HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Supplement #8 ITEM 3.1
SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 8
April 7,2016 DISTRIBUTED 4/7/16
To: Members of the Planning Commission
Town Planning Director,City Manager,City Attorney
From: Dru Anderson KG6LAD, resident Town of Los Altos Hills since 1986
FCC Technician and General License as an amateur radio operator
15-year Volunteer on several committees/activities for the Town of Los Altos Hills
Past President, LAH ECC, past and current Secretary,charter member 2001 of LAH ECC
Re: Clarification of ECC in relation to consideration by Planning Commission of antenna ordinance
Respected Commissioners,and Staff,and Public:
This is to publically correct the several assertions by Mr.Waschura, repeatedly put forth in public
comments on NextDoor.com and in other public communication,as well as to other individuals who are
incorrectly referring to the proposed Antenna Ordinance, now being studied and considered by the
Town Staff and the Planning Commission,as the "ECC Proposal."
In fact,the draft ordinance being considered is a task of the Planning Commission.
It is not a task of the ECC.
Clarification of the town's ordinance specific to amateur radio antennas is a concern of the broad
spectrum of licensed hams in the town,and there are varying thoughts on the specifics. But the proposal
was not developed by the committee.
Some months back,during an annual presentation to the Council of the ECC,the officers, including
myself,advised the Council, as a point of information,that an area that needed more clarification was
the town's loose reference to antennas in its current ordinance array that lacked adequate specifics in
consideration of amateur radio antenna requests.Specifically,the ordinances needed to be in league
with both Federal and State Laws.
The Council did ask the ECC officers to do some comparisons of the ordinances of other communities in
the area and report to the Planning Commission.That initial work was reported to the Planning
Commission,which then appointed the staff and a subcommittee to do further study and come back
with a proposal.
No further action was requested of the ECC by the town,except for a staff request last fall to have the
ECC members review the proposal. The membership at that time voted unanimously in support of the
proposal.
In the months since,town staff and the Planning Commission subcommittee did significant further work
in response to other information developed,and to public comments.
Updates,for general interest to the members,were given from time to time. Mr. MacMillan,who is a
member of the committee,developed,on his own,a response to the original proposal,and his motion
to adopt was voted down. It was"not an ECC responsibility-it belongs to the Planning Commission to
develop.
At both the February and March meetings, I voiced the position that the ECC was NOT the debating
arena for the proposed city ordinance,and that his and any other of the members or associates were
most welcome to take their concerns to the proper audience—which is the Town Staff and the Planning
Commission.
The March ECC minutes reflected that statement: "...Dru KG6LAD commented that indeed the neighbor
relationship is important, but she believed that the committee's support of a proposed antenna
ordinance at a prior meeting was already stated.She said that proposed revisions to the ordinance
should ... be brought to the Planning Commission sub-committee and/or to the Planning commission,as
she felt it is an ordinance related to the needs of ham community in general, and is not an ECC-specific
matter."
At the April 5, meeting,wherein the item was on the Agenda as part of the information only list under
"Upcoming Events," I restated to Mr. MacMillan and to the group that,again,this was not an ECC
proposal,that it was the work of the Town Staff and the Planning Commission,and that any suggested
changes needed to appropriately be brought to that venue by the individuals with suggestions to offer.
There was no motion and there was no vote at the April 5 meeting.
In Summary,the development of the proposed Antenna Ordinance is the responsibility of the Town Staff
and Planning Commission consideration, not the ECC.
Members of the ECC and associates are ham operators and are welcome to offer,as individuals,their
opinions to the Town, and at its public hearings for consideration.
I ask the Staff,Planning Commission,and the Public to be aware and correct the perception,carried
forth by Mr.Waschura and others,that incorrectly refers tothe ordinance proposal as an"ECC
Proposal."
The ECC did what it was asked to do by Council,at the time it was asked,and has not, as an organization,
taken further action except to hear updates, and to redirect individuals' proposed changes to the correct
arena for consideration.
###