No, my messages were not spam. If you don't like my new crimefighting
attitude, you can blame Steam and Valve.

Ever since I got ripped off by Steam and Valve, I am on a crusade to
verbally fight all crime and ccorruption that I see or experience by
verbally exposing their crime, corrruption, and illegal activities by
posting on the internet.

I'm not taking t anymore. Too many people don't stand up for the real
laws of this country anymore, which is most likely why things just
keep getting
worse and worse.

Next up on the list:

The illegal activites of Palmdale, California.

IF they are indeed illegal activities.

Which several people said they are.

But are they really?

hmmm.....

I'll have to take another look at their rules and regulations.

However, whether legal or illegal, they sure are making it hard to
impossible for hams to put up antennas of any sort

Imagine if you didn't stand up for the real laws of the country and
just sat back saying nothing and posting nothing and letting Palmdale
illegally
do whatever they want to.

you soon wouldn't be able to use your ham radio at all. Then no using
your cb at all. Then no using your frs at all. But it wouldn't stop
there.

Next or eventually comes regulating the color of the cell phone you
can have. The color of the cordless phone you can have if they don't
outlaw those first.
The color of your house. Etcetera.

And impossible to follow laws since they purposely contradict
theirselves.

The posts about Palmdale on qrz were back from 2006 and I think 2002
or so also. the current one is current, December 2008, and even the
2002.2006 one wasn't the first time Palmdale tried banning ham
antennas.

They also tried it around 1992 or 1994. I saw the posts dated around
then.

It seems obvious that Palmdale is NOT going to give up trying to ban
ham radio antennas or ham radio alltogether.

And did they or didn't they just ban mobile ham radios and handgelds
also.

From reading their rules, I believe their intentions were to ban
handhelds, but if so, they goofed as it seems to me their rules
permit handhelds and handheld antennas.

However, if permitted like it seems to be, their intentions might have
been to allow them instead of ban them.

But that doesn't seem to mesh with the rest of the rules.

It looks to me like they are trying to ban mobile ham radio operation.

What about those of us from out of town and out of state who just
happen to be driving through Palmdale on vacation or for some other
reason and have big honking huge ham antennas on our car since they're
not illegal where we live?

I think It said something about them having to meet the vehicle code
about ham antennas.

However, I have never ever seen any vehicle code mentioning ham
antennas.

Of course, being California, theirs' might.

If their vehicle code doesn't mention ham antennas, what are the
chances of Palmdale using that to say since the vehicle code doesn't
mention ham
antennas at all, then the ham antennas don't meet the requirements of
being how the vehicle code says they must be, and are therefore
illegal.

You have to remember, California is screwy. And Palmdale even more so,
from what I've read posted by other people.

They said Palmdale is and was already a bad trashy looking ghetto
dump.

And that a bunch of ham radio towers would actually improve the look
of the place.

I've never been there myself, so I can't say for sure if that's true
or not.






..



At least not without a big huge fight on their hands.





The latter is what happened to me and everyone else in the trailer
park once the new landlord/owner of the trailer park took over.

On Dec 16, 7:50*pm, 807breath wrote:
Hams are kooks. Hope they do it. Just listen to 14.275 any weekend.
Justification 4 the same.

okay. If I was a ham living in Palmdale, California right now, I would
do this kooky thing.

The proposed law says antennas are not allowed to be one inch over the
roof line at all.

And unless I'm mistaken, I think it says antennas on portable ht's are
exempt from the antenna laws.

So I wonder how Palmdale would like itt if I sat on top of my roof
with a portable ham HT in my hand, talking on it, in which case the
antenna on it
would be MORE than one inch above the roof line of the house.

Hey, they did say portable ham HT's are exempt from the law, unless I
misread something.

When you're not allowed any antenna towers over one inch above the
roof line, what better way to get better reception than to talk on
your HT while
sitting on top of your roof?

hmmm... another idea. I guess there is a better way. Nope. I thought
of using an extension cord to set your base/mobile rig on top of the
roof using a
mag mount antenna on a pizza pan, while talking on it, but base/mobile
rigs aren't exempt from Palmdale's laws and would count as an illegal
antenna over one inch above the roof line.

Back to the talking on a portable HT while you're sitting on top of
the roof of your house.

I wonder how Palmdale would like those aesthetics.

Of course they'll probably still try to get you for having an antenna
over one inch above the roof line.

But you can then show them their ordinance that says HT's are exempt.

However, a ham winning against them in court when they revoked his
permit for an antenna two years after they gave him one.. is what
prompted them to try to pass this latest proposed ordinance to
eliminate all ham radio they can.

At least that's what several people have said.

Talking on your HT while sitting on top of the roof of your house.

It's Hillbilly Ham Heaven.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:28:10 -0800 (PST), policy-ham
wrote:
Palmdale, "Kalifornia" is attempting to outlaw amateur radio. The
city of Palmdale has now passed a draft zoning law that proposes an
enforcement unit that could seize amateur radio equipment and
restrict
antenna height to one inch above a fixed structure's roof.

It also applies to mobile and portable operation using an HT. They
can
even arrest you and take your HT just for walking down the street
and
talking on it.

I am not kidding. Here is a link to the actual proposed ordinance
where you can read it for yourself.
http://www.cityofpalmdale.org/city_h...spl120479c.pdf

Cities, or even States, can NOT regulate or restrict, ham radio.

Agreed. However, Palmdale is shooting itself in the "foot."

For those not aware, Palmdale is adjacent to the San Andreas Fault. I
can easily envision any and all amateur operators in the area REFUSING
to take part in any emergency communication, whether practice or real,
with regard to any disaster in the area. Palmdale obviously does not
value the operators as a resource.

Note that Palmdale also went after TV and satellite antennas. Again,
there are laws separate from PRB-1 and its state equivalent that exist
at both the federal and state levels of government that clearly PERMIT
these antennas. Practically EVERYTHING cited in the proposed statute
is pre-empted at a higher government level. Is the City really that
clueless?

On Dec 17, 3:02*pm, "D. Stussy" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:28:10 -0800 (PST), policy-ham
wrote:
Palmdale, "Kalifornia" is attempting to outlaw amateur radio. *The
city of Palmdale has now passed a draft zoning law that proposes an
enforcement unit that could seize amateur radio equipment and
restrict
antenna height to one inch above a fixed structure's roof.

It also applies to mobile and portable operation using an HT. They
can
even arrest you and take your HT just for walking down the street
and
talking on it.

I guess I stand corrected then. They are trying to outlaw ham HTs
also, since they say they can confiscate them.


I am not kidding. Here is a link to the actual proposed ordinance
where you can read it for yourself.
http://www.cityofpalmdale.org/city_h...spl120479c.pdf

Cities, or even States, can NOT regulate or restrict, ham radio.

Agreed. *However, Palmdale is shooting itself in the "foot."

For those not aware, Palmdale is adjacent to the San Andreas Fault. *I
can easily envision any and all amateur operators in the area REFUSING
to take part in any emergency communication, whether practice or real,
with regard to any disaster in the area. *Palmdale obviously does not
value the operators as a resource.

Note that Palmdale also went after TV and satellite antennas. *Again,
there are laws separate from PRB-1 and its state equivalent that exist
at both the federal and state levels of government that clearly PERMIT
these antennas. *Practically EVERYTHING cited in the proposed statute
is pre-empted at a higher government level. *Is the City really that
clueless?- Hide quoted text -

However, notice that they also exempted their own selves from the very
rules that they are trying to impose on ham radio operators.

Also, they claim it's to eliminate interference to other electronics
by ham radio.

However, as ham radio operators and some cbers know, lowering the
height of the antennas INCREASES interference.

Why didn't someone tell Palmdale that? Or did they?

If they were told that, and really wanted to decrease unterference to
electonics by ham radio, they would INCREASE the height linit.

Which they aren't.

If they were told that, and still DECREASING the height limt like
they're trying to do, then it's obvious it's not about them wanting to
decrease interference but is about them wanting to eliminate ham radio
alltogether.







- Show quoted text -

Palmdale: The ordinance must also provide a
reasonable accommodation of licensed amateur radio operators and allow
the rights of
the public to have access to programming received through residential
television
receive-only antennas.

Me: So Palmdale admits that they must provide reasonable accomadation
to licensed radio amateurs.


Palmdale: Further, the regulations were to ensure that residential
television and amateur radio
antennas are designed, installed and located in a way that avoids
hazards to public
health and safety;

Me: So they lowered the antenna height limits which INCREASES both
interference and rf safety hazards to the public instead of decreasing
them like
they falsely claim to be doing.

Palmdale: minimizes adverse aesthetic effects; and is compatible with
the
surrounding neighborhood by preventing adverse visual, health, safety,
and other
impacts on the surrounding properties and/or the community while at
the same time
reasonably accommodating amateur radio service communications.

Me: Then why did they INCREASE the health and safety hazards with this
proposed ordinance if they want to decrease them?

And translation of Palmdale's meaning of "minimizes adversse aesthitic
effects": "We don't want to see anyham antennas any where at all
because
we don't like the look of them."

Palmdale: ANALYSIS

The new ordinance permits the following types of antennas to be
installed without prior
approval of the Planning Department of the City of Palmdale. However,
they may still
be required to obtain a building permit from the Building and Safety
Department. These
antennas include: a) antennas that are installed, placed or maintained
and used under
the roof, or extend no more than one inch above the roof, or are
behind and below an
approved architectural feature and do not protrude above the highest
point of the
building and are not visible from a public right-of-way or other
private property, including
upper floors of adjacent buildings; b) antennas that are handheld or
mounted on
vehicles consistent with the vehicle code; and c) antenna
installations intended for use
by the City of Palmdale or another governmental agency.

Me: "Under the roof where they can't seen by anyone outside, no more
than one inch above the roof so people outside won't see them, or
behind and below an approved arcgitectural feature so that they can't
be seen by anyone outside, only the architecural feaaturee which must
also be approvedm and even these antennas might "still require" a
"permit from the building department"

Did they just outlaw both mobile and ht operation with the above
rules if the proposal passes as law?

It sure seems like it.

Translation of Palmdale's statements: We don't want to see any ham
radio antennas anywhere because we don't like the loks of them and we
don't like
ham radio at all."

Palmdale: It also allows a single vertical antenna mounted directly on
the ground or on a roof that
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.
The antenna is to extend no more than six feet above the main
structure and must be
located behind and attached to the main structure on the lot if ground-
mounted, and on
the back quarter of the roof if roof-mounted. The antenna is to be
colored to minimize
its reflectivity and blend with its surroundings as much as possible.
Antennas Approved by Minor Modification or Conditional Use Permit
(CUP)
The ordinance then specifies the types of antennas to be permitted by
either the Minor
Modification or Conditional Use Permit process. The antennas permitted
under the
Minor Modification approval process are essentially the same as those
antennas noted
above with the exception that the lot size requirement of one-acre has
been deleted
thereby requiring a Minor Modification approval on all lots less than
one acre in area. It
also provides that the height shall extend no more than six feet above
the main
structure in a residential district no more than fifteen feet above
the main structure in a
non-residential district.
The Minor Modification process also requires that notification be
provided to adjacent
property owners and any homeowner’s association at the cost of the
applicant.

MeL: So Palmdale is sating that if you want to put up an antenna, you
must notify ALL of the aadjacent property owners. Of course their
definition of adjacent is probably "everyone who can see it" instead
of just "next door neghbors".

And at your own expense.

You know they'll want you to prove in writing that you notified them
if some case or court case comes up.

Palmdale: notice will state that any appeal to the Minor Modification
must be filed with the City
within thirty days of the date the notice was mailed. An applicant or
any interested
person may file an appeal to the Planning Commission, of the Planning
Director’s
decision to issue or deny a Minor Modification, which appeal will
automatically stay the
director’s decision and/or rescind any Minor Modification issued and
cause the
application to be processed as an application for a Conditional Use
Permit. An appeal
must be filed within 30 days after the date of the notice. The Minor
Modification will
then become effective thirty days from the date the notice was mailed
if no appeal is
received within that time. If an appeal is received within such time,
the Minor
Modification is to be rescinded and the applicant required to file an
application for a
Conditional Use Permit to obtain permission to install or construct
the antenna. If the
installation of any antenna is not prohibited pursuant to Section D,
or permitted pursuant
to Section E or Subsection F.1, the antenna shall require a
Conditional Use Permit
approved by the Planning Commission in order to be established.
Amateur Radio Antenna
The Minor Modification or Conditional Use Permit applications for
amateur radio
antennas require the submittal of additional information related to
the ham radio
Memo to the Planning Commission
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 08-04
December 4, 2008
Page 4
operation. The additional information will include information about
the radio operator,
specific information on the proposed antenna and site location, any
structural details,
any mitigation measures proposed to minimize any adverse effects such
as painting or
screening of the antenna or antenna structure, and a statement of the
reasons why an
antenna as permitted under Subsection E will unreasonably interfere
with the operator's
ability to receive or transmit signals.


Other information will include a list of equipment,
proposed maximum transmission power wattage to be used, and a
discussion of other
available methods to accomplish amateur radio communication without
exceeding the
development standards which do not require Planning approval.

Me: When did Palmdale get the authority to regulate how much maximun
transmission power wattage you can use????????????????

I thoght only the FCC has the authority to regulate that.

So now Palmdale is falsely claiming they have more authority over
radio transmissions than the FCC does.

Palmdale: The City may alsor retain the services of a consultant to
assist in the evaluation of an antenna proposal with
the cost of such services to be paid for by the applicant.

Me: So Palmdale says you yoursel (hams)f HAVE TO PAY for the sercices
of a consultant that the city itself hires and retains to assist in
the evaluation of an antenna proposal

Palmdale: In addition to the standard findings required for approval
of a Minor Modification or a
Conditional Use Permit, the ordinance as proposed requires that
additional findings be
made prior to approving a Minor Modification or Conditional Use Permit
for an antenna
or antenna support structu
a) That the applicant has demonstrated that strict compliance with the
development
standards specified in Subsection E would unreasonably interfere with
the
applicant's ability to receive or transmit signals, or that strict
compliance with said
development standards is not, under the circumstances of the
particular case,
necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of this Section.
b) That the antennas, including antenna support structures and
accessory
equipment shall be located, sized and designed so as to minimize the
amount of
the antenna that is visible from surrounding properties, public
streets and all
public rights-of-way, recognizing that complete screening may not be
possible

Me: translation of Palmdale's statements; We don't want any ham radio
antennas visible at all.

the above is another of Palmdale's proposed laws that outlaw both
mobile ham radio use and portable ht use.
..
Palmdale: c) That in the case of amateur (ham) radio antennas, the use
permit would
accommodate reasonably the amateur's desire for communication, while
at the
same time requiring the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish
the City's
legitimate purpose of protecting the public health, safety, welfare,
aesthetics and
compatibility with the neighborhood.
d) There is adequate space on the property for the antenna and antenna
support
structure without conflicting with buildings on the property or usable
yard areas
required by other sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Memo to the Planning Commission
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 08-04
December 4, 2008
Page 5
e) The antenna would not despoil the primary view of a neighbor

me: translation of Palmdale's statement: No outside ham antennas at
all since a neighbor can see them.

They just once again made another rule/law, if it passes, that outlaws
both mobile and ht operation. Your antenna must NOT be in the prinary
view of
any neighbor.

Which a mobile will be at some point while driving through the
neighborhood, or entering or leaving your home. The same for a HT.

Palmdale: f) There are trees or a nearby landform that would serve as
a backdrop to mask the
silhouette of the antenna.
g) There are trees or other features in the neighborhood that
represent existing tall
features as part of the neighborhood character.

me: translation of Palmdale's statements: We don't want to see any ham
antennas at al.

Palmdale: In granting the permit, the Planning Commission or Planning
Director as the approving
authority may impose conditions reasonably necessary to accomplish the
purposes of
this Section, provided those conditions do not unreasonably interfere
with the ability of
the applicant to receive or transmit signals.
Minimum Requirements
The proposed amendment also provides the following minimum
requirements; however,
the approving authority may impose greater restrictions as necessary
to protect the
public health, safety, welfare, aesthetics and compatibility with the
neighborhood.
These criteria specify a variety of minimum requirements related to
height, screening,
operation, insurance, modification to existing antennas, annual
inspections, and nonconforming
antennas.
1. Height. The antenna shall not exceed the minimum height determined
by the
approving authority to be reasonably necessary to achieve transmission
and
reception.

me: Which doing so INCREASES the public's exposure to rf hazards
instead of decreasing them.

And what does Palmdale consider "reasonably necessary to achieve
transmission and reception"? recieving other hams from one mile away?
What if you wanted to or needed to talk to people further away?

Palmdale: The applicant shall provide information and fund any expert
evaluation
of the specific site being requested as required by the approval
authority to
documentthe minimum height required to the satisfaction of the
approving
authority.
2. Screening. Ham radio antennas shall be screened to the extent
practicable with
vegetation, trellises or other means acceptable to the approving
authority even
though the screening may somewhat diminish the effectiveness but
provided that
it does not significantly impair the operation of the antenna.

Me: Yeah, that will sure help the signal from my 70 centimeter ham
transmitter to get out. /sarcasm

Palmdale: 3. Insurance. The antenna owner shall provide proof of
liability insurance in the
event that the antenna falls and damages persons or property. Such
insurance
shall be maintained as long as the antenna is in place.
Memo to the Planning Commission
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 08-04
December 4, 2008
Page 6

me: So in Palmdale, if you have a ham antenna, you MUST pay for ham
radio antenna liability insurance as long as you have the antenna up.

Which of course will probably be at least a monthly fee.

And you know youll need it from them claiming you're the one
responsible for someone's sickness for caused by your unsafe RF
causing it..By having your antenna to high where it causes more RF
dangers to the public.

When we all know the real reason the person got RF sickness is because
Palmdale required lower antenna height limits which increased the RF
dangers
to other people instead of raiding the antenna height limits to which
decreases the RF dangers to other people.

Palmdale: 4. Modifications. Any Conditional Use Permit for a ham radio
antenna shall include
a condition that the permittee shall report any changes to equipment
or antenna
structure from that authorized by the Conditional Use Permit and shall
if
necessary, obtain a modification to the Conditional Use Permit.
5. Inspection. Any use permit for a ham radio antenna shall include a
condition that
it shall be inspected annually to certify its safety and to verify
that liability
insurance is in effect and also that the ham radio equipment may be
inspected
without prior notice upon the receipt by the City of a complaint that
the radio
operation is causing interference with neighbors electronic devices
due to the
use of higher wattage than allowed by the FCC.

MeL Isn't this a matter for the FCC? When did Palmdale get the right
to do ham radio and wattage inspections?

And to certify whether your ham radio is safe or not?

They probably don't even know all of the technical requirements the
FCC requires.

And if there really is interference to the neighbors' devices, aren't
those part 15 devices which by federal fcc law are REQUIRED to accept
all interference they recieve.

So what is Palmdale doing investigating ham radio operators' radios in
those cases?

When no federal or fcc laws are being broken by those ham radios.

Although there's plenty of federal and fcc laws being beiken by
Palmdale in those cases, along with Palmdale breaking state law.


Palmdale: The City shall provide this
inspection service at applicant’s cost. Permittees shall pay an annual
inspection
fee adopted by Resolution of the City Council in an amount sufficient
to
reimburse the City for an inspector qualified to inspect amateur radio
equipment.
6. Antennas and supporting structures shall be a neutral, non-glossy,
non-reflective
color (i.e., earth-tones, black, gray) and be located in the most
inconspicuous
location possible to receive and transmit signals. An antenna which
uses or is
composed of perforated metals, radar mesh or wire screen, thereby
reducing the
antenna's visual mass, is encouraged.
7. Approval by the City shall not be deemed as approval by a
homeowners'
association pursuant to any covenants, conditions, and restrictions
(CC & R’s).
8. Any equipment on the base of an antenna or antenna support
structure shall be
screened subject to the approval of the approving authority.
9. Anti-climb devices shall be installed at the base of the antenna
tower if required
by the approving authority.

Me: Then how will we be able to climb up there to make modifications
to the antennas if required by the FCC????

okay. I know that's usualy to protect kids and other people from
climbing it.

Palmdale: Building Permit.
When required by the Palmdale Building Code, a building permit shall
be obtained for
the installation of any exterior antenna. The Building Official shall
determine that the
antenna is in compliance with all applicable sections of the Palmdale
Building Code and
any local regulations prior to issuance of the building permit.
Time Limit. Any antenna permit granted pursuant to the provisions of
this Section shall
be developed and utilized within a period not to exceed twelve (12)
months from and
Memo to the Planning Commission
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 08-04
December 4, 2008
Page 7
after the date of the granting of such permit, and, if not so
developed and utilized, such
permit automatically shall become null and void at the expiration of
such twelve (12)
month period.
Abandonment. The owner of a permitted facility shall submit written
verification
annually that the facility is operative. Any antenna structure and
related equipment
regulated by this Section that is inoperative or unused for a period
of six (6) consecutive
months shall be deemed abandoned and declared a public nuisance.
Removal of the
abandoned structure shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter
8.10, Public
Nuisances and Abatement Procedures, of the Palmdale Municipal Code

Me: Definitely an attack on all ham radio operators and all ham radio
operation. What if you're sick for more than six months at one time ?
Then you're in violation of the law. After all, we all know how all
the ham operators constantly talk about their health problems and
doctors' operations over the air.

..Palmdale: Antennas and antenna support structures legally installed,
i.e. with all required
approvals and permits, prior to the effective date of this section
shall be deemed to be
legally nonconforming. All antennas legally installed prior to the
effective date of the
ordinance codified in this section which do not conform to the
foregoing development
standards shall be discontinued and removed from their site, or
brought into compliance
with said development standards within three (3) years from the
effective date of the
ordinance codified in this section. Those installed without required
approvals and
permits shall remain illegal and shall be removed immediately.
General Plan Consistency
This Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies
of the City’s General Plan. General Plan Objective S2.6 provides that
the City should
“Minimize exposure of residents to other man-made hazards, to the
extent feasible.”
Further, General Plan Policy S2.6.2 provides that “To the extent
permitted by law, work
cooperatively with the applicable agencies and homeowners to eliminate/
modify sources
which interfere or disrupt emergency communications including, but not
limited to,
improperly installed or operated Ham and citizen band radios.”

Me: When did HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS get the authority to decide if
ham radio and cb radios are improperly installed or improperly
operated.

I THOUGHT that only the FCC has the authority to do that regarding ham
radio.

Palmdale is a reasom why the FCC should have NEVER ever turned over CB
regulation to the local governments like they did.

Palmdale gave HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS the authority to regulate and
determine whether you are operating your CB radio legally or not and
whether you are operating your cb radio safely or not.

And it all seems to be legal as far as CB is concerned, since the FCC
gave local cities like Palmdale the authority to regulate and enforce
CB radio and Palmdale allows the homeowners associations to regulate
and enforce CB under Palmdale's authority to do so.

Palmdale: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishes
standards which
accommodate amateur radio service communications but which regulate
the size,
location, height and screening of antennas which is necessary for the
preservation of
the health, safety and welfare of the community. Further, the
amendment as proposed
provides a more stringent regulation of antennas as is necessary in
residential areas
compared to nonresidential areas in order to preserve neighborhood
compatibility and
the open vistas and appearance of the community.
Memo to the Planning Commission
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 08-04
December 4, 2008
Page 8
In addition, the proposed amendment, to the extent permitted by
Federal law, sets forth
certain standards for the operation of the amateur radio antenna to
limit unreasonable
interference with electrical equipment in the surrounding neighborhood
which is
incompatible with that neighborhood.

Me: So according to Palmdale, now even if your whole neighborhood is
completely okay with your ham antenna and a surrounding neighborhood
that is NOT part of your neighborhood doesn'tlike you having it,
you're in violaion of the law.

Palmdale: The proposed standards require the submittal of
information to demonstrate the need for increased antenna height and
the operators
ability to communicate in a reasonable manner without the increased
height.
Further, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 08-04 is consistent with the
General Plan Policy
S4.1.1 which states, “Adopt appropriate codes to assure minimum
standards to
safeguard health, safety and public welfare by regulating the use and
occupancy,
location and maintenance of structures within the City” because the
proposed changes
to Section 95.03 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth standards to
ensure that antennas
are located on parcels of adequate size and with adequate setbacks
from adjacent
uses. Standards are also proposed to ensure adequate structural
integrity of antenna
structures to protect public health and safety.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental initial study was prepared in accordance with the
California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which determined that proposed
Zoning Ordinance
Amendment 08-04 to amend Section 95.03, Vertical Antennas of the
Zoning Ordinance
will not have a significant impact on the environment.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment provides regulations to ensure
that
residential television and amateur radio antennas are designed,
installed and located in
a way that avoids hazards to public health and safety, minimizes
adverse aesthetic
effects, and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by
preventing adverse
visual, health, safety, and other impacts on the surrounding
properties and/or the
community while at the same time reasonably accommodating amateur
radio service
communications.
Attachments are available in the Planning Department.

Very disturbing is Palmdale's law (if the proposed ordinance passes or
did it already pass?) which gives Homewowner Associations the
authority to determine if you are operating your ham radio (or CB)
within RF safety limits or not. And if you're operating your ham radio
(or CB) legally or not. And how much power wattage you can use.

Are those people even going to know what the legal FCC rules are
abvout RF safety exposure limits???

And if so, are they even going to follow them if they decide they
theirsselves don't like the look of any antennas and so there should
be none???

If they trylyknew theFCC rules and were truly concerned about RF
safety exposure to the public, they would be complaining that you must
make your antenna higher, no lower.

If they claim to be concerned about rf safety exposure limits to other
people and tell you have to lower your antenna to comply with rf laws
to reduce rf exposure to other people, then you know that they're NOT
going by the real true FCC rules about RF exposure.

And know that they're NOT qualified to make such deccisions.

"radioguy" wrote in message
...
On Dec 17, 3:02 pm, "D. Stussy" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:28:10 -0800 (PST), policy-ham
wrote:
Palmdale, "Kalifornia" is attempting to outlaw amateur radio. The
city of Palmdale has now passed a draft zoning law that proposes
an
enforcement unit that could seize amateur radio equipment and
restrict
antenna height to one inch above a fixed structure's roof.

It also applies to mobile and portable operation using an HT.
They
can
even arrest you and take your HT just for walking down the street
and
talking on it.

I guess I stand corrected then. They are trying to outlaw ham HTs
also, since they say they can confiscate them.


I am not kidding. Here is a link to the actual proposed ordinance
where you can read it for yourself.
http://www.cityofpalmdale.org/city_h...spl120479c.pdf

Cities, or even States, can NOT regulate or restrict, ham radio.

Agreed. However, Palmdale is shooting itself in the "foot."

For those not aware, Palmdale is adjacent to the San Andreas Fault.
I
can easily envision any and all amateur operators in the area
REFUSING
to take part in any emergency communication, whether practice or
real,
with regard to any disaster in the area. Palmdale obviously does not
value the operators as a resource.

Note that Palmdale also went after TV and satellite antennas. Again,
there are laws separate from PRB-1 and its state equivalent that
exist
at both the federal and state levels of government that clearly
PERMIT
these antennas. Practically EVERYTHING cited in the proposed statute
is pre-empted at a higher government level. Is the City really that
clueless?- Hide quoted text -

However, notice that they also exempted their own selves from the very
rules that they are trying to impose on ham radio operators.

Also, they claim it's to eliminate interference to other electronics
by ham radio
-----------

They obviously don't understand 47 C.F.R. 15 ("Part 15") which
basically says that unlicensed devices must accept interference from
licensed services. They've got it backwards.

From my reading of Palmdale's rules/laws, I get that even if you don't
have any outside antennas at all and are only operating indoors,
either Palmdale or Homeowners Associations can come into your house
and deermine whether you're operating your ham radio or cb within rf
safety limits or not, and whether you're operating your ham radio or
cb legally or not.

They definitely either don't understand the federal FCC laws, or do
understand them and are purposely ignoring them.

On Dec 17, 4:16*pm, radioguy wrote:
Very disturbing is Palmdale's law (if the proposed ordinance passes or
did it already pass?) which gives Homewowner Associations the
authority to determine if you are operating your ham radio (or CB)
within RF safety limits or not. And if you're operating your ham radio
(or CB) legally or not. And how much power wattage you can use.

Are those people even going to know what the legal FCC rules are
abvout RF safety exposure limits???

And if so, are they even going to follow them if they decide they
theirsselves don't like the look of any antennas and so there should
be none???

If they trylyknew theFCC rules and were truly concerned about RF
safety exposure to the public, they would be complaining that you must
make your antenna higher, no lower.

If they claim to be concerned about rf safety exposure limits to other
people and tell you have to lower your antenna to comply with rf laws
to reduce rf exposure to other people, then you know that they're NOT
going by the real true FCC rules about RF exposure.

And know that they're NOT qualified to make such deccisions.

Don't mean **** any way, everything is going digital..and again ONLY
the FCC has jurisdiction over RF and interference from RF

Todd