No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD 100 Block of Winward Way Appeal15 circ OF - Agenda Item No: lAd�� Meeting Date: July 20, 2009 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Prepared by: Robert M. Brown City Manager Community Development Director (SD) SUBJECT: 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice -patterned transmission tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-330-01; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker and Louise Yost, appellants; Case Number: APO -003. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2, page 11 of this report) denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's action affirming the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of a Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002). BACKGROUND: Setting/Site Conditions: The proposed project site is a 2.29 -acre parcel located on Windward Way south of Bellam Blvd. The level site is undeveloped except for a 117 -foot -high PG&E lattice -patterned steel transmission tower (high voltage service line), which is sited at the northwest portion of the site. Along Windward Way, the site is bordered to the south and west by both vacant land and commercial as well as light industrial developments. To the east are mudflats and seasonal wetlands, while Bellam Boulevard and Baypoint Village Drive are located approximately 350 feet north of the project site. All properties north of Bellam Blvd. are residentially developed in Baypoint Lagoon, Spinnaker Point and the Rafael Bay Townhomes. Ecology House, a residential complex that provides rental housing for low- income persons "disabled by chemical sensitivities and intolerance," is located at the northwest corner of the Baypoint Village Drive/Catalina Blvd intersection, approximately 425 feet from the PG & E transmission tower. The general area also contains high tension power lines and a number of similar PG&E transmission towers. One of the neighboring PG&E transmission towers contains a cluster of Metro PCS antennas. This Metro PCS facility is located approximately 600 feet to the south of the proposed project site. The project site is located within the Multifamily Residential (MR2) District, which is the only residentially - zoned property located south of Bellam Boulevard. With the exception of two small parcels located north of the project site which are located within the Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) District, all other properties on Windward Way are within the Light Industrial/Office (LI/O) District. FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: Council Meeting: Disposition: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pa2e: 2 History/Project Description: On January 14, 2008, Verizon Wireless, the applicant, applied for a Use Permit (UP08-001) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) to allow the installation of six panel antennas on the existing PG&E transmission tower that is located on the site. The proposal includes the installation of associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower. A complete description of the improvements is provided in the attached Planning Commission (PC) Staff Report (Attachment 5, page 42) and in the project graphics/plans that were distributed to the City Council (plans on file with the Community Development Department). A report on the projected RF emissions concludes that the facilities would be well within the RF emission standards allowed under the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) regulations. RF emission exposure would be 0.37% of the of the public exposure limits set by FCC. Per San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities), approval of both a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit is required for the installation and operation of a new, unmanned wireless communication facility. Since the project proposes a co -location on an existing building/structure (PG&E tower), the hearing body for review and action is the Zoning Administrator (ZA). The provisions of the City Code do not regulate RF emissions, but regulate location and design. The City Code specifies the most- to least -preferred locations for siting telecommunication facilities. Residential zoning districts are considered the least -preferred location. When proposed in a residential zoning district, an Alternative Site Analysis must be prepared to demonstrate that all other feasible sites were considered and studied prior to the selection of the proposed site. An Alternative Site Analysis was prepared assessing four alternative sites within the service area. These alternative sites are described in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 5, page 59). Review and Action by the Zoning Administrator: The Use Permit and ED Permit applications for the proposed facility were favorably reviewed by the Design Review Board. The ZA held several public hearings on this project, ultimately approving the Use Permit and ED Permit with conditions on November 4, 2008. Planning Commission Review - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action: On November 12, 2008, a resident of the neighboring Ecology House appealed the ZA approval. The grounds for the appeal raised both design -related and non design -related issues. The appeal letter is attached as part of this staff report (Attachment 3, page 25 of this report). On January 13, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the appeal. The Planning Commission accepted public comments from numerous speakers including seven (7) people in opposition of the project (see January 13, 2009, Planning Commission Minutes, Attachment 5, page 47 of this report). The majority of the public comments opposing the project presented the following points: ➢ The proposed wireless communication project will render the purpose and operation of the existing Ecology House as obsolete. ➢ The Telecommunication Act of 1996 under Section 704 precludes the consideration of environmental effects but not the consideration of health effects of personal wireless service facilities. The proposed project would have adverse impacts on Ecology House residents with chemical sensitivities. ➢ The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and California State laws guarantee people with disabilities reasonable accommodation for access to public facilities, housing, education, employment and transportation. ➢ Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) has catastrophic personal, financial and social consequences for the person who has this disability. The proposed project would adversely impact residents who have MCS and are residents of the Ecology House. ➢ Residents of the Ecology House are hypersensitive and none of them can afford to be exposed to higher electromagnetic or RF emissions. ➢ Other issues were raised by non -Ecology House residents relating to the potential harmful health effects of RF emissions and the credibility of the emission limits set by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The Planning Commission discussed these issues and concerns in detail. Ultimately, the Commission continued the project directing the applicant to: a) return with more substantive and conclusive data regarding their Alternative Site Analysis, and b) provide a graphic showing the geographic area for SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 service (service ring). Additionally, the Commission requested that the City Attorney review and report on the City's limits of discretion for reviewing the telecommunications facilities and to address whether the FCC preemption includes local consideration of health effects. The City Attorney was also requested to report on whether protection, under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), 'trumps' and/or overrides the FCC regulations in the reviewing of telecommunications facilities and the strict application of ADA requirements on neighboring properties. In May 2009, the applicant submitted a graphic showing the geographic area of the desired service ring and a revised Alternative Site Analysis. These documents are provided as attachments to the May 26, 2009 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5, pages 69). The geographic area that the proposed telecommunication facilities would serve is bounded by Canal Street, Kerner Blvd. and Vista Del Mar. City staff initiated a peer review of the Alternative Site Analysis, which was conducted by Jonathan Kramer (Kramer Firm, Inc.), a telecommunication specialist. This peer review (Attachment 5, page 77 of this report) concludes that Verizon has only two realistic alternatives to accommodate their service ring: a) to proceed with the project at the currently proposed location; or b) to construct a separate, freestanding, 75 -80 -foot tall monopole adjacent to the proposed location, or at another site just to the north of the search ring near Pickleweed Park. The Kramer Firm confirmed the conclusions of the analysis, which ruled out the availability of the alternative site located adjacent to the proposed site (because of an unwilling landlord). The Kramer Firm also found the potential for a very tall, monopole structure near Pickleweed Park is an appropriate alternative but is also a less -preferred site as it is within the Park/Open Space zoning district and would not be of stealth design. The peer review included recommended conditions regarding the design, color and size of the cables, connectors, brackets, etc. for the proposed facility. On May 26, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a second public hearing. The Commission accepted public comment from 12 people, with 11 opposing the project and 1 in support (see May 26, 2009, PC Minutes, Attachment 6, page 97 of this report). The public comments opposing the project were generally the same as those issues expressed at the January 13, 2009, hearing (health effects, ADA conflicts). However, the following two new issues were raised: One comment expressed concern related to the 'electro smog' or 'dirty electricity.' This hypothesis is that, when an electric transmission line is located near an antenna, it is believed to act as a conduit for the transmission of RF emissions, enabling these emissions to enter into businesses and homes adjacent to or quite far from the antenna facility. In response to this issue, Bill Hammett, Hammett and Edison, Inc., RF/telecommunications consultants reported that this hypothesis does not hold by explaining that electric transmission lines are open lines whereas RF lines are coaxial and are transmitted in closed conduits. The two systems do not interact with each other. 2. Several persons commented that the proposed telecommunication facility would render the Ecology House useless to its initial purpose and intent to house low-income persons with chemical sensitivities. It was stated that the proposed facility would change the character of the neighborhood, and therefore, would be inconsistent with General Plan 2020 Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods). The Commission discussed General Plan 2020 Policy NH -2 and how 'residential character of neighborhoods' is defined in interpreting this policy. Staff explained that, in reviewing projects for consistency with the General Plan, neighborhood character has been typically and historically interpreted to mean and apply to physical changes and physical improvements that could impact the physical character of the environment/neighborhood. The Planning Commission concluded that the installation of new antennas to an existing tower structure would result in minimal physical changes to the tower and would not change the physical character or environment of the neighborhood. Following closure of the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission voted 4-1-2 (Commissioner Colin opposed, Commissioners Sonnet and Paul absent) to adopt the Resolution No. 09- 05 (Attachment 4, page 29 of this report) to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of the project. A chronology of events has been prepared, which summarizes the background and evolution of this project through the stages of project review. This chronology is attached to the PC Staff Report (Attachment 5, page 42 of this report). SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 4 City Attorney Report on FCC Regulations and Relationship to ADA Through the Planning Commission review process, the City Attorney reported on several issues pertaining to the City's limits of discretion in reviewing telecommunication facilities. The City Attorney reported that the City is preempted from the Telecommunication Act, which specifically prohibits local governments from regulating the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, if such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions. Further, the City Attorney reported that based on a research of the laws, the City is required to comply with and defer to the FCC regulations because the FCC is the sole agency that governs RF emissions related to telecommunication facilities. The City Attorney also reported that only one law (the FCC regulations) applies here and compliance with that law would not result in the City violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), nor would it place the City in a position of choosing between two laws. Lastly, the City Attorney reported there is no distinction between environmental effects and health effects in how the FCC regulations are interpreted or applied; they are one and the same. ANALYSIS: Summary of Appeal and Response to Appeal Points: Within the statutory appeal period, an appeal of the Planning Commission's May 26 action was filed along with the required filing fee. The appellants, Louise Yost and Connie Barker (residents of the Ecology House) submitted an appeal letter dated June 2, 2009, which is included as Attachment 3 (page 25 of this report). This appeal letter raises three non design -related issues, some of which were already addressed and considered by the Planning Commission. Below is a summary of the appeal points (in bold and italics) identified in the appeal letter followed by staff's response: 1. Ecology House, as a home and community gathering place of almost 15 years standing for people disabled by environmental illness (EI) and chemical injury and intolerances (CI), is a well established existing community. Should the area around it become substantially less accessible to a significant segment of the particular disabled population that it currently serves, the character of the neighborhood as an accessible community gathering place for those people would most certainly be changed. Response: General Plan 2020 Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) reads as follows: "Preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable places to live. New development should: • Enhance neighborhood image and quality of life, • Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy, • Preserve historic and architecturally significant structures, • Respect existing landforms and natural features, • Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels, and • Provide adequate parking." As discussed above, the neighborhood character has been typically interpreted to mean and apply to physical changes and improvements that could impact the character of the environmentineighborhood. As proposed and conditioned, the project would be consistent and would not conflict with Policy NH -2 for the following reasons: a. The project site is located in a neighborhood that is developed with a broad mix of land uses and improvements including commercial, light industrial, residential and public/quasi-public facilities. In addition, the general area contains numerous PG&E transmission towers that are identical to the tower on the project site. One of the neighboring PG&E towers contains a Metro PCS array of antennas. This Metro PCS facility is located approximately 600 feet to the south of the proposed project site. Collectively, these land uses and improvements define the physical character of the area. The proposed addition of six antennas on the existing PG&E tower with associated improvements would not result in a physical change to the size or shape of this tower. In fact, with SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 5 the implementation of recommended conditions of approval (painting the antenna and facilities to match the tower), there would be minimal visual changes to the tower structure. b. As discussed above, the property is located within the MR2 zoning district, which is unique in that it is the only property located south of Bellam Boulevard that is residentially -zoned. Bellam Boulevard clearly defines the separation between the predominantly residential area of the neighborhood (north of Bellam Boulevard) and the non-residential and light industrial area of the neighborhood (south of Bellam Boulevard). While collectively, these land uses and improvements form the neighborhood character, this division is apparent. Although the subject property is residentially -zoned, which is unique, its location south of Bellam Boulevard makes it more appropriate for the siting of telecommunication facilities because it is primarily surrounded by non- residential land uses. c. The proposed co -location of the facilities on an existing utility tower is precisely what the City Code provisions for such facilities are intended to achieve. By co -locating, the proposed facilities make use of an existing structure without changing its size, shape, character or general appearance, thus making it blend in with the existing character of the neighborhood. Please note that potential noise generation was assessed and considered in reviewing the project to determine the potential for change in noise levels. The proposed project would include the installation of an emergency generator for occasional use. The generator is designed to be within the maximum 60 Ldn noise limit (exterior noise level allowed near new residential development). Additionally, at the request of the residents of the Ecology House, the generator is proposed to be located on the farther side of the PG &E tower. Therefore, the project would not result in noise levels incompatible with the existing residential uses in the neighborhood. 2. The viability of Ecology House as a home and gathering place for the local EI/C/ community is absolutely dependent on its remaining accessible to as large a segment of the local population with CS/CI as possible. Any substantial increase in RF and EMF radiation in Ecology House's immediate vicinity necessarily impacts its ability to serve the population that it is both federally and locally funded specifically to serve. Response: The Ecology House was built by Marin Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAH) in 1994, and is owned and managed by EAH. The complex contains 11 rental apartment units for chemically -sensitive, low-income residents that were built using non-toxic building materials (which was confirmed in reviewing the initial building permit). Planning approvals were limited to an ED Permit. The ED Permit file for Ecology House contains no information regarding the project being built for persons with RF or EMF sensitivities. The record and information available regarding the project approval indicate that the Ecology House project was presented and approved as a low-income apartment development for 'chemically -sensitive' residents. Chemical sensitivity was not defined but has been interpreted to refer to sensitivity to odors and air emissions. The ED Permit approval did not include any special conditions or land use restrictions for the Ecology House or the immediate neighborhood. Further, there was no special safety zone placed or recorded on the property that would influence land use decisions on the apartment site or neighboring properties. EAH staff was contacted to obtain clarification on the special purpose of this apartment complex. EAH staff indicated that there is nothing in their records that indicates the complex is for residents with sensitivity to radio frequencies (RF's), light or noise. In fact, a high tension PG&E power line running along Playa del Rey is located approximately 100 feet from the nearest unit in the Ecology House. High tension power lines are believed to carry EMFs. This power line existed when the Ecology House complex was reviewed and approved by the City. The applicant's RF consultant Hammett and Edison, Inc has conducted a study of RF levels at the Ecology House. The report was not available at the time this staff report was completed. The report will be distributed to the City Council before the July 20'h hearing. 3. The independent review of the applicant's alternatives analysis addressed the technical concerns of coverage areas, but not the issue of community and neighborhood identity and its preservation. Since Ecology House specifically serves a disabled population, we therefore ask, as a matter of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and as a matter of complying with general plan provisions requiring that the character of existing neighborhoods be preserved, that the city act to preserve access to Ecology House SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 for as broad a range of EI/CI people as possible. Response: As discussed above in response to Appeal point #1, the Planning Commission concluded that the project would not impact the physical character of the neighborhood. An Alternative Site Analysis was prepared assessing four alternative sites within the service area and a peer review was conducted by the City. SRMC Section 14.16.360C.3.d sets forth the purpose and scope of an Alternative Site Analysis, which is to: a) identify other sites that have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed site; b) present supporting reasons why the alternative sites were infeasible and rejected; and c) identify why the proposed site is superior from a technical or other standpoint. The scope of the Alternative Site Analysis prepared for this project complies with the requirements of the City Code. The issue of reasonable accommodation under ADA has been researched and reported by the City Attorney's Office. As a point of clarification, a request for reasonable accommodation is not applicable in this situation. A request for reasonable accommodation is made by a property owner to relieve their own property (not through the action on a neighboring property) from a code requirement that challenges or impairs the right of access or use. Analysis of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency: General Plan: The Planning Commission determined that the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 in regards to land use, noise levels, new development in residential neighborhoods and telecommunication improvements. Please refer to the draft resolution (Attachment 2, page 11 of this report) for detailed findings of general plan consistency. Zoning Ordinance: Although the subject property is a less -preferred site for siting telecommunications facilities, it is the only residentially -zoned site located south of Bellam Boulevard. As proposed and conditioned, the project is consistent with the uses allowed in MR2 Zoning District. Please refer to the draft resolution (Attachment 2, page 11 of this report) for detailed findings of Zoning Ordinance consistency. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is categorically exempt from environmental review, as it involved minor additions to existing private structures. NOTICE/CORRESPONDENCE: City Council public hearing public notice for the July 20, 2009 hearing was published in the Marin Independent Journal and mailed to the complex tenants, neighboring property owners, businesses and residents within 1,000 feet and surrounding neighborhood associations. A public notice sign was also posted near the PG&E tower. A copy of the public hearing notice and the notification list is provided as an attachment (Attachment 7, page 109) to the July 20, 2009 staff report. No public correspondence was received until the date this report was completed. Any correspondence received after the date of completion of this report would be submitted to the City Council before the hearing. FISCAL IMPACT: The project is for a new wireless communication facility. Staff does not anticipate that the approval of the proposed project will cause a change in City service costs because the wireless facility would not result in any new residential or commercial development. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate any more demand in city services or emergency response as well as street and drainage maintenance and other municipal services to these properties. OPTIONS: The following options may be considered by the City Council on this matter: 1. Deny the appeal and approve the project as presented and approved by the Planning Commission; SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pa2e: 7 2. Deny the appeal and approve the project with additional modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval; 3. Continue the application to allow the project sponsor to address any new or additional comments or concerns of the Council; or 4. Approve the appeal and deny the project. ACTIONS REQUIRED: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's action affirming the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of a Use Permit (UP08-001) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) (Attachment 2, page 11). NUMBERED PAGES IN REPORT ATTACHMENTS: (LOWER RIGHT CORNER) 1. Vicinity/Site Map 9 2. Draft resolution denying the appeal and upholding PC action affirming ZA 11 approval of the Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit 3. Appeal Letter dated June 2, 2009, and Initial Appeal Letter dated 27 November 12, 2008 4. Planning Commission Resolution (No. 09-05) denying the appeal and 31 upholding the ZA approval of the Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit 5. Planning Commission staff report with exhibits, May 26, 2009 - key 43 Color maps Exhibits: attached to the Chronology of the Project Development 44 Coverage Map distributed City Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 49 . Council only. Revised Alternative Site Analysis, February 26, 2009 61 Coverage Map Submitted by Applicant 71 Peer Review Report of Alternative Site Analysis dated May 7, 2009 79 6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 26, 2009 99 7. RF readings at the Ecology House (To be submitted at the hearing) 111 8. Public Hearing Notice and Notification List 113 Distributed to the City Council only: Reduced Project Plans (11'x17) and Color Maps [N:/ ... /CC Staff Report 7-13-09] Location Map — 100 Block of Windward Way — Verizon Wireless , v -1 ,a '�'°'i7 AUpCE� n, l axx I � y8i: l a� z D odfS o .Av �xs.�t c FIMIj1. x � i ti! ;1t 1 _ -BLyp j 312 me p 70n 46 a _ 7 � I ry� GI$ ode j \ IN - i i A ,1 � ,NIP / -------------- SCALE 1 :4,822 N zoo o zoo aoo soo FEET attachment 1 Monday, January 05, 2009 3:20 PM Map of PG&E Tower and Ecology House z oti v Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:24 AM RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP09-003) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION TO APPROVE A USE PERMIT (UP08-001) AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED08-002) TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF SIX PANEL ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING PG&E TOWER WITH ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABINETS ENCLOSED IN A SHED SITED AT THE BASE OF THE TOWER WHICH IS LOCATED ON 100 BLOCK OF WINDWARD WAY (APN: 009-330-01) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows: WHEREAS, on January 14, 2008, Verizon Wireless filed applications for a Use Permit (UP008-001) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) requesting the installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower The project application was deemed complete for processing on April 23, 2008; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the San Rafael Design Review Board favorably reviewed the proposed project, recommending some plan changes and directed staff to review the Alternative Site Analysis; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed the Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) applications, closed the public hearing and continued the matter to October 27, 2008 to review and consider the information submitted by neighboring residents; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2008, Joan Ripple, a neighbor's representative, contacted the Zoning Administrator (ZA) to submit additional information regarding the health impacts of radio frequency (RF) radiation and emissions. The ZA expressed that, although the public hearing was closed, Ms. Ripple could submit the additional information. The ZA explained that the information would be reviewed prior to making a determination on the applications by November 4, 2008; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2008, following review of the additional information submitted by neighboring residents, ZA approved the Use Permit (UP08-001) and ED Permit (ED08-002) applications for the wireless facility. The approval incorporated two conditions, among others, requiring: a) that within 45 days of commencement of operations of the wireless communication facility, the telecommunication provider is to submit the results of RF testing to the Community Development Department, Planning Division; and ATTACHMENT 2 2.1 (b) every three years, the wireless telecommunications provider is to participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2008, Connie Barker, a resident of the Ecology House located at 375 Catalina Blvd filed an appeal (AP08-007) of the ZA approval; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly - noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff, and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, following closure of the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to date uncertain and directed the project applicant to complete and submit a more substantive alternative site analysis; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2009, the project applicant submitted a revised alternative site analysis. The analysis was peer reviewed by an FCC -licensed RF engineer. The peer review report dated May 27, 2009 concluded that the subject site is a better alternative site to achieve the project objective. Another alternative would be to construct a new 75 to 80 feet tall monopole near Pickleweed Park; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly - noticed public hearing on the appeal, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff. Following closure of the public hearing and lengthy discussion, the Commission voted to deny the appeal and uphold approval of the Use Permit and ED Permit with conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2009, Louise Yost and Connie Barker, residents of Ecology House filed an appeal (AP09-003) of the Planning Commission action upholding of the Zoning Administrator approval of the Use Permit and ED Permit; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2009, the San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff; and WHEREAS, consistent with Wireless Communication Facilities Section 14.16.360.A.3, the City Council prefers the joint use of existing tower sites as a primary option rather than construction of additional single -use towers; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the City Council has confirmed that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which exempts additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 less than 10,000 square feet from the requirements of CEQA, if the project is located in an area that is served by all available public utilities to allow for maximum development permissible under the General Plan and if the project is located in an area that is not environmentally sensitive. The project will add a 324 sq. ft. equipment shed within the base (footprint) of the existing tower and a 126 sq. ft. paved area for locating an emergency generator outside the tower base. Since the proposed addition doesn't exceed fifty percent of the floor area of the original structure, or 2500 square feet, this addition meets the requirements for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby denies the appeal (AP09-003) and upholds the Planning Commission's action affirming the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002). The City Council finds that the points of the appeal (in italics) cannot be supported for the following reasons: 1. Ecology House, as a home and community gathering place of almost 15 years standing for people disabled by environmental illness (EI) and chemical injury and intolerances (CI), is a well established existing community. Should the area around it become substantially less accessible to a significant segment of the particular disabled population that it currently serves, the character of the neighborhood as an accessible community gathering place for those people would most certainly be changed: General Plan 2020 Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) reads as follows: "Preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable places to live. New development should: • Enhance neighborhood image and quality of life, • Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy, • Preserve historic and architecturally significant structures, • Respect existing landforms and natural features, • Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels, and • Provide adequate parking. " As discussed above, the neighborhood character has been typically interpreted to mean and apply to physical changes and improvements that could impact the character of the environment/neighborhood. As proposed and conditioned, the project would be consistent and would not conflict with Policy NH -2 for the following reasons: a. The project site is located in a neighborhood that is developed with a broad mix of land uses and improvements including commercial, light industrial, residential and ATTACHMENT 2 2.3 public/quasi-public facilities. In addition, the general area contains numerous PG&E transmission towers that are identical to the tower on the project site. One of the neighboring PG&E towers contains a Metro PCS array of antennas. This Metro PCS facility is located approximately 600 feet to the south of the proposed project site. Collectively, these land uses and improvements define the physical character of the area. The proposed addition of six antennas on the existing PG&E tower with associated improvements would not result in a physical change to the size or shape of this tower. In fact, with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval (painting the antenna and facilities to match the tower), there would be minimal visual changes to the tower structure. b. As discussed above, the property is located within the MR2 zoning district, which is unique in that it is the only property located south of Bellam Boulevard that is residentially -zoned. Bellam Boulevard clearly defines the separation between the predominantly residential area of the neighborhood (north of Bellam Boulevard) and the non-residential and light industrial area of the neighborhood (south of Bellam Boulevard). While collectively, these land uses and improvements form the neighborhood character, this division is apparent. Although the subject property is residentially -zoned, which is unique, its location south of Bellam Boulevard makes it more appropriate for the siting of telecommunication facilities because it is primarily surrounded by non-residential land uses. c. The proposed co -location of the facilities on an existing utility tower is precisely what the City Code provisions for such facilities are intended to achieve. By co - locating, the proposed facilities make use of an existing structure without changing its size, shape, character or general appearance, thus making it blend in with the existing character of the neighborhood. Please note that potential noise generation was assessed and considered in reviewing the project to determine the potential for change in noise levels. The proposed project would include the installation of an emergency generator for occasional use. The generator is designed to be within the maximum 60 Ldn noise limit (exterior noise level allowed near new residential development). Additionally, at the request of the residents of the Ecology House, the generator is proposed to be located on the farther side of the PG &E tower. Therefore, the project would not result in noise levels incompatible with the existing residential uses in the neighborhood. 2. The viability of Ecology House as a home and gathering place for the local EI/CI community is absolutely dependent on its remaining accessible to as large a segment of the local population with CS/CI as possible. Any substantial increase in RF and EMF radiation in Ecology House's immediate vicinity necessarily impacts its ability to serve the population that it is both federally and locally funded specifically to serve: The Ecology House was built by Mann Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAH) in 1994, and is owned and managed by EAR The complex contains 11 rental apartment units for chemically -sensitive, low-income residents that were built using non-toxic building ATTACHMENT 2 2.4 materials (which was confirmed in reviewing the initial building permit). Planning approvals were limited to an ED Permit. The ED Permit file for Ecology House contains no information regarding the project being built for persons with RF or EMF sensitivities. The record and information available regarding the project approval indicate that the Ecology House project was presented and approved as a low-income apartment development for `chemically -sensitive' residents. Chemical sensitivity was not defined but has been interpreted to refer to sensitivity to odors and air emissions. The ED Permit approval did not include any special conditions or land use restrictions for the Ecology House or the immediate neighborhood. Further, there was no special safety zone placed or recorded on the property that would influence land use decisions on the apartment site or neighboring properties. EAH staff was contacted to obtain clarification on the special purpose of this apartment complex. EAH staff indicated that there is nothing in their records that indicates the complex is for residents with sensitivity to radio frequencies (RF's), light or noise. In fact, a high tension PG&E power line running along Playa del Rey is located approximately 100 feet from the nearest unit in the Ecology House. High tension power lines are believed to carry EMFs. This power line existed when the Ecology House complex was reviewed and approved by the City. 3. The independent review of the applicant's alternatives analysis addressed the technical concerns of coverage areas, but not the issue of community and neighborhood identity and its preservation. Since Ecology House specifically serves a disabled population, we therefore ask, as a matter of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and as a matter of complying with general plan provisions requiring that the character of existing neighborhoods be preserved, that the city act to preserve access to Ecology House for as broad a range of EI/CI people as possible: As discussed above in response to Appeal point #1, the Planning Commission concluded that the project would not impact the physical character of the neighborhood. An Alternative Site Analysis was prepared assessing four alternative sites within the service area and a peer review was conducted by the City. SRMC Section 14.16.360C.3.d sets forth the purpose and scope of an Alternative Site Analysis, which is to: a) identify other sites that have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed site; b) present supporting reasons why the alternative sites were infeasible and rejected; and c) identify why the proposed site is superior from a technical or other standpoint. The scope of the Alternative Site Analysis prepared for this project complies with the requirements of the City Code. The issue of reasonable accommodation under ADA has been researched and reported by the City Attorney's Office. As a point of clarification, a request for reasonable accommodation is not applicable in this situation. A request for reasonable accommodation is made by a property owner to relieve their own property (not through the action on a neighboring property) from a code requirement that challenges or impairs the right of access or use. ATTACHMENT 2 2.5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael upholds the Planning Commission action to deny the appeal and affirm the Zoning Administrator approval of Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) based on the following findings: FE14DINGS — Use Permit (UP08-001) As proposed and as conditioned, the proposed telecommunication facility use is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the MR2 district in which the site is located. Specifically, the project is consistent with the General Plan Policy I-15 (Telecommunication Improvements) in that the project would promote telecommunication access in the area. The project is also consistent the General Plan Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), that requires that new development and activities `preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable places to live ..... The neighborhood character has been typically interpreted to mean and apply to physical changes and improvements that could impact the character of the environment/neighborhood. The project site is located in a neighborhood of mixed character of vacant land and commercial as well as light industrial developments, mudflats and seasonal wetlands and residential neighborhoods. The general area contains high tension power lines and a number of similar PG&E transmission towers. One of the neighboring PG&E towers contains a Metro PCS array of antennas. The mixed neighborhood character described above would not be impacted by placing the wireless antennae on an existing PG&E tower. The proposed project is also consistent with consistent with the General Plan Policy N-1 (Noise Impacts on New Development) in that the emergency generator to be utilized for occasionally, is of a design which enables it to be consistent with the maximum 60 Ldn, exterior noise level allowed near new residential development. Additionally, at the request of the residents of the Ecology House, the generator is proposed to be located on the farther side of the PG&E tower. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the MR2 District in which it is located. Since the NM District does not address the location of wireless communication facilities, the proposed location of the wireless communication facility is subject to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities), which establishes standards to regulate the general location (including the installation of such facilities in residential zoning districts subject to conditions), the design and placement of wireless communication facilities on public and private property in order to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and the community. The proposed project is consistent with these standards as the proposed facility would be located on, and at the base of, an existing PG&E tower and screened ATTACHMENT 2 2.6 behind an 8 -ft. high fence; the proposed antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character of the existing tower; since the project does not propose stealth design, the applicant studied four (including the subject site) alternative sites to determine that the subject site is the best option for the project; the proposed 74'-3" height is exempt from the 36 -ft. maximum height requirement (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the Maximum Height Requirement); the setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed project because the project will be located within the base of the existing tower; the project does not require additional landscaping since the facility will not be visible to the public as it is located within the footprint of the existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence; the facility shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC; the noise study prepared for the project indicates that at 50 feet from the generator. the noise level generated by the facility will be less than the maximum allowed 60dBA for residential development; and the project will not result in new lighting levels. 2. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, as evidenced in Finding # 1 above, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city because the proposed wireless antennas are located on an existing PG&E tower; will not result in new lighting levels; the emergency generator will be located away from the existing residences so it will result only in minimal noise. Additionally, the proposed project will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy. 3. As evidenced in Finding # I above, the proposed project complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance in that the project will be screened from public view; the antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character of the existing tower; an alternative site analysis was complete to select the subject site as the best option for the project; the proposed 74'-3" height is exempt from the 36-11. maximum height requirement (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the Maximum Height Requirement); the setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed project because the project will be located within the base of the existing tower; the project does not require additional landscaping since the facility will not be visible to the public as it is located within the footprint of the existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence; the facility shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC; the noise study prepared for the project indicates that at 50 feet from the generator, the noise level generated by the facility will be less than the maximum allowed 60dBA for residential development; and the project will not result in new lighting levels. 4. Previously submitted Alternative Site Analysis has been revised. The revised Analysis provides detailed study of different sites and is accompanied by a service search ring and ATTACHMENT 2 2.7 coverage maps. The revised Alternative Site Analysis was peer-reviewed by Jonathan Kramer, a City hired consultant who is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted member of the State Bar of California. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009, confirms the applicant's finding that the proposed height of the antennas is appropriate for coverage of the large area; an alternative location near Pickleweed Park would necessitate a 75 -foot to 80 -foot tall new monopole; and that the subject site is the optimal site to provide the desired coverage with the least amount of visual impact. FINDINGS — Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) 1. The General Plan Land Use Designation for this site is Medium Density Residential. The proposed installation and operation of an unmanned wireless communication facility has been designed to be consistent with the following design related General Plan 2020 policies: N11-2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods); NH -49 (Conflicting Uses); CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity); CD -10 (Nonresidential Design Guidelines); CD - 18 (Landscaping); I-15 (Telecommunication Improvements) in that: a) The proposed new antennas would be mounted on an existing PG&E tower and would appear to be a part of the existing tower. That would result in no significant physical change to the tower or the site; b) The project would locate the 10'/2 -ft tall equipment shelter within the base of the existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. tall wood fence. The equipment shelter would be generally screened from public view by the proposed fence; c) The proposed equipment area not being very visible to the public, will not need landscaping; d) The design of the facility is compatible with existing configuration of the buildings and landscaping on the project site surrounding the lease area; e) It would preserve the existing neighborhood identity and not impact any views due to the antennas being located on the existing PG&E tower and the siting of the equipment shelter behind a fenced area; f) The proposed antennas and equipment shelter would blend consistently with the existing PG&E tower's profile regarding structure, materials and color; and g) It provides access to telecommunications in the area. 2. As proposed, the project is in keeping with the applicable criteria of San Rafael Non - Residential Design Guidelines in that: a) The project of collocation of antennas is designed to be consistent with the existing tower profile; and b) The project will maintain the overall visual quality of the area by not introducing any new structures in the area, in that the new antennas to be located on the existing tower would be consistent with the overall profile of the tower; and the proposed equipment shelter would be located behind an 8-11. high wooden fence and within the footprint of the tower. ATTACHMENT 2 2.8 3. The subject site is located within the Medium Density Residential (MR2) Zoning District. Although the MR2 District does not address the location of wireless communication facilities, the proposed location of the subject wireless communication facility is subject to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities), which establishes standards to regulate the general location (including the installation of such facilities in residential zoning districts subject to conditions), the design and placement of wireless communication facilities on public and private property in order to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and the community. The proposed project is consistent with these standards as they apply to the MR2 District in that: a) The proposed wireless facility which, although, is not located in a most preferred industrial location, is proposed for placement on and at the base of, an existing PG&E tower. The PG&E tower building on which the antennas will be mounted is not an archaeologically or historically significant structure. The project will not impact any views from the neighboring residential neighborhoods because the antennas would be located on an existing tower and within the existing profile of the tower and the equipment shelter would be located behind an 8 -ft. high fence within the base of the tower; b) The proposed antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character of the existing tower; c) The Zoning Ordinance encourages co -location in order to minimize the overall visual impact of a new facility. Since the project is proposed in an MR2 zoning district and does not propose stealth design, the applicant studied four alternative sites (including the subject site) described as follows: 1) Adjacent PG&E tower at 100 Windward Waw The tower at 100 Windward Way is currently being used by Sprint with their equipment located within the tower footprint, which means the Verizon equipment would need to be located outside the tower footprint. Therefore, the PG&E is not interested in entertaining another lease at this location; 2) 90 Windward Way: A ground lease for installation of facilities is not acceptable to the property owner. Additionally, a collocation of the antennas at this location would be at a lower elevation than the proposed one, which would necessitate a taller monopole at this location rather than location on an existing tower at the proposed site; and 3) PG&E towers located to the south of 100 Windward Way: Access to equipment is constrained and telephone line access is difficult to obtain at these locations. In addition, a ground lease was not acceptable to the property owner; and 4) PG&E Tower at 100 Block Windward Way: This site has access for maintenance vehicles right off Windward Way. The leasing space was available within the tower footprint. Considering the above analysis, this site presents the best option for the applicant's project. ATTACHMENT 2 2.9 The submitted alternative site analysis concludes that alternative sites in the neighborhood of the proposed project would be less efficient and less desirable than the proposed site; d) The revised Alternative Site Analysis was peer-reviewed by Jonathan Kramer, a City hired consultant who is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted member of the State Bar of California. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009, confirms the applicant's finding that the proposed height of the antennas is appropriate for coverage of the large area; an alternative location near Pickleweed Park would necessitate a 75 -foot to 80 -foot tall new monopole; and that the subject site is the optimal site to provide the desired coverage with the least amount of visual impact. e) The proposed height of the six antennas is 74'-3" on a 117' high existing PG&E tower. The maximum allowable height under the General Plan for structures in the area is 36 feet. Although height of the existing tower is not in question, according to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the maximum height requirement, aboveground utility distribution facilities including communication towers are not included in height calculations and may be permitted subject to an Environmental and Design Review Permit. Additionally, the height of the proposed antennas is approximately 42 feet lower than the tower height; t) The setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed project because the project will be located within the base of the existing tower; g) The project does not propose to add additional landscaping to the site. From the public view, the proposed project site lease area is within the footprint of the existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence; h) The proposed base station, equipment cabinets, and other equipment associated with the tower -mounted antennas would be installed on the ground. The equipment shall be painted, and screened behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence located behind an existing chain link fence (partial); and i) No advertising signage or identifying logos is proposed for facility except for small identification plates used for emergency notification and legally required hazard warnings, which are exempt from the provisions of the City's Sign Ordinance. 4. Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) has been assessed and analyzed in considering these applications. The proposed project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360.C.6, which requires that wireless communication facilities operating alone and in conjunction with other telecommunication facilities shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC. Consistent with the requirements of the City code, a Radio Frequency (RF) Study has been prepared for the proposed project by Hammett & Edison, Inc (July 12, 2007). The report concludes that maximum ambient RF exposure level will be 0.0022 mW/cm2 or 0.37 percent of the applicable public exposure limit for anyone on the ground. The maximum calculated level at the second -floor of any nearby building would be 0.51 percent of the public exposure limit. The report concludes that the RF exposure level is well below the maximum allowable limit of 1.00 mW/cm2 The study did not address the combined ATTACHMENT 2 2.10 RFR exposure level of the subject facility and the wireless facility located on an existing PG&E tower at 100 Windward Way, because "the two sites are different PG&E towers, separated by more than 600 feet. Because of that distance, each would add only a small fraction of a percent of the pertinent FCC public limit at the other's site, so we would not normally consider them together." In addition, every three years, the applicant will participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility so that the RF exposure would not be greater than 75 percent of the FCC standard for public exposure. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360.0.7 which requires that wireless communication facilities (and backup generators) shall be constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes noise. Specifications submitted with the project plans and application materials pertaining to noise generation for both the equipment shelter and the emergency back-up generator indicate that at 50 feet from the equipment shelter, a maximum of 54dBA would be produced, which is below the maximum allowed 60dBA for residentially zoned properties. The generator noise data is given at points 23 feet from the center of the generator and noise levels are assumed to dissipate further at greater distances. Given that the closest building to the new wireless facility is just under 300 feet away, noise would be less than significant. Further, since the generator would only be used when absolutely necessary, emergency repair work performed by, or at the request of, a property owner on his or her own private property is exempted through Section 8.13.070 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 6. The proposed project would not result in new lighting levels. As required by conditions of approval, any exterior lighting would be manually operated, low wattage, and used only during evening maintenance or during emergencies. 7. Pursuant to Section 15301(e) (1) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of no more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is less The project will add a 324 sq. ft. equipment shed within the base (footprint) of the existing tower and a 126 sq. ft. paved area to for locating an emergency generator outside the tower base. Since the proposed addition doesn't exceed fifty percent of the floor area of the original structure, or 2500 square feet, this addition meets the requirements for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) Community Development Department, Planning Division The building techniques, materials, elevations, and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans titled Verizon wireless, "Pickleweed " PSL # 40863151, ATTACHMENT 2 2.11 Tower # 9149, Linename — Ignacio — San Rafael 11 SKV; prepared by JES Engineering, Inc., approved by the Design Review Board on May 20, 2008 and stamped approved on May 26, 2009 shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except those modified by these conditions of approval). Any modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision- making body, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board, if necessary. 2. Prior to any construction, a building permit shall be obtained for the work. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of approval. 3. All 1%" hardline coaxial cables shall at all times be run on, and affixed to, the inside of the PG&E tower leg(s) to the approximate level of the antennas. At the approximate level of the antennas, 'h" coaxial jumper cables shall be used to interconnect the 1%" hardline coaxial cables to the antennas. 4. All panel -type antennas shall employ only rear -facing connectors. 5. All antenna mounting bracket pipes shall be of the minimum height required to attach the antenna. No antenna bracket pipes shall protrude more than six inches above and below the associated panel antenna. 6. All portions of all cables on and adjacent to the tower from ground level to the antenna connectors shall be completely painted a flat, non -reflective gray that is selected to closely match the color of the PG&E tower. The paint color shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. 7. All cable attachment hardware, antenna brackets, antenna attachment hardware, and any other physical elements of the project attached to the PG&E tower shall be completely painted the same color as approved by the Director of the Community Development Department in condition 6. 8. All antenna radomes (panels, GPS antenna, etc.) shall be completely painted the same color as approved by the Director of the Community Development Department in condition 6. 9. All of the project elements described in conditions 6 through 8, inclusive, shall be completely repainted as required by the City. The paint used shall be a non -reflective gray that is selected to closely match the color of the PG&E tower as it exists at the time of repainting. The paint color shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. ATTACHMENT 2 2.12 10. To ensure adequate circulation, parking, and access for emergency vehicles in the neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Planning Division for approval before Building Permit submittal. The plan shall specify the methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials, storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles, construction days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel. 11. Except for clearing for the ground mounted equipment pad, no part of the existing landscape including any trees shall be removed. 12. The existing chain link fence shall not be removed. 13. All site improvements, including but not limited to, the fencing and structures shall be maintained in good, undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged improvements shall be replaced in a timely manner. 14. Any future changes in the materials, colors and design of the existing tower would require that the design of the proposed equipment shelter be modified to be compatible with the change. Modifications to the design of the equipment shelter shall be reviewed by the Planning Division. 15. The service provider shall properly maintain this facility during the life of the permit. In the event the wireless facility becomes abandoned, all wireless antennas and associated accessory structures shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days of abandonment. The service provider shall notify the Planning and Building Divisions within ten (10) days of abandonment. The removal of the entire facility shall take place within Twenty (20) days of the notification of the abandonment and shall be restored to the design prior to the installation of the wireless antennas. Failure to remove the equipment shall be subject to action by the City's Code Enforcement Division. 16. If technology improvements or developments occur which allow the use of materially smaller or less visually obtrusive equipment, or equipment that generates less RF emissions, the carrier shall be required to replace or upgrade the subject facility as related to Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002). 17. Testing shall be conducted once the six panel antennas mounted and equipment installed and operating at maximum capacity. Within 45 days of commencement of operations of the wireless communication facility, the telecommunication provider, or its successors, shall submit the results of this testing to the Community Development Department, Planning Division. The testing shall entail verification of compliance with ATTACHMENT 2 2.13 the FCC's Radio Frequency (RF) emission standards. This testing shall be conducted during normal business hours and on non -holiday weekday with the facility operating at maximum power. The telecommunication provider, or its successor, shall provide the Community Development Director with a report, prepared by a qualified expert, indicating the actual RFR levels of the operating facility, measured at the property line or nearest point of public access and in the direction of the maximum radiation from each antenna, is in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR. 18. Every three years, the wireless telecommunications provider, or its successor(s), shall participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility approved by this Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) and Use Permit (UP08-001). The City will contract with a qualified expert to perform the independent testing and the current wireless telecommunications provider, or its successor(s), shall bear the proportionate cost of testing for the wireless telecommunications facility approved by this Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) and Use Permit (UP08- 001). 19. Any operational or technological changes to an approved wireless communication facility affecting RFR exposures shall be reported promptly to the city, including any change of ownership. The city may require new RFR testing within 45 days of notification. 20. In the event the FCC changes their standards, the owner or operator of an approved wireless facility shall make necessary changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR. The upgrades to facilities shall be made no later than 90 days after notification of the changed FCC standards and the owner or operator shall notify the city in writing that the upgrades have been completed. 21. The generator pad shall use simple paving material color matching the galvanized tower and would be with no curbs or gutters. The generator shall be of type and design that provides sound attenuation as required by the City ordinances. 22. The proposed wood fence shall be painted neutral colors. 23. Except for the repainting of any components for regular maintenance, all painting shall be done offsite using low VOC paints. 24. The applicant shall give a 30 -day notice to residents of the Ecology House prior to the initiation of construction activities or operation of the completed facility. ATTACHMENT 2 2.14 25. Contractor Contact Information Postine: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street. 26. Construction Hours: Construction hours shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday and Saturday from 9: 00a.m to S:OOp.m. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, arrival of construction workers, start up of construction equipment engines, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at or on the site. 27. On -Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 28. Archeological Features: In the event that archaeological features, such as concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits older than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading, scraping, or excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the Planning Division shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately to make an evaluation. If warranted by the concentration of artifacts or soils deposits, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area. If human remains are encountered during grading and construction, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely descendant" can be designated. 29. Final Inspection: Prior to the final inspection, the applicants shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. Community Development Department, Building and Fire Prevention Division 30. The generator shall require permit application for a deferred submittal submitted to the Fire Prevention Division. The permit is required for the Generator which based on the ATTACHMENT 2 2.15 maximum allowable quantities (MAQ) of diesel fuel used to operate the generator. This will be an Aboveground Storage Tank Permit. Public Works Denartment 31. A Best Management Practice plan shall be included in the building plan submittal. For a copy of the BMP plan call Karen Chew at 415-458-5369. I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the forgoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, the 20a' of July, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 2 2.16 oc73 RECEIVED CITY CLERKCITY OF SAN RAFAEL ZD09 JUN -2 PN w: 48 June 2, 2009 Sarjit Dhaliwal Associate Planner Community Development Department - Planning Division San Rafael, CA 94915 As concerned residents of Ecology House we hereby appeal the Planning Commission's upholding of approval of the Zoning Administrator approval of the Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental Design Review Permit (ED08-002) for a new wireless communication facility at 100 Windward Way. We appeal for the following reasons: 1) We agree with the minority opinion expressed by Planning Commissioner Colin, that the character and identity of existing neighborhoods, as used in the general plan provision requiring that cell antenna facilities be located in such a manner so as to preserve such identity, does and should include the impact of even seemingly minor physical changes, if those changes would have a disproportionately large impact on existing communities. Ecology House, as a federally and locally supported (through local community development block grant (CDBG) funds) home and community gathering place of almost 15 years standing for people disabled by environmental illness (EI) and chemical injury and intolerances (Cl), is a well established existing community. Should the area around it become substantially less accessible to a significant segment of the particular disabled population that it currently serves, and for which it continues to be funded, the character of the neighborhood as an accessible community gathering place for those people would most certainly be changed. Should one or more of the current long term tenants of Ecology House (almost half the current tenants have been residents since it's opening 14% years ago) be forced to relocate, or become unable to participate in community activities due to exacerbation of their disability, or have their formerly accessible homes rendered inaccessible to one or more of their friends and associates in our extended community, or find that the Ecology House community room has become inaccessible for community events they had previously hosted there, the character of the Ecology House community itself would clearly also be substantially changed. 2) The viability of Ecology House as a home and gathering place for the local EI/CI community is absolutely dependent on its remaining accessible to as large a segment of the local population of persons with CS/CI as possible. Since a substantial percentage of people with CI/CS also experience RF and EMF sensitivity, any substantial increase in RF or EMF radiation in Ecology House's immediate vicinity necessarily impacts its ability to serve the population that it is both federally and locally funded specifically to serve. Any such increase would also necessarily effect the privately funded Environmental Health Network's ATTACHMENT 3 (EHN's) ability to serve that same population, since EHN's regular monthly support group meetings and other community functions -such as free thanksgiving and holiday dinners, scent free clothing and used item swaps, remote telephone testimony before government bodies by EI/CI persons who cannot safely access most government buildings, accessible meetings between elected and appointed officials and EI/CI community members, etc - are, and have been for 14 1/2 years, held in the Ecology House community room, and there is no comparably designed and maintained similarly accessible site available anywhere in the state. (Indeed, the Ecology House site and the Ecology House community room are currently the only sites adhering to the voluntary CA Department of State Architects (DSA's) guidelines for "Cleaner Air" rooms and paths of travel in publicly funded facilities, and displaying the state's approved "Cleaner Air" logo designed to identify such rooms and paths of travel to the EI/CI community.) The fact that the proposed new panel antennas planned for the 100 Windward Way site would be in compliance with federal health guidelines for RF emissions established for the general population over a decade ago, in no way establishes, as the planning commission resolution of May 26 mistakenly maintains, that the proposed facility will therefore "not compromise the viability of Ecology House" as a home, or as a community gathering site and community resource. 3) The independent review of the applicant's alternatives analysis addressed the technical concerns of coverage areas, but not the issue of community and neighborhood identity and its preservation. It also indicated at least one other viable site, and reiterated the existence of multiple other technically viable sites where owners were unwilling to lease to the applicant for this project. Since Ecology House specifically serves a disabled population, we therefore ask, as a matter of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and as a matter of complying with general plan provisions requiring that the character of existing neighborhoods be preserved, that the city act to preserve access to Ecology House for as broad a range of EI/CI people as possible, by: 1) finding that, all other factors being equal, the viable site or sites for these kinds of facilities farthest from Ecology House are to be preferred under the general plan, and 2) directing staff to complete the City's review of the applicant's alternatives assessment for this project and the independent reviewer's assessment, by specifically evaluating the non -optimal general plan neighborhood impact elements of co -location in close proximity to Ecology House vs. the non -optimal general plan impacts of any alternative site where co - location is not possible, and 3) issuing the required permits only after this review has been completed and presented at a public hearing. Respectfully Submitted- '` Connie Barker Louise Yost Ecology House tenants Page l oft Sarjit Dhaliwal From: Joan Ripple [purrycomo@jps.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:49 PM To: Sarjit Dhaliwal Subject: FW: Appeal : City of San Rafael decision re: location of Verizon Cell towers near Ecology House From: Joan Ripple [mailto:purrycomo@jps.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:43 PM To: 'Sarjit Dhaliwal' Subject: Appeal : City of San Rafael decision re: Dear Mr. Dhaliwal: location of Verizon Cell towers near Ecology House I have been asked by residents of Ecology House and the Environmental Health Network to assist them in preparing an appeal of the city's decision to permit the erection of Verizon cell towers on the high tension tower located on the 100 block of Windward Way immediately adjacent to Ecology House. RE: - Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower. The appellants contend thaithis project is not in compliance with the general plan requirement that the existing neighborhood identity be preserved. Ecology House is the only project in the United States that provides housing for low income persons disabled by chemical sensitivities and intolerance. Thus, the character of the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the proposed project is that it is the only location in the country where such a community exists. Furthermore, the Ecology House community room, is the main and only safe and accessible community gathering place for this disabled population:chemically sensitive people in the greater Bay Area. To locate more high intensity electromagnetic field generating devices so near Ecology House seriously compromises its long-term viability and thus fundamentally changes the character of the immediate neighborhood. Ecology House was designed and built using materials and techniques to accommodate the disability access needs of this population. Since it cannot be relocated, if the population in question is rendered unable to utilize it the public expense involved in building it to such exacting standards will have been wasted. Its tenants and prospective tenants would likely be forced into finding housing that does not accommodate their needs. Living in housing that isnot safe for them is the number one way that persons with chemical and/or electrical sensitivities become or remain disabled affect additional public expense for medical care, disability payments, etc. Additionally, the appellants believe that the Design Review Board's request that the applicant more thoroughly investigate alternative sites farther from Ecology House was not complied with. The alternative site analysis provided to Constance Barker and the Environmental Health Network by Sarjit Dhaliwal appears to be identical to the original alternative site analysis provided prior to the Design Review Board hearing, and the Design Review Board specific instructions that the applicant re -visit this issue. Further, the Environmental Health Network (EHN) and Ecology House residents offered to assist the applicant in attempting to locate a viable alternative site and in appealing to or negotiating with alternative site owners to allow use of their land or site for this purpose. Although contact information was provide to the project representative, Clarence.Chavis, neither EHN or residents of Ecology House were contacted to assist in this process. Thus, the Environmental Health Network and Ecology House residents do not believe the direction given by the Design Review Board was followed. For these reasons EHN and residents of Ecology House ask the City of San Rafael to rescind the approval and in the future require that such tower locations be a certain distance from Ecology House to be determined during 11/12/2008 _Page 2 of 2 t , the appeal process. On behalf of EHN and residents of Ecology House, Joan M. Ripple N 11/12/2008 RESOLUTION NO. 09-05 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL (AP08-007) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION TO APPROVE USE PERMIT AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF SIX PANEL ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING PG&E TOWER WITH ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABINETS ENCLOSED IN A SHED SITED AT THE BASE OF THE TOWER WHICH IS LOCATED ON 100 BLOCK OF WINDWARD WAY (APN: 009-330-01) WHEREAS, on January 14, 2008, Verizon Wireless filed applications for a Use Permit (UP008-001) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) requesting the installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower The project application was deemed complete for processing on April 23, 2008; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the San Rafael Design Review Board favorably reviewed the proposed project, recommending some plan changes and directed staff to review the alternative site analysis; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed the Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) applications, closed the public hearing and continued the matter to October 27, 2008 to review and consider the information submitted by neighboring residents; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2008, Joan Ripple, a neighbor's representative, contacted the Zoning Administrator (ZA) to submit additional information regarding the health impacts of RF radiation. The ZA expressed that, although the public hearing was closed, Ms. Ripple could submit the additional information. The ZA explained that he would review the information and make a determination by November 4, 2008; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2008, following review of the additional information submitted by neighboring residents, ZA approved the Use Permit (UP08-001) and ED Permit (ED08-002) applications for the wireless facility. The approval incorporated two conditions among others, requiring: a) that within 45 days of commencement of operations of the wireless communication facility, the telecommunication provider is to submit the results of RF testing to the Community Development Department, Planning Division; and (b) every three years, the wireless telecommunications provider is to participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2008, Connie Barker, a resident of the Ecology House located at 375 Catalina Blvd filed an appeal (AP08-007) of the ZA approval; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (e) (1) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which ATTACHMENT 4 1 exempts additions to existing private structures that do not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is less; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly - noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff, and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, following closure of the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to date uncertain and directed the project applicant to complete and submit a more substantive alternative site analysis; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2009, the project applicant submitted a revised alternative site analysis. The analysis was peer reviewed by an FCC -licensed RF engineer. The peer review report dated May 27, 2009 concluded that the subject site is a better alternative site to achieve the project objective. Another alternative would be to construct a new 75 to 80 feet tall monopole near Pickleweed Park; and WHEREAS, consistent with Wireless Communication Facilities Section 14.16.360.A.3, the Planning Commission prefers the joint use of existing tower sites as a primary option rather than construction of additional single -use towers; and WHEREAS, design/construction related conditions recommended by the peer - review report have been incorporated into this resolution; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby denies the appeal (AP08-007) and upholds the Zoning Administrator's decision to conditionally approve the Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002). The Commission finds that the following points of the appeal (in italics) cannot be supported for the following reasons: 1. The project is not in compliance with the general plan requirement that the existing neighborhood identity be preserved: The project, being an addition of telecommunication facilities to an existing, PG&E tower will result in minimal physical changes to the tower structure, would be minimally visible from the residential neighborhood to the north and, would therefore, not change the physical identity of the neighborhood. The facility, being well within the limits of RF radiation established by the FCC, it will not lower the quality of life in the neighborhood; 2. The Ecology I-Iouse community room is the main and only safe and accessible community gathering place for this disabled population: chemically sensitive people in 2 the greater Bay Area. To locate more high intensity electromagnetic field generating devices so near Ecology House seriously compromises its long-term viability: Measured at the base of the PG&E tower, the proposed telecommunication facility is well within the limits of RF radiation established by the FCC, and will, therefore, not compromise the viability of the Ecology House, which is 422 feet north of the proposed facility; and 3. The Design Review Board's request that the applicant more thoroughly investigate alternative sites farther from Ecology House was not complied with: The applicant submitted an alternative site analysis, which has been reviewed. The alternative site analysis assessed four sites (including the subject site) and finds that the proposed site is the most suitable for the functioning of the facility. Under the FCC regulations, the City cannot require a facility to be sited on an alternative site, as long as the facility complies with the FCC regulations for RF emissions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning Administrator approval of Use Permit (08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) based on the following findings: FINDINGS — Use Permit (UP08-001) 1. As proposed and as conditioned, the proposed telecommunication facility use is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the MR2 district in which the site is located. Specifically, the project is consistent with the General Plan Policy I-15 (Telecommunication Improvements) in that the project would promote telecommunication access in the area. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the MR2 District in which it is located. Since the MR2 District does not address the location of wireless communication facilities, the proposed location of the wireless communication facility is subject to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities), which establishes standards to regulate the general location (including the installation of such facilities in residential zoning districts subject to conditions), the design and placement of wireless communication facilities on public and private property in order to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and the community. The proposed project is consistent with these standards as the proposed facility would be located on, and at the base of, an existing PG&E tower and screened behind an 8-11. high fence; the proposed antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character of the existing tower; since the project does not propose stealth design, the applicant studied four (including the subject site) alternative sites to determine that the subject site is the best option for the project; the proposed 74'-3" height is exempt from the 36 -ft. maximum height requirement (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the Maximum Height Requirement); the setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed project because the project will be located within the base of the existing tower; the project does not require additional landscaping since the facility will not be visible to the public as it is located S within the footprint of the existing tower and behind an 8-11. high wooden fence; the facility shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC; the noise study prepared for the project indicates that at 50 feet from the generator. the noise level generated by the facility will be less than the maximum allowed 60dBA for residential development; and the project will not result in new lighting levels. 2. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, as evidenced in Finding # 1 above, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city because the proposed wireless antennas are located on an existing PG&E tower; will not result in new lighting levels; the emergency generator will be located away from the existing residences so it will result only in minimal noise. Additionally, the proposed project will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy. 3. As evidenced in Finding # 1 above, the proposed project complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance in that the project will be screened from public view; the antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character of the existing tower; an alternative site analysis was complete to select the subject site as the best option for the project; the proposed 74'-3" height is exempt from the 36 -ft. maximum height requirement (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the Maximum Height Requirement); the setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed project because the project will be located within the base of the existing tower; the project does not require additional landscaping since the facility will not be visible to the public as it is located within the footprint of the existing tower and behind an 8-11. high wooden fence; the facility shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC; the noise study prepared for the project indicates that at 50 feet from the generator, the noise level generated by the facility will be less than the maximum allowed 60dBA for residential development; and the project will not result in new lighting levels. 4. Previously submitted Alternative Site Analysis has been revised. The revised Analysis provides detailed study of different sites and is accompanied by a service search ring and coverage maps. The revised Alternative Site Analysis was peer-reviewed by Jonathan Kramer, a City hired consultant who is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted member of the State Bar of California. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009, confirms the applicant's finding that the proposed height of the antennas is appropriate for coverage of the large area; an alternative location near Pickleweed Park would necessitate a 75 -foot to 80 -foot tall new monopole; and that the subject site is the optimal site to provide the desired coverage with the least amount of visual impact. The consultant recommended conditions of approval have been added to the draft resolution at no. 3 thru 9. N FINDINGS — Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) 1. The General Plan Land Use Designation for this site is Medium Density Residential. The proposed installation and operation of an unmanned wireless communication facility has been designed to be consistent with the following design related General Plan 2020 policies: NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods); NH -49 (Conflicting Uses); CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity); CD -10 (Nonresidential Design Guidelines); CD - 18 (Landscaping); I-15 (Telecommunication Improvements) in that: a) The proposed new antennas would be mounted on an existing PG&E tower and would appear to be a part of the existing tower; b) The project would locate the 101/2 -ft tall equipment shelter within the base of the existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. tall wood fence. The equipment shelter would be generally screened from public view by the proposed fence; c) The proposed equipment area not being very visible to the public, will not need landscaping; d) The design of the facility is compatible with existing configuration of the buildings and landscaping on the project site surrounding the lease area; e) It would preserve the existing neighborhood identity and not impact any views due to the antennas being located on the existing PG&E tower and the siting of the equipment shelter behind a fenced area; f) The proposed antennas and equipment shelter would blend consistently with the existing PG&E tower's profile regarding structure, materials and color; and g) It provides access to telecommunications in the area. 2. As proposed, the project is in keeping with the applicable criteria of San Rafael Non - Residential Design Guidelines in that: a) The project of collocation of antennas is designed to be consistent with the existing tower profile; and b) The project will maintain the overall visual quality of the area by not introducing any new structures in the area, in that the new antennas to be located on the existing tower would be consistent with the overall profile of the tower; and the proposed equipment shelter would be located behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence and within the footprint of the tower. 3. The subject site is located within the Medium Density Residential (MR2) Zoning District. Although the MR2 District does not address the location of wireless communication facilities, the proposed location of the subject wireless communication facility is subject to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities), which establishes standards to regulate the general location (including the installation of such facilities in residential zoning districts subject to conditions), the design and placement of wireless communication facilities on public and private property in order to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and the community. The proposed project is consistent with these standards as they apply to the MR2 District in that: a) The proposed wireless facility which, although, is not located in a most preferred industrial location, is proposed for placement on and at the base of, an existing PG&E tower. The PG&E tower building on which the antennas will be mounted is not an archaeologically or historically significant structure. The project will not impact any views from the neighboring residential neighborhoods because the antennas would be located on an existing tower and within the existing profile of the tower and the equipment shelter would be located behind an 8 -ft. high fence within the base of the tower; b) The proposed antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character of the existing tower; c) The Zoning Ordinance encourages co -location in order to minimize the overall visual impact of a new facility. Since the project is proposed in an MR2 zoning district and does not propose stealth design, the applicant studied four alternative sites (including the subject site) described as follows: 1) Adjacent PG&E tower at 100 Windward WU: The tower at 100 Windward Way is currently being used by Sprint with their equipment located within the tower footprint, which means the Verizon equipment would need to be located outside the tower footprint. Therefore, the PG&E is not interested in entertaining another lease at this location; 2) 90 Windward Wav: A ground lease for installation of facilities is not acceptable to the property owner. Additionally, a collocation of the antennas at this location would be at a lower elevation than the proposed one, which would necessitate a taller monopole at this location rather than location on an existing tower at the proposed site; and 3) PG&E towers located to the south of 100 Windward Way: Access to equipment is constrained and telephone line access is difficult to obtain at these locations. In addition, a ground lease was not acceptable to the property owner; and 4) PG&E Tower at 100 Block Windward Way: This site has access for maintenance vehicles right off Windward Way. The leasing space was available within the tower footprint. Considering the above analysis, this site presents the best option for the applicant's project. The submitted alternative site analysis concludes that alternative sites in the neighborhood of the proposed project would be less efficient and less desirable than the proposed site; d) The revised Alternative Site Analysis was peer-reviewed by Jonathan Kramer, a City hired consultant who is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted member of the State Bar of California. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009, confirms the applicant's finding that the proposed height of the antennas is appropriate for coverage of the large area; an alternative location near Pickleweed Park would necessitate a 75 -foot to 80 -foot tall new monopole; and that the subject site is the optimal site to provide the desired coverage with the least amount of visual impact. e) The proposed height of the six antennas is 74'-3" on a 117' high existing PG&E tower. The maximum allowable height under the General Plan for structures in the ri area is 36 feet. Although height of the existing tower is not in question, according to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the maximum height requirement, aboveground utility distribution facilities including communication towers are not included in height calculations and may be permitted subject to an Environmental and Design Review Permit. Additionally, the height of the proposed antennas is approximately 42 feet lower than the tower height; 1) The setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed project because the project will be located within the base of the existing tower; g) The project does not propose to add additional landscaping to the site. From the public view, the proposed project site lease area is within the footprint of the existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence; h) The proposed base station, equipment cabinets, and other equipment associated with the tower -mounted antennas would be installed on the ground. The equipment shall be painted, and screened behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence located behind an existing chain link fence (partial); and i) No advertising signage or identifying logos is proposed for facility except for small identification plates used for emergency notification and legally required hazard warnings, which are exempt from the provisions of the City's Sign Ordinance. 4. Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) has been assessed and analyzed in considering these applications. The proposed project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360.0.6, which requires that wireless communication facilities operating alone and in conjunction with other telecommunication facilities shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC. Consistent with the requirements of the City code, a Radio Frequency (RF) Study has been prepared for the proposed project by Hammett & Edison, Inc (July 12, 2007). The report concludes that maximum ambient RF exposure level will be 0.0022 mW/cm2 or 0.37 percent of the applicable public exposure limit for anyone on the ground. The maximum calculated level at the second -floor of any nearby building would be 0.51 percent of the public exposure limit. The report concludes that the RF exposure level is well below the maximum allowable limit of 1.00 mW/cm2The study did not address the combined RFR exposure level of the subject facility and the wireless facility located on an existing PG&E tower at 100 Windward Way, because "the two sites are different PG&E towers, separated by more than 600 feet. Because of that distance, each would add only a small fraction of a percent of the pertinent FCC public limit at the other's site, so we would not normally consider them together." In addition, every three years, the applicant will participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility so that the RF exposure would not be greater than 75 percent of the FCC standard for public exposure. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360.0.7 which requires that wireless communication facilities (and backup generators) shall be constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes noise. Specifications submitted with the project plans and application materials pertaining to noise generation for both the equipment shelter and the emergency back-up generator indicate that at 50 feet from the equipment shelter, a maximum of 54dBA would be produced, which is below the 7 maximum allowed 60dBA for residentially zoned properties. The generator noise data is given at points 23 feet from the center of the generator and noise levels are assumed to dissipate further at greater distances. Given that the closest building to the new wireless facility is just under 300 feet away, noise would be less than significant. Further, since the generator would only be used when absolutely necessary, emergency repair work performed by, or at the request of, a property owner on his or her own private property is exempted through Section 8.13.070 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 6. The proposed project would not result in new lighting levels. As required by conditions of approval, any exterior lighting would be manually operated, low wattage, and used only during evening maintenance or during emergencies. 7. Pursuant to Section 15301(e) (1) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of no more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is less The project will add a 324 sq. ft. equipment shed within the base (footprint) of the existing tower and a 126 sq. ft. paved area to for locating an emergency generator outside the tower base. Since the proposed addition doesn't exceed fifty percent of the floor area of the original structure, or 2500 square feet, this addition meets the requirements for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. The building techniques, materials, elevations, and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans titled Verizon wireless, "Pickleweed" PSL # 40863151, Tower # 9149, Linename —Ignacio — San Rafael 115KV, prepared by JES Engineering, Inc., approved by the Design Review Board on May 20, 2008 and stamped approved on May 26, 2009 shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except those modified by these conditions of approval). Any modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision- making body, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board, if necessary. 2. Prior to any construction, a building permit shall be obtained for the work. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of approval. 3. All 1%" hardline coaxial cables shall at all times be run on, and affixed to, the inside of the PG&E tower leg(s) to the approximate level of the antennas. At the approximate level of the antennas, %2" coaxial jumper cables shall be used to interconnect the 1%"hardline coaxial cables to the antennas. 0 4. All panel -type antennas shall employ only rear -facing connectors. 5. All antenna mounting bracket pipes shall be of the minimum height required to attach the antenna. No antenna bracket pipes shall protrude more than six inches above and below the associated panel antenna. 6. All portions of all cables on and adjacent to the tower from ground level to the antenna connectors shall be completely painted a flat, non -reflective gray that is selected to closely match the color of the PG&E tower. The paint color shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. 7. All cable attachment hardware, antenna brackets, antenna attachment hardware, and any other physical elements of the project attached to the PG&E tower shall be completely painted the same color as approved by the Director of the Community Development Department in condition 6. 8. All antenna radomes (panels, GPS antenna, etc.) shall be completely painted the same color as approved by the Director of the Community Development Department in condition 6. 9. All of the project elements described in conditions 6 through 8, inclusive, shall be completely repainted as required by the City. The paint used shall be a non -reflective gray that is selected to closely match the color of the PG&E tower as it exists at the time of repainting. The paint color shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. 10. To ensure adequate circulation, parking, and access for emergency vehicles in the neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Planning Division for approval before Building Permit submittal. The plan shall specify the methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials, storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles, construction days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel. 11. Except for clearing for the ground mounted equipment pad, no part of the existing landscape including any trees shall be removed. 12. The existing chain link fence shall not be removed. 13. All site improvements, including but not limited to, the fencing and structures shall be maintained in good, undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged improvements shall be replaced in a timely manner. 14. Any future changes in the materials, colors and design of the existing tower would require that the design of the proposed equipment shelter be modified to be compatible 9 with the change. Modifications to the design of the equipment shelter shall be reviewed by the Planning Division. 15. The service provider shall properly maintain this facility during the life of the permit. In the event the wireless facility becomes abandoned, all wireless antennas and associated accessory structures shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days of abandonment. The service provider shall notify the Planning and Building Divisions within ten (10) days of abandonment. The removal of the entire facility shall take place within Twenty (20) days of the notification of the abandonment and shall be restored to the design prior to the installation of the wireless antennas. Failure to remove the equipment shall be subject to action by the City's Code Enforcement Division. 16. If technology improvements or developments occur which allow the use of materially smaller or less visually obtrusive equipment, or equipment that generates less RF emissions, the carrier shall be required to replace or upgrade the subject facility as related to Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002). 17. Testing shall be conducted once the six panel antennas mounted and equipment installed and operating at maximum capacity. Within 45 days of commencement of operations of the wireless communication facility, the telecommunication provider, or its successors, shall submit the results of this testing to the Community Development Department, Planning Division. The testing shall entail verification of compliance with the FCC's Radio Frequency (RF) emission standards. This testing shall be conducted during normal business hours and on non -holiday weekday with the facility operating at maximum power. The telecommunication provider, or its successor, shall provide the Community Development Director with a report, prepared by a qualified expert, indicating the actual RFR levels of the operating facility, measured at the property line or nearest point of public access and in the direction of the maximum radiation from each antenna, is in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR. 18. Every three years, the wireless telecommunications provider, or its successor(s), shall participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility approved by this Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) and Use Permit (UP08-001). The City will contract with a qualified expert to perform the independent testing and the current wireless telecommunications provider, or its successor(s), shall bear the proportionate cost of testing for the wireless telecommunications facility approved by this Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) and Use Permit (UP08- 001). 19. Any operational or technological changes to an approved wireless communication facility affecting RFR exposures shall be reported promptly to the city, including any change of ownership. The city may require new RFR testing within 45 days of notification. 10 20. In the event the FCC changes their standards, the owner or operator of an approved wireless facility shall make necessary changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR. The upgrades to facilities shall be made no later than 90 days after notification of the changed FCC standards and the owner or operator shall notify the city in writing that the upgrades have been completed. 21. The generator pad shall use simple paving material color matching the galvanized tower and would be with no curbs or gutters. The generator shall be of type and design that provides sound attenuation as required by the City ordinances. 22. The proposed wood fence shall be painted neutral colors. 23. Except for the repainting of any components for regular maintenance, all painting shall be done offsite using low VOC paints. 24. The applicant shall give a 30 -day notice to residents of the Ecology House prior to the initiation of construction activities or operation of the completed facility. 25. Contractor Contact Information Posting: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street. 26. Construction Hours: Construction hours shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday and Saturday from 9: 00a.m to 5:OOp.m. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, arrival of construction workers, start up of construction equipment engines, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at or on the site. 27. On -Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 28. Archeological Features: In the event that archaeological features, such as concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits older than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading, scraping, or excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the Planning Division shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted 11 immediately to make an evaluation. If warranted by the concentration of artifacts or soils deposits, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area. If human remains are encountered during grading and construction, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely descendant" can be designated. 29. Final Inspection: Prior to the final inspection, the applicants shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. Community Development Department, Building and Fire Prevention Division 30. The generator shall require permit application for a deferred submittal submitted to the Fire Prevention Division. The permit is required for the Generator which based on the maximum allowable quantities (MAQ) of diesel fuel used to operate the generator. This will be an Aboveground Storage Tank Permit. Public Works Department 31. A Best Management Practice plan shall be included in the building plan submittal. For a copy of the BMP plan call Karen Chew at 415-458-5369. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning Commission held on the 26`" day of May 2009. Moved by Commissioner Lang and seconded by Commissioner Kirchmann as follows: AYES: Commissioners: Lang, Kirchmann, Chair Pick, Wise NOES: Commissioners: Colin ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Paul, Sonnet ATTEST: SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION Robert M. Brown, Secretary Charles Pick, Chair 12 Meeting Date: May 26, 2009 Agenda Item: Community Development Department— Planning Division Case Numbers: AP08-007 P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal—(415) 485-3397 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 100 Block of Windward Way - Appeal of a Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets. located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-330-01; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker, appellant; File No: AP08-007. EXEOIITI SUMN{Alf The project proposes the installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower located on Windward Way. The project includes the installation of associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower. In late 2008, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project and recommended approval with some design changes. The amended project was approved by Zoning Administrator (ZA) on November 4, 2008. The ZA approval of the project was duly appealed by Connie Barker, a resident of Ecology House located at Bellam and Catalina Blvds. The appeal raises both design related and non -design related issues. The design -related issue focuses on the impact of the project on the character of the neighborhood. The non -design related issue focuses on the impact of radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. This appeal was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2009. The Planning Commission continued the project directing applicant to return with more substantive data regarding their Alternative Site Analysis. The applicant has complied with the Planning Commission directive. The Alternative Site Analysis has been revised and a peer review has been conducted by a telecommunication specialist hired by the City. The peer review of the Site Alternative Analysis confirms the conclusions that there is no viable alternative to the subject site. Further, the project will not impact the character of the neighborhood. As summarized in the RF study submitted with the project application, the project is well within the RF standards allowed under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, and therefore, the City is pre-empted from denying or modifying the application based on potential health or environmental impacts. Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and the ZA approval of the project be upheld. The January 13, 2009 Planning Commission staff report and associated plans and exhibits are available and on file with the Community Development Department and have been distributed to the Planning Commission separately. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the ZA action conditionally approving the Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) for the new wireless communication facility. Attachment 5 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: APOB-007 Page 2 _.r _ ..� :A N The following is a chronology of events summarizing the current proposal: 1/14/08 The applicant, Verizon Wireless, applied for a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six panel antennas on an existing PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower. 4/23/08 Applications deemed complete for processing. 5/20/08 The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project. The DRB recommended approval of the project design with some changes to the site improvements and fencing. The DRB also recommended that staff review the alternative site analysis to assist in determining the suitability of the proposed site. 10/22/08 Zoning Administrator (ZA) conducts a public hearing on the applications. Several neighboring residents submit documents to support why the project should be denied. In order to review the submitted materials, ZA continues the hearing to October 27, 2008. 10/27/08 ZA receives a call from Ms. Joan Ripple wishing to submit additional documents in opposition to the project. ZA explains that although the public hearing is closed, the additional information would be accepted for review. 10/27/08 ZA conducts the continued public hearing but continues the hearing to November 4, 2008 to review the submitted documents and to render a decision. 11/4/08 ZA conditionally approves the project. 11/12/08 Connie Barker, neighbor, files an appeal of the project approval. 1/13/09 The PC reviews the appeal and continues it to a date uncertain with the directive that the applicant return with additional data to support the Alternative Site Analysis. 2/26/09 The applicant submits revised Alternative Site Analysis. 3/26/09 Alternative Site Analysis forwarded to RF/telecommunication specialist for peer review. 4/28/09 The applicant submits the Coverage Maps required for the peer review. 5/7/09 Staff receives the peer review report on the Alternative Site Analysis. PRQJI=-CT QERIPTIQI Required Entitlements: The submittal and approval of both a Use Permit (UP08-001) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) is required for the installation and operation of new unmanned wireless communication facilities pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 14.22, Use Permits, and Chapter 14.25, Environmental and Design Review Permits, consistent with the provisions of design and development standards contained in the Wireless Communication section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 14.16.360). This particular project required review by the Design Review Board since the proposed panels involve more than a minor addition or modification to an existing facility (in this case, the PG&E lattice tower). The hearing body for this project was the Zoning Administrator since the project is proposing to collocate on the existing PG&E tower. Use: Verizon Wireless proposes to lease approximately 324 square feet of space between the legs of the existing PG&E tower for the new wireless facility. The facilities include the following (see project plans): Panel Antennas The design of this particular wireless facility calls for locating six panel antennas on an existing 117 - foot high PG&E lattice tower. The tops of the panels would reach a maximum height of 74 feet, 3 inches on the 117 -foot tall tower. Two differently sized panels are proposed for three of the four sectors of the tower. One panel measures approximately 50.5 inches x 18 inches, while the other REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-007 Page 3 panel would measure 53.5 inches x 12 inches. One panel of each size would be oriented at 170 degrees, 240 degrees, and 355 degrees from true north. One type of panel would be dedicated to cellular service while the other would be dedicated for personal communication services (PCS). Equipment Shelter Associated equipment cabinets are proposed to be located within a new 13 -foot x 14.5 -foot equipment shed on a proposed new concrete pad (pad to measure 18 -feet x 18 -feet) and situated within the legs of the PG&E tower. The shelter will be 10 feet, 6 inches high with a flat roof. The applicant has proposed that the equipment shelter be prefabricated CMU block with a stucco finish. The shed would be painted tan so as to be inconspicuous. Additionally, two Global Positioning System (GPS) antennas would be located on the roof of the equipment shelter, one at the north elevation and one at the south. The radio equipment would be connected to the antennae by coaxial cables that run up one of the legs of the tower. These cables would be bundled together and placed in attachments bolted to the tower, which would keep them straight up until they reach the antennas. The applicant has also proposed an 8 -foot high wooden fence to surround the equipment shed, further obscuring it from public view. A portion of the fence would encroach into the required 10 -foot street side yard setback, but fences not exceeding 8 feet in height may be located within a side yard, per Section 14.16.140 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. The fence and equipment shelter would be located behind an existing 6 -foot tall cyclone fence that runs along the property boundary along Windward Way. Emergency Generator Verizon Wireless proposes a 9 -foot x 14 -foot non-exclusive generator parking area to the immediate south of the existing PG&E tower. In the event of an emergency, a stand-by generator would be brought to the site and parked in this proposed space. No permanent stand-by generator is proposed. If needed, Verizon would bring in a 60 kilowatt standby generator, located just south of the concrete pad, and would measure approximately 5 feet in height. This generator would supply power in emergency situations only and would be removed when no longer needed. Hours of Operation The proposed Verizon Wireless facility would be an unmanned facility operating 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and would require access by company representatives for routine maintenance, typically once a month for a one- to two-hour time span. The site is entirely self -monitored and connects directly to a central office where computers would alert personnel to any equipment malfunction or breach of security. Architecture: The six proposed panels would be painted a non -reflective gray color so as to match the color of the existing PG&E tower. The ZA had initially requested the panels to be tilted at the same angle as the tower to decrease the amount of visibility, but was informed by the applicant that tilting the panels at an alternate angle is infeasible since the range of wireless service would not be maximized. The proposed equipment shelter would be painted tan in an effort to blend in with the existing surroundings. An eight -foot high redwood fence would surround the equipment shelter and would provide access to the equipment shed at the north of the concrete pad. Site Improvements: No additional landscaping or lighting is proposed and the project would entail minimal grading. New signage consisting of identification plates used for emergency notification and legally required hazard warnings is proposed. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-007 Page 4 Planning Commission Review of Appeal On January 13, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing of an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Use Permit and ED Permit (Planning Commission hearing minutes are provided in Exhibit 3). In addition to the project sponsor's presentation, the Planning Commission accepted public comment from seven people opposing the project. The majority of the public comments focused on the following issues: • The proposed wireless communication project will render the existing Ecology House located at (Bellam Blvd. and Catalina Blvd.) obsolete. The Ecology House accommodates low income residents disabled by chemical sensitivities and intolerances, was built with public funds and cannot be moved anywhere else; • The Telecommunication Act of 1996 under Section 704 precludes the consideration of environmental effects but not the consideration of health effects of personal wireless service facilities. The proposed project would have adverse impacts on Ecology House residents with chemical sensitivities; • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and California State laws guarantee people with disabilities reasonable accommodation for access to public facilities, housing, education, employment and transportation; • Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) has catastrophic personal, financial and social consequences for the person who has this disability. The proposed project would adversely impact residents who have MCS and are residents of the Ecology House; and • Residents of the Ecology House are hypersensitive and none of them can afford to be exposed to more EFM's. At the Planning Commission hearing, the City Attorney reported that, although an interpretation has never been made by any court regarding the environmental/health impact issues of the 1996 Telecommunication Act, the extent of environmental effects has always included health impacts. The City Attorney further clarified that the extent of review and discretion on this project is not about environmental/health effects. Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City Attorney responded that the City is not in a position to reconcile any potential conflict between the ADA and the 1996 Telecommunication Act. However, the City Attorney reiterated that the Planning Commission must abide by the preemption of the Telecommunication Act applying to the issue of discretion with regard to the placement of the antennas. In regard to the preemption of the Telecommunication Act, which specifically calls out the environment/health effect, the City Attorney did not believe raising federal law intended to protect the rights of Americans with Disabilities affects the Commission's discretion to consider health impact, nor does it place the Commission in a position of choosing between the two laws. Only one law (the 1996 Telecommunication Act) applies to this project. The Planning Commission discussed that, although the proposed site may best meet the project objectives, it is located in a residential zoning district whereas the preferred location required by the City ordinance is industrial or commercial zoning. Because the project is not located in a preferred location, therefore, the ordinance requires an alternative site analysis. The Commission found that the submitted Alternative Site Analysis was not substantive enough and directed the applicant to return with a more supportive data. Following the Plannig Commission hearing, on March 11, 2009, Ms. Joan Ripple acting on behalf of the appellant, forwarded an e-mail to City staff (Exhibit 7) requesting the City Attorney to review Section 601(c)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Ms. Ripple expressed that she had been informed that the City is required to comply with the ADA, even if that means paying attention to health. As summarized above, the City Attorney has already reviewed this issue and has provided an opinion at the Planning Commission hearing. The opinion has also been confirmed in a memorandum form (Exhibit 8). REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-007 Page 5 Response to Planning Commission Directive Following the January 13 Planning Commission hearing, the project sponsor submitted a more detailed Alternative Site Analysis (Exhibit 4) on February 26, 2009. The revised Alternative Site Analysis included a map showing location of other existing facilities in this area, a search ring of service and an analysis of the locations and details of each site and summary of the findings for each site. The City hired Jonathan Kramer of Kramer. Firm Inc., a telecommunications consultant, to conduct a peer review of the Alternative Site Analysis. Jonathan Kramer is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted member of the State Bar of California. Kramer.Firm Inc. was also hired by the City to complete citywide antennae inventory and testing. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009 (Exhibit 6) is briefly summarized as follows: • The proposed height of the antennas is consistent with the height necessary to cover the large area described in Verizon's existing and proposed coverage maps; • The majority of the properties within and adjacent to the search ring are residential uses. A 1.9 sq. mile service area is somewhat toward the larger end of the range for suburban wireless sites, and to achieve this level of wide -area coverage typically requires a wireless site located within or just adjacent to the search ring and of a significant height; • The Verizon has two realistic alternatives: a. To proceed with the project as currently proposed on the existing PG&E power transmission tower; or b. To construct its own freestanding, approximately 75 to 80 feet tall monopole tower adjacent to the proposed location, or just to the north of the search ring near Pickleweed Park which would result in a very tall wireless structure (which is not a preferred site by the City's Wireless Communication Facilities ordinance). • The existing and established power transmission tower exceeding 100 feet in height at the subject location is suitable, if not optimal, for the intended use; • The Verizon's proposed site is the best choice balancing low visual impact on the City (by collocating and not adding a new tall structure), against the suboptimal location in relation to Verizon's desired search ring. Kramer has recommended some design/construction related conditions of approval in order to reduce the visibility of the project now and in the future as follows: • To limit the thickness of hardline coaxial cables and to affix them to the inside of the PG&E tower legs; To employ only rear -facing connectors for all panel -type antennas; Mounting bracket pipes to be of minimum height; and All cables, antenna radomes and attachment hardware on and adjacent to the tower to be painted flat, non -reflective gray to match the tower color. These recommendations are presented as conditions of approval at no. 3 thru 9 in the attached draft resolution (Exhibit 2) for approval of the Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit. The original appeal points were discussed in the January 13, 2009 staff report distributed to the Planning Commission. Staff concludes there are no further issues_ City Attorney Confirmation of Project Discretion As a follow up to the discussion at the Planning Commission hearing and Ms. Joan Ripple's e-mail, the City Attorney has provided a memo (Exhibit 8) regarding the city's ability to regulate Personal Service Wireless (PWS) facilities on the basis of impacts of RF emissions. The memo concludes that the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act preclude the City from denying the Verizon application solely or substantially on the basis of alleged health impacts from RF emission, where those emissions REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-007 Page 6 comply with applicable federal standards, and that the ADA does not apply with respect to the City's action on the application. Pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of less than 10,000 square feet are exempt from the requirements of CEQA, if the project is located in an area that is served by all available public utilities to allow for maximum development permissible under the General Plan and if the project is located in an area that is not environmentally sensitive. The project will add a 324 sq. ft. equipment shed within the base (footprint) of the existing tower and a 126 sq. ft. paved area for locating an emergency generator outside the tower base. Since the proposed addition doesn't exceed fifty percent of the floor area of the original structure, or 2500 square feet, this addition meets the requirements for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA. A courtesy notice for the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a radius of 1,000 feet of the subject property within 15 days prior to the hearing. A public notice sign was also posted near the PG&E tower. As of the date of this report, no correspondence has been received regarding the project. Staff received a phone call message from Dr. Sandra Ross of Health and Habitat expressing that the proposed facility would have a serious impact on the Ecology House which is being used as a residential and meeting place for persons with chemical sensitivities. rP�ta . The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal and approve the project as presented; 2. Deny the appeal and approve the project with additional modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval; 3. Continue the application to allow the applicant or staff to address any of the Commission's comments or concerns; or 4. Grant the appeal and direct staff to return with a revised resolution denying the project. 3. Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 4. Revised Alternative Site Analysis, February 26, 2009 5. Coverage Map Submitted by Applicant 6. Peer Review Report of Alternative Site Analysis dated May 7, 2009 7. E-mail message from Ms. Joan Ripple 8. Memorandum from City Attorney Photo simulations, color Revised Alternative Site Analysis, color Coverage Map, Planning Commission staff report of January 13, 2009 and Reduced Plans Project Plans (11"x17") Distributed to the Planning Commission only REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2009 ROLL Commissioners Present: Chair Kirchmann, Vice Chair Pick, Colin, Lang, Mills, Paul, Sonnet Commissioners Absent: None APPROVED Community Development: Bob Brown, Community Development Director Paul Jensen, Planning Manager Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner Stephanie Lovette, Housing Specialist Rob Epstein, City Attorney AGENDA CONSENT 1. Minutes, December 9, 2008 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of a Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-33001; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker, appellant; File no.: AP08-007. Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt 3. 1050 Cresta Way (includes 1010-1065) Cresta Way; 122-150 Cresta Drive; 1- 6 Cresta Circle) — Highlands of Marin and Cresta Marin Apartments — Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit for exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building; APN: 155-251-20, 21, 24, 25 and 155-280-01 tbru 16 and 18; Planned Development (PD) 1547 and Multi -Family Residential (MR2.5) District; NorthBay Properties 11, LP, property owner; Jill D. Williams, architect, applicant; David Therien and Maurice Burckhardt, appellants, File No.: AP08-004. Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 EXHIBIT 3 AYES: Commissioners: Pick, Sonnet, Chair Kirchmann, Colin, Lang, Mills, Paul NOES: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Chair Kirchmann/Colin (Item 3) ABSENT: Commissioners: None Commissioner Sonnet recused himself from the next agenda in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict. PUBLIC HEARINGS 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of a Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-33001; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker, appellant; File no.: AP08-007. Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Sarjit Dhaliwal, Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the ZA action conditionally approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit for the new wireless communication facility. Planner Dhahwal then submitted modifications to Condition Nos.: 8, 10, 14 and 22 to the Commission for their review. Planning Manager Jensen clarified that the Federal Communication Commission regulates the radio frequency emissions and the City of San Rafael does not. As long as the facility is within the standard then it must comply with City's ordinance requirements primarily related to design and placement. Chair Kircbmann pointed out that the federal law prohibits the City from considering health effects of radio frequency emissions in making land use decisions. Planning Manager Jensen responded in the affirmative. Chair Kirchmann indicated that the Commission received a volume of additional information tonight and it appears to be all geared to health effects of radio frequency emissions, which is an important consideration, but one the Commission cannot consider. Connie Barker, appellant, Vice President of Ecology House/President of Environmental Health Network, explained that this is not directly about health or environmental effects, but about the viability of a business and a business that has been in business on that corner for over 15 years and because of its nature cannot be moved anywhere else. The facility was built with federal and local CDBG money and continues to receive federal SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 4 money and is in grant process each year for capital improvements. They cannot take that business elsewhere and cannot take the environmental health network out of California. They are not capable of moving their business. The General Plan specifically states that cell towers cannot be located in such a way as to interfere with the existing character of the neighborhood. They feel it should be within the Commission's purview to require that these antermas be located further away from their business. Like other forms of electromagnetism, the intensity decreases with the square of the distance. She did not believe it was ever the intent to put a business out of business that cannot be relocated. They cannot serve several individuals due to the power lines, and the extra load will be a major impact. She reiterated that this is the viability of their business. Alex Richards, speaking for the appellant, submitted information on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 under Section 704 that states, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. " There is no discussion of health effects. Environmental effects are quite different than health effects. Environment is thought to be global warming, carbon dioxide, animals, air quality, wetlands, and bio systems which are all part of the environment. This is so important for all and tonight they have a group of people that have chemical sensitivities. This is the only such HUD facility in the United States. 60 to.70% have electromagnetic sensitivities, diseases such as chronic fatigue. They want to talk about health effects and will not talk about environmental effects. They all face wireless stress syndrome. He then made a powerpoint presentation to the Board on wireless stress syndrome that included the following information: • Myth 1: No Scientific Evidence o There is really no evidence that microwaves or other electromagnetic fields are harmful. ■ More than 1100 studies link microwaves and EMF to dozens of bio effects, symptoms and diseases • Bio Initiative Report released by 14 scientist August 2007: • DNA Damage • Chromosome Damage • Neurological Effects • Immune System Impacts • Brain Tumors • Childhood Cancers • Breast Cancer • Alzheimer's • Electromagnetic Sensitivity Myth 2: Thermal Effect is only Threat o Scientist universally agreed that the "Thermal Effect" is real — fields strong enough to heat tissue are dangerous. o FDA and FCC dismiss the existence of low-level bio effects from microwaves SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 Non -Thermal Studies: 1100 studies link low-level EMF and microwaves to dozens of bio effects, symptoms and diseases Microwaves effect is nonlinear: • Frequency windows • Wave coupling • Modulation of frequencies • Continuous waves (chronic exposure) • Myth 3: US Standards are safe o hi the US, are we well protected relative to the rest of the world from the hazards of microwaves? o Worldwide Exposure limits to cell towers: • US — 580 Microwatts • Russia — 10 Microwatts ■ China — 6 microwatts ■ Italy -5 Microwatts • Switzerland — 4.2 Microwatts • Salzburg Austria —.1 Microwatts 2002: Freiburger Appeal o Hundreds of physicians in Europe call out explosion of new symptoms in patient population. 30,000 sign the appeal. • Fatigue, Chronic Exhaustion • Memory Loss, Increased Forgetfulness Concentration Issues ■ Sleep Disturbances ■ Headaches, Migraines Joint Pain ■ Muscle Pain • Anxiety/Irritability ■ Mood Disturbances — Depression • Immune System Suppression ■ Heart, Chest pain • 1985: Chronic Fatigue Strikes — Same 11 symptoms • 1990s: Fibromyalgia = Freiburger — Same 11 symptoms • 1990s: Environmental Illness — Core 11 Symptoms • 2000: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) - 285,000 disabled in Sweden (Symptoms linked to Microwaves/EMF) • Wireless Stress Syndrome: 2000-04: Microwave Studies — Cell tower studies: overlapping symptoms • Cell Tower: Dosage Effect o High 50 meters —Anxiety, depression, concentration, memory o Medium 50-300 meters —Loss of sleep, headaches, fatigue o Low— 300 meters —Fatigue Clarence Chavis, representing Verizon, proposing to install 6 antennas on an existing PG&E power at the address of 100 Windward Way, explained that they are proposing to install all equipment underneath the legs of that tower. They had an opportunity to review SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 the staff report, met with the DRB and reviewed the Conditions from the ZA. They also had meetings and telephone conversations from members of the Ecology House. They modified and made changes to their plans based on recommendations from the Ecology House. Such as relocated their proposed equipment pad for emergency generator to the other side of the tower. They agreed to paint the fence itself with low volatile organic compounds (VOC) paint as recommended and agreed to a 30 -day notice to the Ecology House, if approved for construction of the project. He understands the concerns in regard to the RF emissions and an independent study was conducted by H&E Consulting, a representative from which is present tonight to discuss in more detail. Raji Mather, Hammett & Edison Consulting Engineers, analyzed the site and finds that it complies with the FCC guidelines. The maximum level at any publicly accessible location is 0.51% of the FCC standard. Which means that it is about 200 times below the FCC standard. All are aware of the 1996 Telecommunication Act, but if the Commission desired further explanation in that regard he is present to do so. Mr. Chavis noted for the record that they conducted the alternative analysis. They reviewed different locations and explained why the other locations were not feasible and why the subject location was the best to meet the coverage objective for Verizon Wireless. Chair Kirchmann opened the public comment on this item. Joan Ripple, Health & Disability Researcher/Secretary & Treasurer of Council on Wireless Technology Impacts/former staff person for the California Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, noted that in September of 1996, the California Senate published a report on `Access for people with environmental illness/multiple chemical sensitivity and other related conditions. " The report was the result of four years of deliberation by a 75 member Blue Ribbon Committee of nationwide experts who examined access issues for people with this disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and California State laws guarantee people with disabilities reasonable accommodations for access to public facilities, housing, education, employment, and transportation. The 1996 reportstate, "that MCS has catastrophic personal, financial and social consequences for the person who has this disability. Further, there is a high cost of the community in billions of dollars lost annually by business and industry to drops in productivity in the workplace (chronic headaches, colds, sinus problems, et all); this includes the cost of supporting people with preventable disability and the loss of their creativity and tales. " Listed among the common barriers to access in the report were "electromagnetic fields from computers, elevators, escalators, generators, fluorescent lighting, office equipment, BART and other modes of transportation. " That report was issued in 1996 long before the proliferation of cell towers, broadband and WiFi, which are ubiquitous in society today. People with allergies, asthma, immunological, neurological, respiratory and other illnesses also have negative health effects related to, poor air quality, chemicals, and electromagnetic fields, radio frequencies and other modem electronic exposures. In 2000 the California Department of Health issued a report that shows 50% of persons with chemical sensitivities also developed electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) and that 3% of the SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 7 total population exhibited symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity. More recent worldwide data show that 3 —10% of the population at large has severe EHS while another 35% have moderate symptoms of EHS. CWTI has been working with the scientist who is researching the development of a diagnostic tool to assist physicians in diagnosing EHS. In October, they hosted the scientist here in Marin and assisted in the research. Some residents of Ecology House as well as the general population participated in the research. When spoken to as recently as yesterday, this scientist linked placing antenna so close to a building that houses chemically sensitive people as abhorrent, like giving peanuts to someone with a peanut allergy. They are not against the telecommunications antenna, but would like due diligence to be conducted to place the antenna elsewhere, where it will not deteriorate the purpose of Ecology House and subsequently the health of a very vulnerable population, not to mention the waste of millions of taxpayers dollars that have gone into this special housing project. She then submitted information noting the presence of an electric grid of radio frequency currents used for communication and remote control for the Commission's consideration. She explained that these currents have been detected on high and medium voltage lines. In some cases they are even used on the main system for remote rating electric meters. This implies that radio frequency (RF) magnetic fields are present near the electric network in addition to the 50/60 Hz fields. The intensity in the human body by exposure to magnetic fields increases with frequency. Sarah Reilly, Fairfax resident/Health Practitioner in Bay Area, explained that this is a very real.situation. What is at hand is real whether one has chemical or electrical sensitivity. People in the Ecology House are particularly sensitive as well as infants, pregnant women, and elders. This is a scary situation for people because it is not seen and it is impacting all of us. The research in this country is very suppressed. With the convenience of wireless technology comes a huge consequence. She asked that the Commission give this deep consideration because the health consequences are dark and withstanding. It is not seen or heard, but it is incredibly real. Ginger Sounders -Mason, Kentfield resident, has friends that live at the Ecology House and this is the only place they can live. They survive on very low incomes due to their disabilities. She further asked the Commission to give deep consideration to those that have sensitivities. Barbara Wienqes, Woodacre resident/pharmacist, is chemically sensitive and found a home in Woodacre where the levels of radiation are low enough to not affect her muscles. She is able to go to work during the day. If this tower is placed where it is, it will greatly impact the Ecology House business. These people would be homeless, so this is a financial situation for the business. She suggested looking at a moratorium on cell towers or place this tower further down the street near the Metro PCS tower so it is located further away from the Ecology House, which accommodates those with chemical sensitivity. Louise Yost, Ecology House resident, stated that when there is an indication of adverse health effects, the risk of doing nothing might be far greater than the risk to control SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 exposures. Residents of the Ecology House are hypersensitive and none of the residents can afford to be bombarded with more EFM's. The Ecology House is the only facility of its kind in the United States. She asked that the cell tower be moved one block away and to do so would mirror the spirit of the Disability Act. Ms. Barker appreciates Verizon Wireless and is not against the technology and has been a loyal customer for years, but respectfully asked the Commission to consider how many times in the few years they danced this same dance such as with the light brown apple moth and local ordinances about GMO's. Organizations in this area are working on issues of pesticides and are working on legislation and initiatives that will take on this issue and the whole idea of preemption around health issues. Mr. Richards stated that the tower is 422 feet from the Ecology House and on page 12 of the first document on Wireless Stress Syndrome there are three exposure syndromes. It shows that people more than 300 yards away increase fatigue by 40%. Those in the middle range, which is 50 to 300 meters will have an increase in sleep disturbance, headaches and fatigue. The high area increases anxiety. These individuals are already experiencing seven of the effects, and those impacts will result in economic difficulties, ability to contribute to the community and the ability to remain in San Rafael. Commissioner Mills asked staff if supporting maps and graphics were provided by the applicant. Planning Manager Jensen responded that page 7 of the staff report shows the site alternatives and all are located in the same general area of this particular proposed site. They are all around Windward Way. Commissioner Mills stated that it would have been helpful to have maps and indicators of the locations. Mr. Chavis explained that they propose six antennas and the two for GPS are not considered for transferring and receiving signals. They are more for global positioning. They are located on the bottom legs of the tower. They provided locations and photographs in regards to the different sites and businesses. Due to all factors listed in the report, the current proposal is the best approach to move forward. Commissioner Paul discussed Exhibits No. 8 and No. 9 and noted that the existing Metro PCS site is one of the four alternatives analyzed. Mr. Chavis responded that the PG&E tower south of their proposal is the Sprint site. The existing Metro PCS site is the Sprint tower, so they are talking about the same tower. Commissioner Paul clarified that PG&E owns all the towers. Mr. Chavis responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Paul clarified that the closest tower is approximately double the distance from the Ecology House. Mr. Chavis agreed. Commissioner Colin asked staff to explain the 1996 Telecommunication Act. City Attorney Epstein responded that the interpretation has never been made by any court looking at these issues. The idea of environmental effects has always included health impacts. Commissioner Colin asked if health could be separated from environmental impacts. City Attorney Epstein explained that based on his review of the law, he believed SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 9 that argument to be implausible. They do not choose the controversies that come before the City. Good people explain experiences and disability issues and yet they are in a position that he must advise the Commission on the law. They have federal pre - exemptions. When there are references made regarding other venues where issues might be argued and federal statute contest it that makes sense. These are other places where the argument could and should be made, but tonight the debate is not about environmental/health effects. Law is clear that the Commission does not have purview on the health effects. Commissioner Mills believed there is a conflict between the Disabilities Act and FCC. She believed the two federal laws are in opposition. City Attorney Epstein is not in a position to reconcile those matters. Congress occupied an area and arguably acted in conflict with itself with another act. They must abide by the preemption of the act applying here on the issue of discretion with regard to the placement of the antenna. Commissioner Mills believed they would violate one or the other tonight. City Attorney Epstein must further consider the question before responding. Commissioner Paul clarified that there are three alternate sites all owned by PG&E and the conclusion was that PG&E was not interested in entertaining a lease and desired an explanation. Mr. Chavis explained that there is the existing landlord along with PG&E. The carrier has all their equipment and there is no space for Verizon. At the time their request to entertain a lease was not satisfied or agreed to. PG&E owns the towers and one other landlord owns the site and they must have an agreement with both. He added that the easement and tower is PG&E's, but the land is a different entity. The property owner did not want to entertain their project. Commissioner Paul asked if it is possible to locate equipment into the easement area. Mr. Chavis stated that PG&E only allows equipment to be located underneath the tower and there was no space available. Chair Kirchmann asked if it would be functionally feasible to have equipment under one and then towers on another easement. Mr. Chavis noted that would involve several leases, which is not typical of Verizon. Commissioner Mills asked why telephone access is a problem with Alternative No. 3. Mr. Chavis indicated that they need power and telephone access. Further south, they run further and further away from their coverage objective and closer to an existing site that is meeting their coverage down the road. Commissioner Mills noted that when driving around the area she had exceptional coverage. Mr. Chavis explained that Verizon Wireless Engineers map out all different locations and identify areas for coverage or capacity. At this site, they saw a gap in coverage, so Verizon sent his company out in the field to see if there are opportunities to install towers to help with coverage objectives. This particular area of Windward Way needed additional coverage. Verizon would not add a site where one was not required or requested. They provide a search ring of an area and site where they feel coverage is needed. SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 10 Commissioner Mills noted that zoning is residential and light industrial is further south and Verizon Wireless has chosen an area least preferred in the City, so to move down the block would make zoning sense. Mr. Chavis tried to look at other locations and understands the concerns, but the subject area is the best to meet Verizon's objectives. Commissioner Pick asked staff if there is any legal means by which City Council can require applicants to use an alternate location assuming other conditions are met such as obtaining a lease and so forth. He asked how far does the alternative analysis go and how far can the process be pushed. City Attorney Epstein responded to Commissioner Mills' previous questions and is not sure the question is framed whether they have to follow one law and violate another federal law. That presentation has not been made. The City's public facilities must be ADA compliant, and if there were an alleged violation of ADA after this and if this proposal were approved, whether that such action would be a private action between whoever claimed to be the effected party and the applicant. In regard to the preemption of the Telecommunication Act, which specifically calls out the environmental/health effect and he does not believe raising federal law intended to protect the rights of Americans with disabilities affects the Commission's discretion tonight to consider health impacts nor does it place the Commission in a position of choosing between two laws. Only one law applies here. Planning Manager Jensen indicated that the code provisions are very clear that an alternative site analysis is required if there are certain conditions. This project site meets two of those conditions. It is a residential zone. The zoning on this project is somewhat unique to this site. Most of Windward Way is industrially zoned including properties north of this site. Also, if the antenna does not meet a stealth design requirement and the test for looking at alternatives analysis is open ended and not real cut and dry. The code states, "that the applicant shall provide supporting reasons why the alternate sites were infeasible and rejected and why the proposed site is superior from a technical or other standpoint to the others considered. " It is difficult to make a finding that one site may be rejected over another for any specific reason other than what is presented by the applicant. Since this site meets the test to require an alternative site analysis, the Commission has the discretion that this be reviewed further or consider other sites in that analysis in order to consider whether or not those were rejected for good reason. Chair Kirchmann noted that City policies would encourage siting of a facility like this other than in residential districts, if feasible. Planning Manager Jensen responded in the affirmative. The preferred location is commercial and industrial zoning districts. If located outside those districts, then it must meet other performance standards. There being no further public testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion and action. Commissioner Colin noted that the DRB focused on the design aspects. She noted that General Plan NH -2 states, "New development should enhance neighborhood image and quality of life. " This is a unique neighborhood and this feels very strange to have a tower located so close. Hearing about alternative sites, she is under whehned by the support for SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 11 the alternative sites. She believed they can work a little harder given the Ecology House is in such close proximity. Commissioner Pick did not want to get involved with a legal argument with definitions of environmental and health. As they heard, the City code is pretty clear and the preferred locations are in commercial and industrial areas. It seems it meets the standard for pretty detailed set of evidence or analysis for looking at the alternatives. He wanted to review the radius analysis as to where this tower can be located and still serve the need. This is not a proposal for a tower in a preferred location. There could be a compelling paper trail that alternative locations work. If so, the applicant should submit. It seems since they are at the edge of a very large industrial and commercial neighborhood that potentially this radius analysis would show that there are many potential sites. He is inclined to look for more information on the alternative analysis. Commissioner Paul agreed with Commissioners Pick and Colin's comments. More information is needed on alternate sites and additional alternate sites should be explored. He is not convinced that the study was thorough enough and desired a paper trail and absolutes on why co -location is not feasible on the Metro PCS site. He further recommended continuing the matter to allow the applicant the ability to conduct an expanded alternate study. Commissioner Lang stated that towers should be along with other similar items. These are not residential structures. They are very heavy industrial towers. The setback requirements and the management requirements are extensive. This is the perfect place to put a cell site because they already have all kinds of limitations. This area is already impacted by frequencies. Part of the overall plan is having all towers located in one area. She cannot in her mind justify denying Verizon Wireless when there is a tower 600 feet away. As for the alternative analysis, it could have been more articulated, but did not need more text to indicate that the landlord did not want to rent any additional area around the bottom of these towers. There are particular limitations on what can be done. The surrounding landowner has requirements and PG&E has requirements for access for its facilities and for maintaining its facilities. She is opposed to a continuance. They do not have the factual evidence to justify a requirement that they pick and choose among transmission towers as to which one is appropriate for a cell tower. The alternatives analysis could have been more thorough, but the landlords do not want to lease the property and that is sufficient. The standard is infeasible. If the landlord is saying, "no" that is enough feasibility to support the conclusion that it is not feasible to locate somewhere else. If Verizon had any place else to locate this tower they would have done it. If there were a convenient and readily available alternative, Verizon would have found it. She is prepared to deny the appeal. Commissioner Mills supported the work being done by City Council on wireless impacts and encouraged CWTI to continue pressuring the FCC to come into line with international standards. Under current law, they cannot deny approval over health concerns. However, following the lead of the DRB, two of the members suggested that the alternative towers south be reviewed. She would deny the appeal on an additional SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 12 condition that Verizon work with PG&E and the property owners for a more southerly tower for its location. Verizon's preferred location is on a least preferred site. While the most preferred location is just down the street. PG&E towers in the adjacent industrial and commercial areas have street access and do not appear to have limited access. The argument presented by Verizon's representative that this would be difficult she finds troubling and wonders why. She also sees the necessity for the new Verizon facility seems questionable since service was excellent by her observations. The fact that Sprint has located in an industrial area, not residential, is a fact that shows respect for the zoning. She further encouraged a continuance for more research to be conducted and then brought back to the Commission for further review. Chair Kirchmann is not impressed by the stealth of this installation. They have a number of cell phone and PCS locations where antennas are enclosed that appear as an `architectural' feature of a building. PG&E transmission line towers are not the best examples of architectural structures in the City. These antennas are not hidden. He is far from convinced that there is not a better area to serve the coverage gap. He agreed that it is troublesome that they were not provided with the search ring. He heard about alternatives and is not convinced those others are infeasible. He further agreed to continue the matter to allow the applicant time to provide the additional information requested. Planning Manager Jensen clarified that if the project is continued, then an expanded site alternatives analysis or the existing analysis reviewed by City's telecommunications consultant. Chair Kirchmann did not know whether it is technologically feasible and whether it serves the coverage needs of Verizon, but asked whether it is necessary to transmit at the same power on all three sectors in any particular antenna location. Whether there is a possibility in this case to achieve coverage objectives, but reducing radio emissions projected toward the immediate residential neighborhood. Commissioner Pick stated since this is not proposed in a preferred location as the General Plan is structured that if there is direction offered to the applicant that they could clearly state that if a proposal was brought forward for a location nearby within the commerciall industrial zone that would meet every objective that the City has and fall within the Commission's purview. To the extent the Commission can provide such direction that an alternate site located solidly in that commercial/industrial area that would be the preferred means. It seems when not in that preferred location that high level of detail is required. If they had a preferred location perhaps such a great detail would not need to be heard. Chair Kirchmann clarified that if they had a proposed location that was in a clearly preferred area then they would not have to search as far for alternatives. When the location is within a residential zoned area they must search harder for alternatives. Even though the General Plan and code speaks in terns of zoning districts, they must also look at the adjacent zones and uses. Commissioner Mills believed more information is needed on the three alternatives and it would be great to have additional alternatives as well. She also wanted to hear back from the City Attorney on further research conducted. SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 13 Chair Kirchmann desired guidelines about where their discretion lies and what factors can and cannot be taken into account in approving or denying a particular location and evaluating potential alternatives. Chair Kirchmann asked for a motion. Commissioner Colin moved and Commissioner Pick seconded, to continue this appeal to a date uncertain. Commissioner Paul noted that the purpose of the continuance is for the applicant to look at other alternative sites and go back to the three other alternative sites and explore in more detail, The stealth design should be addressed as well. He believed these antennas should be co -located as much as possible. He wanted to see the search ring and other alternative sites investigated. Commissioner Mills believed directive could be enhanced to Verizon if they could negotiate a different site that it might be much easier to receive approval by the Commission. Motion carried 5-1. Lang opposed. AYES: Commissioners: Colin, Pick, Chair Kirchmann, Mills, Paul NOES: Commissioners: Lang ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners Sonnet The Commission took a short recess at 8:48pm and Commissioner Sonnet reconvened his position on the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT By order of the Chair, the meeting adjourned at 12:OOam. Respectfully submitted, Jessica Woods, Recording Secretary SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 February 26, 2009 To: Saijit Dhaliwal From: Clarence Chavis Re: Altematve Site Analysis for Case No; AP08-007 Since ana me summary or inelr rnnaings. in this reviSed alternative analysis; we he conduoted a review of existing co -location bpportuniti on a cityuvide basis additional candidates within the proximity of the proposed area of coveraoe RECEIVED MAY 14 2009 PLANNIN' EXHIBIT 4 Facts about the New Facility • This facility has been designed to meet the established guidelines detailed in the Zoning Ordinance for the City of San Rafael section 14.16.380 Wireless communication facilities. • In order to improve Verizon Wireless coverage in the area we have explored many options. This site will meet our coverage needs while blending in with the existing infrastructure. • No location within the proposed coverage area is able to satisfy this need, so we moved south — with the same coverage objective requirements. The coverage objective is the residential area: 1. to the east of Kemer Blvd 2. south of Piekleweed Pant; 3. west of the water 4. North of vista Del Mar. Verizon's coverage needs are in the middle of the residential area defined above. • Moving further west or south would require taller structure — and still result in a weaker signal in the area requiring coverage, so we can't move too far: • The closest NON residential areas are; a West of Ifemer — too far from coverage objective b North and east is across water -not' viable due tie interference C. South is undeveloped land, or Windward Way. Anything further south is too far to satistj coverage objective. The I. 2. first two parcels on the NW side of 3. 87 Windward Way APN 009-X30-11 has a -business located upon it (tenant to Universal Portfolio). It is a lout/ level commerolol t Industrial structure. A tower, would need to be built to make this work, Also, landlord did not want to bother or impede on tenant's use of property. 4. 90 Windward Way — APN 009-330-10 has Kerner Optical as a tenant, who was not interested in leasing ground space there. 5. 100 Windward Way —APN 009-330-10 has a few businesses as tenants. The landlord was not interested in leasing additional space on this property. There is an existing carrier, MetroPCS, with equipment under the PG&E tower and antennas on a 6 foot extension at the top of the tower. The space under the tower is full. 6. PG&E towers further south would be too faraway to satisfy coverage objective: i. The most visible building (line of sight) south was also researched: 3155 Kamer Blvd was George Ludas' Industrial Light,and Magic Company. The owner was not interested in leasing space to Verizon. it d o , U a ae �C ego - CD p cu 14 TsC m i U m � N 5 F y CD p cu 14 TsC m i lei sCa #S t 3c "`may 1a Y L is f, 0- 0 a L d 4 O T �K=ttt CL)u O 4 L O U a' 0- 0 o � L d 4 O T �K=ttt CL)u O L O CD x k ? N r' T l a t , F U N N �P tt A N its, Valovo 10, z Zi : v rn d 7 CTI r5 m L f"N Q 0 v u o c � 7 C`A o Q c • L C �r74 t 17 � Jr� c Vile w `r' w, m �y . r • m w � 'ra CTI r5 �pJ.:N L f"N Q v u c � 7 C`A o Q CEJ D L C �r74 t 17 � Jr� c Vile w `r' CTI r5 �pJ.:N L f"N v 7 � o CEJ [7 c C t 17 � Jr� c Vile w `r' m w � 'ra CTI r5 �pJ.:N L f"N a o q* C t 17 R I D G E COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 12667 April 28, 2009 To: Sarjit Dhaliwal, PhD, AICP Associate Planner City of San Rafael Community Development Department Planning Division 1400 5' Ave. P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA From: Clarence Chavis 602 Z add Re: ED08-002; UP08-001;Verizon Wireless proposal; RF Coverage maps Dear Mr. Dhaliwal: I am submitting two copies of the set of coverage maps for our proposal on Windward Way. A goal of Verizon is to provide the optimum coverage for their customers; particularly "In Building" coverage which is weak in the area that Verizon is attempting to address. The following is an explanation of the maps: 1) Current Coverage: Map of the existing coverage without the proposed site. The coverage map shows the lack of "In Building" coverage within the proposed area and around the proposed site at 100 Windward Way. 2) Coverage from Pickleweed Site: Map of proposed site in opera n and the surrounding Verizon sites not in operation. In this scenario our " Building" coverage objective is met for the area in question. 3) Pickleweed and Current Coverage: Map of conjunction with the existing Verizon sites. I am also submitting the required $800 payment for review of site in o ation in If J t a� � �� _` x'`" 1' t�: f. a :. ,. �. o a�,�� a a��. r i d �_. a� �� �� ���"� ,KK ��a � , 1 a ��� � �. �, � ;� ��� '�: x� �, _ �e xv E k+'y �;- ��� _—__ >�'� �4 :¢ z�� e e e e ® m e .� s _ _ ��,���n May 7, 2009 Mr. Raffi Boloyan Principal Planner Community Development Department City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 1560 San Rafael, California 94915-1560 RE: Peer Review of Alternative Analysis: Verizon Wireless Proposed Site in the 100 Block of Windward Way Dear Mr. Boloyan: At the direction of the City of San Rafael, I have reviewed the referenced project in the context of the San Rafael Municipal Code § 14.16.360 regarding potential alternative sites for the referenced project. My credentials to provide this analysis are listed in Exhibit I of this letter. Project Purpose Verizon, using an existing radio frequency (RF) map, has disclosed to the City that the purpose of this project is to significantly enhance its RF signal level to provide "in building coverage" with the area generally described by me as follows: • North: generally extending to the general area of Margarita Parkway and Mann Drive; • Northeast: extending into the Bay; • East: extending into the Bay; ORRM • South-southeast: To Shoreline Parkway, with additional lower signal strength coverage to San Quentin State Prison; • Southwest: To the ridgeline (Old Quarry Road N, for Kramer.Firm Inc. example); Telecommum.d.usTechnobgy • West-southwest: To the ridgeline (Bret Harte Road, for Counsel for Government example); and Agencies and Private Institutions Since 1964 • West: To about the intersection of US 101 and 1-580. .,v.Krmne, Firrn.mm Presently, portions of the areas described above have signal strength Main Office: suitable for in -car service, and in smaller areas signal strength suitable only Krarner(E I(i amerFirm.mm Tel +1 (310)4739900 for outdoors use of wireless telephones. Fax + 1 (310) 473 5900 Suite 306 2001 S. Ban'ington Avenue Los Angeles, California 900255379 EXHIBIT 6 Mr. RAI Boloyan May 7, 2009 Page 2 The coverage enhancement area described above encompasses about 1.9 square miles of land, and additional water coverage in the Bay and San Rafael Creek. A 1.9 square mile service area is somewhat toward the larger end of the range for suburban wireless sites. The portion of the community to be benefited by this proposed project is generally low-lying areas bounded to a half ring of hills reaching up to between 350 feet and 500 feet above ground level (AGL). The Siting Process When a wireless carrier determines that a new site is needed to provide enhanced service, the following general process steps occur; 1. A carrier's RF engineer determines the area to be served by the proposed site and assesses the topography and major constructed structures of the area; 2. The RF engineer evaluates the other on air and approved cell sites in the area to determine what spacing and frequency requirements will apply to the new cell site; 3. A target area, called a'search ring' is determined by the RF engineer and transferred to a map, along with the criteria regarding antenna height and other technical factors required for a viable candidate site; 4. The search ring map is assigned to a real property specialist who looks within the search ring for potentially viable candidate sites based on the criteria established by the RF engineer. If no suitable candidate site is found within the search ring, the real property specialist will often expand the search area outside of the initial ring; S. For each potential candidate site, the real property specialist determines the property owner and contacts the owner to determine whether the owner is interested in leasing the candidate site to the wireless carrier. Some candidate sites may Kramer.Firm Inc. Mr. Raffi Boloyan May 7, 2009 Page 3 be lost at this stage due to owner unwillingness to enter in to a lease option and lease; 6. When one or more viable candidate sites with willing owners are located, the site or sites are secured by the carrier (usually by a lease option) and then each is more carefully evaluated by carrier. At this stage detailed RF engineering, utility engineering, and physical site suitability studies (i.e., soils testing) are performed. Some candidate sites will be determined at this stage to be unsuitable for any number of engineering reasons. At the end of this evaluation phase usually only one or two candidate sites remain, and one is selected by the carrier as the best site to bring forward for permitting. In some cases, only one viable candidate site remains; 7. The candidate site is presented to the local planning agency for permission to construct the site. In the case of Verizon's project, the majority of the properties within and adjacent to the search ring are residential uses. As I have already noted, a 1.9 square mile service area is somewhat toward the larger end of the range for suburban wireless sites, and to achieve this level of wide -area coverage typically requires a wireless site located within or just adjacent to the search ring, and of a significant height to 'see over' the tops of the structures within the service target area to prevent signal shadowing. As for tall structures in the area, they include for example the industrial structures generally to the west of the proposed project site; US 101 where it crosses over Bellam Boulevard; larger structures at Pickleweed Park; the multi -story industrial and 3+ story commercial structures along Francisco Boulevard; etc. Proposed Method of Enhancing Signal Strength I have reviewed the project proposed by Verizon Wireless for the PG&E transmission tower in the 100 block of Windward Way. The project antennas are to be located approximately 72 feet AGL on the power transmission tower. The proposed height of the antennas is consistent with the height necessary to cover the large area described in Verizon's existing and proposed coverage maps. Kramer.Firm Inc. Mr. Raffi Boloyan May 7, 2009 Page 4 Alterative Sites Having set the stage for the purpose of this project; the method of selecting sites; and the proposed site, I now turn to my evaluation of whether there are realistic alternatives to that proposed by Verizon. In this evaluation, I have reviewed Verizon's limited alternative sites for this project described to the City's Design Review Board, essentially three PG&E power transmission towers and one private property. I have also evaluated current topographic maps and of the area; as well Terraserver, NAVTEQ maps, and Pictometry International Corp. low -altitude images. The PG&E power transmission line, and specifically the transmission towers along this north -south transmission line corridor are the highest existing verticality within and adjacent to the search ring area. As an FCC -licensed RF engineer working for the past 17 years for local, state, and federal governments (but not for wireless carriers) my study of RF engineering needs of Verizon and the physical area in and around the search ring leads me to conclude that Verizon has but two realistic alternatives. Those alternatives are: 1. For Verizon to proceed with the project currently proposed on the existing PG&E transmission tower in the 100 block of Windward Way; or 2. For Verizon to construct its own freestanding monopole tower that would be approximately 75 to 80 feet AGL adjacent to the proposed location, or just to the north of the search ring near Pickleweed Park. Option 2 presumes that Verizon can find a willing landlord (which has already been ruled out adjacent to the Option I location), and that a new very tall wireless structure would be compatible with the adjacent uses, primary residential and park uses. Having been involved in hundreds of planning cases in communities throughout California, it has been my experience that city leaders and planning agencies strive to avoid adding major new vertical elements, specifically towers, for wireless sites when existing verticality can be used. In this case, there is an existing and established power transmission tower exceeding 100 feet in height at a location that is suitable, if not optimal, for Kranner.Firm Inc. Mr. Raffi Boloyan May 7, 2009 Page 5 Verizon's intended use. Adding panel antennas to an existing and established taller power transmission tower is most often a far more preferable public policy option compared with permitting a new telecommunications tower, especially one that is much more likely to be visible to wider residential areas. Conclusions and Recommendations Having evaluated all of the radio frequency engineering data, the project plans, the alternative sites considered by Verizon, and having conducted my own analysis of alternative sites, it is my opinion that Verizon's proposed site is the best choice balancing low visual impact on the City (by not adding new verticality) against slightly the suboptimal location in relation to Verizon's desired search ring. If it is the pleasure of the City to approve this project, I recommend the following conditions of approval be included to reduce the visibility of the project now and in the future: All 1 5/8" hardline coaxial cables shall at all times be run on and affixed to the inside of the PG&E tower leg(s) to the approximate level of the antennas. At the approximate level of the antennas the Permittee shall use /2 inch coaxial jumper cables to interconnect the 1 5/8" hardline coaxial cables to the antennas. 2. All panel -type antennas shall employ only rear -facing connectors. 3. All antenna mounting bracket pipes shall be of the minimum height required to attach the antenna. No antenna bracket pipes shall protrude more than six inches above and below the associated panel antenna. 4. All portions of all cables on and adjacent to the tower from ground level to the antenna connectors be completely painted a flat, non - reflective gray that is selected to closely match the color of the PG&E tower. The paint color is subject to the prior written approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. 5. All cable attachment hardware, antenna brackets, antenna attachment hardware, and any other physical elements of the project attached to the PG&E tower are to be completely painted the same color as approved by the Director of the Community Kramer.Firm Inc. Mr. Raffi Boloyan May 7, 2009 Page 6 Development Department in Condition 4. 6. All antenna radomes (panels, GPS antenna, etc.) are to be completely painted the same color as approved by the Director of the Community Development Department in Condition 4. 7. Permittee shall completely repaint all of the project elements described in Conditions 4 through 6, inclusive, at an interval specified by the City. The paint used shall be a non -reflective gray that is selected to closely match the color of the PG&E tower as it exists at the time of repainting. The paint color is subject to approval of the prior written approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. 8. It is an ongoing and material condition and obligation on the Permittee to at all times adhere to Conditions I through 7, inclusive. Respectfully submitted, Kramer.Firm, Inc. by athan L. Kramer, JD Jo D incipal JK/08.003.45 ff Kramer.Firm Inc. EXHIBIT I Resume of 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) 473-9900 x 121 2001 S Barrington Avenue, Suite 306 Los Angeles, CA 90025 2006 - Present Principal Attorney, Kramer Telecom Law Firm, P.C. 1999 - Present Principal Consultant, Kramer.Firm, Inc. 1987- 1999 President, Communications Support Corp. 1984- 1987 Owner, Communicable Consultants (EI Toro, CA) 1982- 1984 Technical Manager; later Regional Technical Manager, Storer Communications (Southern California Region) 1982- 1982 Engineering Manager, Western Cable Services, Inc. 1979- 1982 System Engineer, Warner Cable of Malibu 1978- 1979 Self employed radio telecommunications engineer 1976- 1978 Field Technician, Motorola Communications & Electronics Area F Project Management 1971 - 1972 Rovafone of Los Angeles Admitted as an Attorney: State Bar of California (CA SBN 244074) Admitted as an Attorney: U.S. 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, Beverly Hills Bar Association Attorney Member, San Fernando Valley Bar Association Attorney Member, Second Life Bar Association Licensed by the Federal Communications Commission: General Radiotelephone Operator License PG -1 1-35289, 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; Amateur radio operator since November 1970; currently licensed as an Extra Class operator (W6JLK); Licensed by the California Contractors State License Board for low voltage communications (Class C7). License No. 433113. Licensed since 1982. ®e Kramer.Firm Inc. 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 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 199 1) 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. Kramer.Firm Inc, 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 197 1) 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.; �Q 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 communi-cations advice as a telecommunications technology advisor/inspector since 1984, and 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 <Balance of page intentionally left blank> �a Kranner.Firm Inc. Selected Local Governments and Government Associations Addison, IL Cerritos, CA Elburn, IL Aiken County, SC Chelan, WA Elk Grove Village, IL Albany, CA Cheshire, CT Elmhurst, IL Alcoa, TN Chester, CT Encinitas, CA Aliso Viejo, CA Chico, CA Enfield, CT Anaheim, CA Chino Hills, CA Escondido, CA Apache Jct., AZ Chino, CA Essex, CT Arcadia, CA Chula Vista, CA Fairfax, CA Aurora, IL Clarendon Hills, IL Federal Way, WA Austin, Texas Cleveland Heights, OH Flora, Illinois Avon, OH Clinton, CT Fort Wayne, IN Azusa, CA Colchester, CT Franklin, CT Baldwin Park, CA Colton, CA Franklin, KY Barrington, IL Columbia Heights, MN Fremont, CA Bartlett, IL Commerce, CA Fullerton, CA Bellbrook, OH Concord, CA Galena, IL Bellflower, CA Cornwall, CT Garden Grove, CA Berkeley, CA Corona, CA Gardena, CA Beverly Hills, CA Culver City, CA Germantown, OH Big Bear Lake, CA Cypress, CA Glen Ellyn, IL Big Cypress Resv., FL Darien, CT Glendale Heights, IL Birmingham, AL Darien, IL Glendale, CA Bloomingdale, IL Davis, CA Glenwood, IL Blount County, TN Decatur, AL Goshen, CT Bolingbrook, IL Deep River, CT Granby, CT Bozrah, CT Deerfield Beach, FL Greenville, IL Branford, CT Denver, CO Greenwich, CT Brentwood, CA Diamond Bar, CA Griffith, IN Brighton Resv., FL Downers Grove, IL Guilford, CT Bronxville, NY Duarte, CA Haddam, CT Buena Park, CA Dublin, CA Half Moon Bay, CA Buffalo Grove, IL Dubuque, IA Hanover Park, IL Burr Ridge, IL DuPage County, IL Hartland, CT Butte County, CA Durango, CO Hermosa Beach, CA Calabasas, CA Durham,.CT Hesperia, CA Calimesa, CA Dyer, IN Hidden Hills, CA Canandaigua, NY E. Haven, CT Highland Park, IL Canton, MN Eagan, MN Highland, CA Capitola, CA East Granby, CT Highland, IN Carol Stream, IL East Windsor, CT Hillsborough, CA Carson, CA Eastchester, NY Hinsdale, IL Cedar Lake, IN Easton, CT Hobart, IL Centerville, OH EI Monte, CA Hoffman Estates, IL Kramer.Firm Inc. Hollywood, FL Homewood, AL Homewood, IL Huntington Beach, CA Immokale Resv., FL Indian Wells, CA Irvine, CA Itasca, IL Kettering, OH Killingworth, CT King Co., WA La Canada Flintridge, CA La Grange, IL La Mesa, CA La Puente, CA La Quinta, CA Lacy, WA Laguna Beach, CA Laguna Niguel, CA Lake County, IL Lake County, IN Lake Station, IN Lemont, IL Lisbon, CT Lisle, IL Litchfield, CT Live Oak, TX Livermore, CA Lombard, IL Lompoc, CA Lone Tree, CO Longmont, CO Long Beach, CA Los Alamos, CA Los Altos, CA Los Angeles Co., CA Los Angeles, CA Louisville, CO Loveland, CO Lowell, IN Lynchburg, VA Madison, CT Malibu, CA Manhattan Beach, CA Maryville, TN Kramer.Firm Inc. Mentor, OH Merced, CA Meriden, CT Merrillville, IN Miamisburg, OH Middlebury; CT Milpitas, CA Minooka, IL Mission Viejo, CA Modesto, CA Monterey CO., CA Moreno Valley, CA Morris, CT Mount Carmel, IL Mount Orab, OH Mount Prospect, IL Mountain View, CA Munster, IN Naperville, IL New Canaan, CT New Martinsville, WV New Orleans, LA Newport Beach, CA Newton Falls, OH Niles, IL No. Aurora, IL No. Branford, CT No. Haven, CT Norfolk, VA North Aurora, IL Norwalk, CT Norwich, CT Oak Brook, IL Oak Park, IL Oakbrook Terrace, IL Oakwood, OH Ojai, CA Old Saybrook, CT Olean, New York Olympia, WA Opelika, AL Orange CO., CA Orange, CA Oxnard, CA Paducah, KY Palm Springs, CA Paris, IL Park Forest, IL Pasadena, CA Peoria County, IL Philadelphia, PA Piqua, OH Placentia, CA Plymouth, CT Plymouth, MI Port Townsend, WA Portland, OR Poway, CA Preston, CT Prospect, CT Redding, CT Redondo Beach, CA Rialto, CA Richmond, CA Riverside, CA Rochester, MN Rolling Hills Estates, CA Rolling Meadows, IL Roselle, IL Roseville, MN Salem, IL San Antonio, TX San Bernardino, CA San Bernardino Co., CA San Clemente, CA San Diego County, CA San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA San Juan Capistrano, CA San Luis Obispo Co., CA San Luis Obispo, CA San Marcos, CA San Rafael, CA Santa Ana, CA Santa Barbara Co., CA Santa Clara, CA Santa Clarita, CA Santa Cruz Co., CA Santa Cruz, CA Santa Maria, CA Santa Monica, CA Schaumburg, IL Schererville, IN Seattle, WA Simi Valley, CA Sistersville, WV Solon, OH Somers, CT Southington, CT Spokane, WA Sprague, CT Springboro, OH St. Charles, IL St. John, IN St. Louis, MO Stafford, CT Stamford, CT Sterling Heights, MI Suffield, CT Sugar Grove, IL Sunnyvale, CA Sutter Co., CA Temecula, CA Thomaston. CT KramerArm Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA Thurston County, WA Tipp City, OH Torrance, CA Torrington, CT Troy, OH Tuckahoe, NY Tucson, AZ Tumwater, WA Tustin, CA Union, CT Ventura County, CA Victoria, TX Villa Park, CA Villa Park, IL Virginia Beach, VA Wallingford, CT Walnut Creek, CA Walnut, CA Warren, CT Warrenville, IL Waterbury, CT Waterford, MI Watertown, CT Wayne, IL West Allis, WI West Carrollton, OH West Chicago, IL West Covina, CA West Frankfort, IL West Hollywood, CA West Milton, OH West Palm Beach, FL Westbrook, CT Westmont, IL Weston, CT Westport, CT Wheaton, IL White Plains, NY Willowbrook, IL Wilmette, IL Wilton, CT Windsor Locks, CT Winfield, IL Wolcott, CT Wood Dale, IL Woodridge, IL Yorba Linda, CA Litigation Where Jonathan Kramer Served as a Testifying or Non -Testifying Expert or as a Trial Consultant (Wireless Communications) 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) 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 Selected Relevant Lectures- Legal Industrv, and Professional Organizations Format: Speaking Engagement Name Conference Year Wireless Siting Update (MCLE Lecture) SCAN NATOA 2009 Telecommunications Law Update (MCLE Lecture) City Attorneys Association of San Diego County 2004 Current Issues in Cell Tower Leases (MCLE Lecture) Lerman Education Services 2009 Telecom 101: What Every Practioner Should Know (MCLE Lecture) State Bar of California Section Education Institute 2009 Kramer.Firm Inc. - Wireless Telecom Siting: Legal and Practical Considerations "Tower Siting: Getting to Win/Win for Localities and for Carriers" 2008 Wireless Telecommunications Law Update: Current Issues in Cell Tower Regulation (MCLE Lecture) Lorman Education Services 2008 "Surfin' Telecommunication Choices: A New World, A New Direction" SCAN NATOA Annual Conference 2008 "I'm From the Government (Planning Department) and I'm Here to Help You" ARRL Southwest Division Conference 2007 Right of Way Furniture SCAN NATOA Annual Conference 2007 Wild Wired (and Wireless) West (MCLE Lecture) State Bar of California Annual Conference 2007 Wireless telecommunications planning APA National Conference 2006 Wireless and Wired Telecommunications Law Update (MCLE Lecture) League of California Cities City Attorneys Section Conference 2006 Wireless Case Mock Hearing PCIA Annual Conference 2006 Wireless Siting 101 Association of Environmental Professionals - Orange County Chapter 2005 A Sea Change in Wireless Siting California APA Conference 2005 Kranner.Firm Inc. - Cable TV and Wireless Regulation and Law Update Florida Cable and Telecommunications Law Local Government Workshop 2005 Wireless Siting Planning: A Government Perspective APA - Regional Planning Conference 2004 Telecommunications Law Update (MCLE Lecture) City Attorneys Association of San Diego County 2004 Cable TV and Wireless Regulation and Law Update Florida Cable and Telecommunications Law Local Government Workshop 2004 Cable TV and Wireless Regulation and Law Update Florida Cable and Telecommunications Law Local Government Workshop 2003 How to Get A Wireless Tower Siting Permit Application Denied! IRWA Chapter I Conference 2003 Maximizing Wireless Resources NATOA Annual Conference 2003 Right of Way Considerations for Local Governments (MCLE Lecture) Law Seminars International - Early Stage Due Diligence Technology Considerations 2002 Hiding Cell Phone Sites In Plain Sight Now you see'um... now you don't NATOA 2001 Annual Conference 2001 Wireless Siting: Policy Issues and Practical Solutions - A Municipal View (MCLE Lecture) Law Seminars International - The Third Annual Conference on Local Telecommunications Infrastructure 2001 Kramer.Firm Inc. Page 1 of 1 Sarjit Dhaliwal From: Joan Ripple [purrycomo@jps.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 200911:34 AM To: Sarjit Dhaliwal Subject: FW: For your attorney Dear Dr. Dhaliwal: Would you please forward the following citation to the San Rafael city attorney for review on the Ecology House Windward Way issue? The following has come to my attention: Section 601(c)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states: > "601(c) FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAW- * (1) NO IMPLIED EFFECT- This Act and the amendments made by this Act > shall not be construed to modify, impair, or supersede Federal, State, > or local law unless expressly so provided in such Act or amendments." > I have been informed that this means that the City has to comply with the Americans with > Disabilities Act, even if that means paying attention to health. The Windward Way site will put electromagnetic fields onto the power grid and into Ecology House electrical system destroying the purpose for which Ecology House was built - for a people with a specific disability, a class of which 50% of the residents will be further disabled by electrical hypersensitivity. EXHIBIT 7 5/12/2009 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL City Attorney's Office INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: May 20, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Lisa A. Goldfien, Deputy City Attorney II RE: Federal Preemption of City Regulation of Personal Wireless Systems Facilities During the Planning Commission's consideration of the Verizon Wireless antenna application on January 13, 2009, members of the public objected to approval of the application on the ground that the facility's Radio Frequency (RF) emissions would adversely affect the health of persons with environmental and chemical sensitivities residing at nearby Ecology House. Since the meeting, we have reviewed the scope of the City's ability to regulate Personal Wireless Services (PWS) facilities on the basis of impacts of RF emissions to determine whether the City may deny Verizon's application on the basis of these alleged health effects. Federal law has generally preempted local regulation of PWS facilities. While local agencies retain limited authority to regulate the "placement, construction, and modification" of PWS facilities (47 U.S.Code §332(c)(7)), local agencies are expressly prohibited from regulating PWS facilities "on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communication Commission's] regulations concerning such emissions." 47 U.S.Code §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). It has been suggested that the "health effects" of radio frequency emissions are distinct from the "environmental effects" of such emissions, and that the City is therefore not prohibited from regulating on the basis of such "health effects." Our research indicates that most courts consider the two to be one and the same problem. For example, in a 2003 federal district court decision, the Court stated as follows: Significantly, the conference report on the [Telecommunications Act], adopted by Congress, makes clear that local government may not indirectly base its decision to deny an application to place a cell site upon concern over the environmental effects of RF emissions (citing 47 U.S.Code §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). Given this legislative history, the court concludes that concern over the decrease in property values may EXHIBIT 8 Planning Commission May 20, 2009 Page 2 not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions. Thus, direct or indirect concerns over the health effects of RF emissions may not serve as substantial evidence to support the denial of an application. Accordingly, when public testimony in the record "is almost exclusively directed to health effects, there must be substantial evidence of some legitimate reason for rejecting the applications to avoid the conclusion that the denials were based on the impermissible health effects ground. [Citations.] While the city may undoubtedly hear residents' concerns over the health effects of RF emissions, such concerns do not constitute a legitimate basis to deny an application. AT&T Wireless Services of California, LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159-1160 (S.D. California 2003). See also, Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 494 n.3 (2d Cir. 1999) [concluding that the term `environmental effects' includes `health concerns']. A question also arose at the Planning Commission meeting about how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) might impact the City's ability to act on the Verizon application if there are allegations of adverse impacts on persons protected under the ADA. We do not see the applicability of the ADA in this case. Generally, the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the services, programs or activities of state and local governments, or in services, facilities and accommodations provided by places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants and theaters. Neither a City -owned or sponsored facility nor a privately -owned place of public accommodation are involved in the Verizon application. In summary, it is our opinion that the provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act preclude the City from denying the Verizon application solely or substantially on the basis of alleged health impacts from RF emissions where those emissions comply with applicable federal standards, and that the ADA does not require the City to deny the application on the basis of such impacts. cc: Paul Jensen, Planning Manager Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 26, 2009 ROLL Commissioners Present: Chair Pick, Vice Chair Lang Colin, Kirchmann, Sonnet, Wise Commissioners Absent: Paul Community Development: Paul Jensen, Planning Manager Caron Parker, Associate Planner Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner Lisa Goldfien, Deputy City Attorney UNAPPROVED 3. 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of a Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-330-01; Medium Density Residential (MM2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker, appellant; File No.: AP08-007. Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Commissioner Sonnet recused himselffrom the next agenda item in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict. PUBLIC HEARING 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of a Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-330-01; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker, appellant; File No.: AP08-007. Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding ATTACHMENT 6 SR -PC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 the ZA action conditionally approving the Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) for the new wireless communication facility. Lisa Goldfien, Deputy City Attorney, provided the Commission with a memo as part of their packet and explained that she reviewed the scope of the City's ability to regulate cell towers based on the RF effects. The Federal Telecommunications Act itself prohibits the City from regulating based on the environmental impacts of the RF emissions, if they comply with the FCC regulations, which they do in this case. In conclusion, the City cannot deny this application based of health effects of the RF emission since that would be unlawful regulations of environmental effects that is precluded by the Telecommunications Act. She also reviewed the impact on the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is not applicable in the City's ability to act on the proposed project. Clarence Chavis, Verizon Wireless representative, noted that Consultant Hammett is present to address health concerns and Verizon RF Engineer is present to answer questions as well. Per the last meeting it was continued in order to provide a revised alterative analysis to what was submitted and a great identification of the coverage objective or search ring and to provide coverage maps to provide the area of coverage Verizon is concerned with. The area of coverage is as follows: the northern most point along Canal just south of Pickelweed Park; east of Spinnaker Point Drive out to the Bay; south along Vista Del Mar; and west on Kerner Boulevard. It is all residential area inside the search ring with the exception of the elementary school. They did additional searchers and identified two possible locations, which are PG&E towers. However, they are between the school on the east side and in between the apartment complex. One has trees and the other has accessibility issues, and does not address any distance requirements the current residents are speaking of now. They also looked at areas outside of the search ring, but it is currently in a marsh area and there are equipment and environmental issues, so that was ruled out. They received from the City 37 additional sites of co -location opportunities within the City of San Rafael. Of those sites four sites Verizon is currently on so that brings the total down to 33. Out of 33, there were 17 that are west of Highway 101. Anything west of Highway 101 will not meet any coverage requirements for the search ring in question. That brings it down to 16 and out of 16, ten are too far north, meaning north of Pickelweed Park, which will not provide coverage. Out of six, four are too far south, further south than the proposal they currently have now that would not provide adequate coverage. Now at two, out of those one is too far west and too low and the last is the PG&E tower south of the proposal that Metro PCS is located on and there is no additional ground space for their tower. They tried to work with the landlord, but they were not interested. This leaves Verizon with the current site in front of the Commission today. An independent consultant reviewed the site and area, and provided options; either the option represented today or build a new monopole in the area. Additional conditions were provided to their proposal, which Verizon agreed and had no objection. They have heard and understood neighborhood concerns. This particular site is 422 feet away from Ecology House. That is an entire football field in between the tower and houses plus additional room. They worked with residents during design review and staff review. They agreed to relocate the temporary generator pad away from the residences. They agreed to SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 use environmental friendly paint to screen the antennas and equipment to match the towers. They agreed to notify residents 30 days before construction. All those conditions are included with the rest of the conditions of approval. Also, no information was provided from Ecology House in regard to power ratings or usage of microwave ovens, cell phones, and cordless phones within the units themselves. They were asked to turn the power off, but they cannot turn off the power because coverage would not be provided. There were questions in regard to the emergency generator, which will be used in case of an emergency with noise levels at 63 decibels. 60 decibels is considered a conversation between 2 people; 70 decibels is a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet away; and 90 decibels is a lawnmower. Being there are no residential uses on this area whatsoever, it should not create a noise impact in the event the emergency generator is used. The ZA and staff have agreed to approve this project. He asked that the appeal be overturned and that the Commission approve the project. In the likelihood of an appeal, they will be prepared for City Council. Bill Hammett, consultant, agreed with Deputy City Attorney Goldfien's summation of the prevailing preemption by the act of congress on the consideration of health effects. The key is that the Commission is preempted so long as it meets the federal standards. There is no question that in this case this facility will comply with the federal standard by factors of hundreds of times. That is the threshold showing easily made in this case with this height and distance from any facilities. Chair Pick opened the public hearing on this item. Ivaldo Lenci, Summers Avenue resident, expressed concern for the many health effects he has from these telecommunication facilities and asked the Commission to sincerely consider this application and vote in good conscious. Barbara Wientques, Woodacre resident, is electro magnetically sensitive. She explained that an antenna near an electrical wire carry electricity. The electrical wire acts as a conduit, as an antenna, and takes those radio frequencies into the businesses and homes adjacent or quite far from that facility. This is called "electro smog" or "dirty electricity. " Capacitors can be purchased to mitigate, but at times it is very difficult if not impossible to do so, which she found in her search for a home. The Commission must know that whether the letter of the law in the Telecommunications Act says environmental or means something else, do they really think the men and women and framers of this law and President Clinton were deciding in 1996 that there would never be shown in the science health effects from wireless technologies. The technology and science have changed. The proliferation has become unprecedented and applications of wireless at the time were never anticipated. Do they except that the wireless facilities have been given a free pass on any possible health effects ever being discovered? Did the US government really intend that "at risk" population should be put at risk for those that claim environmental effects cannot be considered? Does this mean that welfare cannot be considered? She asked the Commission to consider what is being proposed and those that will suffer. These people have nowhere to go and they must care for their most "at risk" population. She asked the Commission to vote in their conscious because RE levels in the SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 H atmosphere are constantly increasing. She further believed there is a better location than just 422 feet away from Ecology House. Marty Brenneis, San Rafael resident, supported the cell tower. His coverage at his home and office is terrible and desired better service. He supported a new cell tower to support health and wellness campus as well as the film studio that relies heavily on the use of phones. Roy Smith, San Rafael resident/former manager of Ecology House, noted that Ecology House went through extreme measures to be constructed in regard to EMF sensitivities. In terms of the generator, there is an issue of fumes as well as noise sensitivity. He understands the legal issue of the Telecommunications Act, but believes there is a conflict between that Act and the Americans Disability Act. ADA applies to public facilities and housing and Ecology House is technically federally owned housing. It has been maintained through federal funding and owned by HUD. ADA law concerns barriers to access and there has been some ADA recognition of EMF's as a barrier to access. Therefore allowing the tower in the proposed location would represent a de facto barrier to access for the residents and guests with environmental illnesses. In regard to the Use Permit on Exhibit No. 2 under Finding No. 2 that statement is incorrect because it will be grievously injurious to both the health and safety of residents. Some will move out and have no place else to go and will suffer physical harm and the loss of safety, security and stability that have been carefully built at Ecology House. It operates on a tight budget and Ecology House can fail financial if too many residents move out. Telecommunications serve a greater common good and part of that common good would not be served. The general intent of FCC applies and the ADA law applies. This is a unique situation and not an ordinary cell tower. There is only one place like Ecology House in the State, if not the world. It is good public policy and it has put San Rafael and Marin County on the map and it would be a shame to spoil that effort. Sara Reilly, Nutritionist/Fairfax resident, has electro hypersensitivity and cell towers have impacted her life greatly. There is voluminous scientific evidence that these frequencies have the potential to harm biological systems even within the FCC regulations. The FCC regulations are old science, not based on current technology. 3% of the population is hypersensitive. Connecticut and Colorado declared May the official "Electro Magnetic Sensitivity" month. Portland City Council just established a nationally recognized resolution, so they are taking a stand against the FCC recognizing it is outdated science. Internationally they are taking a stand as well: France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, England and Canada. The Commission has a moral and legal obligation. San Rafael and Marin County should be at the forefront of correcting the potential injustice done to these people. Marin County is the most forward thinking County and asked that Marin take a stand against an outdated federal act that threatens the welfare of disabled citizens in the only housing structure of its kind in the country built for their unique disability needs. This issue magnifies the urgency of FCC to re-evaluate the Telecommunications Act in 1996. If the tower is approved, innocent and disabled citizens will be pushed from their homes. SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 Connie Barker, appellant/VP of Ecology House/President of Environmental Health Network, discussed the executive summary and stated that neither the legal opinion that was rendered nor the consultant that was brought in is the source for that statement. There is no information to speak to that situation which was the basis of the appeal. The character of this neighborhood is that for 15 years now it has been the place in the country and if that is no longer provided the character of the neighborhood would change. The cell towers and antennas must not be located in a way to impact the public or change the character of the neighborhood. She asked the Commission to review the letters submitted about health effects and those regularly attending events at Ecology House. Most residents of Ecology House do not have microwave ovens and there are numerous rules to protect residents. If due to the legal situation the City cannot do other than what staff recommends, they understand, but they would respectfully ask the Commission to carefully consider whether that is a good idea. David Winches, Woodacre resident, quoted a past president, "a nation is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. " Ecology House are the most vulnerable citizens. His wife has lived most of her life with chemical sensitivities. He has been afflicted tragically with it in the last 5 years and it has not been fun. Due to their financial situation they have found a means to live away from cell towers and to properly mitigate the negative effects. He understands the suffering of those at Ecology House and for most this is their last refuge. There is a growing body of evidence that EMF can compromise health in children and those immune compromised. He asked if there is such a need for further convenience that they can potentially destroy the integrity of Ecology House. He asked Verizon to find another site. Convenience is not justification to hurt San Rafael's most vulnerable citizens. Steven Scott, magnetic field consultant, was an original adviser that counseled the architect and electrical contractor on building Ecology House with the lowest possible magnetic field effects. He has advised Ecology House on various points over the years. He is a Verizon customer, but this antenna is too close to Ecology House. His company, EMF Services, provided a before and after RF survey for the City of Berkeley in connection with a series of cellular towers for Sprint. Due to the urgency of this situation with Ecology House, they have volunteered to do a workup at Ecology House to see what might change with the antennas. He strongly encouraged that they be placed as far away as possible. It is about compassion, not expedience. The humane consideration and the placemat of people over profit is what matters. Gayle Thearel, San Rafael resident/Coordinator for Health Council, supported Ecology House. This is not an ideal location for a cell tower and other areas must be considered. She has lived in the Canal area for 6 years and understands where the power lines run and placing extra burdens on Ecology House is not appropriate. This is the last refuge for these residents and that must be carefully considered by the Commission. Joan Ripple, Health & Disability Researcher/Secretary & Treasurer of the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, noted that she is a former staff person for the California Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the rights of the disabled. Since the last review of the SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 Windward Way tower siting the Commission have been provided with an additional option by the consultant in regard to page 4 under item 2 as follows: "The second alternative is for Verizon to construct its own freestanding monopole tower that would be approximately 75 to 80 feet above ground level adjacent to the proposed location, or just to the north of the search ring near Pickelweed Park. " This placement would be preferable to the Windward Way site, as she understands it would not be on a utility electric pole. Research shows that placing communication panel antenna on a utility electric pole generates high frequency currents on the wiring system. This placement of six Verizon panel antennas so close to Ecology House will charge the internal wiring of Ecology House with high frequency dirty electricity. Further, the issue is not merely these six proposed Verizon panel antenna, but the fact that the law prohibits the Commission from denying other providers the right to place additional antenna on the same tower compounding exponentially the harm that can be done. In addition, research shows that this dirty electricity has negative health impacts, which in this case, impacts a protected disabled population — a blatant violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This additional exposure of high frequency electromagnetic radiation to this vulnerable population essentially renders Ecology House unsafe for the purpose it was built with federal tax dollars. It is the only facility of its kind in the United States. The Americans Disability Act of 1990 and California State laws guarantee people with disabilities reasonable accommodations for access to public facilities, housing, education, employment and transportation. Further the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from Section 601 (c) (1) states, "Federal, State and Local Law — (1) No Implied Effect — This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not be construed to modify, impair, or superseded Federal, State or local law unless expressly so provided in such Act or amendments. " It is her understanding that the residents of Ecology House, persons with disabilities, are a protected population under the ADA, and that therefore, Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act does not apply in this case, as it would modify, impair or supersede the ADA which grants reasonable accommodations for housing. In 2000 the California Department of Health issued a reporting showing that 50% of persons with chemical sensitivities also have developed electrical hypersensitivity, another disability. She is sure that neither Verizon, PG&E, the Commission, nor the City Council would want to be party to increasing the disability of those already disabled when there is an alternate choice. Therefore, she recommends that the Commission select Pickelweed Park site for the antenna, where it will not deteriorate the purpose of Ecology House apartments and the subsequently the health of a very vulnerable population, not to mention the waste of millions of taxpayers dollars that have gone into this special housing project. Louise Yost, Ecology House resident, explained that she is the events coordinator at Ecology House and hosts support groups for those with electro sensitivity and without Ecology House they would not have a safe place to meet. Many people from throughout the Bay Area attend their events. It is a very important service provided by Ecology House. She encouraged the Commission to support the spirit and purpose of ADA and move the cell tower at least one block away, which will provide enough space for safety for residents and those attending Ecology House events. SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 7 Christy Sloan, San Rafael resident, is chemically sensitive and opposed any and all cell towers. She further asked the Commission to carefully consider the location of this cell tower. Commissioner Kirchmann asked Mr. Chavis if the equipment could be located on the currently proposed site and put the antennas on the tower that currently houses Metro PCS. Mr. Chavis noted that it would require running 400 feet of underground coax cable, which would be a terrible loss of signal. Verizon RF Engineer explained that there is approximately 400 feet between the two towers. They must transmit frequency from antennas and to further lengthen the cable would cause more signal loss. 400 feet is an extremely long distance and the power would be next to nothing. He further noted that it is practically impossible to use 400 feet of cable. Commissioner Kirchmann asked if there is any other location within a radius close enough to make that run from the equipment to the antennas and the tower. Mr. Chavis explained that additional distance would provide a loss of signal. There is no other area except under the footprint of the tower. Commissioner Kirchmann discussed the coverage map of existing sites of the City and asked staff if 2175 East Francisco Boulevard is a Verizon site. Planning Manager Jensen agreed to pull the file and investigate. Commissioner Kirchmann clarified that it is not feasible to get coverage desired from any location north of the Canal even up on the hillside. Verizon RF Engineer responded in the affirmative. Water from RF is like mirror to light and it will reflect RF and go into the Bay causing interference with other sites. It would bleed over to other cells if to high. Commissioner Colin reviewed the January staff report and coverage was never discussed and clarified that there is coverage now, but this is about providing stronger coverage. Verizon RF Engineer responded that coverage is defined as if a call can be made. Technically, there is enough coverage to make a call, but as adjacent to the water there is too much signal from across the Bay and it is difficult to make a call. If there are several sites coming at one location it is hard to make a call. There must be one strong signal or two, but not many. They do not have one strong server where mobile can latch on and make a call, so there are several drop calls in the area. Commissioner Wise referred to the analysis done by the City's hired engineer and asked if the 1.9 square mile radius could be 1.7 square miles to allow placing antennas at other alternative sites and still make it worthwhile economically to install these antennas. She noted that 1.9 square miles is towards the larger range. Mr. Chavis explain that whether at 1.9 or 1.7 square miles this is the design area that Verizon needs particular coverage. They are trying to cover a particular area with one particular site. Based on the analysis reviewed, this is the best location for coverage. Commissioner Kirchmann asked if a monopole at Pickelweed Park would serve the objectives. Mr. Chavis noted that another location would require another study and review with property owners. The current site is least impacting as opposed to a site at Pickelweed Park. They are over 400 feet from existing residents and they are across from SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 industrial and commercial areas. They feel the current location is the best location. Development of a new monopole, especially in a residential area, is not looked upon favorably in the City code. Commissioner Wise desired an explanation on "dirty electricity. " Consultant Hammett explained that the concept does not hold. The allegation is that radio energy moves down PG&E lines and into residents using PG&E power. That is an open transmission line. RF lines are coaxial. They have a single cooper wire down the middle surrounded by another cooper wire and the voltage between those transmits energy. It is a closed system. For RF energy to transmit down an open transmission line is highly inefficient. If will not work and not a viable complaint about a system like this. There are cellular antennas located all over the place and it is not a reported problem. Chair Pick asked for an explanation of how one would characterize EMF coming from PG&E towers and transmission wires versus this EMF resulting from cell phone. Consultant Hammett explained that there is a dramatic difference in frequency. The frequency and energy carried down the PG&E lines is 60 htz. A waive length at 60 htz is about 5000 kilometers. A waive length of RF is on the order of feet. The interaction with human body is entirely different and the standards set for RF are distinct for standards for ELF or extremely low frequency. Also, shielding from magnetic fields is considered the near field effect when in an area of extremely low frequencies, so they are very different. Commissioner Kirchmann asked if it is feasible to shield from higher frequencies. Consultant Hammett responded that it is feasible to shield, but not normally done. Intensity follows the line of site and a room without windows will have poor service. Commissioner Kirchmann understands that they have preemption issues that would prevent the Commission as a matter of federal law denying an application that otherwise satisfies criteria due to health effects, but asked staff if they can minimize the adverse effects to reduce adverse health effects. Deputy City Attorney Goldfren believed it is possible, but the main issue is whether it provides the scope of service that they are trying to obtain and whether that is the only way that it can be obtained. Commissioner Kirchmann stated to the extent that powering up the proposed facility would increase the exposure to Ecology House, could they provide additional shielding to that receptor. Deputy City Attorney Goldfien did not know what type of shielding that might be and whether that is feasible. Planning Manager Jensen pulled the City's inventory of antennas gathered by the City consultant several years ago and 2175 Francisco near the Richmond San Rafael Bridge has two servers using that antenna: Verizon and Sprint. Chair Pick desired an explanation as to the analysis on the monopole. Planning Manager Jensen responded that the consultant was asked to not only analyze the alternative sites proposed, but also to provide ideas of other options. Like the proposed site, the Pickelweed Park property is considered the less preferable site for selection of antenna location so it would go through the same process. It would require site alternatives SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 9 analysis. The one difference is the fact that what is proposed is truly a co -location versus a monopole, which is less preferable because it is a single new tower facility and it is encouraged to co -locate. Commissioner Colin discussed General Plan Policy NH -2 and the staff concluded that it is not inconsistent, but in her view it is not just physical character. Associate Planner Dhaliwal explained that it is not only the physical character, but it does not make any changes to the character of the neighborhood. They are precluded to consider health effects, so it will not change the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Colin stated in reality it does change the character of the neighborhoods regardless. In her view, it comes to interpretation of what they are trying to do with the General Plan and trying to maintain neighborhoods. Ecology House is very distinct and unique to Marin County and unique to the nation. Commissioner Kirchmann asked staff if they have any information on the difference of impact on Ecology House of the proposed facility as opposed to the alternative monopole at Pickelweed Park proposed by the consultant. Planning Manager Jensen did not have that information. There being no further public testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion and action. Commissioner Colin stated that the purview of the Commission is to implement the General Plan and land use issues. It does not meet General Plan Policy NH -2 and it does not maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. Planning Manager Jensen stated that this site is zoned residential with the exception to the north is pretty much light industrial office. This site happens to be zoned residential, but is mostly surrounded by non-residential zoning districts. Commissioner Kirchmann stated that they try to balance competing policies. At the federal level, congress enacted the Telecommunications Act and they wanted to promote this technology. Back at a local level, they have a number of General Plan policies and some policies are satisfied and some are in conflict. They must weigh competing policies and in this case, they are balancing interests of residents who desired improved coverage against interests of others concerned about potential health impacts. If they accept a proposition, there is a General Plan policy that speaks to embracing the technology and they would prefer to see enhanced coverage and in this particular neighborhood they do not find any good sites that do not have impacts on some residential structure. He suggested that those lobby their representatives in Washington in regard to health effects. The City Council cannot dictate to Washington what the result would be. His sense is that the applicant has satisfied the criteria that exist in the City regulations and balancing all competing factors, he would be hard pressed to uphold the appeal and turn back the application. SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 10 Commissioner Wise discussed Policy NH -2 and asked staff what are the character defining features of that neighborhood and are they being changed from this proposal. Planning Manager Jensen responded that this site is the only property on Windward Way residentially zone. Most properties are industrial. There is a larger commercial structure, light industrial office and east of the property is marshland: The character of the neighborhood is a mixture. There are facilities in this neighborhood that include antennas, so collectively that is the character. Commissioner Lang noted that the focus is on change in terms of Commissioner Colin's concerns and this is a transmission corridor that forms part of the character of the neighborhood. As far as magnetic frequencies, a cell phone call can be made now. The status quo is that these frequencies are already present. If the tower is installed, cell phone calls will still be made just with a stronger connection. Commissioner Wise believed Commissioner Colin felt that the particular land use of Ecology House is a very unique use to that neighborhood and if that use is no longer able to exist that fundamentally changes the character of that neighborhood since that use is so integral. It is a question of whether Ecology House defines that neighborhood. Commissioner Lang noted that right now cell phone calls can be made. If this application moves forward the call could be made with a better signal. Commissioner Kirchmann noted that intensity of the radiation would be greater. Commissioner Lang asked if they meant to capture that level of change, and if so, how will they measure it and what kind of standard will be set. The level of intensity will increase, but what is the actual change that results; it is a health change. Commissioner Colin stated that the General Plan talks about active partnerships among residents and felt there is a disconnect. Commissioner Lang does not understand how more bars or a better signal will change the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Colin believed it changes the unique identity. Commissioner Mrchmann suggested that the community explain to City Council that the unique needs of this community are such that no cell towers should be installed within a certain radius as well as certain chemicals. They could plan to push outwards. Planning Manager Jensen noted that the policy has always focused on the physical character. In reviewing Loch Lomond, it all went back to physical change and physical characteristics. To interrupt in a more broad way then changes might need to be made to that policy. Commissioner Colin believed this is a unique project and unique issue. Commissioner Wise appreciated staff's clarification and as much as it pains her, the letter of the law is clear and Deputy City Attorney Goldfien's advise is clear. She thanked all for making comments on this appeal, but she is in a position to deny the appeal. Chair Pick agreed it is a troubling issue to consider when their hands are tied by the federal mandate. The Commission is not in a position to strike out and start a revolution. Chair Pick asked for a motion SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 11 Commissioner Lang moved and Commissioner Kirchmann seconded, to deny the appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval of the Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review permit for the installation of six (6) panel antennas at the existing PG&E tower. Commissioner Colin will vote against the motion due to General Plan Policy NH -2. Motion carried 4-1-2. Colin opposed. Sonnet/Paul absent. AYES: Commissioners: Lang, Kirchmann, Chair Pick, Wise NOES: Commissioners: Colin ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners Sonnet, Paul SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09 STUDY OF RF LEVELS AT THE ECOLOGY HOUSE TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN A SEPARATE PACKAGE PRIOR TO THE HEARING ATTACHMENT 7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL ✓ 7i You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-330-01; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker and Louise Yost, appellants; File No.; AP09-003. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 (New Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of less than 10,000 square feet, if the project is located in an area that is served by all available public utilities and in an area that is not environmentally sensitive). If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required. MEETING DATE/TIMEILOCATION: Monday, July 20, 2009, 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Project Planner at (415) 485-3397 or sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www. cityofsanrafael.org/Government/City_Clerk/City_Council_Redevelopment_Agency_Agendas. htm. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the application. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. :. t t'e above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising 6i film lose issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing QG65ernment Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). 1adiidr91 review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be I led with the Court not later than the 90" day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) - .. S+gn, Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices maybe requested by catling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of gocuments are available in accessible formats upon request. P.uhli9 transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. Ta211ow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project: PROJECT: 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-330-01; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker and Louise Yost, appellants; File No.: APO -003. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. It has been determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of less than 10,000 square feet, if the project is located in an area that is served by all available public utilities and in an area that is not environmentally sensitive) HEARING DATE: Monday, July 20, 2009 at 8:00 P.M. LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street San Rafael, California WHAT WILL You can comment on the proposed project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and HAPPEN: decide whether to approve the appeal or deny the appeal and approve the project application. IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the Office of the City Clerk, Room 209, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, ATTEND: San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. FOR MORE Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner at (415) 485-3397 or INFORMATION: sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM, weekdays. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL /s/ Esther C. Beime Esther C. Beime CITY CLERK At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90°i day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign language interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City [fall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 20 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (41 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing. scented products. Please publish in the Marin Independent Journal on Saturday, July 4, 2009 000==00 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O V O W moi' V V V W V V d' d' d' d' d' V V V V d' d' -�t d' V � rn rn o) rn rn o) rn rn w rn rn rn o rn o) rn 0) rn rn o) rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn D) o) rn a V V N O O w h WW W W W W W W j } J Q �_ �_ Q Q Q Q Q a) Z Q Q a m Q m m m � a a 6) m 4 w Q LL J J W W Q Q w W g W vm- w W LL 2� 2� LL w w f2� W w w 3 m 4 4 LL Q Q p p m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m } (n (� Z Z LY Cr a J Z Z Z C Z C C Z Z C C C C Z C C C C C C C C C C C c c C J Z U) to co (n (/) O O Q Q m Q m m Q Q mm m m Q m m m m m m m m m m m m m m- Q U D W K 0_ Wry U) * }}��H Fw- a Qp Q=mY �Z<OLL2 o OM�op U)<<UU W W J it:J zit W Y�O_Yk7��kItItIk*kik�k�k it it tit J �ppm�ZZ ac "O�oo a-o�p o�LU �-0����-o������m J m O 0 (Do m m m W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n W a'a'��I-I- Z p OOa a m m W Z 4) (D z v) Q) a) (D Q) a`) a`) a`) a) a)` � � a) a) � m � � �� Z �QzzLLLLWW r�EWEE�rEEEEvE�EE��EEEEiEEEOa W p Q Q 0 0 [Y af 0 0 Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y oma~)(~naa0000m °0000m0000m0000000000000020 O N W L� n W I� r r t` r r W W W W (o W 00 O p *� W W 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q s W W p p (D (D IL 0_ M M M M M m M M co M (0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r M W W Cc G W WW 00 c Q a� a) U) °a o W zzLQ -h ¢ )<Qa C) N a 5 w Z Z a a N g Q O- o m w O Q Q Q Q Z m Z H L O Q Q Y- a m u o a }o o _Q E �QZ ~ c.fZ o m o o 'C -c= m '� O 0w co b)QQ`yr (ry—W c ELLQ O c cr m mi) mmG (n p d J W U) J J Z Z (�A O a O O J J N O Z a) p C Q N W C' co 0 _m W Z W}}w W UU7� ��OU�Lu aw ami W c mL �p cp o D-Ow2 LL W W w W = w w LL ° W Z m m� E o m 'c 17L cum Z uj wa�aa`dQazz �w W om E(D ° a) (D EZo N� c oiivjw QQQQQQYYQQ Opp a°)ipZ m 3K' s> co Y~- o ,EU Z U) U C) U) 0 Un Un 2E2 U) Z coZ(p m co C) 0- co l-h->�m2d K(n(n(n �:2 W N V t0 N M V 'V N N N M CD W 000 W M W W W M W W M O O M M m m m m O p r N N M M 0 0 0 0 0 (y i i r r i i i r r r i i r i i i i r i r r i r r r r r i i i r i U W d) W W W CI> O) O O (T O) O) O O (fl m O m m O Cn m O) C11 C11 W O) O) O) B O O d) CA (A O) d r OJ M m µ) Cn W a) O O O d) W O) O W W t O W O O D O D O d) O D) O O d) d) Q) d) W d) O M CA d) CA aa¢Qaaa¢aaa¢a¢a¢a¢as¢a¢aaaa¢aaaaaa¢aa UUUUUUUUUUc.�000UUUUUUUUUUUUVUUUUUUUU�U W www I}- U ¢W W w � a) mmm LL m m m LL LL LL m m U m Q m m m m m m m m m LL LL m LL m m m m m m m m v- �'-�-w 4" Z v-LLCC 4-� 7v-4-� 'Eu V -.v - m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m J m m m m m m m m m mmmQmmmQQQmQmmmmmmmmmWQZQmQmmmmmmmm cncncncn<nu�<nuicncnu�cncnu�cncncncncncncncn<nrnacnu�cncncnu�<n<nu�u>cncn p U p LU W p Q p a a Z -o p J �t xk k JYk JQQmmmm mmmmmmm � UIt�� U#amu aa�m �a�m o 0Q o -0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mU)-0m-a'n-o -a -a > > > > > > Z Z 00' m U_ 0 M > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > > > > > > > > W W¢a' u)mm��.N`�NN�'r�=m�mmmmmmmm U U m e LL' c c c c c c c c 0) W I- W C C C C C C Z Z (` (6 (6 N C C (` (6 (6 (` l6 N (6 V 0 z o 0 o C 0 0 0 C a`) a) a�w a) a) m W g�LLLLQLLX m m W LL LL LL LL LL LL X W O a�W Y Y Y Y Y Y s' Y O O W W W p Y Y W W WWW W W O Y LL Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O O O N N (0 m L0 p p M U l m 4) 10 M M M M co co co CO 10 O (O LC) N N m Lo U) N N LL) N N N d' <Y d' r r (D�- W> r a. MM O O M M M Co Co M M O M O 0) 0) 0) W 0) O 0) 0) 0) 0) O O O M M M M M (O aJ r r LL r r r r r 0 OM 0 OM M O OM M MO 0M M MO OM M O r> �- r r d M M N m O C O F m p a J W O N G 06 E- C N W a � m U J LL W O o06 o 0 W m m 0 0 ro O Z a o s N Kxf y> Q Et CD 0- OZ� c~'LL c a ~ W o m�S= (D W a) Cl `m > 0 LL o `0 0 co _j w OUQp� 2OmJFW cU a)d on 'n a) Cf) 0CL -- 0 m o dUr 0 v= c E W W a Z 0 Z D o m c E 0- J W W_ �, E y 0- C U O O N -- N U` O C W E O) p a) �, a) ._ O C a Z CO Co W G A C C o yZU»�K� 0 LL LL 0 0U otn o m m-� m and mmZOmZ.rn 0 0aj u, o g m¢ a U' U c c Z m Q= in 0 o E) c w K oti Q n 0 a U m y c o 0 c 0>-'5.m �ZZ mE U-) 0 E >w(D m mU:: m 5)p E� 'O W 0 a - p (`v m a o g `m m m o `m Z U W `m Q M H o m aa)) o E U n(n>��0_�� �2mow2 2m(nmmo2:2 :2232i3:m2Fam000W 0 ON 0 d' V (O O O M M M d' V V0 (0 (0 O 0 0 0 (0 r W N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M co Cl) M co co N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 r N N W Lo D M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O M O O V O O O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co d) O O W W D) O O O O) O d) O f a1 CA W O m D) D) O Q) O d1 W W D) O) D1 d) D) O d) W d) O O O D) O m W 0) O O m O O O W d) O O W O D) Cn O) O) d U U U U U U U U U U U U Q U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U W. __ W W W W W W '(62 W ��Xzv�-O � M�dZw W 0 N M W 42 N¢LL¢ LLLLLLLQLL Q WX cu HO_QYQfw 0dQ �a ' �a'a'KKK z C C C C C C C Z C C LU T Z) C>C C G C C C C Z C C G C C Z C C C Z Z Z OZ 2 2 2 2 ry LU w w � 'j d'JzXQf -i m (O D_ m a. co dd Oak k �*Xt Ohm W sk F} ItF � f F To m m m m m m� m I- V J> Lo m m m 7) m _> w m m m m m w m m W W¢ w w c O)o m tt m a m � F z w o o `m m o o z a`) C m rn} U an d a� a� an d a� to � E E E E E E E� E d N d E <n E E E E Y E E a E E E E E a a)° a)° °' Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y LL W X X a: E LU U` o R o o O o o 0 O o Y 0,1: O= O OU a� v Y Y a� Y Q Y p Y Y Y Y Y p Y m Y 0 0 LO (n��u�(n�����mmomU)mLOMm(O-gym U UUF- O O O) m 0 0) W O) 0 O N O O M N N O (O (O O V 't V dt dt V dt dt O O O O O m O O M o 0') a a 0 (b N V N N 00 N O N W o N N N N N o N N N o o r r r� r M M r M r M r U M M (") M o) U M M co U U W N (6 W � Q L Q ¢ 0 F a) U -6 c W of 06 W "30 o N W J Of J C U) o C o 0 C N U O O .N N w (D0 C) N LO 4J p c o Q'� Q c~� W cm w oUS(v CL mn `mom wa.c o °� O�� a o cY 5 caWUU) c a Z0 coQ cQ QL o w Z O N ((D o LL Q 2 z ¢ (D z m m Li N E c w} F 0 o_ } N¢ H}} W ¢ o m m p` xt o� Q E m w�-� 2� N ¢� o m w o o o a, E Lij W w Y O i U o E c.N O c m>= O W a c> E w N-� Q E `o o O Q s Q Q Lo Q m ._ f6 W o '- a� Q o o z m O as m e t a) > w a3 � c w o .m o w w r 2� vJF D iq>>Q==mJaad(n>}_¢¢¢UU2Z _=M N N N N N N N M M M (0 O r- m (O O of w W W of W 00 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N (0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M W M M m m m W m 0 0 m m 0 m M M 0 0 m M m m M i i i i r r i r r r i r r i i i i r r r O O 0O WO WO OO OO) O OO) W O) W @ 0 O) O m OO) @ 0i i0 .0 . iOrO i 000000000O0 00 0000000000000o o 0oooooooooo0Ooo000000000000i O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O N O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 (MD O O O O O O O O V N O O O O O W W m OJ O d) 0) m O O O 01 (D D) O O O O d) O) LD D) O O O O O O W Ln W O It IT U O D U O O O U O D U O D U O O O U O O U O O O O O D U U U O U O D U U O J tJ W I j W W J J J J J J _--___ ¢ W W W Q O w W a a Q m m Q W a m —0 0 a m 0 a 0 a K a m¢ <<>z<< 2 12 42 � (�4 (�6 v�-Q l�6 v�-LL� � � @ W w R �w� �«c6-Qm c�6 m l�E I�6 LL LL LL �LL LL (6 N (6 (6 @ N W (6 (6 (6 f6 (6 N (6 0 Z (6 Z t4 N �' LL KKK �K�2Q�K a Kofz_� ly0'of0'12 W W WLUfid' �- m m m Q m m m m O m m Q m m m> m Q m m m m m m LLImLU � (co m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0 K 0 _ Y '0 -o0� W 2 w >mmmm mm m Ofmmmm 0 �-��m 0 0 0 0Q0 0 0 0Ln <-a J 0 0 0 0�az�a��-0>>>Or>-j _ J-1 4k CO mmm W'U'U U UK'U'Lon }mm UW 00w U -Lo U'Umm0UmUmmmmm>'Qm� c c m m m m Z m (a 0 c c m W Q m m m (a c � Q c a c c g Q Q Z Q N N 0 W LLLLll li a'LL LL U N a) NQLL Ii LLIi a) I W Z�Z J J J< aJ W Y Y Y Y W W W w a W W Q Y Y W 00 Y W W W W Y Y a 0 Y O Y Y W W W Q W Y Ln m LD LD l!') 0 U) —' o LD r N M M M O O i� m p m p p m m m � J m O I- t` N LO O 0 0 0 0 O r LO W m r M O N N N N N V V n O t` Ln t` 0 M tD N M M CO M r r r LN M M -,T�' N N O O O O7 p M r M M O M M M N N N r N M G a) C M a a m Q J J 06 05 a� W W �° °6 v YW z z Qr '6 IL C o co a.� a 3 zw w Y cQ -' t m c -0 Z2c)U J Z(IfO coi 0 z O- m Q CD 0 F p 2 U) > a0 a0 CL C3) 'c Lon— O N d (n c) ZQZQ E wotSw a0i �a > aQ N �K E c� W w o JQa�a� m OaQ}vaf F- p W Z o 0�Za0QQ c c(7 �S c E 0 C-0 7�0 Co -0 m �°tSU�QFwZLU F- m Ew 0 rnmOJ ���� �� m~>.Q as D-w� 0-� a -W �zW LL wU)OD m a z a¢ .c c O o F- L O F z 0 N U (n 0 O 0 O c Q a =Www � >.z E a���� O w -m o��U) E c mo cF-Z cZ c TOQQ2aZ0 c m W 0 CU Ln Q m = Co a) .= J 0 0 m Y 0 a`) Y O " 0 a� o 2= U O w C9 F _=O0J2a�¢(DY2� ¢mcDa>LLY(nmYmYaJaa0c9=Z (D 0 n r O m OW 0 m N N N N N M M M 0 Ln N N O (D O I-- I'- W M W N M V' W (0 t` N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M (h M C? M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) 0 0) O O) W d) O) W O) D) O) 0 0) O) d) O) d) OJ D) O d) W O W Q) O) OJ OJ Q) O) O W O) O) W U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Z U U U U v J J J J J J J J W J J J J J J J J J w J J J L J J J J} J J} J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Q W W W OW W W W W Y W W W W ¢LLLLQZLLLLLLLLLLLLQ�LLLLQLLLLLLQLLLLLLLL�LLLLQLLQ ZZLL�QLLQLLLLJoQLLQLL-1LL Z Z c Z Z Z Z Z Z W Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z o > m Z Z c Z Z Z Z Z ZZ Z Z QnQoaaa0aaaaaU)az=aanzaanauniau0U)cnUiviniU):(f) iiuua00:Euu2w rn rn W J W Q W K w' W' d' W W W' K m >� >aaaQ>oaQ Z ZZZ J Z �' J J J J Z Z �p Z Z J Z CO Z> m J J J J m J J Q Q Q Q Q J U J F' I- J J m J D WJmwoncow(DOorn(O��_��_�_rnFQ-UHUQ�F-)FQ-W la -U` I- w00 W wU C z<<Q Q,QQ Q NCif a(na>a. >Q > d W< N W (i (n (n (n W U U U x U U U (n U U O J W J Q O J (6 J Y W Q U o (n Y QY Y----�'---0 N J V' N>>>> N>>> m m U W U Q -� LL N U N Wo > > Co > N d' N V O N d' (D N O N V' d' N O 00 (O V l0 - J N O N ( I� (M') V CO M N N N N M ll� N N d .�- cam- O O O O Lo o = O M of (O (O M N U 0 0 't O LO = I d N 0 N=� W e � = M, (O , N N d N O Q Q 06 H _ Q w 06 OW > Zp a a ��WQ � z a W LLJ QS �2}F-°t%=ZZK C� LLJ 0)w .6 F- ~ W Z~ xs060W-Uc� aWOWWpzzCl Z)¢wcDgnwg� _ _� aW gaoZ OZawY nU2U` �Z OCO � X= QO =UOus� cw z oQ z CO J W W z� m w m q� } o o 0� W H z w O z w LU �¢= d Imo- O W 0 W W O� C o >a_> - W O Q J F- 7 I.0 (n Z) J (n Z) -J O 2 S 5 cC m. Z _ ZJ> a- >E W J d Q M U� OY Z oU U F O m af O 2 U S(/JJJ F- -j LU OS 0 J(nQU OOO NNNNNNMMMMMMM MMMqV 17 IT V UJ u?L9N Ln NOT (O(O OO r N N N N C'7 V V C'C'C' V C' 1' V V V V d'd' V V NNN NNNNNNNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N D) D1 d) W W W d) 01 01 m 01 d) 01 W 01 01 d) d) 0) 01 W W d) 01 D) Q) m 01 01 6) D) 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W co M = I Ln = n W O M <y N N Ln M M M = W O O O C, It V O OOOOO N O d' O M OO ct 00000 V d' OOOOOO O O 01 O W W W O m W O W W m O O W O W O O /T m O m to 0 0 /A 0 0 0 0 0 0 O IT V V V V V V lT m m� W O m O W m T O O W 6J W m m O O m W O O O OJ OJ 01 OJ 01 m m m O O m O a¢a¢¢¢a¢¢a¢aQ¢Q¢QQ¢Qaa¢¢¢a¢¢¢aQaQQ¢aa UUVUc..>UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUc>UUc>UU J J J J} J J J J J J O J J J J J J J J J} J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W U W W W W W W W W W W W W U W LLLLLLQLLLLQOLLLLLQQLLLL QLLQLLaLLL¢LLLQOLLQdLLLLQLLLL0LLL LLLLQLLQLLLLLLJLLLLQOLLLLLLQLLLLQLLaU- LLa 2'KKR'>Q�K�KKKFW-KQK�KT~��KK�2'>K~�K�KK��K ¢ ¢ Z Z Z Z j> Z Z Z Z Z Z K Z> Z� Z Z> Z Z Z Z Z Z -jj Z> Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z (n UJ n n�OZCnnu�°U n°Z ng n n°Z n ncn n n �5�wzzcnw(ncnww(0w K LU w ❑ KK K � Lli KKcoKK KjK KK ZO >- <�KK�❑K K ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ a ¢ ¢ Q ¢ R F ❑ ❑ a ¢ U K ¢ Q ww wUw�wwZww�wKw°ww�w0mom ❑W�Z-j-1w❑�� -i ❑❑ K❑ Q Z00<0000 0 ❑ ❑❑ Q x 2 2 m O m Q Ow 0 0 w w 0 w Q ¢a❑awLu Jg¢¢ a¢n¢ ¢ aa��Oa�g��r°K¢¢wRa¢¢ ��¢�o¢o��g��o���>DL/)z:=ow>wpLUaQLLu)(~_n¢Q nu) >> N > HU a>> rn>> M> > 2>> Q L KM fjo Cif 0 w>w> MO W �OOOm rn> O n 0 0 n M LCOOMnLOMnOn (O � M Ln W OLn NN N n NrRr n M LO MLr) MCl) (O(OO VnN n rr M N m N N N R (O R N M dt V r r IT n v 06 K F- `3' 06 K w 0 U a ? o($ xsxsw QOCwCa¢ x wpm F� o a zZ KU Z06 K -i~ wZ W Q �xSZ 06 F- L W a❑ R Z a a W 0 x O K K K K a¢ � W Z K z Q U W g= z >5Q W°¢wOt(n W UOZSW ~Jww r)>K 06 QKJQO W WZ❑❑ZfQ-w xZ Op U2 ~ a Q Z� W �=I-Z��U W O WO°pW 2F -W K aZKZMYx Y � W WZ�Z W OQp?�ZW LLQ Wp zZ��QCO QZZ>YY QZiQ wza W WZW UQ7IZ-- >- M J❑Z�Z�xJ2Z>p¢Z¢ZF=�ZWZR'�QUZDDN¢WKK (7 > > Z W O K.g Q} D K a N (7 x¢ O K x Q x F- Z¢ Z x J❑ Q❑ K (an ❑ J U (f) ❑ U Y:2 C) J (7 F- R J x m>�3 Z 02 2 F- R Z F- w D 2 NM7N W n W OOn NM V 0Wn W 00 N Mt 0 W n W 0 N Md' LJLJn W W w W W rn T W T W co W rn rn rn rn rn rn p(� T 9 9 9 0 9999 vvvv�tvvvvvvvvZtvv vt TvvIvvvvvvvvLn-Ln0—L0 ninLn N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U LU J U) J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 0 J J J } J J J J J} J} J W U W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LLZ ILL LLLL LL LL LL LLL LL LL ILL LL LLL U ILL LL LL LL LLL 2 LL LL LL�J LL LL LL LL LLLLLJ U LLJ �LL EL ¢¢QQ¢¢Q¢¢Q¢Q¢QOQQQQQOQQQw�=1Q¢¢Q¢=1o¢;� mQ u�c�cgc�[qcq(�cnu�(�v�v�cncgZu�u�cgv�c4U(�u�tna(nu�u7cntn�7rncn�n�n > D � 0 m OQ } } } } } } } W K K (if Z W W W W W W W 0 0 00 0 O Y O Q Q ¢¢¢ F O 0 K K K > > > > > > Z > 2 2 22 2 U > > > 3:0 m > O} > 0 F 0 0 0 0 WO ui OW m 2i 2 2F m m m m m Q m¢ m W N W p �y W W W F z m Q m O U m d' mLLJ O ¢ m Q m Q Q¢ Q Q¢ Q Q ¢ a❑ 0 0 Op 0 0 0 w J 2 w 2i O m } W }} }}}}} J J J J J J L Q} L O Q Q Z Q O E JZ-1JJJ�J W W W W W W m W ��� W ���D W W 0 W FQOU W �� a- OC) aaaaammmmmm co m>>>�QmmmU) nm mm m m I- M N f` M m I� O r m m O V O N V M 2 m O> O m m M m m 1l_ O r- p O 00 W W V N N N O N 0 m l,- m m N U_ J ¢ Q05 -j Lij t� �w LLJ xtxs �06� x J °� E ¢ x xs w Ca_j W LL Lr K0L w w Q } w �a�� v oW�WOmz00 xED z~ ���}�aW�mQ06 ZCwN =z LLJ¢ Q O D U O W Q Z) U 2 m w 2 W Z O= Q Wm Q g W W J z 0? Q OZ j = x0 0 U)wUC-Zcrwwz¢w<Ez<ZF-DO< W 0- �}�0aww�Z 0CO z��Q 0QwZofFft?wzFZwzz��xzmQOU0Wwwzozza¢ � Q CO U �� Z LL J U K O� Z x Q 0 0 0 x 1 0 J Y jo<D_Z LLJWco Z W K J O m Z OW W MLLmi->UmU OUQ�UxJd ZZ000Z(gJ����(��m�UU W d O O � N m o I� M N M V m o 1- W O O N M V m o I- W O O N M V m o r M W O O -- c- c-- m m m If) Ln Ln T 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 (O 9 T I� t; m to m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N try m to In m m m m m m m LO m m M m to m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N OOO) OOO0) 00000 W OO) OO OOO OOW OOOOOO W OO) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 LO M W M t` m d' dt r . r r W N Lf) to m N OOO W OOOOO.O M(OOOOO LO000000 OOOOOOLOIOOMMM O rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn+ rn rn W Ln m rn rn rn O rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn+ rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn d' V It V d' "Y V V V' V V V 't 't V' V' W V V rn rn rn rn rn O rn rn O rn rn rn rn O rn rn O rn O rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn � U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U v J J J J J J J J J J W J J J J) J J J J J W WOW W W W W W W W ¢ W W W W W U W W W W¢¢ a a L W N LL QLL JLQLL LL LL LLL Z LLLLL m LLLL Lq¢L LLLL �� LLLL LLLLLLLLL NZZL Lq¢L LQ¢L LQQL qLL �� ����LL wLL LL � LC. LL LL LL J LL � QKE LL LL LL W J LL LL LC LL LL O LL O LL I.L L LL Q Q L Q Q c 0 Q a a a a 0 0 0 a O Q Q L Q DfW Q Q Q L Q c a a m m Q L Q Q W W c 6 W W W a cn�cncn�cncncno��d�<n�(7a�<n<n�cncncncncn�cncn�aa<naLLn.cn -j WLLI > > U) � W �_ �af w r !n (n (n N m -O J J J J d' 0 Z U J J F J J -O W W W W >mm W W W WAN n'w W W �LL. W W (q Wm m g Z W l- mp O mp cOOc°)o rn rn rn❑ E�JO}}QZZmvwaQQQZQQZQQEhccv vv3'00'00 Q Q 0PPP�-QrrLU �z Qaa a N W W W g g = o o �_ K J g J J W� 0 Y Y OO m O m O O c 0 0 0 ED m m (� d d Q d M m m o>>>> O LL D- a LL CO m: O O m m m m m m m m m m LOO 0) (O co� M< O m o o V N O O Lo W t- t- O O d' r O Nmm LOOOmtoo (Od'd'LONNO* * * 000000* Cl)M M Md' coLLn. LO V It V Lf)c-rrrc-MM(OMMLL + aa�n.aLL: rr >0 U J � 00 000 m - o LL Z w a g z J w z00 00 000 Q O J J J J a oef Kta waaS�� < WW F0000.20000 w 6p LL LL C LL LL LL OOQ ZSmF-tJQ~t-jQ 06D W O}Q F W W L W �� vOWZW<v.mom0F�>-ZZc��a,QUx wv��wwQwadOaaaW Z o Q ZWZOO a p W w E m O Q z w o w O K m Q mQmwg�oww¢¢Wwooai�=a�wooz??Q¢-QazzLL mzzzQ Y Z¢= m m 2 O.. m U LL Y3: Q 2 a m U m o 2 m LL m m m 2 W O O D D O 7 D n 0 O O N M It LO W n W M O N Md' W (O t` W O) N N (O t` n t- W O .-- N M M 1` N O � W W 00 W W W W W W W� d) d) m 0) O) W O)O)� � 000000 Or r 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO Ln LO 10 N Ct m N W N m N N N N m N N W W W W W W W W W W M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M co d) d) d) 0) d) CY) d d) d) d) d) d) d) d) 0) d) ) D 000000000000000 1 d) d) d) d) C6 d) m d) 6 d) d) d) d) m d) d) m O) C6 d) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lo r O) N N n n M In O O O O O O O O O) O O) W O) O) r [Y O V V d' O O O W W O) W D) O O O W O) O) O) O O d) O O) 0) O O O) O) 0 0) O) 0 0) O) O) O) W D) d) W O) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU_UUUUUQUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU J W W W W W W W W < < W UJ Elf a�WaW¢W¢ >a mZ:):DLma000 0��0m0m0m ��0m0mm @�m0m 000�000 Jm00am��co M (0ww mQ¢¢ m m m<<<00<O mF i H IE ml 1- m1-1-000 (0 000 U) U) d 0_ CO U) 0 J U) U) U) (7 (n U) z z U Z 0 0 0 w 0 w w w w w 0 Z z Z w z z z 0 no W C11 (N C\l C\lN.N- F- CL 000U) Q Q LU »>�»> 4k>>W it zv9ww W W JMS J z MMMOmmm UO m m m m z� > 2 Q (D m� � Q Q Q� Q Q Q a'ornrnm W W Ommm 1--�ZZhZE f1.1 m UUU C -0d65 m m `m Z Z 2-�-� m N O O m 0 � r. � t� r K K X�� M ca W— o.rr 0rrr Orr W W w owW W d 3 3 C W cc a' h c c i N N W lY lY ` N 4 ` N 0 i Lo M - oaXX a) W W a) (D Q)UU))XXaa0a a)XXX a)XXX QXX222 �22� a) G G 0 0 Y Y Y a Y Y Y� 0 O W 2 Y 0 0 0 Y O O 0 `Y O O O O O Y O O O Y m m o 0 0 2 0 0 0 m m in u� rn o m m m o m m m o m m U UU o U U U o O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N O 0))rnaa mmm �MMP")�dd=�N� 000O00000U v M a a a M a a a M a a M Cl) 00 c J J a E 00 C Q D:3 JUa a) aa00LL LL <J >- F -l- UJB c a) 0' 0 06 O -i Z .6 X0606 JQ•K--ate Qin 0606 JJ W O Kofw of Kof J 0 0 0 a z E 2 w W W K w 2 h h h ~~ h(0 h h U U U 000 mad'ESUO o 0 0���00 h U)W(0 rnm°�U) EU)U)000 000 rn 0,2JJ N()�F-O<-<aa— UZ C W W c U)U)U) U)U)U) C-UU))(i m��� ° c o� ncn�� W 000 �aa0 E00aaa aaa �0 aE T00l Ou) v) 0000 (n W W O Z S W E (9 m W q�Q--— o Y Y Y Y Y Y W Y Y W W W U W W W J E C' ~(�RZZ WZ UUU NUUU (pUU CL `»._— na azzz n zzz o U Z Z `m a z o om a N N 0 0 0 0 0 g g—o _5- g Q a- W W W 2 W W W U (7YDD��2OU- 2���mmmmii00U)UwU)0a00YYYUYYY2 0 0 0 r N N M V w LO to N M r M O) O r r N M V M M CO I- M M W O N M M V U0 I� r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N 0 0 m 0 w 0 m m 0 Z 0 0 M m w m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m M M M M N 0 m m m N m m m m U) m In N In U) l0 m l0 m W N try N m N N N m N N N l0 M M M M co M M M M co M M M M M M M M M M M M co M M M M M M M M M M M M M M d) 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O) 0 0 0 m 0 0 m CA (0 0 0 0 CA m m Cn m O) O m O) O O CA O) O 6) m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m CP O O � 01 CA m 0 W O O OJ O O O O O CA O O W lT 61 W W O 01 O) LT CA O CP 01 O O aQQaaQ¢QaaQQQ¢QaQ¢QaQ¢¢¢aaaaQaQ¢Q¢QQQ UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 0 2J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W w w w w w w w w W w W w w w W w W w W W W W W o (1) QLLQ NLQQQL LLL QLLQ w LLL LL LLL QLLQ LL LLLLa LL¢ LLQ LLL LLLL¢ LL LL LL LL¢ LLL LL �LLLL ZL¢L QLLQ LL¢LL¢LL oma¢m¢m¢ama¢aa¢¢¢¢m¢c�aaaaaa¢ma¢maaa¢a N J J J J -O Co 'O ca -O m 'O m jm 0�m0�m coF-I-I-F wQ?Q I- W O Ooz OZ a) I-I-I-C)'o} UZUUUUUUU L J mZ001-Q ` (p ` Of L U U U U U Q f- F W Z Z Z Z C J (7 a)X W mw mZZ �ZZZZZ�zZ �O�OOOOZZZU�< u H W WUH Y Y O Y Y Y Y UJ W m W W W W W W w R 2 it U` W W W W�� of 0— L m Q U U > LL — Qom00Oo0o W WFFHHF-E-0LU W N W W 222SW W W m W UUU>>QLL O O FI-�N Dorn LO It 22 Dov o�2222o vvmLQ o M M M M V W N LA M N N @ Ln M N N N Ln W O� O W Q W m } Q a o S LL LL '6 a ��a J Z �z C z ma� F W Z Uln (n a� W Co 0 o�� oavwz 06 i < <� Qtg� 2z �- zwzw Inco W JZ odZ '� F- w ASF Cl) E oW- 3 wQ� LJQ zi?zo, Z owl- t$5; -}�� 00 �FSJUO w E S> � Y } �- a Q C a J J U' o Z Q w a Q W K � (D o U) I- C' - 0 oOi�o �z ��� aNiC�Qcn wzQ OQK<a�LED �QF- `mQQ Www<mm< Z V Z W =O U O J .0 w w 2 w N= Q 2 m- < ()f w w !] J Z a. F- 5? Z 6 U U� D �SZ ami W p=Z 0i 0 W OQ W:,E in ��U` � W WO L2 y0 i%K W ��O LOUw O�� (6(n C �i-Q—J JQ-JJ H N=Z W =� Z0'N J.N a.z ` W d w 2 d W'>O Zo Oi W V V d' V V V W V aaa¢aa¢aa¢a>aa¢a¢aaaaaaa¢aaa¢aa¢aa¢aa UUUUUUUUUUc>z�UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU�UUUUUUU J J J J J J J J Y J J J J ~ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J wwwww Z)Ww w0wwWwJwrj� www wWWWww wwwww<< LLLLLLLLLLLL SLLLL¢LLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLS wLLLLL NLLLLLLLLLLLLL NLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 999���099 z�����Yeu)> z z Z Z Z Ctl� z Z z z w z z Z z Z w'(n J Z Z C Z Z Z Z Z Z C Z Z Z Z Z Z Z (n(n(n(i(n(1) J(n(n O(n00 w 0 w 0 J W'm w0 w w w 0 0 0 0 w w w 0 0 0 w0 _ O cr- C'4 CO V ` U)I- >waawan. 0 Ja¢aa¢¢ ¢ Q a¢ aaaa� 0000000 cc > , > > > U » » » > >>> U J J J J J J m m o o i - f-LLw wI-h l-rn F -I -W F-wz �w�www W mw Fa aUaLL¢LL UUJJZ O`M ZZ(n�NZZ S ZS W v02U mUUUU=a (pZZZZZZZ W WIL—< �cOaa�r'NaaFaF�I..rFI_yF----LLS Fu LL <<aa 00c cai} °aa9:00 a�Q�o00�0 90000°TOMO`caic<<< >> a m m m m m m m m O m 0 n m m O o 0 0 0 0 o w L L v v m m O* m c O O m m m no ro O O m r r m O M r` w o LO (O LD LO LO M O LO (ONNNI�I�wrrrnwdMMMeI'(O _raar�rrrrNN0 W MNMMMMMM LL } j L { LL € w W Z z Baa ¢ �xsa06 Q xs� ¢Z 06 LU a m��o� FaoC� �� z� z z ZOf 0_ QY� m _� 00 Q Z J m m a O _� J a S �_ O Sa Z c w> (nZ W C�¢w Lt��ZKOOmO € w w Y W a� F W 2 a¢¢ Zp > 12 W I- a Z¢ W m 2 f F 2 (n N Z w LL > m G U LL Z (6 U C C C G C C Hz �n aOWmYQ00Za=wLauaz ¢OLW a- onaaQaa �Oa� o K W D� ¢LOO - w 02w�0� 3: ::i 0 0 0 0 0 f COD (n�Y>J �-JKJ2�-�0-j �(nCl)n- M W 000000 I N M 7 LO CO CO W W O N (O 0 O O N M 'V LO CO W O N M CO r M N N M M M M M M r r r r r r N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M V �' �' ch V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i r r i i i i i i i i i N CV (V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N co CO O m (O CO CO O O (O (O (O (O O co O (O (O (O O O O CO CO CO CO (O co O r r n n M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn+ rn W V V rn rn� rn rn� rn rn� rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn� rn rn rn rn rn� rn� rn rn V asaaa¢aa¢aaaQa¢aaa¢¢¢aa¢aaaa¢¢a¢¢aa¢¢ UUc..�UUUUUUUc.>000UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU O J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J_i J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W J W W W W W W aaaaaas¢aaaaa¢¢a¢¢aaQQQQQac-)¢¢W¢¢Qaa¢g LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL L- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL @ LL LL (n LL LL LL LL LL LL Co zZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzczzzzzzzzzw <<<<<<<<<.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<cn<<<<<<<<<D� (n O1� co O O N M V (n O r W 0 ` f F- F- F- F- E- F- F- F- a-F- n.aaLLaLLaaaLLLLaLLn.aaaaLLLLLLLL aaaa¢a¢a¢¢aaaaa¢¢aa¢¢¢a } f p p p O p p p p p p p O p p p p p O p p p w 00 C p O a J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J a J J J J J w Q mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmF�� pppmmmmmW� aa¢¢aQaa¢Qaa¢¢a¢a¢¢aQa¢(QQ FFW¢a¢a¢20 z z z z z z z Z z z Z Z z Z z Z z z z z Z z z Z I -F- - Z Z LL Z Z Z Z Z U Q J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J- Z Z J J J J J F- la -IQ -la -fa -F Fa-Fa-¢fa-HFa-Fa-IQ-Fa-Ia-HFa-FQ-<H<<a-la-�OO p -p dd W fa -<a --Fa--la-�w aa¢aaa¢¢a¢QaQaQ¢aaQaaa¢-aLL(Z>>W¢¢aaaOW >.a ¢� U U U U U p m (n In M 0 N N (!J LO LO (() O LO to M LO In t() (n M to LO Lo COLO � m m m m CJ 00 N (0 O' V N O V' d' d' It d' V d' It d' V d' d' dt V d' It V d' It V V d' 'I N (O O O N N r V M M co M M M M M M M M (Y) M M M CO M M M M M M M W V 00 W U U Z c 06 i06 U a C) o 2 C«Sa N 0� z�aC O Q a a)� w > p U Z a -1 .2 zZw pW ��ZQ W ZF-Z aJJ W zaO2J}Z::)(npo�Z? C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C C C G C C— O O W (� Q O M W O m m m m m m m m m m m m o m m m m o (a (o co m m a F- z .> Lu Z LL) > U) F Z p (� Z= U O O Z U) W Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o LL Q xll--- 2 S D O Q W¢ Y 00000000000000000000000 cn W W Y g U m 2} z (7 J Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� r i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i N N N N N N N N N N N N N n--- n-,--nr----comcomnnncococomCY)m`titiV)rcom M M M M M M M M. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co co M M co co M m (n 0) 0) O) m@ (n 01) @@ (n 0) O O) 0) O) co m m O) O) W m O d) m m 6 O O m& O O m O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (00 O d' O O O O VO' O O O O N O o 0 0 0 d) O O W d) D) D) O O W D) O) W O) O) O) Q) W O O) W O) O) Q) d) O O m W O) O) d) W d) O) O O a1 O) O) d) O O W O O W O O W m d) d) O) OJ O d1 OJ O O O) 0) O O) O) W O O) O W O) 0) O) O) aaQa¢¢aQQ¢aaQaQ¢Qaaaa¢a¢QQQaa¢aaaQa¢a O J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J -J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W J WW W WW W W WWW W WW ¢a¢QQ¢Qaa�,Qa¢QaQa¢aw¢ QQQQ <Z<Za¢QaQ¢ LL LL LLLQ LL LLL LLL¢ LL QLLQLL �p LLLLQ QLLQ LL LLLLLL LLLL LLLQ U)¢0 LLQLLQ QLLQLL 0LLLLQ cu LL QLLaLL LL LLQLL LL z Z z z z Z Z Z Z c Z Z Z Z Z z Z z Z Z Z> z z z Z> Z c Z c Z Z z Z Z z Qa¢aaaa¢a m¢aaaaa¢¢a¢aO¢¢¢QO¢ m¢ m¢a¢aQQ p � y ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ }Q } } } } } m } } p Q Q Q a¢QQ>-a a [if ofWof YZl>T�T� OOOOOw w w w W p p p p p p p p W W- K O LL' a � J x x x Z~~F-p`~~~'~>zZOO�=zxxxxK=�x�D>>UUO ��FFF„ZZzz �ZzzzaOO�� W UODUUUQa oU 0a- 0000-OOOOSF F-zz Z3:3:�LLxx--- 00000LL>LL>LLra}r�iLLzz��m�Q����w� �3O�LL000 p p p p p a a¢ a m a a Q a LL z Z ::):D O U O O O O m 0 0 0 o f- LLLLO O O O v m ,r o m m m m m m m m m o D D F- F- o p o p p p p u) p p p p LL o o h h LO N N N 0 0 0 (O N W J 06021 w °d a W CO lZ w xs� aarca -6 z J� a a awa�z as ¢a <<T- C z Wz06 o� z�C JUW i� (0 U) U) 0-O)aOQ W Q (� Oz(q x rnW WmOU F- J W Z W~Z W aa x -a W¢ W x c Z W O 2 > a- Y N L O O m J pKF-���ZULLI N�pzY U' Q W' p¢ aF-2Um�a cQ U(D(D x Q W W �OZQ.F-_—J— �� U) W LL—J¢U�O J Q W' LL >z(L xQ-v��pLLq�} Ov�Qzj �o w�a2(n op �wg- ¢ D�JU�I-'xcn nwW Q¢I-=O2a-� }pl-U, w c.�-QF-1-U (� ¢Q W- w w -1 3: OX(D yY cW _j U) wC) (a �LLzZO �Z 0(D 0 � JQ�E>ZN-jdazF- W U aW LLKZ(xjZq OZ ��ddz cu a2 nWLL=x�xzQ mOxQJ> �Owp� o pxz�-DLC Ja�OU¢Q¢x wn-QQJQ¢OD W DW o�w(nDD¢LLY W Naa¢ W U¢ O7i-K(gLLUF-UO(nYC7C7m(gpJ(if -j0w W 0U' Y(np>-1:2 2 0 m M d' N M O O N M M d' N CO h N N M d' 0 (O (O h W r d' Uf w m 0 M N M M M d' i i `- � N N N N N N N N N N O i O O O O O O O O r r r r r r N N 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N Nr r N h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h O) D) O) O) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r d) O) O O) 01 O) a) m O) O) D) O) O d) W O) 01 W d) d) D) W W O) d) 01 O) 01 O W O) O) O) O) O) 0) 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn�rn�rnrn�rn�rnrnrnrnrnrn�rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn ,It rn rn rn rn rn rn rn� rn rn rn rn rn rn� rn rn rn rn� rn rn rn rn rn� rn rn� rn� rn rn rn rn rn rn U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Q¢a¢aQQaQQa�QaQ�,Q¢Q¢¢aQQ¢Q�,QQ¢aQ¢000¢ LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL N LL LL LL N LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL2 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Z Z z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z c Z Z Z c Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z G Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z O D O 000000 w w 0 O 0 0 }}W W W W W W W W W 00 W W W W �0W0, a��J¢J�JgaJ�g aJJ�gaJ���waa¢ W W ��rD Z w K SSF-EF-F-F-F--F-I->>>> >>>> U U z Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Z __ ZZ _ FO OOOOOO ZZZ ZZZZZZF-F-F-Z> ZZ__ Oc---c------ ZzZ---Z--0aa -ooa-OOOODUU oo°0ma-m00 a00c-LL��� OOaQ¢Q¢a a.a��� oom—mmmmmmmmaaama¢¢¢aQrr}QcuaQ¢mmmm000 N V (O N 00 It M m m m m m m m m m m m Q Q Q m m m m mrnin rnu� 000 N N M� r r M N r Cl) M m m m N (O (O O O M N �- O I- LLo In M M M N N �- O L V d' 'V LO In �- LO to M (6 E N d c6 p06 a5 a o F a Qat J �>2 otS �O Q� aQ9�Z wOz in ��FW �aQ 7I= --O clot} a�Sotig LL' mC�Ld Q mK �}� SQ z¢ W ww (D (Sj w 0 J Q W Q¢_ E Q W< p O W 05 DYLL ? J��ZZ mZO�¢ �OJZO d' �0�2 �Z z W W-�JD E z J o Of Z �j m j W w> Z U¢ LLI U c z W Q c OWJF- -Z_JF- =-�Jr2F.. U` �WO�QC� p.W UWZZW o_¢ZWSLLWN Q aZo��z0 ��w��LL' (moi 0 (nY� �m V=LLI W O w o g o Q w 0 m¢ a o O¢Q a Y U S a 2 (o Q U W S J? 2 Q 2 ��2YOLLF-200(822(02 �SNN2Q0 cA��U' 2w OKU U` (q 0d20 N O r W of O O r r N M V d' (n (O 0 c'- O O N N M <t In (O n M M O O d' (cJ (O (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 61 W 01 O O W m O O O O O W O W 01 0 0 0 W m W m 0 0 0 0 0 m m m 0 m O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 01 01 01 01 W 61 O1 m m W 01 01 01 Ol 01 m)060.) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t0 M W N O t0 N M W O(O OO ll') 0000 OOO 000000 N 000000 OOO t0 aDm OOOO m O m m co Vm Vm m Vm Wt d It 0) 0) 0) 0) m mm 0)0)0) mm 0) 0m) 0m) 7mm 0m) 0) 0m) 0m) OmV 0m) 0m) 0m) mVm 0m) mOV 0) 0m) 0m) 0m) mmV 0) 0) 0m) mmV 0m) 0m) QaQa_QQa¢¢¢¢a¢aaa¢as¢aa¢¢a¢aaaaa¢aa¢a UUc.�Uxc.>UUUUUUUUUUUUUODUUUUUUUUUUUUUODU r_ U J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Y J J J p LL LL LQL O a Q¢ Q a¢ a Q a¢ a a a¢¢ Z a¢ a¢ Q p a ¢ Q (�6 Q (mob LL w LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Z LL LL LL LL N LL LL N LL LL LL LL LL cu g 4C cow¢a=acu¢cu¢¢a¢¢¢¢a¢¢ma¢¢am¢aMa¢wmm¢a¢m wwu)u) �n�nA4gnn(n7nnFu�nnnnnv nnna n�nv�nn I� M O ¢ a m - O ¢Yk m} LL d LL D D o D D 00 D O D w DDD D 00 O > -6-6 I-rwFI-I-(_n CO _ W > > UU20 EO S(nOOv00¢000DO000�00-¢u)� N00"a m m ..=U..}�=�=YLL aLL a��-amaaxLLn.a�LLaan. naa o_� X X o ax c c 3 ¢ ¢ m ¢ m xp ¢ ¢ p ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q a ¢ Q ¢ ¢ m Q ¢ m LL o o ¢ Y LL m m o�ooammmmcoM00MmmLLmmm mmmmmmmMI-L M LL co O ice. m m I- M M O LO N (O d' d' 07 N LO LO O O) O p p (O W J O (n t0 m N m M N CO CO M O O Cl) O p M (O (O V (O (O I� (O CO CO (O O O N h. O I� V t0 d').O M�-��rLL�rLL r� �-N W O)MM N U Z o 0 O 1 c F o N m U J m 06 U c D >1 a �Z a U) as °�-io �Z r to EaEo—F 06 a CC ¢ ooE¢ J N d J O E Z a m F- z J m z 06 I- Y J Fx- w z � LL rn.� o Z J= J O- N U Z cu W Ix_-MMW co -7Q�wO<00d LmLJDO¢_� Q O y��> (60 J DDZ zYCOQxzx¢CD JU2F W ZD ¢ J : U( ¢O!�v m� }°Q Up�O °)O'aW OQ>� V axZ<�pQZ�� �ZJ dQ matLO¢ Y a0U LL F- cm Q LL mu) J Fa- ZZD0W _�K�a cKFQ .3 U m of N s a W W H t U c� Q w p W to O Q D z x O w} U LL m O p N 0} m ¢ v O w Q° mw o Z K LL w of¢>- O> K Z K(-1 m C O m °� > 0) a LL N c >w oD EaaoQa>Qxa W}azx0 ox¢ oa mz � a) o¢ o 0 U' ZOawmm-100 7UJx W ml-DxJm WOxmFmNm(gDULLFmJU f�nrO NMMMmrm NMcr tO NM V l0 (O MMtO (OO M M M M V V I <} d' 1 (O N (O 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N OOOOO OOOO OOO 00000 �.� mm m m m m m m O m m m m O m m m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M V T r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0000900000000000000000000000000 m o) 0 m m m 0 m m m m m m m m 0 m m o) m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000 I 0 0 o o m v o 0 0 0 rnrnrnornrnrnrnrnrn rnmrnrno�irnrnrnrnrn U U U U U U U U U U O J J J -J} J J J J w w— w J w w w w w aaaa0J¢aaa LLLLLL LL(nJLLLLLLLL 9 9 8 9 Q i 9 Z Z Z Z Z J Z Z Z Z O Q O M M > U00 'K -j Q� -w c 0 o c Q w w U OO CL �LLIREF— U"'Da<<m`° to m o o ts= U <} r .-- W Z M_ _ U) w LU o rr w w � z <n w p Y O 3 O F- (j)w w C)W oz d c o O O Q 0 s o m�OzcnwJ m °>cgLLww�:¢� O M _Z g= Z J J o OK —w JZZ Y 0 2 Y u 0 0 0 U O U) Y O O p w 2Z U) 0 LU Ow Z)�- 2 S7 Control Map - 100 Block Windward Way SCALE 1 :7,459 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 FEET N A Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM