►
From YouTube: Planning Commission - 08/26/2019
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
Thank
you
chair.
We
did
receive
two
late
communication
items
both
related
to
item
7b.
A
Okay,
I
thought
I
saw
somebody
coming
up.
Okay,
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
that
you
have.
A
A
All
right,
so
item
number
six:
next
we
have
the
consent
calendar
with
the
minutes
of
july
29th
2019.
Do
any
of
my
fellow
commissioners
have
any
comments
or
a
motion
to
prove
the
minutes.
A
Thank
you.
Will
the
secretary
please
prepare
us
for
a
vote.
A
Item
number
seven:
will
the
clerk
please
open
the
public
hearing.
B
To
allow
demolition
of
an
existing
3868
square
foot,
one
story
home
and
for
construction
of
a
new
seven
thousand,
eight
hundred
and
seventy
seven
square
foot
two
story
home,
resulting
in
an
increase
of
the
total
floor
area
by
two
hundred
and
four
percent
of
the
previously
existing
dwelling
located
at
one
two.
Three
one
la
granada
drive
and
the
applicant
is
daf
trust.
F
This
is
a
map
showing
the
the
vicinity
map
for
for
the
project,
location
and
the
asterisk
represents
the
location
of
the
property
at
1231
drive.
F
This
is
to
the
to
the
west
of
that
property
is
the
23
freeway.
The
main
roads
surrounding
the
the
project
is
jan's
herbs
and
hillcrest
drive.
F
F
It's
a
single
story.
Subsequent
permits
were
issued
for
additions
and
the
construction
of
the
swimming
pool.
The
single-story
home
right
now
is
at
about
38-68
square
feet.
On
october
13
2017,
the
subject
application
was
filed
by
the
applicant,
the
subject,
property
is
zoned
ro
and
the
size
of
the
lot
is
28
700
square
feet.
F
This
shows
the
site
plan
of
the
the
proposed
site
plan.
The
location
of
the
exist
of
the
of
the
proposed
house
is
very
similar
to
the
location
of
the
existing
home.
The
driveway
for
this
project
would
be
would
go
around
where
the
entry
is
going
to
be
on
the
left
side
of
the
of
the
home.
F
F
F
The
front
elevation:
this
shows
the
front
elevation
of
the
property,
it
features
a
craftsman,
a
combination
of
craftsman
and
a
ranch
style
home.
This
combination
has
different
architectural
features
like
hip
roofs,
gable,
roofs
still
to
break
out
the
the
messing
at
the
front
side
of
the
the
home.
As
you
can
see,
there
are
hip
ropes
here.
Gable
roof
here
tower
feature,
so
the
the
architecture
is
pretty
much
is
breaking
up.
The
messing
for
the
two-story
home
and
the
rear
elevation
looks
similar
as
the
front
elevation
with
proper
breakups
architectural
features.
F
F
F
F
Compatibility
with
existing
or
surrounding
properties,
the
existing
press
residences
in
the
area
comprise
a
single
in
two-story
home
with
varying
architecture.
It's
predominantly
ranch
and
craftsman
style,
but
there
are
other
architectures
in
that
area
as
well.
F
This
is
showing
comparing
the
proposed
project
to
the
surrounding
properties
with
similar
sizes,
the
next
door.
Neighbor
of
this
property
is
1261
la
granada,
a
25.8
to
area
ratio.
The
proposed
project
has
28
percent
now
as
far
if
you
would
notice
that
the
rest
of
the
compare
comparables
are
single
story.
F
It's
calculated
the
average
floor
area
ratio
for
this
is
about
22
percent
and
the
proposed
project
is
at
20.5.
So
it's
pretty
much
comparable
with
the
surrounding
properties.
F
F
F
F
A
Thank
you,
mr
chua.
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments,
commissioner?.
G
G
This
is
just
a
typo,
it
currently
reads
the
advised
is
advised
to
obtain.
I
think
we
mean
the
applicant
is
advised.
F
The
the
sign
of
extinct,
yeah.
F
Let
me
see
if
it's
not
in
there
it'll
be
added
after
the
when
the
for
the
final
resolution.
Okay,.
G
C
C
Aside
from
the
typo
that
commissioner
newman
found,
I
also
wanted
to
kind
of
clarify
one
other
issue,
and
that
is
for
the
purpose
of
the
neighbors.
There
is
an
indication
in
note
10
that
dust
will
be
minimized.
Can
you
kind
of
tell
everybody
exactly
how
the
dust
is
supposed
to
be
minimized
as
part
of
this
project?
Okay,.
C
Okay,
one
thing:
also:
we
didn't
get
a
chance
to
go
onto
the
property
because
it
was
fenced
off.
My
understanding
is
the
pool
is
going
to
be
filled
in
correct.
F
With
with,
with
dirt.
F
C
Okay
and
the
other
reason
I
asked
about
actual
community
input,
is
that
the
hours
look
like
it's
seven
o'clock
am
monday
through
saturday.
I
understand
the
weekdays
I
didn't
know
if
somebody
had
a
concern
with
regard
to
seven
o'clock
on
a
saturday,
but
you
didn't
receive
any
comments
about
that.
No
all.
H
A
Okay,
at
this
point
we
ask
for
the
applicant
or
the
representative
to
speak.
You
have
15
minutes
and
please
come
and
state
your
name
and
city
of
residence
for
the
record.
I
I
I
A
lot
of
that
had
to
do
with
the
site,
because
the
site
is
an
older
site
with
an
older
home
and
has
some
challenges
because
of
the
steep
driveway,
the
oak
trees
that
we're
trying
to
respect
and
design
with
regard
to
bringing
the
house
up
to
date
and
meeting
current
standards
for
an
estate
home,
but
also
recognizing
the
challenges
on
any
of
the
properties
in
thousand
oaks.
So,
as
you
can
see
through
the
report
and
what
was
proposed,
we're
not
challenging
the
oak
trees
in
any
way
we're
working
with
them.
We've
sculpted
the
driveway
around.
I
I
We
did
with
mr
chua's
support,
modify
the
house
pushing
back
the
second
floor,
creating
a
lot
of
one-story
elements
so
that
it
had
a
softened
approach
and
obviously
we
have
a
lot
of
windows.
It's
a
it's
a
beautiful
site
with
a
nice
view,
so
we're
trying
to
take
advantage
of
that
as
to
the
grading,
because
I
know
that
that
was
brought
up
and
mentioned
in
regard
to
the
backyard
there
will
be
removal
recompaction,
just
like
any
new
house
that
would
be
built
just
based
upon
a
house.
That's
that
old!
I
Once
you
remove
it,
our
soils
consultant
will
be
recommending
doing
either
two
to
five
feet
of
removal
and
re-compaction
just
to
build
a
new
house
that
would
be
across
the
board
on
almost
any
site
within
the
city.
A
lot
of
the
quantity
of
dirt
also
is
being
used
to
fill
in
that
pool
and
it
will
be
dirt,
that's
filled
and
then
compacted
that's
part
of
the
yardage
that
was
brought
up
this
evening
and
then
other
than
that.
I
C
I
just
had
a
quick
question,
mr
lehman.
Thank
you
for
going
through
the
project.
How
are
you
I
know
you're
filling
in
the
pool
with
some
of
the
dirt?
Are
you
also
removing
a
certain
amount
of
cubic
feet
of
dirt
as
well
to.
I
The
back
we
have
to
remove
the
dirt
because
the
pad
has
to
come
down
to
create
the
driveway.
That's
the
only
way
we
could
get
the
driveway
slope
without
impacting
more
of
the
tree,
we're
coming
up
and
around
this
big
tree,
and
then
we
can't
grade
in
that
whole
zone.
So
we
actually
have
to
work
with
the
grades
to
lower
it
to
get
to
the
pad.
C
And
believe
me,
I
appreciate
the
the
effort
you're
taking
to
try
to
make
sure
to
preserve
the
trees
and
go
around
that
way.
The
the
the
removal
of
the
dirt
truckloads
any
idea
how
many
truckloads
we're
talking.
I.
C
I
That's
a
question:
I
can't
answer:
that's
going
to
be
coordinated
with
the
grading
contractor,
I'm
not
sure
how
public
works
manages
like
a
truck
route
for
where
usually
they
stage
it
off
site,
and
then
they
call
them.
I
I
rarely
see-
and
we've
done
a
number
of
projects
in
the
city
of
thousand
oaks,
with
grading
and
in
other
communities
where
they're
parked
on
the
neighborhood
street.
I
There's
plenty
of
public
zone
and
around
the
around
the
corner
where
the
community,
the
traffic
center
and
the
and
the
fields
are
where
they
can
call
them
as
needed.
But
I
don't
have
an
answer
for
that
other
than
just
experience
and
what
I've
seen
in
the
in
other
communities
and
thousand
oaks.
Okay,.
A
Any
anyone
else-
okay,
and
so
it
was
brought
up
that
there
was
a
item.
Number
17
was
a
small
correction
and
also
that
you
haven't
yet
signed
the
conditions.
The
acceptance
of
conditions.
A
So
we.
I
D
If
I
may,
if
the
commission
takes
action
to
approve
the
project,
the
conditions
will
become
final.
At
that
time,
the
applicant
would
be
required
to
accept
those
conditions
if
that
condition
is
added
by
the
commission
as
part
of
their
motion,
in
which
case
he
would
be
bound
by
those
and
all
future
owners
of
the
property.
J
And
that's
no
problem
and
sheriff
I
may
for
for
the
one
condition,
although
we
are
going
to
go
through
those
conditions,
apparently
with
the
applicant,
the
condition
would
be.
I
think
mr
newman
was
commissioner
newman
was
talking
about
the
signed
acceptance
of
conditions
and
that
condition
sir
just
reads.
Basically
a
signed
acceptance
of
the
conditions
executed
by
the
applicant
and
property
owner
or
his
or
her
duly
authorized
representative
shall
be
returned
to
the
community
development
department
prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
zone,
clearance,
grading
and
building
permits.
J
J
I
A
F
Yes,
chairman
engineer,
brad
bussell
here
would
probably
try
to
clarify
some
questions
that
came
up
about
grading
good
evening.
Commissioners.
K
Yeah,
we
did
look
at
that
as
far
as
the
staging
for
the
trucks,
because
150
truck
trips
is
quite
a
few
for
that
neighborhood
and
the
street
is
quite
narrow
in
that
area.
There's
really
not
a
lot
of
room
for
for
parking
on
the
street
there
and
we
did
look.
If
you
go
around
the
corner
of
la
granada.
K
There
is
a
little
bit
of
area
there
where
a
few
trucks
could
stage,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
a
lot
of
area
there
for
for
a
lot
of
significant
amount
of
trucks
to
stage
so
they're
going
to
have
to
limit
the
amount
of
grading,
they're,
they're,
hauling
they're
going
to
do
as
far
as
the
whole
route.
We
don't
really
determine
a
haul
route
until
they
do
great
until
they
start
grading
because
they
never
they
just
don't
know
where
the
dirt
is
going
to
go.
K
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
questions?
Okay,
the
applicant
does
have
an
additional
five
minutes
if
they
choose.
L
I
just
wanted
to
say:
I've
been
a
resident
of
thousand
oaks
for
20
years
now
and
very
dedicated
to
the
city.
We
love
it
here
and
we're
just
very
excited
to
be
able
to
build
this
beautiful
home
and
we've
been
in
that
neighborhood
all
these
20
years.
So
we
just
hope
that
everybody
appreciates
what
we're
trying
to
do
and
make
it
nice
and
beautiful
and
fit
in
with
everything
else
there
and
that's
all.
I
have
to
say.
A
Okay,
I
think
it's
time
to
close
the
public
hearing,
okay
and
I
will
open
up
the
floor
to
a
motion
or
a
discussion.
Commissioners.
A
Okay,
are
there
any
comments
on
the
motion,
commissioner,.
C
Just
quickly,
I
I
we
do
appreciate
all
you've
done
to
make
an
actual
beautiful
project
and-
and
we
actually,
I
think,
are
all
very
happy
about
how
much
you've
tried
to
make
sure
it
blends
in
with
the
the
process
and
saving
the
trees.
So
I'm
in
favor
of
the
motion
and
thank
you
for
doing
such
a
great
project.
A
Anyone
else,
commissioners,
okay,
at
that
at
this
point,
will
the
secretary
please
prepare
us
for
a
vote.
A
All
right
and
I'm
required
to
read
this
any
aggrieved
party
who
wishes
to
appeal
the
planning
commission's
decision
may
do
so
by
filing
an
appeal
with
the
community
development
department
within
10
days.
Thank
you.
A
All
right
at
this
time,
I
think
we're
ready
for
item
7b.
Will
the
clerk
please
open
the
public
hearing
item.
B
A
Okay,
at
this
time,
presenting
on
behalf
of
staff
is
associate,
planner
will
chua.
F
Good
evening,
jeremy
panhand
planning
commissioners
for
your
considerate
consideration
tonight,
as
mentioned
earlier,
is
to
allow
encroachment
within
the
protected
zones
of
three
landmark
trees
and
an
installation
of
wireless
communications
facility
at
an
existing
water
tank
site.
F
Here's
an
area
of
the
project
site
it
is
surrounded
by
residential
homes.
Another
water
tank
facility,
owned
by
the
same
company
cal,
am
is
located
on
the
west
side
on
heritage
place.
This
facility
is
much
lower
than
the
existing
water
facility
than
the
project
site
and
it's
much
lower
than
heritage
place.
F
This
is
a
view
looking
west
towards
the
facility
driveway,
the
water
tank
facility
is
sunk
into
the
ground,
so
the
installation
of
antennas
on
the
face
of
them
on
the
face
of
the
water
tank
is
not
feasible.
F
During
the
initial
review
period,
staff
made
a
determination
that
the
three
of
the
landmark
trees
will
be
impacted
by
underground
conduits
for
the
facility.
In
april
of
the
next
year
in
2015,
the
applicant
filed
the
landmark
tree
permit.
F
The
species
permits
are
intended
to
evaluate
the
appropriateness
of
certain
uses
within
certain
areas
through
us
through
a
special
use
permit
process,
negative
impacts
are
eliminated
or
minimized
for
a
wireless
communications
facility
application.
The
fcc
limits
local
government
authority.
Dr
jonathan
cramer,
will
discuss
that
issue
after
staff's
presentation.
F
F
As
you
can
see
from
the
pictures
on
the
left
and
the
right
side,
the
intended
area
of
coverage
has
a
barely
signal
in
it.
It
says
low
low
levels
of
service
after
installation
it
will
be
provided
with
a
good
signal
coverage.
F
And
the
signal
coverage
by
the
way
is
for
verizon
customers.
Only
the
proposed
facility
will
have
three
sectors
with
three
antennas.
Each
and
each
sector
is
located
on
the
north,
south,
east
and
west
southwest
side
of
the
water
facility.
As
I've
shown
you
in
the
picture
earlier,
two
of
the
antennas
for
each
sector
will
be
installed
at
14
foot
tip
height.
F
Another
two
on
its
sides
would
be
installed
at
12
foot
high,
the
race.
I'm
sorry
that
the
existing
fence
adjacent
to
the
12
foot
high
antennas
would
be
erased
as
well
to
provide
visual
what
you
hold
it:
visual
blockage.
Thank
you.
F
F
This
will
be
the
southwest
sector
and
southeast
sector
on
the
other
side
and
the
equipment
cabinet
at
the
front
along
next
to
the
driveway,
the
oak
trees,
the
effect
I'm
sorry,
the
affected
landmark
trees
are
along
the
front
of
the
property.
F
This
is
an
elevation
plan
showing
the
typical
installation
for
each
of
the
antenna
sectors.
These
dark
areas
here
are
the
antennas
one
two
three
and
four,
the
two
of
the
antennas,
as
I
said
mentioned
earlier,
would
be
installed
at
14
foot
tip
height,
the
other
two
would
be
at
12,
and
the
antennas
would
be
raised
on
that
side
for
visual
visual
continuity.
F
Oh,
I'm
sorry,
let
me
go
back
to
their
slide
now.
This
is
a
view
of
the
existing
equipment
enclosure,
as
you
can
see
from
the
proposed,
the
the
equipment
cabinet
would
be
fully
enclosed
and
blocked
from
there
will
be,
it
won't
be
visible
from
the
outside
of
the
enclosure.
F
F
As
far
as
project
visibility,
the
city's
resolution
97
197,
requires
antennas
to
be
fixed
to
existing
structures
that
may
be
utility
poles,
light
standards,
street
lights
or
other
existing
structures
like
buildings
or
water
tanks.
F
F
F
The
applicant
considered
two
other
sites
within
the
north
ranch
area.
One
of
them
is
a
street
tree
located
on
vista
ridge
and
another
in
another
location
was
considered
on
summit
view.
F
F
F
The
applicant
submitted
a
tree
report
with
suggestions
on
preventive
measures,
which
include
requirement
to
have
the
presence
of
the
applicant's
tree
consultant
for
work
within
the
protected
zones
of
the
asycomorph
trees,
installation
of
temporary
protective
fencing,
using
a
boring
tools,
only
routing
or
pre-planning
of
the
underground
utilities.
To
avoid
the
as
much
as
possible
the
the
trees
and
above
ground
installations
of
the
equipment
cabinets,
the
city's
consultant
evaluated
the
landmark
three
permits
or
a
report
submitted
by
the
applicant
and
agrees
with
the
applicant's
evaluation
with
the
implemented
preventive
measures.
F
N
This
project
is
a
little
bit
different
from
the
types
of
projects
we
normally
have
presented
to
us,
in
the
sense
that
this
is
a
low
to
the
ground
site.
So
the
fcc
requires
the
applicant
and
here
the
licensee
as
well
verizon
to
take
very
specific
steps
to
exclude
the
public
from
that
area
which
exceeds
the
general
population
limit.
That's
the
limit
where
we
can
be
exposed,
24
7.
N
Under
the
fcc
rules,
there
will
be
a
portion
of
each
sector
in
front
of
the
sectors
that
will
exceed
that
amount.
So
what
the
applicant
has
done
is
gone
through
with
its
rf
engineers
and
calculated
what
they
believe
to
be
the
correct
zone
that
has
to
be
enclosed
within
fencing
in
your
proposed
conditions
of
approval
tonight.
N
Starting
at,
I
believe,
condition
number
well.
Seven
and
eight
are
conditions
that
I
helped
to
craft.
N
That
will
require
that
verizon
before
turning
on
the
site
unattended
demonstrate
to
the
city
that
they've
placed
the
the
barriers
in
the
correct
location,
so
that
all
of
their
signals
that
exceed
the
general
population
limit
are
contained
within
an
enclosed
area.
That's
what
the
federal
regulations
require.
N
What
we've
added
here
are
conditions
that
allow
them
to
build
the
site,
but
they
can't
operate
it
until
they
actually
build
the
fencing,
and
they
can't
do
that
until
after
they
demonstrate
to
the
city
that
the
fencing
will
be
in
the
right
location.
So
this
is
this
is
an
unusual
process
for
the
city,
in
that
most
of
the
time
we
don't
have
sites
like
this.
N
That's
why
you
see
these
particular
conditions
tonight.
If
the
applicant
agrees
to
the
process,
specifically
in
condition
number
eight-
and
I
would
ask
you
to
specifically
ask
the
applicant
for
that-
then
the
project
will
demonstrate
planned
compliance
with
the
fcc
rules
and
that
will
then
eliminate
from
your
consideration,
rf
safety
as
an
issue.
It
doesn't
eliminate
anything
else,
but
it
will
remove
rf
safety
because
they
will
have
demonstrated
planned
compliance
with
the
fcc
rules.
N
So
this
is
a
project.
That's
been
kicking
around
for
a
number
of
years.
It's
gone
through
a
number
of
iterations
and
has
improved
over
the
years
in
terms
of
its
design
itself
and
now
demonstrates,
subject
to
the
conditions
planned
compliance
with
the
fcc
rules.
That's
what
I
have
for
right
now,
of
course,
when
you're
ready
I'll
have
answers
to
any
questions,
you
have.
F
Okay,
as
far
as
public
communications
is
concerned,
staff
has
received
some
emails
and
letters
from
from
the
residents
in
the
neighborhood
supporting
the
project
and
also
the
north
ranch
homeowners
association
and,
in
conclusion,
the
project
was
consistent
with
the
general
plan,
the
municipal
code
and
resolution
97-197.
F
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
mr
chua
again,
thank
you
for
this
presentation
and
dr
kramer.
Before
I
begin,
I
should
disclose
to
the
commission
to
the
public
that
I've
had
nx
parte
communication.
Regarding
this
case,
I
had
a
brief
text
message:
exchange
with
a
friend
who
lives
nearby
to
the
application
site.
G
Just
essentially
saying
hey
heads
up,
there's
going
to
be
a
hearing
on
such
and
such
date
about
this.
About
this
case
we
did
not
discuss
the
merits
of
the
case.
G
I
think
it
is
prudent
to
disclose
that
I
had
this
communication
so
with
that
dr
kramer
we've
gone
through
this
before,
but
perhaps
not
everyone
in
attendance
tonight,
and
I
count
close
to
40
people
here
may
not
be
familiar
with
what
criteria
are
inbounds
and
out
of
bounds
for
us
as
a
commission
when
we're
evaluating
wireless
cell
tower
cases,
so
we
we
consider
things
in
several
different
buckets
aesthetics,
compatibility
with
existing
and
adjoining
uses
and
health
and
safety.
G
N
N
You're
in
the
aesthetics
business,
under
federal
law
under
state
law,
your
job
is
to
look
at
the
aesthetics
of
a
project
and
make
a
determination
regarding
it
now
also
under
federal
law
and
state
law.
You're
allowed
to
inquire
whether
a
particular
project
complies
with
the
federal
regulations
for
rs
safety.
N
Here's
the
limitation,
once
a
determination
has
been
made
that
the
project
can
actually
comply
or
will
I'm
sorry
talk
closer
to
the
mic?
And
here
I
thought
I
was
broadcasting
my
voice
out
without
even
the
need
for
the
microphone
so
once
a
project
displays
planned
compliance
with
the
fcc
rules
that
ends
that
part
of
your
debate.
N
Now
we
talk
about
plan
compliance
because
the
site
isn't
built.
So
the
beginning
portion
of
a
project
like
this
is
the
technical
evaluation
of
the
plans,
and
that
goes
to
looking
at
the
types
of
antennas
used.
The
amount
of
power
transmitted,
the
frequencies
that
are
involved
and
all
of
those
go
into
an
fcc
calculation
that
helps
us
as
engineers
determine
planned
compliance
again.
I
talked
about
this
as
being
an
unusual
project
and
it
is
for
the
city,
because
this
isn't
one
where
it's
just
clearly
compliant.
N
Again,
if
the
applicant
accepts
those
conditions,
they
will
demonstrate
plan
compliance,
and
that
will
be
the
end
of
your
exploration
of
it
at
the
local
level,
we're
not
allowed
to
set
standards
or
even
adopt
the
federal
standards.
Our
issue
is
simply
determining
compliance
with
the
fcc
rules.
So
pretty
much
to
finish
up.
The
answer
is:
what
do
you
have?
You
have
a
lot.
You
have
how
it
looks,
but
presuming
that
the
applicant
accepts
the
conditions
regarding
rf
safety
testing
that
will
be
off
the
table.
G
G
G
Right
but
but
again,
and
the
question
I'm
posing
is
specifically
with
regard
to
health
and
safety.
My
understanding
from
what
you
said
is
that
the
sec
sets
health
and
safety
standards
and
we
can
determine
whether
or
not
this
project
meets
those
standards.
You
have
that
correct,
but
we
cannot
go
off
on
our
own
and
make
determinations
as
to
health
or
safety
of
wireless
technology
in
general,
or
this
project
in
particular,.
G
C
Thank
you,
mr
chua,
and
dr
kramer.
I
want
to
first
clarify
something
make
sure
I
have
this
clear,
so
this
project
would
it
be
deemed
a
4g
or
5g
project.
N
The
deployment
of
5g
doesn't
mean
a
lot
of
new
equipment,
but
it
means
swapping
out
transmitters,
sometimes
panels,
although
at
this
particular
project.
That
would
surprise
me.
I
think
the
applicant
can
better
answer
the
question,
but
this
is
a
4g
site,
there's
no
5g
to
my
knowledge
anywhere
in
ventura,
county
or
even
anywhere
closer
than
downtown
la.
N
C
N
C
And
if,
if
concerned,
citizens
are
worried
about
the
health
effects-
and
I
don't
know
if
we've
ever
actually
talked
about
this-
where
should
they
be
going
to
raise
those
issues.
N
A
Are
there
any
other
questions
of
staff?
Okay,
at
this
point,
we'll
ask
the
applicant
to
come
forward
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
as
city
of
residence
for
the
record,
and
you
have
15
minutes.
O
O
O
I
personally
attended
a
met
with
west
lake
north
poa
and
spoke
to
them
regarding
the
project
and
they
took
it
to
their
board
meeting
and
wrote
a
letter
to
the
city
stating
that
they're
in
support
of
the
project,
they're,
obviously
a
advisory
board
level
to
the
city,
but
that
they
did
review
that
and
then,
in
addition
to
that,
on
3
16
2018,
the
previous
planner
who's
no
longer
with
the
city
advised
me
to
set
up,
send
out
a
public
notice,
basically
a
mailer
to
all
the
residents
within
the
radius.
O
O
It's
kind
of
you
know
an
outreach
letter
and
with
after
we,
after
sending
out
the
outreach
letter
and
in
the
outreach
letter,
I
stated
my
name,
my
telephone
number
and
email
and
a
general
brief
description
of
the
project
along
with
a
set
of
11
by
17
plans
and
photo
simulations,
so
they
actually
got
the
actual
packet
that
you
have
tonight
that
are
in
the
exhibits.
O
After
receiving
that
letter,
the
I
did
only
receive
one
response
from
a
gentleman
at
4571
sunny
hill,
which
is
directly
across
the
street.
It's
kind
of
right
where
the
entrance
is
to
the
water
facility
directly
across
from
that
driveway
entrance
I
met
with
him,
came
out
here,
met
with
him
at
the
site.
He
had
a
few
concerns
regarding
just
public
access,
which
I
think
we
addressed
in
terms
of
barriers,
and
he
seemed
genuinely
accepting
to
that.
We
had
a
very
good
conversation.
We
were
there
for
about
a
half
an
hour.
O
We
walked
the
entire
project
and
I
reached
out
to
him
and
followed
up
said
if
there's
any
other
questions
you
might
have
in
the
future.
I
didn't
have
a
hearing
date,
but
if
you
did
then
please
come
to
me
so,
and
I
have
not
heard
back
from
that
gentleman
so
with
that.
I
think
that
staff
and
dr
cramer
explained
to
the
commission
tonight
in
their
staff
report
the
parameters
of
your
approval
and
authority
and
if
you
have
any
other
questions,
I'd
be
glad
to
answer
them.
E
You
said
that
you
got
an
endorsement
from
the
north
ranch
property
owners
association.
When
was
that.
O
Correct,
it's
all
it's
all
fed
via
fiber
to
the
to
the
equipment,
which
is
all
the
fiber
in
the
city
up
in
that
areas
underground.
So.
O
We
don't
have
verizon
as
explained
to
us.
We
don't
have
a
definitive
date
as
to
when
5g
will
potentially
launch
it
could
be
within
the
next
two
to
three
years,
but
that's
just
a
discussion
I
have
with
verizon's
engineering
department,
so
we
don't
know
exactly,
but
at
which
time
we
had
a
case
come
forward
to
the
zoning.
The
hearing
officer
10
days
ago
on
another
case
and
the
same
thing
was
discussed
and
I
believe
we
amended
some
of
the
conditions
to
kind
of
address,
any
future
modifications
to
the
cell
site.
G
All
right,
but
again
as
as
as
envisioned
this
evening,
we're
talking
about
a
primarily
or
exclusively
a
4g
service
from
this
site.
Correct!
Yes,
right!
The
final
question
I
have,
and
I'm
not
sure
you
can
answer
this
is
as
I
my
understanding
is
that
verizon
is
not
the
landowner
here.
It's
it's
cal
water
or
someone
else
is
in
walking
the
site.
I
noticed
this
is
a
water
tank,
but
around
the
perimeter
of
the
water
tank
there's
an
irrigation
line.
O
Any
above
ground
irrigation
lines
that
are
drip
lines.
Yes,
they're
they're
irrigating,
the
downslopes
I
I
would
imagine
for
for
erosion
control,
whether
it's
ice
plant
or
any
other
type
of
plant,
that's
planted.
You
have
to
irrigate
it
for
a
certain
amount
of
years
or
it
will
die.
So
it's
got
a
it's
got
to
root
themselves
and
then
the
irrigation
can
be
tapered
off
depending
on
what
type
of
species
that
plant
is
whether
those
irrigation
lines
are
currently
in
operation.
I
don't
know,
that's
something
the
water
district
yeah.
They.
A
P
A
You,
let's
see
at
this
point,
we
will
go
to
public
comments.
You'll
need
to
fill
out
a
speaker
card.
I
have
17
right
now.
A
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes
because
we
have
17.,
please
state
the
name
of
the
name
and
city
residents
for
the
record,
and
I
will
call
you
up
I'll
name
two
names
and
then
so
one
person
will
be
kind
of
waiting
and
ready
to
go.
K
My
name
is
mark
sellers,
I'm
with
the
jackson,
titus
law,
firm
and
a
resident
of
thousand
oaks,
and
I
was
asked
to
be
here
tonight
by
a
group
of
neighboring
homeowners
who
are
very
opposed
to
this
proposed
placement
of
108
antenna
sites
90
feet
from
their
homes.
So
that's
that's
the
driver
here.
I
think
that's
important
that
we
take
a
look
at
this
site.
K
I
don't
know
whether
you
can
see
that
your
aerial
is
far
better.
The
point
is
that
this
site
is
surrounded
by
homes
on
all
sides.
Staff
in
their
staff
report
indicated.
Hey,
we've
done
this
before
we
put
these
cell
sites
around
water
tanks,
and
they
gave
two
addresses.
One
is
on
harwick,
which
is
in
my
neighborhood.
K
This
is
what
I
call
a
better
site.
This
is
a
water
tank
on
the
north
side
of
north
of
canaan
road,
west
west
lake
boulevard.
It's
by
a
house
where
I
should
represent
the
owner
been
up
there.
Many
times
wanted
to
put
a
helipad
up
there,
but
this
is
a
water
tank,
that's
over
a
thousand
feet
from
the
nearest
home
and
it
looks
back
on
the
north
ranch
area
and
to
me,
I'm
not
an
engineer,
but
to
me
I
would
think.
Oh,
it's
a
line-of-sight
issue.
K
Well,
I
can
just
conclude:
I
feel
this
is
a
market
value
issue.
It's
not
a
health
issue,
I'm
not
going
to
argue
health.
I
don't
know
we
have
people
here
are
far
better
at
that
this.
There
are
studies
out
there
that
say
if
you're
across
the
street,
from
one
of
these
sites,
your
home
is
going
to
lose
20
percent
in
value.
That's
a
legitimate
land
use
decision
for
you
to
make
and
consider.
Maybe
this
isn't
the
appropriate
site
for
such
an
impact.
A
Q
Q
We
have,
however,
heard
from
a
lot
of
people
who
do
want
the
cell
service
and
who
have
come
to
us
to
ask
us
to
help
with
the
with
getting
the
cell
service,
so
we
have
not
heard
anything
negative
about
it.
Q
Up
till
now,
as
noted
in
your
staff
report,
the
north
ranch
area
has
always
received
very
poor
or
no
cell
service
at
all
and
with
this
new
facility
in
place,
we
feel
that
this
would
be
a
great
improvement
for
all
of
our
members
and
all
the
north
ranch
area,
and
we
urge
you
to
vote
yes
on
this
project
so
that
all
residents
can
enjoy
good
cell
service.
Finally,
thank
you.
P
Good
evening
my
name
is
michael
khan.
I
live
on
heritage
and,
if
I
walk
out
my
front
door
or
in
my
backyard
I'll
be
able
to
see
the
new
cell
towers,
I
sat
through
here
for
a
half
an
hour,
listen
about
preserving
oak
trees,
and
then
I
find
out
about
this
hearing
last
night
when
someone
comes
knocks
on
their
door
and
said,
are
you
aware
we
never
had
noticed
of
this,
and
I
think
a
lot
of
people
never
objected
because
it
somehow
got
railroaded
through
and
then
my
kids
found
out
about
it.
P
They
go
online
and,
as
you
pointed
out,
5g
is
a
lot
stronger
than
4g.
This
is
only
for
4g,
it's
affecting
their
house,
their
health
they're
concerned
about
it.
Our
house,
we
built
like
the
four
seasons
in
the
backyard.
There's
waterfalls,
three
fountains,
three
outdoor
tvs
outdoor
den.
We
entertain
a
lot.
We
live
outside.
My
wife
now
is
afraid
to
go
out
there
and
go
out
in
the
sun
because
from
our
backyard
we're
going
to
see
these
towers.
P
I
think
that
there's
a
notice
that's
going
to
go
on
their
radio
frequency
radiation.
If
I
go
sell
my
house
as
a
lawyer,
I
have
to
disclose
this
fact
who's
going
to
buy
a
house
when
they
know
that
there's
radio
frequency
radiation
there.
I
think
that
these
experts
come
in
here
and
they
get
paid
to
say
what
they
want,
and
I
can
get
experts
to
show
that
it
will
affect
our
health
and
I'm
concerned
that
this
thing
is
getting
railroaded
really
quickly
through.
P
Hello,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
I
am
timothy
walsh.
I
live
at
4516,
sunny
hill
next
door
to
the
water
tank.
I
never
received
an
outreach
from
anyone.
The
first
I
learned
about
this
project
was
a
sign
being
posted
a
few
weeks
ago
on
the
site
itself,
and
I
was
never
contacted
by
the
homeowners
association
or
anyone
from
the
homeowners
association
about
this,
even
though
it's
been
apparently
being
discussed
for
years.
P
P
P
The
site
once
developed,
is
like
a
trojan
horse.
Once
one
cell
phone
company
carrier
comes
in
other
carriers
now
have
access
to
build
additional
equipment
there
and
there's
a
rule
where,
if
they
want
to
extend
poles
up
to
20
feet
over
the
14
feet,
that's
already
proposed,
they
can
do
it
without
additional
approval.
So
now
you're
talking
about
a
what
a
36
foot
pole,
maybe
most
many
more.
P
The
aesthetics
is
going
to
be
horrible.
It's
a
view
of
an
open
ridge
shared
by
the
neighborhood,
and
it's
going
to
definitely
affect
property
values,
because
it's
going
to
be
ugly.
It's
this
industrial
facility
in
the
middle
of
north
ranch,
it's
ridiculous.
P
H
Hello,
my
name
is
james,
I'm
a
physician
and
I
live
adjacent
to
the
water
reservoir,
I'm
so
I'm
like
50
feet
away
from
those
proposed
towers
and
so
just
a
side
note
I've
never
lost
coverage
up
there.
I
have
no
no
problems
with
the
internet
up
there,
and
so
I
mean
looking
into
this.
I
mean
I
have
two
young
kids.
I
have
a
wife
and
you
have
to
look
at
the
data
of
the
radiofrequency
radiation.
H
H
They
showed
that
in
1800
studies
that
there
is
effects
on
on
the
dna,
chromosomal
changes
and
also
neurotoxicity
and
carcinogenic
properties
to
animals
and
humans,
and
so
given,
given
that
there
is
strong
data
and
support
that
the
radio
frequency
radiation
can't
cause
damage
to
people,
I
mean
I
live
50
feet
away
from
there,
though
our
bedrooms
will
be
right
there
there
there
is,
you
know
a
high
probability,
there's
there's.
You
know
nothing
in
medicine
is
a
given,
but
there
is
strong
support
that
the
radio
frequency
radiation
can
cause
damage.
H
So
I
think
you
know
I
I
didn't
know
that
this
was
going
to
happen.
I
just
found
out
a
week
ago
that
this
hearing
was
going
to
occur
and
that
I
think
more
should
be
looked
into
the
effects
of
these
cell
towers
in
the
area.
So
that's
it.
Thanks.
Thank.
A
L
Good
evening
my
name
is
georgian
yeomans,
hello,
everyone,
I'm
here
in
favor
of
the
south
tower
site.
I
think
that
we've.
L
A
thousand
oaks
residents
I've
lit
resident
I've
lived
in
this
area
for
31
years.
I
think
we've
gone
from
a
situation
where
not
having
cell
phone
service
is
a
nuisance
to
it
being
a
necessity.
L
It
came
very
close
to
home.
To
me
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
luxury
anymore.
It's
a
necessity.
I'm
in
our
family,
we
have
medical
devices
that
communicate
through
a
wireless
signal.
My
husband
had
a
medical
emergency.
My
kids
couldn't
reach
me
for
25
minutes,
because
I
was
on
a
walk
in
our
neighborhood
and
there
is
no
cell
service.
L
People
didn't
receive
notices
of
evacuation
during
the
fires
on
their
cell
phones
because
they
don't
have
cell
phone
service
in
our
area,
and
I
think
that
it's
a
circumstance
in
which
it
needs
to
be
rectified.
We
need
to
have
cell
phone
service,
it's
not
just
a
luxury,
it's
a
necessity,
even
as
you
come
out
down
west
lake
boulevard
and
turn
right
on
valley
spring
on
a
daily
basis.
You'll
see
cars
lined
up
parked
because
they
can't
continue
their
phone
calls
unless
they
stop
there.
L
So
I'm
not
an
engineer,
I'm
not
a
doctor.
I
don't
know
about
the
health
and
welfare
effects,
but
the
point
is
that
we
need
to
take
into
account
the
welfare
of
everyone
affected
and
not
just
a
few
that
are
affected
by
this
project,
so
I'm
in
favor
of
increasing
our
self-service
so
that
we
do
have
the
ability
to
communicate
with
medical
professionals
with
emergency
responders
with
services.
It's
a
necessity.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention.
A
Thank
you,
let's
see
tommy
and
I'm
so
sorry
about
it.
L
I
live
at
4571,
sunny
hill
street
in
thousand
oaks
and
learned
about
the
plans
by
verizon
to
build
a
new
mobile
base
station
at
the
water
reserve
site
candle
crest.
This
planned
site
is
very
close
to
our
house,
our
house
approximately
100
feet.
We
live
directly
across
from
this
site
and
we
definitely
object
this
project.
For
many
reasons,
mobile
coverage
in
the
area
is
good.
We
have
no
problem
and
therefore
a
new
base
station
is
not
necessary.
L
There
is
no
new
building
planned
and
no
population
growth
in
this
neighborhood.
Therefore,
no
new
base
station
for
growth
is
necessary.
Proximity
of
mobile
base
stations
so
close
to
many
houses
is
highly
intrusive
and
a
major
health
risk
and
not
necessary
as
other
sites
are
available
without
such
major
issues
and
risks.
L
P
I
My
name
is
greg
tujan.
I
am
the
gentleman
that
was
spoken
to
by
the
verizon
applicant
and
I
did
not
approve
this
project.
As
dr
kramer
point
out,
this
is
not
a
compliant
project
for
several
reasons.
I'm
a
physician
in
the
area.
My
image
is
not
showing.
Please.
I
And
magnetic
radiation
is
truly
a
condition.
It's
a
diagnosable
code
in
our
icd-10,
which
is
a
specific
number
that
we
use
for
diagnoses.
It
people
have
sensitive
sensitivities
to
magnetic
radiation
like
that.
I've
done
a
study
which
included
here,
there's
114
literature,
reviewed
studies
that
show
that
there
is
truly
react,
reactions
to
emf
by
people
and
there's
different
sensitivities
for
people
as
a
result.
I
For
me,
being
a
physician,
I'm
exposed
to
gamma
radiation
x-ray.
My
sensitivity
is
much
less
so
I
live
100
feet
from
this,
so
my
sensitivity
to
the
radiation
will
be
different
than
the
general
population.
That's
number
that's
a
very
important
point
to
remember:
who
is
the
medical
person
who
is
giving
advice
to
the
community
about
this
project?
We
need
somebody
who
has
medical
knowledge
about
emf,
sensitivity.
I
The
other
problem
is
my
image
is
not
showing
okay,
this
site.
The
landowner
is
not
responsible
people
frequent
this
site
all
the
time,
and
you
see
that
there's
people
recreationally
using
this
area
to
get
to
do
things
that
they
shouldn't
be
doing
as
well
as
looking
at
the
view
and
the
problem
is
based
on
the
report.
They
show
that
right
below
the
antenna,
they
are
above
the
the
dose
that
is
acceptable,
these
people
that
go
frequent
that
are
going
to
be
right.
I
Next
to
that,
so
I'm
going
to
have
to
have
the
sign
in
front
of
my
house,
and
these
people
are
going
to
be
exposed.
So
how
is
the
company
who
owns
the
water
reservoir
going
to
protect
that?
That
needs
to
be
answered,
so
I
need
to
see
signage
where
they're
going
to
put
it?
Are
they
going
to
put
a
fence
around
it?
I
want
to
see
silhouettes
of
how
this
is
going
to
look
for
our
community.
A
Thank
you,
judy
bruce
and
then
diane
lerner.
B
B
B
There
is
no
congressional
act
that
mandates
these
poison
delivery
systems
be
imposed
on
us.
This
means
our
wireless
ordinance
is
based
on
a
false
premise
and
is
illegal.
This
takes
that
health
issue
right
off
the
table
on
the
table.
Excuse
me,
the
telecommunications
act
is
a
statute
between
the
government
and
the
wireless
companies.
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
interaction
of
the
people,
so
you're
saying
what
the
fcc
order
is
not
law,
then
why
haven't
the
lawyers
and
your
paid
consultants
figure
this
out?
B
Well,
they're,
hiding
the
truth
to
keep
you
in
self-doubt
and
fear.
The
fcc
order
is
a
scam,
the
fcc
uses,
corruption
and
the
city
attorney
uses
fear
where
the
people
use
law.
At
the
last
meeting,
the
europa
consultant
said
regarding
judy
bruce's
comments.
I
really
didn't
know
what
to
say
well
how
telling
that
he
didn't
respond
to
any
of
the
facts.
In
my
presentation,
in
fact,
all
of
his
rebuttals
on
all
the
comments
were
a
complete
whitewash,
a
partial
transcript
of
your
paid
consultants.
B
Technical
portion
of
his
rf
safety
comments
clearly
points
out
why
the
facts
are
not
on
his
side.
The
top
of
this
ruler,
he
says,
is
where
we
can
measure
effective
heating.
The
standard
is
based
on
heating.
It's
not
a
dna
change
or
non-ionizing
emissions.
It's
just
heating
wait
a
minute.
Your
pay
consultant
just
advised
the
thousand
oak
city
council
that
non-ionizing
radiation
cannot
affect
human
health,
which
is
based
on
science
50
years
out
of
date,
and
why
did
the
bioinitiative
consortium
decide?
B
B
Your
paid
consultant
should
understand
this,
and-
and
this
is
how
the
city
honors
our
commitment
to
protect
the
city,
so
the
5g
infrastructure
is
a
kill
grid
and
is
destroying
humanity,
and
before
you
do
anything,
you
must
demand
that,
where
is
the
congressional
act
that
imposes
these
poison
delivery
systems
on
the
city?
Thank.
A
A
I'm
I'm
asking
you
to
not
not
do
that.
It's
not
fair
to
the
speakers.
It's
not
fair
to
the
applicant
diane
lerner
and
then
vadim
masos.
I
love
her.
B
B
There's
been
ample
supply
of
evidence
presented
that
more
than
confirms
that
this
level
of
radiation
is
extremely
dangerous
to
human
and
environmental
health,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
our
properties,
of
course,
will
be
devalued,
put
our
homes
at
great
risk
for
fires.
That's
minimal,
that's
trivial
compared
to
the
health
concerns,
and
so
I'm
pretty
much
reiterating,
what's
already
been
said,
as
especially
with
what
judy
has
just
expressed,
but
basically,
since
there
again
has
been
zero.
B
I
emphasize
zero
evidence
that
this
incredibly
high
level
of
radiation
is
safe
and
a
preponderance
of
evidence
that
basically
states
there's
it's
harmful
and
there's
a
whole
health
of
problems
that
can
come
with
it,
including
cancer.
I
just
wonder
why
this
has
gotten
as
far
as
as
it
has
our
fundamental
human
rights
are
being
violated.
B
B
B
B
S
A
Verizon,
excuse
me:
what
city
do
you
live
in.
A
S
Newberry
park
resident
father
of
six
children,
local
beekeeper,
I
know
the
the
damaging
effect
of
wireless
radiation
on
a
piece
when
colony
collapse
hit
the
my
b's
and
I
lost
a
lot
of
them.
I
didn't
know
the
answer
I
found
out
it
later
and
now
from
from
once
I
found
out
that
faraday
cage.
If
you
know
what
I'm
talking
about,
protects
the
bees,
I
started
to
apply
this
method
after
many
different
trials
and
then
since
then
my
bees
are
doing
fine,
but
far
the
application
for
the
cage
has
to
be
grounded.
S
I
cannot
ground
my
children
wearing
the
wires
all
around
and
my
my
family,
so
I'm
here
to
ask
you
again
to
to
deny
the
application,
because
everybody
knows
that
I
think
everybody
because
majority
of
people
I
talk
to
already
know
about
damaging
effect
of
4g,
and
then
mr
kramer
tried
to
present
it
here
that
all
roads
would
leave
to
rome.
I'm
sorry
not
to
roam
to
congress
and
to
washington.
It's
not
true.
You
are
our
representatives.
S
You
have
to
protect
us
and
our
health,
because
my
daughter
is
the
youngest
daughter
she's
a
cheerleader
at
newberry
park.
They
have
a
tower
right
next
to
it
has
a
bleeding
nose
for
I
don't
know
for
the
last
two
years,
even
though
5g
hasn't
rolled
out
yet
I
just
can
imagine
damaging
effect
on
on
a
5g.
What
would
happen?
My
wife
has
a
excruciating
headaches
and
then
I
we
found
out
just
recently
that
we
live
only
at
about
I
may
I
measured
it.
It
was
120
steps,
so
it's
around
200
feet
220.
S
Maybe
I
don't
know
how
my
feet.
My
my
steps
are
not
that
big
up
to
60
centimeters
0.6
meters,
so
that-
and
I
even
offered
twice
already
or
three
times
I
I
offered
it
to
do
experiment
with
my
bees
of
a
damaging
effect
of
4g
and
nobody
responded.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
you're
not
interested
to
see
how
damaging
the
effect
of
4g
and
radiation
on
a
beast
which
will
be.
You
know
very
obvious,
closer
you
put
to
the
tower.
S
S
M
The
u.s
supreme
court,
I'm
from
west
lake
village,
page
the
u.s
supreme
court
of
appeals
and
the
california
supreme
court,
not
the
fed,
feds,
confirmed
and
told
you
that
the
city
has
the
sole
police
power
for
the
health
and
safety
of
its
residents.
It's
your
responsibility
to
obey
the
law
and
protect
the
people.
The
fcc's
mission
is
not
to
issue
laws,
but
to
issue
regulations
to
help
interpret
its
own
clarification
of
the
telecom
act.
M
The
city
is
also
responsible
for
making
sure
its
actions
don't
interfere
with
the
body
of
the
laws
for
the
fair
housing
and
act
and
ada.
The
dc
circuit
court
of
appeals
struck
down
the
attempt
of
the
fcc
to
take
away
the
city's
rights
to
say
they
have
to
put
up
these
towers
three
times.
They
quoted
the
buy
initiative
report
two
times
they
mentioned
the
rf
exposure
as
relevant.
In
any
environmental
analysis.
M
M
The
fair
housing
act
protects
its
residents,
stating
they
have
the
right
to
a
quiet
enjoyment.
These
towers
have
ruined
in
our
community
already
people
that
have
spoken
here
for
the
last
six
months
with
their
children.
How
sick
they
are.
One
family
of
four
has
four
different
types
of
blood
cancer
we
have
witnessed,
and
these
people
that
say
they
don't
know
they
are
parents,
they
are
grandparents,
they
should
be
learning.
You
should
all
be
learning.
We
have
put
together
building
biologists,
radio
frequency
engineers,
doctors
and
scientists
in
our
community
for
the
last
eight
months.
M
We
speak
all
across
up
and
down
the
coastline.
We
help
people,
you
guys
need
to
step
up,
you're
ruining
our
city.
You
have
every
right
by
the
fcc,
so
we
forgetting
two
minutes
is
ridiculous,
because
kramer
gets
as
much
as
he
wants.
We
pick
people
can't
live
in
their
homes
anymore,
they
are
sick
and
more
people
are
going
to
get
sick
and
the
city
is
worried
about
getting
sued.
M
Well,
the
people
in
the
community
are
saying
when
they
get
500
million
dollars
or
a
billion
dollars
when
everyone's
sick
and
they
can't
live
in
their
homes
anymore.
That's
not!
Okay.
The
u.s
access
board
recognizes
that
multiple
chemical
sensitivities
and
electromagnetic
sensitivities
may
be
considered
disabilities
under
the
ada
if
they
are
so
severely
impaired
by
the
neurological,
respiratory
or
other
functions
of
an
individual
that
it
substantially
limits
one
or
more
of
the
individual's
major
life
activities.
M
That
already
is
happening
that
we've
been
talking
to
you
about
electromagnetic
sensitive
people
that
are
now
microwave
sickness
who
are
already
ill-disabled
by
the
equipment
that
must
be
projected.
Now
you
are
breaking
the
law.
If
you
do
not
protect
us
under
the
law,
the
city
has
the
initial
and
meaningful
interactive
dialogue.
That's
in
compliance
with
the
law
is
stated
in
the
ada
and
fair
housing
act.
The
ada
appeal
is
within
the
fcc
section,
255
in
the
telecommunication
communications
act.
M
K
Good
evening
my
name
is
ken
unger,
I'm
a
resident
of
thousand
oaks.
I
live
on
west
bend
road,
which
is
approximately
my
house,
is
approximately
100
between
100
and
200
feet
down
below
the
proposed
location
of
the
cell
towers.
I
don't
I'm
an
architect
and,
and
I
have
five
children.
I
just
built
my
home
just
below
the
property.
I've
lived
in
thousand
oaks
for
23
years.
I
don't
know
that
I'm
going
to
add
any
additional
insight
into
what
you've
already
heard
tonight,
except
to
express
my
dismay,
the
situation
as
an
architect.
K
What
we
have
to
do
when
we
design
a
house
around
an
oak
tree
is
crazy.
Yet
here
we
have
a
situation
where
we're
affecting
the
health
and
welfare
of
your
residents,
the
city
of
thousand
oaks.
Yet
it's
possibly
going
to
be
approved
that
just
boggles
my
mind.
We
we
elect
you
guys.
We
pay
our
tax
dollars
for
you
to
represent
our
best
interests,
our
health
and
our
well-being,
and
to
me
it's
just
it's
just
crazy
that
that
this
has
even
been
being
considered.
I
live
in.
I
live
in
club
estates.
K
I
don't
know
that
you
ever
contacted
them
or
that
homeowners
association,
because
I
never
heard
from
them.
I
never
had
never
heard
anything
about
it.
I
I
I
want
to
live
here
for
the
rest
of
my
life.
I
love
thousand
oaks.
I
love
my
community.
I
want
to
be
here,
but
I
want
my
health
maintained.
I
want
the
health
of
my
children
maintained.
B
I've
lived
in
thousand
oaks
since
1965
in
north
ranch
for
35
years.
No
one
in
my
area
had
been
notified
by
the
hoa
or
anyone
else
about
any
of
this.
This
was
only
by
word
of
mouth
and
our
cells
all
went
off
during
the
fires.
All
nine
of
them
were
going
in
the
entire
area,
so
the
lady
that
had
the
no
service
was
not
in
north
ranch
and
I'm
definitely
opposed
to
this,
and
we
had
five
towers
added
on
wesley
boulevard
in
january.
B
B
This
is
transmitting
radiation,
approximately
nine
to
1
000
feet
in
a
circumference
and
which
is
approximately
the
same
distance
of
three
football
fields.
This
this
radiation
penetrates
through
buildings.
How
about
the
effect
of
the
water
tank?
Is
it
going
to
affect
everyone's
water?
Now
I'd
like
answers
for
some
of
these
questions
and
I
think
verizon
should
attach
a
door
hanger
on
everybody's
door
in
bold
print,
not
in
tiny
letters
to
where
people
that
wear
glasses
can't
even
read
them
before
all
applications
are
even
submitted
to
the
city.
P
Madam
chairman,
council
members
good
evening
my
name
is
greg:
fortner
gregory
forner.
I
live
on
4487,
sunny
hill
street.
P
Customer
for
20
years
I've
not
had
a
problem
with
my
wireless
coverage.
Then
again
I
have
a
samsung
galaxy
phone,
so
maybe
that
has
something
to
do
with
it.
I
don't
know,
and
additionally,
we
have
friends
visiting
from
all
over
the
world
from
russia,
kazakhstan,
italy
coming
to
our
house
for
barbecues.
P
P
Everyone
in
the
neighborhood
will
be
affected
by
that
we
in
particular,
we
are
approximately
less
than
100
meters
from
where
those
antennas
will
be
that's
going
to
affect
at
some
point
our
home
values
and
our
taxes
that
we
will
be
paying
for
the
property
number.
Two,
of
course
the
concerns
about
the
medical
issues,
which
we're
told,
are
not
an
issue,
but
we
believe
otherwise
and
just
quickly
number
three.
P
Is
we
believe
that
there
are
many
other
alternative
locations
for
where
those,
if
needed,
for
coverage
for
other
people?
There
are
many
other
from
the
north
north
of
canaan
to
the
west
west
of
west
lake
boulevard
and
even
to
the
east,
there's
wide
open
spaces.
Now
again,
it
may
be
a
little
bit
more
costly
for
verizon
to
lay
the
lines
in
you
know
for
utilities
and
stuff,
but
it
can
be
done
and
minimal
impact
to
residents
and
house
property
values.
P
P
T
T
Yes,
we
now
have
on
record
that,
according
to
your
consultant
that
everything
goes
to
congress.
Well,
if
everything
goes
to
congress,
let's
go
to
the
city
of
rancho
palace,
verdes
versus
abrams.
The
u.s
supreme
court
ruled
that
you,
as
a
local
municipality,
are
entitled
to
cooperative
federalism
whereby
you
can
police
your
decision.
T
Then
he
said
again,
your
hands
are
tied.
Let's
go
then,
to
what
this
california
supreme
state
court
said.
T-Mobile
versus-
and
this
was
recent-
the
4th
of
april
llc
versus
the
city
and
county
of
san
francisco.
Again,
they
say,
there's
no
need
to
consider
what
they
have,
except
the
health
and
safety
of
your
residents.
T
T
You
have
a
state
court
recently
as
recent
as
last
week,
the
19th
of
august,
the
dc
court
of
appeals
struck
down
the
fcc's
attempt
to
preempt
local
land
by
calling
it-
and
I
quote,
arbitrary
and
capricious
standards-
impulsive
standards
of
the
fcc-
they
quoted
the
bioinitiative
report,
which
was
written
one
of
the
scientists
that
wrote
that
lives
here
in
thousand
oaks
he's
been
begging
for
a
week.
Do
we
keep
coming
back
to
say?
Can
we
please
talk
to
you?
I
know
you
think
mr
kramer
is
esteemed
he's,
probably
part
of
the
ieee.
T
This
person
is
a
lifelong
member
of
the
ieee
and
has
too
many
trevor.
Marshall
is
his
name.
I
have
has
too
many
co.
I
don't
have
only
of
two
minutes,
so
I'm
going
to
move
on.
The
next
thing
he
said
was:
oh
health
and
safety
is
out
of
bounds.
Okay,
so
we've
been
coming
for
six
months
to
tell
you.
Health
and
safety
is
not
out
of
bounds.
If
you
we
are
in
the
state
of
california.
The
tca
act
of
1996
speaks
specifically
to
this.
T
In
section
703,
I
want
to
go
part
3
section,
33
70.2
says
public
health
and
safety
is
determined
by
the
municipality.
There
are
people
who
are
sick,
who
are
covered
by
the
ada
under
the
u.s
access
board,
which
has
much
more
teeth
than
an
fcc
regulation
which
has
been
called
by
him,
and
your
attorneys
are
law.
It
is
not
a
law.
So
not
only
are
you
going
to
be
pulling
on
lawsuits
by
the
doj
inside
the
fair
housing
act,
the
city
is
in
major
violation
and
okay
do
one
more
bit
of
research.
T
B
Good
evening,
everyone
I'm
a
citizen
of
thousand
oaks.
I
am
opposed
to
verizon's
plans
to
install
12
large
wireless
cell
towers
in
north
ranch
and
another
14
in
newbury
park.
I
do
not
support
the
philosophy
that
people
that
the
people
in
our
community
who
are
disabled
due
to
4g
technology
are
to
be
dismissed
as
collateral
damage.
B
The
people
in
geneva
on
the
day
of
antenna
activation,
reported
loud
rigging
in
their
ears,
intense
headaches,
unbearable,
earaches
insomnia,
chest
pain,
fatigue
and
not
feeling
well
inside
their
homes
and,
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
the
5g
microwave
radiation
penetrates
through
the
outer
structure
of
homes
and
buildings
into
their
interior,
24
7..
You
cannot
turn
it
off.
B
When
the
citizens
of
geneva
called
swisscom
to
report
their
symptoms,
they
were
told
that
everything
was
legal
and,
within
the
guidelines,
ann
mills,
author
of
all,
emf'd
up,
experienced
identical
problems
when
she
and
her
husband
were
stationed
in
germany
like
the
people
in
geneva.
Her
concerns
were
dismissed
when
she
found
a
knowledgeable
german
physician,
dr
horst
edgar.
He
told
her
that
her
symptoms
were
due
to
microwave
illness,
as
seen
in
military
radar,
personnel
and
people
working
on
microwave
towers.
B
A
And
now
we
have
hosen
afshar.
K
K
Even
low
amount
of
radiation
can
be
detrimental
to
the
human
health.
As
dr
giant
said,
there
are
ample
evidences
and
he
presented
all
those
scientific
literature
which
I
really
like
all
of
you
to
go
through
it
before
making
decision
that
the
radio
frequency
radiation
is
detrimental
and
not
only
produces
symptoms
like
headache,
dizziness
insomnia
and
many
other
things
it
in
long
range,
especially
in
5g,
radiate.
K
In
5g
it
can
cause
more
health
hazards,
so
the
I'd
suggest
that
those
literature
be
reviewed
and
those
are
scientific
literature
and
also
when
it
comes
to
the
the
verizon
and
our
area,
we
have
had
absolutely
no
problem
with
reception.
I've
had
calls
from
hospital
from
anywhere
from
my
colleagues
and
never
ever.
I
had
problem
receiving
it,
so
I
suggest
that
you
would
respectfully
oppose
this
project.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
that's
the
end
of
my
speaker
cards.
Is
there
anybody
else
who
wants
to
fill
one
out
and
say
something
you
need
to
see
the
clerk
and
fill
it
out
and
while
you're
doing
that,
I
will
read
into
the
record
that
we
have
statement
cards.
A
People
who
didn't
do
want
to
express
their
opinion,
but
don't
want
to
speak.
They
they
fill
out
the
green
speaker
statement
cards
and
we
have
eight
opposed
and
three
in
favor,
and
then
we
did
get
last
minute
to
the
meeting.
We
did
get
a
letter
that
was
opposed
so
I'll.
Let
everybody
know
about
that.
G
A
L
Good
evening
I
have
lived
in
thousand
oaks
west
lake
for
20
years.
I
am
emf
sensitive
and
I
oppose
any
new
additional
cell
towers
near
resident
residences
as
they
are
not
safe
for
about
a
year.
I
have
noticed
memory
problems,
tinnitus
heart
palpitations
at
night
and
in
this
space
right
now
a
migraine
is
forming
people
in
our
community
who
live
near
the
new
cell
towers
that
have
been
popping
up
are
already
sick.
L
I
used
to
come
into
this
space
many
years
ago
with
my
children
for
children's
concerts.
I
can't
even
imagine
bringing
them
into
the
space
right
now
with
the
industrial
wi-fi
in
the
room.
I
don't
know
what's
what
it
is,
when
the
apple
store
at
the
mall
expanded
to
its
current
gigantic
size.
I
noticed
a
heaviness
on
my
head
when
I
walked
in
that
wasn't
the
case
before
I
could
be
in
that
store
before
for
an
hour
with
my
family,
but
not
anymore.
L
I
would
love
to
downsize
my
own
home
and
maybe
move
out
into
a
town
home
that
I
saw
newberry
park
recently,
but
I
cannot
buy
a
home
near
a
cell
tower
as
the
recently
approved
one
in
newberry
park
by
the
in
and
out,
these
cell
towers
will
hurt
properly
property
values
and
harm
future
real
estate
transactions.
L
Good
evening
I'm
jocelyn
stewart
I
live
in
the
north
ranch
neighborhood.
I've
lived
there
for
20
years,
and
I
understand
a
lot
of
people
here
tonight
have
concerns
about
health.
Safety
is
the
other
side
of
that
coin
and
the
reason
that
the
residents
of
north
ranch
need
and
want
this
cell
tower
primarily
is
for
safety.
L
L
My
husband
and
myself
and
my
daughter
were
all
at
home
and
did
not
get
any
notice
at
all
whatsoever
on
our
cell
phones
of
the
evacuation.
That
is
due
to
the
poor
cell
service
in
our
neighborhood.
That
does
exist.
I
know
several
people
here
tonight
are
claiming
that
they
don't
have
a
problem
with
self
cell
service,
there's
absolutely
a
very,
very
terrible
problem
with
cell
service
in
north
ranch.
I
walk
through
the
neighborhood
on
a
daily
basis
with
my
dog,
and
the
cell
service
goes
in
and
out
and
is
mostly
out
all
through
the
neighborhood.
L
It's
it's
just
a
safety
issue,
I
mean
you,
can
it's
convenience?
Yes,
but
it's
mostly
a
safety
issue.
My
daughter,
my
teenage
daughter,
was
home
alone
recently
overnight
and
when
my
husband
and
I
were
gone,
our
wi-fi
went
down
because
we
do
have
wi-fi
in
the
home
that
boosts
our
cell
service.
When
the
wi-fi
went
out,
she
was
panicked
because
she
had
no
cell
service
in
our
home.
It
was
late
at
night.
L
She
got
in
her
car
and
drove
a
mile
or
two
from
our
home
and
pulled
over
along
the
side
of
the
road
to
make
a
phone
call
and
to
call
us
and
tell
us
that
she
did
not
have
cell
service
at
home.
So
this
was
a
young
teenage
girl
out
on
the
on
the
road
after
midnight,
in
the
middle
of
nowhere
just
so,
she
could
call
her
parents
and
feel
connected.
L
This
is
another
safety
concern.
There's
a
fire
station
at
the
corner
of
north
ranch
and
upper
ranch.
Excuse
me
of
west
lake
boulevard
and
upper
ranch
kanan.
I
always
forget
kanan
and
upper
ranch.
L
Recently,
I
was
informed
by
the
the
firefighters
at
that
fire
station
that
whenever
they
leave
the
fire
station,
whether
it's
on
an
emergency
call
or
for
any
reason
they
lose
cell
service
on
their
cell
phones.
That
makes
me
very
very
nervous
that
our
first
responders
when
they
leave
that
fire
station
do
not
have
cell
service.
A
A
All
right
at
this
point,
we
will
go
back
to
the
staff
for
follow-up
comments.
F
One
of
the
speakers
brought
up
the
issue
of
people
climbing
up
or
walking
the
the
area.
That's
the
reason
why
a
frp
or
a
barrier
is
required
in
front
of
the
antennas
under
condition.
Number
seven
and
eight
and
also
sun
age
signages
are
being
required
under
condition
number
nine,
and
with
that,
I
believe
dr
kramer
here
will
respond
to
all
the
other
issues.
Thank
you.
N
N
When
we
talk
about
distance
from
homes
and
a
number
of
the
speakers
talked
about
putting
cell
sites
the
cell
site
further
up
the
hill
things
like
that,
there
are
technical
problems
that
the
applicant
can
talk
about,
but
primarily
the
problems
come
from
the
fact
that
if,
for
example,
I
was
trying
to
provide
cell
coverage
to
the
three
chairs
over
there,
I
could
provide
it
close
to
it,
or
I
could
provide
it
from
over
here,
but
to
get
to
there
is
going
to
interfere
with
other
cell
sites
in
the
area.
N
N
There's
some
discussion
tonight
about
market
value
and
and
the
the
magic
number
is
always
20.
There
were
a
couple
of
reports
many
years
ago
that
that
postulated
a
20,
not
19,
not
21,
but
a
20
property
drop.
N
I've
referred
myself
as
doctor.
I
have
a
doctorate
in
law
and
policy,
I'm
not
an
md
when
I
did.
My
doctoral
research
in
fact
was
on
in
partly
on
the
subject
of
property,
valued
evaluation,
and
I
looked
at
the
court
cases
all
of
them
since
the
telecom
act
and
the
courts
want
to
see
expert
evidence,
not
lay
evidence
to
argue
this.
This
issue,
you
have
no
expert
evidence
on
the
record
on
this
as
a
practical
matter
over
the
years.
N
N
Ninth
circuit
case
point
on
point:
metro,
pcs
versus
san
francisco
said
you
only
look
at
the
provider
before
you
to
determine
adequacy
of
coverage,
and
that
makes
sense
when
you
think
about
it,
because
if
you're
a
verizon
customer,
you
can't
roam
on
att's
network
if
you're
a
sprint
customer.
You
can't
roam
on
on
verizon's
network,
so
the
courts
have
told
us
that
when
we're
looking
at
claims
of
adequate
coverage
in
the
area,
you
are
only
to
look
at
the
coverage
from
the
applicant
before
you.
N
Several
speakers
tonight
have
talked
about
the
fact
that
they
believe
that
fcc
regulations
are
not
enforceable
upon
the
city.
That's
just
wrong
law,
I'm
a
lawyer,
it's
wrong
law
and-
and
your
city
attorney
can
talk
to
you
about
that.
But
the
practical
reality
is
the
fcc
is
delegated
by
congress
to
create
regulations
to
enact
and
enforce
the
intent
of
congress.
Now,
in
this
case,
congress
set
out
47
cfr,
33
or
47
usc
332
c7,
which
talks
about
what
our
authority
is
and
limitations
on
our
authority
and
the
fcc
has
created
rules
to
enact
that
now.
N
We
believe
that
some
of
the
fcc
rules
are
over
overextended
in
terms
of
their
coverage
and,
in
fact,
our
loss
firm
on
behalf
of
our
client,
the
league
of
california
cities
and
therefore
the
city
is
suing
the
fcc
currently
to
roll
back.
Some
of
the
regulations
that
are
just
even
more
overreaching
than
we
can
ever
have
conceived.
N
N
That's
the
only
case
on
point
and
that
case
set
out
a
couple
of
things.
Number
one
ada
does
not
apply
to
cell
sites.
Self-Sighting
matters
it's
just
not,
and
the
reason
is,
is
because
the
fcc
rules
are
different
than
ada,
but
the
the
only
case
on
point
does
not
apply
ada
to
it
and
it
doesn't
make
it
a
a
harm
that
is,
can
be
rep
compensed
by
a
a
local
city
council.
N
There
was
a
also
a
reference
to
the
abrams
versus
rancho
palos
verde's
case
now.
That
case
was
actually
the
outcome
of
a
planning
hearing
where
mark
abrams
put
up
some
antennas
and
got
into
a
fight
with
the
city,
but
the
case
in
front
of
the
supreme
court
was
whether
he
could
collect
what
are
called
1983
damages
civil
right
damages
against
the
city
of
rpv,
and
the
answer
was
no.
So
there
was
no
supreme
court
ruling
on
that
other
than
whether
1983
damages
were
applicable.
N
One
speaker
told
you
that
you
should
ask
me
about
carlsbad,
18t
versus
carlsbad,
happy
to
talk
about
it
back
in
2000
I
was
an
expert
witness
for
the
city
of
carlsbad
and
in
fact
I
determined
that
there
were
some
alternative
sites
to
att
site
and
the
court
and
and
the
city
ended
up
denying
the
site
18t
sued.
The
judge
said
that
my
particular
testimony
was
not
relevant
to
the
issue
and
he
didn't
include
it.
I've
never
been
excluded
as
an
expert,
in
any
case,
just
just
for
clarity.
N
Really
that
that's
it,
so
what
we're
left
with
is
again.
This
is
really
an
aesthetic
process
for
the
city
in
terms
of
the
rf
safety
issues.
Oh
yeah,
let
me
go
back
and
talk
one
one
additional
comment.
Oh
I'm
sorry
too
number
one
one
speaker
asks
you
to
impose
a
moratorium
again,
regardless
of
how
they
may
feel
about
the
fcc's
authority
over
the
city,
the
fcc
has
explicitly
barred
local
jurisdictions
from
instituting
moratoriums
on
cell
sites
happened
in
august
last
year.
N
N
Well,
I
apologize.
Sometimes
I
can't
read
my
own
writing
in
the
heat
of
trying
to
keep
up
with
the
speakers,
so
we're
back
to
your
consideration
of
this
project.
I
advise
you
as
an
attorney.
Oh,
I
remember
what
it
is.
I
make
a
quarter
of
a
million
dollars
wish.
N
I
did
don't
my
contract
with
the
city
since
it
was
brought
up,
has
a
cap
of
a
quarter
of
a
million
dollars,
and
let
me
tell
you
how
I'm
paid
my
firm
is
paid
from
the
city
applicants
file
applications
they
pay
as
part
of
that
application
fee,
a
deposit
to
cover
our
costs,
but
we
will
never
accept
a
fee,
any
sort
of
fee
from
a
wireless
company,
because
that
would
suggest
that
we're
working
for
them,
in
fact,
our
sole
loyalty
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
have
a
contract
with
the
city
and
have
had
it
have
contracts
for
the
city
since
1987
is
because
we
work
for
the
city,
not
for
the
people
who
come
before
it
and
the
reason
it's
a
quarter
of
a
million
dollar
contract
is
because
the
city
has
to
move
money
through
the
accounts.
N
Our
contract
doesn't
pay
us
a
quarter
of
a
million
dollars.
Our
contract
is
based
on
the
number
of
projects
we
review
and
we're
solely
responsible
for
this
to
the
city
because
of
the
proper
way
it's
set
up
again,
if
you
have
any
questions
on
that,
I'm
sure
the
city
attorney
can
talk
about
that.
So
that's
what
I've
got
for
you.
F
And
madame
jeremy
I
had
just
for
some
of
the
there
were
some
members
of
the
public
that
spoke
regarding
notification.
Just
so
you
know
that
the
application
was
noticed.
We
sent
out
a
notice
of
application
back
in
january
and
also
another
app.
Another
notice
of
public
hearing
was
sent
out
two
weeks
prior
to
the
hearing
and
the
sign.
The
large
sign
was
posted
about
45,
at
least
45
days,
sometime
early
in
july,
before
the
hearing,
that's
about
45
days,
at
least
from
the
date
of
this.
A
Thank
you
sure.
J
Thank
you
just
one
more
comment.
A
couple
comments
you
heard,
dr
kramer,
discuss
the
federal
regulations
and
I
will
just
tell
the
commissioners
they
are
controlling
for
us,
just
like
other
similar
things,
such
as
tax
law
and
tax
regulations,
etc.
J
You
also
heard
a
speaker
discuss
a
couple
of
recent
cases.
One
out
of
san
francisco,
one
recent
has
to
do
with
tribal
lands
again
very
positive
cases
as
far
as
victories
for
the
local
government
or
local
agency
we've,
we're
always
looking
at
cases
to
ensure
that
we
are
protecting
the
city
to
the,
to
the
extent
that
we
can
those
two
cases,
while
very
positive,
for
that
particular
issue,
are
not
addressing
our
permissions
whatsoever.
J
That
requirement
that
we
must
comply
with
federal
government
on
the
rf
missions,
still
the
law
and
these
cases,
while
we
might
be
able
to
use
them
for
the
california
league
of
cities,
lawsuit
against
the
fcc.
It
might
help.
In
that
sense,
it's
not
something
that
is
going
to
change
the
way
that
we
have
to
do
our
ordinance
currently
based
on
the
applicable
federal
requirements.
At
this
time.
A
J
All
I
would
say
is
that
if
you
get
to
ask
questions
to
staff,
I
would
I
actually
would
suggest
that
you,
you
ask
them
now,
one
because
they're
fresh,
and
they
just
made
comments,
but
also
we
do
have
the
applicant
who
has
a
rebuttal,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
if
there's
any
changes
in
a
condition
or
anything
like
that,
that
the
applicant
has
a
final
chance
to
discuss
that.
So
my
recommendation
would
actually
be
to
go
ahead
and
ask
questions
to
staff.
Now
that
might
have
been
sharp
in
the
person's
mind.
A
A
Please
be
respectful,
we
we
need
you
to
be
respectful
and
let
this
go
in
an
orderly
manner.
Commissioner,.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
I'm
trying
to
follow
up
on
some
of
the
comments
that
that
speakers,
such
as
yourself,
have
made
and
get
clarity
on
some
points
that
I
tried
to
listen
and
understand
as
well
as
I
could.
I'm
not
sure
that
I
fully
understood
every
point
that
was
made
and
I
want
to
follow
up
on
several
of
them.
So
with
that,
my
understanding
from
the
staff
report
was
that
the
application
before
us
is
for
12
antennas.
G
G
F
F
The
same
one
was
the
same
case
for
4990
via
l0,
where
the
it
was
approved
back
in
2017.
I
believe
december
2017,
where
we
approve
it
a
similar
installation
of
installing
the
antennas
on
the
on
the
fence.
So.
F
G
So,
in
addition
to
that
case,
there
was
another
case
involving
sell
a
cell
site
on
a
water
tower.
Yes,.
F
F
And
hartwick
circle
across
the
across
the
hospital.
G
G
F
White
chapel
is
on
the
on
on
sunset
hills:
boulevard
behind
the
the
sunset
hills
park
where
it
went
to
the
planning
commission
twice.
G
G
G
Q
N
So
as
cellular
networks
have
grown
and
more
users
come
onto
the
networks,
the
sites
actually
get
closer
and
closer
to
the
ground,
because
the
carriers
want
to
constrain
the
coverage,
they
don't
have
an
infinite
number
of
frequencies.
They
reuse
the
frequencies
that
they
have
so
again.
This
gets
back
to
my
prior
comment
that
cell
sites
up
high
actually
are
detrimental
to
the
network
and
within
thousand
oaks.
We
have
a
number
of
examples
of
cell
sites
immediately
adjacent
to
residential
areas.
I'm
thinking
about
the
shopping
center
on
on
on
moore
park
to
vaughan.
F
N
And
we
have
various
cell
sites
immediately
adjacent
or
within
the
same
relative
distance,
as
this
particular
project
is
to
the
homes.
So
I
mean
this
is
not
unusual
for
the
city.
G
All
right,
moving
on
mr
walsh
in
his
testimony,
spoke
about
the
possibility
of
extending
the
antenna
height
from
the
plan
14
feet
up
to
as
much
as
36
feet.
G
So
two
questions,
one
is
that
allowed
and
two
what
would
be
required
if
it
is
permitted?
What
what
would
an
extension
to
36
feet
entail.
N
N
This
is
not
that
type
of
site,
because
this
is
a
camouflage
site.
That's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
have
the
the
wave
and
we've
gone
through
years
of
design
refinement
of
the
wave
to
to
provide
camouflage
for
the
antennas,
and
one
of
the
very
few
elements
within
6409
that
remains
within
our
local
discretion
is
whether
a
proposed
project
would
defeat
the
camouflage.
N
I
would
estimate
without
knowing
the
particulars
of
a
project
that
if
something
came
in
double
the
height,
it
would
be
very
easy
for
the
city
to
determine
that
that
would
defeat
the
camouflage
of
the
existing
site.
So
the
the
thought
about
sites
being
increased
in
height
is
correct,
but
you
have
to
look
at
the
underlying
site
to
determine
whether
it
would
comply.
N
It's
my
opinion
that
what
the
what
mr
walsh
described
would
not
be
permissible
by
right.
It
would
require
them
to
come
back
in
and
go
through
this
discretionary
process,
bring
it
back
to
you
to
see
whether
you
felt
it
was
aesthetically
appropriate.
So
it's
not
it's.
It's
not
a
no
permit
process.
In
fact,
it's
a
very
detailed
process.
N
G
G
And
then
to
wrap
up
just
just
to
review.
This
is
something
you've
touched
on
already
ms
jacob
referred
to
the
rpv
versus
abram's
case.
Do
I
understand
correctly
that
that
that
case,
the
decision
in
that
case
did
not
hinge
on
wireless
issues.
It
it
hinged
on
whether
the
whether
abrams
could
collect
1983
damages.
G
Okay,
so
so
I
do
have
a
then
a
follow-up
question.
I
mean
specifically
what
what
the
speaker
was
getting
at
there
was
that
the
the
notion
that
a
municipality
does
have
is
empowered
in
some
way
to
make,
in
some
sense
a
health
or
safety
ruling
with
regard
to
a
wireless
application.
G
It's
your
testimony
that
abrams
did
not
deal
with
that
issue.
It
dealt
with
another
issue,
that's
correct
number
one
and
to
the
larger
question
I
come
back
to
the
question
I
asked
at
the
outset,
which
is
that
your
your
understanding
of
the
fcc
regulations
is
it
correct?
Is
that
it's
the
fcc
that
that
determines
what
is
in
bounds
with
regard
to
health
and
safety,
and
our
job
is
to
determine
whether
any
application
complies
with
those
fcc
regulations,
but
neither
the
abrams
case
nor
any
other
case
since
1996
has
has
contradicted.
That,
is
that.
A
I
do
have
a
question
when
I
stood
on
sunny
hill
street
and
faced
the
water
tower,
it
was
pretty
well
camouflaged.
That's
a
good
word.
There
were
a
lot
of
trees,
there
was
a
lot
of
landscaping
and
you
almost
couldn't
see
the
water
tower
at
all
from
the
mr
chews
diagram,
one
of
the
three
sets
of
tower
of
cell
site
mavs
boxes,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
antennas,
is
at
that
point
where
it
is
on
the
street.
F
Thank
you
chair
regarding
that
question
at
this
point
there
from
the
street,
if
you're,
looking
at
it
from
from
sunny
hill
street
and
I'm
pointing
at
my
project
location
here
on
the
aerial.
I
can't
just
find
my
pointer.
Oh
there
it
is,
there
are
heavy.
The
there
are
heavy
vegetation
along
the
front
of
sun
hill,
sunny
hill
street.
The
the
antennas
are
located
approximately
on
the
north
end
of
the
water
tank
next
to
the
the
equipment
enclosure.
F
There
there's
a
house
on
the
southwest
side
of
that
water
tank,
which
is
I'm
looking
at
my.
If
you
could.
I
refer
you
to
the
the
screen
it's
around
this
area
and
there's
a
house
right
in
front
of
it.
F
F
F
There
are
cell
sites
on
the
on
the
sunset
hills,
close
to
the
sunset
hills
on
the
on
the
side.
So
I
I
believe
that's
a
vinida
verano
is
where
how
you
access
it,
but
there's
an
open
space
out
there.
That's
that
has
an
e
where
edison
has
a
an
easement
over
transmission
towers.
F
There
are
three
facilities
out
there.
I
would,
I
would
say
it's
sprint,
verizon
and
att.
F
Oh,
I'm
sorry,
t-mobile
and
there's
another
facility
similarly
installed
next
to
the
23
freeway
on
the
west
side
of
the
23
freeway,
on
a
nursery
which
is
antennas
being
exposed
with
arms,
supporting
it
and
that's
about
less
than
150
feet
from
the
nearest
residence
and
those
are
the
facilities
that
I
can
easy.
I
can.
I
can
recall
as
far
as
distances,
if
we're
going,
if
we're
comparing
distances,
then
you
know
we
can.
We
can
cite
more
examples.
I
believe,
if
I,
if
we
do,
the
research.
E
E
I
have
a
question
about
about
somebody
mentioned
during
the
public
speaking
actually
a
couple:
people
did
medical
emergencies
and
first
responder
access,
I'm
actually
related
to
somebody
who
is
a
firefighter
at
that
fire
station,
and
I
was
curious.
What
is
we
got?
Documented
concerns
about
people
being
unable
to
be
reached
are
emts
having
trouble
getting
getting
calls
when
they're
in
north
ranch
do
we
do
we
have
documentation
on
that
and
does
the
city
consider
that?
No,
we
don't
okay.
I
was
just
curious
as.
E
Got
one
across
the
street
from
me.
The
other
question
I
had
is
other
people
mentioned
that
they
didn't
did
not
have
issues
during
the
mass
broadcast
during
the
fires
in
the
evacuation.
E
Do
we
have
any
statistics
as
far
as
the
city's
knowledge
of
how
many
people
were
reached
successfully,
now
many
weren't
neighborhood
by
neighborhood?
No,
I
don't.
E
I'm
curious
and
then
somebody
else
mentioned
property
values
and
appraisals.
You've
addressed
that
doctor.
I
am
curious.
Do
we
have
any?
You
may
be
able
to
answer
this?
Dr
fisher,
do
we
have
any
historical
data
as
far
as
any
cities,
installing
cell
towers
anywhere
and
people
having
their
properties,
reassessed
and
lowering
their
tax
values
or
lowering
their
property
values
documented.
N
E
Okay,
mr
jewett,
are
you
aware
of
any
that
happening
within
our
own
city
district?
At
any
point,
not
that
I'm
aware
of
okay
copy
that
that'll
be
all
thank
you.
R
C
F
I
I
don't,
I
don't,
can
you
please
repeat
the
question,
I
don't
get
it
sure.
C
So
the
the
three
antenna
sites
on
the
on
the
water
site
for
the
the
south
east
corner
of
that
site,
there's
two
homes
that
are
underneath
that
water,
well
that
have
viewpoints
looking
up
at
the
water
well
and
with
this
additional
antenna
now
protruding
from
the
water.
Well,
what
had
there
been
a
study
of
what
their
perspective
would
be
from
their
homes.
F
C
I
see
and
as
regards
for
camouflaging,
I
understand
that
the
front
antenna
will
be
camouflaged
by
the
the
trees
native
to
that
area
and
the
rear
south
southwest
and
southeast
are
not
real
camouflaged
by
any
native
vegetation.
F
That
is
well
within
the
purview
of
the
planning
commission.
If
the
planning
commission
feels
that
additional
additional
camouflaging
is
necessary,
then
the
planning
commission
may
impose
conditions
requiring
certain
types
of
plants
that
is
subject
to
to
staff
review
for
before
before
building
permit
is
issued
and
we
we
did
the
same
similar
thing
on
via
lc
0,
which
I
mentioned
earlier
back.
F
Then
we
were
proposing
to
put
oak
trees,
but
the
I
believe
that
the
the
residents
did
not
want
to
see
lots
of
oak
trees,
which
is
surprising,
but
we
we
are
required
to
put
plantings
either
behind
or
in
front
of
the
antennas
to
kind
of
soften
up
a
little
bit.
The
the
the
visual
impact
and
that's
just
an
example
of
what
the
planning
commission
may
be
able
to
to
impose
as
a
condition.
C
And
in
this
case,
given
that
cal
water
is
a
property
owner
of
that
water,
well,
would
the
applicant
have
to
first
get
permission
from
the
owner
to.
F
Or
a
plan
scheme,
I
would
leave
that
up
to
the
to
the
applicant
that
question.
I
can't
I
can't
speak
on
behalf
of
the
either
the
applicant
or
calendar.
F
Yes,
we
do
have
a
landscape
guidelines
that
that
the
city
normally
follows.
If
the
planning
commission
decides
to
impose
a
condition
to
provide
landscape
to
to
reduce
the
visual
impact
of
the
antennas,
then
the
staff
staff
will
be
working
with
the
applicant
or
and
and
their
landscape
consultants
to
provide
the
best
possible
way
of
putting
the
right
plants
in
the
right
location.
J
I
was
going
to
say
that
just
for
the
commissioners
that
one
of
the
the
aspects
of
this
project
is
that
the
fencing
itself
is
part
of
the
stealth
aspect
of
what
we've
tried
to
request
verizon
to
do
so.
The
fact
that
these
antennas
were
actually
on
the
fence
line
into
the
fence.
J
That's
part
of
the
stealth
that
we're
looking
at
and,
as
dr
kramer
said
earlier,
if
there
was
a
if
there
was
an
effort
under
649
to
try
to
change
and
add
to
it,
if
you
did
the
height
difference
of
the
fence,
of
course,
that
would
be
something
that
might
take
away
the
stealth
and
that's
or
the
camouflage,
and
that's
why
dr
kramer
brought
that
up.
It's
it's.
It's
the
fact
that
it's
a
the
fencing
is
part
of
the
whole
unique
thing
just
like.
Sometimes
we
have
chimneys
or
steeple
something
of
that
nature.
J
J
The
other
one
was
in
one
in
which
we
had
a
water
tank
and
there
was
a
proposal
to
put
oak
trees
behind
the
antennas
again,
not
in
front
to
block
it,
but
behind
it
and
the
neighborhood
residents
came
out
and
said
we
don't
mind
that
the
wireless
facilities
being
there,
we
just
don't
want
the
oak
trees
because
it
stands
out
that
they
weren't
there
before
and
now
we're
it
looks
different
than
what
it
was.
And
so
I
think
that's
what
he
was
referring
to
before.
O
Behalf
of
verizon
wireless,
I
five
minutes.
I
would
like
to
just
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
the
commission
brought
up
or
questions,
rather,
one
of
them
being
the
distance
between
existing
residents
and
the
actual
sectors
on
page
a1
sheet
a1
of
the
zoning
drawings
that
are
last
dated
12
18
17,
which
was
part
of
the
exhibits.
O
We
did
identify
the
distances
between
the
sectors
and
the
homes
and
keep
in
mind
that
those
homes
have
a
drop
in
elevation.
So
this
is
just
an
actual
straight
line
across
it
doesn't
take
into
account
the
elevation
difference.
They
range
from
92
feet,
117
360
feet.
O
O
We
also
submitted
in
the
packet
photographic
simulations
which
depict
the
actual
antenna
placed
on
the
proposed
fencing
and
if
that
was
part
of,
I
believe,
that's
part
of
the
exhibit
you
can
see.
There
were
two
views
provided
one
to
the
south
east,
looking
up
at
the
water
tank
facility
and
then
one
on
sunny
hill,
which
is
heavily
landscaped
by
mature
pine
trees.
Those
pine
trees
have
actually
grown
over
the
past
four
years,
so
they've
actually
provided
even
more
height
and
massing
to
their
the
broad
broadness
of
the
tree.
O
So
the
two
sectors
that
are
facing
the
southeast
and
northeast
there
are
no.
There
is
no
existing
landscaping
so
that
that's
the
only
thing
we
we
looked
at
creating
kind
of
a
wave
motion.
O
We've
discussed
the
wave
motion
of
the
fence
line
above
the
antennas
that
kind
of
give
it
a
natural
wave
rather
than
a
you
know
the
straight
line:
height
of
a
wrought
iron
fence,
so
that
was
something
that
was
looked
at
and
then
the
painting
of
the
black
we've
looked
at
in
other
cases.
Over
the
years.
I've
been
doing
this
quite
some
time.
O
O
It's
a
study,
they've
shown
that
most
people
are
just
around
50
are
going
to
wireless,
and
so
that's
something
that
the
wireless
carriers
are
trying
to
keep
up
with
the
pace
of
the
demand
of
cell
sites
and
as
the
cell
sites
are
being
built.
Now,
as
dr
kramer
was
explaining,
you
have
to
be
closer
to
the
end
user
because
of
capacity
issues
so
we're
finding
in
this
in
these
areas
of
the
proposed
site,
where
it's
topographic,
topographically
challenging
you
have
to
be
closer
to
the
end
user.
O
O
The
opposition
wasn't
really
discussed
more
or
less
the
the
safety
of
anybody
accessing
the
public,
the
private
property.
It
is
private
property,
we're
within
private
property.
The
slope
is
private
property,
so
anybody
walking
up
to
the
front
of
the
antennas
at
night
or
any
time
of
the
day,
they're
trespassing.
O
So
that
is
a
concern,
and
I
understand
that,
but
we
are
going
to
be
installing
fcc
required
signage
in
front
of
the
sectors
so
that,
if
somebody
does
either
whether
it's
general
public
or
a
a
individual
working
on
the
site
there,
they
understand
that
this
is
emitting
rf
rf
emissions,
it's
within
the
regulations
of
the
sec
guidelines
and
there's
a
distance
separation.
That
distance
is
going
to
be
defined
by
a
barrier
that
we're
putting
in
front
of
the
antenna.
O
We
did
submit
a
third
party
rf
emissions
report.
It
was
provided
to
the
city
during
the
application
process.
It
was
prepared
by
hammond
and
edison
they're,
a
neutral
third
party.
They
do
rfe
mission
studies
all
throughout
the
country,
they're
very
reputable
and
they
assess
our
project
based
on
the
plans
and
they
looked
at
it
and
concluded
that
there
is
no
effect
other
than
I'm
sorry.
And
then
we
did
provide
an
fcc
statement
that
was
prepared
by
verizon,
stating
that
everything
is
in
compliance.
O
O
They
do
affect
the
signal
quality,
so
anything
that
would
grow
up
in
front
of
it
that
would
be
mature
could
affect
the
quality
of
the
service
later
and
then
it
could
affect
that
and
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
put
any
barrier
landscaping
behind
it,
because
it's
an
asphalt
roadway
that
goes
around
the
circumference
of
the
tank.
So
we
wouldn't
build,
impose
and
encroach
into
that
existing
drive
aisle
for
the
water
facility,
but
we
could
plant
something
on
the
hillside
and
that
would
of
course
have
to
be
discussed
with
the
landowner.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Just
just
one
other
question.
Some
of
the
speakers
during
public
comments
urged
an
alternative
site
analysis
that
was
not
done
by
verizon.
I
understand.
That's,
that's
not
something
you
can
do,
but,
but
with
regard
to
the
alternative
site
analysis
that
verizon
did
provide.
G
Some
of
the
sites
are
farther
away
from
some
homes
than
the
application.
That's
before
us
now
my
understand
well,
do
I
understand
correctly
that
if
a
site
is
farther
away
for
it
to
provide
the
equivalent
level
of
service,
it
would
need
to
emit
signals
at
a
higher
power
level,
all
else
being
equal
than
than
the
site.
That's
proposed
this
evening.
O
The
power
level
maintains
consistency,
actually
the
power
level
degrades
as
you
get
further
and
further
away
from
the
actual
antenna
so
based
on
topography
landscaping,
whether
you're,
indoors
or
outdoors
or
mobile,
in
a
vehicle
that
also
has
an
effect
on
the
capacity
and
how
it
covers
that
area.
So
you.
G
Notice
how
I
carefully
skipped
all
those
other
factors,
because
no
one
ever
has
problems
with
those,
but
but
but
omitting
all
those
other
factors
I
mean
just
just
with
regard
to
it.
If
a
cell
user
happens
to
be
stationary
for
a
moment
if
an
antenna
is
at
the
site,
that's
being
proposed
tonight
versus
an
alternative
site,
that's
farther
away.
G
G
O
That
that
individual
can
be
can
make
a
phone
call
and
it's
going
to
go
to
this
the
sector
which,
whether
it's
side
a
or
b
that
has
the
capacity
to
take
that
phone
call
or
transmit
that
video
that
they're
looking
at
or
transmit
the
data
that
they're
texting
so
that
two
sites
could
cover
that
individual
in
that
specific
location.
But
it's
going
to
have
to
do
with
the
capacity
at
that
site
at
that,
given
second
in
time.
So
I'm.
G
Not
even
asking
about
secondary
sites
assume
this
is
very
hypothetical
now,
but
assume
this
is
the
only
cell
site
in
southern
california.
There's
no
other
cell
site
around.
If,
if
there's
a
cell
site
and
a
user
who
happens
to
be
stationary
and
they're
for
the
moment,
there
are
no
other
extraneous
factors
if,
if
the
alternative
site
is
farther
away,
would
that
farther
away
site
need
to
transmit
at
a
higher
power
level
to
to
deliver
an
equivalent
level
of
service
to
that
cell
user?
That's
my
question.
Yeah.
O
G
Let
me
let
me
rephrase
that
how
how
would
how
would
the
cell
phone
user
experience
service
from
that
cell
tower
that's
farther
away
again,
omitting
second
towers,
third
towers
and
other
factors?
Would
they
experience
equivalent
level
of
service
if
the
tower
is
farther
away,
or
would
it
be
a
degraded
level
of
service.
O
Can
I
I
brought
our
rf
engineer
from
verizon?
I'm
sorry,
I
should
be
speaking
to
the
madam
chair.
We
brought
our
rf
engineer
he's
here
at
for
technical
support.
I.
O
A
P
Okay:
okay,
one
five,
five,
zero:
five
sin:
canyon,
iran,
california,
nine,
two,
six,
one,
eight,
okay
and
I
just
wanna-
let
you
know
because
I
do
have
a
hearing
issue
and
I'm
wearing
the
hearing
aid.
But
sometimes
I
have
a
problem,
but
I
did
understand
your
question
and
I
would
like
to
help
you
out
on
that
one
please.
P
I
think
your
question
has
two
points:
pretty
much
all
the
sales
side,
so
we
do
transmit
on
the
radio
that
has
a
power,
so
you
can
crank
up
to
the
maximum
power
that
each
radio
has
its
limit.
P
So
in
this
case,
where
we,
when
you
said,
there's
nothing,
we
are
very
easy
to
transmit
at
the
max
power
and
if
you
go
further
away,
you
probably
will
not
be
able
to
reach.
That's
the
number
one
point
in
your
tv
and
radio.
You
are
only
transmitting
just
go
ahead
and
transmit
in
wireless
communication.
You
are
not
just
the
transmitting
you
are
receiving,
so
you
have
a
cell
phone
which
is
at
the
lower
power.
P
So
if
you
crank
up
power,
let's
say
if
you
have
option
to
crank
up
the
power
to
whatever
you
want,
like
5
000
watts
that
am
radios
are
doing,
you
can
do
it,
but
then
your
cell
phone
will
not
be
able
to
communicate
back,
so
we
call
it
uplink
and
downlink.
So
you
are
downlink.
Coming
from
the
tower
to
the
radio
to
the
phone
is
fine,
but
from
phone
to
the
car,
then
you
are
losing
your
communication,
so
this
is
one
of
the
reason.
P
P
A
We
do
have
somebody
signaling
over
there.
P
Thank
you
in
response
to
just
to
clarify
commissioner
kohan's
comments
about
the
landscaping.
If
the
planning
commission
were
to
choose
to
approve
the
project
with
the
conditions,
a
condition
could
be
further
added,
requiring
the
maintenance
of
the
existing
landscaping
and
mature
condition.
P
A
Thank
you,
dr
kramer,
did
you
have
something
else
to
add?
Okay,.
A
Okay,
the
attorney
has
recommended
that,
would
you
mind
coming
back
if
we
were
to
impose
that
condition
on
you
regarding
the
landscaping?
O
O
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
I'm
becoming
increasingly
frustrated
with
the
fact
that
our
local
control
is
being
taken
away,
whether
it's
housing,
whether
it's
airplanes
that
actually
fly
over
my
house.
In
fact,
I
actually
live
closest
to
one
of
the
water
tanks
and
new
cell
towers
that
was
actually
approved
last
year.
It's
happening
all
over
the
place
and
there's
lots
of
things
that
we
get
frustrated
about
that.
We
would
like
to
have
a
comment
on,
and
involvement
with
what
I
do
at
that
moment,
especially
when
I
have
an
application.
C
We
are
not
elected
representatives,
we
are
not
your
city
council,
we
are
not
legislators,
we
do
not
make
law
in
that
sense
and
we
can't
make
law
that
would
be
above
and
beyond
our
task
and
in
fact,
as
I
was
looking
as
people
were
talking,
our
task
is
to
perform
the
duties
and
functions
set
forth
in
the
planning
and
zoning
laws
and
the
zoning
regulations
set
forth
in
the
municipal
code.
That's
it.
We
look
at
things
like
aesthetics,
we
don't
decide
health
emissions,
we
don't
decide
lots
of
things
that
we
get
into
tonight.
C
I'm
frustrated
because
I'm
a
lawyer
by
trade-
and
this
is
all
things
that
obviously
I
would
love
to
get
into
and
actually
address
for
all
of
you.
The
problem
is,
we
don't
have
that
authority
in
my
opinion,
in
fact,
I
don't
have
that
authority
and
I
don't
think
the
commission
does,
because
we
would
be
making
law
in
violation
of
our
appointment
and
in
violation
of
ultimately
the
the
oath.
We
took
to
the
city
to
make
sure
that
we
were
only
enforcing
rules.
C
We
don't
make
rules,
we
don't
make
laws,
we
enforce
the
rules
in
this
situation.
From
everything
I've
seen
and
heard
so
far,
the
aesthetics
of
the
process,
especially
if
we
add
commissioner
cohen's
additional
comment-
fits
the
rules
and
regulations.
I
I
don't
see
anything
actually
that
would
be
in
violation
of
the
rules
and
regulations
regarding
the
aesthetics.
C
Are
there
other
issues,
I'm
concerned
about,
yes
and
and
by
the
way
I've
spent,
probably
30
to
40
hours,
reading
all
of
the
underlying
evidence
and
documents,
I
read
the
dc
case
by
the
way,
which
involved
a
5g
network.
This
is
not
a
5g
issue,
I'm
saying
it's
not
right
now,
so
I've
read
a
bunch
of
things
and
I
understand
a
lot
of
the
concerns
and
obviously
I
understand
property
values.
I
understand
all
of
that
thing.
The
problem,
though,
is
this
is
not
the
right
board,
in
my
opinion,
to
actually
address
that
issue.
G
G
What
you're
doing
is
extremely
important
and
represents
the
very
best
of
our
democracy,
and
I
hope
you
will
continue
to
fight
regardless
of
what
you
believe,
regardless
of
whether
we
agree.
I
think
what
you're
doing
is
great,
and
I
appreciate
that
very
much,
and
we
all
do
so.
Thank
you
very
much
for
that.
G
Now
that
said,
I
I'm
I
phrased
my
my
thanks
with
the
premise
that
that
there
are
two
sides
to
this
issue
and
that's
really
a
false
premise.
There
are
many
sides
to
this
issue
and
all
of
us,
myself
included,
go
into
this
with
some
preconceptions
that
that
may
or
may
not
be
correct.
G
In
some
of
the
public
comments,
I
heard
the
implicit
premise
that
all
of
us
are
somehow
sort
of
paid
stooges
for
the
telecommunications
industry,
not
true,
commissioner
lansin,
in
a
much
more
measured
way
than
I
could
explain
the
law
quite
well.
We
often
say
here
we're
an
appointed
body.
Our
job
is
to
implement
policy,
we
don't
make
policy
and
that's
that's
true,
whether
we're
talking
about
putting
up
a
house
in
thousand
oaks
or
in
dealing
with
federal
law,
which
has
been
established
in
this
case
since
1996.
G
G
So
I
want
to
endorse
dr
kramer's
comment
about
going
to
congress
and
getting
a
better
public
servant
in
that
position.
As
soon
as
you
can,
I
think
that's
in
the
interest
of
every
american,
not
not
just
the
people
who
were
brave
enough
to
show
up
this
evening-
it's
not
just
about
whether
we're
for
or
against
verizon.
That's
not
the
question
before
us
tonight.
G
G
G
I
would
welcome
the
chance
to
talk
with
all
of
you
more
about
rf
issues
about
ionized
versus
non-ionized
radiation,
about
how
much
radiation
emissions
there
are
from
the
light
bulb
on
your
bedside
table
compared
with
cell
towers.
I'm
happy
to
have
that
conversation,
I'm
happy
to
sit
down
with
you
with
it,
with
a
spectrum
analyzer
and
compare
emissions
from
different
kinds
of
devices,
but
that's
not
why
we're
here
tonight
we're
here
to
discuss
and
only
to
discuss
aesthetics
and
compliance
with
fcc
regulations.
Those
are
the
only
things
before
us
tonight.
G
I
don't
disagree
with
you
in
terms
of
what
telecom
providers
are
doing,
but
they
don't
need
cell
service
to
do
mass
surveillance
verizon.
Who
is
our
applicant
tonight?
This
is
far
out
of
scope
for
what
we're
discussing
verizon
paid
4.8
billion
for
yahoo,
so
it
could
do
data
mining
of
yahoo
emails,
so
there's
private
companies
doing
math
surveillance,
there's
government
mass
surveillance,
none
of
that
touches
on
wireless.
It's
a
completely
orthogonal
issue.
Well,
it
may
be
done
using
wireless
technology,
but
it's
a
different
issue
and
it's
way
out
of
scope
for
what
we're
discussing
tonight.
G
So
I
think
you
and
I
might
find
common
cause
for
many
of
the
civil
liberties
issues
that
you've
raised,
but
that's
not
really
why
we're
here
tonight
we're
here
to
make
a
determination
on
whether
an
application
meets
aesthetic
grounds
and
whether
it
complies
with
existing
fcc
rules,
which
far
predate
the
current
fcc
leadership.
Thank
you.
E
I
appreciate
everybody
coming
out
as
well.
I
I
listened
to
everything
that
everybody
said,
and
I
understand
that
everybody
that
that
came
here
was
motivated
to
some
degree
or
another
by
by
fear
fear
of
your
health
fear
of
your
safety,
fear
of
your
property
values
and
I'm
a
person.
That's
sympathetic
to
those
fears.
I
was
married
to
a
person
that
had
ovarian
cancer
and
contracted
at
a
very
young
age,
so
I
know
about
being
afraid
about
your
health.
E
I
understand
as
a
real
estate
agent,
the
fear
of
losing
the
value
of
your
home,
and
so
I
want
you
to
know
that
that,
despite
the
fact
that
I
can
empathize
with
with
all
the
comments
that
all
of
you
had,
I
do
recognize
that
I
am
limited
as
everybody
else
said,
by
by
what
we
are
allowed
to
consider
here
and
I
I
am
not
always
allowed
to
interject
my
own
personal
feelings,
my
personal
opinions
into
what
I
have
to
look
at
here,
and
so
you
know
we
are.
E
We
are
kind
of
stuck
where
we
are
and,
as
everybody
else
has
encouraged
you
up
here,
it
is
important
to
be
vocal.
It's
important
to
talk
about
what
is
important
to
you
for
as
far
as
your
community
goes,
and
so
I
do
value
that
everybody
came
out
here
to
do
that,
and
I
encourage
you
to
do
that
with
all
of
your
elected
officials
and
do
it
all
the
time
and
be
very
loud,
and
so
thank
you
very
much.
A
J
I
may
madam
chair
before
we
vote
just
for
clarification.
If
you
will,
commissioner
lansin
your
recommendation
or
your
motion
was
to
approve
the
request
based
on
the
findings
and
separate
to
the
conditions,
I
think
I
heard
you
say
that
you
wanted
to
include
the
landscape
condition.
Is
that
correct?
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
clear
for
the
record
that
you
want
to
include
that.
Yes,.
C
F
Thank
you,
mr
heger.
The
suggested
condition
for
landscape
would
be
as
follows,
and
I
quote:
the
applicant
shall
install
landscaping
around
the
southwest
and
southeast
sectors
of
the
facility
to
reduce
the
visual
impacts
of
the
antennas
prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
building
permit.
The
applicant
shall
submit
landscape
plans
for
review
and
approval
by
the
community
development
department.
N
A
J
A
But
I
think
just
be
safe
and
to
be
clear
for
the
record
so
now
that
we
have
exact
wording.
Maybe
you
could
please
come
up
and
give
us
whether
you
would
approve
that
or.
A
Okay,
I
am
going
to
reopen
the
hearing
at
this
time.
A
A
Oh,
you
need
to
press
your
button.
There
you
go
so
we
can
have
a
vote.
Okay,
thank
you.
Can
you
can
you
do
the
vote
for
us?
Please.
A
A
Q
Q
A
Thank
you.
We
are
returning
to
our
meeting
and
at
this
time
we
will
would
you
with
the
secretary.
Please
call
the
next
item
item.
B
To
amend
the
thousand
oaks
municipal
code
to
define
biotechnology
and
similar
uses
as
technology
and
life
sciences,
add
technology
and
life
sciences
to
the
list
of
uses
allowed
within
the
m1
industrial
park
zone
and
to
establish
related
parking
requirements.
The
location
is
city-wide
in
the
industrial
park
m1
zone
and
the
applicant
is
the
city
of
thousand
oaks.
R
The
request
before
you
tonight
is
in
order,
as
lori
had
mentioned,
is
to
define
biotechnology
and
similar
uses
as
technology
in
life
sciences,
to
add
that
use
category
to
the
list
of
allowed
uses
within
the
m1
zone
and
to
establish
related
parking
requirements
for
that
specific
use.
R
R
A
little
bit
of
background
on
this
particular
item
back
in
june,
the
city
council's
economic
development
ad
hoc
committee
indicated
support
for
the
consideration
of
this
amendment.
That's
before
you
tonight
and
then,
in
july
of
this
year,
the
city
council
approved
the
initia,
the
municipal
code
initiation,
in
order
to
mend
it
for
the
biotechnology.
R
So
why
is
this
the
amendment
before
us
tonight,
particularly
like
when
speaking
about
biotechnology?
That
sector
has
evolved
rapidly
ever
since
inception,
but
particularly
over
the
past
decade
and
the
current
regulations
contained
within
the
municipal
code,
they
are
actually
inadequate
to
keep
up
with
the
the
fast-paced
evolution
of
this
particular
sector.
R
Currently,
biotechnology,
it's
since
we
don't
have
a
specific
classification
for
its
staff,
uses
experimental
laboratories
or
research
and
development.
The
problem
is
that
those
particular
uses
are
I
treated
exactly
the
same
as
plastic
and
garment
manufacturing,
as
well
as
tire
rebuilding
all
these
uses?
They
tend
to
be
more
resource
and
labor
intensive
than
what
a
traditional
biotechnology
company
would
be.
R
Taking
that
into
consideration.
Staff
had
created
this
new
definition.
I
won't
go
through
and
read
it,
but
just
so
you
know
we
do
have
the
page
indicated
page
number
indicated
on
here,
where
you
can
find
it
in
the
staff
report
if
you
wish
to
go
through
just
so
that
you
know,
this
definition
was
actually
created,
after
reviewing
it
with
seven
different
other
jurisdictions,
definitions
for
biotechnology
or
the
use
classification
that
that
biotechnology
would
fall
under,
and
ultimately
this
is
what
staff
was
able
to
come
up
with
now.
This
proposed
definition.
R
It
really
focuses
on
that
advanced
technology
aspect
that
we're
currently
missing
within
the
municipal
code
itself,
and
it
can
be
differentiated
from
your
basic
research
and
design
industrial
research
and
design,
because
it
is
has
that
focus
on
that
advanced
technology
and
a
lot
of
your
biotech
companies.
They
use
innovative
technology
such
as
these
advanced
robotics
and
3d
printing.
R
Now.
The
reason
why
these
particular
innovative
technologies
are
not
within
contained
within
the
actual
definition
is
because
most
of
those
technological
advancements
only
happened
within
the
past
10
to
20
years,
and
we
don't
want
to
constrain
the
city's
definition
for
this
new
for
biotechnology
before
we
even
formally
adopt
or
potentially
adopt
this.
This
use
definition,
so
we
don't
want
to
become
obsolete
before
we
approve
anything
now,
taking
a
look
at
that
particular
definition,
biotechnology,
it
does
tend
to
be
more
of
that
light.
R
Staff
did
initially
rev
think
about
including
the
m2
zone,
but
that
was
ultimately
pulled
back
because
the
m2
is
meant
more
for
your
general
industrial
uses,
which
are
more
resource
intensive
uses
than
what
a
biotechnology
would
be
and
just
to
kind
of
show
you
where
the
m1
zone
would
be
located.
So
here
you
can
see
in
the
purple.
Those
are
the
m1
zones
that
are
officially
designated
within
the
city,
and
so
that's
where
this
biotechnology
use
would
be
limited
at
now.
R
R
R
The
city
is
proposing
to
to
change
that
permitting
process
under
the
technology
and
life
sciences
for
just
a
requirement
of
a
development
permit
process,
and
this
is
really
because
the
city's
recognizing
that
this
biotechnology
use
it
does
not
gen
typically
does
not
generate
the
excessive
nuisances
that
are
usually
associated
with
your
traditional
industrial
research
and
development,
and
those
can
include
smells
noise,
vibrations,
particulate
creation
and
here's
just
what
you
would
actually
see
as
contained
within
the
municipal
code,
for
that
delineation,
between
the
two
different
uses
moving
forward
since
there's
the
creation
of
the
new
used
in
order
to
directly
address
this
particular
the
biotechnology
sector.
R
If
you're,
if
the
company
is
located
within
the
rancho,
canejo,
specific
or
industrial
park,
specific
plan
sp-15
the
technically
the
requirements
are
little
less
because
it
takes
out
that
fleet
vehicle
requirement.
However,
the
verbiage
of
it
effectively
kind
of
puts
it
back
in
because
you
have
to.
If
you
have
any
fleet
vehicles,
you
have
to
prove
that
your
site
contains
enough
on-site
parking
to
accommodate
all
of
those
fleet
vehicles.
R
So
it's
really
not
lessening
your
other
requirements
and
really
what's
kind
of
getting
at
with
the
current
requirements
is
that
they
are
not
taking
into
account
it's
they're
effectively
requiring
double
parking
of
a
building,
whether
it's
existing
or
it's
proposed,
particularly
for
a
biotech
use.
So
what
happens
in
the
in
the
sector
is
that
you
will
have
an
office
that
a
research
a
researcher
will
be
working
at
and
then
they
will
have
a
correlating
lab
space
that
will
be
vacant
when
they're
in
the
office
and
vice
versa.
R
Looking
at
the
at
the
parking
taking
that
into
consideration,
staff
then
went
and
reviewed
seven
other
jurisdictions,
primarily
within
the
county,
but
also
other
major
biotechnology
hubs,
and
what
we
found
out
was
that
the
parking
requirements
ranged
from
a
half
a
space
to
three
three
and
a
third
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet.
R
One
of
the
key
differences,
though,
between
these
seven
jurisdictions
and
the
city
of
thousand
oaks,
is
that
they
all
allowed
for
netting
out
particular
areas
of
of
a
building.
R
Taking
all
of
this
in
into
consideration
and
and
using
the
experience,
the
knowledge
we
learned
from
the
other
jurisdictions
staff
is
recommending
two
new
sections
to
the
parking
requirements
of
the
municipal
code.
So
the
first
section
is
the
generation
or
the
required
number
of
parking
spaces
for
the
biotechnology
use.
It
would
be
one
space
per
five
square
feet
of
net
area
and
I'll
get
to
the
net
in
just
a
second
and
then
the
second
part
to
that
is
that
20
of
the
occupants
gross
area
can
actually
be
used
for
office.
R
However,
as
soon
as
they
go
over
that
20
that
office
space
is
then
the
entire
office
space
has
to
be
parked
at
one
space
per
300
per
300
square
feet
of
net
floor
area
and
the
reason
why
there's
that
change
in
that
for
the
20
is
because,
as
soon
as
you
go
over
20,
it's
really
starting
to
change
the
actual
use
of
the
site,
and
so
it's
if
you're
having
more
office
space
it'll
become
more
of
a
parking
intensive
use.
And
so
that's
that
requirement
staff.
R
We
also
we
did
go
through
and
look
at
existing
buildings
and
some
proposed
industrial
buildings,
and
we
actually
did
the
calculation
of
proposed
office
space
versus
the
industrial
space
and
none
of
the
the
existing
and
proposed
buildings
even
came
close
to
the
20
percent,
so
just
so
that
for
your
information,
this
is
the
second
part
of
the
of
the
new
creation
as
well.
R
This
is
where
it's
really
getting
at
netting
out
particular
areas,
and
so
we
can
try
and
avoid
doing
that
double
the
double
parking
and
it's
really
focusing
on
no
for
no
off
street
parking
spaces
required
for
areas
that
are
exclusively
used
for
and
maintained
as
interior
common
areas.
R
So
it's
like
you
have
the
corridors
conference
rooms.
Also,
these
employee
area,
only
so
your
lunchrooms,
your
workout
rooms,
these
spaces
are
meant,
are
designed
just
to
to
be
utilized
by
the
occupants
of
the
building
itself
and
they're,
not
inducing
additional
parking
demand,
and
so
therefore,
in
those
spaces
should
not
be
parked
at
the
same
rate
or
should
not
be
considered
into
the
into
the
parking
calculations,
because
they're
already
being
utilized
by
the
existing
population
contained
within
the
building.
And
this
is
also
consistent
with
the
other
jurisdictions
that
staff
reviewed.
R
So
I
know
that's
a
lot
of
words
and
a
lot
of
texts
are
a
lot
of
numbers
there.
So
just
kind
of
giving
you
a
brief
example.
We
take
a
fictitious
100,
000
square
foot,
building,
say
8
000
square
feet
of
that
is
going
to
be
office.
Space
and
the
rest
is
going
to
be
your
general
industrial
area
and
say
the
building
of
the
company.
That's
going
in.
There
will
have
300
employees
under
the
existing
standards.
The
biotechnology
use
would
require
216
parking
spaces.
R
Now
that
also
directly
relates
to
to
actually
implementing
the
general
plan.
This
specific
goal
directs
the
city
to
find
ways
to
enable
new
industrial
development
to
occur
within
the
city,
and
it
also
directly
relates
to
these
particular
policies
which
direct
the
city
to
encourage
these
lighter
industrial
uses.
To
be
located
within
the
city,
specifically
in
the
rancho
conejo
and
the
westlake
industrial
areas.
R
Overall,
though,
the
this
entire
municipal
code
meant
for
the
biotechnology
use,
it
does
mean
it's
priority:
number
nine
of
the
city
council's
top
ten
goal
priorities
for
this
fiscal
year
again,
because
it's
dealing
directly
with
the
biotech
sector
as
well
as
it
meets
city
council's
goal,
h
for
focusing
on
the
biotech
on
getting
biotech
and
high
technology
jobs
located
within
the
city.
R
Now
this
entire
process
of
the
municipal
code,
amendment
is
exempt
from
sql
under
section
15061,
because
it's
in
staff's
opinion,
it
cannot
be
seen.
We
are
certain
that
this
particular
process
would
not
create
an
adverse
environmental
impact.
R
So
staff
recommends
the
planning
commission
make
a
recommendation
to
city
council
to
one
find
that
the
municipal
code
amendment
is
exempt
from
the
provisions
of
sequa
and
two
to
approve
the
amendments
to
chapter
four
of
title
ix
of
the
thousand
oaks
municipal
code,
as
contained
within
the
staff
report,
the
resolution
and
the
ordinance.
Thank
you.
G
R
So
technically
it
would
fall
under
that
because
we
are
looking
at
it's.
It's
an
advanced
techno
technology
that
we
are
looking
at
attracting
and
just
in
topical
conversations
with
experts
within
this
particular
field.
There
was
the
encouragement
to
make
it
a
broad
definition,
because
the
biotechnology
field
and
the
technology
field
are
evolving
so
rapidly.
G
Great
yeah-
and
I
am
aware
of
several
both
incumbent
company
established
companies
and
startups
in
the
area
that
are
working
some
some
touch
biological
fields,
some
don't
they're
just
pure
tech
plays,
but,
but
I
think,
having
tech
be
part
of
this
is
would
be
important
with
regard
to
parking
you've,
given
some
good
evidence
of
why
this
would
definitely
be
less
expensive
and
more
attractive
for
developers
and
for
companies
to
set
up
shop
here.
What
about
for
employees
is
there?
G
Is
there
evidence
that
that
the
reduced
parking,
even
though
we're
reducing
it,
that
that
there's
the
amount
of
parking
would
still
be
sufficient
for
the
employees.
R
Yes,
and
that
actually
goes
back
to
our
studies
of
the
of
the
other
jurisdictions
and
most
notably
I'm
going
to
speak
from
experience
with
ventura
since
that's
the
jurisdiction
I
did
come
from,
they
have
a
much
lower
parking
rate
that
is
very
similar
to
what's
being
proposed
here
and
even
within
those
the
industrial
areas
there
is
sufficient
park,
there's
actually
still
an
abundance
of
parking.
R
That's
provided
on
site
that
takes
into
account
the
number
of
employees
for
all
of
that.
So
that's
just
from
that
experience,
but
then
kind
of
going
back
to
the
the
policy
side
and
the
review.
R
R
D
G
And
that
that
actually
was
going
to
be
my
follow-up
question
and
either
of
you
can
take
this.
What
I
was
going
to
ask
was
about
here
in
to
mr
nelson
made
reference
to
the
doubling
up
part
where
you'd
have
to
count
the
250
or
one
spot
per
250
square
feet
on
top
of
the
one
spot
per
300
or
350
or
whatever
has
that
led
in
practice
to
an
excess
or
or
more
parking
spaces
that
are
actually
needed
at
the
sites
that
do
exist.
R
Yes
and
so
right
now,
when
we
look
when
we
do
review
our
industrial
areas,
there
is
a
significant
amount
of
parking
that
is
actually
underutilized
so
effectively.
What
we're
getting
is
that
our
industrial
sites,
they're
not
being
utilized
to
the
maximum
effect
that
they
can,
which
does
have
an
economic
impact
on
the
city
at
large.
G
G
R
So
this
is
the
text
contained
within
this,
the
staff
report.
It's
the
exactly
actually
how
it
reads
as
contained
with
in
sequel
itself,
the
what's
before
us
tonight
and
if
you'll
pardon
me.
R
So
really
what's
what's
before
us
tonight
is
the
city.
We
are
reviewing
existing
policy
and
so
right
now
biotechnology
uses
they
are
allowed,
even
under
our
code
and
what
this
municipal
code
amendment
is
doing.
It's
just
updating
existing
city
policy
to
address
this
particular
use
itself.
There's
no.
R
Correct
so
in
in
this
instance:
yes,
so
this
municipal
code
amendment,
it
is
in
south's
opinion
that
this
will
not
cause
an
adverse
effect
on
the
environment,
because
we're
just
modifying
existing
city
policy.
It
is
compliant
with
the
general
plan
and
the
general
with
the
general
plan
goals
and
policies.
Those
have
already
been
had
their
environmental
review
conducted
and
then,
additionally,
any
new
physical
development.
J
If
I
make
sure-
and
please
and
commissioner
newman,
I
see
your
point
first
of
all,
I
did
review
this
as
far
as
because
this
was
a
unique
project
for
us
to
present
and
I'm
certainly
confident
with
the
selection
of
of
this
section.
As
far
as
the
exemption,
I
think,
if
you
go
to
page
eight
of
the
staff
report,
the
last
page
of
the
staff
report
under
environmental
review.
J
I
think
mr
nielsen
did
a
good
job
in
in
setting
forth
like
three
elements.
So,
if
you
look
at
each
paragraph,
it's
three
elements.
One
of
them
is
that
this
is
a
common
sense
exemption
that
does
fit
and
looking
at
the
history
of
exemptions,
this
this
kind
of
situation
does
fit
it.
The
second
one
is,
it
is
consistent.
J
They
had
in
this
location
they
had
previous
environmental
studies
done,
but
the
biggest
one
I
think
for
you
and
for
all
of
us,
is
that
if
there
is
a
new
project
comes
in
that
new
project's
gonna
be
evaluated
under
sequa
to
ensure
that
if
there
is
something
unique
about
that
project,
we're
going
to
review
it.
So
it's
that's
when
we're
going
to
get
to
so
I
think
your
answer
is
yes.
J
We
we
are
concerned
about
sequel
when
it
comes
to
biotech
or
any
other
project,
and
this
third
section
of
the
third
part
of
the
paragraph
under
page
eight.
It
certainly
talks
about
the
idea
that,
in
all
cases,
when
we
have
a
project
we're
going
to
do
some
evaluation,
it
might
be
actually
that
it's
also
exempt.
It
just
depends,
but
it
might
be
where
it's
a
a
minimal
type
of
review.
It
might
be
a
eir,
I
mean
that's
just
how
you
do
it.
So
I
think
that's
where
we're
going
with
that.
G
So,
to
clarify
that
the
meaning
of
the
last
that
last
paragraph
in
the
staff
report
is
it
the
case,
then
that
we're
saying
the
amendment
itself
is,
is
sql
exempt,
but
that
new
projects
that
come
in
as
a
result
of
this
amendment
that
are
in
this
technology
and
life
sciences,
field
may
or
or
will
be
subject
to
environmental
review.
J
Is
it
not
exempt,
and
we
actually,
my
job
is
to
actually
ask
planners
to
say:
hey:
where
are
you
going
with
this
project,
whether
it's
a
single-family
house,
whether
it
is
a
a
facility
in
the
m1
zone,
whether
it's
a
big
apartment,
complex,
whatever
it's
going
to
be
we're
going
to
ask
that
question?
What's
the
environment
analysis
done
for
this
case,
and
again
I
would
just
want
to
be
clear:
it
might
be
an
exemption,
it
might
be
a
minimal
type
of
environmental
review
or
it
might
be
a
much
more
serious
review.
G
So
so,
to
put
you
on
the
spot
on
this,
are
we
so
you're
saying
we
are
not
with
this
amendment
just
exempting
a
category
of
correct
industries,
we're.
J
J
G
I've
been
in
enough
organic
chemistry
labs
to
quibble
with
the
common
sense
part
of
that
some
pretty
nasty
stuff
in
those
places.
Okay.
But
but
that's
that's
neither
here
nor
there
right
we're
saying
this
amendment
it's
by
itself,
doesn't
just
exempt
the
category.
This
new
cat,
we're
creating
a
new
category
technology
and
life
sciences,
but
we're
not
with
this
amendment,
exempting
them
from
environmental
review.
Is
that
a
correct
understanding,
correct.
A
E
I
got
two
questions
one.
I
don't
know
if
staff
is
aware
that
there
was
a
recent
lawsuit
between
two
neighbors
in
an
m1
zone
about
parking
that
resulted
in
a
six-figure
settlement.
So
I
wasn't.
I
was
curious,
how
that
impacts
your
calculations
as
far
as
parking
goes
or,
if
you
were
aware
of
it
when
you,
when
you
came
up
with
these
numbers,
one
of
them
was
a
public
entity
and
one
was
a
private
entity.
J
I
I'm
not
aware
specifically,
so
I
can't
say
that
for
sure
I
do
know
that
there
was
a
public
entity
that
has
a
a
property
over
that
location
and
there
was
another
neighbor
who
had
concerns
about
it.
I
think
that
was
a
very
unique
situation
with
a
lot
of
different,
unique,
very
issues.
I
don't
think
either.
One
of
those
are
biotech
by
the
way,
but.
J
Correct-
and
I
did
not
know
that
that
that
whether
it
resolves
the
right
word
or
not,
but
but
there
were.
J
Okay,
again,
I
don't
have
any
specifics
like
okay.
E
I
was
just
curious
if
that,
if
we're,
if
we're
really
confident
about
these
numbers
and
my
follow-up
questions
actually
related
to
that,
the
m1
zones
that
we
have
within
the
city
are
there
any
kind
of
a
dedicated
public
transit
hubs
in
these
areas,
I
mean
we're
talking
about
300
employees
in
216
parking
spaces,
obviously
we're
either.
Anticipating
people
are
going
to
be
ride.
Sharing
that
are
employees
of
this
hypothetical
company
or
there's
going
to
be
some
kind
of
a
public
transit
method
for
people
to
arrive
there
because
they're
not
going
to
teleport.
R
So
the
city
does
not
have
any
transit
hubs
located
within
this
particular
area.
There
is
a
bus
line
that
does
go
that
does
loop
around
this
particular
section
itself,
but
to
my
knowledge,
we
don't
have
any
other
plans
beyond
that.
D
R
So
the
city
is
currently
going
through.
It's
the
general
plan,
update
process
and
one
aspect
of
that
process
is
actually
looking
at
transportation,
so
this
kind
of
is
going
hand
in
hand
with
that
process
where,
if
we
are
concerned
about
introducing
more
mass
transit
within
this
particular
portion
of
the
city,
that
is
something
that
we
can
actually
address
going
through.
The
general
plan
update.
E
Perfect
great,
I
just
yeah.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
was
on
everybody's
radar.
I
have
a
second
question
and
it
would
have
never
occurred
to
me
in
a
million
years,
but
the
part
that
you
didn't
read
the
last
sentence
addresses
a
couple
of
different
exclusions.
D
Right
and
cannabis
uses
in
general
have
a
dedicated
section
in
our
municipal
code,
so
that
particular
use
has
already
been
studied
and
addressed,
so
they
would
follow
a
different
set
of
regulations
and
this
particular
use
category
that
we're
proposing
is
not
intended
to
address
that
use.
So
it's
just
simply
a
clarification.
You.
E
Got
yeah
I
was
thinking
because
I
know
there
are
corporations
that
manufacture
like
synthetic
versions
like
marinol
and
stuff
for
cancer
patients.
Would
this
impact
them
yes
or
no?.
D
I
think
that's
a
different
type
of
research
and
in
terms
of
controlled
substances
and
uses
related
to
cannabis
that
would
be
covered
under
that
municipal
code,
section
of
don
mentioned
in
the
staff
report
under
title
3
chapter
21.
I
believe
so.
This
will
cover
any
other
type
of
research
that
involves
life
sciences,
perfect
all.
C
Keep
going
with
the
cannabis
discussion
so
for
I'm
just
going
to
make
it
clear
so,
under
this
technology,
life
sciences,
cannabis
is
not
included
in
that
type
of
business.
Correct,
that's
correct!
Does
that
change
the
mapping
of
where
canada's
cannabis
businesses
can
go
in
the
city.
J
C
J
We
we
certainly
have
cannabis
currently
in
the
m1
zone.
I
think
part
of
it
is
work.
We've
done,
we
went
to
the
people
and
we
approved
a
tax
measure
for
various
cannabis
uses
and
cannabis
related
activities
or
should
say
licenses.
J
J
Dispensary
and
the
second
one
is
a
testing
laboratory,
one
testing
laboratory
and,
as
I'm
sure
you
all
know,
the
the
bureau
recently
under
the
regulations
have
allowed
deliveries
into
our
city.
So
when
we
did
the
taxes
we
taxed
every
possible
license,
we
currently
banned
everything
other
than
those
two
that
I
mentioned,
and
we
have
to
now
which
we
change
our
ordinance.
J
Allow
the
delivery
so
we're
trying
to
capture
that
and
also,
as
mr
nielsen
said,
try
to
exclude
anything
else
that
could
be
technically
or
we're
trying
to
make
sure
that
cannabis
doesn't
try
to
jump
into
this
and
say
hey.
We
don't
have
to
do
anything
because
we
have
to
pay
the
taxes,
because
it's
not
in
here
so.
C
C
R
So
in
we
had,
we
do
have
some
interest
from
potential
investors
coming
into
the
city
that
are
have
expressed
interest
in
the
city
going
through
and
improving
this
before
they
do
locate
within
the
city,
boundaries
and.
C
For
this
to
become
codified
into
municipal
code,
how
long
does
that
process
take
we'll
need
to
go
to
city
council
for
approval,
then,
once
it's
approved
by
city
council,
yeah.
R
F
A
Do
we
have
any
other
questions
of
stuff?
Okay,
there
are
no
public
comments.
A
Okay,
so
we
will
close
the
public
meeting
at
this
time
and
I
will
open
up
the
floor
for
a
motion
and
or
no
and
or
discussion.
Commissioner
newman.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
I'm
generally
supportive
of
technology
and
life
sciences.
They
bring
many
benefits
to
people
everywhere
and
to
life
here
in
thousand
oaks.
So
with
that,
I
will.
B
A
A
Thank
you.
Okay
item
number,
eight
department
reports.
We
have
none.
I'm
number
nine
commission
comments
and
av
1234
reports.
Commissioner,
newman.
G
Just
very
briefly,
my
wife
and
I
spent
a
weekend
recently
up
in
carmel
california,
and
this
is
a
place
that
has
multi-million
dollar
bungalows
and
very
high-end
stores
galleries.
That
sort
of
thing.
So
I
was
both
surprised
and
pleased
to
find
right
in
the
middle
of
downtown
there's
a
big
construction
project
going
on
for
affordable
housing,
pretty
centrally
located
it's
a
mixed-use
project.
It
has
three
retail
units,
it
has
four
market
rate
condos.
G
It
has
two
medium
or
to
yeah,
medium
income,
apartments
and
two
low-income
apartments.
So
there's
a
50-50
split
of
market
rate
and
affordable
housing
in
the
middle
of
carmel.
A
D
No
updates
or
announcements
this
evening
other
than
there
will
be
a
general
plan
advisory
committee
meeting
taking
place
this
wednesday
evening
at
6.
00
p.m.
In
the
oak
inn
park
room
and
we
do
have
planning
commission
meetings
scheduled
to
come
up
so
we're
pretty
much
back
on
our
regular
schedule
of
bi-weekly
meetings.