A PV system reduces or eliminates the amount of electricity you purchase from your electric company. A PV system can save you money on your electricity bill and act as a hedge against future price increases. The electricity generated by your PV system is clean, renewable and reliable. You help the community by reducing the load on the utility grid and you can provide additional electricity for the grid when you generate more than you use during the day, when electricity demand is highest.

You can match the size of your system to your electricity needs and budget. The average household in California uses about 6,500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. If your usage is typical of the average household, a system in the three to four (kW) range would be adequate to meet most of your electricity needs.

To estimate the best system size for your home or business, examine your electricity usage for the last 12 months and apply this easy formula.

Annual Usage / 1kW System Output* / System Capacity

6,500  /  1,750 kWh  =  3.71 kW

*1750 kWh per year is based on a 20 percent capacity factor. Capacity factor varies with location.

A system with a capacity of 1kW can produce about 1,750 kWh per year. Divide your annual electricity usage (in kWh per year) by 1,750 kWh to get the system size (capacity in kilowatts) that would meet most of your electricity needs. If you want your PV system to meet half of your electricity needs, then you should size it to meet half of your annual electrical usage. Or you can offset only a small portion of your electricity bill with a single PV panel. If you size your system larger than your average electricity needs on summer afternoons, your system would generate more electricity than you could use during the rest of the year.

You can find more information about the solar marketplaces at these links:

https://marketplace.sce.com/solar/

https://www.energysage.com/p/cpa/

https://cleanpoweralliance.org/nem/

Public participation is an essential part of the planning process. Notices containing information about the changes and upcoming public hearings will be mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of a potential development site. In addition to mailing, sign(s) will be posted at a prominent location(s) in the affected areas. Any interested person can attend a public hearing and provide verbal or written comments. Public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council are anticipated in March and April of 2018. The City will send out hearing notices at least 14 days prior to the hearing date.

Homeowners will continue to be able to use, remodel and expand their homes as they would be able to today. This amendment will reduce the opportunity for future changes to the character of your neighborhood, which City staff believes is a benefit to residents.

Passed by voters in 1996, Measure E requires voter approval for any amendment to the City’s General Plan that increases the cumulative residential density (housing units/net acre) beyond the City’s General Plan as of November 5, 1996.

Zoning divides areas into different districts and each zoning district is regulated as to land use and development requirements, such as the density, location, height and types of permitted buildings.

Density is a term used to describe the number of houses or dwellings within a given area. A lower density means fewer homes are allowed on a more houses per acre, whereas, low density means less houses per acre. Net acreage excludes any areas reserved for public or private streets.

The General Plan is a long-term comprehensive guide for the physical development of the City. It is a vision and a blueprint of what the community wants for the future.

A. Purchase of Medical Cannabis

The City allows for two cannabis dispensaries, deliveries, and two testing laboratories.

Cultivation up to six plants per residence and possession of the cannabis produced by these plants 
All plants and harvest in excess of one ounce must be kept in a locked space not in public view at one’s residence.  Cultivation must be located in a private residence or accessory structure that is “fully enclosed and secure.” Landlords may prohibit their tenants from cultivating on their property.

Adults 21 and older may possess, transport, obtain or give away to other adults 21 or older no more than one ounce of marijuana or 8 grams of concentrated cannabis.    

In January of 2019, the FCC stripped most local control relating to "small cell" wireless facilities away from every city in the United States. Most everyone uses a cell phone or other wireless apparatus on a daily basis.  Generally, the more demand for wireless results in the need for more wireless facilities. 

In 1996, the federal legislature determined there was a need to create uniform regulations for wireless facilities in order to expand the wireless system across the United States. Prior to 1996, every city, county, and state, had the authority to draft its own rules and laws.  The 1996 Telecommunications Act creates uniform regulations and takes away local government control in certain aspects.  For instance, prior to adoption of the Act, a city could establish its own radio frequency (RF) thresholds for safety determinations.  The Act took away this power. 

Today, no city in the country can regulate a facility on the basis of RF emissions concerns if the facility meets the RF standards adopted by the federal government.  Still, cities maintained local control on other aspects of wireless facilities.  For example, it could regulate a facility based on how it looked, where it was located, and how much it could charge for using the public right-of-way.  Cities could also create its own timeline for processing requests for new facilities. 

In September 2018, the FCC adopted new rules to expedite and streamline the roll-out of small cell wireless facilities.  Two key components are: (1) a “shot-clock” was adopted that restricts local government review and consideration of a small cell wireless facility to either 60 or 90 days; and (2) the amount of money that can be charged by the local government to use the public right-of-way was significantly reduced.  Many cities, including the City of Thousand Oaks, opposed these new regulations.  Unfortunately, the FCC adopted the rules despite significant opposition by cities across the country.  These rules became effective as new law on January 19, 2019. 

As of January 14, 2019, most of the FCC's Rule 18-133 regulations went into effect. Rules related to aesthetics go into effect on April 12, 2019. These FCC rules apply to every city in the country. Unless and until a court concludes that the rules are illegal, or the federal legislature passes laws that revoke these rules, they are the law, and every city is required to follow the law.  Every city in the country should adopt local laws in response to the FCC rules that will protect city control as much as possible. 

 The City of Thousand Oaks did that on March 5, 2019 when it adopted an ordinance and resolution creating regulations regarding small cell wireless facilities.  Many cities have not adopted any regulations, but many have.  Most important is that city regulations must comply with the FCC rules.  If they don’t, then they most likely violate federal law.  In the City’s case, the new ordinance and resolution sets forth design criteria in an effort to control aesthetics.  It requires a noise study in an effort to prevent unreasonable noise impacts from new facilities.  It creates a list of preferred locations in an effort to keep facilities out of residential neighborhoods.  It identifies a list of preferred facility types and design in order to reduce aesthetic impacts. It requires all facilities to comply with all federal, State and local laws, regardless of whether they changed.  It requires all facilities to show proof of compliance with federal RF emissions regulations. 

If you are interested in reading what the City’s regulations say, here is a link to the ordinance and resolutions.

• 2019 City of Thousand Oaks Urgency Ordinance

Many times, the money that is given to a panhandling homeless individual can be used to aid addiction, such as drugs or alcohol. It may also provide the short-term relief that keeps people from accepting social service support geared for the long-term.

Money that people give to homeless individuals who panhandle on the street can be better served for the services that provide food, clothing, shelters/housing, or drug/alcohol/mental health rehabilitation. These are all services that people experiencing homelessness can access.

There are a variety of nonprofit organizations that can use your donation to provide services for the homeless, or a worthy charity of your choosing.  Some of these organizations can use caring citizens as volunteers as well.  Either way, you will make a difference by providing assistance to help move people out of homelessness.

Local Charities Accepting Donations Include:

• Lutheran Social Services
• Many Mansions
• Interface Children and Family Services
• Salvation Army

The City does not have a position of support or opposition to 5G technology.  Instead, the City has taken a position on local control over its implementation. The FCC’s approval of the new rules is supposed to support implementation of 5G.  This new wireless technology will not only advance mobile communications but is said to advance technology in autonomous vehicles, virtual reality, and robotics. 

Once fully implemented, 5G is supposed to offer increased bandwidth and faster speeds than previous mobile phone technologies.  One major difference between 5G and older technology is the type of facility needed.  Older technologies provided for large and tall towers significantly spaced apart from each other where the lower-frequency waves could travel long distances and through buildings.

In contrast, 5G uses high-frequency waves, which can only travel short distances, and cannot easily travel through buildings.  This technology requires a larger number of facilities than the older technologies.  Rather than a single tower, the 5G network uses numerous smaller cell sites placed close together to relay signals.  These are called “small wireless facilities.”  

Littering is an infraction which only results in the issuance of a citation.  The homeless person you are concerned about may be receiving citations for littering, but with an inability to pay for the citation, and the penalty is minimal.

The amendment now strengthens and expands enforcement citywide by doing the following: (1) distinguishes camping versus sleeping, (2) gives private property owners more control of their property, (3) restricts sleeping to certain hours (between 10 pm and 6 am), (4) prohibits sleeping in open space at all times, (5) prohibits camping throughout the City at all times, and (6) shortens removal time of abandon property from 7 days to 72 hours.

Yes - we can and we have - for many years.  The City has adopted rules to protect as much local control as possible.  The City has also sent numerous letters to state and federal legislators opposing any new wireless regulations that take away local control. The City has also defended itself in lawsuits brought by wireless carriers over the City’s regulations of wireless facilities in the City.  Most importantly, the City is a member of the League of California Cities, one of the named parties in a federal lawsuit challenging these new FCC rules.  The City will continue to defend its rights to local control.

Trespassing laws in California are very complex and often times there is no violation where one would typically think a violation exists.  Almost all trespassing laws in California are misdemeanors which typically results in a citation or a very brief stay in jail.

The city has two municipal code sections that were both adopted in 1997. The first, TOMC 5-8.08 regulated the act of camping in public places, including private property open to the public. The second, TOMC 5-8.09 regulated sitting and lying in certain public places, but only in commercial zones in the City. While TOMC 5-8.08 was amended in 2007, TOMC 5-9.09 had never been amended.

Homeless encampments can cause a variety of problems, especially with trash and sanitation.  In many of the locations the city’s landscape workers, Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA), Cal-Trans, or Ventura County Public Works, work with the Thousand Oaks Police Department to clean these areas shortly after they are discovered.  Homeless individuals are warned to leave, and given a notice to vacate the property, and are provided with information to homeless services available.  In some cases, they remain at the camp despite the warning.  Those previously warned are cited for illegal camping and the matter is turned over to the Thousand Oaks City Attorney or the District Attorney (depending on the jurisdiction) for processing.

In some cases, encampments are found on private property.  See above trespassing question for information.

Concerns about Radio Frequency (RF) emissions are the most common concerns raised by residents when the City considers a wireless facility application.  Unfortunately, the City has no authority to address this concern.  The 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act prohibits a city from considering RF issues when considering an application for a wireless facility if the applicant shows proof that the proposed facility meets the federal RF emissions regulations.  This means that the City cannot create a lower emissions standard than set forth by the FCC.  It also means that it cannot deny a wireless facility application that meets the emissions regulations on the basis of concern over RF emissions.  Rather than just “believe” a statement by a wireless carrier that it meets RF emissions regulations, the City has retained a professional consultant since the 1990’s who reviews RF data for every wireless facility application, and provides advice and recommendations to the City with regard to RF emissions compliance. 

All cities in California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and Montana must comply with the Boise case.  That means if a city wants to restrict or regulate sleeping and camping in its city, it must make sure it’s sleeping and camping ordinances comply with the case.  Without making changes to our existing ordinances, it would be difficult for the City to successfully enforce the above-mentioned provisions. As a result of these amendments, the City can better regulate the time, place and manner of sleeping within the city, continue to prohibit camping throughout the entire city, and prohibit both camping and sleeping in the open space at all times. Cities that don’t make changes to their ordinances likely cannot prohibit people from sleeping on City property without risking violating this Court ruling.

A: The Thousand Oaks Police Department enforces laws where applicable; however, homelessness in itself is not a crime.  In addition, recent court cases have made it more difficult to enforce laws traditionally used in homeless incidents such as living out of a vehicle and illegal camping.  In addition, propositions recently approved by California voters have either decriminalized or minimized narcotics offenses.  In many cases, where a person would have gone to jail in the past, they are either given a citation or there is simply no violation that exists anymore.

As a community, we will not arrest our way out of this problem.  Long term solutions require the cooperation of all stakeholders following a comprehensive plan and the cooperation of citizens to not enable a homeless lifestyle by providing them with short term food and money.

Environmental Health Trust, et al., vs. Federal Communications Commission, and United States of America, in the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, USCA Case No. 20-1025, opinion issued on August 13, 2021.

Executive Summary:

Environmental Health Trust and others, (collectively “EHT”), petitioned the court for judicial review of an order made by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to terminate a notice of inquiry regarding the adequacy of the FCC guidelines for exposure to radiofrequency (“RF”) radiation.  The notice of inquiry, issued by the FCC in March 2013, requested comment on whether the FCC should initiate rulemaking to modify the current guidelines which were last updated in 1996.  In December 2019, the FCC concluded that no rulemaking was necessary and terminated the notice of inquiry. 

EHT and the other petitioners argued the decision to terminate the notice of inquiry was capricious and arbitrary because the FCC (1) failed to acknowledge evidence which indicated potential harmful effects caused by exposure to RF radiation levels at or below the 1996 guidelines; (2) failed to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation; and (3) failed to discuss the implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation or the implications of technological developments that have occurred since 1996 such as the proliferation of wireless devices, WIFI, and “5G” technology.

The court began its analysis by recognizing that the FCC order was entitled to a high degree of deference because it was simply FCC’s refusal to initiate rulemaking and because the issues involved were highly technical determinations the type of which courts are ill-equipped to second-guess.  However, the court noted that the FCC needed to offer more than mere conclusory statements to justify its decision to terminate the notice of inquiry.  At a minimum, the FCC was required to provide assurance that it considered the relevant factors, and “provide analysis that follows a discernable path to which the court may defer.”  In this regard, the court found that the FCC order missed the mark – specifically insofar as it failed to address claims that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the FCC’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.  As a result, the court found the FCC order arbitrary and capricious.  The court went on to find the FCC’s failure to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision also undermined their conclusions regarding “the adequacy of its testing procedures, particularly as they relate to children, and its conclusions regarding the implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, exposure to RF pulsation or modulation, and the implications of technological developments that have occurred since 1996, all of which depend on the premise that exposure to RF radiation at levels below its current limits causes no negative health effects.”  As a result, the court found each of those conclusions arbitrary and capricious as well.  Finally, the court found the FCC’s order arbitrary and capricious because it failed to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.

In summary, the court reversed the FCC order terminating the notice of inquiry and remanded the matter back to the FCC with instructions to (1) provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to RF radiation unrelated to cancer; (2) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines; (3) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the FCC last updated its guidelines; and (4) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.  The court took care to note “we take no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation – we merely conclude that the Commission’s cursory analysis of material record evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.”

Implications of the Court’s Opinion:

As a result of the court’s decision, the notice of inquiry issued by the FCC in 2013, requesting comment on whether the Commission should initiate rulemaking to modify its current guidelines, remains open – at least until the FCC provides a “reasoned explanation” for its decision to terminate the notice of inquiry.  Practically, it is important to note that the court’s ruling does not change or effect in any way the current FCC guidelines regarding RF radiation exposure limits – those guidelines, last modified in 1996, remain in full force and effect.  Accordingly, this new case does not provide the City of Thousand Oaks with any discretion to deviate from its current procedures when reviewing and processing applications for wireless facilities within the City.

The City’s original ordinance did not distinguish between the acts of camping and sleeping. In September 2018, the case of Martin v. City of Boise was decided which held that the government is prohibited from criminalizing homelessness and that cities must allow individuals to sleep on public property when there is no shelter available to them. In order for the city to regulate camping and sleeping in the City, it was required to change the camping ordinance.  This action allows the City to restrict sleeping and camping in the City. 

The revised Camping Ordinance defines “public place” to include “parks.” However, the camping ordinance does not cover sleeping activity. Sleeping is covered in the revised Sitting and Lying in Certain Public Places ordinance. That ordinance section does not specifically include the word “parks” but refers to streets, bridges, sidewalks, and City owned areas open to the public. Regardless, CRPD, as a separate public entity, has the legal right to enact and enforce laws on the use of its property. 

Boise does not address this. In fact, the focus in Boise is on those who are sleeping in the open elements on sidewalks, parks, etc.  Sleeping in cars would have to be enforced on a case-by-case analysis. The City does have various regulations such as overnight parking restrictions, over-sized vehicle restrictions, etc. that are still valid and must be followed. Again, since there are no clear-cut rules established by the courts in this area, these would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The City of Thousand Oaks is neither responsible nor liable for any viruses or other contamination of your system nor for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions arising out of your use of the Site or with respect to the material contained on the Site, including without limitation, any material posted on the Site. This site and all materials contained on it are distributed and transmitted "as is" without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including without limitation, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The City of Thousand Oaks is not responsible for any special, indirect, incidental or consequential damages that may arise from the use of, or the inability to use, the site and/or the materials contained on the site whether the materials contained on the site are provided by the City of Thousand Oaks, or a third party.  Please refer to the Open Data Portal Terms of Use for more information.

No. The ordinance restricts sleeping to the hours of 10 pm – 6 am only on publicly owned property. The ordinance also does not allow tents, camping, and excess property on public property nor does it allow sleeping during daylight hours.  It also does not allow someone to sleep on City property in such a way as to impede vehicle or pedestrian traffic.

While the ordinance states that cities must allow sleeping on public property when there are no accommodations within reasonable distance, it does not require the City to provide shelters.

By removing private property open to the public from the definition of public place in the ordinance, private property owners will be able to regulate their own property or activities on their property as they see fit. Also, they can now utilize civil remedies such as temporary restraining orders, stay away orders, or letters of agency.

Since the FCC rules are federal rules, you can contact your federal legislator to address your concerns.  Here is contact information on federal legislators:

• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Veterans' Affairs

Since the FCC rules are federal rules, you should contact your federal representative Congresswoman Julia Brownley, who represents the 26th District including Thousand Oaks.

Congresswoman Julia Brownley

1019 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: 202-225-5811
Fax: 202-225-1100

District offices:
300 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite #470
Oxnard, CA 93036
and
223 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite #411
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Phone: 379-1779
Fax: 379-1799
Web page: http://juliabrownley.house.gov

The City is not aware of any city in the United States that has passed an ordinance completely prohibiting 5G in their city without exceptions.If a city did adopt such an ordinance, it would not be valid and would expose the city to lawsuits by wireless carriers.

Each community’s response to homelessness is unique. In Thousand Oaks, the City Council and the Ad Hoc Committee are committed to working hand-in-hand with our residents, law enforcement, business community, service providers, and houses of faith on identifying actions that are locally driven and supported. Whether the City could designate a particular public space where homeless could sleep requires community and stakeholder engagement.

This was never defined in Boise, so the City would need to consider this on a case-by-case basis.  From a practical standpoint, if a shelter was open and available in the City, then it would be within a reasonable distance.

Thousand Oaks’ policy takes a more direct approach by defining preferred locations, with residential at the bottom of the list.

While it may appear that some other cities fully prohibit residential placement by not including residential in their preferred locations, you will generally find disclaimers that loosen these restrictions if “in violation of state or federal law.”

See the town of Fairfax’ ordinance for an example of this approach.

Boise does not require cities to allow anyone to sleep anywhere at any time.  It acknowledges that cities can impose regulations, including prohibiting someone from sleeping in particular public areas. Open space is a public area that the City has significant concerns over letting someone camp or sleep.  Public health and safety concerns, including wildfires, threats to wildlife, damage to the ecosystem that encampments can cause, and potential safety concerns for individuals camping off designated trails, are some of the reasons the ordinances prohibit both sleeping and camping at any time in open space.

While sidewalks and other public spaces like those would be areas homeless people could potentially sleep from 10 pm to 6 am, the ordinance does not allow individuals to impede or block the free movement of pedestrians or vehicles. Again, homeless are not allowed to sit, lie, or sleep anywhere at any time.