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

Wed Mar 25 21:38:12 PDT 2009

I can't argue with facts, Bruce. At least in your case, my theory 
doesn't hold water worth a darn.

I should know better than to expect people to behave the way I think 
they should :-)

73, Mike W4EF.....................

Bruce Horn wrote:

>Hi Mike,
>
>You're correct that the LA City process is different than LA County. As part of the permitting process I had to seek agreement from each of my immediate neighbors (lots touched mine). However, in the case I described the complaining neighbor was 5 houses away on my block - not involved in the original permitting process and wouldn't have been aware of any restrictions. My immediate neighbors have always been great. The restrictions in my permit weren't placed there in response to concerns of my neighbors, but because of the concerns of the hearing officer. Ken, K6LA, went through the same process just prior to me in an entirely different neighborhood and was subjected to a different set of restrictions.
>
>73 de Bruce, WA7BNM   (bhorn at hornucopia.com)
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF at dellroy.com>
>To: "Bruce Horn" <bhorn at hornucopia.com>
>Cc: sccc at contesting.com
>Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:21:49 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
>Subject: Re: [SCCC] [TowerTalk] Anyone know the CURRENT Los	Angeles	CountyZoning Rule...
>
>Yes, but if I remember correct didn't you get a C.U.P., Bruce, whereby 
>all your neighbors had to be notified of your intended installation? 
>Seems like they would have been aware ahead of time that you were 
>supposed keep the thing cranked down whereas with a non-CUP installation 
>they would have to do more homework. That's why its good if your 
>neighbors don't have any teeth since that makes it less likely that they 
>will be lawyers (or worse yet engineers) :-)
>
>Art's point about TVI/RFI is good. I do seem to hear lots of stories 
>about ham stations causing interference even when they are not powered 
>on :-)
>
>Craig's comment reminds me of my grandmother's neighbor from when I was 
>back in college. He was a cool old guy who let me put one leg of my 80 
>meter inverted vee up in his tree.  He told me that he could always tell 
>when I was home on break from college because his automatic garage door 
>would start going up and down by itself. In this case the RFI was real, 
>but he didn't really seem too upset about it  :-)
>
>73, Mike W4EF...............................
>
>Bruce Horn wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>My personal experience with a 89-foot permitted crank-up tower within the city limits of Los Angeles is contradictory to the premise that neighbors won't notice if you leave the tower completely cranked up all of the time. In my case the top antenna is at 107 feet when the tower is completely extended, and it's at about 70 feet when cranked down (lower height limited by a tree, rather than minimum height of tower). After erecting the tower, I gradually started leaving it completely extended for long periods of time. About a year after I erected the tower, I received a call from the city planning office reminding me of the limitation specified in my permit as to when the tower could be fully extended. The call was in response to a complaint from a neighbor 5 houses away. It's likely that the height is more noticeable from several houses away than from next door neighbors.
>>
>>Your mileage may vary.
>>
>>73 de Bruce, WA7BNM   (bhorn at hornucopia.com)
>>
>>----- 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 8:00:34 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
>>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
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>SCCC mailing list
>SCCC at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
>
>
>  
>