[SCCC] [TowerTalk] Anyone know the CURRENT Los Angeles CountyZoning Rule...

[Craig Gullickson]

That reminds me of when I was in college and the neighbors used to come over to my parent's house and complain that my radio station was getting into their TV.  I was only 150 miles away at the time ;-)
Art's comments are too true!

73 de Craig, N6ED

 



________________________________
From: Art Goddard <w6xd at ca.rr.com>
To: Michael Tope <W4EF at dellroy.com>; Marty Woll <n6vi at socal.rr.com>
Cc: W6ph at aol.com; sccc at contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:26:35 PM
Subject: Re: [SCCC] [TowerTalk] Anyone know the CURRENT Los Angeles CountyZoning Rule...

The mental filtering works until there's some perceived RFI/TVI - in which 
case the tower becomes quite visible again.

73, Art  W6XD


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF at dellroy.com>
To: "Marty Woll" <n6vi at socal.rr.com>
Cc: <W6ph at aol.com>; <sccc at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [SCCC] [TowerTalk] Anyone know the CURRENT Los Angeles 
CountyZoning Rule...


> Marty,
>
> My suspicion is that the part of the ordinance which specifies that the
> tower be retracted when "not in operation" came about as part of a
> compromise to get the maximum height to 75'. In most cases, once a tower
> is in place and neighbors start to mentally filter it (like they do with
> telephone poles), I'll bet nobody would say anything or even notice if
> it is not retracted on a regular basis (the neighbors would have to have
> read the ordinance to even be aware of that rule).  Also, one could
> probably stretch the spirit of  the "retract when not in operation"
> clause by installing an APRS antenna on top the tower. In that case, the
> tower would be "in operation" all the time.
>
> Your points about the rigid transmission  line and the number of
> telescope/retract cycles are well taken. Especially the latter point
> which I had never considered before. I agree that having the option for
> a 75' fixed guyed or freestanding tower would be better than having no
> choice other than the crank-up. Hopefully the folks who negotiated the
> ordinance only gave up on the fixed tower option because the felt they
> had to to get the maximum height to 75'.
>
> 73, Mike W4EF............
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marty Woll wrote:
>
>>Good point, Kurt, and one worth pressing.  Not only can there a 
>>substantial difference in cost between a crank-up and a fixed tower, but a 
>>tower that must be lowered cannot accommodate semi-rigid transmission line 
>>(e.g., Andrew LDF series) often used for VHF and UHF operation.
>>
>>Further, most telescoping towers were not designed to be run up and down 
>>regularly; doing so would cause premature wear on pulleys, cables, etc. 
>>and could actually increase risk of mechanical failure.  The telescoping 
>>feature is generally employed to facilitate installation of the tower 
>>itself and antenna installation, maintenance and adjustment.
>>
>>73,
>>
>>Marty N6VI
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>  It also looks like US Towers and Tri-Ex may have had something to do 
>> with it.
>>  Rohn obviously wasn't invited to the ordinance writing party.
>>
>>          Kurt, W6PH  (40 feet of Rohn 25G not in LA County)
>>_______________________________________________
>>SCCC mailing list
>>SCCC at contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SCCC mailing list
> SCCC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
> 

_______________________________________________
SCCC mailing list
SCCC at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc