WrightwoodCalif.com Forum
Public Forums => Radio Talk => Topic started by: Wrightwood on Dec 21, 08, 06:09:14 PM
-
The City of Palmdale's new ordinance is gaining a lot of attention:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/12/19/10512/?nc=1
Even Wrightwood is mentioned in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/v/HmWLFhjjbUY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
-
My dad tells me ARRL's big shot Washington D.C. attorneys sent City of Palmdale's Podunk attorney certified mail stating they are wrong and she is out of her league, and to backdown our prepair to loose by lawsuit.
He says they'll backdown Jan 7th, or loose by lawsuit anyway.
-
I have no control over "You Tube's" choice of related videos when the video is completed.
-
Who are the two people in the video?
-
Finally! Justice from the People's Republic of Palmdale
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/02/06/10620/?nc=1 (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/02/06/10620/?nc=1)
Judge Rules in Favor of Amateur in Palmdale Antenna Support Structure Case
On Friday, February 6, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Yaffe issued a ruling in favor of Alec Zubarau, WB6X, of Palmdale, California, in Zubarau's case against the City of Palmdale. Last year, after Zubarau received a valid building permit from the City to erect an antenna support structure, the City of Palmdale revoked Zubarau's the building permit after he had erected the tower. According to Zubarau's attorney, Len Shaffer, WA6QHD, the Court's ruling invalidates the actions of the City in revoking Zubarau's permit and requires the City to allow him to replace the tower. "Zubarau's case has drawn nationwide attention and financial support from the ARRL, Amateur Radio clubs and individual Amateur Radio operators from around the country," said ARRL Southwestern Division Vice Director Marty Woll, N6VI. "Although this ruling does not directly address the City's proposed zoning ordinance amendment, based on the Court's language, it should provide considerable support for those hams attempting to negotiate a more reasonable provision allowing antenna support structures in the Palmdale City Code."
-
Palmdale doesn't stand a chance against antenna restrictions, or any City or County much less home owner group CC&R restrictions for that matter. In 2003 Gov. Davies signed California into the PRB-1 bill. If Palmdale's attourney's don't back off, the ARRL will smoke-em.
Here is a qoute from the bill
"AB 1228 incorporates the language of PRB-1 into the statutes of California. It would require any ordinance regulating Amateur Radio antenna structures not to preclude but to "reasonably accommodate" Amateur Radio communications, to allow amateur station antenna structures "at heights and dimensions sufficient to accommodate Amateur Radio Service communications" and to constitute "the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the legitimate purpose of the city or county."
Even a 40 meter wire antenna must be at least 40 feet above ground to work effeciently....nice. ;D Another choice is a verticle and a boat load of ground radials which need to be a minimum of 1/4 wavelength.
Here's a link to the Davies signing:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/07/15/101/
-
Toolman; I'll bet you lunch at the Yoddler the new proposed ordinance not only flies, but will have the blessing of local hams.
-
Bob... normaly I would take a slam dunk bet like that but....
Your statement of the blessing of the local Hams of Palmdale on this ridiculous proposal by the Palmdale City Counsel leaves me speechless and therefore I can not take that bet.
However, If the Hams of Palmdale had a spine and stood up for their legal rights and let the ARRL step in to squash Counsel like a bug, I'd say...
Make mine a Yodeler burger with fries and an MGD on tap. ;)
Since you have the inside scoop on the Palmdale Hams laying down and blessing this ordinance, share with us why they would possibly consider not standing up for their legal right and petition such nonsense. From the video... if it is real ::) it didn't appear the Ham being interviewed was tucking his tail.
-
However, If the Hams of Palmdale had a spine and stood up for their legal rights and let the ARRL step in to squash Counsel like a bug, I'd say...
Up until December, the AVARC was holding their monthly meetings in Palmdale. In January, they moved back to Lancaster (where they were for a long long time). I'm told the move was coincidental, but I'm still glad they're not meeting in Palmdale any more.
-
Toolman; I'll bet you lunch at the Yoddler the new proposed ordinance not only flies, but will have the blessing of local hams.
IF this were to happen WITH the blessing of the local hams, that would make Palmdale Ham operators the laughing stock of the Amatuer Radio Community. ;D
-
IF this were to happen WITH the blessing of the local hams, that would make Palmdale Ham operators the laughing stock of the Amatuer Radio Community. ;D
I could see how one might feel that way without knowing the players.
After spending 40k plus and getting burned in the lawsuit nobody's heard a peep out of the city.
I think they're toast :2thumbsup:
-
ARRL Southwestern Division e-Communicator
Palmdale Antenna Case
Meanwhile, in California, the court decision in the long-running WB6X tower case is now final after the City of Palmdale allowed the appeal period to expire without challenging the ruling. In short, the judge ordered the city to reinstate an improperly revoked building permit for a crank-up tower. Alec Zubarau, who was ably represented by ARRL Volunteer Counsel Leonard Shaffer, WA6QHD, may now request a permit for an antenna to go on the tower. Local hams have also noted that, since the hams' legal victory, city personnel have made no further mention of the harsh, controversial and likely illegal proposed antenna ordinance amendment it floated last year.
Notable in the ruling is the court's description of Palmdale's actions as "an abuse of discretion by the City Council", the statement that the city's decision to eliminate the tower "directly violates the express requirements of the statute", referring to California's PRB-1 equivalent law, and that neighbors' unsubstantiated complaints "do not constitute substantial evidence".
-
I've just been informed that C.O.P. has thrown in a last minute apeal.
-
-
I'm confused, did the city appeal it or not?
I got my info from K6GX0
-
Bob,
I apologize as I forgot to post this line of text that came with the email above:
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:25 PM
Subject: FW: [PRB1] More re. WB6X Case
The city of Palmdale did file an appeal against the court ruling listed below. The fight is not over!!!
-
The City of Palmdale continues to try and pass an ordinance that will regulate amateur radio station antenna structures. Their latest effort does not allow for structures to be erected at reasonable heights to accommodate emergency communications.
The new draft ordinance:
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/kw6ww/misc/Palmdale/DraftZoningOrdinanceSection95.03_6-09.doc
A couple of keys points that I noticed in the new draft ordinance:
5. A single vertical antenna mounted directly on the ground or on a roof that complies with the following:
a. Is located in a non-residential zone or in a residential zone where the lot on which the antenna is located and all lots within a 1,000 foot radius are at least one acre in size
b. The height extends no more than six (6) feet above the main structure; and
7. No more than one antenna structure and one whip antenna shall be permitted on each site.
------------------
D. The following types of antennas are prohibited:
2. Derrick-style antenna support structures.
Documents supporting the Zubarau ruling:
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/kw6ww/misc/Palmdale/P.A.inSupportofPettition.pdf
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/kw6ww/misc/Palmdale/ReplyP.A.pdf
Zubarau order:
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/kw6ww/misc/Palmdale/ZubarauMinuteOrder.pdf
-
But apparently, its "ok" to erect huge ugly wind turbines though ;)
If I remember correctly, Palmdale tried this about 15 years ago. I don't remember the details, but I do vaguely remember the problem going away, without too much hassle. Why they are making SUCH a big stink this time, is beyond me.
-
The city and the mayor didn't like the water district wind turbine either..
Anyone have a use for one of these?
(http://www.palmdalecam.com/junk/tower.JPG)
-
Looks like San Diego gave it more thought than Palmdale did:
After three hours of testimony from city staff and the public this
morning, the San Diego City Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend that the City Council reject a proposed anti-Amateur Radio
antenna ordinance because they believed it was too restrictive. The
planning commission recommended that city staff work with the Amateur
Radio community to produce something more acceptable.
The proposed ordinance attempted to effectively ban antennas over 30
feet high in most parts of the city, and required an $8000 initial fee to initiate an approval process, with no limit on the total fees
permitted.
Only two La Jolla residents, upset over over one particular antenna in their neighborhood, testified in favor. Over 80 amateurs signed up to speak against the proposal. The San Diego DX Club, which had previously attempted to work with the city to produce a reasonable ordinance, led the opposition. An overview was provided by DX Club attorney Felix Tinkov. SDDXC members attorney Larry Serra, N6NC, Jim Price, K6ZH, and Arnie Lewin, W7BIA were primary spokespersons in opposition. Former SDDXC president Glenn Rattmann, K6NA, has played a significant background organizing role as well.
20 or more other amateurs including California's Emergency Management
Agency's John Hudson, WA6HYQ, and San Diego ARRL Section Manager Steve Early, AD6VI, also spoke. Steve Early has also worked to rally San Diego city's resident amateurs. Thanks to all who participated.
In spite of today's outcome, the city council can still hold hearings
and consider the proposed ordinance. The team of concerned San Diego
amateurs will continue to follow the situation and respond
appropriately.
ARRL SW Division
-
From: Laurie Lile
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:16 PM
Subject: Revisions to the City of Palmdale Zoning Ordinance regulations regarding amateur radio antennas
Good afternoon,
After some delay, we have completed a revised draft ordinance to modify the City's existing zoning regulations relating to amateur radio antennas. Attached is the draft ordinance for your review and comment. Although the Planning Commission already acted on the previous version, it is our intent that this issue be presented and heard by the Planning Commission again before consideration by the City Council. In an effort to provide additional opportunities for input, we propose the following process schedule:
1. Special report before the Planning Commission at the February 10 Planning Commission meeting to outline the proposed changes from the previous draft ordinance.
2. Public Hearing before the Planning Commission at the March 10 Planning Commission meeting.
3. Public Hearing before the City Council to approve the Ordinance as proposed, tentatively scheduled for April 6.
We have forwarded this email to those interested individuals for whom we had email addresses. Clearly, this is not an exhaustive list of every interested party. Please feel free to forward this to any other local radio operators that may be interested in reviewing and commenting on this proposal. If you have any questions concerning the provisions of the draft ordinance, or if you would like to meet to discuss the proposal, please contact me at the phone number provided below or contact Planning Manager Richard Kite at (661) 267-5200.
Thank you,
Laurie Lile
Assistant City Manager
City of Palmdale -- Administration
38300 Sierra Highway, Suite A
Palmdale, CA 93550
www.cityofpalmdale.org (http://www.cityofpalmdale.org)
Draft proposal follows in separate posts
-
-
-
-
Ok, I like to read, but didn't have time for that. Scrolling down to the bottom, is this the nutshell?
"1. The antenna/antenna structure shall not exceed a maximum height of 35 feet when measured in the nested position.
2. The antenna/antenna structure shall not exceed 75 feet when in operation.
3. Any horizontal array shall not extend into any required setback and shall not have a maximum width exceeding 30 feet.
4. The antenna/antenna structure shall be located in the rear yard.
5. The lot contains foliage that reduces the visibility of the antenna
6. The antenna is colored to minimize its reflectivity and blend with its surroundings as much as possible.
7. When not in use, any retractable antenna shall be kept in its nested position and shall not extend above 35 feet in height. "
If so, 1-3 seem within FCC regs if my poor memory serves?
4 doesn't seem too bad
But 5 is impractical if you don't have pine trees in PALMDALE. Maybe you could go to Michael's and get a bunch of faux foliage to trim it with??? ;D
6: Anybody know where to buy camo spray paint? ::)
Lastly, 7 is ridiculous if they're talking about up and down every time you turn your radio on. ???
-
I see all sorts of problems.
The horizontal array does not exceed 10 feet in width
Does this prevent long wire antennas?
The name, address and call letters of the amateur radio operator
What happens if applicant is not a licensed amateur radio operator and just a hobbyist who wants to listen?
No more than one antenna structure shall be permitted on any lot or structure
Sounds like this would be an issue on having a VHF antenna and HF antenna on a different mast on the property
The antenna/antenna structure is located on a lot of at least one acre in size
I'm not sure how this requirement fits in
BobC - isn't there a longer version available? ;)
-
Isn't it ironic how Palmdale wants to continue to screw with amateur radio operators and their little antennas, while these same amateurs have to live in the shadow of that enormous wind turbine at Palmdale Lake?
And you can bet that Palmdale will have no problem allowing cell towers to continue to be built... because they get good "rent" money from the cell companies. Oh sure, they'll want the cell towers to be built on existing light poles, or they'll want the towers disguised as pine trees or palm trees, but still!
-
I don't think COP knows the difference between an antenna and a tower.
and most of the housing track lots in Pdale are smaller then an acre.
Under this ordinance the tower my grandpa had in Palmdale wouldn't be allowed nor would the one my dad had when he lived in Palmdale. Both were on lots smaller then an acre. I'm also pretty sure both their beams rotated over the neighbors back yard.
-
I find it interesting that not every tower is off limits in Palmdale:
The city is allowing shopping centers and business parks to install small wind turbines atop light towers in parking lots. A 17-turbine plot is already in the works at Sam's Club.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/21/local/me-wind-farms21
-
I find it interesting that not every tower is off limits in Palmdale:
The city is allowing shopping centers and business parks to install small wind turbines atop light towers in parking lots. A 17-turbine plot is already in the works at Sam's Club.
Already in place.. Strange looking things, too. They are basically mounted on the top of each of the parking lot street light poles. The actual blades aren't all that big (I don't know... 6 feet maybe?). But you're right... its convenient and "ok" to things, when they want to. Its back to the old "Do as we say, not as we do" mentality.
There's two large solar plants along Hwy 14 near Avenue G that sprung up, too (the grid of mirrors focusing sun on a tower kind of deal).
-
The horizontal array does not exceed 10 feet in width
Does this prevent long wire antennas?
But at the bottom the language says 30 feet.
Is the top part the language that they eliminated for redo and the bottom part the new language?
-
http://tinyurl.com/4aefwk9
In Zubarau v. City of Palmdale, published January 27, 2011, the 2nd District Court of Appeal addressed a trial court writ of mandate that reversed a city's order that a homeowner take down a tall ham radio antenna on his property. The court reversed the trial court' s ruling that the city's takedown order was not supported by substantial evidence; the city's aesthetic and safety grounds for ordering the takedown were supported by substantial evidence. The court also reversed the trial court's ruling that the city's ordinance concerning antenna height was unenforceable based on vagueness. The appellate court further ruled that the city could not regulate the antenna based on radio frequency interference, since that area has been fully occupied by federal law.
Appeals decision from Judge David P. Yaffe:
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/kw6ww/misc/Palmdale/Zubarau.v.CityPalmdaleB216308.pdf
-
-
ARRL posted the City of Palmdale's mast head at the end of the article:
(https://www.cityofpalmdale.org/graphics/header/header.png)
-
Here's the latest from Palmdale:
CC & CRA REGULAR MEETINGS
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER
38300 SIERRA HIGHWAY, SUITE B
PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 06, 2011
7:00 P.M.
www.cityofpalmdale.org
WELCOME
7.2 Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 11-02, Ordinance No. 1415. City of Palmdale, applicant. A request by the City of Palmdale proposing an amendment to Palmdale Zoning Ordinance Section 95.03, Vertical Antennas, revising the entire Section 95.03 setting forth application processes and development standards for the installation of amateur radio antennas. It is the purpose of the regulations to reasonably accommodate amateur radio communications while ensuring that amateur radio antennas are designed, installed and located in a manner that ensures compatibility with adjacent and surrounding land uses and minimizes potential adverse aesthetic effects. The project is located City-wide for Zoning Ordinance Amendment 11-02. (Staff Reference: Planning Manager Kite)
Read Ordinance Title
View Staff Report
http://palmdale.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=77&meta_id=78475
7.2a ORDINANCE NO. 1415, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALMDALE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS IN AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND IN RESIDENTIALLY DEVELOPED PROPERTIES BY DELETING IN ITS ENTIRETY AND RESTATING ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 95.03; ESTABLISHING AN AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA PERMIT AS A MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS BY CREATING NEW ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 26.11; AND MODIFYING THE DESCRIPTION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR A-1, R-1, R-2 AND R-3 ZONE DESIGNATIONS BY REPLACING THE TERM "VERTICAL ANTENNA" WITH THE TERM" AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA." (ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 11-02).
Move to introduce Ordinance No. 1415. (Vote - Requires a majority to introduce.)
Open Public Hearing and receive Testimony
Move to close Public Hearing. (Voice Vote - Requires a majority to close.)
Move to adopt Ordinance No. 1415. (Vote - Requires a majority to adopt.)
View Ordinance No. 1415
http://palmdale.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=77&meta_id=78488
-
I hear this is on the city council agenda for tonight.
-
Highlights:
- The design will provide for the minimum footprint necessary for structural support, but in no case shall the structure footprint exceed four square feet.
- No more than one antenna structure shall be permitted on any lot or structure.
- A fixed height or retractable antenna/antenna structure that is installed, placed or maintained at a height that does not exceed 35 feet in height when in use and does not include a horizontal array that exceeds 10 feet in width.
Antennas Permitted Through Administrative Zoning Clearance
- A retractable antenna/antenna structure that meets all of the following characteristics:
a. The antenna/antenna structure is located on a lot of at least one acre in size;
b. The antenna/antenna structure does not exceed a maximum height of 35 feet when measured in the nested position;
c. The antenna/antenna structure does not exceed 75 feet when in operation;
d. The horizontal array does not exceed 10 feet in width;
e. The antenna/antenna structure is located in the rear yard;
f. The lot contains foliage that reduces the visibility of the antenna [LM: in the DESERT???} ; and
g. The antenna is colored to minimize its reflectivity and blend with its surroundings as much as possible.
Under the permit section is as above with the addition of the following:
7. When not in use, any retractable antenna shall be kept in its nested position and shall not extend above 35 feet in height.
(http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs9/i/2006/023/5/d/Marine_Emote_by_budgieishere.gif)
-
The horizontal array does not exceed 10 feet in width
Yea.. like that will work for many of the HF configurations
-
g. The antenna is colored to minimize its reflectivity and blend with its surroundings as much as possible.
Then from my observations antenna colors would be as follows:
Eastside Palmdale would require antenna's to be black
Down town Palmdale would require antenna's to be brown
West Palmdale would require antenna's to be white
ok, maybe that's not what they ment. :P
-
Palmdale tries again to restrict ham radio antennas tonight at 7pm.
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/kw6ww/misc/Palmdale/ProposedOrdinanceNo.1415.pdf
http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/kw6ww/misc/Palmdale/Ordinance1415.9.7.11.pdf
-
What is Palmdale's problem? Geeze, they sure have a thing for "amateur radio" antennas.... yet "Citizen Band" is mentioned only once, and there is no mention of other forms of antennas that people might erect (Short wave, etc), except perhaps for the generic discussions of maximum height, etc. But it doesn't appear they put the same permitting/getting permission restrictions on other types of antennas, as they want to with amateur radio.
-
What is Palmdale's problem?
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNjE4OTcyMzE3NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTUzOTM5._V1._CR0,0,281,281_SS100_.jpg)
-
Or maybe this, to describe the leadership of Palmdale?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XVZYDA0ZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
-
Should anyone be offended by my Die Hard movie cover, I wasn't doing a James Hoffa, I simply meant:
die hard [dahy-hahrd]
noun
1. a person who vigorously maintains or defends a seemingly hopeless position, outdated attitude, lost cause, or the like.
adjective
2. resisting vigorously and stubbornly to the last; stubborn.