HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 Supplement Supplemental No. 1
AGENDA ITEM#3.2
Distributed.10/19/15
Deborah Padovan
From: Carolsmith2@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, October 16,2015 6:36 PM
To: . Suzanne Avila; Deborah Padovan
Cc: jitze@Couperus.org
Subject: Planning Commisioners: HAM Radio
Please forward to all planning commissioners.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I support a balanced approach that protects our views from obstructions but does not unnecessarily restrict
HAM radio operators essential tool for emergency communications.
HAM radio operators are our critical link to the outside world when disasters such as wild fires,Loma Prieta,
Hurricane Katrina, and Red Cross operations. .
Views are important to us. That's why we live in this gorgeous place. I am also an inactive HAM radio operator
(volunteered&trained to help our communities disaster preparedness teams). -
My solution to the towns policies has been to keep some tall trees that I could use as a tower sans restrictions.
The unintended consequence of the height ordinance is that I'm keeping these older tall trees that a neighbor
would like removed to improve their views. .
Concerns raised by neighbors:
TOWER HEIGHT: A tower is typically 10 feet not 75. The mechanics are a tower supports an antenna- an
antenna goes up from there.No one wants to come home and find a 75' structure obstructing their view!
ANTENNA SIZE: There are very few HAMS in town that would need a larger tower or large antenna. Those
are for the folks who are communicating internationally. Most.would want much smaller antennas on 10 foot.,
towers. Last count on number of HAMS in town is about 90.
FUTURE IMPACT: Most current HAMS already have towers and antennas up. So we are talking about a small
number of folks that might like to erect:a tower in the future.But when there is a disaster we will want them to
have the tools they need to keep us safe.
HAMS: The demographics on HAMS tends to be older men(70-80's),with younger folks not joining the ranks
(dwindling population). If we want to have the support of HAMS in a disaster, at a minimum,we need to make
it feasible for them to spend their own time and money on equipment and training.
HAM FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS: Today it's much cheaper, easier and more secure to
use an international or VoIP communications provider($50 a month for unlimited calls to thailand a friend
shared). Investing in HAM-radio equipment,training,passing the test, and setting up the system is very
expensive and time consuming. Anyone can buy a scanner to listen to most HAM calls.
FREMONT HILLS SUBDIVISION PROHIBITS TOWERS: The CC&Rs of the Fremont Hills subdivision
circa 1950's is probably irrelevant to this discussion. The CC&Rs contain discriminatory language which only
allows for'white folks and members of the Fremont Hills Country Club'be allowed to purchase a home here
and does not contain a severance clause(meaning that the CC&Rs in their entirety would most probably be
struck down by a court).
HOURS LIMITATIONS ON HEIGHT EXTENSION: HAMs could be helping out other communities at any
given time. HAMs spend a fair amount of time training. Training hours and check in calls with other
communities happen at different times. We want HAMS to be refining their craft and developing skills in the
event of a disaster.
'HOBBY' OR NATIONAL SECURITY: Here is the Fed/DOD view:
"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),\fn 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."
None of us wants a 76 foot structure erected that blocks our living or dining room views. But if the top of the
tower can be seen from the garage,yard, or bathroom is that enough to limit a HAM antenna? Is there a
difference between being visible and blocking or obstructing a view?Perhaps the planning commission could
discuss what constitutes a significant view shed encroachment so neighbors cannot block HAM antennas
capriciously.
Thanks for considering my comments. I understand the difficulty in crafting good policies that will stand the
test of time and appreciate the efforts of all of our volunteers including planning commissioners and HAM radio
volunteers.
Carol Smith
Expect abundance and thrive at business and in life
2
Supplemental No.2
AGENDA ITEM#3.2
Distributed 10/19/15
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 andl 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 radiomega-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: ..
} tr40.,
,d.
—r
^��,F^�� .. ._ - ""G •r — � tet.. , _ ..
,.., 4 g, OP' _ �-� 74 F E ET. - •
%;*:0kms.
1.-1
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 zoningchanges 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]
r' 3 SUPPLEMENT
Jaime McAvo 2.
AGENDA ITEM#�O-
Y Distributed: j� L'0/i 6
From: Inga de Ruyter[inga.deruyter@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 3:41 PM
To: Deborah Padovan;Jaime McAvoy; Suzanne Avila
Subject: Changes to the Los Alto Zoning Regulations
To whom it concerns, .
It has come to my attention that Los Altos Hills is considering changing the zoning laws with respect to raising an antenna.That the proposal being presented on Thursday sets for
those individuals who want to raise an antenna few restrictions.
•
a r
!r-m�a� fit•^ �Y µ L '�I'4,t�W� �.�
7'- ,r. ' r :tet
x tT'3'N tf a K .�,e:4 �;,
kaf'3 y
y " n ' :V r'r
wi xt' > '
I bought this property because of the view.As you can see form the above picture,there are already three very tall antennas and a short one on my neighbors roof that I look at
everyday.I bought this property knowing of their existence.But if anymore appear,my view would be very much disrupted.These properties are all about the view and hence their
resale value is all about the view.
I do not think that a one size fits all approach is very appropriate.Whoever wants to put up an antenna should go through the same process as any homeowner has to when they
want to remodel their home.Story polls are required when going through Site Development.I,as a neighbor may not understand how a 75 foot antenna will affect my view until I
see where and how it is placed.I understand antenna projects used to use balloons to represent their height so that there was a visual representation before its construction.
If the town wants or needs emergency antennas than the town should invest in them and placed on town owned property.
I expect that the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission take all residents interests into consideration before approving a change to the zoning law that will affect so many.
Thank you,
Inga de Ruyter
12610 La Cresta Drive
Los Altos Hills,CA 94022
1
SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM# , 2.
Distributed: 0/2.11
To: Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
From: Ray Egan, member:of the Emergency Communications Committee
Subject: Proposed Amateur Radio Antenna Regulations
Date: October 19,2015
I fully support the proposed Amateur Radio and Emergency Communication Antenna Regulation as
proposed.The proposal is both reasonable at the present time and meets the FCC objectives for
amateur radio and emergency communications.
We have been a resident of the Town for almost 50 years since 1966.:1 was granted a tower permit for
the antenna more than 20 years ago that did not exceed 35 feet and was within the setback and did not
extend over the property line.The location on the lot was chosen to minimize neighbor views.As you
can see in the accompanying photo there is one house located about ten feet elevation above us which
is hidden behind the trees and bushes.There is a PG&E power pole existing on the joint property line
which extends about 15 feet above my antenna and is located between our houses.Thus my antenna
does not affect the neighbors view to the valley or the mountains. (The house is oriented nearly on a
north-south line.) I believe that in most cases it will be possible to install an amateur antenna so as not
to interfere with a neighbor's view.
•
., a e.
1/
ant ^
r s d 1 T
Jaime McAvoy
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 3:13 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Please add to information available for the Antenna Ordinance Hearing-10272015
Attachments: Com ments_to_WaschuraLetter.pdf
From: DruAndersn@aol.com [mailto:DruAndersn@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2015 3:09 PM
To: Deborah Padovan; Suzanne Avila
Cc: druAndersn@aol.com
Subject: Please add to information available for the Antenna Ordinance Hearing-10272015
10/20/2015
Dear Deborah:
CC: Suzanne.Avila
Can you please add the attached letter from me to the information available to the Planning Commissioners regarding the
proposed Antenna Ordinance for their public hearing Thursday, Oct. 22 @ 7 p.m., LAH town council chambers?
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Dru Anderson
Saddle Court, Los Altos Hills
1
To:Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
From: DruAnderson,Saddle Court, Los Altos Hills
RE: Documents provided to a m `ohtyoftheiP|anninQComrnissionreQardinganhero'on
the upcoming
Date: ,October 2D, 2U15
To Whom it May Concern:
Below is a letter that was written by Mr.Jim Waschlura,aLAH.citizen' In is letter,be
opposes the acceptance of a proposed change to our Town Antenna Ordinance He
raises some very gobd_points,:although theyare presented with a,biased viewpointan6
fail±oacknowledge the critical part that our Amateur Radid,E)peratdrswithin LAH
provide.
|n0ovenmberof2Ol4,the City Council directedthatanAd committee befornxedto
aSseSs_surroundnQloopto craft areVised set of rules that could be adopted IN
the to a) help ensure that these dedicated volunteers willbe taprovide
emergency services to the Town when needed and b)to:ensure that we stiWhavesuch
important vOl inteerswho even might.bexviUinQtohelp inatime ofneed.
a r |t`rather than offer a document that helps point oUtthe benefit that suth a law
will bring,this letter chooses to debate the`assertkonsthatK8r' ' ! ura^(nhis|etter'
copied below, has made by using Bold,copied below, has made by uSing Bpict,)taticized fontItalicized font to differentiate the original letter
from this rebuttal. The point/counterpoint discussion follows:
Sin rely,and"
nderson
Sadd|e[durt, LdsAltos Hills,CA
To TOWN [)FLOS:A[TO5HILLS.PLANNING COMMISSION
From JinAVVaSthura, ReSident
Re Documents ptoa-rn 'orityofthaP|adhihgQonhnoiSsionlregardinQ2a[xUenn
on the upcoming agenda
Date October 1g.,2Ol5
To. hp,mit may concern,
My name is Jimonaandmyfandlyamd | have livedin LoS Altos Hills for 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 Hehad just renelved anotioe from the town that
the neighbor below him had applied for,a permit to installan arriateur radib,mega-tower
that wo |dthreotenhisviem/.Togeth hered support fromrotberneighbmnsand
fought the permit Here are simulated pictures from my neighbors dining room that
illustrate the_2004 situation:
This permit application came in front of the,-Town Council and rimany neighbors spoke
and-provided written input.The applicant who was a member of the Emergency
Communications Committee,was awareof the ruinous'effect he would have on his
uphill neighbor, but persisted anyway,saying that Federal law(rule P-RB'-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 1050'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,
applicantwithdrew his application [This is:an important statement—more will be
described later in this message]
First, the simulation that Mr. Waschura hrss;provided is a photo-shopped presentation
that of course represents a contrived condition;it looks as:if the anteantenna is much too
close and is too large.Amateur Radio-operators are also reasonable citizens: They do
not want an argument;or to lower land,values-or anything else that will create
disharmony or loss of value.indeed, virtually:every operator in town that already has
an antenna operating hash'ad discussions with their neighbors and hove come to a
reasonable accommodation beforeit was erected.
Although the applicant in:the2004 case".withdrew his application, the,reason`was that.
the private HOA agreement dictated whether an::antenna could(or not)be erected;
the Federal Rules"that-were-the basis for theapplicant's request did,not(then)apply to
privateagreements(a new federal law isnow being considered that removes that
exemption).
The problem is that there is no,LAH.Code-that governsthe installation of Amateur.
Radio Antennas in the non-HOA areas;that is the problem: The existing LAH code
dictates conditions for satellite antennas but not for antennas-that are used for
amateur radio communications Changes to the ordinance are needed to
accommodate that usage:
GOOD FENCES MAKE GOAD 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 changes had been in effect"in 2004,the'74 foot antenna
:pictured above could havebeen built with no neighbor noticeand no neighbor hearing
before the planning commission. Imagine coming;home one dayand seeing this
monstrosity out your livingroom window!.
If there'is one thing:the 2004 episode taught us,itwas:that we can't expect every
neighbor to always do the right thing.So,our ordinances;need to stay in place
preserve our homeowner rights-when such a harmful threat is possible..
2
Prior to.2004, a request for an amateur radio antenna was an administrative ncction,
as is proposed in the offered changes.•The procedural change occurredafter that time
but is not actually embodied In existing LAH building code..Instead, the:Town
erroneously beganto use the satellite-antenna portion of our code which is an
incorrect application of the law.: It should be noted that ONLY in the case the writer
cites was this issue EVER'a prmblern.
HARMFUL:EFFECTS Los Altos Hills home values can sway°$1M.or more basedon 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=areso valued, it is°horrendous to consider zoningchanges that put them at
risk;The:town zoning ordinances,havea very legitimate purpose in protecting residents
and their views.
The Town's"legitimate purpose"is to`first ensure:thattthe safety of its citizens is,
assured.Secondary interests.might include citizen's;other concerns such as views,
infrastructure,etc.
Amateur radiopractitioners are,people,_too. They have the same:values as non-
Amateurs. No one wants to degrade either property values-or their relationships with
neighbors. Indeed in every case I am aware of,most antennas'werepresentlong
before the.surrounding.homes were built. In those days,it was not an issue.:For._most,
it still is not.
Too, "Legitimate purpose"works both.ways. While the Town has a "legitimate-
purpose', the amateur operator has one too. That freedom is granted-by PRB-1.
The.Amateur's legitimate purpose is driven by the wavelength(frequency)of needed
operations. PRB-1,says that ry reasonable,accommodation must be afforded the.
Amateur practitioner Thatphraseology been interpreted to Mean that:the.,desired
operations by the amateur must be reasonably accommodated.
The FCC rules are very explicit in their definition of how PRP=1is to.be applied.
Restated, they say:that an Amateur Radio Operator mUst be all owed to.practice;his
art in a'nutshell,:that-meansthat if an operator chooses to use VHF or UFH or higher
frequencies, they can;ditto foriower frequencies.
What many people do not understand is that the chosen operating frequency
determines the type of antenna that must be employed.,Lower frequencies
(intercontinental communications)are larger antennas;in higher frequencies(shorter
wavelengthsand operating distances)are smaller,and are used formore local
communications, like,for:example, emergency operations.
Simple physics defines the parameters thatan antenna ford specific frequency must
have. One important rule is that for an antenna, to be,effective,must be situatedat
least 1/2 wavelength above ground. In general, therhigher the operating frequency,
the less height above ground is:needed;,the antenna itself rs proportionately smaller
too. This means that for an antenna to be effective that.uses VHF or higher
3
frequencies, the antenna needs_to be no higher than 40"aboye the ground(although,
surrounding terrain and other factors May dictate other siting.considerations such as
height above ground and location on the property, etc.).
For example,let's examine LAH's Amateur community in particular Taking a count
from.the FCC Database,you will:find that there-9Q Amateur Radio Operators who live:
in LAM. Of these, a significant majority(about 85%)are emergency service.operators
who primarily use short wavelength-(VI-1For UHF)radios.Most only..use a hand held
radio, they don't have or even:want roof or tower mounted antennas. These
frequencies require very short fixed antennas(about 10'long vertical pole units and
are roof mounted on'"10 feet high single pole structures). TheY are virtually non-
significant in their impact The other 19%.(about 14 operators)use lower frequencies
(longer wavelengths)to communicate. Their usage requires larger antennas.
These services areneeded to ensure oursurvival in thecase of a major disaster
(earthquake or fire). It is not certain that the County can accommodate our needs in a
major calamity.for theseevents, the longer wavelengthsare needed to communicate.
WithSacramento or Los Angeles. it is these operators:who will'save our_bacon'if
needed. Virtually all of the amateurs who prefer-this lower frequency usagealready
have antennas installed and,given:thecost:for-such.an antenna,are unlikely to make
other changes, The overwhelming majority of new amateurs who are in the
community join because of the emergency operations aspects,and most only have a
small handheld radio to accominodatetheirheeds.
The-,accompariying documents-provided to the cornmittee:in:support of,the proposed
zoning changes indicatethat the:emergencycommunications cornmittee,>rriembers
polled nearby communities and chose to match:the;highest in-use:antenna height:for
their proposed.changes. LosAltos Hills'is compared with:nearby Los Altos and Atherton.,
Butresidents don't move to those:communiities:for theviews, like they=do.her..e 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 applicationmust 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,requireplanning-and zoning:approval:and
neither have a blank-check style approval like the one being proposed in l os Altos Hills
now.
The counter'view is-that our neighbor communities, Los Altos, Menlo.Park and
Atherton already allow antennas with exactly these parameters: Indeed, they were
chosen to match our neighbor's requirements so that property owners would see:
similarities in our local laws.
4
It is pointed out that subsequent court findings prohibit even considering aesthetic
impactswhen evaluating the installation of a tower and'rxntenna. An aesthetic
evaluation is, by its very nature,subjective, not objective. This is the reason the courts
have adopted the prohibition of aesthetics.in.any deliberations.
OVER-REACHING PROPOSAL
Los Altos Hills zoning ordinances put limits on the;height of construction:projects to
enhancethe rural.character and preserve_hillside views. No:building can be.greaterthan
35 feet, and residents who movehere are comfortable knowing that these restrictions
protect the values-of the community.There are also deep setbacklimits-to prevent
building too close to neighboring propertiesor easements or right-of ways Zoning
ordinances are supported by the town's site development process,which providesthat.
neighbors be nptfied when a site will be substantially changed so-they can provide
inpu't�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,tel
planning commission review,and ultimately to town council review..Decisions at each
lower level can be appealed to the next-higher level of authority:
Presently;amateur radio antenna construction projects follow:this same process.
Specifically;the zoning ordinancesstate 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
is it prohibited fromlanding outside theowner's property.;.Itis also not clear for
amateur radio antennes whether the proscribed height pertains to the height of the.
tower or the highest point on the antenna mounted.on,top of the-tower-which could
add,another'15 feet forstacked 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 timeof day the systems
can be used,nor any limits on duty-cycle,:and no penalties`.for leaving the antenna':at full
75-foot height24/7:
Counter.point:The reality is that no-Amateur Radiooperator is.likeiy to:leave,a
retractable antenna elevated for any significant length of time; it increases the.risk of
failure due to unanticipated.weather events. These people really do care about the
aesthetics of their home environment They realize that it is.a mixed use environment
-and that they heed to be good neighbors. The point is that one COULD behave that
5
•
wciy;but in this environment, it is very unlikelyand is potentially financially punishing
if they should do so.
It should also be pointed out that attempting tofbc operating hours has also been
adjudged to be illegal—that concept diminiShes thefreedoms provided by PRB-1.
WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING
°nits 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 torn MU nications.
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 reach100's of (thousands under some circumstances),and
emergency situations-often use nearby point-to-pointcomniunications:to
emergency communications to nearby unaffected land-lines.The paper,doesncit
'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 Massachilsetts,to the continent
of Europe using the 14 MHz amateur band,the author concludes, "the 70-foot antenna
would arguably be the.bestoverall choice to,-,covet-all thereleVatibri angles:"
This SeemS likea very interesting hobby,but it should he dear 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 totilin 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 providelhese facilities.
'The above:is not necessarily accurate:
The ad-hoc committee was commissioned by the Town Connell last November after a
plea from the ECC to review and help the Amateur radio Operators.to continue to use
and enjoy their hobby and to provide a ready volunteer resource for the Town in case
of need.
The concern is that by discriminating against this key group of volunteers who buy
their own equipment,install it;use it in both their hobby and then voluntarily offer it
for tise in emergency services-to the TO10),, we could easitylose theirsUpport.
6.
The Town depends on our volunteers to help ensure that our disaster response will
work and that we will attain the support we need The ability to communicate is an
essential part of that disaster planning operation. Without these dedicated
volunteers, a significant hole in our ability to react to a big problem will-certainly
appear.
The concept of installing(relaying)equipment,as suggested in the opposing letter,is
not technically feaSible. Repeaters are commonly used for VHF/UHF operations, and
operate on a single fixed frequency and location. For most Amateur Radio
communications activities, a wide-variety of frequencies are used. Technically, this
operations concept does not work. The cost of such a system would be astronomical.
The concern about towers failing is a red herring... that is the reason for the required
Planning Department review. The review is to ensure that adequate engineering has
been completed to ensure reliability of the tower. The review assesses that the
antenna placement will have minimal neighbor impact and that antenna coverages
remain on the petitioner's property(even if it fails), and that utility poles and wires
will not be affected by the installation. Only guy wires that might be needed to
stabilize a tower may extend into the setbacks(an antenna's elements will be allowed
to sweep over a setback—elements and guy wires are not considered to be
structure).
The cost of the radio and antenna equipment is very high;the Amateur Radio operator
certainly does not want to see his equipment trashed. If anything,these installations
are usually OVER designed Last,the failure mode of a tower is such that the units are
designed to fail at least halfway up the tower. That means that even if a tower were
to fail, that it would fall within its own property.
PRB-1 allows the practitioner to choose the band(s)of operations s/he desires. That
could mean that s/he could define several bands that would be needed to
accommodate the operator's"legitimate purpose". The term "Reasonable
Accommodation"has been held by the courts to allow the practitioner to operate on
the frequency bands he believes will fulfill his needs. In the situation at hand,
Emergency Communications service may well require operations on multiple bands,
some as low as 40 meters.
Modern physics dictates the parametersrequired to use each band;one rule that must
be employed is that the antenna, to be effective,must be a minimum of%wavelength
above the ground The band of operation determines the antenna height needed The
tower/antenna height isdeterminedby the frequency/wavelength that the operator
desires to operate. Most practitioners in LAH use VHF/UHF frequencies.About 14
operators use lower frequencies and virtually all already have suitable antennas
operating.
For VHF and above frequencies,a small antenna mounted about 4 feet off the ground
will usually work well. However,for lower frequencies, the wavelength is longer and
an appropriately higher antenna is needed for effective use. In the proposed rule,
7
��m /to40mnetez/m,ememsswnmadtebe ��n�n�� ergenc� Jhe�owave �
' this band on the Order and is the limit
for
being placed at that number.
FEDERAL PREEMPTIQN
In 2004;the threat ofFederal law preemption(rUle FRB-1)was used by the ariplicanttO
'u���vanantennadinect�inthebayvleVxofhi�uphU[neighbqr'Thbru|esaySthatthe
^ 'must reasonably nl anugt�urra Uzserx�e�an�app|ythenininnu�n
t�vxomnu `na na , occo nnoonu� e
practicable regulation to effect thetown's legitimate Purpose.
Firstly,since the town is known for its valuable spettacUlar views,surely the town has a
legitimate purpose to protett these valuable assets for its residents Secondly, if any
suchregulationsshou|d be then the least we could do is nothingatall, and
leave such issues to thepresent 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 ' dtLosGatos has no specified limits and they do
require planning and zoning approvals,and apparently their ordinance does comply
with rule PRBA..
we'agree, the PRB-1 rule applies. PR8-i states, in effect„,thatthe Town cannot
intedere with the practitioner's desired osage. That desired usage to achieve the
Amur Radio Operator's legitimmtepwrpoSe deterrhinces the types of antenna that is
heeded to accomplish the coMnnmmicmtioos amm/,
in the earlier part of this memo, we found that' was NOT the cause of the
applicant's/�Bmretm x&,�mbmYiing permit. Indeed, It was a private HOA agree
nent
that prohibited an antenna in the HOA environment that did not come under the:
Purview of pg1.3-1(there is now:a proposed federal law that will
a
td the rule osm/ea/' Had onot been for that prohibition"x '`=^^==rules;� ^' - - ,_-�
would havehad to be approved.
COMMON SENSE
Zoning ordinances and.private Cc&R contracts hve been around for a longtime.These
fromtheharmth txna bedon�vvhenanother
ru|es�arennoanttoprot�ctea�hpesident � � a y. '
resident decides:to att selfishly.Any changes we make to our zoning ordinances relating
to mateur radio.antennasshould at least continue to provide;thesesame protections.
Here.is a scenario,for eNample,that any changes to zoning ordinances ought-to be able
to prevent:
/\ddoxhhi||neighbor who isanamateur rodkihobbyistmantsto communicate
� 75�uott nue�vv�ha5D'fppt
\nterpa�OnaUyvv�hhi�anoateur�radio mn-Hebuys' ` m
wide Yagi antenna on top and getsets a permit an 1 sto||~_sthe systenxlnea
ntenna e
nds
upaye-level withth$��AhiUneighbor,who isinhisliving codnh |opkin8athisonce-
beautiful vhew,TheuohO|nekghborcaUsthetovn and akshovhis neighbor could have
andwhyndthe�onxnthere��nbtbh18vye
dohesuchmthih�� h�vv�sn�Rgnr�o�P says,
� derthe75'� �Unni�
�ou{6dob�mauseth�mpp|icant tovvervxasun
Surely we can do better than to allow this to happen to Our residents:
ACTION REQUEST
It shOuldbe possible fOr amateur radio antenna permit applications to succeedif
neighbors and applicants are in agreement, or if officials weigh the arguments n 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 bothr of these
outcomes.
We agree with the,essence-of this last Sentiment.Neighbors should work togethert0
maintain harmony and still allow each other to enjoy those activities that enrich them.
They should(must)be able to find a common middle ground that can work for each
affected partY.However,categorical denial by one neighbor should not be allowed to
prevent the enjoyment of a federally assyred'activity just because of,the inability to
agree. It is in that role that theTown:may offer appropriate Mediation Servites.
9
5 SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM# • 2
Jaime:McAvoy Distributed: 0/Z /16
`j
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 1:48 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy.:
Subject: FW:Special Meeting Thursday, October 22, 2015
From:Steve Kelem [mailto:steve@kelem.net]
Sent:Wednesday,October 21,2015 1:35 PM
To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject:-Special Meeting Thursday, October 22, 2015 :
To whom it may concern,
I cannot make it to the special meeting on Thursday,.October 22, 2015. I am submitting my opinions and facts
to you,by email in lieu of doing so in person.
I live at 26323 Esperanza Drive in Los Altos Hills, downhill from Mr. Abraham. I am a licensed ham radio:.
operator and a CERT supervisor in Los Altos Hills.
I am against the:allowance of the large towers to allow for ham radio communications when they block a view
or are unsightly. I would be able to see his large tower and object to the blight it would add to my skyline. At
least:one neighbor objects fo the antenna blocking the view from his house:
I also object to the rationale for the antenna. Ham radio is primarily a hobby. It is also used for emergency
communications and training for emergency communication. "The Town of Los Altos Hills recognizes that
during times of emergency and disaster, amateur radio is often used as &means of communication when
wireline, cell phones and other traditional means of communications fail." As a ham-CERT member, I know
that the training and practice that we dois usually only once a week for an hour on Monday nights, and there
. are occasional drills, about once a quarter, held next to the fire station at Foothill College. I, and many others,
believe that this occasional use of the amateur radio equipment for emergencies and for emergency training, as
an excuse to erect large,unsightly towers for their personal hobbies, which is performed outside the 1%of the
waking hours when amateur radios are allocated for emergency training.
The large antennas are primarily used for long-distance, world-wide, communications,not for local or even
state-wide communications. That's great for a hobby. During an emergency,we need to communicate pretty
much within the Bay Area. To go farther,we use repeaters, larger antennas at strategic locations, such as the
one at the La Cresta water tank site. These sites are capable of transmitting and receiving over much larger
distances, and are perfectly adequate during emergencies and emergency training. They are adequate for hobby
use also, during other 99% of the time.
My ham radio uses an antenna that is less than feet long. Although my house's altitude is lower than Mr.
Abraham's, and is blocked by more of the mountain that we both live on; I get adequate reception and
transmission, and can access the repeater.for emergencies and emergency training. I can mount a similar, short,
antenna on top of my car, and get good signal reception if I need to.
I am not in favor of allowing the long-range tower to be included as necessary for emergency communications.
I do not mind if large towers are used,but for only emergency communications and training. They should not be
1
allowed to further.a hobby of communicating world-wide when it(a)blocks neighbors views and(b) is
unsightly. For occasional emergency training purposes, the tower should not be allowed to remain in the erect
position for more than a few hours.
Sincerely,
Dr. Steven Kelem
26323:.Esperanza Drive
Los Altos Hills
2
Jaime McAvoy
From: Adler[adleryu@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday,October 21, 2015 3:05.PM
To: Jaime McAvoy:
Subject: Fwd: 10/22/15 special meeting antenna
Attachments: ATT00001.htm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: <adleryu @ att.net>
Date: October 21, 2015 at 1:13:08 PM PDT
To: "jitze@Couperus.org" <iitze@Couperus.org>, "kavitat@Comcast.net"
<kavitat@Comcast.net>, "dpadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov" <dpadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject: 10/22/15 special meeting antenna
Reply-To: <adleryu @ att.net>
To: Town of LAH Planning Commission
From: Adler Yu, Town Resident
Re: 10/22/15 special meeting
Date: 10/21/2015
To Whom It May Concern,
About 10 years ago, one of our Viscaino,Road downhill neighbor applied for the permit to raise a tall retractable.
Ham radio antenna in front of our hillside property(please refer to 2004 case file in Town). After the last
hearing,the applicant withdrew his application.
If the antenna was built at that time(as long as it's higher than applicant's roof top level),the monstrous Yagi
antenna on the structure at any extendable position would terribly interfere our property's view and significantly
affect our property's value.
Town of Los Altos Hills is different from Town of Atherton, City of Los Altos and many other"flat land"cities.
Each lot in LAH has its unique shape, topography and view.We and many home owners purchased the
properties in LAH for the main reason of the beautiful view as well as the rural nature peaceful atmosphere.
Any structure higher than the current maximum allowable building height limit will have impact on neighbors,
especially there's no limitation of the size of antenna boom body and bracing/supporting attachments.:-It's
impossible to rule an antenna's height like 45', 75'...to fit all. Allowing retractable antenna up to 75' height is
just like giving permission of 75'structures,in town. "Retractable" is ambiguous,the antenna can be extended
7/24 as operators claim using.
To protect residents,.each case should be individually evaluated,and of course, it should go,through
noticed public hearing process.
The current zoning ordinances of antenna should be kept unchanged since they work very well for many.
years.
If the amended one passed, residents will live in an unknown situation that at any moment, they can face a 75'
tower suddenly erected in front that obstructing their views. Consequently,Town is opening the gate for
disputes and promoting lawsuits against Town itself.
As for emergency communication, residents'voluntary efforts are appreciated. However,the major emergency
services should be handled at government level during the disaster period. In addition, related equipment and
1
structures should be settled on public property, otherwise, it just likes a"commingling"the personal and public
use.
Please take my opinions into consideration before you make decision.
Adler Yu
2
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau-PRB-1 (1985). SUPPLEMENT
Wir I AGENDA ITEM,#
FC1Telecommunications Distributed. ZZ
1,5 ,E
Bureau
. . Amateur Radio Service
PRB-1 (1985)
Before the
Federal Communications Commission FCC 85-506
Washington,D.C.20554 36149
(In the Matter of)
. Federal preemption of state and 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.LU With extension,comments were due on or
before December 26, 198421,with reply comments due on or before January 25, 19851 .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 amateur 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 locations,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
http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/amateur/prb-l.html(1 of 7)[10/4/2000 4:38:04 PM]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau-PRB-1 (1985)
heights to 30 feet.Thus,antennas there are also limited to 30 feet.Alexander Vrenlos,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 distsances 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 donot find these safety
precautions objectionable.What they do object to are the sometime 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 amateur contend,almost universally,that"beauty is in the eye of the beholder."They assert that an
antenna installation isnot 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 0.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 electomagnetic 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 purpose
of radio operations. William J. Hamilton resides in an apartment
http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/amateur/prb-1.html(2 of 7)[10/4/2000 4:38:04 PM]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau PRB-1 (1985).
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 amateurradio 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 opposes 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 free 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(televisions,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 continuesd 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 affected 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 that its 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 that 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
http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/amateur/prb-1.html(3 of 7)[10/4/2000 4:38:04 PM]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau PRB-1 (1985),
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 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 that regulation on Federal goals.Its position is that
Federal preemption is warranted whenever local governmental regulations relate adversely to the operational aspects of
amateur communication.The ARRL maintainsthat 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.TheCityof 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 ruling 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 these antennas. . . .the exercise of preemptive authority by the FCC in granting
this request would not be in the best interest of the general public.
http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/amateur/prb-1.html(4 of 7)[10/4/2000 4:38:04 PM]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau-PRB-1 (1985)
•
z• 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 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 la 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 and 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 statutes.Fidelity Federal Savings&Loan Association v. de la 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 viewpoint as does the instant issue.The cities,counties,
and local communities and housing associations see an obligation to all of their citizens and try to address their concerns.
W 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
'W.qaa 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 has
nt" adopted to regulate the amateur service I)Those rules set forth procedures for the licensing of stations and operators,
nA 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
: p
http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/amateur/prb-1.html(5 of 7)[10/4/2000 4:38:04 PM]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau-PRB-1 (1985).
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 objectivesand 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 anatennas 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 conflict 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 tobring 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
1.0 Public Notice,August 30, 1984,Mimeo.No.6299,49 F.R.36113,September 14, 1984.
2.0 Public Notice,December 19, 1984,Mimeo No. 1498.
3.0 Order,November 8, 1984,Mimeo.No.770.
4.0 MARS is solely under the auspices of the military which recruits volunteer amateur operators to render assistance to it.
The Commission is not involved in the MARS program.
5.0 47 CFR Part 97.
6.0 We 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.
If you have any comments or questions about this information,please contact William Cross of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau at(202)418-0680 or E-mail at bcross(&,fcc.gov.
Last reviewed/updated:May 8,2000
II Amateur Radio Information II Volunteer Examiner Coordinators II Licensing Information II
II Call Sign Information II PRB-1 (1985)II PRB-1 (1999)II Amateur Rule Information II
II Frequently Asked Questions II Operating Overseas II Application Filing Information:II
II Amateur Home II WTB Home II FCC Home II _
http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/amateur/prb-l.html(6 of 7)[10/4/2000 4:38:04 PM]
Public Law 103-408--Joint Resolution of Congress to
Recognize the Achievements of Radio Amateurs as
Public Policy
Public Law 103-408--Oct. 22, 1994
Public Law 103-408
103d Congress
Joint Resolution
To recognize the achievements of radio amateurs, and to establish support for such
amateurs as national policy.
Whereas Congress has expressed its determination in section 1 of the Communications
Act of 1934(47 U.S.C. 151)to promote safety of life and property through the use of
radio communication;
Whereas Congress, in section 7 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 157),
established a policy to encourage the provision of new technologies and services;
Whereas Congress, in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934, defined radio
stations to include amateur stations operated by persons interested in radio technique
without pecuniary interest;
Whereas the Federal Communications Commission has created an effective regulatory
framework through which the amateur radio service has been able to achieve the goals of
the service;
Whereas these regulations, set forth in Part 97 of title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations clarify and extend the purposes of the amateur radio service as a--
(1)voluntary noncommercial communication service,particularly with respect to
providing emergency communications;
(2) contributing service to the advancement of the telecommunications infrastructure;
(3) service which encourages improvement of an individual's technical and operating
skills;
(4) service providing a national reservoir of trained operators, technicians and electronics
experts; and
(5) service enhancing international good will;
Whereas Congress finds that members of the amateur radio service community has
provided invaluable emergency communications services following such disasters as
Hurricanes Hugo,Andrew, and Iniki,the Mt. St. Helens Eruption,the Loma Prieta
earthquake,tornadoes, floods,wild fires, and industrial accidents in great number and
variety across the Nation;and
Whereas Congress finds that the amateur radio service has made a contribution to our
Nation's communications by its crafting, in 1961, of the first Earth satellite licensed by
the Federal Communications Commission,by its proof-of-concept for search rescue
satellites,by its continued exploration of the low Earth orbit in particular pointing the
way to commercial use thereof in the 1990s,by its pioneering of communications using
reflections from meteor trails, a technique now used for certain government and
commercial communications,and by its leading role in development of low-cost,
practical data transmission by radio which increasingly is being put to extensive use in,
for instance,the land mobile service: Now,therefore,be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF CONGRESS
onress finds on de,lares that
(1)radio amateurs are hereby commended for their contributions to technical progress in
electronics, and for their emergency radio communications in times of disaster;
(2)the Federal.Communications Commission is urged to continue and enhance the
development of the amateur radio service as a public benefit byadopting rules and
regulations which encourage the use of new technologies within the amateur radio
service; and
(3)reasonable accommodation s,ould low made itf.gatghtg operation o 4 amateur
,alio from residences, o rivate%MS@ MI public areas,. that regulation
a, go emment should facilitate an* encourage„amateur.rad'io operation as a oublia
o,enefit"
Approved October 22, 1994.
•
•
•
•
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." 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.4 Municipalities and local land use regulatory authorities •
1 ARRL Petition for Rule Making, filed February 7, 1996, at i (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.11
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 91 3 (1985) (MO&O or PRB-1) .
7 MO&O. '
8 Id. at 960 1 24. '
9 Id. at 959, 960 9 24.
10 Id. at 960 1 25.
11
MO&O at 954 1 7 and 960 at 9 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,
1996.19
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 of personal 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.1e 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.
19 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 1 7 and at 960, 1 25 n.6.
18 Petition at 22 and 23.
19 MO&O at 954 1 7 and 960 at 1 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, 4 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.
3° 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.wn
6
California State Law
65850.3. Any ordinance adopted by the legislative body of acity or county that regulates
amateur radio station antenna structureshall allow those structures to be erected at
eights and dimensions sufficient to accommodate amateur radio service;
ommunications js.hall not preclude amateur radio service communications, shag
easonably accommodate amateur radio service communications, and`shall constitute the
nnimum practicable regulation to accomplish the city' s or county's legitimate purpose.
It is the intent of the Legislature in adding this section to the Government Code, to codify
instate law the provisions of Section 97.15 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations,which expresses the Federal Communications Commission's limited
preemption of local regulations governing amateur radio station facilities.
Section 97.15.of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations
Sec. 97.15 Station antenna structures.
(a) Owners of certain antenna structures more than 60.96 meters
(200 feet) above ground level at the site or located near or at a
public use airport must notify the Federal Aviation Administration and
register with the Commission as required by part 17 of this chapter.
(b)Except as otherwise provided herein;a station antenna!
structure may be erected at heights and dimensions sufficient MI
accommodate amateur service communications.(jState and local regulation
f a station antenna structure must not preclude amateur service
ommunications. Rather,it must reasonably accommodate such
ommunications and must constitute the minimum practicable regulation
to accomplish the state or local authority's legitimate purpose. See
PRB-1, 101 FCC 2d 952 (1985) for details.)
[64 FR 53242, Oct. 1, 1999]
317 SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM# �•2
Jaime:MCAvoy Distributed: 1D/2.7 / I5
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:36 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: City Council meeting 22 October agenda item:re Radio Antenna regulation
From:.Stephen Chan [mailto:schanhb@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21,2015 7:34 PM
To:jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net, ismandle@hotmail.corn,jima.Dc@gmail.corn,
richard.partridge@comcast.net; Deborah Padovan
Subject: City Council meeting 22 October agenda item re Radio Antenna regulation
INTRODUCTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 10-1.202, 10-1-50410-1.505 AND 10.2.301
OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING REGULATIONS FOR AMATEUR RADIO
AND EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS; File #396-14-MISC. CEQA Review:
Categorical Exemption per Section 15061(6)(3) (Staff-S. Avila).
Dear Planning Commission,
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, for
example.) .
* Antenna to be located away from setbacks, and away from lot boundaries such that it will fall short
from propertyboundaries in case of toppling over.
* Define absolute maximum dimensions on the antenna- height and lateral extensions.
* Any antenna application require noticed public hearing, to address neighbor concerns.
* Waivers can be made on unique case basis, but again requiring noticed public hearing.
We should maintain our rural settingby incorporating these above suggestions in the antenna
regulations. We should also avoid causing neighbor-against-neighbor animosity with these elements
in place. Our town is very different from a high population density city. We should not simply
emulate/conform to their regulations.
Stephen and Amy Chan
14295 Saddle Mountain-Drive
1
SUPPLEMENT
Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM# J.2
Distributed: 10/Z //5
From: adleryu@att.net
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:43 PM
To: jitze@Couperus.org; kavitat@Comcast.net; Deborah Padovan; Jaime McAvoy; Suzanne.Avila
Subject: 10/22/2015 special meeting
Attachments: 2nd letter.pdf
To: Town of LAH Planning Commission
From: Adler Yu,Town Resident
Re: 10/22/15 special meeting
Date: 10/22/2015
To Whom It May Concern,
This is my second letter to Town about 10/22 special meeting.
The following items are my further concerns about the Proposed Amateur Radio and Emergency Communications Antenna
Regulations:
1)The proposed regulation 10-1.504 Height(f):
"45 feet...75 feet",It does not conform to 10-1.504 Height(a), it intends to legalizes 75'structures in our Town.
2) In the proposed regulation 10-1.504 Height(e)-The previous height measurement procedure is well defined. Now it has been
deleted, instead, is replaced with:ambiguous&unsafe language:
"shall be measured from the ground level or roof...". If passed, anyone can put a 75'retractable antenna on the roof top of a 32'
dwelling. It seems to me the proposed regulations are only focused on the height that antenna can be raised, completely ignore
the safety issues it will cause. For.hillside properties, this will even cause more problems.
3)The proposed regulation 10-1.505(3):
"...may be located within the thirty(30)foot rear yard or thirty(30)foot side yard ..."
It completely violates the setback requirements.The general rule for setback is:
The taller the structure is, the more distance away from property line it should be. Safety&privacy are important to residents.
The proposed regulation violates this rule and 10-1.504(a)(1)&(2). Putting a tall and large antenna within 30'of yard without the
setback requirements, neighbors are at the risk of injury by fallen antenna parts.
4)The proposed regulation 10-2.301 (a)Administrative Review:
It completely bypasses the permit application. It deprives Los Altos Hills residents' rights to the notice and public hearing.
5)The proposed regulations 10-2.301(c)(1)Grading(6)&(7),
They bypass the grading regulations and will likely create unsafe structures.
6) No size limitation has been put on antenna body, only the height has been focused on. No regulation about ,
bracing/supporting structures.
I urge the Town to reconsider the proposed antenna regulations for residents'safety, privacy and property value.The original
regulations should remain unchanged. I do not agree with the proposed regulations.
Regards,
Adler Yu
1
SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM#v.2.
Distributed: 11,;122/15
Eve Bennett-Wood aztt �iv��
12648 La Cresta Court
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 OCT 2 2.2015
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
October 22, 2015
Town of Los Altos Hills, Planning Commission
Dear Council Members and Interested Parties,
I understand that there is some recent concern about size and installation of amateur
radio towers and antennas within the Town. I would like to respectfully point out that
some of the criticism I have read on social media, etc., criticizing their use is based
solely on a visual perspective without understanding or any appreciation of the technical
constraints, complexity, cost and commitment involved. What to one person is an
eyesore is to another a means of essential communications. While I am not on the ECC
in Town, I am well aware of the volunteer's time, intelligence, knowledge base and work
which has gone into helping the Town and emergency service providers to set up their
own systems and to help provide a back-up means of communication not only locally,
but regionally. These are complex systems, with many legal and technical
responsibilities.
Are residents aware that ham radio operators maintain a Monday night "net" check-
in,every week, to test communications and procedures? These are formal events, not
for gossip or chitchat. Some operators dedicate several weekends a year to "field days"
where remote set-up communications are developed and tested. Are residents aware
that manyradio operators maintain better emergency back-up power systems than most
commercial cellular systems do?Are they aware that volunteer systems in place here
helped firefighters in the devastating 2001 Oakland Hills fire? Are residents aware that
while cellular phone systems and internet have proliferated in the last 20 years, they are
a much more fragile system than old-fashioned radio communications? Are residents
aware that a fire in the underground vault in front of Town Hall, one of the first public
undergrounding of utilities in Town, took out phone and power in that area which took
days to repair? Are they aware of regional events of vandalism to fiber optic cables in
recent years which affected Santa Cruz and Mendocino counties, taking out most land-
line, cellular, banking, and 911 service for many hours and in some cases days? Who
helped out with essential communications then? The civic-minded ham radio operators
who were prepared. This is not something that can quickly be set-up ad hoc after an
emergency. These are people who have spent much time being educated, licensed by
the federal government and have a willingness to serve the public while indulging a
"nerdy hobby." Some people serve others by being pro-bono lawyers, by volunteering
with the Red Cross, by working a soup kitchen, by writing a check, or simply help by not
being obstructionist. Others prepare to help out in a fundamental way in an emergency.
There are many different personalities of people living in Los Altos Hills. Most moved
here because of an appreciation of the semi-rural aspects of the Town and culture
here. It comes with horse corrals, some fences to keep deer out of vineyards,
occasional tractors; room for "messy" or noisy or smelly projects which are unsuitable
for townhouses and high-density living. It also has hills, which by their nature provide
opportunities for beautiful line of sight views and line of sight radio communications.
While the recent criticism of towers does point out the concern of loss of property
values, I believe there are many factors which need to be looked into by Town staff,
such as approval of massive houses, unusual architectures, houses overlooking other's
backyards, non-native plantings, erosion of any enforcement of the town's lighting
policies, etc, which also make an impact. Also, because I've been in Town quite a few
years now, I remember well that having photoelectric solar panels was initially
controversial. People thought they were too shiny to be on roofs and it would cause
glare, ruining the views of those above. Now they are encouraged, given financial
breaks, and in some instances courts have ruled that people have rights to not have
their access to sunlight impeded by plantings of tall trees by neighbors, etc., to mask
them. Neighborhoods evolve and change to accommodate technologies, and what is
an "eyesore" is not an absolute.
For what it's worth, I will acknowledge that my property has a ham radio tower,
maintained by my husband, and I have a ham radio license although I am rather
inactive and not a part of the ECC. Within the past year, the property closest and most
impacted visually by our tower was sold, at a very good price, and the tower's presence
was not a deterrent for the current owner, nor was it for its just previous owner who in
2001 paid $12 million dollars for a less than 5000 sq-ft house in its shadow. Indeed, in
the past year, several people who were viewing the neighboring house for sale came to
us privately and asked if we would consider selling because our property "was just what
they were looking for."
Respectfully,
f
Eve Bennett-Woo.
Nicholas Dunckel
12971 Cortez Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94023
October 22, 2015
Planning Commission
Los Altos Hills, CA
Re: Item 3,2 of Planning Commission Oct. 22, 2015: Amateur Radio Antennas
Dear Planning Commissioners:
As a resident of the Town for 22 years, as a holder of an amateur radio license since
age 15 (now KM6H), and as a former member of the radio propagation research
laboratory at Stanford University for 13 years, I would like to comment on the above
item.
I believe that there is no need to change our existing regulations. Tall antenna towers
are unsightly and may interfere with the sightlines of neighbors. Attachment 4, Antenna
Height and Communications Effectiveness, points out that although tall antennas provide
better short-wave communications at very long distances, they provide worse
communications at shorter distances. However, the use of emergency communications
over very long distances is extremely rare (i.e., someone in Colorado is likely to be more
help than someone in Japan). Also, emergency communications rarely use the short-
wave bands. Instead they use much shorter wavelengths, similar to those used by cell
phones.
My conclusion is that these tall antennas are not required for emergency
communications. They are for the pleasure of amateur radio operators. I believe that the
desire for tall antennas is trumped by the unsightliness of the antennas and their effects
on the neighbors.
The current policy of Los Altos Hills provides a perfectly satisfactory route for permitting
antennas.
Sincerely,
Nick Dunckel
I 0 SUPPLEMENT
Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM# -6,2
Distributed: I e)l Z5/ 15
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 8:57 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: RE: Public Comments at Planning Commission regarding Item 3.2 amateur radio antenna
amendment proposal, 10/22/2015
Please put this online as a supplemental document. Thanks.
From: Duncan MacMillan [rnailto:dmcmllan@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:00 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Cc: Deborah Padovan
Subject: Public Comments at Planning Commission regarding Item 3.2 amateur radio antenna amendment proposal,
10/22/2015
My name is Duncan MacMillan and I have lived on Natoma Road since 1986.
I am an active CERT; a ham since 2009; current ECC member and past-chair of the ECC for 2
terms.
In addition, I am aspiring to operate my HF radio sometime in 2016, so I will be affected by whatever
ordinance emerges from this activity.
As an active ECC member, I voted to send the proposed ordinance changes to you for consideration
and to let the public begin to weigh in. That said, as written, I think the rights offered to future
antenna installations are too broad.
Despite the Anderson rebuttal to Mr Waschura's letter, I do not believe all hams are reasonable
citizens and have the utmost concern for their neighbors and their existing views. I do not mind the
idea of noticing my neighbors, including those that might be impacted up hill by the particular HF
antenna placement I might suggest next year.
If there is a credible objection received by staff, then a site-development process should ensue. As
support of FRB-1 in making "reasonable accommodations in support of amateur radio," I think it
would then be appropriate that site-development fees be waived by the Town for applications falling
outside the standard administrative approval of ham radio antennas.
If I decide to install a retractable antenna, I would not mind that the Town require that it be motor-
operated, believing that hand-cranking tends to be something that is almost always put off.
To me, "in use" means my butt is in my chair, ready to grab the mike; not simply turning the radio on
and doing other things about or away from my home. You should require some down-time or I fear
that 24/7 retractable antennas will become the norm. Likewise, offer a means for neighbors to advise
the Town of retractable towers that seem to have gone "permanent."
Duncan MacMillan
27345 Natoma Road
650-941-3697
1