Bid for Antenna Sparks a Controversy

The Federal Communications Commission says local governments cannot prevent amateur radio operators from having antennas of “reasonable” height. The commission notes the public safety role that ham operators sometimes play, and says their right to free speech is also involved.

But the commission has never defined reasonable , and what is reasonable in a hilly Rancho Palos Verdes neighborhood near Peninsula Center has become a matter of bitter disagreement.

Aerospace engineer Walter F. Ordway, a member of the Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club who is active in the city’s emergency communications network, contends that he needs an 85-foot antenna tower for his ham radio operations.

But some of his neighbors and few hundred others in the city who have signed petitions opposing it assert that the antenna would be an eyesore, a hazard if it blew down and a precedent that could open the door for big antennas elsewhere.

“It’s too high and will interfere with our view,” said Lucian S. Rochte, a retired Air Force colonel who lives behind Ordway’s Grayslake Avenue home. “This is a high-density residential area with small lots. . . . The distances are so short. I’d be 75 feet away.”

In October, after residents protested the city staff’s approval of the tower, the city Planning Commission, in response to concerns about it obstructing the view, required that the device be lowered to 23 feet when not in use.

But last week, after a 3 1/2-hour public hearing in a meeting room packed with protesting residents, the City Council put off a decision on the tower until Feb. 7 and asked Ordway to provide more justification for the tower.

“He’s got to make a case for it,” said Mayor Jacki Bacharach.

Ordway said after the council session that he needs a pole of at least 70 feet for clear radio reception. A city ordinance requires permits and justification for any radio tower higher than 40 feet.

“The issue is his need for an antenna of this height versus neighborhood concerns,” said Robert Benard, city environmental services director.

The antenna controversy has resulted in vandalism to the Ordway home and the theft of two ham radios from Ordway’s van, according to his wife, Joanne, and neighbors.

Joanne Ordway said the home was pelted with eggs four or five times, and that last Thanksgiving, wet newspapers were spread over the front lawn. “There were two trash barrels full,” she said. The culprits were never identified, she said.

“This has created a situation that we have not experienced during my time in the neighborhood, and I’ve been here 25 years,” said George W. Kacirek, a retired Mobil Oil marketing manager who opposes the erection of the antenna. “I’ve never seen a group of people as irate.”

But the Ordways have some neighbors on their side too.

“I wonder what all the uproar is about,” said Carol McLennas, who lives across the street. “They want one single vertical tower to put an antenna on and it will be lowered to 23 feet. There are plenty of trees in everybody’s yard taller than that.”

She said youthful radio enthusiasts come to the Ordway home to learn about the hobby. “It’s good to get the kids involved in that, rather than drugs and alcohol.”

Some critics assert that the city is overemphasizing Ordway’s free-speech rights at the expense of neighborhood quality because three officials involved in the decision--Planning Commissioner Peter Von Hagen and Councilmen Melvin Hughes and John McTaggart--are members of the same amateur radio club that Ordway belongs to.

Russell Harrison, another Ordway neighbor who fears that the antenna will reduce the value of his $600,000 home, has asked Hughes and McTaggart to disqualify themselves from council consideration of the issue. He contends that the club “will use this antenna”--Joanne Ordway denies that--and has something to gain from approval.

“They can’t be objective,” Rochte said.

‘No Conflict’

Hughes disagrees. “There is no conflict of interest,” he said. “I am a ham radio operator, but this does not mean I won’t make a decision that weighs all the issues fairly. I hold a driver’s license, but I should not disqualify myself from issues related to highway safety, parking or street construction.”

He called the pending decision a “balancing act” between “allowing all reasonable communication” and responding to community concerns.

Community Correspondent Ann Johnson contributed to this article.