******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) ) James Sadler ) ) CSR-5074-O Petition for Declaratory Ruling ) Under 47 C.F.R.  1.4000 ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 26, 1998 Released: July 1, 1998 By the Acting Chief, Cable Services Bureau: I. Introduction 1. Petitioner James Sadler ("Sadler" or "Petitioner") filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling ("Petition") seeking a determination that the Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservations ("CC&R's"), which prohibit television antennas, and the Antenna and Satellite Dish Guidelines ("Guidelines"), which require preapproval and provide other restrictions on video reception devices, both adopted by the Chatsworth Country Townhomes Association ("Chatsworth" or the "Association"), are preempted by the Commission's Over-The Air Reception Devices Rule ("Rule") and, accordingly, are unenforceable against him. Petitioner also seeks a determination that he is entitled to install his direct satellite broadcast ("DBS") dish ("Dish") on his townhome condominium's outside wall and inside the townhome's patio area. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the Petition. II. Background 2. On August 6, 1996, the Commission issued a Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Report") adopting the Rule, which prohibits governmental and private restrictions that impair the ability of antenna users to install, maintain, or use over-the-air reception devices. This Rule was enacted pursuant to Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Act"), which required the Commission to "promulgate regulations to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to receive video programming services through devices designed for over-the-air reception of . . . direct broadcast satellite services." The law is intended to promote one of the primary objectives of the Communications Act of 1934: "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States . . . a rapid, efficient, nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." 3. Paragraph (a) of the Rule provides that a restriction impairs installation, maintenance, or use of a protected antenna if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents installation, maintenance, or use; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of installation, maintenance, or use; or (3) precludes reception of an acceptable quality signal. The Rule applies to restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of an antenna user who has a direct or indirect ownership interest in the property. The only exceptions to the Rule are restrictions that are necessitated by safety or historic preservation concerns, and even then, the restrictions must be as narrowly tailored as possible, impose as little burden as possible, and apply in a nondiscriminatory manner throughout the regulated area. 4. The Rule provides parties who are affected by antenna restrictions the opportunity to petition the Commission to determine if the restrictions are permissible or prohibited by the Rule. The Rule places the burden of demonstrating that the challenged restriction complies with the Rule on the party seeking to impose the restriction. As permitted under the Rule, Petitioner filed his Petition with the Commission and served a copy on Chatsworth. Chatsworth filed a response opposing the Petition, and Petitioner filed a reply. III. The Pleadings A. The Petition 5. Sadler seeks a ruling that the current installation of his Dish on the outside wall of his townhome above his patio doors is permissible. Sadler contends that the applicable CC&R's and Guidelines that forbid or impair this installation are preempted by the Rule. According to the photographs attached as exhibits to the Petition, the Dish is installed inside the condominium patio area and mounted on the exterior first-floor wall that separates the sliding glass doors exiting to the patio and the first-floor windows overlooking the doors. The Dish does not extend outside the patio area or above the ceiling of the first floor of the unit and appears to be installed on the wall with screws. Sadler asserts that he installed the Dish in approximately April 1995, removed the Dish when Chatsworth informed him that he needed permission before he could install the Dish, and again installed the Dish in October 1996, when the Rule became effective. 6. Sadler further contends that after he installed the Dish the second time, Chatsworth demanded that he move the Dish to the roof, a common area of the Association. Sadler refused to move his Dish to the roof because he believed that strangers could gain access to the roof and the Dish could be stolen. Sadler states that a teenager was caught by the police coming down a permanent ladder attached to the side of his condominium. Sadler attaches a photograph of the ladder which he claims shows that a stranger could gain access to the roof. Sadler further states that he offered to place the Dish on the roof if Chatsworth agreed to reimburse him if the Dish was stolen or if the Dish was damaged. Chatsworth refused to agree to any type of reimbursement. According to Sadler, Chatsworth thereafter requested that Sadler move the Dish out of sight from the street. Sadler states that he initially complied with the request by moving the Dish below the walls surrounding the patio, but because he was unable to receive a signal in that new location, he moved the Dish back to its current position above the walls surrounding the patio. 7. Sadler does not own the condominium, but has submitted a letter from the condominium owner who states that he supports Sadler's petition and his position in the dispute with Chatsworth. The letter reads as follows: I [James Ganatta] am aware of the petition that [J]ames [S]adler has filed with the F.C.C. The petition involving a satellite dispute is recogni[z]ed by me and I support his [Sadler's] decision on this 100 percent. 8. Specifically, with respect to the CC&R's, Sadler argues that any CC&R that conflicts with the Rule is unenforceable. The only CC&R that is relevant to Section 207 reception devices provides: Except for any antenna installed by Declarant [the Association], no television or radio antenna or antenna of any sort, or any part thereof, shall extend outside of any Unit or be placed on or affixed to the exterior of any improvement herein. We note that the Chatsworth board's resolution adopting the Guidelines recognized that the Rule had preempted this CC&R with respect to Section 207 reception devices. 9. With respect to the Guidelines, Sadler raises three arguments contending they are unenforceable against him. First, Sadler asserts that the placement directives in the Guidelines violate the Rule. Sadler notes that Guidelines 2(b) and (c) restrict the installation of satellite dishes to the "roof in an area designated by the Board" and to the interior of the patio area "but not attached to the fence posts, walls of the building or other common area [sic]." Subparagraph (b) requires that the dish not be visible from any street or common area. Sadler states that requiring him to move the Dish to the roof imposes an unreasonable cost on him under the rule both in terms of the costs of moving his Dish and replacement costs if the Dish is stolen and that the alternative of requiring him to place the Dish in the patio so that it is not visible from the street will not provide him with an acceptable quality signal. 10. Second, Sadler notes that Guideline 2(a) requires that prior to the installation of a dish or antenna the applicant complete an application for approval describing the proposed location of the dish on form "Exhibit A." Exhibit A requires the applicant to attach two sets of plans describing the work to be performed and the materials used and a copy of the contractor's license. Exhibit A also requires the applicant to attest that he or she has read and will comply with the Guidelines and requires the viewer to pay an unspecified application fee. Sadler states that these requirements essentially require a dish owner to seek Chatsworth's permission before installing a dish and are prohibited by the Rule. 11. Third, attaching all of the Guidelines, Sadler asserts generally that the Rule preempts any of these requirements that impairs his installation, maintenance or use of the Dish. Sadler also attaches the two applications that the Guidelines require that he complete before Chatsworth will provide him with its approval for the installation of the Dish. In particular, several of the guidelines require Sadler to indemnify Chatsworth for liability if the Dish is installed on the roof and further to reimburse the Association if the installation, maintenance or use of the Dish on the roof damages the roof. Other Guidelines place various requirements on the antenna user, including requiring the antenna user to pay the Association's contractor to inspect the installation after it is performed; the antenna user to hire a licensed contractor to install the Dish if the City of Los Angeles requires one; the contractor to be insured; and the antenna user to provide the Association with copies of the contractor's worker's compensation and comprehensive general liability policies before the work begins. B. Response in Opposition to the Petition 12. In its Response to the Petition, Chatsworth raises four arguments. First, it concedes that the condominium unit consists of both the interior of the condominium and the interior of the patio, but argues that the exterior wall separating the condominium from the patio, where the Dish is installed, is a common area and not an area of exclusive use. Chatsworth relies upon California Civil Code  1351 that defines the elements of condominiums and states that this section provides that the "common area" of a condominium development means the "entire common interest development except the separate interests therein." Chatsworth further states that under the California Civil Code "a separate interest" means the individual condominium unit. Chatsworth cites the California Civil Code which provides that when the walls are defined as the boundaries of the separate interest, the interior surfaces of the walls are included as part of the separate interest and any other portion of the walls is deemed to be part of the common area. 13. Chatsworth notes that the Chatsworth Condominium Plan defines the four components of the condominium unit, and Chatsworth argues these components do not include the condominium's exterior walls. Presumably taking the position that the walls are considered the boundaries of the separate interest, Chatsworth argues that Sadler's condominium consists of four areas of airspace in the two floors of the condominium, the garage, and the patio and that the exterior walls are common areas. Chatsworth states that a condominium owner or his/her tenants have exclusive use of the patio, but argues that "any piercing of the building's exterior wall invades the Common Area." 14. Second, Chatsworth argues that Sadler cannot file a petition under the Rule because the Rule covers only a dish "user [who] has a direct or indirect ownership interest in the property [on which the restriction at issue applies]." Chatsworth states that Sadler is merely the tenant and accordingly does not have an ownership interest in the property that would place his installation of the Dish under the protection of the Rule. 15. Third, Chatsworth argues that the Association's Guidelines should not be at issue in this proceeding because Sadler installed his Dish before the Guidelines were issued. Chatsworth states that, contrary to Sadler's statement that he initially installed the Dish in April, 1995, Sadler installed the Dish in July, 1996, before the Rule or the Guidelines took effect. 16. Fourth, Chatsworth argues in the alternative that if the Guidelines are addressed in this proceeding, they should not be found to be in conflict with the Rule. In this connection, Chatsworth argues that the Guidelines cannot cause any unreasonable delay to Sadler because he installed his Dish before the Guidelines were issued. With regard to the cost of moving the dish to the roof, Chatsworth states that Sadler has not presented evidence that the move would unreasonably increase the cost of the installation, maintenance or use of the Dish. Finally, Chatsworth argues that its Guidelines will not impair the signal of the Dish because Chatsworth offered to permit Sadler to place the Dish on the roof where there is an acceptable quality signal. Moreover, Chatsworth argues that Sadler's Dish will be safe on roof of the building. In support of this assertion, one of the Association's directors states that he is unaware of any strangers gaining access to the roof; that despite its request, Sadler did not provide any documentation of strangers gaining access; and that the ladder to the roof will remain locked. In addition, Chatsworth states that replacing the dish, if it was stolen, would cost only approximately $100. C. Reply 17. Sadler replies to Chatsworth's contention that the condominium owner does not own or have exclusive use of the walls and cannot pierce the walls by submitting photographs showing that nine other condominium owners in the Association have pierced the patio walls by installing hanging baskets, flags, bird feeders and several other unrecognizable objects on the walls. Sadler also relies upon a diagram in the Condominium Plan that indicates that the unit includes the patio, the walls enclosing the patio, and the airspace over the patio extending as high up as the first-floor ceiling, above where the Dish is installed, and thereby placing the Dish within the patio's airspace. 18. Although Sadler acknowledges that he is a tenant, he relies on the owner's letter approving the installation and the filing of this Petition. Sadler also asserts that he has a right to install the Dish and has the right to bring this Petition regardless of whether he obtains a letter from the owner. 19. Sadler disputes that he would not incur unreasonable costs if he moves the dish to the roof, stating that Chatsworth's own photographs show that the ladder is open and thus accessible to outsiders. Sadler states that if the Dish is stolen, its replacement cost would be $349. In addition, he states that a satellite dish installer estimated that it would cost between $250 and $350 to remove the Dish and install it on the roof. 20. Sadler also states that Chatsworth informed the unit owner on July 21, 1997, after the instant Petition was filed, that the owner would be held responsible now for any attorney's fees and costs that the Association might incur in responding to the Petition. Sadler asserts that charging the owner attorney's fees would violate the Rule. The letter provides in pertinent part: To date, the Association has spent $1,016.50 in attorney's fees to attempt to have Mr. Sadler move the satellite dish from the Common Area wall. Currently, Mr. Sadler's Petition is pending with the FCC in Washington to obtain an order that he be permitted to maintain his satellite dish in its present location. If the Association must respond to the Petition, additional attorneys' fees will be incurred. Pursuant to the CC&R's and the Civil Code of California, the Association will be entitled to seek reimbursement of its attorneys' fees incurred to compel compliance with the Association's governing documents. IV. Discussion 21. As noted above, the Rule prohibits private restrictions that impair the ability of an antenna user to install, maintain, or use Section 207 reception devices on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user and in which the antenna user has a direct or indirect ownership interest. The Rule places the burden of demonstrating that the challenged restriction complies with the Rule on the party seeking to impose the restriction. 22. We agree with the parties that the CC&R conflicts with the Rule because it provides an absolute prohibition on Section 207 reception devices. As discussed below, we further find that many parts of the Guidelines conflict with the Rule and are therefore unenforceable against Sadler. Consequently, we hold that Sadler has the right to maintain his Dish where it is currently mounted in the patio area. A. Direct or Indirect Ownership 23. We first address whether Sadler can file a petition under the Rule. The Rule applies to antenna users who have a direct or indirect ownership interest in the property on which they desire to install video reception devices. Although Sadler does not have an ownership interest in the property, the owner has given his consent to the installation of the Dish. Under these particular circumstances, we see no distinction between the tenant and owner for purposes of filing this petition, and we will allow this petition. B. Exclusive Use or Control 24. The Rule applies to restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of an antenna user. Based on the record before us, we find that Sadler has exclusive use of the dwelling unit's exterior wall. We do not agree with Chatsworth's argument that under the Condominium Plan the exterior wall of the condominium unit where the Dish is located is a common area over which Sadler does not have exclusive use. Rather, both the Condominium Plan Notes and the Condominium Plan diagram demonstrate that the condominium owner owns the interior and exterior surfaces of the condominium's first floor wall facing the patio. The Condominium Plan specifically states that one boundary of the patio is the exterior wall of the condominium. The Condominium Plan diagram likewise delineates the boundaries of the patio and shows that one boundary is the exterior wall of the Condominium. Moreover, even the portions of the California Civil Code  1351, which Chatsworth quotes as part of its legal argument in its petition, state that when the walls are defined as the boundaries of the separate interest, the interior surfaces of the walls are included as part of the separate interest, which, consistent with the Condominium Plan diagram, indicates that the patio unit includes the surface of the condominium's exterior wall. We disagree with Chatsworth's position that the Condominium Plan defines the patio unit to consist of only airspace. 25. Moreover, the definition of the patio area and the definition of the first floor of the condominium are the same and include the surfaces of the walls. We believe that the condominium dweller has the same rights of ownership and use in the patio area as within the condominium unit. This includes the right to place objects on the surfaces of the walls. For example, because the interior of the condominium is defined to include the surfaces of the walls, a resident may hang mirrors or pictures on the walls. Likewise, we find that because the patio is defined to include the surface of the condominium's walls, the resident may hang flags or dishes on the exterior walls. In this case, no evidence was presented that Sadler pierced the wall beyond the boundary of the condominium owner's ownership and use. 26. We also believe that evidence that nine other condominiums have installed objects that appear to pierce the exterior wall supports the position that these walls are within the exclusive use or control of their owners. In addition, the Condominium diagram shows that the patio unit includes the airspace over the patio extending as high up as the first-floor ceiling thereby giving Sadler the right to use that space for his Dish. C. The Guidelines 27. Chatsworth argues that the Guidelines should not be considered because they were adopted after Sadler installed his antenna. The record reflects that Chatsworth has been and is trying to enforce the Guidelines against Sadler; therefore, we will address them in this Order. 1. Placement Restrictions 28. The Guidelines require that the Dish be installed on the roof in an area designated by the Association board or on the patio below the patio walls out of sight from the street. We agree with Petitioner that these placement restrictions as they apply in this case impair his rights under the Rule. Placement restrictions may impair by (1) unreasonably delaying or preventing installation, maintenance or use of the dish, (2) unreasonably increasing the cost of installation, maintenance or use of the dish, or (3) preventing the reception device from receiving an acceptable quality signal. 29. Sadler asserts that the Dish cannot receive an acceptable signal when it is placed on the patio out of sight from the streets. The Association has failed to offer any evidence to show otherwise. The Association has failed to meet its burden of showing that this restriction does not impair and may not require Sadler to place the Dish below the patio walls. 30. In addition, we find that requiring Sadler to move the Dish to the roof will unreasonably increase the cost of installation to Sadler. Sadler states that a dish retailer and installer estimated that it could cost between $250 and $350 to remove the Dish from his patio and to install it on the roof. The Association has failed to submit evidence to show that these costs are not accurate or how the circumstances may be resolved without unreasonably increasing the costs of installation, maintenance or use. We find the cost alleged by Sadler unreasonably increases the cost of installation. 31. Because Sadler's rights would be impaired under the Guidelines' placement directives, those directives are prohibited as to Sadler, and Sadler may keep his Dish on the wall where his rights are unimpaired. Although the Association's Guidelines do not satisfy the requirements of the Rule in this case, we encourage associations and antenna users to continue their creative efforts to reasonably accommodate the interests of all parties. 2. Prior Approval and Application Fee 32. We agree with Petitioner that Chatsworth's prior approval requirement violates the Rule by imposing an unreasonable delay and expense if applied to the installation of Section 207 devices on property over which the viewer has a direct or indirect ownership interest and exclusive use or control. Guideline 2(a) requires that an antenna user prepare and complete an application for approval, which includes two sets of plans and copies of insurance policies and contractor's licenses, before the user may install a Section 207 reception device and further requires the antenna user to pay an unspecified application fee. As a prerequisite to installation, the Guidelines require the antenna user to sign Exhibit A that certifies that the antenna user has read the Guidelines and agreed to comply with them. 33. One of the purposes of the Rule is to prohibit restrictions that unreasonably delay or prevent antenna installation, maintenance, or use of a Section 207 reception device. The Rule is intended to promote one of the primary objectives of the 1996 Act, which is to make communication services readily available to the public at a reasonable expense. In our Report and Order, we stated that procedural requirements might act as a barrier between the new technology and the potential consumer because of the administrative delay and the myriad regulatory obstacles that the potential antenna user must hurdle before being able to utilize the new technology. We specifically concluded that requirements for approval by community associations might prove to be a disincentive for potential antenna users, effectively "preventing" access to the video programming signals that Congress sought to protect under Section 207 of the 1996 Act. 34. In In re Star Lambert and SBCA, we addressed a prior approval requirement similar to the one at issue here and held that, except for valid safety or historic preservation reasons, a prior approval requirement is invalid because the Rule prohibits prior approval procedures that subject "lawful users of alternative placements . . . to unreasonable delay and expense." Chatsworth did not proffer any safety or historic preservation reasons for its preapproval procedures and thus may not delay installation while it determines whether to grant approval. This prior approval procedure is time-consuming and likely to deter potential antenna users. We conclude that the procedure imposes an unreasonable delay in violation of the Rule. Because the prior approval procedure is prohibited, Chatsworth's unspecified application fee, regardless of the amount or how the fee is determined, unreasonably increases the cost of installation because the fee is unwarranted. 35. We also find the final requirement that the antenna user sign a document that he or she has read the Guidelines and agreed to be bound by them to be invalid under the Rule. As noted, we find many of these Guidelines to be invalid. We believe that many antenna users, when confronted with such a requirement, would be wary of losing any rights they might have or of accepting any obligations for which they should not be held responsible. 4. Indemnification Provisions 36. With respect to the Guidelines' indemnification provisions, we conclude that certain of these provisions are preempted by the Rule as they are applied in this case. The Guidelines require Sadler to sign an agreement which requires him to [i]ndemnify. . . and to hold Association and its members harmless from all claims, demands or liability arising out of or encountered in connection with this Agreement or with the antenna or satellite dish. . . excepting only such injury or harm as may be caused solely and exclusively by Association's gross negligence. Such indemnification shall extend to claims, demands or liability for personal injuries and property damage occurring during installation, as well as after completion. . . . 37. We find that the Guidelines impose an unreasonable expense by increasing an antenna user's exposure to liability for personal injury or property damage by requiring installation on a common area, such as the roof, and requiring indemnification of the Association for any damage caused thereby, that but for the indemnification provision, would be outside of the viewer's responsibility. In this instance, Sadler should not be burdened with liability for damages when he objects to placing his dish on the roof and would only do so at the insistence of the Association. The Association may not require Sadler to install his Dish on the common area roof and then require him to sign an agreement indemnifying the Association. Where, as here, an antenna user installs the antenna within his exclusive use area, we do not believe it unreasonable to hold the antenna user liable for any personal or property damage caused by the installation, maintenance or use of the antenna. Those provisions that require Sadler to indemnify the Association for liability arising from the installation, maintenance and use of his Dish in his patio area are reasonable and enforceable; including reimbursing the Association for repairing damage to any common area caused by installation, maintenance or use of the Dish in the patio area. 5. Inspection Costs of the Installation 38. The Guidelines provide that a satellite dish installation is not complete until it has been inspected and approved by the Association's contractor. The Guidelines further require the viewer to pay the contractor's fee. As we found in MacDonald, compelling antenna users to hire a contractor in order to certify that an installation meets the Association's Guidelines is an unreasonable expense. If an antenna user installs a dish in an area that violates legitimate guidelines, then the Association may assess a penalty on the viewer at that time. 6. Licensed and Insured Contractors 39. The Guidelines are ambiguous regarding whether they require antenna users to hire a licensed and insured contractor to install a satellite dish. While Guideline three provides that a "satellite dish contractor must be licensed and insured" but does not state whether a contractor is required, Guideline six provides that if the City of Los Angeles requires a licensed contractor to perform the installation of the dish or antenna, then the Guidelines require that the contractor be licensed and insured. Because the code of Los Angeles is not before us in this proceeding, we cannot rule on whether Guideline six would be preempted by the Rule. Assuming that a contractor is required under Guideline three, we have previously ruled that requirements, other than those necessary for safety or historic preservation, that would require a viewer to hire a contractor to install a DBS dish are invalid because DBS dishes are designed for the viewer to install and, accordingly, requiring a contractor is an unreasonable expense. 40. Nevertheless, if a contractor is employed to install a dish, we believe that it is a reasonable requirement for the contractor to have insurance to pay for any personal injuries or structural damage to the property. However Guideline seven's requirement that the viewer obtain and provide the Association with copies of the contractor's worker's compensation and general liability insurance policies is unreasonable under our Rule because it places a burden on viewers who abide by the Guidelines by using insured contractors. 7. Attorney's Fees 41. With respect to the question whether attorney's fees may be collected under the Rule while a Petition is pending, the Report states that viewers are generally permitted to install, maintain and use a Section 207 reception device while the validity of a restriction is being reviewed, except where safety and historic preservation restrictions are at issue. Moreover, the Rule provides that "[n]o fine or other penalties shall accrue against an antenna user while a proceeding is pending to determine the validity of any restriction." We believe it is inconsistent with the purpose underlying the Rule and the petition process to permit a viewer and/or the owner to be assessed attorney's fees when the validity of a regulation or restriction has not yet been determined. We further believe that the threat of attorney's fees operates as a substantial deterrent to viewers exercising their right to install a dish while such a restriction is under review and could therefore unreasonably prevent the installation of a dish. We find that assessing attorney's fees while a petition is pending is prohibited under the Rule. V. Ordering Clauses 42. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.4000(d) of the Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule, 47 C.F.R.  1.4000(d), and Section 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.2, that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by James Sadler is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART with respect to preemption of Chatsworth Country Townhomes Association's CC&R's and Guidelines, as discussed above. 43. This action is taken by the Acting Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  0.321. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John E. Logan Acting Chief, Cable Services Bureau APPENDIX CHATSWORTH COUNTRY TOWNHOMES ASSOCIATION ANTENNA AND SATELLITE DISH GUIDELINES 1. Pursuant to the Association's governing documents and the FCC Rule, no video or television antenna, including satellite dishes, will be permitted within the development which has a diameter or diagonal measurement of more than 39 inches. 2. Owners of satellite dishes which have a diameter or diagonal measurement of 39 inches or less must comply with the following architectural guidelines: (a) Prior to installation, Owner/Applicant must submit a written application for installation of his/her satellite dish to the Association's Board of Directors describing the satellite dish and its proposed location; in a form attached hereto as Exhibit A. (b) The antenna or satellite dish must not be visible from any street or common area; (c) Locations where satellite dishes may be installed are restricted to: the patio area within the fence but not attached to the fence posts, walls of the building or other common area or roof in an area designated by the Board. 3. The satellite dish contractor must be licensed and insured. 4. Installation of the satellite dish shall not be deemed complete until its installation has been inspected and approved by the Association's contractor ("Contractor"), so that warranties remain intact, water intrusion, and/or other elements are prevented, and structural integrity is verified. Owner/Applicant shall pay an administrative fee of $ _________ for the cost of Contractor to inspect the installation of the satellite dish. 5. Owner/Applicant must execute an Architectural Improvement Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit B) which provides that the Owner/Applicant and the installer(s) of the satellite dish indemnify and hold Association and/or its members harmless from: any liability, loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance or use of the satellite dish and reimburse the Association for any loss or damage. 6. Installation and/or construction of the antenna or satellite dish shall be performed and completed in compliance with all laws and ordinances of the City of Los Angeles; these Guidelines; the Declaration; any other architectural guidelines; and the terms and covenants of this Agreement. Owner shall pay for any building fees, if any, required by the City of Los Angeles. If required by the City, all improvements shall be constructed by a contractor who is licensed by the State of California to perform same. Additionally, if the General Contractor will be employing subcontractors, said subcontractors must also be duly licensed by the State of California to perform the trade for which they have been engaged. 7. Additionally, prior to the installation of the antenna or satellite dish, Owner or Owner's contractor shall provide to the Association the following certificates of insurance, naming Owner's contractor as the insured thereof: a. worker's compensation insurance. b. Comprehensive general liability insurance with limits of not less than $2,000,000. 8. All trash, debris or scraps shall be cleaned up on a daily basis and removed from the development. (No trash or debris shall be permitted to remain in the development overnight.) No building materials, equipment, trash, trash bins, trash containers, or any other items used during construction shall be stored outside of Owner's patio, on the Association's common area, the streets, or any other area within the development, without the express written consent of the Association. 9. Owner hereby further covenants and agrees to: a. Be responsible or the maintenance, repair and replacement of the antenna or satellite dish, any portion of a building component of a residential unit to which the antenna or satellite dish is attached; and/or any cable which intrudes into a building component of any residential unit (hereinafter "Owner Maintenance Responsibilities"). Notwithstanding any language of the governing documents (including but not limited to the CC&R's) to the contrary, Owner hereby covenants and agrees that the Association shall have no maintenance, repair, or replacement responsibility for the satellite dish or antenna and/or that portion of the building component to which it is attached. b. Repair any portion of the Common Area of the Association or any exterior portion of the residential unit or, for that matter, any portion of any improvement within the entire development which is damaged by the construction and/or installation of the antenna or satellite dish. c. Indemnify for himself/herself, as well as for his/her successors and assigns, and to hold Association and its members harmless from all claims, demands or liability arising out of or encountered in connection with this Agreement or with the antenna or satellite dish, whether such claims, demands or liability are caused by Owner, Owner's agents or employees, or contractors or subcontractors employed on the project, their agents or employees, or caused by any products installed on the project by said contractor(s) or subcontractor(s), excepting only such injury or harm as may be caused solely and exclusively by Association's gross negligence. Such indemnification shall extend to claims, demands or liability for personal injuries and property damage occurring during installation, as well as after completion, related to all of Owner's Maintenance Responsibilities provided herein. d. Further indemnify and hold the Association harmless from all liability related to any damage to existing improvements (wherever located within the development) resulting from the installation/construction of the antenna or satellite dish and/or any failure of Owner to properly discharge Owner's Maintenance Responsibility. e. Reimburse the Association for any loss or damage to the Common Area caused by the installation, maintenance or use of the antenna or satellite dish. Selected Excerpts from Exhibit A ANTENNA AND SATELLITE DISH REVIEW APPLICATION . . . . Approval is requested for the installation of an MDS-type or aerial antenna or satellite dish according to the plans attached. We have attached two (2) sets of plans outlining the work to be done along with a complete description of the materials to be used. In addition, a copy of the Contractor's License for the proposed contractor(s) are attached. Upon approval of this application and prior to commencement of the installation, the certificate of liability insurance will be provided, naming the Association as an additional insured. We have read the Antenna and Satellite Dish Guidelines and have furnished copies to all contractors to be engaged by us. We agree to comply with those Guidelines. We also understand it is our responsibility to insure that our Contractor(s) comply. We acknowledge that a Building Permit may be required by the City of Los Angeles. The cost of permits, responsibility for obtaining them, and the subsequent inspections will be our responsibility. . . . . We agree to pay the Association an application fee of $______to defer administration costs and expenses in the Board's review of the plans and specifications. The application fee should be submitted along with the Application. . . . . We further agree that this installation will be completed in a reasonable and diligent manner. We further agree that 1) if we do not correct any damage caused as a result of implementation of this installation, the Association may make the repairs and levy the expense thereof as a special assessment to me to be paid within thirty days. If I fail to pay the special assessment, the Association may record an assessment lien and pursue all remedies available to it to collect same, including foreclosure of the lien.