Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2014-02-25 #4CITY OF Meeting Date: Agenda Item February 25, 2014 Community Development Department— Planning Division Case Numbers: ED13-049 & U13-027 P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 — ' PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Kraig Tambornini 415/485-3092— REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 400 Smith Ranch Road (AT&T Wireless Faux Tree) — Environmental and Design Review and Use Permit for a 50 -foot tall faux pine tree supporting up to nine (9) panel antennas and 24 Remote Radio Units (RRU's), and associated ground mounted equipment placed adjacent to existing buildings on the San Rafael Airport property; APN: 155-230-11; PD 1909 Zone; AT&T Mobility, Applicant; San Rafael Airport, LLC, Owner; Smith Ranch Neighborhood Area; Case Number(s): ED13-049 & UP13-027 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A new monopole wireless facility is subject to Major Use Permit and Design Review approval by the Planning Commission, with the Design Review Board (DRB) recommendation. Design Review approval is also required for a tower structure that exceeds the applicable zoning district height limit. Staff notes that building mounted facilities are generally preferred over new monopole structures. In this case, a new building mounted facility could not be pursued because the buildings at the airport have been used for roof -mounted solar energy collection. Thus, the applicant has proposed a new, stand-alone monopole designed to mimic the appearance of tall pine tree. The project would require an alternative site analysis if it were not a stealth design or were proposed in a least preferred residential or open space location. In this case, the project is located on an industrially developed site and has been designed with a genuine stealth concept. In general, staff concludes that the project may be supported to permit an additional monopole on this site subject to additional requirements, revisions and/or conditions as identified on page 6 of this report. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to approve the project with conditions (Exhibit 2). PROPERTY FACTS Address/Location: 397-400 Smith Ranch Rd Parcel Number(s): 155-230-11 Property Size: 119.52 acres total Neighborhood: Smith Ranch Area Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Project Site: Airport/Recreation PD1909-WO Private Airport Facilities North: Open Space P/OS-WO North Fork Gallinas Creek South: Open Space County South Fork Gallinas Creek East: Open Space County Open Space/Tidelands West: Residential - Medium PD1626-WO Contempo Marin Residential REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED13-049 & UP13-027 Page 2 Site Description/Setting: The project is located on the westerly portion of the 119.5 acre airport property which is currently developed with light industrial buildings (see Exhibit 1 -Vicinity Map). The antenna structure is proposed to be placed within a landscape strip that lies along the west edge of the unpaved access road that, approximately 350 feet past the traffic circle at the entrance to the airport parking lot, (or approx. 480 feet after of the railroad crossing). The site currently contains a 34 foot tall monopole (T -Mobile) and two . other roof mounted facilities located on nearby structures. See figure 1 below for the location of the proposed pole. Figure 1 - Faux Pine Location (Pro BACKGROUND Wireless antenna facilities can be considered within any City zoning district, including PD districts. Several facilities have been approved on the subject airport property, generally co -located on existing buildings. This includes a 43 -foot building mounted radome (i.e., antenna array concealed within a cylindrical shaped roof mount enclosure) on a nearby building, for MetroPCS (2008). A 34 -foot tall monopole also has been approved and built in the immediate project vicinity, for T -Mobile (2001). ➢ On July 31, 2013, the applicant submitted a request for a new 43 -foot tall monopole, with a US Flag proposed to be hung from the pole. The following day, August 1, 2013, staff provided a detailed letter of incompleteness advising that this type of facility would require Planning Commission review and approval, with an alternative site analysis, etc. required, given that the design was not considered to Height Allowed: 36' Proposed: 50' (subject to design approval for height exception allowance) Site Description/Setting: The project is located on the westerly portion of the 119.5 acre airport property which is currently developed with light industrial buildings (see Exhibit 1 -Vicinity Map). The antenna structure is proposed to be placed within a landscape strip that lies along the west edge of the unpaved access road that, approximately 350 feet past the traffic circle at the entrance to the airport parking lot, (or approx. 480 feet after of the railroad crossing). The site currently contains a 34 foot tall monopole (T -Mobile) and two . other roof mounted facilities located on nearby structures. See figure 1 below for the location of the proposed pole. Figure 1 - Faux Pine Location (Pro BACKGROUND Wireless antenna facilities can be considered within any City zoning district, including PD districts. Several facilities have been approved on the subject airport property, generally co -located on existing buildings. This includes a 43 -foot building mounted radome (i.e., antenna array concealed within a cylindrical shaped roof mount enclosure) on a nearby building, for MetroPCS (2008). A 34 -foot tall monopole also has been approved and built in the immediate project vicinity, for T -Mobile (2001). ➢ On July 31, 2013, the applicant submitted a request for a new 43 -foot tall monopole, with a US Flag proposed to be hung from the pole. The following day, August 1, 2013, staff provided a detailed letter of incompleteness advising that this type of facility would require Planning Commission review and approval, with an alternative site analysis, etc. required, given that the design was not considered to REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED13-049 & UP13-027 Page 3 be adequately "stealth". The applicant was encouraged to revise the proposal to co -locate antennas on or integrated with an existing building. ➢ On August 5, 2013, the applicant asked whether staff could review and comment on alternative design concepts. Subsequently, the applicant advised staff that its legal department required a determination as to whether the project could proceed in light of a deed restriction placed on the property. Project processing was informally suspended pending receipt of a request from the applicant. ➢ On December 9, 2013, the applicant submitted a revised proposal for a 50 -foot tall faux pine tree. The applicant advised staff that co -location on an existing structure could not be achieved because the buildings had been fitted with solar panel arrays and the antenna would block or reduce panel efficiency. Therefore, staff accepted the revised submittal and agreed to forward this to the Design Review Board for its recommendation. Staff concluded that an alternative design analysis would not be required based on the revised stealth alternative and conclusion that the solar equipment prevented a building co -location option. The following day, December 10, 2013, staff provided a letter requesting additional missing information; including additional plan sets, confirmation that the taller pole would not require airport hazard safety lights, eight (8) of the required photo -simulations, and an updated radio-frequency radiation emission (RFR) report. ➢ On December 17, 2013, staff accepted a response from Bob Herbst, San Rafael Airport manager, citing that a 53 -foot tall pole would not require a blinking red warning light for airplane safety, along with submittal of a materials board and copies of revised photo -simulations intended to complete the application submittal. On December 19, 2013, staff conducted a followup site visit and sent the applicant an email reiterating a request for a photo -simulation showing view of the faux tree pole from Smith Ranch Road; i.e., near Captains Cove (looking across the bridge crossing over the North Fork of Gallinas Creek). However, this was not identified as a completeness item, and the applicant did not submit a response to this additional request. Subsequently, City Hall was closed due to staff furloughs from December 21, 2013 through January 2, 2014. ➢ On February 4, 2014 the Design Review Board reviewed and recommended approval of the project, with revisions. Revised federal regulations have established a "shot clock" ruling, which require that project completeness review times must be "tolled" for a maximum total period of 30 days. The completeness review period continued through the recent City Hall closure of December 21 through January 2. As a result, the application has been deemed complete as of January 13, 2013. Action must be taken on the proposed new facility within 150 days, consistent with the Act. Further, in accord with state "permit streamlining act" (PSA) provisions, a decision on zoning entitlements should be made within 60 days of a determination of completeness (and conclusion of environmental review). Thus, unless the applicant requests an extension of time or further environmental review is deemed required, the project has been scheduled for action before the March 14, 2014 "PSA" deadline. The "shot clock" deadline has been established as May 13, 2014. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes the following: • New 50 -foot tall faux pine tree (mono -pole) supporting up to nine (9) panel antennas and 24 Remote Radio Units (RRU's), with the antenna approximately 43 feet above grade and RRU units approximately 35 feet above grade; and REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED13-049 & UP13-027 Page 4 • Ground mounted equipment placed in a 12 -foot by 16 -foot enclosed lease area adjacent to existing buildings on the San Rafael Airport property. The new mono -pole support structure would be placed within an existing landscape planter along the west edge of the unpaved access road (closest to the buildings). Cabling would be placed with underground trenches to connect to existing electrical service and new equipment. No new offsite above grade utility equipment is indicated. The "density" of proposed branches is not described, but illustrated on plan sheet A04, which shows a conical tree form that tapers with wider branches and "trunk" at the base. Branch length is proposed to extend 6'9" from the pole, at the antenna height (see Sheet A03). The antenna array and the subordinate remote radio units (RRU's) equipment would be set back within the branch depth. Cabling is not shown but anticipated to extend through the monopole. The antennas measure approximately 7" deep by 12" wide by 55" tall and the RRU's units measure approximately 7" deep by 17" wide by 20" tall. The pole would be painted brown and have a bark texture applied to the surface. Samples of the facility materials will be provided at the meeting. The RRU units are being incorporated into new and upgraded wireless facilities in order to increase the RF signal strength provided to the antennas, which is needed in order to meet the higher data demands of new 4G/LTE service. Fiber optic cable connects the base equipment to the RRU, which in turn is connected to the antenna being served. Placing the RRU's closer to the antenna increases the RF signal strength delivered to the antenna, and reduces need for additional facilities in order to meet the larger data demands of new wireless services. The applicant submitted additional information showing the RRU's could be placed closer to the pole. The Design Review Board has not recommended this change, but has supported concealment within a pine "sock", which has also been proposed by the applicant. The applicant has provided written justification for the facility and RRU units, which is attached as Exhibit 3. The coverage maps are provided as Exhibit 4. Lastly, emergency warning signage would be installed at the facility location as required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and state and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for protection of workers and persons that may have access or come in contact with the facility. The RFR report is provided as Exhibit 5. Zoning Entitlements Required The new monopole structure requires a Use Permit and Design Review Permit with an exception to exceed the height limit, subject to Planning Commission review and approval with the recommendation of the Design Review Board. ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency: The Project is consistent with General Plan 2020 Policy 1-15, which states that the City should "ensure that residents, schools, businesses and organizations have access to reliable, modern and cost-effective telecommunications. The project has not been found to be in conflict with Policy OS -6 which discourages placement of utilities in open space, nor Policy CD -5 which encourages review of projects to ensure they would respect and enhance important community views and view sheds. No other pertinent policies or potential conflicts have been identified. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The site is located within an established Planned Development (PD) zoning district. Development of minor ancillary structures associated with the permitted uses on the site, including wireless facilities REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED13-049 & UP13-027 Page 5 which may be permitted in any zoning district, may be considered through the design review process, consistent with the provisions of the adopted PD 1909 district standards. The project is subject to further review for compliance with the following zoning regulations: Chapter 14.16 — Site and Use Regulations (Wireless Communications Facilities) Submittal Information Pursuant to Section 14.16.360, Use Permit and Design Review approval are required for new wireless communications facilities. The project would have required an alternative site analysis if it lacked stealth design. However, as revised, staff has concluded the faux pine tree qualifies as stealth design and may be considered by the Planning Commission with Board review and recommendation for approval. Story poles were not required for the project based given that photo -simulations have been provided and purported to accurately represent the structure height and visual impacts. Staff anticipates that the top portion of the faux tree pole would be partially visible by pedestrians on Smith Ranch Road; but staff notes that view of the facility would be mitigated by the existing hillside and vegetation in the background. The applicant submitted required plans and materials, including an "RFR" report that identifies the potential radio frequency radiation emissions from the facility. The RFR emissions would be greatest directly in front of the wireless antennas, which would project over the rooftops of the nearby buildings. These buildings are primarily metal industrial structures that have been covered with solar arrays, thus they would be rarely accessed. The RFR report recommends installation of required health and safety signage to comply with FCC and OSHA standards; which would advise workers and occupants in the area of potential exposure areas. Site and Design Preferences Wireless facilities are encouraged in the subject light industrially developed area, particularly when stealthily integrated into existing buildings. However, integration with buildings in the area has been precluded due to their current use for rooftop solar. Placement of facilities on or near the buildings would impact solar collection performance. New monopoles are less -preferred, and typically considered appropriate only where they can be screened from view and where other options are not available. This site contains an existing 34 -foot tall pole near the proposed facility, and several building mounted radomes (i.e., cylindrical antenna enclosures on rooftops). The existing monopole tower is not stealth design and consists of a pole with antenna attached. The subject "mono -pine" would be taller than the other ground and building mouted facilities. An option to co -locate equipment onto the existing monopole would be supported to minimize the potential cumulative visual effects of having multiple facilities at a single location. However, co - location on the existing pole would require replacing it with a new taller pole, and cooperation from the carrier T -Mobile. The existing 34 -foot tall T -Mobile monopole is not currently a highly visible facility and designed to comply with the height limits of the site. Thus, the benefits of encouraging a co -location between the two carriers appear minimal. Staff notes that recent revisions made to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 may require that the City must approve subsequent expansions of existing monopoles with limited discretion. Additional rules are being considered to further limit discretion over modifications made to existing facilities (possibly negating some of stealth or visually mitigating design solutions). The City is currently considering revisions to its wireless communications facilities standards in response to the Federal Telecommunications Act and related laws affecting wireless antenna facilities. Thus, at this time, it would remain appropriate to review this case on its own merits under the current City standards. This includes the height exception request, which should provide a basis for regulating future expansions. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED13-049 & UP13-027 Page 6 Applicable Design Criteria The wireless communications ordinance provides the following design requirements: ➢ All new wireless facilities shall co -locate with existing or new wireless facilities whenever feasible. ➢ Providers are encouraged to co -locate with other existing structureslimprovements where it is possible to minimize overall visual impact of the new facility. ➢ All wireless facilities shall have a stealth design to screen or reduce visual impacts to blend into the existing environment. ➢ New ground mounted facilities shall be: o Co -located to the extent feasible, which is preferred to new monopoles or towers. (Note: Technical evidence may be warranted to demonstrate there are no other alternative sites or feasible support structures or that the monopole tower would serve to better minimize adverse visual effects.) o Sited to be screened by existing development or existingiproposed vegetation. ➢ The 36 foot height of the underlying district may be exceeded through grant of an exception (through design review) if the RFR exposure or aesthetic quality are found to be acceptable. The facility reportedly achieves the coverage objectives of the carrier, which generally requires line of sight to other antenna and customers. As noted above, staff had encouraged building or structure co - location but had not encouraged colocation with the existing adjacent tower, as it would not materially alter the aesthetic impacts. The facility could lowered in height to comply with the maximum 36 foot height limit (comparable to the T -Mobile Antenna), which would mitigate the existing and future potential visual impacts of the facility. This would most likely reduce overall service coverage, and the applicant may need to consider further revisions to the site location or design in response, but such a recommendation would be appropriate for a new monopole facility proposed for a single carrier. In general, the faux pine design for the single AT&T carrier would appear to be a successful stealth solution, as proposed and located. Recommended Conditions or Modifications Staff recommends approval of the project should be subject to the following conditions: As required by SRMC Section 14.16.360, AT&T Mobile shall provide a statement that it, and its future successors, will cooperate with the City to allow future co -location of antennas at the proposed site, if it is approved. 2. As required by SRMC 14.16.360, the following conditions must be imposed: a. Post installation RFR measurement is required within 45 days of facility installation. b. Participation in a three year review of RFR and facility for compliance. 3. The RRU's shall be concealed within a faux pine "sock" covering as recommended by the Board and proposed by the applicant. 4. The project details shall be implemented as presented on, plans, photo -simulations and colors and materials exhibit, as follows: a. Faux bark treatments shall be applied to the pole b. Antenna and equipment shall be concealed to blend in with the tree branches. c. The tree shape and height shall substantially match the design aesthetic shown in the photo -simulation, i.e. a natural conical tree from base to tip. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED13-049 & UP13-027 Page 7 d. Tree branches at the antennas shall extend past the antenna array to help conceal the equipment from view. e. All colors and finishes shall be non -reflective. 5. The development may be subject to review and approval by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. If applicable, this approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permits. If airport safety lighting is required to be placed on the tree structure, the applicant shall be required to submit a request to amend the permit application to address this item. 6. All of the equipment associated with the facility shall be screened from view, as indicated on plans. Utility lines and extensions shall be placed within underground trenches. 7. This approval limits the height of the monopole to 50 -feet, which includes a 14 foot exception above the maximum 36 foot height limit established for the subject PD1909 Zoning District. No further height increase shall be permitted unless a design review permit amendment is submitted and approved by the City. 8. Cables, wiring, etc. running to the antennas and related equipment shall be concealed within the monopole structure (except for "jumpers" from the pole to the antenna). 9. New landscaping shall be provided to enhance the planter at the base of the tower. As noted in the Project Description above, the RRU units require fiber cabling that needs to run as close to the antennas as possible, with a short jumper to the antennas, in order to maximize RF transmission at the antennas. Placing the RRU's on the ground results in greater loss of signal strength, which is undesirable by the applicant. The conditions described above have been incorporated into the draft resolution (Exhibit 2). Chapter 22 — Use Permit The Planning commission will be required to make findings for approval of a Use Permit the project. In general, the project must be found to be in accord with the general plan and zoning ordinance, and not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. As proposed and conditioned, the use permit findings would be satisfied if the applicable design and development standards have been adequately addressed. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit The Planning commission must also make findings for major environmental and design review approval, which requires the recommendation of the Board. The following design criteria apply in addition to the wireless antenna criteria discussed above: ➢ There shall be a harmonious relationship between structures within the site. Proposed structures should be related accordant to existing development in the vicinity. ➢ Major views should be preserved and enhanced from public streets. ➢ Respect site features and constraints ➢ Utility connections shall be placed underground ➢ Materials and colors should be consistent with the context of the surroundings, with use of earthtone/woodtones and low reflectivity. Site has distant views of significant hillsides to the south and Mt. Tamalpais to the west. Based on the provided photo -simulations faux pine tree does not appear to materially alter the views, and should result in an inconspicuous facility installation. No further design issues identified. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED13-049 & UP13-027 Page 8 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION On February 4, the Design Review Board reviewed the project, with PC member Gerald Belletto, liaison. Specifically, staff asked the Board consider the following design issues: • Whether the faux pine tree monopole design is acceptable where located and as proposed. • Whether the height should be reduced to comply with the standard 36 foot building height limit for a single -carrier monopole. • Whether the staff recommended conditions are adequate. • That the RRU units location or placement should be further modified to minimize visual impact. The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission, with recommendations that the proposed antenna and radio remote units be concealed within a "pine sock" concealment and that the faux tree shall be more realistic in appearance, substantially matching the aesthetic of the photo -simulation and photos presented to the Board (e.g., Campo Verde), and to require enhancement of the landscape planter at the base of the tower. The Board was satisfied with the RRU's placed on the pole as presented, with concealment in the pine sock. The applicant had raised concerns with draft recommended conditions, which staff advised should be addressed prior to approval of the project by the Planning Commission. The Board meeting can be viewed online at: http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts construction of small strucures on an existing developed lot is not in environmentally sensitive area. At the Board meeting the PC liaison raised a question regarding potential impacts of RFR emissions on wildlife. While this is considered to fall outside of the City purview, the applicant has provided a biological evaluation prepared for the site (Exhibit 6). The report does not address the specific concern raised with respect to RFR impacts on birds that may roost in the branches in front of the antenna. However, the FCC has established that health effects related to RFR emissions are subject to its authority and the City may not regulate facilities other than to assure compliance with the FCC established thresholds. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE Consistent with the City noticing requirements of Chapter 14.29, a notice of the public hearing was mailed at least 15 days prior to all meetings on this project, including the subject hearing, to surrounding residents and property owners within 500 feet of the project site. A public hearing sign was also posted at the entrance to the site, at the access driveway at Smith Ranch Road. In addition, on February 12, 2014 the City sent an email notification to Marin County Counsel to inform them of the use permit request. There have not been any written comments submitted on the proposal to date. 191i9[SP►6I The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the applications as presented. 2. Approve the application with conditions of approval (staff recommended). 3. Approve the application with additional modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED13-049 & UP13-027 Page 9 4. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's comments or concerns 5. Deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised resolution. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution of Approval 3. Application Submittal Letter & RRU Justification Email 4. Coverage Maps 5. RFR Report 6. Biological Evaluation 7. Photo -simulations (color exhibits provided to the PC members) 8. Project plans (11x17 size plans provided to the PC members) cc: AT&T Mobile, c/o Laurie Robinson San Rafael Airport, Attn.: R Herbst LLC 400 Smith Ranch Rd, San Rafael, CA 94901 [This page intentionally blank] Exhibit I - Vicinity Map (400 Smith Ranch Road - AT&T Monopole) t-------------------- c4j ROAD AIN ------------- ER------------- CIV SCALE 1 :5,703 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 FEET FA Monday, January 27, 2014 12:32 PM # SCALE 1 :5,703 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 FEET FA Monday, January 27, 2014 12:32 PM [This page intentionally blank] Exhibit 2 RESOLUTION NO. 14 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED13-049)AND USE PERMIT (UPI3-027)FOR A NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, CONSISTING OF A FIFTY -FOOT (50') TALL FAUX PINE TREE TOWER SUPPORT STRUCTURE FOR ANTENNAS AND A GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE, LOCATED ADJACENT TO EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES AT 397-400 SMITH RANCH ROAD APN: 155-230-11 WHEREAS, on July 13, 2013, AT&T submitted an application for a new 43 -foot tall monopole to support support six (6) antennas for a new wireless communications facility; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2013, in consideration of recommendations made by City staff that the proposal should be revised as a building mounted facility, which the applicant determined it could not successfully pursue due to solar panels placed on the building rooftops, AT&T submitted revised application materials for a 50 -foot tall faux pine tower to support a wireless communications facility at the subject site. The revised facility proposed up to nine (9) antennas and 24 radio remote units on the faux tree tower; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2014, staff accepted the revised application materials received for a stealth monopole "faux pine" tower facility as complete for processing, pursuant to the submittal requirements contained in SRMC Section 14.16.360.C; 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 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts construction of small structures; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2014, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the project and on a unanimous vote recommended approval, with conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission makes the following findings relating to the Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit: Use Permit Findings (UP13-027) A. The Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and determined that the Class 3 categorical exemption for the project is appropriate and consistent with the provisions of CEQA in that the project involves construction of a monopole structure located on a commercially developed site area that is not archaeologically, historically or environmentally sensitive in nature. Exhibit 2 - PC Resolution (AT&T Monopole) February 25, 2104 B. The use is in accord with the General Plan. The Project is consistent with General Plan 2020 Policy I-15, which states that the City should "ensure that residents, schools, businesses and organizations have access to reliable, modern and cost-effective telecommunications. The project would be consistent with Policy OS -6 which discourages placement of utilities in open space, and Policy CD -5 which encourages review of projects to ensure they would respect and enhance important community views and view sheds. No other pertinent policies or potential conflicts have been identified. C. The use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, including Chapters 14.16 and 14.25, in that the project would promote pertinent goals of the general plan as discussed in the above Finding B, wireless facilities may be considered in any zoning district subject to review of the design for compliance with San Rafael Municipal Code Chapters 14.16 and 14.25 to assure compatibility with the underlying zoning district and surrounding uses and stealth design requirements, and noticing and public review have been required to provide for effective citizen participation in the decision-making process. D. The use is in accord and complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance in that: a. The site is located within an established Planned Development (PD 1909) zoning district. Development of minor ancillary structures associated with the permitted uses on the site, including wireless facilities which may be permitted in any zoning district, may be considered through the design review process consistent with the provisions of the adopted PD 1909 district standards. b. As proposed, the project has been determined to be require Planning Commission review and approval of a Use Permit and Environmental Design Review Permit with the recommendation of the Design Review Board, pursuant to the City of San Rafael Wireless communications facilities regulations, Section's 14.16.360.B., .C, .D.3.a, and .G. c. The applicable Section 14.16.360.H design requirements have been appropriately applied and considered through concurrent design review of project plans, materials and photo -simulations, to assure that the new ground -mounted facility and associated base station would be designed in a stealth manner integrated into its setting through the use of a faux tree form, located on a commercially developed site, and respecting and avoiding sensitive locations and viewsheds. d. Based on the proposed faux tree stealth design concept and inability to locate new equipment on existing buildings on the commercially developed site, the proposal was generally accepted as the best available solution for this location to achieve the coverage objectives of the applicant and, therefore, an alternative design analysis was not required to show whether any alternative locations or design solutions would be available that would result in a more successful design solution. e. The applicable Section 14.16.360.I development standards would be addressed through, i) concurrent review and consideration of an exception to the subject properties 36 foot height limit (as part of the design review process), and ii) the fact that the tower would not be placed within 200 feet of a residential structure. -2- f. The applicable Section 14.16.360 J, K, L and M requirements regarding lighting, landscaping, noise and radiofrequency radiation have been adequately addressed. The design and location as presented would not create any objectionable noise or glare, and the Site Safe RF compliance report prepared for the site (CNU0655) by John Wong on 8.9.13, has confirmed that the facility would operate in compliance with FCC and OSHA safety regulations for RFR emission and pose no health risk to the public, or to persons in the area, with a requirement for posting of standard signage at the facility. g. The project would include conditions of approval that would incorporate the standard post approval requirements contained in Section 14.16.360.N. h. The project has been subject to review for compliance with Chapter 14.25, and each of the applicable design review criteria. E. The use together with the conditions of approval will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity or the general welfare of the city given that the project has been reviewed by the appropriate departments and agencies, and must obtain separate building permits to assure the facility is designed and constructed in compliance with building codes, and would operate within established FCC standards and thresholds for RFR emissions exposure. Environmental and Design Review Findings (ED13-049) A. The project design as proposed and conditioned is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25 (Design Review) given that the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for compliance with the wireless facility design criteria in Chapter 14.16.360.1-1 and the criteria in Chapter 25 that are intended to assure the proposed monopole tower design would be compatible and appropriate in the subject location. Further, the exception to allow a 14 foot increase above the 36 foot height limit would accommodate the faux tree form and allow the carrier to meet its coverage objectives with antennas at approximately 43 feet in elevation. The faux tree design would mitigate the visual impact of the proposed tall monopole structure, as proposed at this remote and developed airport facility location. B. As discussed in Use Permit UPI 3-027 Finding D and ED13-049 Finding A above, it has been determined that the project design would be consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the PD district in which the site is located. C. As conditioned, the project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts, and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity given that the project has been reviewed by the appropriate agencies and conditioned accordingly, is located in a commercial area away from residential structures, and is not in an environmentally senstive location. -3- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael approves the Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit subject to the following conditions of approval: Use Permit Conditions of Approval (UPI3-027) Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. This approval permits establishment of a wireless communications facility tower with a maximum height of fifty -foot (50') designed to resemble a pine tree, and supporting wireless antenna and equipment, and with an associated base equipment enclosure, as indicated on plans approved under concurrent ED13-049. 2. This use permit approval shall be valid for an initial period of one (1) year during which time the applicant shall secure all necessary permits for construction, including City building permits, and pursue construction diligently to completion. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the operator (AT&T Mobile) shall provide a statement that it, and its future successors, will cooperate with the City to allow future co -location of antennas at the proposed site. 4. Within 45 days of commencement of operations the operator of the wireless communications facility shall provide the community development department with a report, prepared by a qualified expert, indicating that the actual RFR levels of the operating facility measured at the nearest point of public access in the direction of the maximum radiation from each antenna is in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR. 5. The wireless communications facility operator (AT&T and its successors) shall participate in measurement by the City of RFR of the facility, on a schedule established by the City (currently on a 5 year cycle). The operator shall bear their proportionate cost of testing. 6. The operator of the facility shall notify the City if the facility is abandoned, and shall remove the facility within ninety (90) days of termination of use. 7. The operator shall promptly report any changes affecting RFR to the City, and shall malce any upgrades necessary to comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR. The operator shall notify the City in writing within ninety (90) days after notification of any revised FCC standards and that the upgrades have been completed. Environmental and Design Review Permit Conditions of Approval (ED13-049) Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. This Design Review Permit (ED13-049) shall be valid for one (1) year from approval or until February 25, 2015, and shall be null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension granted prior to the expiration date. 2. A building permit shall be required for installation of the facility. The building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of this project, as presented for approval by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2014, shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit, and consisting of the following: a. New 50 -foot tall faux pine tree (mono -pole) supporting up to nine (9) panel antennas and 24 Remote Radio Units (RRU's), with the antenna approximately 43 feet above grade and RRU units approximately 35 feet above grade; and Ground mounted equipment placed in a 12 -foot by 16 -foot enclosed lease area adjacent to existing buildings on the San Rafael Airport property. The new faux pine tree monopole support structure shall be placed within an existing landscape planter along the west edge of the unpaved access road (closest to the buildings). Landscaping within the existing planter at the base of the tower shall be enhanced. Details shall be provided with plans submitted for building permits, subject to final review and approval by the Planning Division. 4. This approval limits the height of the monopole to 50 -feet, which includes a 14 foot exception above the maximum 36 foot height limit established for the subject PDI 909 Zone District. No further height increase shall be permitted unless a design review permit amendment is submitted and approved by the City. 5. Plans submitted for building permit shall show all utility lines shall be placed with underground trenches to connect to existing electrical service and new equipment. No new offsite above grade utility equipment are indicated or approved. 6. The project details shall be shown on plans submitted for building permit to implement the project as presented on plans, photo -simulations and colors and materials exhibit, as follows: a. Faux bark treatments shall be applied to the pole. b. Antenna and radio remote unit (RRU) equipment shall be concealed within a pine "sock" to blend in with the tree branches. c. The tree shape and height shall substantially match the design aesthetic shown in the photo -simulation, i.e. a natural conical tree from base to tip. d. Tree branches at the antennas shall extend past the antenna array to help conceal the equipment from view. e. All colors and finishes shall be non -reflective. f. Cables, wiring, etc. running to the antennas and related equipment shall be concealed within the monopole structure (except for "jumpers" from the pole to the antenna) 7. The development may be subject to review and approval by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. If Caltrans or FAA approval is required, this shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permits. Further, if airport safety lighting is required to be placed on the tree structure, the applicant shall amend the ED permit approval and modify the project to address this requirement or eliminate the need for any such lighting on the structure. -5- 8. All of the equipment associated with the facility shall be screened from view, as indicated on plans. Utility lines and extensions shall be placed within underground trenches. 9. Construction activities shall comply with City's Noise Ordinance. 10. If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources) work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. The City of San Rafael Planning Division and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on-site. When contacted, the project planner and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery. 11. Any future additions, expansions, remodeling, etc., shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting held on the 25'" day of February, 2014. Moved by Commissioner AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS and seconded by Commissioner SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Paul A. Jensen, Secretary mom John (Jack) Robertson, Chair Exhibit 3 July 22, 2013 Sarjit Dhaliwal, PhD, AICP City of San Rafael Community Development Department Planning Division 1400 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Subject; Proposed AT&T Mobility Tower CNU0655 at San Raphael Airport Dear Mr. Dhaliwal, Blue Licenses Holding, LLC/New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility ("AT&T) is a registered public utility, licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). As a public utility, AT&T Mobility is mandated by the FCC to provide wireless communication services throughout California. AT&T is dedicated to providing customers with wireless technology designed to enrich their lives as their mobility is increasing. AT&T's vision is to simplify the wireless experience for its consumer and business customers by offering easy -to - understand, affordable rate plans and excellent customer service. AT&T is bringing next -generation wireless data products —from corporate e-mail to downloadable ringtones — all for customers nationwide through its advanced networks. The network performance goals include providing the best quality, lowest level of blocking, easy access to the network and continuous drop -free connections. AT&T's wireless network is based on GSM and UMTS technology. These technologies are wireless communication standards that require re -using specific frequencies across defined frequency bands. Due to the need for frequency reuse, GSM and UMTS require numerous sites to provide customers with suitable signal strength to deliver services. These sites are typically built on existing buildings, lattice towers and freestanding poles in order to provide a network of sites that provide seamless coverage over an area. In addition to these 3G wireless service gap issues; AT&T is in the process of deploying its 4G LTE service in San Raphael with the goal of providing the most advanced personal wireless experience available to the City's residents. Efforts are currently underway in San Raphael to establish the required infrastructure. AT&T has retained the services of DSI to facilitate the land use entitlement process. AT&T is currently seeking the review and approval of a Site Plan Review Application to allow the construction, operation and maintenance of an unmanned Wireless Telecommunications Facility at the (proposed facility) San Raphael Airport located at 400 Smith Ranch Road. Development Systems Incorporated 6368 N. Figarden Drive, Suite 113 Fresno, CA 93722 Exhibit .3 - Application illstif catio AT&T Monopole Projec February 25, 2014 PC Meetin This project is proposed to close a significant service coverage gap and enhance wireless services in the area surrounding the site. AT&T's service coverage area in the city must be improved to handle the growing number of voice calls and wireless data usage. The project will consist of the installation of a new equipment shelter mounted to a new concrete pad for AT&T equipment. Inside the shelter there will be (9) Remote Radio Units, 36 Coax cables. Outside the shelter there will be fiber lines and DC power lines that run to the radio units in the shelter. Six (6) Antennas (two per sector) will be mounted atop a 43' proposed slim line flag pole. This particular design to have an additional pole (vs. collocated) is at the request of the landlord at the airport. The airport has limited space available close to its structures due to solar arrays that have been installed. Once Constructed and Operational, the proposed facility will provide 24-hour service to customers seven (7) days a week. Aside from the initial construction, AT&T will periodically service the facility. It is reasonable to expect that routine maintenance/inspection of the facility will occur about once a month during normal business hours. Beyond this intermittent service, AT&T requires 24-hour access to the proposed facility to ensure that technical support is immediately available if and when required. Mr. Dhaliwal, please accept this submittal package on behalf of AT&T. You should find that it is all inclusive with exception of a geotechnical report at the direction of Bechtel Communications. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (559)304-4300. Thank you. Sincerely, Perry Novak DWEI.OPMENT SYSUMS INCORPORATED 6368 N. Figarden Dr., Suite 113 Fresno, CA 93722 Office - 559,800. 7676 Cell - 559.304.4300 Fax - 559.272.6432 Perr.y@devclol2tnentsysteinsiiic.com Development Systems Incorporated 6368 N. Figarden Drive, Suite 113 Fresno, CA 93722 Kraig Tambornini From: Laurie Robinson<laurie@developmentsystemsinc.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 8:07 AM To: Kraig Tambornini Subject: Justification to have the RRU's closer to the Antennas for San Rafael Airport Importance: High Good morning Kraig, In the evolution to advance 3G and 4G services, we need to bring fiber to the top of the tower. Next -generation, fiber - fed architectures are quickly becoming the standard design for NSB and Mod projects. These new fiber -to -the -antenna (FTTA) architectures leverage tower mounted radios to deliver a number of benefits over traditional coaxial -based systems. • Better Signal Integrity (as much as 50% loss can occur with coaxial cable vs. FTTA) • Increased Energy Efficiency o As the frequency of the radio signal rises, the corresponding signal losses in the coaxial feeder increase. In the worst cases, twice as much signal must be injected into the feeder coax as is needed to propagate out from the antenna. The radio frequency (RF) power amplifier in the base station is one of the lease efficient components of the system, and much of the extra energy required to drive RF power up hard-line coax is simply wasted as heat. This, in turn drives up the energy costs even more because active cooling systems such as AC are needed to keep the equipment within its operating temperature ranges. Cooling typically accounts for 25% of a tower's energy use. With a remote radio system, the RF power amplifier is located in the RRU. The tower -mounted RRU is cooled by ambient air flow, eliminating or decreasing the need for active cooling in the base station and saving energy. Increased Capacity and Coverage Smaller Footprint o FTTA systems consume less space because the fiber cable is many times thinner and carries more signal than coaxial feeder cable. A fiber -fed system lessens, or at least doesn't add to coaxial congestion (multiple carriers on one tower using coax cable) and tower loading issues (requiring drop and swap expansions for future collocation), which reduces physical complexity and minimizing visual impact (placing coax cable on the exterior of the tower- due to multiple carriers on the same tower using coax cable). Thanks! Laurie Laurie Robinson, LEED AP DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS INCORPORATED 6368 N. Figarden Dr., Suite 113 Fresno, CA 93722 Office - 559.800.7676 Cell - 559.704.8849 Fax - 559.272.6432 Laurie@developmentsystemsinc.com [This page intentionally blank] RECEIVED JU[ 3 7 2013 PLANNING Exhibit 4 — Coverage Mar AT&T Monopole Projec Februaf y 25, 2014 PC Meetin m ■ w, x O g g /� V C \ Y a m o � a M H a0 (DD N A mz (D m n m 1 X f+ O n C 3 Ln 0 n 0 m 0 0 c� • 1 1 r� I X O 7 7 a B rt C C mO � 41 D. D o IA H (AV)CL m fND f1 (D M n m ■ 1 16 ' m ■ '0 O .O.w Yl O. 00 V1 O n O M i r+ n z c O ai Ul Oe w O m rt u V Bechtel Communication on behalf of AT&T Mobilitv. LLC Site ID - CNUO655 USID -136070 Site Name - Smith Ranch Road Site Compliance Report 400 Smith Ranch Road San Rafael. CA 94903 Latitude: N38-0-58.07 Lonaitude: W1 22-31-31.40 Structure Tvpe: Monopole Report aenerated date: Auaust 7, 2013 Report bv: Tonv DeMattia Customer Contact: John Wona AT&T Mobility. LLC Will Be Compliant based on FCC Rules and Reaulations. © 2013 Sitesafe, Inc. Arlinaton, VA %RHES C� G�,P OTT ww Q NO. 18838 EXP. 06/30/2015 AtE DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS 25738 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Status Code: Accaoted-.Mh,,d- or -comment., 1 —trudW m oceed 2 N t Acceoled - PI.— re d" comment. erd resubmit nv JOM\'Iona .•?/13 David Charles Cotton. Jr. V Registered Professional Engineer (Electrical) State of California. 18838. EXnires 30 -Jun -2015 Date: 2013 -August -08 Exhibit S — RFR Repo AT&T Monopole Pi-ojec Febiwaiy 25, 2014 PC feetin 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 2 of 28 .4slSlr�`sa e rf compliance experts Bechtel Communication on behalf of AT&T Mobility, LLC Smith Ranch Road - CNU0655 Radio Frequency (RF) Site Compliance Report 400 Smith Ranch Road, San Rafael, CA 94903 200 N. Glebe Road 9 Suite 1000 m Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 . info@sitesafe.com 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 3 of 28 Esitesafe rf compliance experts Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................3 2 REGULATORY BASIS...........................................................................................4 2.1 FCC RULES AND REGULATIONS............................................................................4 2.2 OSHA STATEMENT..............................................................................................5 3 SITE COMPLIANCE.............................................................................................6 3.1 SITE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT.............................................................................. 6 3.2 ACTIONS FOR SITE COMPLIANCE.......................................................................... 6 4 SAFETY PLAN AND PROCEDURES......................................................................7 5 ANALYSIS........................................................................................................... 8 5.1 RF EMISSIONS DIAGRAM.....................................................................................8 6 ANTENNA INVENTORY.....................................................................................10 7 ENGINEER CERTIFICATION..............................................................................13 APPENDIX A - STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS.........................................14 APPENDIX B - ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS..................................................15 GENERAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................... 15 USE OF GENERIC ANTENNAS......................................................................................... 15 DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................. 16 APPENDIX C - RULES & REGULATIONS...................................................................18 EXPLANATION OF APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS .................................................. 18 OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENT EXPLAINED.................................................................... 18 APPENDIX D - GENERAL SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................19 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION...........................................................................................20 200 N. Glebe Road a Suite 1000 a Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com �1 sire �c� rf compliance experts 1 Executive Summary 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 4 of 28 Bechtel Communication on behalf of AT&T Mobility, LLC has contracted with Sitesafe, Inc. (Sitesafe), an independent Radio Frequency (RF) regulatory and engineering consulting firm, to determine whether the proposed communications site, CNU0655 - Smith Ranch Road, located at 400 Smith Ranch Road, San Rafael, CA, is in compliance with Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Rules and Regulations for RF emissions. This report contains a detailed summary of the RF environment at the site including: • diagram of the site; • inventory of the make / model of all antennas • theoretical MPE based on modeling. Project Description: This is an application for a new unmanned AT&T Mobility LLC facility consisting of the installation and operation of antennas and associated equipment. AT&T Mobility LLC is proposing to install outdoor equipment, one (1) surge protector dome unit, nine (9) radio remote units (RRUS-11), and two (2) GPS antennas on ground level. Six (6) panel antennas are to be installed on a proposed stealth flagpole. This report addresses exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields in accordance with the FCC Rules and Regulations for all individuals, classified in two groups, "Occupational or Controlled" and "General Public or Uncontrolled." This site will be compliant with the FCC rules and regulations, as described in OET Bulletin 65. This document and the conclusions herein are based on the information provided by AT&T Mobility, LLC. If you have any questions regarding RF safety and regulatory compliance, please do not hesitate to contact Sitesafe's Customer Support Department at (703) 276- 1100. The following information was used in the creation of this report: RFDS: 25736-635-AA-CNU0655 RFDS_V1 1 2013-06-18 Approved CD: 25736-635-AA-CNU0655 ZO1 RevB Master Redlines ERP: Sitesafe assumed a 60 watt transmit power output per LTE carrier and a 40 watt transmit power output per UMTS carrier. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 3 Esitesafe rf compliance experts 2 Regulatory Basis 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 5 of 28 2.1 FCC Rules and Regulations In 1996, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) adopted regulations for the evaluating of the effects of RF emissions in 47 CFR § 1.1307 and 1.1310. The guideline from the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology is Bulletin 65 ("OET Bulletin 65"), Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Edition 97-01, published August 1997. Since 1996 the FCC periodically reviews these rules and regulations as per their congressional mandate. FCC regulations define two separate tiers of exposure limits: Occupational or "Controlled environment" and General Public or "Uncontrolled environment". The General Public limits are generally five times more conservative or restrictive than the Occupational limit. These limits apply to accessible areas where workers or the general public may be exposed to Radio Frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. Occupational or Controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and where those persons exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. An area is considered a Controlled environment when access is limited to these aware personnel. Typical criteria are restricted access (i.e. locked or alarmed doors, barriers, etc.) to the areas where antennas are located coupled with proper RF warning signage. A site with Controlled environments is evaluated with Occupational limits. All other areas are considered Uncontrolled environments. If a site has no access controls or no RF warning signage it is evaluated with General Public limits. The theoretical modeling of the RF electromagnetic fields has been performed in accordance with OET Bulletin 65. The Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits utilized in this analysis are outlined in the following diagram: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Plane -wave Equivalent Power Density 0.01 1 – 10 100 1,000 10,000 Frequency (MHz) 200 N. Glebe Road . Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 4 1000 —Occupational General Public aE 100 o \ E 10 \ T \ N \ C \ a 0.1 0.01 1 – 10 100 1,000 10,000 Frequency (MHz) 200 N. Glebe Road . Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 4 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 6 of 28 Esitesafe rf compliance experts Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure (MPE) Frequency Electric Magnetic Power Averaging Time JE 12, Range Field Field Density IH 12 or S (minutes) (MHz) Strength (E) Strength (S) (Vhn) (H) (A/m) (mW/cm2) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/1' (900/f')* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-1500 -- - f/300 6 1500- -- - 5 6 100,000 Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure (MPE) Frequency Electric Magnetic Power Averaging Time JE 12, Range Field Field Density IH 12 or S (minutes) (MHz) Strength (E) Strength (S) (V/in) (H) (A/m) (mW/cm2) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/9)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-1500 -- - f/1500 30 1500- -- - 1.0 30 100,000 f = frequency in MHz *Plane -wave equivalent power density 2.2 OSHA Statement The General Duty clause of the OSHA Act (Section 5) outlines the occupational safety and health responsibilities of the employer and employee. The General Duty clause in Section 5 states: (a) Each employer (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees; (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act. (b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct. OSHA has defined Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation safety standards for workers who may enter hazardous RF areas. Regulation Standards 29 CFR § 1910.147 identify a generic Lock Out Tag Out procedure aimed to control the unexpected energization or start up of machines when maintenance or service is being performed. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 5 Ms*resafe rf compliance experts 3 Site Compliance 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 7 of 28 3.1 Site Compliance Statement Upon evaluation of the cumulative RF emission levels from all operators at this site, Sitesafe has determined that: This site will be compliant with the FCC rules and regulations, as described in OET Bulletin 65. The compliance determination is based on theoretical modeling, RF signage placement recommendations, proposed antenna inventory and the level of restricted access to the antennas at the site. Any deviation from the AT&T Mobility, LLC's proposed deployment plan could result in the site being rendered non- compliant. 3.2 Actions for Site Compliance Based on common industry practice and our understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, this section provides a statement of recommendations for site compliance. RF alert signage recommendations have been proposed based on theoretical analysis of MPE levels. Barriers can consist of locked doors, fencing, railing, rope, chain, paint striping or tape, combined with RF alert signage. This site will be compliant with the FCC rules and regulations. Sitesafe found one or more issues that led to our determination. The site will be made compliant if the following changes are implemented: AT&T Mobility LLC Monopole Base Access Location Information Sign 1 required, in English. Information Sign 1 required, in Spanish. Note: AT&T Mobility LLC must implement an RF Safety plan to support any work to be done on the adjacent building rooftop. The RF Safety plan must provide contact information for the maintenance personnel to coordinate a maintenance window with AT&T Mobility LLC prior to starting any work T -Mobile Monopole Base Access Location Yellow caution sign required. MetroPCS Antenna Location Blue notice sign required. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 6 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 8 of 28 Esitesafe r compliance experts 4 Safety Plan and Procedures The following items are general safety recommendations that should be administered on a site by site basis as needed by the carrier. General Maintenance Work: Any maintenance personnel required to work immediately in front of antennas and / or in areas indicated as above 100% of the Occupational MPE limits should coordinate with the wireless operators to disable transmitters during their work activities. Trainina and Qualification Verification: All personnel accessing areas indicated as exceeding the General Population MPE limits should have a basic understanding of EME awareness and RF Safety procedures when working around transmitting antennas. Awareness training increases a workers understanding to potential RF exposure scenarios. Awareness can be achieved in a number of ways (e.g. videos, formal classroom lecture or internet based courses). Physical Access Control: Access restrictions to transmitting antennas locations is the primary element in a site safety plan. Examples of access restrictions are as follows: • Locked door or gate • Alarmed door • Locked ladder access • Restrictive Barrier at antenna (e.g. Chain link with posted RF Sign) RF Signage: Everyone should obey all posted signs at all times. RF signs play an important role in properly warning a worker prior to entering into a potential RF Exposure area. Assume all antennas are active: Due to the nature of telecommunications transmissions, an antenna transmits intermittently. Always assume an antenna is transmitting. Never stop in front of an antenna. If you have to pass by an antenna, move through as quickly and safely as possible thereby reducing any exposure to a minimum. Maintain a 3 foot clearance from all antennas: There is a direct correlation between the strength of an EME field and the distance from the transmitting antenna. The further away from an antenna, the lower the corresponding EME field is. Site RF Emissions Diagram: Section 5 of this report contains an RF Diagram that outlines various theoretical Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) areas at the site. The modeling is a worst case scenario assuming a duty cycle of 100% for each transmitting antenna at full power. This analysis is based on one of two access control criteria: General Public criteria means the access to the site is uncontrolled and anyone can gain access. Occupational criteria means the access is restricted and only properly trained individuals can gain access to the antenna locations. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 7 msile, afe r compliance experts 5 Analysis 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 9 of 28 5.1 RF Emissions Diagram The RF diagram(s) below display theoretical spatially averaged percentage of the Maximum Permissible Exposure for all systems at the site unless otherwise noted. These diagrams use modeling as prescribed in OET Bulletin 65 and assumptions detailed in Appendix B. a) Composite Exposure Levels • Gray represents areas predicted to be at 5% of the MPE limits, or below. • Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 100% of the MPE limits. • Blue represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 500% of the MPE limits. • Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 500% and 5000% of the MPE limits. • Red areas indicated predicted levels greater than 5000% of the MPE limits. The theoretical analysis identified the maximum predicted MPE levels to be: Maximum Theoretical General Public or Uncontrolled MPE level: 300.0% Maximum Theoretical Occupational or Controlled MPE Level: 60.0% AT&T Maximum Theoretical General Public or Uncontrolled MPE level: 300.0% AT&T Maximum Theoretical Occupational or Controlled MPE level: 60.0% General Population diagrams are specified when an area is accessible to the public; i.e. personnel that do not meet Occupational or RF Safety trained criteria, could gain access. If trained occupational personnel require access to areas that are delineated as Blue or above 100% of the limit, Sitesafe recommends that they utilize the proper personal protection equipment (RF monitors), coordinate with the carriers to reduce or shutdown power, or make real-time power density measurements with the appropriate power density meter to determine real-time MPE levels. This will allow the personnel to ensure that their work area is within exposure limits. The key at the bottom also indicates the level or height of the modeling with respect to the main level. The origin is typically referenced to the main rooftop level, or ground level for a structure without access to the antenna level. For example: Average from 0 feet above to 6 feet above origin and Average from 20 feet above to 26 feet above origin The first indicates modeling at the main rooftop (or ground) level averaged over 6 feet. The second indicates modeling at a higher level (possibly a penthouse level) of 20 feet averaged over 6 feet. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 8 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 10 of 28 Esitesafe rf compllonce experts Abbreviations used in the RF Emissions Diagrams PH=##' I Penthouse at ## feet above main roof Additional Information in the RF Emissions Diagrams Key The RF emissions diagram provides indications of RF signage, barriers and locked doors. The table below lists the abbreviations used to indicate locked doors, signs and barriers: 200 N. Glebe Road . Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203.3728 703.276.1100 a info@sitesafe.com Page 9 Table 1: RF Signage and Barrier Ke RF Signage Barriers Type Existing Location Recommended Location Type Existing Location Recommended Location Notice NE NR Locked Door LE LR Caution CE CR Fencing RE RR Warning WE WR Rope Chain Info Sign 1 HE 11 R Paint Stripes Info Sign 2 12E 12R Tape Info Sign 3 13E 13R Info Sign 4 14E 14R NOC Information I INOCE INOCR 10 Step Guideline I LOSE 10SR 200 N. Glebe Road . Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203.3728 703.276.1100 a info@sitesafe.com Page 9 1SIlL` www.sitesafe.com Sitesafe ID# 113747 Site Name: Smith Ranch Road 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 11 of 28 RF Emissions Diagram for: Smith Ranch Road Ground Level T -MOBIL 13 Al / i [ZI IMMEOf s=Mmf: -MMMF -MMt4405 11 R % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Average from 0 feet above to 6 feet above origin 5000 <= X 500 <= X < 5000 100<=X<500 5<=X<100 X<=5 Feet 30 0 30 60 Grid Size is 10.0 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 12 of 28 RF Emissions Diagram for: Smith Ranch Road Rooftop Level 15' lsite�>� ifs www.sitesafe.com Sitesafe ID# 113747 Site Name: Smith Ranch Road s-tus.fwmY_Iq aryi-nav llo�l9sxs� wef Ms�ua pemxt 69'Nt TL' Vescn UrursAtle % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Average from 15 feet above to 21 feet above origin ® 5000 <= X ❑ 500 <= X < 5000 100<=X<500 ® 5<=X<100 ❑ X<=5 Feet 30 0 30 60 Grid Size is 10.0 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 13 of 28 RF Emissions Diagram for: Smith Ranch Road Rooftop Level 27' III site -- i. it_ www.sitesafe.com Sitesafe ID# 113747 Site Name: Smith Ranch Road % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Average from 27 feet above to 33 feet above origin Feet 30 0 30 60 Grid Size is 10.0 5000 <= X ❑ 500 <= X < 5000 100<=X<500 ® 5<=X<100 ❑ X<=5 Feet 30 0 30 60 Grid Size is 10.0 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 14 of 28 RF Emissions Diagram for: Smith Ranch Road Side Elevation ,site www.sitesafe.com Sitesafe ID# 113747 Site Name: Smith Ranch Road % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Individual Points 5000 <= X ❑ 500 <= X < 5000 100<=X<500 ® 5<=X<100 ❑ X<=5 Feet 20 0 20 40 Grid Size is 10.0 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 15 of 28 RF Emissions Diagram for: Smith Ranch Road AT&T Mobil;ity LLC Contribution Ground Level A At AMI .A®®I MEN I NEW '101' .wrrdlllif�t [IR > ROOFTO T -MOBILE \� kite www.sitesafe.com Sitesafe ID# 113747 Site Name: Smith Ranch Road &T 5 ROOFT P 15 % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Average from 0 feet above to 6 feet above origin 0 5000 <= X �i 500 <= X < 5000 100<=X<500 5<=X<100 ❑ X<=5 Feet 30 0 30 60 Grid Size is 10.0 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 16 of 28 RF Emissions Diagram for: Smith Ranch Road AT&T Mobility LLC Contribution Rooftop Level 15' kite www.sitesafe.com Sitesafe ID# 113747 Site Name: Smith Ranch Road seiryfmmmeky reuss�n Mad ty Sersa4 ysorvn F_ _ mk.�mnoa F.gev �-r<�o31v t1oa. a1oi TCYesbn umaabe % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Average from 15 feet above to 21 feet above origin N 5000 <= X �' 500 <= X < 5000 100<=X<500 r 5<=X<100 X<=5 Feet 30 0 30 60 Grid Size is 10.0 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 17 of 28 RF Emissions Diagram for: Smith Ranch Road AT&T Mobility LLC Contribution Rooftop Level 27' 1SIl25Caf E_, www.sitesafe.com Sitesafe ID# 113747 Site Name: Smith Ranch Road % of FCC Public Exposure Limit Average from 27 feet above to 33 feet above origin E 5000 <= X ❑ 500 <= X < 5000 100<=X<500 5<=X<100 ❑ X<=5 Feet 30 0 30 60 Grid Size is 10.0 m,*N,si1e.-----)afe r compliance experts 6 Antenna Inventory 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 18 of 28 The Antenna Inventory shows all transmitting antennas at the site. This inventory was provided by the customer, and was utilized by Sitesafe to perform theoretical modeling of RF emissions. The inventory coincides with the site diagrams in this report, identifying each antenna's location at CNUO655 - Smith Ranch Road. The antenna information collected includes the following information: • Licensee or wireless operator name • Frequency or frequency band • Transmitter power- Effective Radiated Power ("ERP"), or Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power ("EIRP") in Watts • Antenna manufacturer make, model, and gain For other carriers at this site, the use of "Generic" as an antenna model, or "Unknown" for an operator means the information with regard to carrier, their FCC license and/or antenna information was not available nor could it be secured while on site. Equipment, antenna models and nominal transmit power were used for modeling, based on past experience with radio service providers. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 10 Qq co C4 M 0 N ch OT -c, -,o cn O O c7 ch O O Zn znn O in O m V m m V V m co 0, N I N m N C - - a >. VV 10 -,o'o V V 'O •— �O ^ 'o CV 'O CV 'o r- '0 'O 'o 'o O O zn O (-) 07 Co (`') - fn (Y)N O U O J w � O Ol 0 00 00 co 'V N N N zozo Co 00 zn w w oo � t 3v` c oO 3 Ln Ln Lr) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Un LO Un U) Ln -0 -,o -0 '0 -o 'o '0 'o '0 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o o '0 '0 '0 0 w£ =m c .. N N N N N O O N N N O 7d5 N O N N O N O N N a� IL m m o� a_ Q- 0- 0- 0- 0 -Cl- IL IL 0- a_° a_° a_ a_ V1 O VI O Vl O VI O Vl O In O vl O N O vl O vl O vl O N O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q D- 97- 9 e e 2 9 e E N J N J N J N J N J LU w w w w w w w w F- w F- w F-- w 0_ d 0 �D CN O N O N O N O N O N O Q Q - Q Q Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 i u'7 > 7) > Q Q Q Q Q I Q i Q i Q i Q i Q i Q Q O O O O O p O O i O O Ln Ln Ln Lr) Ln Ln Ln � U -)U �-)Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LO X X 06 O O 10 10 10 O 10 10 10 10 10 10 00 coLO _ C 10 LO 10 LO 10 LO 10 LO 10 LO 10 LO 1 LO LO 1 LO Lr) ' LO LX) LO LO Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ~ `O ~ 10 w' o o 0 0 3 3 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Q Q m m m m m m m m cn m m w w w C v> v) v) v) V) V) v) v) V)v> V) cn v> w Z w w Z Q w Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q M N in in LO LO Ln U') U-) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O O O O O Q Q r 0000 000 N w 10 O N N O O N N N a vv C C O V' O O V O— O V O 10 10 10 O O O O O co ('7 , 00 IO M �O 00 `O C7 IO O0 IO M M C7 — U -7 U C O Q CL O N O N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) N �O Ce) N �O I, N �O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W j 00 r� N V 00 r� N V M N V N N N N N N N N ('7 ( ) m LO U')LO v U v U v U ET U m w m w U_ m _U _J N J N ~ J N LLC Cv ^ p H ^ p N F- V ^ p �n F— ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ p O O ? O0 O LO O O 00 O 00 O 00 O O U O U U U U U U U U U U U U J J J J J J J J J J J J N N N N N UU U a) Q -Q -0 -0 -0 -Q o_ 0 w 0 a 0 -0 Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q F - Q Q N dm cn V' V �n �n �o �o I� a0 of O -::r,+-+-d N ch V co C4 M 0 \ 2 \-C\ \ �\\ 3=6E u ;o=e 0 LU ac: =2= /$\0 0) Q) g .2 c f » {{\0 \\/(® =�\°b /2{/> =o-§ /{) /--- @§ :REoo Cc—a , §>9oc ƒ\§A\ 2/00 Jo/§\ °\7\y /®G:f 5f9/° //\§\ G±cc J0DC0 eeeos 2ƒa:o :e§e 0- 022`/ :2�a= Q)}\\o 3z/c/ -C E t -C a) .0>0U oe \\{\$ \g==% .- 0)2- 592«0 (D -C- oc=ur q:2o- uf- 0 ©G/) �a/// =5e=[ §.96=0 »\`®\ k\//c o-0 g[{[-0 0 0 ze=2E § 0 8 04 � \ \ � \ 0 * \ )fie c»-^ N E 0 � ]� » ) > \ v ) \ k \ � ° k / 2 « D:f / z < 0 ( f c « / 2 0 )ice CD Ol LU \ / ƒ ) § 0 / 0 C 2 \-C\ \ �\\ 3=6E u ;o=e 0 LU ac: =2= /$\0 0) Q) g .2 c f » {{\0 \\/(® =�\°b /2{/> =o-§ /{) /--- @§ :REoo Cc—a , §>9oc ƒ\§A\ 2/00 Jo/§\ °\7\y /®G:f 5f9/° //\§\ G±cc J0DC0 eeeos 2ƒa:o :e§e 0- 022`/ :2�a= Q)}\\o 3z/c/ -C E t -C a) .0>0U oe \\{\$ \g==% .- 0)2- 592«0 (D -C- oc=ur q:2o- uf- 0 ©G/) �a/// =5e=[ §.96=0 »\`®\ k\//c o-0 g[{[-0 0 0 ze=2E § 0 8 04 Sll�'3ae rf compliance experts 7 Engineer Certification 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 21 of 28 The professional engineer whose seal appears on the cover of this document hereby certifies and affirms that: I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the jurisdiction indicated in the professional engineering stamp on the cover of this document; and That I am an employee of Sitesafe, Inc., in Arlington, Virginia, at which place the staff and I provide RF compliance services to clients in the wireless communications industry; and That I am thoroughly familiar with the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), both in general and specifically as they apply to the FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio-frequency Radiation; and That I have thoroughly reviewed this Site Compliance Report and believe it to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge as assembled by and attested to by Tony DeMattia. August 7, 2013 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 13 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 22 of 28 Sire]- e rf compliance experts Appendix A - Statement of Limiting Conditions Sitesafe will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect the site or property. Due to the complexity of some wireless sites, Sitesafe performed this analysis and created this report utilizing best industry practices and due diligence. Sitesafe cannot be held accountable or responsible for anomalies or discrepancies due to actual site conditions (i.e., mislabeling of antennas or equipment, inaccessible cable runs, inaccessible antennas or equipment, etc.) or information or data supplied by AT&T Mobility, LLC, the site manager, or their affiliates, subcontractors or assigns. Sitesafe has provided computer generated model(s) in this Site Compliance Report to show approximate dimensions of the site, and the model is included to assist the reader of the compliance report to visualize the site area, and to provide supporting documentation for Sitesafe's recommendations. Sitesafe may note in the Site Compliance Report any adverse physical conditions, such as needed repairs, observed during the survey of the subject property or that Sitesafe became aware of during the normal research involved in performing this survey. Sitesafe will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because Sitesafe is not an expert in the field of mechanical engineering or building maintenance, the Site Compliance Report must not be considered a structural or physical engineering report. Sitesafe obtained information used in this Site Compliance Report from sources that Sitesafe considers reliable and believes them to be true and correct. Sitesafe does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties. When conflicts in information occur between data provided by a second party and physical data collected by Sitesafe, the physical data will be used. 200 N. Glebe Road . Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 14 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 23 of 28 Esitesafe rf compliance experts Appendix B — Assumptions and Definitions General Model Assumptions In this site compliance report, it is assumed that all antennas are operating at full power at all times. Software modeling was performed for all transmitting antennas located on the site. Sitesafe has further assumed a 100% duty cycle and maximum radiated power. The site has been modeled with these assumptions to show the maximum RF energy density. Sitesafe believes this to be a worst-case analysis, based on best available data. Areas modeled to predict emissions greater than 100% of the applicable MPE level may not actually occur, but are shown as a worst-case prediction that could be realized real time. Sitesafe believes these areas to be safe for entry by occupationally trained personnel utilizing appropriate personal protective equipment (in most cases, a personal monitor). Thus, at any time, if power density measurements were made, we believe the real- time measurements would indicate levels below those depicted in the RF emission diagram (s) in this report. By modeling in this way, Sitesafe has conservatively shown exclusion areas - areas that should not be entered without the use of a personal monitor, carriers reducing power, or performing real-time measurements to indicate real-time exposure levels. Use of Generic Antennas For the purposes of this report, the use of "Generic" as an antenna model, or "Unknown" for an operator means the information about a carrier, their FCC license and/or antenna information was not provided and could not be obtained while on site. In the event of unknown information, Sitesafe will use our industry specific knowledge of equipment, antenna models, and transmit power to model the site. If more specific information can be obtained for the unknown measurement criteria, Sitesafe recommends remodeling of the site utilizing the more complete and accurate data. Information about similar facilities is used when the service is identified and associated with a particular antenna. If no information is available regarding the transmitting service associated with an unidentified antenna, using the antenna manufacturer's published data regarding the antenna's physical characteristics makes more conservative assumptions. Where the frequency is unknown, Sitesafe uses the closest frequency in the antenna's range that corresponds to the highest Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE), resulting in a conservative analysis. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 15 Msitesafe rf compllonce experts Definitions 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 24 of 28 5% Rule - The rules adopted by the FCC specify that, in general, at multiple transmitter sites actions necessary to bring the area into compliance with the guidelines are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce field strengths or power density levels at the area in question in excess of 5% of the exposure limits. In other words, any wireless operator that contributes 5% or greater of the MPE limit in an area that is identified to be greater than 100% of the MPE limit is responsible taking corrective actions to bring the site into compliance. Compliance - The determination of whether a site is safe or not with regards to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation from transmitting antennas. Decibel (dB) - A unit for measuring power or strength of a signal. Duty Cycle -The percent of pulse duration to the pulse period of a periodic pulse train. Also, may be a measure of the temporal transmission characteristic of an intermittently transmitting RF source such as a paging antenna by dividing average transmission duration by the average period for transmission. A duty cycle of 100% corresponds to continuous operation. Effective (or Equivalent) Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) - The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna. Effective Radiated Power (ERP) - In a given direction, the relative gain of a transmitting antenna with respect to the maximum directivity of a half wave dipole multiplied by the net power accepted by the antenna from the connecting transmitter. Gain (of an antenna) - The ratio of the maximum intensity in a given direction to the maximum radiation in the same direction from an isotropic radiator. Gain is a measure of the relative efficiency of a directional antennas as compared to an omni directional antenna. General Population/Uncontrolled Environment - Defined by the FCC, as an area where RFR exposure may occur to persons who are unaware of the potential for exposure and who have no control of their exposure. General Population is also referenced as General Public. Generic Antenna - For the purposes of this report, the use of "Generic" as an antenna model means the antenna information was not provided and could not be obtained while on site. In the event of unknown information, Sitesafe will use our industry specific knowledge of antenna models to select a worst case scenario antenna to model the site. Isotropic Antenna - An antenna that is completely non -directional. In other words, an antenna that radiates energy equally in all directions. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 . info@sitesafe.com Page 16 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 25 of 28 t-afe ,N%Isi[er_�, - r complionce experts Maximum Measurement - This measurement represents the single largest measurement recorded when performing a spatial average measurement. Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) - The rms and peak electric and magnetic field strength, their squares, or the plane -wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with acceptable safety factor. Occupational/Controlled Environment - Defined by the FCC, as an area where Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) exposure may occur to persons who are aware of the potential for exposure as a condition of employment or specific activity and can exercise control over their exposure. OET Bulletin 65 - Technical guideline developed by the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology to determine the impact of Radio Frequency radiation on Humans. The guideline was published in August 1997. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) - Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA's role is to promote the safety and health of America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov. Radio Frequency Radiation - Electromagnetic waves that are propagated from antennas through space. Spatial Average Measurement - A technique used to average a minimum of ten (10) measurements taken in a ten (10) second interval from zero (0) to six (6) feet. This measurement is intended to model the average energy an average sized human body will absorb while present in an electromagnetic field of energy. Transmitter Power Output (TPO) - The radio frequency output power of a transmitter's final radio frequency stage as measured at the output terminal while connected to a load. 200 N. Glebe Roud . Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 17 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 26 of 28 Esitesafe rf compliance experts Appendix C — Rules & Regulations Explanation of Applicable Rules and Regulations The FCC has set forth guidelines in OET Bulletin 65 for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Specific regulations regarding this topic are listed in Part 1, Subpart I, of Title 47 in the Code of Federal Regulations. Currently, there are two different levels of MPE - General Public MPE and Occupational MPE. An individual classified as Occupational can be defined as an individual who has received appropriate RF training and meets the conditions outlined below. General Public is defined as anyone who does not meet the conditions of being Occupational. FCC and OSHA Rules and Regulations define compliance in terms of total exposure to total RF energy, regardless of location of or proximity to the sources of energy. It is the responsibility of all licensees to ensure these guidelines are maintained at all times. It is the ongoing responsibility of all licensees composing the site to maintain ongoing compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Individual licensees that contribute less than 5% MPE to any total area out of compliance are not responsible for corrective actions. OSHA has adopted and enforces the FCC's exposure guidelines. A building owner or site manager can use this report as part of an overall RF Health and Safety Policy. It is important for building owners/site managers to identify areas in excess of the General Population MPE and ensure that only persons qualified as Occupational are granted access to those areas. Occupational Environment Explained The FCC definition of Occupational exposure limits apply to persons who: • are exposed to RF energy as a consequence of their employment; • have been made aware of the possibility of exposure; and • can exercise control over their exposure. OSHA guidelines go further to state that persons must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. In order to consider this site an Occupational Environment, the site must be controlled to prevent access by any individuals classified as the General Public. Compliance is also maintained when any non -occupational individuals (the General Public) are prevented from accessing areas indicated as Red or Yellow in the attached RF Emissions diagram. In addition, a person must be aware of the RF environment into which they are entering. This can be accomplished by an RF Safety Awareness class, and by appropriate written documentation such as this Site Compliance Report. All AT&T Mobility, LLC employees who require access to this site must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. 200 N. Glebe Road = Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 18 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 27 of 28 safe rt compllance experts Appendix ® - General Safety Recommendations The following are general recommendations appropriate for any site with accessible areas in excess of 100% General Public MPE. These recommendations are not specific to this site. These are safety recommendations appropriate for typical site management, building management, and other tenant operations. 1. All individuals needing access to the main site (or the area indicated to be in excess of General Public MPE) should wear a personal RF Exposure monitor, successfully complete proper RF Safety Awareness training, and have and be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. 2. All individuals needing access to the main site should be instructed to read and obey all posted placards and signs. 3. The site should be routinely inspected and this or similar report updated with the addition of any antennas or upon any changes to the RF environment including: • adding new antennas that may have been located on the site • removing of any existing antennas • changes in the radiating power or number of RF emitters 4. Post the appropriate NOTICE, CAUTION, or WARNING sign at the main site access point(s) and other locations as required. Note: Please refer to RF Exposure Diagrams in Appendix B, to inform everyone who has access to this site that beyond posted signs there may be levels in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. The signs below are examples of signs meeting FCC guidelines. Beyond This Point you are entering an area where RF Emissions may exceed the FCC General Population Exposure Limits Fallear ell poded ages and site gudalines for —king in an RF —iro—t urne.srttrn-,iAT&T CAUTION Beyond This Point you are entering a controlled area where RF Emissions may exceed the FCC 0 scup ational Exposure Limits Obey ell poded sigss and site gudebnas fa worldngin an RF environment v Fwsrtrtuai, AT&T Beyond This Pointyou are euteting a coutlollecl area AN'ilere RF Enus�ions exceed the FCC Controlled Esposm e Limit. Fantn a to obey all posted a gns and ate guidelines could result in serous injury AT&T 5. Ensure that the site door remains locked (or appropriately controlled) to deny access to the general public if deemed as policy by the building/site owner. 6. For a General Public environment the four color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner: a) Composite Exposure Levels • Areas indicated as Green are below 100% of the MPE limits or below. • Blue represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 500% of the MPE limits. 200 N. Glebe Road e Suite 1000 + Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 19 25736 -635 -NOR -0000-00777-001 Page 28 of 28 Msitesafp rf compliance experts • Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 500% and 5000% of the MPE limits. • Red areas indicated predicted levels greater than 5000% of the MPE limits. b) AT&T Mobility 5% Exposure Levels: • Areas indicated as Green are below 5% of the MPE limits or below. • Purple represents areas predicted to be greater than 5% of the MPE limits. 7. Use of a Personal Protective Monitor: When working around antennas, Sitesafe strong recommends the use of a Personal Protective Monitor (PPM). Wearing a PPM will properly forewarn the individual prior to entering an RF exposure area. Keep a copy of this report available for all persons who must access the site. They should read this report and be aware of the potential hazards with regards to RF and MPE limits. Additional Information Additional RF information is available by visiting both www.Sitesafe.com and www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. OSHA has additional information available at: http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation. 200 N. Glebe Road • Suite 1000 • Arlington, VA 22203-3728 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 20 [This page intentionally blank] Exhibit 6 December 27, 2013 Ms. Linda Bambach Bechtel Communications 2430 Camino Real, #240 San Ramon, CA 94583 LZ 1%li N ichael Brandman Associatcs Subject: Findings of a Biological Evaluation AT&T Mobility, LLC Candidate CNU0655 (Smith Ranch Road) San Rafael, Marin County, California, APNs 155-230-10, 155-230-11, 155-230-14, 155-230-16 and 155-110-24 Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) is pleased to submit this letter report addressing the biological resources associated with the subject AT&T Mobility, LLC (AT&T) facility located within the City of San Rafael, Marin County, California. TELECOMMUNICATION SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is generally located north of Interstate 580, south of State Route 37, east of State Route 101, and west of Interstate 80, and is depicted on the Novato, California, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle map. The project site is specifically located within previously disturbed areas associated with a commercial development at 400 Smith Ranch Road, San Rafael, CA. AT&T proposes to install one (1) 50' tall monopine with nine (9) panel antennas and twenty-one (21) remote radio units (RRU). Additionally AT&T is proposing the installation of outdoor power and telco cabinets on a concrete slab -on -grade. A total of approximately 918 -feet of trenching (4 -feet deep by 3 - feet wide) will be required for telco: 350 -feet between the existing POF/new sub box #1 (APN 155-110- 024) to a new sub box #2; then 548 -feet from new sub box #2 to new sub box #3; and finally 20 -feet from new sub box #3 to the site location (APN 155-230-11). Approximately 420 feet of trenching (4 -feet deep by 3 -feet wide) will be required for power between the site location and proposed AT&T power POC. The property is accessible via Smith Ranch Road to the northwest. METHODS Bechtel Communications has retained MBA to evaluate any biological resources present on, adjacent to, or in the vicinity of the project site. The evaluation has been performed through a combination of research by MBA and a review of reference materials provided by Bechtel Communications. Photographs (obtained by site visit of MBA personnel on November 13, 2013) of the candidate facility were also reviewed. The evaluation's purpose is to determine whether the proposed action could potentially affect any biological resources. MBA's biologists paid particular attention to the presence or potential occurrence of sensitive biological resources and the potential occurrence of wetlands. • Federal and state lists of sensitive species. • The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2013). • The California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (California Native Plant Society 2013). • Telecommunication site plans and photographs provided by Bechtel Communications. • The National Wetlands Inventory online Wetlands Mapper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). • The U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System Map (Wilderness.net) • The National Wildlife Refuge System online Map (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2013). • The Environmental Conservation Online System FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species Online Mapper (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2013). ENVIRONMnATALSI�RVICFSEPI.yNNINc•Exhibit 6—BiologicalEvalaratio c :.�v.brandman'CO°1 Alar' L Monopole Proje( Febiwary 25, 2014 PC Meetin CNU0655 Bio Review December 27, 2013 Page 2 RESULTS/IMPACT ANALYSIS The installation of this facility will occur within disturbed/developed areas associated with the commercial development. Land use adjacent to the project site generally consists of commercial and residential development. The site is subject to disturbance from frequent pedestrian use, vehicular traffic and routine maintenance activities associated with the developed areas. Vegetation on the project site consists of non-native grasses and ruderal vegetation. Ornamental tress and shrubs occur within the immediate vicinity of the site but will not be impacted by the installation of the proposed facility. No undeveloped natural land occurs within the development footprint. Installation of the proposed facility will not result in any impacts to any native vegetation communities or suitable habitat for any sensitive plant or wildlife species. Based on the information provided by Bechtel Communications and MBA's biological evaluation: The project site contains no sensitive biological resources, including suitable habitat for any listed threatened or endangered plant and wildlife species. The National Wetlands Inventory map was reviewed. No wetlands or riparian areas occur on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project will not result in any impacts to wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. The site is not located in a wilderness area, wildlife preserve, or an area designated as critical habitat. NESTING BIRDS The ornamental tress and shrubs located within the immediate vicinity of the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for avian species. Therefore, MBA recommends that construction activity avoid the avian nesting season (February - August). If construction activity must occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist should perform a pre -construction clearance survey to determine the presence/absence of nesting activity in the vicinity of the project site. The survey will address impacts to nesting birds per the MBTA. If no nesting activity is observed, no further action is required. If nesting activity is observed on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, construction activity can proceed after the nestlings have fledged. If the facility must be installed in the vicinity of an active nest, a biological monitor will be present during all construction activity. Construction activity can be conducted at the discretion of the monitor to ensure that it does not directly or indirectly impact nesting birds. We at MBA appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. If we can be of any further assistance, or if you have any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Al Martinez at (714) 508-4100 or via his e-mail, amartinez@brandman.com. Sincerely, Arm Kyle Workman Project Ecologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92602 Enclosures: Appendix A - CNDDB Search of the Novato, California Topographic Quadrangle APPENDIX A A review of the CNDDB and the CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants resulted in a list of 8 sensitive plant species, 17 sensitive wildlife species, and 2 sensitive plant communities that occur within the Novato, California USGS topographic quadrangle. The sensitive plant species include: • Baker's navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri) • Bent -flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) • Marin western flax (Hesperolinon congestum) • Mount Tamalpais bristly jewel -flower (Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. pulchellus) • Mt. Tamalpais manzanita (Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. montana) • Point Reyes bird's -beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris) • Seaside tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta) • Tiburon buckwheat (Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum) The sensitive wildlife species include: • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) • California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) • California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) • Foothill yellow -legged frog (Rana boylii) • Great blue heron (Aredea herodias) • Marin blind harvestman (Calicina diminua) • Marin hesperian (Vespericola marinensis) • Mimic tryonia (Tryonia imitator) • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) • Saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) • Saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) • Salt -marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) • San Pablo song sparrow (Melospiza melodia samuelis) • Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) • Ubick's gnaphosid spider (Talanites ubicki) • White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) The sensitive plant communities include: • Coastal brackish marsh • Northern coastal salt marsh Photograph 1: View of proposed new lease area for monopine telco facility; facing north Photograph 2: View of proposed new lease area for monopine telco facility; facing east Photograph 3: View of proposed new lease area for monopine telco facility; facing south Photograph 4: View of proposed new lease area for monopine telco facility; facing west Photograph 5: View from proposed new lease area for monopine telco facility; facing north Photograph 6: View from proposed new lease area for monopine telco facility; facing east Photograph 7: View from proposed new lease area for monopine telco facility; facing south Photograph 8: View from proposed new lease area for monopine telco facility; facing west Photograph 9: Site overview of proposed new lease area for monopine telco facility; facing south-southeast Photograph 10: Typical ground visibility in proposed new lease area for monopine telco facility Photograph 11: View of proposed utility easement (antenna feed, Strip No. 3) which will extend from new lease area to a planter area located adjacent to mesh fence (upper center of photo); facing northeast Photograph 12: View of proposed utility easement (telco, Strip No. 2) which will extend from new lease area to access road located of opposite side of mesh fence (upper center of photo); facing north Photograph 13: View of proposed utility easement areas for underground utilities from north end of easements toward proposed lease area (behind pickup truck, left frame); facing south Photograph 14: View of proposed AT&T telco service trench from north end of joint trench (telco, Strip No. 2) and east along access road toward proposed AT&T telco P.O.C.; facing northwest Ail Photograph 14: View of proposed AT&T telco service trench from north end of joint trench (telco, Strip No. 2) and east along access road toward proposed AT&T telco P.O.C.; facing northwest Photograph 15: View of center section of proposed AT&T telco service trench; facing southeast Photograph 16: View of western section of AT&T telco service trench, with proposed telco P.O.C. out of view behind houses; facing northwest Photograph 17: View of section of Northwestern Pacific Railroad tracks (6Y -Not eligible for NR listing) that proposed AT&T telco service trench will cross; facing north Photograph 18: View of western end of proposed AT&T telco service trench, at proposed area of telco P.O.C.; facing southeast yyy7lttt � 4p ,� t v fix5"h" , .•tN Photograph 19: View from proposed area for AT&T telco P.O.C.; facing northwest t 4005 hR—hRd a� hkM19 Pryk ri i g revs' � A Sia 1 • * ® h 0&a Y9p 9Yhjxt to kmse. Sop IM) ®E(U7 DeLorme. Stred N{u USA9 pPJ. wxvt.tldorme.can NAI(140E) Date Zoom 14-0 SOURCE: DeLorme Street Atlas 2008 Michael Brandman Associates Exhibit 1 Street Map 22751401 • 01/2014 EAS• CULTURAL RESOURCE COMPLIANCE CNU0655: USGS Novato, CA 7.5' Topographic Map T2N,R6W,sec16 CANDIDATE LOCATION f r wage D,srrasal3 14 1t,,.,,, R b tial- s°OD�S9" N, 122'313 V� 1P k I .�V_ Half -Mile Records Search Radius r. %�• 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 1,000 0 250 500 1,000 ® Feet Meters Source: Topo! @ National Geographic Holdings NNNN Exhibit 2 111111NEJ z Project Topographic Map Michael Brandman Associates 43121301 • 12/2013 12—topo.mxd BECHTEL • CULTURAL RESOURCE COMPLIANCE 11 1. 1 1 N 1 KYLE D. WORKMAN BIOLOGIST Mr. Workman is a project biologist with range of project experience in the environmental field. Mr. Workman has inventoried plants and wildlife in southern California and was involved with all aspects of the rearing and distribution of rainbow trout in western Colorado. He has conducted biological assessments and restoration monitoring surveys for various projects throughout southern California. He has experience in water quality analysis, nest search techniques, habitat analyses, and has conducted research on aquatic insects. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE • Conducted construction monitoring activities for a 785 -acre Spring Mountain Ranch residential development site for RWR Homes. This project includes ongoing monitoring for compliance with USFWS, CDFG, and USACE rules and regulations for the project site. The assessment included monitoring all aspects of ground disturbing activity including tree removal, vegetation grubbing, and mass grading. The effort also involved inventorying plant and wildlife species, particularly associated with nesting birds. • Conducted a biological assessment for Gatlin Development Company for near the unincorporated community of Wildomar in Riverside County, CA. The field survey involved inventorying plant and wildlife species, vegetation mapping, sensitive species habitat assessment, and jurisdictional drainage feature evaluation. A Biological Resources Survey Report was then prepared to discuss the findings of the biological assessment. • Assisted in conducting monitoring surveys for a restoration site in Anaheim, CA. Field surveys consisted of identifying all native and non-native plant species found within the site. The project included oversight and participation in the removal of nonnative species. • Assisted in conducting focused Quino Checkerspot surveys for the proposed Lake Elsinore Advanced Pump System near Lake Elsinore, CA within suitable habitat along a potential transmission corridor. • Monitored water quality and overall fish health throughout hatchery facility in Hotchkiss, CO. This included the application of any necessary treatments to prevent or remedy any bacterial or viral illnesses. This also required the use of replacement and displacement sampling techniques to determine quantity of fish and eggs throughout the facility. • Conducted a comparative study of aquatic macroinvertebrates throughout the Gunnison River Drainage near Gunnison, CO following current EPA standards. Use of excel based statistical analysis programs helped to determine whether dam inundation has played a role in specie diversity throughout the river system. • Assisted the Colorado Division of Wildlife in a relocation project of the Gunnison Sage Grouse. The Gunnison Sage Grouse is a federally threatened species. This project was an attempt to relocate a population into an area of suitable habitat. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Michael Brandman Associates, Biologist Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Biologist/Sampling Technician Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery, Biological Science Technician, United States Fish and Wildlife Service EDUCATION BS, Environmental Science and Ecology, Western State College of Colorado Exhibit 7 Proposed close up view ArlvaP,rA`irvyFfF. Photo Simulation S,Wvons , Contact t 925 i 202-3507 Proposed AT&T Installation Arlvance i,vu—, Pholo Simulation Solotic,ns- Contact : 925 ) 202-9507 [This page intentionally blank] Copyrght O Becht orel Corpltion 2012. This item contains con /identiol inf—tion proprietary to Bechtel that is not to be used, disclosed, or repradoced in Inv format by anv non-Aechtet n All rights r ,.d. ��0000ao oho nmooaam U oi€ Ml mpg aid W - -- --• --- -- •- --- ••- .�.,.,,.., ..,,,,.,,,,amu iii ���ia Ilwmene pvrsoant tO 111t—t 254/1 between Bechtel Corp—tion old -AT&T Mobitily' m >gmm$ i N egg=" a85 N = o § o 12 "P q m� g$ggggggggg 0 o n o o o o o b o o z z z z z z z z z z z(n I C C C C' C C Z^sn = mo\£u£mz� ^C i N m o D Dy o o z W - -- --• --- -- •- --- ••- .�.,.,,.., ..,,,,.,,,,amu iii ���ia Ilwmene pvrsoant tO 111t—t 254/1 between Bechtel Corp—tion old -AT&T Mobitily' m _ `= m '" z y N egg=" N o 12 "P g$ggggggggg 0 o n o o o o o b o o z z z z z z z z z z z(n I C C C C' C L mo\£u£mz� ^C . o o o C oo�N N o =mo = o w in O O O �p Z yf g A�zi Z> L { o> D N D {' Yt o 0 C No a� e zAz D s-- rl et —� C _ m mm my aaaai-41 m 'O >0Zl 3 ooooo�y�O�9avO O W o c _y T m m o o o o o_ `m \ O L--RO Q o o 0 0 0 0$$ m y^aa `m V m 5z; n oo aD` C < �7 � D 5 nv�S�"�N�� z - Sig K 0 9 m Q z�n m�F3 D o Z r'am m7 n -i co 3 �Qry r z�oM V S n ss (D (t1 O- m z� C ZZz > Zom C m > z < 0 A oc� _ g Z41 m o z 3 0 D �P d�, v z N O 3 z5 cn --1 ®nec it NI w� wl m _ `= m '" z y N egg=" N o 12 "P Rn L mo\£u£mz� dog . F A mm o oo�N N o =mo = o w �p Z yf g A�zi .+ L g. 0 C No a� D s-- rl et —� C _ m H Y _ .A io xy WNIF za m 'O S 3 £ O W o c _y �" g o� 0 x m zi O Z (n m D o E z /o M D - _ 7- co o p o sZ7 C31 UI A _ `= m '" z y N egg=" N o 12 "P Rn L o.IRR)( dog . W oo�N z �mo o w �p Z o D .+ L G 3 0 C No N D rl et —� C _ m H Y _ .A io xy WNIF za m y=n� S 3 2-06 0 O W o _y �" g o� `m m��� O 0o Q U f= s s' sz y^aa `m V n a o C � D u g Z Sig K ,,tea 9 m Q z�n m�F3 M o Z r'am m7 n -i 3 �Qry W 0 (D (t1 O- Z z� C Zom C Z 0 A oc� _ g Z41 Fn D �P d�, v N O 3 z5 cn --1 m s: O 3 m D vd 3 ' c 1 3 N D m n m D o E z /o M D - _ 7- co o p o sZ7 C31 UI 4 3 :l A �3n N .� N L o.IRR)( dog N W (�D z �mo o w �p Z o D .+ L G 3 0 C No N D rl et —� m Irl S 3 2-06 0 W o N o 3m� .0 D o 0 0o Q (—�D z 9 a m a :3 o C � 3 o K ,,tea 9 0 w 3 o m z r'am o8 - m -i 3 �Qry W 0 (D (t1 O- W C C 0 A oc� o o Fn D = d�, v N O 3 cn --1 m s: O 3 m D vd 3 ' c 1 3 N t C_ a 4 3 :l Copyright O Bechtel Corporotion 2012. This item contains confidential information p,pnetery to Bechtel Mot is mt to be used, disclosed, or reproduced m ony f of by any --Bechtel party without Bech(el's prior written pe,olel n. A'otwithstonding the above, AT&T Mobility' hos Me right to u o the information contained in this document pursuant to C -1—f 25471 between Bechw Ca paraben and "AT&r Mobility' r�az ooN�$Ts p, Hg s4e''g' Asa g'a H � o 0 m�mo'"oi�-. mFm _usa ms? _ eon, w a=AOTNn;a >e "? o " �.. "=ba�_ j� msyyNVo Aon -"a=. _-.e. ozw `y^ -- y'�Jzm�a,�zo o.r".o��^ny" ' 3 .m+i z a O oy N 4g� S �m ., m�g=°.,':jaoaSaoH�g��.^"� = s3 �°• 'a M =oo NwoYo 4R,-:.9 R:.X. r7z. ma= _mam o 4 ° 'Na�n�p=s. 9,=m m�ao<wo^ 90 Ao oS�= �$ - a oFs _ oRo�- •vain ��o'.u'g��wo o=o"�� cp �� n 55 "-loo-F�o�a- vN r�z mg n m� ° - Fm°a m4 NF" Ga g�� " nrw��rr If'/-'�I11 °� >� Cts z3� a n"',�a ®_ z I ro Nm oS2�Aado,�_82— =a= $�"ss�s 5- H of _ ^spa o 'a!R NEE PRE s� €sg� g ;a4 �o�£ €3;�`sw�"� >Tm o to B i xg sas F=� ^r'�� ^^3 WR rt m��g���g� z"Ersm= 903 d IN o .°am=9 -> r a €••-sem-eea 2ao 'a` ��: ,__ °!-p, El ^m ^a m4=3az 3 = aea>3 - � Me D'e> ''s'; z ..g!- p, o mho w _ °' oop QO$ ns ',48' a��= ^s. i= €� �'-s, 5 0 4>��':" mi$ v'a7 - ^ ^ o e^ ; �p°o �Yz ^^R:-`� `ftp: Y^a o�-,P, o1,ivo y z ^ao f a C Sa -'s• a a2.e y mea �y°- Ido rr. -o u.owo co C. gap �: .g^' Fmw�=Sea' G`g8o _zo��Pm �= FzK o 'o n Amo �.. ro s ni d FE ?E ME '�. z 3=aaz mnvz� neo m -.9 oa€ �e Eek s 2� 's F �e x�€. €aa oa�a r,�va�2�o�mmzzA�°r�w�o�so�p^o^ &m is QnE 3; $ ssec s ^^ oda^ mF € N ? o yo -in n C F ^y neo' a 4' a'"^3 C ca+^�'ococ>o.,'=z'L"�"N"o'o_ oa r a� FA€z a sn, r, ^^� ccs s ;"� §�<r ;«o°°nm"->.T> G 8 q: 3 qb amu, o f v^ .s's3 St ,af^ rq? o sopa "5? xa mw7'"�mo"m mr��y�a8;m2-.�" mea o z sz^ 3 s. s.a€��m.�oo="�y�A€gym p 34a aa? n3's'- ? C> 3ji o= ? O a 0 p°^ mi I \'�\ 7-g �Op � - p - - H& -ge 41 m y� A ro� a scp o a: z°� =aaaac�aa M, 8 �� �� L• � � ado �_ U c p € e� 0 � � 5 F1 I o N w 1-,—nr,on 1u11. rn.s m co ,erns conrroene or 1.— o- prdpnetory to ve—1 rs not to be used, discosed. w "prodocetl in ony tormot by ony non -Bechtel pe,ty .ithdot BechtN's n. A'ofs,thstond,ng the ob— AT&T Nobility' has the right to u e the in/asmokon confoined in th,s docomenf porsdont to Controcf 25471 bets -den Bechtel Cdrpo,oGon ontl AT&T Llobilify" mm m000G y.R'�m 04«^.-���� 0 a' F EBS"g'�RgR aim m�ao "FF��'^'':a o➢ 3P o N. �. ©iiw O n 0 CO T< -u 2 C) Is - P7w s= d m n0 � 2 may} o� P7w s= d m m Cn w N Copyright ® Bechtel Corporntlon 2012. This item contains confidential informotion proprietary to Bechtel thot is not to be used, disclosed, o reproduced in any formot by any -n—Bechtel party without ll-hW's All rights re rved. nvu. N u -------------------------- n \ /(sor29'sw stz.2a• a \ II � � � � � Till moa U� m� ; ug II t ' f ' 1 ' I ' 1 - , 1 � t 1 1 1 \ 1 y 1 w \ 1 a� o.. w \ Sn m /� ------ — ———— ���--- x N S ?rg ( ( \ O 5p5'S0'25`H 262.29' s \ \ 2)35• � \ Isw Jst9 \\\\ aim °oo 41 II II \ II Oo imea a a o o v l o m o puz Y S — w D O n p m a e / \ u s m ,pyrighl ® Bechtel Corporation 2012. This item contains confidentlol in(armalion proprietary to Bechtel lhot is not to be used, disclosed, a reproduced in any format by any non—Bechtel potty without Be, �.._. _,..._.. �_. �...__. _ ..........................y .�._ ..,......� .. �..� .....,....s ��.,� .��� ..y...... ,.�� ...c ................ a.orparuuon ono ni c. moo airy . All r�ghls re rved. _ DD m Z�2 n o� oma' m U m -ps � � @`se O le m z aM8` D co (� Copyright ® Bechtel Corporation 2012. This item contains confidential info—C- proprielo y tb Bechtel that is not to be used, disclosed, a reproduced in any format by arty non—Bechtel potty without Bechtel', PK., written permission. Notwithstanding the above, "AT&T Mobility hos the right to use the inf.—ti.. c ntoined in this document pursuant to Contract 25471 between 8echtel Corporotion and "AT&T Mobility. All rights re rved. C A xo I / _ m FR ��\ nn ���' •t 1■ 9 �� Bo v z =k 10 (n V i vS _ _- I N x fn 2 t - ~o �€ m A AThT LFASE A9FA � - a a• �= IX! o zRS>r �> S o U a9 NSze rani 7aa SR o �e "R M� q �m8 sip z'S u - z -_�' (,J o�>. H y sm -m bA RN aoi� y qA Ny o93a > ao - - -- - -- �$m m> -oR zk - .A wok m - _ v n t r �wtN C J i J 0j°3s sF m I � N N S S o o W c° °>3oe• , > o n ; Nm _ s. 'z 4 m o gox 5-=i�'zm� z om `aoo z� G N co C I / _ m FR 9 �� Bo v z =k ` zk � (n V i vS _ _- I N x fn 2 t z ;o Vs rs o zRS>r �> S o U a9 NSze rani 7aa SR o �e "R M� q �m8 sip z'S u - z -_�' (,J o�>. H y sm -m bA RN aoi� y qA Ny o93a > ao - - -- - -- �$m m> -oR zk - .A wok m - _ v n t r �wtN C J i J 0j°3s sF m I � N N S S o o W c° °>3oe• , > o n ; Nm _ s. 'z 4 m o gox 5-=i�'zm� z om `aoo z� G N co I / _ ` zk � V i I s o zRS>r �> S o U a9 NSze rani 7aa SR o �e "R M� q �m8 sip z'S u - z -_�' (,J o�>. H y sm -m bA RN aoi� y qA Ny o93a > ao - - -- - -- �$m m> -oR zk - .A wok m - _ v n t r �wtN C J i J 0j°3s sF m I � N N S S o o W c° °>3oe• , > o n ; Nm _ s. 'z 4 m o gox 5-=i�'zm� z om `aoo z� G N co :opyright O Bechtel Corporation 2012. This item contains confidential information proprietary to Bechtel that is not to be used, disclosed, or reproduced in any format by any non -Bechtel party without Bea M rights reserved �c C4 1 D p7 C7 p V m n n_ Ko b m D p7 C7 p m n n_ Ko b m D p7 C7 p C.pyr'9ht ® Bechtel Corparativn 2012- This item contains canfidentiol Information proprietary to Bechtel th.t is not to be used. disclosed. o r,p,.d.c.d in any format by any --Bechtel party without Becht, -n,- g ht .._., elrv.-e.d. .... ..................,.,,.,..,..s s , y 0 �o nna N 0 rn o N U= m P S m n K.Mm 0E ©m ©m m vris ..came- prsv.nc , —.. ...ween ..cn- —poravan no piaci m..nny. i a _ rri Q 2� R� t 2 iia RA o� mR 'zlcIo ',�R ; C 0 1g� y�yy 3� mn m'ma m� N3 ,m u m m m i _ rri Q 2� R� i A Copyright 0 Bechtel Corporation 2012. This item contains confidential Infarmotion proprietary to Bechtel that is not to be used, disclosed, or repraduced in any format by any nan—Bechtel party without Blchtel's Aron Mitten permdission. Notwithslonding the abave, "AT&T Mobility* has the right to use the information twined in this document pursuant to Contract 25471 between Bechtel Corporolion and •AT&T IAablrty'. ll g `i C£> 4> 8z 4n = p H nn U ° a y� im m m =o cs 'o N u Am �� 5 A moa 1 = m n Z o, 6 0 % m�z A oa o �9 9A `�z z Z A ♦Dn n iSa m O = D 1" 9�m �Oo D-- o<� F m;n Z OZ_pn D >D NOm I N — - 3082 v y v§'N' < _ c Ay` - a� zp oar z 2 W G 0 omm .M, m �R- p 9 m ^ z'.mnA vmi.t� _ P. i > n v� n a x �o. �z rto n�Qa P mm p FA Df o ... ow <D> �y� a .0 m 9 C yim a~ a> A m m � 9- m n N r f m o0- 8. g. bo sN�= mx m m T e -N- A b� m rz o D �o�'� k 6 uas c G F N S 3 S T O _. F�� N m a�o z• -s• I i 9Iz 4- Z�..._ o 4 - u= A. n C 3 zo _ ��1 y� $tee cow N F O Y 9~ ani A �m� F � m `i Copyright 0 Be htel Carpgrgtbn 2012. Thrs item contains c f1dentigl information proprietary to Be hW that is not to be used, disclosed, o reproduced in any format by any nan-Be0tel party without Bechtel AllVri hts res pa„d ss�on. 1YO1wnnsranaing me goove, I'll r.,o eii i'y nos the right to — the information cgintoined In this document pursuant to Contract 25471 between Bechtel Corporation and 'AT&T IAobility' g erve t m m z 70 m c� z z n m �� �� z z nm R i m m os j r t eea oZ D ani —I gib. Cn � N -i >o = Z ->r2 Z 9 I1 _�= a O i Z z z C ' 12' P m O- f o P -M E€o Ifo y _ 5 Sh F0 "aa ° £ a n b �^. s;; i m o a �€ o rT ^ lo Z B r �z Z '` 04 �. O I�s O I p a 7. 3 = X y o g �� O P _� 7 = �� v Oz ^' R Nei iz -a p o 7B fn �$p rNm 3 Z m o 3 - 0 Goi2 Ol o 0 24'T I - �I i � a 0 0 ' o�aTa :ate ASgc^e^e ,4oe5`��2 o^ Sn'R=saz LL ^nos d s[ = m ar. s � _Via; a �9n y �A 9 F = ova =�o, s -lfl a smog sgsa c==a �m 52'cp_ sa R--b-, n�a _�-.".a o A mlx-9 = z � 'sF - -, 0 'oso s;4 y3"c; moi' =” `�" =ass aS?e'.a-.R^ ^° yso^ den^� G zFsz�^ _-, s^,. EPg =£$-.8.£+o ��a i„:' ozn^.'.P�€Fz a4si R o 9'e uei^ tis` ^ ^x�i3 R J� 85` -.R-. enb as4”^3'x ^�s 4^ 4FEa sot€Na^ t a " I -PEP lis sus^^=_per ^ ��'_^; ^x N O � - N i D � n p i y y nO �� n m Z :opyri9ht ® Bechtel Corporation 2012. This item contains confidential information proprietary to Bechtel that is not to be used, disdosed, or eproduced in any format by any non -Bechtel patty without Bea Nig , w. ,i ,vu. nu,wuuaw�i i„y ,ie uuwe, nix, .nuu i��y ,iva uie iiy,i� .0 uae ...e ,u,.....uuu ucu iii olio uuiu, r,c� y auu,i. .0 ..�uu.... ��.., ..�........ ...........� r -.•�. -•- ,. -• ••-- s All fights re rued. 9 Fn) T -P� I drVc 6 Mr l7 5.7a" 17.3" A-0 Po �o ao o Ed ODO a N.aa _- n m� a 54.0' z. ci TAS yR'ii zI l7 5.7a" 17.3" _ ao o Ed _- n 48-2' �m marrt two o w_ mP �a rRovr (waft 53.9' _—inin- m a— l7 _ ao o Ed -5 48-2' �m marrt two �� 3 mP �a rRovr (waft 53.9' l7