Council attempts to use CEQA against radio ham

I didn't see that the local historical committee approved it. My bad. But I do think that he should lower it when not in use, yes. How hard can it be to simply crank it down after he's off air? The guy goes and lawyers up instead of talking with the neighbors. How much will he spend on lawyers because of a 20' height differential? Anybody reasonable would talk with the neighbors and the city and reach an agreement. But he goes and sues everybody. Now the city is mad and will drag him through the mud for daring to battle city hall.

 

It's interesting that in the street view of his home you can see ANOTHER TOWER about a block behind him that appears to be even higher than his. And I agree, there is nothing special about this neighborhood - the power poles & lines are much uglier than anything he put up. If you take a spin around the neighborhood on google street view, there are a couple nice homes, the others are nothing more than "bungalow" style, and a fair amount of multi-unit structures. Hardly worth getting excited over.

 

k6fex, I like your opinion!!

I am not a friend of regulations that make us into children of the State and I believe we have too much Government already, but

-why did he not search contact with at least 5 neighbors and told them and informed them? Was he afraid to get a "NO"
-why did he not follow normal procedure for an expensive endeavor like this?
-was a 55 feet tower really necessary and a TH DX or whatever it is?
-why push it down people's throats?


My town and County have never given me grief about my 42 feet tubular, when I showed them my plans. Foundation laid out for a 55 feet tubular, grounding system explained and in the plans including the lightning countermeasures. The inspector at the final showdown asked me, when I would put up the 55 feet tubular; my answer was that he would know in advance.

No discussion, no hatred or defamation, just plain understanding and a business style attitude made it easy to work with one another.
My neighbors call me, when they have a problem (old TVs, Radios ; so I check my gear and try to help THEM, not even asking a dime


Final:
We are to serve and help the public, not to offend them. This in turn to have a privilege as a hobby with imbedded responsibilities.

It just takes to have the ham spirit that no tower, amp or antenna can buy. 45 years of hamming told me just that.

73 es gd dx

 

Unlike most city codes posted on the internet, the one for Napa does not have a simple search function.

The fact there is an effort to use the CEQA could very well indicate there is no building code that pertains to amateur antenna structures.
The NIMBY's are just finding other creative ways to get in somebody else's way.

I could be totally wrong about this and perhaps the County of Napa has it codified. The city probably thought that restriction is sufficient and didn't codify it themselves.

If someone has better ways to check this, I'd be interested. My county has restrictions as does the city I live by (but I'm out in the county land).
Those restrictions are not that bad as compared to some. It's also not as liberal as others.

Have fun
73
Gary

 

I have same problems with my neighbours in my country -Kyrgyz. Rep. de ex7mk good luck!

 

KD6WB, hi,
I am on county land, too, but when you enter the permission process, our people here answer your questions and show you any applicable codes and/or other regulations, because they had too many lawsuits......

I think our discussion here should be about what brought our fellow-ham where he is now and take it as an example of what to do or not. Bitching about the neighbor or writing about power poles does not cut the mustard. The root cause of all this is a complaint about non-information from neighbor to neighbor, full stop!

And in addition, I do not think all this should have a political aspect at all. Because we hams have our restrictions there (which is good).

73 es gd dx
k6faf

 

Personally, KJ6ZOL did say not all cops in his statement - and I think if you want proof, you don't pay much attention to your surroundings or the national news very much. It seems to be endless anymore about the police abusing their power because they can. I can point you to some more recent issues if you would be interested - like cops barging into a home and holding an 11 year old girl on the floor with his knee while the other one held his gun on her because she was in HER house watching HER television and they got a false burglary alarm. There's just one good example. Or the other young girl that was shot in her bed when the cops did a no-knock raid on the WRONG house. There are many many more - too many to talk about here - so I think his comment was very well deserved. And no not all cops do that kind of thing. It's just getting to be more routine that exception anymore. However I agree with you that since he didn't have the proper permits ahead of construction, he will quite possibly loose this. And he isn't going to get his money back in that case either. Too bad he didn't follow the rules - this wouldn't have been an issue then - he would have his tower and the city would tell those neighbors to go pound salt.

 

Way the town zoning reads he didn't need a permit

 

Link to the city planning commision report http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=xPT5ye_b0b6H2Y1-GrBHUg&bvm=bv.85464276,d.eXY


"The site is within the TR-145, Traditional Residential General Plan land use designation
and the RT-5 Traditional Residential Zoning District. Typically, structures located within
the RT-5 district may not exceed a height of 30 feet. However, pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance Section 17.52.220.B., transmitting antennas in excess of 30 feet may be
permitted with the approval of a Use Permit.
The antenna is located at over 30 feet from the rear property line, at least 13 feet from the
south side property lines and is finished with gray color to blend with the site
surroundings. The antenna appears to be located in the most appropriate location on the
property given the location of the existing house and accessory buildings. The Zoning
Ordinance does not contain any specific location or setback requirements for an antenna.
The site is subject to the :FP, Floodplain Management Regulations, which require that
the Floodplain Administrator review all on-site improvements unless exempted pursuant
to section 17.38.070. The antenna qualifies for exemption because it is a nonresidential
structure and does not pose any identifiable increase in flood evacuation hazards"

end of the report

"D. DESIGN REVIEW
The antenna is mounted to a triangular shaped tower at a maximum height of 55’. The
antenna is painted in a gray color to blend with the site surroundings.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA
pursuant to Section 15303 (Categorical Exemptions; Class 3) of the Guidelines, which
exempts construction of single family residences and accessory structures.
V. REQUIRED FINDINGS
The Planning Commission’s approval of the Use Permit on this application is subject to
the required findings in NMC Section 17.54.080 relating to the Use Permits. These
findings are provided in the draft resolution attached to this staff report.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Due to the limited number of alternative locations, staff recommends approval of a Use
Permit to legalize installation of a 55-foot high amateur antenna, located at 467 Coombs
Street, with the recommended conditions.
VII. ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION"

 

City Council Actions in Napa, CA

Some of the commentors here sound more like the "ninnies" in the original article. I know the neighbor hood involved, I used to live in Napa. I wish I could hear more amateur radio operator support for Jeff. I hope the ARRL will take action to assist and advocate for Jeff. If the City of Napa gets away with this, your small towers, antnenna mast or simple Vertical antenna will be next. Besides this, I think the city of Napa should be very carefull about pushing amateur radio operator, home owners, out of town. Last year downtown Napa suffered severe damage from and earthquake, centered south of Napa, on Highway 29 near American Canyon. Amateur radio operators from the community and further south, and as far away as Sacramento and the Bay Area assisted Napa during the crisis. Will it be in the best interest of the citizens of Napa to impose restrictons which will eventually force the amateur radio community out of Napa. Respectfully, Bert, K6CSL

 

Thank goodness a thread like this doesn't morph into another political rant.

 

I love Ham Radio as much as anyone else. But, this seems like a case of have your cake and eat it too. The guy wants to live in an area where there are restrictions to everything (probably) and then put up a tower and do things that are restricted and make the neighbors hostile. If you are a Ham and you want to put up towers and large antennas etc. why move into an area where you KNOW you will be restricted? My advice would be to stop fighting it, sell the house, and move to an area where you can grow an antenna farm. You will be much happier. Instead of spending those thousands on an Attorney use them to buy another tower or a nice rig. And when you go to sell the house just make sure that the next owner is a Crack Addict.

 

Yep. If I saw the need to put up a tower and beam to help my community in emergencies, then I would do so if the local authorities paid for it and maintained it. I would do my part by participating in ARES/RACES/whatever and faithfully participating in emergency drills.

Now, if I just wanted a tower for dx-ing, contesting, chewing the rag, etc., then I'd move someplace else.

Isn't the NTS set up so that emergency or even h&w traffic can be relayed into and out of a regional disaster without the need for expensive gear or real estate? Hasn't the NTS been that way for decades?

 

He has several options, A: Put up a For Sale Sign

B: Invite several of his work friends that may be ethnic, and to bring their children

C: Declare it as a place of worship and start a kleptomaniacs support group

D: Claim the neighbor is growing some form of illegal tomatoes and using the wrong insecticides harming the ground water

When the Michigan department of Natural Resources comes to your farm and wants to know how would you contain a fuel spill? You do not want any unapproved containers.

 

Actually, if you read the report posted online by the city, the only thing the guy did formally wrong was that he put up the tower before seeking approval

It sounds like the zoning/permit folks have said "we're limited by the FCC and the state in our ability to regulate amateur radio towers; given that, and the nature of the property, it's kosher", and that it's elected officials and/or neighbors that are trying to stonewall.

Contrast that to other towns where the zoning folks would ding him for the height of the tower (55 feet) compared to the distance to the nearest property line (~13 feet).