Item 5.1 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL posted 2/18/14MEMORANDUM
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
(Agenda Related Writings /Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of
the Agenda Packet for the February 18, 2014 Council Meeting)
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tina M. White, Interim City Manager, V3
INITIATED BY: Sheila Cobian, City Clerk )�v
SUBJECT: Correspondence Received Following the Distribution of the Agenda
Packet Regarding Item #5.1 — Discussion of Amateur Radio Antenna
Regulations
The attached correspondence relating to Item 5.1 on the February 18, 2014 City Council
Meeting Agenda was received following the distribution of the Agenda Packet. The
correspondence consists of the following:
• 27 E -mails /Letters in support of modifications to the City's current Ordinance relating
to Amateur Radio Antenna Regulations
• 7 E -mails /Letters expressing concerns relating to the potential increase in allowable
height of amateur radio antennas
1 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Green Valley Civic Association [ mailto: president=qreenvalleycivic .org @mail27.wdc03.rsgsv.net]
On Behalf Of Green Valley Civic Association
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 11:27 AM
To: Jim Cunningham
Subject: Higher HAM Radio Antennas being reviewed by City Council
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
GREEN VALLEY CIVIC ASSOCIATIONN
Serving All North Poway Neighborhoods
Higher HAM Radio Antennas being considered
City Council Meeting - February 18th at 7pm
On Tuesday night Poway City Council will be considering allowing higher HAM radio
antenna structures in residential neighborhoods. The amateur HAM radio
community asserts that the City's current 35' height limit does not allow effective
communication and not in full compliance with government regulation. They
are proposing that antenna structures up to 65' high be allowed with no
community review and unlimited height be permitted with a minor development
review. The GVCA has meet with HAM representatives to better understand the
request to practice their hobby and provide emergency service.
The GVCA is conscientious of the impact that higher antenna structures can have
on neighbors and is also aware of the importance of emergency preparedness. In
balancing this, we generally support City staff's recommendation that a height
between 35' and 50' be allowed subject to a conditional use permit in order to be
in compliance with government regulation. The City Staff's report is available
HERE.
We encourage you to be heard and let City Council know how you
2 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
feel. You can do that by attending Tuesday's City Council meeting at 7pm (be
sure to fill out a speaker form) and by emailing City Council members.
Sincerely,
Green Valley Civic Association
"Protecting the quality of life in your Neighborhood"
You are receiving this email because you provided us your email address or are a member or past member of
the Green Valley Civic Association which serves all north Poway neighborhoods. Our website is
www.greenvalleycivic.org.
Unsubscribe icunningham@poway.org from this list I Forward to a friend I Update your profile
Our mailing address is:
Green Valley Civic Association
PO Box 114
Poway, CA 92064
Add us to your address book
Copyright (C) 2014 Green Valley Civic Association All rights reserved.
f n
3 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Theodore Morange [mailto:morangta yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 2:56 PM
To: Don Higginson; Theodore Morange
Subject: Poway Ham Antennas
Mr. Higginson - I would like you to keep the FCC regulation regarding ham antennas in mind
when it's discussed at tomorrow night's meeting. In fact, the city council individually and
and as a whole must follow this regulation in making any decisions. Apparently this
regulation has been ignored in the past.
Regards,
Ted Morange
13201 Silver Saddle Lane
G (x o nca vviem6e�( ✓ays
Coincilmsi.mW C�rrini�h
4 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Martin Nilsen [mailto:martin @nilsengc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:27 PM
To: cityclerk
Subject: Support for Ham radio operators
I am sending this letter in support of changes to the city ordinance to allow easier permitting of ham
radio tower permits.
I understand concerns for aesthetics but think it neighbors are satisfied and signoff that it should be
acceptable And feel that an MDRA is more than excessive or something of the significance
I would also like to point out the importance of ham radio operators in times of emergencies and the
services provided in time of natural disasters.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Martin Nilsen
619.261.4850
5 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Darwin Wisdom [mailto :wisdom @bakerstreetgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 11:43 AM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Steve Vaus; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham
Cc: Thomas Nietz'
Subject: HAM Radio Antennas
I am a resident of Silver Saddle Ranch. One of my neighbors has an antenna. I do not find them offensive
in any way and in fact am glad for those who take time and effort to use such devices for safety and other
legitimate uses.
I encourage the council to pass an appropriate resolution extending the height of antennas if such users
can benefit.
Darwin Wisdom
13310 Bronco Way
Poway, CA
Cc: Tom Neitz, SSRHOA
6 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Wayne [mailto :twaynerounsavell @aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:40 PM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Steve Vaus; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham
Cc: 'Green Valley Civic Association'
Subject: HAM Radio Antennas
Dear Councilmember,
It was brought to my attention that the Poway City Council will soon consider new increased
height limits for local Ham radio antennas. I encourage the members to consider what a great
safety measure it is to have effective Ham radio communications available in emergencies. This
has been a proven benefit to hundreds of communities, if not thousands, throughout our country
and the world. Please allow the antenna heights to be increased. Listen to the Ham operators who
know the most effective way they can contribute to community safety. There are a few Ham
antennas in our neighborhood in north Poway and I have never considered them to be unsightly
or hazardous.
Wayne Rounsavell
Poway
The message you received contains confidential information intended only for the above
addressees and may contain information that is proprietary or legally privileged. If you received
this message in error, notify the sender and delete the original message. Thank you.
7 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Anita Edmondson [mailto:anitaedmondson @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:33 PM
To: Tina White; Dave Grosch; Jim Cunningham; John Mullin; „Steve Vaus; cityclerk; Steve Crosby; Tina
White
Subject: Input for Ham radio antenna workshop
According to recent conversations with amateur radio operators, staff, several council members, and
community representatives regarding Ham radio antennas, I would like to you to consider several salient
points for tonight's workshop:
• all parties agree that the current ordinance needs to be brought into compliance with Federal
regulations
• Ham radio operators are primarily hobbyists, by their own admission
• according to representatives speaking for local Ham operators, those with current antennae
height of 35' are able to reach local and state contact points in the case of emergencies
• current recommendations by staff are reasonable and address the concerns and desires of
both the community and the amateur radio hobbyists
• current recommendations by staff allow for a process by which amateur radio operators can apply
for additional antennae height based upon demonstrated need; if, as Ham operators contend,
neighboring residents do NOT object antenna fixtures, this would be borne out in the
public review process
• the "demonstrated need” for antenna height extending beyond 50' is an area that requires further
clarification by the City; perhaps this is an area where members of the Ham community can
cooperate with the City to identify criteria that are reasonably easy to demonstrate and quantify,
potentially avoiding the need for costly reports from consultants for the applicant and the City
As you know, the Ham community has been very vocal about their demands and unwilling to
compromise. I suggest Council and Staff proceed cautiously with the demands of this small group in order
to avoid setting the wrong precedent.
Thank you for your consideration,
Anita Edmondson
12617 Birchbrook Court
anitaedmondson(a-),sbcglobal. net
8 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: dzech @cdccommercial.com [ mailto:dzech @cdccommercial.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Dave Grosch
Cc: Don Higginson; Jim Cunningham; Steve Vaus; John Mullin
Subject: Ham Radio and the future of Poway - are we ready for a real emergency?
Dave,
We have run across each other recently at Lightening Brewery and off course for years before
that at PHS and Sports events with our kids. What you may not know is that I have been a Ham
Radio operator since I was 14 years old. I am not so active as I once was, but at times of my life I
have served as President of the Escondido Club and have done numerous disaster relief drills and
real life situations. I have handled health and welfare messages for over a week when Mexico
City was cut off from the world by an earthquake, I have also stood with police and firemen
when their radio's couldn't get them communication because of the terrain or breakdowns or
traffic overload of their systems. I have worked with groups providing communication to
evacuate livestock in the path of fire and to evacuate residents when law enforcement was too
busy to do so.
I know that this is a hot topic with the GVCA but the bottom line is those are the same people
who will be looking for someone to blame when disaster strikes and they do not understand why
telephone systems, power grid and emergency services don't work. When I was very active in
Emergency Service, I was told that every person should be able to survive for a week on their
own. The reality is that most people can't live a week without a pay check far less to survive
without their iPhone for a week. Frankly, the GVCA is uninformed about the topic, the proposal
that was made and is simply an act of NIMBYism. The reality is that the City of Poway is out of
step with National and State regulations and it will unfortunately, come back to penalize our
community at the worst of all time.
I strongly encourage you to pay close attention to the proposal that has been put before the
Council. It is fair and in conformance with Federal and State guidelines and other Cities in the
area. There are times in government that call for leadership and making decisions for the greater
good. Ham's have been the last line of communication for this nation for over a century. A lack
of communications is always a problem, in a disaster, a lack of communications is the difference
of life and death.
I look forward to seeing you Tuesday Night.
Don Zech I Lic. #00885909
CDC Commercial Inc. I Lic. #01857155
11440 W Bernardo Ct. Suite 300
San Diego, Ca. 92127
Dir. 858.486.9999
www.cdccommercial.com
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY & NON BINDING: This Electronic transmission contains CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED
INFORMATION from CDC Commercial. If you receive this message or any of its attachments in error, please return this
transmission to the sender immediately and delete this message from your mailbox. Nothing in this email is intended to be
contractual (unless a mutually executed document is attached), nor shall any party be bound by the terms and conditions herein,
unless and until a definitive Purchase Agreement or Lease Agreement and all other appropriate documentation has been mutually
agreed upon, executed, and delivered to all parties.
9 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Peter De Hoff [mailto:pidehoff @gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:49 PM
To: cityclerk
Cc: Tina White; Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Jim Cunningham; Steve Vaus; John Mullin
Subject: 2/18/14 Poway City Council Item 5.1- Workshop on Amateur Radio Antenna Regulations
To Poway City Council,
My name is Peter De Hoff. I live at 14626 Roberto Rio Rd. I am not an amateur radio operator. I
have read the information provided in the 2/18/14 City Council Agenda Packet, as well as the various
attachments, and I think you should adopt what is in Attachment B. The work in Attachment C is pretty
clear on the minimum antenna heights required, and amateur radio operators are skilled individuals
who have particular importance during emergency situations. The proposal in Attachment B shows a
responsible attitude towards the safety of the antenna installations and, since these folks are individuals
who are practicing what is often a service to the public good, they should not be burdened with the
MDRA fee if they require this type of permit for their installation. I have no issues with how amateur
radio antennas look. In fact, when I used to live on Frame road, one of my neighbors down the street
had up such an antenna and I took comfort knowing of one place that could be a useful communication
point in case of a citywide emergency situation, such as a wildfire. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Peter De Hoff
10 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Chuck Cross [mailto:cvcross(slcox.net]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 5:19 PM
Yo: cityclerk
Cc: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Jim Cunningham; John Mullin; Steve Vaus
Subject: February 18th Agendda Item
Honorable Mayor, Council Members and Staff,
Attached please find my comments for the workshop of February 18th, 2014. Thank you for your
consideration.
Chuck Cross
11 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
February 14, 2014
To the,Council and Staff
Upon review of the recent Staff Report on antenna regulations to be reviewed at the workshop on
February 18th, I was disappointed that the document did not seem to reflect Council direction from the
last workshop. It was clear to me that the direction given was to have a City ordinance that is consistent
with current State and Federal regulations. While I realize this is a preliminary staff report for the
workshop, I will be attending the workshop on February 18th and hope to see it modified in this fashion.
I know we all want effective communications among all citizens in an emergency and the heights
allowed for antennas should be among the parts of an updated ordinance.
Sincerely,
Chuck Cross, 13514 Mora Circle, Poway, CA, 92064
Chair, Poway Neighborhood Emergency Corps
12 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Jack Tripp [mai Ito: twatripp @ yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:32 AM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Jim Cunningham; John Mullin; Steve Vaus; cityclerk; Steve
Crosby; Tina White
Cc: Poway Chieftain
Subject: Ham radio regulation
To the Honorable Poway City Council and the City Staff
I was expecting to be able to attend tonight's Council workshop on ham antennas, but find I am unable and
am submitting this instead. Having been the victim of a ham tower next door some 20 years ago (thankfully
gone now), I do not believe it is necessary or wise to increase the limit beyond the current 35 feet.
I urge the Council to go slow and to obtain an independent unbiased expert study before changing the
height limits on ham antennas.- At present, you have only one expert opinion, and while I am sure he is
an expert, he is hardly an unbiased one.
In order to increase my knowledge on the subject, I have spoken at length with Mr. Lawrence Behr, a
lifetime friend; who is founder of the LBA group in Greenville, NC. They are FCC licensed consultants in
this very field -- design of broadcast antennas, FM and AM, siting of cell towers, training in RF safety,
etc. While Mr. Behr and his group are not involved in the ham business, they are fully FCC licensed and
most knowledgeable in the subject of antennas and their propagation characteristics.
While my conversation with Mr. Behr was only half an hour and we spoke only in the general terms that I
was able to convey to him by phone, he offered the following comments regarding whether the increase of
tower height would have any meaningful affect on the public safety of ham operators in Poway. This is my
summary of the key points of my conversation with him.
1. HF communications (the type that require the big arrays and towers) is inherently unreliable and cannot
be made reliable at 90% or any other arbitrary reliability standard. There are too many variables that
interfere with reliability. e.g. atmospheric conditions, sunspots, background interference, etc.
2. HF communications are rarely used in local emergency situations and HF is virtually useless for this
purpose.
3. Increasing the tower height beyond the current 35' limit would not increase reliability of communications
noticeably in the western US area.
4. Regarding regulation, the key word in the regulation is "REASONABLE" and 50 feet proposed by staff
is certainly more than reasonable for any ham activities involving public safety.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Tripp
16054 Stoney Acres Road
Below are links to the LBA associates web site so that you may view their bona fides:
Home page: http: / /www.lbagroup.com
And this a link to a page more to the subject at hand http:// www. lbajzroup.com /products/broadcasting
13 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Sheila Cobian
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:16 AM
To: mcbinder.news @gmail.com
Cc: Rosa Martinez
Subject: FW: Council Amateur Radio Workshop - Clear Electronic copies of presentation and studies.
Good Morning Mr. Binder,
We will distribute these materials along with the materials in your follow -up e-mail to the City Council
prior to this evenings meeting. Each speaker will have three minutes to address the Council on this
topic.
Thank you,
Sheidcv 2. Coh is m,, CA1C
City Clerk
City of Poway
Scobian @poway.or6
858 - 668 -4535
Connect with us!
Ot `._ f
From: cityclerk
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:12 AM
To: Sheila Cobian
Subject: FW: Council Amateur Radio Workshop - Clear Electronic copies of presentation and studies.
From: Michael Binder [ mailto:mcbinder.news @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:15 AM
To: cityclerk
Subject: Council Amateur Radio Workshop - Clear Electronic copies of presentation and studies.
Poway City Clerk:
Please find enclosed an electronic copy of the three minute presentation I plan to give tonight at
the City Council Amateur Radio Antenna workshop.
Mike Binder
14 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Michael Binder [ mailto:mcbinder.news @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:18 AM
To: cityclerk
Subject: Re: Council Amateur Radio Workshop - Clear Electronic copies of presentation and studies.
My apologies...
I forgot several attachments.
Poway City Clerk:
Please find enclosed an electronic copy of the three minute presentation I plan to give tonight at the City
Council Amateur Radio Antenna workshop.
Mike Binder
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Michael Binder <mcbinder.newsggmail.com> wrote:
Poway City Clerk:
Please find enclosed an electronic copy of the three minute presentation I plan to give tonight at
the City Council Amateur Radio Antenna workshop.
Mike Binder
15 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
( O > U
-0 U) O
>' O
U > C/) -+–a
4— = =
O +�
N CIO
O E
- EZ
E cn °>
.E E
O CU
i• O
O — U
07
> ® a)
o c E
o o
(D E co
>, O ±'
-r- C:
O cn
O O Co
i -0
�FD M Co
O
cn C: °C:
O
.L- o
°E
C O
C: O
U cu cu
CU
O O
L cU
CU
E a�
M >
C: c�
O
O
.; 0 .L
•V N E N
Ui U �O
O _
o
M c
C� U
N _
: c N
O O �
a CD cn O
i U
cn O O
c a) � a)
O O -a N =,
c: cn O
® O 0 �•-'
v o ° a)
a) can) =
a) O .0
o
N cn
0
N
w
16 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
> E
cn M •w
cn cn
cn
� � �- O
® E cn O V
L O O
Ui a) 4 O p
C/) � 0) L ® O C
O -1--j .�, O O O
70 0
> O a a 1
I C� � o O a)
® > N I- -t O w- O O
0 ® t/ 4
x o O
C/) O O O O
i4-0 4-1
}, -O O Cll O CU O O
co >
:.
0
N
00
w
17 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
V,
cz
0
a
0
O
cz
C
2
c
ct
C
0
U
U
0
a
Q� CU
E >
_ -0
cu
cu
� � L
Cu c-
%+-- C-
CU O Cu
'cn 0 cu
o
can >
cn cn a o
cn O ^0^`
a)
O CU
4-5 O U) O -0
Z CD
cu cn
V a
L -� ja L OD
N O 07
E c: cu
N C > O
cu
ja cu .® cu —
.. cn
— L
U) �,a,) O
L 0- Q o
O
-a+
JCZ- >
M a)
0
O
O
U�
a)
0
a
O O
L E
C L
a)
a)
-O
Co o CO
� N
0 C
O O
C L
C
L-
0
4— 0 (�
O O (a
O tM O CU
= O
® O
a) E o .Ln 4-0 CU
-� ca cn L O
o =
O
0 0
-C -0 O O 0
N
N 0
O L (u to O
O V �
CU n�11
c (n E a)
® O ®O 0 0 E
0 cn 0
0 CU
C: 4--
-0 O E
� o
cu cn w c < _0
CD
N
T
L
w
18 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
b
0
a
0
O
3
x
U
cq
c
O
U
U
0
a
co � C
O O o
co
O ico E O
CO
O cn
(n c�
->% V O O
LO
w O O
N °>
co
-�-+ 4— (6
O N
O O cn
O (u
O O
o i
U
o � o 0
cn
� °C:
,� •� •(n 4-a
O O M
(� +d
-� a)
O -0 4) cn
•� }' >1 o
O o c- •E
® O .=
4-0 cm cu o
Z >.. U O O •�
C: JCL E-�
O E u) o a
a)
>, °>
O
C6 C: O
i L
C U -O
.�..,
(u -C
CU O O , cu CB
® O O O
L .2 U
� CO L � � U)
L M °�
.� con co
o
CIO
a) •� o °>
> O m E
O = O
r
(D
i N
U
N M
cn C:
v O
c: cn E
0) 0- O
O
L
42 U
j
cn M
E
•— CV
co
°T O U
U-0 O
L °>
O O
o
(n
M a)
�
o
o
C L
It
0
N
w
19 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
i' CV Amateur Radio Antennas
and
OReal Property Assessment Values
A Study On
Dartantra Drive
East Fishkill, New York
1977 - 1996
Prepared by:
Jeffrey T. Briggs
With Input From:
Ms. Britta Larka
Assessor's Office
East Fishkill, New York
March 1997
20 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
Purpose of Study
This study was undertaken to determine the relationship that
might exist, if any, between amateur radio antennas and real
property assessment values on Dartantra Drive, Town of East
Fishkill, New York as observed from 1977 - 1996.
Jeffrey Briggs, an amateur
Dartantra Drive, installed
his residence commencing ii
in 1988 and again.in 1991.
possessed four (4) amateur
of 1.93 acres, the tallest
radio operator residing at #21
a number of amateur radio antennas at
z 1983. He later expanded the system
At the end of the 1991 expansion, he
radio antenna systems on his parcel
of which was 130 feet in height.
The issue at hand is one of determining if the existence of
these antennas had any bearing, positive or negative, upon the
real property assessment values of those parcels in the vicinity
of his antennas within the neighborhood wherein he resides.
Background
This study commenced with initial discussions being held between
Mr. Briggs and members of the Town Assessor's Office on 3/17/97
at the Town of East Fishkill, New York, Assessor's Office on
Route 376, Hopewell Junction, New York 12533.
From discussions with Ms. Britta Larka, a member of the
Assessor's Office field assessment team, it was learned that:
1) During field analyses conducted on Dartantra Drive in years
commencing 1983 and ending in 1996 (when the last assessment
valuation was undertaken), no adjustment whatsoever was made
(upward or downward),in assessed valuations on parcels existing
on Dartantra Drive due to the presence of the amateur radio
antennas possessed by Mr. Briggs at #21 Dartantra Drive.
2) During the period 1983 - 1996 inclusive, no comments nor
complaints whatsoever were received from the neighbors around
whom Mr. Briggs resides with respect to real property assessment
values due to the presence of Mr. Briggs' antenna systems. It
was the considered opinion of all the field agents in the
Assessor's Office that the concept had never even surfaced
during the number of valuations that had been conducted on
Dartantra Drive during the period.
21 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
(2)
Methodology
In order to validate the anecdotal evidence surfaced during the
discussions held in the Assessor's Office on 3/17/97, the
following comparative analysis was prepared.
The analysis lists all assessed property valuations rendered on
Dartantra Drive, from 1977 - 1996, and divides these parcels
into two specific groups. These are:
Group A
The parcels in this group (indicated in pink shading on the
attached Assessor's map) either abut Mr. Briggs' parcel directly
OR are located in close enough proximity to allow one to be able
to view Mr. Briggs' antennas from vantage points on them.
Group B
The parcels in this group (indicated in yellow on the attached
Assessor's map) share locations on Dartantra Drive from which it
is not possible for one to be aware of the existence of Mr.
Briggs' antennas. This is due, in some cases, to favorable
screening (such as tall trees) that may exist between the
various parcels and Mr. Briggs' parcel. In other.cases, parcels
have been assigned to this group due to simple physical
separation from Mr. Briggs' parcel, eg: the physical distance
between these parcels and #21 Dartantra Drive renders it
impossible for one to view Mr. Briggs' antennas.
The essence of the methodology employed, then, is first to array
all of the recorded assessments for each parcel in each group
during the period from 1977 - 1996. The next step in the process
is to compare the valuations made for the parcels in Group A
with those of Group B in order to determine if there were any
perceptible valuation differences or trends that might be
discerned.
If, for example, there were LOWER assessed valuations rendered
for parcels in Group A after 1983, then one might presume to
attribute this anomaly to the existence of Mr. Briggs' antennas.
22 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
(3)
If, however, there were NO DIFFERENCES in assessed valuations
for the parcels in both Groups A & B, then one might presume
that the opinion of the Assessor's Office field agents had been
validated. That is, the existence of Mr. Briggs' antennas had
been of NO IMPACT on the assessed valuations of abutting or
close -in parcels to #21 Dartantra Drive from which Mr. Briggs'
antennas might be able to be seen.
Discussion of the Study
The results of the comparative analysis conducted between Groups
A and B are summarized in Exhibit 2. Group A is indicated on
the left side of the page and Group B is indicated on the right
side of the page. For each group, all assessed valuations and
the years in which they were rendered are indicated.
It should be noted that the valuation dates indicated for each
parcel are not necesarily uniform. This is due to the fact that
valuations are routinely made when one adds an addition to one's
home, for example. The addition of a deck or a finished
basement is another reason for which an updated valuation might
be made. In at least two cases, parcel valuations were known to
have been CHALLENGED by the respective parcel owners (Corbo and
Dickerson) resulting in modest reductions downward following
recalibration visits by field agents that were made for this
specific purpose. These occurred in 1991 and are indicated in
the valuations for #16 and #20 Dartantra Drive respectively.
For the most part, however, routine valuations were made for the
street as a whole when required during the period 1977 (when the
subdivision was created) up through and including 1996 (when the
most recent general valuation was rendered.)
It should also be noted that in the 1996 valuation, ALL parcels
on Dartantra Drive were reduced in value by 5% following a
considered analysis of comparative values of the Little
Switzerland subdivision against that of other subdivisions
within the Town. The field assessors involved determined that
an AREA reduction of 5% was required to normalize the area with
respect to other similar areas within the Town.
Finally, it should be noted that the data appearing in Exhibit 2
has been sourced DIRECTLY from the real property assessment
valuation cards on file in the Town of East Fishkill Assessor's
Office. It was made available to Mr. Briggs for use in this
study as a matter of public record by Ms. Britta Larka. Ms.
Larka can be reached at (914) 226 —6353.
23 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
(4)
Results of the Study
As can be seen from the specific parcel valuations made over the
years for both Groups A and B, no discernible patterns or
anomalies occur within the data points. What one observes when
lining the two groups up against each other, side by side, is a
normal ebb and flow of property valuations that move in relative
harmony with each other. There is no discernible valuation
difference indicated within the Group A parcels (which'are those
parcels within viewing distance of Mr. Briggs' amateur antenna
systems.) The assessed valuations for these parcels are
remarkably similar to those in Group B.
What one does see are INDIVIDUAL fluctuations indicated for
property improvements undertaken at selected parcels in each
group and the introduction of new assessments immediately
following the completion of construction for a new home. In
that a number of homeowners have lived on Dartantra Drive since
the inception of the subdivision (or moved to the street very
shortly after its creation), there are some parcels for which
only 2 -3 valuations have been made during the period.
It is possible that this is an indicator of the relative
stability that exists within the neighborhood and may also be
indicative of the fact that this happens to be one of the more
desirable neighborhoods within the Town of East Fishkill. It is
a highly popular neighborhood in which many residents desire to
live and is principally populated by executives employed by IBM
East Fishkill. Even in the face of a general real estate market
decline, the Little Switzerland subdivision managed to maintain
its value over the years until the 1996 general reduction of 5%
which was applied to all of the parcels on Dartantra Drive.
Summary
This analysis was prepared in order to determine if the
existence of tall amateur radio antennas at the Briggs residence
at #21 Dartantra Drive, in the Town of East Fishkill, New York
was of ANY impact upon real property assessment values of
surrounding homes in the neighborhood.
From conversations with the Town Assessors Office located on
Route 376, Hopewell Junction, New York, it was learned from the
actual field agents involved in the conducting of the valuations
made over the years that the existence of the antennas on Mr.
Briggs' parcel were of NO BEARING on these valuations.
24 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
(5)
From an analysis of two groups of parcels (Group A - parcels
from which Mr. Briggs' antennas can be seen and Group B -
parcels from which Mr. Briggs' antennas cannot be seen) it is
clear that the opinions expressed by the field agents were
correct. The existence of Mr. Briggs' amateur antenna systems
at #21 Dartantra Drive were of no bearing on neighboring
property valuations.
It should be noted however, that there was ONE instance where
the existence of amateur antennas did indeed play a role on
Dartantra Drive. with respect to Mr. Briggs' own parcel, the
installation of his antennas resulted in two UPWARD assessment
valuations. These occurred in 1990 and 1993 as the installation
of his amateur antennas were considered by the field agents
involved to be IMPROVEMENTS to his specific parcel.
25 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
4
46185
1.4 Ac Spy/
F 470 174
1.6 Ac.
• ��o. Z b i'JD
�0 481162
Ac.
482447 27
�'*• A 1. t Ac.
a Y57f
fs• j�'ekrs, ..,
wd•
NO
N .
97. If
v ®� p .0 0 /Q
QT �9 9c
u
'LIP 00
0100 `
4pp,U $
%x
FM SOP/ o0O.A C ��
9c to
9• L
�g4g �lot'� nR ® r 000 a �o rN �L •a..s� �.
�
.o v Aft p OCR
Al
coo
ads
elm
G �o � 91; o �•>r !
f;
:IH
Z �
� • �0 ,�' ., r � �:y" mod'
26 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
Exhibit 2
Valuation History of Parcels 1977 - 1996
Group A Group B
(Parcels Viewing Antennas) (Parcels Not Viewing Antennas)
Lot 9
- Dickerson 20
Lot 6
- Brandl
1979 -
51,720
1979 -
41,700
1991 -
47,000
(Racal /Challenge)
1991 -
48,950 (Added Porch)
1996 -
43,150
-5% Area Reduction
1996 -
45,950 -5% Area Red.
Lot 7
- Barry
Lot 14
- Faroq
1987 -
48,600
1986 -
45,525
1991 -
51,570
(Recal /Fin Basemt)
1991 -
48,830 Addit to Home
1991 -
48,690
(Adj - No Fin Base)
1991 -
47,050 Addit Adjustmt
1996 -
44,750
-5% Area Reduction
1996 -
43,200 -5% Area Red.
Lot 10 - Gadway Lot 4 - Smack
1977 - 36,000 1985 - 52,985
1988 - 47,520 (Remeasure) 1996 - 48,840 - 5 %rArea Red.
1990 - 50,220 (Garage Added)
1992 - 51,280 (Finish Basemnt)
1996 - 48,170 -5% Area Reduction -
Lot 11 - Corbo Lot 5 - Nandedkar
1980 - 50,000 1986 - 39,660
1991 - 46,430 (Recal /Challenge) 1996 - 37,190 -5% Area Red.
1995 - 46,430 (Court Order - No Red.)
1996 - 42,600 -5% Area Reduction
Lot 8 - Briggs MI&I Lot 2 - Clark
1980 - 41,000 1978 - 44,550
1990 - 41,610 (Added Antennas) 1996 - 41,540 -5% Area Red.
1993 - 42,610 (Added Antennas)
1996 - 40,610 -5% Area Reduction
Lot 3 - Turner
1988 - 56,190 New Home
1990 - 56,990 Deck Added
1996 - 52,640 -5% Area Red.
Lot 12 - Rhodes
(History Card Not Available)
1996 - 54,590 -5% Area Red.
Lot 13 - Hoffman
(History Card Not Available)
1996 - 53,600 -5% Area Red.
27 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
d
L
v
7
L
t0
C
C
d
C
Q
0
a
fE
7
d
CR
C
w Q
d V-.
O O
t
Y
O C Q
vU
A
M 30
3 c a.
L H
ac
0.0 c
C
N
N
N
N
N
Q
ca
c
m
.y
d
f6
LL
d
01
C
M
c
O
t0
O) t�
1p N
d a
Q
c
v o
N lG
J �
C a
Q Q
c
O
a
t0
d
N La}
h-Q o
C
t
U m
o •�
m a
d a
Y Q
d
m
m
C
N W
� a
U Q
c
o y
m a
a � c
Q v d
d
E m
' E
c. y
c
Q o n
0
U p c
� a c
a
Q a �
v
N Q
a `w
Q�
is
�o
m
m
N
ao
ca
m
o c
c
c0 O «
>a¢
m
`o c
3 d
d c
> Q
c3 `o
c a
C L
d O1
Q Z
d
N
A
U
N
d
N
R
U
M
O1
N
A
U
GI
N
A
U
N
d
N
A
U
28 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
N
V
c�
U)
N
cM
C
� d
L
3 '
C 7
Q aL+
U)
r r
C =
lU =
fyA Q
a�
Na
Q
� L
C �
R
d Q
Q' N
O
U-
W.
O
• `2
N
Y =
O
CL
Q
W cn
T
L N
� O
Y Q
w
C:
Ca
C
O
iV
J
00
CD
rn
C
CO V
BI �
rn O
T E
0 V
M
O O
7 C
Q =
_U 3
O
G
N ED
N H
Cv M
N 3
Q CCt
y C
r � L
= R 7
O
'> •o v
aeso
L /f7
3U
H
O >
�
m 5 r
E M C
U)
r
O)
cn T
T
O)
d r
7 CL4
` H >'
d �+
•O
C Q
c
f6 �
7 cc (�
:O E 7
> E CO
0MM0
Z
29 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
�k '
1}
s"
AA'a�C7,
t O a O
-N° as _ id M
4g
X IO O
x�, O �n'„a Oa
O O
c0, f�GO>
o o
1. I�
N
M
t1 )r N
fisr
�-
QNy
3
� t
v�aC
t
Ci
TM
N
•�
O O- O O O O O S'OO'r
O '"O - O O O O O '�O
OY'O O�Of OOO'�''Oy
O ,O '`.0 + O
O ^�O.Yg O °O
OO O y0 O
O YO{ O OY OAO
O
O O ^� O OY x0
,''FAO „50 ,y.0
d' CO.:Ln �Q(V N �;
>,O
0)"0.(0 N -.� �.
O.CV N.�,
r O 00 co tO..apl
O
C
M M N N M N
%
�M Cn #M N CON
u{iga "rJy tr
Cn st Cn ,00 M N
1
t M1 ufi,
N iCn -M V M
x
,d
4ti F
�7
C
\r b5 .�.��
a t�i'C+
1 �,
LD
CL
0 0-
-06 O O
0 0 0 "O'
p
�.- „O r�CO
M
MCO
"S;” A,
.- •- Nyr
E , N .- NN
N
N �s
N .,, . PN"
F
• x
C
C)-'C,
0, 0' 0 ,0:0:0 - 0 O
O O,!. O O O 0 0
O. ;O O O� O.O O,
O O O IIO O.O`_;
O O O `,' 0 O O
O O `O 'O' O?
O O O, O.O'
0 0 0 - 0: 0 0
7
O)(O`�^N ^tN• � -,
0;.�:.� COe =a0 OS
0) M �.M .� CO:
� 0) - "IS M .-�
N O'CO'w� e'!)'
O
N ,,�� �..N 00-0) .-
O'O��CO -�, -00
"00-�
M <- #� O O;
O O f .� LO 0
00%,N
M, O Os W ^M.OMO7
N N,CO - --. -CO
COs '�i',.N tl7,Mg
M�00 N a0,.. --
N � ;M
M N:i � M CO CV N
�- a� .�
N CV Ni
N N N, N • N Ns.
r t"
7
o
�*
d
L
M M2 M M co M M-;M
M CO' M M ,*M 0
M co M°`M -M CM-
M cM sM M P')
M M co, c'M M'
a
d
m rn� rn rn rn m marn
,M
O O) O) O
m�m�rn rn� rn�rn m;
O 0 0)'M3O "0)
rn rn�rn�m�m rn.
O O O Q1 O).
m m)�.rn rn m,
'Co
O O O, 0) 0'M
rnyYm morn rn�.rn;
l"
'
p
i
�O`�
d
.J
,
{rc.s3'
r
C,
O O Ok {O NbO O .O 'O
O, O O O
O O4; O'�O O Os -,O
O O O O 0
O yOs: O f0�' O
O O O O O O!
O 'C)XC) .O,X,OJ
O
C Wc) 0',.O °O `O'
O-
7
010) 0:'M CV O M
.O s. .0'
CO OHO) �tEO) N O
-' ;�
CO M t!),
CO f� I CD -.
N 00, LO COCO.
:a
C
O
N M- Ms O CO o0 Q7
N M °�N
0 N O O_';+p��O x�
M N N mot" �i�'S"
r CO CO;T '�t r
m�OM yO) O' o0 u)n
�' O) M W
�Mtnk sM,
Nd
ti r\ N�
N dN N N N' Ns
{
0)x0). 0),O sM O O
O) Oi0 O O.
OHO) O O d)•O
1�
H
O
to
0) O) O)
0) O) O O) 0 0),0)
O) O d) O) O M
d) d) O O) O)
0 M 0)" 0) 0)
<�
A
r
1441 ', & `�
za Yic x':
3 c
) � �'O O O'O
www 55w �j
Z Z
w w,w w w O O
i� v�� "v� O O°
wow �w
�.
�v 10 O�
w w�9wa
�,O O.O�
Z.i 2«
! wZ
vw
� i':i'
�1 �0? -iRaZZ
`ww `w_
/'� }.Z.
� L
O
C
O: O O O O O, O
"qc s x;
e
�� -�
O; O ,O .O O O-
t0 <
;.>O O'O "'0'
(0 t0 °Oi O O3
- .
O - -O' O',0 0
A
C' §.fl"Y'`.a �� °� 'Q L t L ��
C L 3L Q
.flk'L.
LL ;Lo
m
^�-C c L °�
aoi tT 0) rn rn rn ^rn
\CT't� rn .m rn rn
4? rn tom` v)''tT rn
rn rn tT rn�
:� ^��
tT v�. rn 0) rn
N N N N+ N N
C O i O r CUt .Q CD
C O. N CV Q):
yC N ^d> N N., N
QZ
QZZrZZZZ,Z
QZ:ZZiZZZ
QsZZ ^ZZZ
¢ZhZZZ
QZZ- Z_Z'Z'
a
y
y
G1
LL
�' rd1 O O.
Y
Y
.- .�.
✓ I y„ A
C4 C6;
COaJy.J Jr f6
:Cr C C, C C C;
L > -Lit �:y
L L,L L L
m 0a0 ZTCT
ECs C6laC --�
0 co
-0'�O O: O O .O:
` aU
E
C.)'AV
� �, F
L t
Naw w NCO a w
tas m�
�.� YY N
O O O 0 O
O
C7 iZ _a sz =
w w w a-
Os O O`O�O o:
co
Mtx� <E N�>�..M.. M 0M
d' �'�' °^�Mx cf krt,
w}
r c-.x <- :.ln,sr' �•.
N cM. < N M':'
L64, Ms.aO
W cn
T
L N
� O
Y Q
w
C:
Ca
C
O
iV
J
00
CD
rn
C
CO V
BI �
rn O
T E
0 V
M
O O
7 C
Q =
_U 3
O
G
N ED
N H
Cv M
N 3
Q CCt
y C
r � L
= R 7
O
'> •o v
aeso
L /f7
3U
H
O >
�
m 5 r
E M C
U)
r
O)
cn T
T
O)
d r
7 CL4
` H >'
d �+
•O
C Q
c
f6 �
7 cc (�
:O E 7
> E CO
0MM0
Z
29 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
1 f R
S
"Al
O O O O O O O O O' O O
O O i0 O h O O \ O O O gtO O O O O O
M M§ M M Cl : #�� V N "N SN N 04 t : O N
� E
o a =
}' IN s_ ,
N Sof o 0 0
V \j \ \of o o \Eoo s \o..o.d \o'O o
CO, aO iO (O� OisA N N M
CL l
CL C C� M O. _O Ne
C �
- 0 x
O f0 :O O. O O \ O O O O O O RO
CO,(O'M (O, l' 00 icy)
0, 0 O, 07 O Os01 O, OIO O O;O
O, O O O O O O O O O-O O 0?C,
C.� n ,, °O 00 �' O n 00, 00 h i M ,I�;
O Imo'. M,O 00' tn. Lo� (0 M V O. to ih
y E N MIN Vi M M h I� (O (O(O N MN
R,.
Q EA 69� 691 EiT 69169 69 69
LD
O
N;N. Nk `N N=`N'N M M'M (O; to LO
d R 0`0:0'. O Oi 00 co c0 M 0+0 0R O `0
m } 0n0 O O'� O. O O 0)j 0 0i0- 0;0'O
•- f.-
CD C, O O.O O O "c� O O,O O 0,0
O OIO: O�O'O OHO O.O O'O; O�O,O�
0'('- O N -7' M Oi'. O:I�r'pi
C M r0. (0 (D eN -: O 0 ,0'. Ih' ti CM O I,
{N C0 O, � O (O 0' Imo}'
O `er ,l M (p LO, r N N� NVN3 M M;N
C E
� fA M E/} EA fR EH 69 69 69. 69 U-T � E,9 64�EA
O ao ao eo co ao do ao w ao co oo, ao 0o t'
CU 00,0 0,00.00=0000, 0`0I0'
4) O 010 :030 0: 010.0.0 0s0 0 0)0;
O
'O O O 'O Ofr0 `O O �O,g O O 'O OHO
c�a n c a c�a, Z
L C L L c t 'L C
d .0 N p) O) O 0) ;m 0 0) � 0; g) m 0 d
Z a) c; a) Z i c ZD : a) c t (I) (1) c I (L) w ii c a) m e
ZQZ ZiQ!Z ZQZ ZQZ ZQpZ; � o
pp h
L a)) a) >a)
a OO. ;(V a) „N Z"4, 0 0 `CO @ 212,12 O - .OL o' o 'O M z -T a
CL M,
�
Q CIVCIJ OiM n� N CV M V- ('7 01'.
M.. V rNi W x0i NI M M, (0` r-- Rn (0 =(L) '.
30 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
y
V
OO
0 N
N
M
2, O
7 J
0
y O
V C
O
O N
U) >
V 7 0 (O O CO V W N (D
0 0
MN M Oct V (00(CiP-(NOO
y
I, 0r- O n r, O_ (n r-
'7 (n
0 C
N N M O N� O O
N 00 (0 N I- (O 0 0 V N
V) N
V)
M (n N M O M I- r- O
>
Q>
N I- O N V' 0 co (D co (f)
I'- N M M (O
O O
»ie»o6 -3U3,U , eri»
� a
V 0_O N (n V N 00 -It M V
m
0)
cM
d m r M" r- (U)
-
y
p,NMa0W o LnMM (0 c0 0O r- I OOOO
.fl t0
> N N N N N N N M M M
.O
Q
da
v
O m
n
L
O.
N M W O 0 (O O I- (fl 00 I` O
>
d O
"Mvv(Nni°QL nr-- ccOrno
m a
d V V V V V' d' V V V V (n
; N
)
d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C.
E O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r a, M N O M M W V I- (O O
U)
N N
0 7(O V 0000(nI-- MMr- O
yi
♦+ V N N Cl) O N M 0 0 (n O
—
y;
The following study was cited in BellSouth Mobility Inc. v. Gwinnett County, GA,
944 F. Supp. 923 (N.D. Georgia 1996), by G. Ernest Tidwell, C.J., holding that
(1) the county board of commissioners denial of application for a tall structure
permit was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) writ of mandamus
commanding grant of the application, rather than remand, was the appropriate
remedy.
THE STRIPLING SHAW STRIPLING GROUP
AN ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL APPRAISERS & CONSULTANTS
Mr. T. Michael Tennant
Alston & Bird
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 -3424
21 April 1996
Re: Preliminary Consultation - Limited Assignment BellSouth Mobility Cellular
Tower Sites (market analyses to determine impact of property values in proximity
to tower sites)
Dear Mr. Tennant:
As requested, we have viewed three BellSouth Mobility cellular tower sites and
have conducted market investigations of sales of residential property within the
areas of the tower sites. As agreed upon, and in keeping with your needs, this
limited assignment is presented in a letter format. More extensive information .
is maintained in the appraiser's files.
The purpose of this assignment is to assist in locating, and negotiating future
and /or potential tower sites throughout the Metropolitan Atlanta area. This is
an on -going effort and is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable near -term
future.
Subject Description
Three sites were designated as case studies for this project. The first site is
designated as Site Atl. "BBBE -1" and is located at 6300 Spaldina Drive within
the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Holcomb Bridge Road and
Spalding Drive. The tract is designated as tax parcel 6 -313 -9 by Gwinnett
County, Georgia. Best evidence indicates that ownership is vested in Ray James
Inc.
The second site is designated as Site Atl. BBC3 and is located at 4968 Bush Road
within the south east quadrant formed by the intersection of Medlock Bridge Road
and Bush Road. The tract is designated as tax parcel 6 -300 -216, Gwinnett
County, Georgia. Best evidence indicates that ownership is vested in Jesse
Stanfield Burch Trust.
31 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
Page 2
Mr. T. Michael Tennant
21 April 1996
The third site is designated as Site Atl. "ND" and is located at 2526
Chattahoochee Drive along the north side of Chattahoochee Drive, northeast of
Georgia Highway 120. The tract is designated as tax parcel 7- 204 -4, Gwinnett
County, Georgia. Best evidence indicates that ownership is vested in Haggai
Institute, et al.
Analysis Procedure and Purpose
The intent of this consultation is to determine what effect, if any, does the
existence of a BellSouth Mobility cellular tower have upon surrounding
residential property values.
Site Atl. "BBBE -1" - 6300 Spalding Drive - Tax Parcel 6- 313 -9, Gwinnett
This tower was constructed on 1 October 1992. In order to determine the overall
impact on value this tower may have had, the appraisers have relied upon 8
improved residential, condominium sales. The utilized data range in time from
May 1990 to November 1994 which effectively frames the tower construction date.
A brief summary of the relied upon information is presented as follows. More
specific details are maintained in the appraiser's files. A map showing the
relative location of these sales is presented as an attachment to this letter.
Sale Date House size /s.f. Sales Price Price /s.f Location
1 5/90
1,937
$109,500
$56.53
4039
Deerings
Drive
2 6/91
1,610
$105,000
$65.22
6381
E. Deer
Hollow Way
3 3/92
1,573
$ 91,500
$58.17
6530
Deerings
Lane
4 8/92
1,537
$ 83,500
$54.33
6518
Deerings
Lane
5 10/92
1,937
$110,000
$56.79
4072
Deerings
Drive
6 6/93
1,937
$130,000
$67.11
6413
W. Deer
Hollow Way
7 7/94
1,937
$117,000
$60.40
6409
W. Deer
Hollow Way
8 11/94
1,652
$115,000
$69.61
6519
Deerings
Lane
The utilized data ranges from $54.33 per square foot to $69.61 per square foot.
The data items that precede the tower construction, Sales 1 - 4, indicate an
overall average of $58.56 per square foot and the data items subsequent to the
tower construction, Sales 5 - 8, indicate an overall average of $63.48 per
square foot. A comparison of these two subsets indicates an overall average
increase of approximately 8 %. Various comparisons among the two subsets
indicate value increases ranging from a low of less than 1% to a high of
approximately 28 %. Therefore, based on the utilized data and the analyses
employed, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the construction and on -going
presence of the BellSouth Mobility cellular tower have no adverse effect on
surrounding and adjoining residential property values.
32 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
Page 3
Mr. T. Michael Tennant
21 April 1996
Site Atl. BBC3 - 4968 Bush Road- 6- 300 -216, Gwinnett
This tower was constructed on 1 September 1990. In order to determine the
overall impact on value this tower may have had, the appraisers have relied upon
6 improved residential sales. The utilized data range in time from August 1986
to December 1993 which effectively frames the tower construction date. A brief
summary of the relied upon information is presented as follows. More specific
details are maintained in the appraiser's files. A map showing the relative
location of these sales is presented as an attachment to this letter.
Sale Date
House
size /s.f. Sales
Price
Price /s.f.
Location
1
8/86
1,911
$126,100
$65.99
5049
Old Ivy Road
2
7/88
2,565
$142,000
$55.36
3772
Summertree Court
3
8/90
1,834
$117,400
$64.01
4989
Old Ivy Road
4
10/90
2,564
$123,000
$52.03
5019
Old Ivy Road
5
2/91
1,712
$117,000
$68.34
4969
Old Ivy Road
6
12/93
1,764
$115,000
$65.19
3803
Summertree Court
The utilized data ranges from $52.03 per square foot to $68.34 per square foot.
The data items that precede the tower construction, Sales 1 - 3, indicate an
overall average of $61.79 per square foot and the data items subsequent to the
tower construction, Sales 4 - 6, indicate an overall average of $61.85 per
square foot. A comparison of these two subsets indicates an overall average
increase of approximately 1 %. Various comparisons among the two subsets
indicate value increases ranging from a low of less than 1% to a high of
approximately 24 %. Therefore, based on the utilized data and the analyses
employed, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the construction and on -going
presence of the BellSouth Mobility cellular tower have no adverse effect on
surrounding and adjoining residential property values.
33 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
Page 4
Mr. T. Michael Tennant
21 April 1996
Site Atl. "ND" - 2526 Chattahoochee Drive - 7- 204 -4, Gwinnett
This tower was constructed on 25 October 1993. In order to determine the
overall impact on value this tower may have had, the appraisers have relied upon
6 improved residential sales. The utilized data range in time from February
1993 to December 1994 which effectively frames the tower construction date. A
brief summary of the relied upon information is presented as follows. More
specific details are maintained in the appraiser's files. A map showing the
relative location of these sales is presented as an attachment to this letter.
Sale Date
House
size /s.f. Sales
Price
Price /s.f.
Location
1
2/93
2,644
$143,700
$54.35
2332
Villabrooke Court
2
8/93
1,932
$124,400
$64.39
3615
Longlake Drive
3
9/93
2,504
$149,900
$59.86
3630
Longlake Drive
4
12/93
2,044
$132,200
$64.68
3620
Longlake Drive
5
12/94
2,262
$164,700
$72.81
2454
Kingsbrooke Court
6
12/94
2,324
$151,800
$65.32
2467
Kingsbrooke Court
The utilized data ranges from $54.35 per square foot to $72.81 per square foot.
The data items that precede the tower construction, Sales 1 - 3, indicate an
overall average of $59.53 per square foot and the data items subsequent to the
tower construction, Sales 4 - 6, indicate an overall average of $67.60 per
square foot. A comparison of these two subsets indicates an overall average
increase of approximately 14 %. Various comparisons among the two subsets
indicate value increases ranging from a low of less than 1.50% to a high of
approximately 34 %. Therefore, based on the utilized data and the analyses
employed, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the construction and on -going
presence of the BellSouth Mobility cellular tower have no adverse effect on
surrounding and adjoining residential property values.
Recapitulation
In regard to these three sites, based on the utilized data and the various
analyses employed, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the construction and
on -going presence of BellSouth Mobility cellular towers have no adverse effect
on surrounding and adjoining residential property values. This conclusion is
further evidenced by the fact that in regard to all three sites herein analyzed,
on -going residential development and construction have been the norm and general
overall increases in property values have been realized.
34 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
Page 5
Mr. T. Michael Tennant
21 April 1996
This business is appreciated, and we trust that this information is satisfactory
and serves your purposes. Please do not hesitate to call if any further
assistance is required.
/s/
W. S. Stripling, MM
Certified Real Estate Appraiser
GA #211
/s/
William Todd Stripling
Certified Real Estate Appraiser
GA #1291
WSS:@S:mjl
Attachments
35 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Martin Leblang [mailto:leblang(a)cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:02 PM
To: Don Higginson; Steve Vaus; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham; Dave Grosch
Subject: Poway Amateur Radio Antenna Ordinance
Dear Mayor Higginson, Councilman Cunningham, Councilman Voss, Councilman Grosch, and
Councilman Mullin,
I am writing to express my view regarding the amateur radio antenna ordinance under
consideration at the February 18th city council meeting. I am a resident of Poway and an amateur
radio operator. I am aware of information circulating throughout the city that misrepresents the
Poway Amateur Radio Society recommendation to the city development staff. The information is
misleading, and can lead to erroneous assertions.
I am in complete support of the PARS recommendation that Poway come into compliance with
federal regulations for amateur radio regarding effective communications, and I strongly support
the PARS recommendation that Poway permit 65 foot high antennas erected with a simple
building permit and community notification. Also, that the new ordinance permit an amateur
to seek permitting an antenna higher than 65 ft through a simple MDRA, and that the MDRA
fees be waived for the amateur in view of the service provided the community by the ability of
amateur radio to assist the city in responding to emergencies.
Poway has long ignored achieving compliance with the Federal and California state regulations
pertaining to amateur radio, even in light of recommendations from the city's attorney that action
be taken to comply.
I urge you to support the position of all the Poway amateur radio operators.
Sincerely yours,
Martin Leblang, WA3YTI
36 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Ly
Sent: Su
To: citycl
Subject:
Rouch [mailto:l_rouch @yahoo.com]
February 16, 2014 3:19 PM
18,2014 City Council Mtg- Agenda item 5
Dear City ;Clerk,
Please include the attached letter regarding Agenda item 5 at the City Council meeting
on Tuesda,
Thank you,
Bill Rouch�
760 - 945 -91�
760 - 717 -9f
N6HBO
, February 18, 2014.
res
cell
37 of 63 1 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
City Council
City of Poway, California, USA
By Email: CityClerk @Poway.Org
February, 2014
Subject: 18 February, 2014 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Discussion on Amateur
Radio Antenna Regulations
Dear Council members,
I support Poway's amateur Radio community and the rights granted to them by the United
States government.
I recognize the value of an active Poway amateur radio community in its ability to fulfill City
emergency plan requirements and the ability of these skilled, trained and drilled radio
communications operators to provide an exceptional layer of communication capability
when large scale emergencies cause routine communications to fail. And I recognize their
work with Poway's boy scouts and other young citizens to seed their interest in science,
engineering and radio communications.
Over their long history in the United States, amateur radio operators have contributed major
scientific developments to the science of radio communications. These developments have
grown "our. ability to receive entertainment, talk across the oceans, carry a telephone in our
pocket, text our friends and provide security through innovations implemented by our
military.
I recognize the technical report attachment "C" in the workshop packet and understand an
antenna height of 65 feet above grade is needed to achieve long range effective
communications.
To.this end:
1. The council should allow a long range antenna and structure be erected to a height
no more than 65 feet above grade at its highest point. And these structures should
require a building permit, but no other restrictions or restrictive processes..
2. Some. installations may require an antenna be elevated above 65 feet. These
antenna and structures should be subject to a no fee MDRA to determine the
suitable antenna height to achieve effective communications for the antenna site.
No other restriction or restrictive processes should apply.
3. The draft ordinance, attachment "B" in the workshop packet properly addresses
these needs and I recommend the council use this draft as the basis for our
ordinance for amateur radio antennas.
Please note my expression herein in the subject recordings.
Sincer. ,
38 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Jimmie Shreve [mailto:gudenlOshuns @yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:21 PM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Jim Cunningham; John Mullin; Steve Vaus
Cc: Charles Ristorcelli; Marcia De Runtz; Brian Tagg
Subject: Workshop on Amateur Radio Antenna Regulations
Honorable Sirs,
apologize for addressing you by impersonal email rather than in person at your
February 18 Workshop on Amateur Radio Antenna Regulations. I am unable to attend,
but I am very much concerned in both the advancement of amateur radio and in the
protection of my beloved Poway community.
I currently live in Lakeside, but my family's roots in Poway began in 1869 when great
great grandfather Castanos Paine settled there. Castanos boldly took on many
challenges in Poway including Terrace Hotel proprietor, Butterfield Stage Line Rock
Creek Stationmaster, first Poway postmaster, stockman, farmer, bee keeper, gold
miner, County Road Supervisor, and "Powiii precinct election official ". Castanos had a
secret to his success in so many different endeavors - he would seek out and heed the
advice of those who knew the subject better than he.
I have read the addenda packet for your workshop, including the Council Agenda
Report and the two additional items posted February 13, 2014. 1 have to think that
Castanos would be very disappointed in the City of Poway for your disregard of valuable
technical advice offered to you in regards to minimum amateur radio antenna heights
required in Poway for effective emergency communications.
This advice has been offered in the form of the technical paper Effective Amateur
Radio Communications in Poway by the esteemed expert on the subject of amateur
radio communications Mr. Charles Ristorcelli. In this paper he established the minimum
amateur radio antenna height of 65 feet above natural ground level at the antenna site.
Ham radio has an established history of providing valuable emergency communications
to communities after natural and man -made disasters. Some have said the tall
antennas (above 35 feet) necessary for emergency communications for the Poway area
can be provided without the need for permanent installations, by using temporary
antennas raised only in the event of an actual emergency.
It is easy to think of these antennas as a fire extinguisher, out of sight but handy until
needed. But even fire extinguishers require knowledge to use effectively, and Ham radio
emergency communications are much more complex systems. Ham radio systems
include radio equipment, the Earth's atmosphere, and people located near and far; all of
which must be understood and used properly by the Ham radio operator in order to
achieve effective communication.
Ham radio equipment systems can include antennas, transmitters, receivers, powers
supplies, antenna tuners, transmission cables and many other complex assemblies. For
a Ham operator to effectively communicate in an emergency requires extensive self
39 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
study as well as constant practice with these systems. This practice often comes as
informal calls to other Hams, competing in organized contests, and participating in
scheduled emergency drills organized on the local, state and national level.
The Ham operator must also understand how to used this equipment in an ever
changing system that is the Earth's atmosphere. Conditions in the Troposphere and
Ionosphere affecting radio communication vary seasonally, daily, end even minute by
minute. The effective Ham operator must learn to choose equipment, radio frequencies,
and operating time in order to establish and maintain communications with other Ham
operators. These lessons come in the form of operating radio systems throughout the
year and over decades of atmospheric changes.
A Ham radio operator experienced with radio and atmospheric systems still cannot
complete important emergency communications without another critical system -
people to receive the radio signal. In a dire emergency, the Ham radio operator must
know what other Ham operators may be similarly trained and experienced to receive
their emergency calls and on what frequencies out of a near infinite band of choices.
This knowledge comes from operating radio systems on a regular basis - both informally
and through established emergency communication nets and scheduled drills - to build
relationships with other Ham operators near and far.
Because the availability of these dedicated trained, knowledgeable, experienced Ham
radio operators to provide emergency communications is so valuable to the City of
Poway and other communities, it is critical that local Ham operators be given
reasonable accommodations allowing them to construct and maintain at their own
expense antennas set at the necessary height as required by local geographical
conditions for effective radio transmission and reception. This height as determined by
the extremely qualified subject matter expert Mr. Charles Ristorcelli is a minimum 65
feet above natural ground level at the installation site.
urge you do as Castanos would in this matter. Heed Mr. Ristorcelli's knowledge and
experience based advice.
Sincerely,
Jimmie Shreve
Ham Call Sign KJ6VMP
9134 Sesi Lane
Lakeside CA 92040
guden 10shuns(aD-yahoo.com
40 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Roger Hort [mailto:rhort@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:34 PM
To: Don Higginson
Subject: Poway Amateur Radio Antenna Ordinance
Dear Mayor Don Higginson,
I am writing to express my view regarding the amateur radio antenna ordinance under
consideration at the February 18th city council meeting. I live in Poway for over 25 years
and I am an amateur radio operator. I am aware of information circulating throughout
the city that misrepresents the Poway Amateur Radio Society recommendation to the
city development staff. The information is misleading, and can lead to erroneous
assertions.
I am in complete support of the PARS recommendation that Poway come into
compliance with federal regulations for amateur radio regarding effective
communications, and I strongly support the PARS recommendation that Poway permit
65 foot high antennas erected with a simple building permit and community
notification. Also, that the new ordinance permit an amateur to seek permitting an
antenna higher than 65 ft through a simple MDRA, and that the MDRA fees be
waived for the amateur in view of the service provided the community by the
ability of amateur radio to assist the city in responding to emergencies.
Poway has long ignored achieving compliance with the Federal and California state
regulations pertaining to amateur radio, even in light of recommendations from the city's
attorney that action be taken to comply.
I urge you to support the position of all the Poway amateur radio operators.
Sincerely yours.
Roger Hort
14210 Halper Road
Poway CA 92064
41 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Pat Herndon [mai1to:pMpat0)gmai1.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:47 PM
To: Don Higginson
Subject: Amateur Radio Antennas
Dear Mayor Higginson,
I am writing to express my view regarding the amateur radio antenna ordinance under
consideration at the February 18th city council meeting. I am a resident of Poway and an amateur
radio operator. I am aware of information circulating throughout the city that misrepresents the
Poway Amateur Radio Society recommendation to the city development staff. The information is
misleading, and can lead to erroneous assertions.
I am in complete support of the PARS recommendation that Poway come into compliance with
federal regulations for amateur radio regarding effective communications, and I strongly support
the PARS recommendation that Poway permit 65 foot high antennas erected with a simple
building permit and community notification. Also, that the new ordinance permit an amateur
to seek permitting an antenna higher than 65 ft through a simple MDRA, and that the MDRA
fees be waived for the amateur in view of the service provided the community by the ability of
amateur radio to assist the city in responding to emergencies.
Poway has long ignored achieving compliance with the Federal and California state regulations
pertaining to amateur radio, even in light of recommendations from the city's attorney that action
be taken to comply.
I urge you to support the position of all the Poway amateur radio operators.
Sincerely yours,
Patrick L Herndon
13844 Savage Way
Poway, CA 92064
42 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
Front: spector950)aol.com [mai1to:spector95 @ao1.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:23 PM
To: Don Higginson; Jim Cunningham; Steve Vaus; Dave Grosch
Subject: Fwd: Amateur Radio Antennas
[with subject added]
Dear Poway Councilmen,
I am writing to express my view regarding the amateur radio antenna ordinance under
consideration at the February 18th city council meeting. I am a resident of Poway and
an amateur radio operator I am aware of information circulating throughout the city that
misrepresents the Poway Amateur Radio Society recommendation to the city
development staff. The information is misleading, and can lead to erroneous assertions.
I am in complete support of the PARS recommendation that Poway come into
compliance with federal regulations for amateur radio regarding effective
communications and I strongly support the PARS recommendation that
Poway permit 65 foot high antennas erected with a simple building permit
and community notification. Also, that the new ordinance permit an
amateur to seek permitting an antenna higher than 65 ft through a
simple MDRA, and that the MDRA fees be waived for the amateur in view
of the service provided the community by the ability of amateur radio to
assist the City in responding to emergencies.
I was the chief systems engineer in charge of the design /buildout of the County Medical
Operations Center which was planned after the first wildfires. Ensured amateur radio
connectivity was considered essential. An adjacent room, parking spot and rooftop
antennas were developed /installed. When landline and cellular service is down you
want the ensured communications provided by sufficient height amateur radio
equipment. Allow amateurs the simple building permit with community
notification. That ensures that amatuers radio operators will be able to set up antennas
as long as immediate neighbors agree.
Poway has long ignored achieving compliance with the Federal and California state
regulations pertaining to amateur radio, even in light of recommendations from the city's
attorney that action be taken to comply.
urge you to support the position of all the Poway amateur radio operators.
Sincerely,
Andrew L. Spector
N6GLE
43 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Ernest Garcia [mailto:ernestgarcia @ hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:34 PM
To: Don Higginson
Subject: City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Don Higginson,
I am aware that you are participating in a City Council workshop on February 18th to
consider the matter of amateur radio antenna permitting in Poway.
I know that Poway does not comply with the federal and state of California regulations
to allow amateur radio operators to practice their federally granted license right in a
manner that permits effective communications.
I am also aware that the city staff released proposed ordinance material with specific
recommendations on this matter.
I urge you to approve the proposal made by the Poway amateur radio operators to
permit an antenna height of 65 feet.
It is time Poway recognized the resource that is available.
Thank you,
Ernest Garcia - W4EG
The Village of Fallbrook
44 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Roy Parkhurst [mailto:rtparkhurst(a)cox.net]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 7:58 AM
To: Don Higginson
Subject: February 18th city council meeting
Dear Mayor,
I am writing to express my view regarding the amateur radio antenna ordinance under
consideration at the February 18`h city council meeting. I am a resident of Poway and an amateur
radio operator. I am aware of information circulating throughout the city that misrepresents the
Poway Amateur Radio Society recommendation to the city development staff. The information is
misleading, and can lead to erroneous assertions.
I am in complete support of the PARS recommendation that Poway come into compliance with
federal regulations for amateur radio regarding effective communications, and I strongly support
the PARS recommendation that Poway permit 65 foot high antennas erected with a simple
building permit and community notification. Also, that the new ordinance permit an amateur
to seek permitting an antenna higher than 65 ft through a simple MDRA, and that the MDRA
fees be waived for the amateur in view of the service provided the community by the ability of
amateur radio to assist the city in responding to emergencies.
Poway has long ignored achieving compliance with the Federal and California state regulations
pertaining to amateur radio, even in light of recommendations from the city's attorney that action
be taken to comply.
I urge you to support the position of all the Poway amateur radio operators.
Sincerely yours.
Roy Parkhurst
13703 Ahwahnee Way
KB6MKZ
45 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: David Schreck [mailto:dwschr @cox.net]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:08 AM
To: Don Higginson
Subject: Poway Amateur Radio
Dear Mayor Higginson, I am writing to express my view regarding the amateur radio antenna
ordinance that will be under consideration at the February 18th city council meeting. I am a
resident of Poway and an Advanced Class amateur radio operator (KO4XR). I am aware of
information circulating throughout the city that misrepresents the Poway Amateur Radio Society
(PARS) recommendation to the city development staff. This information is misleading, and can
lead to erroneous assertions.
I am in complete support of the PARS recommendation that Poway come into compliance with
federal regulations for amateur radio regarding effective communications, and I strongly support
the PARS recommendation that Poway permit 65 foot high antennas erected with a simple
building permit and community notification. Also, that the new ordinance permit an amateur
to seek permitting an antenna higher than 65 ft through a simple MDRA, and that the MDRA
fees be waived for the amateur in view of the services provided the community by the ability of
amateur radio to assist the city in responding to emergencies.
Those services, and the equipment and time radio amateurs provide the city at no cost are
invaluable. Especially during natural or human caused disasters, amateur radio operators provide
a communication service that never fails. In order to do so, they must be able to practice their
skills across all modes of communication, and to do so regularly requires unfettered access to
effective long -range communications that increased antenna height dynamically facilitates.
Poway has long ignored achieving compliance with the Federal and California state regulations
pertaining to amateur radio, even in light of recommendations from the city's attorney that action
be taken to comply. How can this be?
I urge you to support the proper and responsible position of Poway amateur radio operator
recommendations.
Sincerely,
Commander David W. Schreck, USN (Retired)
12518 Mustang Drive
858- 391 -0492
46 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: NI6H Rich [mailto:W6HCa)cox.netI
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:15 AM
To: NI6H Rich
Subject: POWAY City Council Antenna Workshop- Amateur Radio
Distinguished Mayor
City Council
I am a commercial real estate broker in San Diego County. I am also a licensed
Amateur Radio operator. For about 6 years now, part of my personal time has
been donated to the support of emergency communications for our community. I
hope others are explaining what we bring to the table in time of emergencies. The
same reasons that prompted the FCC to delegate valuable and numerous bands of
radio frequency to Amateur Radio operators, since its beginning, is still true
today. Amateur Radio operators are not truckers talking about speed traps on the
freeway (that single frequency is called Citizen Band radio and the operators are
not required to be licensed), NO please don't get confused; FCC Licensed Amateur
Radio operators, have a long and rich history in being part of the development of
radio communications discoveries, equipment and practices, were talking about the
highest level of engineers at non - governmental organizations, such NASA right
down to Apple and Qualcomm, we have a rich history in being part of our modern
days communications, via; radio, internet, computer communication technologies.
I hope the very folks the community of Poway have empowered to provide
leadership and guidance for their community, have taken the time to education
themselves about Licensed Amateur Radio and that our community will benefit
from leadership and guidance and that the community can count on you NOT bowing
to the Politician's creed; "well if I don't get reelected I can't do any
good "........because that motto alone, will cause you to bow to homeowners and
associations, who have NO reality about how the netting of the fabric that holds
our modern way of life together, how communications and emergency services,
really function and get to their door step and if you go for the NIMBY's emotional
vote....and bow to this astatically single minded, challenged and flawed notion, that
an Amateur Radio Antennas are an "eyesore" and detriment to their housing values
and community, you will have done NO good with your seat of leadership, in the
first place. Amateur Radio it is in fact their back up plan and it's important that
YOU know that and that we all educate them, so the community knows, that this
service has been used time and time again, in one disaster after another, all around
the world. How do they think a Red Cross shelter rolls out and provides food,
lodging and beverage services in every disaster we have (as one small example) we
47 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
provide communications links with our antennas and equipment. Hams help keep the
social fabric together and bring communications to ABSOLUTE CONFUSION that
surrounds the beginning of every disaster and the volunteers that step in the
breach when these NIMBY minded folks, cannot seem to get any electricity out of
their wall outlet, or news on their television or a dial tone on their phone; are
looking to you and your leadership, they will hold you accountable after they
understand what they have forced out thru ignorance, so don't let that happen, you
can change that today, be in support of Amateur Radio, we are your neighbors and
WE ARE here to help, during the disasters, we will make you proud.
I am aware that you are participating in a City Council workshop on February 18th
to consider the matter of amateur radio antenna permitting in Poway. (on going to
write laws pertaining to Amateur Radio Antennas) Poway is like many communities
struggling with NIMBY's mind sets that don't understand licensed Amateur Radio,
therefore, you are once again faced with continuing to be out of compliance with
the federal and state of California regulations pertaining to allowing amateur radio
operators to practice their federally granted license right in a manner that
permits effective communications. Hams have and continue to provide you with
the technical analysis to help you understand some of the basic physics required
for antenna height needed to effect long range communications. (we all need long
and short range communications to serve our community)
I urge you to do the right thing, and approve the proposal made by the Poway
amateur radio operators to permit an antenna height of 65 feet, and that the city
staff clean up a permitting process that falls in the capricious and arbitrary class
of business as usual. (this being quite a compromise to federal and state laws
already)
It is time for you as a Poway trustee to recognize the resource that is and always
has been free and available, and educate your NIMBY's so they see the reality of
need to permit the amateur practice of Radio Communications in a manner that
meets the federal and state regulations.
The Agencies I am badged with and volunteer my services with, that provide
emergency services to YOU and the Poway community, are;
1. The San Diego Chapter of the American Red Cross - Communications Team
2. RACES (Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service -thru the local San Diego
County Sherriff's Dept.)
48 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
3. CERT (Citizens Emergency Response Team)
4. California Disaster Corps
5. APES (Amateur Radio Emergency Services
So when I have to choose where I respond too, in the next big emergency, like that
Black out in 2012 or the Fires in the 2000's, let me remember the City of Poway as
a partner in our efforts, not a bunch of unthankful NIMBY's, that never
understood the important and valuable recourse of licensed Amateur Radio
Communications. Can you imagine if some of this mind set could, move our military
bases to a foreign country because there noisy and look ugly, LOL, we would not
have a military or our way of Iife....NO, there is price to pay for safety, sometimes
the medicine is a bit uncomfortable but the cure is always worth it. Stand tall
Trustees, stand with Amateur Radio, we will be there, when you need us ... well make
you proud of supporting our efforts!
Rich Lippucci - NI6H
Palomar Amateur Radio Club- Director
49 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Michael [ mailto :michaelwneale(�)earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:06 PM
To: Don Higginson
Subject: SUPPORT FOR POWAY HAM ANTENNA RECOMMENDATIONS
Dear Mayor Don Higginson,
I am writing to express my view regarding the amateur radio antenna ordinance under
consideration at the February 181h city council meeting. I am a resident of Poway and an amateur
radio operator.
I am in complete support of the PARS recommendation that Poway come into compliance with
federal regulations for amateur radio regarding effective communications, and I strongly support
the PARS recommendation that Poway permit 65 foot high antennas erected with a simple
building permit and community notification. Also, that the new ordinance permit an amateur
to seek permitting an antenna higher than 65 ft through a simple MDRA, and that the MDRA
fees be waived for the amateur in view of the service provided the community by the ability of
amateur radio to assist the city in responding to emergencies.
I urge you to support the position of all the Poway amateur radio operators.
Sincerely yours.
Michael Neale
KI6ZEQ
50 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Joe Hypnarowski [mailto:w6vnr @earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 6:28 PM
To: Don Higginson
Subject: Poway Antenna Permits - Amateur Radio
SIR Mayor Don Higginson
I am Joseph Hypnarowski a RESIDENT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, of which Poway is part of.
I am in complete support of the PARS recommendation that Poway come into compliance with federal
regulations for amateur radio regarding effective communications, and I strongly support the PARS
recommendation that Poway permit 65 foot high antennas erected with a simple building permit and
community notification. Also, that the new ordinance permit an amateur to seek permitting an
antenna higher than 65 ft through a simple MDRA, and that the MDRA fees be waived for the
amateur in view of the service provided the community by the ability of amateur radio to assist the
city in responding to emergencies.
Poway has long ignored achieving compliance with the Federal and California state regulations
pertaining to amateur radio, even in light of recommendations from the city's attorney that action be
taken to comply.
Joseph Hypnarowski
51 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Robert Barrie [mailto:rbarriel(a)cox.net]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 8:27 PM
To: Don Higginson
Cc: Barrie Bob & Darlynn
Subject: 18 February, 2014 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5
To: Honorable Mayor Higginson February 16,
2014
City of Poway, California, USA
Subject: 18 February, 2014 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Discussion on Amateur Radio Antenna
Regulations
Dear Honorable Mayor Higginson,
I support Poway's amateur Radio community and the rights granted to them by the United States
government.
I recognize the value of an active Poway amateur radio community in its ability to fulfill City emergency plan
requirements and the ability of these skilled, trained and drilled radio communications operators to provide an
exceptional layer ofcommunication capability when large scale emergencies cause routine communications to
fail. And I recognize their work with Poway's boy scouts and other young citizens to seed their interest in
science, engineering and radio communications.
Over their long history in the United States, amateur radio operators have contributed major scientific
developments to the science of radio communications. These developments have grown our ability to receive
entertainment, talk across the oceans, carry a telephone in our pocket, text our friends and provide security
through innovations implemented by our military.
I recognize the technical report attachment "C" in the workshop packet and understand an antenna height of
65 feet above grade is needed to achieve long range effective communications.
To this end:
1. The council should allow a long range antenna and structure be erected to a height no more than 65 feet
above grade at its highest point. And these structures should require a building permit, but no other
restrictions or restrictive processes.
2. Some installations may require an antenna be elevated above 65 feet. These antenna and structures should be
subject to a no fee MDRA to determine the suitable antenna height to achieve effective communications for the
antenna site. No other restriction or restrictive processes should apply.
3. The draft ordinance, attachment "B " in the workshop packet properly addresses these needs and I
recommend the council use this draft as the basis for our ordinance for amateur radio antennas.
Please note my expression herein in the subject recordings.
Sincerely,
Bob & Darlynn Barrie
12812 Camino del Valle
Poway, CA 92064 -1812
52 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Iindsay010 @cox.net [mailto:lindsay010 @cox.net]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 10:15 PM
To: cityclerk
Cc: Steve Vaus; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham; Dave Grosch; Don Higginson
Subject: Discussion on Amateur Radio Antenna Regulations
Please see attached letter in support of local ham operators. In addition to the form letter I've signed, I
want to say that I see their efforts as being in best interest of the greater good of the community
contrary to those against, who I would guess are protecting their own self interests, more interested in
property values than in community safety.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards
Rebecca Lindsay
53 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
City Council
City of Poway, California, USA
By Email: CityClerk @ Poway. Org
February 17, 2014
Subject: 18 February, 2014 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5, Discussion on Amateur
Radio Antenna Regulations
Dear Council members,
I support Poway's amateur Radio community and the rights granted to them by the United
States government.
I recognize the value of an active Poway amateur radio community in its ability to fulfill City
emergency plan requirements and the ability of these skilled, trained and drilled radio
communications operators to provide an exceptional layer of communication capability
when large scale emergencies cause routine communications to fail. And I recognize their
work with Poway's boy scouts and other young citizens to seed their interest in science,
engineering and radio communications.
Over their long history in the United States, amateur radio operators have contributed major
scientific developments to the science of radio communications. These developments have
grown our ability to receive entertainment, talk across the oceans, carry a telephone in our
pocket, text our friends and provide security through innovations implemented by our
military.
I recognize the technical report attachment "C" in the workshop packet and understand an
antenna height of 65 feet above grade is needed to achieve long range effective
communications.
To this end:
1. The council should allow a long range antenna and structure be erected to a height
no more than 65 feet above grade at its highest point. And these structures should
require a building permit, but no other restrictions or restrictive processes.
2. Some installations may require an antenna be elevated above 65 feet. These
antenna and structures should be subject to a no fee MDRA to determine the
suitable antenna height to achieve effective communications for the antenna site.
No other restriction or restrictive processes should apply.
3. The draft ordinance, attachment "B" in the workshop packet properly addresses
these needs and I recommend the council use this draft as the basis for our
ordinance for amateur radio antennas.
Please note my expression herein in the subject recordings.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Lindsay
16718 Avenida Florencia, Poway
54 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Rick [mailto:drandr @cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:26 PM
To: cityclerk
Cc: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Jim Cunningham; John Mullin; Steve Vaus
Subject: Discussion on Amateur Radio Antenna Regulations
Dear Council members,
We support Poway's amateur Radio community and recognize the value of an active
Poway amateur radio community. We understand an antenna height of 65 feet above
grade is needed and therefore we recommend the council allow antennas and structure be
erected to a height of no more than 65 feet above grade at its highest point with a building
permit, but no other restrictions or required fees or processes.
Sincerely,
Rick and Joy Trott
55 of 63 . February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Brian Tagg [mailto:ag6cf @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:56 PM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Jim Cunningham; John Mullin; Steve Vaus
Cc: Charles Ristorcelli
Subject: Re: Workshop on Amateur Radio Antenna Regulations
Honorable Sirs
I will be at tonight's meeting, but I expect that my comments will merely support what others already
plan to say. Out of respect for everybody's time, I will submit my brief thoughts via email rather than
take up valuable time at tonight's meeting.
I have looked over the staff report and recommendations. With the exception, possibly, of the simplest
antennas, these recommendations would do little more than codify the existing burdensome, capricious
processes. If these recommendations are implemented, it will only guarantee that Poway hams and the
city will both face processes that are expensive, time consuming, and guaranteed to result in conflict. In
fact, if these recommendations are implemented as given, it will likely only serve to document Poway's
non - compliance with FCC PRB -1 and California Government Code Section 65850.3.
What is needed is a set of well defined, rational rules that protect the best interests of individual hams,
the ham community, and the city. The clear guideline, directly from California Government Code Section
65850.3 is that the ordinance, "shall constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the
city's legitimate purpose."
I urge you to enact an ordinance based on legitimate technical considerations, as enunciated in the
technical report provided by Charles Ristorcelli.
Thank you, and
73 DE (Best Regards from)
AG6CF - Brian Tagg
56 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
2 -13 -2014
Dear Poway City Council Members,
This letter references agenda item #5.1 Workshop on Amateur Radio Antenna
Regulations.
I am opposed to the changing the current antenna height limitation from 35
feet to any greater height. I also oppose allowing the antenna to temporally extend above
35 feet.
A radio antenna is visually unaesthetic and not in keeping with a residential
neighborhood. The City In The Country should not allow a neighborhood to have the rough
look of a business park.
An antenna at a residence in Poway valley is the result a poor siting choice.
Please do not change the current Amateur Radio Antenna Regulations.
Thank you,
David Bonnet
17017 Surrey Hills Ct
Poway, CA 92064
QED
FEB 18 2014
CITY OF POWAY
Ct[Y MANAGERS OFFICE
57 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Bruce Batten [mailto:trains @n2.net]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 4:56 PM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Steve Vaus; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham; Bruce Batten
Subject: HAM Radio Antennas
Dear Poway City Council members,
I will not be able to attend the meeting of 02/18 where the issue of HAM radio antennas will be
discussed, but wanted to share my thoughts.
HAM radio is 99.9% a hobby and 0.1% an emergency tool.
We absolutely do not need these antennas popping up everywhere and anywhere so that the hobbyists
can increase their range.
While I do appreciate their benefit in a major emergency, that simply does not justify putting up
antennas anywhere desired.
It would seem that reverse 911 calls to cell phones and land lines would be more effective
communication mechanism.
Even with 65' antennas, emergency instructions still need to be delivered via phone or on foot.
These antennas are a blight to neighborhood appearance and values. It seems that rationale of helping
with major catastrophes is a way to avoid conditional use permits and fees.
The logic used for support of extremely tall HAM antennas for public safety would be analogous to
having shooting ranges in everybody's back yard under the justification of emergency preparedness for a
zombie attack.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bruce Batten
16876 St. James Drive
Poway
58 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Allen Peterson [mailto:alpetersonl @mac.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 8:05 AM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Steve Vaus; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham
Subject: HAM Radio Antennas
Dear Sirs:
As a longtime resident of Poway I would like to express my concern over the proposal to allow higher
HAM radio antenna structures in our residential neighborhoods.
As one who has seen the great need for effective emergency communication during major wildfires
we've experienced in recent years, as well as during other major disasters, I support the balanced
approach suggested by the City's staff and endorsed by the Green Balley Civic Association that would
allow antenna heights of 35 -50 feet subject to a conditional use permit.
To allow uncontrolled structures of 65+ feet will not only substantially impact the esthetics of our City,
they would also impact property values for home owners. Not to mention the potential safety issues of
having a neighbor's antenna come down during a major wind event (something we have here EVERY
year) on adjacent property.
Please vote to protect the quality of life we've all come to love about the City in the Country by not
allowing HAM antenna heights greater than 35 -50 feet maximum/
Sincerely,
Allen Peterson & Cindy Tollin
Homeowners
Bridlewood /Lakeside
59 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Robert Kohler [mailto:rkohler0 @cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 8:23 AM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Steve Vaus; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham
Subject: HAM Radio Antennas
Hello, my name is Robert Kohler and I live at 13005 Corte Susana in Green Valley. The purpose of this
email is to let each of you know that I am against changing the current height limit of 35 feet for Ham
Radio antenna's in the city. These are eyesores, plain and simple. The rationale used by the Ham Radio
users is weak at best. Does it make sense to let them lower property values and create unsightly
antenna farms in our neighborhoods for the extremely low probability they'll be needed in an
emergency? My opinion is an emphatic no.
Thanks for your time,
- Robert Kohler
60 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Steven Beaver [mailto:smb(!a)cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:41 PM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Steve Vaus; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham
Subject: HAM Radio Antennas
Please vote no on changing the height limits for HAM antenna structures in
Poway.
I do not support changing the height limits for antenna structures to.provide
amateur HAM operators better reception/transmission capabilities.
These antennas are an eye sore and will lower the value of surrounding homes.
While the typical HAM operator will claim their value during emergency
situations, these situations are few and far between.
It simply, in my opinion, does not justify having what amounts to a five story
building in someone's backyard, so they can have a conversation with someone in
Armenia.
Steven Beaver
cell 2: 619 778 7054 1 fax 8: 858 618 3873
13151 Stone Canyon Road
Poway, CA 92064
®: smbCa)_cox.net
61 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
From: Mike Miller [mailto:m.f.miller @cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:28 AM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Steve Vaus; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham
Subject: HAM Radio Antennas
I can think of few things more irritating that having an antenna or something else intrude upon
the views that we enjoy from our homes. So, please be very cautious before creating a situation
where this is a likely result.
With that said, if you feel that modification of current practice is needed, then I would advocate a
position similar to Del Mar's as described in Staff s Report. Further, all antennas should be
located in the backyard and hidden as much as possible from neighbors who may not have the
same appreciation for Ham radio uses.
Last comment, Staff notes in its Report that there is no Fiscal impact. I wonder if that is true. If
we have dozens of high antennas in the city, will this impact re -sale values for surrounding
homes? Lower valuations lead to lower property taxes.
Thank you.
Mike Miller
Poway resident
62 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: wizorl @aol.com [mailto:wizorl @aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:42 PM
To: Don Higginson; Dave Grosch; Steve Vaus; John Mullin; Jim Cunningham
Subject: Ham Radio Antennas
Dear Sirs;
I am unable to attend this meeting but I am against increasing the height limits on antennas. I travel all
over the country on business and see neighborhoods where they allowed the tall antennas and they are
ugly, decrease the desirability of the area and thereby decrease home values.
If home values decrease on sales of existing homes city revenue will decrease due to the fact that 1% of
a lower sale price lowers revenue to via prop 13 regulations
William Izor
16884 Saint Andrews Dr
Poway
63 of 63 February 18, 2014 Item # 5.1