Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 ITEM 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS April 7, 2016 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 10-1.202, 10-1-504 10-1.505 AND 10.2.301 OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING REGULATIONS FOR AMATEUR RADIO AND EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS; FILE#396-14-MISC FROM: Suzanne Avila, AICP, Planning Director SA RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Forward a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the LAHMC code amendments adding provisions for amateur radio and emergency communication antennas. BACKGROUND On November 10, 2014 the Emergency Communications Committee (ECC) made a presentation to the City Council. As part of that presentation the ECC provided information on amateur radio antenna regulations from other communities and recommended that the Town consider amending the Municipal Code to address amateur radio and emergency communication antennas. The City Council directed the Planning Commission and staff to move forward with a review of the current Municipal Code and development of an ordinance or policy to specifically address amateur radio and emergency communication antennas. On October 22, 2015 the Planning Commission considered a draft ordinance established regulations for amateur radio and emergency communication antennas,including review processes and noticing requirements. Following public testimony and discussion,the Commission continued the matter and agreed that the Subcommittee would reconvene to consider revisions to the draft ordinance based on public testimony and Planning Commission input. The Subcommittee met on November 10, November 16 and December 7, 2015 and March 3 and March 23, 2016, and made revisions to the draft ordinance as discussed below. On March 1, 2016 the ECC discussed the revised antenna ordinance (see Attachment 6F). The Committee discussed changes proposed by two ECC members,however a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance with these modifications failed. The Subcommittee considered the comments and made the suggested change to the section 10-1.504. The suggested to require retractable antennas to be motorized was included under general rules as a preference (see page two of Attachment 2). Staff Report to the Planning Commission Antenna Ordinance April 7,2016 Page 2 of 4 DISCUSSION The revised draft ordinance includes the following provisions: • Antennas up to 45 feet in height may be approved administratively by the Planning Director with no notice to surrounding property owners. Staff will work with the applicant to locate a new antenna in the most appropriate location on the property with consideration given to functionality and performance of the antenna,the ability to screen the support structure and views from neighboring properties. • Antennas higher than 45 feet up to 75 feet will require written notice to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. A site development hearing will be held if objections are raised by neighbors within 14 days of the notice. • Antennas higher than 75 feet will require Planning Commission review at a noticed public hearing. • Antenna structures may not be located within a required setback. Antenna elements and/or guy wires may extend into a setback not adjacent to a street provided they do not cross a property line and do not interfere with private access driveways. • Definitions of amateur radio antenna and antenna mast The primary change to the ordinance since it was last considered by the Planning Commission is elimination of the provision that would allow an antenna structure within setbacks. The revised ordinance allows only elements and guy wires to encroach into setbacks that are not adjacent to a street and provided they do not cross a property line. Additionally,general rules for new antennas were incorporated: 1. The antenna should be located in the least obtrusive location on the property taking into consideration the orientation and views of neighboring homes while ensuring reasonable performance of the antenna. 2. Landscape screening may be required to mitigate visual impacts to surrounding homes. 3. Retractable antennas shall be lowered when not in use. 4. Motorized retractable antennas are preferred. 5. The antenna mast may be up to three feet higher than the antenna when needed for structural support. Antenna Height Antenna regulations prior to 1992 required a site development permit for antennas higher than 48 feet. The current Code requires a site development permit for antennas higher than 40 feet. The draft ordinance requires a site development permit for antennas higher than 45 feet. The maximum allowable height would be measured from the natural grade to the top of the antenna. In some cases the mast extends above the antenna by a few feet. The draft ordinance includes a provision allowing the mast to extend up to three feet higher than the antenna when needed for structural support. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Antenna Ordinance April 7,2016 Page 3 of 4 Noticing A number of residents who testified at the October 22, 2015 Planning Commission meeting expressed a desire for notice to neighbors when a new antenna is proposed. The Municipal Code currently allows antennas up to 40 feet to be approved administratively with no notice to surrounding property owners. The Subcommittee discussed noticing for antenna applications,and recommended that notices be provided for antennas that are 45 feet or higher. This would coincide with the administrative review of antennas up to 45 feet. The Subcommittee also included a provision to require a courtesy notice to adjacent property owners for building permit applications for new antennas. Fees The Subcommittee recommended that a flat fee be charged for planning review for amateur radio/emergency communications antennas and that the total Town fees relative to installation of an amateur radio/emergency communications antenna not exceed $600. The building permit fee for installation of an antenna is $470, which would leave $130 for a planning review. While this would be appropriate for review of a building permit application,it would be insufficient to cover staff time to process an application requiring notice and/or a public hearing. Adoption of a flat fee would require an amendment to the Town's Fee Schedule. If the Planning Commission supports a flat fee, a recommendation should be made to the City Council on its implementation. If the Council agrees with this recommendation, staff will prepare an amendment to the Fee Schedule for adoption by the City Council. PUBLIC COMMENT Notice of the public hearing was published in the San Jose Mercury News on February 24, 2016 and was posted in designated Town posting locations. Interested residents who provided email addresses at the October 22, 2015 meeting or included an email address with written comments received an email notification on February 18, 2016. Written comments received since the last Planning Commission meeting are included in Attachment 6. CEOA STATUS The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15061(B)(3)which states that a project is exempt where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. A change to zoning regulations will not result in an environmental impact. If a new application for an antenna has the potential to cause an environmental impact, appropriate CEQA review would be required as part of the planning review process. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Antenna Ordinance April 7,2016 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Current antenna regulations (five pages) 2. Draft Ordinance(eight pages) 3. October 22,2015 Planning Commission Minutes(four pages) 4. October 22,2015 Planning Commission staff report with Attachments 1-4 5. FCC DA 99-2569 6. Public comments a. Letter from Robert Leland & Joan Corley (one page), received February 23, 2016, and one page email received March 29,2016 b. Comment from Diane Ciesinski(one page),received March 1,2016 c. Letter from Jim Waschura(four pages with four page attachment and 11 page attachment), received March 1,2016,and one page email received March 15,2016 d. Letter from Carl Snyder(two pages),received March 1,2016 e. Letter from Adler Yu(one page),received March 2,2016 f. Comments from Bill Gibbons and Duncan MacMillan(six pages total)1,received March 2,2016 g. Letter from Bill Gibbons(four pages),received March 3,2016 ATTACHMENT 1 Existing Antenna Regulations 10-1.202 Designated. Accessory use or accessory structure means a subordinate use or subordinate structure customarily incident to and located on the same lot or parcel with the primary use. Agriculture means and includes animal husbandry, livestock farming, flower growing, crop and tree farming, and viticulture. Alteration, as applied to a building or structure,means a change or rearrangement in the structural parts or in the existing facilities, or an enlargement, whether by extending on a side or by increasing in height, or the moving from one location or position to another. Antenna means any device used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic waves. Area, Gross."Gross area"means the total area included within the boundaries of any parcel or lot of land,which boundaries are specified in the deed to the property. Area,Net. "Net area"means the gross area of any parcel or lot of land, less panhandles and all public and private easements for vehicular access within the parcel or lot, excluding easements primarily for emergency access.Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of determining lot unit factor(LUF),net area shall only exclude the paved portions of panhandles and the paved portions of all public and private easements for vehicular access. 10-1.504 Height. (a) Structures.No structure or part of a structure shall be constructed or altered to exceed twenty-seven(27) feet in structure height in any permitted location, except that primary dwellings shall be permitted a maximum structure height of up to thirty-two (32) feet subject to all of the following requirements: (1) For each one foot increase in structure height above twenty-seven(27) feet the minimum required side and rear yard setback lines, as defined by Section 10-1.505, shall each be increased, in distance from the property line, an additional three(3) feet. No portion of the primary dwelling structure shall be located between the property line and the setback line. (2) For each one foot increase in structure height above twenty-seven(27) feet the minimum required front yard setback line, as defined by Section 10-1.505, shall be increased, in distance from the property line, an additional four(4) feet.No portion of any structure shall be located between the property line and the setback line. (3) Eligible structures shall have sloped roof surfaces only with a minimum roof pitch of 4:12 that terminate at a ridge. (4) The maximum continuous wall height shall not exceed twenty-seven(27) feet. (5) Dormer rooflines shall not exceed a maximum height of twenty-seven(27) feet. (6) The current maximum overall building height of thirty-five(35) feet, as described in subsection(b)of this section, shall not be exceeded. (b) Special Height Limitation.No structure shall exceed a height of thirty-five(35) feet,measured as the distance between the lowest natural grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure. No point of the building may exceed thirty-five(35) feet above the lowest pad elevation of the building. (c) Exceptions. The following structures or elements of structures are exempt from the height limits to the extent indicated: (1) Chimneys and appurtenances can extend above the twenty-seven(27) foot height limit. However,the maximum height including chimneys and appurtenances shall not exceed thirty-five(35) feet and all points of the building must lie within a thirty-five (35) foot horizontal band based from the lowest visible natural or finished grade. (d) Ornamental Garden Structures. Ornamental garden structures without roofs and which do not exceed six(6) feet in height may be located between property lines and setback lines provided they do not exceed three(3) feet in height when located in an area bounded by the center line of intersecting roads or easements for vehicular access,public or private, and a straight line joining points on such center lines eighty(80) feet distant from their intersection. (e) Antennas and Dish Antennas. No antenna, whether freestanding or attached to a building, shall be erected or installed until any permit required by Section 10-2.301 shall first have been obtained and the allowable height thereby determined. The height to which any antenna may be extended, whether freestanding or attached to a building, shall mean the vertical distance at any point from the natural ground level of the property on which the antenna is erected or installed and which existed prior to grading for any structure, or from any building pad on the property if excavated below natural ground level, whichever elevation is lower, to the highest part of the antenna directly above. (f)The standards set forth in this section for height are maximum standards. The City Council and Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce height where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include,but are not limited to, the shape or natural features of the lot, easements which restrict development,or high site visibility. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 326, eff. September 16, 1988; § 4, Ord. 370, eff. May 20, 1994; § 3, Ord. 389, eff. August 15, 1997; § 1, Ord. 421, eff. August 17, 2002; §§ 2, 3 and 4, Ord. 434, eff. May 15, 2004; § 1, Ord. 522, eff. December 18, 2010) 10-2.301 Permits. No person shall commence or perform any activity described in subsection(a), (b), or(c) of this section without first obtaining a site development permit. A separate site development permit shall be required for each site on which any action(s)covered by this chapter is(are)to be undertaken. (a) Administrative Review. The Planning Director or designee shall review and act on site development applications for the following activities without the necessity of notice and a hearing, provided that the Planning Director may deem it appropriate to conduct a noticed hearing pursuant to subsection(b)of this section for any of the items listed in this subsection(a): (1) The construction or placement of any spa, solar panel, or dish antenna in excess of three(3) feet in height, or thirty(30) square feet in development area; (2) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding two (2) feet but less than four(4) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface; (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding two (2) feet but less than six(6) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface; (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding fifty(50) cubic yards,but less than two hundred fifty(250) cubic yards; (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of one thousand(1,000) square feet,but less than three thousand(3,000) square feet. (3) The construction of any structure, or any addition to a structure, which equals or exceeds six(6) feet in height but is less than nineteen(19) feet in height,or is less than two hundred fifty(250) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen (19) feet,provided that where a second story is to be added to a structure which presently does not include a second story,the site development review shall be processed pursuant to subsection(c)of this section; (4) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one thousand(1,000) square feet of development area,but are less than three thousand(3,000) square feet of development area; (5) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one hundred fifty(150) square feet of floor area,but are less than nine hundred(900) square feet of floor area; (6) The enlargement of an existing private vehicular access or driveway which does not result in a new or relocated access point to a public or private road; (7) The construction or installation of any dish antenna less than twelve(12)feet in diameter; (8) The construction,placement or installation of any structure supporting photovoltaic power generation facilities that is less than six(6) feet in height and less than nine hundred(900) square feet in development area; (9) The construction,placement or installation of photovoltaic power generation facilities on an existing structure that are less than eighteen(18) inches higher than the existing structure; (10) The construction of a secondary dwelling unit. (b) Administrative Review With Notice and Hearing. The Planning Director shall, after notice and public hearing pursuant to Section 10-2.1305(b),review and act on site development applications for the following activities: (1) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding four(4) feet but less than ten(10) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface; (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding six(6) feet but less than thirteen (13) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface; (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding two hundred fifty(250) cubic yards,but less than one thousand(1,000) cubic yards; (iv) For excavations or fills,or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of three thousand(3,000) square feet,but less than ten thousand(10,000) square feet. (2) Construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed two hundred fifty(250) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19) feet,but are less than five hundred(500) square feet of floor area in excess of nineteen(19) feet in height,provided that where a second story is to be added to a structure which presently does not include a second story, the site development review shall be processed pursuant to subsection(c) of this section; (3) Construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed three thousand(3,000) square feet of development area,but are less than seven thousand five hundred(7,500) square feet of development area; (4) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed nine hundred (900) square feet of floor area,but are less than one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet of floor area; (5) The construction of a private vehicular access or driveway which results in a new or relocated access point to a public or private road; (6) The construction or installation of any antenna equal to or greater than forty(40) feet in height but less than sixty-three(63) feet in height; (7) The construction or installation of any dish antenna equal to or greater than twelve(12) feet in diameter; (8) The construction of any tennis court, sports court, or swimming pool; (9) Landscape plans when required by Planning Commission action; or (10) Any other proposal deemed appropriate by the Planning Director for a noticed hearing conducted by the Planning Director. (c) Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission shall review and act on site development applications for the following activities: (1) The construction of a principal residence; (2) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding ten(10)feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface, (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding thirteen(13) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface, (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding one thousand(1,000) cubic yards, (iv) For excavations or fills,or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet, (v) For tennis court grading where the maximum cut plus the maximum fill depths would exceed eight(8) feet; (3) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed five hundred(500) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19) feet, or construction of any second story addition to a structure which does not presently include a second story; (4) The construction of any structure or combination of structures which equal or exceed seven thousand five hundred(7,500) square feet of development area; (5) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet of floor area; (6) The construction or installation of any antenna equal to or greater than sixty-three (63) feet in height; (7) Any other proposal which exceeds the thresholds set out in subsections (a) and (b); or (8) Any other proposal referred to the Planning Commission by the Planning Director. (d) Exceptions. A site development permit shall not be required for the following: (1) Any activity which is below the thresholds prescribed in Section 10-2.301(a); (2) Excavations below the finished grade for septic tanks and drain fields, tanks, vaults,tunnels, equipment basements, cellars,or footings of buildings or other structures for which a building permit has been issued by the Town; (3) The excavation or removal of vegetation in a public utility easement by public utility companies for the purpose of installing underground utilities; (4) Routine maintenance of roads and driveways; (5) Improvements constructed pursuant to improvement plans approved by the Town as required by approval of a tentative subdivision map; (6) Emergency work required by the City Engineer to mitigate or avoid a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community. (§ 3, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 325, eff. August 3, 1988; § 1, Ord. 346, eff. July 19, 1992; § 4, Ord. 384, eff. October 18, 1996; § 4, Ord. 446, eff. June 11, 2006; § 1, Ord. 514, eff. March 26, 2009) ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AMENDING SECTIONS 10-1.202, 10-1.504, 10-1.505 AND 10-2.301 OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS ON THE ERECTION OF AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS WHEREAS, in September 1985, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") released a Memorandum Opinion and Order, known as "PRB-1," requiring local regulations of amateur radio communications to be crafted to reasonably accommodate such communications and "to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose;"and WHEREAS, in 1986, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills ("City Council") adopted an ordinance codifying regulations regarding the height and permitting requirements for the erection of an antenna in the Town; and WHEREAS, in 1996, the City Council amended the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code ("Municipal Code") to require that the construction of any antenna equal to or greater than 40 feet in height requires approval of a site development permit by the Planning Director, as well as public notice and hearing; and WHEREAS, in November 2000, the FCC released an"Order of Reconsideration," revisiting its PRB-1 order, and elaborating on the meaning of "reasonable accommodation" of amateur communications with regard to local regulations, providing that extreme or excessive prohibition of amateur communications would not be a reasonable accommodation but zoning regulations preserving residential areas by forbidding industrial types of antennas would not be seen as a failure to provide reasonable accommodations; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to establish a more detailed permitting procedure and siting regulations regarding the construction of amateur radio antennas in the Town. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENTS. The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to read as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect. A. Section 10-1.202 Designated.is hereby amended: 10-1.202 Designated. Accessory use or accessory structure means a subordinate use or subordinate structure customarily incident to and located on the same lot or parcel with the primary use. Agriculture means and includes animal husbandry, livestock farming, flower growing, crop and tree farming, and viticulture. Alteration,as applied to a building or structure,means a change or rearrangement in the structural parts or in the existing facilities,or an enlargement,whether by extending on a side or by increasing in height, or the moving from one location or position to another. Amateur Radio Antenna means an antenna used for amateur radio (HAM Radio) and/or emergency communications. Antenna means any device used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic waves. Antenna Mast means a structure that is used to support an antenna. Area,Gross."Gross area"means the total area included within the boundaries of any parcel or lot of land,which boundaries are specified in the deed to the property. Area,Net."Net area"means the gross area of any parcel or lot of land,less panhandles and all public and private easements for vehicular access within the parcel or lot, excluding easements primarily for emergency access.Notwithstanding the foregoing,for purposes of determining lot unit factor(LUF),net area shall only exclude the paved portions of panhandles and the paved portions of all public and private easements for vehicular access. B. Section 10-1.504 Height.is hereby amended: 10-1.504 Height. (e) Antennas and Dish Antennas.No antenna,whether freestanding or attached to a building, shall be erected or installed until any permit required by Section 10-2.301 shall first have been obtained and the allowable height thereby determined.The height shall be measured from the ground level • ... ... - . . .. ._ ,_ .. .•. . . - - - . ... .. directly below the highest point of the antenna to the highest paft point of the antenna directly above. (0 Amateur Radio Antennas. Amateur Radio Antennas with a fixed hei.ht of 45 feet or less may be approved through a building application pursuant to section 10-2.301(a). Retractable Amateur Radio Antennas with a retracted height of 45 feet or less and an extended height of 75 feet or less may also be approved through a building application pursuant to section 10-2.301(a). Amateur Radio Antennas with a fixed or retracted height greater than 45 feet or an extended height greater than 75 feet may be approved through a site development permit application pursuant to section 10-2.301(d). f#)(g) The standards set forth in this section for height are maximum standards.The City Council and Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce height where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include,but are not limited to,the shape or natural features of the lot, easements which restrict development, or high site visibility. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1,Ord. 326, eff. September 16, 1988; §4, Ord. 370, eff.May 20, 1994; § 3, Ord. 389, eff.August 15, 1997; § 1, Ord.421, eff.August 17,2002; §§ 2, 3 and 4,Ord.434, eff. May 15,2004; § 1, Ord. 522, eff.December 18,2010) C. Section 10-1.505 Setback lines.is hereby amended: 10-1.505 Setback lines. The location of structures with respect to property lines, street rights-of-way, and easement lines shall be regulated as follows: (b) Exceptions to the setback line requirements are as follows: (1) For additions and remodels to existing legally constructed structures with eaves that currently extend beyond the required setbacks,the addition or remodel shall be allowed to be constructed so as to match the existing eave extension. (2) For additions,remodels and new construction on properties where the options for siting of structures are substantially constrained by existing natural features of the lot(e.g., steep slopes, significant natural water courses,unusual lot configurations or size,mature oak trees, earthquake fault zones, or native vegetation) or by dedicated conservation, open space, or access easements, eaves may extend into any front, side, or rear yard not more than four(4) feet.This exception may be granted in writing by the Town Planner;provided that,the Town Planner,in his or her discretion,may have the Planning Commission make this determination. If the applicant disagrees with the Town Planner's decision,the applicant may request that the Planning Commission make this determination and the Planning Commission shall do so. Nothing in this section nor any decision made under this section shall preclude a property owner from applying for a variance under Article 10. (3) Amateur radio antennas structures(base or mast) shall not be located within required setbacks. Elements and/or guy wires may be located within the thirty(30) foot rear yard or thirty(30) foot side yard not adjacent to a public or private street right-of-way provided that no portion of the antenna, support structure and/or guy wires extends over a property line. Antennas shall have appropriate vertical clearance so as to not interfere with private driveway access. D. Section 10-2.301 Permits.is hereby amended: 10-2.301 Permits. No person shall commence or perform any activity described in subsections(a), (b) or(c) of this section without first obtaining a site development permit.A separate site development permit shall be required for each site on which any action(s)covered by this chapter is (are)to be undertaken. a Administrative Review for Amateur Radio Antennas. The Plannin. Director or designee shall review and act on building applications for amateur radio antennas up to 45 feet in hei.ht for fixed hei•ht antennas or retractable antennas that are not hi her than 45 feet when retracted,and not higher than 75 feet when fully extended,without the necessity of a site development permit application or public hearing,provided that the antenna is in compliance with applicable zoning and building code requirements. Prior to submission of a building application for construction of an amateur radio antenna,the applicant is required to provide written notification to the property owners of all properties adjacent to the property on which the antenna is proposed to be located. In addition to any other findings required by this ordinance,the Planning Director shall consider the following guidelines in reviewing a building application to erect an amateur radio antenna: 1. The antenna is located in the least obtrusive location on the property,taking into consideration the orientation and views of neighboring homes,while ensuring reasonable use of the antenna. 2. Landscape screening may be required as needed to mitigate visual impacts to surrounding homes. 3. It is preferred that retractable antennas be retracted when not in use. 4. Motorized retractable antennas are preferred to all other retractable antennas. 5. The antenna mast is designed to be no more than three feet higher than the fixed or fully retracted height of the antenna as may be needed for structural support. (a) b Administrative Review.The Planning Director or designee shall review and act on site development permit applications for the following activities without the necessity of notice and a hearing,provided that the Planning Director may deem it appropriate to conduct a noticed hearing pursuant to subsection(b)(c) of this section for any of the items listed in this subsection: (1) The construction or placement of any spa, solar panel,or dish antenna in excess of three (3)feet in height, or thirty(30) square feet in development area; (2) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding two(2)feet but less than four(4)feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface; (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding two(2)feet but less than six(6)feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface; (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding fifty (50)cubic yards,but less than two hundred fifty(250)cubic yards; (iv) For excavations or fills,or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of one thousand(1,000) square feet,but less than three thousand(3,000) square feet. (3) The construction of any structure, or any addition to a structure,which equals or exceeds six(6)feet in height but is less than nineteen(19)feet in height, or is less than two hundred fifty(250) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19) feet,provided that where a second story is to be added to a structure which presently does not include a second story,the site development permit application review shall be processed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section; (4) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one thousand(1,000) square feet of development area,but are less than three thousand(3,000) square feet of development area; (5) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one hundred fifty(150)square feet of floor area,but are less than nine hundred(900)square feet of floor area; (6) The enlargement of an existing private vehicular access or driveway which does not result in a new or relocated access point to a public or private road; (7) The construction or installation of any dish antenna less than twelve(12)feet in diameter; (8) The construction,placement or installation of any structure supporting photovoltaic power generation facilities that is less than six(6) feet in height and less than nine hundred (900) square feet in development area; (9) The construction,placement or installation of photovoltaic power generation facilities on an existing structure that are less than eighteen(18)inches higher than the existing structure; (10) The construction of a secondary dwelling unit. () Administrative Review with Notice. The Planning Director shall, after notice to all individuals owning property within 500 feet of the proposed project site,review and act on site development permit applications for construction or installation of an amateur radio antenna with a fixed height or retracted height greater than 45 feet. If an objection is submitted in writing by a noticed property owner within 14 days of the date of the notice, a public Site Development hearing shall be held. In addition to any other findings required by this ordinance,the Planning Director shall consider the following guidelines in reviewing a site development permit application to erect an amateur radio antenna: 1. The antenna is located in the least obtrusive location on the property,taking into consideration the orientation and views of neighboring homes,while ensuring reasonable use of the antenna. 2. Landscape screening may be required as needed to mitigate visual impacts to surrounding homes. 3. It is preferred that retractable antennas be retracted when not in use. 4. Motorized retractable antennas are preferred to all other retractable antennas. 5. The antenna mast is designed to be no more than three feet higher than the fixed or fully retracted height of the antenna as may be needed for structural support. (b)() Administrative Review with Notice and Hearing.The Planning Director shall,after notice and public hearing pursuant to Section 10-2.1305(b),review and act on site development permit applications for the following activities: (1) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding four(4)feet but less than ten(10) feet in vertical depth,at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface; (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding six(6) feet but less than thirteen(13)feet in vertical depth,at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface; (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding two hundred fifty(250)cubic yards,but less than one thousand(1,000) cubic yards; (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of three thousand(3,000) square feet,but less than ten thousand(10,000) square feet. (2) Construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed two hundred fifty(250) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19)feet,but are less than five hundred(500)square feet of floor area in excess of nineteen(19)feet in height,provided that where a second story is to be added to a structure which presently does not include a second story,the site development permit application review shall be processed pursuant to subsection(c)of this section; (3) Construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed three thousand(3,000) square feet of development area,but are less than seven thousand five hundred(7,500) square feet of development area; (4) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed nine hundred(900) square feet of floor area,but are less than one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet of floor area; (5) The construction of a private vehicular access or driveway which results in a new or relocated access point to a public or private road; (6) The construction or installation of any antenna other than an amateur radio antenna equal to or greater than forty(40)feet in height but less than sixty-three(63)feet in height; (7)The construction or installation of any dish antenna equal to or greater than twelve(12) feet in diameter; (8)(7)The construction of any tennis court, sports court, or swimming pool; (9)(8)Landscape plans when required by Planning Commission action; or (10)(9)Any other proposal deemed appropriate by the Planning Director for a noticed hearing conducted by the Planning Director. (e)(e) Planning Commission Review.The Planning Commission shall review and act on site development permit applications for the following activities: (1) The construction of a principal residence; (2) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding ten(10)feet in vertical depth,at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface, (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding thirteen(13) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface, (iii) For excavations or fills,or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding one thousand(1,000)cubic yards, (iv) For excavations or fills,or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of ten thousand(10,000) square feet, (v) For tennis court grading where the maximum cut plus the maximum fill depths would exceed eight(8)feet; (3) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed five hundred(500)square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19) feet, or construction of any second story addition to a structure which does not presently include a second story; (4) The construction of any structure or combination of structures which equal or exceed seven thousand five hundred(7,500) square feet of development area; (5) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet of floor area; (6) The construction or installation of any antenna equal to or greater than sixty-three(63) feet in height; (7) Any other proposal which exceeds the thresholds set out in subsections(b),(c)or(d); or (8) Any other proposal referred to the Planning Commission by the Planning Director. (d (f) Exceptions.A site development permit shall not be required for the following: (1) Any activity which is below the thresholds prescribed in Section 10-2.301(b); (2) Excavations below the finished grade for septic tanks and drain fields,tanks,vaults, tunnels, equipment basements, cellars, or footings of buildings or other structures for which a building permit has been issued by the Town; (3) The excavation or removal of vegetation in a public utility easement by public utility companies for the purpose of installing underground utilities; (4) Routine maintenance of roads and driveways; (5) Improvements constructed pursuant to improvement plans approved by the Town as required by approval of a tentative subdivision map; (6) Emergency work required by the City Engineer to mitigate or avoid a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community; (7) Installation of an_amateur radio or emergency communications antenna that is 45 feet or less in height(fixed or retracted height)and,if retractable,does not extend higher than 75 feet when in use. Section 2. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. Section 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall take effect thirty(30)days after adoption.Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five(5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk shall(1)publish the Summary, and(2)post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen(15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of the full text of this ordinance or a summary thereof to be published once,with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it,or otherwise voting,in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Los Altos Hills, as required by law. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: BY: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 2628754.1 ATTACHMENT 3 Approved December 3,2015 Commission; furthermore that the words located on a substandard size and sha. ot in the first of the findings to be modified to read "because the lot is ext.:rdinary encumbered due to shape, presence of a creek, absence of sewer re. ; ring a leach field, and abutting an open space area". The motion was seconde iv Commissioner Abraham. AYES: Commissioner Abraha , Commissioner Mandl; Commissioner P. •e, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTA None OTION CARRIED ':'• 32 INTRODUCTION OF AN,AMENDMENT,'TO SECTIONS 10,1504 10-1.505 :AND:)1.02,301 OKTHE :ALTOS HILLS.:MUNICIPAL,;CODE ,ADDING REGULATIONS FOR AMATEUR RADIO AND EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS; File #396-14-MISC. .CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption'per,Section 15061(B)(3),(Staff.S. .•),_ Ex Parte Disclosures:.:commissioner Abraham said that he had discussed the issue with the Emergency Communications Committee(ECC). There were no 'Other disclosures. Chair'Couperus opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Planning Director Suzanne Avila presented the staff report. C9MniSsigiler,Ta#ridgc asked what the inciting incident was that triggered this amendment Commissioner Tankha, a member of the Ad hoc Committee, Said as there were(no/regilla0onSfrom the, Federal CommunicationS,connnisSion.,(FCP, the Town depOed#iat l'they;needed to create..their own standards.; Commissioner Abraham, also on the agreed that this was conect andadded that this Wii:nOttegnlarIr brought;up as it,was a:difficult„ta**71Fplyp, so many are put up without permits,when;State,ancl Federal lawstate they shouldbe widely accepted. Commissioner Manclle asked if the attorney thought there were any new issues with the ordinance as we had been compliant 10 years ago. Director Avila said the City Attorney did not, provide an opinion. Commissioner Abraham said this would help bring the Town in alignment with the neighboring cities. 3 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Approved December 3,2015 Chair Couperus presented slides on antenna stats, and acknowledged that while ham radios are vital in emergency situations, the Commission had to think about visual mass. Dick Jones approached the dais and requested Chair Couperus recuse himself, as he felt he was biased. Jim Waschura,Los Altos Hills, stated his opposition to the update. Adler Yu,Los Altos Hills, stated his opposition of the update. A resident of Los Altos Hills stated his opposition to the update. Dru Anderson,Los Altos Hills, stated her support for her update. Martha Bowden,Los Altos Hills, stated her opposition to the update. Duncan MacMillan, Los Altos Hills, stated his support of updating, but that it needed some fine tuning. Andrew Kirk,Los Altos Hills, stated the importance of amateur radios in Town. Robert Lelan,Los Altos Hills, stated his opposition to the update. Samuel Wood,Los Altos Hills, stated his support of the update. A resident of Los Altos Hills stated his opposition to the update. Dick Jones, Los Altos Hills, requested Commissioners Abraham and Tankha recuse themselves as they developed the update and requested that a lawyer be present. Scott Overstreet, Co-chair of the Emergency Communications Committee, said he respected the concerns that residents have about their views being impacted, but this is not a new issue and the Town needs to come into compliance with State and Federal law. William Scott,Los Altos Hills, said that a lawyer needs to be in attendance for this discussion. Chair Couperus closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Tankha said that she appreciated the concerns over view impaction. It was her understanding when starting this project that antennas were similar to solar panels and the Town could not dictate where they go, and it was 4 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 22,2015 Approved December 3.2015 trying to insulate itself from interfering with State or Federal law. She said that she was in support of allowing antennas as long as it did not interfere with neighbors enjoying their homes and their views, but would like to go back and look at the proposal again. Commissioner Partridge said that he had not heard from the Town attorney that there was an existing problem, nor seen evidence that the existing process was not working. He was opposed to allowing antennas in the setback, and said the height should be half the wavelength up. He did not see that anything needed to be done, and was in favor of leaving things as they are unless told policies needed to change. Commissioner Mandle thanked staff and the subcommittee for their time,and said that she appreciated Commissioner Tankha's response to community input. She said that she thought the Town was in compliance, but an up to date opinion on the matter would cause her look at this proposal differently. She said it was important to move carefully given the response of the community, but suggested giving a cost break to applicants: She was okay with the current rules unless the attorney says differently. Commissioner Abraham said the reason the community needed ham radio operators was because no Town staff lived in the Hills, so a vast majority of the time the residents were on their own, so they would have to rely on volunteers. He expressed concern that the ECC would fade out and then asked what the Town would do to fill the gap. He said the update was in accordance with the law and would be beneficial to the community. Chair Couperus said the proposal was missing 3 components: Is it a benefit to the Town? Is it a burden to the neighbors? Is it too much of a burden on the applicant? He suggested they take the work that had been done and break it up into conditions. e.g.: Up to 45 feet you can have an antenna with no permits or up to 63 feet with no permits as long as it was only 2 inches wide. Anything bigger will have a site development process where the neighbors are noticed. At this juncture he did not see a reason to update the ordinance. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Mandle moved to continue the discussion of modifying the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code for amateur radio and emergency communications, and ask the subcommittee to reconvene and consider balancing the needs of the applicants for antennas, the needs of the neighbors of the antenna, and the benefit to the Town. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Partridge. AYES: Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus NOES: Commissioner Abraham ABSENT: None 5 Special Pla ning Commission Meeting Minutes October 22,2015 Approved December 3,2015 ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Commissioner Abraham asked that it be noted in the minutes that he voted no due to the statement of"balancing of interests." Chair Couperus called for a recess 10:02 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:07 P.M. 3.3 INTRODUCTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10-2.809 OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE (WATER • FICIENT LANDSCAPING) UPDATING THE TOWN'S EXISTING WATE' EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (WELO) TO COMPLY WIT.' RECENTLY ENACTED STATE LAW; File #236-15-MISC. CEQA ' 'ew: Categorical Exemption per Section 15061(B)(3) (Staff-S. Padovan). Ex Parte Disclosures: Commissioner Tankha said : e had spoken with Peter Evans. There were no other disclosures. Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented •e staff report. Gary Waldeck, Los Altos Hills, expla' •d how the parcel water budget (PWB) was calculated. Commission asked questions of sta '. Chair Couperus opened the P d :LIC HEARING. Peter Evans, Los Altos ills, suggested they use the proposed ordinance, leave the old penalties, and leav; out the maximum applied water allowance.(MAWA). Chair Couperus • osed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commissio •r Abraham suggested the Town adopt the state model ordinance and then revis' how.it is working in a year. He suggested that at this time we look at comp. . •le cities that may have created their own ordinances, and if they are perf• ing well, to use their model to create our own. He pointed out that the State as. ed the Town to cut water usage by 25%, and the Town reduced by 40%, not •ecause of an ordinance, but because of the involvement of its residents. The residents are the key factor in the success of any program that may be implemented. Chair Couperus said that he did not want to disregard the work that had already been put into the new ordinance,but suggested that they take the State model and in 6 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 22,2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS - October 22, 2015 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 10-1.202, 10-1-504 10-1.505 AND 10.2.301 OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING REGULATIONS FOR AMATEUR RADIO AND EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS; FILE#396-14-MISC FROM: Suzanne Avila,AICP, Planning Director SA RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Forward a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the LAHMC code amendments adding provisions for amateur radio and emergency communication antennas. BACKGROUND On November 10, 2014 the Emergency Communications Committee (ECC) made a presentation to the City Council. As part of that presentation the ECC provided information on amateur radio antenna regulations from other communities and recommended that the Town consider amending the Municipal Code to address amateur radio and emergency communication antennas. The City Council directed the Planning Commission and staff to move forward with a review of the current Municipal Code and development of an ordinance or policy to specifically address amateur radio and emergency communication antennas. DISCUSSION A Subcommittee of the Planning Commission comprised of Commissioner Abraham and Vice- Chair Tankha worked with staff to review the current ordinances, research federal and state regulations on amateur radio antennas, and regulations used by other jurisdictions. The Subcommittee met with the City of Los Altos Planning Manager to learn about the implementation of the Los Altos ordinance and building permit process and one member communicated with the City of Atherton Planning Director about that city's antenna regulations. The Subcommittee also met with members of the ECC and visited properties in Town that currently have an amateur radio antenna installation. Most existing antennas are located where they are least obtrusive to neighbors. A summary of amateur radio requirements used by local jurisdictions is included in Attachment 3. Attachment 1 includes the Town's current antenna regulations and Attachment 2 is the draft ordinance amendments developed by the Subcommittee. Antennas with a height of 40 to 63 feet are currently required to go through an administrative review process with a noticed public hearing. Antennas higher than 63 feet are reviewed by the Staff Report to the Planning Commission Antenna Ordinance October 22,2015 Page 2 of 3 Planning Commission, also with a noticed public hearing. The Municipal Code does not currently include a maximum height for antennas. The draft ordinance includes the following provisions: • Adds a definition for amateur radio antenna • Establishes a height limit of 45 feet for fixed height antennas and 75 feet for retractable antennas. Retractable antennas would be required to be lowered when not in use. • Allows antennas and support structures to be located within a side or rear yard that is not adjacent to a street • Establishes an administrative review process with no notice or public hearing for antennas that comply with zoning and building code regulations. • Antennas with a retracted height greater than 45 feet or an overall height greater than 75 feet would be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. The key changes are the allowance for an administrative review for amateur radio and emergency communications antennas when a building permit is applied for, provided the antenna is fully compliant with the zoning regulations and building code, and the allowance of antennas and/or support structures within a side or rear yard that is not adjacent to a road. This second change would allow property owners more flexibility in locating an antenna for optimal transmitting and receiving. Federal and State Regulations PRB-1 was adopted by the Federal Communications Commission(FCC)in September, 1985(PRB means Personal Radio Branch). The FCC did not specify any particular height limitation for which a local government may regulate antennas or recommend precise language that must be contained in local ordinances,such as provisions for special exceptions,variances,or conditional use permits. However,it did specify that local regulations involving placement,screening,or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonable amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose. Section 65850.3 of the State Government Code is California's version of PRB-1. It states that any ordinance adopted by a city or county that regulates amateur radio antennas shall: (1) allow those structures to be erected at heights and dimensions sufficient to accommodate amateur radio service communications; (2) shall not preclude amateur radio service communications; (3) shall reasonably accommodate amateur radio service communications; and (4) shall constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the city's or county's legitimate purpose. COMMITTEE REVIEW The Emergency Communications Committee (ECC)reviewed the draft ordinance amendments at its September 1, 2015 meeting. The ECC unanimously endorsed the draft ordinance as proposed. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Antenna Ordinance October 22,2015 Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC COMMENT Notice of the public hearing was published in the Town Crier on September 30, 2015 and was posted in designated posting locations. No public comments have been received as of the date of this report. CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15061(B)(3). ATTACHMENTS 1. Current antenna regulations (five pages) 2. Draft Zoning Ordinance amendments (seven pages) 3. Summary of other cities amateur radio antenna requirements (two pages) 4. Antenna Height and Communications Effectiveness manual (15 pages) I Existing Antenna Regulations 10-1.202 Designated. Accessory use or accessory structure means a subordinate use or subordinate structure customarily incident to and located on the same lot or parcel with the primary use. Agriculture means and includes animal husbandry, livestock farming, flower growing, crop and tree farming, and viticulture. Alteration, as applied to a building or structure,means a change or rearrangement in the structural parts or in the existing facilities, or an enlargement, whether by extending on a side or by increasing in height, or the moving from one location or position to another. Antenna means any device used to transmit;and/or receive electromagnetic waves; Area, Gross. "Gross area"means the total area included within the boundaries of any parcel or lot of land, which boundaries are specified in the deed to the property. Area,Net. "Net area"means the gross area of any parcel or lot of land, less panhandles and all public and private easements for vehicular access within the parcel or lot, excluding easements primarily for emergency access.Notwithstanding the foregoing,for purposes of determining lot unit factor(LUF), net area shall only exclude the paved portions of panhandles and the paved portions of all public and private easements for vehicular access. 10-1.504 Height. (a) Structures. No structure or part of a structure shall be constructed or altered to exceed twenty-seven(27) feet in structure height in any permitted location, except that primary dwellings shall be permitted a maximum structure height of up to thirty-two (32) feet subject to all of the following requirements: (1) For each one foot increase in structure height above twenty-seven(27) feet the minimum required side and rear yard setback lines, as defined by Section 10-1.505, shall each be increased, in distance from the property line, an additional three(3) feet. No portion of the primary dwelling structure shall be located between the property line and the setback line. (2) For each one foot increase in structure height above twenty-seven(27) feet the minimum required front yard setback line, as defined by Section 10-1.505, shall be increased, in distance from the property line, an additional four(4) feet.No portion of any structure shall be located between the property line and the setback line. (3) Eligible structures shall have sloped roof surfaces only with a minimum roof pitch of 4:12 that terminate at a ridge. (4) The maximum continuous wall height shall not exceed twenty-seven(27) feet. (5) Dormer rooflines shall not exceed a maximum height of twenty-seven(27) feet. (6) The current maximum overall building height of thirty-five (35) feet, as described in subsection (b) of this section, shall not be exceeded. (b) Special Height Limitation.No structure shall exceed a height of thirty-five(35) feet,measured as the distance between the lowest natural grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure.No point of the building may exceed thirty-five(35) feet above the lowest pad elevation of the building. (c) Exceptions. The following structures or elements of structures are exempt from the height limits to the extent indicated: (1) Chimneys and appurtenances can extend above the twenty-seven(27) foot height limit. However,the maximum height including chimneys and appurtenances shall not exceed thirty-five(35) feet and all points of the building must lie within a thirty-five (35) foot horizontal band based from the lowest visible natural or finished grade. (d) Ornamental Garden Structures. Ornamental garden structures without roofs and which do not exceed six(6) feet in height may be located between property lines and setback lines provided they do not exceed three (3) feet in height when located in an area bounded by the center line of intersecting roads or easements for vehicular access,public or private, and a straight line joining points on such center lines eighty(80) feet distant from their intersection. (e) Antennas and Dish'Antennas No antenna,whether freestanding or attached to'a building, shall be'erected or installed until any permit required by Section 10 2.301 shall first have been obtained and the allowable height:thereby determined The height to which any antenna may he' deended, whether freestanding or,attached to a building, shall mean'the vertical distance at any.point from the natural ground level of the property.on which the antenna is erct eed or installed'and which existed,pnor to grading for;any structure, or from any building pad,on the;property if excavated below natural ground level, whichever elevation is lower, to:the highest part of the antenna directly above. (f)The standards set forth in this section for height are maximum standards. The City Council and Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce height where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include,but are not limited to,the shape or natural features of the lot, easements which restrict development, or high site visibility. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 326, eff. September 16, 1988; § 4, Ord. 370, eff. May 20, 1994; § 3, Ord. 389, eff. August 15, 1997; § 1, Ord. 421, eff. August 17, 2002; §§ 2, 3 and 4, Ord. 434, eff. May 15, 2004; § 1, Ord. 522, eff. December 18, 2010) 10-2.301 Permits. No person shall commence or perform any activity described in subsection(a), (b), or(c) of this section without first obtaining a site development permit. A separate site development permit shall be required for each site on which any action(s) covered by this chapter is (are)to be undertaken. (a) Administrative Review The Planning Director or designee shall review`;and:act onsite development applications for the following activities without;the necessity of notice and`a g,:provided that the Planning Director may deem it appropriate`to,conduct'a noticed hearmg'pursuant to subsection(b) of this section for any of the items listed in this subsection(a): (1) The construction orplacementof any spa, solar panel, or dish antenna in excess of three(3)feetin height, or thirty(30) square feet in developmentarea; (2) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding two (2) feet but less than four(4) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface; (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding two (2) feet but less than six(6) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface; (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding fifty(50) cubic yards,but less than two hundred fifty(250) cubic yards; (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of one thousand(1,000) square feet,but less than three thousand (3,000) square feet. (3) The construction of any structure, or any addition to a structure, which equals or exceeds six (6) feet in height but is less than nineteen(19) feet in height, or is less than two hundred fifty(250) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen (19) feet, provided that where a second story is to be added to a structure which presently does not include a second story, the site development review shall be processed pursuant to subsection(c) of this section; (4) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one thousand(1,000) square feet of development area,but are less than three thousand(3,000) square feet of development area; (5) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one hundred fifty(150) square feet of floor area,but are less than nine hundred(900) square feet of floor area; (6) The enlargement of an existing private vehicular access or driveway which does not result in a new or relocated access point to a public or private road; (7) The construction or installation of any,dish antenna less than twelve(12) feet. in diameter; (8) The construction,placement or installation of any structure supporting photovoltaic power generation facilities that is less than six (6) feet in height and less than nine hundred(900) square feet in development area; (9) The construction,placement or installation of photovoltaic power generation facilities on an existing structure that are less than eighteen(18) inches higher than the existing structure; (10) The construction of a secondary dwelling unit. (b). Administrative Review With Notice.and Hearing: The Planning Director shall, after notice and public hearing pursuant to'Section 10-2.1305(b),review and act on site development applications.forthe following activities: (1) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding four(4) feet but less than ten(10) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface; (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding six (6) feet but less than thirteen (13) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface; (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding two hundred fifty(250) cubic yards,but less than one thousand(1,000) cubic yards; (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of three thousand(3,000) square feet,but less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed two hundred fifty(250) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19) feet,but are less than five hundred(500) square feet of floor area in excess of nineteen(19) feet in height,provided that where a second story is to be added to a structure which presently does not include a second story, the site development review shall be processed pursuant to subsection(c) of this section; (3) Construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet of development area,but are less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of development area; (4) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed nine hundred (900) square feet of floor area,but are less than one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of floor area; (5) The construction of a private vehicular access or driveway which results in a new or relocated access point to a public or private road; (6) The construction,or installation of any; to or;greater than forty:'(40) feet,it height but less than sixty4hree;(63)feet in height; (7) The construction or installation of any dish antenna equal to or greater:than twelve.(12)feet m diameter, (8) The construction of any tennis court, sports court, or swimming pool; (9) Landscape plans when required by Planning Commission action; or (10) Any other proposal deemed appropriate by the Planning Director for a noticed hearing conducted by the Planning Director. (c) Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission shall review and act on site development applications for the following activities: (1) The construction of a principal residence; (2) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface, (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding thirteen(13) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface, (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding one thousand(1,000) cubic yards, (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of ten thousand(10,000) square feet, (v) For tennis court grading where the maximum cut plus the maximum fill depths would exceed eight(8) feet; (3) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed five hundred(500) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19) feet, or construction of any second story addition to a structure which does not presently include a second story; (4) The construction of any structure or combination of structures which equal or exceed seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of development area; (5) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of floor area; (6) The construction or installation of any antenna equal to or greater than sixty-three (63) feet in height; (7) Any other proposal which exceeds the thresholds set out in subsections (a) and (b); or (8) Any other proposal referred to the Planning Commission by the Planning Director. (d) Exceptions. A site development permit shall not be required for the following: (1) Any activity which is below the thresholds prescribed in Section 10-2.301(a); (2) Excavations below the finished grade for septic tanks and drain fields,tanks, vaults, tunnels, equipment basements, cellars, or footings of buildings or other structures for which a building permit has been issued by the Town; (3) The excavation or removal of vegetation in a public utility easement by public utility companies for the purpose of installing underground utilities; (4) Routine maintenance of roads and driveways; (5) Improvements constructed pursuant to improvement plans approved by the Town as required by approval of a tentative subdivision map; (6) Emergency work required by the City Engineer to mitigate or avoid a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community. (§ 3, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 325, eff. August 3, 1988; § 1, Ord. 346, eff. July 19, 1992; § 4, Ord. 384, eff. October 18, 1996; § 4, Ord. 446, eff. June 11, 2006; § 1, Ord. 514, eff. March 26, 2009) Proposed Amateur Radio and Emergency Communications Antenna Regulations 10-1.202 Designated. Accessory use or accessory structure means a subordinate use or subordinate structure customarily incident to and located on the same lot or parcel with the primary use. Agriculture means and includes animal husbandry, livestock farming, flower growing, crop and tree farming, and viticulture. Alteration, as applied to a building or structure, means a change or rearrangement in the structural parts or in the existing facilities, or an enlargement, whether by extending on a side or by increasing in height, or the moving from one location or position to another. Amateur Radio Antenna means an antenna used for amateur radio transmitting(HAM Radio) and/or emergency communications. Antenna means any device used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic waves. Area, Gross. "Gross area"means the total area included within the boundaries of any parcel or lot of land,which boundaries are specified in the deed to the property. Area,Net. "Net area"means the gross area of any parcel or lot of land, less panhandles and all public and private easements for vehicular access within the parcel or lot, excluding easements primarily for emergency access.Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of determining lot unit factor(LUF),net area shall only exclude the paved portions of panhandles and the paved portions of all public and private easements for vehicular access. 10-1.504 Height. (a) Structures.No structure or part of a structure shall be constructed or altered to exceed twenty-seven(27) feet in structure height in any permitted location, except that primary dwellings shall be permitted a maximum structure height of up to thirty-two (32) feet subject to all of the following requirements: (1) For each one foot increase in structure height above twenty-seven(27) feet the minimum required side and rear yard setback lines, as defined by Section 10-1.505, shall each be increased, in distance from the property line, an additional three(3) feet. No portion of the primary dwelling structure shall be located between the property line and the setback line. (2) For each one foot increase in structure height above twenty-seven(27) feet the minimum required front yard setback line, as defined by Section 10-1.505, shall be increased, in distance from the property line, an additional four(4) feet.No portion of any structure shall be located between the property line and the setback line. (3) Eligible structures shall have sloped roof surfaces only with a minimum roof pitch of 4:12 that terminate at a ridge. (4) The maximum continuous wall height shall not exceed twenty-seven(27) feet. (5) Dormer rooflines shall not exceed a maximum height of twenty-seven (27) feet. (6) The current maximum overall building height of thirty-five(35) feet, as described in subsection(b) of this section, shall not be exceeded. (b) Special Height Limitation.No structure shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet,measured as the distance between the lowest natural grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure.No point of the building may exceed thirty-five(35) feet above the lowest pad elevation of the building. (c) Exceptions.The following structures or elements of structures are exempt from the height limits to the extent indicated: (1) Chimneys and appurtenances can extend above the twenty-seven(27) foot height limit. However,the maximum height including chimneys and appurtenances shall not exceed thirty-five(35) feet and all points of the building must lie within a thirty-five (35) foot horizontal band based from the lowest visible natural or finished grade. (d) Ornamental Garden Structures. Ornamental garden structures without roofs and which do not exceed six(6) feet in height may be located between property lines and setback lines provided they do not exceed three(3) feet in height when located in an area bounded by the center line of intersecting roads or easements for vehicular access,public or private, and a straight line joining points on such center lines eighty(80) feet distant from their intersection. (e) Antennas and Dish Antennas. No antenna, whether freestanding or attached to a building, shall be erected or installed until any permit required by Section 10-2.301 shall first have been obtained and the allowable height thereby determined. The height shall be measured from the ground level or roof to which any antenna may be extended, whether existed prior to grading far any sticture, or from any building pad on the property if excavated belew natural ground level, whichever elevation is lower, to the highest part of the antenna directly above. (� Amateur Radio Antennas. The maximum height for a fixed height or retractable amateur radio antenna shall not be greater than 45 feet. A retractable antenna may extend up to 75 feet when in use. The height shall be measured from the ground level below the antenna structure. (#)(g) The standards set forth in this section for height are maximum standards. The City Council and Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce height where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include,but are not limited to,the shape or natural features of the lot, easements which restrict development, or high site visibility. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 326, eff. September 16, 1988; § 4, Ord. 370, eff. May 20, 1994; § 3, Ord. 389, eff. August 15, 1997; § 1, Ord. 421, eff. August 17, 2002; §§ 2, 3 and 4, Ord. 434, eff. May 15, 2004; § 1, Ord. 522, eff. December 18, 2010) 10-1.505 Setback lines. The location of structures with respect to property lines, street rights-of-way, and easement lines shall be regulated as follows: (a) No structure, nor portion thereof, other than driveways, including necessary backup areas; walkways; minor ornamental garden structures subject to the height limits specified in Section 10-1.504(f); fences; driveway light fixtures, limited to one fixture on each side of a driveway, for a maximum of two (2) fixtures per lot, subject to the height limits specified in Section 10-1.504(h); or underground utility facilities, shall be constructed, altered, or maintained so as to be located between the property line and any setback line, except as otherwise permitted by the provisions of this chapter. (b) Exceptions to the setback line requirements are as follows: (1) For additions and remodels to existing legally constructed structures with eaves that currently extend beyond the required setbacks, the addition or remodel shall be allowed to be constructed so as to match the existing eave extension. (2) For additions,remodels and new construction on properties where the options for siting of structures are substantially constrained by existing natural features of the lot (e.g., steep slopes, significant natural water courses,unusual lot configurations or size, mature oak trees, earthquake fault zones, or native vegetation) or by dedicated conservation, open space, or access easements, eaves may extend into any front, side, or rear yard not more than four(4) feet. This exception may be granted in writing by the Town Planner; provided that, the Town Planner, in his or her discretion,may have the Planning Commission make this determination. If the applicant disagrees with the Town Planner's decision, the applicant may request that the Planning Commission make this determination and the Planning Commission shall do so.Nothing in this section nor any decision made under this section shall preclude a property owner from applying for a variance under Article 10. (3) Amateur radio antennas may be located within the thirty (30)foot rear yard or thirty (30)foot side yard not adjacent to a public or private street right-of-way provided that no portion of the antenna, support structure and/or guy wires extends over a property line. Antennas shall have appropriate vertical clearance so as to not interfere with private driveway access. (c) The setback line for any structure shall be: (1) Where a parcel abuts on a single street or other access way, forty(40) feet from the nearest such public or private street right-of-way, easement for vehicular access, or where an official plan line has been established, from such official plan line. (2) Where a lot abuts on more than one such street, easement, or official plan line, the Planning Commission or the Site Development Authority, whichever entity first acts upon an application relating to the development of a particular property, shall designate the street, easement or official plan line from which the forty(40) foot setback shall be measured, which will in the judgment of the Site Development Authority, have the least negative environmental, visual or aesthetic impact on neighboring properties and the public at large. (3) Thirty(30) feet from property lines, nearest lines of public or private streets, rights-of-way easements for vehicular access, or official plan lines in all other instances. (d) For the purposes of subsection (c) of this section, the term"easement for vehicular access" shall refer to easements across one lot or parcel which provide access to one or more other lots or parcels. Easements for utilities which include vehicular access solely for the maintenance of utilities within such easements shall be excluded from the term"easement for vehicular access." (e) The standards set forth in this section for setbacks are minimum standards. The City Council and Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to increase setbacks where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site characteristics include,but are not limited to,high site visibility where a greater setback is deemed necessary to reduce the appearance of bulkiness of the structure; and/or proximity to other lots or structures where a greater setback is deemed necessary to promote a variety in setbacks to avoid the appearance of uniform house designs or layouts. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 2, Ord. 326, eff. September 16, 1988; § 1, Ord. 361, eff. January 15, 1994; § 1, Ord. 388, eff. August 1, 1997; § 4, Ord. 389, eff. August 15, 1997; § 1, Ord. 391, eff. December 5, 1997; § 1, Ord. 522, eff. December 18, 2010) 10-2.301 Permits. No person shall commence or perform any activity described in subsection(a), (b) or(c) of this section without first obtaining a site development permit. A separate site development permit shall be required for each site on which any action(s) covered by this chapter is (are) to be undertaken. (a) Administrative Review. The Planning Director or designee shall review building applications for amateur radio antennas without the necessity of a site development permit provided that the antenna is in compliance with applicable zoning and building code requirements. (a)(b) Administrative Review. The Planning Director or designee shall review and act on site development applications for the following activities without the necessity of notice and a hearing,provided that the Planning Director may deem it appropriate to conduct a noticed hearing pursuant to subsection(b)(c) of this section for any of the items listed in this subsection(a)(b): (1) The construction or placement of any spa, solar panel, or dish antenna in excess of three (3) feet in height, or thirty(30) square feet in development area; (2) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding two (2) feet but less than four(4) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface; (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding two (2) feet but less than six (6) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface; (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding fifty(50) cubic yards,but less than two hundred fifty(250) cubic yards; (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of one thousand(1,000) square feet,but less than three thousand (3,000) square feet. (3) The construction of any structure, or any addition to a structure,which equals or exceeds six (6) feet in height but is less than nineteen(19) feet in height, or is less than two hundred fifty(250) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen (19) feet,provided that where a second story is to be added to a structure which presently does not include a second story, the site development review shall be processed pursuant to subsection(c) of this section; (4) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of development area,but are less than three thousand (3,000) square feet of development area; (5) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one hundred fifty(150) square feet of floor area,but are less than nine hundred(900) square feet of floor area; (6) The enlargement of an existing private vehicular access or driveway which does not result in a new or relocated access point to a public or private road; (7) The construction or installation of any dish antenna less than twelve(12) feet in diameter; (8) The construction,placement or installation of any structure supporting photovoltaic power generation facilities that is less than six (6) feet in height and less than nine hundred (900) square feet in development area; (9) The construction,placement or installation of photovoltaic power generation facilities on an existing structure that are less than eighteen(18)inches higher than the existing structure; (10) The construction of a secondary dwelling unit. (b)(c) Administrative Review With Notice and Hearing. The Planning Director shall, after notice and public hearing pursuant to Section 10-2.1305(b), review and act on site development applications for the following activities: (1) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding four(4) feet but less than ten (10) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface; (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding six(6) feet but less than thirteen (13) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface; (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding two hundred fifty(250) cubic yards,but less than one thousand(1,000) cubic yards; (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof; equal to or exceeding an area of three thousand (3,000) square feet,but less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed two hundred fifty(250) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19) feet,but are less than five hundred(500) square feet of floor area in excess of nineteen(19) feet in height,provided that where a second story is to be added to a structure which presently does not include a second story, the site development review shall be processed pursuant to subsection(c) of this section; (3) Construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed three thousand(3,000) square feet of development area,but are less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of development area; (4) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed nine hundred (900) square feet of floor area,but are less than one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet of floor area; (5) The construction of a private vehicular access or driveway which results in a new or relocated access point to a public or private road;. (6) The construction or installation of any antenna other than an amateur radio antenna equal to or greater than forty(40) feet in height but less than sixty-three(63) feet in height; (7) The construction or installation of an amateur radio antenna with a fixed height or retracted height greater than 45 feet, or that is higher than 75 feet when fully extended; (7)(8) The construction or installation of any dish antenna equal to or greater than twelve(12) feet in diameter; (8)(9) The construction of any tennis court, sports court, or swimming pool; (9)(10) Landscape plans when required by Planning Commission action; or (4-0)(11) Any other proposal deemed appropriate by the Planning Director for a noticed hearing conducted by the Planning Director. (e)(d) Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission shall review and act on site development applications for the following activities: (1) The construction of a principal residence; (2) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface, (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding thirteen(13) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface, (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof; equal to or exceeding one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof; equal to or exceeding an area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet, (v) For tennis court grading where the maximum cut plus the maximum fill depths would exceed eight(8) feet; (3) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed five hundred(500) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19) feet, or construction of any second story addition to a structure which does not presently include a second story; (4) The construction of any structure or combination of structures which equal or exceed seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of development area; (5) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of floor area; (6) The construction or installation of any antenna equal to or greater than sixty-three (63) feet in height; (7) Any other proposal which exceeds the thresholds set out in subsections (b) and (c); or (8) Any other proposal referred to the Planning Commission by the Planning Director. (d)(e) Exceptions. A site development permit shall not be required for the following: (1) Any activity which is below the thresholds prescribed in Section 10-2.301(b); (2) Excavations below the finished grade for septic tanks and drain fields, tanks, vaults, tunnels, equipment basements, cellars, or footings of buildings or other structures for which a building permit has been issued by the Town; (3) The excavation or removal of vegetation in a public utility easement by public utility companies for the purpose of installing underground utilities; (4) Routine maintenance of roads and driveways; (5) Improvements constructed pursuant to improvement plans approved by the Town as required by approval of a tentative subdivision map; (6) Emergency work required by the City Engineer to mitigate or avoid a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community; (7) Installation of an amateur radio or emergency communications antenna that are no higher than 45 feet fixed or retracted height) and do not extend higher than 75 feet when in use. (§ 3, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 325, eff. August 3, 1988; § 1, Ord. 346, eff. July 19, 1992; § 4, Ord. 384, eff. October 18, 1996; § 4, Ord. 446, eff. June 11, 2006; § 1, Ord. 514, eff. March 26,2009) October 22, 2015 AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ANTENNA GUY WIRES PLANNING SETBACK CITY HEIGHT SUPPORT PARTS ALLOWED IN &ZONING REQUREIMENT LIMIT STRUCTURES ALLOWED IN SETBACK APPROVAL FOR SUPPORT NOTES ALLOWED SETBACK REQUIRED STRUCTURES Atherton 45' or 75' not specified no no no 10 feet from Height limit is 45 feet. Retractable property lines antennas may extend up to 75 feet. Cupertino 55' 2 at 55' yes yes no if 10'front no limit 30' complaint 6' all other vertical antenna with property lines less than 4" regulations diameter exempt Los Altos 65' 1 at 65' yes, except yes no if depends on lot Antenna support structures 42' or 2 at 55' front setback complaint size—largest less allowed anywhere except front with 50'front, 30 setback or in front of house. regulations feet rear Support structures greater than 42' require 50' front and rear setbacks, 30 side setback. Los Gatos not specified not specified not specified not specified yes not specified Complies with PRB-1 and CA 65850.3 Palo Alto 50'typical not specified no no no Amateur radio antennas are treated as accessory structures — 30' height limit; allow greater height to serve needs to amateur radio operator. Portola Valley 50' not specified not specified not specified yes not specified Code is vague and does not specifically refer to amateur radio antennas. Saratoga 65' 1 at 65' yes except yes no if 10'from 2 at 55' front setback complaint property lines with 60'from public regulations right-of-way CL Woodside 70'typical not specified yes yes no unknown Complies with PRB-1 and CA 65850.3 Los Altos Hills 40' not specified no no 40'or 40'front, 30 Site Development permit required higher feet sides and for antennas higher than 40' rear Antennas higher than 63' require Planning Commission public hearing Antenna ei ht an ommunications Effectiveness Second Edition A Guide for City Planners and Amateur Radio Operators By R. Dean Straw,N6BV, and Gerald L. Hall, K1TD Senior Assistant Technical Editor and Retired Associate Technical Editor .A Copyright©1999 ''. The American Radio Relay League, Inc. " y s 225 Main Street . R Newington, CT 06111 `-w 1F, Executive Summary Amateur radio operators, or"hams" as they are called, communicate with stations located all over the world. Some contacts may be local in nature, while others may be literally halfway around the world. Hams use a variety of internationally allocated frequencies to accomplish their communications. Except for local contacts, which are primarily made on Very High and Ultra High Frequencies (VHF and UHF), communicating between any two points on the earth rely primarily on high-frequency(HF) signals propagating through the ionosphere. The earth's ionosphere acts much like.a mirror at heights of about 150 miles. The vertical angle of radiation of a signal launched from an antenna is one of the key factors determining effective communication distances. The ability to communicate over long distances generally requires a low radiation angle, meaning that an antenna must be placed high above the ground in terms of the wavelength of the radio wave being transmitted. A beam type of antenna at a height of 70 feet or more will provide greatly superior performance over the same antenna at 35 feet, all other factors being equal. A height of 120 feet or even higher will provide even more advantages for long-distance communications. To a distant receiving station, a transmitting antenna at 120 feet will provide the effect of approximately 8 to 10 times more transmitting power than the same antenna at 35 feet. Depending on the level of noise and interference, this performance disparity is often enough to mean the difference between making distant radio contact with fairly reliable signals, and being unable to make distant contact at all. Radio Amateurs have a well-deserved reputation for providing vital communications in emergency situations, such as in the aftermath of a severe icestonn, a hurricane or an earthquake. Short-range communications at VHF or UHF frequencies also require sufficient antenna heights above the local terrain to ensure that the antenna has a clear horizon. In terms of safety and aesthetic considerations, it might seem intuitively reasonable for a planning board to want to restrict antenna installations to low heights. However, such height restrictions often prove very counterproductive and frustrating to all parties involved. If an amateur is restricted to low antenna heights, say 35 feet, he will suffer from poor transmission of his own signals as well as poor reception of distant signals. In an attempt to compensate on the transmitting side (he can't do anything about the poor reception problem), he might boost his transmitted power, say from 150 watts to 1,500 watts, the maximum legal limit. This ten-fold increase in power will very significantly increase the potential for interference to telephones, televisions, VCRs and audio equipment in his neighborhood. Instead, if the antenna can be moved farther away from neighboring electronic devices— putting it higher, in other words—this will greatly reduce the likelihood of interference, which decreases at the inverse square of the distance. For example, doubling the distance reduces the potential for interference by 75%. As a further benefit, a large antenna doesn't look anywhere near as large at 120 feet as it does close-up at 35 feet. As a not-so-inconsequential side benefit, moving an antenna higher will also greatly reduce the potential of exposure to electromagnetic fields for neighboring human and animals. Interference and RF exposure standards have been thoroughly covered in recently enacted Federal Regulations. Page 1 Antenna Height and Communications Effectiveness By R. Dean Straw,N6BV, and Gerald L. Hall, K1 TD Senior Assistant Technical Editor and Retired Associate Technical Editor The purpose of this paper is to provide general information about communications effectiveness as related to the physical height of antennas. The intended audience is amateur radio operators and the city and town Planning Boards before which a radio amateur must sometimes appear to obtain building permits for radio towers and antennas. The performance of horizontally polarized antennas at heights of 35, 70 and 120 feet is examined in detail. Vertically polarized arrays are not considered here because at short-wave frequencies, over average terrain and at low radiation angles, they are usually less effective than horizontal antennas. Ionospheric Propagation Frequencies between 3 and 30 megahertz (abbreviated MHz) are often called the "short- wave"bands. In engineering terms this range of frequencies is defined as the high frequency or HF portion of the radio spectrum. HF radio communications between two points that are separated by more than about 15 to 25 miles depend almost solely on propagation of radio signals through the ionosphere. The ionosphere is a region of the Earth's upper atmosphere that is ionized primarily by ultraviolet rays from the Sun. The Earth's ionosphere has the property that it will refract or bend radio waves passing through it. The ionosphere is not a single"blanket" of ionization. Instead, for a number of complex reasons, a few discrete layers are formed at different heights above the earth. From the standpoint of radio propagation, each ionized layer has distinctive characteristics,related primarily to different amounts of ionization in the various layers. The ionized layer that is most useful for HF radio communication is called the F layer. The F layer exists at heights varying from approximately 130 to 260 miles above the earth's surface. Both the layer height and the amount of ionization depend on the latitude from the equator, the time of day, the season of the year, and on the level of sunspot activity. Sunspot activity varies generally in cycles that are approximately 11 years in duration, although short- term bursts of activity may create changes in propagation conditions that last anywhere from a few minutes to several days. The ionosphere is not homogeneous, and is undergoing continual change. In fact, the exact state of the ionosphere at any one time is so variable that is best described in statistical terms. The F layer disappears at night in periods of low and medium solar activity, as the ultraviolet energy required to sustain ionization is no longer received from the Sun. The amount that a passing radio wave will bend in an ionospheric layer is directly related to the intensity of ionization in that layer, and to the frequency of the radio wave. A triangle may be used to portray the cross-sectional path of ionospheric radio-wave travel, as shown in Fig 1, a highly simplified picture of what happens in propagation of radio waves. The base of the triangle is the surface of the Earth between two distant points, and the apex of the triangle is the point representing refraction in the ionosphere. If all the necessary conditions are Page 2 met, the radio wave will travel from the first point on the Earth's surface to the ionosphere, where it will be bent (refracted) sufficiently to travel to the second point on the earth, many hundreds of miles away. _:.::::—-——-1 A.--\ ——- ,\ �_. — \\ Actual /l \ virtual Height41 Height T R. Fig 1—A simplified cross-sectional representation of ionospheric propagation. The simple triangle goes from the Transmitter T up to the virtual height and then back down to the Receiver R. Typically the F layer exists at a height of 150 miles above the Earth at mid-latitudes. The distance between T and R may range from a few miles to 2500 miles under normal propagation conditions. Of course the Earth's surface is not a flat plane, but instead is curved. High-frequency radio waves behave in essentially the same manner as light waves—they tend to travel in straight lines, but with a slight amount of downward bending caused by refraction in the air. For this reason it is not possible to communicate by a direct path over distances greater than about 15 to 25 miles in this frequency range, slightly farther than the optical horizon. The curvature of the earth causes the surface to "fall away" from the path of the radio wave with greater distances. Therefore, it is the ionosphere that permits HF radio communications to be made between points separated by hundreds or even thousands of miles. The range of frequencies from 3 to 30 MHz is unique in this respect, as ionospheric propagation is not consistently supported for any frequencies outside this range. One of the necessary conditions for ionospheric communications is that the radio wave must encounter the ionosphere at the correct angle. This is illustrated in Fig 2, another very simplified drawing of the geometry involved. Radio waves leaving the earth at high elevation angles above the horizon may receive only very slight bending due to refraction, and are then lost to outer space. For the same fixed frequency of operation, as the elevation angle is lowered toward the horizon, a point is reached where the bending of the wave is sufficient to return the wave to the Earth. At successively lower angles, the wave returns to the Earth at increasing distances. Page 3 3 Ionize �;5� �r a 1$ 4�tllw rte"°� � �1' 401 S Critical n Angle � � A /0'‘stance � Transmitter - s B Earth Fig 2—Behavior of radio waves encountering the ionosphere. Rays entering the ionized region at angles above the critical angle are not bent enough to return to Earth and are lost to space. Waves entering at angles below the critical angle reach the Earth at increasingly greater distances as the angle approaches the horizontal. The maximum distance that may normally be covered in a single hop is 2500 miles. Greater distances may be covered with multiple hops. If the radio wave leaves the earth at an elevation angle of zero degrees,just toward the horizon (or just tangent to the earth's surface), the maximum distance that may be reached under usual ionospheric conditions is approximately 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers). However,the Earth itself also acts as a reflector of radio waves coming down from the ionosphere. Quite often a radio signal will be reflected from the reception point on the Earth back into the ionosphere again, reaching the Earth a second time at a still more distant point. As in the case of light waves, the angle of reflection is the same as the angle of incidence, so a wave striking the surface of the Earth at an angle of, say, 15°is reflected upward from the surface at the same angle. Thus, the distance to the second point of reception will be approximately twice the distance of the first. This effect is also illustrated in Fig 2, where the signal travels from the transmitter at the left of the drawing via the ionosphere to Point A, in the center of the drawing. From Point A the signal travels via the ionosphere again to Point B, at the right. A signal traveling from the Earth through the ionosphere and back to the Earth is called a hop. Under some conditions it is possible for as many as four or five signal hops to occur over a radio path, but no more than two or three hops is the norm. In this way,HF communications can be conducted over thousands of miles. Page 4 With regard to signal hopping, two important points should be recognized. First, a significant loss of signal occurs with each hop. Lower layers of the ionosphere absorb energy from the, signals as they pass through, and the ionosphere tends to scatter the radio energy in various directions, rather than confining it to a tight bundle. The earth also scatters the energy at a reflection point. Thus, only a small fraction of the transmitted energy actually reaches a distant receiving point. Again refer to Fig 2. Two radio paths are shown from the transmitter to Point B, a one-hop path and a two-hop path. Measurements indicate that although there can be great variation in the ratio of the two signal strengths in a situation such as this, the signal power received at Point B will generally be from five to ten times greater for the one-hop wave than for the two-hop wave. (The terrain at the mid-path reflection point for the two-hop wave,the angle at which the wave is reflected from the earth, and the condition of the ionosphere in the vicinity of all the refraction points are the primary factors in determining the signal-strength ratio.) Signal levels are generally compared in decibels, abbreviated dB. The decibel is a logarithmic unit. Three decibels difference in signal strengths is equivalent to a power ratio of 2:1; a difference of 10 dB equates to a power ratio of 10:1. Thus the signal loss for an additional hop is about 7 to 10 dB. The additional loss per hop becomes significant at greater distances. For a simplified example, a distance of 4,000 miles can be covered in two hops of 2,000 miles each or in four hops of 1,000 miles each. For illustration, assume the loss for additional hops is 10 dB, or a 1/10 power ratio. Under such conditions, the four-hop signal will be received with only 1/100 the power or 20 dB below that received in two hops. The reason for this is that only 1/10 of the two- hop signal is received for the first additional (3`a) hop, and only 1/10 of that 1/10 for the second additional (4th) hop. It is for this reason that no more than four or five propagation hops are useful; the received signal eventually becomes too weak to be heard. The second important point to be recognized in multihop propagation is that the geometry of the first hop establishes the geometry for all succeeding hops. And it is the elevation angle at the transmitter that sets up the geometry for the first hop. It should be obvious from the preceding discussion that one needs a detailed knowledge of the range of elevation angles for effective communication in order to do a scientific evaluation of a possible communications circuit. The range of angles should be statistically valid over the full 11-year solar sunspot cycle, since the behavior of the Sun determines the changes in the nature of the Earth's ionosphere. ARRL did a very detailed computer study in the early 1990s to determine the angles needed for propagation throughout the world. The results of this study will be examined later, after we introduce the relationship between antenna height and the elevation pattern for an antenna. Horizontal Antennas Over Flat Ground A simple antenna that is commonly used,for HF communications is the horizontal half-wave dipole. The dipole is a straight length of wire (or tubing) into which radio-frequency energy is fed at the center. Because of its simplicity, the dipole may be easily subjected to theoretical performance analyses. Further, the results of proper analyses are well borne out in practice. For these reasons, the half-wave dipole is a convenient performance standard against which other antenna systems can be compared. Because the earth acts as a reflector for HF radio waves, the directive properties of any antenna are modified considerably by the ground underneath it. If a dipole antenna is placed horizontally above the ground, most of the energy radiated downward from the dipole is Page 5 reflected upward. The reflected waves combine with the direct waves (those radiated at angles above the horizontal) in various ways, depending on the height of the antenna, the frequency, and the electrical characteristics of the ground under and around the antenna. At some vertical angles above the horizon, the direct and reflected waves may be exactly in phase—that is, the maximum signal or field strengths of both waves are reached at the same instant at some distant point. In this case the resultant field strength is equal to the sum of the two components. At other vertical angles the two waves may be completely out of phase at some distant point—that is, the fields are maximum at the same instant but the phase directions are opposite. The resultant field strength in this case is the difference between the two. At still other angles the resultant field will have intermediate values. Thus, the effect of the ground is to increase the intensity of radiation at some vertical angles and to decrease it at others. The elevation angles at which the maxima and minima occur depend primarily on the antenna height above ground. (The electrical characteristics of the ground have some slight effect too.) For simplicity here, we consider the ground to be a perfectly conducting,perfectly flat reflector, so that straightforward trigonometric calculations can be made to determine the relative amount of radiation intensity at any vertical angle for any dipole height. Graphs from such calculations are often plotted on rectangular axes to show best resolution over particularly useful ranges of elevation angles, although they are also shown on polar plots so that both the front and back of the response can be examined easily. Fig 3 shows an overlay of the polar elevation- pattern responses of two dipoles at different heights over perfectly conducting flat ground. The lower dipole is located a half wavelength above ground, while the higher dipole is located one wavelength above ground. The pattern of the lower antenna peaks at an elevation angle of about 30°, while the higher antenna has two main lobes, one peaking at 15° and the other at about 50° elevation angle. Dipole,1-Wave High 0 ds Dipole,1/2-Wave High 0 deg. Fig 3–Comparison of elevation responses for two dipoles: one %-wavelength high, and the other 1-wavelength high. In the plots shown in Fig 3, the elevation angle above the horizon is represented in the same fashion that angles are measured on a protractor. The concentric circles are calibrated to represent ratios of field strengths, referenced to the strength represented by the outer circle. The circles are calibrated in decibels. Diminishing strengths are plotted toward the center. Page 6 You may have noted that antenna heights are often discussed in terms of wavelengths. The reason for this is that the length of a radio wave is inversely proportional to its frequency. Therefore a fixed physical height will represent different electrical heights at different radio frequencies. For example, a height of 70 feet represents one wavelength at a frequency of 14 MHz. But the same 70-foot height represents a half wavelength for a frequency of 7 MHz and only a quarter wavelength at 3.5 MHz. On the other hand, 70 feet is 2 wavelengths high at 28 MHz. The lobes and nulls of the patterns shown in Fig 3 illustrate what was described earlier, that the effect of the ground beneath an antenna is to increase the intensity of radiation at some vertical elevation angles and to decrease it at others. At a height of a half wavelength, the radiated energy is strongest at a rather high elevation angle of 30°. This would represent the situation for a 14-MHz dipole 35 feet off the ground. As the horizontal antenna is raised to greater heights, additional lobes are formed, and the lower ones move closer to the horizon. The maximum amplitude of each of the lobes is roughly equal. As may be seen in Fig 3, for an antenna height of one wavelength, the energy in the lowest lobe is strongest at 15°. This would represent the situation for a 14-MHz dipole 70 feet high. The elevation angle of the lowest lobe for a horizontal antenna above perfectly conducting ground may be determined mathematically: r 0.251 9 =sin- I\ J h Where 9=the wave or elevation angle h=the antenna height above ground in wavelengths In short, the higher the horizontal antenna, the lower is the lowest lobe of the pattern. As a very general rule of thumb, the higher an HF antenna can be placed above ground, the farther it will provide effective communications because of the resulting lower radiation angle. This is true for any horizontal antenna over real as well as theoretically perfect ground. You should note that the nulls in the elevation pattern can play an important role in communications—or lack of communication. If a signal arrives at an angle where the antenna system exhibits a deep null, communication effectiveness will be greatly reduced. It is thus quite possible that an antenna can be too high for good communications efficiency on a particular frequency. Although this rarely arises as a significant problem on the amateur bands below 14 MHz, we'll discuss the subject of optimal height in more detail later. Actual earth does not reflect all the radio-frequency energy striking it; some absorption takes place. Over real earth, therefore, the patterns will be slightly different than those shown in Fig 3, however the differences between theoretical and perfect earth ground are not significant for the range of elevation angles necessary for good HF communication. Modern computer programs can do accurate evaluations, taking all the significant ground-related factors into account. Beam Antennas For point-to-point communications, it is beneficial to concentrate the radiated energy into a beam that can be aimed toward a distant point. An analogy can be made by comparing the light Page 7 from a bare electric bulb to that from an automobile headlight,which incorporates a built-in focusing lens. For illuminating a distant point, the headlight is far more effective. Antennas designed to concentrate the radiated energy into a beam are called,naturally enough, beam antennas. For a fixed amount of transmitter power fed to the transmitting antenna, beam antennas provide increased signal strength at a distant receiver. In radio communications, the use of a beam antenna is also beneficial during reception, because the antenna pattern for transmission is the same for reception. A beam antenna helps to reject signals from unwanted directions, and in effect boosts the strength of signals received from the desired direction. The increase in signal or field strength a beam antenna offers is frequently referenced to a dipole antenna in free space (or to another theoretical antenna in free space called an isotropic antenna)by a term called gain. Gain is commonly expressed in decibels. The isotropic antenna is defined as being one that radiates equally well in all directions, much like the way a bare lightbulb radiates essentially equally in all directions. One particularly well known type of beam antenna is called a Yagi, named after one of its Japanese inventors. Different varieties of Yagi antennas exist, each having somewhat different characteristics. Many television antennas are forms of multi-element Yagi beam antennas. In the next section of this paper, we will refer to a four-element Yagi, with a gain of 8.5 dBi in free space, exclusive of any influence due to ground. This antenna has 8.5 dB more gain than an isotropic antenna in free space and it achieves that gain by squeezing the pattern in certain desired directions. Think of a normally round balloon and imagine squeezing that balloon to elongate it in one direction. The increased length in one direction comes at the expense of length in other directions. This is analogous to how an antenna achieves more signal strength in one direction, at the expense of signal strength in other directions. The elevation pattern for a Yagi over flat ground will vary with the electrical height over ground in exactly the same manner as for a simpler dipole antenna. The Yagi is one of the most common antennas employed by radio amateurs, second in popularity only to the dipole. Putting the Pieces Together In Fig 4, the elevation angles necessary for communication from a particular transmitting site, in Boston, Massachusetts, to the continent of Europe using the 14-MHz amateur band are shown in the form of a bargraph. For each elevation angle from 1°to 30°, Fig 4 shows the percentage of time when the 14-MHz band is open at each elevation angle. For example, 5°is the elevation angle that occurs just over 12% of the time when the band is available for communication, while 11°occurs about 10% of the time when the band is open. The useful range of elevation angles that must accommodated by an amateur station wishing to talk to Europe from Boston is from 1°to 28°. In addition to the bar-graph elevation-angle statistics shown in Fig 4, the elevation pattern responses for three Yagi antennas, located at three different heights above flat ground, are overlaid on the same graph. You can easily see that the 120-foot antenna is the best antenna to cover the most likely angles for this particular frequency, although it suffers at the higher elevation angles on this particular propagation path, beyond about 12°. If, however, you can accept somewhat lower gain at the lowest angles,the 70-foot antenna would arguably be the best overall choice to cover all the elevation angles. Page 8 Antenna Response Versus Height 14 MHz,Boston to Europe 32 16 28– `. 8•=u'ff-e r_• 14 �' \ '1 ter-_y-Y712 Y--7-V / i 0320 – 1 T F\ t `I'\ 10 ■f * 0 \ p c.16 • • 8 '� • . o r \ 0 12---;----i--- 7 1111. J -a 6 :±j/j1Jiii \ - 4 ill 1 1 0 AII iililtltiti { III ItiilII 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle,Degrees ®%of Openings-•--120'Yagi -•-70'Yagi -35'Yagi I Fig 4—Elevation response patterns of three Yagis at 120, 70 and 35 feet, at 14 MHz over flat ground. The patterns are overlaid with the statistical elevation- angles for the path from Boston to continental Europe over the entire 11-year solar sunspot cycle. Clearly, the 120-foot antenna is the best choice to cover the low angles needed, but it suffers some at higher angles. Other graphs are needed to show other target receiving areas around the world. For comparison, Fig 5 is also for the 14-MHz band, but this time from Boston to Sydney,Australia. The peak angle for this very long path is about 2°, occurring 19% of the time when the band is actually open for communication. Here, even the 120-foot high antenna is not ideal.Nonetheless, at a moderate 5° elevation angle,the 120-foot antenna is still 10 dB better than the one at 35 feet. Fig 4 and Fig 5 have portrayed the situation for the 14-MHz amateur band,the most popular and heavily utilized HF band used by radio amateurs. During medium to high levels of solar sunspot activity, the 21 and 28-MHz amateur bands are open during the daytime for long- distance communication. Fig 6 illustrates the 28-MHz elevation-angle statistics, compared to the elevation patterns for the same three antenna heights shown in Fig 5. Clearly, the elevation response for the 120-foot antenna has a severe (and undesirable)null at 8°. The 120-foot antenna is almost 3.4 wavelengths high on 28 MHz (whereas it is 1.7 wavelengths high on 14 MHz.)For many launch angles, the 120-foot high Yagi on 28 MHz would simply be too high. The radio amateur who must operate on a variety of frequencies might require two or more towers at different heights to maintain essential elevation coverage on all the authorized bands. Antennas can sometimes be mounted at different heights on a single supporting tower, although it is more difficult to rotate antennas that are "vertically stacked" around the tower to point in all the needed directions. Further, closely spaced antennas tuned to different frequencies usually interact electrically with each other, often causing severe performance degradation. Page 9 Antenna Response Versus Height 14 MHz,Boston to Sydney,Australia 32 16 28— �c'-s'i----6-a=w=*:s-o, 14 • r�:•,..„ d 24— r ,+ .'r / \12 ■ * •,:v' a20— / ... ,�r� �• 10 al 16--- -I \7 • 8 I / 7 0 .,, O ` 12— ♦ 6 i w s 4 2 14 ;� ,, . 0 I l i 1 1 f f 1111 1 1 1 I f 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1'1 1 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle,Degrees El%of Openings-.--120'Yagi -.-70'Yagi -f-35'Yagi Fig 5—Elevation responses for same antennas as Fig 4, but for a longer-range path from Boston to Sydney, Australia. Note that the prevailing elevation angles are very low. Antenna Response Versus Height 28 MHz,Boston to Europe 32 16 28— eta m-°-.--•'••r r'0-°-r-v rT.r 14 24 a ■ \ • i \kr. /0 / . \ \ cl , 7'. \-. .t,. / 10 �/ • \ I 8-16 — / 5" i A + r } 8 'g ' — O j i 12 • t -' 6 I 1 •. 11 I �+ • ' 8--j N --ote t '0 ;IJiIJ:IIj\ij;I;Ir, I I fill 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle,Degrees ®%of Openings-is-120'Yagi -•-70'Yagi -v-35'Yagi Fig 6—Elevation angles compared to antenna responses for 28-MHz path from Boston to Europe. The 70-foot antenna is probably the best overall choice on this path. Page 10 During periods of low to moderate sunspot activity(about 50% of the 11-year solar cycle), the 14-MHz band closes down for propagation in the early evening. A radio amateur wishing to continue communication must shift to a lower frequency band. The next most highly used band below the 14-MHz band is the 7-MHz amateur band. Fig 7 portrays a 7-MHz case for another transmitting site, this time from San Francisco, California, to the European continent.Now, the range of necessary elevation angles is from about 1° to 16°, with a peak statistical likelihood of about 16% occurring at an elevation of 3°. At this low elevation angle, a 7-MHz antenna must be very high in the air to be effective. Even the 120-foot antenna is hardly optimal for the peak angle of 3°. The 200-foot antenna shown would be far better than a 120-foot antenna. Further, the 35-foot high antenna is greatly inferior to the other antennas on this path and would provide far less capabilities, on both receiving and transmitting. Antenna Response Versus Height 7 MHz, San Francisco to Europe 32 16 28— a b.yi.t_s 14 1ew° -ro-a-o-o 24— A P A.. A 12 En 20— ' d • • n "Al __.-,��r-10 o' n 6,5 � lo— � •• �'•, �•TTJ r o.8 o • � ¢ C7 Y' ' 8--- T7 4 i. .0l iiiI!k; . , iflliliilllllll 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle,Degrees ®%of Openings-U-120'Yagi -o-70'Yagi -•35'Yagi -A-200'Yagi Fig 7—Comparison of antenna responses for another propagation path: from San Francisco to Europe on 7 MHz. Here, even a 120-foot high antenna is hardly optimal for the very low elevation angles required on this very long path. In fact, the 200-foot high antenna is far better suited for this path. What If the Ground Isn't Flat? In the preceding discussion, antenna radiation patterns were computed for antennas located over flat ground. Things get much more complicated when the exact local terrain surrounding a tower and antenna are taken into account. In the last few years, sophisticated ray-tracing computer models have become available that can calculate the effect that local terrain has on the elevation patterns for real-world HF installations—and each real-world situation is indeed different. Page 11 For simplicity, first consider an antenna on the top of a hill with a constant slope downward. The general effect is to lower the effective elevation angle by an amount equal to the downslope of the hill. For example, if the downslope is–3° for a long distance away from the tower and the flat-ground peak elevation angle is 10° (due to the height of the antenna), then the net result will be 10° – 3° =7°peak angle. However, if the local terrain is rough, with many bumps and valleys in the desired direction, the response can be modified considerably. Fig 8 shows the fairly complicated terrain profile for Jan Carman, K5MA, in the direction of Japan. Jan is located on one of the tallest hills in West Falmouth, Massachusetts. Within 500 feet of his tower is a small hill with a water tower on the top, and then the ground quickly falls away, so that at a distance of about 3000 feet from the tower base, the elevation has fallen to sea level, at 0 feet. Terrain Towards Japan, K5MA West Falmouth,MA on Cape Cod 200 I 7. 150 .-- J • 100— ml:) 2 < 1 50 — : f \ 1\T 1 1 0 f 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Feet From Tower Base Fig 8—Terrain profile from location of K5MA,Jan Carman, in West Falmouth,MA,towards Japan. This is a moderately complicated real-world terrain on one of the highest hills on Cape Cod. The computed responses toward Japan from this location, using a 120- and a 70-foot high Yagi, are shown in Fig 9, overlaid for comparison with the response for a 120-foot Yagi over flat ground. Over this particular terrain, the elevation pattern for the 70-foot antenna is actually better than that of the 120-foot antenna for angles below about 3°, but not for medium angles! The responses for each height oscillate around the pattern for flat ground—all due to the complex reflections and diffractions occurring off the terrain. At an elevation angle of 5°, the situation reverses itself and the gain is now higher for the 120-foot-high antenna than for the 70-foot antenna. A pair of antennas on one tower would be required to cover all the angles properly. To avoid any electrical interactions between similar antennas on one tower, two towers would be much better. Compared to the flat-ground situation, the responses of real-world antenna can be very complicated due to the interactions with the local terrain. Page 12 Antenna Response Versus Height 14 MHz,K5MA QTH to Japan 32 16 28 - 1 F 14 1 /M ,. / u■Jra v 12 r 20 - T 10 ■ s11 /• 16- w' o . ;' 2 1� X 12 --rill `• / 6/ C7 8 IS 1,`Z t 4 1 4 , `J , 2 0 I I I i f 11111 I I I 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle,Degrees %Openings- -K5MA,70' -.-KSMIA 120' -v-120'Flat 1 Fig 9—Computed elevation responses of 120- and 70-foot high Yagis, at the K5MA location on Cape Cod, in the direction of Japan and over flat ground, for comparison. The elevation response of the real-world antenna has been significantly modified by the local terrain. Fig 10 shows the situation for the same Cape Cod location, but now for 7 MHz. Again, it is clear that the 120-foot high Yagi is superior by at least 3 dB (equivalent to twice the power) to the 70-foot high antenna at the statistical elevation angle of 6°. However, the response of the real-world 120-foot high antenna is still up some 2 dB from the response for an identical antenna over flat ground at this angle. On this frequency, the local terrain has helped boost the gain at the medium angles more than a similar antenna 120 feet over flat ground. The gain is even greater at lower angles, say at 1° elevation, where most signals take off, statistically speaking. Putting the antenna up higher, say 150 feet, will help the situation at this location, as would adding an additional Yagi at the 70-foot level and feeding both antennas in phase as a vertical stack. Although the preceding discussion has been in terms of the transmitting antenna, the same principles apply when the antenna is used for reception. A high antenna will receive low-angle signals more effectively than will a low antenna. Indeed, amateur operators know very well that "If you can't hear them, you can't talk to them." Stations with tall towers can usually hear far better than their counterparts with low installations. The situation becomes even more difficult for the next lowest amateur band at 3.5 MHz, where optimal antenna heights for effective long-range communication become truly heroic! Towers that exceed 120 feet are commonplace among amateurs wishing to do serious 3.5-MHz long-distance work. Page 13 Antenna Response Versus Height 7 MHz,K5MA QTH to Japan 36 18 32 16 28 ; `i ���`�_:. -v_ 14 24I`_•-------- - 20 ■A • 10 ,(!)': _ F 16 ` : ■■~■ -8 12 a;/ 6 8- 4 4 - - - -2 0 I�I'I' f I i i�l�l i 1■f I f l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle,Degrees %Openings-■--K5MA,70' -•-K5MA 120' F--120'Flat I Fig 10—Elevation response on 7 MHz from K5MA location towards Japan on 7 MHz. The 120-foot high Yagi is definitely superior to the one only 70-feet high. The 3.5 and 7-MHz amateur bands are,however, not always used strictly for long-range work. Both bands are crucial for providing communications throughout a local area, such as might be necessary in times of a local emergency. For example, earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes have often disrupted local communications—because telephone and power lines are down and because local police and fire-department VHF/UHF repeaters are thus knocked out of action. Radio amateurs often will use the 3.5 and 7-MHz bands to provide communications out beyond the local area affected by the disaster, perhaps into the next county or the next metropolitan area. For example, an earthquake in San Francisco might see amateurs using emergency power providing communications through amateurs in Oakland across the San Francisco Bay, or even as far away as Los Angeles or Sacramento. These places are where commercial power and telephone lines are still intact, while most power and telephones might be down in San Francisco itself Similarly, a hurricane that selectively destroys certain towns on Cape Cod might find amateurs in these towns using 3.5 or 7.0 MHz to contact their counterparts in Boston or New York. However, in order to get the emergency messages through, amateurs must have effective antennas. Most such relatively local emergency situations require towers of moderate height, less than about 100 feet tall typically. Antenna Height and Interference Extensive Federal Regulations cover the subject of interference to home electronic devices. It is an unfortunate fact of life, however, that many home electronic devices (such as stereos,TVs, telephones and VCRs) do not meet the Federal standards. They are simply inadequately designed to be resistant to RF energy in their vicinity. Thus, a perfectly legal amateur-radio transmitter may cause interference to a neighbor's VCR or TV because cost-saving shortcuts were taken in Page 14 the design and manufacture of these home entertainment devices. Unfortunately, it is difficult to explain to an irate neighbor why his brand-new$1000 stereo is receiving the perfectly legitimate transmissions by a nearby radio operator. The potential for interference to any receiving device is a function of the transmitter power, transmitter frequency, receiver frequency, and most important of all, the proximity of the transmitter to the potential receiver. The transmitted field intensity decreases as the inverse square of the distance. This means that doubling the height of an antenna from 35 to 70 feet will reduce the potential for interference by 75%. Doubling the height again to 140 feet high would reduce the potential another 75%. Higher is better to prevent interference in the first place! Recently enacted Federal Regulations address the potential for harm to humans because of exposure to electromagnetic fields. Amateur-radio stations rarely have problems in this area, because they use relatively low transmitting power levels and intermittent duty cycles compared to commercial operations, such as TV or FM broadcast stations. Nevertheless, the potential for RF exposure is again directly related to the distance separating the transmitting antenna and the human beings around it. Again, doubling the height will reduce potential exposure by 75%. The higher the antenna, the less there will any potential for significant RF exposure. THE WORLD IS A VERY COMPLICATED PLACE It should be pretty clear by now that designing scientifically valid communication systems is an enormously complex subject. The main complications come from the vagaries of the medium itself, the Earth's ionosphere. However, local terrain can considerably complicate the analysis also. The main points of this paper may be summarized briefly: The radiation elevation angle is the key factor determining effective communication distances beyond line-of-sight. Antenna height is the primary variable under control of the station builder, since antenna height affects the angle of radiation. In general, placing an amateur antenna system higher in the air enhances communication capabilities and also reduces chances for electromagnetic interference with neighbors. Page 15 • • ATTACHMENT 5 • • Cite as FCC DA 99-2569 • •- • Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C.. 20554 In the Matter of ) • •) Modification and Clarification of Policies and ) • Procedures Governing Siting and Maintenance ) RM-:8763 • of Amateur Radio Antennas and Support ) • Structures, and Amendment of Section 97.15 ) of the Commission's Rules Governing the ) Amateur Radio Service. ) . ORDER . . Adopted: November 18, 1999 Released: November 19, 1999 • • • By the Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: • I. Introduction and Executive Summary • 1. In this Order, we address a Petition for Rule Making (Petition) , filed, on February 7, 1996, by The American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL or Petitioner) , asking that the Commission review and modify its policies and ' procedures pertaining to the Commission's limited preemption of state and local regulations affecting amateur radio facilities. The Petitioner. also requests that the Commission amend Section 97.15 of the Commission's Rules to • clarify the Commission's preemptive intent with respect to such state and - local regulations.1 We have carefully 'reviewed the requests, and the . supporting arguments, and conclude that the modifications and clarifications suggested by Petitioner would not serve the public interest, convenience and • necessity. Therefore, the Petition is denied. • • II. Background • 2. In 1984, ARRL petitioned the Commission for a declaratory ruling that, would limit local regulatory control of amateur stations.2 It was , • believed that local building codes and zoning regulations ' had limited the • communications ability of licensees in the amateur service.3 An outdoor antenna is a necessary component for most types of amateur 'service • communications.' Municipalities and local land use regulatory authorities • • 1 ARRL Petition for Rule Making, filed February 7, 1996, at (RM-8763) . • 2 ARRL Request for Issuance of a Declaratory Ruling, filed July 16, 1984. • 3 Petition at 3. • 4 Id. regulated the heights, placement and dimensions of antennas.5 In PRB-1, resolving the ARRL's declaratory ruling petition, the Commission noted that these regulations often result in conflict because the effectiveness of the communications that emanate from an amateur radio station is directly dependent upon the location and the height of the antenna.6 Consequently in PRB-1, the Commission enunciated the Federal policy toward state and local regulatory restrictions on amateur station facilities.' 3. In the MO&O, the Commission declared a limited preemption of state and local regulations governing amateur station facilities, including antennas and support structures.8 The Commission determined that there was a strong Federal interest in promoting amateur service communications, and that state and local regulations that preclude amateur service communications are in direct conflict with Federal objectives and must be preempted.9 Furthermore, the Commission stated that a local ordinance or zoning regulation must make reasonable accommodation for amateur communications and must constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose.10 However, the Commission did not extend the limited preemption to covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) in deeds and in condominium by- laws because they are contractual agreements between private parties." Petitioner, inter alia, requests the extension of the limited preemption to such CC&Rs.12 4. Petitioner also requests other clarifications to PRB-1, as follows: (a) that local governments must make a reasonable accommodation for amateur radio antennas, rather than balancing their own local interests against the Federal interest in amateur radio; (b) that local governments could not specify a lower height maximum than sixty to seventy feet for an amateur radio antennna structure; (c) that overly burdensome conditions in land use authorizations or imposition of excessive costs is preempted; (d) that denial of a particular use permit or special exception does not relieve a local government from having to make a reasonable accommodation for amateur communications; (e) that conditional use permit procedures can be used to regulate amateur radio antennas, but only as an adjunct to a reasonable height 5 Id. 6 Federal preemption of state and local regulations pertaining to amateur radio faciliti orandum Opinion and Order, PRB-1, 101 FCC 2d 952, 953 1 3 (1985) (MO&O or PRB-1) . 7 MO&O. 8 Id. at 960 1 24. 9 Id. at 959, 960 1 24. to Id. at 960 1 25. 11 MO&O at 954 1 7 and 960 at 1 25 n.6. 12 Petition at 22 and 23. 2 restriction; and, (f) that land use restrictions pertaining to safety that limit the overall height of an amateur radio antenna structure, or restrict installation of an antenna altogether, are invalid unless there is no other alternative available that is less burdensome and still accomplishes the same purpose.13 The Commission sought comment on the Petition on February 21, 1996.14 5. Since the adoption of the Commission's limited premption policy in PRB-1, Congress enacted Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,15 concerning the siting of personal wireless service facilities. We note that Section 704 of the Telecom Act encompasses commercial mobile radio services, unlicensed wireless services and common carrier wireless exchange access services.16 Thus, Section 704 of the Telecom Act, which, among other things, bars state or local regulations that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision ofpersonal wireless services, does not apply to stations or facilities in the amateur radio service. III. Discussion 6. The Commission's policy with respect to restrictive covenants is clearly stated in the MO&O establishing a limited preemption of state and local regulations. In the MO&O, the Commission stated that PRB-1 does not reach restrictive covenants in private contractual agreements.17 The Petitioner argues that enforcement of a covenant by the court constitutes "state action", thus converting what otherwise would be a private matter into a matter of state regulation and, thus, subject to the Commission's limited preemption policy.18 Notwithstanding the clear policy statement that was set forth in PRB-1 excluding restrictive covenants in private contractual agreements as being outside the reach of our limited preemption,19 we nevertheless strongly encourage associations of homeowners and private contracting parties to follow the principle of reasonable accommodation and to apply it to any and all instances of amateur service communications where they may be involved. Although we do not hesitate to offer such encouragement, we are not persuaded by the Petition or the comments in support thereof that specific rule provisions bringing the private restrictive covenants within the 13 Id. at i. 14 Public Notice, Petitions for Rulemaking Filed, Report No. 2122, Feb. 21, 1996. Eight• ments were received. Two of the comments contained numerous signatures of amateur operat icating that they supported the Petition. 15 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 704; 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (Telecom A ified at 47 U.S.C. § 332. 16 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) (7) (C) (i) . 17 MO&O at 954 4 7 and at 960, 4 25 n.6. 18 Petition at 22 and 23. 19 MO&O at 954 ¶ 7 and 960 at 4 25 n.6. 3 ambit of PRB-1 are necessary or appropriate at this time. Having reached this conclusion, we need not resolve the issue of whether, or under what circumstances, judicial enforcement of private covenants would constitute "state action." 7. Petitioner further requests a clarification of PRB-1 that local authorities must not engage in balancing their enactments against the interest that the Federal Government has in amateur radio, but rather must reasonably accommodate amateur communications.20 We do not believe a clarification is necessary because the PRB-1 decision precisely stated the principle of "reasonable accommodation". In PRB-1, the Commission stated: "Nevertheless, local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose.i21 Given this express Commission language, it is clear that a "balancing of interests" approach is not appropriate in this context. 8. Petitioner also requests establishment of sixty or seventy feet as the minimum height in a metropolitan area for an amateur antenna structure so that local authorities could not specify a lower height maximum for an amateur antenna.22 Petitioner argues that such a minimum height would minimize interaction between amateur stations and home electronic equipment and provide reasonable antenna efficiency at different amateur frequencies, MF through UHF and beyond.23 Petitioner also contends that structures of that height and above can be so located as to minimize the visual impact, and that retractable antennas could be used to address unusual aesthetic situations, such as in historic or scenic zones.24 We do not believe that it would be prudent or that it is appropriate to set such a standard for amateur antennas and their supporting structures because of varying circumstances that may occur when a particular antenna configuration is under consideration, such as terrain or man-made obstructions. We believe that the policy enunciated in PRB-1 is sound. PRB-1 did not specify a particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate.25 The Commission did not want to mandate specific provisions that a local authority must include in a zoning ordinance.26 We continue to believe that the standards the Commission set, that is, "reasonable accommodation" and "minimum practicable regulation", have 20 Petition at 27. 21 MO&O at 960, 1 25. 22 Petition at 32 and 33. 23 Id. 24 Id. at 34. 25 MO&O at 960, 4 25. 26 Id. 4 worked relatively well. Therefore, we are not persuaded that changes to the Commission's policy of leaving the specifics of zoning regulations to the local authority, including provisions concerning the height of an amateur antenna, are necessary at this time. 9. Petitioner further requests that the Commission specifically preempt overly burdensome conditions and excessive costs levied by a local authority in connection with engineering certifications or issuance of antenna permits.27 Specifically, Petitioner argues that assessment of unusual costs for processing an antenna permit application cannot be used by the local authority as a means of indirectly prohibiting the antenna.28 Petitioner states that the same argument is true of conditional use permits that require an amateur antenna to be screened from view by the installation of mature vegetation.29 According to the ARRL, if full vegetative screening cannot be accomplished in a cost-effective manner, a condition requiring such screening is a de facto prohibition.30 Although Petitioner concedes that a municipality may require amateur operators to pay reasonable expenses to obtain amateur permits, the Petitioner objects to the imposition of unreasonable expenses because such expenses would discourage or prohibit the installation of amateur antennas.31 Petitioner also requests that the Commission declare as invalid certain land use restrictions based on safety considerations, such as setbacks on the property where the antenna is to be erected, unless there are no other alternatives that would accomplish the same purpose.32 Finally, Petitioner requests that the Commission specify that, if a local authority denies a conditional use permit or a special exception request, it still has the obligation to make a reasonable accommodation for amateur communications.33 We return once again to the position that we have stated earlier in this Order; that is, that the standards of "reasonable accommodation" and "minimum practicable regulation" are sufficiently efficacious as guideposts for state, local and municipal authorities. We believe that the effectiveness of these guidelines or standards can be gauged by the fact that a local zoning authority would recognize at the outset, when crafting zoning regulations, the potential impact that high antenna towers in heavily-populated urban or suburban locales could have and, thus, would draft their regulations accordingly. In addition, we believe that PRB-1 's guidelines brings to a local zoning board's awareness that the very least regulation necessary for the welfare of the community must be the aim of its regulations so that such 27 Petition at 34. 28 Id. at 35. 29 Id. at 36. 30 Id. 31 Id. at 38. 32 Id. at 44 and 45. 33 Id. at 39. 5 • • • • • • • regulations will not impinge on the needs of amateur operators to engage in - amateur communications. • IV. Conclusion 10. In our view, Petitioner 'has not demonstrated that the clarifications requested are necessary. Accordingly, we conclude that the public interest would best be served. by denying the ARRL request for modification and clarification of Commission policies and procedures concerning the limited preemption of state and local regulations that affect amateur service radio facilities. • V. Ordering Clause • • • 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154 (i) and 303(r) , the petition for rule making, RM-8763, filed by The American Radio • Relay- League, Inc. on February 7, 1996, IS HEREBY DENIED. This .action is taken . under the delegated authority contained in Sections 0.131 and 0.331 .of. the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131 and 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION • • Kathleen O'Brien Ham • Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau j :\prd\depont\prbclor2.mjd • • • Source: http: //www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992569.wp • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 - ATTACHMENT 6a From: Robert Leland Finailto:robleland@vahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:26 PM To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Cc:Adler Yu<adlervu@att.net>; Rob Work<robert.a.leland@ampf.com> Subject: Re:.comments'on Antenna Ordinance To: Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Subject: Antenna Ordinance I am concerned that many parties involved in proposing the new Antenna Ordinance are in fact Ham Radio operators and.have not adequately created a balanced committee to resolve this issue. The very fact that the instigator and chief architect of the ordinance openly refers to those who oppose him as"Antenna Nazis" shouldbe proof enough. This amounts to a maximum conflict of interest. Comments on PRB-1 should be related to emergency communications involving emergency communications only. It should not extend tO the right to block views with multi-filament antennas that are used primarily,fpr,hgbbyists l no_timershould a large multi-filament antenna be allowed to block a neighbor's view, even on a temporary basis. Should a resident insist on the right to block a neighbor'sview tempprarily,with an;extendable single-pole emergency antenna, there should still be an arbitration process or hearing to" provide-the,affected neighbor a chance to impact the process. There'sliould be n"o automatic rules'to override-our'rights,especially in a city that so heavily regulates all other aspects of construction permits with respect to retaining the rural aspect of our town. Sincerely, Robert Leland Joan Corley 12694 La Cresta Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Suzanne Avila From: Robert Leland <robleland@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday,:March 29, 2016 9:30 PM To: Suzanne Avila;Adler Yu;Andrew Kirk; Bill Gibbons; Carol Smith; Diane Ciesinski; dmcmllan@pacbell:net; DruAndersn@aol.com;Inga de Ruyter;Jim Waschura; Nick Dunckel; Ray Egan; Rodger Barkoff; Sam Wood; Scott Overstreet; Stephen Chan;Steve Kelem Subject: Re:April 7 Planning Commission meeting I hope it's not too late to provide a comment- I would like to ask that any special committee set upto approve Antenna proposals(without public comment)should consist of impartial citizens that are not involved in Ham Radio or the Emergency Commission. This should be obvious. thanks Rob Leland From:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov> To:Adler Yu <adleryu@att.net>;Andrew Kirk<andrewk962@yahoo.com>; Bill Gibbons <bill@gibbons.org>; Carol Smith <carolsmith2@gmail.com>; Diane Ciesinski<diane@ciesinski.com>; "dmcmllan@pacbell.net"<dmcmllan@pacbell.net>; "DruAndersn@aol.com"<DruAndersn@aol:com>; Inga de Ruyter<inga.deruyter@gmail.com>; Jim Waschura <jim.waschura@gmail.com>; Nick Dunckel <ndunckel@earthlink.net>; Ray Egan <r.egan@computer.org>; Robert Leland <robleland@yahoo.com>; Rodger Barkoff<rodger@rodgerbarkoff.com>; Sam Wood <sam@msr.com>; Scott Overstreet <scott@becklawfirm.com>; Stephen Chan<schanhb@pacbell.net>; Steve Kelem <steve@kelem.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 10:47 AM Subject: April 7 Planning Commission meeting Interested residents: This is a reminder that the Planning_Commission will be considering a revised draft Antenna Ordinance on Thursday, April 7, 2016. Themeeting starts at 7:00 p.m. The Antenna Ordinance will be the first item on the agenda. Written comments that were previously submitted will be provided as attachmentsto the staff report. The staff report and draft ordinance will be available for review on the Town's web-site on Friday afternoon. Suzanne Suzanne Avila, AICP Planning Director 650.947.2507 savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov 1 ATTACHMENT 6b Suzanne Avila From: Deborah Padovan Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 9:05 AM To: Suzanne Avila;Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: Ham radio antenna height For the Planning Commission on March 10. Original Message From: Diane Ciesinski [mailto:diane@ciesinski.com] Sent::Tuesday, March 01,2016 8:49 AM To: Deborah Padovan<dpadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Subject: Ham radio antenna height Hello, I am opposed to increased height limits for radio antennas if views are impacted. Thanks! Diane Ciesinski 650-714-8101 diane@ciesinski.com 1 ATTACHMENT 6c Suzanne Avila From: Jim Waschura <jim.waschura@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,:March 01, 2016 12:12 PM To: Deborah Padovan; Suzanne Avila;Jaime McAvoy Subject: Submission to Staff Report for March 10 Special Planning Commission meeting relating to antenna ordinances Attachments: Antennas,and the Law by Wayne Overbeck.doc;To Planning Committee Re Zoning.. Changes, 2015-10-18 (1).pdf To TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION From: Jim Waschura,Town Resident ' . Re: Submission to Staff Report for March 10 Special Planning Commission meeting relating to antenna ordinances Date: March 1,2016 To whom it may concern: I am dismayed that the revised proposal for LAH antenna ordinance changes to ease the permitting process:for amateur radio antennas has moved in the direction it has. I thought it was clear at the last planning commission meeting,that the will of the majority represented by the motion carried by the planning commission was to take neighbor concerns into account, and instead, the subcommittee has gone the other direction by increasing the height of allowable antennas and in fact making a new classification for even larger antennas that can be approved without a hearing if neighbors don't file their objections within a'shortened time span. LAH has other municipal codes pertaining to preservation of views that are incompatible with the destruction of views these antennas can cause. For example, existing codes describe "View" as, "a scene from the primary living area of a residence. The term"view"includes both upslope and downslope scenes,but is generally medium or long range in nature, as opposed to short range," and says, "Views include,but are not limited to, skylines,bridges, landmarks, distant cities, distinctive geologic features,hillside terrains, wooded canyons,. ridges, and bodies of water." Certainly if these views are important enough to be codified into municipal code for protection, then it is also legitimate to protect them in our antenna ordinances. I'm not impressed by the Armageddon arguments used to support destroying views with mega antennas., The use of these antennas for emergency purposes is minuscule compared to their impact,and even more so for: local emergency purposes. And the significance.of amateur radio to communicate in emergency situations dates back to the 1980's,when the options for emergency communications which are available today were not so available. Today can purchase a satellite phone at Frys for$500. Today, mobile cell phone towers can be rolled into town after a disaster within 24 hours. Still, everyone would appreciate the amateur radio hobby if there wasn't any cost to it borne by the community. It is an interesting thing for hobbyists to communicate around the world and see how far they can transmit. However,because of the visibility of these antennas, a single installation can affect the value of many nearby homes, and here in LAH where real estate values are dramatically impacted by the quality of the views, that means one installation can have a dramatic cost-borne by neighbors for the sake of someone else's hobby. This does not seem reasonable to me. For example, one downhill neighbor constructing a mega-antenna can easily impact five$5m homes an estimated 20%. That would be an estimated$5m of economic value destroyed for someone else's hobby, and the town should consider that neighbors threatened with that much 1 damage,would readily defend themselves against the town for allowing it to occur when they could have regulated it. Regarding some specifics of the proposal, the classification of antennas into fixed-height and retractable is meaningless unless there is some requirement as to the duty-cycle of use for the extended height of the retractable installations. The proposal should be considered as a 75-foot ordinance, since the lower 48 foot limit is not required to be used at all. The retractable nature of the larger antennas is a convenience for the amateur radio operator to protect the antenna in storm and high-wind conditions, and to be able to tune the height for the frequency they are communicating at. When stations are used as repeaters, they are used 24/7 generally at full extension. Also regarding specifics, it remains unclear how the height of the installation is measured. It appears clear that the bottom is measured at ground level from the base of the tower,but the top is not specified clearly. Is it to the top of the tower(since the tower was termed "structural"by the emergency communications chairperson), or is it to the top of the highest point of the mast and antenna assembly, as it would be for instance, for cellular telephone antennas in the town? I presume the latter,but for some reason it has not been made clear. Finally,the only reason we appear to be embroiled in this controversy is because amateur radio operators in general, and members of the emergency communications committee specifically, and the chairman of that committee and a member of the planning commission even more-specifically, simply do not accept the legitimacy of other residents'interests and opinions on this matter. How many times have we heard legalese brandished to intimidate town council members and planning commission members into thinking they must act now? You would think,based on their statements, that it was completely obvious that any antenna is federally protected and the town of LAH is in direct violation of Federal and State law. However,this is not the case. The amateur radio relay league(AARL) is a well-organized group who has fought the FCC since 1985 on the meaning of Federal FCC ruling PRB-1 and they constantly tell their constituency only their side of the legal arguments without representing the status of the law evenly, and their members go back to their communities spouting the same lopsidedness. Here are a few points I have found in searching for the status of the legal arguments. It is clear that some of what the emergency communication committee members are saying is not factual. 1.) In the original FCC ruling called PRB-1, and after multiple attempts by the AARL to get the FCC to define a minimum height requirement,the FCC has declined to set a specific minimum height regulation for municipalities to adhere to. They have stated that this is because local municipalities are the only ones who can evaluate the situations with respect to the welfare of their residents. 2.) In Zubarau v. City of Palmdale, a homeowner challenged a City's decision that restricted the height of a "ham"radio antenna. The City of Palmdale directed a residential homeowner to remove a 55-foot tall "ham" radio antennae from the backyard of his residence after 68 of his neighbors complained that the antennae was not compatible with the neighborhood, a safety risk in high winds or in seismic activity, and interfered with the neighbors electronic equipment [that] was supported by substantial evidence. In directing Plaintiff to remove the antenna, the City relied on its ordinance that regulated the height of antennae in residential areas to 30 feet. The court of appeal held that the City's decision to order removal of the tower was supported by substantial evidence. The court further held that the ordinance was in compliance with state and federal laws in that the order did not constitute an undue interference with amateur radio communications permitted by state and federal law. 3.)Tony Verwey, a partner in the firm Unruh Turner Burke and Frees,has stated that "the FCC's limited preemption ruling does not grant an amateur radio operator the right to any installation he or she desires,but rather prohibits regulations that preclude amateur communications in the community, and requires regulations 2 that reasonably accommodate amateur communications.None of the clear and unambiguous language of PRB-1 grants absolute authority to have any tower antenna desired, nor does it prohibit a municipality from regulating the height of amateur radio antennas within its boundaries." 4.)Tony Verwey goes on to say, "The FCC has clearly and unambiguously concluded that"reasonable accommodation"of amateur radio antennas is not an absolute. A municipality may forbid the construction and installation in a residential neighborhood of an antenna that is commonly and universally associated with those one finds in a factory area or an industrialized complex. The municipality is empowered to preserve residential areas as livable neighborhoods as long as they accommodate height of antennas similar to that required for small dish antennas or those used for viewing television. Finally, in the Second Modification, the FCC reiterates its interpretation and intent that local authorities may limit the height of and even preclude certain tower antenna." 5.) In the 1999 FCC interpretation to determine whether the FCC should preempt all local ordinances that inhibited effective amateur radio communications, the commission said that a limited preemption policy is warranted, and that state and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur communications in their communities are in direct conflict with federal objectives and must be preempted. They recognized that some amateur antenna configurations require more substantial installations than others if they are to provide the amateur operator with the communications that he/she desires to engage in, and still they concluded, "We will not,however, specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate." They in fact said, "local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to reasonably accommodate amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose." 6.) It is worth noting here that "reasonably accommodate" refers to the the process with which a municipality decides such cases. It does not mean all amateurs have a right to any particular "reasonable" level of communications, since authorities may limit the height of and even preclude certain tower antenna. Effectively, it means municipalities may not have rules that preclude all amateur radio antennas. 7.)With regard to AARL's 1999 request for a minimum height of 60 or 70 feet, the FCC again declined to set such a height limit, finding"... we are not persuaded that changes to the Commission's policy of leaving the specifics of zoning regulation to the local authority, including provisions concerning the height of an amateur antenna, are necessary at this time." 8.) In Howard v. Burlingame, the situation began when Vernon Howard, applied for a permit for a 51-foot tower in Burlingame, Calif. According to the summary of the case in the appellate court's written opinion, Howard was initially given a permit,but his neighbors appealed to the city council,which revoked the permit. Howard then sued in federal court, contending that the city had violated PRB-1 by denying him an effective antenna. A federal judge ruled that the city did have to accommodate Howard in some fashion, and suggested some possible compromises. Rather than pursue the matter further, the city then granted Howard's permit. But Howard went back to court, seeking a court order requiring the city to pay his attorney's fees. That request was denied by a federal judge, and Howard appealed to the ninth circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The city responded by appealing the ruling that PRB-1 required the city to accommodate Howard's request for an antenna permit. The resulting decision was a disaster for amateur radio. In essence, the appellate court handed down a precedent-setting decision that said a city could deny a ham an antenna permit altogether. PRB-1 does not guarantee any particular amateur the right to put up any particular type of antenna, the court held. The court said PRB-1 requires nothing more than a balancing of the city's interest in promoting aesthetics and safety against the amateur's desire for an effective antenna. If no suitable compromise can be worked out with a particular amateur,his request for an antenna can be rejected outright. ... But that wasn't all. The court went on to say that, inasmuch as there is no federally protected right to erect an antenna, an amateur who sues under PRB-1 3 and wins is not entitled to have the city pay his attorney's fees. ... And the Howard case is a binding precedent in nine western states [Antennas and the Law" written by Wayne Overbeck- see attached] 9.) [Also from Wayne Overbeck article] ...radio amateurs who go to City Hall seeking antenna permits often assume that their legal position is stronger than it really is in light of the recent court decisions--because the adverse court decisions have received so little publicity. On the other hand, any city attorney who is even marginally competent can find out about these federal appellate court decisions in a few minutes. So the legal arguments are not as obvious as the emergency communications committee members have led you to believe, so please don't be cowed by these arguments. It is important that the town seek its own legal counsel on the subject of whether its present ordinances are legal --not just on whether the proposed changes are legal. The important legal question is not about the changes, it's about the current ordinances and whether any changes are necessary. If they are, then we should incorporate modifications while continuing to protect residents from damage. Please continue to protect residents against the potential of severe damage(economic and otherwise) that these ordinance changes represent. I am in support of regulations that allow antennas when neighbors agree,which require notice and hearing to discover(as we already have in our present ordinances). Or I am in support of regulations that are objective, as long as they prevent damage to neighbors'views and the rural atmosphere of our town. Thank you. Respectfully submitted by, Jim Waschura Attachments: (1) My submission to the staff report from last October's meeting (2)Article entitled "Antennas and the Law" written by Wayne Overbeck 4 To TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION From Jim Waschura,Town Resident Re Documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding an item on the upcoming agenda Date October 18, 2015 To whom it may concern, My name is Jim Waschura and my family and I have lived in Los Altos Hills for 17 years. In 2004 one of my neighbors on La Cresta Court came to me when he was faced with a situation that threatened his property. He had just received a notice from the town that the neighbor below him had applied for a permit to install an amateur radio mega-tower that would threaten his view. Together,we gathered support from other neighbors and fought the permit. Here are simulated pictures from my neighbor's dining room that illustrate the 2004 situation: ,,„ ��i� /iii. , _ , I . r , Ili ,,. i t _ _...: .„...„...,..:„..,...„...._: ...,.. _ _ . .. .. ..., .. .. . .. ..,..,„.. ,....„.._,........ . ,...„.>„.„'1?..r,. 1::.=••• .i'.. a.. w.V -i 74 FEET 49FE1=1 , '��� � , 4 , This permit application came in front of the Town Council and many neighbors spoke and provided written input. The applicant who was a member of the emergency communications committee was aware of the ruinous effect he would have on his uphill neighbor, but persisted anyway,saying that Federal law (rule PRB-1) preempted the town's authority to regulate the antenna. Ultimately,the neighbors prevailed because we discovered we are all still parties to the original 1950's sub-division CC&R contract that prohibits interference with neighbor views, and because Federal law(rule PRB-1) specifically does not preempt private contracts. We also discovered legal precedence for the town to take CC&R private contracts into account when considering approving such proposals (AT&T Wireless Services of California v. City of San Diego). Ultimately, because town processes enabled the neighbors to protect themselves,the applicant withdrew his application. GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS Now in 2015,the emergency communications committee is proposing changes to zoning ordinances to eliminate the same town processes that protected the neighbors in 2004. If the current proposed [1] changes had been in effect in 2004,the 74 foot antenna pictured above could have been built with no neighbor notice and no neighbor hearing before the planning commission. Imagine coming home one day and seeing this monstrosity out your living room window! If there is one thing the 2004 episode taught us, it was that we can't expect every neighbor to always do the right thing. So, our ordinances need to stay in place to preserve our homeowner rights when such a harmful threat is possible. HARMFUL EFFECTS Los Altos Hills home values can sway$1M or more based on the views they have. We appreciate the beauty of the distant views and long-time residents are immensely attached to the beloved views they've become accustomed to. Because the views are so valued, it is horrendous to consider zoning changes that put them at risk. The town zoning ordinances have a very legitimate purpose in protecting residents and their views. The accompanying documents provided to the committee in support of the proposed zoning changes indicate that the emergency communications committee members polled nearby communities and chose to match the highest in-use antenna height for their proposed changes. Los Altos Hills is compared with nearby Los Altos and Atherton. But residents don't move to those communities for the views, like they do here in Los Altos Hills. In those communities,a one-size-fits-all approach may be okay, but in Los Altos Hills, each amateur radio antenna has the potential to affect neighbors severely,and so each application must be evaluated on an individual basis,with proper neighbor notification and public hearings, and limitations for the purpose of protecting neighbor views. It should be highlighted that the survey of nearby communities included with the supporting documents indicates that Los Gatos and Portola Valley-two communities that also cherish beautiful views- both require planning and zoning approval and neither have a blank-check style approval like the one being proposed in Los Altos Hills now. OVER-REACHING PROPOSAL Los Altos Hills zoning ordinances put limits on the height of construction projects to enhance the rural character and preserve hillside views. No building can be greater than 35 feet, and residents who move here are comfortable knowing that these restrictions protect the values of the community. There are also deep setback limits to prevent building too close to neighboring properties or easements or right-of- ways. Zoning ordinances are supported by the town's site development process,which provides that neighbors be notified when a site will be substantially changed so they can provide input and have their views represented in a public hearing. The process has four levels of authority ranging from simple administrative review,to planning director review,to planning commission review, and ultimately to town council review. Decisions at each lower level can be appealed to the next-higher level of authority. [2] Presently, amateur radio antenna construction projects follow this same process. Specifically,the zoning ordinances state that antenna height over 40 feet requires notice to neighbors and a hearing by the planning director, and over 63 feet requires notice and a hearing by the planning commission. The current proposed zoning changes do away with all of this! Antenna height is extended to 75-feet when in use and may be approved only with administrative review without notification to neighbors and without a public hearing. Furthermore,antennas may be constructed with antenna parts extending into setbacks and easements. No limitations are specified to avoid utility poles or utility wires, nor,should an antenna fall, is it prohibited from landing outside the owner's property. It is also not clear for amateur radio antennas whether the proscribed height pertains to the height of the tower or to the highest point on the antenna mounted on top of the tower which could add another 15 feet for stacked antennas. No limitations are specified for where the tower can be located in relation to where neighboring people may be and what level of transmitting power will be in use, and though the proposal says that retractable antennas should be extended to 75-foot height only when in use,there is no criteria specified for what time of day the systems can be used, nor any limits on duty-cycle, and no penalties for leaving the antenna at full 75-foot height 24/7. WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING On its face,the proposed zoning changes appear to be a harmless limitation on the height of amateur radio antennas, but they are really an effort to enable a few people to enjoy their interesting hobby without having to take into account legitimate neighbor objections or harm done. The proposed changes have been canonized as being for emergency communications, but clearly they are not solely for the purpose of emergency communications. The supporting documents include an article from the Amateur Radio Relay League entitled Antenna Height and Communications Effectiveness. This article is commonly used by amateur radio enthusiasts to justify tall antenna ordinances. The paper's pertinent points can be summarized as follows:taller antennas are better;shorter antennas can still reach 100's of miles (thousands under some circumstances);and emergency situations often use nearby point-to-point communications to'relay' emergency communications to nearby unaffected land-lines. The paper does not indicate what height of antenna is needed for emergency communications. Most of the paper pertains to antenna heights required for trans-continental amateur radio communications that skip radio frequency signals through the ionosphere. For example,when discussing a particular transmitting site in Boston Massachusetts to the continent of Europe using the 14 MHz amateur band, the author concludes, "the 70-foot antenna would arguably be the best overall choice to cover all the elevation angles." This seems like a very interesting hobby, but it should be clear that we cannot justify the proposed ordinance changes based solely on the need for improved emergency communications. If the town needs improved emergency communications,then we should install redundant antennas at multiple town facilities away from residents such as the water tower or the softball fields or the maintenance yard,or Westwind barn, and relay the signals to the town's emergency communications center, instead of relying on residents to provide these facilities. [3] FEDERAL PREEMPTION In 2004,the threat of Federal law preemption (rule PRB-1)was used by the applicant to justify an antenna directly in the bay view of his uphill neighbor. This rule says that the town must reasonably accommodate amateur radio services and apply the minimum practicable regulation to effect the town's legitimate purpose. Firstly,since the town is known for its valuable spectacular views,surely the town has a legitimate purpose to protect these valuable assets for its residents. Secondly, if any such regulations should be minimal,then the least we could do is nothing at all, and leave such issues to the present site development process so that all interested parties can participate in evaluating each situation appropriately. And finally, it is worth noting from the supporting documents that Los Gatos has no specified limits and they do require planning and zoning approvals, and apparently their ordinance does comply with rule PRB-1. COMMON SENSE Zoning ordinances and private CC&R contracts have been around for a long time. These rules are meant to protect each resident from the harm that may be done when another resident decides to act selfishly. Any changes we make to our zoning ordinances relating to amateur radio antennas should at least continue to provide these same protections. Here is a scenario,for example,that any changes to zoning ordinances ought to be able to prevent: A downhill neighbor who is an amateur radio hobbyist wants to communicate internationally with his amateur radio system. He buys a 75-foot tower with a 50-foot wide Yagi antenna on top and gets a permit and installs the system.The antenna ends up eye-level with the uphill neighbor,who is in his living room looking at his once-beautiful view.The uphill neighbor calls the town and asks how his neighbor could have done such a thing and why he wasn't notified, and the town says,there's nothing we could do because the applicant's tower was under the 75-foot limit. Surely we can do better than to allow this to happen to our residents. ACTION REQUEST It should be possible for amateur radio antenna permit applications to succeed if neighbors and applicants are in agreement, or if officials weigh the arguments in public hearings and appeals and decide in favor of approving the permit. On the other hand, it should also be possible for amateur radio antennas to be disallowed because of their harmful effects. Town zoning ordinances should not be modified to circumvent the normal site development processes we have which provides for both of these outcomes. [4] (This article originally appeared in the June, 1994 issue of CQ Magazine. In the years since it was published, the ARRL has sought an expansion of PRB-1, the FCC's limited preemption of restrictive local antenna ordinances. The FCC has not granted that request; the status of PRB-1 remains essentially unchanged. However, the FCC did act to preempt many local restrictions on satellite dishes and television receiving antennas, but not amateur radio antennas, in Docket 96-83. That action was mandated by Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Meanwhile, a number of states have adopted "PRB-1 legislation". While most of these state laws have not expanded on the minimal protection for amateur antennas in PRB-1, several are much stronger, giving amateurs a legal right to erect substantial antennas on their property. Unfortunately, even these laws generally do not override deed restrictions that forbid outdoor antennas in many neighborhoods.) ANTENNAS AND THE LAW, 1994 ...Where we stand a decade after PRB-1 By Wayne Overbeck, N6NB After having the same antenna up for nearly 10 years, a friend of mine recently got a threatening letter from City Hall. Apparently someone had complained to the city about his antenna, and a city "code enforcement officer" discovered that he didn't have the required permit for it. Even worse, his antenna(a modest tribander on a 50-foot tower) was in violation of the city's 35-foot height limit. My friend--who will remain nameless here--was told to apply for a conditional use permit ("CUP") or take the antenna down immediately! To apply for this permit, he had to pay a $500 application fee, submit engineering drawings, and invite every property owner within 300 feet to attend a public hearing concerning his antenna application! No one had ever complained to my friend about his antenna, but on the night of the public hearing, a lot of his neighbors showed up at City Hall and urged the city council to free them of this eyesore, this blight in their midst. Several also complained about interference to their telephones, television sets, and other electronic gadgets. When his turn came,my friend told the city council he was shocked by the testimony he had just heard, because none of these people had ever complained to him. With support from other amateurs, he also described his public service activities and mentioned "PRB-1," the Federal Communications Commission policy that says local governments must reasonably accommodate amateur communications. After the public hearing ended, one council member asked the city attorney about "this PRB-1 thing." The city attorney had done her homework. "Yes," she said, "the FCC issued a limited federal preemption order about ten years ago,but the courts have generally held that it does not require a city to allow any particular ham operator to have any particular type of antenna." She also said a "federal circuit court of appeals" had ruled that a 17-foot height limit was a reasonable accommodation of amateur radio, and that another circuit court had held that a city could reject a ham's antenna application altogether if the ham was unwilling to go along with the city's requirements to conceal the antenna from public view. The council members then rejected my friend's permit application and ordered him to take down his antenna. The mayor suggested that he could apply for a permit for a 35-foot-high antenna that had "less visual impact." My friend was shocked; he had no idea a city could do that in spite of PRB-1. "How can a city ignore federal law," he asked. I told him that, unfortunately, the city wasn't really ignoring federal law. The city attorney was right: several important court decisions have limited the impact of PRB-1. Nevertheless, I said he could sue the city in federal court,but it would probably cost a LOT of money, and there was no certainty he would win. I also told him that even if he did win,he could not recover his attorney's fees from the city because one of the landmark court decisions had virtually precluded the award of attorney's fees in PRB-1 lawsuits. In the end,my friend took down his 50-foot tower and put up several small, low-profile antennas. RECENT PRB-1 COURT DECISIONS Sad to say, this story is not unique. Many other amateurs have had similar experiences in recent years. Going in, almost all of them assumed they had a federally protected right to put up a substantial antenna because of PRB-1. Just where does PRB-1 stand today--about ten years after it was adopted by the FCC? The short answer is that PRB-1 has been badly weakened by recent court decisions. To explain the importance of those court decisions, it's necessary to describe the judicial pecking order in America. As every high school civics student knows, the nation's highest court is the U.S. Supreme Court. But just below the Supreme Court there are a dozen U.S. Courts of Appeals, each serving a geographic region of the United States that is called a circuit. For example, the second circuit includes New York, Connecticut and Vermont. The ninth circuit includes California and eight other western states. In each region, the circuit court of appeals is the final authority on all federal legal matters that have not been ruled on by the Supreme Court. When any of these circuit courts establishes a legal precedent, lower federal courts throughout the region are obliged to follow that precedent(by deciding similar cases in the same way). Although decisions of one circuit court are not binding precedents in other circuits, they still carry considerable legal weight. This is an important point,because the Supreme Court has never ruled on PRB-1--but three different federal circuit courts have recently ruled against amateurs in lawsuits based on PRB-1. On the other hand, one appellate court (the eighth circuit U.S. Court of Appeals) recently handed down a decision that strengthened PRB-1 in seven midwestern states. In much of the United States, though, PRB-1 has not fared well in the federal appellate courts. For example, in 1991 the ninth circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided a case called Howard v. Burlingame" that established a very bad legal precedent for amateurs seeking antenna permits in the western states. Howard v. Burlingame began when Vernon Howard, W6ERS, applied for a permit for a 51- foot tower in Burlingame, Calif. According to the summary of the case in the appellate court's written opinion, Howard was initially given a permit,but his neighbors appealed to the city council, which revoked the permit. Howard then sued in federal court, contending that the city had violated PRB-1 by denying him an effective antenna. A federal judge ruled that the city did have to accommodate Howard in some fashion, and suggested some possible compromises. Rather than pursue the matter further, the city then granted Howard's permit. But Howard went back to court, seeking a court order requiring the city to pay his attorney's fees. That request was denied by a federal judge, and Howard appealed to the ninth circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The city responded by appealing the ruling that PRB-1 required the city to accommodate Howard's request for an antenna permit. The resulting decision was a disaster for amateur radio. In essence, the appellate court handed down a precedent-setting decision that said a city could deny a ham an antenna permit altogether. PRB-1 does not guarantee any particular amateur the right to put up any particular type of antenna, the court held. The court said PRB-1 requires nothing more than a balancing of the city's interest in promoting aesthetics and safety against the amateur's desire for an effective antenna. If no suitable compromise can be worked out with a particular amateur, his request for an antenna can be rejected outright. But that wasn't all. The court went on to say that, inasmuch as there is no federally protected right to erect an antenna, an amateur who sues under PRB-1 and wins is not entitled to have the city pay his attorney's fees. This directly contradicts the conclusion of the federal court that decided the widely publicized early PRB-1 case of Themes v. City of Lakeside Park.) And the Howard case is a binding precedent in nine western states, rendering the Themes decision irrelevant there. It also seriously weakens the Themes case as a legal precedent elsewhere. In the end, the ninth circuit Court of Appeals--a court just one notch below the Supreme Court in judicial authority--said that a city need not do more under PRB-1 than consider an amateur's antenna application, investigate the matter fully, and attempt to negotiate a compromise that takes into account the city's zoning concerns as well as the amateur's desire for a substantial antenna. Although the Howard case was bad news for radio amateurs, it was not the only bad news. Perhaps even worse--for amateurs living in the mid-Atlantic states, anyway--was a 1990 decision of the fourth circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Williams v. City of Columbia.)In that case, John Williams, KE4BR, requested a "special exception" to the city's 17-foot height limit so he could erect a 65-foot telescoping tower. He was turned down by the zoning board in Columbia, SC. He sued in federal court, and the court ordered the city to reconsider his application in light of PRB-1. The city did that, and the zoning board offered to grant the permit if Williams would agree to keep the tower fully nested(at 28 feet) except at night. Williams rejected that compromise. He also said he was not involved in emergency communications--an admission that proved unfortunate later. The city then denied his permit again and he went back to court. Williams' case was eventually decided by the fourth circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the city's position. The court concluded that the city had adequately weighed Williams'need for an antenna against the city's legitimate concern about neighborhood aesthetics. Given the fact that the city and Williams could not reach a compromise, the court held that PRB-1 was not violated by the city limiting Williams to an antenna height of 17 feet! The appellate court in essence agreed with the city's conclusion that because Williams used his amateur radio station only for"recreational purposes" and because there were other amateurs in the area who did provide emergency communications, Williams did not have any right to a 65- foot-high antenna under PRB-1. In adopting PRB-1, the FCC never said that amateurs must engage in regular emergency preparedness work to have antenna rights. However, in the Williams case a federal appellate court interpreted PRB-1 in that fashion, thereby undercutting DXers, contesters and others who would be happy to make their stations available in a real emergency, but who don't routinely take part in emergency drills. In addition to the Howard and Williams cases, there has been another adverse decision that established a very bad legal precedent: Evans v. County of Boulder. In this case, the tenth circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by David "Doc" Evans,NQI, for an antenna higher than 35 feet--the maximum that officials in Boulder County, Colorado, would allow on his 1.28-acre lot! In effect, the court held that a 35-foot-high antenna on a 1.28-acre lot in a semi-rural area is an adequate accommodation of amateur radio under PRB-1. The Evans case bounced back and forth between county authorities and the federal courts for six years before the ultimate ruling against Evans in 1993. In that 1993 ruling--which received little coverage in the amateur radio press--the court dismissed PRB-1 as a "vague federal regulation" that should not be given much weight against "precise, specific local ordinances." The Evans decision was sweeping enough--and bad enough for amateur radio-- that at least one FCC official said publicly that PRB-1 needed to be rewritten and strengthened. However, the Commission had not done that at this writing. Evans first requested a permit for a 125-foot tower in the mid-1980s, but several neighbors opposed his application early on. For his part, Evans made some excellent arguments. As a native of the U.K.,he needed reliable interational communications capability to keep in touch with family members who were amateurs there. And as an astrophysicist with a Ph.D. degree, he had legitimate research interests that required a substantial antenna. Evans even offered to compromise in various ways, such as by accepting a smaller tower,but the county never approved any compromise that Evans could live with. County officials contended that Evans lived in a unique area with spectacular mountain views--views that would be impaired by a large radio tower. The county didn't seem to notice that the mountain views were already obstructed by large power lines in the area. Another complicating factor was the fierce winds that sometimes roar down those beautiful mountainsides, rendering the typical self-supporting crankup tower impractical there. (In some view-conscious communities, amateurs have won the right to have substantial antennas by agreeing to use crankup towers--and keep them cranked down most of the time.) When the Evans case ended up in the U.S. Court of Appeals, the county argued that other amateurs were able to live with the 35-foot height limit. Also, county officials said there were other less view-sensitive areas in Boulder County where they would allow a larger tower. But in Evans' circumstances, they were unwilling to allow anything more than 35 feet for aesthetic reasons. After years of protracted litigation, the tenth circuit Court of Appeals eventually upheld the county's position, PRB-1 notwithstanding. In early 1994, still another federal Court of Appeals ruled on PRB-1, but the case went the other way: an amateur actually won one of these precedent-setting cases! In Pentel v. City of Mendota HeightsP the eighth circuit Court of Appeals ordered Mendota, Minn. officials to reconsider an application by Sylvia Pentel, NMRW, for a 68-foot crank-up tower. The court did not order the city to grant the permit, but the court did say that the city had to do more than merely allow Pentel to keep a vertical antenna that she already had on her roof. Pentel had erected the vertical without a city permit, but the city eventually offered to give her a permit for that antenna after she applied for a permit for the 68-foot tower and beam antenna. However, the city flatly denied her application for the tower and beam without providing any justification for its decision. She sued, but she lost in a federal district court (a trial court). She appealed, and the Court of Appeals ruled in her favor. The appellate court pointed out that the city's denial of Pentel's application seemed arbitrary- -the city had shown no factual basis for its decision. On the other hand, Pentel had presented considerable evidence in the city hearings to explain why she needed something better than her vertical antenna for reliable long-distance communication. Pentel also offered evidence of her public service work to buttress her application. Moreover, there were other large towers in the city,but the city would not authorize hers. In the face of all this evidence, the appellate court concluded that the city had not made a reasonable accommodation of her need for an adequate antenna, as required by PRB-1. The city was directed to reconsider her application for a tower. Significantly, this federal court said that the city had to accommodate the amateur in some fashion; a balancing of the city's interests against the amateur's interests was not enough. This legal distinction could prove important in future cases. Why did Pentel win in a high federal court when other amateurs had lost? There are several possible reasons, including the luck of the draw: not all judges will reach the same conclusion, even given the same facts and the same legal arguments. Pentel's case was obviously heard by a sympathetic three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals. But Pentel also had an exceptionally strong case. She had a good record of public service, and she wasn't asking for a tower bigger than others in her area. The court was clearly influenced by her argument that she needed a directional antenna to facilitate her public service work. Nor was the city in a position to make the kind of aesthetic arguments about mountain views that were so persuasive to the court in the Evans case. In fact, the city council made no factual findings to justify rejecting Pentel's permit. City Hall just said no! The result: Pentel won, whereas several other amateurs lost in the federal appellate courts--establishing legal precedents that are bad for other amateurs seeking antenna permits. Even the Pentel decision, which is clearly the most important victory of this decade for an amateur in an antenna lawsuit, had its dark side. The court dismissed the city's concerns about potential r.f.i. problems with this observation: "...(T)he city had no reason to fear that the antenna would interfere with other residents' television and radio reception; the city's planning report states that Pentel was prohibited by the FCC from causing, and that she could lose her license if she failed to correct, such a problem." Under the FCC's rules, the responsibility for resolving r.f.i. problems is not nearly as clear as that language in the Pentel case suggests. The last thing amateurs facing r.f.i. problems need is precedent-setting federal appellate court decisions that misstate the law on r.f.i. responsibility. Taken together, these four appellate court decisions illustrate how difficult it can be for an amateur to win an antenna case in the face of strong local opposition. Federal appellate courts are often reluctant to overrule local elected officials about local land-use issues, which is what an amateur really has to ask the court to do. As the law stands today, local officials who turn down an antenna application have some major legal precedents to back them up. Even worse, radio amateurs who go to City Hall seeking antenna permits often assume that their legal position is stronger than it really is in light of the recent court decisions--because the adverse court decisions have received so little publicity. On the other hand, any city attorney who is even marginally competent can find out about these federal appellate court decisions in a few minutes, thanks to the power of legal databases such as Lexis and Westlaw. Amateurs often underestimate the obstacles they face when they apply for an antenna permit, while city officials are becoming more and more sophisticated about finding legal ways around PRB-1. Nevertheless, many amateurs obtain antenna permits without any great difficulty. And of the amateurs who are denied an antenna permit, only a small percentage hire lawyers and sue in federal court. Many hams who lose a battle with City Hall either move elsewhere or put up an antenna small enough to be acceptable to local officials. However, the cases that do end up in an appellate court often go badly, establishing legal precedents that can make life harder for other hams. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PRB-1 If local governments were the only obstacle standing between amateurs and their antennas, the problem would be difficult enough. But in many communities government regulations are not even the main problem. More and more housing tracts (not to mention condominium developments)have deed restrictions that forbid all outdoor antennas. Unfortunately, PRB-1 is of little value in these situations. Deed restrictions (often called restrictive covenants or covenants, conditions and restrictions--CC&Rs) seem to be showing up almost everywhere: studies in several major metropolitan areas have shown that virtually all new developments have these covenants. They are prepared by real estate developers, often with the strong encouragement of local governments and lending institutions, in an attempt to protect property values and prevent neighborhood deterioration. They often require all homeowners to keep their homes and yards attractive, and they may impose restrictions on excessive noise. Farm animals are often prohibited, and there are sometimes restrictions on the number of domestic pets as well. Sometimes boats, travel trailers, motor homes and inoperable cars cannot be storied in driveways--or anywhere else where they can be seen. In some tracts, there are even restrictions on the types of shrubs and trees that may be planted--and on the colors that houses may be painted. Unfortunately for radio amateurs, ever since cable television service became widespread,radio and television antennas have also been a prime target of deed restrictions. Deed restrictions are said to run with the land. That is, they are binding on all future homeowners unless they are revoked, waived or abandoned. Often the task of enforcing the restrictions is given to a homeowners' association, which has the power to sue violators. Associations usually have the right to collect their attorney's fees from the homeowner if a lawsuit is necessary to enforce the rules. Individual property owners also have the right to sue to halt alleged violations, should the association fail to act. There are various legal defenses in lawsuits over alleged covenant violations. Among other things, the law in many states requires deed restrictions to be reasonable.°And if the rules have been ignored for years and are widely violated, a court may declare that the deed restrictions have been waived or abandoned. However, it usually requires a full-blown lawsuit--and thousands of dollars in legal expenses--to get a court to declare them invalid. Also, the odds of winning in court are not high: deed restrictions are often upheld by courts. PRB-1 specifically rules out any federal preemption of deed restrictions. The FCC said they are voluntary land use restrictions. In the FCC's view,people should be free to live in a neighborhood without cows, broken-down cars or ham radio antennas if they so choose! The only real problem with the FCC's reasoning is that, at a time when virtually all newer neighborhoods have deed restrictions forbidding antennas, the rules cease to be voluntary: many homebuyers don't have much of a choice. Does that mean the courts are willing to overturn deed restrictions forbidding antennas? Unfortunately, that doesn't happen often. In one notable 1992 California case, a state appellate court upheld the FCC's determination that PRB-1 should not apply to deed restrictions. In Hotz v. Rich,l )the court ruled that a radio amateur in Foster City, Calif. was not freed from his tract's restrictions by PRB-1. The court upheld the right of neighbors to sue to prevent a tower from being erected in defiance of the rules. However, the appellate court did return the case to a lower court to consider whether such an across-the-board ban on antennas might be unreasonable. That might offer some hope for amateurs in California, at least,because another California appellate court did rule that a restrictive covenant forbidding all satellite antennas was unreasonable when it was enforced against a homeowner whose backyard dish was so well screened by landscaping that it could not be seen from the street or from anyone else's property. That happened in a case called Portola Hills Community Assn. v. Jame0 Of course, it isn't often possible to completely screen a typical amateur radio antenna from public view without seriously degrading its performance. Also, this is a fairly unusual court decision that turned out as it did at least in part because the court thought the Homeowner's Association had acted in bad faith. Because courts often uphold deed restrictions, homeowners who challenge them risk ending up deeply in debt: they may have to pay not only their own attorney's fees but also those of the homeowners' association. On the other hand, if there is no homeowners' association, an amateur may have a better chance to get away with ignoring the rules. For instance, I know of one new neighborhood in Southern California where outdoor antennas are strictly forbidden,but there is no association to enforce the rules. As soon as the last home was sold and the developer went away, a ham put up an antenna--and he has gotten away with it for several years now. At first, he only had a small loop antenna on his balcony,but when nobody said anything about that he put up a tribander on a 40-foot tower. Oh, the neighbors grumble behind his back (I know; I own a house down the block as an investment, and nobody there knows I'm a ham),but no one is angry enough to hire a lawyer and sue him to make him take down his antenna. Not yet, anyway... "UNDOCUMENTED" ANTENNAS, HIDDEN ANTENNAS AND OTHER OPTIONS As antenna restrictions have proliferated in recent years, more and more amateurs have found that they have only two choices: 1) forget having an amateur radio station at home or 2) ignore the rules and put up some kind of hidden or "bootleg" antenna. Actually, the word "bootleg" has bad connotations among radio amateurs, so let's not use it here. Although government officials routinely refer to anything that is built without the proper permits as being "bootlegged," let's use a term that is more politically correct these days: we'll just call antennas erected without permits undocumented antennas, not bootleg antennas! That gives this the proper "spin," doesn't it? Basically, undocumented antennas fall into two categories: outdoor antennas erected without permits, and antennas hidden indoors or in an attic. For obvious reasons, no one knows how many undocumented amateur radio antennas are in use today, but the number must be enormous. At one time or another almost all of us have put up some sort of antenna without getting all of the proper permits. Unfortunately, hidden antennas may create problems that almost nobody thought about until recently. Aside from the fact that indoor antennas are often so badly obstructed by buildings or landscaping that they perform poorly, there are also growing concerns about the electromagnetic radiation hazards they may pose. New studies of the effects of low-level electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are being published in medical journals almost weekly now. It seems certain that when the health effects of EMFs are fully understood, hidden antennas will turn out to be hazardous in some circumstances because they are often placed in inhabited areas. Unless the transmitter power is very low(say 10 watts or so), an indoor or attic antenna is likely to expose the amateur and perhaps other persons to high EMFs. Nevertheless, thousands of amateurs must be using hidden antennas on a regular basis at this point. There are simply too many amateurs living in places where antennas are banned for that not to be the case. From a safety standpoint, undocumented outdoor antennas are a different matter. They can be just as safe as any other antenna; they're just erected without official approval. Given the enormity of the regulatory hurdles that exist today, probably half of all the towers and beam antennas that are erected these days go up sans permits! But that, too, creates some potential problems. For one thing, if an undocumented antenna should come down and cause property damage, a homeowner's insurance policy may not cover the losses. And, of course, the owner of an undocumented antenna has to be prepared to take it down--or else fight City Hall--at any time. Fortunately for amateurs with undocumented antennas, few local governments have enough resources to send code enforcement officers out scouring the community for undocumented antennas on a pro-active basis. ("Pro-active" is bureaucratese. It means to go out looking for code violations without waiting for someone to complain). Most often, undocumented antennas are ignored until someone does complain, typically because of an r.f.i. problem. Once the local authorities receive a complaint, though, an enforcement action is likely. The amateur can expect to receive a letter directing him either to take down the antenna or to apply for the proper permits within 30 days or less. If the antenna disappears quickly, that is usually the end of the matter; few cities file criminal charges against code violators who correct the violation promptly, except in egregious cases. If, on the other hand, the antenna owner decides to seek the proper permits retroactively, the process could be painful. If the antenna complies fully with the local codes, it might be a routine matter of providing suitable plans and drawings, paying the normal permit fee plus a penalty, and getting the permit signed off. More often, though, the amateur is directed to apply for some kind of special permit that is expensive and requires notice to neighbors. If what triggered the enforcement action was a complaint from a neighbor, there will probably be an ugly scene at a public hearing if the amateur tries to legalize an undocumented antenna by seeking a variance, conditional use permit or similar special dispensation from City Hall,because the neighbors will probably come out in force. If a permit can be obtained prior to antenna-raising day--before anyone in the neighborhood is angry--the amateur is surely better off. While some amateurs are unlucky enough to get caught up in a hassle over an undocumented antenna, many amateurs with undocumented antennas never hear from their local authorities. I once had five towers on a half-acre property within the Los Angeles City limits, all sans permits. My antenna farm was hard to miss: four of the towers were higher than 70 feet. Although two of them were on tower trailers and could have been removed quickly, I worried about the potential for conflicts with City Hall. However, I also knew I would only be living there a few years, so I took my chances. Sure enough, I never heard from the city, and I took my antennas down--voluntarily--when I was ready to sell the property. Frankly, that took more chutzpah than I have now(almost 20 years later), but I know amateurs who still do have that much chutzpah--and who have gotten away with it so far. In rural areas, of course, there is a lot less risk of running into a code enforcement officer. I have several towers up now in a place so isolated that almost nobody there even bothers to get building permits for their houses, much less for antennas. Not long ago my nearest neighbor there(who is a quarter of a mile away)built a beautiful new house, complete with a large deck overlooking the valley below, without a single permit. It's one of the nicest bootleg(oops, sorry,undocumented)houses I've ever seen. Given the deed restrictions and municipal ordinances that we now face in urban areas, the easiest way to have a big signal these days may be to head for the boondocks. There are all sorts of places where land is still cheap and nobody seems to care if you put up a tower or two--or three or four! Those places just aren't in the cities where most of us live. REFERENCES 1. Howard v. City of Burlingame, 937 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1991). 2. Themes v. City of Lakeside Park, 779 F.2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1986). 3. Williams v. City of Columbia, 906 F.2d 994 (4th Cir. 1990). 4. Evans v. County of Boulder, 994 F.2d 755 (10th Cir. 1993). 5. Pentel v. City of Mendota Heights, 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 35367. 6. In 1987, the author conducted studies of the deed restrictions governing new housing tracts in greater Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Dallas-Ft. Worth, and found that almost all new housing tracts had rules prohibiting amateur radio antennas. 7. For example, see California Civil Code Section 1354. 8. Hotz v. Rich, 4 Cal.App.4th 1098 (1992). 9. Portola Hills Community Association v. James, 4 Cal.App.4th 289 (1992). Suzanne Avila From: Jim Waschura <jim.waschura@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 6:05 PM To: Suzanne Avila Cc: jima.pc@gmail.com;jitze.couperus@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; jsmandle@hotmail.com; kavitat@comcast.net Subject: Next month's planning commission meeting - relating to antenna ordinance agenda item Hello Director Avilla, Relating to the upcoming planning commission meeting in April and the agenda item pertaining to proposed changes to antenna ordinances, it would be very useful to have a legal opinion prepared by the city attorney in advance of this meeting. Is this possible please? Specifically, I hope we can have legal opinion on the status of whether our current ordinances are compliant with State and Federal law, and if they are not, in what specific ways are they not, so we may know what changes are minimally required to make them compliant? I hope we don't make the mistake of only seeking legal opinion on the compliance of the proposed changes, since this would not provide commissioners with important information they should know to evaluate the necessity of specific proposals. If there is no chance to include such a legal opinion in the staff report, would it be possible,please,to include the city attorney's input on this subject from the October 2004 town council meeting, or any more-recent information our city attorney has provided the town. Thank you. Sincerely, Jim Waschura LA CRESTA COURT iim.waschura@gmail.com cc: Planning Commissioners 1 Suzanne AvilaATTACHMENT 6d From: Deborah Padovan Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 3:07 PM To: Jaime McAvoy; Suzanne Avila Subject: FW: Ham Radio Ordnance From:Carl Snyder [mailto:carl.jill.snyder@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, March 01, 2016 3:01 PM To: Deborah Padovan <dpadovan@losaltoshilis.ca.gov> Subject: Ham Radio Ordnance The proposal as I read it is a very solid compromise for both sides. I think those who have worked hard to draw a useful and fair balance have done their job well. It has been 40 years since Jim Treybig and I helped the town with one of the original ordinances and thus assured compliance with Federal Law. This proposal is an even better compromise between factions that the one adopted by the town during our extorts. There are many Ham's in this town.... Many of us are also the back bone for CERT Recon, Many are members of the ARRL RACES which is the national emergency network structured by the ARRL. When any big emergency hits and the cell phones are down and the land lines are not working...the welfare of the citizen of this town will depend largely for communications by the Volentear Ham Radio Operators. Their contribution in some cases will be life saving and compared to not have their communications and dedication to public service...others could suffer in some tragic ways. Hams always place their structures so as to create the least view interference possible and consistent with the laws of propagation for communication. Much of the hobby work for Hams is done just before sun rise and just after sun set. This phenomenon is call Grey Line communication...and is time when the best paths to Europe and Asia and South America open for communication. In these the dark times, they will offer the best results in many ways for both parties ... the best time for communication and the least visibility intrusion for others. The Towns proposed ordnance does a fair job for all.... I hope it will be adopted...adopted in the interest of emergency welfare for all the citizens and the balance between Federal Law and rights and those 1 who value view. I will attend the meeting. Your are authorized to use this as seen fit in the interest of the towns welfare. Respectfully, Carl E Snyder W6MSF CERT Supervisor, Los Altos Hills Fire Department/Town/DHS etc. 2 ATTACHMENT 6e Suzanne Avila Subject: FW:Antenna Ordinance From: adleryu@att.net [mailto:adleryu@att.net] Sent:Tuesday, March 01, 2016 10:55 PM To:Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Subject: Re: Antenna Ordinance To Los Altos Hills Planning Commission, This is my comment on the revised draft antenna ordinance: Every regulation of the Town's Municipal Code has its engineering, safety&planning considerations, and is usually inter-related to other regulations. Modification of regulations without thorough professional evaluation will lead to safety concerns for the residents. Our current Code has worked very well for years and there's no reason to make the unnecessary changes. Sincerely, Adler Yu 1 SuzanneTTACHMENT 6f uzanne Avila From: Jim Abraham <jim@jimabraham.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 2:13 PM To: Suzanne Avila; Kavita Tankha; Gary C.Waldeck; Deborah Padovan; Dru Anderson KG6LAD Cc: Scott Overstreet N6NXI Subject: [Fwd: ECC 3/01/16 meeting] Attachments: Antenna Ordinance public comments Bill Gibbons 160301.rtf; Duncan MacMillen ECC meeting motion 3-1-2016.ppt All, The attached files were presented by Duncan MacMillan and Bill Gibbons at the ECC meeting March 1 . Duncan' s motioned was seconded, discussed throughly, and voted with one for and all other against including the person who seconded the motion. Jim Abraham co-chair Scott Overstreet co-chair Duncan MacMillan wrote: Hi, Deborah: Fyi & files, the attached documents are now part of the public record based on the subject meeting. The motion was defeated. Duncan 1 Comments on the recently proposed antenna ordinance Bill Gibbons March 1, 2016 I would like to record my comments on the proposed ordinance. 1. Although the town must allow antennas, there is considerable latitude within the bounds of the law. I would like to quote the relevant part of that relevant ruling from the FCC, known as PRB-1: Nevertheless, local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas ba on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplist local authority's legitimate purpose. In particular, note that aesthetics are listed as a legitimate consideration; and "accommodate reasonably" does not mean "accommodate optimally". 2. There is no provision in the proposed ordinance for limiting any impact on the view of uphill neighbors. Under the FCC's PRB-1 ruling in (1), the town may require that the antenna be placed in a location that minimizes the impact on the neighbors, including for aesthetic considerations. An alternate location with less impact on neighbors may not be optimal but may still satisfy "reasonable accommodation". Other towns have such restrictions. For instance, Portola Valley has larger setback requirements yet still only allows antennas over 50 feet "if aesthetic mitigations, as determined necessary, are included in the design and the commission finds that the mitigations reduce impacts to acceptable levels". 3. The wording says "amateur radio transmitting (HAM radio) and/or emergency communications". But emergency communications are virtually always on the UHFNHF bands that do not need the large antennas described. So this ordinance has nothing to do with emergency communications and the wording should be removed. The argument has been made that the town would have more residents with emergency communications capabilities if it relaxed restrictions on antennas used for other purposes. This may be true, but any mention of emergency communications should explicitly state this goal rather than implying that large antennas are needed for emergency communications. 4. I suggest that wording be added requiring that a permanent member of the household have a valid FCC amateur radio license. The concept of "reasonable accommodation" does not extend to unlicensed activity. It is trivial to verify a license using the online FCC database. Since the database includes the permanent address of the license holder, it is also trivial to verify that part. 5. Large antennas (higher than 27 feet) are almost exclusively used for the HF bands that are only accessible to people with a "General" or "Extra" class FCC license, not the lower "Technician" class license. So I suggest that the person in (4) must have a "General" or "Extra" class license. In other words, the "reasonable accommodation" for someone holding a "Technician" class license is considerably less than for someone holding a "General" or "Extra" class license, to the point where the town need not allow large antennas for someone with a "Technician" class license. The online FCC database includes the class of the license. 6. There should be a requirement that retractable antennas be retracted when not in use. The definition of"in use" should mean that someone physically located on the property must be making active use of the antenna for a purpose for which it needs to be extended. In particular, antennas exceeding the fixed height limit should not be allowed for "repeaters", which are in unattended use all the time. 7. As worded, the ordinance allows the height measurement to be above the roof of the house, potentially allowing 80' fixed or 110' retractable antennas. Some variation of the original wording would be more appropriate. 8. I suggest that notice should to be given to neighbors that might be impacted by a proposed antenna (including view obstructions) and that such neighbors be given an opportunity to informally review the plans and, if they subsequently object to the plans, the right to require a formal hearing. Note that this would not let neighbors block the construction of an antenna, but rather let them provide input as to how the antenna might be placed and constructed so as to minimally impact them. •,h r r ( i • .1 - - - • - • '. •,,• ,.. ' • ..: -.,. ' . „." ...., ,,.... , , ,..., March 01 , 2016 I move . . . . . .that the February 03, 2016 draft of the proposed "antenna ordinance" be supported by the ECC provided : • All references to fixed antenna maximum height shall be 45', deleting any reference to 48' fixed antennas • 10-1 .504 Height. (e.) "The height shall be measured from the ground level." (delete " . . . ."); • Motorized retractable antennas shall be required > 45'; • Notice shall be required for antennas 10' above current roof height; • "in use" and maximum, non-emergency/non-drill duty-cycles are defined for retractable antennas; and escalation path/s are identified to seek cures. Basic concepts • Focus on being good neighbors versus any feelings of FCC/DOJ omnipotence • Respect for ambiance and property values of others • Emphasize transparency and notice . . . no surprises Suggested canes . . . • Clean-up "typo" - 45' versus 48' fixed antennas (make 45' throughout); • Delete " . . . or roof" in 10-1 .504 Height. (e. ) "The 15 . height shall be measured from the ground level • Require motorized retractable antennas > 45' ; • Require notice for antennas 10' above current roof height; • Define "in use" and maximum , non-emergency/non-drill duty-cycles for retractable antennas; in addition , identify escalation path/s to seek cures. ATTACHMENT 6g Comments on the recently proposed antenna ordinance Bill Gibbons March 3, 2016 Revised I would like to submit my comments on the proposed ordinance. This is a slightly updated version of the comments I presented at the ECC meeting on 3/1/16, based on useful feedback at that meeting. The order of the comments has also changed. Please note that I agree that the antenna permit process does need to be revised to make is simpler, more consistent and less expensive. I agree that in the majority of cases "ham" operators should be able to build antennas sufficient for their needs more easily. However I am concerned about the proposed changes with regard to the lack of consideration for aesthetics and also some details such as retractable antennas. 1 . As worded, the ordinance allows the height measurement to be above the roof of the house, potentially allowing 80' fixed or 110' retractable antennas. Some variation of the original wording would be more appropriate. 2. Although the town must allow antennas, there is considerable latitude within the bounds of the law. The relevant part of the ruling from the FCC, known as PRB-1 : Nevertheless, local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose. In particular, note that aesthetics are listed as a legitimate consideration; and "accommodate reasonably" does not mean "accommodate optimally". 3. There is no provision in the proposed ordinance for limiting any impact on the view of uphill neighbors. Under the FCC's PRB-1 ruling in (1 ), the town may require that the antenna be placed in a location that minimizes the impact on the neighbors, including for aesthetic considerations. An alternate location with less impact on neighbors may not be optimal but may still satisfy "reasonable accommodation". Other towns have such restrictions. For instance, Portola Valley has larger setback requirements yet still only allows antennas over 50 feet "if aesthetic mitigations, as determined necessary, are included in the design and the commission finds that the mitigations reduce impacts to acceptable levels". 4. I suggest that notice should to be given to neighbors that might be impacted by a proposed antenna (including view obstructions) and that such neighbors be given an opportunity to informally review the plans and, if they subsequently object to the plans, the right to require a formal hearing. Note that this would not let neighbors block the construction of an antenna, but rather let them provide input as to how the antenna might be placed and constructed so as to minimally impact them. If the claim is made that an aesthetically preferable site is not acceptable because of inferior antenna performance, both the applicant and any impacted neighbors should be allowed to submit independent evaluations of the options (at their expense) for consideration in the hearing. This is likely to be an extremely rare situation; but when it occurs, technical evaluation of the options is preferable to setting up conditions that may lead to a lawsuit. 5. There should be a requirement that retractable antennas be motorized and be retracted when not in use. The definition of "in use" should mean that someone physically located on the property must be making active use of the antenna for a purpose for which it needs to be extended. In particular, antennas exceeding the fixed height limit should not be allowed for "repeaters", which are in unattended use all the time. 6. The wording says "amateur radio transmitting (HAM radio) and/or emergency communications". But local emergency communications are virtually always on the UHF/VHF bands that do not need the large antennas described. So this ordinance has nothing to do with local emergency communications and the wording should be removed, or at least amended to clarify that the large antennas that are the primary focus of the ordinance are for long-distance communications and not for local emergency use. The argument has been made that the town would have more residents with emergency communications capabilities if it relaxed restrictions on antennas used for other purposes. This may be true, but any mention of local emergency communications should explicitly state this goal rather than implying that large antennas are needed for local emergency communications. 7. I suggest that wording be added requiring that a permanent member of the household have a valid FCC amateur radio license. The concept of "reasonable accommodation" does not extend to unlicensed activity. It is trivial to verify a license using the online FCC database. Since the database includes the permanent address of the license holder, it is also trivial to verify that part. For non-residential facilities this would apply to the staff. Antennas intended for local emergency use by non-staff would be exempt from the license requirement. One issue here is when a property with a large antenna changes hands. If the new owner does not have a suitable license within a reasonable period of time the antenna should be removed. 8. Large antennas (higher than 27 feet) are almost exclusively used for the HF bands that are only accessible to people with a "General" or "Extra" class FCC license, not the lower "Technician" class license. So suggest that someone in the houshold must have a "General" or "Extra" class license. In other words, the "reasonable accommodation" for someone holding a "Technician" class license is considerably less than for someone holding a "General" or "Extra" class license, to the point where the town need not allow large antennas for someone with a "Technician" class license. The online FCC database includes the class of the license. 9. Most antennas for use on UHFNHF bands, which are accessible to those with a "Technician" class license and are used for local emergency communications, are quite small and unobtrusive. Mounting a five-foot "J-pole" style antenna below the ridge line of a roof should not require the same kind of permit as constructing a 48 foot tower with large cross pieces (booms). This would be a good time to confirm that small unobtrusive antennas do not need permits at all. 10. I do not see any mention of very large or non-residential properties. Special considerations may apply, as in the point about licenses above. It may be implicit in the ordinance that the planninc commission and town council have discretion in this area within the stated goals of the ordinance. If not, perhaps that should be made explicit.