HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.5 Supplement #1 ITEM 6.5
SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 1
From: Jim Waschura
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: Re:one more thing
Date: Wednesday,August 17,2016 7:49:09 PM
Hello Jaime, please include this email in materials to planning committee members relating to
the antenna ordinance changes to be discussed at next Tuesday's meeting. Thank you, Jim
Waschura
To planning commissioners:
After reading the staff report and specifically the statement, "The primary change to the
ordinance since the last Planning Commission hearing is a return to the approval processes in
the current Municipal Code," I felt some relief. However, after reading the actual language of
the ordinance I feel the Staffs characterization is not altogether accurate. For example:
* Existing ordinances don't make any distinction between fixed-height and retractable-height
antennas, and the new changes treat the height of retractable antennas as if they were always
retracted, while there is no requirement to retract them ever, and
* Whereas the existing ordinances require Notice and Public hearing for anything over 40',
the new changes allow retractable antennas up to 63' with no notice nor public hearing, and
also
* The new ordinances say antennas over 63'may require a Hearing only if neighbors object
after a 14-day notice period,which I believe is too short to accommodate normal family travel
and the like.
So,though it is meaningful that the proposed changes are shaping-up and movements have
occurred which take resident feedback into account, I don't think its fair to characterize the
present changes as, "returning to the approval processes in the current Municipal code."
Please do what was implied,which is to reinstate our present ordinances, and to continue to
require notice and public hearings under the same conditions as before. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Waschura
ITEM 6.5
SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 2
From: Dianelynharris
To: Jaime McAvov
Subject: Antennas 63"
Date: Thursday,August 18,2016 6:06:40 AM
Dear neighbor:
Please consider the view that is affected when self serving neighbors are allowed limited restriction with their
antennas.This was a big problem in our neighborhood 20 years ago.Our view was not affected,but families on
Viscaino were. With people spending upward of 6 million on a new house,with a view,it is not compassionate or
fair for an attenda to get in the way after they buy or build their dream home.
Diane Harris
Anacapa Drive
Sent from my iPad
yY�
ITEM 6.5
SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 3
From: Steohen Chan
To: Suzanne Avila;Jaime McAvoy
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Aug 23-Radio Antennas Regulations
Date: Sunday,August 21,2016 8:36:05 PM
Attachments: AntennaPic.odf
We have objections to the proposed radio antenna ordinance'as follows.
Maximum height limit of an antenna should be the same for fixed-height or
retractable, setting at 40 feet. If retractable version, maximum limit applies to when
fully extended. Were a retractable antenna allowed to extend higher, there is no
practical enforcement mechanism to prevent it from being extended all the time.
Antenna placement should have setbacks preventing it and any of its attachments
(guy wires) fall beyond the property line in an accident. Neighboring people's well-
being and property damage are at risk.
All antenna application should go through Planning Commission review, same as
building a new house, including public hearings. Antennas are prominent structures
that significantly impact the views of a large neighborhood. They are not easily
shielded, especially from houses uphill. See the attached photo of an antenna we
see from our house, about 400'yards away and down-slope.
Stephen and Amy Chan
r ei ' icio. ,4; ti- ,._...'0.-:!.., -„,;..'..., 1....,,---, / t., i".,
, "' it. ;pow" 4,It.: **". .4 *,, "'-• .,,,/ ,,," '*? .."'" 4 **P'
fix, , "
......- _ r.,.... `t,;1.!
,, t.,.� F jai'. a,k
"rte. . 'a ',
r
r,
a, y .,a$, #�` �,a ..� :a. a
"
Ate
,, , , to .
is cgs R �wa4 r� as .s
s : .0" €- * " r
� �: st
�. Y .. �s".` {'" + *fir .�
it
Ski k- j fir.: ` 4 t` .. ..
04
4014
; .-h`" '' " '.. §� AF Vi ' 4 ---7%.'..--,'
7 �r a "e. `i+$
'•el..— ....
r$ w e s =9 a , ;'?,4.14
$p wad,+
., - "tt' a". `, ''fit„ . a �-�'y'140/041401`,11,4*.*
� w'+,,
/ *T" FM ma .. R ..: } 5.. m' ',
47
: 4- � t' 4#*a ,F" q�� P .. .: ,, + i s
I.
"
Y
Ike +q` S � ''4,4*
+' � * ;K`�"k�, }'"
, „,..s,,,,, _-_----- ,,,,..- *,,3, - / ,
-sip ;0. `
} !(are `. g.,^:JP �+ ` A;' ,•'
gyp- >
ITEM 6.5
SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 4
From: Karin Menq
To: Jaime McAvov
Cc: Karin Menq
Subject: To planning commissioners about Antennas
Date: Monday,August 22,2016 6:56:46 AM
I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow, and would like you to know my opinion.
To planning commissioners:
I attended the last planning committee meeting and heard most of the commissioners say they felt there was no reason to
make changes to our antenna ordinances after the town's lawyer said that our present ordinances are already compliant with
state and federal law. Considering what the commissioners said and considering all the resident objections to the proposals,I
don't understand why there are so many significant changes written into the current proposal. Why are we making it easier to
put up taller antennas and ruin a neighbor's view without telling the neighbor or giving them a chance to object in a hearing?
I hope you will not approve these changes.
Sincerely,
Karin Meng
La Cresta Drive,Los Altos Hills
ITEM 6.5
SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 5
From: adlervu(alatt.net
To: Jaime McAvov
Cc: Suzanne Avila
Subject: SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,TUESDAY,AUGUST 23,2016 AT 07:00 p.m.
Date: Monday,August 22,2016 11:18:48 AM
To planning commissioners:
After read through the new amended codes, I do feel that the subcommittee members
have not seriously taken residents' input into consideration:
1) Earthquake and strong gust wind can attack any minute without warning, they will
not wait retractable antenna to be cranked down. For safety reason, height of
• retractable antenna should always be measured in their fully extended length and be
treated as fixed height antenna, the retracted length has no meaning at all. The
amended codes unsafely assume "retractable" is most of the time "retracted", ignore
the potential damage it can cause when "extended".
2) In the current Code, if any structure collapses, the failed parts should never be
allowed to fall across the property line, which may cause damage to the nearby
electric power line, fall onto adjacent public roads or neighbors' properties. Power
line and public roads can be along not only front, but also side and rear property
lines.
The amended codes (10-2.1501) only concentrated on how to maximize antenna
height and completely ignore the most important safety concern. If structure fails, 40'
antenna can fall over the property line onto public road or neighbor's yard, 63'
antenna can fall even across neighbor's setback line onto the dwelling, causing
property damage, personal injuries or death.
3) The amended codes (10-1.505) allow antenna element and bracing structurs to be
in the setback area, which will also cause serious safety issues.
4) The amended codes (10-1.504) change the way to calculate antenna height. For
antenna on sloped lot, due to base line definition change, maximum height can be
unsafely 10' to 15' more than current Code allowed. Again, the Subcommittee only
focused on how to maximize the antenna height without considering the safety issue.
The amended codes destroy the integrity of Current Code, allow Ham radio antenna
not to follow the strict requirements as other structures in Town, deprive residients'
right, ignore the safety of the general public.
Again, the amended codes are bad, our current Code should be kept unchanged.
Adler Yu
ITEM 6.5
SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 6
August 22, 2016
To planning commissioners:
I am a ham who would like to expand upon my current use of UHF/VHF mobile and handheld
radios. I use these radios to provide volunteer services to the Town via membership in the
Emergency Communications Committee(past chair and current secretary) and as a member of
the Town's CERT Recon Team (field radio organization).
I hope to install an HF antenna but I realize that I will then be entering the "hobbyist"use of
amateur radio, and that using that type of radio does not enhance my ability to do good work for
the Town during an emergency. In point of fact,the ECC purchased an HF radio years ago and
has not found a use for it during an emergency, nor has the ECC felt a need to devise any
procedures to make emergency use of such equipment/antennas currently installed at some of our
members'residences. Emergency communications and hobbyist use of amateur radio should
have different levels of regulation/consideration within Town. This is especially the case since
hobbyist can use antennas stretching to 65 feet of viewable impact under the proposed ordinance,
which can be very material to neighbors -both esthetically and as an negative impact on their
neighbor's property investment.
Hams who wish to install antennas envisioned by the proposed ordinance need to err on the side
of being "good neighbors" and the Town needs ordinance provisions that will insure such
behavior-adequate notice and reasonable neighbor response times (at least 30 days), maximum
duty cycles(time above 40-feet) and a specified term of use(removal with the absence of a valid
FCC license) - such provisions are all missing in the proposed language.
No one can argue that antennas are works of art. The proposed ordinance would allow a
structure to the height of"The Tree" antenna behind the Heritage House, without any notice to
neighbors, up 24/7/365. There needs to be a clear differentiation between antennas that can
reach 40 feet in use and those that can be extended beyond that height. Now,the ability to
retract a structure to or below 40 feet clears the way for keeping the approval process secret and
rip for abuse.
No matter the ordinance, I intend to seek out my neighbors - including those with a reasonable
view impact further afield- before I apply to have an HF antenna installed. If I can't mitigate
their view concerns, I will NOT install the antenna. My hobby is not worth the upset and view
impact on my neighbors. If I don't get to install an HF antenna, so be it-I will put my HF radio
on eBay. My neighbors' views and property values trump my hobby.
Sincerely,
Duncan MacMillan KI6VMY
27345 Natoma Road
650-941-3697
ITEM 6.5
SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 7
From: Vijay Parikh
To: Jaime McAvov
Subject: Comments on antenna
Date: Monday,August 22,2016 3:56:31 PM
I simply don't understand that when this issue is opposed by all except one person why it continues to drag along?Is
the committee so pressured by social niceties that it cannot make a decision in favor of the community but feels the
need to compromise away the well being of the community for one person?Please kill this issue once and for all
and proceed to other issues that concern more than one person
Vijay Parikh
12978 La Cresta Dr
Los Altos Hills,CA
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 6.5
SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 8
From: anna wei
To: )aime McAvov
Cc: Suzanne Avila
Subject: special meeting 8/23/16 antenna
Date: Tuesday,August 23,2016 9:31:43 AM
To Planning Commissioners:
The amended ordinances will have huge negative impacts on town residents. The 63'
monstrous object will significantly reduce neighbors' property values and terribly
interfere with neighbors' views (the landscape screening will even further block
neighbor's view). Moreover, if the tall antenna falls, it surely will threaten nearby
neighbors' lives for possible injuries and death. Who wants to lose millions of dollars on
home value? Who wants to have the view blocked by a huge ugly object in front?Who wants
to live in fears every day in unknown situation?
I urge each of planning commissioner to spend time to review all inputs/comments/opinions
(by residents who are against the amended codes) on file from previous meetings.Also please
study 2004 Viscaino road antenna application on record for your reference. We want our
voices to be heard, not ignored.
With many obvious foresee negative impacts on residents, plus town attorney has said that
our present ordinances are already compliant with State and Federal law in last meeting. I
don't understand why it's so difficult for planning commission to decide. Is there any secrets
behind that can't be revealed?Is the position, power and fame more important than the facts?
I wanted to remind each volunteer commissioner-you are serving for the community not for
one person. You are here to protect and help residents, not here to hurt residents, damage the
town reputation and create problems.
I strongly oppose the codes amendment. It should be denied and have this case closed.
Thank you.
Anna Wei
La Cresta Drive\
ITEM 6.5
SUPPLEMENMTAL NO. 9
From: Suzanne Avila
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: RN:Antenna Ordinance
Date: Monday,August 22,2016 5:02:38 PM
Original Message
From:Gary Waldeck[mailto:gcwaldeck@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday,August 22,2016 11:26 AM
To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Cc:Tankha Kavita<kavitat@comcast.net>;Abraham Jim<Jim@jimabraham.com>;Carl Cahill
<ccahill@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject:Antenna Ordinance
Suzanne
Given the lengthy agenda for the next PC meeting,I ask that the Antenna Ordinance be postponed until the
following meeting.
Thank you
Gary
Gary Waldeck,Vice Mayor
Los Altos Hills,CA
GCWaldeck@gmail.com
(650)739-8823
Brevity,Typos and Incorrect Words!are courtesy of this iPhone's AutoCorrect feature