HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Supplement #2 SUPPLEMEN
Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM# 5. l
Distributed: Li/ I(o
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:32 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy; Suzanne Avila
Subject: FW: LAH Antenna ordinance changes
From: Denise Williams [mailto:denise craik williams@msn.com]
Sent:Tuesday,April 05, 2016 2:34 PM
To: Deborah Padovan <dpadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; Eileen Gibbons<e.gibbons@gmail.com>
Subject: LAH Antenna ordinance changes
Dear Deborah, cc: Eileen Gibbons
I would like to notify both the Planning Commission and the Town Council that we are not in favor for any
changes to the current town
ordinances regarding Antenna heights. We value our views over accommodating 20th century technology,
Certainly there are better ways in 2016 to accommodate emergency communications than privately owned
ham towers.
I would also request that you read about the difficulties of removing towers from homes after the ham
operator has passed or the family decides to
move. It can be an expensive and difficult process that means most people do nothing.... and the neighbors
must still suffer from the antenna blight.
Thank you Deborah,
Denise and Richard Williams
Corbetta Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA
1
Jaime McAvoy
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 8:39 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Comments on Antenna Ordinance in Planning Commission meeting April 7 2016
From:Stephen Chan [mailto:schanhb@pacbell.net]
Sent:Tuesday,April 05,2016 8:11 PM
To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject:Comments on Antenna Ordinance in Planning Commission meeting April 7 2016
We are proud of our town's rural and open-space setting. The reason we choose to live here.
The town has through the years developed a set of rules and regulations on dwelling development to
preserve this rural environment. Maximum dwelling size and development area, minimum lot size,
parcel front and side setbacks, etc. There are also rules on tree heights so as not to obscure our
neighbors views. Telecom utility cables are required to be underground.
The proposed regulation changes on radio antennas are not in line with the intentions of these other
regulations. I ask that the final radio antenna regulations should have the following.
* Maximum antenna elevation (at its peak) to not exceed existing/proposed dwelling's highest
elevation by a certain amount, say 10 feet. Elevation expressed as Feet Above Sea Level. The
reason to express in elevation - an example of a house 30 feet tall has a 50 feet slope in its property.
An antenna 40 feet tall located at the top of that slope is 90 feet from the base of the house - very tall.
Limitation expressed in absolute antenna elevation compared with the peak elevation of the house
avoid such "loop hole".
* Antenna to be located away from setbacks, and away from lot boundaries such that it will fall short
from property boundaries in case of toppling over.
* Define absolute maximum dimensions on the antenna- height and lateral extensions. Some
antenna has laterally branches 70 feet or more.
* Any antenna application require noticed public hearing, as it can affect neighbors significantly.
Further comments
* Hugh antennas are built for long distance communication, not for local emergency UHFNHF
radios.
* The author(s) of the proposed ordinance, if on the Planning Commission, should abstain from
voting on this issue.
Stephen and Amy Chan
• 1
Jaime McAvoy
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Wednesday,April 06, 2016 8:41 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: PRB-1 Review
Attachments: 2016-04-04 PRB-1 - 1985.pdf
From:Gary Waldeck [mailto:gcwaldeck@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,April 05, 2016 9:34 PM
To:Jim Abraham <Jim@iimabraham.com>; kavitat@comcast.net;Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject: PRB-1 Review
I have attached a copy of the 1985 version of PRB-1. Please go to the end of the order (but before the
citations). In the last sentence of article 25 and again in the last sentence of article 26 were the citations I was
looking for.
Last sentence of Paragraph 25.
"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.
Paragraph 26.
Obviously, we do not have the staff or financial resources to review all state and local laws that affect amateur
operations. We are confident, however,that state and local governments will endeavor to legislate in a
manner that affords appropriate recognition to the important federal interest at stake here and thereby avoid
unnecessary conflicts with federal policy, as well as time-consuming and expensive litigation in this area.
Amateur operators who believe that local or state governments have been overreaching and thereby have
precluded accomplishment of their legitimate communications goals, may, in addition, use this document to
bring our policies to the attention of local tribunals and forums."
The above two statements are, I think,the basis for the comment that if an Amateur Operator wants to erect
an antenna and communicate ... he has to have the legal ability to do so.... But s/he must define the
communications goals that they seek!!!
,Gary Waldeck
GCWaldeck@Gmail.com
(650) 739-8823 (Office/Cell)
«...»
1
Memorandum Opinion and
Order in PRB-1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington,DC 20554
FCC 85-506
36149
In the Matter of )
)
Federal preemption of state and ) PRB-1
local regulations pertaining )
to Amateur radio facilities. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: September 16, 1985 ; Released: September 19, 1985
By the Commission: Commissioner Rivera not participating.
Background
1. On July 16, 1984,the American Radio Relay League, Inc(ARRL) filed a Request for
Issuance of a Declaratory Ruling asking us to delineate the limitations of local zoning and other
local and state regulatory authority over Federally-licensed radio facilities. Specifically, the
ARRL wanted an explicit statement that would preempt all local ordinances which provably
preclude or significantly inhibit effective reliable amateur radio communications. The ARRL
acknowledges that local authorities can regulate amateur installations to insure the safety and
health of persons in the community, but believes that those regulations cannot be so restrictive
that they preclude effective amateur communications.
2. Interested parties were advised that they could file comments in the matter.' With
extension, comments were due on or before December 26, 1984,2 with reply comments due on or
before January 25, 1985.3 Over sixteen hundred comments were filed.
Local Ordinances
3. Conflicts between amateur operators regarding radio antennas and local authorities
regarding restrictive ordinances are common. The amateur operator is governed by the
regulations contained in Part 97 of our rules. Those rules do not limit the height of an amateur
antenna but they require, for aviation safety reasons,that certain FAA notification and FCC
approval procedures must be followed for antennas which exceed 200 feet in height above
ground level or antennas which are to be erected near airports. Thus, under FCC rules some
antenna support structures require obstruction marking and lighting. On the other hand, local
municipalities or governing bodies frequently enact regulations limiting antennas and their.
support structures in height and location, e.g.to side or rear yards, for health, safety or aesthetic
considerations. These limiting regulations can result in conflict because the effectiveness of the
communications that emanate from an amateur radio station are directly dependent upon the
location and the height of the antenna. Amateur operators maintain that they are precluded from
operating in certain bands allocated for their use if the height of their antennas is limited by a
local ordinance.
4. Examples of restrictive local ordinances were submitted by several amateur operators in
this proceeding. Stanley J. Cichy, San Diego, California, noted that in San Diego amateur radio
antennas come under a structures ruling which limits building heights to 30 feet. Thus, antennas
there are also limited to 30 feet. Alexander Vrenios, Mundelein, Illinois,wrote that an ordinance
of the Village of Mundelein provides that an antenna must be a distance from the property line
that is equal to one and one-half times its height. In his case, he is limited to an antenna tower
for his amateur station just over 53 feet in height.
5.John C. Chapman, an amateur living in Bloomington,Minnesota, commented that he was
not able to obtain a building permit to install an amateur radio antenna exceeding 35 feet in
height because the Bloomington city ordinance restricted
"structures"heights to 35 feet. Mr. Chapman said that the ordinance,when written,undoubtedly
applied to buildings but was now being applied to antennas in the absence of a specific ordinance
regulating them. There were two options open to him if he wanted to engage in amateur
communications. He could request a variance to the ordinance by way of a hearing before the
City Council, or he could obtain affidavits from his neighbors swearing that they had no
objection to the proposed antenna installation. He got the building permit after obtaining the
cooperation of his neighbors. His concern, however, is that he had to get permission from
several people before he could effectively engage in radio communications for which he had a
valid FCC amateur license.
6. In addition to height restrictions, other limits are enacted by local jurisdictions—anti-
climb devices on towers or fences around them; minimum distances from high voltage power
lines; minimum distances of towers from property lines; and regulations pertaining to the
structural soundness of the antenna installation. By and large, amateurs do not fmd these safety
precautions objectionable. What they do object to are the sometimes prohibitive, non-refundable
application filing fees to obtain a permit to erect an antenna installation and those provisions in
ordinances which regulate antennas for purely aesthetic reasons. The amateurs contend, almost
universally,that"beauty is in the eye of the beholder." They assert that an antenna installation is
not more aesthetically displeasing than other objects that people keep on their property, e.g.
motor homes,trailers, pick-up trucks, solar collectors and gardening equipment.
Restrictive Covenants
7.Amateur operators also oppose restrictions on their amateur operations which are
contained in the deeds for their homes or in their apartment leases. Since these restrictive
covenants are contractual agreements between private parties, they are not generally a matter of
concern to the Commission. However, since some amateurs who commented in this proceeding
provided us with examples of restrictive covenants,they are included for information.Mr.
Eugene O.Thomas of Hollister, California, included in his comments an extract of the
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Ridgemark Estates, County of San Benito, State of
California. It provides:
No antenna for transmission or reception of radio signals shall be erected outdoors
for use by any dwelling unit except upon approval of the Directors. No radio or
television signals or any other form of electromagnetic radiation shall be permitted
to originate from any lot which may unreasonably interfere with the reception of
television or radio signals upon any other lot.
Marshall Wilson,Jr. provided a copy of the restrictive covenant contained in deeds for the
Bell Martin Addition#2, Irving,Texas. It is binding upon all of the owners or purchasers of the
lots in the said addition, his or their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns. It reads:
No antenna or tower shall be erected upon any lot for the purposes of radio
operations.
William J.Hamilton resides in an apartment building in Gladstone, Missouri. He cites a
clause in his lease prohibiting the erection of an antenna. He states that he has been forced to
give up operating amateur radio equipment except a hand-held 2 meter(144-148 MHz)radio
transceiver. He maintains that he should not be penalized just because he lives in an apartment.
Other restrictive covenants are less global in scope than those cited above. For example,
Robert Webb purchased a home in Houston,Texas. His deed restriction prohibited"transmitting
or receiving antennas extending above the roof line."
8.Amateur operators generally oppose restrictive covenants for several reasons. They
maintain that such restrictions limit the places that they can reside if they want to pursue their
hobby of amateur radio. Some state that they impinge on First Amendment rights of speech.
Others believe that a constitutional right is being abridged because, in their view, everyone has a
right to access the airwaves regardless of where they live.
9. The contrary belief held by housing subdivision communities and condominium or
homeowner's associations is that amateur radio installations constitute safety hazards, cause
interference to other electronic equipment which may be operated in the home (television, radio,
stereos) or are eyesores that detract from the aesthetic and tasteful appearance of the housing
development or apartment complex. To counteract these negative consequences,the
subdivisions and associations include in their deeds, leases or by-laws, restrictions and
limitations on the location and height of antennas or, in some cases, prohibit them altogether.
The restrictive covenants are contained in the contractual agreement entered into at the time of
the sale or lease of the property. Purchasers or lessees are free to choose whether they wish to
reside where such restrictions on amateur antennas are in effect or settle elsewhere.
Supporting Comments
10.The Department of Defense(DOD) supported the ARRL and emphasized in its
comments that continued success of existing national security and emergency preparedness
telecommunications plans involving amateur stations would be severely diminished if state and
local ordinances were allowed to prohibit the construction and usage of effective amateur
transmission facilities. DOD utilizes volunteers in the Military Affiliate Radio Service
(MARS),4 Civil Air Patrol (CAP) and the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES). It
points out that these volunteer communicators are operating radio equipment installed in their
homes and that undue restrictions on antennas by local authorities adversely affect their efforts.
DOD states that the responsiveness of these volunteer systems would be impaired if local
ordinances interfere with the effectiveness of these important national telecommunication
resources. DOD favors the issuance of a ruling that would set limits for local and state
regulatory bodies when they are dealing with amateur stations.
11.Various chapters of the American Red Cross also came forward to support the ARRL's
request for a preemptive ruling. The Red Cross works closely with amateur radio volunteers. It
believes that without amateurs' dedicated support, disaster relief operations would significantly
suffer and thatits ability to serve disaster victims would be hampered. It feels that antenna
height limitations that might be imposed by local bodies will negatively affect the service now
rendered by the volunteers.
12. Cities and counties from various parts of the United States filed comments in support of
the ARRL's request for a Federal preemption ruling. The comments from the Director of Civil
Defense,Port Arthur, Texas, are representative:
The Amateur Radio Service plays a vital role with our Civil Defense program here in
Port Arthur and the design of these antennas and towers lends greatly to our ability to
communicate during times of disaster.
We do not believe there should be any restrictions on the antennas and towers
except for reasonable safety precautions. Tropical storms,hurricanes and tornadoes
are a way of life here on the Texas Gulf Coast and good communications are
absolutely essential when preparing for a hurricane and even more so during
recovery operations after the hurricane has past.
13.The Quarter Century Wireless Association took a strong stand in favor of the Issuance
of a declaratory ruling. It believes that Federal preemption is necessary so that there will be
uniformity for all Amateur Radio installations on private property throughout the United States.
14. In its comments,the ARRL argued that the Commission has the jurisdiction to preempt
certain local land use regulations which frustrate or prohibit amateur radio communications. It
said that the appropriate standard in preemption cases is not the extent of state and local interest
in a given regulation, but rather the impact of the regulation on Federal goals. Its position is that
Federal preemption is warranted whenever local government regulations relate adversely to the
operational aspects of amateur communication. The ARRL maintains that localities routinely
employ a variety of land use devices to preclude the installation of effective amateur antennas,
including height restrictions, conditional use permits, building setbacks and dimensional
limitations on antennas. It sees a declaratory ruling of Federal preemption as necessary to cause
municipalities to accommodate amateur operator needs in land use planning efforts.
15. James C. O'Connell, an attorney who has represented several amateurs before local
zoning authorities, said that requiring amateurs to seek variances or special use approval to erect
reasonable antennas unduly restricts the operation of amateur stations. He suggested that the
Commission preempt zoning ordinances which impose antenna height limits of less than 65 feet.
He said that this height would represent a reasonable accommodation of the communication
needs of most amateurs and the legitimate concerns of local zoning authorities.
Opposing Comments
16.The City of La Mesa, California, has a zoning regulation which controls amateur
antennas. Its comments reflected an attempt to reach a balanced view.
This regulation has neither the intent, nor the effect, of precluding or inhibiting
effective and reliable communications. Such antennas may be built as long as their
construction does not unreasonably block views or constitute eyesores. The
reasonable assumption is that there are always alternatives at a given site for
different placement, and/or methods for aesthetic treatment. Thus, both public
objectives of controlling land use for the public health, safety, and convenience,
and providing an effective communications network, can be satisfied. A blanket to
completely set aside local control, or a ruling which recognizes control only for the
purpose of safety of antenna construction,would be contrary to...legitimate local
control.
17. Comments from the County of San Diego state:
While we are aware of the benefits provided by amateur operators,we oppose the
issuance of a preemption ruling which would elevate `antenna effectiveness' to a
position above all other considerations. We must, however, argue that the local
government must have the ability to place reasonable limitations upon the
placement and configuration of amateur radio transmitting and receiving antennas.
Such ability is necessary to assure that the local decision-makers have the authority
to protect the public health, safety and welfare of all citizens.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize an important difference between
your regulatory powers and that of local governments. Your Commission's
approval of the preemptive requests would establish a"national policy." However,
any regulation adopted by a local jurisdiction could be overturned by your
Commission or a court if such regulation was determined to be unreasonable.
18. The City of Anderson, Indiana, summarized some of the problems that face local
communities:
I am sympathetic to the concerns of these antenna owners and I understand that to
gain the maximum reception from their devices, optimal location is necessary.
However,the preservation of residential zoning districts as"liveable"
neighborhoods is jeopardized by placing these antennas in front yards of homes.
Major problems of public safety have been encountered,particularly vision
blockage for auto and pedestrian access. In addition, all communities are faced
with various building lot sizes. Many building lots are so small that established
setback requirements(in order to preserve adequate air and light) are vulnerable to
the unregulated placement of antennas. ...the exercise of preemptive authority by
the FCC in granting this request would not be in the best interest of the general
public.
19.The National Association of Counties (NACO),the American Planning Association
(APA) and the National League of Cities(NLC) all opposed the issuance of an antenna
preemption ruling. NACO emphasized that federal and state power must be viewed in harmony
and warns that Federal intrusion into local concerns of health, safety and welfare could weaken
the traditional police power exercised by the state and unduly interfere with the legitimate
activities of the states. NLC believed that both Federal and local interests can be accommodated
without preempting local authority to regulate the installation of amateur radio antennas. The
APA said that the FCC should continue to leave the issue of regulating amateur antennas with
the local government and with the state and Federal courts.
Discussion
20. When considering preemption, we must begin with two constitutional provisions. The
tenth amendment provides that any powers which the constitution either does not delegate to the
United States or does not prohibit the states from exercising are reserved to the states. These are
the police powers of the states. The Supremacy Clause, however, provides that the constitution
and the laws of the United States shall supersede any state law to the contrary. Article III,
Section 2. Given these basic premises, state laws may be preempted in three ways: First,
Congress may expressly preempt the state law. See Jones v. Rath Packing Co.,430 U.S. 519,
525 (1977). Or, Congress may indicate its intent to completely occupy a given field so that any
state law encompassed within that field would implicitly be preempted. Such intent to preempt
could be found in a congressional regulatory scheme that was so pervasive that it would be
reasonable to assume that Congress did not intend to permit the states to supplement it. See
Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. de Ia Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982). Finally,
preemption may be warranted when state law conflicts with federal law. Such conflicts may
occur when"compliance with both Federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,"
Florida Lime &Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 143 (1963), or when state
law"stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of Congress," Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). Furthermore, federal
regulations have the same preemptive effect as federal statues, Fidelity Federal Savings &
Loan Association v. de Ia Cuesta, supra.
21.The situation before us requires us to determine the extent to which state and local
zoning regulations may conflict with federal policies concerning amateur radio operators.
22. Few matters coming before us present such a clear dichotomy of view point as does the
instant issue. The cities, countries, local communities and housing associations see an obligation
to all of their citizens and try to address their concerns. This is accomplished through
regulations, ordinances or covenants oriented toward the health, safety and general welfare of
those they regulate. At the opposite pole are the individual amateur operators and their support
groups who are troubled by local regulations which may inhibit the use of amateur stations or, in
some instances,totally preclude amateur communications. Aligned with the operators are such
entities as the Department of Defense,the American Red Cross and local civil defense and
emergency organizations who have found in Amateur Radio a pool of skilled radio operators and
a readily available backup network. In this situation,we believe it is appropriate to strike a
balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur operations and the legitimate interests
of local governments in regulating local zoning matters. The cornerstone on which we will
predicate our decision is that a reasonable accommodation may be made between the two sides.
23.Preemption is primarily a function of the extent of the conflict between federal and state
and local regulation. Thus, in considering whether our regulations or policies can tolerate a state
regulation, we may consider such factors as the severity of the conflict and the reasons
underlying the state's regulations. In this regard,we have previously recognized the legitimate
and important state interests reflected in local zoning regulations. For example, in Earth
Satellite Communications, Inc., 95 FCC 2d 1223 (1983),we recognized that
...countervailing state interests inhere in the present situation...For example,we do not
wish to preclude a state or locality from exercising jurisdiction over certain elements of an
SMATV operation that properly may fall within its authority, such as zoning or public
safety and health, provided the regulation in question is not undertaken as a pretext for the
actual purpose of frustrating achievement of the preeminent federal objective and so long
as the non-federal regulation is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.
24. Similarly,we recognize here that there are certain general state and local interests which
may, in their even-handed application, legitimately affect amateur radio facilities. Nonetheless,
there is also a strong federal interest in promoting amateur communications. Evidence of this
interest may be found in the comprehensive set of rules that the Commission hasadopted to
regulate the amateur service. ' Those rules set forth procedures for the licensing of stations and
operators, frequency allocations,technical standards which amateur radio equipment must meet
and operating practices which amateur operators must follow. We recognize the amateur radio
service as a voluntary, noncommercial communication service,particularly with respect to
providing emergency communications. Moreover,the amateur radio service provides a reservoir
of trained operators,technicians and electronic experts who can be called on in times of national
or local emergencies. By its nature,the Amateur Radio Service also provides the opportunity for
individual operators to further international goodwill. Upon weighing these interests,we believe
a limited preemption policy is warranted. State and local regulations that operate to preclude
amateur communications in their communities are in direct conflict with federal objectives and
must be preempted.
25.Because amateur station communications are only as effective as the antennas
employed, antenna height restrictions directly affect the effectiveness of amateur
communications. 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. For example, an antenna array for international amateur communications
will differ from an antenna used to contact other amateur operators at shorter distances. We will
not,however, specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not
regulate, nor will we suggest the precise language that must be contained in local ordinances,
such as mechanisms for special exceptions, variances, or conditional use permits. 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.'
26. Obviously,we do not have the staff or financial resources to review all state and local
laws that affect amateur operations. We are confident,however,that state and local governments
will endeavor to legislate in a manner that affords appropriate recognition to the important
federal interest at stake here and thereby avoid unnecessary conflicts with federal policy, as well
as time-consuming and expensive litigation in this area. Amateur operators who believe that
local or state governments have been overreaching and thereby have precluded accomplishment
of their legitimate communications goals, may, in addition, use this document to bring our
policies to the attention of local tribunals and forums.
27.Accordingly, the Request for Declaratory Ruling filed July 16, 1984, by the American
Radio Relay League, Inc., IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and in all other respects,
IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William J.Tricarico
Secretary
Footnotes
!Public Notice, August 30, 1984, Mimeo. No. 6299, 49 F.R. 36113, September 14, 1984.
2Public Notice, December 19,1984, Mimeo. No. 1498.
3Order, November 8, 1984, Mimeo, No. 770.
4MARS is solely under the auspices of the military which recruits volunteer amateur
operators to render assistance to it. The Comission is not involved in the MARS
program.
547 CFR Part 97.
6We reiterate that our ruling herein does not reach restrictive covenants in private
contractual agreements. Such agreements are voluntarily entered into by the buyer or
tenant when the agreement is executed and do not usually concern this Commission.
Jaime McAvoy
To: Suzanne Avila
Subject: RE: Public comment re: antenna ordinance, April 07, 2016 planning commission
To whom it may concern:
I have lived in the Hills since 1986, am a past chair of the Emergency Communications Committee
(2012-14), and am currently an active member of the ECC.
I have reviewed the revised draft to be before the Planning Commission on April 7 and wish to modify
my previous public comment accordingly. I remain opposed unless modifications are made in the
area of notice, motorization,
duty cycle plus the new 3-foot allowance for mast extensions.
My attempt to obtain ECC support for modifications to the proposed antenna ordinance, which I felt
were more respectful of neighbor rights and are less open-ended and one-sided in favor of ham
hobbyists, was not successful at our meeting on March 01. My presentation overheads used at the
meeting are part of the Commission's public record and are attached again here for easier reference.
At the April 5 meeting of the ECC, I asked whether the chairs wanted to seek ECC support for the
revised draft and they stated that was not necessary. Therefore, the Planning Commission should
NOT operate on the assumption that the updated ordinance draft before it on April 7 has been
discussed or approved by the ECC as a body - the updated ordinance has not been presented nor
discussed by the ECC.
I hope that other hams, freed of the venue of an ECC meeting and free of reluctance to oppose the
very vocal support of the proposed ordinance by the chair, will join in agreeing that notice, in
particular, should be a factor in all significant antenna installations. The prospect of neighbors being
surprised by large antennas appearing without the possibility of discussing detailed impacts and
alternatives beforehand will not endear hams to the general public and will likely increase discord in
Town. To imagine otherwise is foolhardy since antennas can certainly adversely affect the ambiance
and value of neighborhood properties.
Use of ham radios in an emergency can be a significant public service but a Town ordinance should
not be constructed in such a way that it could enable a ham to choose to be a bad neighbor, shielding
such a ham from being respectful of their neighbors.
In particular:
1. Notice should be required for all antennas planned that would extend "X" feet or more
above current roof height, say 10 feet (10-2.301 Permits (a) Administrative Review.
1
"...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." Reasons:
Hams should be "good neighbors;" The objective is that there be no antenna surprises for
neighbors, while including a provision to let minor antennas to be installed easily, e.g. X-50s
used for VHF/UHF radios, those used for emergency communications. With notice to
neighbors, a dialog can at least ensue before an antenna tower sprouts unannounced in the
midst of a view. Alternative siting schemes may be possible, etc. Add: "...and those
properties within 500 feet, where a visual impact could be reasonably expected" plus a
minimum set of items disclosed and amount of advance warning before submitting a building
application.)
2. Define "in use" and maximum, non-emergency/non-drill duty-cycles for non-fixed
antennas; in addition, identify escalation path/s to seek cures (10-2.301 Permits (a)
Administrative Review item 3. "It is preferred that retractable antennas be retracted when not in
use." Reasons: To avoid "permanently extended" antennas and identify what concerned
neighbors should do when they have an issue - who to call at the Town, Sheriff, or some other
entity. If used for a repeater- which should NOT be normally allowed - the tower would be
cranked up 24/7.)
3. Require motorized retractable towers where antennas can be extended to over 45 feet in
height (10-2.301 Permits (a) Administrative Review item 4. "Motorized retractable antennas
are preferred to all other retractable antennas." Reasons: Delete "preferred" and insert
"required" since what is hand-cranked up tends to stay up until the user "gets around to
it." Real work is required to crank it down, especially compared to throwing a switch ...and the
hams I know, me included, are not spring chickens.)
4. Delete the new allowance for up to a 3-foot support above the 45-foot limit. (Re-craft 10-
2.301 Permits (a) Administrative Review item 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." Reason: Such an allowance increases the visual impact and is a
surprise INCREASE from past drafts.)
Below are suggested revisions and deletions, [xyz], to 10-2.301 Permits (a) Administrative Review;
which should also be made in (c) Administrative Review with Notice, for items 3 - 5 plus item 6 (new):
"...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 and those properties
within 500 feet, where a visual impact could be reasonably expected;indicating the
proposed antenna location, antenna/mast description, any mitigation included and date
of anticipated building application. Such notice shall have been received at least 2 week
before submission of building application but such notice is not required for simple,
roof-mounted UHF/VHF mono-pole antennas not extending more than ten (10) feet above
the roof mount point nor more than six(6) feet above the existing ridge line.
"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:
2
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 r] Retractable antennas shall be retracted when not in use and may
not be extended for greater than 72 hours unless engaged in responding to a Town
emergency or drill. "In use"shall mean that an appropriately-licensed operator is
physically located on the property and is engaged in active use of the antenna for a
purpose for which it needs to be extended. In particular, antennas exceeding the
fixed height limit shall NOT be allowed for "repeaters", which are in unattended use
all the time.
4. Motorized retractable antennas are required[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 shall reduce
the permitted height of the antenna described elsewhere by a length equal the mast
above the antenna."
6. The term of use of the antenna shall expire and the antenna shall be removed if
an appropriately-licensed radio operator no longer resides at the property.
Thank you for your consideration,
Duncan MacMillan KI6VMY
27345 Natoma Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
650-941-3697
3
Comments on propos ._
antenna ' ordinance
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 changes
• Clean-up "typo" - 45' versus 48' fixed antennas (make
45' throughout);
• Delete " . . . " in 10-1 .504 Height. (e. ) "The
height shall be measured from the ground level ".
. ,
• Require that retractable antennas > 45' be motorized;
• 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.
Jaime McAvoy
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 10:22 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Please include this for this Thursday's planning commission meeting relating to the
antenna agenda item
From:Jim Waschura [mailto:jim.waschura@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday,April 06, 2016 10:05 AM
To: Deborah Padovan <dpadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject: Please include this for this Thursday's planning commission meeting relating to the antenna agenda item
Please include the following information to planning commissioners for this Thursdays meeting
relating to the Amateur Radio antenna agenda item: Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Waschura
The Emergency Communications Committee (ECC) recently submitted revised ordinance changes
for amateur radio antennas for approval at the next planning commission meeting (Thursday April 7,
7:00 pm, Town hall). You may recall the first meeting in October ended with commissioners
instructing the ECC to rework their proposal to balance the needs of the applicants for antennas, the
needs of the neighbors of the antenna, and the benefit to the Town, but unfortunately no concrete
changes have been made to respond to residents' concerns, and in fact even taller towers are
allowed now.
This is a particularly urgent threat because the chairman of the ECC that authored the changes, will
also vote on approving them since he is also a planning commissioner. You may recall that he was
the proponent in 2004 who was deterred in part by our present ordinances when he tried to construct
the antenna in this picture in direct eye-level view from his neighbor's dining room. If this passes,
truly, you could come home one day and find such a thing out your dining room window and not be
able to do anything about it!
i
,...---_--<--;:;:,---.:::--- ..------- .----- ,..-----1-' --`
I
74 FEET
. 'x � i,._„-- ^-..,,. _
The following is a list of objections to the current changes under consideration:
(1) Must consider hillside terrain - Ordinances for communities with flat terrain cannot be compared
with ordinances for communities with hilly terrain. When a downhill antenna installation can result
in eye-level view from the living area of an uphill resident, special considerations are required to
protect the uphill neighbor, and so making comparison to Mountain View or Palo Alto or
Atherton antenna ordinances is inadequate. Based on information presented by the ECC, other
communities that do have hilly terrain, such as Portola Valley and Los Gatos also have ordinances
that require full planning and zoning approval, like our own, and they apparently are compliant with
state and federal law relating to antennas. Why should these communities be able to protect their
residents like this, and LAH not be able to?
(2) ECC is not listening to residents - The differences between this proposal and the last one were
supposed to incorporate resident feedback but they actually go in the opposite direction. The
new proposal says antennas should be located in least obtrusive location on property, but there is no
requirement to do so. It says landscape screening may be required to mitigate, but again, no
requirements to do so. It says retractable antennas shall be lowered when not in use but it doesn't
specify any limits on use or define what in use means and doesn't provide any mechanism for
enforcement. It says motorized retractable antennas are preferred, but there are no requirements for
motorization. And more so, now antenna towers may be 3' taller than the 45 foot limit specified in the
first proposal. Where is the effort being made to listen to residents concerns?
(3) ECC is not making any effort - Based on meeting minutes, the ECC was presented with a series
of improvements to their proposal by one of their own members who suggested a few ways the ECC
could demonstrate it was responding to neighbor concerns. He suggested that notice be provided to
neighbors who would be impacted, that retractable antennas be required to have motorized cranks,
and that a definition be specified for the term "in use" to require an amateur radio licensee to be
2
actually operating the equipment when it was at its fully-extended 75 foot limit. He suggested that a
permanent member of the household be required to have a valid FCC license, and he suggested
when a property changes hands, that the antenna should come down unless the new owner has a
suitable license within a reasonable amount of time. All good suggestions that gave the ECC
opportunities to demonstrate they were responding to neighbor concerns. Ultimately, however, the
leadership of the ECC voted 8-to-1 against making any such changes. This is not the behavior of a
group that is trying very hard to listen to its neighbors.
(4) ECC is self-dealing - There is a fundamental conflict of interest in having amateur radio hobbyists
write these ordinances. They have demonstrated they are not willing to incorporate anything
that responds to other residents concerns and they are completely self-dealing since the benefits they
are proposing for legislation go exclusively to themselves. Furthermore, having the chairman of the
ECC also vote on approving the recommendation at the planning commission level is self-interested,
and he should recuse himself from voting. If any changes are warranted, then the people who vote on
it should be unbiased and should not benefit individually or benefit by nature of being a part of a
group who solely benefits from the legislation.
(5) Our present ordinances are adequate - If the present ordinances are already compliant with State
and Federal law, why do we need to make any changes? Applicants who want antennas have a
process for which they can apply for permits and these processes support protecting neighbors. If
they need variances to put guy wires into setbacks, there is a process for that. The argument that
LAH's ordinances are too unfriendly to amateur radio is based on one applicant's experience in 2004
that would have done tremendous harm to many neighbors. That situation should be viewed as an
example of how our ordinances protected us, not of how unfriendly LAH is to amateur radio.
(6) This is not a 45 foot ordinance, its a 75 foot ordinance - 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 45 foot limit is not required to be used at all. It is unfortunate that the
recent staff report indicates that 45 foot antennas can be approved only with administrative review
and no neighbor notification, since really these antennas can be 75 feet tall - which makes this
ordinance the tallest among Atherton, Cupertino, Los Altos, Palo Alto, Portola Valley, Saratoga, and
Woodside, according to information provided by the ECC.
3