Council attempts to use CEQA against radio ham

Hello to all this is Jeff Hullquist W6BYS. I would first of all like to thank you for the support e-mails that I have received. Here is my side of the story. Over a year ago I replaced the antennas on my roof with a tower in my backyard. A code enforcement issue was started by a neighbor who had been away on a vacation for a number in months in France. I was originally advised that I was in violation of the City of Napa’s height requirement. I immediately went to the city and paid for a height variance permit. At that time the city was unable to provide me with a maximum height that my antenna could be placed at. The first time I appeared before the planning commission 30 min, before the meeting it was counseled. The city told me that because I lived in a historic preservation area that I was required to get a letter of appropriateness from the heritage preservation Council. At that meeting the city planning department personnel advised the heritage Council that I was exempt from CEQA. During this meeting I provided the heritage counsel information that my call sign itself was historic and that my uncle William Green W6BYS (silently key) had an HF amateur station at the same location in 1920’s. At the end of this meeting I was granted a letter of appropriateness. The following meeting was with the planning commission. I once again was exempted from CEQA. During this meeting it was very obvious that the complaining neighbors who are members of a special interest group also have members that serve on the planning commission board. As they struggled with California state law and PRB-1 their decision was to state I built this antenna without a permit and that 17.52.480 does not apply to this amateur installation. To further punish me there so-called reasonable accommodation was to allow me to have my antenna at 55 feet from the hours of 6 PM to 6 AM and during the hours of 6 AM to 6 PM lower my antenna to 21 feet and do not transmit. During a private meeting with my attorney the planning department and the cities attorney, I was told if I did not make a compromise on the hours of operation that they would force a CEQA on me at my cost. It is very obvious that the city is challenging PRB-1 and California Government Code 65850.3. The maximum height that they have come up with is “maximum antenna height without a permit of 30 feet “That does not apply to me being restricted me to 21 ft. I have attached the city code below for your review. Although I am an amateur radio operator who existed at the time that this chapter was initiated I do fall under the height limit section.
You would think that a logical conclusion would be if I'm in violation of the unknown maximum height that when the city determined what their maximum height was going to be, have me set my antenna to that elevation for compliance. The city council has now order a CEQA ! Any great attorneys out there that wants to fight in federal court to protect amateur radio?
73's to all W6BYS
17.52.480 Telecommunication facilities.
C. Exempt from City Review. The following accessory telecommunication uses shall be permitted without city permits.
1. Citizens band and amateur radio systems used by amateur radio operators which existed at time of the adoption of this chapter; and new CB and ARS systems not exceeding the height limit of the district in which they are located are considered to be permitted accessory uses not subject to this section.

 

A quick Google search brought up a checklist that you make.
It seems based on opinion in most the applications you would be involved in.
The checklist can be filled out by yourself but if you have doubts about the validity of any of those items, then seek professional help.

This is the checklist posting site; http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Inital_Study_Checklist_Form.pdf

Good luck
73
Gary

 

KB0IXM, hi,

I am sure you did not get my message although I wrote my opinion overhead as introduction:
I do not like being treated as a Child of the State and believe we have too much Government anyway!!! So what I wrote after that, see it under that belief.

Which on the other side does not indicate I would let go of ownership rights and the use of owned or rented property.
I am certainly not a softy when it comes to that, full stop.
But that does not mean I go overboard when I plan to do something. If I talk to my neighbors about my plans is certainly not asking their permission, not by a far cry!!
It is simply testing the water, so that I can rethink my plans and prepare my strategy towards a permission process.

As to his tower and antenna choice, that is certainly his prerogative.....if he needs 55 feet and that monster antenna, fine. We do not know
what he tends to do with it, it is not my business, anyway. But is it clever to do so...I doubt it. You set the root cause for more problems that way.......
He is responsible for his emissions, in that neighborhood there are probably also old TVs e.t.c, need I say more?

Our county wants these towers in a safe distance from property lines and the power pole, so I chose a location that gave me at least 65 feet space......
our fellow ham certainly does not have enough space in width to protect his neighbors from a tower fall and thus a major lawsuit he can never win.


All the writing about TV antennas and power lines is vain, historic quarter as well (a busybody invention when not codified by the city....everybody wants to sit in a community board).


A fellow ham 6 years ago erected a 70 foot tower on his property without permit, not 5 miles from my tower.......he had to take it down although he tried to commercialize it by allowing a cell phone company to put up their stuff at 50 feet. He sold his property and moved to Arizona. He now has his 70 footer up with permission.

You just have to know your locals and integrate them into your plans.......

I hope our Napa hamster is successful after all.

73 es gd dx

 

It is NOT restricted, the area is nothing special, only restriction was a variance for height WHICH THEY GAVE HIM. Now they are trying to go back on that.

 

What is it with poor reading comprehension? The area is NOT an HOA, it is not even an historic district to speak of. Single family homes are exempt. The cities own rules exempt ham towers up to 30 feet then a variance is needed. He applied for and GOT that variance after being told he needed it. The tower is legal now and it is the neighbors and city council members trying to make him remove it. I would be filing a counter-suit for all legal expenses, my time, and damages.

 

I’m tending to my tomatoes? said Wolf, whose historic home has been in her family for four generations.

She did not think that her tomatoes too insulted historic neighborhood and also is an “eyesore”?

 

The antenna is beautiful, but I love this hobby. I would have tried to get the neighbors blessing first. If not, I would have gone with plan B. I look at the photo and am not sure if the 55 footer would end up in a neighbors yard or on a house if it fell. If it could end up on some ones property, it should not have been put up. I live in a HOA and have modest wire antennas and a S9 vertical that I can take down if need be. I bought this home before I got back into radio. At the time I looked at a nearby property that had a nice little yard. I was very excited until I went back on Saturday and saw the next door neighbor had parked his giant cement mixer in the front yard (No HOA). If you want a tower, buy a property with some space.

Amateur radio over plays the emergency communications card. If the big one knocks out communications, I doubt the tower will be standing. The shack on a belt crowd will be out and about with their go boxes, not at home passing traffic on their towers.

 

Yeah, that's what made me groan when I saw "no permit". PRB 1 doesn't say that one can put up just any tower he wants when he wants. He still must comply with local zoning laws and the city must comply with PRB-1 as stated. If I am reading this, getting ALL the facts, right, he *may* lose. OTH, I hope he wins because I am all about the governance of one's own property and the ability to do with it, within reason, as he sees fit. Funny how "right wing" is often associated with dictatorship, but how liberalism now demands that EVERYBODY toe THEIR line, do what THEY say. I'll stop there for fear of violating forum rules on politics.

 

I'm in Ireland so slightly amused by the limitations because you are in a historic preservation area.

My home was built around 1700, it sits on top of an earlier house that was here around 1500.

Don't have a tower but I'd put one up if I wanted.

Good luck with your fight with the burocrats.

73

Craig
EI3FW

 

HOA do not hold absolute control. Any decent lawyer and ARRL getting off their butt collecting our ARRL dues would fight instead of showing up for signatures like some famous star. I have known people who fought HOA and won, but i don't and never will join a HOA as i am enjoying my 50 foot radio tower! LOL!

 

I'm just waiting for a thread on any topic at all, where it isn't "the liberals" fault.

 

When they don't like where a thread is going, all the gubmint conspiracy nuts

need to do to, quickly get it closed, is start their tirade against "them libruls."

 

God people suck. That one old hag should go back to France.

 

Lived in the San Francisco area, used to have a vacation place outside Yountville, spent a lot of time in the area. Napa is trying to give itself airs because they use the same name for the winemaking area - Napa has been the tail of the valley forever. They could not support the arts organization given to them. All the real wine action takes place farther north, although the vineyards have engulfed napa and are moving east, west and north.

It's a nice town, but they need to get over themselves - as noted, their utility lines are above ground and there are cell phone antennas all over, it's not like it's a sanitary area to begin with.

 

Sounds like Napa operator would have legal standing based on the wording of the local law.