Local Ordinances ruining Ham

[Materdaddy]

MJR Hams,

My beautiful city of Oceanside is trying to seize power in the form of regulations on radio antennae. They're trying to pass an ordinance limiting height of antennase. They claim it is to help keep the community beautiful and limit cellular towers, however it lumps amateurs into their regulations.

The ordinance will create limits on antenna height. It will preclude most users of 40 meters from being able to use a 1/2 wavelength antenna. The limit is set at 36 feet, or 10 feet from the highest structure on the property.

If you want to have an antenna higher than those limits, you must go through their administrative approval and permit process, which is all but impossible for a regular amateur.

To apply for a permit, you must provide (I'm not joking, see section 3906):

1. Site plan, drawn to scale, indicating all existing and proposed features of the proposed site;
2. A complete project description, including the following information regarding the proposed Wireless Communication Facility:
   1. Number, size and approximate orientation of antennas;
   2. Heights of proposed facilities;
   3. Equipment enclosure type and size;
   4. Construction timeframe for equipment enclosure;
   5. Materials and colors of antennas;
   6. Description of structures necessary to support the proposed antennas and to house ancillary equipment;
   7. Description of lighting;
   8. Description of noise/acoustical information for equipment such as air conditioning units and back-up generators;
   9. Description of identification and safety signage;
   10. Description of access to the facility;
   11. Description of utility line extensions needed to serve the facility;
   12. Backup power sources, if proposed;
   13. Proposed radio frequency emissions information.
3. Floor plans, elevations and cross-sections of any proposed equipment shelter or other appurtenant structure at a scale no smaller than one-fourth inch equals one foot with clear indication of all exterior materials and colors. Paint and materials samples shall be provided.
4. Photo simulations depicting the actual size of the proposed Facility, including all antennas and equipment shelters, shall be submitted for review. The number of photo simulations required to fully depict the impact of the facility on the surrounding area shall be at the discretion of the City Planner.
5. A landscape plan including but not limited to landscaping or vegetation replacement and maintenance consistent with the type of facility proposed and the zone in which it is located.
6. A plan for maintenance of the site, including trash removal, graffiti removal within 48 hours, and facility upkeep.
7. Proof of any existing gap(s) in coverage, and the radius of area from which an antenna may be located to eliminate the gap(s).
8. A justification study with a search ring indicating the rationale for selection of the proposed site, in view of the relative merits of any feasible alternative site within the service area. This study shall also include the applicant’s master plan which indicates the proposed site in relation to the provider’s existing and proposed network of sites within the City and surrounding areas, including map and narrative description of each site. For modifications or alterations to existing facilities, the applicant shall submit a justification study limited to the need to modify, alter or expand the facility.
9. Documentation that the proposed Facility complies with all applicable FCC rules, regulations and standards.
10. A statement that includes a declaration regarding the facility’s capacity for future co-location, supporting information regarding why the proposed wireless facility location is required, and an explanation as to why the site was not co-located. In the case of non co-located ground-mounted facilities, applications shall state the alternative sites considered and provide substantial evidence why they were rejected. The applicant shall demonstrate good faith to co-locate on exiting facilities.
11. A description of services offered in conjunction with the proposed facility.
12. At the discretion of the City Planner, the City may hire an independent, qualified consultant (the “Technical Consultant”) to evaluate any technical aspect of the proposed Communication Facility, including but not limited to: drive test data that indicate current site coverages and proposed coverages; potential for interference with existing or planned public safety emergency response telecommunication facilities; analysis of feasibility of alternate screening methods or devices; or, alternate (more suitable) locations. Where the City Planner elects to hire a Technical Consultant, the applicant shall deposit with the City a sum equal to the expected fee of the Technical Consultant and shall promptly reimburse the City for all reasonable costs associated with the consultation exceeding the expected fee. Any unexpended deposit held by the City at the time of withdrawal or final action on the application shall be promptly returned to the applicant.
13. Any additional items deemed necessary by the City Planner to make the findings required in Section 3907.

(See the full proposed ordinance here)

I've been told the cost associated with the Conditional Use Permit is around $3,500, not to mention the costs of "RF reports", legal fees, architectural drawings, etc. These costs are a drop in the bucket for telecom companies when they're building a tower, but they absolutely

I attended the City Planning commission meeting last Monday where the planning commission passed this awful ordinance immediately after many members of the public commented, all against this proposed ordinance.

It was passed with an emergency order which would make this ordinance effective immediately if it passes the City Council on October 20th.

In an effort to exclude amateurs from these costly regulations I started a website to help educate people (hams, and otherwise) and hopefully create action (i.e. calling City Council) and I welcome anybody to give feedback, support, etc.

http://saveoceansideham.com/

I will be updating with more and more information as I have time. Specifically, I'd like to hear information about other cities that have similar ordinances limiting antennae that exclude amateurs from the regulations, you "know" a council person, or other ways to encourage our City Council to make the right decision. I'm told Costa Mesa recently passed a similar ordinance that does exclude amateurs.

Links:

• The Site: http://saveoceansideham.com/
• Recent Article: SignOnSanDiego.com

[NAILER341]

Do you really need that much antenna?
36' is a big ass antenna-

[platnumb4x]

Do you really need that much antenna?
36' is a big ass antenna-

The limit is set at 36 feet, or 10 feet from the highest structure on the property.

Erik I agree with you however the post also says or 10' fron the highest structure on the property. If he has his radio at his home this may not be effective based on the setup he has. I personally dont think the city should have a say so on what he does no his own property. Especially considering it there was an emergency situation and all communication was down for emergency personal such as police and fire. This would be a way for him to communicate with others in an emergency situation.

[Roger]

Check the FCC & ARRL Websites, I seem to recall that local governments can not regulate Ham Radio. You have a Federal License.

[Materdaddy]

Do you really need that much antenna?
36' is a big ass antenna-

I'm not denying that's a big ass antenna... but:

For a 1/2 wavelength antenna (for proper radiation) on the 40m band, the antenna needs to be around 70 feet. a 1/2 wavelength antenna allows for a far better standing wave radio and far better coverage.

Radiation also falls off at an inverse square rate. That, coupled with the antenna length radiation pattern means that when using a 1/4 wavelength antenna (to be under the 36' height restriction), I would need to use more than 4 times the power output for the same coverage when compared the 1/2 wavelength antenna. That still doesn't account for receive.

http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/qs...as-basics3.htm
http://www.kyes.com/antenna/navy/fre...e/freqphas.htm

40 meters is one of the frequently used HF bands in emergency communications.

Do you really need that much antenna?
36' is a big ass antenna-

The limit is set at 36 feet, or 10 feet from the highest structure on the property.

Erik I agree with you however the post also says or 10' fron the highest structure on the property. If he has his radio at his home this may not be effective based on the setup he has. I personally dont think the city should have a say so on what he does no his own property. Especially considering it there was an emergency situation and all communication was down for emergency personal such as police and fire. This would be a way for him to communicate with others in an emergency situation.

Very true. I know somebody who has a 15' antenna above his house, which isn't that high, but will technically be in violation of this new ordinance.

Check the FCC & ARRL Websites, I seem to recall that local governments can not regulate Ham Radio. You have a Federal License.

You're probably talking about these:

http://saveoceansideham.com/law.html

Unfortunately, there's not a good case history regarding the FCC's PRB-1: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/woverbeck/antregs.htm

[NAILER341]

Isn't there a telescoping antenna? That would be the way to go. Kick it up to 100' if that is what you need then reel it in when you are finished.

Some cities have rules and parameters set about the way things can look. For example, my neighbor is a !!!!ing pig and likes to have his trash spread about on his property. Prefers not to mow the lawn, and likes black visqueen and thinks it makes a nice long term wall.

Lucky for me, there are ordinances against that.

Now, I get the point you are making for the HAM radio in emergency situations. Good point. Have some extensions on the side of your house for those times.

In my first google search of about 2 seconds I came up with a telescoping mast that will put your antenna 165' in the air. That ought to get you out, yes?

up when you use it, down when you dont.

:yay:

[Warren]

Check the FCC & ARRL Websites, I seem to recall that local governments can not regulate Ham Radio. You have a Federal License.

What he said - All Ham Radio Operators are protected under Federal Regulations - No HOA, County or State regulation can usurp their guidelines as you are a part of the Federal Emergency Communication Plan as a Ham Operator.

http://www.monitoringtimes.com/html/mtlaws_nov04.html

[Materdaddy]

Isn't there a telescoping antenna? That would be the way to go. Kick it up to 100' if that is what you need then reel it in when you are finished.

Some cities have rules and parameters set about the way things can look. For example, my neighbor is a !!!!ing pig and likes to have his trash spread about on his property. Prefers not to mow the lawn, and likes black visqueen and thinks it makes a nice long term wall.

Lucky for me, there are ordinances against that.

Now, I get the point you are making for the HAM radio in emergency situations. Good point. Have some extensions on the side of your house for those times.

In my first google search of about 2 seconds I came up with a telescoping mast that will put your antenna 165' in the air. That ought to get you out, yes?

up when you use it, down when you dont.

:yay:

What happens when it's up, and some douchebag (I won't Reveal anyOne's Name) snaps a picture and reports you? I don't mind a hundred dollar permit, but I sure as heck don't want to pay $4,000 for one.

[Roger]

Mat,

I didn't realize that PRB-1 had become so watered down by the courts. I shouldn't be surprised...

[aw12345]

How about the legality of a collapsible, hideaway antennae that is built inside of a small trailer?

[chris142]

Do you have any big trees in your yard? Wondering if you could run an antenna or even just a wire up the tree and use the tree as a hiding spot?

[Materdaddy]

How about the legality of a collapsible, hideaway antennae that is built inside of a small trailer?

I like the way you think! The only definition that includes anything "wheeled" is the "COW" (cell on wheels) which specifically details CELLULAR equipment being on something mobile. Let's just hope I don't have to resort to this if I want to use the 40 meter band.

Do you have any big trees in your yard? Wondering if you could run an antenna or even just a wire up the tree and use the tree as a hiding spot?

I live (somewhat) on a hill, and the large trees I have start at the bottom part of the hill and my house is on the top. That means that the top of my large trees are probably only 5 feet above roof-line, if at all.


Tomorrow is a telecommunications committee meeting that I'm skipping the morning of work to attend. The agenda has discussion of article 39 and rumor has it they may be discussing a separate section for Ham. Wish us luck!

Tons of updates on the site (including a break-down of sections 3901-3911 of the proposed article):
http://saveoceansideham.com/

[SAR Jeeper]

I would find and print out AS MANY stories you can find on the web about Hams that have "saved the day" with the ability to communicate outside a "disaster" area. Inform them that when the shit hits the fan, and no one, even the local fire and police (they are useless using simplex), cannot get communications out, you can easily hit another state. Take that info to the committee meeting.

Did you see a pic of my antenna from Field Day?


26 feet tall. It performed fairly decent being mounted so low to the ground (at home, I have this antenna mounted with the base at roof ridge height). For field day, it sits in a 5 gallon bucket filled with cement, and 4 tie downs. Would be close to the 10 above highest structure on your property.

Oh...its a Cushcraft R8. Covers 40-6 meters

[Jason]

Sorry Matt. I don't have anything to add as far as the radio portion of your post but everytime I read the title I think of ham sandwiches. Why would anyone have bad vibes for Ham.