
that
over
80
percent
of
9-1-1
calls
come
from
cell
phones,
and
there
were
240
million
e-911
calls
that
were
made
last
year
in
the
united
states.
L
L
Also,
you
know
what
I'm
going
to
back
up,
so
the
the
verizon's
existing
site
ventu
park
down
here,
as
noted
in
this
bullet
point-
is
currently
operating
considerably
over
its
capacity
and
if
kelly
road,
this
facility
isn't
built,
those
capacity
stresses
are
going
to
increase
significantly
and
the
problem
with
capacity
stress
is.
It
doesn't
allow
the
facility,
the
wireless
telecommunications
facility
to
operate
correctly.
L
A
capacity
stress
or
capacity
gap
acts
in
many
ways
as
a
coverage
gap
where
you
have
dropped
calls,
you
have
reduced
connectivity,
you
have
slow
data
speeds
and
your
network
just
doesn't
work
very
well,
and
so
the
kelly
road
site
is
both
a
coverage
site
to
cover
certain
residential
and
commercial
areas
nearby.
It
is
also
a
capacity
relief
site
for
verizon's
existing
ventu
park
facility.
L
So
here
is
a
coverage
or
propagation
map
showing
the
existing
verizon
network
coverage
in
the
area,
and
you
can
see
the
the
green
is
the
coverage
objective,
that
is,
a
good
penetration
of
in-building
coverage,
allows
people
to
use
their
facilities
indoors
and
get
the
connect.
Connectivity,
reliability
and
data
processing
speeds
that
we
all
expect.
Now.
L
L
So
verizon
has
their
verizon
rf
engineers
have
studied
this
area
have
determined
many
years
ago,
or
our
application
is
almost
three
years
old
and
there
was
a
lot
of
analysis
that
went
in
before
we
filed
the
application
to
determine
that
there
was
a
need
for
the
kelly
road
site,
and
so
the
rf
engineers
have
taken
a
look
at
it.
There
has
been
some
information
or
suggestion
in
the
appeal
that,
because
verizon's
national
network
map
shows
4g
coverage
in
the
area
that
the
facility
isn't
needed,
that's
not
true.
L
L
And
here
we
confirmed
that
with
kelly
road
by
going
out
to
rf
consultants,
who
did
a
specific
site.
Analysis
took
a
look
at
all
of
the
equipment
that
we
were
going
to
be
using
at
the
site,
presumed
that
it
was
going
to
be
operating
at
maximum
power
analyze
the
rf
energy,
and
confirm
that
this
site
will
operate
again
well
below
the
standard
set
by
the
fcc
to
ensure
human
health
safety.
L
This
just
talks
about
code
compliance
which
staff
had
already
analyzed
so
least
intrusive
means
the
alternative
site
analysis
verizon,
like
many
carriers,
would
prefer
to
co-locate
with
another
carrier's
facility,
there's
a
streamlined
application
process
for
that
there
typically
isn't
all
of
the
construction
costs
involved,
and
so
co-location
is
one
of
the
first
things
that
we
look
for.
There
were
not
any
co-location
opportunities
in
the
area.
There
wasn't
a
t-mobile,
an
att,
a
sprint
site
that
we
could
co-locate
on
if
we
did,
and
it
would
serve
the
coverage
objective
that
we
had,
we
would
go
there.
L
We
also
looked
at
some
other
sites
so
predominantly
in
the
commercial
area
just
to
the
north
of
us
but
south
of
101,
and
we
didn't
find
that
there
were
any
viable
solutions
there
again.
The
ground
level
elevation
in
that
commercial
area
is
about
25
to
30
feet
lower
than
the
ground
level
there,
and
we
would
have
to
put
up
a
much
taller
facility
to
get
a
coverage
footprint
and
to
be
able
to
project
our
signal
and
it
just
wasn't
feasible.
There
were
also
issues
with
respect
to
a
stand-alone
facility
would
be
more
visible
down.
L
There
it
could
take
up
parking
spaces
and
could
conflict
with
parking
ratios
that
are
required,
and
so
there
wasn't
anything
feasible
there.
In
addition,
we
took
a
look
at
the
three-story
courtyard
by
marriott,
but
that
wasn't
viable
again
it's
at
a
lower
elevation.
It
doesn't
give
us
the
coverage
footprint
that
we
would
like.
In
addition,
the
construction
activity
that
could
go
on
for
three,
maybe
four
months.
There
is
typically
not
something
that
is
allowed
by
hotels.
L
Our
planning
consultants
have
dealt
with
thousands.
If
not,
tens
of
thousands
of
these
applications
have
dealt
with
hotel
properties
and
hotel
chains
and
typically
are
told,
there's
no
way
that
the
hotels
are
going
to
allow
that
kind
of
construction
activity
to
go
on.
While
they
have
guests
there
often
they
will
require.
L
I
Thank
you,
mr
sullivan.
I
thought
I
wanted
to
start
with
just
with
a
quick
procedural
question:
are
you
aware
of
the
additional
condition
that
was
provided
to
us
as
item
16?
Yes,.
L
We've
seen
that
and
we
have
no
objection
to
that
condition.
I
So
you'd
be
fine
with
approving
that
going
along
with
that,
yes
and
then
just
back
a
little
bit
and
again,
I
know
the
questions
from
the
audience
are
regarding
this,
so
the
fcc
has
certain
guidelines
as
to
this
process.
I
L
I'm
not
qualified
to
answer
that
question.
I
know
that
the
health
safety
standard
is
set
up
here.
Our
facility
is
operating
well
below
that
and
the
law
states
that,
as
long
as
we
operate
within
the
fcc
guidelines,
which
we
clearly
do
here,
then
the
city
is
not
able
under
federal
law
to
regulate
the
facility.
On
that
basis,
understood.
F
L
F
L
L
So
my
eyesight
isn't
very
good
and
we
didn't
have
a
blow
up.
The
the
width
dimension
is
less
than
10
feet.
I
think
we
surmised
that
it
was
around
nine
feet,
so
ten
feet
high
by
nine
feet
wide.
Approximately
thank.
A
We're
about
to
go
to
public
comments
before
we
do
that,
I
will
put
into
the
record
we
had
two
statement
cards
for
people
who
do
not
want
to
have
a
public
comment.
One
of
them
didn't
actually
have
a
statement.
It
just
checked
a
box.
That
said
it
was
opposed.
A
A
N
N
N
There
is
actually
I'm
quoting
from
cbslocal.com,
and
that
is
an
article
that
says
that
cell
tower
on
school
campus
is
suspected
of
causing
students.
Cancer
was
removed,
that
is
in
ripon,
california,
and
the
cell
phone
tower
that
parents
claimed
caused
cancer
and
four
elementary
students
is
being
removed.
N
That's
just
a
small
clip
from
the
article
to
give
you
an
example
of
a
community
that
has
had
success
objecting
to
these
small
cell
installations.
Sprint
did
respond
and
remove
that
small
cell
tower
there's
another
case
in
bay
area.
The
bay
area
is
specifically
mill
valley,
a
small
town
located
just
a
few
miles
north
of
san
francisco.
N
N
This
is
from
one
year
ago
to
effectively
block
deployments
of
small
cell
5g
wireless
towers
in
the
city's
residential
areas
through
an
urgency
ordinance
which
allows
the
city
council
to
immediately
enact
regulations
that
affect
the
health
and
safety
of
the
community.
The
restrictions
and
prohibitions
will
be
put
into
force
immediately
for
all
future
applications.
N
It
says
blocks
on
5g
deployments
are
nothing
new
for
marin
county
where
other
cities,
including
san
anselmo
and
ross,
have
passed
similar
ordinances
designed
to
thwart
5g
expansion
efforts
over
health
concerns,
so
just
basically
stating
that
to
give
examples,
as
was
requested
that
there
are
other
objections
that
have
been
successful
and
and
the
most
significant
that
I
am
aware
of,
is
in
ripon
county
due
to
cancer
being
caused
in
children,
asserting
that
it
has
been
caused
in
children,
but
that
a
strong
enough
correlation
was
indicated
to
basically
cause
the
small
cell
tower
to
be
removed
by
sprint,
and
that
is
what
we
are
trying
to
prevent
for
our
community.
N
That
is
what
we
we
don't.
We
don't
want
to
see
and
we're
basically
objecting
on
the
grounds
that
nana,
that
a
faster
speed
of
cell
service
by
nanoseconds
is
is
a
is
a
want,
not
a
need.
A
O
I'm
peggy
rosenberg
and
I'm
a
resident
of
thousand
oaks.
Thank
you,
commissioners
for
this
opportunity,
during
which
I
want
us
to
consider
whether
mr
kramer
is
a
consultant
or
a
lobbyist.
The
distinction
impacts.
What
we're
doing
I
believe
he
claims
he
vote
deals
with
safety
concerns
raised
by
the
public
end
quote
really:
when
has
he
actually
satisfied
or
resolved
any
safety
complaint
for
any
member
of
the
public?
O
O
Mr
kramer
admits
he
makes
draft
changes
to
old
codes,
which
is
less
work
for
him.
This
should
never
be
allowed
by
the
city.
The
requirements
in
his
ordinances
are
one-sided
in
favor
of
the
wireless
industry
to
the
detriment
of
the
general
public.
By
allowing
these
poisoning
delivery
services
too
close
to
residents
for
more
than
25
years.
Mr
kramer
has
served
over
a
thousand
private
and
government
clients
as
a
wireless
technology
and
deployment
advisor
compliance,
inspector
and
telecom
site
lease
negotiator.
O
Clearly,
he's
an
industry
promoter
and
partisan
and
not
an
objective
advisor
on
public
policy
and
not
an
independent
contractor,
as
is
stipulated
in
his
contract
with
the
city
he
touts
that
he
co-wrote
fcc's
safety
guide.
What
does
he
know
about
the
health
effects
of
rf?
He
doesn't
provide
objective
information.
O
A
perfect
example
is
when
he
pointed
to
the
top
of
a
ruler
to
explain
measuring
the
effect
of
rf
emissions.
The
unprofessional
safety
explanation
indicates
incompetency
in
an
area
in
which
he's
supposed
to
be
an
expert
on
paper.
He
represents
public
interests
in
locating
wireless
facilities,
which,
in
fact
doesn't
seem
to
be
the
case.
Why
would
a
municipality
hire
a
an
industry
bias
lawyer
to
help
locate
facilities?
O
O
O
O
A
Do
you
have
any
questions?
Do
you
have
any
questions,
I'm
sorry?
Okay!
Next
we
have
kenna
allman
and
after
that
will
be
susan
wine,
weininger.
N
N
N
N
N
N
So
if
a
tiny
voice
inside
your
head
has
you
questioning
if
this
is
healthy?
For
us,
please
allow
that
voice
to
get
louder
than
your
paycheck
and
come
back
down
to
earth
to
the
things
that
really
matter
your
families
will
be
in
danger
of
these
towers
as
well.
Please
think
of
the
people
who
mean
most
to
you
think
of
your
children.
Think
of
your
mom,
your
dad,
whoever
means
most
to
you
think
of
that
person.
N
N
Verizon
people.
Why
don't
you
guys
find
a
better
way
find
something
that
can
be
safer,
find
a
loophole,
let's
find
a
loophole
in
the
criteria
so
that
we
can
deny
this
application?
I
understand
the
criteria
that
mr
newman
had
mentioned
earlier,
but
if
we
work
together,
we
can
change
that
to
a
more
humane
criteria.
The
fcc
guidelines
should
be
challenged,
which
side
of
history
will
you
be
on?
This
is
our
chance
to
take
a
stand
and
do
what's
right.
So,
let's
please
do
that.
Thank
you.
Everybody.
C
Hi
I'm
susan
weininger
good
evening,
and
I
am
a
resident
of
thousand
oaks,
I'm
addressing
the
propagation
of
cellular
antennas
again
here
in
our
city.
I
think
it's
necessary
to
speak
about
the
transmitters,
because
it
is
increasingly
urgent,
as
you
are
approving
more
and
more
of
them,
for
a
variety
of
reasons
to
the
detriment
of
all
of
us.
C
D
D
I
think,
without
going
into
the
presentation
about
health
effects,
because
that's
going
to
be
very
nicely
articulated
and
dismissed
by
our
experts
here,
I
want
to
get
into
kind
of
the
the
static
parts
I
currently
have
a
nice
view
behind
my
home.
I
bought
this
particular
property
with
the
intention
in
mind
that
there's
a
lower
setback
and
the
commercial
property
is
also
lower.
D
Now,
with
this
particular
tower,
there's
going
to
be
a
10
by
10,
as
the
gentleman
described
structured
directly
behind
me,
so
that's
obviously
going
to
have
an
impact
number
two.
Just
the
knowledge
of
having
a
cell
phone
tower
in
the
area
has
already
had
an
impact,
my
next
door
neighbor,
who
just
bought
the
property,
I
think
about
two
months
ago-
put
it
up
for
sale.
Why?
Because
they
have
a,
I
think,
a
year
and
a
half
year
old
son,
and
these
people
are
engineers.
The
husband
works
for
some
biotech
company.
D
D
I
also
was
looking
at
the
alternative
site
analysis
by
the
the
experts
here
and
they're
heat
mass.
By
the
way,
I'm
an
electrical
engineer.
I
went
to
ucla
and
I
have
studied
rf
engineer
and
analog
circuit
design.
So
I
know
what
I'm
talking
about
the
coverage
piece
that
he's
talking
about
can
be
very
easily
fulfilled
by
placing
the
tower
in
a
gazillion
of
other
locations
on
newbury
road.
If
you
just
go
past
kelly,
there's
an
entire
empty
lot,
where
the
old
I
think
thousand
oaks
school
used
to
be
that
construction
facility
is
completely
open.
D
So
what
does
it
take
to
raise
the
tower
by
another
30
feet
and
give
them
the
necessary
coverage
that
they
need?
I'm
directly
behind
this
particular
thing,
my
cell
phone
works
just
fine
and
I
really
don't
need
this
coverage.
I
mean,
if
that's
the
point
that
we're
trying
to
address
here
so
that
needs
to
be,
I
think,
taken
a
look
at.
D
I
also
believe
that-
and
this
was
a
question
that
I
asked
in
the
previous
hearing-
that
they
did
not
do
a
reasonable
about
enough
due
diligence
of
alternate
alternative
site
analysis
just
by
going
to
the
hotel
and
being
dismissed,
because
the
hotel
guests
are
going
to
be
inconvenienced
and
there's
a
cost.
You
have
not
taken
into
account
the
100
and
the
the
neighbors
who
are
150
feet
from
this
particular
location
and
going
falling
back
onto
the
fcc
1996
act.
D
So
I
really
really
ask
the
the
council
to
take
a
look
at
their
analysis
and
I
assure
you
that
there
are
many
feasible
locations
that
they
can
go
to.
Of
course,
there's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
cost,
but
can
it
alleviate
some
of
the
concerns
here?
Absolutely
well.
So
that's
one
suggestion
now.
The
gentleman
here
also
raised
a
question
about
you
know
previous
cases,
and
you
asked
that
question
as
well.
D
There
have
been
several
cases
where
the
city
or
the
carriers
have
been
challenged,
and
yes,
they
did
not
go
on
the
grounds
of
the
fcc
rule
per
se,
but
there
was
enough
momentum
in
the
community
and
enough
case
support,
not
case
information
built
up
in
in
in
the
court
system
to
basically
articulate
that
there
is
indeed
a
hazard.
I
will
again
not
call
it
that,
because
he's
going
to
dismiss
it,
the
health
hazard
right
people
are
getting
cancer.
D
Yes,
it's
not
prevalent
we're
not
reading
about
it
in
the
news,
but
I
assure
you
as
somebody
being
in
this
industry.
This
is
something
that's
going
to
absolutely
come
up
in
our
lifetime.
So
now,
let's
get
back
to
kind
of
the
solution
state
again
the
solution
is
very
simple.
In
my
opinion,
we
can't
run
away
from
wireless
technology.
These
people
are
going
to
continue
to
push
for
this
thing,
I'm
a
consumer.
D
I
work
in
the
industry
as
well,
but
I
think
there's
some
safe
and
responsible
steps
that
we
can
take,
and
I
ask
you
the
council,
because
this
is
city,
I
call
home
it's
a
beautiful
place.
Like
everybody
else
said,
many
cities
have
taken
a
proactive
stance
and
the
proraptic
stance
is
1500
feet
from
residential
areas
thousand
feet.
Minimum
calabasas
has
done
it.
Palo
alto
has
done
it.
So
these
are.
A
A
C
D
P
P
I
wanted
to
start
off
by
by
mentioning
that
I
had
a
meeting
with
a
building
biologist
years
ago,
and
he
said
you
know.
Rf
and
emf
is
the
new
smoking
and
it's
going
to
take
a
little
time.
It
took
a
long
time
to
realize
what
the
effects
were,
but
it
will
be
known,
there's
a
lot
of
covering
up,
but
it
will
it
will
be
uncovered.
P
Regarding
this
macro
site,
please
allow
us
to
look
more
closely
at
the
gap
in
coverage
that
you
claim
exists.
We'd
like
to
analyze
this
a
group
of
concerned.
Citizens
visited
the
build-out
spot
this
weekend
and
we're
able
to
get
access
wireless
access
with
no
difficulty
at
all.
We
have
engineers
and
building
biologists
and
technicians
who
are
happy
to
measure
and
analyze
any
supposed
gap.
Free
of
charge.
P
Signals
may
be
weak
in
certain
areas,
but
for
some
carriers,
but
inside
a
home
cell
phones
make
an
automatic
transition
to
wi-fi.
So
do
we
need
another
tower
for
coverage
inside
of
our
houses?
We
don't
these
4g
towers
and
their
antennas
they're,
making
us
sick
doctors
in
our
local
areas
agree
that
radiation
makes
people
sick.
The
national
toxicology
program,
our
own
u.s
government
study
released
last
november,
says
that
4g
doesn't
only
cause
cancer,
but
it
breaks
the
dna.
P
P
The
stores
in
the
in
and
out
strip
mall
will
lose
business
because
residents
won't
support
them,
knowing
what
they
know
now
about
the
harmful
nature
of
rf.
There's
already
a
tower
there.
Now
no
build
out
is
necessary.
Verizon
may
tell
you,
they
need
more
capacity,
but
most
of
their
towers
aren't
even
at
full
capacity.
P
K
Hello,
my
name
is
greg
tajan,
I'm
an
orthopedic
surgeon.
I
live
in
west
lake
village.
I've
been
a
physician
here
for
about
20
years.
I
am
exposed
to
x-rays.
I
have
actually
a
certificate
from
the
department
of
public
health
and
radiation
safety.
I'm
not
an
expert
in
rf,
but
I
do
understand,
understand
radiation.
K
I've
become
more
aware
of
this
when
the
tower
has
been
proposed
across
the
street
from
my
house
about
75
feet,
so
I've
researched
and
read
a
lot
during
my
presentation.
In
august
I
presented
100
references
and
a
bio
initiative
report.
My
question
is:
who
is
the
city's
medical
consultant
licensed
medical
physician?
I've
talked
a
lot
of
my
colleagues
and
this
is
a
real
thing.
The
radiation
does
create
dna
problems
and
results
in
cancer.
Think
of
it
like,
like
your
kidney
function,
somebody
maybe
the
dose
for
vancomycin,
for
example,
is
one
gram
every
eight
hours.
K
However,
if
you
have
a
kidney
issue,
the
dose
is
much
less
than
that.
So
there
are
people
who
have
sensitivities.
Despite
what
a
standard
number
is,
so
you
can't
just
use
a
standard
number,
because
we
are
all
different.
We
all
have
different
sensitivities
and
different
systems
in
our
body
to
process,
so
this
does
create
the
need
to
look
at
individual
cases,
and
there
are
plenty
of
people
who
are
presented
with
sensitivities,
so
I
think
that's
the
real
thing
such
as,
for
example,
the
firemen.
K
You
can't
put
these
towers
on
firehouses,
because
firemen
have
a
sensitivity
to
this
or
have
an
issue
with
it.
So
why
can
it
be
next
to
residences
150
feet
from
people's
houses?
That
I
don't
understand,
so
my
questions
are.
Did
anybody?
Has
anybody
read
the
references?
Has
anybody
read
the
bio
initiative
report?
Who
is
the
medical
consultant
for
the
city
to
give
a
medical?
I
don't
no
one
here
is
a
physician
medical
physician,
so
I'm
would
like
to
see
some
medical
information
on
behalf
of
the
city
for
the
residents.
K
The
other
question
I
have
is
all
these
calculations
that
people
are
saying,
as
as
it
seems
like
it's,
a
calculation
on
a
piece
of
paper
who
actually
took
a
device
to
the
ones
that
are
already
in
the
city
that
are
existing
and
actually
measured
that
to
see
truly.
What
is
that
number?
Because
there's
a
number
that
is
trying
to
to
be
below
so
has
anybody
actually
physically
measured
that
an
independent
consultant?
That's.
K
I
would
like
to
know
that
specific
question
as
well
or
answer
that
question
as
well,
so
I
don't
know
what
the
rush
is.
Why
can't
we?
Today's
like
the
most
discussion,
I've
ever
seen
for
the
wireless
towers
coming
into
town?
Why
can't
we
just
sit
down
as
a
community
and
talk
about
it
rather
than
just
having
a
four
minute
presentation
and
a
one
day
to
make
a
decision?
Q
Hi,
I'm
andy
jacob
from
newbury
park,
there's
so
many
issues
here.
It's
just
going
to
be
hard
to
cover
in
four
minutes.
I
first
of
all
want
to
just
say
you
know
it's.
Actually
it's
such
a
travesty
that
professor
marshall
hasn't
been
consulted.
I
mean
just
from
a
plain
effect
that
he
actually
paid
for
this
appeal.
Q
All
skills
set
aside.
He
really
should
be
consulted.
We
keep
hearing
people
talk
about
the
bio
initiative,
he's
part
of
that.
We
keep
hearing
people
asking
about
doctors.
He
has
his
own
protocol
called,
I
mean,
go
google,
dr
marshall's
protocol.
I
mean
this
is
a
man
who
knows
the
biological
effects
of
it.
He
has
like
kramer.
They
were
both
engineers.
I
mean
I
don't
have
time
to
read
his
bio,
but
he's
a
life
senior
member
of
ieee.
That's
the
engineering
part
and
aarl
he's
been
a
qualified
engineer.
Q
He
was
doing
microwave
design
from
the
60s
and
then
in
the
70s.
He
went
into
the
technology
behind
4g
and
then
in
the
80s.
He
designed
the
rf
broadband
and
then
he
went
into
the
biological.
So
that's
a
person
that
we
really
should
be
consulting
with
and
he'll.
Do
it
free
of
charge.
We
don't
have
to
pay
him
a
quarter
of
a
million
dollars.
Q
I
wanted
to
go
into
my
organization.
We
came
here.
We
weren't
an
organization
when
we
were
talking
to
the
city
council
in
february.
We
were
just
concerned
citizens,
susan
started
with
me,
and
we
grew
to
ventura
county
issues.
Reforms
in
our
california
issues
reform.
Mr
bass,
I
have
hundreds
of
stories
to
tell
you.
The
thing
is
you're
asking
for
you
know
you
was
asking
about
any
noted
commission.
Q
It
never
goes
to
the
public
because
the
city
managers
want
to
just
put
it
under
the
carpet
and
they
don't
want
the
telecoms
to
hear
about
it.
So,
I'm
more
than
happy
to
give
you
those.
We
have
lots
of
different
ways
and
lots
of
cities
that
have
come
up
with
really
creative
ways
of
getting
around
it
so
happy
to
share
that
with
you.
But
with
our
organization
there
are
five
cities
and
then
the
other
problem
with
you
as
the
commission,
is
that
yours,
your
city
council,
has
not
protected
you.
Q
There
are
so
many
you
keep
asking
for
experiences
these
I
mean
october.
1St
was
a
month
and
a
half
ago,
but
I
can
tell
you
in
the
process
when
the
august
9th
ruling
came
out.
There
are
three
cities
and
you
follow
the
money,
malibu
ohi
and
beverly
hills.
They
they
can
pay
and
they
are
writing
ordinances
to
protect
the
health
and
safety
of
their
residents,
and
you
can
ask
for
those
ordinances.
Q
So
do
we
want
to
attract
these
people
that
are
at
that
caliber,
or
do
we
want
to
be
an
oxnard
or
camarillo?
Okay,
yeah
we
had
to
rip
on
california.
I
wanted.
I
want
the
verizon
people
to
know
sprint
took
down
their
tower
as
soon
as
those
cancer
cases
came
out
and
that
was
operating
at
a
0.01
percent
strength.
Q
Verizon,
obviously
doesn't
even
know
how
I
mean
we're
just
another
number
to
them.
They
didn't
even
know
that
the
width
and
the
depth
of
the
tower
I
mean,
can
we.
This
is
where
I
want
to
go.
I've
got
so
many
notes,
but
we
don't
need
to
make
the
decision
straight
away.
I
mean
we
have.
The
nipper
is
a
huge
one
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
the
et
al
part
of
that
court
case
was
not
just
the
cherokee
indians.
It
was
struck
down
for
a
reason
and
we
can
apply
that.
Q
Why
don't
we
get
a
nepa
study,
I
mean.
Why
are
we
taking
the?
Why
are
we
taking
the
telecoms
maps
and
research
papers?
Why
we're
not
doing
that
ourselves
anyway,
just
going
back
to
the
overview,
I
don't
know
how
much
the
city
attorney
and
the
city
councils
talk
to
you,
but
in
february
we're
already
warning
about
the
ada
people.
So
now
we
have
logged
with
the
city
attorney.
He
has
six
ada
complaints.
Now
the
city
of
thousand
oaks
had
one
in
the
80s,
and
you
know
how
much
wine
cost
we've
got.
Q
We
are
working
on
70
plus
more
of
those
complaints
coming
in.
So
you
do
the
math
I
mean:
do
you
want
one
telecom
lawsuits
or
do
you
want
70,
ada's
complaints,
the
the
other
problem
to
that
is
the
fair
housing
act.
We
have
four
members
that
are
leaving
the
city
of
thousand
oaks.
One
is
already
sold
so
again.
This
starts
getting
ugly
because
they're
going
to
start
looking
for
damages
and
negligence,
and
I'm
so
sorry
that
the
problems
come
to
you,
because
your
city
council
should
have
protected
you
with
the
ordinance.
Q
M
Good
evening
vladimir
resident
of
newberry
park
since
2003
local
beekeeper,
you
might
remember
me,
I
offered
you
experiment
with
the
bees
and
the
main
reason
why
I'm
in
this
movement
against
the
four
5g
towers,
just
because
of
the
bees
and
but
also
you
know
today,
I
totally
changed
the
script
because
a
lot
of
intelligent
people
shared
their.
You
know
views
and
kind
of
change.
M
The
direction,
and
I
want
to
show
you
from
my
past-
I
mean
from
my
life
experience
of
60
years
in
both
country,
ukraine
or
former
soviet
union
and
united
states,
and
I
love
nature.
Since
my
childhood,
and
even
though
I
was
born
in
capital,
ukraine,
city,
kiev
and
after
finishing
my
you
know,
degree
as
to
become
a
teacher,
I
finished
completed
the
school
fishery
hatchery
school.
I
guess
that
would
be
translation
and
right
next
to
us
was
a
beekeeping
school
and
that's
my
life.
My
love
for
for
living
species
were
developed
greatly.
M
And
recently
I
was
given
as
a
gift
one
developed
by
dr
marshall,
at
marshall,
and
now
I
annoy
my
children
at
home
because
it's
a
really
powerful
meter
and
it
shows
the
sound
you
know
once
and
then
also
show
the
green
and
and
red
light.
And
you
know
what
I
did.
I
put
my
wi-fi,
what's
called
router
on
on
a
mirror,
so
it
shuts
off
at
night,
but
a
signal
is
still
strong
and
I
cannot
kill
it.
So
I
I'm
looking
for.
M
M
And
then,
when
I
came
back
to
kiev
from
south
of
ukraine,
even
though
I
just
mentioned
that
I
people
as
pieces
probably
lost
that
ability
to
detect
the
radiation.
But
immediately.
I
started
to
feel
that
the
third
throat
and
I
shared
with
my
mom,
oh
by
the
way
I
forgot
to
tell
you
that
soviet
union
government
hit
for
hit
it
for
people
that
fact
that
it
wasn't
even
explode
and
until
sweden
and
some
western
countries
showed
up
the
high
level
and
then
they
had
no
way
out
to
to
hide
it
one.
M
More
fact
I
have
three
dogs
in
my
house
and
before
I
I've
got
the
demeter
from
dr
marshall.
I
my
dogs,
I've
noticed
they
sleep
in
one
room
in
the
kitchen
in
one
corner,
all
three
and
then
accidentally.
I
was
exhausted
after
working
with
bees,
and
I
had
that
meter
in
my
hand-
and
I
realized
bow
no
beeping,
no
sound,
nothing,
zero,
zip,
green
light
and
then
I
said,
wow
look,
these
creatures.
They
have
ability
to
detect
where
the
radiation
is
absent,
there's
no
radiation
and
we
have
no
no
ability.
M
We
have
to
use
devices,
as
I
mentioned,
and
you
know
I
want
to
mention
that
life
and
health
is
the
most
important,
regardless
of
your
and
other
people
or
our
worldview
creation
revolution.
So
my
grandfather
has
managed
to
live
101
year
and
he
survived
world
war.
One
feminine
ukraine
revolution
four
years
in
I
mean
three
three
years
he
was
captured
and
kept
in
a
german
camp
and
that
guy,
you
know
kind
of
I'm
looking
at
him
and
he
you
know
he
didn't
have
all
of
this
exposure
duration.
M
M
We
fight
for
your
children
and
grandchildren.
I
need.
M
Yeah
health,
so
then,
let's
work
together
and
come
up
with
the
solution
against
the
the
powerful
radiation
that
just
destroys
us
loves
life
and
health.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
would
like
to
address
two
issues
that
were
brought
up
by
the
by
the
public
speakers.
One
of
them
regarding
mr
that
was
brought
by
miss
rosenberg.
Regarding
mr
jonathan's
pay
payment.
I
made
this.
G
I
point
this
out
at
the
public
at
the
administrative
hearing,
which
was
also
brought
out
the
same
issue
regarding
his
pay.
Mr
kramer
is
paid
through
a
fund.
That's
coming
from
the
applicant.
Every
wireless
application
in
the
city
comes
with
a
three
thousand
dollar
deposit.
That
deposit
is
the
money.
I
mean
the
three
dollar
that
three
thousand
dollar
deposit
is
provided
by
the
wireless
facility
applicant.
This
comes
in
every
application
for
wireless
facility,
mr
kramer's
pay
is
taken
out
of
that
out
of
that
fund,
so
no
public
fund
is
being
used
to
pay.
G
Mr
kramer,
in
the
review
of
these
wireless
facilities.
G
As
far
as
the
aesthetics
is
concerned,
may
I
direct
you
to
the
monitor
I've
taken
some
pictures
of
the
buildings
that
are
potential
for
for
a
wireless
facility.
This
is
a
building,
a
restaurant
building
on
newbury
road.
G
That
is
right
next
to
the
freeway,
and
that
has
a
tower
feature
that,
if
you
increase
the
size
of
it
or
the
height
of
it
will
look
very
disproportionate.
Here
is
another
view
of
that
same
building.
This
is
the
chillest
building
by
the
way
and
as
you
can
see
it
lines
up
almost
perfectly
against
the
ridge
line,
I
will
point
out
the
ridge
line
on
the
screen
here
with
the
mouse.
You
see
this
ridge
line
right
here.
G
The
goals
and
policy
of
our
scenic
view
shed
protection
is
to
prevent
as
much
as
possible
silhouetting
against
those
rich
lines.
So,
if
you
look
at
this
that
roof
right,
there
almost
coincide
with
that
rich
line,
another
picture,
and
if
we,
if
we
use
this
as
the
alternative
side,
the
increase
in
height
would
cause
silhouetting
against
that
reach
line,
which
is
a
big
no-no.
As
far
as
the
view
shed
policy
is
concerned,.
G
G
This
is
the
chile
building,
which
is
one
of
the
one
of
the
sites.
This
is
the
hotel
there's
another
tower.
This
is
probably
this
is
the
tower
that
I
showed
earlier
earlier
on
and
that
tower
that
we're
looking
at
right
now
at
the
storage
facilities
most
likely
this
one
right
here
well
behind
those
trees
and
the
intervening
buildings.
G
So
staff
has
looked
at
all
these
these
alternative
sites
and
comparing
it
against
the
proposed
facility
staff
believes
that
this
proposed
facility
is
the
one
that
will
comply
most
with
97
197.
G
So
that
is
why
staff
believe
that
believes
that
this
is
the
best
alternative.
As
far
as
this
project
is
concerned,
thank
you
and
mr
kramer
would
like
to
have
some
to
respond
to
some
of
the
issues
I
have.
H
He
said
that
the
fcc
regulations
are
gone.
They're,
not.
He
said
that
the
ground
rules
have
changed.
They
haven't
that
the
fcc
rules
are
not
struck
down,
in
fact,
to
the
extent
that
the
courts
have
directed
the
fcc
to
go
back
and
review
it.
That
is
something
that
is
for
the
fcc
to
do,
but
in
the
meantime
the
court
did
not
strike
down
the
fcc
rules,
so
the
rules
that
were
in
effect
in
august
are
the
same
rules
that
are
in
effect
today,
which
are
the
same
rules.
They
were
in
effect
a
year
ago.
H
So
from
your
perspective
as
commissioners
who
have
taken
an
oath
to
uphold
the
law,
just
like
I've
taken
that
same
oath
as
an
attorney,
there's
still
the
law.
Now,
there's
a
comment
made
that
the
fcc
regulations
are
not
law.
In
fact
they
are.
The
fcc
is
the
expert
agency
charged
by
congress
with
enacting
the
rules
in
federal
law,
and
this
specifically,
as
was
cited
earlier,
332
c7,
that's
the
federal
code.
H
So
congress
doesn't
write
operational
rules.
They
have
expert
agencies,
regardless
of
how
we
may
think
of
the
expert
agency,
and
I
have
my
own
quibbles
with
the
fcc,
but
to
the
extent
that
they
are
the
agency
delegated
by
congress
to
enact
the
laws
that
congress
has
passed,
that's
what
they
do
and
those
rules
have
the
force
of
law.
H
You
know
when
I
I
was
studying
for
my
doctorate.
I
had
to
go
through
all
of
the
court
cases.
Every
single
court
case
that
was
both
published
and
unpublished.
That
was
discoverable
on
the
issue
of
rf
and
and
home
values,
and
all
of
that
and
the
courts
recognize
the
fcc.
I
mean
there.
Just
is
no
question
about
it
and
nothing
has
changed.
H
Moving
on
to
some
of
the
speaker
comments,
the
speaker
comments
were
generally
all
about
rf
and
I
get
it,
but
there
were
a
couple
that
require
some
additional
unpacking.
Miss
swanson
talked
about
the
rip-on
and
the
ripton
case
where
sprint
removed
the
tower,
and
they
did
subsequent
to
that.
H
If
you
continue
down
you'll
find
that,
in
fact,
what
was
determined
to
be
the
cause
of
the
cancer
is
the
fact
that
there
was
an
old
nestle's
plant
that
was
nearby
that
had
discharged
carcinogens
into
the
ground
and
that's
the
causal
link.
There
did
sprint
remove
the
tower
sure,
but
was
that
the
actual
cause
of
the
cancer
based
on
published
reports
in
the
sacramento
bee,
a
modesto
bee
and
the
cbs
their
toxicologists
have
called
had
put
it
back
at
the
the
cause
to
be
nestle's
discharge
of
toxic
materials.
H
Miss
rosenberg
doesn't
like
me
very
much
but
okay,
so
let
me
unpack
some
of
that
will
just
talked
about
my
contract.
A
quarter
of
a
million
dollars
so
did
so
did
mr
rosenberg.
My
contract
is
a
contract
that
has
a
maximum
but,
as
will
indicated,
I'm
paid
as
a
pass-through
through
the
city.
Why
is
that?
Because
we
won't
accept
any
contract
with
a
city
where
we
are
paid
directly
by
a
wireless
company.
We
have
to
clearly
have
our
allegiances
to
our
city
client,
not
to
the
person
who
pays
us
who
maybe
not
the
city.
H
H
H
Not
a
lobbyist
for
the
wireless
industry,
in
fact,
in
the
current
fcc
process,
the
current
proceeding
where
the
wireless
industry
wants
to
gut
section
6409,
we
are
the
only
firm
that
was
called
out
by
name
by
the
wireless
industry,
is
being
a
bad
actor
because
we're
actually
out
there
enforcing
the
fcc
rules.
They
don't
like
that,
so
only
telecom
law
firm
was
named
by
name
by
the
wireless
industry.
H
Everyone
else
was
just
referred
to
obliquely.
I
take
that
by
the
way,
as
quite
a
badge
of
honor,
it's
nice
to
know
that
the
industry
doesn't
like
what
we're
doing,
but
what
we're
doing
is
enforcing
the
fcc
rules
to
the
maximum
extent
possible
and
in
the
6409
proceedings
that
are
going
right
now.
The
city
of
thousand
oaks
is
participating.
They're,
one
of
the
named
parties
opposing
the
fcc's,
well,
the
the
industry's
current
petition
to
gut
6409.
H
So
this
city
and
the
city
council
have
taken
a
position
in
the
right
form,
and
I've
talked
about
this
before
this
is
an
area
where
you,
if
you're
going
to
fight
your
battle,
you
got
to
fight
it
on
the
right
battlefield.
One
of
the
complaints
from
professor
marshall
is
that
I've
said
that
this
needs
to
be
taken
to
congress.
It's
right,
that's
really
where
these
rules
come
from.
H
H
H
Mr
coker,
I
believe,
if
that's
I
again,
I
apologize
if
that's
not
correct,
referenced
setbacks
and
mention
city
of
calabasas.
H
The
city
of
calabasas
is
actually
in
the
process
of
revising
their
wireless
ordinance,
which
was
one
of
the
most
restrictive
for
a
number
of
years
to
actually
allow
for
small
cells
to
come
into
residential
neighborhoods,
because
the
city
did
a
city-wide
survey
and
found
by
just
overwhelming
numbers
that
the
public
was
not
satisfied
and
they
wanted
cell
sites
so
calabasas
its
current
code
is
restrictive
and
the
city
council
has
directed
their
communications
and
technology
commission,
basically
to
relax
in
a
reasonable
and
prudent
way.
Those
restrictions.
H
Dr
tajan
talked
about:
who
is
the
city's
medical
expert?
We
don't
have
one
that
I'm
aware
of,
and
it's
probably
best
put
because
this
isn't
a
medical
issue.
This
is
an
issue
of
law
because
as
much
as
the
public
concern-
and
I
really
I
believe
it's
heartfelt-
I
believe
these
are
very
concerned-
people
who
are
worried
about
this
issue,
but
this
is
not
the
place
or
the
forum
where
those
issues
get
resolved.
H
So
again,
although
I
will
disagree
with
how
it
was
characterized
really
the
the
right
field
for
this
argument
to
go
down
the
health
issues,
the
issues
of
impacts
is
at
the
federal
government
level
at
congress.
Frankly,
because
congress
can
control
the
fcc
and
the
fcc
is
in
some
ways
out
of
control.
Now
I
get
it,
but
it's
still
the
law
that
we
have
to
follow
and.
H
Our
firm
reviewed,
the
rf
analysis
that
was
independently
produced
by
verizon's
engineers,
and
we
review
that
because
the
site's
not
built
so
we
review
the
maximum
power,
just
as
verizon's
attorney
talked
about
and
we
compare
those
to
the
federal
standards
and
this
site
complies
with
those
federal
standards.
So
as
a
as
a
legal
issue
as
unsatisfying
as
it
is
to
the
public
that
concern
about
rf
is
not
a
consideration
that
you
can
take
into
account
when
you
make
whatever
decision
you
may
make
or
not
make
tonight.
A
H
B
Add
to
dr
kramer's
comments
and
staffs
comments
on
a
couple
of
issues
that
were
raised
tonight
and
for
the
public
just
to
give
them
additional
information.
I
think,
is
imperative
that
they
understand
from
city's
perspective.
The
first
one
is,
you
heard
a
quick
comment,
a
very
short
comment
about
ada
access
and
accessibility
to
our
meetings.
We
actually
provide
that
on
our
agenda.
B
If
people
have
concerns
of
any
disability,
they
can
contact
the
city
clerk
or
the
planning
commission
clerks
department
and
ask
for
and
discuss
it,
and
we
can
make
arrangements
for
that
for
this
particular
matter.
We
did
not
receive
any
of
those
calls,
so
I
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record.
B
We
talked
a
little
bit
about
this
case
and
again
I
didn't
hear
many
people
cite
the
case
itself,
so
I'm
just
assuming
it
is
the
one
called
united
kidawa
band
of
cherokee
indians
in
oklahoma
versus
fcc
and
again
I
want
to
comment
on
a
portion
of
that
case
because
I
think
there's
been
some
confusion
about
the
impact
to
our
city,
the
impact
to
our
state,
the
impact
to
decisions
that
we
can
make
at
this
time
and
in
this
decision.
B
When
the
court
looked
at
the
various
petitions
and
the
various
orders,
there
was
five
points
and
when
the
court
made
their
decision,
they
found
that
when
the
fcc
looked
at
the
national
historic
preservation
act
or
nhpa
and
nepa,
which
is
again
the
national
environmental
policy
act,
they
found
that
when
the
fcc
did
their
analysis
for
that
particular
case
for
this
particular
area,
they
had
problems
with
that
decision.
So
they
granted
the
petitioner's
request
on
those
two
things
as
far
as
alleged
violations
of
nepa
and
nha
nhpa.
B
But
it's
important
to
note
that
while
they
have
some
incredible
warding
here
that
that
we
might
use
in
that
in
cases
that
we
might
have
as
far
as
california
league
of
cities
against
the
fcc
that's
currently
underway,
it
doesn't
impact
us
as
far
as
how
we
can
apply
this
case.
This
matter
had
to
do
with
small
cells
and
we're
not
dealing
with
small
cells
here
had
to
do
with
nepa
and
nhpa
and,
as
I
indicated
earlier,
that
does
not
apply
in
this
case.
B
B
Because
he's
an
expert
in
this
area
and
the
reason
why
we
do
that
is
because
there
are
times
in
which
we
attempt
to
fight
back
through
the
legal
realm
that
we
can
and
we
do
that
with
effort
if
we
can
and
with
an
analysis
of
the
success
and
one
of
the
things
that
has
not
been
on
the
table
since
1996
is
if
the
rf
emissions
meet
the
federal
guidelines
that
is
off
the
table
across
the
nation
across
every
city
across
every
state.
It's
off
the
table
to
deny
the
case
because
of
that
issue.
B
It
is
very
important
that
you
understand
that
we
heard
comments
about
calabasas
and
some
other
cities.
Again.
I
request
that
you
look
at
those
ordinances
carefully,
because
most
of
them
that
I've
read
at
least
have
an
out
and
that
out
is
that
if
it
doesn't
com,
if,
if
there's
a
request
for
an
application
for
a
location
that,
under
the
general
rules
of
the
ordinance,
it's
not
permitted,
they
have
to
permit
it
if
required
by
federal
law.
And
while
we
don't
have
that
in
our
city,
I'm
going
to.
B
I
suspect
that
there's
going
to
be
some
case
down
the
down
the
road
where
they're
going
to
say
yeah,
it's
required
by
federal
law,
so
I
mentioned
nippo,
there's
also
a
comment
about
aesthetics
again
we're
looking
at
this
case
very
specifically
and
mr
chua
and
staff.
Dr
kramer,
we
look
at
this
case
and
we
say:
does
it
meet
the
boxes
of
our
wireless
policy?
Again,
this
is
a
macro
site,
so
we're
looking
at
our
97
197
policy
and
again
we
check
the
boxes.
It
is
going
into
a
commercial
area.
B
B
Finally,
dr
kramer
mentioned
that
there
is
a
new
petition
with
the
fcc
from
the
wireless
industry,
and
that
has
to
do
with
removing
the
ability
for
local
agencies-
cities
such
as
ours
to
even
ask
to
review
the
rf
emissions,
whether
they
meet
the
minimum
standards.
What
would
happen
if
this
is
if
the
wireless
facilities
or
wireless
industries
position
is
taken
by
the
fcc
and
granted?
It
would
mean
that
we
would
be
unable
to
ask
for
review
of
the
rf
missions
to
ensure
that
they're
meeting
the
standards
that
are
required
by
the
federal
government.
B
That's
exactly
one
of
the
things
that
dr
kramer
does.
He
looks
at
these
cases
and
there's
got
to
be
situations
at
times,
not
always,
but
at
times,
because
it
doesn't
help
verizon,
it
doesn't
help
other
agencies
or
other
operators
to
not
comply
with
that,
but
sometimes
guess
what
there's
a
there
is
an
issue
and
by
checking
it
we
work
with
them
and
say:
yes,
let's
make
sure
that
this
complies
with
the
federal
regulations
and
that's
taken
away
from
us.
So
what
are
we
doing?
B
We
are
actually
petitioning
spending
money,
spending,
effort
to
fight
that,
and
we
do
that
because
we're
concerned
on
the
battles
that
we
can
fight
we're
concerned
about.
Let's
do
what
we
can
to
make
sure
that
we
protect
our
police
powers
as
much
as
we
can
our
local
authority
as
much
as
we
can
again
win
or
lose.
I'm
not
going
to
tell
you
right
now,
but
again
we're
making
efforts
where
we
can
going
back
to
our
commission.
So
we
can't
that's
not
a
fight
for
us,
because
it's
been
clear
since
1996
that's
been
out.
B
I
read
the
statute
to
you,
47
usc,
332.
again,
it's
that
issue
is
at
our
hands
and
I'm
just
going
to
again
reiterate
that
at
the
end
of
the
day.
For
this
case,
all
these
appeal
points
it
has
to
do
the
bottom
line
with
the
rf
emission
output
right
and
so
that's
why
the
recommendation
is
what
it
is
and
that's
why
we
are
recommending
approval
because
of
those
aspects
of
our
policy
that
it
meets.
E
Yes,
I
do.
Thank
you,
mr
chua.
One
of
the
public
speakers
brought
up
the
fact
that
the
view
from
his
backyard
may
be
impacted
by
this.
I
know
that
we've
got
a
number
of
pictures
looking
across
the
ridgeline,
from
the
freeway
and
from
the
shopping
center,
but
I'm
curious
have
you
taken
any
pictures
facing
north
and
so
that
we
can
see
how
their
views
are?
Impacted.
The
residential
neighborhood
behind
there.
E
A
E
For
dr
kramer,
I've
got
a
few
questions.
Are
you
aware
of
any
local
municipality
nationwide
that
has
has
contested
the
building
of
a
wireless
facility
for
an
ada
compliance
reason?
No,
are
you
aware
of
any.
H
One
of
the
reasons-
and
this
has
happened
a
number
of
times
in
southern
california-
is
that
they
have
wireless
companies,
have
come
in
in
various
cities
and
proposed
sites
that
do
violate
ada
clearance,
primarily
and
those
just
get
bounced
so
again.
The
projects
that
reach
this
level
are
the
ones
that
have
gone
through
scrutiny,
but
you
don't
see
the
projects
that
don't
reach
you.
So
yes,
projects
have
been
denied
on
ada,
but
that's
been
because
they
never
qualify
to
go
to
an
actual
decision.
Okay,.
E
That
makes
sense,
and
then
you
mentioned
in
rebuttal,
the
fcc
has
been
instructed
to
review
their
regulations
by
an
appellate
court.
I.
H
H
There
is
no
timeline
and
in
fact
the
fcc
recently
last
year
plus
completed
a
multi-year
process
of
reviewing
its
rules
that
were
first
adopted
in
1997,
and
the
commission
basically
came
up
with
the
position
that
there
was
no
basis
to
change
it.
Whether
this
will
cause
the
commission
to
go
back
and
reevaluate
it.
I
don't
know,
but
it
will
be
glacial
at
best
glacial.
E
At
best,
okay
I'll
take
that,
and
then
you
also
rebutted
the
incidence
of
sprint
voluntarily
removing
a
plant
up
in
modesto
sacramento
area.
My
question
is:
are
they
still
dealing
with
with
the
cancer
incidents
at
that
elementary
school?
As
a
result
of
that
factory
that
you
mentioned?
I
don't
know
you
don't
know,
okay,
appreciate
your
time.
Thank
you.
F
F
In
fact,
isn't
it
the
case
that
in
a
previous
application,
the
commission
rejected
the
application
I'm
referring
to
one
in
the
sunset
hills
area
in
large
part,
because
the
commission
felt
the
alternative
site
analysis
was
insufficient.
G
If
I
could
remember
it
correctly,
during
that
meeting,
verizon
was
asked
how
many
potential
replacement
sites
would
be
needed
if
white
chapel,
it's
called
white
chapel
back
then
yes
was
not
approved.
The
answer
from
the
verizon
technical
person
was
varying
from
seven
to
nine,
so
there
was
no
specific
answer.
The
commission
didn't
get
a
specific
answer
and
the
that
the
denial
was
based
on
the
fact
that
verizon
cannot
make
a
straight
out
answer
to
what
is
needed.
As
far
as
alternative
side
is
concerned,
how
many
is
needed.
F
F
G
Because
verizon
failed
to
prove
that
basically,
the
the
denial
was
based
on
the
fact
that
verizon
failed
to
prove
that
the
site
is
the
best
alternative.
F
So
this
is
one
of
the
reasons
I
asked
dr
kramer
at
the
outset
whether
alternative
site
analysis
was
in
or
out
of
scope
in
terms
of
making
a
decision.
Some
cases
we
agree
with
the
an
applicant
or
with
staff
that
that
sufficient
site
analysis
has
been
accomplished.
In
other
cases,
we
do
not
agree,
but
we
we
make
decisions
about
that
either
way.
C
F
Another
comment
suggested
that
dr
kramer
is
somehow
a
stooge
in
the
pocket
of
telecom
providers,
and
I
wanted
to
ask
for
some
more
detail
about
a
previous
comment.
I
don't
even
think
it
was
relative
to
a
particular
case,
but
in
a
previous
tele
wireless
hearing,
dr
kramer
appeared
before
this
body
and
arranged
a
little
demonstration
in
which
he
constructed
a
scale,
not
scale.
A
life-size
model
of
of
a
box
using
pvc
piping
is
a
larger
than
a
full-size
refrigerator
and
had
an
associate
of
his
stand
inside
of
that
box.
H
That
was
a
memorable
evening
and
when
I
make
presentations
before
this
body,
one
of
the
things
that's
vitally
important
is
that
I
not
technobabble
it's
really
easy
to
do
that.
As
an
engineer,
it's
easy
to
do
that
as
a
lawyer,
so
I
tend
to
use
illustrations
like
the
box
that
you
talked
about
or
one
of
the
the
public
members
talked
about
the
fact
that
I
used
a
12-inch
ruler
to
explain
the
rf
rules
of
the
fcc.
I
try
to
use
tools
like
that
and
they're
very
effective
in
trying
to
illustrate
technical
concepts.
H
F
And
it's
the
k:
isn't
it
the
case
that
that
that
case
has
to
do
with
provider,
location
of
facilities
on
public
rights
of
way.
H
Sites
primarily,
but
not
exclusively
in
the
right-of-way,
and
the
way
that
they've
done
it
and
the
shot
clock
and
the
limitation
on
fees
to
try
and
basically
choke
local
governments
out
of
the
ability
to
even
review
projects
is
a
serious
issue
that
we
hope
the
ninth
circuit
will
see
through
and
rule
in
our
favor
ruling.
All
the
local
government's
favors.
H
I
think
it's
fairly
safe
for
me
to
say-
and
I
don't
think
anyone
doubts
it
here-
that
we
are
intensely
opposed
to
the
overreach
of
the
commission,
which
many
people
have
called
a
captured
federal
agency
captured
or
not
the
right
place
to
solve.
That
problem
is
not
to
avoid
the
rules,
but
it's
to
challenge
them
in
the
right
form,
which
is
in
this
case
federal
court.
F
All
right
and
then
the
final
thing
is
just
to
reiterate
some
of
the
comments
both
by
the
appellant
and
during
public
comments
had
to
do
centered
around
objections
or
comments
made
even
by
fcc
commissioners
about
small
sites
for
about
5g
service.
Again,
just
to
be
clear,
the
application
that's
been
appealed
and
the
appeal
before
us
this
evening
has
to
do
not
with
5g
but
with
4g
service.
Is
that
correct?
That's.
H
E
Mr
hayer,
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you
as
far
as
the
city
rules
go.
Obviously
we
have
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
restrictions
and
a
lot
of
intent
on
how
how
we
do
design
and
we're
talking
about
a
gentleman
who's
going
to
be
looking
at
a
10
by
10
box
from
his
backyard,
and
I
I
know
that
we
just
mr
chua
said
we
don't
specifically
have
a
rule
against
that.
E
But
it
seems
like
the
intent
of
the
city
is,
is
to
maintain
a
certain
level
of
of
our
rural
aspect,
and
I
was
just
curious
what
your
take
on
that
is,
and
what.
B
B
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
true
was
correct.
We
don't
actually
have
a
view
shed
ordinance,
so
we
do
not
protect
someone's
view
and
what
we
do
is.
I
think
the
reason
why
there's
a
focus
on
the
front
is
because
we
do
have
a
highway
corridor
requirement
that
we
always
have
to
be
careful
of
when
we
ever
whenever
we
have
a
proposed
project
off
the
freeway,
we're
always
looking
at
the
101
quarter.
The
23
quarter
make
sure
that
it's
compliant
with
that
and
some
of
our
other
major
streets
that
we
have.
B
So
we
we
look
at
that,
and
so
that
was
part
of
the
analysis
of
that.
So
we
we
don't
actually
have
one
for
someone's
protected
view
for
whether
it's
a
tree,
whether
it's
a
house
something
of
the
nature.
The
other
issue
is,
we
do
have
a
or
again
as
part
of
our
planning
policies,
we're
always
looking
at
the
ridgeline,
and
we
try
to.
B
I
think
it's
over
time,
we've
been
better
at
that
initially,
it
might
not
have
been
as
focused
of
a
point,
but
we
do
try
to
protect
the
ridgeline
views
as
much
as
we
can.
So
when
people
are
seeing
it,
we
don't
see
things
that
are
situated
above
the
ridge
line
to
again
catch
the
eye
in
a
in
a
an
aesthetic
view,
type
of
thing.
A
J
Well,
firstly,
firstly
because
it's
fresh
in
my
mind
is
the
advice
from
patrick
on
332
c
7
b
4..
J
There
are
two
sections
to
337,
337.2,
337
c
7,
a
and
b
and
the
b
is
the
one
that
contains
the
paragraph
that
has
been
consistently
read
as
precluding
the
city
from
acting
on
health
and
radiation
concerns,
even
though
fcc
has
never
actually
codified
that
themselves.
J
But
actually,
if
you
look
at
332
c7
a
what
you'll
find
is,
there
are
two
sections
to
332
c7.
There
is
a
and
b
a
refers
to
individual,
citing
decisions
b
refers
to
blanket
decisions
like
a
moratorium,
for
example,
so
even
on
the
restrictive
reading
that
that
337
c
2
b
for
gives
it
it's,
even
even
with
that
restrictive
reading.
J
It
still
only
applies
to
a
blanket
restriction
throughout
the
city
and
not
to
specific
sites
within
the
city,
and
I'd
really
like
to
work
with
the
attorney
on
on
more
fully
understanding
what
can
be
done
under
the
ada
to
make
this
equipment
ada
compliant,
because
if
the
communications
equipment,
which
is
being
installed
into
this
city,
can't
be
made
ada
compliant,
it
can't
be
installed
into
the
city.
That
is
law,
and
that
is
clear.
J
So
there
must
be
a
way
out
and
we
need
to
sit
down
and
discuss
the
ways
out
in
more
detail
and
in
a
different,
less
formal
forum
than
we
have
here,
because
I'm
straining
to
remember
the
points
before
that
one,
the
last
one
to
remember
what
came
up.
I
know
that
there
was
the.
J
There
are
a
number
of
issues
raised
by
oh
yeah
yeah,
the
the
actual
dc
circuit
court
of
appeals
specifically
vacated
the
order,
the
fcc
order
in
the
federal
register,
which
is
behind
all
the
regulations
they
issued
and
is
required
for
those
regulations
to
be.
J
Order
was
vacated
1830.
If
I
remember
quite
correctly,
18-30
is
the
order
and
the
shot
clock
disappears.
The
60
day
shot
clock
disappears
because
that
had
been
justified
on
the
basis
of
the
nipper
override
that
the
fcc
had
used.
So
that
that's
why
commissioner
rosen
warsaw
said
this
is
a
major
problem.
There
was
a
significant
amount
of
fcc
overreach,
which
the
dc
circuit
appear
dealt
with
on
august,
the
9th,
and
then
they
deal
with
a
whole
lot
more
and
in
more
specific
terms.
J
By
talking
about
overreach
in
the
decision
on
october
1,
the.
J
It
splits,
apart
for
the
first
time,
internet
and
voice,
because
when
the
1996
act
was
came
into
being
there
weren't
iphones,
it
wasn't
any
data,
it
was
just
voice
and
the
1996
telecom
act
was
to
make
sure
that
there
were
voice
communications
within
the
city
and
that
first
of
october
decision
split
those
apart
and
we're
specifically
dealing
with
the
internet
access
when
it
was
discussing
the
or
actually
commanding
the
override
striking
down
the
override.
J
So
those
are
the
main
points
I
think,
but
we
really
need
to
discuss
this
in
greater
detail
in
more.
You
know
by
twitter
or
email
or
something
where
we
can
actually
deal
with
issues
more
easily
than
in
a
formal
environment
we
have
here.
Thank
you.
L
Thank
you
I'll,
be
brief
and
just
touch
on
the
aesthetics
issue
that
was
raised.
So
it
is
true
that
the
city
doesn't
have
any
private
view.
Protection-
that's
not
really
allowed
under
california
law.
This
also
isn't
a
ridgeline
issue,
but
the
city
and
verizon
didn't
just
rely
on
those
legal
principles.
L
What
they
did
is
they
come.
They
came
up
with
a
very
you
know,
compatible
design.
Here
we've
got
a
very
minimal
extension
of
the
existing
cupola
or
tower
that's
there.
It's
architecturally
integrated
with
respect
to
design
color.
You
know
the
tile
roof
things
like
that.
The
antennas
are
fully
concealed
when
you
take
a
look
at
the
totality
of
the
very
minimal
design
that
we
have
here.
This
is
really
the
gold
standard
with
respect
to
design
of
wireless
facilities,
architectural
integration
minimal.
L
A
E
Since
I
got
you
up
here,
I'm
gonna
ask
you
a
question.
I
know,
there's
a
numbers
cell
phone
tower.
You
have
a
number
of
towers
already
in
existence
within
the
city
limits.
I
know
there's
one
in
my
neighborhood.
I
was
just
curious.
How
many
of
them
are
within
150
feet
of
a
home?
Are
there?
Are
they
all
pretty
much
that
close.
L
Yeah,
so
I
don't
know
here,
I
believe
we're
maybe
150
feet
or
so
I
think
more
than
that
to
the
property
line
actually
to
the
residents
we're
closer
to
190
based
on
our
measurements.
But
we
don't
have
any
detail
about.
A
You,
okay,
so
are
there
any
more
questions
of
staff?
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
One
of
the
speakers,
ms
allman,
I
believe
said,
find
a
loophole,
so
I
spent
the
weekend
reading
every
single
piece
of
paper,
professor
that
you
submitted.
I
read
every
case.
I
read
every
statute
I
could
find.
I
read
every
possible
thing.
Looking
for
a
loophole
in
the
1994
earthquake,
my
wife
was
three
months
pregnant
and
we
lived
near
a
power
station
in
where
118
meets
405
and
because
of
the
release
of
zillions
of
gigawatts
of
power.
I
My
daughter
suffered
immense
problems
when
she
was
born
and
lost
three
pounds
within
two
weeks
of
being
born
and
we'll
probably
always
have
various
issues
related
to
that.
So
you
can
imagine
last
year
when
we
had
a
wireless
facility,
application
come
before
the
commission
that
I
was
recused
from
because
it
was
within
a
few
hundred
feet
of
my
house.
I
was
concerned
as
well.
I
I
I
I
spent
way
too
much
time
and
my
wife
was
not
happy
because
I
was
supposed
to
be
looking
for
appliances
by
the
way
and
I
did
not
find
any.
Unfortunately,
this
issue
is
so
involved.
You
guys
want
us
to
sit
there
and
go
through
a
ada
versus
fcc
application,
we're
not
a
court.
We
can't
evaluate
legal.
You
know
legal
concepts
like
that,
we're
not
a
court
of
law.
I
I
I
cannot
go
beyond
the
bounds
of
that
and
apply
my
own
personal
feelings,
whether
I
like
it
or
not,
to
whatever
the
process
is
in
looking
at
this.
We
have
city
rules,
97
197,
which
is
very
clear.
It
hasn't
been
revised,
hasn't
been
amended
and
by
the
way,
the
the
appeal
isn't
even
directed
to
those
rules.
I
The
application
is
done
under
those
rules
and
was
ultimately
found
by
the
hearing
officer
to
be
acceptable,
whether
I
like
it
or
not,
whether
I
think
there's
a
radiation
problem
or
not.
Personally,
I
think
actually,
it's
a
good
accommodation.
It
actually
looks
pretty
good
in
terms
of
the
situation
in
terms
of
how
it
would
look,
but
all
this
other
stuff
that
that
we're
asked
to
do
in
terms
of
finding
the
ada
applicable
and
on
conflict
with
fccs
and
whether
they're
involved.
All
of
that
is
actually
I
would
enjoy
that
conversation.
I
I
got
into
this
process
to
help
people.
I
would
love
to
help
you
with
that,
but
we
can't
because
it
is
beyond
our
control.
The
only
thing
we
can
do
is
look
at
the
rules
that
we're
governed
by
which
is
the
city
rule
and,
ultimately,
whether
there's
an
fcc
override
to
it,
which,
right
now
everything
I've
read,
has
not
been
overdone.
There
may
be
cases
that
talk
about
various
issues,
and
I
appreciate
professor,
that
you
cited
cases
that
sometimes
are
a
little
bit
off
of
what
you're
talking
about.
I
So,
for
instance,
one
of
the
cases
actually
talked
about
whether
states
can
pass
net
neutrality
that
wasn't
specifically
dealing
with
rf
or
they
may
talk
about
other
things.
So
there's
no
case
yet
that
I've
seen
that's
directly
on
point.
That
gives
us
any
loophole
to
actually
identify
and
deal
with
that
as
a
planning
commission,
in
my
opinion.
F
F
I
want
to
endorse,
be
another
commissioner,
endorsing
ms
allman's
comments
that
we're
not
on
different
sides
here,
we're
all
part
of
the
same
community,
but
but
the
issue
we
face
is
not
an
issue
for
the
planning
commission
I'll
give
a
couple
of
analogs
to
to
make
to
drive
that
point.
Home
united
states
has
been
at
war
in
afghanistan
for
the
past
18
years
and
that
directly
affects
the
health
and
safety
and
even
the
lives
of
service
members
and
their
families
right
here
in
thousand
oaks
in
the
1970s
and
80s
another
another
issue.
F
In
investor
runs,
shareholder-owned
energy
companies
have
failed
to
do
a
certain
amount
of
maintenance
that
has
resulted
in
wildfires
that
again
have
had
health
and
safety
effects
that
directly
affect
the
lives
and
safety
of
residents
here
in
thousand
oaks.
Now,
in
both
those
cases,
no
one,
no
one
with
a
straight
face,
would
say:
well,
that's
something
for
the
thousand
oaks
city
government
or
the
planning
commission
to
address.
F
For
the
same
reason,
I'm
comfortable
with
us
having
one
system
of
air
traffic
control
in
the
country,
one
system
of
railroad,
drills
in
the
country,
our
national
health
and
safety
is
better
off.
If
we
don't
have
many
walled
off
silos,
each
with
different
rules
and
different
ideas
about
what
is
or
isn't
safe.
Now
we
can
agree
or
disagree
about
whether
the
fcc
rules
as
currently
constituted
or
safe,
but
those
are
currently
the
rules
that
we
need
to
deal
with.
F
F
I'll
disagree
also
on
one
minor
point
with
commissioner
lansing,
where
he
said
these
cases
are
beyond
our
control.
They're.
Not
all
of
us
have
the
power
if
we
don't
like
the
current
medical
status
or
legal
status,
to
change
that,
just
not
in
this
forum
the
appropriate
forum
for
that
is
at
the
federal
level.
F
If
you
don't
like
the
current
system
at
the
federal
level
change
it.
Our
job
here
in
thousand
oaks
is
to
uphold
and
implement
the
rules
that
currently
exist.
We
don't
have
the
power
to
change
what
you're
asking
us
to
change,
but
the
congress
does,
and
I
encourage
you
and
I'll
work
with
you
to
to
help
change
those
laws
in
a
way,
that's
more
responsive
to
the
changes
you're
asking
for,
but
in
terms
of
what
we
can
do.
We
can
look
at
aesthetics.
We
can
look
at
site
analysis,
alternative
site
analysis.
F
We
can
look
at
community
standards
and
let's
go
through
those
on
aesthetics,
I'll
I'll
agree.
I
look
at
every
case
and
say:
how
would
I
feel
if
this
was
next
door
to
me
and
yeah?
I
probably
wouldn't
be
too
happy
if
someone
anyone
wanted
to
put
up
a
45-foot
tower
next
door
to
me.
I
wouldn't
be
too
happy
about
that,
but
it's
legal
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
challenge
it
on
any
legal
grounds.
F
F
F
F
I
know
what
sources
of
radiation
are.
I
know
what
heat
maps
look
like
and
I
I
don't
have
any
expectation
that
if
I
did
the
same
analysis
that
I
would
come
up
with
a
substantially
different
result.
So,
while
in
the
in
the
past,
we
have
rejected
applications
because
of
insufficient
alternative
site
analysis.
E
I
also
share
my
fellow
commissioners,
disappointment
and
misgivings
about
what
our
purview
is
and
what
our
scope
is.
As
far
as
how
we
can
address
these
issues,
but
as
they
have
already
told
you,
there's
not
a
lot,
we
can
do
about
that.
We're
not
the
legislative
body
that
gives
ourselves
the
power
to
do
these
things,
and
so,
unfortunately,
we
cannot
address
a
lot
of
the
things
that
that
you
guys
are
bringing
up
and
basically
the
bulk
of
what
the
appeal
is
based
upon.
E
I
I
have
the
greatest
sympathy
for
for
what
what
you're
going
through
doctor,
but
there
there's
not
a
lot.
E
I
can
do,
and
I
I
think
about
it
in
terms
of
the
fact
I
worked
in
the
automotive
industry
for
20
years
and
I
used
to
look
at
a
prop
68
warning
every
day
and
stand
next
to
a
lathe
where
I
cut
asbestos
clutches,
and
so
I'm
aware
of
of
the
long-term
health
effects
and
in
the
fact
that,
as
a
general
rule
of
thumb,
a
lot
of
the
things
that
we
make
decisions
about
do
an
impact
people's
health.
E
I
brought
it
up
earlier
when,
whenever
we
talk
about
a
commercial
building,
we
discuss
the
number
of
parking
spaces.
E
All
of
you
probably
drove
here
in
a
car
today
and
that
all
contributes
to
air
pollution
that
all
of
us
breathe
and
does
shorten
our
lifespans,
and
the
reality
is
is
that
we
cannot
protect
everybody
from
everything.
That's
going
to
happen
in
the
process
of
the
of
the
projects
that
we
approve.
We
can't
save
everybody.
E
We
cannot
make
make
the
make
the
world
perfectly
safe
for
you,
and
a
lot
of
those
limitations
are
based
upon
what
the
legislatures
in
the
state
and
at
the
federal
level
determine,
and
so
that's
that's
why
we're
stuck
where
we
are,
but
do
not
misinterpret
that
as
us
not
being
supportive
and
not
being
understanding
of
what
your
position
is.
Thank
you.
A
F
Just
just
a
quick
clarification,
since
this
is
an
appeal
if,
mr
here,
if
you
could
just
brief
us.
B
So
the
motion
was
accurate
by
mr
lanson.
It
is
to
adopt
the
resolution.
The
resolution
would
deny
the
appeal
and
approve
the
project
so.
A
A
All
right
next,
we
have
department
reports
and
it
appears
we
have
none
item
nine
commission
comments
and
ab
1234
reports.
Do
we
have
any
of
those
commission
lansing.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
had
a
question.
The
governor
signed
some
new
laws
recently,
one
of
which
involved
edus.
Will
there
be
any
attempt
to
modify
the
city
codes
to
coincide
with
that.
B
Great
question-
and
the
answer
is
yes:
there
are,
I
think,
they're
walking
away,
but
I
think
there's
17
or
15
new
adu
bills.
18
bills
totals
5
related
to
adu,
specifically
right,
so
we
are
in
the
process
of
one.
There
has
been
some
inconsistency
with
the
the
rules,
some
of
the
statutes
as
amended
or
as
approved,
to
be
amended,
and
so
we
are
going
through
that
process.
I
think
the
impact
is
going
to
be
the
beginning
of
the
year,
but
the
specific
answer
I
apologize
is.
I
B
Yeah,
it's
it's
interesting
because
and
I'll
be
brief
on
this
part
of
it
depends
on
the
size
of
the
adu.
For
example.
Now
they,
according
to
one
of
the
new
statutes
they
can
go
up
to
850
feet
is
a
minimum
that
we
can
require
now
ours
is
currently,
is,
I
think,
600
or
650,
and
the
way
that
the
charges
work
is
that
if
it's
less,
if
it's
750
or
less,
I
think
we
can't
charge
certain
fees
that
we
normally
would
charge.
If
it's
800
or
more,
then
we
can
charge
those
fees.
B
So
that's
something
again
to
be
looked
at.
Another
issue
is
owner.
Occupancy
has
now
been
taken
off
the
table,
and
another
issue
that
was
brought
up
in
the
past
was
I
and
I'd
have
to
check
again.
So
I'm
gonna,
just
I'm
giving
you
estimate
right
now,
but
I
believe
they
have
the
rule.
That's
changed,
saying
that
you
can't
have
a
contract
or
any
contract
that
that
prohibits
adus
in
any
place
is
nolan
void
like
to
do
with
solar,
and
I
think
that's
to
get
to
capture
the
hoas.
I
I
agree.
I
One
other
quick
comment,
just
a
shout
out
to
the
fire
department.
I
wasn't
here
last
time,
but
the
the
efforts
with
regard
to
the
wendy
fire
that
was
near
my
house
were
absolutely
unbelievably
amazing
and
I
cannot
thank
the
ventura
county
fire
department
enough
in
terms
of
helping
me
and
making
sure
our
neighborhood
was
safe.
Thank
you.
A
Are
there
any
more
commissioner
comments?
Okay,
thank
you.
Staff
update
item
10,
a
follow-up
items,
announcements
and
upcoming
issues.