Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agd Pkt 2010-03-03 (3)
LATE MAIL # /W-2 HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSU DING ENGINEERS RADIO A `D I LEVISION BY E-MAIL RELIAS-BERG@WESTOWER.COM March 3, 2010 Mr. Ryan Elias-Berg Westower Communications 2017 Opportunity Drive Suite 4 Roseville, California 95678 Dear Ryan: WILLIAM F. HAMMETT, P.E. DANE E. ERICKSEN, P.E. STANLEY SALEK, P.E. MARK D. NEUMANN, P.E. ROBERT P. SMITH, JR. RAJAT MATHUR, P.E. FERNANDO DIZON ROBERT L. HAMMETT, P.E. 1920-2002 EDWARD EDISON, P.E. 1920-2009 As you requested, I have reviewed the material submitted by Peter Pursley, Attorney at Law, in appeal of the use permit granted to Clearwire at 1 Blackfield Drive in Tiburon. The appellant suggests that our report was "defective" by not adhering to the calculation methodology contained in the FCC Bulletin OET-65. We are very familiar with that methodology, our firm being acknowledged by the authors of OET-65 for our contributions to its creation. The appellant suggests that making reasonable assumptions about the existing facilities at the site, in order to project anticipated exposure levels for the combined contributions of all RF sources at the site, is inadequate. In fact, making reasonable assumptions is an element of calculations throughout the OET-65 methodology. The appellant quotes twice from page 33 of OET-65, which states that a) all significant contributing sources should be considered, b) pertinent data on those sources should be collected, c) sources excluded by other sections of OET-65, based on certain assumptions that are made by the authors, should be included, and d) a good-faith effort should be made to consider such sources. It should be noted that a) we did consider all significant contributing sources, b) we collected location data on the Sprint Nextel source and reviewed its 1997 proposal, c) we included all known sources, and d) again, we included all known sources. As it happens, neither the existing or proposed operation meets the FCC's 5% threshold of significance (pg 66). e-mail: bhammettCh-e.com US Mail: Box 280068 - San Francisco, California 94128 Delivery: 470 Third Street West - Sonoma, California 95476 Telephone: 707/996-5200 San Francisco - 707/996-5280 Facsimile - 202/396-5200 D.C. Mr. Ryan Elias-Berg, page 2 March 3, 2010 The actual antenna model and operating power for a wireless carrier's facility when installed inside a screened enclosure cannot be practically ascertained with a field survey, and assumptions can be made about that data because they do not impact the conclusion reached, namely, that the maximum combined exposure levels comply with the FCC limits set forth in OET-65. Actual power levels from the Sprint Nextel operation would have to be more than 2,500% higher for that limit even to be approached. Moreover, the actual exposure conditions from the Sprint Nextel operation have been measured, most recently in 2007, and that data confirm the reasonableness of our assumptions. Please let me know if any questions arise on this material. Sincerely yours, William F. Hammett .1P cc: Mr. William H. Stephens - BY E-MAIL WILLIAM.STEPHENS@CLEARWIRE.COM Peter Pursley, Attorney at Law 2 Carmel Way, San Anselmo, CA 94960 (415) 453-5603; (916) 972-1722 California Bar #67202 Attorney in pro per, and for co-owners and tenants, 251 Cecelia Way, Tiburon TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL APPELLANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT TC APPEAL OF TIBURON TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RADIO FREQUENCY EMITTING COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AT 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE, TIBURON HEARING DATE & TIME: March 3, 2010, 7:30 pm, Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 2 Overview This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the Radio Frequency ("RF") Compliance Report for the proposed broadband wireless facility and the adequacy of public notices about RF emissions at 1 Blackfield Drive. This supplemental statement comments on a February 8, 2010 attorney's letter to the Town on the proposed installation's RF Compliance Report, briefly discusses a February 26, 2010 email advisory from an engineer in the FCC Office of Engineering & Technology to the appellants on RF compliance report preparation, includes a follow-up email inquiry to FCC RF Safety Group staff, then concludes with more narrowly focused proposed remedies. Updated Brief Backgroun The appealed permit is for new Clearwire-affiliated broadband wireless antennas and microwave dishes to be co-located next to existing Sprint Nextel cell phone transmission equipment in the Cove Shopping Center. The FCC requires a radio frequency ("RF") compliance report that must include a calculation of the combined RF equipment emissions levels at such co-location facilities. The permit application's RF Compliance Report (Tiburon Planning Commission File #10903, Staff Report, Exhibit 7) is challenged because it unnecessarily relied on hypothetical, assumed equipment data when it could and should have utilized actual performance specifications of the Sprint Nextel equipment in preparing the RF Compliance Report as specified in FCC OET-65. The Town has received a February 8, 2010 legal and technical opinion letter from the Kramer Telecom Law Firm which addresses a great many topics including the preparation of the RF Compliance Report which is in dispute. The letter obviously concludes the RF Compliance Report is acceptable as written and recommends denial of the requested remedy of a revised, amended or supplemented engineer-certified RF compliance report. Appellants have received a February 25, 2010 advisory communication from the FCC in response to our query about RF compliance report preparation methodologies and have sent a follow-up inquiry to the FCC RF Safety Group. We are awaiting a reply to that second inquiry. February 8,2010 Legal and Technical Opinion The February 8`h opinion discusses how the engineering consultants Hammett & Edison prepared their RF Compliance Report but raises more questions than it answers. Near the top of page 9 of the opinion, the author states: "H&E's initial step was to log the existing Sprint Nextel emitters (antennas) on the referenced building and to assess for each emitter the specifics regarding the antenna pattern, power, and frequency of emissions. To this log, H&E added the proposed RF emissions from Clearwire's facility, and then applied those data to the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 formula for computing RF safety compliance with the General Public/Uncontrolled emission standard." That is precisely the kind of analysis OET-65 expects. Unfortunately, no such data, or combined data, or data logs, or data analysis on the Sprint Nextel equipment appears anywhere in the RF Compliance Report certified by Hammett & Edison. That engineer-certified report contains no information on the Sprint Nextel equipment manufacturer, model number, or maximum effective radiated power wattage of Sprint Nextel. Nothing in the February 8`h opinion explains or cures those omissions. The February 8`'' opinion's technical discussion of Sprint Nextel equipment analysis is not information certified by a licensed engineer. The opinion correctly states that OET-65 does not preclude equipment performance estimates, but that is only if actual data is not readily available or using assumed equipment data instead of actual equipment data is based on sound engineering practice. See OET-65, pages I and 33. The February 8t' opinion discussion beginning on page 9 does not identify the Sprint Nextel equipment or specify the number of Sprint Nextel antennas currently operating in the Cove Shopping Center. Despite its contentions that the Sprint Nextel equipment was in fact evaluated, the opinion attempts to defend the report as written by pointing out the sheer volume of reports Hammett & Edison and the opinion's author have worked on or reviewed and Mr. Hammett`s national reputation. The current RF Compliance Report contains a manufacturer's name, model number, and effective radiated power wattage for assumed co-located equipment manufactured by the Andrew company. The same information is needed for the Sprint Nextel equipment. In view of the analysis of existing Sprint Nextel emitters described in the above-quoted passage on page 9 of the February 8`h opinion, Hammett & Edison could have included the information appellants seek in its certified RF Compliance Report. Further, as a Sprint consulting engineer who has "reviewed Sprint projects throughout California and around the country," (see February 80' opinion, page 11) Mr. Hammett of Hammett & Edison presumably had easy access to the identity and actual performance characteristics of the Sprint Nextel equipment deployed at 1 Blackfield Drive. The February 8`h opinion makes reference to OET-65, but conveniently fails to quote the relevant provisions on which appellants rely. February 25, 2010 FCC Advisory on RF Compliance On February 26, 2010 appellants received an FCC reply to a question on use of assumed rather than actual equipment in an RF compliance report. The question and answer appear in Attachment I to this statement. The answer was provided by FCC engineer Kwok Chan in Office of Engineering & Technology. Mr. Chan is a co-author of FCC OET Bulletin 65. In pertinent part, his answer states: "The exposure conditions at a site are evaluated with respect to the antenna and transmitter configurations established at the specific site, according to the maximum exposure conditions. This may include the maximum radiated output power from the various antennas, the relative separation of the antennas from each other and the general public, and other factors at the site that may influence the exposure conditions. Depending on the methods used for the assessment, measurements or numerical modeling, etc., the transmitter operating parameters must be conservative and representative of the actual exposure conditions for the results to support compliance." (emphasis added) -2-- Even assuming Sprint Nextel equipment data was somehow not available and that assumed data was justified, use of data from an Andrew Model RR90-17-02 PCS antennas is not a conservative assumption because those antennas are newer, presumably more efficient, and possibly less powerful than the existing Sprint Nextel antennas. Such an assumption is at best implausible in view of the Sprint Nextel equipment analysis the February 8`h opinion states was performed by Hammett & Edison and replicated by the opinion's author himself. March 2, 2010 Follow-up Inquiry to FCC Our initial FCC inquiry contained a generalized question with no factual context. A follow-up inquiry emailed early March 2nd to the FCC RF Safety Group reiterates our initial query but adds key facts. A copy of that email is in Attachment 2 to this statement. Our follow-up email query points out the use of assumed data from Andrew company antennas which are newer, presumably more efficient, and possibly less powerful than the existing Sprint Nextel equipment. Our email also points out that, according to the February 8`h opinion, Hammett & Edison actually did perform an assessment of each Sprint Nextel emitter but included none of that data in its certified RF Compliance Report. The question submitted to the FCC RF Safety Group is: "Under the circumstances outlined above, would the FCC expect data from the existing equipment not assumed equipment to be used when making co- location emissions calculations for an RF compliance report?" We are awaiting a reply to that question. Simplified Remedy for RF Compliance Report Requested We agree this matter does not require another noticed hearing. All that is needed is a supplemental certification letter from Hammett & Edison that augments the current RF Compliance Report with information identifying the manufacturer, model number, maximum effective radiated power wattage of the actual Sprint Nextel emitters, and the number of those emitters. The supplemental certification letter should include the equipment data log entries and analyses of Sprint Nextel emitters prepared by Hammett & Edison that are described on page 9 of February 8th opinion, perhaps as an appendix. Public Notice Issues We concur with the February Bch opinion recommendations on warning notices and signage in the vicinity of the proposed facilities. While there is an important public interest in having an informed citizenry on the realities and risks of RF technologies and on local RF activity, this appeal is not the best vehicle to purse such public information goals. We will endeavor to get back to Town officials with better ideas on how best to achieve those education objectives. Cnnrhi6nn The Town is entitled to a thorough and well-prepared RF compliance report that complies with OET-65 and reflects actual conditions. The compliance report on file has substantial deficiencies that can be cured. The Town Council beyond question has the power to approve that report as written, but it will act well within its authority if it directs an engineer-certified supplemental letter that addresses the above-stated concerns and augments the Planning Commission project file be submitted. A494ectfully subp44c Peter Pursley, Attorney for appellants Attachments (2) Gmail - Questions on OET Bulletin 65 RF Compliance Report requi... https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=35b58847ee&view=pt&sear... Peter Pursley <peterpursley. ph.d@gmail.com> Questions on OET Bulletin 65 RF Compliance Report requirements for co-located RF transmitters 3 messages Peter Pursley <peterpursley.ph.d@gmail. com> To: Kwok.Chan@fcc.gov Bcc: Peter Pursley <peterpursley.ph.d@gmail. com> Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:04 PM February 25, 2010 Kwok Chan, Engineer FCC Office of Engineering & Technology Columbia, MD RE: Questions on OET Bulletin 65 RF Compliance Report requirements for co-located RF transmitters Dear Mr. Chan, Thank you for your willingness to consider this matter. A local government in Marin County, California is considering final approval of new WiMax wireless broadband transmitting equipment to be co-located with Sprint cell phone transmission antennas that have been operational for about 14 years. The sufficiency of the RF Compliance Report submitted in support of the proposed co-located wireless facilities is in dispute. As you know, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology bulletin No. 65 ("OET-65") provides in part that, at multiple transmitter sites, all significant contributions to the RF environment should be considered, not just those fields associated with one specific source. When there are multiple transmitters at a given site collection of pertinent technical information about them will be necessary to permit an analysis of the overall RF environment by calculation or computer modeling." OET-65, p.33. The FCC reiterates and expands on this guideline with more comprehensive prescriptive language on the very same page: A T' P94E~- / o f 3 I ?O1 U 1 x:_10 P,%1 Gmail - Questions on OET Bulletin 65 RF Compliance Report requi... https://mall.google.com/mail/?ui=2&i1--35b58847ee&view=pt&sear... "When performing an evaluation for compliance with the FCC's guidelines, all significant contributors to the ambient RF environment should be considered, including those otherwise excluded from performing routine RF evaluations, and applicants are expected to make a good-faith effort to consider these other transmitters." OET-65, p.33 Our concerns that OET Bulletin 65 provisions for evaluating the proposed co-located RF transmitters have not been met can be expressed in the following question: "May an RF Compliance Report use hypothetical rather than actual RF transmitter technical characteristics for calculating the RF environment of co-located equipment if the identity of the actual equipment is readily ascertainable and there is no claim or showing of impracticality or sound engineering practice to justify the use of assumed, hypothetical data?" We believe the answer must be in the negative if the above-quoted, twice stated OET-65 directive to consider actual equipment within a good faith effort to calculate the ambient RF environment is to have any significance. Your reply to this question will enable our community to move forward on this project with confidence that OET-65 requirements will be satisfied. I understand that you will forward this inquiry and a copy of your response to FCC offices that can give a more formal analytical response should that become necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Peter Pursley, Ph. D., Attorney at Law 2 Carmel Way San Anselmo, CA 94960 Cell: (916) 972-1722 Kwok Chan <Kwok.Chan@fcc.gov> Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:15 AM To: Peter Pursley <peterpursley.ph.d@gmail.com> Cc: Ed Mantiply <Ed.Mantiply@fcc.gov>, Robert Weller <Robert.Weller@fcc.gov>, Kwok Chan <Kwok.Chan@fcc.gov> Mr. Purs ley : ~ Gmail - Questions on OET Bulletin 65 RF Compliance Report requi... https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=35b58847ee&view=pt&sear... The general requirements for RF exposure compliance at fixed sites with multiple transmitters/antennas are described in 47 CFR 1.1307(b)(3) of the FCC rules. The procedures to evaluate compliance at typical fixed-transmitter sites are explained in OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01. The exposure conditions at a site are evaluated with respect to the antenna and transmitter configurations established at the specific site, according to the maximum exposure conditions expected for the site. This may include the maximum radiated output power from the various antennas, the relative separation of the antennas from each other and the general public, and other factors at the site that may influence the exposure conditions. Depending on the methods used for the assessment, measurements or numerical modeling, etc., the transmitter operating parameters must be conservative and representative of the actual exposure conditions for the results to support compliance. Transmitting facilities contributing at least 50 of the relevant exposure limit at a particular location, as determined by calculation or measurement, are considered by the FCC to be significant with respect to evaluation (not exposure). In the case of an operating facility, the use of measured field strength (exposure) data are preferred to values obtained by calculation. In the case of proposed facilities or existing facilities for which measurement data are not readily available, it is preferable, but not strictly necessary, to use the actual technical parameters associated with the proposed or existing operation. In the absence of those technical parameters, it is acceptable to make reasonable and conservative assumptions about such parameters. In determining what is reasonable and conservative, the Judgment of a professional engineer, duly registered to practice in the state where the facility is located, and ha,.r_rg substantial experience in conducting RF exposure assessments, is generally acceptable to the FCC. I am providing you a preliminary response based provided. This is also copied to our RF Safety in Washington D.C. You may follow up with them additional concerns. Kwok Chan on information Group in OET at FCC if there are 6 74" :3 Gmail - Question about RF Compliance Report preparation methodology https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=35b58847ee&view=pt&sear... G Peter Pursley <peterpursley.ph.d@gmail.com> Question about RF Compliance Report preparation methodology message Peter Pursley <peterpursley.ph.d@gmail.com> Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:16 AM To: Ed Mantiply <Ed.Mantiply@fcc.org>, Weller Robert <Robert. Weller@fcc. org> Cc: Kwok.Chan@fcc.gov March 2, 2010 Ed Mantiply Ed.Mantiply(cDFCC.org Weller Robert Robert. Weller(a).FCC.org, cc: Kwok Chan Kwok. Chan@FCC. org RE: Question about RF Compliance Report preparation methodology FCC Engineer Kwok Chan recently provided me a very helpful preliminary response to a question on OET Bulletin 65 RF Compliance Report preparation and referred me to the RF Safety Group for further information. Our correspondence was copied to you. A Marin County, California town has before it a proposal for new wireless broadband equipment to be co-located in a shopping center along with Sprint-Nextel cell phone transmitters that are 14 years old. The RF Compliance Report projections of combined emissions of the co-located equipment uses performance characteristics of the actual equipment to be installed but also uses performance characteristics of assumed co-located equipment. In place of the actual Sprint-Nextel cell phone antennas, the compliance report assumes the performance characteristics of Andrew Model RR90-17-02 PCS antennas which are newer, presumably more efficient, and possibly less powerful than the antennas actually in place. No claim or showing of practical necessity or sound engineering practice was offered to justify the use of assumed data as allowed in OET Bulletin 65. The report simply states. "For the limited purposes of this study, it is assumed Sprint Nextel has installed Andrew Model RR90-17-02 PCS antennas... " In a surprising development, a February 8, 2010 letter from an attorney defending the RF Compliance Report as written states the licensed engineering firm of Hammett & Edison that prepared the compliance report actually did perform an emissions assessment of the existing Sprint-Nextel equipment. The letter states: "H & E's initial step was to log the existing Sprint Nextel RF emitters (antennas) on the referenced building and to assess for each emitter the specifics regarding the antenna pattern, power and frequency of emissions. To this log, H&E added the proposed RF emissions from Clearwire's facility, and then applied those data to the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 formula for computing RF emissions safety compliance with the General Population/ Uncontrolled emission standard." 7 2. 0 or- 2- 2010 1W 1" AM Gmail - Question about RF Compliance Report preparation methodology https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&i1--35b58847ee&view=pt&sear... Yet, no such data or combined data log on the Sprint Nextel RF antennas was included, relied on, or even mentioned in the certified RF Compliance Report submitted in support of the co-location proposal. OET Bulletin 65 prioritizes, prefers and expects a good faith effort to utilize actual equipment data when calculating combined performance characteristics in co-located facilities. See OET Bulletin 65, p.33. Under the circumstances outlined above, would the FCC expect data from the existing equipment not assumed equipment to be used when making co-location emissions calculations for an RF Compliance Report? Your reply to this question will enable our community to move forward on this project with confidence that OET-65 requirements will be satisfied. If you have any questions or need additional information please let me know. Peter Pursley, Ph.D., Attorney at Law 2 Carmel Way San Anselmo, CA 94960 Cell: (916) 972-1722 ~77-AcvA- f4--(ce-7-7/v 7_' 2 ? V,4-, Z - D 7 C To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting March 3, 2010 Agenda Item: Subject: 1 Blackfield Drive (Cove Shopping Center): Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the Installation and Operation of a Wireless Communications Facility; File #10903; Cove Shopping Center, Inc., Owner; WesTower Communications for Clearwire (Clear Wireless LLC), Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 212- Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Address: Assessor's Parcel Number File Number: Lot Size: General Plan: Zoning: Current Use: Owner: Applicant: BACKGROUND 1 Blackfield Drive 034-212-18 10903 3.9 acres NC (Neighborhood Commercial) NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Multi-tenant Building, including Blockbuster Video Cove Shopping Center LLC WesTower Communications for Clearwire LLC On January 13, 2010, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the installation and operation of a wireless communications facility (WCF) at 1 Blackfield Drive. On January 25, 2010, Mr. Peter Pursley filed a timely appeal (Exhibit A) of the approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Clearwire (Clear Wireless LLC) application consisted of installing antennas, microwave dishes, and remote radio units inside the existing false chimney on the Blockbuster Video building, and installing equipment cabinets and a small Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna adjacent to the west-facing end of the building. The facility would be used for broadband wireless network services, also called WIMAX. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 A detailed description and analysis of the project can be found in the Planning Commission staff report attached as Exhibit B. The Planning Commission's resolution conditionally approving the project is attached as Exhibit C, and adopted minutes for the Planning Commission meeting are attached as Exhibit D. GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL There are two grounds upon which the appeal is based: Ground #1: The approval was based on a defective RF (Radio Frequency) Compliance Report. Ground #2: Lack of Reasonable Public Notice of Additional RF Emissions As both of these appeal grounds involved questions regarding RF emissions, which are of a highly technical nature, Town staff retained an independent expert, Mr. Jonathan Kramer, to assist with the appeal processing. Mr. Kramer was instructed to review the RF Compliance Report submitted by the applicant, conduct his own independent RF emissions analysis, provide education and legal background regarding RF issues, and provide his professional legal and engineering opinion regarding the grounds raised in the appeal. Mr. Kramer's conclusions are that the RF emissions report submitted by the applicant complied with federal requirements and that public noticing provided by the Town complied with legal requirements. He therefore recommends denial of the appeal. Mr. Kramer's report and analysis are attached as Exhibit E. Mr. Kramer recommended in his report, at pp. 9-10, that an existing condition of approval regarding safety signage on the roof-top and on the equipment cabinet could be made more specific and suggested text to that effect. It should be noted that after being sent a copy of Mr. Kramer's report, the appellant attempted to file a revised appeal, which was rejected by Town staff on the basis of its filing after the deadline had passed to file an appeal. The Town's letter to that effect is attached as Exhibit F. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the writing of this report, there have been no public comments or communications received on this appeal. CONCLUSION The appeal lacks legal merit and should be denied. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1) Indicate its intent to deny the appeal. 2) Determine whether to attach the enhanced conditions of approval regarding roof- top and equipment cabinet signage as recommended by Mr. Kramer. 3) Direct staff to return with an appropriate resolution for adoption at the next meeting. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3 Cnl'n ( .£}(.![1t..': i.:.'i.P i y ' t...:' EXHIBITS A. Notice of Appeal B. Planning Commission staff report from January 13, 2010 (with attachments and late mail). C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-02. D. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 2010. E. Letter from Kramer Telecom Law Firm dated February 8, 2010. F. Letter from Town to Peter Pursley dated February 18, 2010. G. Approved plans d Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development S:IAdministrationlTown CouncillStaffReports120101March 3 DRAFTY) Blackfield Drive WCF appeal report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3 TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL E C E ~ V E JAN Z 5 2010 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON APPELLANT Name: Address: 2---MIA L/ Telephone • 2.'/ Z-2- (Work) (Home) ACTION BEING APPEALED Body: Date of Action: r' V Name of Applicant:- Nature of Application: GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages, if necessary) &'4111b r ?e-m , r-wlyz' ;0&7 41 b"/ 2.. co rt~L JR wtuttiI r, d A4 s 11cz ~diV 14 Last Day to File: r~ Date Received: Fee ?aid: r"If1 Date of Hearing: ~ ~ ~ Una January 2004 EXHIBIT NO.A Peter Pursley, Attorney at Law 2 Carmel Way, San Anselmo, CA 94960 (415) 453-5603; (916) 972-1722 California Bar #67202 Attorney in pro per, and for co-owners and tenants, 251 Cecelia Way, Tiburon TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL APPEAL OF TIBURON TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL AND OPERATE RADIO FREQUENCY EMITTING COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AT 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE, TIBURON Background WesTower Communications (a "Clearwire" affiliate) obtained a conditional use permit to add new radio frequency emitting wireless communication equipment in the Cove Shopping Center next to cell phone transmission equipment currently operated by Sprint Nextel. The Town Planning Commission approved the permit January 13, 2010 (File #10903). The FCC requires a radio frequency ("RF") compliance report that includes calculation of the combined equipment emissions levels at such facilities. WesTower's permit application included a consulting engineers' report of compliance with FCC human exposure limits to RF electromagnetic fields. (Staff Report, Exhibit 7). RF compliance reports are based on FCC Office of Engineering and Technology bulletin No. 65 ("OET-65") which specifies methodologies for calculating radiation exposure levels at multiple transmitter sites. Although RF facilities location permits cannot be denied on the basis of health concerns if FCC requirements are met, local authorities are not precluded from taking reasonable proactive measures to protect public health from known risks associated with RF emissions or promoting public awareness of potential problems associated with RF emissions. This appeal raises two contentions. First, that the FCC mandated RF compliance report contained in the application has fatal defects and must be redone. Second, that the conditions of the pending permit should be expanded to include notice to property owners and businesses near the proposed equipment operations before those operations commence. Grounds for Appeal A. Defective RF Compliance Report The decision granting a conditional use permit at 1 Blackfield Drive is appealed because the RF- Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report on which it relies does not adhere to the compliance calculation methodology contained in OET-65. Instead of using technical specifications of the actual Sprint equipment now in place as clearly specified in OET-65 when calculating RF compliance for the multiple transmitter site, the RF compliance report relies on assumed data rather than actual Sprint equipment data. This issue was raised before the Planning Commission in the public comment period and in written comments submitted by appellants at the 1-13-10 commission meeting. See Attachment 1. Nowhere in the RF compliance report is the substitution of assumed data for actual data explained or justified as a matter of practicality or sound engineering practice. Nor was such an explanation or justification offered at the public hearing after this objection was raised. Discussion FCC Office of Engineering and Technology bulletin No. 65 ("OET-65") provides in part that, at multiple transmitter sites, all significant contributions to the RF environment should be considered, not just those fields associated with one specific source. When there are multiple transmitters at a given site collection of pertinent technical information about them will be necessary to permit an analysis of the overall RF environment by calculation or computer modeling." OET-65, p.33. The FCC reiterates and expands on this guideline with more comprehensive prescriptive language on the very same page: "When performing an evaluation for compliance with the FCC's guidelines, all significant contributors to the ambient RF environment should be considered, including those otherwise excluded from performing routine RF evaluations, and applicants are expected to make a good-faith effort to consider these other transmitters. OET-65, p.33 The RF compliance report does not explain use of assumed equipment data in place of actual Sprint equipment data. The report doesn't claim that it was not possible or not practical to obtain Sprint data or that using hypothetical data in place of ascertainable Sprint equipment data constitutes sound engineering practice as permitted in OET-65. Instead, the compliance report attempts to gloss over this substantial omission. It states: "For the limited purposes of this study, it is assumed that Sprint Nextel has installed Andrew Model RR90-17-02 PCS antennas at an effective height of About 25 feet above ground and operates at a maximum effective radiated power of 1500 watts." (Staff Report, Exhibit 7, p. 2, paragraph 4.) See Attachment 2. The phrase "For the limited purposes of this study " is a meaningless qualifier; every study has "limited purposes." The identity of the Sprint equipment should be ascertained and its technical characteristics used to make RF compliance calculations for the proposed Cove Shopping Center RF equipment installation. The Town is entitled to an RF compliance report that complies with OET-65. Indeed, the Planning Commission staff report states: "Absolute compliance with FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65 is mandatory, and any violation shall be grounds for the Town to immediately terminate any permit..." (Staff Report, p.7, part C.1.) Remedy Requested Return the matter to the Town Planning Commission with instructions to require submission of an amended RF compliance report that includes emissions calculations based on the technical specifications of all Sprint equipment now in place at 1 Blackfield Drive. -2- B. Lack of Reasonable Public Notice of Additional RF emissions A separate ground for appeal is the need for reasonable public notice of additional RF emissions at the Cove Shopping Center to persons regularly in the RF emissions site vicinity such as nearby residents and persons employed at the Cove Shopping Center. This issue was raised before the Planning Commission in the public comment period and in written comments submitted by appellants at the 1-13-10 commission meeting. See Attachment 1. Discussion There are well founded concerns about the health ramifications of RF technologies. An epidemiological study done in 2004 by the German federal agency for radiation protection revealed a trebling of cancer risk for persons living within 400 meters (approximately 1,320 feet) of cell phone tower for a period of five years. See Attachment 3 for a summary of that study. Last month, the Sunnyvale, California City Council approved stricter requirements for RF emissions monitoring. See Attachment 4. Remedy Requested Expand the conditions of the pending conditional use permit to include written notice to residents, owners and businesses on or within 300 feet of the subject property prior to operation of WesTower`s equipment. Further public health initiatives appear to be highly desirable but are beyond the scope of this appeal. Respectfully submitted, <77 Peter Pursley, Attorney for appellants Attachments (4) Submitted: January 25, 2010 PETER PURSLEY, J.D., Ph.D. 2 Carmel Way, San Anselmo, CA 94960 PeterPursley.Ph.D@gmail.com; (415) 453-5603 California State Bar Member #67202 January 13, 2010 Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 - RE: Application of WesTower Communications for a wireless communications facility (WCF) at 1 Blackfield Drive, Tiburon (assessor's parcel #034-212-18) Dear Commissioners: My family owns a residential rental at 251 Cecelia Way within several hundred feet of the proposed WCF. The application states the additive effect with an AT&T antenna 520 feet way is negligible, but there is no discussion of the combined radio frequency power levels of the existing Sprint and proposed WesTower equipment in the same structure in the Cove Center. That is a significant omission with public health implications. The application is obviously not in compliance with the methodology for calculating combined radio frequency power levels prescribed by the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65E, Edition 97-01 (August 1997). It is beyond dispute that wireless communications technology has scientifically documented impacts on human physiology including adverse health effects. Those adverse effects include blood chemistry changes, cognitive impairment, headaches, sleep disruption, and longer term effects including tumors and malignant cancer. A list of studies on reported biological effects of various radio frequency power densities far below current federal radiofrequency standards is published at Wave-Guide.org and is in Attachment 1 to this letter. While the application states "It is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas," nowhere does the application state the project operations will not have any noticeable or adverse effects on persons in regular close proximity (e.g., within 2,500 feet) to the radio frequency radiation to be generated at the project site. A distance of 300 feet and commercial zoning does not make the project safe. Rather than assume or hope there will be no adverse effects on persons in regular proximity, is the applicant willing to fund a simple low cost health survey that would be designed jointly by local health experts and the applicant? Or perhaps a simpler alternative would be to give written notice to all persons living, working or receiving daycare within 2,500 feet of the project site that they should report any health problems to a common phone number in the county health department as well as their regular healthcare provider. A sobering article by the San Francisco Medical Society on the health dangers of radiofrequency radiation exposure expressly discusses antenna radiation and symptoms to look for is included as Attachment 2 to this letter. Respectfully, Peter Pursley Attachments (2) (abridged for clarity) Wave-Guide: Sage Associates Studies Matrix http://www.wave-guide.org/ I i brary/studies.html Reported Biological Effects From Radiofrequency Non-Ionizing Radiation The following studies indicate biological effects at exposure levels far below what would be explained by "thermal effects", and well within the range people are commonly exposed to every day. NOTE: Most of these exposures lie FAR BELOW the current advisory exposure standards in the US, which are based on thermal effects only. • Studies by Increasing Power Density • Studies by Increasing Specific Absorption Rate • Standards and Background Levels • Listing of Full Citations Studies by Increasing Power Density 'Power Density Reported Biological Effects References 0.1 p W/cm2 (0.001 W/Kg EEG brain waves are altered when exposed to cell phone signal Von Klitzing, 1995 SAR) `0.16 W Cm2 h / Motor function, memory and attention of school children affected (Latvia) Kolodynski, 1996 j I 0.168 - 1.053 Irreversible infertility in mice after 5 generations of exposure to i Magras & Xenos, pW/Cm2 I cell phone signals from antenna park 1997 i - 2 lO.2 8 11W/Cm jwo-fold increase in childhood leukemia from AM-FM exposure Hocking, 1996 1.3 - 5.7 ' 2 I Two-fold increase in leukemia in adults from AM RF exposure Dol k 1997 r i ~1 W/Cm 2.4 {~W/cm2 Interference with medical devices at least up to 1000 MHz I Joyner, 1996 i 2 IW/cm 12 - 4 Direct effect of RFR on ion channels in cells/opening of D'InZ20, 1988 ~ acetycholine channels I W/cm2 '4 - 10 Visual reaction time in children is slowed//lower memory i Chiang, 1989 N function in tests ' ' S - 10 u W/cm2 Impaired nervous system activity Dumanski, 1974 i 10 W CI'n2 ! / Significant differences in visual reaction time and reduced memory function !Chiang, 1989 10 - 25 pW/cm2 !Changes in the hippocampus of the brain Belokrinitskiy' 1982 30 pW/cm2 (0.015 W/Kg (Immune system effects - elevation of PFC count (antibody producing cells) i Veyret, 1991 SAR) E i 2 W/cm 50 lAn 18% reduction in REM sleep (important to memory and Mann, 1996 P (learning functions) :100 W/Cm2 P iChanges in immune system f nction . lJiA.r-A , Elekes, 1996 ! t7_1 rcTrc_.. i c `r~ r74=:& J I of 4 1 / 13/2010 5:48 AM San Francisco Medical Society I Microwave And Radiofrequency Ra... http://www.stms.ora/AMJ I empIate. ctm'.'Section=Home&tempIate=/... Member Login I Join SFMS Site Map I Search Microwave And Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: A Groiiing Environmental Health Crisis:' Lk Ioil t St lti (Andy Sacic tcnrbctship Can radiofrequency radiation (R.FR) adversely affect vital processes in the human bodv'> SF r•tedicine 1•tagazine The answer is clearly yes. Can this occur at environmental levels of exposure? The answer is clearly yes. Which processes? What levels? This short paper is an introduction to what » Article :archives we know 'and do not knows about RF: R. Hearth Cam News 5ioeffects that are reported to result from RF exposure include changes in ceii rnembrane AtIL'CT1iSIR~ J Opportunities function, major changes ii. calcium metabolism and cellular signal com;;unication, cell , proliferation,, activation of proto-oncogenes, activation of HSP heat shock proteins as if of E ents Calendar has occurred when it has not and cell death. Resulting effects reported in the heating scientific literature include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, increased free radical Physician Resources production, cell stress and premature aging, changes in brain. function including memory loss, learning impairment, headaches and fatigue, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative Physician Pindet' conditions, reduction, in melatonin secretion and cancer. he virtual revolution in science taking place now is based on a growing recognition that non-thermal or iov, intensity RF Contact Ls exposure can be detected in living tissues and results in well-defined bioeffects. l meracneN t'n•paredness The most rapidly growing environmental DGllutant in today's environment is probably electromagnetic fields (EMF) including radiofrequency radiation. Public exposure to electromagnetic radiation (radiofrequency and microv,ave) is crowing exponentially Print this Page worldwide with the introduction and use of cordless phones, cellular phones, pagers and Email to a friend antennas in communities designed to transmit their RF signals. Cell phone exposures ca;, be intense enough to cause DNA damage and/or failure to repair DNA damage in the brain:. It's not necessarily the heating that causes damage. It appears to be exposure to non-thermal levels of RFR that interferes with normal body processes in the brain, skull, ear and nerves of the head, neck and face. Casual use (a few hours per month) has not yet been linked to increased braii-i tumors; but heavy users like some business travelers, realtors and physicians have not yet been studied as a group so any reassurance given to cell phone users in recent media coverage of the Muscat study, for example, is false reassurance. The Muscat (JAMA 2001) study compared infrequent users (less than one hour per month) to frequent users (greater then 10 hours per month) effectively blurring any effect for users who may bill 1000 or 2000 or even 2500 minutes per mono;. However, even this study did report a doubling of risk for neUroepithelial tumors. And a tripling of eye cancer (uveal melanoma, was recently reported in cell phone users. Tl;e first cancer related to cordless phone use was reported in S+^eeden where such use was linked to development of an angiosarcoma. Sarre on,coicgists and brain cancer surgeons report they have excised brain tumors positioned mono the antenna alignment and on the side of the head as t„e cell phone has beer? used in heavy cell phone users. Although the U.S. media has been relatively silent on reporting studies linkino RFR to health effects, this is not true of western European countries, Australian, Israel, the former USSR and China. Chronic long-term exposure to lower-level RFR from wireless antennas Is also linked to some of these effects, particularly on the immune system, mental function, sleep interference and on DNA. These exposures are reported in the range of 0.1 to 10 or 20 mic watts per centimeter squared exposure (a measure of power density in the air). An alternate measure is SAR or specific absorption rate which tells how much energy deposition occurs inside the body (how much RFR is absorbed by different tissues). SARs as low as 0.0024 Watts/kilogram whole body exposure at cell phone freq'uiencies are reported to cause serious interference with body processes (':n this case DNA damage and/or DI "A repair processes). Long-term and cumulative exposure to such massively increased RF has no precedent in history. These exposures simply did not exist 150 years ago. Life on earth evolved vvrtn vanishingly small RF exposures; most of that from, natural lightning. We have increased l:he background nonionizing radiation by 1012. There is no conclusive scientific evidence on the safety or risk of such exposures, but a growing. body of scientific evidence reports such bioeffects and adverse health effects are possible, if not probable. The weight of the evidence that bioeffects occur with RFR exposure is beyond argument and some of the evidence suggests that serious health effects may result, particuiarly from cumulative or chronic exposure. Scientific study on cumulative effects is very incomplete, and sonie studies report. that low-intensity chronic ex Posure may produce permanent adverse health oonsequenc A-/ AC..iA47-OJ7_ 1 of 3 1/ 13/2010 3:16 PM San Francisco Medical Society I Microwave And Radiofrequency Ra... http://www.sfms.ora,/AM/Tempiate.cfin`?Section=Home&template=/... Public Police and the Precautionar;r Principle Public policies to address the issue of decision making in the face of this scientific uncertainty are evolving but are far behind the growth curve of wireless communication. The global infrastructure will be in place before we know what the ?Health risks will be. The precautionary principle (erring on the side of conservatism) is frequently promoted by public health advocates giver: the massive'public health risk that is possible if such exposure is carcinogenic or has other adverse bioeffects. Even if the risk to an individual is slight (which is at present suspected but not conclusively proven), the sheer number of people around the globe wl,o may be at risk makes this policy choice of utmost importance. At present, no U.S. aoency systematically monitors health effects from radiofrequency/microwave radiation. The wireless industry was recently required to provide mobile phone buyers with the SAP, (specific absorption rate or a measure of energy absorbed into the brain from mobile phones). The industry has stated it will not post SARs on the box, but place it hidden inside to prevent comparison shopping. The FGA is allowing this as compliance with its recommendation to provide meaningful information to the public. The United States has a de facto policy of "post-sales surveillance" with respect to mobile phones. This means mobile phones can be sold to the public and only after years of use mic,ht there be studies to characterize what health consequences, if any, have arisen as a result. In shorter terms, "we are the experiment" for health effects. "Post -sales surveillance" is inadequate to protect existing users. And given that the U.S. has no research funding for RF exposure; there will be no systematic look at what mobile phone use does to people. Weight Of The Scientific Evidence For \onther•inal Radiofregtiency.'N-1icrowave Radiation Health Effects While the scientific community continues to study and understand the physical (and quantum mechanic) basis for electromagnetic effects on living systems, there is little to protect or inform the public about consequences of unlimited reliance on these new technologies. For all the poter,tia! good that such inventions bring to the U.S., including the immeasurable benefit of the telecom;~"iu,-iications/Internet revolution, we must be vigilant about -what consequences may cone uninvited. The evidence for an association between RFR and bioeffects in living systems spans the entire range frog, effects on individual atoms (calcium) and molecules (DNA or the genetic code in each living cell) to humans and other mammalian species. in the past 50 years, experimentation across the electromagnetic spectrum of frequencies has found replicable bioeffects on everything from mice to humans. The cascade of biological, chemical and physical everts that occur ir; living systems in response to RFR is better understood as the multi-disciplinary I L, scientific community and its science matures. Disease is not the only endpoint of this research. The potential medicinal applications of RFR treatment may also offer unparalleled opportunities for healing and wellness as we gain understanding of how the body receives, processes and responds to the subtle information contained in radiofrequency/microwave energy. Symptonts of E;lectrosensiti~ity,`i:;lectrostress The environmental illness is sometimes termed electrostress or technostress, electrosensitivity or electric allergy. Patients may comment on minor, annoying symptoms or they may be severely debilitated. EMF/RFR exposures can interfere with sleep, work and normal life. What kinds of symptoms might a physician hear from a patient? The rnost common complaints are: headaches, dizziness and nausea; failing memory, confusion and spatial disorientation; pain and burning feeling in the eyes; parched, thirsty or dry feeling that is not quenched with drinking; ringing in the ears (tinnitus or similar chronic ear-noise}; irregular heartbeat and palpitations (shaky stressed feeling); fatigue or exhaustion; insominia and.- sleep difficulties; skin rashes and sunburn-like redness and swelling of face and neck; burning or tingling of face and extremities and light sensitivity. SYMPtoms quickly improve when away from Eiti FIRER. SOUrces, particulariy wher, the patient moves away from computers, interior fluorescent lighting, transformers, wireless antenna exposures, cell phones and cordless phones, appliances and out of proximity to freeways, electrical substations and power lines, airports, military bases and doppler or other radar installations. All these are potential sources of higher than normal EMF/RFR exDOSUre. Symptoms return very quickly on returning to the original environment. ever time, it appears that sensitivity is increased to sr'nalier and smaller EMF/RFR exposures, Treatment is not well established, since there is little to no agreement about whether this is a true medical syndrome. Patients report that eliminating exposures to Eh1F/RFR is the primary way they deal with their symptoms. Occupational exposures that result in chronic symptoms generally cannot be treated without a change in work environment. Some researchers find that antioxidants can retard or eliminate RFR effects in cellular studies (probably by reducing free-radical damage or cellular stress known to occur wit`' RFR exposure). Some Practical :Advice Alhat About Cordless Rhones in Your Horne (As Oppose,.- to Moblie or rvloblle Phones) Cordless phones that you use around the house nave far lower levels of RFR, but they still produce RFR that a land line does not. In preference, use a land line, then a cordless, then a mobile phone for continual use, particularly for children Zf/'~Ir) 1/ 13!2010 3:16 PM 7 of ; San Francisco Medical Society ( Microwave And Radiofrequency Ra... http://www.sf-ns.org/AM/Template.ctm'!Section=Home&template=/... What About Davin; and Usinc a Cell Phone at the Sarre Time? Cell phone use by a driver of a car increases the risk of accident by 4 X (a four hundred percent risk) which is equivalent to driving under the influence of alcohol. 7 his ,Yay be due both Lo the distraction and to physical effects of cell phone RFR or. the brain, eye and body of the cell phone user. Are Children at Any Greater Risk? Probably, since children are growing and their cells are turning over- faster than adults. Many of the studies linking power lines and cancer show that children are particularly sensitive to low EMF levels from chronic exposure and develop leukemias in response. The use of "kiddy mobile phones" with a button for mom and a button for dad are terrible ideas at this point. Second-Nand Radiation if you are sitting or standing near a person using a mobile phone, be aware that you are within their radiation pattern for a few feet in all directions. If you are using a mobile phone in the car, your passenger and very possibly your kids in the back seat are within the radiation pattern of the mobile phone. Involuntary exposure to P.FR may ultimately be viewed as unacceptable as to 'second-;land smoke'. In other countries like 3apan, there are mobile phone jammers that can be used to kill mobile phone transmissions. They are popular in esJtaurants, theaters and on th1e! subway. They cover a large room area. lYlnf~t to re .el~ Towers in NeiQ111Jo -hoo s? It is worrisome that the installation of antennas go up in neighborhood iocatiors, near schools, churches and hornes. These wireless antennas expose people to involuntary, chronic RFR. Low levels of RFR, which have been shown to be bioactive, are associated with changes in cell proliferation and DtiA damage. Unfortunatly, local agencies are prevented `rcm considering RFR health and safety issues in siting/zoning. The FCC is in charge of RFR; the current FCC standard is 1010 liW/cm2. But some scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the 0.91 to 190 PW1`cm2 range (far lower). Other countries limit public exposure to 0.1 p /cm2 in recognition of bioeffects and potential adverse health effects of nontherrnal RFR exposure (Salzburg). What Are Scientists and Public Policy Researchers Saying About RFR? The Vienna Resolution (October 1995) provided a consensus statement signed by 16 of the world's leading bioelectromagnetics researchers. It says there is scientific agreen•nent that biological effects from low intensity RF exposures are established. It also says that existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. That means, rare safe exposure can be established. it also urges that there be public participation in making decisions about setting limits and advises that technical information be made available for comparison of EMF exposure in communication devices so that users car. make informed decisions for prudent avoidance of EMF. The Salzburg Resolution (tune 2000) was adopted at the international Conference on Cell Tower Siting and would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than 0.1 microwatt./centimeter squared. This would reduce public exposure below 9.1 pW/cm2 in all places. It is a limit that takes into account nonthermal RF bioeffects and reported health effects. At What Point Do We AdOPt Strategies that NYe Protective of Public Health7 The basis for decision-making about a relationship between electromagnetic fleids, radiofrequency and microwave radiation and adverse health effects at low intensity exposures rests on two key areas. The first is the "weight of the scientific evidence" pointing to a relationship betweeen RF/ MW and illness. The scientific evidence needs Lo be reported to decision-rnakers in a format that is concise, understandable and accurate. The second is definition of the basis on which the evidence is judged to be sufficient to take interim or permanent public health steps to reduce risk. Conclusive scientific evidence should not be implicitly or explicitly set as the goal required before any action can be taken to limit public exposure to RF'!MW from.. wireless communications. Given the potential for a very large world-wide public Health impact if even a small health risk is present, interim public health actions should be proportionately triggered to the weight of scientific evidence as it grows in support of adverse health effects at low-intensity exposure levels. For further information contact Sage Associates at sage@silco -colm and visit Sageassociates.net on the web. A technical manuscript on Radiofrequency Radiation Health Studies is available at a nominal charge for copy and shipping. Ask for Testimony to the UK and Scottish Parliaments by Sage Associates. Cindy Sage is the owner of Sage Associates, an envir onn?entai consulting firm locatec' in Montecito. C.aiif7rnia. She has been involved in E^?F issues a5 a land use consultant and public Rolic;+' researcher since 1982. Her firm specializes Jr? land use planning where ErN1F computer modefinc is per.`ormed to predict setback= for nnagn.etic fields. About SFtAIS I membership E SF Medicine fYfagazine ! SFMS Action 'ale;,,s Advertising Opportunities ' Calendar of Events (Physician Resources j Patients Resources ; Contact Us Physician Finder 200 San Francisco Medical Society. All rights reserves. Staff LoOft MCN / f ; 1 /13/2010 3:16 PM Clearwire, LLC - Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-SF00503A) 1 Blackfield Drive - Tiburon, California about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the rna:{imum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the alculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Clearwire, including drawings by SDG Architecture and Engineering, dated August 27, 2009. it is proposed to mount three Kathrein Model 840-10054 di: ectional panel BRS antennas inside an enclosure, configured to resemble a chimney, above the roof of a orie-story building in the Cove Shopping Center, located at 1 Blackfield Drive in Tiburon. The antennas would be mounted with 2° downtilt at an effective height of about 25 feet above ground and would be oriented at about 120° spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 970 watts. Presently mounted within the same enclosure are similar antennas for use by Sprint Nextel. For the limited purposes of this study, it is assumed that Sprint Nextel has installed Andrew Model RR90-17- 02 PCS antennas at an effective height of about 25 feet above ground and operates at a maximum effective radiated power of 1,500 watts. AT&T Mobility has similar antennas mounted on a pole about 520 feet away. Due to the physical separation of the Ciearwire site from that of AT&T, the additive effect of operations at either site on those at the other is negligible in teriTIS of compliance with the exposure standards. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS CW0503598 SAN' FRi,kr.Cisco - ~ Page 2 of'4 The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer Horst Eger, Klaus Uwe Hagen, Birgitt Lucas, Peter Vogel, Helmut Voit Published in Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 17,4 2004, as: `Einfluss der raumlichen Nahe von Mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die Krebsinzidenz' Summary Following the call by Wolfram Konig, President of the Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz (Federal Agency for radiation protection), to all doctors of medicine to collaborate actively in the assessment of the risk posed by cellular radiation, the aim of our study was to examine whether people living close to cellular transmitter antennas were exposed to a heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumors. The basis of the data used for the survey were PC files of the case histories of patients between the years 1994 and 2004. While adhering to data protection, the personal data of almost 1,000 patients were evaluated for this study, which was completed without any external financial support. It is intended to continue the project in the form of a register. The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres from the cellular transmitter site, which has been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier. In the years 1999-2004, ie after five years' operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area. Key words: cellular radiation, cellular transmitter antennas, malignant tumours The rapid increase in the use of mobile telephony in the last few years has led to an increasing number of cell phone transmission masts being positioned in or near to residential areas. With this in mind, the president of the German governmental department for protection against electromagnetic radiation (Bundesamtes fur Strahlenschutz) Wolfram Konig, has challenged all doctors to actively help in the work to estimate the risks from such cell phone masts. The goal of this investigation was therefore to prove whether on not people living near to cell phone masts have a higher risk of developing cancerous tumours. The basic data was taken from the medical records held by the local medical authority (Krankenkasse) for the years 1994 to 2004. This material is stored on computer. In this voluntary study the records of roughly 1,000 patients from Naila (Oberfranken) were used, respecting the associated data protection laws. The results from this study show a significantly increased likelihood of developing cancer for the patients that have lived within 400 metres of the cell phone transmission mast (active since 1993) over the last ten years, in comparison to those patients that live further away. In addition, the patients that live within 400 metres tend to develop the cancers at a younger age. For the years 1999 to 2004 (ie after five or more years of living with the cell phone transmission mast), the risk of developing cancer for those living within 400 metres of the mast in comparison to those living outside this area, was three times as high. Introduction A series of studies available before this investigation provided strong evidence of health risks and increased cancer risk associated with physical proximity to radio transmission masts. Haider et at. reported in 1993 in the Moosbrunn study frequent psychovegetive symptoms below the current safety limit for electromagnetic waves (1). In 1995, Abelin et al. in the Swiss- Schwarzenburg study found dose dependent sleep problems (5:1) and depression (4:1) at a shortwave transmitter station that has been in operation since 1939 (2). In many studies an increased risk of developing leukaemia has been found; in children near transmitter antennas for Radio and Television in Hawaii (3); increased cancer cases and general mortality in the area of Radio and Television transmitter antennas in Australia (4); and in England, 9 times more leukaemia cases were diagnosed in people who live in a nearby umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft 1 17 1 4/2004 A)PY06?+-1- -+T7A42 #"6KrF 3 Sunnyvale set to begin stricter monitoring of cell phone tower emissto... http://www.mercurynews.com/sunnyvale/ci-14010"389 SUnn a e'Ybur n."s, your views, your life Sign In I Register I Newsletters THIOAN Powered by The Mercury News Subscribe I e-Edition I Home Delivery I Mobile I Mobile Alerts I RSS HONE NEWS BUSINESS TECH SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT BAYAREA LMNG OPINION Mr TOWN HELP JOBS CARS REAL ESTATE CLASSIFIED SHOPPING PLACE AD i4, She Web Search by YAHOO! - San Jose, CA Novir.42°F High:52°F Low40°F city or zip a _ Most Viewed Most E-Mailed (From the last 12 hours) Reprint Print l':d Emau Font Resize Adve rli cement 1. Same-sex marriage foe: Ban keeps Satan at bay 2. California Layoffs Database: See if your company is planning big... 3. Whitman pours in cash, Poizner pours on criticism 4. South Bay bears brunt of storm- induced power outages 5. It's soaking. But the drought's not over Just yet 6. Whitman opens wide lead in Calif. governor's race Top Classifieds REAL E A 7005 U 5 SUBARU 2005 Legacy .SGT Ltd... Click for Details JAGUAR 2000 X38... Click for Details PORSCHE '48... Click for Details GMC 2005 Canyon Crew ab,_ Click for Details VOLVO 2005 560&... Click for Details WET & DRY B... Click for Details DUMP, 6'X10', $3450 nclosed... Click for Details CASH For Donations! ovate Y... Click for Details ALL Lisrnass Sunnyvale set to begin stricter monitoring of cell phone tower emissions By Tiffany Camey Sunnyvale Sun Posted: 12/16/2009 12:11:12 PM PST Updated: 12/16/2009 12:11:13 PM PST Sunnyvale will monitor cell phone towers more closely starting Thursday when a stricter city program kicks off, allowing more frequent testing of radio frequency emissions. . Council approved the new requirements in September after the city experienced an upsurge in telecommunications applications that prompted residents to rally for stricter testing. Residents said they were concerned about health issues related to radio frequency emissions. City planning officer Trudi Ryan said the federal government sets and controls emissions standards, but the city can require more frequent testing. 'We are not going to wait for a complaint," Ryan said. 'We are going to monitor it on a more regular basis." RF emission testing was previously completed at the time of installation or renewal of the permit, which expired every five years. The newest regulation lengthens the permit's life to 10 years but requires proof of RF emissions and noise levels every two years. The new regulations come at a time when telecommunication devices-antennas, panels and dishes used to assist in wireless communication services-are multiplying. The city has seen more applications from wireless providers, including Verizon Wireless, Sprint PCS and Metro PCs, for permission to mount equipment on poles or other structures to provide wireless service to their customers. From Oct. 23 to Nov. 23, the city approved five applications for installation in the city. Advertisement As of Nov. 23, there were 110 facilities on 67 different sites ranging from monopoles, utility poles, church roofs, chimneys or faux trees. There are 23 monopole locations in the city. The pole that serves the highest number of carriers is located behind the Elks Lodge on N. Pastoria Avenue. The seventh wireless carrier for that location was approved in October. While the city has the authority to deny or approve each application, the federal government largely regulates the devices through the Telecommunications Act, which generally requires local communities to allow these types of uses. Ryan said city approval of each application depends on the zoning district or proximity to residential zones, aesthetics and potential noise associated with ground equipment. Industrial and commercial zones are preferred locations and have a lesser review process than those near residential property. The review process could come in the form of an administrative, planning commission or city council hearing. Applications go before city council only on appeal. "Essentially, the closer [proposed devices] are to residential, the higher level of review," Ryan said. Residences and apartments cannot lease space to wireless providers. Property in a residential zoning district without a residential use, such as a church, can apply for a telecommunications facility on its property. 1 of 2 1/22/20 10 10:40 AM 15 ~%Di 3ff Z,cAkrcurq?!`a~vs ! 1:. Sunnyvale set to begin stricter monitoring of cell phone tower emissio... http://www.mercurynews.corrVsmnyvale/ci_ 14010389 "If there is an existing tower or pole, it is preferred over erecting a new pole," Ryan said The city also has the ability to regulate aesthetics, which is a large part of what it does, Ryan said. "We encourage those faAAade-mounted facilities that integrate into the architecture." All of the providers have lease agreements with the property owner. There are a few instances where the city leases property to wireless providers. Sunnyvale isn't the only city to seek more control over towers. This year, Los Angeles County voted to seek legislation to repeal the portion of the Telecommunications Act that limits local authorities ability to regulate facilities based on health and environmental effects. The city council in Portland, Ore., also passed a resolution to work with federal agencies to update studies on potential health effects. Sunnyvale city leaders could review telecommunication guidelines and requirements next year. The council is set to rank study issues in January. ■ Reprint BdOKMRRK ■ print E, -,Email ~ Font Resize ( Return to Top Comments We are pleased to let readers post comments about an article. Please increase the credibility of your post by including your full name and city in the body of your comment FAO: Article commenting how-tos and tips Recent Comments Be the first to post a comment Post Your Comment Log in to forums to post a comment Local News Herhold Pizarro Fisher obituaries Special AMC movie times in Cupertino, Santa Clara Los Gatos boys, girls basketball teams are rolling in give autistic kids a chance for unrestricted fun De Anza, El Camino play Stalled Sunnyvale Town Center is focus of city's Sunnyvale resident asks for review of ethics code five-year plan after ex-mayor speaks out Public pressuring Sunnyvale to re-examine publicly Foothill-DeAnza college officials considering whether funded campaigns to seek parcel tax Sunnyvale's 'Guitar Man' dies; he was hit by car Sunnyvale light firm will move to East Bay along Highway 101 Moms Urged to Go Back to School Obama Backs Insu rance Regulation Obama Approves Credit Card Bill Financial Aid Programs Expanded for Drivers Pay $44/mo on Avg for Car Americans Urged to Take Advantage. Those Who Qualify, Insurance. Start Saving Today! www.ClassesUSA.com/Grants Auto -Insura nce- Experts.co m www.LowerMyBills.com/Debt Ads by Yahoo! Copyright © 2010 - San Jose Mercury News Help/Contact I Site Map I Advertise I Home Delivery I Copyright I Privacy Policy and Terms of Use I About MediaNews Group I RSS I Ethics Policy I About Bay Area News Group 1 w+ 1Q NY'Sc7Cri#OC~I 2 of 2 1/22/2010 10:40 AM To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 2010 Agenda Item: Subject: 1 Blackfield Drive; File #10903; Conditional Use Permit for the Installation and Operation of a Wireless Communications Facility; Cove Shopping Center, Inc., Owner; WesTower Communications for Clearwire (Clear Wireless LLC), Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 212-18 PROJECT DATA Address: Assessor's Parcel Number: File Number: T.ot Size: General Plan: Zoning: Current Use: Owner: Applicant: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 Blackfield Drive 034-212-18 10903 3.9 acres NC (Neighborhood Commercial) NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Multi-tenant Building, including Blockbuster Video Cove Shopping Center LLC WesTower Communications for Clearwire LLC Clearwire (Clear Wireless LLC) has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to operate a wireless communications facility (WCF) on property located at 1 Blackfield Drive (the Cove Shopping Center). The WCF would consist of installing antennas, microwave dishes, and remote radio units inside the existing false chimney on the Blockbuster Video building, and installing equipment cabinets and a small Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna adjacent to the west-facing end of the building. The facility would be used for broadband wireless network services, also called WIMAX (see Exhibit 2). This type of technology turns the entire coverage area into a broadband wireless internet-served area, whether it is accessed from a home, office or vehicle. The facility would be co-located with an existing Sprint WCF facility, and would utilize the same false chimney and screened equipment area used by Sprint. Clearwire is a new wireless communications entrant to the Tiburon Peninsula. This facility is part of a series of five (5) installations proposed to provide service coverage for portions of the surrounding Peninsula vicinity (see Exhibit 3). The proposed sites include one site in Strawberry, one site in Eagle Rock, and three sites in Tiburon, as follows: TOWN OF TIBURON E1~FLMIT NO.. 1 OF 13 ~~i.~ifl!"llt"l~; ~~,i)1T1J71t4:71t:?E1 ~'1~~:'f'I:tClp? Januar- ?010 ■ Cove Shopping Center, 1 Blackfield Drive, Tiburon ■ Southern Marin Fire Station, 308 Reed Boulevard, Strawberry ■ Eagle Rock Professional Building, 7 North Knoll Road, Eagle Rock ■ Belvedere Tennis Club, 700 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon ■ Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon The Tiburon Town Hall application is also scheduled on this agenda, while the Belvedere Tennis Club application, which was filed later, is not yet ready for public hearing. BACKGROUND The Cove Shopping Center has been used as a WCF site since 1997, when the Town approved the Sprint facility. The Sprint WCF permit was renewed in 2000 and again in 2007 and is in good standing. No public comments were received during either renewal hearing and the Town is not aware of any problems or complaints regarding the Sprint facility. ANALYSIS Coverage Areas Maps showing the projected service area for the Tiburon Peninsula region (from all five proposed sites) and for the 1 Blackfield Drive facility alone, are attached as Exhibit 4. The coverage areas for individual facilities and the combined facilities are somewhat smaller than those seen by the Commission on prior WCF applications. This is because Clearwire operates at a higher frequency with a slightly weaker signal that is somewhat more subject to obstruction by structures and trees, thus reducing the signal penetration rate. Clearwire estimates the coverage area is about 20% smaller than a typical wireless phone carrier area using older technology. Components of the Project The components of the project are as follows: ■ Three (3) antennas, each 42 inches high by 13 inches wide by 3 inches deep, installed within the framework of the existing false chimney, concealed behind RF-transparent material that will visually match the false chimney exterior in texture and color ■ Three (3) 26 inch diameter microwave dishes, installed within the false chimney; same method of concealment ■ Three (3) remote radio units each measuring 19 inches high by 15 inches wide by 6 inches deep, installed on the building wall behind an existing wooden screen ■ One (1) equipment cabinet measuring 55 inches high, 29 inches wide and 29 inches deep, located behind an existing equipment screen at the western building wall ■ One (1) GPS antenna measuring 3 inches in height by 4 inches in depth, located near the equipment cabinet. Photo simulations are attached as Exhibit 5 and additional details and specifications are attached as Exhibit 6. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 13 t7 P.i.ilITT) 1Cl.,.; ~..t)[i:31Cl.lS:i1Oil :_'I:tCir, ,JantAatry l`: , 7_1010 Wireless Communications Facilities Standards and Criteria In 2008, the Town adopted revised both its ordinance and its standards for WCFs. The updated WCF Standards state that the following general requirements apply to WCFs: A. Development Standards. Consistency with General Plan and Municipal Code. The proposed facilities shall be consistent with the Tiburon General Plan, these Standards and any other applicable regulation set forth in the Tiburon Municipal Code. Discussion: Policy L U-21 of the Land Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan states that "wireless service providers are strongly discouraged from locating their communications facilities in residential or open space areas, or near schools or day-care facilities. " The project site is located in a commercial area that does not contain any schools or day-care facilities, although there is a day care facility across Tiburon Boulevard at the Westminster Presbyterian Church in unincorporated Marin County, which is over 300 feet away. Policy LU-22 states that "wireless service providers shall be required to minimize the visual impacts of their communications facilities to the maximum extent feasible. " The proposed facility would have minimal visual impact. Compliance with the Town's WCF Standards is described in detail in the following sections of this staff report. 2. No portion of an antenna, support structure or any related equipment shall be located on or within a distance of one hundred (100) vertical feet of the Tiburon Ridge, as delineated in the Tiburon General Plan. Discussion: The proposed WCF site is not located within 100 vertical feet of the Tiburon Ridge. 3. Not more than one (1) monopole antenna structure shall be permitted at any WCF location, except at a Town-approved shared-location site. Discussion: The proposed WCF would involve building-mounted antennas within the framework of the existing false chimney. There is no monopole antenna structure at this location and no additional monopole would be installed as part of this facility. 4. No portion of any antenna, support structure or related equipment shall overhang a property line that is not part of the subject WCF site at any time. Discussion: The proposed antennas and appurtenant equipment would not extend beyond any property line. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 13 }~i~U1llltl.~ ~,{)C?'itT11551{fit! ~.'!'_'~:'i ll?,~, 5. Setbacks. Freestanding monopole antenna structures shall be set back at least fifty percent (50%) of the monopole height from all property lines, and one hundred percent (100%) of the monopole height from any adjacent residentially-zoned property. Discussion: The proposed WCF would not involve a monopole antenna structure. 6. Height Limits. Antennas, support structures, and related equipment shall comply with building height limitations in all zones, but may exceed such height limits by up to three (3) feet pursuant to Section 16-5.6.7(b) of the Tiburon Municipal Code. These height limits shall not apply to antennas of amateur radio operators when licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Discussion: The antennas would be located in the framework of an existing false chimney and would comply with height limitations. 7. Unless otherwise required by Town, county, state or federal rules or regulations, WCFs shall have a non-reflective finish and shall be painted a color or colors consistent with the predominant background color(s), as determined by the acting body. Discussion: RF transparent material comprising the false chimney would be used to conceal the antennas and other equipment within the framework of the existing false chimney. As with the existing Sprint installation, the presence of the antennas and equipment would be visually indistinguishable from street level. 8. All WCFs shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, California Fire Code and rules and regulations imposed by state and federal agencies. Discussion: Compliance with the provisions of these applicable codes shall be determined during the building permit process prior to installation of the facility. 9. The smallest, lowest and least visible antennas and support structures as possible shall be installed that will reasonably accommodate the operator's communication needs. The applicant shall specify which antennas and support structures were evaluated, and describe the process used to select the proposed antenna(s) and support structures. Discussion: Antennas will be small and fully enclosed in the existing false chimney, which will serve as the support structure. 10. The Town shall retain the authority to limit the number of antennas and related equipment at any site in order to minimize potential visual and other impacts. Discussion: The additional antennas and equipment should not substantially alter the visual appearance of the Blockbuster building. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 13 P.'.an..fning CorTIMISS1OY). 131 201("! B. Location and Structure Standards. Location Standards. a. WCFs should be located in commercial areas. Discussion: The project site is located in a commercial shopping center. b. Publicly-owned sites or structures, including but not limited to buildings, telephone utility poles, signage, traffic signals, and light standards, are preferred locations over privately-owned sites or structures. Discussion: The project site is privately owned. The limited number of publicly- owned buildings on the Tiburon peninsula, combined with topographic and geographic constraints, makes in practically infeasible for all WC's to be located on public buildings. C. WCFs shall not be located on parcels used for residential purposes. Discussion: The project site is not used for residential purposes. d. WCFs shall. not be located on. parcels designated as Open Space on the Tiburon Zoning Map, or on buildings and/or properties designated as Local Historical Landmarks by resolution of the Town Council. Discussion: The project site is not designated as Open Space and is not designated as a Local Historical Landmark e. WCFs shall not be located on buildings listed in. the Town's Local Historic Inventory of Buildings in Downtown Tiburon, adopted by resolution of the Town Council. Discussion: The Blockbuster building is not listed in the Town's Local Historic Inventory of Buildings in Downtown Tiburon and is not located in the Downtown area. f. WCFs should avoid locations within, or in close proximity to, the following uses: dwelling units; hospitals; child. care centers; and schools. Discussion: The project site is not in close proximity to dwelling units, hospitals, child care centers or schools. The nearest dwelling units are across Blackfield Drive approximately 200 feet away on Pamela Court and the nearest child care center is located at the Westminster Presbyterian Church, across Tiburon Boulevard and approximately 300 feet away. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 13 13 , 2"! 1 2. Structure Standards. a. Monopoles, towers or other stand-alone structures are strongly discouraged. Discussion: The proposed facility would not utilize monopoles, towers or other stand-alone structures. b. Use of existing buildings and structures is preferred over construction of new ones. Discussion: The proposed facility would be installed on an existing building. 3. Co-location and Shared-location Standards. a. WCFs should be co-located with existing WCFs whenever reasonably feasible and aesthetically or otherwise desirable. Discussion: The proposed facility would be co-located with a Sprint facility on the same building. b. Shared-location sites are encouraged provided that visual and other impacts are minimized and compliance with these Standards is achieved. Discussion: The proposed facility would share this location with the existing Sprint facility. Visual impacts would be negligible. C. Antennas and supporting structures and equipment shall be designed to consolidate planned expansions of facilities and services. Discussion: The application indicates that even after installation of this facility, the false chimney could accommodate an additional facility. d. Design of co-location and shared-location sites shall promote use by other wireless service providers. Discussion: The application states that the design and installation of the proposed facility would leave adequate space for another wireless service provider in the false chimney. e. WCFs should make under-utilized space available for co-location purposes. Discussion: The design of the proposed facility would leave unutilized false chimney space for additional co-location purposes. f. To the extent feasible, leases or other instruments that convey exclusive rights to a single user and preclude development of a suitable co-location or shared-location TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 13 Ph! 1.n.it1l) t )111artI.iS:,i0Y) MCCItMit(, site shall be prohibited unless specifically authorized in the Town's permit approval. Discussion: The lease for this facility would not convey exclusive rights to the applicant, as Sprint has existing rights to operate on this building. g. Applicants shall notify other potential users of the proposed WCF site so that they can coordinate efforts to co-locate on the site, and written evidence of said notification shall be submitted to the Director. Discussion: The applicant has coordinated efforts for co-location on this site with Sprint representatives. h. Permit holders shall charge standard, reasonable rates for co-location of other )YQ-Fs. Discussion: The applicant will charge standard, reasonable rates for co-location of other future WCFs at this location. C. Design and Operational Standards. 1. EMF Radiation Exposure Limits. No WCF shall be sited or operated in such a location or manner that it poses, either by itself or in combination with other such facilities, a potential threat to the public health. To that end, no facility or combination of facilities shall produce at any time power densities that exceed the FCC's Maximum Permissible Exposure (NEE) limits for electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters or any applicable more restrictive standard subsequently adopted by the Town, county, state or federal government. Absolute compliance with FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, or any successor document thereto, is mandatory, and any violation shall be grounds for the Town to immediately terminate any permit granted hereunder, or to order the immediate service termination of any non- complying WCF. Discussion: The applicant has submitted a radio frequency report (Exhibit 7) evaluating the proposed facility's compliance with applicable FCC standards, including measurements of the Sprint facility on the site and predictive modeling for the operation of the existing and proposed facilities. The report indicated that the combined operation of the Sprint and Clearwire antennas would not exceed 2.4% of the FCC public limit at ground level and 3.8% at a second floor level of the nearest building. The report states that the proposed antennas would exceed the FCC occupational limits within 8 feet directly in front of the proposed Clearwire antennas, such as might occur during maintenance work on the antennas, false chimney or roof. Signage is already in place for the existing Sprint facility and such signage would be evaluated for adequacy if the Clearwire facility is eventually installed. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 13 2. Visual Compatibility and Design. WCFs shall be consistent with the general scale of structures and buildings in the vicinity and properly related to the development of the vicinity as a whole. The following visual and design standards shall be applied: A. When an antenna is attached to, or part of, a building or structure, the antenna shall be sited and designed to appear as an integral part of the building or structure or otherwise minimize its appearance. The antenna and its screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building or structure. Screening may include locating the facilities within an attic, false chimney, steeple, or tower; or within a new architectural addition to a building or structure that is architecturally compatible with the building. Discussion: The applicant proposes to conceal the antennas behind RF transparent materials of the existing false chimney such that they would be visually indistinguishable from the ground level. B. Wall-mounted antennas shall be integrated architecturally with the style and character of the building or structure or otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible. If possible, antennas shall be located entirely within an existing or newly-created architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view or visually inevident. To the extent feasible, wall-mounted antennas shall not be located on the front (or the most publicly-prominent face) of a building, and shall be located above pedestrian eye-level. Discussion: The proposed facility would not include hall-mounted antennas. C. To avoid or minimize the appearance of visual clutter on rooftops, proposed roof- mounted antennas and associated equipment should be located adjacent to existing rooftop equipment, incorporated into rooftop equipment enclosures, or otherwise screened from view. In addition, existing rooftop antennas (at co-location or shared-location sites) should be consolidated where possible; other roof-top equipment and appurtenances (vents, heating and cooling systems, etc.) should be removed if no longer in use. Discussion: The antennas would be within the framework of the existing false chimney structure. Associated equipment would be screened from off-site viewing behind an existing screening wall located at the west end of the building. The building roof has a relatively clean appearance from the Cove parking lot but has numerous vents and other roof projections as viewed from Tiburon Boulevard. A condition of approval has been attached to the draft resolution to address the possible removal of unused or obsolete roof projections. D. Roof-mounted antennas and associated equipment shall be located as far back from the edge of the roof as possible to minimize visibility from street level locations. Construction of a parapet wall to hide the facility may be required. Discussion: Not applicable. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 13 }'atz.c~it7.~ {:;c~rx~nai::~ior~ ~'~•l~.c~r.ir.;.~; E. Whenever possible, base stations, equipment cabinets, back-up generators, and other equipment associated with building-mounted antennas shall be installed within the existing confines of a building or underground. If this is not feasible, the equipment shall be painted, screened, fenced, landscaped or otherwise treated architecturally to minimize its appearance from off-site locations and to visually blend with the surrounding natural and/or built environment as appropriate. Equipment buildings shall be designed in an architectural style, and constructed of exterior building materials, that are compatible with surrounding development and/or land use setting. Discussion: The proposed equipment cabinet would be installed within an existing screened equipment enclosure at the west end of the building. F. To the extent feasible, all WCFs shall avoid creating any unreasonable obstruction of views from surrounding properties. Discussion: The antennas would not intrude into any important views from surrounding properties. G. Whenever feasible, WCFs should be: 1. Substantially screened from the view of affected properties, public rights- of-way and other public property; or Discussion: The proposed antennas would be screened by the surrounding false chimney materials. 2. Co-located or placed on a shared-location site with existing WCFs in a manner that will minimize visibility; or Discussion: The proposed antennas would be co-located with the existing Sprint facility. 3. Located in areas with substantial existing screening by buildings, structures and/or landscaping, or Discussion: Not applicable. 4. Designed to appear as natural features found in the immediate area, such as trees or rocks, so as to be visually inevident as man-made construction. Discussion: Not applicable. H. No advertising signage or identifying logos shall be displayed on any WCF, except for small identification plates used for emergency notification, or as required by law. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 13 I'ls. nnir7. C:;{~rrrrT~i55iur; '.vl, c .ir , 1"), 2011 Discussion: There will be no advertising signage or identifying logos displayed at this facility except for small warning signage required by law. 3. Vegetation and Screening. The following standards are established: a. Whenever reasonably feasible, WCFs shall be installed in a manner so as to preserve significant existing landscaping. Existing trees and other screening vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed facility and associated roadways shall be protected from damage both during and after construction. Submission of a Tree Protection Plan%, prepared by a qualified professional, may be required to ensure compliance with this standard. Discussion: No landscaping would be affected b. All vegetation disturbed during project construction shall be replanted with. appropriate vegetation as described below. Soils disturbed by development shall be replanted to control erosion. Discussion: No landscaping would be affected. C. Introduced vegetation shall generally be native, drought tolerant species compatible with the predominant natural setting of the project area, unless fast growth is required for screening. All French broom and similar undesirable, invasive plant species on the site shall be .reinoved to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal to reduce fire hazards. Discussion: Not applicable. d. Existing landscaping materials, especially trees, shall be used where possible to screen antennas and other WCF equipment from off-site views. New landscaping may be required where deemed necessary to provide screening. Discussion: No additional screening would be required. e. No screening vegetation shall be removed subsequent to project completion except to comply with local and State fire safety regulations, to prevent the spread of disease as required by the State Food and Agriculture Department, or to prevent safety hazards to people and property, without the written permission of the Director. Discussion: No screening vegetation is proposed or required. 4. Noise and Traffic. WCFs shall be constructed and operated in such a manner as to minimize noise and traffic impacts. Noise and traffic reduction shall be accomplished through the following measures: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 13 "I"Inll>Ci.r no nli Slo1.1 ;"'1 .'istCt.7? January 1'), 2010 a. WCFs shall operate in compliance with and shall not exceed at any time the noise exposure levels contained in the Noise Element of the Tiburon General Plan, or any applicable more restrictive noise standard adopted by the Town, county or state or federal government. Discussion: The facility is not anticipated to generate noise that would violate any adopted standard. b. Permissible hours for testing and servicing (excluding emergency repairs) shall be determined on a case-by-case basis at the time of permit issuance, based on such factors as location and sensitivity of surrounding uses. Said hours shall be imposed as conditions of approval. Discussion: The resolution approving this application would include permissible hours for, testing and servicing the proposed facility. C. Back-up generators or other emergency power sources shall comply with the same noise standards referenced above and shall only be operated during power outages, emergency occurrences, or during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for periodic testing and maintenance. Discussion: The proposed facility would not include any new back-up generators or other emergency power sources. d. Vehicular traffic resulting from the operation and maintenance of a WCF shall be kept to a minimum. Typical vehicular traffic volumes shall be specified in conditions of approval. Discussion: Vehicular traffic to operate and maintain the proposed facility would be limited to periodic site visits using a standard-sized car or small truck. 5. Roads and Access. WCFs should be served by the minimum roadways and parking areas as necessary, and shall discourage unauthorized access, as follows: a. Whenever feasible, existing roads and parking areas should be used for access and service of WCFs. Discussion: Public streets (Tiburon Boulevard and Black field Drive) and the Cove. Shopping Center parking lot would be used for access and service for the proposed facility. b. Any new roadways and parking areas constructed should be shared with subsequent WCFs and/or other permitted uses to the extent feasible. Discussion: No new roadways or parking areas are proposed to be constructed as part of this application. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 13 13' "2010 C. The size of new parking areas should be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate vehicles associated with periodic maintenance of the facility. Discussion: No new parking areas are proposed to be constructed as part of this application. d. Access to facilities shall be prohibited to the general public. Discussion: Rooftop and false chimney access to the proposed facility is prohibited to the general public. e. All facilities shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. Discussion: The existing false chimney location provides minimal opportunities for unauthorized access and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. 6. Lighting. Unless otherwise required by applicable federal rules or regulations, no WCF shall have artificial lighting. If such lighting is required, the following standards shall apply: a. Manually operated, low wattage, hooded and the least intrusive exterior lighting shall be permitted for safety purposes only and shall be kept off except for maintenance or safety personnel or to the most limited extent allowed by law. Discussion: The only light fixture proposed for this facility could be an emergency light attached to the equipment cabinets that would be activated only when maintenance crews work on emergency repairs to the facility at night. b. Nighttime lighting of warning signs required near publicly accessible facilities shall consist of low-wattage fixtures, and shall be directed downward and hooded. Discussion: No lighting is proposed for warning signs for this facility, unless low- level lighting is required by law. Drawings (6 sheets) of the proposed facility are attached as Exhibit S. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has preliminarily determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 12 OF 13 1'lxltl_aitlt'72 )an.uarl- 13, 2i).JO PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding this application. CONCLUSION It appears to Staff that the proposed wireless communications facility would be consistent with the Town's WCF Standards. The facility would be co-located on an existing commercial building and would not be in close proximity to dwelling units or other sensitive receptors. It would have very low visual impact and would comply with FCC standards regulating RF emissions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hold a public hearing on this application: 2. Move to adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit 1) approving the conditional use permit to operate a co-located wireless communications facility on property at 1 Blackfield Drive. EXgIIBTTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. WWAX description 3. Map showing proposed Clearwire facility locations 4. Coverage area maps 5. Visual Simulations 6. Specifications for Proposed Equipment 7. Radio Frequency-Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report, prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc. dated September 28, 2009 8. Drawings (6 sheets) entitled "Clearwire Cove Shopping Center CA-SF00503A" date- stamped "Received Planning Division September 30, 2009" Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development S.-IPlanninglPlanning Commission lStafj"Reports MlOUanuary 13 meetingll Blackfield Drive WCF CUP report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 13 OF 13 RECORDING REQUESTED RETURN TO: Tiburon Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A CO-LOCATED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE IN THE COVE SHOPPING CENTER ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 034-212-18 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Planning Commission has received and considered an application (File #10903) for a conditional use permit to operate a wireless communications facility (WCF) on property located at 1 Blackfield Drive. The proposal involves the construction of an unmanned wireless communications facility at a commercial building in the Cove Shopping Center currently occupied by Blockbuster Video and several smaller businesses. The proposed facility includes two (3) antennas, three (3) microwave dishes, and 3) remote radio units mounted within the framework of the existing false chimney on the building, with one equipment cabinet and one GPS antenna at the west end of the building within an existing screened enclosure. The facility would be used for broadband wireless network purposes. The application consists of File #10903 and contains the following primary materials: 1. Application form, drawings, photosimulations, specifications, coverage maps, and other materials received September 30, 2009 2. Supplemental application materials received November 17, 2009 3. Radio Frequency-Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report, prepared by Hammett & Edison, dated September 28, 2009 The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution. The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at the public hearing. TMURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-DRAFT --/--12010 EXHIBIT NO. B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on January 13, 2010, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. C. The Planning Commission has found that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. D. The Planning Commission has found, based upon the application materials and analysis provided in the January 13, 2010 Staff report, that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, the Town of Tiburon Wireless Communications Facilities Standards and other applicable regulations. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed wireless communications facility would be co-located on an existing commercial building and would not be in close proximity to dwelling units. The facility would have minimal visibility and would not be readily apparent from adjoining properties or public streets. Section 2. Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the Conditional Use Permit application (File #10903) to operate a wireless communications facility (WCF) on property located at 1 Blackfield Drive, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The use shall be in substantial conformance with the application as submitted, as modified by the conditions of approval herein. Any substantive intensification of operation or use, as determined within the reasonable discretion of the Director of Community Development, shall require an amendment to this use permit. 2. This conditional use permit shall be valid for an initial period of ten (10) years from the date of final discretionary approval. The permit may be extended for a period no longer than five (5) years after the holding of a public hearing for the purposes of verifying continued compliance with the findings an d conditions of approval under which the application was originally approved, as well as compliance with any other applicable provisions provided for in the Municipal Code. 3. The permit holder shall notify the Town, in writing, that the facility has become operational within five (5) days after it has become operational. 4. Within sixty (60) days after a WCF becomes operational, the permit holder shall provide the Town with a report from a certified provider of such specialized studies, confirming that the actual ENE radiation levels, operating alone and in combination with other approved facilities, substantially conform to the pre- TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-DRAFT -/-/2010 2 approval EMF report, and confirming that EMF levels do not exceed current standards for permissible human exposure to EMF as adopted by the FCC, and measured at the property line or nearest point of public access, whichever is closer, in the direction of maximum radiation from each antenna. Reports shall specify EMF levels with the site operating at full power and baseline levels with the site inoperative. Technical data shall be presented showing levels relative to the currently permitted Federal regulations. Raw measurements shall be provided as an appendix. In addition, the report shall include, in lay terms, a summary of the technical data as presented in the report. EMF reports required herein shall be paid for by the permit holder and prepared by a third party consultant acceptable to the Director of Community Development, using a testing protocol acceptable to the Director of Community Development. 5. Following the initial sixty (60) day report required above, the permit holder shall have EMF radiation levels of the WCF tested, not earlier than ninety (90) days prior to every required renewal of the permit. The permit holder shall submit the written report, along with application for renewal, at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of expiration of the conditional use permit. 6. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Tiburon Building Division for the construction of the facility and associated work. 7. The permit holder shall at all times comply with requirements of the applicable Fire Protection District regarding fire safety, which may include installation of an automatic fire extinguishing system, installation of a remote monitoring system, or such other compliance techniques as determined by the Fire Marshal. Required fire safety measures shall be completed and required fire safety equipment shall be installed and in operation prior to final building inspection and commencement of use of the WCF. 8. The permit holder shall maintain all WCF facilities in an undamaged condition. If visibly damaged, the permit holder shall repair or replace the facilities as necessary achieve consistency with this approval. 9. If the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) or other regulating body establish a more stringent standard(s) for human exposure to radio frequency radiation or other electromagnetic field radiation which is determined by the Director of Community Development to be applicable to this WCF, the permit holder shall be required to, upon consultation with the Community Development Department, file for a review of this Conditional Use Permit within sixty (60) days and evaluate the existing cumulative levels of EMF radiation emissions from the project site in accordance with the new standard(s). Any exceeding of the new standards(s) on TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-DRAFT -/--/2010 the project site, as demonstrated in radio frequency evaluations required herein, shall provide grounds for the Town to revoke or amend this Conditional Use Permit as provided in the Tiburon Municipal Code. 10. No advertising signage or identifying logos are to be placed on the WCF, with the exception of small identification plates for emergency notification or warning notices. Sign permits shall be secured prior to installation for all signs subject to a permit as required by Chapter 16A of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 11. There shall be no exterior lighting of the WCF unless required by state or federal law, with the exception of emergency lighting for the equipment cabinets or as otherwise required by these conditions of approval. 12. Permitted hours for routine testing and servicing (excluding emergency repairs) shall be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 13. Typical vehicle trips resulting from the ongoing operation and maintenance of this WCF are anticipated to be less than five (5) per month and shall not substantially exceed that number. 14. The permit holder shall properly maintain, and ultimately remove if required, the WCF in compliance with the provisions of Section 16-4.13.080 or successor sections thereto of the Municipal Code, the Town's WCF Standards, and any conditions of permit approval. Prior to final building inspection and commencement of the WCF use, -the permit holder shall post a financial security, such as a letter of credit, acceptable to the Town Attorney to ensure that the approved facility is properly maintained and will be removed if required. The amount of the security shall be 125% of the estimated cost to remove the facility and return the surrounding area to its condition prior to installation. 15. The permit holder shall fund all costs associated with ongoing peer review of technical information and/or the Town's retention of an independent consultant to measure electromagnetic radiation from the WCF for compliance with applicable FCC regulations, or for other purposes as set forth in Section IR.B.25.b of the Town's WCF Standards, or successor sections thereto. Permit holder may be required to post a financial security to cover such costs. 16. The owner of the site, all other interest holders and the permit holder shall agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from all liability, losses, damages, costs, expenses and fees resulting from any claim or action not made or brought by the Town involving the facility, including, but not limited to, the approval or conditional approval of a permit for the facility or from any claim or action to TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-DRAFT --/-/2010 4 attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of permit applications or any other license with respect to this facility, or involving its installation, use or operation. The Town shall promptly notify the permit holder of any such claim, action or proceeding. The Town shall retain the right to participate in any claim, action, or proceeding, including the selection of its own legal counsel. 17. In the event that the Town shall in the future adopt legislation providing for the payment of franchise or other fees by entities maintaining WCFs within the Town, the permit holder shall be subject to such legislation and shall begin paying such fees upon the effective date of said legislation. 1.8. The permit holder shall not encumber, sublease, assign, transfer or sell (including the sale, acquisition, merger or consolidation of permit holder), a permitted WCF for use by anyone, including another carrier, without first providing not less than thirty (30) days written notice thereof to the Director of Community Development. 19. The applicant shall be required to fund all costs associated with independent peer review studies and reports commissioned by the Town of any information submitted by the applicant, or the independent preparation of such information by the Town or its consultants. Such costs shall include, without limitation, the cost of third-party consultants to verify the predicted and actual measurements of electromagnetic radiation for compliance with current applicable FCC guidelines and shall also include, without limitation, a third-party report evaluating the feasibility of alternative facility designs and locations (including multiple site alternatives) that make recommendations on the best alternatives (including multiple site alternatives) location(s) for providing the desired level of service coverage. Costs covered by this section shall include all costs incurred by the Town in obtaining independent peer review commissioned by the Town, including, without limitation, the consultant's fee and the Town's overhead cost associated with staff time expended on administration of the contracts. All independent peer reviewers and consultants shall certify in their reports that they do not and have not performed services for the applicant or for any entity associated with the applicant and that such peer reviewers and consultants have no conflicts of interest whatsoever with respect to their work for the Town. 20. The installation of antennas or equipment for other carriers or service providers in locations where others hold a permit or permits for WCFs shall require compliance with the Town's permit approval process and, where applicable, may take the form of an amendment to an existing permit or a new permit. 21. If the site constitutes a potential co-location or shared-location site, the permit holder shall not enter into an exclusive lease, license, or other arrangement for the use of the site, unless specifically authorized in the Town's permit approval. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-DRAFT -442010 22. With respect the provisions of Section 16-4.13.070 of the Municipal Code or successor sections thereto regarding correction of interference, the permit holder shall be responsible for all labor and equipment costs for determining the source of the interference, all costs associated with eliminating the interference, (including but not limited to filtering, installing radio frequency cavities, installing directional antennas, powering down systems and engineering analysis), and all costs arising from third party claims against the Town attributable to such interference. 23. These conditions of approval are in addition to any lease provisions set forth in a future lease agreement between the Town of Tiburon and the permit holder. 24. Prior to issuance of the building permit, applicant shall identify obsolete or unused roof projections on the building and arrange for their removal as part of the installation work. 25. Warning signs regarding RF emissions shall be placed in close proximity to the WCF antennas to advise persons working nearby, as recommended in. the RF report prepared for the application. Said signs shall comply with any applicable federal regulations and shall be installed prior to commencement of the use. 26. The Town of Tiburon reserves the right to amend or revoke this permit for cause, in accordance with the provisions of the Tiburon Municipal Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on by the following vote: AYES : COMMISSIONERS : NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: T113URON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 201 0 DRAFT --/--/2010 SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY S:\Planning\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\2010\lanuary 13 meeting\l Blackfieid Drive draft reso.doc TBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-DRAFT --/--/2010 What is WiMax? WiMAX is a wireless digital communications system, also known as IEEE 802.16, that is intended for wireless "metropolitan area networks". WiMAX can provide broadband wireless access (BWA) up to 30 miles (50 km) for fixed stations, and 3 - 10 miles (5 - 15 km) for mobile stations. In contrast, the WiFi/802.11 wireless local area network standard is limited in most cases to only 100 - 300 feet (30 - 100m). With WiMAX, WiFi-like data rates are easily supported, but the issue of interference is lessened. WiMAX operates on both licensed and non-licensed frequencies, providing a regulated environment and viable economic model for wireless carriers. WiMAX can be used for wireless networking in much the same way as the more common WiFi protocol. WiMAX is a second-generation protocol that allows for more efficient bandwidth use, interference avoidance, and is intended to allow higher data rates over longer distances. The IEEE 802.16 standard defines the technical features of the communications protocol. The WiMAX Forum offers a means of testing manufacturer's equipment for compatibility, as well as an industry group dedicated to fostering the development and commercialization of the technology. WiMax.corn provides a focal point for consumers, service providers, manufacturers, analysts, and researchers who are interested in WiMAX technology, services, and products. Soon, WiMAX will be a very well recognized term to describe wireless Internet access throughout the world. Source: httiD://www.wimax.com/education Ir ~~f !I It AUG 2 6 2009' EXHIBIT NO. LTJ 'a 1 1 ."tf E EIIBIT NO. Of Ch pw (04 dvanrCeS i ME P~ot~, S,ruj~-Imr C -ril;ct ( 925) 10' 85C.' N oa %NJ P,rle Sim-,!;Zlio • S6uiicr, `_OFi3Ct (x:77 zuz1 LiWi ~ Preliminary K 93TH ~ f SCALA DIVISION Kathrein Scala's XX-polarized adjustable electrical downtilt antennas offer the carrier the ability to tailor sites for optimum performance. Using vari able downtilt, only a few models need be procured to accom modate the needs of widely varying conditions. Remotely controlled downtilt is available as a retrofitable option. • 0-10° electrical downtilt range. DC Grounded metallic p arts for impulse suppression. No moving electrical connections. • Optional remote downtilt control. Specifications: Frequency range _ 2496-2690 MHz Gain 2 x 17 dBi Impedance 50 ohms VSWR < 1.5:1 Intermodulation (2x20w) IM3:< -150 dBc Polarization +45° and -45' Front-to-back ratio >25 dB typical _ Maximum input power 300 watts (at 50°C) _ +45° and -45° polarization 65 degrees at midband (half power) horizontal beamwidth +45° and -45° polarization 7 degrees at midband (half power) vertical beamwidth Electrical downtilt 0--10 degrees continously adjustable _ Connector 4 x 7-16 DIN female 'Sidelobe suppression for 0" 4` 8° 10° first sidelobe above horizon 15 15 15 15 dB (typical) Null fill > -1 dBi to 12° below horizon (typical) (18 dB below 17 dBi main beam) Isolation >30 dB Weight 35 lb (15.9 kg) Dimensions 42 x 12.7 x 2.8 inches (1067 x 323 x 71 mm) Equivalent flat plate area 4.8 ft2 (0.45 m2) Wind survival rating' 120 mph (200 kph) Shipping dimensions 48 x 13.3 x 5.1 inches (1220 x. 337 x 130 mm) _ Shipping weight 39 lb (17.7 kg) Mounting Fixed and tilt-mount options are available for 2 to 5.7 inch (50 to 145 mm) OD masts. See reverse for order information. " Mechanical design is based on environmental conditions as stipulated in EIA-222-F (June 1996) andior ETS 300 019-1-4 which include the static mechanical load imposed on an antenna by wind at maximum velocittr. See the Engineering Section of the catalog for further details. Horizontal pattern t45°- polarization 0° electrical downtilt Horizontal pattern t45°- polarization 5° electrical downtilt 840 10084 65° XX-pol Panel Antenna 2496-2690 MHz Vertical pattern t45°- polarization 0° electrical downtilt Vertical pattern t45°- polarization 5° electrical downtilt Horizontal pattern Vertical pattern t45°- polarization t45°- polarization 10° electrical downtilt 10° electrical downtilt Lead-Fme' 11125-FRO Kathrein Inc., Scala Division Post Office Box 4580 Medford, OR 97501 (USA) Phone: (541) 779-6500 Fax: (541) 779-3991 Email: communications@kathrein.com Internet: vvww.kathrein-scala.com EXHIBIT NO. HUTH ~ r SCALA DIVISION M6m~ @~ 64 m;"A~Z"' M8' --i~w 2 x 738 546 Mounting Kit 42 inches (1067 mm) 44.1 inches (1120 mm) 45.3 inches (1151 mm) N, • • 00 :ro 12.7 inches 2.8 inches (323 mm) 3.9 inches (71 mm) (98 mm) Mounting Options: Model Description 2 x 738 546 Mounting Kit for 2 to 4.6 inch (50 to 115 mm) OD mast. 850 10013 Tilt Kit for use with the 2 x 738 546 mounting kit 0-15 degrees downtitt angle. Order information: Model Description 840 10084 Antenna with 7-16 DIN connectors Preliminary 840 10084 65° XX-pol Panel Antenna 2496-2690 MHz 2.625 inches ± 0.125 (68 mm ± 4) All specifications are subject to change without notice. The latest specifications are available at www.kathrein-scala.com. Kathrein Inc., Scala Division Post Office Box 4580 Medford, OR 97501 (USA) Phone: (541) 779-6500 Fax: (541) 779-3991 Email: comrnunications@kathrein.com Internet: www.kathreir)-scala.com Speci ications 01 Product ANDREW A CommSco e ComPon P Y VHLP2-1 8-1 WH 2 ft ValuLine@ High Performance Low Profile Antenna, single-polarized, 17.7-19.7 GHz, UG flange, white antenna, white radome CHARACTERISTICS General Specifications Antenna Type Diameter, nominal Antenna Input Polarization Feed Pressurization, maximum Reflector Construction Antenna Color Radome Color Radome Material Flash Included Packing Electrical Specifications VHLP - ValuLine@ High Performance Low Profile Antenna, single-polarized 0.6 m 12 ft UG-595/U Single 35 kPa 1 5 psi One-piece reflector White White Polymer No Standard pack Operating Frequency Band 17.700 - 19.700 GHz Gain, Top Band 39.1 dBi Gain, Mid Band 38.7 dBi Gain, Low Band 38.3 dBi Front-to-Back Ratio 67 dB Cross Polarization Discrimination (XPD) 30 dB Beamwidth, Vertical 2.1 C VSWR 1.30 Return Loss 17.7 dB Radiation Pattern Envelope Reference (RPE) 7012 Electrical Compliance Brazil Anatel Class 2 Canada SRSP 317.8 Part A ETSI 302 217 Class 3 1 US FCC Part 101A www.commscope.com/andrew join the Evoluiion 02009 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by @ or TI are registered trademarks or trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change. page 1 of 5 See www.commscope.com/andrew for the most curre nt information. 9/29/2009 Product Specifica - na n s ANDREW VHLP2-18-1 WH A CommScope Company Mechanical Specifications Wind Velocity Operational Wind Velocity Survival Rating Fine Azimuth Adjustment Fine Elevation Adjustment Mounting Pipe Diameter Side Struts, Included Side Struts, Optional Net Weight 113 km/h 1 70 mph 249 km/h 1 155 mph ±100 f25° 48 mm-115 mm 1 1.9 in-4.5 in 0 0 14 kg 1 31 lb Wind Forces At Wind Velocity Survival Rating Axial Force (FA) 1066 N 240 IV Side Force (FS) 496 N 112 IV Twisting Moment (MT) 382 N•m Zcg without Ice 124 mm 5 in Zcg with 1/2" (12 mm) Radial Ice 188 mm 1 7 in Weight with 1/2" (12 mm) Radial Ice 24 kg 1 54 lb Wind Forces At Wind Velocity Survival Rating Image A Fj, i zGG Packed Dimensions Gross Weight, Packed Antenna Length Width Height 14.1 kg 1 31.0 lb 698.5 mm 1 27.5 in 698.5 mm 1 27.5 in 539.8 mm 1 21.3 in www.commscope.com/andrew Join the Evoiuiion 02009 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by ® or TM are registered trademarks or trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change. page 2 of 5 See www.commscope.com/andrew for the most current information. 9/29/2009 Product Specifications VHLP2-18.1 WH Antenna Dimensions And Mounting Information :Antenna Dimensims, mm (in) A 663 1;261) a 358(14,1) t ~z .C2.8) .D 1~3 (5b) E 335 (13.2) * Footnotes Axial Force (FA) Cross Polarization Discrimination (XPD) Front-to-Back Ratio Gain, Mid Band Operating Frequency Band ANDREW A CommScope Company Maximum forces exerted on a supporting structure as a result of wind from the most critical direction for this parameter. The individual maximums specified may not occur simultaneously. All forces are referenced to the mounting pipe. The difference between the peak of the co-polarized main beam and the maximum cross-polarized signal over an angle twice the 3 dB beamwidth of the co-polarized main beam. Denotes highest radiation relative to the main beam, at 180° t 4011, across the band. Production antennas do not exceed rated values by more than 2 dB unless stated otherwise. For a given frequency band, gain is primarily a function of antenna size. The gain of Andrew antennas is determined by either gain by comparison or by computer integration of the measured antenna patterns. Bands correspond with CCIR recommendations or common allocations used www.commscope.com/andrew join the Evolution 02009 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by o or TM are registered trademarks or trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change. page 4 of S See www.commscope.com/andrew for the most current information. 9/29/2009 Product Specifications ANDREW A CommScope Company VHLP2-18-1 WH throughout the world. Other ranges can be accommodated on special order. Packing Andrew standard packing is suitable for export. Antennas are shipped as standard in totally recyclable cardboard or wire-bound crates (dependent on product). For your convenience, Andrew offers heavy duty export packing options. Radiation Pattern Envelope Reference (RPE) Radiation patterns determine an antenna's ability to discriminate against unwanted signals under conditions of radio congestion. Radiation patterns are dependent on antenna series, size, and frequency. Return Loss The figure that indicates the proportion of radio waves incident upon the antenna that are rejected as a ratio of those that are accepted. Side Force (FS) Maximum axial forces exerted on support structures by side struts as a result of a 200 km/h (125 mph) wind from the most critical direction and extreme angle permitted. The forces are a component of, not in addition to, the maximum forces specified above. Twisting Moment (MT) Maximum forces exerted on a supporting structure as a result of wind from the most critical direction for this parameter. The individual maximums specified may not occur simultaneously. All forces are referenced to the mounting pipe. VSWR Maximum; is the guaranteed Peak Voltage-Standing-Wave-Ratio within the operating band. Wind Velocity Operational The wind speed where the antenna deflection is equal to or less than 0.1 degrees. Wind Velocity Survival Rating Microwave antennas, including mounts and radomes, where applicable, will withstand the simultaneous wind and ice conditions as specified. www.commscope.com/andrew Join the Evolution 990... ©2009 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved All trademarks identified by e or " are registered trademarks or trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change. page 5 of 5 See www.commscope.com/andrew for the most current information. 9/29/2009 4.2.3 Huawei RRU 3702 RF Head The Huawel RF head is part of their DBS3900 WiMax BTS solution and has the following specs: Application: Part of service system Mfg: Huawei Tx Freq: 2500-2686 MHz Rx Freq: 2500-2686 MHz Tx Power: 10 Watts per port (40W total) Size: 1 8.9"H x 14.0'W x 4.7"D Weights: 55 lbs with solar shield and MOL-inting brackets Mount Location: Behind or-below panel antenna Release 2.2 Copyright G 2008 Clearwire Corporation. All rights reserved, - 11 - Date: February 2009 Confidential and Proprietary: Internal Use Only. Product Specifications 0 4 ANDREW A, CommScope Company VHLP2-1 1-6GR 2 ft ValuLineU High Performance Low Profile Antenna, single-polarized, 10.7-11.7 GHz, CPRG flange, gray antenna, gray radome CHARACTERISTICS General Specifications Antenna Type Diameter, nominal Antenna Input Polarization Feed Pressurization, maximum Reflector Construction Antenna Color Radome Color Radome Material Flash Included Packing Electrical Specifications VHLP - ValuLine® High Performance Low Profile Antenna, single-polarized 0.6m12ft CPR90G Single 35 kPa 1 5 psi One-piece reflector Gray Gray Polymer No Standard pack Operating Frequency Band 10.700 - 11.700 GHz Gain, Top Band 35.0 dBi Gain, Mid Band 34.4 dBi Gain, Low Band 34.0 dBi Front-to-Back Ratio 60 dB Cross Polarization Discrimination (XPD) 30 dB Beamwidth, Vertical 3.3 ° VSWR 1.30 Return Loss 17.7 dB Radiation Pattern Envelope Reference (RPE) 7083 Electrical Compliance Brazil Anatel Class 2 ETSI 302 217 Class 3 US FCC Part 101B www.commscope.com/andrew .Join the Evoluijor 000..- 02009 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by ® or TN are registered trademarks or trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change. page 1 of 5 See www.commscope.com/andrew for the most current information. 9/29/2009 Product Specifications VHLP2-1 1-6GR Mechanical Specifications Wind Velocity Operational Wind Velocity Survival Rating Fine Azimuth Adjustment Fine Elevation Adjustment Mounting Pipe Diameter Side Struts, Included Side Struts, Optional Net Weight 113 km/h 1 70 mph 249 km/h 1 155 mph ±100 t25° 48 mm-115 mm 1 1.9 in-4.5 in 0 0 14 kg 1 31 lb Wind Forces At Wind Velocity Survival Rating Axial Force (FA) 1066 N 1 240 Ibf Side Force (FS) .496 N 1 112 Ibf Twisting Moment (MT) 382 Nom Zcg without Ice 124 mm 1 5 in Zcg with 1/2" (12 mm) Radial Ice 188 mm 1 7 in Weight with 1/2" (12 mm) Radial Ice 24 kg 1 54 lb 40M low W10=0 A CommScope Company Wind Forces At Wind Velocity Survival Rating Image Fj, t; ZC0 r1c y ^ MT Packed Dimensions Gross Weight, Packed Antenna 14.1 kg 1 31.0 Ib Length 698.5 mm I 27.5 in Width 698.5 mm 1 27.5 in Height 539.8 mm 1 21.3 in Volume 16070.3 in3 www.commscope.com/andrew join the Evolution ! 02009 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by ® or TM are registered trademarks or trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change. page 2 of 5 See www.commscope.com/andrew for the most current information. 9/29/2009 Product Spec if I ca t I o n S VHLP2-1 1-bGP, Antenna Dimensions And Mounting Information Antenna iDimensions, mm (in) A 663.(26.1) 8 .358 -(14.1) C 72 {2.81 D 143 (5.6) E 335 (13.2) * Footnotes ANDREW A CommScope Company Axial Force (FA) Maximum forces exerted on a supporting structure as a result of wind from the most critical direction for this parameter. The individual maximums specified may not occur simultaneously. All forces are referenced to the mounting pipe. Cross Polarization Discrimination (XPD) The difference between the peak of the co-polarized main beam and the maximum cross-polarized signal over an angle twice the 3 dB beamwidth of the co-polarized main beam. Front-to-Back Ratio Denotes highest radiation relative to the main beam, at 1800 f 400, across the band. Production antennas do not exceed rated values by more than 2 dB unless stated otherwise. Gain, Mid Band For a given frequency band, gain is primarily a function of antenna size. The gain of Andrew antennas is determined by either gain by comparison or by computer integration of the measured antenna patterns. Operating Frequency Band Bands correspond with CCIR recommendations or common allocations used www.commscope.corn/andrew -loin the Evolution ! 02009 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by ® or TM are registered trademarks or trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change. page 4 of 5 See www.commscope.com/andrew for the most current i nformation. 9/29/2009 Product Specifications A NDREW. A CommScope Company VHLP2-1 1-6GR throughout the world. Other ranges can be accommodated on special order. Packing Andrew standard packing is suitable for export. Antennas are shipped as standard in totally recyclable cardboard or wire-bound crates (dependent on product). For your convenience, Andrew offers heavy duty export packing options, Radiation Pattern Envelope Reference (RPE) Radiation patterns determine an antenna's ability to discriminate against unwanted signals under conditions of radio congestion. Radiation patterns are dependent on antenna series, size, and frequency. . Return Loss The figure that indicates the proportion of radio waves incident upon the antenna that are rejected as a ratio of those that are accepted. Side Force (FS) Maximum axial forces exerted on support structures by side struts as a result of a 200 km/h (125 mph) wind from the most critical direction and extreme angle permitted. The forces are a component of, not in addition to, the maximum forces specified above. Twisting Moment (MT) Maximum forces exerted on a supporting structure as a result of wind from the most critical direction for this parameter. The individual maximums specified may not occur simultaneously. All forces are referenced to the mounting pipe. VSWR Maximum; is the guaranteed Peak Voltage-Standing-Wave-Ratio within the operating band. Wind Velocity Operational The wind speed where the antenna deflection is equal to or less than 0.1 degrees. Wind Velocity Survival Rating Microwave antennas, including mounts and radomes, where applicable, will withstand the simultaneous wind and ice conditions as specified. www.commscope.com/andrew Join the Evolution 02009 CommScope, inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by ® or TM are registered trademarks or trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change. page 5 of 5 See www.commscope.com/andrew for the most current information. 9/29/2009 DDB UNLIMITED INC. R7-54DXCw DDB UNLIMITED INC. R7-54DXCw Each unit is marked and conforms to UL STD 60950-1 (ITE) and UL STD 1008 (manual transfer) Weights: 1254 Lbs. Assembled 1309 Lbs. shipping weight Doors: Two - secured by three point locking system Locks via customer supplied padlocks Sealed with 13/16" aluminum filled gaskets Materials: 0.125" ALUMIFLEX Finish: Flat aluminum i RF properties: Non-ferrous Handles: I iStainless steel Exterior Screws: 'j Stainless with NEMA washers & nylon locking nuts RACKING SPECIFICATIONS Rails: Two standard (For additional rails see accessories) i Alodine coated 1 Holes tapped to 10 x 32 threads Each rail supported by three R-STRUTS 0.125" material (ALUMIFLEX) Spacing: 11 19" EIA STM- DARD Positioning:] j All rails are fully adjustable from front to rear Inside Vertical Height: j 1 53 3/4" inches Usable Rack Units 1 28 RU (+1 '/Z" additional in bottom for battery) Useable Depth: ` F- Maximum: 21 '/z" Minimum 193/4" (See below) DOOR OPENING CLEARANCE Width:. 19'/2 inches I Height: 4913/16" inches EXTERIOR CABINET DIMENSIONS Main Body: !Width: 25 1/2 inches lHeight: 54 1/4 inches l IDepth: 25 1/4 inches Aiumishieid: idth: 28 1/16 inches rHang down height: 1 3/4 inches 1 epth: 27 1 /4 inches Handles: Protrude 1 7/8 inches Total Space Occupied: [Width: 28 1/16 inches Height: 54 1 /2 inches Depth: 29 inches INSIDE _ I Width: - 123 5/8 inches Height: I 54 inches Depth: iSee racking specifications RATINGS NEM1 k: j ' 1CLASS: 250 'TYPE: 4X DDB UNLIMITED INC. R7-54 DXCW ACCESSORIES INCLUDED Accessories:-IR7-54DXCW comes with the following: 1 I E Side-wall mounted 400OBTU air-conditioner with 400 watts of heat. • 26"H x 22"W x 10"D side spool-up box with removable plywood back- plate and 10" insulated copper ground-bar. There is a 2" cable pass- through sealed with a hand drilled rubber stopper. • A 100Amp main, 8 space load-center with a side-mounted 30Amp generator plug with manual transfer switch. Interior electrical includes junction box tied via conduit to 11 Ov quad receptacle and a 220v twist lock receptacle. 18" fluorescent lightbar. I Front & rear doors are equipped with door alann switches and wind- locks. I { • Interior of enclosure is lined with R3.3 closed cell foam insulation. Rail screws and pad mounting hardware included. Custom pallet for shipping and storage. WARRANTY PERIOD: 115 YEARS - UNCONDITIONAL (800) 753-8459, or (405) 665-2876 sales@ddbunlimited.con Copyrigtit0c 2000 - DDB Unlimited INC. - All rights reserved ACUTIME GOLD KEY FEATURES • Stratum 1 time source • Network synchronization • Timing pulse synchronized to within 15 nanoseconds (one sigma) of GPS/UTC • Operating temp -40 °C to +85 °C • Waterproof and corrosion resistant housing • RoHS compliant (Pb free) GPS SMART ANTENNA FOR PRECISE TIMING AND SYNCHRONIZATION The Trimble® AcutimeT" Gold GPS smart antenna marks the integration of the latest GPS technology into a rugged self-contained unit that enables easy integration into any system. The Acutime Gold is a pipe thread-mounted GPS receiver and antenna in a single environmentally sealed enclosure. The Acutime Gold GPS smart antenna design continues the Trimble line of GPS smart antennas, which have been in production since 1991. This GPS smart antenna is the perfect solution for precise timing and network synchronization needs, including broadband wireless applications. It provides a cost-effective and independent timing source (within the firewall) for any application, such as fault detection systems and synchronization of wireless networks. Once power is applied, the Acutime Gold smart antenna automatically tracks satellites and surveys its position to within meters. It then switches to overdetermined time mode and generates a pulse-per-second (PPS) output synchronized to UTC within 15 nanoseconds (one sigma), outputting a time tag for each pulse. The Acutime Gold GPS smart antenna's T-RAIM (Time-Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitor) algorithm ensures PPS integrity. Designed for long-term reliability, the Acutime Gold GPS smart antenna is corrosion-resistant and waterproof, and has a rounded top that facilitates run-off from the elements. Physical interface The RS-422 interface is ideal for long cable runs required by buildings or towers. Standard cables are available in lengths up to 400 feet. Custom lengths up to 1800 feet may be ordered. Getting Started The Acutime Gold Starter Kit makes it easy to evaluate the exceptional performance of this GPS smart antenna and integrate state-of-the- art technology into your system. The Starter Kit includes the Acutime Gold GPS smart antenna (RS-422), a 100' interface cable, user guide, RS-422 to USB converter, and a Microsoft® Windows® software tool for monitoring and communication. OEM wffl~ mm. 04rimble. Elm- The Acutime Gold is the premier time source for synchronization of wireless networks. Diamond Point International (Europe) Ltd 1011Y"` ' Suite 13, Ashford House, Beaufort court Sir Thomas Longley Road, Rochester, Kent, ME2 4FA, UK *VWww.dpie.coM Phone 01634 300900 - Fax 01634 722398 - Email sales@dpie.com Web www.dpie.com R O 2006-2007, Trimble Navigation Limited. All rights reserved. Trimble and the Globe d Triangle logo and Acutime are trademarks of Trimble Navigation Limited,` registered in the United States Patent and Trademark. Office and in other countries. Acutime and The right one logo are trademarks of Trimble Navigation Limited. 024rimble. Microsoft and Windows are elther registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsotr Corporation in the United States andror other countries All other trademarks are the properly of their respective owners. PN 022542-002 (02107) i3. www.trimble.com ago* R7-54DXCW AC Cut Sheet IQ3800VS, IQ4000VS SPEC DRAbJINGS REV 2 IQ3800VS IQ4000VS COOLING CAPACITYi 3800 BTUH @131'F CODLING CAP ACITYi -4000 BTUH @131'F MAXIMUM AMPS: 7,7 @120V/G0HZ MAXIMUM AMPS' 8.6 @?20V/60HZ MAXIMUM AMPS, 4.3/4.8 @230/220 .60/50HZ MAXIMUM AMPSi 4,1/4,6 @230/220 60/50HZ MAXIMUM OPERATING TEMP,: 131'F MAXIMUM OPERATING TEMP.+ 131'F DIMENSIONS: 30.09"H X 12.27W X 8.34"D DIMENJDNS, 30.09"H X 12.27W X 8.34"D WEIGHT, 60 LBS %dEIGHT, 60 LBS IQ3800VS IQ4000VS TOP VIEW 12.270 7 6.336 I0380OVS IQ380OVS IQ3800VS I04000VS IQ4000VS IQ4000VS LEFT SIRE FRONT VIEW RIGHT SIDE CONTROLLER 30.091 AMBIENT AMBIENT AIR INLET AIR OUTLETS w .tea...,.: PROPRIETAR`r Dk^WlM5 IQ38/4000VS SHE-18-2 F z IQ27' 0e 2 1 R7-54DXCW AC Cut Sheet IQ3800VS IQ4000VS REAR VIEW CONDITIONED AIR OUTLET PO'a'ER CORD- OPTIONAL EXTERNAL HEAT OUTPUT b P OVERFLOW DRAIN i / A O 0.5 0 0 -~-I I-- IQ3c3^0VS IQ4000VS CUT OUT D2A'v/ING n Cl~ o CJ ~r m c7l~ In c ^ CO C\J co M L-) "D o ci a 1%0 r- ENCLOSURE AIR INLET 29,750 1;----4 30.091 r 9.3017 27,940--1 t 2`,857 21.000-~ 0 1.250 (1) 0 11250 (1) Z0 510 ! OPTIONAL 18,760 EXTERNAL 17,260 ' HEAT OUTPUT 14,940 ° ,375 (8) i i IMPORTANT* 940 n GASKET MUST BE 0,000 L APPLIED AS SHOWN J 1 FOR PROPER OPERATION AND TO MAINTAIN oG ~ Q V'O`.O 0 0 00 o NErJiA, INTEGRITY. cv c) cni co L, cv ° :,o Q= , cu Isr 2 IQ3800VS IQ4000VS GASKET DRAWING R7-54DXCW AC Cut Sheet 3 Clearwire, LLC - Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-SF00503A) 1 Blackfield Drive - Tiburon, California S L P L Jl Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Clearwire, LLC, a personal wireless service provider, to evaluate the base station (Site No. CA-SF00503A) proposed to be located at 1 Blackfield Drive in Tiburon, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 19973 the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes similar exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive FCC limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows: Personal Wireless Service Approx. Frequency Occupational Limit Public Limit Broadband. Radio (`BRS") 2,600 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Advanced Wireless ("AWS") 21100 5.00 1.00 Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 5.00 1.00 Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.5 8 Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") 855 2.85 0.57 Long Term Evolution ("LTE") 700 2.33 0.47 [most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "channels") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located a? ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables - HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS CVdU503598 SAN FRANCISCO Paae 1 of'4 EXHIBIT NO. Clearwire, LLC - Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-SF00503A) 1 Blackfield Drive - Tiburon, California about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon information provided by Clearwire, including drawings by SDG Architecture and Engineering, dated August 27, 2009, it is proposed to mount three Kathrein Model 840-10054 directional panel BRS antennas inside an enclosure, configured to resemble a chimney, above the roof of a one-story building in the Cove Shopping Center, located at 1 Blackfield Drive in Tiburon. The antennas would be mounted with 2° downtilt at an effective height of about 25 feet above ground and would be oriented at about 120° spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be.970 watts. Presently mounted within the same enclosure are similar antennas for use by Sprint Nextel. For the limited purposes of this study, it is assumed that Sprint Nextel has installed Andrew Model RR90-17- 02 PCS antennas at an effective height of about 25 feet above ground and operates at a maximum effective radiated power of 1,500 watts. AT&T Mobility has similar antennas mounted on a pole about 520 feet away. Due to the physical separation of the Clearwire site from that of AT&T, the additive effect of operations at either site on those at the other is negligible in terms of compliance with the exposure standards. - HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS CW 0503 5 98 SAN FRANCISCO Page 2 of 4 Clearwire, LLC - Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-SF00503A) 1 Blackfield Drive - Tiburon, California Study Results For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum ambient RF exposure level due to the proposed Clearwire operation by itself is calculated to be 0.016 mW/cm2, which is 1.6% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level at ground, for the simultaneous operation of both carriers, is 2.4% of the public limit. The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby building* is 3.8% of the applicable public limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. Recommended Mitigation Measures Due to their mounting locations, the Clearwire antennas would not be accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 8 feet directly in front of the Clearwire antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance work on the building, should be allowed while the base station is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that occupational protection requirements are met. Posting explanatory warning signst on the face of the enclosure housing the antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible from any angle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet FCC-adopted guidelines. Similar measures should already be in place for the other carrier at the site; applicable keep-back distances have not been determined as part of this study. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station proposed by Clearwire, LLC at 1 Blackfield Drive in Tiburon, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Posting of explanatory. signs is recommended to establish compliance with occupational exposure limitations. x Located at least 150 feet away, based on aerial photographs from Google Maps. ± Warning signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord. local zoning or health authority. or appropriate professionals may be required. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS CV /0503598 SAN FRANCISCO Page 3 of 4 Clearwire, LLC - Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-SF00503A) 1 Blackfield Drive - Tiburon, California Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2011. This work has been carried out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. September 28, 2009 Q~pFESSjp E-13026 r M -2W6 W CG EV.6-30-2011 nl%q w William F. Ha tt. P.E. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CW0503598 CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO Page 4 of 4 FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Applicable Range (MHz) 0.3- 1.34 1.34- 3.0 3.0- 30 30- 300 300- 1,500 1,500- 100,000 1000 100 N 3 E 10 o v ar A ~ 1 0.1 Electromagnetic Fields (f is freaiuencv of emission in MHz Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 614 823.81f 1.63 2.191f 100 1801f 1842/ f 8123.81f 4.89/ f 2.191f 900/ f 1801/ 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 3.54~f 1.5Kf Nrf /106 Nrf /238 f7300 f/1500 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 Occupational Exposure PCS ~ Cell ~ FM Public ExDOSure 0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105 Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those fonnulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTNG ENGINEERS FCC Guidelines SAN FRANCISCO Figure l RFR.CALCTM Calculation Methodology Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) tlr, Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish (aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones. et For a panel or whip antenna, power density S = 180 x 0 , in mW/cm2, esw ;r . x 1 x D P,,,, h and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = 0.1x16 x77 XPnet it x h2 where 8BW = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees,. and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts, D = distance from antenna, in meters, h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and 77 = aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8). The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density. I In mW/cm25 Far Field. OET 65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: power density S = 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP 4xjrxD2 in mW/cm2, where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts; RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Methodology SAN FRANCISCO Figure 2 Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Anderson FROM: Nicholas Nguyen tip CC: Matt Swalberg, Joel Brewer SUBJECT: Clearwire Communication Wireless Communication Equipment at Town Hall DATE: December 22, 2009 Upon review of the submitted proposed development / re-modeling plans for the above- referenced site address, the Public Works Department provides the following preliminary comments: 1. The proposed project is primarily a building renovation project requiring the Building Department review and oversight. 2. A cautionary visual device needs to be installed to indicate that the area is safe to enter and work within as it relates to electronic and other wireless technology emissions. For example, a notification light should be installed at or near an access point. 3. An access port or door needs to be constructed for ingress and egress into the clock tower from within the building, through the attic. Currently, personnel walk out onto the roof to access the tower. 4. Application submittal refers to an emissions report that was not attached for review. Please have applicant submit. Thank you for the opportunity to review. EXHIBIT NO. ~ 1 Y January 13, 2010 PETER PURSLEY, J.D., Ph.D. 2 Carmel Way, San Anselmo, CA 94960 PeterPurslev.Ph.D(g)ymail.com ; (415) 453-5603 California State Bar Member #67202 Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Application of WesTower Communications for a wireless communications facility (WCF) at 1 Blackfield Drive, Tiburon (assessor's parcel #034-212-18) Dear Commissioners: /131z~tO JAN 1 3 4 r My family owns a residential rental at 251 Cecelia Way within several hundred feet of the proposed WCF. The application states the additive effect with an AT&T antenna 520 feet way is negligible, but there is no discussion of the combined radio frequency power levels of the existing Sprint and proposed WesTower equipment in the same structure in the Cove Center. That is a significant omission with public health implications. The application is obviously not in compliance with the methodology for calculating combined radio frequency power levels prescribed by the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65E, Edition 97-01 (August 1997). It is beyond dispute that wireless communications technology has scientifically documented impacts on human physiology including adverse health effects. Those adverse effects include blood chemistry changes. cognitive impairment, headaches, sleep disruption, and longer term effects including tumors and malignant cancer. A list of studies on reported biological effects of various radio frequency power densities far below current federal radiofrequency standards is published at Wave-Guide.org and is in Attachment 1 to this letter. While the application states "It is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas," nowhere does the application state the project operations will not have any noticeable or adverse effects on persons in regular close proximity (e.g., within 2,500 feet) to the radio frequency radiation to be generated at the project site. A distance of 300 feet and commercial zoning does not make the project safe. Rather than assume or hope there will be no adverse effects on persons in regular proximity, is the applicant willing to fund a simple low cost health survey that would be designed jointly by local health experts and the applicant? Or perhaps a simpler alternative would be to give written notice to all persons living, working or receiving daycare within 2,500 feet of the project site that they should report any health problems to a common phone number in the county health department as well as their regular healthcare provider. A sobering article by the San Francisco Medical Society on the health dangers of radiofrequency radiation exposure expressly discusses antenna radiation and symptoms to look for is included as Attachment 2 to this letter. What are the benefits for Tiburon's residents and businesses? Does our community really need this? Will local students, disabled , seniors and the under or unemployed get access to WCF services at significantly reduced rates or fully subsidized by the applicant? If not, why not? While these considerations by themselves should not delay action on the application, they should surely be a part of the efforts by WesTower to be a good corporate citizen and help keep the digital divide to a minimum in Tiburon. This powerful technology is unfortunately carcinogenic and should not be located in close proximity to humans. The Town's WCF development standards in the Tiburon General Plan strongly discourages this type of project. The fact that Sprint is in place does not justify or excuse approving a project that is in substantial conflict with plain language of local law and policy. Respectfully, Peter Pursley Attachments (2) Nave-Guide: Sage Associates Studies Matrix http- i/www.wave-o,uide.org/l ibrary/studies.htmi Reported Biological Effects From Radiofrequency Non-Ionizing Radiation The following studies indicate biological effects at exposure levels far below what would be explained by "thermal effects", and well within the range people are commonly exposed to every day. NOTE: Most of these exposures lie FAR BELOW the current advisory exposure standards in the US, which are based on thermal effects only. • Studies by Increasing Power Density • Studies by Increasing Specific Absorption Rate • Standards and Background Levels • Listing of Full Citations Studies by Increasing Power Density Power Density I Reported Biological Effects -F References 0.1 N W/cm2 1 (0.001 W/Kg ! EEG brain waves are altered when exposed to cell phone signal l Von Klitzing, 1995 SAR) ' W/cm2 16 0 i ( Motor function, memory and attention of school children Kolodynskl, 1996 p . affected (Latvia) 0.168 - 1.053 2 Irreversible infertility in mice after 5 generations of exposure to nals from antenna park hone si ll Magras & Xenos, 1997 ~1 W/CC71 g p ce 0.2 - 8 NW/Cm2 I Two-fold increase in childhood leukemia from AM-FM exposure Hocking, 1996 j 1.3 - 5.7 2 ! W/cm Two-fold increase in leukemia in adults from AM RF exposure ~ Dolk, 1997 , N 12.4 pW/Cm2 Interference with medical devices at least up to 1000 MHz Joyner, 1996 2 - 4 NW/cm2 I Direct effect of RFR on ion channels in cells/opening of acetycholine channels D'InZeO, 1988 2 4 - 10 pW/Cm Visual reaction time in children is slowed//lower memory t i t i f 1 Chiang, 1989 2 s on n es unct aired nervous system activity Im Dumanski, 1974 5 - 10 PW/Cm p 2 W/Cm 10 Significant differences in visual reaction time and reduced 1Chiang, 1989 p .memory function Belokrinitskiy, 10 - 25 pW/cm2 Changes in the hippocampus of the brain 11982 `30 PW/cm2 015 W/Kg ;(0 Immune system effects - elevation of PFC count (antibody cells) in d lVeyret, 1991 I . !pro g uc SAR) 150 pW/cm2 An 18% reduction in REM sleep (important to memory and Ilearning functions) Mann, 1996 100 pW/cm2 IChanges in immune system function iElekes, 1996 I/ 13/2010 5:48 AM )an Francisco Medical Society I Microwave And T Jiofrequency Ra... http://www.sf-is.org/AM%Template.cfin?Section=Home&tempIate=/... , Member Login ( Join SFMS ( Site Map I Search Got i r< A4e A 'mow`. .-.'kR.~ - .'4-.6dSS'.: } t-4 . C•1 6-,+~ 3 a !r Home About sl..,Ms l1'ictubership SF Medicine -Nial.aazire :article Archiveti Health C:arv Nan+•s Advertising Opportunities Calendar of Lvents physician Resources Physician minder Contact Us };mci ,cney Preparedness Print this page t.S6 Email to a friend Microwave And Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: A Gro«1ng Environmental Health Crisis? t.'indv Satyr Car; radiofrequency radiation (RFR) adversely affect vital processes in the human body? The answer is clearly yes. Can this occur at environmental levels of exposure? The answer is clearly yes. Which processes? What levels? This short paper is an introduction to what we kno=,\, (and do not know) about RFR. 5ioeffects that are reported to result from RF exposure include changes in cell membrane function, major changes in calcium metabolism and cellular signal communication, cell proliferation, activation of proto-oncogenes, activation; of HSP heat shock proteins as if heating has occurred when it has net and cell death. Resulting effects reported in the scientific literature include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, increased free radical production, cell stress and premature aging, changes in brain function including memory loss, learning impairment, headaches and fatigue, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative conditions, reduction in melatonin secretion: and cancer. The virtual revolution in science taking place now is based on a growing recognition that non-thermal or lov-,intensity RF exposure can be detected in living tissues and results in well -defined bioeffects. The most rapidly growing environmental pollutant in today's environment is probably electromagnetic fields (EMF) including radiofrequency radiation. Public exposure to eiectromagnetic radiation (radiofrequency and microwave) is crowing exponentially worldwide with the introduction and use of cordless phones, cellular phones, pagers and antennas in communities designed to transmit their RF signals. Cell phone exposures can be intense enough to cause DNA damage and/or failure to repair DNA damage in the brain. It's not necessarily the heating that causes damage. It appears to be exposure to non-thermal levels of RFR that interferes with normal body processes in the brain, skull, ear and nerves of the head, neck and face. Casual use (a few hours per month) has not yet been linked to increased brain tumors, but heavy users like sorne business travelers, realtors and physicians have not yet been studied as a group so any reassurance given to cell phone users in recent media coverage of the Muscat study, for exarlnple, is false reassurance. The Muscat (JAMA 2001) study compared infrequent users (less than, one hour per month) to frequent users (greater than 10 hours per month) effectively blurring any effect for users who may bill 1000 or 2000 or even 2500 minutes per month. However, even this study did report a doubling Of risk for ner_nroepithelial turnors. And a tripling of eye cancer (t.nveal melanoma) was recently reported in cell phone users. Tile first cancer related to cordless phone use was reported in Svx eden where Such use was linked to development of an angiosarcoma. Some oncoingi-sts and brain cancer surgeons report they have excised brain tumors positioned along the antenna alignment and on the side of the head as the cell phone has been used in heavy cell phone users. Although the J.S. media has been relatively silent on reporting studies iinking RFR to health effects, this is not true of western European countries, Australian, Israel, the former USSR and China. Chronic long-term exposure tc lower-level RFR from wireless antennas is also linked to some of these effects, particularly on the immune system, mental function, sleep interference and on DNA. These exposures are reported in the range of 0.1 to 10 or 20 ;l;icnvotts per centimeter squared exposure (a measure of power density in the air). Arl alternate r,leasure is SAR or specific absorption rate which tells how much energy deposition occurs inside the body chow mt!:.h RFR is absorbed by different tissues). SARs as low as 0.0024 watts/kilogram ,a,hoie body exposure at cell phone frequencies are reported to cause serious interference with body processes (in this case DNA damage and/or DNA repair processes). gong-term and cumulative exposure to such massively increased RF has no precedent in history. These exposures simply did not exist 150 years ago. Life on earth evolved with vanishingly small RF exposures, most of that from natural lightning. We have increased the background nonionizing radiation by 1012. There is no conclusive scientific evidence on the safety or risk of such exposures, but a growing body of scientific evidence reports such bioeffects and adverse health effects are possible, if not probable. The weight of the evidence that bioeffects occur ;,fith RFR exposure is beyond argument and some of the evidence suggests that serious health effects may result, particularly from cumulative or chronic exposure. Scientific study on cumulative effects is very, incomplete, and some studies report that low-intensity chronic exposure may produce permanent averse health, consequences. % L i 1 /1 ./?oin irN Pm pan Francisco Medical Society I Microwave And liofrequency Ra... http://www.sfms.org/AM/rempl ate.cfm?Section=Home&tempIate=L. Public Polio" and the Precautionary Principle Public policies to address the issue of decision making in the face of this scientific curve of wireless communications. uncertainty are evolving but are far behind the growth The global infrastructure -will be in place before we know what the health risks will be. The precautionary principle (erring on the side of conservatism) is frequently promoted by public health advocates given the massive public health risk that is possible if such exposure is carcinogenic or has other adverse bioeffects. Even if the risk to an individual is slight (which is at present suspected but not conciusiveiy proven), the sheer number of people around the globe who may be at risk makes this policy choice of utmost importance.. present, no U.S. agency systematically monitors health effects from radiofrequency/microwave radiation. The wireless industry was recently required to provide mobile phone buyers with the SAR (specific absorption rate or a measure of energy absorbed into the brain from inobiie phones). The industry has stated it will not post SARs on the box, but place it hidden inside to prevent comparison shopping. The FDA is allowing this as compliance with its recommendation to provide meaningful information to the public. The United States has a de facto policy of "post-sales surveillance" with respect to mobile phones. This means mobile phones can be sold to the public and only after years of use might there be studies to characterize v,1hat health consequences, if any, have arisen as a result. In shorter terms, "we are the experiment" for health effects. "Post-sales surveillance" is inadequate to protect existing users. And given that the U.S. has no research funding for RF exposure, there will be no systematic look at what mobile phone use does to people. Weight or The Scientific Lvidence For \onthermal Radiofrequency,'Microwave Radiation Health Effects While the scientific community continues to study and understand the physical (and quantum mechanic) basis for electromagnetic effects on living systems, there is little to protect or inform the public about consequences of unlimited reliance on these new technologies. For all the potential good that such inventions brina to the U.S., including the immeasurable benefit of the telecommunications/Internet revolution, we m;lst be vigilant about what consequences may come uninvited. The evidence for an association between RFR and bioeffects in living systems spans the entire range from effects on individual atoms (calcium) and molecules (DNA or the genetic code in each living cell) to humans and other mammalian species. In the past 50 'r'ears, experimentation across the electromagnetic spectrum of Frequencies has found replicable bioeffects on everything from mice to humans. The cascade of biological, chemical and physical events that occur in living systems in response to RFR is better understood as the multi-disciplinary scientific community and its science matures. Disease is not the only endpoint of this research. The potential medicinal applications of RFR treatment may also offer unparalleled opportunities for healing and wellness as we gain understanding of how the body receives, processes and responds to the subtle information contained in radiofrequency/microwave energy. Symptoms of Elect rose nsitivity/l.-Aectrostress The environmental illness is sometimes termed electrostress or technostress, eiectrosensitivity or electric allergy. Patients may comment on minor, annoying symptoms or they rnay be severely debilitated. EMF/RFR exposures can interfere with sleep, work and normal life. What kinds of symptoms might a physician hear from a patient, The most common conlpiair.ts are: headaches, dizziness and nausea; failing memory, confusion and spatial disorientation; pain and burning feeling in the eyes; parched, thirsty or dry feeling that is not quenched with drinking; ringing in the ears (tinnitus or similar chronic ear-noise); irregular heartbeat and palpitations (shaky stressed feeling); fatigue or exhaustion; insorninia and sleep difficulties; skin rashes and sunburn-like redness and swelling of face and neck; burning or tingling of face and extremities and light sensitivity. Symptoms quickly improve when away from EMF/RFR sources, particulariy when the patient moves away from computers, interior fluorescent lighting, transformers, wireless antenna exposures, cell phones and cordless phones, appliances and out of proximity to freeways, electrical substations and power lines, airports, military bases and doppler or other radar installations. All these are potential sources of higher than normal EMF/RFR exposure. Symptoms return very quickly on ret.urnino to the original environment. Over time, it appears that sensitivity is increased to smaller and smaller EMF/RFR exposures. Treatment is not well established, since there is little to no agreement about whether this is a true medical syndrome. Patients report that eliminating exposures to EMFIRFR is the primary way they deal with their symptoms. Occupational exposures that result in chronic symptoms generally cannot be tretrted without a change ir work environment,-. Some researchers find that antioxidants can retard or eliminate RFR effects in cellular studies (probably by reducing free-radical damage or cellular stress known to occur with RFR exposure). Some Practical :advice What About Coroiess Phones in Your !borne (.As eoposeCi to mobfle or Mobi,`e Phones)? Cordless phones that you use around the house have far io~^;er levels of RFR, but they still ,roduce R,'R that a land line does not. In pre7Orence, use a land line, then a cordless, then a mobile phone for continual use, particularly for children. 1/13/2010 3:16 PM an Francisco Medical Society I Microwave And - liofrequency Ra... http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/... What About Driv ng and using 3 Cell Phone at the Sarn2 Ti1re'~ Cell phone use by a driver of a car increases the risk of accident by d X (a four hundred percent risk) v hich is equivalent to driving under the influence cI alcohol. This may be due both to the distraction and to physical effects of cell phone RFR on the brain, eye and body of the cell phone user. Are Children at Any Greater Pisk? Probabiv, since children are growing and their cells are turning over faster than adults. Many of the studies linking power lines and cancer shove that children are particularly sensitive tc low EMF levels from chronic exposure and develop leukemias in response. The use of "kiddy mobile phones" with a button for mom and a button ter dad are terrible ideas at this point. Second-Nand Padiation If you are sitting or standing near a person t:sing a mobile phone, be aware that you are within their radiation pattern for a few feet in all. directions. P you are using a mobile phone in the car, your passenger and very possibly your kids in the back seat are within the radiation pattern of the mobile phone. Involuntary exposure to RFR may uitimately be of viewed as unacceptable as to "second-hard smoke". I Sher countries like Japan, there are mobile phone jammers that can be used to kill mobile phone trans: fissions. They are oooular in restaurants, theaters and on the subiv&eay. They cover a large room area. Wi7at About the Leh' Towers in Neighborhoods? It is worrisome that the installation of antennas go up in neighborhood locations, near schoois, churches and homes. These wireless antennas expose peopre to involuntary, chronic RFP•.. Low levels of RFR, which have been shown to be bioactive, are associated iv,litn changes in cell proliferation and DN,` damage. Un;ortunatly, local agencies are prevented from considering RFR health and safety issues in sitingr'zoning. The FCC is in charge of RFR; the current FCC standard is 1000 pW/c;','2. But some scientific studies shov, adverse health effects reported in the 0.01 to 100 pW/rm. 2 range (car lower). Other countries limit public exposure to 0.1 WW/crn.2 in recognition of bioeffpcts and potential adverse health effects of nonthermal RFR exposure (Salzburg). Vhat Are Scientists and Public Policy Researchers Saying About PFR? The Vienna Resolution (October 1998) provided a consensus statement signed by 16 of the world's leading bioelectromagnetics researchers. It says there is scientific agreement that biological effects from low intensity RF exposures are established. It also says that existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. That means, no safe exposure can be established. It also urges that there be public participation in making decisions about setting limits and advises that technical information be made available for comparison of EMF exposure in communication; devices so that users can. Make informed decisions for prudent avoidance of EMF. The Salzburg Resolution (June 2000) was adopted at the International Conference on Cell Tower Siting and would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than 0.1 rnicrowatt/centimeter squared. This would reduce public exposure belov, 0.1 pW/cm2 in all places. it is a limit that takes into account nonthermal RI: bioeffects and reported health effects. At What Point Do We Adopt Strategies that Are Protective of Public Heaith? The basis for decision-making about a relationship between electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency and microwave radiation: and adverse health effects at low intensity exposures rests on two key areas. The first is the "weight of the scientific evidence" pointing to a relationship betweeen RF/MW and illness. The scientific evidence needs to be reported to decision-makers in a format that is concise, understandable and accurate. The second is definition of the basis on which the evidence is judged to be sufficient tG take interim or permanent public health steps to reduce risk. Conclusive scientific evidence should not be implicitly or explicitly set as the goal required before any action can be taken to limit public exposure to R"r /,'-IW frorn wireless communications. Given the potential for a very large world-wide public health impact if even a small health risk is present, interim public health actions should be proportionately triggered to the weight of scientific evidence as it grows in support of adverse health effects at low-intensity exposure levels. For further information contact Sage Associates at sage@silcom.com and visit Sageassociates.net on the web. A technical manuscript on RadiQfrequency Radiation Health Studies is available at a nominal charge for copy and shipping. Ask for Testimony to the UK and Scottish Parliaments by Sage Associates. Cindy Sage is the owner of Sage Associates, an environmental consulting firm located in Mlontecito, California. She has been involved in EMF issues as a land use consultant and public policy researcher since 1982. Her firm specializes in land use planning Where EMF computer rnodelino is performed to predict setbacks for magnetic fields. About SFMS j Me+rbership ( SF Medicine Magazine i SFMS Action Nev,s Advertising Opporturines Calendar of Events Physician Resources I Patients Resources Contact Us Physician Finder 2005 San Francisco t-ledicai Society. Ail rights reserved. Staff Loom 44 1 /1 ;/')(1101 l E PM RECORDING REQUESTED RETURN TO: Tiburon Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A CO-LOCATED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE IN THE COVE SHOPPING CENTER ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 034-212-18 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Planning Commission has received and considered an application (File #10903) for a conditional use permit to operate a wireless communications facility (WCF) on property located at 1 Blackfield Drive. The proposal involves the construction of an unmanned wireless communications facility at a commercial building in the Cove Shopping Center currently occupied by Blockbuster Video and several smaller businesses. The proposed facility includes two (3) antennas, three (3) microwave dishes, and 3) remote radio units mounted within the framework of the existing false chimney on the building, with one equipment cabinet and one GPS antenna at the west end of the building within an existing screened enclosure. The facility would be used for broadband wireless network purposes. The application consists of File #10903 and contains the following primary materials: 1. Application form, drawings, photosimulations, specifications, coverage maps, and other materials received September 30, 2009 2. Supplemental application materials received November 17, 2009 3. Radio Frequency-Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report, prepared by Hammett & Edison, dated September 28, 2009 The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution. The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at the public hearing. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-02 01/13/2010 EXHIBIT NO. B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on January 13, 2010, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. C. The Planning Commission has found that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. D. The Planning Commission has found, based upon the application materials and analysis provided in the January 13, 2010 Staff report, that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, the Town of Tiburon Wireless Communications Facilities Standards and other applicable regulations. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed wireless communications facility would be co-located on an existing commercial building and would not be in close proximity to dwelling units. The facility would have minimal visibility and would not be readily apparent from adjoining properties or public streets. Section 2. Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the Conditional Use Permit application (File #10903) to operate a wireless communications facility (WCF) on property located at 1 Blackfield Drive, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The use shall be in substantial conformance with the application as submitted, as modified by the conditions of approval herein. Any substantive intensification of operation or use, as determined within the reasonable discretion of the Director of Community Development, shall require an amendment to this use permit. 2. This conditional use permit shall be valid for an initial period of ten (10) years from the date of final discretionary approval. The permit may be extended for a period no longer than five (5) years after the holding of a public hearing for the purposes of verifying continued compliance with the findings and conditions of approval under which the application was originally approved, as well as compliance with any other applicable provisions provided for in the Municipal Code. 3. The permit holder shall notify the Town, in writing, that the facility has become operational within five (5) days after it has become operational. 4. Within sixty (60) days after a WCF becomes operational, the permit holder shall provide the Town with a report from a certified provider of such specialized studies, confirming that the actual EMF radiation levels, operating alone and in combination with other approved facilities, substantially conform to the pre- TI3URON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-02 01/13/2010 2 approval EMF report, and confirming that EMF levels do not exceed current standards for permissible human exposure to EMF as adopted by the FCC, and measured at the property line or nearest point of public access, whichever is closer, in the direction of maximum radiation from each antenna. Reports shall specify EMF levels with the site operating at full power and baseline levels with the site inoperative. Technical data shall be presented showing levels relative to the currently permitted Federal regulations. Raw measurements shall be provided as an appendix. In addition, the report shall include, in lay terms, a summary of the technical data as presented in the report. EMF reports required herein shall be paid for by the permit holder and prepared by a third party consultant acceptable to the Director of Community Development, using a testing protocol acceptable to the Director of Community Development. 5. Following the initial sixty (60) day report required above, the permit holder shall have EMF radiation levels of the WCF tested, not earlier than ninety (90) days prior to every required renewal of the permit. The permit holder shall submit the written report, along with application for renewal, at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of expiration of the conditional use permit. 6. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Tiburon Building Division for the construction of the facility and associated work. 7. The permit holder shall at all times comply with requirements of the applicable Fire Protection District regarding fire safety, which may include installation of an automatic fire extinguishing system, installation of a remote monitoring system, or such other compliance techniques as determined by the Fire Marshal. Required fire safety measures shall be completed and required fire safety equipment shall be installed and in operation prior to final building inspection and commencement of use of the WCF. 8. The permit holder shall maintain all WCF facilities in an undamaged condition. If visibly damaged, the permit holder shall repair or replace the facilities as necessary achieve consistency with this approval. 9. If the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) or other regulating body establish a more stringent standard(s) for human exposure to radio frequency radiation or other electromagnetic field radiation which is determined by the Director of Community Development to be applicable to this WCF, the permit holder shall be required to, upon consultation with the Community Development Department, file for a review of this Conditional Use Permit within sixty (60) days and evaluate the existing cumulative levels of EMF radiation emissions from the project site in accordance with the new standard(s). Any exceeding of the new standards(s) on TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-02 01/13/2010 the project site, as demonstrated in radio frequency evaluations required herein, shall provide grounds for the Town to revoke or amend this Conditional Use Permit as provided in the Tiburon Municipal Code. 10. No advertising signage or identifying logos are to be placed on the WCF, with the exception of small identification plates for emergency notification or warning notices. Sign permits shall be secured prior to installation for all signs subject to a permit as required by Chapter 16A of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 11. There shall be no exterior lighting of the WCF unless required by state or federal law, with the exception of emergency lighting for the equipment cabinets or as otherwise required by these conditions of approval. 12. Permitted hours for routine testing and servicing (excluding emergency repairs) shall be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 13. Typical vehicle trips resulting from the ongoing operation and maintenance of this WCF are anticipated to be less than five (5) per month and shall not substantially exceed that number. 14. The permit holder shall properly maintain, and ultimately remove if required, the WCF in compliance with the provisions of Section 16-4.13.080 or successor sections thereto of the Municipal Code, the Town's WCF Standards, and any conditions of permit approval. Prior to final building inspection and commencement of the WCF use, the permit holder shall post a financial security, such as a letter of credit, acceptable to the Town Attorney to ensure that the approved facility is properly maintained and will be removed if required. The amount of the security shall be 125% of the estimated cost to remove the facility and return the surrounding area to its condition prior to installation. 15. The permit holder shall fund all costs associated with ongoing peer review of technical information and/or the Town's retention of an independent consultant to measure electromagnetic radiation from the WCF for compliance with applicable FCC regulations, or for other purposes as set forth in Section III.B.25.b of the Town's WCF Standards, or successor sections thereto. Permit holder may be required to post a financial security to cover such costs. 16. The owner of the site, all other interest holders and the permit holder shall agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from all liability, losses, damages, costs, expenses and fees resulting from any claim or action not made or brought by the Town involving the facility, including, but not limited to, the approval or conditional approval of a permit for the facility or from any claim or action to TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-02 01/13/2010 4 attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of permit applications or any other license with respect to this facility, or involving its installation, use or operation. The Town shall promptly notify the permit holder of any such claim, action or proceeding. The Town shall retain the right to participate in any claim, action, or proceeding, including the selection of its own legal counsel. 17. In the event that the Town shall in the future adopt legislation providing for the payment of franchise or other fees by entities maintaining WCFs within the Town, the permit holder shall be subject to such legislation and shall begin paying such fees upon the effective date of said legislation. 18. The permit holder shall not encumber, sublease, assign, transfer or sell (including the sale, acquisition, merger or consolidation of permit holder), a permitted WCF for use by anyone, including another carrier, without first providing not less than thirty (30) days written notice thereof to the Director of Community Development. 19. The applicant shall be required to fund all costs associated with independent peer review studies and reports commissioned by the Town of any information submitted by the applicant, or the independent preparation of such information by the Town or its consultants. Such costs shall include, without limitation, the cost of third-party consultants to verify the predicted and actual measurements of electromagnetic radiation for compliance with current applicable FCC guidelines and shall also include, without limitation, a third-party report evaluating the feasibility of alternative facility designs and locations (including multiple site alternatives) that make recommendations on the best alternatives (including multiple site alternatives) location(s) for providing the desired level of service coverage. Costs covered by this section shall include all costs incurred by the Town in obtaining independent peer review commissioned by the Town, including, without limitation, the consultant's fee and the Town's overhead cost associated with staff time expended on administration of the contracts. All independent peer reviewers and consultants shall certify in their reports that they do not and have not performed services for the applicant or for any entity associated with the applicant and that such peer reviewers and consultants have no conflicts of interest whatsoever with respect to their work for the Town. 20. The installation of antennas or equipment for other carriers or service providers in locations where others hold a permit or permits for WCFs shall require compliance with the Town's permit approval process and, where applicable, may take the form of an amendment to an existing permit or a new permit. 21. If the site constitutes a potential co-location or shared-location site, the permit holder shall not enter into an exclusive lease, license, or other arrangement for the use of the site, unless specifically authorized in the Town's permit approval. T03URON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-02 01/13/2010 5 22. With respect the provisions of Section 16-4.13.070 of the Municipal Code or successor sections thereto regarding correction of interference, the permit holder shall be responsible for all labor and equipment costs for determining the source of the interference, all costs associated with eliminating the interference, (including but not limited to filtering, installing radio frequency cavities, installing directional antennas, powering down systems and engineering analysis), and all costs arising from third party claims against the Town attributable to such interference. 23. These conditions of approval are in addition to any lease provisions set forth in a future lease agreement between the Town of Tiburon and the permit holder. 24. Prior to issuance of the building permit, applicant shall identify obsolete or unused roof projections on the building and arrange for their removal as part of the installation work. 25. Warning signs regarding RF emissions shall be placed in close proximity to the WCF antennas to advise persons working nearby, as recommended in the RF report prepared for the application. Said signs shall comply with any applicable federal regulations and shall be installed prior to commencement of the use. 26. The Town of Tiburon reserves the right to amend or revoke this permit for cause, in accordance with the provisions of the Tiburon Municipal Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 131 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corcoran, Frymier & Kunzweiler NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None VACANCIES: TWO ATTEST: lSCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY KUNZWE ON PLAN CHAIRMAN G COMMISSION TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-02 01/13/2010 She admitted that she has concerns about the impacts of competition but also said she believes competition is healthy. Jeffrey Willmore, Keegan & Coppin Co., said he represents the landlord's commercial real estate interests. The property owner asked him to convey the information that he has a long-standing relationship with the owner of 16 and 18 Main Street and that the trash enclosure built between those parcels and attached to the subject site is for the use of his tenant's trash and recycling needs. Chair Kunzweiler asked if this information would fulfill the condition of approval regarding refuse and recycling. Ms. Tyler said staff would be more comfortable with written evidence of that understanding and has conveyed as much to the landlord. Mr. Willmore explained that there has been some difficulty in reaching the owner of 16 and 18 Main but said something would soon be forwarded to staff. Chair Kunzweiler closed the public hearing. Commissioner Frymier welcomed Mr. Black and Uptick Vineyards to the town. She said the staff report is very specific, that she is comfortable the conditions of approval can be met, and that she finds the use compatible with the Town's General Plan provisions. Commissioner Corcoran concurred, stating that the downtown site seems appropriate and the use should increase foot traffic. He said he spoke with several residents and local real estate agents who also supported the use and location. He said he preferred to consider this a benefit to other businesses in town and suggested that Mr. Black, Mr. Skellenger, and Ms. Tognazzini work together on promotional ideas for increasing the Town's presence as a wine destination. Chair Kunzweiler supports the project and believes the Commission to be in agreement on the finding that this use would serve public convenience and necessity. He wished the applicant luck in this venture and hoped that all businesses in Town would soon benefit from an upswing in the economy. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Fryinier) to adopt the resolution granting a conditional use permit for the operation of a wine tasting and sales business at 1704 Tiburon Boulevard. Motion carried: 3-0. Mr. Black said he has many business contacts and former associates through whom he will network to increase tourism within the town as a whole. 3. 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY; FILE #10903; Cove Shopping Center, Inc., Owner; WesTower Communications for the Clearwire (Clear Wireless LLC), Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034-212-18 [SA] D TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 13. 2010 MINUTES NO. 992 PAGE 4 EXHIBIT NO. Mr. Anderson presented the staff report, stating that Clearwire has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to operate a wireless communications facility (WCF) on property located at 1 Blackfield Drive. The WCF would consist of installing antennas, microwave dishes, and remote radio units inside the existing false chimney on the Blockbuster Video building, and installing equipment cabinets and a small Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna adjacent to the west-facing end of the building. The facility would be used for broadband wireless network services, also called WIMAX. This type of technology turns the entire coverage area into a broadband wireless internet-served area, whether it is accessed from a home, office, or vehicle. The facility would be co-located with an existing Sprint WCF facility, and would utilize the same false chimney and screened equipment area used by Sprint. Clearwire is a new wireless communications entrant to the Tiburon Peninsula and this facility is part of a series of five installations proposed to provide service coverage for portions of the surrounding peninsula vicinity. The coverage areas for individual facilities and the combined facilities are somewhat smaller than those seen by the Commission on prior WCF applications. This is because Clearwire operates at a higher frequency with a slightly weaker signal that is somewhat more subject to obstruction by structures and trees, thus reducing the signal penetration rate. Clearwire estimates the coverage area is about 20% smaller than a typical wireless phone carrier using older technology. Mr. Anderson reviewed the project components, stating that staff believes the proposal to be in good conformance with the Town's WCF Standards. The applicant submitted a radio frequency (RF) report evaluating the proposed facility's compliance with applicable FCC standards, including measurements of the Sprint facility on the site and predictive modeling for the operation of the existing and proposed facilities. The report indicated that the combined operation of the Sprint and Clearwire antennas would not exceed 2.4% of the FCC public limit at ground level and 3.8% at a second-floor level of the nearest building. Commissioner Corcoran referred to the RF report submitted by the applicant and asked if additional reports would be required for ongoing monitoring of the site. Mr. Anderson explained that the initial report submitted is theoretical in nature, that the applicant would be required to commission an actual report within 30-60 days of site activation, and that an updated RF report would be required for any subsequent CUP renewals. Ryan Elias-Berg, Clearwire, said his company is looking to establish broadband wireless network in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. He explained that Clearwire's partnership with Sprint allows them to utilize existing facilities and compounds, thereby reducing the need for additional new WCF locations. Commissioner Frymier inquired about the timeline for installation and service activation. Mr. Elias-Berg said that a building permit needs to be obtained before the 3 to 5 day installation process occurs. Commissioner Frymier asked how often RF emissions are monitored. Mr. Elias-Berg said there is no anticipated increase in RF emissions post-installation and new reports would only be commissioned for CUP renewals or when new equipment is installed. Chair Kunzweiler TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - .IANUARY 13.2010 MINUTES NO. 992 PAGE 5 confirmed, stating that the permits are reviewed every 5 or 10 years and RF emissions are measured. Commissioner Frymier thought 5-year intervals were rather long when considering the potentially dramatic effects of RF emissions but said she could support that if it were standard. Mr. Anderson explained that the initial RF study takes into account maximum power output of WCF's at the site, but said that the addition of any other antennas or equipment would require a new RF study. Commissioner FM-nier asked when technological advancements in the form of smaller components could be anticipated. Mr. Elias-Berg said this is the smallest equipment available at this time and that there would be no way to foresee when anything smaller would be available. Commissioner Frymier said the Town would ultimately prefer that the components were invisible and asked who initiates the installation of smaller equipment. Mr. Elias-Berg said it would also be in the best interests of Clearwire to use the most advanced technology. Commissioner Corcoran requested more information on the estimation that Clearwire's coverage area would be 20% smaller than a typical wireless phone carrier. He said that would offer fairly spotty coverage and assumed there are plans to broaden that coverage in the future. Mr. Elias- Berg said Clearwire has little interest in providing phone coverage and will focus more on a home-based broadband use. He said there are no plans for additional Tiburon Peninsula sites beyond those already identified. Chair Kunzweiler asked if the entire peninsula network is contingent upon approval of this location. Mr. Glesiberg confirmed that the signals from each site do communicate with one another and said that if this site were not viable, another site would need to be identified. Chair Kunzweiler referred to the coverage map and asked what percentage of Tiburon residents will be able to use the service. Mr. Elias-Berg could not specify and percentage. Bill Stephens, Clearwire, confirmed that the commercial downtown area and as broad a residential base as possible are the focus. He explained that throughout the Bay Area and particularly in Marin County, there are limits to the scope of systems that can even be proposed. Chair Kunzweiler said he was under the impression that a service provider's FCC license requires a licensee to snake assurances to provide certain degrees of coverage. Mr. Stephens said that is a mandate set forth by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). He explained that Clearwire is not a telephone company and that while it does hold a federal license, it is not subject to the service mandates set forth by CPUC. He added that the licenses in question were allocated to and approved for Sprint, who then transferred their title to Clearwire. Chair Kunzweiler said he happens to live on the back side of the Tiburon Peninsula and that there is a large percentage of residents who will not be covered by this service. Mr. Stephens said the signals will also be broadcast from Corte Madera and San Quentin. He estimated that portions of that part of the Peninsula may actually be covered by those signals. He said TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 13. 2010 MINUTES NO. 992 PAGE 6 Clearwire's signals are targeted at the areas mentioned earlier, rather- than arterial coverage for motorists. Commissioner Corcoran noted that automakers are developing wireless systems for use in vehicles. Mr. Stephens confirmed, said that anyone in need of broadband coverage could certainly avail themselves of this service, and noted that moving vehicles do not necessarily require uninterrupted connectivity. He likened the signal use in vehicles to the buffering period experienced while downloading and playing a video from a personal computer. Commissioner Fryinier asked why Sprint is not pursuing this service. Mr. Stephens said this is a scalable business model with technology that is owned by Clearwire. He said this technology is only now in a state where it can be offered to the general public in a broad way and noted that it will not only serve Sprint and other wireless entities, but that Sprint and Comcast are both major investors. Commissioner Corcoran questioned and confirmed that Clearwire will launch its services at the end of this year. Chair Kunzweiler opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Peter Pursley, San Anselmo, said his family owns a rental property situated within several hundred feet of the proposed project. He referred to Exhibit 7 of the staff report, stating that the Hammett & Edison report is based on assumptions for both the Clearwire and Sprint service components and therefore fails to comply with FCC directives. While the Planning Commission is barred from considering adverse health impacts as a basis for denial of this application, it does not excuse the applicant nor preclude the Commission from raising the topic. He distributed his written comments as well as a report from the San Francisco Medical Society which raises alarming concerns about the emissions which accompany antennas. He proposed that the applicant be required to take affirmative steps ensuring the safety of surrounding parties, including notice to everyone within 2500 feet of the subject site to beware of potential exposure symptoms. He also recommended that the applicant offer in depth discussion on the true benefits this service will provide to the community and what steps will be taken to facilitate service access for the disabled, unemployed, and elderly members of the community. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Elias-Berg noted that condition of approval No. 5 requires the applicant to commission and produce a study of the site's EMF generation within 60 days of installation. He is confident the site will comply with all standards and regulations but in the event it did not, service would not be allowed to continue. Commissioner Corcoran acknowledged Mr. Pursley's comments, said he had similar concerns himself, and said it is important to look at these facilities in a comprehensive way. He said it is to these types of concerns that the Town developed its wireless standards and that he inquired about TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 13. 2010 MINUTES NO. 992 PAGE 7 Clearwire's long-range plans. He said he is confident that the initial as well as ongoing emissions tests will help protect residents and recommended that, for the sake of further reassurance, the applicant share the results of any tests it conducts with the Town. He also shared concerns over the digital divide but said that greater competition typically translates into greater opportunities for the consumer. He welcomes the presence of another internet provider and is glad to see Tiburon in on the early stages of this service. Commissioner Frymier said she believes the design components of this proposal to be secondary to any resulting health impacts. She said staff has presented an articulate and straightforward report which carefully studied the project for conformance with the Town's updated and stringent wireless standards. She believed Clearwire's presence in Town would be positive; she appreciated Mr. Stephens' explanation of this service versus what others are offering, and welcomed the applicant to Tiburon. Chair Kunzweiler said his thoughts were similar to those raised by his fellow Commissioners. He said that safety has been the root of much concern and debate since the wireless world was conceived and thought the Commission should leave that debate to the authorized experts. He agreed that health issues are a primary concern and said he is comforted that the report indicates only single digit percentages of the maximum values set forth by the FCC. The Town's interests are not so different from those of responsible wireless providers. He shared concerns about the digital divide and quasi-public facilities that do not fully serve the public, but said that is a public policy issue that the Planning Commission has not been tasked with solving. ACTION: It was M/S (Frymier/Corcoran) to adopt the resolution granting a conditional use permit for the installation and operation of a wireless communications facility located at 1 Blackfield Drive. Motion carried: 3-0. 2. 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY; FILE #10902; Town of Tiburon, Owner; WesTower Communications for Clearwire (Clear Wireless LLC), Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 058-171-92 Mr. Elias-Berg thanked staff for a comprehensive report and explained that he worked closely with the Town Engineer to obtain access to the site and design a project that could not be seen from street level. Chair Kunzweiler opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Peter Pursley, San Anselmo, asked if this particular facility would also be co-located and if the submitted RF report includes an actual or hypothetical description of the equipment to be installed. Mr. Stephens stated that Hammett & Edison prepares nearly 100% of the RF reports for Bay Area jurisdictions. He said that while they have a very strong database of equipment, it is not TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 13. 2010 MINUTES NO. 992 PAGE 8 Telecommunications Technology Counsel for Government Agencies and Private Institutions February 8, 2010 Mr. Scott Anderson Kramer Telecom Law Firm A Professional Corporation 2001 S. Barrington Avenue, Suite 306 Los Angeles, California 90025-5379 Main Tel: +1 (310) 312-9900 TelecomLawFirm.com Jonathan L. Kramer Attorney and Counselor at Law Direct Tel: + 1 (310) 405-7333 Direct Fax: + 1 (310) 473-5900 Kramer@TeiecomLawFirm.com Our File Reference: 920017.3 Director of Community Development Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, California 94920 Reference: Conditional Use Permit Application #10903; 1 Blackfield Drive CUP Applicant: Clearwire Subjects: (1) Assessment of RF Emissions Safety Compliance with the FCC Rules, and (2) Legal Considerations Regarding the Present Appeal of this Project to the Town Council Dear Mr. Anderson: The Town of Tiburon (the "Town") has retained this telecommunications law firm to provide the Town with an independent legal and technical opinion regarding the refe- renced Clearwire project. Specifically, you have asked me to provide the Town with the answers to the following two federal and state law questions: 1. "Will Clearwire's proposed installation fully comply with the FCC rules for radio frequency emissions safety?" and 2. "What legal considerations attach to the present Town Council appeal of CUP Application 10903?" To reach the answers to the questions you have asked requires specialized legal and wireless technology expertise. My qualifications to provide the Town with the answers to the questions just stated, from both a legal and technical perspective, are set out in abbreviated form at Exhibit 1 to this letter. In preparin this response, I have reviewed the Appeal dated January 25, 2010 (without all exhibits); and the Town's Municipal Code regarding Design and Operations Stan- dards (EMF Radiation Exposure Limits). 1 I have not reviewed or considered Attachment 4 to the Appeal regarding actions in Sunnyvale, Califor- nia as those actions are without any legal relevance in this matter. EXHIBIT NO. i► Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 2 1. "Will Clearwire's proposed installation fully comply with the FCC rules for radio frequency emissions safety?" To adequately answer that question, let me first set the legal stage for how radio fre- quency emissions safety rules are created and regulated in the United States. A. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 The Telecommunications Act of 19962 (the "Telecom Act") was passed by Congress on February 8, 1996. One of the many purposes of the Telecom Act was to clearly del- egate national authority for setting radio frequency ("RF") emission standards to the FCC, and to prohibit any state and local government from "regulat[ing] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions."3 If a state or local government contravenes the anti-regulation provision regarding RF emissions, Congress, through the Telecom Act, permits an aggrieved party to directly petition the FCC for relief.4 This type of broad regulation is sometimes called "field preemption" because Congress has preempted the entire field of regulation in this area of law. Yet, while Congressional preemption of state and local government regulation of RF emissions safety is intentionally complete, Congress specifically included the last por- tion of the rule stated above, which adds the important qualifier, "...to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions."5 (Emphasis added) Congress crafted the first part of the rule to make clear its intention that state and local governments shall not establish the emissions regulations at the state or local govern- ment level. At the same time, however, Congress made it equally clear in the last part of the rules that state and local governments are delegated a proper role in determining compliance with the regulations promulgated by the FCC. 2 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. 3 47 U.S.C. § 332 (C)(7)(B)(N) (1996) 4 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v) (1996). If the Commission finds that the petition has merit, it can order the state or local government to grant the permit sought by the wireless applicant. '47 U.S.C. § 332 (C)(7)(B)(iv) (1996) Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 3 Simply put, the Town cannot legally establish any RF safety standards at the local level (and in fact, the Town cannot adopt the FCC RF emissions safety standards6 as our own), but the Town may legally determine whether a project before the Town is planned to comply with those FCC's rules. 7 B. The FCC RF Emissions Safety Rules The FCC's rules regarding RF emissions safety are found most conveniently in the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65, titled "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electro- magnetic Fields"8 (hereinafter, "FCC OET Bulletin 65").9 The tome that is FCC OET Bulletin 65 contains a dense set of technically detailed rules regarding permitted radio frequency exposure levels, primarily grouped by the frequen- cy of the transmitter, and by occupational status of the person exposed to the transmit- ted energy, as well as approved methods of determining signal strength and expo- sures.lo To set its safety rules, the-FCC first considers the transmitted frequency in its RF safety rules. This is because humans absorb RF emissions differently at different frequencies. This is primarily because human bodies are largely constructed of water and the FCC considers the interaction of radio frequency emissions and water absorption in deter- mining permissible exposure levels. What is a bit more challenging to understand is why the FCC would be concerned about the occupational status of the person exposed to RF emissions. In fact, the FCC RF ex- 6 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.307 et seq. We talk about `planned compliance' with the FCC rules because the site has yet to be constructed. The Town's review is to determine whether the information provided by Clearwire demonstrated planned compliance with the FCC rules. 8 OET Radio Frequency Safety, http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/ (last visited Feb. 2, 2010). 9 Note the inclusion of the word, "Human" in the title of FCC OET Bulletin 65. The FCC only regulates human exposure to RF emissions. There are no federal government standards for radio frequency emis- sions exposure to non-humans, including without limitation animals, fish, birds, or vegetation. However, because of the field preemption discussed above, no state or local government may (successfully) venture into the area of non-human radio frequency emissions regulation by attempting to adopt its own rules. 10 In fact, FCC OET Bulletin 65 is so densely packed with RF engineering considerations that the Com- mission in 2000 released what might be called a plain English companion titled, "A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guid- ance." As the Commission says in the Guide, "The LSGAC and the FCC have developed this guide to aid local governmental officials and citizens in understanding safety issues related to radiofrequency emissions from telecommunications towers." This Guide is also available at the website mentioned above, http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/ (by way of disclosure, Jonathan Kramer co-authored, illustrated, and co-edited the Guide for the Commission). Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 4 posure limits are grouped into two categories: "General Population/Uncontrolled" and "Occupational/Controlled." General population exposure limits protect everyone who are not members of the li- mited Occupational class." General population members include anyone who is not trained in RF emissions, or who are unaware of the emissions from a site, or who can- not exert control over their exposure to RF emissions from a site. This would include virtually every person living near, traveling by, or located within or adjacent to the refe- renced project site (above a "Blockbuster" video rental store). Occupational status 12 includes only those persons who, by virtue of their employment and training, or for other special reasons, are in a position to exert control over their exposure to RF emissions from a particular site. In the case of Clearwire's proposed project, generally only its radio frequency engineers servicing this particular radio site would fall into the Occupational/Controlled classification.'3 The FCC's most conservative RF emissions rules cover and protect members of the General Population. The General Population/Uncontrolled standard is five times as strict as compared with the Occupational/Controlled standard. For the balance of this letter, and in reporting my assessments regarding Clearwire's planned compliance with the FCC OET Bulletin 65 rules, I only consider the most con- servative General Population/Uncontrolled standard. 11 The FCC's definition in OET Bulletin 65 for this class is, "General population/uncontrolled exposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to RF fields when the general public is exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the gen- eral public always fall under this category when exposure is not employment-related. " (emphasis added) OET Bulletin 65 @ pg. 3 12 The FCC's definition in OET Bulletin 65 for this class is, "Occupational/controlled exposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to RF fields when persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the poten- tial for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits (see definition above), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means." (emphasis added) OET Bulletin 65 @ pg. 4. 13 The FCC's differentiation between general population and occupational members is very strict, and intentionally crafted to protect the maximum number of people. Even I, a qualified RF expert, a multiple FCC licensee and RF emissions expert, would be considered a member of the General Population under the FCC rules as to Clearwire's project since I would not be able to effectively exert control over my exposure to RF from the project. Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 5 C. Sufficiency of the FCC Rules for RF Emissions Safety A topic often raised by the public is whether the FCC's RF emissions safety rules are sufficient to protect public health. There are two basic answers to that question; one is by reviewing how those rules were developed, and the other is a discussion of U.S. law. 1. How the FCC RF Emissions Safety Rules Were Developed First, looking at how the FCC rules were developed, the FCC explains that its maxi- mum permissible exposure ("MPE") "...limits are based on exposure limits recommended by the Na- tional Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of frequencies, the exposure limits devel- oped by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSUIEEE and NCRP. The FCC's new guidelines are summarized in Appendix A [to FCC OET Bulletin 65]. "In reaching its decision on adopting new guidelines the Commis- sion carefully considered the large number of comments submitted in its rule-making proceeding, and particularly those submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal health and safety agencies. The new guidelines are based substantially on the rec- ommendations of those agencies, and it is the Commission's belief that they represent a consensus view of the federal agencies re- sponsible for matters relating to public safety and health. "The FCC's limits, and the NCRP and ANSI/IEEE limits on which they are based, are derived from exposure criteria quantified in terms of specific absorption rate (SAR). The basis for these limits is a whole-body averaged SAR threshold level of 4 watts per kilo- gram (4 W/kg), as averaged over the entire mass of the body, above which expert organizations have determined that potentially hazardous exposures may occur. The new MPE limits are derived by incorporating safety factors that lead, in some cases, to limits that are more conservative than the limits originally adopted by the FCC in 1985. Where more conservative limits exist they do not Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 6 arise from a fundamental change in the RF safety criteria for whole-body averaged SAR, but from a precautionary desire to pro- tect subgroups of the general population who, potentially, may be more at risk. "The new FCC exposure limits are also based on data showing that the human body absorbs RF energy at some frequencies more effi- ciently than at others...." 14 The FCC's dual regulatory approaches of exposure by frequency versus body absorp- tion, and general population versus occupational exposure, are illustrated by the chart below.1 s 1,000 Occupational/Controlled Exposure - - General PopulationlUncontrolled Exposure Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. 5 .2 Cellular PCs 1 i i FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure -(MPE) Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density 0.03 U.3 T 3 30 300 13,000 30,000 1300,000 9-34 Frequency (MHz) 1,500 100,000 Figure 1: FCC's RF Safety Emissions Chart by Frequency and Emissions Level, also showing the differ- ence between General Population and Occupational limits. (Note that the chart above uses a logarithmic scale on both axes. Emissions frequency locations by serviceldevice are approximate) 14 FCC OET Bulletin 65, pgs. 7-8. is FCC OET Bulletin 65, pg. 68, "Figure 1," annotated by Jonathan Kramer to show the approximate locations of the cellular and PCS bands. Sprint's emissions are in the PCS band, while Clearwire's pro- posed emissions are to be slightly above the PCS band. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 7 Ultimately, the FCC elected to set its `100 percent limit' under the Uncon- trolled/General Population limit to be just 2 percent of the point where RF-induced heating in a human cell can be measured.16 The FCC RF emissions safety standards produce a 50 times safety margin to protect the public. While some segments of the public may believe that the development of the FCC's RF emissions safety rules was an industry-controlled process (comparisons are made, rightly or wrongly, to the initial development of tobacco industry legislation), the Commission's open and science-based rules development process and the resultant safety margins are a matter of public record. 2. Utility and Applicability of Foreign Government RF Emissions Safety Rules The second consideration regarding the sufficiency of the FCC rules is purely legal. As noted above, Congress delegated the sole national authority to the FCC to set these RF emissions safety rules. It is, therefore, simply not legally relevant what RF emissions safety standards other countries have adopted for their own use and for what reasons. Similarly, RF emissions impact studies conducted by U.S. or foreign medical or lay re- searchers have no legal relevance as to a state or local government's determination of a project's compliance with the FCC RF emissions safety rules. Consistently, the views of various lay and educated commenters within or outside of the United States concerning the sufficiency of the FCC RF emissions safety rules are not legally relevant. Because of the field preemption already discussed, in the United States, state and local governments may only look to the FCC's rules as the standards that must, by federal law, be applied in local government reviews of wireless applica- tions. Succinctly put, the Town must look to the FCC RF emissions safety rules in the FCC rules-and only those FCC rules-when considering Clearwire's application. There is no latitude accorded the Town in this regard by federal law, and no ambiguity in law to suggest otherwise. To look beyond those FCC rules is an invitation to have any denial appealed in federal court (on an expedited basis) or before the FCC, and to potentially have the Town or- dered by a court of the FCC to grant the permit as sought by Clearwire. 16 Because the radio frequencies regulated by the FCC, including those used by Sprint and Clearwire, are non-ionizing, the effect of exposure to high levels of RF is cellular heating. This temporary heating is unlike the permanent DNA damage that may occur from exposure to ionizing emissions sources. Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 8 D. Technical and Legal Analysis of Clearwire's Planned Compliance with the FCC RF Emissions Safety Rules Having set the stage by providing the background about what the Town may and may not do under the Telecom Act, and how the FCC has set the sole RF emission safety standards that the Town may apply to the Clearwire application, I now turn to a discus- sion of the RF emissions safety information and data provided in this planning case. 1. About Clearwire and Clearwire's Project Clearwire is not a provider of mobile telephone communications. Rather, it offers wire- less WiMax Internet data services. Clearwire is a legally separate corporation from Sprint/Nextel, and it is significantly different from cellular and PCS wireless providers already operating in the Town. Presently, Clearwire is deploying a national network of WiMax sites to provide its "Clear" service, which Sprint will resell as its own "4G" wireless network data compo- nent. Clearwire proposes to install a wireless communications facility on the roof of the refe- renced building. The antennas are to be contained within an existing faux chimney that currently houses Sprint Nextel ("Sprint") PCS antennas. As an emitter of radio frequency emissions, Clearwire must comply with the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 RF emissions safety rules, as well as the FCC's rules at 47 C.F.R. 1.1300 et seq. 2. The Hammett & Edison Report To demonstrate its planned compliance with the FCC RF emissions safety rules, Clear- wire has commissioned its own RF safety study prepared by Hammett & Edison ("H&E") under the supervision of William F. Hammett, P.E. I am personally aware of that firm's work and I have technically and legally reviewed hundreds of H&E reports prepared for governments within the United States. In connection with this matter, I have reviewed H&E's September 28, 2009 report titled, "Clearwire, LLC Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA-SF00503A) 1 Blackfield Drive Tiburon California" (hereinafter, the "H&E Report"). Kramer Telecom Law Fffrn P.C. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 9 Before discussing my opinions and conclusion regarding the reliability of the H&E Re- port, it is useful to discuss how H&E's reached its opinions. H&E's initial step was to log the existing Sprint Nextel RF emitters (antennas) on the referenced building and to assess for each emitter the specifics regarding the antenna pattern, power, and frequen- cy of emissions. To this log, H&E added the proposed RF emissions from Clearwire's facility, and then applied those data to the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 formula for compu- ting RF emissions safety compliance with the General Population/Uncontrolled emis- sion standard. Using this method, H&E has calculated that there will be a controlled zone in front of the transmitting antennas extending outwards approximately 8 feet in the horizontal plane. Using the base RF emissions data information provided by H&E for the existing Sprint RF emitters from this site, and adding the proposed RF emissions from Clearwire's project, my worst-case independent assessment of the proposed total emissions from this site is the controlled zone will extend approximately 18.9 feet in front of the trans- mitting antennas in the horizontal plane. Although my calculation shows a controlled zone extending about 11 feet farther than that projected by H&E, the difference is that H&E performs its calculations based on the emissions azimuths of each antenna (a partially additive approach). Azimuth-based calculations of RF emissions are the most accurate as to specific locations around a wireless site, whereas RF emissions calculations that are not azimuth-based produce the truly worst-case results because they presume that all emissions are aimed in the same direction (thus maximally additive). I have conservatively used the worst-case ap- proach for the purposes of this opinion, which will overstate the actual controlled zone. It is my legal and technical opinion that this project, if approved, will not emit radio frequency signals in any publicly accessible area, other than on the roof of the refe- renced building, that exceed the FCC's most restrictive General Popula- tion/Uncontrolled standard. At any outside point at ground level; at any adjacent building; and within the building supporting the existing Sprint and planned Clearwire antennas, the emissions from this project added to Sprint's will be less than most restrictive General Popula- tion/Uncontrolled standard regardless of the length of time a person is within any of these areas. To ensure that Clearwire's project, once constructed, fully complies with the FCC rules and the FCC OET Bulletin 65 RF emissions safety standards under the General Popula- tion/Uncontrolled category at its equipment, and on the roof of the building, it is rea- sonable for the Town to condition any grant of approval for this project as follows: 1. Clearwire shall place and maintain permanent RF Notice signs in Eng- lish and Spanish adjacent to its equipment cabinets. The signage must Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 10 be fully compliant with ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content con- ventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to reach the Clearwire network operations center, and such telephone phone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. 2. Clearwire shall place and maintain permanent RF Notice signs in Eng- lish and Spanish on each face of the faux chimney. The signage must be fully compliant with ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conven- tions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll- free telephone number to reach the Clearwire network operations center, and such telephone phone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC. 3. Clearwire's equipment enclosure shall be kept locked at all times when an authorized Clearwire representative is not present at the equipment enclosure. My answer to the Town's first question, "Will Clearwire's proposed installation fully comply with the FCC rules for radio frequency emissions safety?" is yes, if Clearwire follows the FCC OET Bulletin 65 requirements to provide safety notice signage regard- ing the roof area of this project, and at its equipment area, as recommended in proposed the conditions just stated. 17 III. "What legal considerations attach to the present appeal of CUP Application 10903?" I now turn to the Town's second question, regarding the legal considerations attached to the present appeal to the Town Counsel of this project. A. The Present Appeal to the Town Council On January 25, 2010, Mr. Peter Pursley, Esq. filed an appeal to the Town Council of the Planning Commission approval of this project. This appeal, filed on his own behalf and on the behalf of other owners and the tenants at 251 Cecelia Way, Tiburon (herei- nafter, "the Appellants") raises two appeal contentions: 17 I would note that even if the suggested conditions are not contained in any Town grant of approval, it is Clearwire's affirmative duty under the FCC rules to known and adhere to the requirements in FCC OET Bulletin 65. Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 11 "First, that the FCC mandated RF compliance report contained in the ap- plication has fatal defects and must be redone. Second, that the conditions of the pending permit should be expanded to include notice to property owners and businesses near the proposed equipment operations before those operations commence." (sic) I will address both of the Appellants' contentions in turn. B. "First, that the FCC mandated RF compliance report contained in the application has fatal defects and must be redone." In support of the first contention, the Appellants assert that: "The decision granting a conditional use permit at 1 Blackfield Drive is appealed because the RF-Electromagnetic Energy Compliance on which it relies does not adhere to the compliance calculation methodology con- tained in OET-65. Instead of using technical specifications of the actual Sprint equipment now in place as clearly specified in OET-65 when calcu- lating RF compliance for the multiple transmitter site, the RF compliance report relies on assumed data rather than actual Sprint equipment data." (sic) The Appellants go on to quote from FCC OET Bulletin 65 regarding what RF emis- sions factors should be considered when making an RF safety analysis. However, OET Bulletin 65 does not require that exact emissions data be used, and the use of ex- pert estimations of RF emissions is not precluded under OET Bulletin 65. Engineer William Hammett is a nationally recognized expert in RF emissions, and his work is utilized and published by the FCC. While exact emissions data from the Sprint site would produce the most exact estimates, I am aware that Mr. Hammett's estimation of the Sprint emissions is based on having reviewed Sprint projects throughout California and around the country as Sprint's consulting engineer. Because this site's current and as-planned compliance level with the Uncontrolled/General Population limit is meas- ured in single digit fractions, Mr. Hammett's reliance on his estimation of Sprint's emissions is reasonable, and is also commonly employed in these types of assessments. The Appellants' address, 251 Cecelia Way, is located approximately 598 feet along a straight line bearing of about 20° TN from the proposed Clearwire project antennas to be located at 1 Blackfield Drive. Using the current Sprint and proposed Clearwire emis- sions data from the H&E report, and using my worst-case approach to assessing RF emissions compliance with the FCC rules, I have independently calculated that the "worst case" emissions reaching the outside wall of 251 Cecelia Way would be 0.098% Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 12 (slightly less than 1/10 of 1%) of the maximum Uncontrolled/General Population limit under the FCC rules. When a radio signal transits through a building wall, that signal is reduced by a significant amount, thus the actual amount of signal reaching inside the building at 251 Cecelia Way will be even less than just stated. Sending the project back to the Planning Commission to require production of a new H&E report using exact Sprint RF emissions data will not, in my technical and legal opinions, alter the outcome of the fundamental assessment of the project's planned compliance with the FCC rules. The project will still be properly determined to comply with the FCC RF emissions safety rules. The Town will still be prohibited from deny- ing the project based on RF emissions safety concerns as the project will still comply with the FCC RF emissions rules). For the reasons set out above, the first prong of the appeal is, in my opinion, without legal or technical merit. I recommend that the remedy requested by the Appellants (to require that the project be returned to the Town's Planning Commission with instructions to require "emissions calculations based on the technical specifications of all Sprint equipment now in place at 1 Blackfield Drive") be denied. C. "Second, that the conditions of the pending permit should be expanded to include notice to property owners and busi- nesses near the proposed equipment operations before those operations commence." Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. The Appellants' second basis for its appeal is focused on its claim for "the need for rea- sonable public notice of additional RF emissions at the Cove Shopping Center to per- sons regularly in the RF emissions site vicinity..." In support of their second appeal prong, the Appellants reference what they describe as a German study performed in 2004 that "revealed a trebling of cancer risk for persons living within 400 meters of cell phone tower for a person of five years." 18 On this basis, the Appellants request that the notice zone for this project only be expanded. Expansion of the notice zone for this project would effectively trigger an entirely new hearing before the Town's Planning Commission. The FCC rules and FCC OET Bulletin 65 are silent on the issue of the public notice dis- tance in wireless matters. The notice distance is a matter of state and local code con- cern. However if the Appeal on this prong were granted by the Town Council specifi- cally for this wireless case, Clearwire would likely argue that this project-specific ex- 18 Four hundred meters equals approximately 1,312 feet. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 13 paraded notice zone is based on concerns regarding RF emissions exceeding the Town's authority to make a determination of compliance with the FCC rules. As I have discussed in detail above, Congress limits the Town's authority in the area of RF emissions safety. We are only allowed to determine whether a project complies with the FCC RF emissions safety rules. In the case of this project, subject to the pro- posed conditions I have already set out, the project will comply with those FCC rules. Regarding this second prong of the appeal, I note that the Town already has an estab- lished process of first notifying property owners of project filings within 600 feet of the subject property. Then, if a public hearing is scheduled, a second notice is sent out to property owners within 300 feet as is required by state law. With regard to the notices given in this particular planning case, the Town has con- firmed that property owners within 600 feet were sent the public filing notice by the City, and property owners within 300 feet were sent the public hearing notice, and that the property owners at 251 Cecelia Way were sent both notices by the City. This dual notice process exceeds the State's statutory notice requirement. The Appellants have received proper legal notice in this matter. Expanding the notice in this one planning case would raise troubling legal issues for the Town regarding what could be viewed under federal law as an unreasonable discrimination between wireless applicants subject to the same Town Code, and also based on concerns regarding RF emissions that exceed the Town's authority under federal law and the FCC rules. For the reasons set out above, the second prong of the appeal is, in my legal opinion, without merit. I recommend that the remedy requested by the Appellants (to "[e]xpand the condition of the pending condition use permit to include written notice to residents, owners and businesses on or within 300 feet of the subject property prior to operation of WesTow- er's equipment" [sic]) be denied. IV. Conclusions It is my technical opinion that H&E's analysis of the proposed Clearwire project in the Town is usual, customary, and reliable given the type of site and existing carrier, and H&E's assessments are consistent with the approved formulae contained within FCC OET Bulletin 65. It is my legal opinion that Clearwire's project as proposed to the Town will achieve full compliance with the FCC OET Bulletin 65 RF safety requirements for the most restric- Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. Mr. Scott Anderson February 8, 2010 Page 14 tive General Population/Uncontrolled standard and any ground level point, and within the building below, and on the roof if the project as approved incorporates the condi- tions I have proposed. It is my legal opinion that if Clearwire accepts the proposed conditions set out in this letter, it will demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC RF safety emissions rules. If so, then it is my legal opinion that the Town may not deny the project based on health or safety concerns regarding the planned RF emissions from this project alone or in conjunction with the existing Sprint RF emissions from this site. It is my legal opinion that the proper statutory notice regarding this project has been given to the public. Therefore, re-noticing this case to an expanded area (thus forcing a new Planning Commission hearing), would place the Town in legal jeopardy of a un- reasonable discrimination claim under federal law, as well as a separate claim that the decision is based on considerations regarding RF emissions that exceed the Town's au- thority under federal law. I recommend that the Town Council deny both prongs of the appeal and allow the deci- sion of the Planning Commission to stand. Very truly yours, Kramer Telecom Law Firm, P.C. 2 JoHhan Kramer, E sq. A aw JK/920017.3 Enc. (11 pages) Kramer Telecom Law Firm P.C. EXHIBIT 1 Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq. FSCTE, BTS, BPS, BDS, CBT Principal Attorney - Kramer Telecom Law Firm, P.C. Principal Technologist - Kramer.Firm, Inc. Kramer@TelecomLawFirm.com Kramer@KramerFirm.com Tel: (310) 312-9900 x 121 2001 S Barrington Avenue, Suite 306 Los Angeles, CA 90025 2006 - Present Principal Attorney, Kramer Telecom Law Firm, P.C. (Los Angeles, CA) 1999 - Present Principal Consultant, Kramer.Firm, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA) 1987 - 1999 President, Communications Support Corp. (El Toro, CA; Los Angeles, CA) 1984 -1987 Owner, Communicable Consultants (EI Toro, CA) 1982 -1984 Technical Manager; later Regional Technical Manager, Storer Communications (Southern California Region) (Laguna Niguel, CA) 1982 - 1982 Engineering Manager, Western Cable Services, Inc. (Ventura, CA) 1979 -1982 System Engineer, Warner Cable of Malibu (Malibu, CA) 1978 -1979 Self employed radio telecommunications engineer (Malibu, California) 1976 -1978 Field Technician, Motorola Communications & Electronics Area F Project Management (California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico) 1971 -1972 Rovafone of Los Angeles (Woodland Hills, CA) Admitted as an Attorney by the State Bar of California (CA SBN 244074) Admitted as an Attorney by the United States District Court, Central District of California Attorney Member, Federal Communications Bar Association Attorney Member, International Municipal Lawyers Association Attorney Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association Attorney Member, Second Life Bar Association Licensed by the Federal Communications Commission: General Radiotelephone Operator License, with Ship Radar and Broadcast endorsements; Previously licensed as a Second Class Radio Telephone Operator, Sept. 1975; First Class Radiotelephone Operator, Nov. 1977; General Radiotelephone Operator License, June 1987; Global Maritime Distress and Safety System Operator / Maintainer License, with Ship Radar Endorsement; Restricted Radiotelephone licensee; Amateur radio operator since November 1970 currently licensed as an Extra Class operator. Licensed by the California Contractors State License Board for low voltage communications (Class C7). License No. 433113. Licensed since 1982. Life member of the American Radio Relay League; ARRL book article author and review editor on cable television RF interference matters; Appointed Volunteer Counsel of the ARRL. Former wireless technology advisor to and testifying expert before the FCC State & Local Government Advisory Committee Page 1 of 11 pages Co-author, co-editor of "A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance", a wireless technology advisory to local governments based on OET Bulletin 65 published by the FCC, Spring 2000 (see: http://www.FCC.gov/oet/rfsafety) Former Chairperson, International Right of Way Association Wireless Committee Former National Board of Directors member, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), an affiliate of the National League of Cities (Terms: 1997-2000, 1992-1994) Former Co-chair of the Joint Task Force on Technical Standards Committee, appointed by NATOA, National League of Cities, and US Conference of Mayors to develop the national technical standards for cable television systems adopted by the FCC in February 1992 NATOA's only twice-honored Member of the Year (1997 and 1991) Executive Committee Board Member, State Bar of California, Public Law Section (2008-2011). President-Elect and current Board of Directors member, States of California and Nevada Chapter of NATOA (SCAN NATOA) (2006-2008); founding member of that Chapter. Chapter President: 2009-2010. Former Co-chair of National Technical Standards committee appointed by NATOA, National League of Cities, and US Conference of Mayors to develop the national technical standardized testing manual to determine compliance with the FCC rules Fellow Member of Society of Cable Telecommunication Engineers, United Kingdom society (FSCTE designation). Senior Member of Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers, United States society (SCTE-US). SCTE-US Senior Member since April 1993; member since 1981. Certified as a Broadband Transport Specialist (BTS designation) by the SCTE-US. Certified as a Broadband Distribution Specialist (BDS designation) by the SCTE-US. Certified as a Broadband Premises Specialist (BPS designation) by the SCTE-US. Member, SCTE's Loyal Order of the 704 (Membership restricted to recognized cable engineers with a minimum of 30 years in CAN engineering experience) Co-Chair, SCTE's WG7 Committee developing standardized cable TV industry interpretations to the National Electrical Code Member, Society of Broadcast Engineers (member since 2008) Awarded recognition as a "Certified Broadcast Technologist" by the Society of Broadcast Engineers. Awarded recognition as a "Public Safety Radio Technician" by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials - International, Inc. (APCO) Elected Life Member, American Radio Relay League (member since 1971) Page 2 of 11 pages Witness before the FCC's State & Local Government Advisory Committee on OET 65, March 2000 Witness before the FCC in Cable TV re-regulation hearings, March 1990, representing NATOA, et al Testifying expert witness in federal and state court cases regarding cable television technology, and federal and state court cases regarding wireless technology. Technology speaker at every NATOA National Conference from 1988 to 2000, and 2002 to 2004; Technology speaker at many regional and local NATOA and SCAN NATOA meetings Communications technology speaker at Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers conferences, and cable industry conferences Published author of book and magazine articles on communications technology, plant safety, construction and administration Cable system engineering and technical management experience six years before forming Kramer.Firm, Inc.; Chief Technician, Technical Manager, Regional Engineer. Former Field Engineering Representative for Motorola Communications and Electronics, Area F Program Management team - Areas of experience include microwave radio; baseband RF and audio; digital signaling; UHF and VHF two-way radio (including high stability Simulcast' radio operations); telephony; and command and control communications. Juris Doctor Degree cum laude, Abraham Lincoln University School of Law, Los Angeles (2001). Undergraduate education at CSUN, UCLA, LATTC, and WLAC; AS Degree in Radio Communications (with honors), Los Angeles Trade Technical College. The following is a partial list of the nearly 600 governments and agencies which have relied upon Mr. Kramer's broadband and/or radio-telecommunications advice as a telecommunications technology advisor/inspector since 1984, and/or as an attorney since 2006: Selected Federal Agencies - National Associations - States Federal Communications Commission U.S. Department of Justice National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Soc. of Cable Telecom. Engineers United States Army, Ft. Irwin, CA U.S. Marine Corps, Twentynine Palms, CA U.S. Marine Corps, San Diego, CA U.S. Navy; Monterey, CA U.S. Navy, San Diego, CA United States Conference of Mayors National Association of Counties National League of Cities State of Michigan PUC State of Connecticut DPUC Connecticut Siting Council League of California Cities Page 3 of 11 pages Selected Local Governments and Government Associations Addison, IL Cheshire, CT Escondido, CA Aiken County, SC Chester, CT Essex, CT Albany, CA Chico, CA Fairfax, CA Albuquerque, NM Chino Hills, CA Federal Way, WA Alcoa, TN Chino, CA Flora, Illinois Aliso Viejo, CA Chula Vista, CA Fort Wayne, IN Anaheim, CA Clarendon Hills, IL Franklin, CT Apache Jct., AZ Cleveland Heights, OH Franklin, KY Arcadia, CA Clinton, CT Fremont, CA Aurora, IL Colchester, CT Fullerton, CA Austin, Texas Colton, CA Galena, IL Avon, OH Columbia Heights, MN Garden Grove, CA Azusa, CA Commerce, CA Gardena, CA Baldwin Park, CA Concord, CA Germantown, OH Barrington, IL Cornwall, CT Glen Ellyn, IL Bartlett, IL . Corona, CA Glendale Heights, IL Bellbrook, OH Culver City, CA Glendale, CA Bellflower, CA Cypress, CA Glenwood, IL Berkeley, CA Darien, CT Goleta, CA Beverly Hills, CA Darien, IL Goshen, CT Big Bear Lake, CA Davis, CA Granby, CT Big Cypress Resv., FL Decatur, AL Greenville, IL Birmingham, AL Deep River, CT Greenwich, CT Bloomingdale, IL Deerfield Beach, FL Griffith, IN Blount County, TN Denver, CO Guilford, CT Bolingbrook, IL Diamond Bar, CA Haddam, CT Bozrah,.CT Downers Grove, IL Half Moon Bay, CA Branford, CT Duarte, CA Hanover Park, IL Brentwood, CA Dublin, CA Hartland, CT Brighton Resv., FL Dubuque, IA Hermosa Beach, CA Bronxville, NY DuPage County, IL Hesperia, CA Buena Park, CA Durango, CO Hidden Hills, CA Buffalo Grove, IL Durham, CT Highland Park, IL Burr Ridge, IL Dyer, IN Highland, CA Butte County, CA E. Haven, CT Highland, IN Calabasas, CA Eagan, MN Hillsborough, CA Calimesa, CA East Granby, CT Hinsdale, IL Canandaigua, NY East Windsor, CT Hobart, IL Canton, MN Eastchester, NY Hoffman Estates, IL Capitola, CA Easton, CT Hollywood, FL Carol Stream, IL El Monte, CA Homewood, AL Carson, CA Elburn, IL Homewood, IL Cedar Lake, IN Elk Grove Village, IL Huntington Beach, CA Centerville, OH Elmhurst, IL Immokale Resv., FL Cerritos, CA Encinitas, CA Indian Wells, CA Chelan, WA Enfield, CT Irvine, CA Page 4 of 11 pages Itasca, IL Mount Carmel, IL Riverside, CA Kettering, OH Mount Orab, OH Rochester, MN Killingworth, CT Mount Prospect, IL Rolling Hills Estates, CA King Co., WA Mountain View, CA Rolling Meadows, IL La Canada Flintridge, CA Munster, IN Roselle, IL La Grange, IL Naperville, IL Roseville, MN La Mesa, CA New Canaan, CT Salem, IL La Puente, CA New Martinsville, WV San Antonio, TX La Quinta, CA New Orleans, LA San Bernardino, CA Lacy, WA Newport Beach, CA San Bernardino Co., CA Laguna Beach, CA Newton Falls, OH San Clemente, CA Laguna Niguel, CA Niles, IL San Diego County, CA Lake County, IL No. Aurora, IL San Diego, CA Lake County, IN No. Branford, CT San Francisco, CA Lake Station, IN No. Haven, CT San Juan Capistrano, CA Lemont, IL Norfolk, VA San Luis Obispo Co., CA Lisbon, CT North Aurora, IL San Luis Obispo, CA Lisle, IL Norwalk, CT San Marcos, CA Litchfield, CT Norwich, CT San Rafael, CA Live Oak, TX Oak Brook, IL Santa Ana, CA Livermore, CA Oak Park, IL Santa Barbara Co., CA Lombard, IL Oakbrook Terrace, IL Santa Clara, CA Lompoc, CA Oakwood, OH Santa Clarita, CA Lone Tree, CO Ojai, CA Santa Cruz Co., CA Longmont, CO Old Saybrook, CT Santa Cruz, CA Long Beach, CA Olean, New York Santa Maria, CA Los Alamos, CA Olympia, WA Santa Monica, CA Los Altos, CA Opelika, AL Schaumburg, IL Los Angeles Co., CA Orange CO., CA Schererville, IN Los Angeles, CA Orange, CA Seattle, WA Louisville, CO Oxnard, CA Simi Valley, CA Loveland, CO Paducah, KY Sistersville, WV Lowell, IN Palm Springs, CA Solon, OH Lynchburg, VA Paris, IL Somers, CT Madison, CT Park Forest, IL Southington, CT Malibu, CA Pasadena, CA Spokane, WA Manhattan Beach, CA Peoria County, IL Sprague, CT Maryville, TN Philadelphia, PA Springboro, OH Mentor, OH Piqua, OH St. Charles, IL Merced, CA Placentia, CA St. John, IN Meriden, CT Plymouth, CT St. Louis, MO Merrillville, IN Plymouth, MI Stafford, CT Miamisburg, OH Port Townsend, WA Stamford, CT Middlebury, CT Portland, OR Sterling Heights, MI Milpitas, CA Poway, CA Suffield, CT Minooka, IL Preston, CT Sugar Grove, IL Mission Viejo, CA Prospect, CT Sunnyvale, CA Modesto, CA Redding, CT Sutter Co., CA Monterey CO., CA Redondo Beach, CA Temecula, CA Moreno Valley, CA Rialto, CA Thomaston, CT Morris, CT Richmond, CA Thousand Oaks, CA Page 5 of 11 pages Thurston County, WA Walnut Creek, CA Westbrook, CT Tipp City, OH Walnut, CA Westmont, IL Torrance, CA Warren, CT Weston, CT Torrington, CT Warrenville, IL Westport, CT Troy, OH Waterbury, CT Wheaton, IL Tuckahoe, NY Waterford, MI White Plains, NY Tucson, AZ Watertown, CT Willowbrook, IL Tumwater, WA Wayne, IL Wilmette, IL Tustin, CA West Allis, WI Wilton, CT Union, CT West Carrollton, OH Windsor Locks, CT Ventura County, CA West Chicago, IL Winfield, IL Victoria, TX West Covina, CA Wolcott, CT Villa Park, CA West Frankfort, IL Wood Dale, IL Villa Park, IL West Hollywood, CA Woodridge, IL Virginia Beach, VA West Milton, OH Yorba Linda, CA Wallingford, CT West Palm Beach, FL Balance of page intentionally left blank Page 6 of 11 pages Litigation Where Jonathan Kramer Served as a Testifying or Non-Testi ina Expert, or as a Trial Consultant (Wireless Communications) T-Mobile v. City of Albuquerque T-Mobile v. City of Huntington Beach NextG Networks v. City of Huntington Beach Newpath Networks v. City of Irvine Armstrong/McEachron v. Cazcom MetroPCS v. City and County of San Francisco Bay Area Cellular v. City and County of San Francisco Sprint v. City of Palos Verdes Estates Sprint v. City of La Canada Flintridge AT&T Wireless v. City of San Diego Sprint v. City of Palos Verdes Estates Nextel v. City of San Diego AT&T Wireless v. City of Carlsbad Omnipoint v. Garden City, Michigan GTE Mobilenet v. City and County of San Francisco Illinois RSA 3 v. Peoria County (Wired Communications) Marcus Cable Associates v. City of Glendale Evergreen v. San Diego Gas & Electric, et al Next G Networks v. City of Huntington Beach Newpath Networks v. City of Irvine Adelphia Cable v. City of Thousand Oaks Malencon v. Cox Communications Schaff Dev. Group v. S.E. Fla. Cable, Inc., dba Adelphia Cable Qwest v. City of Berkeley Playboy Enterprises v. United States Jones Intercable v. City of Chula Vista Sierra East Television v. Westar Cable Booth American v. United States D.B. Cable v. Kalma Busk Selected Lectures - Universities, Colleges, School Districts USC Annenberg School of Communications University of Alabama Pepperdine University Orange Coast College Rancho Santiago College Centralia School District Oxnard Union School District Page 7 of 11 pages Selected Lectures - Legal, Industry , and Professional Organizations Speaking Engagement Name Conference Year Major Issues in WiMAX Tower Leases and Zoning Lorman Education Services 2009 Current Issues in Cell Tower Leasing Lorman Education Services 2009 Top Tech Topics for a Law Practice State Bar of California Annual 2009 Conference "I'm from the Government [Planning Department] Amateur Radio Club of 2009 and I'm here to help you" El Cajon The National Electrical Code: Why comply? SCTE Live Learning 2009 DTV Transition: Last Steps SCTE Live Learning 2009 Telecom 101: What Every Practioner Should Know State Bar of California Section 2009 Education Institute Secret Life of PDA: Ethical Considerations State Bar of California Section 2009 Education Institute Wireless Telecom Siting: Legal and Practical 'Tower Siting: Getting to 2008 Considerations Win/Win for Localities and for Carriers" Cable TV Law Update - Cable Television Unraveled Pennsylvania Bar Institute 2008 Wireless Telecommunications Law Update: Lorman Education Services 2008 Current Issues in Cell Tower Regulation "I'm From the Government (Planning Department) Palomar (California) ARC 2008 and I'm Here to Help You" Meeting "Surfin' Telecommunication Choices: A New World, SCAN NATOA Annual 2008 A New Direction" Conference FCC Regulations Regarding Cable TV SCTE Show Me Chapter 2008 Mobile Security and Ethical Issues for Attorneys State Bar of California Annual 2008 Conference "I'm From the Government (Planning Department) ARRL Southwest Division 2007 and I'm Here to Help You" Conference Page 8 of 11 pages Speaking Engagement Name Conference Year AT&T Project Lightspeed League of California Cities 2007 Policy Conference Right of Way Furniture SCAN NATOA Annual 2007 Conference " Wild Wired (and Wireless) West State Bar of California Annual 2007 Conference Wireless telecommunications planning APA National Conference 2006 Wireless and Wired Telecommunications Law League of California Cities City 2006 Update Attorneys Section Conference Wireless Case Mock Hearing PCIA Annual Conference 2006 PEG Programming Alliance for Community Media 2005 Wireless Siting 101 Association of Environmental 2005 Professionals - Orange County Chapter A Sea Change in Wireless Siting California APA Conference 2005 Cable TV and Wireless Regulation and Law Update Florida Cable and 2005 Telecommunications Law Local Government Workshop Emerging and Competing Broadband Technology NATOA National Conference 2005 "Future of Cable Television" SCAN NATOA Annual 2005 Conference Wireless Siting Planning: A Government APA - Regional Planning 2004 Perspective Conference Cable TV Regulation: Local, State, and Federal City of Kent (WA) Cable TV 2004 Regulation Conference Telecommunications Law Update City Attorneys Association of 2004 San Diego County Cable TV and Wireless Regulation and Law Update Florida Cable and 2004 Page 9 of 11 pages Speaking Engagement Name Conference Year Telecommunications Law Local Government Workshop Telecommunications Safety Code Violations: A IMLA Annual Conference 2004 Field Guide for Attorneys Keynote Lecture on Telecommunications Thomas & Betts Power And 2004 Grounding Grounding Council Meeting Cable TV and Wireless Regulation and Law Update Florida Cable and 2003 Telecommunications Law Local Government Workshop How to Get A Wireless Tower Siting Permit IRWA Chapter 1 Conference 2003 Application Denied! Maximizing Wireless Resources NATOA Annual Conference 2003 Right of Way Considerations for Local Law Seminars International - 2002 Governments Early Stage Due Diligence Technology Considerations When Bad Things Happen to Good Cable Systems Center for International Legal 2002 Studies International Info Tech, Media, and Telecom Law Conference New FCC Technical Standards NCTA Education Conference 2002 Hiding Cell Phone Sites In Plain Sight NATOA 2001 Annual 2001 Now you see 'um... now you don't Conference Wireless Siting: Policy Issues and Practical Law Seminars International - 2001 Solutions - A Municipal View The Third Annual Conference on Local Telecommunications Infrastructure Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 2000 Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 1999 Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 1998 Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 1997 Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 1996 Page 10 of 11 pages Speaking Engagement Name Conference Year Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 1995 Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 1994 Cable TV Regulation. NATOA Annual Conference 1993 Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 1992 Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 1991 Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 1990 Cable TV Regulation NATOA Annual Conference 1989 Page 11 of 11 pages Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • www.ci.tiburon.ca.us Community Development Department February 18, 2010 Peter Pursley, et al Dick Collins 2 Carmel Way Mayor San Anselmo, CA 94960 Jeff Slavitz V ce Mayor Re: Amended Appeal of Wireless Communications Facility at 1 Blackfield Drive in Tiburon J m''Fraser Coundlrrierr ber Dear Mr. Pursley: Alice Fredericks The Town of Tiburon has reviewed the letter you submitted on February 11, 2010 in regard to Counciirnerriber the above-referenced matter. Emmett o"Donnell Our review has determined that the submittal constitutes a revised appeal. As I informed you Counciimember verbally at the counter when you submitted the letter, the Town does not accept revisions or amendments to appeals filed beyond the initial 10-day appeal period. That 10-day period ended on January 25, 2010, so your submittal on February 11, 2010 is not timely and is hereby rejected. Margaret A.' Curran Town';ivlanager While you may choose to share the additional information or items that were contained in your February 11, 2010 letter to the Town Council during your allotted presentation time at the appeal hearing, the Town Council is under no obligation to consider them as part of the appeal before it. Enclosed herewith and returned to you are the copies of the letter you submitted on February 11, 2010. Very truly yours, , 1 Scott Anderson Director of Community Development Cc: Town Clerk Town Attorney S:IPlanninglStafj'FolderslsandersonlLetterslpursley appeal letter3.doc ~nmv rn ZCC DmmDDDDC~C~ m~mt~tm z y z0 O=Z rn ° A O yNp Y_~fr`I 1 \ I n f ~ r 2 o o m m m rx ~ o SZ4 x m ~ ~ l t _ m 0 0 X y j S' ZDC0 mA-~ 9D0->iN N mOm x ~ . O ~cUO4 A00 rrn-iam\ AZT-ziZr DmmAO Z O OOO..D<yz DS> Ain-Opip en °~rmm J O J 0 n Z~ N T ti m~ A m i 1 i v OmDVix°a~l mOO °r.Oj C m~'iOrnF FN ~I A m m A m< ti ~ O I O D J>c<00 1 ~-O ? mD prnOfF n m i m m A A N i 0 i J q > m A~ x O o ~ ~ O I I x p O~ N° i y 4 ti z' D > in I I Z, N - ~O i rn IO n D m J a D z ? O m i ; n \ N a- N5 0 10 yt f J\ f"r Z~ o~ mo Z mm d 1 o AF ~ $~z u m a~ ~ n 1 a n ~ O I v n F~ryyy ~ lT//~/ O BLAfJ(FlEIO OR MON N -Z>Zm'O zzloo Z : " Iv > A z o~ M W+ C U t4 N OCmz~ ~f;O mcYoNo; A= yFr n m~J rno OOr, ;~ooA 2 C] i J c > > Z > z Z [~C vimz o M O Z V OrnyD ZzO>° O° Nti= Aao Mo> tJ O o*>>r-f m rn v862-Z i p o a o N m ym O NSzN ~ 2m DSrn N°r mCr ~ C z o 4 of ^ C ° s J N (n Ire-r'r1 m IA (°7 N ovm O OWN f ~ \ 1 O 7 O zzjo mom; N ~...1 rn m- N - OA~ NS~ mS~ OmN O C/ Z 4 U ; > O C I 4 91 z z rn ~ ' ~V19S zmmy b OD J O~ ~ArOmm ym I-y ro l z C z~FD yCC C ozD OZ e O 2 o m C G F z rInNAN D O o mIn2A0 O -o m ~ ly1 vv OC VOI z D ~ m H O SZ O S. X V D O D Z v Z Z . m ` ^ 7 ey C O> no, i O O~OmN vwy-y0 l 1 l" V rn D ~ c P Orz° Z° vzp ,~yy 4`•J! °mzmzrnm " O S sDr Vzi w ~ V Zl1.~ r Z O e N o'-~ ° Im ~p~ a! C ~ O ?j Z a co m > UN J AnANCY A('fANO 20°00 S ~~Z Z mJ z J AOFo~ 20s~\O OZrO A OZ AmO ZOA z A z J OW 1 C) OVmfrn ADr r ? s y D m R ,n,~rOZ y0 A nY l gs0 yC o j..pZsO O a A, -~9A~ 2 Nmm N nA N~f1 Z>Cm vZDCm = v<mom v D~?z ZF: N o ~ 'r n l I CO) r H S~ZONy Tl C R'yA ~pZ N N~q F U~q~F -y J m V1mOy bNwo A z U N U~~C Or> ° 1 1 I rZ Nsbm NCz-+ N f-1 A O o Z A C y O Z 1 O c i! DmA = zZ z p O A° bm ~S am OA Mm O oA o aA = DA ~N.. O ~mUbO oZ L- O f~ln O F m ~ Z > D n O 0 2 o C7 Vl r> Oi D A t^a/ I'-1 i z O D A D G>~ ~ C Z O N O n A A 7 L k y r VO~~< 2OmV'p mzUAUZ 20AU0 pzm01 z-i2~ tx W T ~ z X =m° D O m N jog= Ct7 u l . . z.m N2N<mZ o°O ozc: V»C 4 a~m ±yU O + U N ° O O } y ON mz Z NOA z o D \ u \ to O \ in D \ to z 0 m m i°n Si +7 m p y C 0 m y O 9 g D N i o mm ° rn A m 0 oti u J $ p D T O S Z) = N CA) O Y 9 m z T Ne? \ ~u~ ' n m o : N z Q0 N > c° im C?C " ro G7 p aAorn~ O 4 Ci7 $ 3 o n No Z A I I I _I N I s S ~ 1N g ~ ♦ V a ti ti° \ I I ~a APN. 034-212-03 i r 1 , ti t / - C - APN' 034-212,04 • ; APN, 034-2 12-05 D ' r r Z x na / APN 212-06 U r PN' 034-111-07 2SZ / r i APN: 034-212.08 ' N _ z I N / / I W z / I AH Ip T ~ m m chi y v < v°, m A l 5 ~ D Z ; y m o v A LC u ° s mm ' A v e _ $ ~ , d' ~Tj m O ooo 2 9 ~ • V m w o Z ys m n ^1 ' Q y m z r f inm°- o c °o i Ip N p _ _R H Z N a• Z 4 m \ po1,mrr1 Ci7 S \ W II - w ` _ I = 2 m m > H Z ~ D U ~ n ~ ~ m m ~ n mO-' n ' z m g ~ ' A m g ~in o° Z -'oc _vc r a ~m ; m m y m e ~ A i m m m c z O m p T p y ~ y Z > O ry- F l n N .t l g P Cn r 0 ;o ° N m a x o C) C) G C C7 x'19 a v z m a G7 O D O m ~°>z rrl i i 0 0 m - _ m Z Z _ m r ~ - - - _ - ~ n m I p, 0 '„I! I~ ^ Ali .:rte a" EE:j I I ~ L I A _ m p z 0 i ym - S § m iJ Z m Z N Q 4'-g* O m m D 0 D Z m z y _ ° : R' _ s _ >A Z m z $ - m m r o ; > Z j Z m I ~ ~ j z 9 / II I m u a o 7 a ~ m - A S m § N i- m n 9 m m u m u a ° m cn n s D ~ m D -om r Z~ y D A g ~ u r mm xN~f m j m v o ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ m ~ z a~a 1V O m a O 4 b Qj z M A v ° 0 rR ~~o~ a o j>' , m 4 52 S2 § cD r~ n O \ m c -%I Z a Q C S \ ~ u ' *+am u a N y Nn r i Eo C7 [S~ 9 ~ ti O oM a -IT /n W $ ya ° j II - N _ i.r I D m m (tol r ~ 0 D 5 N < N v°i ~ ~ m~ C O p m O m ~ At o D m Z o7 m. O v ~ J, a mm _ci ^ > 9 0 y ? n 3 m g x ti 9 Tp ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ m "l7 z i ' A Z.dX C) 0 OZ r- ni D eNn, mn m c c n m ` R i5 O [Nl O Z G7 \ N CD D m O n ^ OO nO 'o to n[77 p 2 g a \ < O o - € C~r7 Vi z o cf) m U) m m T _ ~ O Z _ O A- D m n D w r \ No Z D Z m -A o m o ~ = m r =zc ~ O - 1 'z~ ~ CT k e 54.5' a s `nm a ~ O I I ~ Z ~ 5 I I ~ O IN I Lf ,y b m Cl) 25.5 a bm Q --I_ o 'QD fn m rgS~ ~osar O=z.. .D c VI D -4 p o G) o m Q m ~ea o moray. SR s ~ O 8 z m D O m S 2 D o -4 7 _ > N n r z - D ? C o - i fla ° o ° Z m z D 4 C YL o s ? N v x! L13.2' SS a O M ;MIA ie B O bN ~ ~ S N P z ~ 8 s ~ S& Fy syyi~a ~ <2 ~3 M~~' sit a r a ~ ~ w N b~ N b m ~ y ~ A N gym f 1 m y N n A 9 m La m v SR mm ^ a ' o _ m s w o a > ►V ' A 0 -m-1.0 A c= 0 O y cn --I ~ p i r. a a ~T tO °o c' v n a.. - , a a = ~ ~ m ~ ~ 5 R 21 $ A 8 q I o m 5 9 O Z \ O O > m V] 9- 'i'1 C) o0~ p w i O I g YY D ~ N 4 O ~ - Y